Talk:Linda Sarsour/Archive 13

Arrest in front of Paul Ryan's office (should be added to page)
In front of Paul Ryan's office: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/03/linda-sarsour-arrested-paul-ryan-office-180306103336945.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simpatico qa (talk • contribs) 16:58, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikpedia is not a news site. What does this add to the article besides more trivia? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:15, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Arrest in front of Paul Ryan's office is not trivial.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simpatico qa (talk • contribs) 19:55, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Please provide a published, reliable source that says so, or that explains the significance of this incident. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a police blotter – simply listing all the times a prominent activist gets arrested for an act of civil disobedience doesn't add to readers' understanding of the subject. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:28, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Getting arrested for civil disobedience crosses the line of 'law-abiding' activism. I find it noteworthy that she resorts to it.Simpatico qa (talk) 22:46, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * And you may be correct; the problem is that we base articles on what published sources choose to remark on, not what we personally believe is important. This arrest happened in March, so if no reliable, independent sources have made more than a passing mention of it by now, then it's trivial. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:58, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Al Jazeera and the Daily Caller running headlines about it doesn't count as "reliable..."? Simpatico qa (talk) 23:10, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Personally I think it would be an OK thing to add if you can weave it into some broader narrative about her activism. What would not be useful is just adding "On March 6, 2018, Sarsour was arrested for protesting in front of Paul Ryan's office." to the end of the Political activism career section. Kaldari (talk) 23:45, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Al Jazeera and the Daily Caller running headlines about it doesn't count as "reliable..."? Simpatico qa (talk) 23:10, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Personally I think it would be an OK thing to add if you can weave it into some broader narrative about her activism. What would not be useful is just adding "On March 6, 2018, Sarsour was arrested for protesting in front of Paul Ryan's office." to the end of the Political activism career section. Kaldari (talk) 23:45, 31 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Can you weave it in, as I don't have the privilege since the page is protected? It could go at the bottom of the "Women's March and later activism" (remove 2017 from it) and could say something like: Charged with civil disobedience [link to Wikipedia page], in 2018 she got arrested in front of the Republican's party speaker office [source].


 * This would be the first explicit reference to civil disobedience in the page. Feel free to weave it in otherwise. – Simpatico qa (talk) 07:44, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

2019 Women's March
The Women's March is Sarsour's signature event. It was the 2017 Women's March that catapulted her into the national spotlight, and she is chairing the January 2019 March. It therefore seems pertinent that Alyssa Milano, who spoke at  the 2018 Women's March, had publicly stated that she will not speak this year because of Sarsour's failure to condemn the homophobia, antisemitism, and transphobia of Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan. meterial was removed.
 * Wikpedia is not a news source. The 2019 Women's March article already mentions this . When independent, reliable sources contextualize this in terms of Sarsour's own life and career, then it may be appropriate to include. You're also omitting Sarsour's rebuttal to Mallory's critics and the fact that, according to The Independent, Sarsour did denounce Farrakhan in 2017, and that other activists have come to Sarsour's defense since Milano's statement. Giving these facts their due weight in this context would require mentioning them as well. However, the whole affair is too recent and hasn't made it past a single news cycle yet. I suggest patience here. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:01, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, the story ran in The Advocate on 30 October. It got picked up by national and international outlets on November 7.  Today, Nov. 9, it's gone mildly viral.  E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:09, 9 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Here is the story that broke this story; Why #MeToo Activist Alyssa Milano Will Not Speak at Next Women's March, it ran in the The Advocate (LGBT magazine). Frankly, there is so much coverage of this  that omitting looks partisan.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:04, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * We're not omitting it. the information to the 2019 Women's March article. That's where it is the most relevant, in my opinion. We don't need and shouldn't have multiple articles documenting the same breaking news. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:38, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * That seems like a valid WP:SPINOFF article, as she is the chairwoman of the March. I don't think it's more relevant there, as 2018 Women's March doesn't mention any speakers (it focuses on the general participation). OTOH, I agree that defending Mallory is less important for this article (or the other) than including Mallory's controversies on her article. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) w umbolo   ^^^  13:10, 9 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Note this is evolving. We now have the SPD associated Friedrich Ebert Foundation nixing an award due to "Linda Sarsour, a member of the board and former president of Women's March USA, is notorious for her propagation of antisemitism towards Israel" and Sarsour "also spreads antisemitic conspiracy theories that resemble the classic antisemitic trope of blood libel. In September 2018, for instance, she claimed that when US police officers shoot unarmed black people, Jewish persons responsible would lurk in the background." per English, more coverage in German - . Icewhiz (talk) 14:54, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I think this is relevant and should be added to this article. Coretheapple (talk) 17:30, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I think we need far better sources for what she allegedly said than a batch of graduate students. Is there another source which can corroborate the claim about her saying "Jewish people lurk where unarmed people get shot"? Because that seems pretty bizarre. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:44, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * So, I appear to have found the "source" for that "claim," and it is a gross misrepresentation of what she said. Sarsour criticized a program which took US police officials to Israel, because, she sargues, having American police trained by Israeli police and military would lead to more stop-and-frisk and shootings of unarmed people. One might agree or disagree with that point of view, but it's absolutely not the same as saying when US police officers shoot unarmed black people, Jewish persons responsible would lurk in the background. That is not remotely a fair representation of her words or meaning. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:52, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * So an award by a German NGO (which has not been mentioned in Sarsour's bio) has now been rescinded. Nothing there about Milano or the 2019 march. How is this relevant exactly? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:51, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Fallout from association/stmts with Farrakhan and other issues vis-a-vis Jews. All these repudiations are clearly related.Icewhiz (talk) 19:16, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * We're under no obligation to include gross misrepresentations of Sarsour's positions and statements; in fact, that's clearly prohibited by BLP policy which directs us to consider fundamental fairness and sensitivity to our article subjects. The bit about "blood libel" and "Jewish people lurk..." is right out because she never said it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:19, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Better sources exist, e.g. . Israel and the ADL are somehow reponsible. Regardless - what is really notable is the nixing of the award by the left wing APD - not each and every stmt that caused them to do so.Icewhiz (talk) 19:30, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Read to the bottom: "The opinions presented by Algemeiner bloggers are solely theirs and do not represent those of The Algemeiner, its publishers or editors." Steven Emerson's Investigative Project on Terrorism responsible for those two links is a highly questionable self-published source. Nor are The Algemeiner or Jewish Voice particularly mainstream publications. We're writing an encyclopedic bio here, not Dr. Weird's Tales of the Unusual. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:53, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Content of the tweet
I think it is undue to state the exact content of a tweet, which can be concisely explained in prose. This is really WP:Recentism and WP:NOTNEWS. If the tweet is kept, we can only anticipate when it will become a WP:Coatrack for similar full quotes. In order to introduce the two subjects of the tweet, there has to be several sentences of context more than what would be necessary than if we only discussed the "idea" behind it. This is too incomplete at the moment, and if it were complete, it would be wholly undue. Looking at other very similar articles, Kevin D. Williamson does not quote any tweet in full, and Roseanne Barr had an RfC, but I think that her tweet was too cryptic to properly describe without quoting it (and her situation was much more significant and high-profile). The "optics" of showing a shocking tweet can be achieved neutrally, by citing its critics. Furthermore, if someone wants to read the tweet in full, it's right there in the sources. w umbolo  ^^^  22:05, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * This is not recentism - she has beeh criticized for this tweet for many years. Your edit was not a summary - sue did not compare Gabriel to Ali. She did tweet about "taking away their vaginas" - with one of the two being a FGM survivor and outspoken critic of FGM.Icewhiz (talk) 22:09, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The tweet itself (from 2011, later deleted) could be said to be "many years" old, but it's not even two years since Sarsour rose to prominence as one of the 2017 Women's March organizers and began to attract serious media attention. Wikipedia's standard for recentism is the ten-year test, not the two-month test or the two-year test. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:52, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * In this case the content of the tweet was a lot of what the controversy was about. Removing it is misleading.--Calthinus (talk) 17:32, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Removal of material on "jihad" comments
I endorse Drmies' removal of undue-weighted material; three paragraphs on a 5-minute news story are clearly too many. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:00, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that the 3,167 byte section to her use of "jihad" was excessive, however this does merit a mention in the article - e.g. a two sentence mention (as opposed to the three paragraphs that were cut). Icewhiz (talk) 08:23, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I disagree. In fact, I support a drastic rewrite to eliminate most of the as-it-happens "controversy" stuff as well as the focus on breaking-news reports. Wikipedia is not a news aggregator, but you wouldn't know it from reading this article. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:50, 9 November 2018 (UTC)


