Talk:Linda Sarsour/Archive 14

Anti-semitism accusations removed from lede?
Not sure why references to Sarsour being accused of anti-semitism by Jewish-American groups was taken out of the lede without consensus, especially when we were in the middle of discussing how to potentially expand upon it last week. Looks like this version is the latest consensus version, before Al-Andalusi unilaterally made drastic changes. These accusations are all heavily cited by reliable news sources, and (as we were in the middle of discussing already) exempting them from the lede reeks of violating WP:DUE. ModerateMike729 (talk) 17:36, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * This is why I applied the WP:POV template. Al-Andalusi was wrong to remove the material, and you are correct that it is necessary to include details regarding controversies in the lead to comply with WP:MOSLEAD and maintain WP:NPOV. Thanks! Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:48, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Certainly in agreement with all that. Looks like it still hasn't been undone. ModerateMike729 (talk) 14:33, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Certainly should be returned, as is WP:DUE given the rather wider coverage of this.Icewhiz (talk) 14:39, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

It is very inappropriate to label her as WP:RACIST. Certainly not mainstream usage by news sources to refer to her as an anti-Semite, even with attribution. So the WP:UNDUE reason is valid here. The new text, "Sarsour, who is of Palestinian descent, supports the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign" is 100 times more neutral and faithful to the sources we have. When most news article on Linda from mainstream news sources begin to use the anti-Semite label, then sure, you can restore the earlier text. Al-Andalusi (talk) 15:16, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * That's not an accurate descriptor of the version you changed--nobody labeled her WP:RACIST. Rather, it accurately summarized the body by pointing out that she has faced accusations of anti-semitism from Jewish-American groups...which she has. You're purposely creating a strawman by saying we need to find reliable sources that label her an anti-semite. We don't. What we already have is reliable sources that point out the opinion of Jewish-American groups toward her, given her propensity to use classic anti-semitic tropes, such as dual loyalty accusations and Zionist dog whistles. Your version, which seeks to only talk about BDS rather than her contentious comments, is in no way WP:NPOV. It's just misleading.ModerateMike729 (talk) 00:33, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The fact that the anti-semitism slander is only coming from Jewish-American groups and the pro-Israel crowd is a strong argument against including it in the lead, because there is no consensus or wide acceptance to this view among the rest of the population. Compare this with Tommy Robinson, who is widely regarded as anti-Muslim across all spectrums, and is often referred to as such by the media, politicians and most importantly, by academic scholars with plenty of research on his activism asserting that. The point is, it's not just Muslim organizations that make that claim, so it's understandable that Tommy Robinson's lead would make a reference to him being accused of Islamophobia. You don't have anywhere near that kind of weight behind the anti-semitism accusation in the case of Linda. It remains a fringe accusation, despite the multiple articles reporting it. Al-Andalusi (talk) 16:49, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Clearly the victims of antisemitism are interested in antisemitism, however reporting of antisemitism in regards to Sarsour is wide. Extremely wide, and appears in mainstream source. For instance - here is the Washington Post reporting on the matter - including calls by the founder of Women's March for her resignation over this issue. Icewhiz (talk) 17:02, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that because a certain viewpoint has been reported to be common among a particular ethnic/religious group, it constitutes a WP:FRINGE view? I would recommend first that you educate yourself on the actual policy because WP:FRINGE applies exclusively to non-notable viewpoints as determined by prevalence in reliable sources, and second that you exercise a little more common sense and restraint before making such unhinged comments on any talk page. Your subjective assessment of what's widespread is irrelevant; what matters here are whether the sources establish that the viewpoint you referenced is notable, and they do. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:45, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't give a shit about what you think about my comment. Al-Andalusi (talk) 21:45, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Most news articles already talk about anti-Semitism. I know which sources we have, and they talk about anti-Semitism more than they talk about BDS. E.g. at the moment, we have tons of news articles talking at length about anti-Semitism, but none elaborating on Sarsour's support for BDS. w umbolo   ^^^  15:30, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed - her support for BDS is mainly covered in the context of claims that such support is connected to antisemitism. Icewhiz (talk) 15:42, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I added a tag that the lead does not summarize appropriately the content that is in the rest of the article. There is, it seems, lots of animosity toward whoever tries to build the lead, which includes: 1) Deletion of sourced material that was added, 2) Shutting down of discussions in the talk page, coming straight out of source materials, under the disguise of BLP "concerns"; 3) Tag bombing with threats of blocks on editors who just discuss and regularly edit, , and . Toxic atmosphere, created typically by who wants to bully someone out of editing, and WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. --1l2l3k (talk) 21:18, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Those aren't threats of blocks. But I do find it interesting that someone would cite WP:BLPREMOVE but only collapse a discussion instead of deleting it. w umbolo   ^^^  21:31, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe because there was NOTHING to be deleted? All I was saying was sourced. The information is actually already in the article, but is not in the lead, which I was trying to build. The saddest part is that no one undid Sangdeboeuf's speech policing me, when my speech had nothing remotely close to OR. Anyways, this article is under 1RR, so I'll need to come back to it, always provided that Sangdeboeuf lets me edit, and her actions are not silently supported by the other editors --1l2l3k (talk) 21:35, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Here is my proposed version for the second paragraph in the lead:

Sarsour was co-chair of the 2017 Women's March and of the 2017 Day Without a Woman strike and protest. She has worked with Black Lives Matter and Jewish Voice for Peace. Sarsour, who is of Palestinian descent, supports the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign. She has won praise from some progressives for her stances but has also drawn criticism for her condemnations of Israel and statements that were perceived to be inadequate in denouncing antisemitism.

In addition, the note about her being in the Time top 100 is puffery and should be removed. It's no longer required to establish notability. Thoughts? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:22, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The proposed text is vague and suggests that criticism is widespread rather than coming from certain well-defined quarters. Granted, the existing text is also vague on important details. But here are the questions the proposed text should answer but doesn't: • Sarsour,who is of Palestinian descent, supports the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign. Supports how? How is this relevant?

• She has won praise from some progressives for her stances... Which stances?

• ...but has also drawn criticism for her condemnations of Israel... Criticism from whom?

• ...and statements that were perceived to be inadequate in denouncing antisemitism. Percived by whom? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:13, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You have also misread WP:PUFFERY. Puffery is "neither imparting nor plainly summarizing verifiable information" and "making unprovable proclamations about a subject's importance". Mentioning the Time 100 award is neither of these; it is a verifiable, concrete fact relating to a list published by a notable, mainstream publication. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:32, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:MOS permits phrases like "some have said" to be used in a lead. To quote from the policy, it says such phrases are not automatically weasel words. They may also be used in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph, and the article body or the rest of the paragraph can supply attribution. Likewise, views that are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions, if they accurately represent the opinions of the source. Sources that have documented criticism against her include the NYT, Haaretz, and the Washington Post. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:43, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * We don't neglect to clearly attribute views when doing so results in unneccessary vagueness. Not even when it suits users' POV to do so. Where does the article currently "supply attribution" for anything related to "statements that were perceived to be inadequate in denouncing antisemitism"? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:04, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Not even when it suits users' POV to do so this is a joke, right? You've been pretty explicit about the fact that your intention is to remove negative material, supported or not, and you've made numerous arguments in defense of the subject without reference to sources or even in direct contradiction to them. Your policy argument here is without basis; "some" is not "unnecessarily vague" when it is attributed later in the article or supported by the source provided. You linked an unrelated policy about loaded phrases. Blue does not equal true, especially when you link to a policy that clearly doesn't apply. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:57, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Summarizing the views of more mainstream sources will necessarily be "in direct contradiction" to partisan smears by outlets whose purpose is to discredit Sarsour and her cohorts. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:47, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Do these partisan smears include all criticism, or are you saying that overtly partisan sources have been used in this article? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:04, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I haven't said either of those things. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:47, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Here's my proposed version of it : If necessary we could enumerate what those issues are.

I would motivate this with a few points:

1) Praise for her is more for her activism than her stances. 13 year old girls on Twitter have many stances that perhaps could agree with her but do not get praised. What people are praising her is the work she puts into activism for the causes she takes stances on, not the stances themselves.

2) Antisemitism accusations in the lede will tend to cause both sides to add more sources for either side of the accusation until they take up ridiculously undue amounts of space. Better leave these out. WP:BLP, better be safe.

