Talk:Isra Hirsi

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:51, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Isra Hirsi illustration 02.png

Communism?
I have said what is wrong with this edit in edit summaries, but will detail it here now. Calling her a "self-described communist" and basing it off of a tweet and two unreliable sources fails WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Trying to put it in the lead, again based on one tweet, is WP:UNDUE weight and not WP:NPOV. I should not need to explain why Conservative icons fails NPOV. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:32, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I understand, but there are other sources that claim he's a communist. Besides, why is it OK for Virginia state delegate Lee Carter to call himself that and it goes on his Wiki page, but this can't suddenly go on Isra's? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:589:4B00:1260:59D9:5407:C1C4:F9E5 (talk) 02:36, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The difference that I see between Isra Hirsi and Lee Carter is that there are many reliable sources talking about Carter's statement about being a communist and none for Hirsi. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:22, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

So should she be removed from ? Josh (talk) 17:36, 15 October 2023 (UTC)


 * The Fox News source is deprecated, but the Independent reports on the coverage here and the various responses: But what's missing is any substantive discussion of what Hirsi herself believes. If this is all there is, I would say we should remove the "American Communist" category from the article.  BBQ  boffingrill me 02:52, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

"Jihad Squad" !?
I'm fairly certain there are better terms used to describe that Ilhan Omar as a member of the so called "Jihad Squad," & the statement contains no sourcing for that terminology.

It seems highly inflammatory & we should strive for, if not neutrality, then at least well sourced & 'fair' in language use especially without sourcing for the direct statement or claim/edit. 137.103.154.120 (talk) 05:08, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Suspension from Barnard
Another editor has placed details related to the suspension from Barnard College that I don't think follow from any of the underlying sources. Right now that editor keeps reverting any changes I make, and despite multiple attempts to take things to the talk page, they refuse to do so. If some other editors can take a look at the page and make sure that: 1) claims are tied to the sources and 2) this article maintains NPOV that would be greatly appreciated. Going to tag @GuardianH and @ElKevbo as I know they are very active and do lots of great work in higher education related articles. Jjazz76 (talk) 03:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Is this still in contention? I don't see anything glaringly wrong or bothersome in the article. ElKevbo (talk) 00:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * This editor keeps on demanding that it is non-NPOV to include the verifiable statement that the protest was unauthorized, and is engaging in repeated reverts.
 * I think the current version is verifiable and NPOV. Secarctangent (talk) 02:29, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Secarctangent - There needs to be a statement of who is declaring it unauthorized. 'According to whom' - I kept trying to add that and you kept deleting without every engaged the talk page despite my repeated requests. I'm glad to hear you've finally agreed to use the talk page to hash out details, instead of repeatedly reverting, despite my continued requests to stop doing that.
 * I'm fine with the current version, but it took us a while to get there. Next time, simply use the talk page. Thanks! Jjazz76 (talk) 19:03, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * If you attempt to repeatedly revert again, I will seek sanctions. Please follow the rules!  Cheers! Secarctangent (talk) 03:52, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * way to prove my point that you don't seem to be here to build an encyclopedia, but instead repeatedly threaten sanctions and not engage in any sort of dialog. Jjazz76 (talk) 06:05, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Secarctangent ignoring other editors and simply mass-reverting to get your desired result isn't the way to go. Is there a case for WP:PRESERVE here? Looks like the best option to agree on a desired version of the content that is WP:DUE. GuardianH (talk) 22:57, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi @GuardianH I believe we have indeed gotten to a desired version here, and Jjazz76 seems to agree above as well as per their 19:03, 23 April 2024 (UTC) comment. Do you disagree? Cheers! Secarctangent (talk) 00:33, 25 April 2024 (UTC)