Talk:Linda Sarsour/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Quotes from Sarsour

I added some quotes from Sarsour, and User:Muboshgu deleted them. User:Muboshgu did not leave a comment with the deletion, but did post the following on my talk page:

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Linda Sarsour. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you.

I will go by whatever the consensus is. What do others think about this content? Here is what I added:

Extended content

Sarsour has made the following four statements in favor of the U.S. adopting Sharia law: "10 weeks of PAID maternity leave in Saudi Arabia. Yes PAID. And ur worrying about women driving. Puts us to shame." "shariah law is reasonable and once u read into the details it makes a lot of sense. People just know the basics" "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?" "If you are still paying interest than Sharia Law hasn't taken over America." References

Bk33725681 (talk) 03:27, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Your commentary / personal analysis was saying that she's advocating the U.S. adopt sharia law. Her defending it, and pointing out some things about it that aren't mentioned by right-wing media when trying to scare people about Islam, is quite different. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:33, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

None of those quotes state that Sarsour is "in favor of the U.S. adopting Sharia law." That is your unsupported personal interpretation of those quotes, and Wikipedia is not the place to publish your personal ideas of what she means. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:57, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

The section heading and first sentence "Support for adopting Sharia law in the U.S." is OR or at least un-sourced. The quotes are OK thoough PRIMARY. We probably should have a balanced section dealing with her views regarding Sharia law (which, to my understanding, do not include forcing Sharia on non-Muslims but do include opposition to Ban on sharia law initiatives (and supporting courts' ability to resolved personal issues (such as divorce) based on Sharia for Muslims) and her general support/positiveness for Sharia law). But any such section would need to be solidly sourced on secondary sources covering this in depth.Icewhiz (talk) 06:11, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

The Associated Press article referenced above under § Hamas, Sharia bluntly dismisses the imposition-of-Islamic-law angle. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:24, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Atweh relationship

@Sangdeboeuf: - Seeing the NYT gives the Atweh/Sarsour relationship as "cousin of father" - so a first cousin once removed, can we perhaps settle on relative? Family friend is imprecise. I think cousin is apt for such a case, as it generally refers to beyond just first-cousins (and definitely would catch a first-cousin once removed) - however relative escapes the cousin hairsplitting.Icewhiz (talk) 07:35, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Relative seems acceptable. For the record, I'm not the only one who can respond to this question, so the {{ping}} seems unnecessary. Anyone is welcome to comment. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:51, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Also, we shouldn't assume that "one of her father's cousins" (per NYT) means first cousin in this case. As stated, the word can refer to relatives beyond first cousins. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:56, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Cousin can be unspecified, yes (which is the meaning I ascribed to it - not first). It looks like we're agreed on relative. I pinged you to move to talk instead of the article itself (as we were in a back and forth there - wanted to reach agreement on talk prior to making additional article changes).Icewhiz (talk) 08:18, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

The meaning of "Cousin" varies culturally, and is best avoided unless we're explicitly talking about a child of a parent's sibling, which we are not here. "Relative" is better; there is no evidence that the precise relationship matters. Vanamonde (talk) 14:54, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Yiannopoulos and Geller at rally

There is no consensus to mention Milo Yiannopoulos's and Pamela Geller's role in Sarsour's 2017 CUNY graduation speech. SMcCandlish proposed including the general reaction of conservatives to the speech, which Sangdeboeuf agreed to and implemented here. No editors have objected to the edit after nearly a month.

Cunard (talk) 18:05, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Two issues here: 1). whether in describing the controversy over Sarsour's 2017 CUNY graduation speech, we should describe Milo Yiannopoulos's and Pamela Geller's role in the event, and 2). if so, whether it's unduly sensationalist to quote their actual remarks against Sarsour. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:23, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Update: see proposed text under § Proposal: CUNY speech below. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:48, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

