Talk:Linda Sarsour

Israel-Palestine, BDS

I've reverted the addition of a simple list of references after the word "some", as in "some consider anti-Semitic", referring to Sarsour's support of BDS. Most of the sources appeared to be opinion pieces, which are primary sources for the author's opinion, but not generally reliable for factual statements (see WP:SOURCETYPES). One can always find enough primary sources to show that "some people" believe anything – Elvis is alive, the Earth is flat, whatever. That doesn't indicate the relative weight that such views have. For that we need reliable sources that comment on the controversy itself. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:44, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

That's a false edit summary. You removed a couple of references to journal articles, news reporting on the matter, opinions of authoritative figures (Foxman and the Simon Wiesenthal Center would be considered experts in the field).Icewhiz (talk) 07:20, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Which of the sources directly support the text "some consider anti-Semitic"? Seven citations (diff) after a single word is a definite red flag; combining various opinion essays to make a point about an opinion held be by "some" people is the definition of improper synthesis. I don't have access to the journals mentioned, so if a citation is really needed for the statement "some consider [BDS] anti-Semitic", the one source I would keep is USA Today, and eliminate the others. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:56, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

If you are claiming SYNTH - you should show it. If you are claiming SYNTH since someone has added multiple good references each supporting the text in question - that's not a valid argument. Fishman, Joel S. "The BDS message of anti-Zionism, anti-Semitism, and incitement to discrimination." Israel Affairs 18.3 (2012): 412-425. claims outright in a peer reviewed journal that BDS is anti-Semitism. The ADL's position on BDS (covered in the Forward source and in a ADL statement) is clearly relevant, as the leading American organization combating anti-semitism. The Simon Wiesenthal Center report is also significant. Hallward, Maia Carter, and Patrick Shaver. "“War by other Means” or Nonviolent Resistance? Examining the Discourses Surrounding Berkeley’s Divestment Bill." Peace & Change 37.3 (2012): 389-412. (which I do not have - looking at abstract and preview) clearly states in a peer reviewed journal that Israeli representatives have said so.Icewhiz (talk) 08:42, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Actually, you've just demonstrated the improper synthesis I was talking about. The text "some consider" (or "Jewish human rights organizations and their supporters [consider]", per this diff) is not directly supported by most of those sources, who are expressing their opinion that BDS is anti-Semitic. Such sources are primary for the author's opinion; using them to support generalizations about "some" people or organizations is misleading. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:07, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Even if the sources were appropriate to the text, we wouldn't need seven citations about Israel defenders thinking BDS is anti-Semitic. The article is about Sarsour, not BDS or any other topic. One or two quality citations should suffice. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:31, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Regarding Foxman and the Simon Wiesenthal Center, one circumspect editor recently provided some food for thought. To wit:

You'd have to attribute it to the partisan think tank, this wasn't published in a peer reviewed setting.
— User:Icewhiz 12:50, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

In all seriousness, Abraham Foxman et al. are "experts" on anti-Semitism in the same way that Anthony Romero is an "expert" on civil rights; in other words, they're political activists, not published scholars (let alone peer-reviewed). —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:54, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Please do not quote me out of context - which is what you did here - I said this in a totally different context about a different organization. The ADL is generally considered the leading organization in the US regarding anti-Semitism - and its designations are similar to SPLC's designations. Furthermore, in this article the statement is indeed attributed.Icewhiz (talk) 11:00, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Equating Foxman, the onetime ADL director, with the ADL itself is a bit of sleight-of-hand that I don't think will fly here. Find an official statement by the ADL, then we'll talk. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:05, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Multi-decade ADL director, and also director at the time. Note that peer-reviewed publications are out there as well - e.g. Sheskin, Ira M., and Ethan Felson. "Is the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions Movement Tainted by Anti‐Semitism?." Geographical Review 106.2 (2016): 270-275.. ADL statements on BDS are not lacking, e.g. BDS: The Global Campaign to Delegitimize Israel on the ADL website and secondary coverage of the ADL's position is not lacking as well [1].Icewhiz (talk) 11:20, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Then kindly suggest one or two peer-reviewed sources that directly support the article text, so we can banish the absurd WP:CITECLUTTER and WP:SYNTH that's currently in the article. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:42, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

* Pending any actionable proposal, I've trimmed the excess sources, leaving USA Today and Peace & Change as references regarding BDS and perceived anti-Semitism. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:02, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

@Sangdeboeuf: @Icewhiz:. Peer review is not remotely a requirement to serve as a WP source, nor is the peer-review status of one source generally an excuse to exclude another relevant source.

Also, @Sangdeboeuf:, the fact that you personally do not have access to a scholarly journal article is a wildly improper reason to remove a source added by another editor. If you have doubts about verification, request source text, otherwise there's really nothing for you to do. Factchecker_atyourservice 00:32, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Farrakhan controversy

would @Sangdeboeuf: care to explain what this means Factchecker_atyourservice 23:57, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

It means that the content of Farrakhan's remarks are unrelated to the subject at hand. Likewise the full text of the "vaginas" tweet is presented without explanation. This isn't the place to document every controversial tweet by a political activist. Why should any reader care that Sarsour tweeted the words "A$$ whippin"? See WP:COATRACK and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:05, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

You have zero clue what you are talking about.Factchecker_atyourservice 00:07, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Factchecker_atyourservice, please explain why you believe:

• the phrase "giving a speech about 'Satanic Jews' and claiming, 'when you want something in this world, the Jew holds the door'" is necessary to understand why his remarks were seen as anti-Semitic; and
• the phrase "they '[didn't] deserve to be women,' and that Gabriel was 'asking 4 an a$$ whippin'" is necessary to understand why critics construed her tweets as apparent proof of intolerant views. KalHolmann (talk) 00:17, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Uhhhhhh for starters, reading the anti-Semitic comment helps the reader understand why it was anti-Semitic and why she was criticized for embracing Farrakhan and not condeming it; meanwhile, reading the bizarre card-check comment against Gabriel helps the reader understand why it was "controversial, deleted" and why Sarsour was criticized for saying it.

Anyway, these are not requirements for inclusion in the first place so there was no reason to remove the material. Certainly UNDUE and INDISCRIMINATE and COATRACK all provide zero support for the removal and no other policy was cited.Factchecker_atyourservice 00:28, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Factchecker_atyourservice, your response beginning "Uhhhhhh" indicates that you are impatient with my questions and perhaps patronizing towards my stupidity. In either case, I oppose restoration of the disputed content (as quoted in my bullet points above) on grounds it would violate WP:NPOV. It is enough to report that remarks were considered anti-Semitic without reproducing the anti-Semitism in all its ugliness. Likewise the misogynistic attacks. It's simply unnecessary to delve into scurrilous detail to make the point that critics have lambasted the subject of this WP:BLP. Readers whose thirst for scandalous vulgarity is not quenched by our encyclopedic overview may utilize our links to the sources, which happily provide the juicy language. KalHolmann (talk) 00:51, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Your argument lacks any basis in policy. Quote specific policy language supporting your view or there is nothing to discuss. So far, 4 policies have been name-dropped and none of them have any relevance to this dispute. Factchecker_atyourservice 01:10, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Factchecker_atyourservice, you are dismissive and condescending, writing:

• "You have zero clue what you are talking about."
• "Your argument lacks any basis in policy."

If you can muster consensus for your position with such highhanded tactics, I will be surprised. KalHolmann (talk) 01:21, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Please cite specific policy language demonstrating support for your argument. So far, 4 policies have been name-dropped and none of them have any relevance to this dispute, and no effort was made to show otherwise.

It's not so much a matter of "tactics", it's a matter of substantive content policy. We reflect things that are widely discussed by RS in connection with an article topic unless there is a policy-based reason not to. There is none here. The quotes are not lengthy. And as mentioned, without the quoted matter the reader is simply left wondering, who thought the comments were anti-Semitic, and why? what was said?

