Talk:Linda Sarsour/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

When will the article be available for editing?

And on what reason is it locked? ImreK (talk) 19:46, 23 January 2017 (UTC) To me it looks like somebody is trying to cover up Sarsour's tweets endorsing shar'ia law. Wikipedia is rapidly loosing credibility with this activity. ImreK (talk) 19:55, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

That is a claim that has not been substantiated. You are analyzing the primary source which is not reliable for that claim.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:38, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

It's been pretty well-established this woman is a proponent of Sharia and tweets hate speech against former Muslims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nimic86 (talk • contribs) 05:12, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

To the contrary, reliable sources including the Washington Post have called such claims "false." Other posts have falsely claimed that she supports the imposition of Islamic law on the U.S. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:34, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:TWITTER and WP:USINGPRIMARY it is totally acceptable within Wikipedia rules. There is no controversial statement being made, there is no editioralizing going on, and in fact using someone's social media on the Wikipedia page of said person IS acceptable and a reliable primary source, the WP guidelines explicitly say so.. Mark Miller, you are out of line here. There would only arise an issue when we ONLY use Twitter as sources for this article. Testosterenbom (talk) 22:06, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I also don't think that book's title is "The Hjabi(sic!) Monologues". Somebody is really being unreasonable with this edit ban. ImreK (talk) 20:03, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

• Wikipedia would need multiple reliable secondary sources in order to include that information, especially controversial information like that. Twitter is none of these things. Also, fixed the typo as suggested - Alison ^❤ 20:41, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the spelling correction! Imrek, the "Hijabi Monologues" was not a book but a performance. The reference used was a book.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:04, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
    • How is Twitter not reliable? ImreK (talk) 22:48, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
      • Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources which documents Wikipedia's content guideline on this issue refers to this under the section "Questionable and self-published sources".
      • WP:QUESTIONABLE states

        "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions."

        --Mark Miller (talk) 23:33, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

References

Mark Miller, do you mean to say that Wikipedia cannot quote the person in question because the mode of communication being used is Twitter? Even if it is that person's own Twitter account? That seems absurd. If it is the subject speaking with their own account, how is it unreliable information? I came here looking to see why this page was so empty despite the subject being of high public importance at the moment, and this is why the page lacks information?! Concerned Wiki User 23:39, 23 January 2017 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.95.191.39 (talk • contribs) 15:39, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I will continue.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:41, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Under the section; "Reliability in specific contexts" it also states;

"Editors must take particular care when writing biographical material about living persons. Contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately; do not move it to the talk page. This applies to any material related to living persons on any page in any namespace, not just article space."

--Mark Miller (talk) 23:44, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

You asked; "...Wikipedia cannot quote the person in question because the mode of communication being used is Twitter?". No, that is not what I am saying. Quotes from living people must be attributed to a published source. Contentious quotes require multiple strong sources and the use of quotations itself has a very specific guideline as well.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:46, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

You asked "Even if it is that person's own Twitter account?". Yes, especially if it ONLY that person's twitter account. We cannot write original research. We only summarize the published information so that the claims can be easily verified as accurate and fairly summarized, using reference that meet a set criteria.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:52, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

In the section of "WP: Identifying reliable sources" under "Self-published sources (online and paper)" it states;

Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book and claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media are largely not acceptable. Self-published books and newsletters, personal pages on social networking sites, tweets, and posts on Internet forums are all examples of self-published media.

--Mark Miller (talk) 00:00, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

It is not 'self-published research'. No expertise on any subject is being claimed. It is not biographical material, it is autobiographical because you can quote her directly, leaving out the possibility of interpretation becoming a problem.

Twitter is simply a forum for the expression of opinions, and that expression is surely relevant and accurate in the case of public figures making their opinions known via Twitter. Donald Trump's page seems to have a direct Twitter quote or two, albeit sourced not directly from Twitter but from news sources. There are sources to be had on this subject's tweets too. The subject is currently mired in controversy over her opinions, not whether or not she is an expert on the subject of Sharia or anything else. That controversy is a subject of public interest, and deserves to be accurately documented here. At present, someone like me wondering who the hell she is and what she actually believes cannot use Wikipedia to discover the truth. I had to trawl through multiple sources to see what the story was. Concerned Wiki User 00:16, 24 January 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.95.191.39 (talk)

Tweets are often used to document a candidate's support for stuff. For if Trump tweeted "I want to build a wall," on Twitter, that could be used a source or be quoted. Sarsour claiming that Shari'a is "reasonable" according to the Tweet previously referenced, does not make her an advocate for Shari'a law. There is no concrete evidence of fighting for shari'a save for that one tweet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shah9901 (talk • contribs) 00:24, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Tweets are only notable for Wikipedia if they have been commented or reported on in a reference already published by a reliable author, publisher and source.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:33, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

• What Mark Miller says. Some of the tweets below (I'm paraphrasing--"wouldn't it be nice to pay no interest?"), are they supposed to prove her support of sharia law? Which begs the question of what sharia law means, what it means when she talks about, what kind of implementation we're talking about, etc. It's because of that also that we need secondary sources--good ones, not blogs that repeat talking points and cherrypick a quote or tweet or two.

