Talk:Linda Sarsour/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Lead section, 2019 march

The statement in the lead section, [Sarsour's] involvement with the 2019 Women's March has also been controversial, with several chapters and its former co-founder calling for her resignation, along with those of her three fellow co-chairs, fails to accurately summarize the article text (which is still contested) and is pretty misleading in ascribing controversy primarily to Sarsour's personal involvement with the 2019 march. All the sources we've been using primarily link the "controversy" around the march to other figures within the organization, or to the leaders as a group. The Washington Post refers collectively to the "four women at the helm"; the Jewish Telegraphic Agency focuses on Tamika Mallory; The New York Times focuses on Mallory and Carmen Perez. Only Debra Nussbaum Cohen at the JTA refers specifically to Sarsour's "anti-Zionism" as a "divisive" factor among American Jews.

We have to be very careful to adhere to the actual intended meaning of reliable sources when describing controversies involving living people, and not present our own interpretation of what we think they mean, based on some other sources that we can't bother to actually cite in the article, or which are of dubious reliability. Otherwise, by the time readers get to the phrase "along with those of her three fellow co-chairs" above, they've already formed the impression that this is all somehow about Sarsour, and that the others are involved only as an afterthought. For one thing, the statement above doesn't explain why the other co-chairs would be asked to step down at all, which is a pretty important detail. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:06, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

This is faulty reasoning. The line describes precisely what is stated in the sources and what is covered later in the article. In addition, there has already been a significant compromise here; notice that the line doesn't mention Farrakhan or the accusations of anti-semitism, both of which involve Sarsour. Let's compare that to what's been reported in the sources:

Mass movements are sewn together from a wide variety of sources, so they often sweep in unwanted companions as they move toward their goals. No one, however, expected to discover that three Women’s March co-chairs—Linda Sarsour, Carmen Perez, and Tamika Mallory—had ties to Farrakhan. More mysterious and disturbing was the extended reluctance of the Women’s March, nearly a year since it became public, to acknowledge Farrakhan’s extremist views and disassociate themselves from them.

The Women's March Has a Farrakhan Problem, The Atlantic

Jewish ambivalence surfaced in the days leading up to the first march on Saturday January 21, 2017, the day after the inauguration of President Donald Trump. Concerns that it was taking place on the Jewish Sabbath were amplified when the event's public face became that of Palestinian-American Linda Sarsour.

There was worry that an effort led by the head of the Arab American Association of New York, an outspoken supporter of the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement, might not be a place where proudly identified Jews were welcome. Memories were still fresh from the previous summer, when marchers holding a flag with a Star of David were removed from a lesbian rights march in Chicago.

What a Difference Two Years Make: How the Ties Between Women’s March Leaders and Jewish Women Went Wrong, Haaretz

actress and activist Alyssa Milano, a vocal leader of the #MeToo movement, announced that she would not participate in the 2019 Women’s March if Mallory or Sarsour continued to lead it.

Regional chapters, including the chapter in Denver, have lambasted the national organization. Angie Beem, president of the board for the Women’s March in Spokane, Wash., wrote on Facebook that her group has been calling for Mallory and Sarsour to resign for a year.

“Most of us state chapters are furious with them,” she wrote.

Shook said she was inspired to call for the leaders’ resignation after being approached by women who felt the march was no longer a welcoming space. She said something more than words was needed to “heal the hurt” felt by women involved.