• The current version of the article describes the rally against Sarsour's CUNY speech without any mention of Milo or Geller. However, the two are mentioned prominently in news and opinion coverage of the event, such as in Time magazine, The New York Times, The Daily Beast, The Forward The Forward (again), Jezebel, Gothamist, Mondoweiss, Mondoweiss (again), Middle East Eye, another piece in The Forward, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, Mic, and the New York Daily News. Another contributor has argued[1][2] that we can't mention Milo and Geller without also quoting their remarks. However, this is based in no policy that I am aware of, and their actual remarks seem to be mere slander that adds no encyclopedic value. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:32, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose inclusion. For the record this RFC is improperly worded, and takes a position (to which, one should note, there was little support for in the discussion here). Placing Milo and Geller in this BLP would give them undue weight for their rather singular apearance at a single protest. If they do merit inclusion, then yes, their stmts merit inclusion as well - their stmts are not slander but a political position that was quoted by just about every source that did mention them in coverage of the prrotest.Icewhiz (talk) 05:42, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
  • There is no improper wording. The first, brief paragraph above is the RfC. The following comments are separate from the actual RfC. Also, how does calling someone "a Sharia-loving, terrorist-embracing, Jew-hating, ticking time bomb of progressive horror"[3] or “a pro-terror, vicious anti-Semite"[4] constitute a political position? It is not WP's job to be sensationalist by quoting and disseminating such slander. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:26, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
    • When I made my comment, there was little to distinguish between the two paragraphs - you added indentation following my comment (which is not the best why to separate, a sub-section heading would be preferred). As for Milo's and Geller's stmts (who should not be mentioned due to UNDUE) - they are not slander but rather a political position and framing of Sarsour's positions and deeds -delivered in the typical rhetorical style of the figures saying them.Icewhiz (talk) 17:58, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support (I reserve the right to change my vote) If the rally was organised by elements of the right-wing, then the article should without a doubt state that. I also note that the article isn't very long ((Milo Yiannopouloss article is about twice as long) so there is "room" in this article for more details. ImTheIP (talk) 08:18, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
• Conditional Support I support mentioning Milo and Geller's involvement only if their quotes are included too. If we're going to talk about their involvement, then we need to contextualize it by describing their arguments with Sarsour. Otherwise, it comes across as some kind of attempt to elevate Sarsour in comparison to two detractors who seem to be protesting against her for "shadowy" unclear reasons. Scaleshombre (talk) 14:08, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose inclusion at all, per WP:UNDUE. Those two right-wing people are not magically special, and the fact that they had an opinion isn't noteworthy or particularly connected to Sarsour. Righties bash lefties and vice versa all the time, and it's not our job to quote their bickering in detail, nor treat them like "celebrity commentators", per WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOT#NEWS (WP is most especially not tabloid news).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  21:05, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
  • @SMcCandlish: Thanks for your input. However, the issue as stated is not primarily Yiannopoulos's and Geller's opinion, but rather their involvement as leaders of the opposition to Sarsour's speech. I believe this is important to include in order to put the response to Sarsour's speech in context, which the article currently describes rather amorphously as "criticism of the choice of Sarsour to deliver a graduation address at the City University of New York (CUNY) in June 2017. Critics also pointed to her support for the BDS movement". However, the protest was borne not of some grassroots movement against Sarsour, but of an organized response from notorious notoriously far-right figures. According to some of the more mainstream sources on the topic:
    • "Other protests have largely pitted left-wing students against conservative speakers like Mr. Yiannopoulos [...] this time, conservatives are leading the charge against Ms. Sarsour [...] her critics are strange mix, including right-leaning Jews and Zionists, commentators like Pamela Geller, and some members of the alt-right", per The New York Times;
    • "Sarsour's selection drew criticism from some right-wing speakers and pundits, including Milo Yiannopoulos and Pamela Gellar, who both protested her speech at a rally outside the university last week", per Time; and
    • "The incident occurred Thursday night outside the CUNY building in Manhattan, where activists against radical Islam, including Pamela Geller and Milo Yiannopoulos, had rallied in protest of the decision by the institution’s School of Public Health to host Sarsour on Friday as a commencement speaker", per The Jewish Telegraph Agency. In my opinion, it would be undue not to mention their involvement. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:08, 6 October 2017 (UTC) (updated 15:55, 6 October 2017 (UTC))
    • See also Alexander Nazaryan in Newsweek:
      • "Sarsour is also a figure loathed by conservatives, in large part for her support for the movement to boycott, divest from and sanction Israel, which some see as inherently anti-Semitic. Although she has said she wants to see Israelis and Palestinians coexist, many on the right do not trust her. Now, they are mounting a furious campaign to prevent her from speaking at the commencement for the City University of New York’s Graduate School of Public Health and Health Policy".
    • It seems clear that we need some indication that this was not just some amorphous protest, but specifically a right-wing protest. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:31, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
      • Calling BLPs notorious is a policy violation, particularly when the sources you quote refer to them otherwise (e.g. activists against radical Islam).Icewhiz (talk) 15:47, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
        • Very well; I've changed it to "notoriously", which was the intended meaning. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:55, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

          That doesn't appear to fix it. I don't see it in the text now or in proposed text above, so maybe that's already resolved.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  20:16, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

  • We have to be careful not to extrapolate from news commentary like "their involvement as leaders of the opposition to Sarsour's speech" Was there an election of them as leaders? Just because a journo says something hyberbolic/metaphoric doesn't mean we can use it as if literal truth. This Yiannopoulos and Geller material is just name-dropping. Source material that says something like "conservative speakers like Mr. Yiannopoulos ... and ... commentators like Pamela Geller" tell us that these people were probably present and are apparently good at coughing up sound bites (it's what they do, and journalists quote them because they're good at it, and they're bombastic and entertaining/alarming). There are thousands of conservative speakers and commentators, and the overall reaction is more important to us than what "Milo" said (WP calling him by his first name is a no-no). "some right-wing speakers and pundits, including Milo Yiannopoulos and Pamela Gellar, who both protested her speech at a rally outside the university last week" is the same kind of thing; hundreds or thousands may be at any rally and we have no idea how many of them might have been notable. When it comes to left- and right-wing activists of note, they will frequently be at rallies and other events; it's part of their job to be at them. See also the other ongoing RfC on this page for the same WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE error. You could easily create very long but unencyclopedic lists of things like "political events at which Pamela Geller has made an appearance". There's nothing special about this particular one.

