Talk:Linda Sarsour/Archive 12

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 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  or  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 . Left-wing criticism of Linda Sarsour is ubiquitous [][] [] [][], 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, 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)
 * 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 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 []. 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 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 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 already mentions the criticism by the ADL director(s) regarding BDS. Therefore, 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)
 * The way the article is currently written, each episode in Sarsour's career that involved any controversy is presented separately. This is probably a result of material being added piecemeal whenever Sarsour made the news, giving us essentially a timeline of controversies as they happened. The problem is not so much that certain words are repeated as it is that the article's structure is not encyclopedic. I would much prefer a drastic rewrite that offers a coherent narrative of Sarsour's career, with criticism of her placed in context according to the most reliable sources. When I have a specific proposal I'll post it here. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:06, 23 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 – "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, 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 . 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, which isn't about the entire mainstream by the way, but specifically mainstream Jewish opposition, 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) (edited 23:16, 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)
 * Once again, what are these "several" sources? I ask even though I've seen this same vague claim made enough times with nothing to back it up that I'm guessing that in fact there aren't "several", they don't "cover" anything of the kind, or they aren't reliable sources at all. But I'm willing to be surprised. However, none of this is germane to the actual topic, which is the Greenblatt quote where he goes off on a tangent about "demonizing" Israelis, which could be about Sarsour, BDS, or something else – we simply don't know, because there's no secondary-source analysis to go by. In any case, a biography is not a peg on which to hang any old newsworthy comments about something half-related to the subject. And BLP policy specifically cautions against claims that rely on guilt by association. The quote should go and be replaced by reliable sources that comment on this mainstream opposition, if such sources exist. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:00, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
 * They have already been presented to you, earlier in this thread. In addition to of course the Anti-Defamation League, there has been opposition to her from progressive organizations like Zioness, from some Muslims apparently, from some LGBT voices, many Jewish voices, et cetera. And a liberal feminist []. They are not all "conservatives". Your claims that combining these on a talkpage are WP:SYNTH are explicitly against how SYNTH is supposed to be used. No one is saying we should put all these sources into the article -- however they do bear weight on the discussion over whether the labeling of her critics as "conservatives" seven times is something even in the same universe as policy. Until you make a serious effort to engage with the issue of how the page repeats how her critics are "conservative" seven times and quit hiding between (mis)interpretations of policy, there is going to be a problem.--Calthinus (talk) 01:11, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm splitting off further replies into a separate section below to try to keep this thread on topic. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:13, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the part where Greenblatt states that "feminism and Zionism...are entirely compatible and complementary" in riposte to Sarsour, I'm not aware that Greenblatt is known for being any great feminist or expert on feminism. The article already quotes JTA in that Sarsour "drew fire from Jewish leaders" for those remarks, so what does Greenblatt's statement add here? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:04, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The ADL at least is a renowned anti-bigotry organization. On the other hand, we have a slightly longer quote by Deepti Hajela, who is not a known expert on Islamism, on how allegedly some Islamists (none of which are named) dislike Sarsour for being a "self-aggradising house Arab" -- to most eyes that would look placed there to expand the mockery of the right wing targeting of Sarsour which as elaborated, is already quite long.--Calthinus (talk) 12:02, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Please do not conflate facts with opinions. "Some Islamists" is a statement of fact from a secondary source (whether it's accurate is a separate question). "Feminism and Zionism are compatible", on the other hand, is Greenblatt's opinion, and is still unduly weighted. Whether the ADL is "anti-bigotry" is not the issue. What do they have to do with feminism? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:08, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The ADL has much to do with Jewish feminists, who were being denied by Sarsour. As for Greenblatt's widely covered statements, one should note that Greenblatt himself has been a Democratic party operatives for many years, serving in the Clinton and Obama administrations. He himself is criticized for transforming the ADL into a Democratic party partisan outfit - so criticism from him (and the ADL) - is certainly not conservative criticism.Icewhiz (talk) 14:14, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The ADL has much to do with Jewish feminists – sources please? Greenblatt's widely covered statements – sources please? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:27, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Why, the ADL has been involved with Jewish feminists as far back (if not earlier) as the 40s and 50s, and spearheaded the effort to turn gender motivated crime into a hate crime - before "incel" was a thing. As for Grenblatt's comments, they've been covered widely, here is but a sample - .Icewhiz (talk) 15:01, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Please try to stay on topic; the links provided ("Linda Sarsour gets warm welcome at controversial panel on anti-Semitism", "ADL Tears Into Women’s March Leaders for Attending Louis Farrakhan Speech", etc.) have nothing to do with the quote we are discussing. Nor does your first source support ADL involvement with "Jewish feminists". It only says, in the course of a discussion of Betty Friedan and the media, that Friedan was influenced by an ADL campaign against anti-Semitism featuring Bess Myerson. So we're left with a one-off reference to the addition of gender-based crimes to the ADL's model hate-crime law in 1996. Nothing more about feminism or gender beyond this. I need scarcely say that feminism encompasses a broader range of concerns than hate crimes. All this is a pretty flimsy basis for including this particular quote (which was not in fact widely reported). In fact, in Hate and Bias Crime: A Reader, Beverly McPhail describes the 1996 ADL model statute as part of a "second wave of hate crimes policy making" some years after the country's first hate-crimes law, passed in 1978 in California, included gender-based crimes. She says that the ADL added the gender category when "gender was already a standard subject of state and federal discrimination law and, thus, became folded into hate crime policy by lawmakers rather than grassroots activists". That doesn't exactly sound like spearheading the effort to me. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:10, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The NEWSORG links all clearly discuss Greenblatt's comments on Sarsour. As for the ADL'S involvement in gender based crimes, the ADL deals with hate speech and crime, so it is not surprising its involvement with feminism is via this prism. I don't know if the ADL was involved in the 1978 California bill (did not check), however significant involvement and writings in regards to the so called "second wave" in the 90s clearly shows the ADL has been involved with feminism for a long time and that its writings on the matter are cited by others.Icewhiz (talk) 07:52, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Once again, we are not discussing "Greenblatt's comments on Sarsour" writ large; we are discussing whether secondary coverage exists for a specific quote he made in a Q&A with the St. Louis Jewish Light. Since the ADL has been significantly "involved with feminism" as you say for so long, it should be trivial to find reliable, published sources that say so. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:40, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Sources showing the ADL's involvement with advocacy for women's rights have been adequately presented by Icewhiz. Their opinion on Zionism is, of course, also relevant -- this is an organization of relevance to both movements, giving them a notable perspective. This debate is not constructive. --Calthinus (talk) 14:46, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Kindly point out where any published, reliable sources state that the ADL has been a force for "women's rights", "gender equality", or "feminism", because I haven't seen any. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:03, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Sources presented on a talk page for talk page cross-examination do not need to match WP:RS exactly (as long as they aren't, well, Pamela Geller / Ali Abunimah). Nevertheless, monitoring anti-women ideologies that lead to hate crimes like those of incel has long been a part of the ADL's mission, and they publish plenty on this, like here []. Did every one of their members take and pass FEM-383 Advanced Feminist Thought? Perhaps not. But can we get back to this page? --Calthinus (talk) 17:58, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless, monitoring anti-women ideologies...has long been a part of the ADL's mission – well, then it's strange that independent, published sources haven't said much about it or (returning to the topic, of course) about Greenblatt's feminism comments. Hence it's disproportionate to the overall coverage of Sarsour. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:32, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * What is more disproportionate as I see it is multiple paragraphs in different sections about how Sarsour is under attack from the diabolical forces of the right-wing, a three line quote about how Islamists (allegedly) also hate her that doesn't cite any actual Islamists saying this (but rather a journalist from New York city with no apparent Muslim background who has more background writing on Harry Potter than Islamism, writing for a small and apparently mostly irrelevant newspaper in Brooklyn), and a block quote about the phony "jihad" controversy. If the Islamist stuff is removed and the largely irrelevant controversies about misinterpretations of comments made by her taken way out of context trimmed down to one-paragraph, I would be fine with removing this.--Calthinus (talk) 18:58, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I sincerely suggest you go read Neutral point of view, because you seem to have utterly failed to grasp the concept of representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources. Your sarcasm about "the diabolical forces of the right-wing" suggests that you have a resentment toward certain facts as documented in reliable, independent publications. If so, you should seriously consider not editing such a contentious subject as this. Whether any of us think that the jihad controversy or any similar topic is "phony" is beside the point; we cover it because multiple reliable sources also cover it, and cover it in reasonable depth. By contrast, I haven't seen a single independent publication mentioning, even in passing, the Greenblatt quote about feminism and Zionism that you seem determined to shoehorn into the article. That is a complete reversal of the principle of due weight. Whether the article should focus so much on breaking news is, as I have said, a different issue. If you have a specific suggestion for changing that, I'm sure it would be welcomed. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:50, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * For the sake of all involved (including those who have not commented), let's cease this. Resentment -- no, actually I am simply concerned that there is not balanced coverage here. I have offered compromises at various points, but you haven't once taken me up on it. Anyhow, this conversation has not been worth its time for either of us. I will be back with a concrete proposal at some point for an RfC. --Calthinus (talk) 00:08, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Conservative & non-conservative criticism
I'm well aware by now that some users sincerely believe that the mainstream news outlets attributing criticism of Sarsour to "conservatives" do not represent The Truth™. But talk pages are not a forum to speculate about who among Sarsour's detractors is or is not "conservative", "liberal", "Muslim", "secular", etc. and What It All Means. What we need are reliable, published sources that directly support what we want to say.