 * This was a formal speech she gave to a major national organization. The speech was covered by the media.  I think adding it to the page is appropriate, in brief form.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:13, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Activists give speeches; that's their job. Media sometimes cover those speeches; that's the media's job. That doesn't automatically make an event encyclopedically relevant, especially when the coverage is brief. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:46, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, I've re-added a brief mention of this to the part about various accusations of wanting to impose Sharia and so forth, mainly because it was described in Time magazine and the SPLC's Hatewatch blog as an example of partisan critics taking her remarks out of context. Feel free to make any necessary adjustments, but I think that the weight given to this issue should not exceed a sentence given the sourcing available. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:05, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

"Islamists'" views on Sarsour
the quote in question pertains to allegations that Islamists view Sarsour as a "house Arab". I have indeed searched to see if this is true. Well some leftists call her that []. Do Islamists? Is Deepti Hajela an expert on Islamist discourse? Regarding the "randomness" of other quotes, I will have to respectfully disagree with the insinuation that the ADL, ZOA, Ali etc are "random".--Calthinus (talk) 19:34, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The ADL's pretty mainstream. The ZOA? They're well noted for fringe ties to conspiracy theorists, alt-right celebrities and racial slurs. If you're gonna cite ZOA as mainstream, you can hardly then dismiss the local paper for the place where Sarsour grew up and lives. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:41, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * When did I say ZOA was mainstream? I don't support it by the way. Anyhow-- deal with the topic at hand. Is or is not Deepti Hajela in Brooklyn qualified to speak about what Islamists think of Sarsour? (How many Islamists are there in Brooklyn? Is there a notable Islamist movement in Brooklyn? Is she an expert on them elsewhere? I don't think so...) --Calthinus (talk) 19:44, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Deepti Hajela is a reporter for the widely-respected Associated Press; you're going to need something more than baseless, unsupported speculation here. Do you have evidence that she isn't qualified to report on the things she's reported on? What entitles you to suggest that you know more than her editorial staff at the Daily Eagle and the Associated Press? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:48, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Another strawman. Surely if we are going to pigeonhole Islamists we should have a source that is about... actual Islamists? Plenty of things are said in passing in good articles that should not be taken out of context and placed on pages like was done here.--Calthinus (talk) 19:52, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Please explain how you believe the quote is taken out of context. And no, it's not a "strawman" - you have charged that Hajela is not qualified to report on these issues, yet you have refused to provide evidence in support of your claim. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:54, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The context is a local newspaper article that is not going to be viewed as an authority on Islamist thought. Wikipedia is moreso. Is it acting as such here? Of course the views of actual Islamists on Sarsour, both positive and negative, could be interesting. But is "House Arab", with its allusion to slavery (cf "house negro" - an American cultural reference - alas Islamists who are mostly right-wing don't usually focus much on slavery lest some embarassments might surface, nor is it averse to the idea of women spending most of their energies in the house...), really a term of abuse in actual Islamist discourse? Most scholarship on it would instead connect it to left-wing Muslim activism in the West, not Islamists (see here: []). --Calthinus (talk) 20:05, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

For the record, the "house Arab" quote from the Brooklyn Eagle piece (with "Additional reporting by Mary Frost") is not found in the original AP version of the article credited solely to Hajela. So I don't think the phrase can be attributed to her. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:53, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Good catch. So then it is Mary Frost(another local journalist[]). Leading us to the same sketchy scenario as before. Again, why are we presenting this authoritatively as representing Islamists?--Calthinus (talk) 22:07, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The stmt is also factually incorrect - at least mainstream islamists (in the mainstream sense of political Islam as opposed to the "radical islamist" fringe) embrace her - e.g. CAIR and ISNA - she regularly appears as a speaker in their events. Maybe extreme elements reject her - but that is not clear from that quote.Icewhiz (talk) 04:51, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Not sure I would call all of CAIR or ISNA Islamists on the mainspace, since the word can have very different connotations to different people. I suspect their Islamist/non-Islamist complexions are mixed in both cases, reports seem to go either way, with CAIR having ties to both teh Muslim Brotherhood and more left-leaning groups. ISNA in particular is interesting though, if we are to hold Schwartz' view that they are essentially a pro-Saudi group, their view on Sarsour could be … interesting. Nevertheless their views, and the views of groups that are uncontroversially known as Islamists (Ikhwan etc) could be interesting to include, if RS emerge. --Calthinus (talk) 17:59, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I was careful to say Islamist in the non-radical sense - political islam sense. Both have some connection/inspiration with the MB. Islamist has come, often, in popular discourse been hijacked to mean radical islamist (or jihadist) - but the technical meaning is different. Regardless of the exact term - she is quite accepted (keynote speaker) in some mainstream Islamic religious groups (which ISNA claims to be) in North America.Icewhiz (talk) 18:18, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Mary Frost's version of the article is a RS on news-like things, but the generalization in question seems to fall under WP:EXCEPTIONAL. "House Arab" is a distinctly English -- indeed American -- pun and there doesn't seem be any trace of it on the internet being applied to Sarsour aside from the blog post by Jonathan Azaziah, who's not an Islamist in any sense of the term. Eperoton (talk) 04:38, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * @Icewhiz: No worries, I knew what you meant, I just wanted to make sure everyone else did lest we risk another derailment. I had some sources months back on both praise and criticism from Muslim voices (mostly non-Islamist actually, but Muslim) -- perhaps some could find its way into this article which curiously has a fair number of Wasps talking about what "Islamists" think and little actual Muslim commentary.
 * @Eperoton: Thank you, this is exactly my point. The "house Arab" term is not one actual Islamists are known to use, making Frost's commentary here ... unnecessary at best.--Calthinus (talk) 05:47, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