Moreover, although the comments were typical of Farrakhan, they got special attention because of the appearance of support by Sarsour, a person otherwise associated with Liberal values of tolerance and progressive views on reordering society.Factchecker_atyourservice 01:26, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

We should present the vagina tweet in full, as it is widely repeated in the context of Sarsour - perhaps her most oft repeated and analyzed saying. As for whether we should quote Farrakhan in full - I think what is important to convey is that these remarks were widely considered anti semitic.Icewhiz (talk) 05:11, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

The reaction to Farrakhan has nothing to do with Sarsour; I have seen no reliable sources that indicate any personal relationship between the two or any remarks by Sarsour addressing the controversy. The material is therefore off-topic and WP:UNDUE concerning the subject of this article. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:45, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

We reflect things that are widely discussed by RS in connection with an article topic unless there is a policy-based reason not to. That's not how things work. See WP:ONUS. -- irn (talk) 12:50, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

If widely covered - ONUS which is for items passing V, but possibly not DUE, would not apply as the wide coverage would demonstrate DUE.Icewhiz (talk) 20:52, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

@Irn: ONUS simply requires an editor adding material to demonstrate that the material should be added per WP's applicable content policies.

It is not an invitation for others to "veto" content because they just don't like it. Opposition to proposed material should be expressed in the language of applicable WP policies because there must be a policy-based reason for it. We are talking about comments for which Sarsour was specifically condemned even though she did not say them herself, and for not disassociating herself from the person who did say them, due to their anti-Semitic nature, and under the regime of reverting currently in play, the article simply teases that the comments "were seen" as anti-Semitic, which both erroneously suggests that only some people thought the comments were anti-Semitic, and leaves the reader wondering why they were seen as anti-Semitic, or why the comments generated the furor they did. Factchecker_atyourservice 19:13, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

I have edited the article to conform the disputed Farrakhan reference to our single cited source. I removed "controversy ensued" because The Atlantic does not substantiate any such "controversy," and deleted the phrase "after remarks of his that were seen as anti-Semitic." Please, let's either abide by the sole cited source or add other WP:RS to expand Sarsour's alleged support for Farrakhan's anti-Semitism. KalHolmann (talk) 19:25, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, are you saying you removed the reference to the comments entirely?Factchecker_atyourservice 19:52, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Factchecker_atyourservice, in my foregoing comment, I included the diff showing exactly what I did. Does the link not work for you? KalHolmann (talk) 19:54, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

I've reverted the edit. The text may not be perfect, but it impartially summarizes the controversy. John-Paul Pagano is an inadequate source to assert "ties" between Sarsour and Farrakhan, even with a direct quote. He does, however, directly address the controversy in his initial paragraph: "Today, [The Women's March] finds itself embroiled in an unexpected controversy after the initial refusal of several of its leaders to distance themselves from one of America’s leading anti-Semites, the Nation of Islam’s Louis Farrakhan". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:56, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

An Atlantic article is sufficient source.Icewhiz (talk) 04:03, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm glad you're so certain. Others may have their doubts. In any event, no such "ties" have been substantiated in any published source that I have seen. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:39, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

The Atlantic is a RS. This is not an opinion piece - but an article, and it explicitly says " No one, however, expected to discover that three Women’s March co-chairs—Linda Sarsour, Carmen Perez, and Tamika Mallory—had ties to Farrakhan".[2]. We have a RS saying ties (apparently based on attending events and public speaking/tweets) - QED. Per the Forward, " Linda Sarsour, had also made positive statements about Farrakhan".[3].Icewhiz (talk) 07:12, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Latin sayings won't help. You've been editing long enough to know that reliability depends on context, and we don't treat any source as gospel. In this case, the sources are suspiciously vague. What "ties"? Which "positive statements"? We need more than "apparently" per one Wikipedian's interpretation. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:25, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Multiple source discuss connections or ties between the Women's march at large, Sarsour in particular, and Farrakhan. If you want to exclude a source - you'd need to show why it is not reliable. Specifically, you are attempting to exclude a source here that RSN typically sees as highly reliable.Icewhiz (talk) 07:48, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

There are tons of other sources, both media sources and civil rights organizations, discussing this topic in connection with Sarsour. What is the argument for exclusion? A widely sourced 14-word quote is UNDUE in a 2000+ word article? Point to policy ASAP please. Factchecker_atyourservice 04:14, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Then please provide reliable, independent sources commenting on the controversy – not editorials, op-eds, or political advocacy organizations, as BLPs require more rigorous sourcing than other articles. The policy, as Irn pointed out, is WP:ONUS – it's up to those wishing to include material to gain consensus for it. See also WP:ARBBLP#Principles. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:07, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

The source already supplied is a reliable source. We are not obligated to provide numerous sources. Also, opinion sources are reliable sources. Also, the opinions of highly regarded civil rights organizations usually go into articles about people they have criticized or praised.

Without even mentioning conservative sources, Sarsour was discussed—mostly condemned front and center—by commentators and reporters in New York Times, Washington Post, ABC, CBS, CNN, Jerusalem Post, Haaretz, Times of Israel, The Atlantic, New York Magazine, Slate, Vox, Buzzfeed, Rolling Stone, Anti-Defamation League, the Simon Weisenthal Center, The Advocate, Forward, Tablet, and so on and so on and so on and so on and

Factchecker_atyourservice 15:58, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

The brief reference currently in the article is sufficient; anything more would be undue weight in a brief biography. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:43, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

One wonders how this bio will ever be longer than a brief bio when entering significantly covered events gets called UNDUE (length wise) because the bio is brief - this is not the first event in this cycle.Icewhiz (talk) 18:04, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

The onus is on you — please explain why you believe a random quote of Farrakhan's (among many zillions of quotes one could include from him) needs to be included in a biography of someone who is not Farrakhan? The quote neither mentions Sarsour nor apparently was made in context of anything Sarsour did. It's a clear attempt to make this article about something else than it really is. We don't go quoting things Donald Trump says in articles about conservative politicians just because he's said something controversial/offensive/racist/stupid and then we might be able to create some guilt by association. That's not what we're here to do. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:09, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

It's not "random". Go get a dictionary because you plainly don't understand the English words you are using. It was the specific 14 widely quoted words that Sarsour was widely blasted for in the media. DUE and ONUS are not permission to revert material you simply DONTLIKE. Factchecker_atyourservice 19:54, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Wait, so you're arguing that we should include a quote by Farrakhan because Sarsour was criticized for it? That makes literally no sense. Go edit Louis Farrakhan if you want to include criticism of a quote by Louis Farrakhan. You don't have consensus to include it here, and therefore it stays out until and unless such a consensus exists. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:52, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

You're proposing ignoring massively well-sourced and clearly DUE criticism on the ridiculous pretense that it's not about Sarsour. Silly argument is silly, goes nowhere. Factchecker_atyourservice 21:03, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

You're gonna need a consensus to add the material and you don't have the !votes. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:06, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Maybe a random aside, but this keeps popping up on my watchlist, so I've done some reading and there is a TON of criticism regarding this out there. Not specific to Sarsour always, but I wouldn't even know what articles it belongs in. Any ideas? Arkon (talk) 20:29, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

I haven't read much but my impression is that most of the articles single out one or more of the 4 organizers: Sarsour, Bland, Mallory, Perez. I got the impression that article focus seems to differ based on which ones of the 4 returned calls for comment and which ones didn't respond, but Mallory and Sarsour seemed to be featured more prominently than the others. Factchecker_atyourservice 20:42, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

The Atlantic column cited here is an opinion column, not a reported news story; that much is made clear by the entirely-opinionated final sentence: That the group refuses to be accountable for a high-level alliance with an open anti-Semite disqualifies it from ranking among today’s movements for social justice. The opinion of its author must be cited as an opinion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:54, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Just some other cites: here, here, here, here...there's more. Arkon (talk) 21:11, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