    It might be necessary to quote Yiannopoulos or Geller to make it clear to readers what the nature of the right-wing critiques area, but I'm skeptical. Secondary sources have probably already summarized the rightist reaction, and if they haven't, well why are we trying to write about it on Wikipedia? Two quotes from individuals don't demonstrate a right-wing consensus. "speakers and pundits" is redundant, and the second half of it is left-wing PoV; we should not parrot that. "loathed by conservatives" is PoV; it's "investigative journalist"-style writing, so we shouldn't use anything like that. "many on the right do not trust her" is weasel-wording, and doesn't appear to mean anything concrete or even be relevant (this doesn't have anything to do with trust issues). "they are mounting a furious campaign" = more weasel-wording and editorializing. Who is "they"? Why are they more "furious" than the opposition? (If you've been to a leftist rally, you know the opposite is likely true; the left thrives on "outrage"). WP's job isn't to report on current events anyway, so dwelling on reportage like this is out-of-band. What's encyclopedic is probably that Sarsour's speech provoked a negative reaction from the right, charactered by [insert paraphrase of their concerns here], if we have secondary sources that summarize these concerns, instead of focusing on the opinion of two "talking heads" who don't represent a very broad demographic, and have their own right-wing detractors; they're a narrow slice of the right.
     — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  21:56, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

    • WP's job isn't to report on current events anyway, so dwelling on reportage like this is out-of-band – that's simply not true. Per WP:NOT:

      As Wikipedia is not a paper source, editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events.

      See also Portal:Current events. We are here to summarize reliable-source coverage of this specific event, not to compare and contrast right- and left-wing protest, speculate about who else may have attended, or evaluate Yiannopoulos's and Geller's status within the right wing. And yes, we do have secondary sources that summarize the right-wing reaction, including Time, Newsweek, and The New York Times. Regarding weasel words, it's also weasel-ish to mention "critics" of Sarsour's CUNY speech without saying who they are, as the article currently does. If SMcCandlish is skeptical that Yiannopoulos and Geller are relevant here, then perhaps SMcCandlish will propose better wording to be used in the article. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:44, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
      • What you're quoting has to interpreted within the context of WP:NOT#NEWS. I.e., news-style reportage is already ruled out, and is not among the "current and up-to-date information within [our] coverage". People disagreeing with Sarsour isn't a "significant current event", it's business as usual for an activist. "[W]e do have secondary sources that summarize the right-wing reaction" – good enough, and that makes it not weaselly if they describe and summarize a general reaction. When sources tell us that African Americans in the aggregate do not approve of Donald Trump's policies we do not need to quote some individual African Americans; the secondary source is sufficient. WEASEL applies when we say things like "According to a study by some scientists" and then don't identify them. If the sources only indicate a few blowhard like Y&G had a noteworthy reaction, that's some chest-beating competition between a few activists, so it's name-dropping a filler (trivia). Honestly, in the end, I really don't care much, but I'll stick to the reasoning I've outlined and people either buy it or they don't.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  02:39, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
        • I'll buy the part about omitting routine coverage of talking heads reacting to something Sarsour has said or done; the article already has far too much of that (see § Sound bytes on this talk page). However, the analogy used here ignores the fact that "critics" of Sarsour are not an identifiable group like "African Americans". Saying "critics" in this context elides the fact that reliable sources identify the criticism as coming from the right wing. It's purposefully vague, and therefore runs afoul of WP:NPOV. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:24, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

          Fair point, though I don't think "African Americans" are an "identifiable group" for these purposes anyway. People's views vary; I know an African American who is far-right, a Trump supporter, and super-hater of Barack Obama. [shrug]  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  19:12, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

          Fine; I was merely using the example already given. My point is that reliable sources do identify these "critics"; see § Proposal: CUNY speech just below. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:26, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose (Summoned by bot) Per SMcCandlish and his persuasive UNDUE argument. Agree that the presence of these two persons is not especially notable, and that their inclusion would be gratuitous, to say the least, as well as POV. Coretheapple (talk) 14:34, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support Including names, suggest NO quotes -- Just follow WP:WEIGHT. Report the event according to content in coverage, sensationalized though that may be, and not a sanitized version. Presence of protestors are a major part of the CUNY story and WP:WEIGHT in basic Google shows commonly coverage of her and CUNY includes naming Geller over half the time, and Milo slightly less. For quotes -- quotes also seem prominent from both her and teh protestors, so ... if you include any I think you have to include all for WP:WEIGHT. I think one might perhaps skip ALL quotes and instead just paraphrase the topics each spoke on. But if quotes are included then again per WP:WEIGHT presence of all remarks should follow prominence in coverage. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:33, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support - this is an encyclopedia, and we don't "censor" so I'm dismayed by the comment about "right wing" whatever. How is that NPOV? What if we started eliminating everything that was "left wing"? Be reminded of WP:NOT and avoid turning our encyclopedia into a soapbox to advocate for political causes. Leave your biases at login. We report what happened in an encyclopedic manner, dispassionate tone citing RS, and using in-text attribution if we think a statement may be challenged. We avoid "opinion" pieces. We do not "censor", advocate, promote, or condemn. We write only the facts, and we don't editorialize. ^{Atsme📞📧} 13:17, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

  @Atsme: - should they be (per 2 in RfC) included with their remarks or summary thereof, or mentioned by name or only?Icewhiz (talk) 13:30, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

  @Icewhiz: - both are notable, both have been protested against by detractors the same way Sarsour has been, so why would we not include what they said as protestors? There's no reason to include their names if we don't quote at least part of what was published in the sources as to what they said. Look at Geller's BLP, and Milo_Yiannopoulos under the Berkeley section which includes quotes of what protestors were yelling. Readers are here to obtain encyclopedic information, to learn what took place - we aren't supposed to censor, whitewash or over-sensationalize articles. We're supposed to include factual information, regardless of whether it's critical or glowing. ^{Atsme📞📧} 08:22, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

