Talk:Linda Sarsour/Archive 10

Asmi Fathelbab allegations
Per test and sources in this diff. These allegations are widely reported by several RSes. Our usual policy (exercised recently quite frequently with the #MeToo revelations) with public figures is to include such allegations when they are made publicly and reported, qualifying that said allegations are allegations - not fact.10:41, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note - I would add to the text in the diff above Sarsour's late night denial of the charges (that I missed since the reporting I saw had her refusing comment, but did see now after checking Sarsour's twitter) - which is available on Buzzfeed (not a source I typically would use (though I might be wrong, they are becoming more RSey I think), but should definitely be reliable for an interview) - Women's March Planner Says A Report That She Ignored Sex Harassment Is "Character Assassination", Buzzfeed.Icewhiz (talk) 12:09, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * This is certainly relevant given her outspokenness on women's issues. I added the BuzzFeed source, which certainly should be a good RS for an interview. PasterofMuppets (talk) 12:49, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia editors really ought to exercise some consistency on matters like this. Some Bio pages are zealously guarded - with criticism buried deep and bracketed by numerous qualifiers and weasel words - while others are just a list of salacious innuendo. If RSs report, so should Wiki, right? ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 16:00, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * There is absolutely no way this won't be included. Allegations of this caliber, reported this widely, against a public figure always go in.Icewhiz (talk) 16:11, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It is only one person who says Sarsour didn't believe her. It is only gossip - just because WP:RS report something, that does not mean it is suitable for Wikipedia. And the sourcing is not very good, it is sourced to foxnews, buzzfeed, and the Daily Caller- Newsweek and IBTimes are given as sources to make it appear better sourced, but they are both sourced to the Daily Caller. Not only is it a BLP violation, it looks like a sneaky attempt to make the sourcing look stronger then it actually is. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 20:24, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The initial report by the DC was widely reported on by RSes who assessed that the stmt by the former employee was indeed made by a former employee - which Sarsour herself confirmed in her long stmt via buzzfeed (which should be reliable for what Saraour said). There was no need to use the DC (who had the scoop, but DC publishing first is AOK if this is published elsewhere as thos was) for sourcing. This is a major, non gossip, issue and will end up here eventually.Icewhiz (talk) 20:32, 19 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Concur that this material belongs in article because of her self presentation as an outspoken feminist.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:24, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I suggest you post it on BLP/n before restoring. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 01:57, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Because of her self presentation as an outspoken feminist is a non-sequitur; that's a valid comparison to make only if a reliable source makes a similar comparison. It also presumes that there is any weight to the allegations. The sourcing regarding any actual controversy so far is poor; following WP:RECENTISM, WP:REDFLAG, and WP:NOTNEWS, it would be preferable to wait and see whether mainstream sources make anything of this. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:32, 20 December 2017 (UTC) (edited 02:52, 21 December 2017 (UTC))
 * When we start putting The Daily Caller interviews that were tweeted by Trump Jr. into our encyclopedia we will become no better than a gossip tabloid as well. Gandydancer (talk) 14:26, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Most of the details were confirmed by Sarsour herself - who admitted Fathelbab was employed in the building and that a sexual harrasesment complaint was brought forward by Fathelbab to Sarsour, and that Sarsour dismissed the complaint. The difference between Fathelbab's and Sarsour's positions seem to be limited to the merits of the complaint as well as the tone/sayings of Sarsour. If this were only the DC - it would be one thing. In this case we have multiple RSes repeating Fathelbab's words - and one would presume (as Newsweek, Fox News, and others are reliable) that they verified that Fathelbab stood behind them (and in any event - Sarsour herself admitted to Fathelbab saying these things (in 2017) per her own denial of Fathelbab's claims). The Daily Caller being first to break an item - does not make the item insignificant or unreliable. If the Daily Caller (and the like) is the only outlet to report - then such a claim holds water. This is, incidentally, already covered by international outlets - e.g. UAE's The National -  - as well as other countries.Icewhiz (talk) 15:27, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Whaw. Just whaw. I haven't seen worse hypocrisy, or double standards for years. Yes, I'm looking at you, User:Icewhiz, and you, User:E.M.Gregory: recall Talk:Elie_Wiesel?? ...where allegations against Wiesel, which had been reported by several WP:RS...where Icewhiz stated this....and E.M.Gregory stated this? Seriously, I hope you have some self respect left, as my respect for both of you just went through the floor. Oh, and my opinion about including/not including this here is the same as in the Wiesel case: unless there are several other  instances: this stays out of the article. Huldra (talk) 20:59, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Different situation. Wiesel is dead and could not respond to these claims which could not be corroborated in any meaningful fashion (beyond the accuser saying her ass was grabbed 28 years ago). In Sarsour's case, Sarsour herself admitted that she handled the sexual harrassment complaint (even going so far as prividing some (but not all) affidavits and documentation from the 2009 affair) and that she found the complaint with little or no merit.Icewhiz (talk) 21:13, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Lol! Yeah, as if a BLP article needs less proof than a non BLP article? And handling claims against another counts for more that claims against the person in question? Nice.... Keep digging. Huldra (talk) 21:31, 20 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Accuser: Linda Sarsour said sexual harassment 'doesn't happen to someone that looks like you', Fox News, 20 December 2017 - coverage + interview with the alleged victim on reliable source - so we no longer have (however scant, since RSes repeating the DC should've been assumed to have verified Fathelbab stands behind the statement in the DC) any sourcing issues regarding Fathelbab's allegations against Sarsour.Icewhiz (talk) 06:07, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Interviews are mostly primary sources and not a good indicator of WP:WEIGHT. Not to mention that Fox News is known to spread falsehoods and mislead its audience, especially about Black Lives Matter and pro-Palestinian activists. Even if their facts are correct on this one, Fox shouldn't be used to give weight to embarrassing allegations about an activist such as Sarsour. See also "Recentism" and other policy shortcuts in my comment above. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:43, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * This is not just an interview but coverage. Fox News is a reliable source per any RSN discussion and is not known to spread falsehoods. The Daily Caller does have issues (though since the initial coverage was repeated by more reliable sources - such as Newsweek - this wasn't such of an issue). This issue is not going away - and will be in the article eventually - it has been covered extensively by multiple RSes since it broke in the beginning of the week - and coverage will with all likelihood continue.Icewhiz (talk) 07:48, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * FOX's file: PunditFact, The fact-checks behind 'The Daily Show's' 50 Fox news 'lies'. I don't have a WP:CRYSTALBALL, so I don't know what will be in the article eventually, sorry. But rushing to include salacious material is not the way to write a BLP. Where are these multiple RSes anyway? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:04, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * non-comprehensive list - buzzfeed, Newsweek, Fox News,Fox News, International Business Times,NY Post, Washington Examiner, Washington Times, teen vogue, the National (UAE), Brooklyn Reporter... But I'm fine with WP:WAITing (even though Sarsour's denial, as well as the attributed sayings of Fathelbab do pass BLP - there is no rush here, and editor consensus will only become clearer as this evolves. Most other #metoo affairs were pushed into Wikipedia quite quickly (even with dedicated spinout articles) - but waiting is generally not bad)- this isn't going away, and coverage is widening.Icewhiz (talk) 08:36, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That's good, since many of the above sources – BuzzFeed, Fox News, the New York Post, the Washington Times, etc. have a minimal, if any, reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Not sure about Teen Vogue(!). What would help is some proof that any of these outlets attempted to verify the truth of the allegations, instead of just reporting that The Daily Caller published a story containing unverified allegations against an activist who has been a regular target of right-wing smears, written by an author with a history of plagiarism. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:56, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Fox News is a reliable source - per multiple discussions in RSN. It is definitely reliable enough for an attributed saying from Fathelbab. While I used to share your views on buzzfeed (and Teen Vogue), you're out of date - see RSN BuzzFeed and Amazon.com and Usage of "serious" articles from Buzzfeed, Teen Vogue, and Cosmopolitan - it is definitely reliable enough for an attributed (and very in-depth) denial by Sarsour. New York Post and Washington Times are reliable - though 2nd-3rd tier. We have Newsweek and International Business Times reporting on this - on their own byline - which is enough both to establish that this is an important piece of information and that Fathelbab actually said was she said (what I wouldn't use - is the DC's reporting on what additional anonymous colleagues said - and this was not repeated by RS (unless qualified by according to the DC)). The facts (such as they are - that Fathelbab alleged, Sarsour denied - what actually transpired is a she said she said affair, as always in #metoo) - are reliably sourced. From the extent of the reporting we can tell this is an important piece if information which is DUE. However, we will probably see more information and coverage come out if we just WAIT - which is fine in any event.Icewhiz (talk) 11:07, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Regarding What would help is some proof that any of these outlets attempted to verify the truth of the allegations, instead of just reporting that The Daily Caller published a story containing unverified allegations against an activist who has been a regular target of right-wing smears, written by an author with a history of plagiarism (which seems awfully similar to some of the tweets on Sarsour's feed) - attacking the DC's reporter for his past copy pasting in Buzzfeed (but not fabrication) - is besides the point. No one is suggesting here to rely on the DC's reporting, and Fathelbab's claims were already verified (as claims by her) on the 18th by RSes who ran the story - and further corroborated by Fox's interview and reporting on her on the 20th (which is completely independent of the DC's initial report). Sarsour herself, in any event, corroborated most of the story (that Fathelbab was employeed, that there was a complaint, and that Sarsour rejected the complaint) - leaving us with a classical "she she said". WP:V is not an issue, and WP:BALASP is met due to the breadth of the coverage of this.Icewhiz (talk) 11:13, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone's disputing that Fathelbab made the allegations. But saying that they have therefore been verified and corroborated is frankly laughable. The breadth of the coverage is so far limited to very marginal sources and/or routine news coverage (of the Daily Caller piece). The fact that all we have is she [said]/she said is exactly the point – it's salacious gossip that doesn't belong in an encyclopedic biography unless and until reliable sources tie it into a larger trend. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:01, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Siraj Hashmi perhaps puts it better than me - BuzzFeed attempts to wave off Linda Sarsour accusations, but, if anything, it only raises more questions, Washington Examiner - however Sarsour corroborated quite a bit - namely that Fathelbab worked there in 2009, made a complaint, and that Sarsour rejected said complaint. The point of contention being the contents of that complaint (did it include groping), the merits of the complaint, and Sarsour's tone of response. Bringing up the Daily Caller (or its reporter) is irrelevant to the matter - as it has been picked up by others, including fully independent coverage on Fox - Accuser: Linda Sarsour said sexual harassment 'doesn't happen to someone that looks like you', Fox News.Icewhiz (talk) 16:08, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I question the attention payed to the contents of my edit by yourself seeing that you rolled it back 1 minute after it was made. Seeing as you haven't participated in the recent disscussion, which asserts that Fox is an acceptable source. My edit made it clear that the veracity of the allegations is still disputed - but their absceence would be a case of WP:BIAS in and of itself. Bellezzasolo (talk) 20:26, 21 December 2017 (UTC)