You need to actually add a couple of those cites, because right now you're citing the existence of a "controversy" to a single author's opinion column. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:11, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

You (or anyone) is welcome to do so, sorry I suck at ref formatting. Arkon (talk) 00:14, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Arkon, thanks for those references. I was aware that The Atlantic piece was not an ideal source when I added it. I was anticipating more thorough analysis in mainstream publications to come. Opinion pieces are generally not reliable sources for factual statements per WP:RS. Criticism and praise especially require reliable, secondary sources per WP:BLP. The ADL ref saying that Sarsour made a "glowing" Facebook post is definitely WP:UNDUE – if her Facebook activity is relevant, then there should be reliable, independent sources commenting on it. The absence of such coverage is a definite WP:REDFLAG that the material is out of proportion to its real-world importance. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:56, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Welcome on the refs! I think the ADL thing might be worthy of it's own section honestly, as I generally would treat it similar to the SPLC which would fit in there either way in a similar situation. No strong opinion though. Arkon (talk) 01:17, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what's being suggested here – an entire section on one ADL criticism of a single Facebook post? As noted above, criticism and praise require reliable, secondary sources. The ADL is a primary source for its own statements. – see WP:BLPSTYLE. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:27, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh sorry, no I mean a talk section regarding inclusion of that text. Seems separate from this discussion. Arkon (talk) 01:29, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Tamika Mallory is probably the one most tied to Farrakhan, with Linda Sarsour and Perez coming second. Bland is usually inserted into the mix due to responding. These ties aren't new, they've been commented in the past, e.g. during 2017 - [4] [5] [6]. As for secondary coverage of the ADL's stmt regarding Sarsour - I added some - and there is plenty more coverage mention the trio - ADL, Farrakhan, and Sarsour.Icewhiz (talk) 05:45, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Update

Re-reading the above discussion, this seems to be a largely manufactured "controversy" on the part of various commentators, and the quality of the sources doesn't suggest that it's a relevant issue for an encylopedic bio. The Atlantic is after all an editorial magazine, not "hard" news, and John-Paul Pagano's essay is basically an opinion piece.

Other suggested sources, including The Forward, Jezebel, Tablet, and Bari Weiss in the Times (op-ed) are similar, and none substantiate any "ties" between Sarsour and Farrakhan. The most substantial coverage I could find relating to Sarsour is this article in The Forward (again, basically an opinion essay) that says Sarsour posted a Facebook video of her speaking at an 2015 rally with Farrakhan, described as "a pageant for Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam" (via Charles Blow in the Times).

Crucially, I haven't found any follow-up analysis from any reliable, secondary sources (in BLP terms) for either the "controversy" or Jonathan Greenblatt's tweeted response to Sarsour. An encyclopedic bio needn't document every tweet about somebody that makes the news, and I doubt that ten years from now this issue will seem relevant. The article already covers other accusations of anti-Semitism against Sarsour in detail; the suggestion of guilt by association in the Farrakhan case (by "several commentators") doesn't add anything of value. I would suggest omitting the Farrakhan issue entirely pending more in-depth sourcing. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:33, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh - Farrakhan / Sarsour is definitely relevant- even a cursory BEFORE of news items shows this been covered more in more than 300 distinct google-news items (and google combines coverage from around the same date on the same topic). It is also clearly a topic of continuing coverage - e.g. "But all too soon, the Women’s March broke my heart. Its leaders, Tamika Mallory and Linda Sarsour, famously refused to repudiate known anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan after he made horrifically anti-Semitic remarks at an event that Mallory proudly attended. ..... This is a straw man argument, cynically deployed to protect Mallory and Sarsour from what Jews are actually upset about: The anti-Semitism of their affiliation with Farrakhan, the whiff of anti-Semitism one gets when people deny that Israel has always been the homeland of the Jews, and the outright racism of accusing seven million Jews of being thieves and murderers."[7] or Women's March Leader Linda Sarsour Tries to Call Out Anti-Semitism While She Openly Supports Louis Farrakhan, or [8].Icewhiz (talk) 08:26, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree Sangdeboeuf. A different set of WP standards is being used to edit this article compared to one of a woman who is not a Muslim. By its very nature an article such as this one tends to draw biased editors. Gandydancer (talk) 15:32, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I've started an RfC (below) to seek more input on the issue. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:01, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

References

Request for comment

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is clearly a consensus to exclude. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 10:32, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

---

Should the following be included or excluded from the article?

In March 2018, several commentators argued that Sarsour and other Women's March leaders had failed to disassociate themselves from Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan after he made anti-Semitic remarks during a speech. Jonathan Greenblatt, the CEO of the Anti-Defamation League, wrote that Sarsour's "most notable" response to Farrakhan's remarks was to praise his youthfulness on Facebook.

—Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:01, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

• Exclude. This is evidently a tempest in a teapot; if this material is relevant anywhere, it's at the 2017 Women's March article. Our bio of Sarsour already covers various allegations of anti-Semitism against Sarsour herself in detail. An encylopedic bio need not document every instance of such criticism per WP: NOTNEWS and WP:PROPORTION, especially where Sarsour is a peripheral figure to the controversy. I doubt that ten years from now the issue of one-off tweets from Sarsour's critics on whether or not she sufficiently dissociated herself in this case will seem relevant.

  I haven't seen any follow-up analysis from any reliable, secondary sources about the vague "ties" between Sarsour and Farrakhan that John-Paul Pagano and others are alleging. The Atlantic is after all an editorial magazine, not "hard" news, and Pagano's essay is essentially an opinion piece. Other suggested sources, such as The Forward, Jezebel, Yair Rosenberg in Tablet, Bari Weiss in the Times, and (recently) Commentary, Independent Journal Review, and Hen Mazzig in Tablet are likewise all opinion sources and not reliable for factual claims. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:16, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