  Which reminds me: User:MSGJ, will you have a look at the second footnote, with the link to The Guardian? It's to an opinion piece by the subject herself, and should thus not be used as a reference for anything--for all practical purposes it just serves as a link to her writing, which we should avoid. The two other notes there seem to be fine. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:56, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not certain that Drmies suggestion that self-authored pieces are not usable is supported by policy, given that we allow self-published sources (per WP:SELFPUB & WP:BLPSELFPUB). However, in this case, the self-authored source does not appear to verify any of the information in the sentence to which it is attached. Support removal. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 22:15, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Huh. Isn't it common sense? If you allow for self-sourcing, if you allow content based only on self-sourcing, then basically you allow for the inclusion of every single factoid. Every single blogger in the world can have an article of unlimited size because editors can include every single opinion the person has ever had as long as that person has written it up. At some point, my dear Ryk72, we have to start working with some common sense. Surely you know that not everything can be captured in policy. Drmies (talk) 03:09, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Drmies, In short, "no, not as a total blanket ban"; but explanation would be off-topic for this discussion, and we're in rude⁵ agreement for removal; happy to discuss elsewhere (and happy to be enlightened if wrong). And I thank you for the term of endearment. I had not known you cared, and am touched. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 04:06, 26 January 2017 (UTC) Clarify: Agree that we do not allow articles based only on self-sourcing; and that we should not include references that only serve as links to the referenced work. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 04:33, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, obviously I agree with your first point, Ryk72; as for the second, esp. for journalists, politicians, other public figures this is touchy. I have seen hundreds of those articles where "Mr. X supported this or that position (on Jerusalem, abortion, Beyonce, etc.)" is sourced to an op-ed they wrote, and as far as I'm concerned no opinion is notable until secondary sources make it so. (This is a recent example.) But at least in this case we agree, and that's a start. Take it easy, Drmies (talk) 05:53, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

• User:Vanamonde93, are we locked because of this kind of stuff? I think we can settle this real quick--for reasons outlined above we shouldn't be citing by way of and linking to Twitter. I think that User:Testosterenbom, who has 24 edits on Wikipedia, is simply not aware of the importance of proper sourcing, of the requirements of WP:BLP, etc. Note that "Testosterenbom" is also the author of a speedily deleted talk page which attacked a living woman--I should think that a warning/word to the wise should suffice here, in this article where they are inserting improperly verified information on a high-visibility article in a toxic world, so that the rest of us can go back to improving the article. Drmies (talk) 19:02, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

• @Drmies: That's a fair point, but I don't entirely remember the circumstances as I have been rather busy in RL since protecting this. I will review this situation in a few hours when I get the time: if you return before then and feel the protection unnecessary, please go ahead and modify it. Vanamonde (talk) 10:15, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

• Okay, I took another look. Honestly I'm not sure why I didn't do exactly as you said, back when I protected it. In any case, I have downgraded to EC protection because semi-protection clearly did not stop the BLP vios/this is still a highly visible and sensitive article. Fix away. Vanamonde (talk) 17:09, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

• Attempted summary of the debate above: At WP:TWITTER it says we can use twitter quotes. But we can't draw conclusions from them (that would be original research). So we should find a RS that draws conclusions about them, and then we can cite the tweets if need be. Is that a more or less accurate summary of the debate above? It's a bit confusing for laymen. Also there is a snopes article discussing this now, is that considered RS? http://www.snopes.com/2017/01/25/womens-march-organizer-linda-sarsour/ 131.114.9.197 (talk) 12:52, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that these tweets can be used as cited references. W.r.t WP:TWITTER, they appear to fail points 2. & 3. Other editors opinions may, of course, vary. In any case, what we cannot do is make any inferences or conclusions from them, per WP:NOR. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 16:02, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

• [ec with Ryk] Snopes is considered reliable, yes. As for the rest of your comment/summary, there's a lot of unpacking to do here; it's just really complex. What TWITTER does not give us is a license to include "Ariana Grande said that she supported covering pre-existing conditions under Trumpcare"--in other words, a statement doesn't become noteworthy because a person made it. I'm not concerned here with reliability (and editors reading WP:TWITTER should realize that not all tweets by subjects about subjects are true--people do have reasons to lie, about age for instance) but with editorial judgment and article content. So no, it's not just about "drawing conclusions from [tweets]", though that is certainly an issue here and, as I said above, in this case it's made worse by the fact that there is huge gap between different understandings of what sharia law is supposed to be--or even what "support" means. If someone tweets "sharia law in principle requires greater self-awareness of one's morality" (I'm just making something up) that doesn't mean that person "supports" it. Etc. Yes, original research does enter the conversation. Drmies (talk) 16:03, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Ayan Hirsi Ali

The opinion of Ayan Hirsi Ali is not exactly what I'd expect on the BLP of another person in a "criticism" section, cf. WP:BLP#Balance. For comparison, Cyndi Lauper's criticism of Madonna is unsuited for a Madonna BLP.[1] –2A03:2267:0:0:5482:DF43:D187:726 (talk) 14:40, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that's a concern. At first I thought that tweet crossed the threshold of independent mainstream coverage on account of the NYT ref, but on closer inspection it seems to be a hosted blog of an organization called Women in the World. The organization is related to journalism, but its blog is not an established news outlet. I think we should quote the tweet itself, in preference for reporting facts rather than innuendo, but I would suggest moving it to a named footnote and placing Ali's name alongside the other two in the preceding sentence. Eperoton (talk) 15:36, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Resolved by you among others. OP: –2A03:2267:0:0:D554:BD9D:B9B5:805 (talk) 00:46, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Hosted blogs in RS publications, such as the Women in the World hosted blog of the NY Times[2] is generally considered an acceptable source. The restrictions on blog usage are to restrict criticisms from random personal blogs. Use of this as a source should probably best be taken up in the RS noticeboards TAG (talk) 18:31, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

That's not what the policy says. Per WP:NEWSBLOG, "These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because the blog may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process." There's no evidence that NYT fact-checks this blog. I kept it because the organization has something to do with journalism, but we don't know who wrote the piece. The ref has since been removed. Eperoton (talk) 18:45, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Specifically because it says "These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution" is why I feel that this source should go to the RS Noticeboard. TAG (talk) 18:54, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

We could take it to the noticeboard if there's an active dispute about it's reliability. I think it's ok for quoting a tweet, but I won't press this point, at least for now. My point in this section had to do with notability. Coverage in NYT would make a controversy notable in itself; coverage on this obscure blog does not. Eperoton (talk) 19:03, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Brigitte Gabriel and Ayaan Hirsi Ali genital mutilation controversy

My edits regarding Lindas comments toward Ayaan Hirsi Ali were reverted because they should have "not such lavish, insulting detail". Might I remind the editor that that is exactly what "Controversy" means, and if readers find it insulting that these statements have been made, they should be equally as insulted if they are censored. Everything was factual, notable (Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Brigitte Gabriel are very notable, including that Ayaan is a victim of genital mutilation and speaks often on this point, and in relation to Islam) and referenced. Ayaan spoke at length on this issue, so this summary is anything but "lavish", given that she also addressed Linda's stance on Sharia Law, which was not even mentioned in this summary.

