Talk:Linda Sarsour/Archive 5

Linda Sarsour in her own words
https://web.archive.org/web/20170123220836/https:/twitter.com/lsarsour/status/534073703588700160

"10 weeks of PAID maternity leave in Saudi Arabia. Yes PAID. And ur worrying about women driving. Puts us to shame."

https://web.archive.org/web/20170122172847/https://twitter.com/lsarsour/status/116922589967949824

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

https://web.archive.org/web/20170123022332/https://twitter.com/lsarsour/status/598327052727615488

"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?"

https://web.archive.org/web/20170123195630/https://twitter.com/lsarsour/status/598326262218813440

"If you are still paying interest than Sharia Law hasn't taken over America."

Bk33725681 (talk) 23:05, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, and? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:07, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

What's with the quote box?
Why is there a quote box near the top of the article? Is this SOP for articles on political activists? Dr. King and Mahatma Gandhi don't have quote boxes on their pages, and I'd venture that what they had to say about civil rights and social justice was a lot more significant than Sarsour's quote. Scaleshombre (talk) 04:02, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Holocaust survivors
This is not "guilt by association" since she supports BDS and works with Rasmea Odeh (those are the main concerns of the survivors). It's definitely not "undue" since letter to New York Governor is notable and supported by a reliable secondary source (Jpost is a known newspaper). I would say anything that involves 100 Holocaust survivors is notable enough to be mentioned. You can write Linda's supporters response (if there's any), but you won't remove this sourced content just because it's inconvenient for certain political agenda.--Chupamus Vergus (talk) 06:31, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * There's very little in reliable sources to support a significant "association" between Sarsour and Odeh, so it's WP:UNDUE to make reference to it here, at least without more than a single biased source to back out up. The Jerusalem Post being a "known newspaper" is irrelevant – not everything published in any newspaper is suitable for an encyclopedia. And the Holocaust and its surviving victims are scarcely pertinent to this biography – Sarsour is not directly connected to anything related to the Holocaust. The relevant policy is WP:BLPSTYLE – the material and source paint Sarsour in an unduly critical light, and therefore should not be included without more thorough sourcing to back up the noteworthiness of this event. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:25, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * A discussion has been opened at the BLP noticeboard on this issue. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:48, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Who made this edit, based on consensus reached in BLP?--Twodayslate 66 (talk) 04:53, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, Sangdeboeuf, why do you think letter by Holocaust survivors doesn't deserve at least a sentence? What is your objection based on Wikipedia's policy?--Twodayslate 66 (talk) 05:29, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I've stated my objections at (now archived). Discussion should take place there to avoid duplicate discussions. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:35, 23 July 2017 (UTC) (updated 18:22, 4 August 2017 (UTC))
 * Well, you haven't raised a logical concern based on policy explaining why the letter shouldn't be mentioned at all. I understand if you don't want to dedicate an entire paragraph to it, that's why you trimmed the letter to a single sentence. But to remove it completely is not acceptable.--Twodayslate 66 (talk) 05:42, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, the burden to achieve consensus is on those seeking​ to include disputed material, not those seeking to remove it. Please make an argument for inclusion at the BLP noticeboard. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:57, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Twodayslate 66 has been blocked indefinitely for abusing multiple accounts. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:04, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Discussion has become dormant – see. It has not been shown that mention of the letter is proportional to coverage in reliable sources, so I've removed it. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:15, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * This is well sourced in secondary sources. Multiple users added this the article, sole objection is by Sangdeboeuf.Icewhiz (talk) 04:02, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Sourcing (not complete): JPost, TIME , NYT , Jewish Week . And an oped in WaPo (which itself received quite a bit of secondary coverage): . And that's ignoring the coverage in conservative outlets.Icewhiz (talk) 05:40, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I think there's enough sourcing here to demonstrate that it's WP:DUE here, and fairly-enough stated. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:22, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

"Jihad" comments
The reliable sources cited clearly state that the vast majority, if not all the criticism, came from either conservative sources or anti-Muslim figures. This is clearly stated in the cited SPLC and Time sources; the Jerusalem Post article does not refer to any specific criticism of the "jihad" comments. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:31, 6 August 2017 (UTC)