One the one hand, we have a range of mainstream news sources including JTA #2, Time #1 and #2, Newsweek #1 and #2, AP, WaPo, Haaretz, and NYT, and other sources including Vox, BuzzFeed, Elle, and TheWrap explicitly talking about "conservative" or "right-wing" reactions to Sarsour in a variety of contexts, from spreading falsehoods after the 2017 Women's March to protesting Sarsour's speaking engagements.

The JTA source discussed previously mentions both conservative and centrist opposition, but specifically within the Jewish community.

On the other hand, we have Joe from Wikipedia (along with The Outline and The Washington Times) saying, what about all these other non-conservatives? At best, it's a due weight argument. But in questions of weight, the published views of the majority of reliable, mainstream sources generally win out.

As I said, I'm open to reducing overly repetitious uses of the word "conservative" in the article, but not to diluting the well-sourced view that opposition to Sarsour has repeatedly originated from the right, instead of being just free-floating, neutral "criticism". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:15, 22 July 2018 (UTC)


 * You said you're open to reducing unduly labeling, but are you? When you asked for a concrete proposal and it was given, you ignored it while you continued to hide behind policy misinterpretations.
 * For a person who was earlier critiqued "cherrypicking", it is pretty bizarre to see you picking out only The Outline (an activist newspaper mocking "liberals") and The Washington Times (obviously a right-wing innuendo). You chose to ignore the liberal feminist critique []. And the Muslim critique in Huffington Post []. Or secular Muslim critique of the "glorification" of Sarsour []. Or when the same David Schraub in Haaretz expresses his outrage at her and Mallory for "backing a bigot that serially attacks the 'Satanic Jews'", and saying that she cannot call herself a progressive []. Or the critique in Forward that Sarsour is a fake feminist []. You have been presented with all these sources, you choose to ignore them and reduce opposition to "Joe on Wikipedia, the Outline and the Washington Times" (of all things). That is dishonest.
 * Discussion of all of this is clearly to improve the page -- not violating WP:NOTAFORUM. It is not WP:SYNTH which doesn't apply to talk pages. It is based on sources and not arguing about the WP:TRUTH.
 * You need to quit misrepresenting the rules and the positions and sources of others, and actually engage. If you are actually open to fixing the problem, then act like it. Nobody is arguing we are going to include all of these-- I have made that very clear. What I am arguing is that you need to meaningfully compromise given proposals to enforce NPOV on an article that slams an unrepresentative label on her critics seven times. --Calthinus (talk) 16:23, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you need to read (or re-read) WP:NOR and learn the difference between primary and secondary sources. You can rattle off primary sources until the cows come home, but (to my knowledge) there's only one secondary source that describes the critics as something other than conservative. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 17:04, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Only one? Here's another. []. --Calthinus (talk) 17:19, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Please quote for me the specific portion of that article that says Sarsour has received criticism from groups other than conservatives. Be careful not to twist yourself into a knot of original research. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 17:47, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * No OR : . --Calthinus (talk) 21:53, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * If I understand you correctly, this article is wrong to describe Sarsour's critics as conservative (as dozens of reliable sources do) because one article identified a single group whose leader criticized Sarsour as progressive and Zionist. Have you read WP:PROPORTION and WP:FALSEBALANCE? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:43, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * No dozens - a handful - and in relation to other incidents.Icewhiz (talk) 03:28, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, we've been through this. It is true and sourced that she has been a target of right-wing media hysteria, but the way the page discussed this prior to intervention was to stress it excessively while pretending this is the only criticism she received. There are two whole paragraphs about how she is a target and defense of her. I wonder how, in a page where other items are considered not relevant to a BLP (her views on marriage, for one), absurd accusations of her supporting "jihad" or "sharia" (obviously false) are worth discussing at all. In all of this, the more widespread criticisms -- such as pertaining to her support of BDS and use of her position to demonize "Zionists"-- are attributed only to "conservatives" and "pro-Israel Democrats", despite the fact that we have three secondary sources discussing criticism coming from outside those two groups (Haaretz[] -- JTA [] -- JP []). Meanwhile, when I added sourced info demonstrating more nuance, statements by Greenblatt, head of the ADL -- obviously a relevant organization -- it is tagged for UNDUE (on a page where we have two paragraphs and a block quote about the "jihad" misunderstanding bs). We have an NPOV problem. I would like to see the jihad/sharia right-wing histrionic bs trimmed (one mention and then the one by Ali can stay), and the much more diverse criticism of her stance on BDS should be recognized in the article-- we do, after all, have sources.