If you really can't stand Linda having a section named "Controversy", with this and all the other points that have been weaseled to not look like a controversy, would you care to suggest a title under which to put this information?

For reference this was the added text: "" In February 2017 Ayaan Hirsi Ali, an atheist, feminist, critic and advocate of the reformation of Islam criticised Linda for making an abusive tweet about her in 2011, equating her with Brigitte Gabriel, a journalist and anti-Islamic activist, suggesting that they should be assaulted, and that she wished she could remove their private parts because they "don't deserve to be women."

Ali, a victim of genital mutilation while living in Somalia, criticised Sarsour as a "fake feminist" who is not interested in universal human rights, in reference to Linda's appearance at a Women’s March in Washington DC in January 2017. "" CdOl0lO (talk) 22:14, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

References

To rehash what I said above, if the best you can find is this one brief blurb from a short Fox News talking heads bit, this is WP:UNDUE. Going into such lavish detail about Ali is non-neutral in the extreme, since this article is not about her. Being "equated" with Brigitte Gabriel is vague to the point of being confusing, even having read the source, and more substantial, neutral sources would be needed. Since this is blurb summary of an interview which lacks a byline, it's only barely even WP:SECONDARY. Rushing to including every mention of a controversial figure in a Wikipedia article is WP:GOSSIP, which is not part of Wikipedia's function. Grayfell (talk) 22:32, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

These statements reveal pertinent facts about her, especially in the light of current events, Lindas part in them, and all surrounding it. Regarding the equating of the two, well.. the "=" sign is an equation in any language, literally. Or if you did not care to check the reference (presumably as another successful swatting of a ranting islamophobe, without looking into what was said) I will type the exact line of Linda's tweet "@lsarsour 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". If you are confused by saying that Bridgette is being equated with Ayaan, I can only guess it is a cultural thing. Everyone I know would agree the first sentence would be best described as the two being equated. Ayaan is the primary source, speaking and verifying the tweet about her from Linda, published by Fox, the secondary source. Yes Fox are partisan, but not more so than many other major news organisations, and Ayaan would describe herself as left leaning, with fox right leaning. I see no reason to doubt the validity of this source. It's not "the best I can find", I'd never heard of Linda Sarsour before today, I'm not sitting here trying to slander her. These are pertinent facts. And no I don't usually watch fox news either.. I haven't seen more than Ayaan talking directly about this tweet, for me at least that is enough to know it is legit. If it does happen that more sources than these need to be found, I will look in the coming days, and I have no doubt they will come.

I agree that giving lavish detail about Ayaan could be non-neutral, but here it is directly relevant to Linda's important stance on genital mutilation, feminism, and Shari Law, and Linda would have known this about Ayaan as someone tweeting about her, the act, and it being an important topic surrounding feminism and Islam generally, which they both aim to address - clearly from different angles. That's why this is not simply WP:GOSSIP.CdOl0lO (talk) 23:19, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Further to the point that including some details about Ayaan is not "lavish", it would be lavish to say that Ayaan is also a "Somali-born, Dutch-American activist, author" as these points have no relation to this statement. The statements made about Ayaan were given to give enough background to put the statement in it's full context, and no more. All of the facts mentioned may be seen as insulting to some, but their potential to cause insult derives directly from their relevance to the issues addressed in this article. Relevant facts (assuming validation from sources) should not be censored because they may be insulting to some viewpoints, or applauded by others, when this relevant. Omission of this type is addressed in WP:NPOV. The paragraphs could be reworded to ensure this, granted.CdOl0lO (talk) 23:51, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

We use independent sources to determine what is and is not pertinent. Yes, she did equate the two of them, but the section you added was ambiguously written (it was not clear who was being equated to who) and provided no necessary context. Why where they equated? Who, other than Ali, actually cares? Did a single, very nasty tweet from 2011 start a "controversy", and was it in any way encyclopedically significant? It doesn't appear so from the one source you provided. Assumptions about what Sarsour did or did not know about Ali are WP:OR at best. This was one tweet, and no matter how obnoxious it was (and it was very obnoxious) it's not a controversy without secondary coverage. It's telling that the Fox news blurb did not actually include the tweet, or even a bowdlerization, as it removes readers' ability to assess the sincerity of the tweet for themselves. That smack of "outrage culture" to me, but again, without secondary sources, it's nothing at all. You mention that Ali is the primary source, but that's the problem. We don't want primary sources. As an encyclopedia (a tertiary source) Wikipedia strongly favors WP:SECONDARY sources. This coverage is short, lacks context or any indication of lasting significance, and it's only partly secondary. Grayfell (talk) 00:07, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

The "criticism" section is being cut down and right now mostly consists of rebutting criticisms that are not even explained. I wrote the intro part of her "political advocacy section" -- now I think that the point of the criticism section is lost--anyone can investigate whether criticisms are valid or not, the point of the section is to identify them. I propose to identify the criticisms neutrally and fairly, rather than cram them into one setence. Also I think the abortion rights point belongs in the criticms section. Last, the sentence defending her based on the article by Deepti Hajela is out of place -- its not criticism so I propose to delete it. If we had separate sections for each critique maybe counter criticism would be appropriate, but not presently. I plan to expand the three citations to Emerson, abortion rights, and Ali/Malcom. Jonmayer18 (talk) 01:50, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