 * SPLC labels individuals anti-Muslim or Islamophobic. That's their raison d'etre. But we can't include that in Wikipedia - because of BLP. "Conservative" is mentioned precisely ONCE in all three sources. That's your individual interpretation. I've listed countless instances of criticism above, that do NOT come from conservative sources. How many sources do I need to add to the word "criticism" so you stop inserted weaselish qualifiers ("conservative", "anti-Muslim") before it? 3 is not enough? How about 13? ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 22:36, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Sarsour's quote about jihad spread throughout many conservatives corners of the internet and was viewed as a call for attacks on President Donald Trump. A direct quote from the TIME article. The SPLC source is your own - you can't cite a source that says the criticism is coming from anti-Muslim figures and then claim that calling them anti-Muslim is a BLP violation. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:40, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, once, is the would "conservative" used. Once. That's what I just said, above. It would be strange if it had not been used, since most of the criticism has come from "conservatives". But not exclusively - which is my whole point. And with regards to your second point, of course one can. The SPLC is a reliable resource for the fact that "criticism" or "controversy" has occurred - it's not a reliable source for deeming living individuals as "anti-Muslim" or "Islamophobes". At least not according to Wikipeida's BLP policy. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 22:44, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The only sources you cite for this criticism declare it to be anti-Muslim or "in conservative corners of the Internet." Thus, at the very least, we are going to say the criticism is primarily from such sources. The SPLC absolutely is a reliable source; its opinions are widely cited throughout the encyclopedia - see, for example, Richard B. Spencer. And your proposed Catch-22 simply isn't going to happen. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:57, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * From Newsweek: "[Sarsour] has sparked ire in conservative circles after calling opposition to President Donald Trump a 'jihad' [...] The speech led to vocal opposition from conservatives on social media and conservative publications."
 * The only sources you cite for this criticism declare it to be anti-Muslim or "in conservative corners of the Internet." Thus, at the very least, we are going to say the criticism is primarily from such sources. The SPLC absolutely is a reliable source; its opinions are widely cited throughout the encyclopedia - see, for example, Richard B. Spencer. And your proposed Catch-22 simply isn't going to happen. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:57, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * From Newsweek: "[Sarsour] has sparked ire in conservative circles after calling opposition to President Donald Trump a 'jihad' [...] The speech led to vocal opposition from conservatives on social media and conservative publications."
 * From Newsweek: "[Sarsour] has sparked ire in conservative circles after calling opposition to President Donald Trump a 'jihad' [...] The speech led to vocal opposition from conservatives on social media and conservative publications."
 * And from The Washington Post: "conservative media outlets have accused the activist of urging Muslims to wage a holy war [...] On Twitter, conservatives called her a 'terrorist sympathizer' [...] 'their blood boils at the mention of my name,' Sarsour said of many far-right conservatives."
 * I believe that's more than once that "conservatives" are mentioned.—Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:02, 6 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Please pay attention. The word "conservative" is mentioned once in the three sources I cited. Criticism was conservatives is mentioned in many sources, as is criticism from non-conservatives (including Muslims like Zuhdi Jasser and Qanta A. Ahmed), and several liberals in the New York Times, The Forward, and secularists like Sam Harris, etc. But, the fact of the matter is, the version of the article which now stands - thanks to your editing warring - only mentions criticism in the context of coming from conservatives and the Alt Right and now, "anti-Muslims".... which - not coincidentally - is exactly how Linda Sarsour herselfs frames criticism against her, as demonstrated by her slander against CNN's Jake Tapper. You must be proud of yourselves. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 23:19, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * How are those other sources pertinent to the topic of the "jihad" comments? Please try to keep the discussion focused on the issue at hand. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:26, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Those other issues are not relevant to the specific topic of the "jihad" comments that you desire to be highlighted here. It is true that Sarsour has been criticized by those people, but those criticisms were not in the specific context of the "jihad" comments. In those other contexts in this article, we do not use the word "conservative" because reliable sources don't use it. However, if you want to mention the criticism of those comments, we are required to note, as the reliable sources do, that the criticism of those comments (and specifically the claim that she intended her words as a threat of violence) were centered in conservative, anti-Muslim sources that attempted to make hay of the word "jihad" by either failing to understand or willfully declining to understand that the word "jihad" is not inherently violent. Other sources interpreted her statement as precisely a rejection of violence in her clear statement that the highest form of jihad is to simply speak the truth. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:45, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Right, as I suspected, you guys aren't even reading the sources that I'm posting. Let me help. This is mainstream criticism from a Muslim academic and prominent voice on Muslim-American affairs, entitled "Sorry Linda Sarsour - It's Time To Get Real On Jihad": "At her talk for the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) convention over the Fourth of July weekend, Linda spoke of dissent and speaking truth to power as “the best jihad.” While a non-violent understanding of this word is always welcome, she failed to acknowledge a very simple set of truths: one, that easy use of this word against America’s leadership is something she knew would garner her massive media attention; and two, that no Muslim-led government the world over, and no Islamist group, understands jihad to be this simple or benign... In fact, the organization she was speaking for – ISNA – is one of the Muslim Brotherhood’s many spawn in this country, and the Brotherhood itself declares, “jihad is our way and dying for Allah is our aim.” When they say this, they don’t mean “the jihad of op-eds for human rights and dying from natural causes” – they mean violently fighting the unbelievers. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 23:54, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It has been pointed out here repeatedly – including on the above user's talk page – that opinion essays are not appropriate sources for criticism or praise per WP:BLP. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:07, 7 August 2017 (UTC) (updated 23:50, 7 August 2017 (UTC))
 * To return to the topic, I do think we should be careful with the SPLC source, since its mission is advocacy rather than journalistic rigor. I'd suggest using a direct quote with in-text attribution for the"anti-Muslim" part. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:07, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree, as to the rest. We say what RS say. If RS say the criticism was conservative so do we (but we should attribute it).Slatersteven (talk) 09:13, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Bari Weiss Article