--Calthinus (talk) 14:05, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Compared to those three secondary sources (about which more below), I have listed nine reliable, secondary sources above (not counting the less-mainstream ones) that directly mention "conservative" or "right-wing" detractors. NPOV means that we give more weight the views of such sources. The fact that they happen to focus on the false attacks on Sarsour more than her personal life is the reason that the former are featured heavily in the article (apart from the undue focus on breaking news, but that's another issue). As for Debra Nussbaum Cohen's article in Haaretz, how does it actually portray criticism of Sarsour? Nussbaum Cohen says that "mainstream Jewish groups have long held her at arms’ length. But that is changing as mainstream players like Rabbi Sharon Brous...work with Sarsour on issues of shared concern...'She and I disagree vehemently on a lot of issues related to Israel-Palestine, and have engaged in a lot of really important and meaningful conversations about those disagreements,' Brous told Haaretz. 'I’ve grown a lot from engaging with her and listening to her'...Despite the sharp differences on Israel-Palestine issues, both Brous and NCJW’s Kaufman say that it is important to work in a coalition with others on issues of common concern...'There will be in the mix a number of different perspectives. I don’t feel at all uncomfortable about that,' said Brous." The clear implication here is not of mainstream "criticism", but of working together depite differences. In comparison, Nussbaum Cohen explicitly states that "politically conservative publications and figures began publicly attacking [Sarsour]...First out was an article in online Front Page Mag...part of hard-right conservative David Horowitz’s 'Freedom Center School for Political Warfare,'...The attack on Sarsour is 'a deliberate smear campaign from the far right to delegitimize the march itself,' [Brous] said." This is another source that adds weight to the fact that opposition to Sarsour comes primarily from the right. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:55, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The Haaretz article clearly shows both mainstream issues with her and some working together with her-- one does not invalidate the other. Sure, the right has been more loud and furious (and ridiculous) in its assaults on her. But nothing here justifies failing to discuss at all issues and disagreements from others. Reference to right-wing histrionics can be done in a way that doesn't conflate other the concerns of non-right-wingers with theirs and/or erase them. So far I have not seen much willingness to do that.--Calthinus (talk) 19:18, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * (ec) One does not preclude the other - Cohen presents all sorts of critics. Sarsour, as an American Muslim in the far left, has faced criticism from the moderate left, center, right, and - yes (and to a large degree - many of these "twitter storms" involve counter-polarizing figures) - from the far-right. But should we be stressing the edges?Icewhiz (talk) 19:21, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The issue is not "disagreements" between Sarsour and others (a trivial issue at any rate), but criticism reported by reliable sources. As hard as it may be to believe in 2018, one can have disagreements – even vehement ones – with others without also attacking or criticizing them personally. The article already mentions "the concerns of non-right-wingers" (including ADL accusations of anti-Semitism). As for "criticism from the moderate left [and] center", the sources presented here do not justify giving it anything like equal weight to conservative criticism. Repeating the same thing over and over won't change anything. If editors are unhappy with the balance of viewpoints in the article, the answer is simple – provide published, mainstream sources that offer a different assessment. So far we have two, compared with at least nine for conservative/right-wing criticism. —21:32, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The paragraph "Her critics among American conservatives[9][22] and pro-Israel Democrats[20] have accused her of anti-Semitism for her stance on Middle Eastern politics, including her support for the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement. In Newsweek, Alexander Nazaryan called Sarsour "a favorite target of the right".[23] According to the Brooklyn Daily Eagle, "Detractors often focus in on Sarsour's frequent criticism of Israel's policies in the occupied territories [...] Ironically, Sarsour’s acknowledgment that Israel has a right to exist, her support of a Jewish man, Bernie Sanders, for president and her relationships with politicians like Mayor Bill de Blasio have earned her criticism by some Islamists as a self-aggrandizing 'house Arab'".