 * User:Bellezzasolo, firstly, you don't have 500 edits, you shouldn't be editing this article (you are welcome to making constructive suggestions on talk.) And I have certainly participated on talk, see above you.

firstly, you haven't contributed to the talk today until just now. Secondly, the 500 edit rule would only apply wrt an extended confirmed protected article. As has been mentioned, Wiesel cannot respond to the allegations. Sarsour has corroberated that allegations were made, but disputes the exact nature. That's completely different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bellezzasolo (talk • contribs) 20:45, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Allso, lets see, in the Elie Wiesel case we have one named Jewish women making sexual assault allegations against a Non BLP subject. These allegations have been widely reported by multiple RS, (just google Jenny Listman), who corroborated the actual facts (both were at the same photo opportunity). The representatives for EW denies it.
 * In the Linda Sarsour case we have a named Muslim woman, making allegations about a cover up by LS. Reported by multiple RS, and denied by LS.
 * I say, that there is absolutely no way that the Fathelbab allegations have a place in this article, (a WP:BLP article) without also making room for the Listman allegations having place in the EW article (which is not a WP:BLP article). Make your choice. Huldra (talk) 20:34, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Bellezzasolo, First, please learn to sign your statements, Secondly, Ive added a Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement template on the top to make it crystal clear. Thirdly, I participated here, on this talk page yesterday. (No, none of us are expected to be on WP 24/7). Fourth, other people have corroborated that Listman and Wiesel were together at the same event, but disputes what happened. That is completely the same. Huldra (talk) 20:54, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * This situation with Wiesel is different. He is dead, the event is 28 years ago, the sole detail confirmed is that he and the woman were at the event, and the accusation itself (tushy pinch) is quite minor and insignificant. With Sarsour we have actual confirmation she rejected a sexual harrasement complaint.Icewhiz (talk) 21:05, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * This article is a WP:BLP, (unlike Wiesel), therefor the proof  needs to be much stronger for it to be included. (Icewhiz, you know this!). Also, we do NOT have "a confirmation she rejected a sexual harrasement complaint". According to Sarsour, Fathelbab had only said that she "felt uncomfortable" around a certain man. This is a she said/she said situation. (In the Wiesel case, we had Listman confiding in her then boyfriend just after it happened, and he corroborated her on that.) Huldra (talk) 21:24, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * For the record, WP:BLP also applies to "recently deceased" subjects, and so should apply to Elie Wiesel as well. The situations do appear quite similar. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:39, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, WP:BDP say that it applies "particularly to contentious or questionable material about the dead that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or a particularly gruesome crime," ...which I don't think apply here. But otherwise, I quite agree, both women say they suffered greatly after the alleged assault/harassment, one suffering from depression, the other not getting any more work. Though I don't deny their problems, I'm not convinced about the cause. In either case. Which is why I was against including those allegations into the Wiesel  article, and I'm agains putting it into this article. Huldra (talk) 20:42, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Just a moment. What are the criteria for invoking the arbitration sanctions noted at the top of this page? While the scope is broadly interpreted, I think applying it to this subject may be too broad. Coretheapple (talk) 21:08, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I do not see how most of this article (with the exception of hher views on Israel) are ARBPIA. Alleged sexual harrasement between Muslims inside AAANY would place the ball not only out of the ballpark but on the moon.Icewhiz (talk) 21:19, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * When anyone want to add https://www.frontpagemag.com... (as Bellezzasolo did), you can be pretty sure arbitration sanctions apply... Huldra (talk) 21:24, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

apologies, but an ancient iPad running iOS 9 is awful for editing. It's been a herculean task to even reply. I wasn't questioning not being active 24/7, rather the revert within a minute of my edit. Either you'd follwed the debate, but hadn't replied, or you reverted without checking the talk page. It just seemed awfully quick. --Bellezzasolo (talk) 21:12, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thats ok. And yeah, I "watch" this article, reverting something within a minute when you find unacceptable material in the IP area is not unusual, as you will learn if you stick around...Huldra (talk) 21:24, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