• Ambivalent oppose - It seems to be well sourced, but it just feels like name dropping or trivia. As other's have pointed out, these are professional talking heads. If these were people who actually didn't court controversy and chase cameras for a living, and they felt the need to take the time out of their schedule to make a public statement about the issue, then I could see it being more significant. But that isn't the case, and I feel like if we get in the habit of citing these kinds of people every time they pop up on the radar, we're just going to end up with them plastered everywhere, because... popping up on the radar is what they do. Covering something about the protest seems fine, but the name dropping feels unnecessary. (The real question in my mind, I might add in passing, is how exactly Yiannopoulos manages to show up looking this fabulous to a conservative rally, and somebody actually hands him a mic.) GMG^talk 10:43, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Proposal: CUNY speech

Per User:SMcCandlish's comments about the general reaction of conservatives to Sarsour's speech at CUNY, here's what the mainstream sources say:

Sarsour is also a figure loathed by conservatives, in large part for her support for the movement to boycott, divest from and sanction Israel, which some see as inherently anti-Semitic. Although she has said she wants to see Israelis and Palestinians coexist, many on the right do not trust her. Now, they are mounting a furious campaign to prevent her from speaking at the commencement for the City University of New York’s Graduate School of Public Health and Health Policy, which she is slated to do on June 1. That movement may have gotten a boost from a recording of Sarsour’s talk at Dartmouth College in New Hampshire on May 12.

Sarsour's selection drew criticism from some right-wing speakers and pundits, including Milo Yiannopoulos and Pamela Gellar, who both protested her speech at a rally outside the university last week. Sarsour's critics have accused her of holding anti-Semitic views because of her comments on Islam and Middle Eastern politics, including her support for the movement to boycott, divest from and sanction Israel.

The controversy over Ms. Sarsour’s appearance is the latest dispute in a heated national dialogue over free speech on university campuses. But in this instance, the roles have been reversed. Other protests have largely pitted left-wing students against conservative speakers like Mr. Yiannopoulos, Ann Coulter, Gavin McInnes and Charles Murray. This time, conservatives are leading the charge against Ms. Sarsour. Her critics are a strange mix, including right-leaning Jews and Zionists, commentators like Pamela Geller, and some members of the alt-right. They accuse her of sympathizing with terrorists, supporting Sharia law and anti-Semitism for statements she has made about politics in the Middle East.

Summarizing these, I propose changing the existing text:

The Dartmouth College exchange may have boosted criticism of the choice of Sarsour to deliver a graduation address at the City University of New York (CUNY) in June 2017. Critics also pointed to her support for the BDS movement.

to the following:

When Sarsour was scheduled to deliver a graduation address at the City University of New York (CUNY) in June 2017, her selection as speaker was strongly opposed by some conservatives. They accused her of anti-Semitism and sympathizing with terrorists for her comments on Middle Eastern politics, including her stated support for the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement. Conservative commentators Milo Yiannopoulos and Pamela Geller were two of those who protested Sarsour's speech at a rally outside the university.

Any suggestions are welcome. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:48, 10 October 2017 (UTC) (updated 22:26, 15 October 2017 (UTC))

* I've ended this RfC myself – a couple of users have made convincing arguments that Milo & Geller are mere talking heads in this controversy. Since we have the broader right-wing reaction to the speech summarized in reliable sources, I'll be adding that via the proposed text above if there are no objections I've added the proposed text above, in a slightly different order. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:05, 12 October 2017 (UTC) (updated 01:00, 22 October 2017 (UTC))

References

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for comment: San Bernardino attack

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is no consensus for the inclusion of this material. There is a strong divide on whether or not to include the quoted material, with !votes being split completely even. In terms of policy, strong arguments have been given on both sides. The quote is well sourced, and acts to inform the reader of Sarsour's views, which is what she is known for. Conversely, there is a risk of the article becoming a quote farm, and going into too much detail on every thing Sarsour has ever said. To an extent this is more a question of writing style rather than of anyone violating policy. However, per WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE it is best to play it safe, and not restore the the passage given the lack of any consensus.

If a consensus is to be reached, it may be better to pursue the line of enquiry raised by User:The Four Deuces: finding and including secondary source analysis of Sarsour's views on the connection between Islamic terrorism and the Muslim community. This would address the concerns about quotefarming, while allowing for more information regarding her views to be included in the article. Brustopher (talk) 15:30, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

---

Should we include Sarsour's comments in response to U.S. President Barack Obama saying that Muslims should "root out" extremism following the 2015 San Bernardino attack? (updated 19:52, 16 October 2017 (UTC)) —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:43, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

The text in the article is as follows:

In the wake of the 2015 San Bernardino attack, President Obama called for Muslims to take responsibility and "root out misguided ideas that lead to radicalization". Sarsour objected to Obama's singling out Muslims, saying, "We would never ask any other faith community to stand up and condemn acts of violence committed by people within their groups", commenting that many domestic terrorist plots had already been foiled because Muslims reported them to authorities.