• Exclude If anything, based on the sourcing, a brief mention could be added to the Women's March article. It doesn't seem Sarsour is the central figure of the media coverage about this.Seraphim System ^(talk) 01:19, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude per "Attributing and specifying biased statements". It is very important who made the criticism. See George Orwell's rule 4: "Never use the passive where you can use the active."[9] Some people say the world is flat. That statement has no use unless we say who they are. TFD (talk) 05:42, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
• Include - even a cursory before shows that the Sarsour/Farrakhan angle is widely criticized since circa March - hundreds of news items from March to present. The wording of the section might be due for an update given coverage since its introduction, but it is clearly a relevant topic for Sarsour.Icewhiz (talk) 05:53, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude - UNDUE and basically parroting far-right propaganda.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:19, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude. I read the whole article before reading this RFC and it struck me that this bit stood out as trivial and inconclusive as it exists. Unless more of a point can be demonstrated on this bit I agree that it reads like a "tempest in a teapot". Also, there's enough else in the article to show how some people try to malign Sarsour. Jzsj (talk) 19:34, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude as a report of a non-tempest: the commentators appear to be commenting about the ABSENCE of any responsive tempest from Sarsour. --Dervorguilla (talk) 00:52, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
• Include these aren't just side comments or noteworthy because of no action. This is notable and newsworthy and has been in the news and reported and very relevant to this page. We should not censor Wikipedia just to publish a progressive viewpoint. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:49, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Opinion essays and op-eds do not have the same editorial oversight as news reporting from reliable outlets. That's why we don't use them as sources for factual claims, especially on BLPs. Where are the reliable, mainstream news outlets reporting on this issue? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:26, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude Undue and I agree with VM Gandydancer (talk) 04:08, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
• Include - the existing mentions seem sufficient and possibly DUE a bit more. I google for her and the March and get 92 thousand hits -- I google for her and Farrakhan and get 19 thousand -- seems over a fifth of mentions of her and/or the March mention the Farrakhan topic, so it was a very prominent commentary within the March mentions of her and so should be noted, offset a bit that it is more an issue of the March that she is closely tied to rather than solely about her actions. The existence of the complaint is well-established by RS and comes from both left and right sides. Looking down the first page or two of google, I see...
  • The Atlantic The Women's March Has a Farrakhan Problem
  • Slate Embracing Farrakhan Betrays The Most Essential Principles of The Women’s March
  • National Review The New Left Trumps the Old Right
  • Washingon Post The anti-Semite who’s haunting the left
  • Vox Why Women’s March leaders are being accused of anti-Semitism
  • Washington Times Women's March under fire over links to Nation of Islam's Louis Farrakhan, anti-Semitism
  • NY Post Women’s March members bail over ties to Farrakhan
  • CBS Women's March leader Tamika Mallory defends relationship with Farrakhan (only passing mention of Sarsour, mostly to say she has praised Assata Shakur, a convicted murderer and would-be revolutionary)
• Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:59, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Once again, these are opinion sources, tabloids (NY Post) or not about Sarsour. The number of "hits" doesn't determine our content; Wikpedia is not an indiscriminate collection of random trivia. We need sources that we would actually include in the article. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:18, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
    • Washington Post, CBS, etcetera are NOT tabloids. If you want more there are plenty in a simple google -- the criticized groups seem to have substantial (adl.org, jpost, haaretz; arabamerica; gaystarnews), and many others on all sides note the issue exists with her involved - Politifact, FoxNews, LA Times, NY daily, RollingStone, Breitbart, TheFederalist, SFgate, Snopes, Dailybeast, ... it is widely noted and a large percentage of mentions of her and the march also mention this criticism. And the question here is WP:DUE "represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." The topics of WP:INDISCRIMINATE i.e. NOTSTATS, NOTLYRICS, NOTRELEASENOTES seem not relevant -- this is not a sport, song, or software item. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:24, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
      • That's correct: "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources". As already stated, Sarsour is mentioned only in passing in the majority of sources, including The Washington Post (opinion) and CBS (which doesn't mention the Sarsour-Farrakhan connection at all). As WP:INDISCRIMINATE states, "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia" (the examples given are not meant to be exhaustive). And BLP policy specifically cautions against claims that imply guilt by association such as these. Our subjects are human beings and deserve to be treated fairly, not subjected to thinly sourced rumor (which is also policy). —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:32, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
• Include (Summoned by bot) Relevant, well-sourced and worthy of inclusion. Coretheapple (talk) 15:54, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude. Appears to be a manufactured issue and wikipedia isn't the place for this. Seanbonner (talk) 05:38, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude. The cited sources aren't about Sarsour. They're about the march, and only mention Sarsour in connection with the other leaders. The content belongs at 2017 Women's March, not here. I don't see any justification for why this one particular aspect of the march should belong here, while so many of the other (more positive) aspects of the march do not. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:27, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude At this point, with much more serious allegations of anti-semitism directly against this subject that are already documented in this article, such an indirect accusation is pretty much WP:MILL. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  04:34, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude. A tempest in a teapot, if it belongs anywhere it would be on the 'March' page. Not so much guilt by association, as guilt by failure to dis-associate to some people's satisfaction. Many of the sources given above don't even mention Sarsour in passing, let alone in depth. Pincrete (talk) 15:23, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Cemetery episode - "Not Racially Motivated" (Police)

With regard to the existing text
«After a Jewish cemetery in St. Louis, Missouri was vandalized in an apparent anti-Semitic incident in February 2017, Sarsour worked with other Muslim activists to launch a crowdfunding campaign to raise money to repair the damage and restore the gravesites. More than $125,000 was raised, and Sarsour pledged to donate any funds not needed at the cemetery to other Jewish community centers or sites targeted by vandalism. She said the fundraising effort would "send a united message from the Jewish and Muslim communities that there is no place for this type of hate, desecration, and violence in America". St. Louis's United Hebrew Congregation Senior Rabbi, Brigitte S. Rosenberg, whose congregants have family members buried in the vandalized cemetery, called the campaign "a beautiful gesture". The project generated some controversy because the funds were not distributed as quickly as some had expected.»,
it should be pointed out that the perpetrator of this heinous act of "apparent[ly] anti-Semitic incident" has confessed. Shouldn't some reference be made to it among the heroic response to it? Cheers to all, XavierItzm (talk) 07:39, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

References

What would that add to the article? -- irn (talk) 17:05, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

To update/validate the apparent anti-Semitic incident part? XavierItzm (talk) 22:19, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

How? Do you have a time machine to go back in time and further impugn her motives? It was an apparent antisemitic act. (Consult a dictionary if you don't understand why.) — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:01, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

«While originally considered a possible act of anti-Semitism, police say that didn't appear to be the motivation.

"There is no evidence to indicate the incident was racially, ethnically or religiously motivated," police say.» XavierItzm (talk) 06:46, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

We could add, "Police later determined that the confessed vandal was not motivated by religious hatred" at the end of the paragraph. However, at the time it was widely viewed and reported upon as an anti-Semitic act, so changing the first line of the paragraph would not be accurate. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:58, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Looks eminently reasonable. Thanks. XavierItzm (talk) 13:50, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

We do have BLP issues va. ther perp, though I agree the perp's actual motovations (as opposed to what was believed at the time) are irrelevant. Due to BLP a short remark, perhaps in parenthesis, should be in.Icewhiz (talk) 22:02, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Seems quite fair. Thanks. XavierItzm (talk) 23:20, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Alright, we have NorthBySouthBaranof saying "Police later determined that the confessed vandal was not motivated by religious hatred at end of paragraph" and we have Icewhiz saying "a short remark, perhaps in parenthesis, should be in". How about an end note? XavierItzm (talk) 02:53, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Make it so.Icewhiz (talk) 03:26, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done XavierItzm (talk) 21:36, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Recent edits 5 July 2018

Conservatives and pro-Israel Democrats

@ZinedineZidane98 and Sir Joseph: Mention of criticism by "Pro-Israel Democrats" comes directly from Politico. Sarsour's "conservative" (or "right-wing") opposition is directly supported by multiple sources: WaPo, AP, NYT, Time, Time (again), JTA, and Newsweek. What is the rationale for removing these terms from the lead section here? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:59, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

You conveniently cherry-pick not only sources, but certain parts of your sources. You cite opinion pieces from the NY Times as authoritive and speaking in the editorial voice of The New York Times, and yet remove or downplay other opinion pieces in the NY Times that are critical (and wide-ranging in their criticism, nonetheless). ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 22:27, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

"A Muslim-American Activist’s Speech Raises Ire Even Before It’s Delivered" from The New York Times is news, not opinion. All the above are from mainstream news outlets that easily pass WP:SOURCES requirements. Do you have any equally mainstream, reliable sources (not op-eds) that offer a contrary view? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:20, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't see how it's "more neutral" to omit this information in favor of the bland statement that Sarsour has received "criticism". The natural question then is "from whom"? Neutrality doesn't mean that we refrain from naming specific individuals and groups, especially when they have been mentioned in reliable, independent sources. If anything, the change results in a less accurate and neutral picture, since it could misleadingly imply that the criticism is somehow universal. To be neutral, we should simply summarize what those sources say while giving them due weight. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:44, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

We can name critics. We shouldn't be making blanket statements on all critics. Is Jake Tapper a conservative or a pro-Israel democrat?Icewhiz (talk) 16:50, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Left-wing and other Democrat criticism of Linda Sarsour is not hard to find [[10]][[11]] [[12]] [[13]][[14]], indeed some with more pro-Linda opinions say ["Liberals love to hate Linda Sarsour"]. --Calthinus (talk) 19:40, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Among the several opinion sources listed, I see two questionable secondary sources (The Washington Times and The Outline) describing left-wing criticism of Sarsour. In terms of weight, mainstream publications such as WaPo, AP, and NYT will usually be relied upon instead, and I haven't seen significant mention of left-wing criticism from them. Any links to such mentions would be appreciated. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:38, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)We do name critics. We also can, and should, explain what most of Sarsour's critics have in common, as stated in reliable, independent sources. In doing so, we are not saying that "all critics" are conservative and/or Jewish groups because we emphasize that Sarsour has been criticized by such figures; that's a classic association fallacy.