This accusation is not nearly ready to be included here. We need much better sourcing on this. She's alleging that Sarsour – out of mere personal vendetta – is behind a city-wide, years-long conspiracy to keep her from finding employment; that Sarsour somehow was responsible for both the president of the board of directors (of an organization of which Sarsour was merely the acting director) and the Americorps contact in Detroit turning against the accuser; and that the accuser has become "the most hated person within the Muslim community in all of NYC." And all of this, to protect a volunteer. I’m not saying that these things aren't true, but no RS has looked into them. I may be missing something (I'm pretty sure I've looked at every article linked on this page, but I may have missed one), but I only see two sources that even reached out to anyone beyond the accuser and Sarsour – the original DC piece and the Buzzfeed piece. Am I missing any? No one has spoken with Ahmed Jaber or the contact from Americorps that the accuser also complained to or anyone else from Americorps who should be able to corroborate what the accuser wrote in her review at the time, and no one has investigated her allegation that Sarsour has prevented the accuser from finding work for years. We definitely need to wait until some more reporting happens on this story. -- irn (talk) 23:32, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I think a useful guide to keep in mind is the "ten-year test", in other words, will anybody care about this information ten years from now, and will the time and effort currently being spent on it seem justified after such time has passed? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:25, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

With the reports from Fox and from Newsweek, plus all of the other media coverage, there is plenty of WP:RS to include, esp. in consideration of all of the #metoo allegations already included on WP. Of course, it is also fair to include that Sarsour has denied the allegations via Buzzfeed. To fail to include here is a clear case of disregard against yet another #MeToo victim, and probably a case of discrimination against Asmi Fathelbab. Or are we going to ignore Fathelbab's victimhood just because she is a minority? XavierItzm (talk) 01:52, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * How about we all WP:AGF and avoid insinuations of malice on the part of editors we happen to disagree with, you know, just for kicks. Also see WP:OTHERCONTENT and WP:RECENTISM. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:02, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course this should be included. RS is reporting it and not wanting negative information in "your" article is not reason enough to exclude worthy entries. Sir Joseph (talk) 00:09, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Most of the sources are of questionable reliability, and per WP:ONUS and WP:BLP, not everything that has a reliable source belongs in an encyclopedia biography. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 00:53, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * We have several RS and ONUS and BLP is more than met. Sir Joseph (talk) 01:03, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm glad that you're so certain. Many of the rest of us have our doubts on all counts. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 01:39, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * There are no insinuations at all. To exclude the Fathelbab harassment is to discriminate against a #MeToo victim, period.  XavierItzm (talk) 00:01, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not that simple. No RS has investigated these accusations. Or at least none have published the results of their investigations. As I commented above, these are some very serious allegations that need much better sourcing, especially for a BLP. -- irn (talk) 00:11, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Fox is a RS, as are several other outlets that reported on this. Buzzfeed, where Sarsour denied the merits (while admitting to the complaint itself) is a RS. I'll further note that Sarsour is not alleged to have committed a crime, merely alleged to have mishandled a workplace complaint about a co-worker. Likewise, the "blacklisting" claim by Fathelbab, is not a criminal offense. As Sarsour's conduct is not alleged to have been criminal, BLP issues are greatly diminished. Sarsour is in any event a WP:PUBLICFIGURE - and following the relevant policy "BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." would suggest including Fathelbab's claims and Sarsour's reaction to them.Icewhiz (talk) 08:33, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Reliability depends on context. And WP:PUBLICFIGURE goes on to say: "If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out". Sourcing for this controversy is still poor. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:39, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I also doubt whether Sarsour is a true public figure in the context of WP policy. It's debatable whether she has truly "thrust herself to the forefront" of any debate, or whether the media attention given to Sarsour's various positions is actually the result of something else – sexism combined with Islamophobia, say. For one thing, none of the other 2017 Women's March leaders have received this kind of media scrutiny. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:39, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Sourcing of what Asmi Fathelbab said is far from poor, and is further strengthened by Sarsour herself, on BuzzFeed. Sarsour herself is "pervasively involved in public affairs", and is definitely a public figure by any reasonable interpretation (as is readily seen by the on-going coverage of her by various media organizations - also prior to the Women's March in 2017, when she was "just" the AAANY director. The attention given to her by quite positive NYT, WaPo, Al-Jazeera, etc. in-depth coverage is far from sexist or Islamophobic (and seems to be focused on her public activities to counter alleged Islamophobia.).Icewhiz (talk) 09:44, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, as soon as someone can provide a citation to in-depth coverage from mainstream sources such as NYT or WaPo (or AP, BBC, Reuters, etc.) that mentions this (minor) controversy, then I would agree that it is well-sourced. But those are not the sources under discussion. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:16, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn't say that it hasn't been reported on by any RS. It hasn't been investigated by any RS. RSes are not doing the work of even attempting to verify these claims (or if they are, they're not publishing it), and there are a lot of very obvious steps that could be taken if they wanted to do so. For the allegation to be considered noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, RSes need to take it seriously enough to investigate it. Without that, our sourcing is simply insufficient. -- irn (talk) 14:29, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Those are good points. And as stated above, Sarsour is merely alleged to have mishandled a workplace complaint about a co-worker. This is material worthy of an encyclopedic biography? Not if WP:WEIGHT means anything. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:54, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Clearly RSes (and Sarsour who was quick to organize a BuzzFeed (which is a RS) counter-piece which actually did contain an investigation into the handling of the complaint beyond an outright denial) seem to think that is of great relevance. As for investigations - I'm not sure what sort of investigation you expect RSes to do here. A says A, B says B, and that's it - unless you come up with a C.Icewhiz (talk) 15:12, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * As I stated above, No one has spoken with Ahmed Jaber or the contact from Americorps that the accuser also complained to or anyone else from Americorps who should be able to corroborate what the accuser wrote in her review at the time, and no one has investigated her allegation that Sarsour has prevented the accuser from finding work for years. There are so many more people that could be spoken to. DC and Buzzfeed made a couple of phone calls, and that was it. That's not investigating. -- irn (talk) 15:24, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Sources in the news media may seem to think that is of great relevance. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not the news. There are different criteria for inclusion. I'm not sure what quick to organize a BuzzFeed ... counter-piece is supposed to mean, but what the interview with BuzzFeed actually says is that "Sarsour said her first instinct was to dismiss the report as a hit piece, but Trump Jr.’s role in amplifying the claims made her fearful for the personal safety of her and her family."


