Talk:Linda Sarsour/Archive 3

Calls for Jihad
, I noticed you accused me of "misrepresenting the source to make a political point" in this reversion. If we could assume good faith for a moment, let's take a look at the source: "Activist Linda Sarsour, co-chair of the 2017 women's march against Donald Trump, called for a "jihad" against the president at the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) convention in Chicago over the weekend." That's the very first sentence of the non-partisan RealClearPolitics piece. Mind explaining the rationale behind your claim and edit a bit more, please? Thanks. Hidden Tempo (talk) 21:50, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Your edit emphasized the most incendiary part of a newspaper article without bothering to include the larger context. This isn't a newspaper article, this is an encyclopedia. We don't pick what has the most punch, and we sure as hell don't ignore the rest. We try to include context and nuance in deference to BLP. As an experienced editor you should know that already. Grayfell (talk) 21:54, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The article literally led with the fact that Sarsour called for Jihad against the POTUS. Journalists tend to lead with the most important part of the story, unless he/she tries to bury the lead by putting information that does not advance his/her preferred narrative near the end of the article or further back in the newspaper. Just to be clear, you are opposed to the phrase "called for Jihad," when the source says "called for Jihad." Do I have that right? Perhaps we could work together to ensure that the sources are represented accurately while maintaining neutrality, instead of accusing each other of bad faith and patronizing our fellow editors. Hidden Tempo (talk) 22:03, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The RCP piece isn't non-partisan and it's not a newspaper article -- it's a media blog by a former Breitbart editor. In any case, there's enough press coverage of these statements to support a clear presentation of what she actually said rather than just how it was spun left and right. Eperoton (talk) 22:06, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * That's fine, it's not a huge deal for me. I just don't appreciate false accusations in people's reversions. Not really helpful to fostering a collaborative environment. Maybe someone will do a RfC down the line regarding the wording. Hidden Tempo (talk) 22:28, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * AGF doesn't mean ignore POV. The Washington Post article supports that the only reason this is significant is because Breitbart and their colleagues flip-out whenever they hear the word 'jihad'. Even Breitbart acknowledges that she didn't in any way call for violence, so... why does this matter? There's nothing here other than spin. The comments were from a routine speaking engagement, and would otherwise not be worthy of any mention at all. The Washington Post article clearly explains that the speech "at first gained little attention". She used a word that her political opponents don't like and refuse to understand. If we provide enough context to explain this, it's likely going to be undue, but if we don't, it's a BLP violation. That seems like a good sign this is the usual political farting and outrage culture, and should just be removed until more substantial sources come along. If we are going to include it, we need to provide context. Not optional. Grayfell (talk) 22:34, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You're right, if it weren't for her encouragement to wage Jihad against the United States government, the speech wouldn't have been notable. But she did, so here we are. No matter how we feel about the word's evolution, it carries a far different connotation today than it did on September 10, 2001. This isn't my personal view - it's a demonstrable fact. Left-wing blogs and newspapers (Salon, WaPo, NYT, etc.) are defending Sarsour as well as Islam in general, while independent and right-wing outlets (RCP, Daily Caller, Breitbart) are criticizing Sarsour. Sarsour is presently defending her remarks on Twitter, and attacking her critics at regular intervals. Whether or not this incident should be a significant part of Sarsour's life is irrelevant - it is significant. And there is context. I included Sarsour's denial that she was calling for violent Jihad, rather than peaceful Jihad. But as I said, it's not a huge deal at least on my end, and I see other editors are already modifying my first draft which is great. I was just a bit taken aback by a stranger on the Internet suddenly accusing me of bad intentions, as I assume I'm here for the same reason that you are: to improve and expand the encyclopedia. Cheers. Hidden Tempo (talk) 01:29, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Subtle. If you want to dismiss reliable "Left-wing blogs and newspapers" and defend sources you obviously already agree with ("...encouragement to wage Jihad against the United States government") as being "independent and right-wing outlets", than you're not approaching this neutrally. I'm not accusing you of bad intentions, I'm saying that your edit was not acceptable because it misrepresented sources. Grayfell (talk) 04:48, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Is that in contention? Sarsour used the term Jihad, but she claims that she did not mean violence. I don't think any RS are saying that she didn't use the word Jihad or reference the White House/federal government. I switched up my language out of style, not "agreement." I find writing to be more interesting when the same terms are not used repeatedly - but I have no opinion of the content of Ms. Sarsour's speech. I have no problem saying that left-wing outlets defend Sarsour, while right-wing blogs and newspapers criticize Sarsour. My main point is that it's become a huge story for the media all over the political spectrum, emphasizing its notability. Hidden Tempo (talk) 04:56, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You're missing my point, still. Slicing them into ideologies without regard for how reliable they are, and trying to present both 'sides' as relevant or somehow equivalent, is not appropriate. This is false balance, and again, you have very obviously chosen a side here. The way you've framed this content and attempted to frame this discussion favors unreliable sources and tabloid-like language over BLP compliant content.
 * She never "claimed" she didn't mean violence, she didn't mean violence as the preceding context very fully shows. She went out of her way to establish that jihad meant something completely unrelated to violence. Where, other than the great right-wing flip-out, is the word "wage" used? It's loaded language selected for emotional impact. This behavior isn't Wikipedia's problem, but it's not something we should take seriously, either. She was using a word to a Muslim audience that actually understood what the word meant. Wikipedia should advocate for information and literacy, so we should also attempt to use the word correctly, and shouldn't validate gossip or similar outrage-driven pandering. Grayfell (talk) 05:23, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The last time I started outlining the laundry list of reasons why The Washington Post and The New York Times are not reliable, I wound up over on the AE board so maybe we could chat about that on my talk page. The word "wage" is not used in liberal outlets, only on conservative outlets (or "right-wing flip-out", as you prefer to call them). This information is reflected in the material. As WP:RS dictates, biased sources are very much usable, so long as they put in the proper context. But I agree that we shouldn't use wage in the article. It seems to make people very angry, indicating that it's NPOV language. I'm happy with the material as is. Hidden Tempo (talk) 05:42, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Statements on anti-Semitism
I've again removed a paragraph citing two primary sources to contrast Sarsour's statements on anti-Semitism with an opinion writer's response to them. This kind of material is WP:UNDUE unless reliable, secondary sources have commented on the exchange specifically – such sources are needed to maintain an impartial perspective, per WP:BALANCE. The phrase "mendacious claim" also runs afoul of WP:BLPSTYLE, unless once again specifically quoted in secondary sources. See also WP:NOTEVERYTHING. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:02, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Automatic archiving
Since this page has grown far beyond the recommended size of 75K, I've added automatic archiving to the page. Feel free to adjust the parameters or remove the archive bot if unwanted. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:30, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Controversies
I've placed a good deal of material from other sections under, because a variety of secondary sources explicitly refer to "controversy" or "criticism" of Sarsour's words and deeds. My goal is not for this section to be a dumping ground for criticism of Sarsour. As other users have noted, BLPs are not for recording everything ever said about a person, and should especially avoid cherry-picked opinions and quotes. As long as we only cite reliable sources that explicitly comment on "controversies" from a disinterested perspective, then we will continue to build a quality encyclopedia article, in my opinion. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:39, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Removal of my edit referencing Sarsour tweet on Sharia law
Sangdeboeuf, you are removing edits which simply contain the subject's own words. You are manifestly not "disinterested" in the subject. I have repeatedly tried to put a controversial tweet by Sarsour (which she has acknowledged making) into the article. My sources are called unreliable because they are deemed "conservative." No one has directed me to Wikipedia's list of acceptable liberal sources. Wikipedia's own article page on my source CNSNews.com states nothing deeming it unacceptable or tabloid. Indeed, it points out that it was started by Brent Bozell -- have you read the Wikipedia on him? His articles have appeared in The Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, USA Today, the Washington Post, the Washington Times, the New York Post, and National Review. He is a nationally syndicated columnist and a regular on television news shows. Rather than undoing my edit -- simply a tweet from the subject herself -- why not ADD the liberal source you find acceptable. Good luck with building your "quality encyclopedia article." Christian B Martin (talk) 22:21, 21 July 2017 (UTC)