I have no idea what Jake Tapper's personal politics are, but it doesn't matter; Wikpedia does not publish original research. Even if Tapper were the most left-wing person in existence, one contrary example doesn't outweigh the multiple reliable, independent sources referring to "conservative" critics of Sarsour, just as one cold winter doesn't disprove global warming. For example:

• Associated Press: "Bloggers and conservative websites also circulated a picture of her [that they said] was proof of 'ties' to Hamas [...] Steven Choi, executive director of the New York Immigration Coalition, called the attacks 'part of a right-wing agenda'"
• Time: "Sarsour’s quote about jihad spread throughout many conservatives corners of the internet and was viewed as a call for attacks on President Donald Trump. This resulted in headlines like 'Women’s March Organizer Linda Sarsour Calls For "Jihad" Against Trump' on conservative sites and outrage on Twitter"
• Washington Post: "Sarsour’s role as a co-chair of the Women’s March brought with it an onslaught of personal attacks through social media and conservative news outlets"
• Jewish Telegraphic Agency: "To Jews on the left, Linda Sarsour is a courageous and effective activist who builds bridges and breaks stereotypes. To Jews on the right and some in the center, she’s an Israel-hating apologist for Islamic extremists"
• New York Times: "This time, conservatives are leading the charge against Ms. Sarsour. Her critics are a strange mix, including right-leaning Jews and Zionists, commentators like Pamela Geller, and some members of the alt-right"

...and so on and so forth. If we aren't to say that Sarsour has been criticized by "conservatives", then how should we summarize the reliably sourced characterization of her critics?. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:50, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Progressive movement

Sarsour's involvement in the modern progressive movement is supported by multiple sources:

• "This position aligns with her advocacy for 'intersectional' progressivism [...] her insistence on Palestinian rights as part of the progressive package"
• "Bland quickly realized that in order to transform the march from an angry Facebook group into a progressive coalition, she’d need help. She enlisted veteran organizers Tamika Mallory, Carmen Perez and Linda Sarsour [...] 'we’re bringing together all the progressive movements,' [Sarsour said]"

Sarsour herself has been outspoken on the issue. I don't see anything "dubious" in saying that she supports the progressive movement. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:59, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

References

CUNY speech redux

The mention of "conservatives" opposing Sarsour's CUNY speech is directly supported by multiple sources:

• "Sarsour's selection drew criticism from some right-wing speakers and pundits"
• "This time, conservatives are leading the charge against Ms. Sarsour. Her critics are a strange mix, including right-leaning Jews and Zionists, commentators like Pamela Geller, and some members of the alt-right"
• "Sarsour is also a figure loathed by conservatives [...] Although she has said she wants to see Israelis and Palestinians coexist, many on the right do not trust her. Now, they are mounting a furious campaign to prevent her from speaking"

Consensus was already reached on this issue; see the most recent discussion. The statement "Dov Hikind is not a conservative" is both unsourced and irrelevant; we are not saying he is. Nonetheless, both Time and The New York Times directly mention Hikind as part of the conservative-led protest. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:00, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

References

BDS criticism

Saying that Sarsour's support for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions has been opposed by conservatives and ADL leaders is not "smears". Her conservative opposition is well-documented (see above). Here's what the sources state about the BDS connection:

• "Sarsour’s selection drew criticism from some right-wing speakers and pundits [...] Sarsour’s critics have accused her of holding anti-Semitic views because of her comments on Islam and Middle Eastern politics, including her support for the movement to boycott, divest from and sanction Israel"
• "Sarsour is also a figure loathed by conservatives, in large part for her support for the movement to boycott, divest from and sanction Israel"
• "Both sides point to evidence backing up their claims: Sarsour supports a boycott of Israel and favors a one-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict [...] right-wing and some centrist Jews can’t support her activist work in light of her anti-Zionism"

Just because some other groups may have also criticized Sarsour (but haven't been mentioned in reliable secondary sources) doesn't negate this well-sourced information. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:00, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

References

This has been gone through many times, and each time you've been proven to be wrong (i.e., criticism has come from feminists in the NY Times, Muslims in peer-reviewed academic journals) you manage to hide away those criticisms deep in the text, and re-introduce "conservative" and "right-wing" labels in advance of any criticisms, in an attempt to disqualify all her detractors as partisan. Not good enough. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 22:16, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I mean, let's be honest here. This is someone who has openly called for "jihad" in the USA, who has fraternized with Farrakhan, supports BDS, supports Sharia[15] and has said she wishes she could take away the vagina[16] of a victim of female genital mutilation. And yet things article reads as if she's just a good ol' New York progressive.... while her outrageous statements and extremist affiliations are buries deep, deep within the text, with constant qualifiers. Must do better. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 22:19, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a platform for you to grind an axe against someone you obviously have a deep personal antipathy for. You should probably consider whether or not you're capable of editing Sarsour's biography neutrally; that laundry-list of partisan sensationalist nonsense you just spewed demonstrates clearly that you have ulterior motives in editing this page. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:58, 6 July 2018 (UTCe

You obviously have a very close connection to the subject. She said those things, whether you like it or not. You and Sangdeboeuf do not own this page, despite your best efforts. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 04:45, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

If you'd simply restore my bit at the end of the intro with the reference to her supporting Jewish cemeteries, evidence that she is anti-Zionist, not anti-Jewish, then you'd have a good summary of the evidence. Jzsj (talk) 11:36, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I second NorthBySouthBaranof's statement here. Talk pages are for discussing sources and policy. Several of these issues have been raised before, and the consensus has consistently been to exclude mention of such partisan scandal-mongering; see here, here, and here. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:34, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, they have been raised before - they're even mentioned in the article. Yet you "redacted" my mentioning them here, in the Talk page. Hilarious. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 04:45, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I read that tweet. I saw nothing in that tweet which any reasonable person could construe as so much as implying that Sarsour supports imposing sharia in the United States, as her unhinged conspiracist detractors have done. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:54, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

No, I have absolutely zero connection to the subject. Rather, I believe that all article subjects on Wikipedia have the right to be treated fairly and to have their articles written in compliance with all policies, including the command that we remember that people we write about are human beings. People who are strongly in favor, or strongly opposed, to particular people should avoid editing the biographies of those people except in the most uncontroversial ways, unless they are extremely careful to treat that person in a balanced manner despite their personal opinions. That's one reason you won't find me writing much about Donald Trump, for example.

Your editing of this article has been entirely one-sided. It is very clear that you have a vehement personal opposition to Sarsour, and that manifests as a desire to have her depicted as negatively as you possibly can. That is expressly not what we are here to do on Wikipedia. We are here to write balanced, neutral, encyclopedic articles. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:58, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Criticism from non conservatives (liberals, secularists, other Muslims)

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/linda-sarsour-is-dangerous-so-lets-all-stop-pretending_us_59726e59e4b06b511b02c355 (from a Muslim) http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/07/09/trump-jihad-activist-muslim-brotherhood-playbook-qanta-ahmed (from a Muslim) http://ijr.com/opinion/2017/07/266347-sorry-linda-sarsour-using-jihad-political-context-entirely-inappropriate/ (from a Muslim and Republican) http://forward.com/scribe/374617/linda-sarsour-lgbtq/ (from an LBGT perspective) http://www.thedailybeast.com/linda-sarsour-echoes-donald-trump-smears-cnns-jake-tapper (from a liberal) https://areomagazine.com/2017/01/27/the-trouble-with-linda-sarsour/ (from an secular Muslim) https://theoutline.com/post/2050/why-do-liberals-love-to-hate-linda-sarsour (an article claiming "liberals love to hate Linda Sarsour") http://nytlive.nytimes.com/womenintheworld/2017/01/19/agenda-for-womens-march-on-washington-has-been-hijacked-by-organizers-bent-on-highlighting-womens-differences/ (from a liberal in the NY Times)