What Islamists, Muslim feminists, Ex-Muslims etc are actually saying
I lost my old stash but  perhaps these may be of interest. Here is Sarah Haider, a prominent ex-Muslim who still advocates for those of Muslim background facing racism, while also advocating for atheists of Muslim backgrounds []. Here is a feminist writer, scroll to the bottom to find Nervana Mahmoud's commentary (this is who she is [], she's been featured by WaPo, the Economist and the Daily Beast) -- she is an Egyptian Muslim feminist - [] -- there is also many other left-wing Muslim reformist viewpoints here that may be of use elsewhere, including the prominent Mona Eltahawy. I have lost track of my ref for the Muslim Brotherhood's commentary on her-- working on finding it. For now, I'll leave you with this tweet from 2011, which I unearthed by accident... []. Not suggesting adding this to the mainspace but .... yeah let's say I'll try to convince myself that was tongue in cheek :). --Calthinus (talk) 18:09, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * If this isn't a suggestion for improving the article, then what is it? See WP:NOTFORUM. We've been over this issue before – Talk:Linda Sarsour/Archive 12. Several cherry-picked opinion pieces don't outweigh what reliable, independent sources say on the topic of Sarsour's reception by other activists and pundits. Also, I see several editors that have commented in this thread besides the ones you pinged. Any particular reason they wouldn't also be interested? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:29, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Not canvassing if they're already on the thread. And yes, cherrypicking -- more in the colloquial than Wikipedian sense-- is a severe problem on this page. Hence why we have Smith's uncorroborated allegation of Islamists calling her a smear they don't use, and a page that, as reiterated many times before, grabs all the news articles people can find that happen to call her critics "conservatives" (plus "Jewish groups" and "pro-Israel Democrats"), and jams them together what, seven times or so last I counted, giving the impression that's all her critics are, while for various arcane reasons critique from other angles is excluded. For example, "her critics among conservatives and pro-Israel Democrats accuse her of anti-Semitism for her stance on Middle Eastern politics" -- there are plenty here that are not either of those, now including Lipstadt. Not going to speculate on motives, this has the same effect as cherrypicking. On the other hand, I do believe Muslim feminist views, such as those of Mahmoud or Haider (well, ex-Muslim for the latter) are of interest to readers and would be appreciated, and bring more diversity to the page-- this is a concrete proposal for inclusion. --Calthinus (talk) 22:13, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The ABC.au article looks good and is fairly easy to find. It isn't uncommon to search for or  if an editor wants to expand the 'Personal life' section. So I wouldn't really call it a "cherry-picked" source. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 22:32, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Why not then? Why would we focus on the hijab issue? Especially considering  and ? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:56, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Not sure I understand your questions. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 23:13, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Why are we assuming that is the most relevant search string for finding sources to use in the article? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:17, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Wearing/taking off the hijab is as significant a choice in a Muslim woman's life as going vegan is for Hollywood celebrities. 'Personal life' sections are designed for such trivia. But what does that have to do with this discussion? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 23:26, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * "Views on religion and public life"? --Calthinus (talk) 01:33, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * That would more convenient, yes. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 11:06, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * We're not writing a treatise on the generic "Muslim woman"; we're writing a bio of one Linda Sarsour. To state anything about the personal significance of Sarsour's wearing the hijab requires a published, reliable source that comments on it directly. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:22, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * My intention was simply to demonstrate that the source wasn't cherry-picked. You're making this about something else. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 11:06, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It may have been and it may not have been – the fact that it is possible to come across the source when doing a more general search doesn't imply that it can't also be deliberately chosen to reinforce a given POV. My point is that if we're trying to expand the "Personal life" section in general, then a narrowly targeted search query like  produces an a priori slanting of the results toward one particular aspect of Sarsour's personal life that is out of proportion to its treatment in mainstream sources. Therefore it represents a departure from WP:NPOV. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:49, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Not sure you managed to turn this from a discussion about article content into one that centers around the possible motives behind a Google search. I'm no mind reader, and neither are you. And not that I really care, but if this article were to nominated for GA some day (doubtful, considering how potentially unstable it is), the hijab might have to be mentioned at some point. I'm done here. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 13:53, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * NPOV doesn't care about motives; actions taken in good faith can still yield biased results. Still, I'm baffled why an explanation of Sarsour's attire would be considered prima facie as necessary to a good biography. That's like saying if Shmuley Boteach were to be nominated for GA status, "the kippah might have to be mentioned". No it wouldn't, not unless published, reliable sources put special emphasis on it. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:33, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Once again, we've been over this already. Primary sources don't outweigh independent news media with actual editorial oversight. Blame them for focusing on conservative critics. NPOV doesn't mean we seek out rebuttals to reliably-sourced content; it means we look for the best sources and summarize what they say fairly and proportionally. High-level sources are best on any controversial topic, especially BLPs. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:09, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Except when it is not actually proportional, as is the case on this page (with the relative proportionality compared to before in the early summer being due to... Icewhiz and myself). Using an unknown local Wasp journalist to represent the opinions of "Islamists" while at the same time refusing to consider an Australian news outlet reporting the views of an actual Egyptian Muslim feminist is not "fair and proportional". Yes, we've been over this, and nobody was satisfied. I decided to take a break, for everyone's sake, not wanting to repeat some of the unpleasantness that happened. Now, we are back to square zero. Including Nervana Mahmoud's view, covered by ABC.au, and maybe also Haider's, makes it more "fair and proportional" whereas otherwise there is a major viewpoint lacking from the article. Other Muslim viewpoints can and should find a way into the article. Additionally, per Fitzcarmalan's great suggestion, this could be a start of a section discussing hte role of her choice in public presentation -- which is a fairly widely covered and notable topic for her especially. If you don't mind, when I add a section to redress this, please don't autorevert.--Calthinus (talk) 01:33, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * There are at least nine independent sources cited in the article that mention right-wing criticism of Sarsour. How many reliable, independent sources directly mention "liberal", "left-wing", or "feminist" detractors? The characterizations of Sarsour in the source you mention are curiously out of step with mainstream U.S. sources: "New York militant Linda Sarsour"? "[D]efender of Sharia law"? "Salafist-approved"? "[S]upport for convicted terrorists"? "Islamists, like Linda Sarsour"? None of these epithets are substantiated and several have been debunked. This is propaganda, not factual reporting. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:04, 15 November 2018 (UTC) (edited 09:14, 15 November 2018 (UTC))
 * Not sure when you became the arbiter of what is mainstream. Anyhow, those are the words of Symons. The proposal is to include the words of Mahmoud. So once again we have a strawman.[]-actually working version. Of course if we have a section on her apparel/views on teh role of religion, views on either side (positive, negative) will be included. --Calthinus (talk) 02:07, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Once again, that is not how we achieve neutrality. "Fair and proportional" means we accurately reflect descriptions by high-level sources writing from a disinterested viewpoint, not that we give equal validity to both "sides" of a dispute. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:20, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it is unfortunate how you cite policy while meanwhile appointing yourself the arbiter of what exactly balance is based on a one-sided sample. Of course we've been around the moon on this. The kippah comments, and also the Bibi comments (other section) (by the way I do not support Netanyahu but most people would interpret that comment as placed their for the purpose of irritating percieved Likudniks -- whatever the intention was) -- these are Whataboutism and are not productive or constructive in any way, please do not repeat them. Anyhow when I find time I will pull together sources for section, hopefully it will be agreeable, otherwise we will an RfC or DR.--Calthinus (talk) 06:21, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * "One-sided" how? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:01, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Deborah Lipstadt interview
When a public figure gets this much WP:RS coverage, it merits a section on the page. A Q & A with Deborah Lipstadt, scholar of antisemitism. Q. "How do you view Linda Sarsour’s activism and fundraising on behalf of Jewish causes, and her collaborations with progressive Jewish groups?" A."There are lots of people who proclaim they’re against anti-Semitism — “Pittsburgh? Terrible!” Linda Sarsour, you know. At the same time, on the other side of her mouth, she’s talking about don’t humanize Israel and when you wear a Jewish star it makes me feel unsafe. She’s talking out of two sides of her mouth. "[At an event in September, after criticizing Israel, Sarsour said, “If you’re on the side of the oppressor, or you’re defending the oppressor, or you’re actually trying to humanize the oppressor, then that’s a problem…” In 2017, speaking at a march protesting racism, Sarsour said, “I’m going to be honest, there are instances of things that happened to me at this space that made me feel unsafe.” Some people took that as a reference to Zionist signs.] "I don’t trust people like that. One of the reasons I’m particularly not trusting of someone like that is that there are so many Jews on the left who come so cheap. They wrote me, “Look, Linda Sarsour criticized Pittsburgh, look, she’s helped to rebuild a cemetery,” etc. Give me a break. Anyone who’s not going to criticize what happened in Pittsburgh … someone gets credit? OK, so she’s raising money to help rebuild a cemetery, that’s very nice. But at the same time she’s making awful statements about Jews. Not just about Zionists but about Jews. "Farrakhan, he called Jews termites, and Linda Sarsour and Tamika Mallory and leaders of the Women’s March are embracing him and praising him. He called us termites. How much more do you need?" 13 November 2914.  Note that Lipstadt references 2019 Women's March: Actress Alyssa Milano, who spoke at the 2018 Women's March, told The Advocate that she has refused to participate in the 2019 March unless organizers Tamika Mallory and Linda Sarsour condemn what have been described as homophobic, antisemitic, and transphobic comments by the Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan.    E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:40, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree it would be vioalation of WP:DUE not to include this --Shrike (talk) 17:05, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You've got it backwards. No policy says we must include any specific content, and a single primary source for Lipstadt's views does not satisfy WP:DUE in my opinion. Please note that WP:BLP is also a policy, and explicitly cautions against implying guilt by association, which is what the Farrakhan comparison does That applies to talk pages as well. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:00, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I've retitled this section per WP:BLP; your single opinion source doesn't support describing Sarsour as an anti-Semite. At best, you have the single opinion that she's "enabling" anti-Semitism, which is an interesting argument, but qualitatively different than being an anti-Semite. If Lipstadt had wanted to describe Sarsour as an anti-Semite in the interview, she could have done that, but she clearly did not. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:14, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I would not support calling Sarsour an anti-Semite in the article. However, Lipstadt's views are WP:DUE. She is a topical expert and she is not partisan (in fact this last month she has excoriated many in the Republican party). Especially her expression of concern about the Farrakhan issue and the lack of condemnation from Sarsour (and Mallory) about his statements. --Calthinus (talk) 18:00, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Lipstadt is one of the leading, if not the leading, academics in the field of antisemitism and holocaust denial - her expert opinion on Sarsour is obviously DUE.Icewhiz (talk) 18:55, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Off-the-cuff trash-talking is not the same as well-researched and edited scholarship. I'd treat this source like any promotional interview that publishers send authors out to do, not as a serious piece of commentary. Besides some apparent factual confusion on Lipstadt's part (Sarsour's links to Farrakhan, such as they were, preceded his "termite" remarks by months or years), the tone is sensationalist. The Sarsour quotes in brackets – who is referencing them? Lipstadt? The interviewer? Their editor? What are the "awful statements about Jews"? BLPs have higher standards than other articles for a reason. When reliable, independent sources mention this in a significant way, then it might be appropriate. For now it's just sensationalist gossip. I note that none of the editors involved here have so far suggested adding anything similar at Talk:Benjamin Netanyahu, whom Lipstadt also criticises in the interview. That itself is a red flag to me that this is not really an encylopedic concern. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:15, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * This is an independent reliable source. Please avoid WP:CRYBLP. As for Bibi - bring it up over there, not here. Considering Sarsour is mostly ignored by experts, expert opinion here is of great value.Icewhiz (talk) 20:37, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that her comments on Sarsour, as a leading expert on anti-Semitism, are a necessary part of this article. Without them there would be a serious NPOV issue. Coretheapple (talk) 20:42, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Just out of curiosity, do you feel the same about Netanyahu? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:45, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll jot that down on my to-do list. We are discussing this article now and I have not edited that one. Coretheapple (talk) 22:57, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ Coretheapple (talk) 23:00, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Great. When it makes it into the actual article, then it might be worth considering here. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:14, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You're raising a total red herring. Whether something belongs in Article A has nothing to do with whether it is put in Article B. Coretheapple (talk) 15:09, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * In this case I think it does. Our bio of Deborah Lipstadt contains several critical remarks by her about public figures whom she considers to have "enabled" or "normalized" anti-Semitism, from Jimmy Carter to Ernst Nolte to Howard Gutman to Donald Trump. Yet none of those persons' bios contain this information. What makes her opinion about Sarsour so special that it should be featured in Sarsour's bio rather than in her own along with other similar remarks? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:25, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I won't be bringing it up there, since I don't believe the current sourcing is adequate for either article. But since it's Lipstadt's "expert opinion", I'm sure she will have mentioned Sarsour by name in her new book about anti-Semitism. Do you have a copy? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:43, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * What is your basis for saying that you don't believe the current sourcing is adequate? I see multiple reliable sourcing. Coretheapple (talk) 15:07, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm seeing a total of one published source for Lipstadt's remarks. What "multiple" sources are you referring to? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:28, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * FYI, it looks like Lipstadt has backtracked on her unsubstantiated remark about Sarsour "making awful statements about Jews": "Lipstadt clarified that she was referring to comments Sarsour has made about supporters of Israel, which includes many Jews." Kaldari (talk) 01:00, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Many Jews, indeed. Not to mention some very non-Jewish evangelicals, neocons, and even white nationalists. This is a good illustration of why we rely on sources with strong editorial oversight and shows the perils of rushing to document every recent kerfuffle that pops up in a single media source. It's a disservice to our readers and frankly makes Wikipedia look foolish. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:27, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The clarification is for a small segment therein - and doesn't change what she said really. The clarified piece still addresses Sarsour's support for Farrakhan despite Farrakhan's termite remarks. Icewhiz (talk) 14:55, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * That's misinformation. Sarsour denounced Farrakhan as an antisemite in November 2017, a year before this interview with Lipstadt. So basically, neither of the two most damning claims that Lipstadt makes about Sarsour are true. Kaldari (talk) 23:58, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * this is interesting actually -- I must have missed this -- do we have a ref specifically for her words condemning Farrakhan "as an antisemite"? If so, it could be of use, generally. --Calthinus (talk) 05:56, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The cited piece does not support that. The Women's march comm officer might be claiming this, but it seems hardly anyone else acccepted this - particularly given Sarsour's subsequent stmts on Mallory and Farrakhan. The piece you are citing has Milano condemning Sarsour for Farrakhan ties in Nov 2018.Icewhiz (talk) 06:03, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The piece says -- well I can't find this via Google yet but I'm quite curious. --Calthinus (talk) 06:26, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * .. instead I keep finding sources that say Sarsour has "refused to condemn Farrakhan" (before the "distancing" in November 2018, not November 2017) or variations on the theme... [" Sarsour and Mallory, who have not been willing to condemn Farrakhan"]... []... now this one is interesting, it's The Advocate, an LGBT rights magazine: [The widespread criticism of Sarsour and Mallory's refusal to condemn Farrakhan's statements was best encapsulated by trans activist Ashlee Marie Preston. "The reality is, at the end of the day, you cannot be an ally if you are an ally to the people who are harming us... This is a larger part of the conversation about how the African-American community still continues to cherry pick which black lives are important and which ones aren't"...] interesting. And abstract of the 2018 piece : ... --Calthinus (talk) 06:44, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * When did happen exactly? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:26, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * She seems to be criticized (e.g. Milano) per her continuing support or lack of condemnation following the termites remarks - at least that's what I am reading in the sources on the backlash.Icewhiz (talk) 12:44, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You're conflating two separate things. Failing to condemn someone, which was Milano's recent beef with the Women's March, is not the same as actively supporting – or "embracing" and "praising" – them. There's no link made between Milano's criticism and Lipstadt's in any source I've seen. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:19, 17 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Linda Sarsour Has Been A Farrakhan Fan For Years; The Women's March Has a Farrakhan Problem, and many more similar. Responsible people do not find it it at all difficult to disassociate themselves from homophobic racists like Louis Farrakhan.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:33, 19 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Extensive INDEPTH coverage makes Sarsour's Farrakhan problem notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:33, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * What "in-depth" coverage? Note that opinion pieces like the ones you linked above are not generally reliable per RS guidelines. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:15, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