Some previous discussion may be seen in the midst of Talk:Linda Sarsour#Sound bytes.Icewhiz (talk) 10:26, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

• No. As a prominent American Muslim activist, Sarsour will be sought out by the media to weigh in on any number of issues. That doesn't mean that every sound bite is encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a newspaper or an indiscriminate collection of quotations. The sources cited (Mic and NPR) don't provide any evaluation or analysis that would establish the relevance of these comments to her life and career. Quoting her remarks here seems to lend undue weight to this specific incident. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:46, 16 October 2017 (UTC) (updated 21:58, 22 October 2017 (UTC))

  I'm seeing several other comments favoring inclusion because Sarsour is "notable" primarily for speaking publicly on such issues. This ignores both WP:NOT and WP:DUE. That Sarsour is known for speaking about issues doesn't mean that we include every single thing she's ever said to a media interviewer. As far as I can tell, this content is out of proportion to its coverage in mainstream, reliable sources. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:09, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

  Echoing Pincrete's and Irn's comments below, the phrase "many domestic terrorist plots had already been foiled" appears to be editorializing, or editorial synthesis – What Sarsour actually said was that "40% of plots that have been foiled in this country, have been disrupted by Muslims". Is this "many"? It's hard to tell. We do need to explain how quotations are relevant to an article's subject, but using original research is not the way to do it.

  On a different note, I added essentially the same content, with the same sources, to 2015 San Bernardino attack § Political reactions, where it appears stable so far. We don't need it in both places – in my opinion, the remarks are more relevant to the article on the attack itself. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:23, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

  IF used at all, the 40% text is more exact, there is little need or benefit to the paraphrasing above. Pincrete (talk) 09:20, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

• comment - do we really need an RfC for an obvious "absolutely"? Sangdeboeuf, read my comment to you above. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:18, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes - it represents her position and outspoken comments which made her notable. ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:38, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
• No Not yet (Summoned by bot) The less comments and quotes the merrier. BLP, not an almanac. Atsme, which comment? I see several by you. L3X1 (distænt write) 22:23, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  • ^{Copied for your convenience L3X1 (didn't use diff because it included 2 edits & didn't want to confuse anyone): Need to include the criticism and public concern over her activities without editorializing. It's an integral part of what made her notable. Atsme📞📧 5:58 pm, 14 October 2017, last Saturday (2 days ago) (UTC−4)}
• yes fine, if it is sourced. A reaction by a prominent activist to a presidential announcement or public address isn't a random soundbyte. Also, I hope the RfC process isn't being used here to maintain a revert and slow down the process of inclusion of material into the article. If this is the case the RfC tag should be removed so that normal discussion and editing can resume. Additionally, the word sound bytes crops up some 25 plus times here as a means of calling the suitability of inclusion of certain contents into question. Bear in mind that this term can be used with reference to an overarching variety of potential inclusions, some of which are perfectly acceptable for inclusion. The policies concerning NOTNEWS are not set in stone and give editors considerably more leeway than policies like MEDRS or BLP. The interpretation of NOTNEWS should not be used to selectively exclude content or demand further contextualization in a manner similar to BURDEN. The focus here should be on a well written article, which helps us understand the subject. An inclusion of a certain amount of her statements seems acceptable as she is apparently notable for making them. Edaham (talk) 01:46, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
• Comment I haven't investigated this in enough detail myself, but the comments here are off the mark. Sourcing is necessary for coverage in a BLP, but it is not enough. To include something in a bio, we need to show that it is a significant part of coverage of Sarsour in reliable sources. Vanamonde (talk) 04:35, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

  Maybe you should investigate it then. The subject of this article is notable predominantly for making political commentary. The RfC is asking whether or not a sourced piece of her commentary belongs in her encyclopedia article. The answer to this question is that it is left to the discretion of the editor dealing with the material as to whether or not to add it. You are correct that RS is insufficient. The relevant parts of policy to which you didn't (but should) refer include

  1)WP:NOTNEWS A diary. Even when an individual is notable, not all events they are involved in are. For example, news reporting about celebrities and sports figures can be very frequent and cover a lot of trivia, but using all these sources would lead to over-detailed articles that look like a diary. Not every match played or goal scored is significant enough to be included in the biography of a person.

  2)Wikipedia:Too much detail before inserting the new material, one should consider the significance of his/her additions. Is it something the topic is widely known for? What is its connection to the topic's notability? Any indiscriminate detail should be removed.

  These questions we are asked to ask by our policy have been answered, or have at least yielded enough information about the subject to act according to editorial discretion. Is the commentary something the subject is widely known for? yes. What is its connection? its a prominent piece of commentary which could help our readers come to an understanding of the kind of thing on which this political commentator and activist commentates. Should it be removed on the grounds of either of the above policies? Highly doubtful. There may be some other reason to remove or not to restore it, i.e. WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE, which places BURDEN on the person wishing to restore or keep contested/deleted material, but the specific piece of info seems to pass the "significance" issue. Edaham (talk) 05:21, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

  For the record, Wikipedia:Too much detail is an "explanatory supplement", not a policy at all. The above argument is therefore just one editor's opinion. I'll leave it to others to decide whether it's a convincing argument or not. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:52, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

• Yes. What makes activists notable - is their speaking and lobbying, not much else. In this case we a small activist on the national scale (back in 2015 - not the same caliber as she is now) who is making a rather severe rebuke towards the President - the same President one must note that vastly increased her national notability in the first place ("champion of change") - and on the same issue she was recognized for previously - namely -- stopping the singling out of Muslims in the context of terror and policing surveillance in NY - so this is a continuation of her previous efforts in the New York area - on a national scale. This was and is covered. If we were to take an axe to the article and cut out anything related to public speaking - we'll end up with an article here that contains her personal life, the car accident, and her appointment to director of AAANY.Icewhiz (talk) 06:09, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

  ...this is a continuation of her previous efforts in the New York area - on a national scale. This was and is covered. Please provide a reliable source that makes this connection, otherwise this is original research. Also, this has nothing to do with "public speaking". Sarsour's remarks about San Bernardino weren't from a speech; they are sound bites from media interviews. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:15, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