We have to balance two concerns here. One, reflect criticisms fairly; another, reflect them with due weight. A BLP is not a receptacle for all criticisms made of a person, but only for the ones that reach a certain threshold of prominence, and then they need to be presented with due balance. I'm concerned that your version gives an undue weight to the criticisms in relation to their coverage in RSs, but I will let it remain and see what others think. Eperoton (talk) 04:14, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

The current citations in the "criticism" section was subject to a pretty extensive discussion above and resulted in what's in there after admin review. The addition of a counter "weight" now is subject a relevance threshold: how is the Deepti Hajela article addressing any one of the criticisms at issue? Her article addresses false reports in the far right media that Sarsour wants to "replace" the US system with Sharia. That would indeed be an unfounded criticism which is why its not what in the current article. The current article identifies a critique that Sarsour defends religious laws that oppress women and she has attacked anti-Islam female activists who have first hand experience. Could your citation move up and be put after the huffington post citation regarding accusations of islamaphobi? The current placement of the sentence leads to the inferences that it relates to the prior sentence when it does not. Jonmayer18 (talk) 20:00, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

We certainly don't want to imply a misleading connection between different types of criticism, but we also don't want to implicitly validate other criticism by separating it out into a special "non-unfounded" section. In fact, it's the only criticism that has received coverage in independent RSs. I think we should rather merge the two statements to strengthen the sourcing to Huffington Post, which on its own should arguably be treated according to WP:BIASED for politically charged statements.

I'm not sure if you saw the summary of my edit reverting your attribution to the AP reporter. AP publishes newsroom reports and occasional editorials. Its news reports are a WP:RS and can be used to sources factual statements without attribution, unless there's evidence of disagreement between RSs. The attribution to AP was there to mark a transition rather than for policy reasons. This is different from usual opinion pieces, which can be used to source statements only about opinions of the author and hence need attribution. Attributing a statement unnecessarily is a form of editorializing which casts doubt on its factuality ("Some say that the earth is round") and hence violates WP:NPOV. Eperoton (talk) 21:47, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

There has been extensive media, criticizing Sarsour's tweet regarding Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Brigitte Gabriel. Both domestically and internationally. Including:

New York Times[3], Fox News[4], The Washington Times[5], The Spectator[6], The Daily Caller[7], Independent Journal Review [8], The Daily Wire[9], The Post Online (Dutch)[10], The Daily Telegraph (Australia)[11], Toronto Sun [12], Herald Sun[13], Document (Norway)[14], Kattukse Vrienden Voor Israël (Dutch; Blog)[15], Calgary Sun[16], Real Clear Politics (Highlight of Bill Maher's HBO show, which mentions the tweet)[17], Breitbart[18], The Daily Caller [19], Actuall (Spanish)[20], Swarajya (India)[21], ABC Nyheter (Norwegian)[22], The Christian Post[23], The Spectator[24], Prochoix (French)[25].

While not all of these are WP:RS, the amount of reporting on this is an indication that WP:UNDUE does not apply and that mention of this incident is more than warranted TAG (talk) 17:16, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not going to look at every link here, but they seem to be hosted blogs or opinion columns. Many public figures generate a large amount of critical commentary. To pick a couple of random examples, one could compile a whole book of criticism of Betsy Devos or Eric Holder, but these articles mention those criticisms very sparingly, based on news stories in major sources which state something like "X has been criticized". In contrast, here we have criticism without independent RS coverage accounting for half of the section about her political activism. Eperoton (talk) 17:58, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

While yes, some are opinion column, you do jump to the conclusion (because you aren't going to "look at every link here") that most of these links are opinion columns. They're not. Actually, a large amount aren't. Additionally, hosted blogs in RS publications, such as the Women in the World hosted blog of the NY Times[26] is generally considered an acceptable source. The restrictions on blog usage are to restrict criticisms from random joe-shmoe-nobody's personal blogspot posts.

I'm not saying it's appropriate to have an entire section on this issue, but it would be appropriate - given the weight of coverage - to have at least one line that says "Following the 2017 Woman's March she received sizable criticism over an obscene tweet made against Brigitte Gabriel and Ayaan Hirsi Ali."TAG (talk) 18:26, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, here's the thing about the "obscene tweet", and it has to do with general BLP principles. What we have in those columns is spin about the tweet, without any fact-checking by RSs. Even my attempt to quote the tweet itself in a footnote in order to report facts rather than innuendo has been removed. Treating BLPs as a repository for criticism plucked directly from primary sources opens the door to any kind of false, libelous accusations. Do you think this is a reasonable interpretation of BLP policy? P.S. Just to be clear, I appreciate the efforts by you and other editors to arrive at a fair-minded summary of the primary sources, but I don't believe this is what we should be doing according to policy. Eperoton (talk) 19:20, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

@The Armchair General: Sorry, I actually missed the first paragraph of your reply. Can you point me to the links which are RSs? Thanks. Eperoton (talk) 20:09, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

RealClearPolitics[27],The Washington Times[28], Fox News[29], ABC Nyheter (Norwegian)[30], Independent Journal Review [31], Herald Sun[32].