BDS and perceived anti-Zionism
This edit makes absolutely no sense. —? The only "Jewish leader" that the source mentions having commented on the BDS issue is Jonathan Greenblatt, who is already quoted on this question earlier in the same paragraph. The phrase also ignores the left-wing Jewish groups that are described as having "lavished praise" on Sarsour. The ones taking issue with Sarsour's perceived anti-Zionism are described in the source as "right-wing and some centrist Jews". Attributing criticism to vague "Jewish leaders" is a misrepresentation of the source cited. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:29, 12 November 2018 (UTC) (I've edited the text to correct the misleading prose. —Sangdeboeuf (talk))
 * Um as you can clearly see right next to the section you just edited, the praise was already mentioned and I didn't touch it... ahem. Anyhow, the edit was to ameliorate the fact that hte page previously said people criticized her for saying feminism was incompatible with "uncritical support of Israel" when the source says no such thing. It said people criticized her for saying "unabashed" supporters of Israel can't be feminists. Later there is a quote in the source where she criticizes those with "uncritical" support. Very different; misrepresentative. I corrected this to say what the source actually said people were criticizing her -- perhaps you're right, in a redundant way, maybe it would have been better to just remove this sentence. Not sure why that merited the tone in this post above^.--Calthinus (talk) 23:03, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You left the part about praise from "liberal politicians and activists" in a different subsection alone while adding the vague "Jewish leaders have also criticized..." Which Jewish leaders? According to the source, not just any Jewish leaders. As for the part about, that was another way of saying "unabashed support". The source cited states: [Sarsour] drew fire from Jewish leaders for telling The Nation that unabashed supporters of Israel cannot be feminists. "It just doesn’t make any sense for someone to say, 'Is there room for people who support the state of Israel and do not criticize it in the movement?'" [emphasis added]. "Unabashed" clearly means "uncritical" here. Not seeing the confusion at all. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:40, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * What I did in the diff is clear [] -- all I did was replace "saying that feminism is incompatible with uncritical support of Israel" with "her support of BDS and perceived anti-Zionism". "Jewish leaders" was in the sentence before, so why are you going on about that? I did not delete any reference to "praise" that previously existed (actually, insisting I had when the diff is excruciatingly clear that I only touched one sentence... is WP:TE). I am 100% certain that you would not care if it was not me who did the edit. And no, I don't agree with your interpretation of the source that "unabashed support" refers to the "uncritical support" from her quote.--Calthinus (talk) 23:46, 12 November 2018 (UTC) EDIT: Okay I confess I misread the source, in that it does refer to the quote from teh same Nation interview. Not sure why all of this was necessary nevertheless....--Calthinus (talk) 00:00, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Please re-read what I wrote above. Nowhere did I say that you removed any mention of "praise". I'm going on about it, as you call it, because you left "Jewish leaders" alone while completely changing the meaning of the sentence to suggest that Jewish leaders are united in their criticism of Sarsour on the topics of BDS and Zionism. You are 100% wrong if you believe that I would not object to any editor making such a change in contradiction to what a reliable source actually says. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:15, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Let's get some sourcing on these anti-semitism claims. If we go based on what RS say, we won't have these issues continually popping up. Here is a source showing they criticizing her for accusing Jews of dual loyalty with Israel. And [|here] is a pretty good expaliner from Vox on the subject citing her closeness to Farrakhan, an anti-semite. These would be a good place to start. ModerateMike729 (talk) 20:51, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Struck comment from confirmed sockpuppet /. See . —  Newslinger  talk   13:41, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The sole mention of Sarsour in the Vox piece is the statement . Not much to go on there. I haven't seen any mainstream RS that elucidate these "links", which according to some op-eds and blogs (again, not RS) appear to comprise the time Sarsour spoke at a 2015 rally organized by Farrakhan, and a Facebook post where she called him "youthful". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:15, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Not condemning someone and taking photos with someone is not really closeness. The converse is also true – if she was close to him, that doesn't mean she is complicit in his anti-Semitism. w umbolo   ^^^  21:25, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