*Comment I sympathise with Vanamonde's post above, little info is provided to we RfC-ers and I could not find any prior discussion above either about content, context or level of coverage of Sarsour's 'response' to Obama, nor what content is proposed here. I'm not going to give a 'vote' on an abstract Q. without this info and it is not reasonable to ask commenters to do so. How can anyone meaningfully provide a response in the absence of this info? Pincrete (talk) 09:33, 18 October 2017 (UTC) Fixed by Icewhiz, thanksPincrete (talk) 21:25, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

• Yes providing it has solid sourcing. Her notability derives primarily from her widely discussed comments on current events.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:05, 18 October 2017 (UTC) Endorse wording and sources provided above. Adding this is appropriate because her notability derives from her comments on public events, and the media coverage they provoke.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:36, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
• Include, but ... "Sarsour objected to Obama's singling out Muslims, saying" should be modified to "Sarsour responded by saying". The element of her 'objecting' is unnecessary as her quote 'stands on its own' and the text is borderline editorialising. Pincrete (talk) 21:25, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
• No There's not enough space on this Wikipedia for every time Sarsour made a comment against or for a position. I see no reason to add it, Wikipedia isn't a collection of all information. We're an encyclopedia, and adding unnecessary information isn't encyclopedic. Now, if President Obama responded back to Sarsour, then sure, it'd be encyclopedic, but just the statement is not. _{Adotchar| reply here} 09:50, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
• No - I agree that this is well-sourced and doesn't appear to violate any policies, so it could be included, but I see no reason to include it. Taking Sangdeboeuf's point into consideration, we need to show in the article text itself how these remarks are relevant to her life and career. At this point, I don't see that. All I see are some quotations that got some media coverage. -- irn (talk) 20:53, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
• Comment I don't really have anything to add, but I've added the RfC to the category of "religion and philosophy" in hopes that perhaps the feedback request service can help bring attention to the discussion from interested people. Feel free to revert if you feel this was unnecessary.  I dream of horses  If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message  (talk to me) (My edits) @ 04:54, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
• No It is non-notable, yet-another-comment. --G (talk) 09:01, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
• Comment If this was a controversy that was covered in the media at the time, then the article should show how experts and others weighed the comments by Obama and Sarsour. I suspect it was not and the purpose of the story is to illuminate Sarsour's views on the connection between Islamic terrorism and the Muslim community. So why not summarize her views on the issue and leave out the the reference to Obama, the date, and the direct quotes. TFD (talk) 00:00, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

  I can see the merits of this. The position, of not holding the Muslim community accountable for the acts of an individual, is notable - and Sarsour has been a leading voice in this (and we heard echos of this following the Paddock shooting (on how non-Muslims groups are not held accountable for the acts of individuals, while Muslims are)) - the exact particulars of the San Bernardino and Obama are much less significant.Icewhiz (talk) 06:27, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

  I think that's generally a good approach to take; however, it's still important to cite published evaluation and analysis from secondary and tertiary sources. Otherwise, we still have an WP:INDISCRIMINATE issue, just with some details removed. If we simply state that Sarsour said "X" about singling out Muslims, the natural thing to ask is, "Why?" Or more specifically, "Why should I, as a reader, care about this?" —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:09, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

  I agree. It's always better to use secondary sources because usually interpretation of statements made is required and they establish the degree of support the views have. When we provide quotes, as in this case, it can always be questioned why they were chosen and whether they are presented in a neutral way. TFD (talk) 12:12, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

  I think we're in broad agreement here, but to clarify, we can't really summarize someone's "views" without engaging in original analysis and interpretation. All we could do is paraphrase the quotations themselves, which runs into problems of neutrality. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:14, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

  That's why I suggested using a secondary source which can summarize her views. Per "original analysis and interpretation," a secondary source provides "analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources." TFD (talk) 23:50, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

  Quite so. If only we had that kind of interpretation from a reliable source, then I wouldn't see any need to dispute the inclusion of the quotes at all. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:10, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

  The problem (here and elsewhere) in regards to Sarsour is that while there is ample coverage of these various attention-grabbing speeches and tweets, glowing bio coverage (that usually doesn't delve down to actual positions), and anti-Sarsour attack pieces (which actually do thread some of these together, but are problematical NPOV/RS wise) - there is little neutral coverage that actually analyzes all of these separately. So we end up with coverage of each little bit separately (e.g. for 2017 - "Jihad", "Zionism/Feminism", each fund raising bit - all are covered separately).Icewhiz (talk) 07:32, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

  She did repeat this position recently - Muslim New Yorkers are bracing themselves for hate crimes after terror attack (AOL, Mic) - “I told them, ‘You condemn these acts of terror, but you should not have to apologize because this perpetrator was Muslim. You can’t be in that frame of mind.’”.Icewhiz (talk) 07:34, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

  Actually, NPR does provide some generic analysis, as in "Muslim leaders say they want to help, but some are not happy that they are being singled out", which I summarized at 2015 San Bernardino attack § Political reactions. Sarsour is quoted, but nothing is directly stated about her or her comments. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:41, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, it is historically notable and well-sourced.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 23:32, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
• Yes. per Farang Rak Tham (talk) and others. That Muslim should push back when asked to "root out misguided ideas that lead to radicalization" is a significant issue in Muslim-Western relations. -BoogaLouie (talk) 19:09, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Is there a reliable source that directly supports the idea of these specific remarks by Sarsour being significant to "Muslim-Western relations"? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:58, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Cemetery fundraising

I disagree with this edit by User:Sangdeboeuf.