3) Israel and antisemitism related issues (tending to flare up whenever she says Zionism cannot be compatible with feminism, is "creepy", etc), although a huge part of the controversy surrounding her, are not the only thing. Jews/Israel-supporters/Zionists etc also aren't the only groups that get irate with her. Others include atheists, secularists, and especially ex-Muslims (see her spat with Ayaan Hirsi Ali, also those Ikhwan tweets), Islamophobes and social conservatives more generally, at least one transgender activist because of the Farrakhan issue, and more broadly rival factions on the left (Jake Tapper, Bill Maher types tho not Bill Maher himself afaik, some feminists etc etc). It does a disservice to reduce it to Israel/Jews. The same aspect of her personality that makes her an effective activist -- lacking fear of confrontation and ability to tackle controversial issues -- leads her into trouble with a pretty diverse array of groups, who would not agree with each other either. --Calthinus (talk) 02:59, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Sarsour did not say that "Zionism cannot be compatible with feminism", even though every right-wing pundit in existence siezed on that talking point. This version of the proposed text is even more vague than the preceding version. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:39, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * To the contrary, it looks like that's exactly what she said. Here's the source. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 04:38, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Sarsour explicitly asserts that there "cannot" be Israel supporters in the feminist movement (unless they meet her unspecified personal standard of "criticize" Israel,):  :“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?’ There can’t be in feminism. You either stand up for the rights of all women, including Palestinians, or none. There’s just no way around it,” Sarsour said.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:57, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, the part about not criticizing Israel is what's usually left out when people say Sarsour thinks Zionism and feminism are fundamentally at odds. Thanks for proving my point. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:42, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You are simply wrong—the source confirms her remarks. Stop making misrepresentations on this page and try to interpret policy/sources in a non-biased manner. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:40, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, the source does confirm her remarks. Only her remarks are not what you appear to think they are. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:37, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * To interpret the remarks in a manner inconsistent with the source would be WP:OR. If you can find a reliable source providing a differing interpretation, then by all means include it in the article. Even so, both views should be represented. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:06, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not interpreting any remarks. I said that Sarsour never said Zionism is incompatible with feminism, because she didn't. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:31, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Here's the text from the source: It's not for you to interpret what she really meant. Interpretation is left to the WP:RS. (talk) 00:15, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * So Zionism=unquestioning support for the state of Israel? Reliability always depends on context, and Haaretz and numerous other sources got it wrong here, evidently because of the misleading headline that was placed on the Nation interview. Nowhere in it does Sarsour say that Zionists can't be feminists. —04:47, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Like I said, I'm not going to debate you on how to interpret her remarks because WP:OR doesn't belong in the article or on talk pages. And Haaretz is a generally reliable source on matters related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. I see no indication that they "got it wrong" here. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 08:07, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Original speculation about what someone says, when the media completely agree on one interpretation, is disruptive, especially when Haaretz is a newspaper of record. w umbolo   ^^^  12:37, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Carefully evaluating sources for reliability is not original research. It's not my interpretation; Sarsour never said it. I have no idea what she "really meant", and I don't care. But since you evidently don't believe me, let David Schraub explain it: —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:42, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Your assessment of "reliability" is a thinly veiled attempt to discredit a source with which you disagree. An opinion piece with a differing interpretation does not establish that one view is the "correct one." I've said what I have to say on this. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:10, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Since you are apparently not satisfied with that source's opinion, here's another: (emphasis added). —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:48, 4 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Sarsour is a controversial figure, much of the coverage of her comes in the form of criticism by mainstream public figures and media for homophobia and antisemitism. This needs to be in the lede.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:57, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * That isnt even a little bit true.  nableezy  - 16:33, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Sources: WashingtonPost: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/anger-over-farrakhan-ties-prompts-calls-for-womens-march-leaders-to-resign/2018/11/21/6d925942-edb4-11e8-8679-934a2b33be52_story.html?utm_term=.91c4defcfe9e; CNN: Founder of the Women's March calls for co-chairs to step down; "have allowed anti-Semitism, anti-LBGTQIA sentiment and hateful, racist rhetoric to become a part of the platform".E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:45, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * None of that equates to criticism of Sarsour "for homophobia and antisemitism". Even if it did, two whole sources are not "much" when the article cites at least 54 separate sources. We don't throw out several years of RS coverage because some recent coverage happens to align with some users' own POV on the subject. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:25, 30 November 2018 (UTC)


 * It is the epitome of NPOV that no criticism of her is in the lede. To say that it is not notable or anything else is just pure POV and bias. She has faced criticism on multiple occasions and for multiple reasons. It is ludicrous to not have that in the lede. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:35, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment So it's pretty clear that many editors participating on this talk page agree that the introduction is flawed. Why don't we start moving the ball forward and begin deliberating on specific proposed changes, like the one I put forward? It doesn't even have to be mine, but I think it's about time that we begin discussing how to proceed with revising the article. I don't necessarily agree with Sangdeboeuf or Calthinus but at least they've responded to my proposal. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:57, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Be bold and make changes to the article. Sometimes it's best to make small changes to the lead instead of discussing the perfect solution in the talk page. Perhaps one paragraph at a time is the way to go. Or maybe you may want to share with us the overall structure of the lead, i.e what each paragraph says, and then have, rather a top down approach. Up to you to decide which way you want to go. --1l2l3k (talk) 15:33, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Hear, hear.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:45, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I supported your changes tho I modified a few small things-- and as you can see, others do too. We may be approaching a new WP:CONSENSUS. Predictably, they were reverted by someone who is certainly the most consistent enforcer of their interpretation of various rules on the page as well as the talk page, not without periodic dissent on that interpretation. However, each page belongs to the community, no one user WP:OWNs it. If other users above show support for your version, it should stick. --Calthinus (talk) 23:12, 1 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Agree that the controversies re antisemitism etc. are notable and significant and need to be referenced in the lead, without which there is a serious POV issue. Coretheapple (talk) 23:15, 1 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Would like to add to my initial point.

Is there any particular reason we are completely ignoring well-sourced accusations of anti-semitism that extend far beyond just the "Arab-Israeli conflict?" In older versions, it was at least mentioned in the lede (although limited to BDS).

I've gone through reliable sources and I see the following:


 * Tablet: Sarsour maintained ties with anti-semite Louis Farrakhan
 * WaPo: More on Sarsour and Farrakhan ties
 * J-Post: Sarsour repeats anti-semitic "dual loyalty" canard
 * NYTimes: Sarsour raises the "ire" of Jewish groups

Is there any reason that we are excluding this from the lede? Currently the only mention of anti-semitism is with regard to her support for BDS and a passing mention of Farrakhan in the body. It seems quite evident that given the reliable coverage this should feature prominently in the lede. Leaving it out seems pretty clearly in violation of WP:DUE. Right now the article is nearly a soapbox. ModerateMike729 (talk) 01:27, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Conspicuously absent from those sources is any actual description of Sarsour as an anti-Semite so, no. Having vaguely-described "ties" to someone and raising the "ire" of discredited, bankrupt pedophile-apologist white supremacist-sympathizing Milo Yiannopoulos (“Linda Sarsour is a Sharia-loving, terrorist-embracing, Jew-hating, ticking time bomb of progressive horror,” the conservative media personality Milo Yiannopoulos said at a rally on Thursday) do not count. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:43, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Contrary to what some users here seem to think, "due weight" doesn't mean a handful of cherry-picked articles or what happens to be in the news at the moment. The first of these four articles is highly questionable for its reliance on anonymous sources for one thing. Nor does anything here indicate that such criticism is proportional to the whole body of reliable-source coverage of Sarsour. Also, proposing to include something in the lead section before it's explained in the rest of the article unbalances the article via undue "prominence of placement". The lead section exists to summarize the article, not to highlight controversies. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:34, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Addressing the other three points raised: • WaPo: More on Sarsour and Farrakhan ties – nowhere does this source substantiate any such "ties". The closest it gets is saying "Mallory and Sarsour have condemned anti-Semitism, homophobia and other forms of hatred but have not renounced Farrakhan himself."

• J-Post: Sarsour repeats anti-semitic "dual loyalty" canard – that is highly debatable. What the source actually says is that "Activist Linda Sarsour appeared to criticize American Jews of a dual loyalty" – note the qualifying term. The source does not say anything about "canards" in its own voice.; headlines are not reliable sources. Note that the original source, of which the JPost article appears to be a highly edited reprint, uses the more restrained title "Linda Sarsour under fire for suggesting Jewish progressives have divided loyalties". Well, who doesn't have "divided loyalties"? Anyway, this is already the subject of an ongoing discussion on this page.