Additionally, both the NY Times, The Christian Post[33], and This Daily Telegraph (Australia)[34] piece should go to RS board for review.TAG (talk) 20:36, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. None of this looks to me like independent newsroom coverage of criticism. The Fox News link is a summary of their own programming. The others appear to be opinion columns or media blogs. We should be especially cautious about sources that don't have a clear separation between news and commentary. Editorial control and reputation for fact-checking is the basis of reliability for news sources. For example, the Herald Sun piece is presented as news, but our article identifies Tim Blair as belonging to their opinion section. Ironically, the criticism that has the most going for it from a policy standpoint is the accusation that Sarsour is signaling support for ISIS when she raises her finger. It's covered by AP and Daniel Pipes' column gets weight from his academic credentials. In any case, I think we'd be both wasting our time by digging deeper into these minutia, at least unless my concerns get some traction here. Eperoton (talk) 21:45, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Edit reverted which repeats unreliably-sourced claims

I have reverted an edit which simply repeats poorly-sourced, polemic claims about Sarsour, based upon a source that simply lists those claims while noting that the evidence for them is flimsy at best. If the best sourcing for these claims that can be found is the far-right FrontPage and the certifiably-nonsense GatewayPundit, it doesn't belong in her biography. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:07, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

If you need a border-line conservative source, the Center for Security Policy is "relevant" (=WP page exists, described as "not very highly respected" by the BBC), and their publication See no Sharia ISBN 1530234336 also exists, available online as PDF, 272 pages, about 15 lines cover Linda Sarsour, incl. 7 lines quoting Linda Sarsour. –2A03:2267:0:0:E109:A231:1DCA:CA56 (talk) 14:53, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I've reverted your revert on the grounds that you've misunderstood/distorted the point of the article which wasn't to regurgitate but, in keeping with the raison d'etre/modus operandi of the website, verify the claims about Sarsour that have been made by those websites, which is why the authors state at the end of their article that they tried to contact her to ask her about the claims and, more importantly, noted that they did not receive a response [from, presumably, her]. Blagamaga (talk) 21:11, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I've removed it again on BLP grounds; the fact that they make no effort to investigate the veracity of the claims and simply end with "we haven't heard back from her" makes it nothing more than regurgitation. Do not reinsert it unless there's consensus on this page to do so. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:49, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

If you read that sentence in full you would realize that: 1) their efforts to verify the claims is evidenced by their attempts to contact her via e-mail and Facebook and 2) your assertion that their statement of the fact (what incentive would they have to lie?) that they didn't hear back from her "makes it nothing more than regurgitation" just makes no sense at all. Be advised that your continued inability/refusal to understand this basic point will result in further action by me to move this content dispute upwards along the dispute resolution hierarchy. Blagamaga (talk) 01:59, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Regardless of what one may think of reliability of this website, I see no indication that ignoring their query was a significant incident in Sarsour's biography. Eperoton (talk) 02:07, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

That may be true (perhaps you meant autobiography) but doesn't mean that it's not significant to her biography, much less her biographical account on Wikipedia. Blagamaga (talk) 02:22, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I mean biography as in WP:BLP. Whether or not it's significant depends on how much independent coverage in RSs it receives. If she pleaded the fifth it was reported in newspapers, that would be significant. If she didn't reply to an email, and no one but the folks who sent it seem to find it notable, that doesn't belong in a BLP. We wouldn't even report it if a major newspaper noted that someone didn't return their call. That's not news in itself, much less encyclopedic content. Eperoton (talk) 02:57, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Analytically, most of the content that's in the article hasn't received "much independent coverage in RSs" but that is not stopping us from thinking that the content is not insignificant (i.e. doesn't warrant removal) so what's the difference here? Blagamaga (talk) 03:38, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Except for some criticism sourced from opinion columns, this article is based on independent coverage in RSs, as far as I can tell. If you ask me, using opinion columns for criticism directly is problematic for a policy standpoint, but many editors accept limited use of such sources, and on this point I go with whatever consensus happens to converge to in each case. Not replying to an email is a different category. Frankly, this is the first time I've seen anyone want to put such information into an article. Eperoton (talk) 05:00, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

But you wrote that the significance of a piece of biographical content depends on how much independent coverage in RSs that it receives and not on whether or not it is "based on independent coverage in RSs" so the fact that you've written just that makes it seem as if you're agreeing with my argument that the main consideration in deciding what biographical content to include on the Wikipedia biographical page of a living person isn't/isn't just "how much independent coverage in RSs" that that content receives. But in any case (and for the sake of moving the discussion on), to be sure, the article isn't an "opinion column," it's a fact-finding article that is produced by a reliable source and the confluence of her political status, the gravity of the claims against her and the importance of the main article to the shaping of the public's opinion/debate about her makes her non-response to the claims a legitimate matter of public interest and therefore warrants inclusion in the article. Blagamaga (talk) 06:14, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Coverage in RSs is the main criterion for inclusion, per WP:NPOV. Some sources are reliable for facts and others only for opinions of their authors. Selecting sources from the latter category based not on independent coverage but rather on our own assessment of their significance in problematic per WP:NOR, but sometimes there is a good reason and consensus for some of these choices. I don't see a good reason for this particular proposal, nor a consensus for it. As I wrote above, the issue here is not even reliability of the source, but significance of Sarsour's non-response. Your assessment of its significance appears to be OR and it is not shared by other editors. Eperoton (talk) 16:20, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 March 2017

Thread retitled from "Semi-protected edit request on 18 March 2017 all lies these a[r]e all lies".

69.124.66.136 (talk) 21:47, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

It is unclear what you want to change.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:51, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Right to exist

I have reverted an edit which reinserted the weasel-worded claim that "others have stated that Sarsour denies Israel's right to exist." We have a reliable source in which Sarsour is directly quoted as stating that Israel has a right to exist; this places a high bar for the inclusion of claims to the contrary. The cited source for the claim includes no evidence that it is Sarsour's viewpoint nor any direct quote in which she makes such a statement;, but rather makes a bald factual assertion unsupported by anything. Thus, at best, we must include the contrary claim only as a cited opinion of the source's author, not as a weasel-worded unnamed "others say" — and frankly, I would oppose even that inclusion, on the grounds that it places undue weight on a highly-contentious negative claim not apparently supported by the facts. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

I provided three sources in the topic above, and you have seen that, so I am not sure why you say there is only one source.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:35, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you believe "The Washington Standard" is a reliable source, because it's not remotely one; moreover, the article you cite is a reposted opinion piece by Pamela Geller, a right-wing political pundit who self-published it on her own website, thus also failing reliable sourcing standards. The algemeiner source is similarly an opinion piece by someone widely viewed as a right-wing Islamophobe, and nowhere does the opinion piece state that "Linda Sarsour denied Israel's right to exist;" so I'm not sure why you believe it supports the claim you're making. If you disagree, please provide the line in the opinion which supports the claim that Sarsour denies Israel's right to exist.