Anger over Farrakhan ties prompts calls for Women’s March leaders to resign, The Washington Post

Of an article's lead, MOS:LEAD states: It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. Complying with this policy means we must address significant controversies, and this line does that adequately. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 04:00, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

The lead section exists to summarize the body of the article, not introduce new content and sources. But let's look at those sources: The Atlantic piece is from their website, not the print magazine. It's an opinion essay. And it doesn't refer to the 2019 march at all. So that one's right out. The Haaretz source isn't cited in the article, so using it to justify an addition to the lead section raises immediate undue weight concerns. It also refers to controversies over Sarsour's involvement in the 2017 and 2018 marches, but not this one. That leaves WaPo, which doesn't say that Sarsour herself was controversial. Combining these sources to support a statement that none of them explicitly make is the definition of improper synthesis. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:49, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

It's covered under the section "2019 Women's March." The Haaretz source may be added as an in-line citation for the lead, but, if you'll note, it only constitues further secondary analysis for what's already in the article. You were wrong to call the Atlantic article an opinion piece in the Shook RfC, and you're still wrong here. From WP:NEWSORG, News sources often contain both factual content and opinion content. "News reporting" from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors). There's an important distinction between summarizing and synthesizing, one that you've apparently missed here. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:15, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Additionally, this edit summary is simply false – the text above is not "settled", and has not been in the lead "for several weeks". I'm not going to break 1RR here, but the burden to achieve consensus is on those wishing to include material. Kindly self-revert, please. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:21, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

I'll repeat what I've said above: neither the Atlantic nor the Haaretz piece explicitly state that Sarsour's involvement in the 2019 march has been controversial. The Atlantic is not a "hard news" source at all, which goes doubly for their web-only articles. Pagano's piece is commentary, not news, as evidenced by statements like No one, however, expected to discover that three Women’s March co-chairs ... More mysterious and disturbing, etc. Additionally, the proposed text puts disproportionate focus on recent events for such a short lead section. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:41, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

The Atlantic is a magazine that provides news and commentary on American political affairs and is considered a WP:RS. Commentary constitutes secondary analysis which is appropriate for BLPs. And a single sentence in the lead on a controversy that has received this level of coverage seems proportionate, but it sounds like we could use a second opinion. @Wumbolo:, @Calthinus:, the two of you seemed to agree with Sangdeboeuf about the NYT quote under the 2019 Women's March section. Do you also think this line in the opening should be removed or improved on? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:44, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

See WP:NEWSORG: Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact (emphasis added). WP:RS isn't a blanket endorsement for everything in a publication; the reliability of a given source depends on context. And the Atlantic piece isn't even about the 2019 march, so why are we even discussing it? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:52, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

The Atlantic piece elaborates and comments on the very same controversy that has been reported on by numerous reliable sources. Here's another from Vox, and a timeline on the controversy from JTA. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:03, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

I haven't yet looked into all the sources, but there's early 2018 coverage [1] [2] suggesting that the various infighting and controversies are ongoing (since Sarsour was first involved) rather than something new, but I can't really argue against e.g. this from Haaretz:

But Mallory doubled down on her defense of Farrakhan – and Sarsour and Perez stood by her, further alienating many left-wing Jews. This led to cracks in the Women’s March coalition, with the heads of some chapters distancing themselves from the national leadership.

"Explained | The Women’s March anti-Semitism Controversy Threatening the Movement's Future", Haaretz. Since the midterms haven't really changed anything (they were a focus), I'm inclined to believe that this has all been predicted, but then again there's the recent controversies. I am no fan of basing lead sections on sources instead of NPOV, especially since MOS:LEADREL takes precedence at BLPs according to MOS:LEAD#LEADBIO. Sure, I'm not a fan of short leads either. Anyway, I'd wait to see Sarsour's reactions to the recent controversies, mostly those surrounding Mallory and perhaps Perez, so that the articles can be expanded and consistent before the lead is precisely determined. Note that I'm not against temporary lead structures; I just don't have too much faith in gaining strong consensus about the lead which summarizes an article of disputed NPOV. wumbolo ^^^ 20:29, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

@Wumbolo: OK, thank you for your analysis. My worry is that we will end up excluding so much sourced content that we will be left with an article that is not only non-neutral, but simply incomplete. What did you think of the timeline by JTA? Sarsour's statements and actions are cited as fueling the controversy and precipitating calls for her to step down. I don't want to overdo it with providing sources, but I do believe there are more than enough to establish WP:WEIGHT to call this a significant controversy. Here's another from CBS:

In November, Teresa Shook, one of the Women's March founders, accused the four main leaders of the national march organization of anti-Semitism. The accusation was leveled at two primary leaders: Linda Sarsour, who has criticized Israeli policy, and Tamika Mallory, who has maintained an association with Louis Farrakhan, leader of Nation of Islam, which the Southern Poverty Law Center considers a hate group.