• NYTimes: Sarsour raises the "ire" of Jewish groups – The "ire" is in fact attributed first to "conservative media personality Milo Yiannopoulos" and then to "conservatives", "right-leaning Jews and Zionists, commentators like Pamela Geller, and some members of the alt-right", and "Dov Hikind, a conservative Democratic state assemblyman". Reducing this to "Jewish groups" is extremely selective and misleading. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:08, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It's no more misleading than saying "Jewish groups praised her" instead of "the JVP praised her". w umbolo   ^^^  10:21, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It's a good thing the article doesn't say "Jewish groups praised her," then. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:02, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It did say that, or the equally vague "progressive Jews". The main support for Sarsour in the Jewish community is the fringe JVP group - and we should be specific on who is doing the supporting (as opposed to "some" or "rogressive Jews"). Icewhiz (talk) 11:57, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, her Jewish supporters include plenty of mainstream figures, according to Haaretz, and The Forward says "many of the most prominent left-leaning Jewish communal leaders" signed a letter in support of her. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:17, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Struck comments from confirmed sockpuppet /. See. —  Newslinger  talk   13:39, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Brotherhood/Sisterhood/Jihad
It seems that we now have more WP:SUSTAINED coverage of the Muslim Brotherhood angle here - this was raised around Sarsour's call for Jihad kerfuffle (e.g. Muslim Author: Sarsour's 'Jihad' Remark Was From 'Muslim Brotherhood Playbook', 9 July 2017), and it seems that Sarsour is now being labelled as such by Saudi media (going as far as using the label Mujahideen) - Details of calls to attack Trump by US ‘Muslim Sisters’ allied to Brotherhood, Al-Arabiya, which is further covered in a secondary manner elsewhere - AL-ARABIYA SLAMS LINDA SARSOUR AS MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD ALLY, JPOSTAnalysis Is Saudi Arabia Repaying Trump for Khashoggi by Attacking Linda Sarsour?, Haaretz. Icewhiz (talk) 07:13, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * So we're treating Al Arabiya as a reliable source now? That's news to me. As for Qanta Ahmed's statements, please show where multiple RS have covered them, as required by policy. We're not here to amplify conspiracy theories about living people. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:35, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh - CAIR and ISNA's roots are far from a conspiracy theory. I'm not sure what RSN decided on Al Arabiya (did not check) - however the Al-Arabiya piece is reported on by WP:RSes - and we would attribute this anyway, as there is obviously a counter-view here. As for WP:FRINGE - the state view of Saudi Arabia is far from fringe. We certainly have multiple RSes covering possible brotherhood connections over a period of some time - and per WP:PUBLICFIGURE we should merely state the two sides of the issue here. Icewhiz (talk) 07:38, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * By "the state view of Saudi Arabia", you are referring to propaganda. Wikipedia is not a propaganda site. Please provide these "multiple RS" that speak of "possible brotherhood connections". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:48, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I linked to a few above. It also seems that the Qatari owned (and often seen as brotherhood linked itself ) Al-Araby has weighed in on Sarsour's side. It also seems there were petitions to ban her entry to Canada (in Sep/Oct 2018) to a speaking event at ICNA (which supposedly has such links) - JEWISH GROUPS CALL FOR ACTIVIST LINDA SARSOUR TO BE BANNED FROM CANADIAN SPEAKING EVENT, 27 September 2018.Icewhiz (talk) 08:55, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Not a single one of these sources substantiates any "connections" between Sarsour and the Muslim Brotherhood, "possible" or otherwise. The earlier Fox News piece is about an entirely separate incident, as was the more recent CJNews piece. Tying these various sources into some kind of narrative about purported "connections" would be textbook improper synthesis. This is not about Sarsour and the Muslim Brotherhood at all, but rather about various groups and individuals who have claimed at one time or another such ties exist, but of course without any evidence. This is the worst kind of phony scandal-mongering. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:22, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Far from Synth, per JPOST in AL-ARABIYA SLAMS LINDA SARSOUR AS MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD ALLY - Under the headline “Sarsour activities with Muslim Brotherhood,” the feature detailed a series of events attended by the activist. It claimed she went to the International Network of Muslim Brotherhood in North America in 2016 which was “organized by the Islamic Circle of North America.” In 2018, groups in Canada raised concerns about Sarsour’s participation at another ICNA event, according to The Canadian Jewish News - So no - not WP:SYNTH - I got to CJN off of the JPost coverage on the Saudi allegations. Certainly there are voices here on either side - we can not state anything here as factual (confirmation or denial) - we should merely, per WP:PUBLICFIGURE, present both sides. Icewhiz (talk) 11:54, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * No, PUBLICFIGURE does not suggest we present "both sides" of anything, especially not when it plays into the hands of propaganda ministers in Saudi Arabia. That's the epitome of false balance. I would definitely wait until multiple reliable, independent sources put this bit of WP:RECENT drama into some kind of context, so that we can explain why it's noteworthy and relevant. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:05, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Al Arabiya does seem to be a reliable source. It's listed at the reliable source search engine, and the RSN discussions comprise of this one, this one and this one, which all reach the conclusion that Al Arabiya is a reliable source, albeit not the best one (with the exception of comments made by block-evading anti-Saudi-POV-pushing socks). The article about Al Arabiya has a section about several controversies, but they consist of violations of the freedom of the press by the Iraqi and UK governments. w umbolo   ^^^  14:44, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure, we could go by what Wikipedia says, or we could just read the article in Haaretz, an actual independent, published source usually considered reliable: Unsubstantiated allegations? Check. Conspiracy theories? Check. Possibly acting on behalf of an autocratic regime to smear opponents? Check. Oh yeah, seems totally legit to me, all right. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:06, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Wumbolo seems to offer a much more sound method for determining reliable sources—why should we place the opinion of one columnist over consensus/input of experienced editors? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:46, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm assuming this is a joke. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:23, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Using the state media of a country which just murdered and dismembered a journalist in cold blood to smear Sarsour sure makes it plain how much some folks really, really don't like this person. Also, FOX News Insider isn't a reliable source - it's little better than an anonymous gossip blog. Note the lack of any attribution or authorship on the article. Nor does that article support any sort of claim of a link between Sarsour and the Muslim Brotherhood. Saying that something is "out of XYZ's playbook" is certainly an attempt to associate tactics with something bad, but it can in no way be construed to suggest any sort of actual contact. The author does not suggest it, nor is there any evidence presented. This appears to be a textbook example of prohibited original synthesis to assemble a narrative out of a bunch of unrelated articles, dubious claims and biased sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:56, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You're right, – I mistook it as a piece of authored journalism at first, but the Fox News piece is basically just a video of Ahmed's Fox & Friends appearance dressed up with a bit of Sarsour's background to make it look like actual reporting – no byline, just churnalism. This is definitely a primary source for Ahmed's accusations against Sarsour – there's no place for this in any BLP article. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:41, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * When progressives or even establishment Democrats come under attack from Fox News Channel personalities or similar characters, it is misleading to refer to the criticism without saying where it comes from. Also, unless the criticism has received coverage in secondary sources, it lacks weight for inclusion. TFD (talk) 04:38, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The Saudi allegations (which we should attribute) have received significant secondary analysis.Icewhiz (talk) 04:46, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * No, we should omit them as defamatory claims published by the state media outlet of a journalist-murdering country which are filled with wildly-stretched guilt-by-being-in-a-picture-with-someone claims. The Jerusalem Post article you link even discusses how thin a reed these claims are: Al-Arabiya pointed out that Sarsour appeared next to Samah Safi Bayazid, who had posted a photo with Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan on her Twitter account. In this roundabout explanation, the article sought to link Sarsour to Siraj Wahhaj, a “pioneering Islamic preacher in New York.” Unsurprisingly, the article then claimed that Wahhaj – “whom Linda Sarsour has admired and who in turn influenced her” – has been in the spotlight for being arrested in New Mexico.
 * So your "significant secondary analysis" is largely devoted to pointing out how far the Saudi government has to stretch to somehow find any possible linkage between Sarsour and the Muslim Brotherhood, and also discusses how the Saudi government is likely attempting to curry favor with the Trump administration by harassing one of his outspoken critics.
 * This is like a game of Telephone five people removed — "Sarsour appeared next to someone who posted a picture together with the Turkish president on her Twitter account, therefore she's guilty of being evil because someone else entirely got arrested!" The claims are patently absurd, unworthy of the encyclopedia and you ought to be ashamed of yourself for suggesting that we include such ridiculous Saudi propaganda in the encyclopedia merely because it reinforces your preconceived biases against Sarsour. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:13, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * have you glanced at Biographies of living persons lately? It says right there, Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased, malicious or overly promotional content. Beware does not mean we give "both sides" or "just name the source and let the reader decide". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:51, 13 December 2018 (UTC) (edited 08:36, 13 December 2018 (UTC))
 * The connection to Wahhaj (also from NY) is not anything terribly new - per "Further, she stirred more controversy in her speech last weekend by calling out her “favorite person in the room” -- Imam Siraj Wahhaj, whom she described as a “mentor, motivator, and encourager.” Wahhaj appeared on a list of unindicted co-conspirators in the 1993 World Trade Center bombings." (and elsewhere - e.g. here). This isn't an anonymous claim - we have Saudi state affiliated media making claims on Sarsour's political affiliations and discourse. The Arab world, these days, is split into two major camps (Turkey and Qatar specifically being opposed to Saudia Arabia, UAE, Egypt, etc.) - it is not surprising that Al-Arabia is trying to pigeonhole a Muslim figure based on their associations. Some of the reception of this has been critical (e.g. Al-Araby (associated with the "other" Arab side - Qatar)), some less so. Icewhiz (talk) 06:43, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * That's all very interesting I'm sure, but it has nothing to do with the Al Arabiya source's reliability. It's not any more usable just because it repeats some claims made by earlier sources. Nor is Wikipedia a platform for waging propaganda wars between rival countries. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:28, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * we have Saudi state affiliated media making claims — You've just eloquently described why this material has no place in Sarsour's biography. We aren't here to repeat smear jobs orchestrated by a totalitarian kleptocratic petrostate attempting to distract from the fact that it murdered a journalist in cold blood. You wouldn't accept the use of Iranian state media to make claims about an Israeli activist, would you? So why would you think we should use Saudi state media to make claims about an American activist? I can assure you that I would vehemently oppose any attempt to use Press TV as a reliable source for claims about someone the Iranian government opposes. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:50, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The apparent Saudi repudiation (e.g. per Haaretz - who found the repudiation more significant than the claims themselves) is of political significance in regards to Sarsour who is a Muslim-American activist (active in Islamic/Arab related activism in America - e.g. AAANY, CAIR, ISNA). If we were to takeIranian-American activists - e.g. Alireza Jafarzadeh (NCRI - opposed to IRI) or Trita Parsi (who tries to promote moderates inside the IRI) - their relationship vs. Iran is obviously relevant. Icewhiz (talk) 09:18, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Great – then we just wait for published, mainstream sources to explain the "political significance" of this as it applies to Sarsour, and then summarize what they say about it. Anything else is WP:OR. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:08, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Just looked at both of those articles you mentioned. As expected, I don't see anything sourced to PressTV or other Iranian state media. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:52, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I would also emphasize the "Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased, malicious or overly promotional content." People are trying to rely way too heavily on partisan or biased media for a WP:BLP here.  Such sources can be sometimes used, but they have to be used with caution, especially in a WP:BLP, and shouldn't be used for large blocks of text.  There are WP:SECONDARY sources that have roughly covered the same topic in a much more cautious, less accusatory, and generally more neutral manner; we should rely on those instead and avoid over-reliance on sources that clearly have a dog in the fight. --Aquillion (talk) 18:55, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Tablet piece
Let's begin discussing what in this piece belongs in the article. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 05:04, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Tablet profile on Sarsour and Women's March"
 * Little to none of it. Heavy reliance on anonymous sources for one thing, and the rest is mostly gossip. When we have significant biographical material on Sarsour from the likes of the Associated Press, The New York Times and The Washington Post, looking to a niche online magazine for negative material about the subject is the epitome of undue weight. Any striking claims require multiple high-quality sources according to policy —Sangdeboeuf. (talk) 06:30, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Tablet is rather well regarded, and given Sarsour's chosen areas of activism quite relevant. A mark of good well regarded journalism is further secondary analysis and quoting of such journalism - which in this case is present - Philidelphia Inquirer, The Daily Beast. Icewhiz (talk) 07:55, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * And how much of that further secondary analysis is about Sarsour, or even mentions her name? Exactly. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:03, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * This is a relevant piece that would enrich the page with more perspectives. It is a shame that WP:OWN behavior is preventing its inclusion.--Calthinus (talk) 18:13, 13 December 2018 (UTC)]
 * It's a shame that you appear to think responding to a request for discussion constitutes WP:OWN. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:06, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your assertion that Tablet is a good source for this sort of thing; if nothing else, it is clearly WP:BIASED on subjects related to Israel, making it a poor primary source for negative materials in articles about BLPs. In some situations we can cite it, but it should be replaced by better sources when available and shouldn't be used to illustrate WP:DUE weight or anything of that nature. WP:RS isn't a universal binary - a source like a general-interest magazine can be usable for some stuff (eg. uncontroversial things or stuff that doesn't touch on WP:BLP) but generally poor for other stuff (eg. negative material in a WP:BLP where they have an obvious bias.)  If we have WP:SECONDARY sources, we should obviously use those instead, relying on their tone, interpretation, weight and analysis rather than the primary source - and if those secondary sources don't mention Sarsour by name, that's an indicator that it probably doesn't belong in her article. --Aquillion (talk) 18:37, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Aside from whether Tablet is a biased source, this particular article/column is not a reliable source, especially for a BLP. It's almost entirely based on "unnamed sources". In writing about the founding meeting, the authors acknowledge that they didn't speak to six of the seven women who were there, but nevertheless, they quote several sources and write as if they have a recording of the meeting. That's just bad journalism, and it's typical of the authors' approach. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 18:58, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I note that the authors are described as a podcast host and Penthouse columnist on the one hand, and the editor of Tablet's "Scroll" feature (evidently their editorial page) on the other. I guess they're going for straight journalism with this piece; nevertheless, Woodward & Bernstein this ain't. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:21, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Cool! In my younger days, I used to read the columns in Penthouse—right after I finished reading the articles in Playboy. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:25, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * BLP applies to journalists you disagree with. Leah McSweeney writes in many publications - including an advice column in Penthouse - but also many others. As for Jacob Siegel - "His writing has been published in The New York Times, Politico, the New York Daily News, Vice, Rolling Stone, the National Endowment for the Humanities magazine and elsewhere" and is editor of the Tablet's scroll. Icewhiz (talk) 08:19, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Sangdeboeuf's argument is essentially WP:IDONTLIKEIT dressed up with misconstructions of WP:WEIGHT and WP:DUE. Tablet is a perfectly reliable source, and this an excellent piece to draw from for new additions to the article. Very few of the assertions depend on anonymous sources; much of the article is focused on what has already been publicly reported or disclosed and/or statements by Sarsour or her colleagues. Of course "gossip" is simply a pejorative that misrepresents the quality of the reporting. It's also crucial to note that the article is not creating a new controversy, but elaborating and more heavily reporting on an already existing one (Sarsour's involvement with the women's march). Finally, the notion that the only sources we may use are the NYT and WaPo is frankly nonsense and thoroughly misguided. Interesting information from this article on Sarsour includes:
 * Sarsour's use of NOI for security