The broader problem is that you're not finding dispassionate news stories by mainstream publications, you're finding thinly-veiled hitpieces published by fake news sites and right-wing commentators. Meanwhile, the Associated Press specifically reported one month ago that Sarsour's acknowledgement that Israel has a right to exist ... earned her criticism by some Islamists as a self-aggrandizing “house Arab. The weight given to a right-wing political pundit's clearly-biased commentary on a person they politically oppose is not the same as the weight given to a reported news story by a mainstream media organization. We are not a site for republication of political hit-jobs by a person's political opponents. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:13, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

It would help if you stopped describing every website/article/person/opinion that you just happen to not like as "unreliable," "hit job/pieces," "fake news sites," "right-wing" and "Islamophobe." It won't lead to constructive edits on the main article, it's not going to make people who disagree with you inclined to engage constructively with you and it just makes you sound desperate to puff up her biography. Blagamaga (talk) 22:40, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

If you would like to make the case on WP:RSN that "The Washington Standard" (an obvious fake news site) is a reliable source, I invite you to open a discussion there. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:44, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

You're the one who is making that accusation so I'd strongly advise you to take yourself up on that invitation. Blagamaga (talk) 02:02, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

On closer examination, I've reinstated a narrower and more precise version of the criticism that you've removed ([35]); two other editors have already allowed the inclusion of this kind of criticism ([36] and [37])and at any rate it is what you also allowed too in your edits ([38], [39] and [40]) until you inexplicably changed your position on this issue from at least the 26th of February. Do not revert this edit as there's already been 4 (including you) editors who have okayed the original version of the edit that I've reinstated. Blagamaga (talk) 02:53, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Serious WP:WEASEL and BLP issues here that should be resolved before restoring, not by edit warring. We have a direct quote saying one thing, and a single, context-free sentence stating as fact the exact opposite. We cannot just leave it hanging like this. Just saying that "it has been alleged" without going into any details is very messy. Linking all these in a chain like this is WP:SYNTH, as well. Grayfell (talk) 03:15, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

If you're suggesting a compromise on how the text should be edited, it would help if you proposed what changes you have in mind on here first instead of just blindly and one-sidedly reverting my edits as you did here [41]. Blagamaga (talk) 03:23, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I know what I did, and everybody else can see the article history as well. The burden is on you to include this quote and to provide context which explains the conflict. The talk page is the place to do that, not the article. Grayfell (talk) 03:32, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I already have (3 users including NorthBySouthBaranof had already okayed the original version of the edit that I had reinstated before you decided to engage in your mindless edit warring). Blagamaga (talk) 03:41, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Ah yes, "mindless". I don't agree with that interpretation at all, so why don't you hold off and wait until a more clear consensus emerges. Going through my recent history and reverting my edits to totally unrelated article appears to be WP:POINTed behavior, and is not productive. Grayfell (talk) 03:57, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Of course you don't/won't but that's because my legitimate (and courteous) revert of your revert ([42]) has subsequently mysteriously led you to edit my edits in paroxysms of rage. If there's some substantive point/argument that relates to the content dispute at hand that you'd like to make, then do so; otherwise you're just stalling for time while pretending to take the high ground. Put up or shut up: it's that simple. Blagamaga (talk) 04:25, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

In light of the aforementioned conversation/debate I propose that the following sentences:

"Sarsour does not support either Hamas or the Palestinian authority and has expressed support for Israel's right to exist, but also believes in nonviolent Palestinian resistance to Israel.[10] She has been described as a proponent of the BDS movement,[22] but Sarsour has said that she supports the right of Israel to exist.[10]"

Be combined into this:

Sources have variously described Sarsour as holding contrasting positions on the question of Israel's right of existence ([43], [44], [45], [46]) a proponent of the BDS movement (cite to existing sources) and a supporter of nonviolent Palestinian resistance to Israel (cite to existing sources). Blagamaga (talk) 05:42, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

"Paroxysms of rage" would be a pretty good band name, I wonder if it's already taken. That's not going to work. Sources do not describe her as holding contrasting positions, you are describing her that way based mainly on one specific outlet. That's WP:OR. An op-ed which calls her a "Jew hater" is not a usable source for statements of fact about her, either. We have multiple sources saying that she supports Israel's right to exist, and one which says she doesn't and provides no other context. Without something else to support/explain this, it just flat-out doesn't belong. Grayfell (talk) 05:56, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

(Redacted) Blagamaga (talk) 07:01, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

On a sidenote you are one tricky guy/gal/dicky/dick not only did you revert this poor bastard's edits with the comment of "Revert non-neutral changes from WP:COI editor" ([47]) you're also the same person who welcomed that editor to Wikipedia! ([48]) What you've just done is kind of the social equivalent of rape by deception, but seeing as how you're really good at doing what you do, why not put your energy to good use, get off Wikipedia and join the CIA? Blagamaga (talk) 08:12, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

In a recent interview, Ms. Sarsour confirmed to the Nation maginize, and the Nation published her confirmation, which resolves the above dispute. Ms. Sarsour does not support the existence of a Jewish state of Israel. The prior source that NorthBySouthBaranof has been relying upon is an anti-Israel activist site which essentially says that she supports Israel's right to exist as a critique of her. The Nation is a more reliable source, it is more recent, and it avoids any ambiguity as to what was meant in the prior interview. The current article is inaccurate, which is problematic for a BLP. Jonmayer18 (talk) 17:43, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