 * —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:35, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * for all we know, mainstream news sources may have investigated some of the Daily Caller's claims, and found nothing worth publishing, which of course would itself be significant. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:29, 23 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Additional coverage - Woman who accused Linda Sarsour of harassment cover-up being sued, FOX, 4 March 2018, Woman who accused Women’s March founder of harassment cover-up faces lawsuit, NY Post, 3 March 2018.Icewhiz (talk) 13:56, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Where? Certainly not in the two articles you linked to, which are about the man who is accused of harassment suing his accuser, not about Sarsour. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 16:23, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Sangdeboeuf should be disallowed from editing this article
An analysis of the numerous edit reversions on this article by Sangdeboeuf will lead the disinterested observer to question this editor's motives. Christian B Martin (talk) 11:27, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * If you have a case file it at WP:AE--Shrike (talk) 12:40, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Latest arrest
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/03/linda-sarsour-arrested-paul-ryan-office-180306103336945.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simpatico qa (talk • contribs) 20:38, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

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: 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 .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)

. 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,, 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. Fact checker _ at your service 00:32, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

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)


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

Conservatives and pro-Israel Democrats
Mention of criticism by 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 ? —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 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 [][] [] [][], 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)
 * 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 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 in saying that she supports the progressive movement. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:59, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

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 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)

BDS criticism
Saying that Sarsour's support for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions has been opposed by conservatives and ADL leaders is not. 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)


 * 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 and has said she wishes she could take away the vagina 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 '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)
 * 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)