 * Sarsour on why combating antisemitism is not part of their movement's "unity principles"


 * Sarsour's attendance at a Farrakhan event

The answer is that of course we can use this source, while exercising sound judgment in determining what to include and how to appropriately attribute and WP:PARAPHRASE material. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:07, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Once again, any claims related to accusations or controversies require multiple high-quality sources. That's not my opinion; it's long-established policy. And no, I don't think my comments are a "misconstruction" of anything, but thanks for your concern. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:42, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * There are clearly multiple high-quality sources discussing Sarsour's ties with Farrakhan and NOI - which is the wider topic here. Per WP:PUBLICFIGURE - we merely document the different sides to this issue. Icewhiz (talk) 08:43, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are. And since some folks here can't fight the sources at WP:RSN, they uselessly tag bomb the article with "Undue weight", and abusing policy. POV negotiation should start with the source. The source is good, period. I don't see any "undue" weight". --1l2l3k (talk) 20:02, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Then start a discussion about those sources. The topic of this section is the Tablet piece. The statements about NOI and security here are attributed to just [t]wo other sources, with direct knowledge of the time... What are their names? What reason might they have for making these statements? There's no indication of either. BLP policy specifically enjoins us: Be wary of relying on sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources. As for the Facebook post, if it's actually important it will have been reported in multiple high-quality sources, not just this one. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:14, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Should I discuss those sources separately - I will surely get the line that "'multiple high-quality sources" are needed. The Farrakhan issue has been covered by a multitude of RSes over a period of some time - it doesn't get any more "multiple high-quality" than this. Icewhiz (talk) 06:28, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * So discuss them here then. I'm not seeing multiple sources on "The Farrakhan issue" that support these specific statements. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:56, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

I do not see anything beyond what is already in the article that belongs. But that is what weight means: unless most relevant sources mention something it is irrelevant. Sarsour met Farakhan, some people were unhappy, what else do we need to say? TFD (talk) 04:19, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Tablet is obviously a WP:BIASED source when it comes to anything that has to do with Israel. We can cite biased sources (with in-line citations noting their bias), but WP:DUE weight is an extremely important concern when dealing with them; it'd generally be unusual to give significant weight to them or cite significant amounts of text to them, especially for negative material on a WP:BLP. If these statements are genuinely noteworthy, it should be possible to find more impartial WP:SECONDARY sources covering them, and use those. --Aquillion (talk) 18:37, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * But don't you get it? They weren't just unhappy, they were  extremely  unhappy! And they're going to remind you just how extremely unhappy they are, whether you care or not. Because they think that's how much they matter and how little everybody else does. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:42, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Latest statement by Sarsour