We have two sources for her support of Israel's right to exist -- a direct quote and a statement of fact from AP which is not attributed to any activist site. Where does she say in the Nation interview "I do not support the existence of a Jewish state of Israel"? We can refine her position on this issue, but our formulation needs to have direct support in RSs. Eperoton (talk) 17:55, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

How do you suggest to refine? The direct quote is from a non-reliable source that seems to be an attempt to ATTACK her for supporting Israel (or giving in to pressure from the mainstream). As for the AP article, it's unattributed and pre-dates the Nation article. Bottom line: the NYT published an article questioning whether a vocal critic of Israel, but not other countries, is standing up for women in light of the success of women in Israel compared to other countries. Ms. Sarsour sat for an interview with the Nation in response and the interviewor's headline is: you can't be a feminist and a Zionist. This clearly relates to her "support" for Israel's right to exist. Not sure why we need a "direct" statement when the only prior RS is an indirect statement. We are not supposed to be doing original research anyways.Jonmayer18 (talk) 19:00, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

In what universe is NY1, a major news station in the largest city in the United States, a "non-reliable source"? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:03, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

@Jonmayer18: AP is a RS for facts, and we use their statement of fact. NY1 reported a direct quote from Sarsour, and it's a RS for that quote. Both are used verbatim, and there's no OR involved. In contrast, the rest of your comment above involves inferences that would violate WP:OR. If we have a more nuanced description of Sarsour's position from a RS, we can use that too, but without OR. Eperoton (talk) 23:06, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

@Eperoton: I'm ok trying to nuance the issue based on the Nation interview and the other interviews you've cited (although I don't think its an inference that someone with such firm anti-Zionist views would be opposed to a Jewish State of Israel, but I trust wikipedia readers to understand that). (Sorry my comment above related to the prior citation to Ikhras, which I did not think was reliable. Yes, AP and NY1 are reliable, although in this case I think the positions they identify I believe have been superceded.Jonmayer18 (talk) 02:26, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

@Jonmayer18: I think we've taken the currently available sources on this issue about as far as they allow us to go without OR. We've already summarized the actual statement about feminism and Zionism from the Nation. I happen to think it's likely that Sarsour's vision of one state solution is incompatible with Israel retaining its status of a Jewish state. If she states so explicitly in a future interview, we can reflect that, but we can't edit based on such inferences. Eperoton (talk) 02:54, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

That is entirely incorrect. This biography currently cites an indisputable reliable source in which Sarsour is directly quoted as stating that she supports Israel's right to exist. Please direct me to the statement in a reliable source where she says Israel does not have a right to exist. Her expressed opposition to certain interpretations of Zionism does not constitute a statement that she does not believe Israel should exist; that is your personal interpretation of her statement and editors' personal opinions have no bearing on what we write in Wikipedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:03, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Northbysouth I'm not sure what you are saying, but I think you will have to accept that Linda Sarsour does not believe in a Jewish state in historical Palestine. She has referred to Zionism as "creepy" and she gave an interview with the Nation where she said that a feminist, such as herself, cannot also be a Zionist. Are you doubting the headline of the Nation article or are you saying that someone can oppose Zionism but support the existence of the Jewish State of Israel? If your POV is the latter, please explain. Zionism was and is the political movement for a Jewish state in historical Palestine/Israel (although not necessarily in ALL of that territory). It has many opponents and they all deserve to be treated fairly. It is fair--not POV--to say that an opponent of Zionism opposes the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state. Indeed, from an Arab Palestinian's perspective, its quite understandable. I don't see why youd want to hide it. Lets square away this difference.Jonmayer18 (talk) 18:51, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I am not under any obligation to explain my POV, because my POV isn't an issue here. You don't have a reliable source that says she doesn't believe Israel has the right to exist, and to the contrary, we have at least two reliable sources in which she is either quoted as saying Israel has the right to exist or it is stated as a fact. That's the end of the story here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:54, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

No talking on the talk page? Whatever the basis was for the AP article (I assume that's your "indisputable" RS, not News NY1), it pre-dates the Nation interview. I don't know what changed her mind, but if you want to talk through the steps of her political development I suppose thats ok. I think we need to cover her position accurately, not politically.Jonmayer18 (talk) 19:11, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately for your preconceived desires, Sarsour does not say in the Nation interview that she doesn't believe Israel has a right to exist. You cannot invent words she does not say or twist statements into other meanings merely because you want to depict Sarsour in a certain manner. Conservapedia may allow you to do that, so that might be a better place for you to participate. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:15, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I note that your past editorial history demonstrates that you have had issues with properly citing reliable sources and with misrepresenting those sources as relates to people who have expressed opposition to Israeli policies. @Malik Shabazz: has discussed this with you previously, and I suggest that before throwing yourself into another such issue, you educate yourself on our foundational content policies relating to living people, verifiability, reliable sourcing, original research and synthesis. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:30, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

In the situation with Malik Shabazz, I had cited an article within an RS but he dug into the citations within the article and had a good argument that the article itself was inaccurate on the relevant point. His tone and demeanor were inappropriate however. He was removed as an admin after he apparently, among other things, told other people to "suck [his] dick" and referred to a user as a "Jewboy". This merited removal for cause. I believe there may be some other sanctions. I have never been called a conservative in my life and you don't know my desires. I would ask you to please read The Wikipedia policy on [personal attacks] Jonmayer18 (talk) 21:13, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

You are being rude and resorting to ad hominen attacks. Malik was removed as an admin i believe, so I'm not sure whether my dispute with him really supports you. As you seem to have forgotten, I built out this article with many points about Sarsour, including that she worked to secure two Muslim holidays for NYC school district. I'm familiar with and I have read all the policies you cited. Have you? As to the point at hand: The Nation article is an RS, it is not original research, can be verified by clicking on it and it indeed says that Sarsour is opposed to Zionism being part of the feminist movement, of which she is a leader. I gather you don't see a quote from her, but the AP article does not have a quote either. There is a prior quote where she calls Zionism, "creepy" and "racist". I think that twitter cite is ambiguous and of course it is original research, but perhaps is assuages your concern with accuracy. Assuming you aren't just opposing my edits on personal grounds or out of loyalty to Malik Shabazz, how about these changes in asterisks.