(Removing minor events/controversies – little to no WP:ANALYSIS from mainstream sources – see Talk:Linda Sarsour/Archive 7#Trivia)

Under WP:NPOV, the criteria for including something in Wikipedia is WP:WEIGHT, and material should be included in proportion to its representation in WP:RS. The story of Sarsour raising money to restore a Jewish cemetery was reported in NPR, NBC News, Democracy Now, Jewish Post, Christian Science Monitor, Fox News, Philly.com, U.S. News and World Report, etc. and that should establish WP:WEIGHT. So it's not minor events or trivia.

Do other editors agree? If so, I will revert those edits. --Nbauman (talk) 14:23, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I believe that Sarsour's funding controversies in 2017 - both the cemeteries and relief for Harvey - should have some coverage per coverage this has received throughout the year.Icewhiz (talk) 14:29, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

The coverage mentioned is not necessarily enough to show that the event is significant in Sarsour's bio, and we don't need to catalogue Sarsour's every brief appearance in the news. See WP:PROPORTION: "discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic". If there are sources that show that the event was of lasting significance or offer other evaluation and analysis, feel free to suggest them. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:56, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

WP:PROPORTION says that material should be included "proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." There were many stories in WP:RS. What else is your criteria for "lasting significance"? --Nbauman (talk) 21:04, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

"Many stories" is relative. And there are many events reported in multiple news sources every day that don't end up in the encyclopedia. "Lasting significance" would be shown by, at minimum, coverage of this issue in reliable, mainstream sources over more than a single news cycle. Even better would be a source explaining why this event is important, so that we don't rely on original research to place it in context within Sarsour's bio. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:42, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

"Lasting significance" sounds awfully subjective on your part. I could show you a source like this https://jezebel.com/the-demonization-of-linda-sarsour-1797537513 and this https://www.timesofisrael.com/bds-activist-raises-56000-for-vandalized-jewish-cemetery/ and you could simply say, "I don't think that's lasting significance." That would just be your personal opinion. De gustibus non est disputandum. How about it? Do the Jezebel story and the Times of Israel story meet your standard of "lasting significance"? --Nbauman (talk) 08:54, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Editorial judgement is by nature subjective, but the burden to achieve consensus is in fact on the person seeking to include the disputed content. I don't think Jezebel is terribly mainstream, and Times of Israel is just more routine news coverage from the time of the event. Wikipedia is not a newspaper – to show that something is encyclopedically significant, we need to cite published evaluation and analysis, preferably from multiple mainstream, reliable sources. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:45, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Nbauman and Icewhiz are right. This content belongs in the article. [[PPX]] (talk) 16:33, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

First you say that you're removing the cemetery story because -- even though there were multiple news reports -- they weren't analytical enough. So I showed you analytical stories. Now you say the cemetery story can't go in because you personally don't think Jezebel is "mainstream" enough, and the long analytical story in Times of Israel (which incorporated JTA reporting) is "routine news coverage." I disagree. I think they are analytical, there's been lots of coverage in WP:RS, and that meets WP:WEIGHT. It doesn't look as if I can convince you, but I think other editors agree with me. --Nbauman (talk) 23:04, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I'd appreciate less of the confrontational rhetoric, thanks. And consensus on Wikipedia is reached through reasoned discussion, not majority rule. I'm not seeing the purported analysis in the Times of Israel article, though I am seeing several prominent references to Sarsour's support of the BDS movement. Publications focused on Israel do seem to have a fixation with Sarsour for this reason. But Sarsour is American, and the incident happened in Missouri, not the Middle East. The lack of mainstream U.S. sources offering any kind of commentary or analysis on this event says to me that it's a minor blip on the news calendar, nothing more. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:16, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

This was covered by quite a few RSes. Many, but not all, sources were Jewish, as should he expected when there is funding controvesy around a Jewish cemetary. There is policy in Wikipedia to exclude Jewish sources, and I for one find it highly objectionable that such an editing criteria seems to be suggested here.Icewhiz (talk) 20:56, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Sangdeboeuf, I think it's fair to say that you're a deletionist. I'm not. I think you're raising the bar for "analytical" beyond what Wikipedia requires. There are enough WP:RS to include the cemeteries in the article. I've made my case and the consensus of editors working on this article seems to go with me. It's been nice debating with you.

The other deletion you made was about Sarsour's support for Kaepernick. I did a Google search for WP:RS and found several : Ebony [5] , Moyers & Co. [6] and New York Daily News [7] Yes, I know you're going to say that those are brief references. In my judgment, they're enough for at least a brief mention in the article, maybe with Black Lives Matter. If other editors want to restore it, they've got my vote. --Nbauman (talk) 22:21, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