In a Facebook post, Shook claimed Sarsour and Mallory, along with fellow organizers Bob Bland and Carmen Perez, had "steered the Movement away from its true course" and called for all four to step down.

Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:45, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

The JTA timeline is definitely useful, even if just as an external link. But I think it mostly focuses on Sarsour's multiple apologies on behalf of the March. Do any of the recent sources mention Sarsour's defense of Ilhan Omar for example? wumbolo ^^^ 21:15, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

@Wumbolo: Yes, here's one from Haaretz reporting on the calls for Sarsour's resignation following those comments, and another from JTA. It is important to note that it wasn't the defense of Omar that was necessarily controversial; it was the suggestion of "dual allegiance" on the part of pro-Israel American Jews. This coincided closely with Shook's denouncement of Sarsour and the other three lead organizers. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:30, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Beware of improper synthesis. The fact that the events "coincided closely" is not relevant unless a published, reliable source remarks on it.

Now that there are more sources available taking stock of the recent controversies, it should be easier to put together a neutrally worded summary. But the present wording isn't neutral at all. Besides the issues of due weight, the word "controversial" is a vague label that doesn't really tell the reader anything. We already know Sarsour is controversial among some people; what are the specific issues here, and for whom are they controversial?

So far we know that some American Jews take issue with Sarsour's leadership due to her BDS support. That's not new information. The Farrakhan controversy only marginally involves Sarsour. Then there are Teresa Shook's and Alyssa Milano's remarks. But as far as I know, no reliable sources have made much of that "controversy" beyond reporting the basic facts. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:53, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

The Farrakhan controversy only marginally involves Sarsour. This is not supported by the sources, from which specific quotes have been provided on this page showing that her attending a Farrakhan event and her subsequent refusal to condemn him were heavily criticized as well. This is also corroborated by the CBS piece, and the JTA and Haaretz articles are the ones that draw the link between the "dual allegiance" remarks and Shook's subsequent call for her to resign (along with the others). Other pieces also relate the controversy to her comments about Israel and support of BDS. Likewise, controversial is an appropriate term when the sources describe it as such. I don't see how the wording could be any more impartial, but how do you propose it be revised? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:21, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

But as far as I know, no reliable sources have made much of that "controversy" beyond reporting the basic facts. Sorry, have you been following any of the sources on this topic? The controversy is not just over her being unpopular with "some American Jews," it's over anti-semitism allegations against the Women's March for the rhetoric and perceived exclusivity of its four national organizers, Sarsour included ("primarily" Sarsour and Mallory, according to CBS). Downplaying this issue in contradiction to the sources is to engage in the type of editorializing that is prohibited by policy. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:57, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

In this case it does indeed seem that, if we are going by the presentation in sources presented on this page (and those used), Wikieditor19920's analysis is more in line with the paradigm they give -- and this is not Fox or WSJ, it's the New York Times and Haaretz, both of which, especially the latter, are generally considered to be on the left.--Calthinus (talk) 06:58, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, @Calthinus:. As an aside, I also support ModerateMike729's recent changes. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:57, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

~Wikieditor19920 Then that makes (at least) three of us. --Calthinus (talk) 23:08, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Sarsour's views on Israeli-Palestinian conflict