False allegations
The "false allegations" of support for terrorists refers to the ISIS & Hamas conspiracy theories, which are well-supported in sources as being false. Rasmea Odeh is a minor figure in all this, but appears to suggest that there are "true" allegations equivalent to the persistent falsehoods spread about Sarsour in right-wing media and social-media (the "blood libel" claim mentioned above being the most recent illustration of such smears). That's a misrepresentation of the weight given the issue in mainstream sources, if not improper synthesis. The smears against Sarsour encompass the "jihad" controversy as well; the wording could be changed to "false allegations of support for terrorism" for accuracy's sake, but I think it's important to state clearly that these are false allegations if they're mentioned in the lead section at all. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:08, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The association with ISIS was proven false, I believe. Hamas is a rather long set of separate claims. Odeh - she was convicted for a terrorist bombing (as well as being deported from the US due to immigration issues over the former conviction and her immigration application), and whom Sarsour explicitly supported - is far from false. The Jihad kerfuffle is a mixed bag (depends on the POV slant on the reporting outlet - e.g. Fox says A, CNN says B). The sentence also could be read that her support for Islamic Law is false - which is also rather a mixed bag (IIRC - while there aren't sources for "imposing", she has been supportive of various aspects of Sharia law (e.g. "If you are still paying interest than Sharia Law hasn't taken over America. #justsaying" is rather widely quoted). e.g. - snopes came to no real definitive conclusion on Hamas and Sharia. The only thing we can really say anything definitive in our voice about is probably ISIS (which I believe was a short lived story anyways) - we definitely can not say in our own voice "false allegations of support for terrorism". Icewhiz (talk) 14:15, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Sarsour's support for genuine, convicted terrorist Rasmea Odeh was real. We cannot dismiss it as a "false allegation."E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:19, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No one said anything about support for "various aspects of Sharia law"; that's a red herring. Those tweets have also been described as satirical or tongue-in-cheek by more than one commentator. As for Sarsour speaking on the same stage with Odeh, that's a false equivalence, since there are multiple RS that describe the ISIS and imposing-Sharia connections as specifically false, e.g. The Washington Post, Associated Press, and Haaretz. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:28, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

"Muslim American" <-> vice versa
I was curious about the "preferred" word order here, so I checked a few things right here on WP.
 * Muslim-American redirects to Islam in the United States. Okay, redirects are cheap.
 * In the latter article, by a simple browser text search, there are 37 instances of "muslim american", 14 instances of "muslim-american", and 88 instances of "american muslim".
 * Clearly, something must be done regarding our own WP:CONSISTENCY.
 * On Google Scholar, 8,640 instances of "muslim american", 12,900 instances of "american muslim".
 * I am not convinced that either formulation is "incorrect". Our own category is Category:American Muslims, so that might indicate a tendency in that direction.
 * Two of the sources for this very article include "Muslim American" in their article titles. One includes "American Muslims".
 * Discussion, as always, is welcomed! Thanks. 2600:8800:1880:188:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 02:08, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * She's Palestinian American. A more precise label anyways. That she is Muslim is visible to anyone who sees a photo of her (which the page has), given that she almost always has her signature hijab on nowadays.--Calthinus (talk) 18:12, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I know her ethnicity; that is not at issue here (although to say that "Palestinian" is more precise than "Muslim" is missing the point and ignoring, e.g. Christians.) Our article describes her as "American Muslim" several times; made sure of that. What I am saying is that our other articles, and the WP:RS we reflect, are not so monotonous. 2600:8800:1880:188:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 19:08, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * As Muslim is both a noun and an adjective a simple count of uses is not so simple - but yes - I agree this is generally inconsistent. However, I would also posit that ot does not matter much either way - you could probably find supporting arguements for both.Icewhiz (talk) 19:53, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

"Jihad" redux
I added some content in the article for the Jihad against Trump that our Linda tried to unleash in 2017. Realclearpolitics is a reliable source. --1l2l3k (talk) 14:55, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Where did you see the "non-violent" word in the source? --1l2l3k (talk) 16:04, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I reverted you. --1l2l3k (talk) 16:16, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * This article tells a completely different story from the one you put there: Women's March Organizer Linda Sarsour Spoke of 'Jihad.' But She Wasn't Talking About Violence. Al-Andalusi (talk) 16:34, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, that's because Linda explained to us that she meant "Jihad" in a non-violent form, however that's her own interpretation. Check the relative lead of the word "Jihad": In classical Islamic law, the term often refers to armed struggle against unbelievers. Linda is walking the tightrope and my reverters are doing the same thing. Unless you want the reader to believe that Jihad is the non-violent war of the religion of peace, that is. That would make sense to the NPC. --1l2l3k (talk) 17:07, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I do not think this is helpful. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:35, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

The sources do not say that Sarsour "tried to unleash" a jihad against anyone. Hatting this thread as WP:OR and unproductive. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:13, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Did you read the source Sangdeboeuf? It is a good source, called RealClearPolitics. Rightwingers say it's leftish. You are trying to shut off a conversation about Linda's "Jihad" and her own, very unconventional, interpretation of that word. Linda said that Muslims of America should wage a Jihad against the current administration. There was no OR on my side, it was a very correct use of the source. I have nothing against putting that she tried to clarify the "Jihad" by saying she meant it non-violently. But reverting me and removing the original source where she goes on video and says that Jihad should be used against people in the White House is the wrong way to go. And I don't appreciate you hatting the conversations. This is not your own talk page. If you feel that you don't like the talk pages of certain articles, you don't need to read them. You can choose your own activities in wikipedia, instead of trying to shut down other people's discussions. I find that very rude. --1l2l3k (talk) 17:21, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Saying that Sarsour wished to "unleash" or "wage a Jihad" is a use of highly loaded language that is not at all supported by the available sources. The article already cites several reliable sources stating that the right-wing blogosphere twisted Sarsour's "jihad" remarks into something that she never said and does not advocate. Your selective quoting of our article on Jihad to claim that Sarsour's position is "unconventional" is your own original research. Article talk pages are not the place for this; please strike these comments. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:24, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No, I won't strike anything. The title of the reliable source is Linda Sarsour Asks Muslims To Form "Jihad" Against Trump, Not To Assimilate. "Forming a Jihad" is the first step to unleashing one and I'm not here to be speech policed by you. You don't have the authority to do that, and you won't decide how I express myself. Linda also calls President Trump a "fascist". Why don't you write about that in the article? Or is Linda exercising her free speech? Well, I have the same rights. Yes, I quote things that are relevant, it's not "selective quoting" is the very meaning of the word "Jihad". We can discuss as to what it really means. It doesn't mean what Linda said. Words have their own meaning and Linda is not a dictionnary to explain to me and the English speaking people what words mean. As far as I know she doesn't have the qualifications to convince me that "jihad" is a non-violent word. According to the article itself Linda has not even graduated in a University.--1l2l3k (talk) 02:42, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Whether you are convinced of anything is irrelevant. Articles are based on published, reliable sources, not the beliefs or experiences of users. And this is off-topic, but talk pages are not a forum for "expressing" yourself, and "freedom of speech" does not apply on Wikipedia. Start a blog for that. Wikipedia has policies determining what is apppropriate for BLP talk pages. Insisting on your "rights" in this area is likely to lead to a block. Just saying. And we don't cite headlines, we cite articles. Headlines are usually written by copy editors, not journalists, so they are not reliable sources. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:54, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Sangdeboeuf, it's the fifth time that you bring up blocks. I am not a nuisance to wikipedia, on the contrary, I improve it. Since you insist, I'll provide you a quote from the article, not its title, but the content of the article, made up by Linda's own words: "I hope that we when we stand up to those who oppress our communities that Allah accepts from us that as a form of jihad. That we are struggling against tyrants and rulers not only abroad in the Middle East or in the other side of the world, but here in these United States of America where you have fascists and white supremacists and Islamophobes reigning in the White House," Sarsour said.. --1l2l3k (talk) 03:01, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The problem is not the quote, but your peculiar interpretation of it. "[S]tand up to those who oppress our communities" is in no way equivalent to . —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:29, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * And how will Linda stand up? She says it herself "as a form of Jihad", doesn't she? I'm not making stuff up Sangdeboeuf. It's Linda saying it, Linda!!! Not me, Sangdeboeuf, Linda. Through the source. Read it. It's there for you to read. --1l2l3k (talk) 03:36, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Why do you keep calling her "Linda"? Are you best buddies or something? (You did call her .) If so, you should refrain from editing this article due to conflict of interest. It's standard Wikipedia practice, not to mention common courtesy, to refer to people with whom one is not intimately aquainted by using their full name, or just their surname. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:50, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Hm, now you don't talk about the source anymore. Maybe you eventually read it. There is also a video there, make sure not to miss it! Again Sangdeboeuf, you have to stop your fishing attempts, but just to satisfy your thirst of curiosity I don't have any COI. Do you? I see you editing lots of articles on feminism and patriarchy, and since Linda is a feminist, one may be willing to believe that you, the person under Sangdeboeuf may have a COI. If so, shouldn't you be disclosing it? And please do me a favor, and don't teach me courtesy. --1l2l3k (talk) 03:48, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * How insensitive of me. But since all us feminists, including Sarsour, know each other and trade knitting patterns weekly, I guess you got me. The jig is up at last. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:54, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