 * Linda Sarsour under fire for criticizing American Jews of dual loyalty to Israel. Nov. 18.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:01, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Widely covered... And "Accusing Jews of dual loyalty is one of the oldest and most pernicious antisemitic tropes" per the AJC, and any student of history. Definitely should be in.Icewhiz (talk) 18:41, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * "Any student of history" might also be familiar with Mearsheimer and Walt's work The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, which states, "both scholars and commentators use the term in a neutral and nonpejorative fashion to describe the widespread circumstance where individuals feel genuine attachments (or loyalties) to more than one country". Funny how all that nuance goes out the window when criticism of Sarsour hits the news. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:46, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Weird, because being critical of Sarsour has nothing to do with this "nuance".  w umbolo   ^^^  21:07, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Not sure what that means exactly. I was referring to the concern (or lack thereof) for "nuance" on this talk page. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:26, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Include. Obviously notable.--Calthinus (talk) 19:20, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Haaretz source: . This seems related to this, but I can't find anything in the article connecting it. w umbolo   ^^^  19:35, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No, it is about Omar's pre/post-election flip flop on BDS - not the headscarf.Icewhiz (talk) 20:13, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * This is probably futile, but has no one here read WP:RSBREAKING? Does no one recall that the recent "expert opinion" controversy turned out to be not all it seemed to be? Not every social-media flap (A Facebook post followed by a Tweet) is noteworthy for an encyclopedic biography ( see WP:Notability for the actual meaning of that term). —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:48, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Include this. The near-complete absence of Jewish criticism of Sarsour is a jarring omission and highlights a serious WP:BALANCE issue. Jewish criticism extends far beyond her "anti-Zionism" and includes her associations with Farrakhan via the women's march (see here) and her accusations of dual loyalty. These absolutely ought to be included prominently. ModerateMike729 (talk) 21:01, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * "Near-complete absence of Jewish criticism"? Have you actually read the article? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:05, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I absolutely did. The only mentions of Jewish criticism are with regard to her anti-Zionist stance. No mention of Farrakhan, none of dual loyalty charge, etc. These are glaring absences.ModerateMike729 (talk) 21:59, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree should be include per WP:DUE --Shrike (talk) 13:06, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes. Seems we're at or pretty damn close to consensus here. Ought to be included. ModerateMike729 (talk) 14:00, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer for an uninvolved editor to judge the level of "consensus", thanks. Consensus is not determined by a majority vote. I for one suggest caution when citing breaking news reports on such hot-button issues. Not that it will make any difference, I suppose. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:46, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note that breaking-news reports are considered primary sources per WP:IRS. Describing criticism of living people requires reliable, secondary sources – see WP:BLP. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:04, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Include. This is less "breaking news" now, and is serious enough that Sarsour has been compelled to apologize. It's a pretty glaring omission, and the current wording plays into the trope of "Allegations of antisemitism to stifle legitimate criticism of Israel". &#x2230; Bellezzasolo &#x2721;   Discuss  02:21, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * We don't know that she was apologizing for the "allegiance to Israel" statement at all. Indeed, her statement quoted in that source, "I am a bold, outspoken BDS supporting Palestinian Muslim American", would seem to imply otherwise. Sales/JTA/Haaretz mention the "allegiance" quote and response only in relation to Sarsour being a "polarizing figure" among American Jews. Well, we knew that already. I think it's still too soon to afford these dueling sound bites any special significance. As to whether the article reinforces any "tropes", that's not our business; we just look for the best sources and summarize what they say within the bounds of WP:NPOV. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:30, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely does not belong in this article for the reasons that Sangdeboeuf has already done of good job of explaining. Gandydancer (talk) 03:13, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * So... we include her explanation too?--Calthinus (talk) 18:08, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

There's absolutely no reason to include this latest incidence of the usual suspects overreacting to their own (worst-case) misinterpretation of what Sarsour wrote or said, unless it's in a new section titled "Water is wet". The fact that none of you has ever heard an activist described as PEP — "progressive except for Palestine" — says more about you and the circles you run in than it does about Sarsour's alleged claims of dual loyalty on the part of American Jews. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 18:44, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * This sounds more like your personal opinion than something useful (especially the PEP part-- which I have heard, especially being a former member of JVP, thanks for assuming). The point is that the statement is of interest to readers, especially as "dual loyalty" claims and counterclaims are an important part of diasporal identities in Western (and other) societies. --Calthinus (talk) 19:36, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Regardless of editorial opinion, the "dual loyalty" stmt was widely covered. Much of Sarsour's coverage in sources, as an activist, of for her stmts and associations with other figures - we should merely reflect what sources say of her, and add, per BLP, her responses to various charges.Icewhiz (talk) 19:57, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, today's weather was also "widely covered". While the Farrakhan controversy has now gotten some secondary coverage, the "allegiance" quote and the AJC's response fall under WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTEVERYTHING, in my opinion. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:43, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Your sarcasm aside, this is obviously WP:DUE and your personal opinion and analysis about what's notable and what isn't carries less weight than that of a WP:RS. Icewhiz is completely correct. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:43, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The only thing that's obvious is the POV of the editors who think including this garbage represents WP:DUE. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 03:22, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? The remarks? She's the one who said them, and we're quoting the WP:RS that reported on it. That's what guides content, not your personal opinions. Please refrain from non-policy based judgments about content and assume good faith on the part of other editors. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:30, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * BLPs are written conservatively on purpose. We rely on high-level sources, especially for controversies and criticism. Breaking-news reports, however, are considered primary sources. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:36, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Classifying the sources he cited as breaking news, particularly this one seems to be a mischaracterization. That piece, for example, is not a simple reporting of news, it includes a nuanced analysis as well. And Haaretz should certainly be considered a high-quality source, unless there is consensus to the contrary that I am unaware of. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:43, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * See my reply to Bellezzasolo above. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:20, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I read your reply. I respect your position but the suggestion that the pieces provided are unreliable primary "breaking news" sources is not supported by policy. Here's some of the text from WP:PRIMARYNEWS that examines this distinction: A newspaper article is a primary source if it reports events, but a secondary source if it analyses and comments on those events. The JTA source was published three days after the Sarsour post was made, included responses by other organizations like the ADL, and examined and analyzed the remarks in the context of Sarsour's other comments. The argument that we cannot address this matter because of a dearth of reliable, secondary sources is simply not accurate. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:13, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It was the AJC, not the ADL, that condemned the remarks. That's one organization, not "organizations", plural. Still not seeing anything that ties the "allegiance" quote to other comments by Sarsour. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:42, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Regardless, both this piece from JTAand this one from Haaretz are still reliable secondary sources and neither is a WP:PRIMARY. You need to go back and read WP:PRIMARYNEWS because it does not just mean fresh coverage of a recent event. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:36, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * See Identifying reliable sources: All breaking news stories, without exception, are primary sources, and must be treated with caution per WP:PSTS. Where are you seeing analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis in the two sources you mentioned? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:12, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The post by Sarsour was made on 11/15, and each of the pieces is dated 11/18, three days later; these were not breaking news stories. And as far as the analysis/commentary/research in both, I'm confident that if you carefully read the sources, you'll find it. Breaking news stories are distinctly different in tone, length, and character from regular pieces like the ones linked above and are easily recognizable as such. Examples of breaking news from WP:RSBREAKING include The wire service announces that a prominent politician has been taken to the hospital. The weather service says that a tornado has touched down. Clearly, neither of these pieces remotely resembles either example. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:54, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, the refs in question are more like the examples The newspaper journalist describes the discussions from a meeting of the local school agency or The reporter quotes the politician's speech. In other words, primary sources. And yes, I have read them. Carefully, in fact. And the only analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis concerning the issue that I have found is Sales's (brief) comment on Sarsour being "a polarizing figure to American Jews".
 * Neither of those examples from WP:PRIMARYNEWS are of breaking news; the first falls under "reports on events," and these pieces go beyond that because they provide commentary and analysis (as you conceded), and the second is from "interviews," and the articles in question are not quoting from an interview. And even if we were to rely on another source that could correctly be described as a primary one, primary does not mean bad. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:06, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * "They" do not provide commentary and analysis; a total of one sentence in one source qualifies as "commentary" on the issue we're discussing. If we're going by WP:PRIMARYNEWS, it's clear that contemporary news articles are usually considered primary sources. It's not a question of such sources being "bad"; it's a question of making sure that "criticism and praise" are supported by reliable, secondary sources, as required by policy. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:45, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * If these sources were in fact just reporting the news without analysis, as you stated, then how could they even be used to source an opinion? And "contemporary" is not enough to call a source primary; again, please refer to WP:PRIMARYNEWS. In additon, statements like The ADL, along with many Jewish groups across the political spectrum, fiercely oppose the Boycott Israel movement, which they say unfairly singles out Israel for pariah status and has as its stated goal the dismantling of the Jewish state. (JTA) and The Women’s March has been under fire for months over Sarsour and other leaders’ connections with Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, who has a long history of anti-Semitic rhetoric. (Haaretz) also count as analysis and commentary, thus most likely qualifying them as secondary, though that line is admittedly blurry. Beyond that, I don't even think that anyone was suggesting using these sources to support an opinion or criticism; they are, however, sufficient and reliable enough to document events, which was what was originally proposed. Your true objection, based on previous talk comments, seems to be with the content itself, which you're mistakenly trying to disqualify on a technicality. Please remember WP:NPOV, which is no less important than WP:BLP. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:34, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * How is any of this related to Sarsour's "allegiance to Israel" comments? That is the topic of this section. Or have we been discussing something else this whole time? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:58, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Were those not the comments? Have you not been disputing the propriety of using these sources? I'm not going to keep going round-and-round with you here. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:29, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your questions. Once again, how are the parts of the sources you quoted related to Sarsour's "allegiance to Israel" statement? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:37, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