There was a pretty significant article written on Sarsour and other progressive voices in the New York Times. I don't know that its breaks ground but it does provide more RSs concerning the criticism she has faced and which are in this article, so I supplemented where appropriate. I have been careful to note that the article was written by Ms. Weiss and not "the new york times" however I see that other additions to this article ascribe an author's view to the NY Times, which I propose to nuance. There is one sentence in that same section that was non nonsensical and which I edited. Other than that I don't know if the article requires that we add too much more. I tend to agree this section accurately reflects the criticism out there in the RS but I also agree with those who say that the critiques are presented in a defensive manner--often led with a defense, moreso that other BLPs. Jonmayer18 (talk) 22:50, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The article in question is actually an editorial. As such, it's a reliable primary source for the author's opinion, but not reliable for factual statements. However, any criticism needs a reliable, secondary source to establish relevance to the subject. See, above. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:22, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * When multiple editorials from people of note in publications of note criticize a figure, they should not be summarily removed.Icewhiz (talk) 04:57, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * They should if they violate polices such as BLP or undue weight.Slatersteven (talk) 09:30, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The Weiss article is discussed by other RS. We should reinstate her comments. Scaleshombre (talk) 17:15, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree, NYT opinion piece needs to be reinstated, as reflects widespread criticism of article subject from the mainstream. Sangdeboeuf still behaving as if he owns this article. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 17:01, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Disagree, I would like to see more then some opinion pieces to establish this as anything. And lay of the PA's.Slatersteven (talk) 17:07, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It is also bad form to change the gist of a post (such as adding additional material) after it has been replied to.Slatersteven (talk) 17:23, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Also are we going to make it clear that Weiss is a neo-conservative? (and trivial mentions do not really establish this as a major controversy, nor do blogs)).Slatersteven (talk) 17:26, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, you as an individual editor don't get to decide on the yardstick for measuring the notability of a controversy. Sounds more like a case of WP:I Just Don't Like It. Scaleshombre (talk) 17:43, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Correct, and neither does any one else, It is done via consensus. But what I can say is "I do not see enough here to tell me anyone gave a damn".Slatersteven (talk) 17:46, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP specifically talks about secondary sources for criticism and praise: "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources". The added content seems to be criticism taken directly from a primary source. Eperoton (talk) 17:38, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * In addition, the policy also stipulates "so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone". The Weiss reference met none of these criteria (the above sources comprise two niche blogs, an opinion essay, and a partisan propaganda outlet; none are reliable sources here) so I've removed it. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:08, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Was treated in a secondary manner by NR and mondoweiss, both considered RSes, with opposite partisan lean. BLPTONE applies to wiki's voice, not what others say about the BLP, which maynbe quoted if reliable and due, which applies here.Icewhiz (talk) 18:38, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * "Both considered RSes" by whom exactly? Wikipedia doesn't keep a list of reliable sources. If the best we can do is two polemical outlets with "opposite partisan lean", then that suggests the controversy is way overheated, and we should hold off until more disinterested sources weigh in on the matter. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:54, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * As per RSN discussions. And this Weiss piece has garnered quite a bit of additional coverage and responses by the women's march itself. One should note that the NYT has a center left lean to begin with, so the attack did not originate from a polemical source. There is quite a bit of questions surronding Sarsour and the wiki article should reflect this.Icewhiz (talk) 19:42, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * No source is reliable for everything; context matters. And Wikipedia articles document what reliable, secondary sources say, not gossip, rumor, or invective based on primary sources. BLPs must above all be fair to their subjects. Please provide citations for any "additional coverage". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:01, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Criticism from mainstream sources (Left, liberal, centrist, secular, apolitical - in addition to conservative and Far Right) has been mentioned in the pages of the New York Times (on multiple occasions), Newsweek, The Observer (multiple occasions),  The Daily Beast, Politico, Ha'aretz, JTA, and throughout the blogosphere. Unfortunately though, we have a policeman here deleting anything from this article that might in any way reflect negatively on the activist Linda Sarsour. This NYT op-ed is simply a succinct example of this kind of criticism ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 19:21, 5 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Please exercise care regarding appropriate sourcing – several of the above are opinion essays or editorials, and so are not reliable for factual statements. Also, some of these sources are already cited in the article. What addition is being proposed exactly? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:39, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * There may be enough secondary coverage and analysis of Weiss' criticism out there to include something here, and we can cautiously use OpEds for reporting and analysis of criticism if they're written by reputable professional journalists. However, this is different from simply channeling criticism from primary sources. We're creating an encyclopedia, not a media aggregator. Eperoton (talk) 19:40, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Eperoton, the point is, Sangdeboeuf was deleting any and all criticism, unless it was framed as coming from the Far Right, on account of no criticism appearing in RS. This, is my rebuttal. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 19:44, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Zuhdi Jasser, founder of the Center for Islamic Pluralism, writing in the Independent Journal Review after the "jihad" fiasco: "...she is a master of dissimulation and deception, a megalomaniac, and a faux progressive. She has risen to prominence on the backs of African-Americans, women, and LGBTQ people, while speaking and fundraising for organizations that marginalize these groups: she is playing a two-faced game..." ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 19:40, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * And that's an example of primary source containing criticism of the BLP subject in an OpEd. What secondary sources provide reporting and analysis of Jasser's comments? Eperoton (talk) 19:46, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Cautiously is the operative word here. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:04, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Also does it mention Weiss, if not what is it's relevance to inclusion of Weiss's comments?Slatersteven (talk) 20:05, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The Independent Journal Review is a respected secondary source, and Zuhdi Jasser is a prevalent commentator on Muslim-American issues. In his article he specifically addresses the criticism she is now receiving: "Because Linda, it seems, is seeing the tables turn: this individual, who has instigated vicious smear campaigns of others....is stewing in a smear campaign against her." Where in WP:BLP policy does it say that criticism in Op-Eds published in outlets like the NY Times or in prominent Journalism reviews are not allowed to be included? Every time criticism is brought forth on this subject, the goalposts keep shifting.... ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 20:29, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * You may want to review WP:PSTS. Whether a source is primary or secondary depends on the context of its use. When an author criticizes someone in an OpEd, the OpEd is a primary source for that criticism. When another source discusses that OpEd, it is a secondary source for the criticism contained therein. That's what the statement in WP:BLP refers to. Eperoton (talk) 21:23, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't believe you answered my question. Where in WP:BLP policy does it say that criticism in Op-Eds published in outlets like the NY Times or in prominent Journalism reviews are not allowed to be included? ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 23:42, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Are we talking about criticism in general or Weiss's comments? Just because person A says something does not mean that is a criteria for including the comments of person B. As to your question, as no one has said that "criticism in Op-Eds published in outlets like the NY Times or in prominent Journalism reviews are not allowed to be included" they cannot respond with a reason why.Slatersteven (talk) 09:09, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I believe I've already answered this question above: WP:BLP specifically talks about secondary sources for criticism and praise: "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources". The added content seems to be criticism taken directly from a primary source. Prominent political figure are routinely criticized in hundreds in OpEds. We don't aggregate that criticism in their BLPs, but rather report cases where the criticism itself is treated as news in RSs. When a NYT editorial says "Joe Blow is a crook", that's not enough for use in a BLP, but when we see on the evening news "NYT accuses Joe Blow of malfeasance", we can use that. That's what WP:BLP expresses through the primary/secondary terms. Eperoton (talk) 14:18, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * That's simply not true. If you look up any random political figure/activist in Wikipedia, you will find criticism sourced to OpEds, if the author and source is deemed notable enough. You're simply inventing your own Wikipedia policy here. But this is all irrelevant, criticism of her has been mentioned in by numerous secondary sources, which I cited above. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 22:03, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * "Other stuff exists" is not a very persuasive argument. We are discussing how to improve the bio of Sarsour, not any other article. In any event, WP:BLP is clear about using secondary sources for coverage of criticism and praise. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:13, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * No, for the umpteenth time, WP:BLP does not prohibit the use of OpEds for criticism. Secondly, much of the criticism that you have disingenuously edit-warred over, is discussed at length in secondary sources. You have yet to accept that. Have you read the articles? ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 22:22, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Linda Sarsour has responded to the piece:, embracing a mondoweiss piece (one of several) on the NYT column: . In addition wehave a plethora of secondary coverage (all be it some from not great sources (which wouldn't be used due to reliability - we have enough reliable sources on this however) - however the extent of the coverage is relevant for DUE/W):                 . This should be in in some form.Icewhiz (talk) 09:57, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not sure even half these would even be classed as RS, even if we allow opped pieces. This does matter as it is a question of weight. If only a few non RS and opp edd pieces have covered this is it really that major? Moreover this seems to be more about Weiss then Sarsour.Slatersteven (talk) 10:08, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Most of these are not opeds. Some are borderline/non-RS, others are generally RS. Sarsour herself responded. I disagree this is about Weiss (though pieces defending Sarsour have attacked Weiss) - it is about the NYT's decision to condemn Sarsour in an op-ed - which is a significant move considering NYT's own lean - which is why this drew responses. Sarsour being condemned in NR (or dailycaller, or whatever) - would be routine (as would be support in left leaning publications) - for an attack piece to be run in the NYT by a staff editor.... That's a turn in circumstances regarding coverage of Sarsour.Icewhiz (talk) 10:45, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Opp Edds are not a newspaper speaking in it's voice, it is a newspaper allowing someone to speak not in the newspapers voice.Slatersteven (talk) 10:54, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * YES, BUT, and a big BUT - the editorial board of a publication uses the placement of op-eds (which are published by the board's/mgmt discretion) to advance their own agenda. op-eds usually represent the source's lean, whereas factual reporting (in a good RS...) - not as much. This has even led to an op-ed of "19 People Jews Should Worry About More Than Linda Sarsour" in Forward -, which itself received secondary coverage - .Icewhiz (talk) 11:02, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe, but they also (often) allow people to express views the newspaper does not agree with. We cannot use your interpretation of what an RS is up to. It is also hard to see what the agenda would be pushed with the opp edd piece about Sarsour, and it would be OR to try and second guess it.Slatersteven (talk) 11:09, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Not my my interpretation for the general use of op-eds in major outlets (to push agenda / sales), nor in this specific case: At Tikkun, Donna Nevel links the Times’ attack with a pattern of inevitable smears... - at Mondoweiss treating this as an attack by the Times, not Weiss.  - A Deserved Evisceration of the Women’s March from the New York Times... Yesterday, the New York Times delivered a comprehensive excoriation of the Women’s March, penned by Bari Weiss. - in NR - again - treating this as an attack by the NYT (with Weiss herself appearing at the end of the byline).Icewhiz (talk) 11:22, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I think we have run around in circles enough, I'll let others have a go.Slatersteven (talk) 11:28, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I doubt this is going to get anywhere unless someone takes the time to review the sources, evaluates them in terms of their reliability (publisher, type of publication and author), and drafts a NPOV-compliant summary of the secondary RS coverage. Then the editors wishing to dig into the sources may have a more specific dispute. Eperoton (talk) 15:43, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Eperoton, did you bother to read the sources I posted, before condemning them all as primary source OpEds? The Politico article is not an OpEd, the two Observer articles are not OpEds, the Newsweek article is not an OpEd. The Ha'aretz article is not an OpEd. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 22:08, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what this is in response to. I never said that all the coverage out there was primary. Eperoton (talk) 21:44, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Not my my interpretation for the general use of op-eds in major outlets (to push agenda / sales), nor in this specific case: At Tikkun, Donna Nevel links the Times’ attack with a pattern of inevitable smears... - at Mondoweiss treating this as an attack by the Times, not Weiss.  - A Deserved Evisceration of the Women’s March from the New York Times... Yesterday, the New York Times delivered a comprehensive excoriation of the Women’s March, penned by Bari Weiss. - in NR - again - treating this as an attack by the NYT (with Weiss herself appearing at the end of the byline).Icewhiz (talk) 11:22, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I think we have run around in circles enough, I'll let others have a go.Slatersteven (talk) 11:28, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I doubt this is going to get anywhere unless someone takes the time to review the sources, evaluates them in terms of their reliability (publisher, type of publication and author), and drafts a NPOV-compliant summary of the secondary RS coverage. Then the editors wishing to dig into the sources may have a more specific dispute. Eperoton (talk) 15:43, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Eperoton, did you bother to read the sources I posted, before condemning them all as primary source OpEds? The Politico article is not an OpEd, the two Observer articles are not OpEds, the Newsweek article is not an OpEd. The Ha'aretz article is not an OpEd. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 22:08, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what this is in response to. I never said that all the coverage out there was primary. Eperoton (talk) 21:44, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