[24] " is unacceptable. It characterizes opposition to her stance on BDS as conservatives and "pro-Israel Democrats" but, as demonstrated by RS, it rose opposition from the ADL, and from a progressive feminist group. Next we have unnecessarily Nazaryan from Newsweek further going on yet again (it has already been elaborated on plenty in earlier paragraphs) of how much a target she is of the right, how she feels unsafe, et cetera. The question is not what the truth is about "who criticizes her more" -- I don't care, and neither should you. The question is why are we portraying the criticism on her BDS stance and "feminism = not Zionism" as coming exclusively from the right (and "pro-Israel Democrats"), when we have sources showing it also comes from elsewhere? Regarding the ADL quote in the next paragraph, I currently regard that as insecurely included in the article, given the tags placed onto it.--Calthinus (talk) 21:49, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Kindly tone down the combative prose. It's not for any editor to declare what is and is not "acceptable". But I have made some edits to that paragraph that should address the above concerns (diff). As for the Greenblatt quote, it's WP:UNDUE and unduly implies vague guilt by association. ("Delegitimizing", "demonizing", "spreading anti-Semitism", etc.) —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:40, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, the text quoted above specifically mentions criticism by "some Islamists", so the notion that we portray criticism as "exclusively from the right" etc. is categorically untrue even from this one example. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:32, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Ehh, the "criticism by Islamists" is a non-Islamist charicaturing them (Islamism is staunchly right-wing within the domestic Muslim world context anyhow). The Greenblatt quote is relevant, but he said she was supporting something that spreads anti-Semitism, not that she was an anti-Semite. To avoid the "guilt by association", perhaps we could juxtapose that with the episode when he defended her right to speak at a uni in NY[]? As in "although he defended her right to speak at a university on another occasion" -- something like that? --Calthinus (talk) 23:55, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * As stated above, the (full) Greenblatt quote is taken from a primary source, is vague, and has not been mentioned in independent sources that I've seen. In its present form, no, I do not think it is relevant to an encyclopedic bio of Sarsour. The brief part quoted by JTA may be appropriate, however. As for juxtaposing different statements, please refer to WP:SYNTH: "If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources." Combining one primary source with another primary source doesn't solve the problem of relevance; it only compounds it. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:10, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually there are ways to get a compromise regardless -- juxtaposition is WP:NOTSYNTH. Nevertheless, if you're not interested, you're not interested. I don't see any problem of relevance-- given the standards of relevance applied elsewhere in the section, a quote by a man of the caliber of J Greenblatt is far above the bar. --Calthinus (talk) 12:07, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * We can avoid problems of relevance by avoiding primary sources such as the Jewish Light Q&A. I'd be fine with the abridged quote from JTA. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:12, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Critics of Sarsour vary by incident. The Jihad comment mainly riled conservatives. However in other instances, e.g. Zionism and femisim incompability or her appearance on the antisemitism panel, the critics were not labelled as conservative. Using a label applied to a specific instance and applying it elsewhere (e.g. a blanket stmt in the lead) is a misrepresentation and OR. Sarsour's critics vary by incident.Icewhiz (talk) 17:25, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Find reliable secondary sources that say so. So far, I've only seen two -- one cited in the article and one being discussed here -- as opposed to a dozen or more that describe her critics as conservatives. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 17:54, 22 July 2018 (UTC)


 * A point of interest -- detractors also include [Nervana Mahmoud], an Egyptian Muslim feminist with the BBC's 100 women award [] and the Samir Kassir award, who has some concerns that have [nothing to do with Israel]. Not saying I necessarily agree, but it is another viewpoint that has been expressed, and not saying this necessarily should be included into the page at the moment, but nevertheless a point of interest.--Calthinus (talk) 12:18, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Zioness movement
The Zioness movement, a.k.a. the whose leader criticized Sarsour, has some pretty dubious "social justice" credentials, according to several sources.