I've from the article. The lack of significant retrospective coverage makes this event unduly weighted. Even Sales's (brief) mention of this in the context of Sarsour being "a polarizing figure to American Jews" seems chosen more out of convenience, as a recent example of such a response that was then in the news, rather than out of any deeper significance of the event itself. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:05, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Your determination of what's "unencyclopedic" is basically just WP:IDONTLIKEIT and has no apparent basis in policy. WP:DUE is not subject to your personal opinion, it's based on prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources, and this is well-documented. And finally, you are against consensus on this. Kindly self revert. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:17, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * See my reply to ModerateMike729 above. I have already mentioned policy-based reasons for excluding this. Your assertion that the information is WP:DUE has no basis in policy itself. "Documented" does not mean "prominent". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:30, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to keep track of your scattershot arguments for a cut-and-dry issue that you are continuing to bludgeon despite being the only editor in this section who thinks the content shouldn't be included. WP:DUE does not set a standard of "significant retrospective coverage" that would justify you wholesale removing a paragraph with links to multiple sources. I'll repeat, please respect WP:CONSENSUS and reinstate the paragraph. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:42, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not for any person involved in such a contentious discussion to judge the level of consensus. I am far from the only person to oppose the inclusion of this material. Perhaps it's not as cut and dried as you think? Especially when most of the article is based on retrospective synthesis and analysis from reliable, secondary sources, including this bit of recent trivia would be giving it undue weight. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:58, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * There's clear consensus to include these highly notable comments.Icewhiz (talk) 08:22, 4 December 2018 (UTC)


 * User:Malik Shabazz, who has not been productive on this talk page, went ahead and removed the paragraph again, charmingly calling it "tripe." I've asked him to self-revert. Is it time to close this section to avoid further edit-warring? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 04:08, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Anyone is welcome to request a formal close at the appropriate noticeboard. However, no involved editor should attempt to evaluate consensus per WP:NAC and just all-around, you know, not being a dick. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:45, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It's unfortunate, not to mention a clear WP:NPA violation, that you've resorted to name-calling because WP:CONSENSUS hasn't gone your way. Eleven editors have weighed in on this thread and evaluated the content, including you and myself, and eight of them, many very experienced, have supported its inclusion with the sources provided. Closure in this case, when consensus is clear, shouldn't be necessary, and ideally, you and the other editors who disagree would suggest a compromise in wording or phrasing rather than repeatedly removing the content and insisting on having the last word. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:10, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It's unfortunate you believe WP:CONSENSUS refers to a majority in a poll, when it is clear that it doesn't. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:21, 6 December 2018 (UTC)'
 * Except I'm not referring to a poll. I'm referring to an extended discussion (see above) that persuaded more editors to favor inclusion. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:57, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Just to reiterate the policy-based reasons I see for excluding this given the current sources available: "due weight" doesn't mean what happens to be in the news. It means fairly representing all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. The fact that some reliable sources have published these remarks doesn't mean they're in proportion to the entire body of reliable-source coverage of the subject. Quite the contrary, actually. There is little to no "analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis" on this issue available from reliable, secondary sources, which are essential for writing an encyclopedic summary of any topic, especially for "criticism and praise" of living persons. Lacking such sources to draw on, we're left with a couple of sound bites that may be newsworthy, but Wikpedia is not a news source or aggregator of news. Finally, the burden to achieve consensus is on those wishing to include material, and despite protestations to the contrary, consensus requires an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, not a simple vote count or deference to the majority opinion. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:37, 10 December 2018 (UTC) No, you are simply misrepresenting the sources—they are WP:SECONDARY, and you've misapplied WP:NOTNEWS because this applies to original or routine reporting. WP:ONUS is indeed policy, though it is also not a veto for you to disrupt consensus when an overwhelming majority of editors in this section disagree with you. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:10, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You still don't seem to understand that consensus is not a majority decision. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:52, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Here's a quote from the policy. The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever. Your objection was to call the material "garbage" and accuse editors with opposing views of bias. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:15, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Assuming, arguendo, that what you wrote about me is true, what does that have to do with the fact that you don't understand the difference between consensus and a show of hands? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:43, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , if you can show with actual references (or better yet, direct quotations) from the sources just how I'm "misinterpreting" them or where they contain the analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis that defines a secondary source, by all means do so. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:59, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Struck comments from confirmed sockpuppet /. See. —  Newslinger  talk   13:39, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Harvey relief
- in regards to diff, please provide a quote from the cited source stating that the charge was false. I don't see this in the source - I see the source saying in an attributed fashion that Sarsour and Ginny Goldman (one of the founders of TOP) deny this. Their more independent expert (Melanie Ulle) says that while she "doesn’t think that “Sarsour is being deceptive,”" also says "Ulle added that in philanthropy, “timing is everything,” and that Sarsour may have “missed the mark” by directing people to an organization whose motives could be interpreted as political". In short - Newsweek doesn't support this, let alone conservative outlets which we aren't citing at the moment.Icewhiz (talk) 07:54, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Any specific allegations about the Harvey relief funds require multiple reliable sources reporting on them per WP:PUBLICFIGURE, which is why I soon after adding it. –Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:22, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * No - it doesn't work that way. You don't get to WP:CHERRYPICK a random comment from Newsweek on this scandal - without context of this scandal - PUBLICFIGURE applies to all aspects of the incident, not just negative ones. Either there is context - or the whole thing goes. As for multiple sources - they are available - coupled with Newsweek would make 3. Icewhiz (talk) 08:50, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Weekly Standard and National Review are exactly the kind of conservative sites alleging misappropriation of funds according to Newsweek; they're not "documenting" the controversy so much as fueling it with baseless innuendo. The comment on conservative sites "criticizing" Sarsour was meant to contextualize the "favorite target of the right" quote – which is a reliably-sourced piece of secondary evaluation in any case. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:21, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:RSes reporting on the situation. Regardless - if we include this - per WP:PUBLICFIGURE - we include what this is about. Either Harvey is in (including the allegations themselves (in an attributed fashion) - which Newsweek itself is reporting - and Newsweek does not dismiss the allegations as false) - or it is out. Icewhiz (talk) 09:37, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but this isn't a college debate club. You don't get to include baseless partisan attacks on a person and pretend that we have to give equal validity to the baseless attacks and the actual truth. The actual fact is that the money did not "go to a leftist political organization" any more than donations to the LDS Charities went to a "homophobic right-wing cult". NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:44, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * A source for the WP:OR above? Icewhiz (talk) 09:45, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Same bullshit source you used to try and smear Sarsour with baseless nonsense. More fuel for the inevitable AE request that you be topic-banned from this article for ceaselessly trying to depict the article subject in a negative manner. You clearly have lost all sense of reason in regard to Sarsour, you cannot edit her article in a fair-minded and even-handed fashion, and you should probably find some other topic to edit. We aren't here to provide an ax-grinding platform. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:51, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Per WP:BLPCOI, More generally, editors who have a strongly negative or positive view of the subject of a biographical article should be especially careful to edit that article neutrally, if they choose to edit it at all. I think there is a very strong case to be made that Icewhiz has demonstrated they hold a strongly negative view of Sarsour, and that is evidenced by their many hundreds (thousands?) of edits, effectively every single one of which has worked to present Sarsour in a negative light. I suggest that Icewhiz may want to consider whether their apparent vehement personal dislike of Sarsour has spilled over into a pattern of editing that demonstrates they are not here to write a neutral, fair-minded encyclopedia article about the biographical subject. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:06, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I dispute that and  are "reliable sources" for any factual claims on this issue, certainly compared to a mainstream outlet such as Newsweek. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:48, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * NorthBySouthBaranof that seems like a pretty charged and outlandish accusation, for which you've provided little evidence. Perhaps we should stick to discussing issues related to the article. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 10:09, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The issue is, of course, entirely related to the article. Editors who have a passionate personal like or dislike of a person should probably not edit that person's biography unless they are careful to do so in a fair and neutral manner; that's one reason you won't see me editing Donald Trump, for example. We aren't here to further personal disputes or to grind an ax against people we disagree with. Considering that essentially every single edit that Icewhiz has ever made to this article has been to depict Sarsour in a negative light, I'm offering an opportunity for that editor to rethink their contributions and consider whether they are here for the right reasons or not. As for evidence, there is plenty of it in the article and talk page histories. Compiling them for an AE case would not be difficult. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:19, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe you should WP:AGF and chalk it up to editorial disagreements, which are normal and allowed, as opposed to accusing Icewhiz of doing something sinister and wrong. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 12:44, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 December 2018
Came across a few press articles mentioning that Sarsour said that "Feminism and Judaism are incompatible". Seems like something that should be in her Wiki page. Barca (talk) 15:00, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Discuss above in the section "Request for comment: ADL criticism".  w umbolo   ^^^  15:02, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Zionism and feminism according to Sarsour
Came across a few press articles mentioning that Sarsour said that "Feminism and Judaism are incompatible". Shall we include this? Barca (talk) 15:28, 17 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Discuss in the section above, titled "Request for comment: ADL criticism". All of these articles have already been looked at, I believe. w umbolo   ^^^  15:33, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The ADL section isn't exactly the right place - the ADL has indeed been one of many critics of this stmt, however this stmt was widely covered (and criticized) in coverage that doesn't mention the ADL.Icewhiz (talk) 15:40, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