So, hardly "conservatives and pro-Israel Democrats", is it? ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 04:56, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

As long as we're "cherry-picking" and doing original research, I could find a similar number of liberal/secular/Muslim sources praising Sarsour and say they prove the exact opposite. None of this outweighs reliable, published source characterizations of the criticism as predominantly from conservatives. To state that Sarsour has been criticized merely by "politicians" or "some figures" misleads the reader by obscuring the main source of the criticism. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:58, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

But saying she has been criticized by Conservatives and not mentioning she has been criticized by others is POV and does a disservice to the reader. She has been criticized by people all over the political spectrum and that is notable and what we should be saying. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:42, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree completely with Sir Joseph. Left-wing criticism of Linda Sarsour is ubiquitous [[17]][[18]] [[19]] [[20]][[21]], indeed some with more pro-Linda opinions say ["Liberals love to hate Linda Sarsour"]. Pretending all who have issues with her are rightwing is cherrypicking and misrepresentative.--Calthinus (talk) 19:40, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Once again, no one is saying "all" Sarsour's detractors are right-wing. Association fallacy, again. Whether we as editors interpret such primary sources as coming from the left (or engage in synthesis with other sources that say so) is irrelevant; articles are not based on the beliefs or experiences of editors, but on the contents of reliable, published sources. Such sources (apart from The Outline apparently; I admit this is the first I've seen that source and don't know much about its reliability; The Washington Times is borderline at best) are quite consistent in how they characterize Sarsour's detractors; see § Conservatives and pro-Israel Democrats, above. The absence of any mention of "liberal" or "left-wing" criticism in reliable, mainstream sources that have otherwise covered Sarsour's activism seems like a clear red flag that it's a minor point. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:27, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

The article goes on about how "conservatives" dislike her on seven different occasions (on this talk page -- "conservatives and Zionists" -- well shocker, bro, some Zionists are left wingers actually millions are and Israel's Zionist Union is, shocker, left-wing). No one says "all her critics are that", yet mysteriously there seems to be opposition to discussing criticism of her from elsewhere as otherwise this conversation wouldn't exist. Sources characterize her critics as one thing, this is called that having a point of view -- of course I have already pointed out one instance of her critics being called "liberals". When some sources have a certain analysis we do not simply report that as fact-- that is a violation of WP:NPOV. And really, basic logic here, failure to generate the alternate hypothesis does not prove the null hypothesis, that's just a bad argument... --Calthinus (talk) 01:00, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

No one's proposing a "null hypothesis" concerning Sarsour's supposed left-wing detractors. Whether some Zionists are left-wingers or not is irrelevant, unless commented on by reliable, published sources in connection with the topic at hand. One instance of a (non-mainstream) website referring to Sarsour's "liberal" critics should not be falsely equated to the multiple mainstream publications that describe Sarsour's detractors, in a variety of contexts, as conservative. Summarizing the predominant view of such sources, when they have a reputation for reliability and accuracy, is exactly what WP:NPOV is about: "neutral point of view [means] representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". Find two or three reliable, mainstream published sources that characterize Sarsour's critics as anything other than predominantly conservative, and this discussion can come to an end. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:11, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Certainly Sarsour has been criticized also by conservatives, and in some instances this has been highlighted by the media. However, she has also faced much criticism from mainstream democrats. labeling criticism of Sarsour as conservatives (or Jewish groups - a slightly odious use of labels) when criticism was and is wider (seems Sarsour has an ongoing spat with Chuck Schumer for instance) - is misleading.Icewhiz (talk) 07:43, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: your characterization of the relevant media coverage is at odds with the sources already provided above. Please provide some independent, published sources to support your statements. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:54, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Plenty of sources have been provided above. Certainly, when Milo protested outside of a conference this was labelled as conservative (in those particular instances by RS), however much of the criticism Sarsour has faced is from non-conservatives.Icewhiz (talk) 08:06, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

This goes beyond Milo; see § Conservatives and pro-Israel Democrats above. A wiki editor's own interpretation of primary sources such as opinion essays is not sufficient, and suggesting that such opinion sources outweigh the mainstream, reliable-source characterization of Sarsour's detractors is an example of false balance. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:30, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Also, which part of "Jewish groups" is an "odious" label – the "group" part or the "Jewish" part? Because some Jewish-focused publications seem to have no problem using this or similar terms:

• JTA: "right-wing Jewish leaders condemned the choice [...] she drew fire from Jewish leaders [...] Jewish groups on the left have lavished praise"
• Forward: "Some in the Jewish community were skeptical"
• Haaretz: "well known for her friendship with some liberal Jews and for her clashes with the Jewish establishment"

—Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:02, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Umm.... here's what your own link from JTA says, which I suppose you missed: [" Progressive Jews are willing to look past her anti-Zionism in light of her work on behalf of women and minorities... The criticism extends beyond the right. Both the current and former national directors of the Anti-Defamation League, a large mainstream group, have harshly criticized Sarsour’s positions on Israel. In a March interview with the St. Louis Jewish Light, the ADL’s national director, Jonathan Greenblatt, called the cemetery fundraising “great” but said Sarsour’s BDS advocacy “encourages and spreads anti-Semitism.]

You have indeed assumed the null hypothesis. You don't understand -- of course you have not "proposed a null hypothesis" because it is not something you propose, it is what you assume in absence of evidence proving the alternative hypothesis (which is proposed) beyond the margin of error. However wikipedia works differently -- we deal in verifiability, and failure to prove H-A (alternative hypothesis) does not prove H-0 (the null). The lack of a source explicitly stating liberal critics of her exist does not prove they don't exist or are not notable.

You referred to WP:EXCEPTIONAL (via WP:REDFLAG), which is under WP:FRINGE, intended to handle things like conspiracy theories. I find this astonishing, and even insulting, and I urge you to retract that statement. You have been presented with quite a pile of separate sources by different editors demonstrating left-wing criticism of her, yet you insist it should be handled by a policy intended for conspiracy theories. Nobody is saying we should combine these by SYNTH on the page -- but SYNTH is helpful on talk pages. This is not an exceptional claim, as has been demonstrated. Indeed the Zioness group, of progressive feminist Zionists has explicitly called out her role in the anti-Semitism conference [[22]]. Of course it should be mentioned that a lot of left-wing attitudes to Sarsour are in fact a mix of criticism and appreciation. Her feminist and anti-Trump activism is appreciated. Her stances on the Middle East, on the other hand, are ... "overlooked".

The crux is this : for you, because you have some RS discussing how conservatives have criticized her (and, on the talk page, a few sources saying that "some" liberal Jews lavish praise-- pretty bad argument, you know better), you think that means the page has to label her critics as "conservatives" (and, on one occasion, "pro-Israel Democrats" -- a label that obscures the left-wing credentials of the critic). For you this is NPOV because sources say so-- never mind that your own JTA source mentioned liberal misgivings about her. And you use that to resist attempts to add material about her other critics. This is, to put it lightly, a fundamentalist interpretation of our policies on Wikipedia. You need to back up from this, and allow others, like ZinedineZidane98 who did hard work gathering all those sources, to add to the page. It sounds like I am being very critical of you, I am sorry for that-- you have dug in deep into an argument, and it's a thing we all do, myself included. I have seen your good work on other pages. But I am telling, you need to quite wasting your time and climb your way out of this hole. --Calthinus (talk) 14:49, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

The user referred to has been topic-banned for violating BLP policy on this article, so "allowing" them to edit here is not up to me. Concrete suggestions based on established policy and reliable sources are welcome, but much of the above wall of text is simply noise and baseless innuendo. Couple points though: REDFLAG is part of WP:Verifiability and applies to all article content, not just fringe theories. The part about "apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources" applies to JTA stating that criticism of Sarsour goes "beyond the right". In any case, the source is talking about criticism from "some in the center" (specifically Jews), not the Left.