Haaretz says the group is "part of an effort by Brooke Goldstein, of the Lawfare Project, a pro-Israeli legal think tank" and that marchers at a previous protest "challenged the 'Zioness' group, claiming they were only there to create a provocation". According to The Jerusalem Post, the journalist Ali Abunimah called it an astroturfing campaign after the model whose picture they used in some promotional material disavowed any relationship with them. And The Forward says, "They were not a welcome sight to the longtime social justice leaders in the crowd — especially the Jewish ones...'It was very clear to me that they were looking for a provocation,' said Rabbi Jill Jacobs...Zioness appeared seemingly out of nowhere in mid-August...[leader and spokesperson Amanda Berman] acknowledged she had not been active with any progressive advocacy groups".

I don't think we can include this group with any "progressive" critics of Sarsour based only on a couple of sound bites quoted in one source. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:14, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Will have to think on this one. However I'm not sure we can rely on commentary by Ali Abunimah of all people here. He is known to make colorful statements, which have included trying to tie Abraham Foxman to far-right white supremacist mass murderer Anders Breivik. --Calthinus (talk) 15:34, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * the JPost piece you are citing is stating in its own voice in the lede - "The progressive group caused an uproar this week...". You are citing Ali Abunimah's opinion - who typically would not be described as "just" a journalist - but rather as the founder of Electronic Intifada and Palestinian activist promoting a one-state solution (per Jpost The Electronic Intifada is an anti-Zionist website dedicated to promoting Palestinian rights and the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement.- diametrically opposed to anything Zionist. So - all you've basically presented is a Palestinian BDS attack on a feminist Zionist organization.Icewhiz (talk) 15:38, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Nonetheless, Dope Saint Jude, the model whose image they used, whose cross earrings were replaced with the Star of David in the PR image, did disavow the group on Twitter. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:47, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * "All" I've presented? You're ignoring the other Jewish marchers mentioned in Haaretz, and other Jewish activists including Rabbi Jacobs. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:57, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Won't be the first group to misuse stock photography - you pick a model by the visuals, typically.Icewhiz (talk) 16:00, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Still unsure if I want this here but let me note that this has not been representative, apparently. The protestors (including, yes, Jewish ones) said they found them "disruptive" but this might not have been referring to their behavior -- the justifications these individuals gave in the article were that they felt it would make Palestinians "feel unsafe", and the totally unsupported accusation that they were "a white supremacist group". You can hear what Zioness says about itself, and about their feelings about the current political situation in America here -- clearly not a white supremacist group : []. --Calthinus (talk) 00:26, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Can we end this interminable discussion already?
I have a suggestion: explicitly write down what phrasing should be used (make two or more proposals if you like), with proper sources. And open an RfC for choosing between them. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 00:04, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I should take a break from this article. I'll come back with a concrete proposal at some point. Not sure at this point what the best way forward is. Ultimately I'd like to see less space given to controversies she has encountered at various recent points in her life -- a lot of these are noise and not so significant really (the "jihad" comment in particular). I'll think of something that hopefully at least some people can support. Then we can have an RfC about it. --Calthinus (talk) 00:31, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Add Birth Date
Please add the birth date of this wonderful women, 19 March. https://www.womeninpeace.org/march/2017/4/21/march-19 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Botchworshipper (talk • contribs) 13:26, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that womeninpeace.org qualifies as a reliable source. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:24, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Contentless words in lede (and elsewhere)
Sangdeboeuf, while reverting my minor edit you seem to have missed the point of the edit. I am not disputing that these things are the source of her notability or that it is reliably sourced. It is simply that the lede is supposed to establish notability so this doesn't need to be mentioned here. We should just state the facts about the things that make her notable. Things that aren't notable are just not included in the lede. This makes the text much easier to read as it focuses on the facts and spends less time on nebulous ideas about fame. The lede has a number of these contentless words which reduce the clarity. For example, the article on Albert Einstein doesn't say 'he gained attention for his theory of relativity', it just says that he developed the theory of relativity. Explanations of exact causes of fame are better explained in a section the main article (if at all). Ashmoo (talk) 13:52, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You didn't edit the lead, but the section on the Arab American Association of New York portion of Sarsour's bio . Anyway, I've changed the wording in the lead section itself to How's that? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:14, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

11 August 2018
Just a question. Will there be any information on the information connecting her to Siraj Ibn Wahhaj? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.61.23.0  (talk) 03:43, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It seems RSes have been making the connection to the father for a while - - in her 2017 speech at the ISNA conference she noted Imam Wahhaj was an inspiration.Icewhiz (talk) 11:55, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Amy source that cites Breitbart is not credible. Opinion pieces are not reliable sources. -Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:36, 17 August 2018 (UTC)