This discussion has been unnecessarily personalized from the outset. Rather than continue it, I've started an RfC on the NFL/Kaepernick question below. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:21, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: I said "publications focused on Israel", not "Jewish" publications. They are not equivalent. One could include most neoconservative U.S. publications (e.g. National Review, the Daily Caller) with the former. However, actual Israeli sources' fixation on Sarsour remains a curiosity. Sarsour is American, not Israeli. She has nothing to do with Israel apart from her public statements. Other American activists have made similar statements. Why would we have more Israel-based sources than usual for this particular biography, especially concerning issues where mainstream U.S. publications have little or nothing to say? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:28, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Much or Sarsour's notability comes from her identificaton as Palestinian and these positions. If she receives SIGCOV in RSes these should be represented in proportion to the amount of coverage she receives.Icewhiz (talk) 05:03, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, that hinges on just how "SIG" the "COV" is, and just how "R" the "S"es are. In this case, the coverage of the cemetery fundraising in Times of Israel lacks an explanation of how it's relevant to any broader issues or concerns. It's just regular news reporting. Not very significant, in my opinion. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:12, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I see quite a bit of coverage - from the beginning of the year and until recently: [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20]. "Regular news reporting" dies 2 days after the event. In this case - we have this event (as well the issues in disbursing the funds) - popping up months after the event - continuing through present time.Icewhiz (talk) 12:27, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Several of these sources are either opinion or routine local news coverage. I see also that no effort has been made to incorporate any of these sources into the article. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:03, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Article lead, and tag

A tag was added with the the comment: "This article's lead section does not adequately summarize key points of its contents. Please consider expanding the lead to provide an accessible overview of all important aspects of the article. Please discuss this issue on the article's talk page."

Alas, no one has started a discussion on the talk page about this...So: please list what is wrong/lacking in the lead here, Thanks, Huldra (talk) 23:48, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I think I added the tag originally. The two short paragraphs of the lead seemed to omit important details, such as what Sarsour accomplished as AAANY director, her activism since the 2017 Women's March, and the nature of the controversy around her. However, I've held off on expanding the lead myself until it can be determined exactly how much detail belongs in the article itself and how much is simply WP:RECENTIST fluff, scandal-mongering, or worse. As can be seen in the immediately preceding section, this is an ongoing process. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:04, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

The tag belongs - the lead does not accurately ssummarize the body and is way too short. Part of this is due to some editors preventing any critical information appearing in the lead. Considering this is an activist who is serially involved in various mini scandals (and her notability arises mainly from this coverage, if she was merely AAANY director she might have not passed notability in 2016 when this was created - the former director (Atweh) clearly does not) one would expect these would be mentioned to some extent in the lead.Icewhiz (talk) 03:17, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

An activist who is serially involved in various mini scandals – I think you mean that she is a regular target of unhinged conspiracy theories and other smear attempts promulgated by various Angry White Men. Sarsour has undoubtedly said some crude and contentious things, but the level of fear and loathing directed at her from the conservative blogosphere is out of all proportion to her actual positions, not to mention the power she actually wields. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:05, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Call it whatever - she says something flamebaity (e.g. call to Jihad or "take their ****"), gets flamed, and flames back - and the whole exchange gets covered for a few days. This cycle has been repeated a few dozen times. It takes two to tango (or more in some of these exchanges). Whatever we call these exchanges, this is what makes her notable - this got her on the national stage to begin with, and has continued (in a much greater pace) since she got onto the stage. Some of these exchanges (e.g. jihad) get alot of attention others (e.g. equating zionists with neo nazies and white supramicists) get less attention. This is somewhat akin to say Milo Yiannopoulos (on the opposite side of the spectrum) where we do have a proper lead.Icewhiz (talk) 05:20, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, I think your analysis is a little lopsided – the "flames" in Sarsour's case are coming overwhelmingly from her various detractors, as the links above show. Nor is such breathless fear-mongering responsible for her notability, any more than modern flat-Earth conspiracy theories make the shape of the Earth a notable topic. As far as WP:GNG is concerned, we look to in-depth coverage in reliable, mainstream sources. According to such sources, Sarsour's notability comes from her community activism and especially her role in the 2017 Women's March. The conservative media attacks that followed are a result of that notability, not the cause of it. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:18, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

The "conservative media attacks" pre-dated the women match - as did this flambaiting. e.g. the 2015 stone throwing tweet (which caused a mini-stir in NYC politics - which is what she was (and is) involved with) - Hikind, Menchaca settle differences over Arab leader Sarsour's comments, De Blasio pal at odds with Jewish legislator over Palestinian ‘courage’ tweet, Taxpayers should not be funding this anti-American hate-spewer. Or the listing of wrongs here in 2012 - More Radicalism From Another White House Guest. It has all picked up pace in 2017. Her notability is rooted in these exchanges - it is why she is covered (occasionally by MSM - not that much), embraced (by ultra-liberal organizations and media), or attacked (by the converse). In any case - our lead, at present, totally ignores that she is notable for. Per your own words - Sarsour has undoubtedly said some crude and contentious things, but the level of fear and loathing directed at her from the conservative blogosphere is out of all proportion to her actual positions, not to mention the power she actually wields - and I'll add - 95% of her coverage is related to this (including coverage of the alleged loathing and attacks against her).Icewhiz (talk) 06:43, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, 95% of the sources on Apparent retrograde motion are astrology columns; that doesn't mean such material is suitable for an encyclopedia article. And it was only after January 2017 that Sarsour's activism, and the attacks against her, began to receive substantial secondary-source coverage beyond her home city of New York that I can see. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:56, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Prior to 2017 she was mainly a local NYC activist/city-politician. While breaking out nationally during parts of 2017 (on some events, namely the Women's march and the Jihad bit at ISNA) - she still is a "local" NYC item. While this may be relevant grounds for a notability discussion in a AfD (which she would pass) - we routinely include coverage by reliable local outfits on a multitude of figures.Icewhiz (talk) 14:57, 22 December 2017 (UTC)