While personally I would never give a tp section this title, hatting the entire section of someone you are engaged in a content dispute with is generally not productive toward building consensus. It should have been someone else at least...--Calthinus (talk) 22:17, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * When no participant objects to hatting a discussion, anyone may hat it. However, when one or more participants object to the hatting of one or more comments, those comments should not be hatted by any one of the participants. w umbolo   ^^^  22:27, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * What content dispute? Still, I'll un-hat it then, if you are willing to hat it yourself. The discussion is in no way productive. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:37, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not productive if you hat it and delete other people's comments. We are trying to build a lead here. The lead needs to summarize the contents of the article. I feel that this is an article where the lead needs references. Do you agree? --1l2l3k (talk) 00:09, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed, so where are we with this? Is there consensus to get the lede to summarize it better yet? ModerateMike729 (talk) 15:35, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Getting consensus here is kind of difficult. Policies are misintepreted way too often. I don't even think we are at a stage to build the lead completely, until we finish the article below first. Sources are being fought, and a double standard of multiple mainstream sources required for her family ties to Hamas, see thread below. It will take a lot of patience, and Women's March 2019 may come before we build the lead in wikipeda. I guess that's why the other side may be stalling our attempts to inform the readers? --1l2l3k (talk) 12:41, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * That all makes sense, but it seems there are several areas where the sourcing is pretty unambiguous--such as the dual loyalty charge and the response from Jewish-American groups, no? ModerateMike729 (talk) 22:03, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * No. It's unambiguous only if you ignore sources with which you disagree. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 23:33, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Why don't you provide an example of such a source then, rather than failing to WP:AGF? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:11, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Why don't you provide an example of such a source then, rather than failing to WP:AGF? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:11, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Struck comments from confirmed sockpuppet /. See. —  Newslinger  talk   13:41, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Claims of violent threats on social media
I've removed this as UNDUE and as misrepresentation of the cited sources. The NYT piece, for instance, does not say in its own voice that she's been threatened - it is an interview style piece in which Sarsour says so.Icewhiz (talk) 06:52, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * This NYT piece is not the only source. See also: • Chandler in The Washington Post: "Despite a barrage of hateful messages and violent threats targeting her on social media since [the Women's March], Sarsour has continued a punishing schedule of activism ..."

• Schmidt in The Washington Post: "Once again, Sarsour was thrust into the crosshairs on social media ... Others threatened her and even called for her deportation ... Sarsour is accustomed to hostile messages and even death threats on social media, particularly since the Women’s March. Those threats escalated this spring ..." —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:32, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * WaPo is a better source here - as it actually says this in its own voice (though in the midst of an interview) - so it passes WP:V. It is still WP:UNDUE - just about anybody who is anybody has received threats on social media. Furthermore, in terms of editorial placement (it seems it has been bouncing around as the lede off for two separate paragraphs) it is a WP:COATRACK that frames subsequent criticism. If you want a "social media" blurb - place it in its paragraph - as it is unconnected to other criticism.Icewhiz (talk) 07:54, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Giving due weight means we summarize views and aspects in proportion to their coverage in reliable sources. What you personally believe "anybody who is anybody" has experienced is irrelevant. Blame the two reporters at the Post and the one at the Times for making an issue of the social-media threats if you don't like it. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:02, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Just about anybody who is a Jew has received anti-Semitism... do we remove that from articles about Jews? w umbolo   ^^^  22:16, 2 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Placing this in the section before legitimate criticism, which has received far more coverage, is definitely WP:UNDUE. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 08:46, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

We also have a mention in The Forward of death threats leading up to Sarsour's 2017 CUNY speech. However, I don't think the Mic piece added is an ideal ref for the existing text about "violent threats". For one thing, the article just copies from a report in the NY Daily News, not an ironclad source itself. Also, the reported threat was to "spit in [Sarsour's] face" – illegal and gross to be sure, but not terribly violent. We already have several good sources for the text, so I suggest removing this one. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:14, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Daily Caller bad? NYT good?
This revert assumes that Daily Caller is bad, but the original source is the NYT, see "Linda Sarsour, a community worker from Brooklyn, a borough of New York City, has also been the focus of a recent debate after she was appointed to a neighborhood advisory panel. The main reason for the controversy: Members of her family had been arrested on accusations of supporting Hamas, the Islamist group that governs the Gaza Strip. One member of the Tea Party and other community workers asked that she be removed.". Still unconvinced? --1l2l3k (talk) 04:30, 28 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you need to brush up on your reading comprehension skills. First, I didn't "assume" the Daily Caller was bad; I asserted it wasn't a reliable source for facts. If you disagree, WP:RS/N is the place to argue otherwise. Second, if you think that New York Times article supports the assertions made in your edit, maybe we need to discuss WP:CIR. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:37, 28 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Careful there, and please don't be offensive. You just got out of a Topic ban of 6 months and you don't want to have the same experience, right? I am asking YOU if you think that the NYT is reliable. Maybe that way we'll check your own WP:CIR. --1l2l3k (talk) 04:44, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Daily Caller is considered suspect. See Identifying reliable sources/Perennial sources. No consensus to use it. NYT is a paragon of journalism. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:01, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Roger that, so I entered the NYT as a source and rearranged her personal life chronologically. --1l2l3k (talk) 14:56, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Any arrests of Sarsour's family members are off-topic for this article. Sarsour is not her family and the arrests have nothing to do with her personal life. BLP policy enjoins us to avoid implying guilt by association. Additionally, any of Sarsour's relatives that are not public figures are covered by WP:BLPCRIME. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:35, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Her ties to jailed Hamas members are discussed by secondary sources - e.g. Snopes. Mentioning an arrest, without mentioning the BLP's name, is actually not a problem - however in this case the more significant information is the long jail sentences (which, following a conviction, are no longer a BLPCRIME issue). Sarsour herself is on record saying: One of the men, she said, was a cousin who has been in Israeli jails for 25 years. The other man, she said, was a family friend serving a 99-year prison sentence in Israel. Her brother-in-law, she said, is also serving a 12-year sentence, accused of being an activist in the Hamas, the religious militant group, though, she said, he was secular in his beliefs. - quoted in Snopes. As Sarsour herself is active in Israel/Palestine activism, her relationships with jailed Hamas members aren't not an off-topic tangential detail but a relevant piece of information in regards to her sphere of chosen activism. Furthermore, Sarsour herself has chosen to highlight arrests and searches of her relatives homes - "During the course of the search, my family, hailing from El Bireh, a village that neighbors Ramallah, gave firsthand accounts of the nightmare that the search unleashed on Palestinians in the West Bank: There were tales of nightly searches where the Israeli Defense Forces ransacked homes, intimidated small children and their mothers, and made multiple arrests." as well as saying " Gaza, the world's largest open-air prison." Mic op-ed by Linda Sarsour, 2014 - this is a piece of information that Sarsour herself promoted in her activism as an argument for her cause - hardly off-topic - in fact clearly on topic. Icewhiz (talk) 18:42, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * We've been over this issue before. Snopes does not say that Sarsour has "ties to jailed Hamas members"; please strike that comment. Sarsour did not say that her relatives' arrests had anything to do with her activism. [T]ales of nightly searches are not the same as actual arrests of family members . These are separate incidents; conflating them would be improper synthesis. And BLPCRIME is not waived by omitting the person's name. Her living relatives are persons, and accusations are not convictions – this is covered by BLP. Are you seriously going to insist that this is appropriate for a biography of Sarsour while calling well-sourced information about attacks on Sarsour herself and a ? That is frankly laughable. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:14, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * All quotes above are attributed to Sarsour by a RS or written by Sarsour (mic). The Snopes piece discusses her possible ties to Hamas. Beyond her critics raising this, in depth fact checking by orgs such as Snopes, Saraour herself has repeatedly, and on record, raised the issue of relatives and Israeli law enforcement / jails in the context of her Israel-Palestine advocacy. There is no BLPCRIME concern for Sarsour saying unnamed relatives have been arrested nor is there a concern regarding named or unnamed jailed (sentenced by a court) relatives. Coverage of this angle is SUSTAINED - harking back to 2004 at least.Icewhiz (talk) 19:21, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The Snopes piece discusses her possible ties to Hamas – that is a blatant misrepresentation. It says no such thing. Sar[s]our herself has repeatedly, and on record, raised the issue of relatives and Israeli law enforcement – please provide published, reliable sources for this claim. There is no BLPCRIME concern for Sarsour saying unnamed relatives have been arrested – the concern is for the persons arrested, who by being named as Palestinian relatives of Sarsour are at least partially identified. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:36, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I said Possible. While Snopes (a RS I believe) does mention Sarsour denying having direct ties with Hamas in NYT piece which in its own voice mentions jailed relatives. Snopes also quotes Sarsour herself saying: "One of the men, she said, was a cousin who has been in Israeli jails for 25 years. The other man, she said, was a family friend serving a 99-year prison sentence in Israel. Her brother-in-law, she said, is also serving a 12-year sentence, accused of being an activist in the Hamas, the religious militant group, though, she said, he was secular in his beliefs." - so per Sarsour she has family ties to a man sentenced to 12 years for being a Hamas activist.Icewhiz (talk) 19:44, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Once again, you are misrepresenting the source. Snopes does not say "possible ties". It says "Purported" does not mean "possible". Note also the use of quotation marks.  "She said". "Accused". These are not substantiated links, and an accusation is not a conviction. And no, please do not protest that the Israeli police would not jail a man for 12 years without a conviction. We go by what is published in reliable, mainstream sources, not user's personal knowledge or synthesis of published sources. Who are the other men Sarsour refers to? According to both Snopes and the original source, they are men whose photos appeared . It does not say that they have anything to do with Hamas. Her denial of such "ties" cancels out the muddle of hearsay and improper synthesis you are trying to use as support for "possible ties". What does the very next sentence after the one you quoted say?  There is no indication that arrests of Sarsour's family members play a pronounced role in her activism. The source itself says the opposite. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:18, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * She said a "12-year sentence" - which means a conviction. The two men she IDed in a photo are "One of the men, she said, was a cousin who has been in Israeli jails for 25 years. The other man, she said, was a family friend serving a 99-year prison sentence in Israel". Clearly, we should not say anything in our voice, but given the extensive SUSTAINED (14 years at least) coverage - we should merely attribute and quote the various stmts here, including her denial of having direct ties to Hamas. We, could, build the entire paragraph off of direct quotes of Saraour from Snopes (and previously in other NEWSORGs). Inclusion is clearly DUE given the sustained and diverse coverage of this.Icewhiz (talk) 20:21, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, "she said". You want to take a second-hand statement by Sarsour as evidence of "ties" while treating her statement denying any such ties as suspect. There is no outside evidence of any "ties". And I already said we don't base articles off users' personal knowledge. Find a published source that says Sarsour's brother-in-law was convicted of anything. A handful of passing mentions of something over 14 years is not SUSTAINED – it's the opposite of SUSTAINED. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:33, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No, we should not determine which of her many stmts is correct - following Snopes, we should merely include both her denial and her stmts regarding jailed friends/family.Icewhiz (talk) 20:42, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Snopes exists for the purpose of debunking rumors and fringe theories – it is for that reason, and that reason only, that they had to dig up a Columbia University student publication from 2004 in order to explain Sarsour's non-existent "ties" to radical Islamist organizations. We should absolutely not give the same weight to such fringe views. We aren't RationalWiki...or a news source. The Times mentions Sarsour's relatives' arrests in the context of her being "the focus of a recent debate after she was appointed to a neighborhood advisory panel" in 2012 (Snopes apparently got the date wrong here). It should go without saying that Sarsour's activism has moved beyond the neighborhood-advisory stage. If, despite Sarsour's raised profile, these incidents haven't received substatial attention in mainstream sources since, then they are out of proportion to an encyclopedic bio. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:58, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Snopes exist to fact-check widely circulating claims - including conspiracy theories. In this case, they did not debunk the claims surrounding Sarsour - they in fact validated some of them via the use of a previous NYT interview (with Sarsour) and 2004 interview with a Columbia University publication. That Snopes referred to the 2004 interview, extensively, greatly increases the weight of that interview. It should be noted that coverage from Snopes was when Sarsour was well past the "neighborhood-advisory stage" - in 2017. Icewhiz (talk) 09:33, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * In this case, they did not debunk the claims surrounding Sarsour - they in fact validated some of them – another misrepresentation. They did no such thing. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:24, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * First it was the source, Daily Caller, which doesn't have the green check, so I found the New York Times. That wasn't good either, as Malik Shabazz, completely uninvolved in the talk page, reverts with no discussion and ironically needs wiki article on Sarsour's relatives, then it is the fact that "these incidents haven't received substatial attention in mainstream sources", so Sangdeboeuf wants God knows how many sources, and the New York Times is not good enough for her either. On top of that, if I bring another source, a very specialized one, GMBDW, Sangdeboeuf will say that it is not mainstream. Either way it's a very uphill battle with the edit-warriors. Sad! --1l2l3k (talk) 12:15, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Once again, that's not what I wrote at all. I recommend that you try to improve your reading comprehension skills. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 13:11, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * write Wikipedia biographies about them if they're notable was your edit summary for your revert deleting the content so I don't see how he's mistaken about what you said. And second, your removal of the mention of the ADL from the lead here and here under WP:LEADCITE is unwarranted. Attributing criticism of the subject to a prominent source of that criticism is perfectly appropriate. If you believe a citation is required, then raise that concern on the talk page rather than simply removing the line. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:34, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * ...so Sangdeboeuf wants God knows how many sources... Read WP:PUBLICFIGURE: "If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." (Emphasis in original.) —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:54, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