Encyclopedic biographies are not meant to be a litany of criticisms and/or plaudits, as in the recent addition of quotes by Jonathan Greenblatt and Abraham Foxman; too many simple sound bites and the article loses all encyclopedic structure, leaving the reader with no indication of the relative weight that the various opinions hold. A balanced and neutral biography for such a polarizing figure as Sarsour depends on using secondary or tertiary sources that actually evaluate competing claims about the subject disinterestedly. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:53, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

The "claim" is not "exceptional". Biographies are not litanies of criticism, this we can agree on. Imo, the quotes by Greenblatt and Foxman -- which are notable-- should be placed in the same place as your JTA piece which does tie them together. They don't need to be duplicated at various points in the article. The point here is not dumping tons of criticism on her (I also added one piece from Haaretz criticizing the critics)-- reducing criticism of her to right wing histrionics (some of it is) is reductive and misleading (ironically if you want the page to not be about criticism this is a bad strategy as it involves more discussion of the critics...).--Calthinus (talk) 04:41, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I didn't say the claim was "exceptional", only that it was "apparently important" and "not covered by multiple mainstream sources". Therefore, it should be treated with caution according to accepted policy. What I "want" is for the article to be a neutrally-written summary of accepted mainstream knowledge, since that is what an encyclopedia is for, and to be fair to its subject, since that is what BLP policy requires.

As for criticism by "notable" persons, Donald Trump is also notable. Should we also document in people's biographies every slanderous tweet by Trump about them that makes the news? That is, unless you're saying that Greenblatt's and Foxman's remarks about Sarsour are somehow inherently notable in themselves, which is not supported by any policy or guideline.

Linda Sarsour#Views on the Israel–Palestine conflict already mentions the criticism by the ADL director(s) regarding BDS. Therefore, this recent addition is repetitive and puts undue emphasis on a couple of out-of context quotes. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:17, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes I would like a neutrally written article. I do not think this one is. I think it could be without that much work. The Donald Trump comparison is not a great one because Donald Trump's article does not hurl unrepresentative labels at his critics on seven different occasions-- however I actually support coverage of his notorious tweeting habits, and I am quite glad that we at Wikipedia have made the article Donald Trump on social media.

I do think Greenblatt's and Foxman's remarks are notable because they got wide coverage and indeed, they are important to note to balance out the fact that the article on seven different occasions (speaking of repetition...) labels her critics as "conservatives" -- a more nuanced and representative view of who is (also) criticizing her was necessary. If anything these controversies are the one thing she is most known for among Americans, like it or not. Does that mean I think they should dominate the article? No, but remember, I came onto this article when it already hurled the label "conservative" at her critics on seven different occasions, which, I'm sorry, there is no way to make that not look like POV pushing (and eerily reminiscent of how Jake Tapper suddenly was "alt-right" for criticizing her-- something he quite obviously is not). There is an easy way out of this -- remove the excessive labeling. The article will be objectively better for it anyhow.--Calthinus (talk) 14:32, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Sarsour's tweet about Jake tapper is not the issue – no one is suggesting we use it as a reliable source. The Donald Trump comparison was to the statements by Foxman and Greenblatt, as the "notable" critics (as an aside, "notable" on Wikipedia usually refers to article subjects, not article content). Donald Trump is notable too; that doesn't mean we quote his remarks about Rosie O'Donnell in her bio, for instance. The label conservative is amply sourced; we do not need to "balance" it with excessive quotations from non-conservative figures. That is not "POV pushing", it's summarizing accepted, mainstream coverage of the subject. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:32, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

We'll pretend I agree with this for a sec. Why, even if this is a valid rationale, is it necessary to smack the label on seven times?--Calthinus (talk) 16:37, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

If there is a concrete suggestion for reducing unduly repetitive text while still being clear about how reliable sources describe Sarsour's detractors, then by all means let's hear it. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:54, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Here's one : we get to mention her critics are characterized as "conservatives" (and, I suppose, "pro-Israel Democrats and Jewish groups") once in the lede, and once in the main article, and if we discuss criticism of her stances, we don't keep repeating the label conservative. What more does it accomplish to state it five more times?--Calthinus (talk) 17:55, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Progressive Jews & anti-Zionism

I've replaced the part about "many progressive Jews disagree[ing] with" Sarsour's stance on Israel with a direct quote from the source – "look past" does not equate to "disagree with" here, and "many Progressive Jews" is simple weasel wording that doesn't convey meaningful information. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:51, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

This seems like a good solution to me. --Calthinus (talk) 14:18, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Jonathan Greenblatt Q&A quote

The quote about Sarsour by Jonathan Greenblatt from a Q&A in a regional Jewish newspaper is repetitive and unduly weighted, in my opinion. Q&A's are basically primary sources and shouldn't be used for any criticisms of living people. Greenblatt's opposition to Sarsour's stance on Israel as ADL director, and criticism from Jewish leaders for her remarks on feminism and Zionism, are already covered under Linda Sarsour#Views on the Israel–Palestine conflict, using a much better source. I would strongly suggest removing this specific blurb. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:08, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Except that the specific quote has been widely echoed in other RS, including the JTA source you presented. And, as long as we have the labeling of her critics as "conservatives" repeated seven separate places in the article, some things are necessary for NPOV. Biographies aren't litanies of criticism for the individual, they also aren't for pushing labels onto critics.--Calthinus (talk) 14:21, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Where has the quote been "widely echoed", exactly? It is cited to precisely one source in the article. JTA uses a highly abridged version of that quote, reducing it to exactly five words. The label conservative is supported by multiple reliable sources, as amply demonstrated on this talk page already. Not to mention that it's a label that many of Sarsour's critics freely apply to themselves. Conservative is not a slur. Nor does it require a counterpoint from whatever quotations happen to be available from more centrist critics. Neutrality does not mean we give equal weight to every side of a debate in an attempt at "balance". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:50, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Might need to retract the widely covered statement -- I mistook one mirror for another article at least. But we have been through this. Greenblatt is one of many voices that are not "conservatives" who have repeatedly criticized her. He happens to be the one that has been mentioned in a source in a paragraph noting that her critics are not only conservatives. Conservative is not a slur but it does imply that that is the salient trait of those who are criticizing her -- even though the criticism frequently has nothing to do with conservative views, coming from individuals who lack them. You have found sources calling her critics "conservatives" but that does not justify repeating the label seven times while mitigating anything that challenges that monolithic view. Even if it was actually representative, why on earth do we need to repeat it seven times?--Calthinus (talk) 16:12, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Many people have repeatedly criticized Sarsour. As David Schraub suggests, it's an obsession for some. Writing a neutral, encylopedic bio means giving due weight to the views of reliable, authoritative sources, not just the loudest voices. Once again, conservative is reliably sourced in the article. Your personal analysis that is not salient doesn't count; Wikipedia does not publish original research. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:06, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

It's not my OR, we have pretty ample evidence the criticism extends beyond "conservatives" including in a source provided by yourself.--Calthinus (talk) 17:59, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Where is this "ample evidence"? If that's referring to the list of weblinks at the top of this section, then it is absolutely original research to say that they imply anything about criticism "beyond" conservatives. We don't infer anything about the political leanings of sources that isn't stated directly in a published, reliable source. Nor do we combine different sources to reach such a conclusion. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:00, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

JTA explicitly says "criticism beyond conservatives". But nevertheless, WP:SYNTH is not a valid argument against arguments on the talkpage, it instead pertains to what can be published on Wikipedia. On the contrary, finding many sources that support a point is helpful in talk page discussions, for all participants to better understand the situation.--Calthinus (talk) 19:07, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

I should add that your usage of WP:SYNTH to invalidate talk page arguments is explicitly against wiki policy.--Calthinus (talk) 19:22, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