The Bari Weiss article has received extensive coverage in secondary sources and has become quite notable. It's clearly passed all the standards for inclusion in a BLP. Can someone explain to me again why we're not including it? Does Sarsour merit some special immunity from critical coverage not extended to other BLP? Scaleshombre (talk) 22:45, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Please provide actual citations to any "extensive coverage in secondary sources". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:13, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to insult your intelligence by restating all the sources that have been documented by ZinedineZidane98, Icewhiz, myself and other editors throughout this thread.Scaleshombre (talk) 23:18, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Let me clarify: Please provide citations to reliable secondary sources. Not "all the sources that have been documented" are reliable or appropriate here, as has been mentioned above, repeatedly. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:29, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It's odd but I can see lots of criticism of her in the article, so do we have Bari Weiss's comments in many other BLP's (because that is what we are arguing should not be included)?Slatersteven (talk) 09:11, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Lets re-state where we are. The New York Times published a piece entitled "When Progressives Embrace Hate," written by its staff opinions editor Ms. Weiss, wherein Ms. Weiss identified what she called the "disturbing views" of Ms. Sarsour which she said "made common cause with anti-feminists". A revert was made by Sangdeboeuf calling for evidence that secondary sources have cited this article. Eperoton agreed but noted that there was significant secondary source coverage of the Weiss article or its contents, and that it should be evaluated. This request has been made under WP: PSTS. After a significant review as Eperoton requested I can confirm there are many many reliable secondary and tertiary sources (reliance in the sense that they are reliable to show the that the Weiss opinion has reached a level that justifies its inclusion here) which note Weiss' critique and either repeat it, characterize it, or discuss the public discourse surrounding her article. For example, the left leaning "Forward" magazine stated that "Sarsour has been repeatedly isolated as a harbinger of hate and violence, most recently in a New York Times piece by Bari Weiss."1. Also on the left, Mondoweiss noted that "There’s been a lot of reaction to the effort by New York Times opinion editor Bari Weiss to excommunicate Palestinian-American Linda Sarsour from progressive circles."2. On the right, the National Review wrote that "the New York Times delivered a comprehensive excoriation of the Women’s March, penned by Bari Weiss"3. Also on the right, the Weekly Standard identified Ms. Weiss article as the "op ed of the day" and quoted her statement that Ms. Sarsour made common cause with anti-feminists. 4. Somewhere int he middle, the group Mediaite said that Ms. Weiss had identified Ms. Sarsour's "tendency to express illiberal sentiments" and again quoted Weiss' language concerning making "common cause with anti-feminism". 5 In light of this extensive secondary coverage -- particularly of the "common cause with anti-feminists" statement -- I propose that that the New York Times article be quoted at the end of the paragraph beginning "Following the 2017 Women's March", right after the sentence referring to her statements that seem to many to common cause with anti-feminism as: "Based on these and other public statements, Bari Weiss a staff editor of the opinion section of the New York Times, criticized Ms. Sarsour for holding "disturbing views" because she had "made common cause with anti-feminists".  I think this addresses the lengthy discussion above.  Please let me know if there are modifications in the next 12 hours and if so why.  I also reiterate the request that the 3RR be respected.Jonmayer18 (talk) 18:23, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * These are all opinion sources, not news, and virtually all have some ideological axe to grind when it comes to Sarsour (Mediaite is the exception, but as a blog, it's not a reliable source here). We shouldn't be using partisan commentary to determine the noteworthiness of an event. We need other secondary or tertiary sources that comment on the disagreement from a disinterested perspective. So I'd err on the side of caution and hold off on mentioning this for now. Also, please don't think that calling this editorial an "article" is going to somehow magically give it the legitimacy of actual news. We're not that naïve. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:13, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The Weekly Standard coverage is not an opinion piece and it does not seem the NR is either. If so many outlets have an "axe to grind" regarding Sarsour then the reasons for this should be stated in the article, just as we do regarding other figures who are criticized by many.Icewhiz (talk) 19:24, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Only if "the reasons" are reported by reliable, secondary sources. Opinion pieces are not sufficiently reliable because they don't go through the same editorial oversight as news. The Weekly Standard is a conservative opinion magazine. Phrases like "op-ed of the day" and "odious views" are the author's opinion. The piece in National Review is likewise full of unsubstantiated opinion statements – "deserved evisceration", "unsavory past", "welcome corrective", "anti-American", "would be wise to listen", etc. This is propaganda, not reliable sourcing. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:50, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Your argument is specious. No one's attempting to portray The Weekly Standard or National Review's opinions on Bari Weiss/Linda Sarsour as anything other than simply that -- their opinions, not facts. WP:Identifying Reliable Sources says: "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion.... A prime example of this is opinion pieces in sources recognized as reliable. When using them, it is best to clearly attribute the opinions in the text to the author and make it clear to the reader that they are reading an opinion." As long as we attribute, there's no problem.Scaleshombre (talk) 20:12, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The whole point here is that someone's opinion doesn't necessarily merit inclusion in a BLP. As other users have pointed out on this page, an encyclopedia article should not simply aggregate opinions, either positive or negative, about a living person, or feed into clickbait-y media frenzies. The National Review piece is also an example of how these sources blend commentary on Weiss's editorial with criticism of Sarsour herself. Once again, we are attempting to write a fair and disinterested biography, and as with any controversial figure, there will be a lot of sensational media coverage that doesn't belong. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:31, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I know that's your intention, and I respect your efforts to create a NPOV article. But as you can see from the objections of myself and other editors, the article doesn't seem to be quite there yet. Censoring the Bari Weiss story would take us further away from that goal. Scaleshombre (talk) 20:39, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Obviously I have a different take on the dispute, and frankly I think that those advocating for a mention of the Weiss editorial have perhaps not completely understood the spirit of Wikipedia's stance on living subjects. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:48, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The only user opposed to this revision appears to be the same one that violated the 3RR rule to keep Bari Weiss' piece out. Five users supported this language and Epereton--an initial opponent--has not opposed (and has hinted at supporting some type of inclusion).  Consensus is defined as a decision that "takes into account all of the proper concerns raised. Ideally, it arrives with an absence of objections, but often we must settle for as wide an agreement as can be reached."  It appears that we have reached as wide agreement as can be reached and it favors inclusion of Weiss' opinion regarding Sarsour, using the above language, because the opinion has achieved sufficient noteworthiness in the secondary / tertiary sources under WP: PSTS policy.  I also question whether we have a "proper" objection for two reasons.  First, the one opposing editor's main reasoning is that the secondary/tertiary sources citing the Weiss piece are "partisan" and/or have an "ax to grind" so they are not reliable, but as it relates to identifying noteworthiness of an opinion piece, the relevant policy is that "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective" and "Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject."  A NPOV is achieve throughout an article and we can see many opposing points shared supporting or explaining Sarsour's statements that Weiss finds objectionable.  As to a public figure, the relevant / BLP policy anticipates honest reflection of the public discourse, not censorship of something like a major, often-cited, NY Times piece.  See id. ("If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article."))  I will insert the language above and I thank all the thoughtful contributions.  If an opposing editor still opposes I suggest posting something to the BLP boardIf it is unilaterally deleted by anyone, I will report the 3RR violation of August 4, 2017 and/or request Arbitration.    Jonmayer18 (talk) 18:49, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Are you sure of this? I ccan seea t least two otehr edds who seem opposed to inclusion of this to one degree or another.Slatersteven (talk) 20:07, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The RS guideline cited here does not outweigh BLP, which is policy. In any event, consensus may determine that sourced information does not improve an article and should not be included. The burden to achieve consensus is on those seeking to include the disputed material. So far that has not happened, in my opinion. Anyone is welcome to raise the issue at WP:BLP/N. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:57, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * My post above addressed both the achievement of relevant consensus as well as the public figure BLP standard. Thank you.  Either you'll need to violate 3RR again, or appeal to the BLP board. Jonmayer18 (talk) 22:20, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but that's not how it works. No single editor gets to decide consensus, nor is consensus decided by a vote. See WP:ONUS. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:29, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, WP:PUBLICFIGURE is not meant to justify the repetition of propaganda or smears against a living person, and no amount of wikilawyering will make it so. Crucially, sources must be reliable. Once again, BLPs must always take into account the potential for harm to the person who is the subject. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:39, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it's fairly clear that the Weiss OpEd has had secondary coverage far beyond a run-of-the-mill OpEd about a figure of Sarsour's stature. It is even discussed at length in today's edition of Die Welt (in the Culture section, which consists of what one might call journalistic essays). That said, the passage which is being re-added to the article is sorely inadequate, as it still cites only the primary source, involves WP:SYN and is generally sloppily worded. We have some secondary coverage that goes beyond an OpEd echo chamber and provides some analysis from different ideological perspectives (e.g., by the reasonably prominent journalist Philip Weiss of Mondoweiss from the left). I would suggest trying to figure out how to reflect the available sources in a concise and neutral manner. Eperoton (talk) 23:01, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * thank you @Eperoton. do you believe that the secondary coverage of the Weiss article ought to be quoted?  Is that better than citing the article itself in terms of maintaining a neutral voice?       — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonmayer18 (talk • contribs) 23:53, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure. Using a secondary source that provides analysis may be better than quoting the primary source, but since I would qualify most if not all of the secondary sources we have here as WP:BIASED in their own ways, direct use of the primary source may have its place. Reflecting a variety of significant views and not devoting too much space to the controversy are two competing considerations of NPOV which are challenging to reconcile in this case. I haven't studied the sources closely enough to propose a solution, and I would frankly prefer it if others here who have done so would take the lead. I would also expect additional secondary coverage to emerge in the coming days, which may help with further revisions. Eperoton (talk) 00:24, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * OK. Another proposal, new paragraph:  "The New York Times published a widely-discussed op-ed by a staff opinions editor, Bari Weiss, which was critical of Sarsour and which claimed, among other things, that Sarsour had "made common cause with anti-feminists" by some statements.  In response, right wing sources generally noted that the New York Times, described as left-leaning, had published an op-ed against Sarsour and the leaders of the popular [Women's March] against President Trump.  Some left-wing sources supported Sarsour and opined in response that Ms. Weiss true intent in attacking Sarsour was to remove her from progressive circles due to a disagreement about policies towards Israel.  Sarsour weighed in and agreed that Ms. Weiss' critique was intended to advance "pro-Israel positions".  please comment.  links to be added of course but can be seen in my discussion above. Personally, I think just the first sentence is needed, but Eperoton asked for a nuanced discussion of response, one editors has opposed because s/he calls the Bari Weiss piece a "smear" and another editor opposes for unstated reasons.  