This section title is a BLP violation. Outright lie of an attributed quote. Zionism is not Judaism.  nableezy  - 15:51, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I was thrown-off by the Star article's title "The leaders of the American Women’s March have spoken: Jews are unwelcome on the feminist left" - this is why I confused "Zionism" with "Judaism" here. I stand corrected. Is it still worth including (using the word "Zionism")? Barca (talk) 16:04, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Only if you can show where Sarsour ever actually said those words. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:40, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Here is the actual quote of what Sarsour said: “Is there room for people who support the state of Israel and do not criticize it in the movement?” There can’t be in feminism. You either stand up for the rights of all women, including Palestinians, or none. She doesn't say Zionism, she doesn't say that someone can't support Israel and be a feminist — she says you can't be an uncritical supporter of Israel and be a feminist. Headlines aren't reliable sources, and misinterpretations by opinion columnists with an ax to grind are, at best, questionable. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:08, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Firstly, you are not quoting her completely, secondly you are interpreting her statement. Which is a violation of SYNTH. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:15, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not interpreting her statement, the plain language speaks for itself. All words have meaning. She doesn't say "Is there room for people who support the state of Israel in the movement? There can't be in feminism." She says, clearly, who support the state of Israel and do not criticize it. That's a deliberately-added qualifier, you can't pretend it doesn't exist, and we're not going to ignore it. She did not say that you can't be a feminist if you support Israel. That's simply not the meaning of the words she spoke, and we're not here to distort someone's views by cherry-picking fragments out of context, even if you think that person is really bad and evil and all those other things. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:29, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * And yet, regardless of all that, as you know, we go by what RS reports. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:40, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * And yet we're not required to include anything in an article, so if there's no consensus that these particular misinterpretations of Sarsour's words belong in her biography, they simply won't be included. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:00, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * reliability always depends on context. In this context, we have Sarsour's own statement, where she does not in fact say in so many words that Zionists can't be feminists. Any suggestion that she did requires assuming that Zionism is synonymous with uncritical support for the current State of Israel. That's clearly not the case, so we have to evaluate any source claiming Sarsour did say this in relation to Sarsour's actual words. That's not synthesis, it's editorial discretion, which is especially needed in BLP articles. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:06, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Barca, it's not a Star news article, it's clearly labelled as "opinion," the author is identified as a "columnists" and therefore it comes under "News organizations": " Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." The author thinks that opposing the Likud equates to anti-Semitism, but that is an opinion not a matter of fact. TFD (talk) 20:05, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

The comments were not that Judaism and feminism are incompatible, it was about Zionism. It seems pretty clear to me that's what she was implying, but it's not for us to argue about how to interpret her remarks on this talk page. The sources should be the main subject of discussion. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:14, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, if sources are saying "She also insisted that Zionism and feminism were incompatible, telling The Nation magazine in March: 'Is there room for people who support the State of Israel and do not criticize it in the movement? That can’t be in feminism.'”; shall we just credit the publisher and include "The Jerusalem Post has published that ..."? Barca (talk) 19:07, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * No, because nearly all the sources claiming she did say it have an evident bias against Sarsour in some way or another. Per WP:BLP, we should avoid repeating such claims, especially where the subject's actual words refute them. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:20, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Except the subject's words don't refute them, and we have multiple sources reporting that she indeed said them. Haaretz is a paper of record and may be treated as a reliable source. One possible solution is here is that we can simply include her quote, say Haaretz interpreted her comments as X and include another opinion as David Schraub defended her comments, saying she did not mean X. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 09:18, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm in favor of adding what some media have said, and the counter argument. What I'm not in favor of is censoring information on the basis of "media bias". Most (if not all) media is biased, but that is not a reason to censor information from sources we accept on other Wikipedia pages. Barca (talk) 09:26, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Reliability of any source depends on context. In this case the "paper of record" (actually just a reprinted wire story; check the byline) appears to have got it wrong, for reasons I've already explained. And no, she didn't say the words that people are claiming she did. So there's no need to include them with any "defense". Furthermore, if we're going to make any statements in Wikipedia's voice about how any source "interpreted" or "defended" her comments, then that would likewise require a source commenting directly on the interpretation, as well as contrasting it directly with Schraub's take, which we don't have in any case. Otherwise we're in very slippery, false-balance-cum-improper synthesis territory with such a statement. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:06, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * No, we're not. It would be perfectly appropriate to include the quote by citing the Haaretz/JTA piece and note the source's interpretation with an in-line attribution. If more context is desirable, we can include a line from Schraub or another published columnist commenting on her remarks. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 04:24, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that the main "interpretation" being argued for is your own. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:22, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Again, no—My argument has been, from the beginning, that we should adhere to the source, from which I'll include the relevant portion:

If there were a blatant and obvious error made by the source then I would not advocate including it, but, as I said previously, I don't see that to be the case here. And you conveniently omitted the second half of my comment where I continued, It seems pretty clear to me that's what she was implying, but it's not for us to argue about how to interpret her remarks on this talk page. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 06:34, 26 December 2018 (UTC)


 * The blatant and obvious error is equating Zionism with uncritical support for the state of Israel. In the op-ed by Emily Shire that Sarsour was commenting on, Shire even says, "Although I hope for a two-state solution and am critical of certain Israeli government policies, I identify as a Zionist ... I am happy to debate Middle East politics or listen to critiques of Israeli policies." By the implied definition of Zionism that these later sources use (apparently based solely on the headline that The Nation placed on the interview), Shire is apparently not a Zionist either. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:15, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * So in other words, Sarsour was responding to a strawman—regardless, the solution would be to simply include the quote, and provide necessary context like the question she was asked, from which publication, and the op-ed that she was commenting on. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 07:43, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * No, the strawman is the one used by all the authors claiming Sarsour said something she didn't. The solution is not to devote any more of our or our readers' time and attention to this bit of scandal-mongering. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:01, 26 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Her remarks received WP:RS coverage and are related to her commentary on the Arab-Israeli conflict. You've made your views clear, but you're not the owner of this page. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 12:52, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Despite what you seem to think, neither are you. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 18:54, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Objectionable addition - WP:WEIGHT
This edit is objectionable. The lengthy quote and section heading gives undue weight to the POV of a single, obscure group of people who are themselves a smaller part of another relatively obscure group of people. Perhaps some mention should be made of it, but there's too much there. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:36, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It's also a pretty WP:FRINGE interpretation of Sarsour's statement. Maybe it's the language barrier? If this were legit, we'd surely have more mainstream (U.S.) sources reporting on it. I've removed it. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:05, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Here's Haaretz reporting it:, although it's not a U.S. source as you requested. w umbolo   ^^^  18:24, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, good, the whitewash patrol is here. Since when is JPOST considered FRINGE? It's quite atrocious that you are removing this merely because it puts Sarsour and the March in a bad light. It is newsworthy and notable for inclusion. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:51, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Careful you don't get hay fever from all that straw you're throwing around. The material may or may not be newsworthy. However, Wikipedia is not a newspaper. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:05, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