So "ample evidence" means one reliable source? Even acknowledging the JTA article as a good source, right-wing criticism and attacks against Sarsour are still given the most weight in published, independent sources, as shown by the multiple examples I provided above and in the article. Anyone claiming that this is not "salient" had better have sourcing of comparable quality backing them up. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:28, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

No - several source cover mainstream opposition to Sarsour. The fact that a few sources cover right wing opposition (in relation to "tweeter battles" or Milo protesting something) - does not mean this is the only opposition.Icewhiz (talk) 21:06, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

One-state solution in lead

@Sangdeboeuf: What is so controversial to you about " in which Israelis and Palestinians coexist"? It is mentioned elsewhere in the article. Having this piece of information in the lead simply clarifies what she thinks is a "one-state solution". Others think a "one-state solution" means the annihilation of the other party. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:21, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

I take issue with this Makeandtoss. It's asserting how something would look in a hypothetical future on a page not about that -- something we shouldn't do. Furthermore, experts disagree on what a one-state solution would likely look like and if we assert one thing about it for NPOV we would have to mention the entire debate -- hopefully if it did occur there would be coexistence, but on the other hand the "Rwanda solution" as some call it has risks as we are talking about getting two peoples that have been hating and killing each other for decades to agree on how shared governance should look (Yugoslavia presents a case of how a shared state originally proclaiming "brotherhood and unity" between different ethnic groups that mostly didn't previously have a history of murdering each other and did have a shared language -- Serbo-Croatian -- nevertheless devolved into attempts at genocide). We shouldn't assert anything either way, good or bad, about what such a solution should look like on a page like this that isn't about it. --Calthinus (talk) 14:15, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

We're not asserting anything, we're reflecting what Sarsour herself said - "I do believe that Israel has the right to exist,” says Sarsour. “I mean I wouldn't want — I mean where are they gonna go? That's why I want a one-state solution. I think we can all live together in one state with peace and justice and equality for all." Her stated position is for a single state with peaceful coexistence. It's not up to you to decide whether that's right or wrong or possible or whatever. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:38, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not deciding whether it's right or wrong (I personally have no idea what would happen in such a future), I"m saying we shouldn't decide it's right. NorthBySouthBaranof at the same time I thought about it and realized if we don't include that she supports the "peaceful coexistence" goal of the 1ss (not the Hamas version) she could sound like Hamas which is obv quite NPOV. I added "would theoretically" -- hopefully this addresses both issues? --Calthinus (talk) 14:40, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

No. It's entirely objectionable because it appears nowhere in any source and is entirely prohibited original research. You don't get to decide what is and isn't "theoretical." The source quote exists and you may not modify Sarsour's statements because you personally don't believe it's realistic, I guess? If we're going to put this in the lede, it's not for us to muck about with her quotes and statements. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:42, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranof, WP:AGF please don't assert what you think my personal views are, especially when I just explicitly stated I don't know and don't take any position on whether it's realistic (seriously, it's a really tough issue and it depends on so many things) -- quit strawmanning me, please. And I don't think Wikipedia should either -- WP:NPOV on a very controversial issue. Perhaps this shouldn't be in the lede at all, after all she did also support the 2ss on one occasion.--Calthinus (talk) 14:45, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Also, the current wording has become even more problematic: ..and Jewish groups for her outspoken stance on Israel, including her support for the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement and a one-state solution to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in which Israelis and Palestinians coexist "with peace and justice and equality for all." -- this could be read to make it sound like Jewish groups oppose peace and justice and equality for all, which is pretty hurtful. That is not the issue they take with her, and it should not be included in the things they take issues with. It can be separately discussed if we are talking about her views in isolation.--Calthinus (talk) 14:54, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

This issue is being blown out of proportion. A "one-state solution" needs clarification, is it a Hamas one-state solution? Simply have a short quote about what she thinks is a one-state solution in the lead and voila! Makeandtoss (talk) 16:14, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

With Sangdeboeuf's recent edit, I'm fine with the current version. --Calthinus (talk) 16:34, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

I split the statement to make it clearer, but I'm not sure why Sarsour's idea for fixing the Israel–Palestine conflict even needs to be in the lead section. No one is expecting Sarsour herself to solve the crisis, independent sources that I've seen barely comment on her views about it, and it's certainly not what her critics get so exercised about. It seems unduly weighted to me. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:20, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

I would support removing it from the lede.--Calthinus (talk) 17:49, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

A "one state solution" in this context means an end to the Jewish state of Israel - which is why most Jews (as well as others) oppose it - her stmts on this matter were not favorably received, to say the least.Icewhiz (talk) 18:26, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

By all the usual suspects, no doubt. But we need more than the predictable shrieking of well-paid outrage peddlers to show that it's a noteworthy part of her biography. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:29, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Whoa, whoa, slow down there. The Anti-Defamation League is among the groups that have criticized her views on the 1ss and BDS. Are you saying J Greenblatt is a well-paid outrage peddler? I strongly suggest you revise that statement.--Calthinus (talk) 21:44, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

I was not referring to BDS, but to the comment about "an end to the Jewish state of Israel". If you have a reliable source connecting the ADL to the issue, by all means let's have it. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:01, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Oh - that's a pretty mainstream view in regards to the ramification of a one-state solution (with "right of return" on top of it). Here's a source that was but a google search away - She has endorsed the movement to boycott Israel and has come out in support for a one-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict – a position that critics of that prospect say equals the end of Israel’s existence as a Jewish state.[23][24].Icewhiz (talk) 22:08, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

NPOV tag

@NorthBySouthBaranof: - the cited source clearly says - She has for several years worked closely with groups on the far-left edge of the Jewish community, like Jewish Voice for Peace and Jews for Racial & Economic Justice. Because Sarsour is an outspoken critic of Israel and backs boycotts, divestment and sanctions, mainstream Jewish groups have long held her at arms’ length.[25] - a description that amply fits JVP (a group that has run an ad campaign seen as anti-semitic [26]). Calling these fringe groups - "left-wing Jewish groups" - is highly misleading, and POVish.Icewhiz (talk) 21:13, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

And a ten word fragment (which is mainly common phrases) - revert per copyvio - is not a copyvio - though we could attribute it.Icewhiz (talk) 21:16, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

The phrasing is unusual, combining "far-left edge" with "Jewish community" in a way not normally seen. That's a creative combination of words of the type that's protected by copyright. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:26, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Not so creative in regards to radical left wing Jewish groups - however we could paraphrase to - radical left wing Jewish groups.Icewhiz (talk) 22:00, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Not only is the phrasing unique, the report is dated. Editors can't have it both ways: either this is a biography that takes a long-term view of its subject or it's a breathless summary of news reports written in the present tense. By the latter standard -- which most editors seem to favor -- a source from January 2017 is ancient and should be identified as such, not cited as if it was published last week. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:50, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Well it happens to be the cited source for the statement "left-wing". Are you suggesting then, that we remove it entirely? That seems to be the natural conclusion of what you're saying. --Calthinus (talk) 21:54, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

No, the natural conclusion of what I wrote is that the majority of editors are morons. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. But since you've made your choice clear, I added a date to the source in the text. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:57, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Calling JVP left-wing..... Is misleading. JVP is on the fringes of the American Jewish community - to the extent that much of the community repudiates JVP. JVP's political position hasn't changed since 2017 - they have been fairly constant since their founding.Icewhiz (talk) 22:00, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

If this wording is verbatim from the source it should be revised but one source about "ADL slams pro-bds group's anti-semitic new campaign" from Haaretz is probably not enough to label them as fringe groups though—is it necessary to label them? We could just name a couple of examples like JVP.Seraphim System ^(talk) 22:05, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Are the two of you as clueless in real life as you act on Wikipedia? Look at the article's history, look at the change I made, stop arguing with a straw man, and stop writing in the present tense when you're citing out-dated sources. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:10, 21 July 2018 (UTC)