Thank You.  will update shortly. Jonmayer18 (talk) 01:31, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Could something like this work as a succinct (more or less) description of the Bari Weiss piece and some of the reactions it engendered? "Sarsour has a history of disturbing views," writes Bari Weiss, a staff editor in The New York Times opinion section. Weiss cites comments from Sarsour "that seem to make common cause with anti-feminists...." Weiss's column generated discussion in other outlets [affiliated with both liberal and conservative views]. For example, an article in Mediaite noted that Max Fisher, editor of the Times' Interpreter column, seemed to have Weiss in mind when he tweeted, "The latest attempt to tear down @lsarsour appears to turn on the fact that she once made a joke about shariah and usury." Scaleshombre (talk) 04:29, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * seems like a fine compromise to me. Perhaps misses that most of the left's reaction (and sarsour's) claimed she was targeted by Weiss for her views on Israel.  That caught my attention since the Weiss piece did not focus on Israel.  But as I say fine compromise. Jonmayer18 (talk) 15:41, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * We cannot have Wiess's views of her without her views on Weiss's views, it does not matter if she is wrong.Slatersteven (talk) 08:43, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Qanta Ahmed statement
I have removed a quote added by Icewhiz as unnecessary, placing undue weight on a minor "controversy" and including an unnecessarily-inflammatory smear quote associating Sarsour with Islamism and the Muslim Brotherhood without the slightest shred of actual evidence. We ought to avoid unnecessary sensationalism and guilt-by-unevidenced-association smears in the biographies of living persons. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:42, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It was attributed. Note that the association of Islamic Society of North America (and Council on American–Islamic Relations) where she spoke with the Muslim Brotherhood (viewed as the US branch of the global movement) is widely claimed - including by the Federal government in the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development where they were unindicted co-conspirators - . As is Sarsour's religious and political creed. I don't see how this particularly is a smear (I was attempting to cite some of the conservative criticism mentioned - which I believe should be cited per WP:BALANCE also from conservative sources. Perhaps we should write a separate section on her views on Islamism and the Brotherhood - I do not think that she denies this association (just the interpretation attached to such an association by conservatives) and there is ample sourcing.Icewhiz (talk) 06:53, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * We cover the controversy, why do we need random quotes fork people?Slatersteven (talk) 08:50, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe not this quote. But currently we describe the controversy in less than a line "drew criticism from conservative sources" and "Sarsour's use of the word jihad was interpreted by some conservative media outlets and personalities as a call for violence against the president." in a 8-line block defending Sarsour's use of Jihad. We should at least ref some of the sources (which are RS secondary) which have been covering these claims, and possibly expand the controversy aspect more per WP:BALANCE - criticism of Sarsour was more widespread than defense of the possibly legitimate use of the word Jihad - this is not reflected in the article's covering of the controversy (which is mostly dedicated to the less covered defense of the use).Icewhiz (talk) 09:02, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I count 2 lines. No issue with more sources. I* would have no issue with trimming her comments and just saying she denied it.Slatersteven (talk) 09:24, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Won't argue screen-resolution. It's more complex - she doesn't deny saying this, but denies the accepted meaning of Jihad to the listeners (and Americans at large). I added a summary of criticism as covered by WaPo and Forward, as well as a line (per WaPo - though this can be sourced to elsewhere as well (e.g. NR)) that the blow-back should have been expected by Sarsour due to the common meaning of Jihad.Icewhiz (talk) 09:39, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * denies the accepted meaning of Jihad to the listeners (and Americans at large). That's not how Wikipedia works; you don't get to decide what "the accepted meaning of Jihad" is. As for the claim that "criticism was more widespread than defense," that doesn't appear to be the case among mainstream reliable sources. The most noteworthy and reliable sources here (Time, Newsweek, WaPo) dismiss the criticism as ignoring the actual meaning of "jihad." A bunch of op-ed columns from conservative figures who willfully fail to understand the meaning of words doesn't override those mainstream reliable sources. As per WP:DUE, Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:56, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Making reference to unsupported conspiracy theories and claims about a living person is unacceptable. You've been editing this page for long enough to know that. I've redacted your smear attempt and if you do it again, I'll file a report at Arbitration Enforcement. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:00, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * For the record, WP:BALANCE says nothing about quoting someone's critics. Quite the opposite – achieving neutrality involves "drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe [a] disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint". A "back-and-forth dialogue between proponents and opponents" is unencyclopedic structure. Citing Fox News (not a reliable source in terms of journalistic rigor) to quote one of Sarsour's critics is more like false balance. Whether Sarsour has denied any Muslim Brotherhood association is irrelevant – she also hasn't taken the trouble to deny shooting JFK or faking the moon landings. The burden of evidence rests with those making the accusation. Such an extraordinary claim needs ironclad sourcing – propaganda from Fox News doesn't cut it. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:47, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Quote regarding her marriage
Our personal section here is presently extremely brief. Sarsour herself described her marriage and circumstances surrounding it thus: Sarsour has said, "In our community, you not only have to find a spouse who is Arab and Muslim; that person also needs to be Palestinian and from the same village as you". These are words by Sarsour herself, who described the arranged marriage at quite some length. She is also quoted (the article is full of Linda, not Sarsour) as But both Arwa and Linda both believe that marriages based on love are the ones that usually end up in divorce.. Considering this is a period source (more or less) covering her marriage in depth (the article also discusses Arwa Aziz - however the main subject is Sarsour) - this (and possibly other material from this source) should be in.Icewhiz (talk) 05:20, 28 August 2017 (UTC)