 * You are welcome to propose on WP:RSN that a right-wing house organ run explicitly as a right-wing platform may be used to support claims about a living person who is opposed by that ideology, but I don't think you'll find a different answer. We are not about finding "liberal" sources to balance "conservative" sources, we are about writing neutral, balanced and fairly-written articles based on independent reliable sources, written with an eye toward sensitivity, an avoidance of tabloid tawdriness and a sense of humanity toward our article subjects. We are not here to regurgitate or feed partisan media frenzies of any particular sort, and taking tweets out of context is a classic example of such. To say that Sarsour adheres to sharia in her personal life is supportable by the sources. To suggest or intimate that she wants to impose sharia as civil law is not. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:10, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I've removed the material here that was sourced only to Snopes.com. Since that site chooses its topics based on urban legends, pseudoscience, gossip, and rumors (often for the purpose of debunking them), anything sourced solely to it is definitely WP:UNDUE for a biography, in my opinion. The conservative style required per WP:BLP necessitates removing the material until better sources are found. The Women in the World piece is probably a good place to start (and yes, I know that it cites the Snopes article – it's more reliable because it adds another layer of verification of the content in question). —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:22, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the idea that we should be looking for "neutral" sources. Neutrality is a concept that WP:NPOV applies to behavior of WP editors rather than sources (plus, in this day and age of US politics there are hardly any sources considered neutral across the political spectrum). WP:BIASED sources may be reliable for facts, or a source may be reliable only for the author's viewpoints. The key concept per WP:V is "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", which may be academic, institutional, or professional. Per WP:NEWSORG, "News reporting" from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact. "News reporting" is a key phrase, which refers to the traditional institutional separation of the newsroom and OpEd departments. CNSNews.com seems to have that separation, though I think the jury is out as to whether it's a "well-established news outlet". WP:BURDEN "to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material", which includes reliability. There should be very good reasons for using a source that's not reliable for facts in a BLP, even with attribution -- for example, if the criticism can be shown to be WP:DUE because it's covered as news by independent RSs. Eperoton (talk) 17:06, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * More important than using neutral sources is using mainstream sources, which may or may not be neutral on a given topic. However, where reliable sources disagree, we should cite other, secondary or tertiary sources that comment on the disagreement from a disinterested perspective, per WP:BALANCE. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:34, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, what is disinterested if it isn't another word for neutral? We should cite them, of course, or rather we "should like" to cite them. I fear we ain't gonna find them on this topic, however. Eperoton (talk) 04:05, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * More important than using neutral sources is using mainstream sources, which may or may not be neutral on a given topic. However, where reliable sources disagree, we should cite other, secondary or tertiary sources that comment on the disagreement from a disinterested perspective, per WP:BALANCE. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:34, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, what is disinterested if it isn't another word for neutral? We should cite them, of course, or rather we "should like" to cite them. I fear we ain't gonna find them on this topic, however. Eperoton (talk) 04:05, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