BLP concerns
I have removed a section of the article due to clear and unambiguous BLP concerns. The section's sources included two sources which do not appear to be reliable sources for the purposes of BLP issues - The Daily Caller, a right-wing partisan source, and "Global MB Watch," which appears to be the self-published work of a self-described "intelligence analyst." I dispute that either of these are acceptable sources in this article, and thus the section as written cannot stand. In addition, the section has significant issues with undue weight and lack of any balancing aspects, and it's unclear whether guilt-by-association belongs in the biography. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:48, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's guilt by association and maybe it isn't, but the NYT mentioned it as a reason that her appointment to a local nonprofit was controversial so WP:BLP and WP:DUE do not justify removing any mention of it. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:43, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with Wikieditor19920. No valid reason to remove. Coretheapple (talk) 16:44, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn't say that "any mention of it" would be unjustified, but the two sources I listed are clearly unacceptable to use, and any addition to a biography of a living person must be appropriately weighted and include balancing aspects. It would certainly be required to, for example, include any response Sarsour has to such statements and claims, and to put them in appropriate context. A rewritten, properly-sourced section could be compliant with policy. What I removed was clearly not. Additional issues include properly framing such claims, if they are appropriate to include - "family members" is quite vague and could mean anything from a brother to a fifth cousin. The farther the distance in family, the more irrelevant such inclusion would be - are you expecting Sarsour to control the actions of distant relations who live thousands of miles away? If not, the relevance here seems questionable. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:51, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, but you still deleted the entire section, even the portion supported by the NYT piece. As far as Sarsour's response, the Snopes article referenced earlier indicates that Sarsour herself confirmed that she has family members either serving prison sentences or who have been jailed for said connections. Regarding relevance, the NYT already established that. We don't need to understand her entire family lineage when a WP:RS has already given the information WP:WEIGHT. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:26, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * That's correct, I deleted the entire section because it doesn't comply with BLP - it provides no balancing aspects or response from the article subject and thus fails our fundamental responsibility to treat article subjects with fairness and sensitivity. If you'd like to work toward addressing those issues together, let's do that. If you want to keep grandstanding, please do go on. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:46, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Moreover, you seem to understand WP:BLP, because I see you making responsible edits on Alan Dershowitz, properly removing poorly-sourced material that isn't encyclopedically appropriate. I am mystified as to why you see this article differently, instead preferring to attempt to smear Sarsour with as much negative material as you can possibly find. I'd like to remind you and all other editors of our responsibility to Sarsour: Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages. The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores material. We are not here to create a compendium of everything Sarsour ever said or everything anyone said about Sarsour. We're here to write an encyclopedic biography with a high degree of sensitivity toward the subject. That's not my opinion, that's black-letter policy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:58, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I also note that policy specifically states Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:08, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm happy to collaborate with you, but don't accuse me of grandstanding or attempting to "smear" Sarsour. And the information that was supported by the NYT piece was compliant with WP:BLP, which is not a synonym for "bad" or controversial. WP:WELLKNOWN, which falls under BLP, states In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and 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. If you want to place it in context, I'm all for that, Correction: it seems that Sarsour confirmed that some of her family members have been jailed, though she denied to the NYT any direct connection. Your point on it being WP:TMI may be your strongest argument against inclusion, and I might even be inclined to agree, though I can't find "guilt by association" in policy. However, in general, the body of this article need serious work; almost all of the emphasis is on positive activities by Sarsour and significant controversies are notably omitted. Just as we should be cautious when editing a WP:BLP, we should exercise discretion in citing that policy when removing relevant information sourced by and published in WP:RS. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:13, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You display a fundamental misunderstanding of NPOV. Neutrality means that we summarize coverage by the most reliable sources fairly and proportionally, not that we particularly care whether "positive activities" make up a substantial portion of that coverage. If you think the article is unbalanced, this is the place to show where any published, reliable sources have been misrepresented or overlooked in the article. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:26, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? I believe you just repeated what I said. And you also confirmed my point that this piece of information is both notable and verfiable with the additional source. I'm glad we're making progress here. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:05, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I certainly did not. I explained that making a prima facie assumption that an emphasis on "positive activities" signals something wrong with the article is not supported by NPOV. Also, if you actually read Notability, you would see that it has nothing to do with the topic we're discussing. So that leaves Verifiability, which I don't believe was actually in question. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:57, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * What "significant controversies" are omitted? On the whole, this article reads remarkably negative. That may or may not be fair at this point, but I hardly think you can claim that this biography is any sort of a whitewash. It extensively covers the negative views many people have of her. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:02, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