 * The section being brief is not a reason to insert any old text to make it longer. Sarsour is quoted many times in the source – why was this particular quote picked? How is it pertinent to an encyclopedia article on her? It appears to be a veiled attempt to show how presumably tribal and backward Muslim customs are, and by extension how presumably tribal and backward Sarsour is. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:30, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Pick a different quote. Or describe at length her arranged marriage and why she feels it is important to marry an Arab-Muslim for her offsprings (and for herself - why it was important to marry someone from the same hometown of her parents). We typically attempt to describe at length subjects - not leave their personal bio at 4 lines. These are her own words, we should NOT judge how they appear - it is not for us to make decisions on what may appear backward or progressive.Icewhiz (talk) 05:34, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * To reiterate a point - this is not Sarsour's personal website. The goal here is not to present Sarsour in the most possibly flattering light possible - but rather to describe her objectively in a matter consistent with BLP policies. We shouldn't stick just to sources that "speak to" Western audiences, but rather use a diverse set of sources that cover her - including Arab sources. Period sources are often important tools in building a comprehensive bio. Points that current sources might gloss over (focusing on recent events), are often expounded in sources that are further back in time. Her marriage, and her personal beliefs regarding marriage, were covered in great detail by Al-Arabiya - there is absolutely no policy reason to leave this out.Icewhiz (talk) 06:44, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Her marriage is also covered in a Boston Globe piece from 2005, non pay wall here . The dowry was set at 10,000$. It is also interesting that her hijab use began in 2000 (age 20, 3 years after marriage, a bit before or concurrent with AAANY start) and that when meeting with men she practiced an open door policy (keeping the door ajar) per the stmt of her husband who is 10 years her senior. Also interesring stmts on non reporting domestic abuse to police.Icewhiz (talk) 19:50, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Underwear bomber tweet
- This is a tweet that is often referenced by various outlets. While I do not think we should expound on their commentary of said tweet, the tweet itself is notable (particularly given her sparse record in 2012) is verifiable (both in secondary sources (of sufficient reliability to pass WP:V that she tweeted this), and the primary source itself - ). We could say this generated conservative criticism (which it did). or just let it speak for itself.Icewhiz (talk) 06:58, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * We are writing an encyclopedic biography, not a detailed compendium of every single time Sarsour tweeted about something and then someone said something about that tweet. We already have way, way too much of that here, quite frankly, and at some point the line needs to get drawn. We get it, some people don't like what Sarsour says. But we're not required to document every single example of that. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:02, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * We should document the notable ones. Both in order to represent Sarsour's opinions herself (we are, incidentally, missing her opinions Malcolm X and Nation of Islam, which seem to be part of the worldview - particularly when addressing African Americans) - and to represent her critics. I don't think we should editorialize the way her critics do, but we should mention the more notable ones.Icewhiz (talk) 07:06, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * In reference to her underwear bomber tweet, Daniel Pipes writes about what he calls "Ms. Sarsour’s paranoid loathing for the U.S. government. She portrayed would-be underwear bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab as a CIA agent, implying that the federal government murders Americans to frame Muslims." This is a noteworthy criticism from a prominent critic of hers. As long as we clearly attribute the statement as Pipes' opinion, it should be included. For example, we could write: Daniel Pipes criticized Sarsour for what he called her "paranoid loathing for the U.S. government." He specifically referred to a tweet from Sarsour that "portrayed would-be underwear bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab as a CIA agent, implying that the federal government murders Americans to frame Muslims." Scaleshombre (talk) 15:15, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * She's also been called out on this by Steven Emerson, More Radicalism From Another White House Guest, The occult hand of government lurks behind many corners in Sarsour’s world. In May, she dismissed reports about an al-Qaida plot to blow up an airplane using a more sophisticated, more difficult to detect, underwear bomb. Rather than celebrate this outcome, Sarsour leapt to a false conclusion, claiming that in a May 8 Twitter post that it was a CIA inside job. “Underwear bomber was the #CIA all along. Why did I already know that?! Shame on us – scaring the American people.” In fact, the bomb plot was quite real. The would-be terrorist turned out to be an informant for Saudi intelligence. When he took possession of the bomb, he promptly gave it to his handlers, averting a deadly attack and giving Saudi and American intelligence a chance to dissect the latest attempt for terrorists to evade security. Because he had travel papers and seemed willing to be a suicide bomber, the Washington Post called the informant “a perfect dangle, in the parlance of spycraft, and al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula took the bait.” That, to Sarsour, is bad. So we have at least two notable people calling her out on this.Icewhiz (talk) 16:07, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * As noted by Vanamonde, we don't literally include every single person who ever criticizes someone for something they said. If we did, our biography of Donald Trump would be 800,000 words long. There is more than enough at this point. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:03, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

43rd Bay Ridge council seat - should this be in?
Sarsour was long expected to run for a council seat (she's on record on this going back more than a decade (Boston Globe (non-paywall reprtint) from 2005. Specifically regarding the 43rd (where Gentile is up against the term limit) - this is in the big NYT piece on her from 2015 - - She has even mapped out her potential competition, Justin Brannan, an aide to Councilman Vincent J. Gentile, who has served the Bay Ridge area on the Council since 2003 and is coming up against the term limits law). Local commentary on this dates to at least 2015 . In the end, she decided not to run, but to endorse a different Arab American (her words -  - in 2016/07 it was Someone who is Arab-American is definitely running in 2017. That is a fact.). She ended up endorsing Palestinian-American El-Yateem (  - but really all over the place) - an active endorsement (co-apps, fund-raising, etc.). Should this be in? It is local, but it is her own locality and is a move she was long expected to make - I got into researching what happend to this after seeing repeated previous statements and expectations, but I am undecided on inclusion.Icewhiz (talk) 08:53, 30 August 2017 (UTC)