The most complete quote I can find for this is from a pretty bad source (here), but it at least gives more context to the quote, at least according to them:"But what they do is, I’ll give you an example of something that they do — if you are part of a criminal justice reform movement, if you believe in the idea of ending police brutality and the misconduct of law enforcement officers across the country, then you do not support an organization that takes police officers from America, funds their trips, takes them to Israel so they can be trained by the Israeli police and military, and then they come back here and do what? Stop and frisk, killing unarmed black people across the country."What she says is that a. the ADL sponsors trips of American police officers to be trained by the Israeli police and military. And b. that the police come back and stop and frisk, killing unarmed black people across the country. What she did not say, and what the shortened quote implies, is that the ADL sponsors trips so that police learn to stop and frisk and kill unarmed black people. She said that this is attributable to training they get there. And for the record, she is not wrong. The ADL does in fact sponsor a National Counter-Terrorism Seminar in Israel. Seems misleading to just leave in place an out of context quote that implies she is wrong about what she said.  nableezy  - 19:09, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * And my point is that to somehow equate this with anti-Semitism is too far out to include without much, much more thorough mainstream sourcing. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:12, 31 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep removed: undue and out of context. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:44, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Neutral-to-opposed to mention of revocation of an award by a relatively obscure organization with little mainstream coverage. We'll also need a legitimate source for her alleged comments on the ADL and police brutality. In addition, I support the principle that we should accord proper weight to material that has received significant mainstream coverage. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:14, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Carol Hunt criticism
What I'm presuming to be an op-ed by Carol Hunt in The Irish Times (because the citation was malformed) is a wholly inappropriate source to use. Criticism and praise in BLPs requires reliable, secondary sources, not any old commentary by someone with an opinion. As to Hunt's statement that the choice of a hijab-wearing Muslim woman to lead the Women's March was "twisted"– so what? Talking heads will talk; that's their job. It doesn't make their talking significant to the body of published material on the subject. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:22, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Israeli intel firm piece
I propose that instead of saying that Sarsour has been the target of "pro-Israel pressure organizations," we be more specific with this version:


 * Haaretz reported that Sarsour had been the target of a "spying" effort by the Israeli firm Israeli Cyber Shield, who compiled a dossier on Sarsour, her family, and her career and public commentary, including her support for BDS and a tweet in which she said "There's nothing creepier than Zionism." The firm supplied this information to a pro-Israel organization funded by conservative donor Sheldon Adelson. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:17, 13 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Any time a statement begins with "[News outlet X] reported...", we should know it's probably a passing incident that would be out of proportion to the body of secondary-source coverage of Sarsour. The "creepier" tweet is especially unduly weighted here, presented sans context. The statement from The Guardian that Sarsour is "a frequent target of pro-Israel pressure organisations", on the other hand, offers valuable context to what we then describe as criticism from "American conservatives and pro-Israel Democrats, along with some Zionist activists". Honestly, with the current state of the article, we shouldn't be omitting this kind of high-level evaluation and synthesis, especially from reputable sources like The Guardian. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:09, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * A statement, remark, event, or controversy covered in WP:RS that is evidently relevant to the subject's notability is not necessarily a "passing incident." For Sarsour, that includes her commentary on the Arab-Israeli conflict, the controversy over the Women's March, public disputes and related activism, and reports like this one. The Guardian is indeed a reliable source, but one with a reputation for bias, and I would hardly call the allegation that Sarsour has been the target of "pro-Israel pressure organizations" high-level analysis. The term "pro-Israel pressure organization" is loaded phrase that fails to impart any useful information. Does it describe lobbying groups like AIPAC or civil rights groups like the ADL? How many organizations fall under the umbrella term "pro-Israel pressure organization?" The article doesn't elaborate on any of this, and only specifically noted one, the Israeli cyber-intelligence firm that supposedly kept a file on her. I don't think we should be including the kind of unsupported "analysis" you suggest without detailing what it refers to. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:38, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Sharia law & Sarsour
I added sources about Sarsour's defence of Sharia law - https://abcstlouis.com/news/nation-world/womens-march-organizer-makes-troubling-video-later-deletes-after-criticism and https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/smart-facts/what-shariah-law-n859981 and added info from them to the lede. I added the sentences: "Sarsour regularly defends sharia law, opining that it does not impose on non-Muslims and that Muslims must abide by the laws of the places that they live. She feels that sharia law is misunderstood by her "fellow liberals" and has garnered criticism for defending it."

commented "Weak sources, poor interpretations, not lede-worthy - discuss proposed addition on talk page." These sources are mainstream and derived from Sarsour's own words in context. Please respond — Preceding unsigned comment added by MagicatthemovieS (talk • contribs) 03:32, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * There are several issues with what you wrote.
 * The "ABC 30 News" source is a poorly-written, unattributed local TV station piece that appears to be little more than a batch of aggregated claims made by a variety of dubious sources such as The Daily Caller and Algemeiner. We should give it little or no weight here.
 * The NBC News piece is similarly low on detail and offers no examples of what Sarsour has purportedly said about sharia.
 * What you wrote is vague, uninformative and contradictory — unsurprising given the thin gruel of the sources you cited. Sarsour "defends sharia" how? We already note in the article body that conservatives have falsely accused Sarsour of wanting to impose sharia on the United States; any mention of her thoughts about sharia should perhaps be in that section, and should include references to, say, this lecture by Sarsour in which she discusses her views about sharia in some detail. This would create the opportunity for nuance and detail entirely lacking in a blunt statement that Sarsour "defends sharia."
 * Furthermore, based on the available sources you've cited, amounting to a couple paragraphs, there's no evidence at all that the issue should be given any weight in the lede of the article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:08, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

NBC is a reliable source and the 2018 article on Sharia law supports least some of what he wrote: Linda Sarsour, a Brooklyn-born Palestinian-American rights activist and co-organizer of the Women’s March movement, regularly defends Shariah on social media, arguing that it doesn’t impose on nonadherents and that Muslims must follow the laws of the land wherever they live. The Washington Post also reports that she has at times made supportive comments or "defenses" of Sharia law:

The line in the Wiki article alleging that conservatives "falsely asserted" she has made supportive remarks about Sharia goes too far—the reporting on this doesn't seem so definitive—and while I don't yet agree this belong in the lead, I don't see why it should be purged from the article entirely. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 04:16, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You're not reading correctly. The false allegations made by some conservatives are that Sarsour supports somehow imposing Sharia law in the United States. She has been accused of that by various fringe figures, and that is indisputably false. Some discussion of Sarsour's beliefs about sharia is likely warranted, but it needs to be framed differently and written in a more nuanced manner. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:37, 15 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Wikieditor19920, you're wrong again. NBC News and ABC News are reliable sources. That doesn't make the news department of every network affiliate a reliable source. Likewise, The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal are reliable sources, but that doesn't turn every sales clerk at Hudson News into a reliable source. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:53, 15 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I think if we mention this we should explain who criticizes her (per WP:WEASEL), what their criticisms are, and how on the mark they are. In the minds of Islamophobes, Sharia means a return to barbaric punishments for moral and religious offenses. We need to avoid implying that Sarsour supports these things, unless sources say she does. The SPLC has weighed in on this: "Phrases like “civilization jihad,” a conspiracy theory claiming it is a goal of Muslims to take over the United States from within, and “creeping Shariah,” which suggests Islamic law is usurping the U.S. Constitution, are used ad nauseam by key anti-Muslim spokespersons." So we could say that anti-Islamists have distorted here views on Sharia. TFD (talk) 05:15, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The trick here is that "sharia" is, like all religious tenets and codes, subject to interpretation. We can all agree that "sharia" is absolutely (mis)used by a number of repressive Middle Eastern rulers, ISIS, etc., whereas other Muslims view and interpret sharia very differently — much more akin to, well, halakha or Jewish religious law. Sarsour's point in discussing sharia has often been that public perceptions of it focus on the extremist Islamist interpretations and not mainstream ones outside those regions and countries. Just as not all Jews interpret their laws the same (e.g. Reform, Conservative, Orthodox), not all Muslims interpret sharia the same way either. That's why nuance is important — to just say that "Sarsour defends sharia" without providing the nuanced discussion of her interpretations of sharia risks giving our readers the utterly false impression that she is defending the extremist totalitarianism of Saudi Arabia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:47, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't know that your points about religion generally are relevant. What I know is that we seem to have multiple reliable sources saying something about this, and I do agree that we should indicate that she holds nuanced views about sharia and not eliminate any mention of it entirely. And Malik Shabazz, the NBC piece that I linked wasn't by an affiliate, and if you'll notice I also included one from the Washington Post. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 12:06, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * : I removed the info. How was the info i just removed slanderous? We need to address the issue of sharia on this page, while making it clear that Sarsour's views on sharia aren't extreme.MagicatthemovieS (talk)MagicatthemovieS
 * I disagree. Unless multiple high-quality sources discuss the issue, and not just by way of refuting a crazy conspiracy theory (see WP:FRINGE), then it's unduly weighted. Even more so if we give it the kind of detailed, nuanced treatment that would be necessary to avoid giving readers a false impression – see  TFD's and 's last comments above. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:32, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Women in the World ref
On the source "Ayaan Hirsi Ali says controversial Women's March organizer is a 'fake feminist'" by Women in the World: I don't remember when exactly this was added, or who added it (it may have been me), but this is not an ideal source for a biographical article. WITW is a blog, formerly published by the New York Times Company, but was apparently never under its editorial control. The article is now hosted at womenintheworld.com. Posting this here in anticipation of pushback to removing it directly, which is what I would suggest doing. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:47, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * There are other sources: .  w umbolo   ^^^  19:13, 16 January 2019 (UTC)