First person statements
In the current entry, the following statement should be removed: She told New York station NY1:

I do believe that Israel has the right to exist [...] I mean I wouldn't want — I mean where are they gonna go? That's why I want a one-state solution. I think we can all live together in one state with peace and justice and equality for all.[8]

I believe this should be remove because this is the subject's personal statement and personal statements, as we have learned from this talk page, should not be included. On the other hand, if one wants to keep it, than we should also include her personal statements supporting Sharia Law. Currently only Ayaan Ali's accusation is mentioned, which is not enough because it paints Ayaan as the single bad guy who spews hatred against Sarsour, the latter is depicted as completely innocent saint.Icantevennnnn (talk) 09:34, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * We can include personal statements, as long as we attribute them. What we cannot do is say she said "I support X" if she does not actually say that, but an other source says she has.Slatersteven (talk) 13:22, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the Icantevennnnn's paragraph is referring to the statement that "editorials, polemical essays, and celebrity bloviating are a no-go," which I take issue with, and which might have just been a matter of poor phrasing; as long as they are notable and can be reliably sourced, they should be includable. Calbaer (talk) 17:47, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * That statement is based on the policy of sourcing opinions about a person to secondary sources, which is how notability (or "noteworthiness", to distinguish from WP:N) of opinions should be established. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:07, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Here are some of her personal statements, for context regarding some of the topics mentioned here:

"Only Jews in my notifications every night are ones that condone violence against Arabs and are cool with mosques being attacked."

“Nothing is creepier than Zionism."

"Regardless of what side your on, no justification to support any air strike attacks on #Syria from #Israel. Absolutely none. Disgusting."

"Underwear bomber was the CIA all along. Why did I already know that?! Shame on us – scaring the American people."

"Brigitte Gabriel = Ayaan Hirsi Ali. She’s asking 4 an a$$ whippin’. I wish I could take their vaginas away- they don’t deserve to be women."

"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. "

"Girl do I wanna take down Brigitte Gabriel?! She said she walks into stores in Arlington, let her try walking streets of Bay Ridge!"

(defending the anti-semitic Nation of Islam) "Sunni, Shia, Sufi, Nation of Islam – we are Muslim, we are all part of one ummah, one family."

"Sharia law is reasonable and once u read into the details it makes a lot of sense. People just know the basics."

(When asked about female genital mutilation under Sharia Law at Dartmouth College she refused to answer the question because it was asked by a white male student )

"You'll know when you're living under Sharia Law if suddenly all your loans & credit cards become interest free. Sound nice, doesn't it?"

Icantevennnnn (talk) 18:16, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * If you would read the article carefully, you would see that several of these points are already mentioned. But beyond that, it's not clear what action you are suggesting. Do you mean to propose that we should quote Sarsour on all of these statements? That isn't the purpose of an encyclopedia article – Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate info. On the other hand, if you are suggesting that we should infer something about the subject from these statements, that would be original research, which is not the mission of Wikipedia, and in fact is strongly prohibited. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:30, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * And what context do these comments (in terms of the article)? Her comments about Israel are a response to accusation of being anti-Israeli, what are her comments above a response to? Also is a radio program by someone else a primary source?Slatersteven (talk) 09:23, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

one on 1
IS this [] A primary sources?

It was not written by the subject (it's writer is Budd Mishkin), it was not published by the subject of the article (see thread title) and it clearly is not just an interview as it contain analysis. So why is this a primary source?Slatersteven (talk) 09:23, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

If no explanation of why this fails primary soon I shall remove the tag.Slatersteven (talk) 13:10, 30 July 2017 (UTC)