She **has stated that she** supports Israel's right to exist,[18][10] and favors a one-state solution for the Israeli-Palestinian question under conditions that would foster "peace and justice and equality for all."[10] Sarsour has been described as a proponent of the BDS movement.[19] **She has questioned whether Zionists can be feminists**.[cite]

If the scope of our disagreement is whether someone can oppose zionism and believe Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish state, its not so terrible. Its just an article.Jonmayer18 (talk) 20:09, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

References

Israel right to exist revision.

I really really really don't want to get into a Israel-Palestine argument with anyone but I'm gonna put this out there. I think that this statement, on the article, needs to be revised: "She supports Israel's right to exist, and favors a one-state solution for the Israeli-Palestinian question under conditions that would foster "peace and justice and equality for all."

From my understanding, based off of commentary from many experts on the demographics of the region, a "one-state" solution is in fact a de facto end to Israel's existence!? I'm not sure what the best rewording would be. TAG (talk) 16:56, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

We can only reflect assertions explicitly stated in RSs, which the passage you quote appears to do. Making article changes based on inferences like the one you suggest would violate WP:SYN. Eperoton (talk) 17:07, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

The conclusion you appear to be attempting to draw is your original synthesis of two separate ideas, and that is explicitly not what Wikipedia is about. That she supports Israel's right to exist and prefers a particular political solution to the Israeli-Palestinian question are not inherently mutually exclusive. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:12, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Not trying toWP:SYN. It just appears (from my understanding of the general consensus view on this issue) that these views are conflicting in nature and perhaps that should be noted. However, I'm not trying to make waves, I will back off from my suggestion for revision. TAG (talk) 17:51, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Requesting a Controversy section

As detailed above, there is a Snopes article summarizing some of her controversial public statements and public conduct, including (i) a very controversial affiliation, and (ii) controversial comments on banning women from driving. I don't think her comments on "Sharia law" are particularly controversial since there is so much public misunderstanding of Sharis law and she was not supporting a controversial aspect of Sharia law (at least as it applies to her area of expertise (which is not finance). If she were putting herself forward as an economic expert then supporting a ban on interest would be controversial but in context, I think she is just trying to point out how misunderstood Sharia law is.) However, there is another article quoting her public statements and controversial statements toward other women, and she HAS put herself forward as a women's advocate so I think these comments from 2011 merit identification. Jonmayer18 (talk) 17:13, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Twitchy is a partisan site on the level of Media Matters for America; we should generally avoid partisan clickbait and seek high-quality mainstream reliable sources. Examining that link, again, all it is is a bunch of tweets back and forth, with little to no context or actual secondary-source reporting. I don't think that is useful here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:20, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

How is then Huffington Post "non-partisan". They were massively campaigning against Trump and make their money based on pageviews, so "clickbait" is a very POV-way to say "earning money with page views". Don't get me wrong, but the way Wikipedia documents things here looks like "fixing history". Part of the story is missing and the rest is only backed up by equally partisan media outlets. ImreK (talk) 23:31, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

The current article refers to attacks online by Islamophobics, but does not provide the context for those attacks, which includes the tweets identified above. Shouldn't there be some context to explain the current text? The way it reads right now, unnamed people are angry with her and attacking her on the basis of her religion. However, reviewing the articles above it is clear that there is some context to the controversy beyond just Islamophobia. Further, while twitchy and breitbart are partisan, snopes is not. And the huffington post is also partisan, but it's been cited. There ought to be some context added here. I suggest:

Subsequent to her appearance at the Women's March, many conservatives questioned whether she was an appropriate advocate for feminism based upon prior public comments she had made regarding religious law and prior personal attacks on other female leaders.

then you can mention the islamaphobia point. Jonmayer18 (talk) 22:48, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Last, shouldn't there be some fodder added from her New York Times front page profile?

As it stands, the alleged Islamophobia attacks are completely out of context. It still looks to me like some people are really busy covering up her pro sharia tweets. ImreK (talk) 23:27, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

She had a very controversial run in with the well known Islamic reform promoter Ayaan Hirsi Ali that is surely relevant to this section. Fox News - Ayaan Hirsi AliCdOl0lO (talk) 18:22, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

WP:BLP concerns make this non-viable based on that single flimsy source. An entire two-paragraph section based on one short blurb is totally insufficient and WP:UNDUE. A review of WP:CSECTION may also be helpful. Grayfell (talk) 22:05, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

OK, so this on it's own might not constitute adding a new section. All of the other controversies that have been slipped into the rest of the article and this together might not constitute a controversy section. But how is Ayaan Hirsi Ali talking directly about the issues that Linda is involved in, also in relation to her own comments to her, on issues that Ayaan is involved in a "flimsy source", given a notable person as Ayaan is and Fox News are. You can probably see I have added a section on this page to discuss this.CdOl0lO (talk) 22:29, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

There's this from the Eastern Director of Simon Wiesenthal Center (not just a random talking head): Linda Sarsour Is ‘An Arsonist In Our Midst’ | MK17b | (talk) 18:14, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

We already include a substantial number of opinions about Sarsour's political viewpoints and positions; I'm not sure how the addition of one more would benefit this article. Wikipedia biographies are not compilations of every opinion, positive or negative, ever expressed about a particular person. What from that particular article do you believe should be included, and why? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:44, 6 June 2017 (UTC)