That Sarsour "has acknowledged publicly that members of her extended family have been arrested on accusations of supporting Hamas" was stated more recently in an Associated Press article about Sarsour. It's a passing mention made in the context of Sarsour's "criticism of Israel’s policies in the occupied territories" and her professional detractors, not her personal life. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:29, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed that it belongs in that section rather than "Personal life" — putting it in that section builds the implication of some sort of personal connection beyond a distant familial relationship. I propose the following:
 * Sarsour has said members of her extended family in the Israeli-occupied territories have been arrested and jailed on accusations of supporting Hamas. Clean, clear, not unduly-weighted, sourceable to an actual reliable source (the NYT). NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:55, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed, as long as we mention her response denying any contact with radical Muslim groups, as required by policy. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:02, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Concur that this info should be kept.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:04, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Me three to version advanced by NorthBySouthBaranof. Icewhiz (talk) 10:59, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Me three to version advanced by NorthBySouthBaranof. --1l2l3k (talk) 15:14, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support only in the personal life section. Seems mildly verifiable and due; one sentence is enough. I also found this story about her brother . The personal life section is definitely short, and could use some expansion, from e.g. . w umbolo   ^^^  15:38, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Added as per consensus reached above. can you please add a source for your wording above? --1l2l3k (talk) 21:33, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Removed, because it was added by another editor to a more appropriate section of the article five days ago. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 21:56, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Recent edits
would you care to elaborate on how the changes you undid here are "not an improvement", and how your alternative version is better? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:33, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * For starters, as a meta comment - moving large blocks of text around while we are discussing additions/removals of content makes the discussion and following the changes difficult. You removed content that in a couple of talk sections above there was a rough consensus to include, and it definitely was not a "social media" event. Icewhiz (talk) 10:58, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't fault Sangdeboeuf for making bold edits — I do, however, think it was misguided to remove some of the content that was taken out (and had consensus), and Icewhiz did the right thing by restoring it. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 13:10, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You didn't apparently object to the that also moved around large blocks of text. But since my changes were apparently so difficult to follow (despite each having an edit summary explaining it), I'll break it down: • I moved the paragraph about the "vaginas" tweet in the section on the CUNY speech controversy because it's misleading to describe as "political commentary" a deleted tweet that Sarsour has dismissed as "stupid shit", and because a reliable, published source describes the reaction to said tweet as being directly related to the later event.

• I replaced back under "Political activism" because it describes, among other things, Sarsour's advocacy for Muslims' civil rights, protesting police surveillance of American Muslims, advocating for the passage of the Community Safety Act, and working to have Muslim holidays recognized in New York public schools, all of which are clearly forms of political activism. There is no source I've seen that describes her "early career" in any other terms.

• I added an using mainstream, secondary sources (replacing a reprint by Haaretz with the original JTA source ), while removing the vague and misleading statement that Sarsour's involvement with the 2019 Women's March has been "controversial", because as I have stated elsewhere on this page, all of the high-level sources we have frame the controversy as involving Sarsour and Mallory in particular, or all four Women's March leaders.

• I added a sentence about progressive Jews' against Sarsour from the same JTA source as above, which is related to Sarsour's fundraising efforts already described in the article, and then to the same section to avoid making readers hunt around the page for an explanation of what that fundraising was about. Furthermore, I haven't seen any high-level sources discuss the fundraising efforts in isolation from the rest of Sarsour's career, so why would they be placed in their own section anyway?

• I removed about Sarsour's "remarks on Israel" that was, along with where text about Sarsour having "gained attention for protesting" police surveillance of American Muslims was  with no explanation, despite being supported by multiple reliable sources and directly explaining reasons for Sarsour's notability. And finally,

• I removed the recently-added text on the because consensus for inclusion has not, in fact, been reached in that ongoing discussion elsewhere on this page. And yes, a tweet in response to a Facebook post is more or less the definition of a "social media" event. Each of these were edits that you reverted here, along with reverting some by another user. What's the rationale for undoing these changes? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:36, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The vagina's statement was a major scandal - CUNY, while related, is a separate issue. Your overview of Farrakhan didn't properly reflect why Sarsour had been criticized. Your stmt on "some progressive Jews" was overly vague, included Jew labeling, and did not specify exactly who supported it her (a rather fringe group) - we generally do not use "some". The cited source, in the footnote (who moved it there), for BDS and "remarks on Israel" makes it rather clear that this isn't just supoort for BDS. I believe we included other statements in the past (but editors, perhaps yourself, whittled them away without discussion). In any case - it is not unsourced - . accusing Jews of double allegiance has gain fairly wide consensus here on the talk page. Finally - moving large blocks of text around when we are discussing (and editing) additions/removals - entangles issues and complicates the discussion.Icewhiz (talk) 06:18, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The vagina's statement was a major scandal – it's strange that no major sources picked up on this "major scandal" until six years later then, isn't it? Please provide multiple reliable sources for this claim as required by Verifiability and BLP. None of the sources I'm aware of describe it as a "major scandal".

Your overview of Farrakhan didn't properly reflect why Sarsour had been criticized – according to whom? I already summarized several high-level sources elsewhere on this page that are in line with the text I added.

Your stmt on "some progressive Jews" was overly vague, included Jew labeling, and did not specify exactly who supported [her] (a rather fringe group) – "Jew labeling" is not censored and was directly attributed to the JTA, as per Neutrality and Words to watch – the vagueness was not in Wikipedia's voice. Whether the group is "fringe" is original research and says nothing about whether the text is duly weighted or not – blame Sales and the JTA for mentioning it.

The cited source, in the footnote ... makes it rather clear that this isn't just supoort for BDS – that is (barely) true. Nussbaum Cohen does say that mainstream Jewish groups have kept their distance because of Sarsour's "outspoken" criticism of Israel. Mostly, however, she describes Jewish leaders working with Sarsour despite disagreeing with her on Israel.

[A]ccusing Jews of double allegiance has gain fairly wide consensus here on the talk page – that is highly debatable; in any case it is not a judgement for any involved contributor to make per Non-admin closure.

Finally - moving large blocks of text around ... entangles issues and complicates the discussion – then once again, why did you revert my edits but not immediately preceding mine? If anything, my edits simplified the discussion by putting text back where it was before. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:46, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

If there are no actual policy-based objections, then I propose restoring the, with the possible exception of the text, which does appear to be reliably-sourced. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:08, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I support restoring those changes. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 14:19, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Sangdeboeuf don't assume that other editor's points or objections aren't policy-based. And you just violated 1RR with these reverts. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 04:27, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * If you can provide a basis in policy, or explain why my changes are not supported by policy, this is the place to do so. And you have evidently misunderstood WP:1RR, but take it to WP:AN3 or even WP:AE if you think you're right. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:59, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm commenting on your behavior. And these two edits are indeed reverts of previous editors contributions, by you, both within the hour. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 05:03, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You can take any complaints about others' behavior to the appropriate forum. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:12, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * That's correct, though I think it'd be better for everyone if you would simply acknowledge the mistake, self-revert, and adopt a more collaborative approach. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 05:15, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Please see your user talk page. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:17, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

The section on "activism" groups together too many activities and events that seem separate and apart from "activism" and appear more like "commentary." And grouping notable controversies under this subheader presents an apparent WP:NPOV problem, IMHO. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 05:31, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * That's because the article, over time, has been stuffed full of obsessive documentation of various "controversies" as they happen, with little concern for their enduring significance. Most of the text recently added under "2019 Women's March" is a perfect example. Frankly, most of this material throughout the article should be cut out entirely. Separate sections on controversy or criticism are often frowned upon and are specifically mentioned in policy as a sub-optimal way of organizing article contents. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:14, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Abstract and highly subjective criteria like "enduring significance" are not policy and do not determine what can go into an article. Just like WP:DUE, which is based only on the proportion of coverage in sources and not on individual editor's opinions. If it's covered in reliable sources, we have sufficient reason to add it to the article. Removing such information is in direct contradiction to WP:NPOV. The article's subject is a controversial figure according to the sources, and it's not our job to whitewash that. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 12:39, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * If it's covered in reliable sources, we have sufficient reason to add it to the article – not true, according to both WP:WEIGHT (part of NPOV) and WP:ONUS (verifiability does not guarantee inclusion). Removing such information is in direct contradiction to WP:NPOV – please point out where WP:NPOV says we can't remove reliably-sourced information, because I'm not seeing it anywhere. "Enduring significance" means we focus on issues and events that reliable, secondary sources offering evaluation, interpretation, analysis, and synthesis of earlier sources also focus on. That the subject is controversial does not mean we rush to document every emerging controversy or seek to highlight previous controversies. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:04, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Recent edits redux
you recently removed the text that was specifically discussed in the above section, with the explanation. Would you kindly explain how any of that is related to the removal of this content? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:05, 11 December 2018 (UTC)