Linda's views on Israeli-Palestinian conflict should be made clear in the lead, stated separately from the criticism it received. The previous version of the lead does not even tell us what her views are to begin with, and it quickly jumps to say that they are considered harmful by Zionist organizations. I corrected this. Al-Andalusi (talk) 01:30, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Now the lead is filled with tags and mentions BDS twice. What a royal mess. Might as well withdraw the nomination because there's no way this earns GA status. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:26, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Frankly I can't imagine this article even coming close to GA status any time in the next year.--Calthinus (talk) 06:59, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Another user nominated it last week. Curious to see what the feedback is. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:00, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Without the badges of shame, the lead is much easier to follow. However, there's another glaring issue, and that is that almost all of her controversial comments on this subject (that have received WP:RS) have been purged from the article. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:09, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes I agree fully with everything here... oppose attempts to make this an attack article, also oppose kneejerk perversion of rules to censor anything that is not pleasant. --Calthinus (talk) 23:08, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof: How do you feel the line about her views on Sharia could be better represented? Would something like this be appropriate? Sarsour has at times defended certain aspects of Sharia law, which she argues do not impose on non-Muslims; some conservative media outlets have falsely accused her of wanting to impose Sharia law in the United States, which Sarsour has said she does not.

Women's March Category?

Would you say this page belongs in the category "Women's March"? She is, after all, a co-chair. Maximajorian Viridio (talk) 03:25, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Linda Sarsour/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Homeostasis07 (talk · contribs) 02:41, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Will be reviewing this over the next 24 hours. Initial thought: the References section needs some clean-up... access dates, link the first instance of a work title (example: references 2 and 3 don't link to Haaretz or The Washington Post). I'll use the bot to add archive URL's to every reference once that's done, and will then start on prose/source check after that. Homeostasis07 (talk) 02:41, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

@Homeostasis07: I fixed the issues with references 2 and 3.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 02:46, 4 February 2019 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

Don't forget the access dates. And, unfortunately, there are still references 3–72 to format (ref's 2 and 3 were just examples). Homeostasis07 (talk) 02:51, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

@Homeostasis07: All sources in the article now have access dates.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 03:07, 4 February 2019 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

• Review

3 points:

• Text supported by reference 9 (Democratic Socialists of America) has a {{Better source|date=January 2019}} tag. Can you find one? Closest I found was this, which, although a popular website, doesn't especially scream WP:RS to me. Another potential source is this, which again is of questionable quality, IMO. More reliable sources - [3] and [4] - don't specifically refer to her as a member of that organisation, just that the DSA is "closely associated" with the Women's March, while name-checking Sarsour as an organiser of the march. If you don't like any of the first two sources and can't find a better better quality references, then the text about her being a member of DSA should be removed.
• Remove red links for Jews for Racial and Economic Justice and MPower Change from the article.
• The second paragraph of Linda_Sarsour#Fundraising_efforts seems disjointed to me. "Sarsour's request for donations to Hurricane Harvey relief efforts was criticized by conservative opponents, "evidence of [Sarsour's] growing status as a favorite target of the right", according to Newsweek." The quote could be better incorporated to original statement.

After spending several hours reading the article and the majority of the references, I'd be happy promoting the article to GA once these are resolved. I have to admit, as I went through the listed sources and a bunch of other (most non-RS) sources I'd come across on Google, I was especially worried about this article violating GAC#4. There's so much vitriol about Sarsour from both far-left and (especially) far-right sources that I was worried that, somewhere along the way, the article would veer off too far into one of those directions and eventually end up including content which violated neutrality. But you did a damn fine job avoiding that. The article dryly incorporates all the aspects of Sarsour's public perception, without giving much providence to one particular viewpoint. Kudos on that.

Copyvio tool indicated no likely violations, and all the images are from Wikipedia commons, although I question the necessity of using the image in 'Religious views' (of her wearing a red hijab, since the main infobox image is already of her wearing a hijab). Also, I think the first paragraph in 'Religious views' can be expanded. This CNN interview (already used on the article elsewhere) has a nice quote explaining in more detail her choice in wearing the hijab: "For me, hijab is only a form of oppression when a government forces it on people...". These are minor quibbles, and won't effect promotion.

Well done, @MagicatthemovieS: I'd be happy promoting this once the 3 points above are resolved. Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:39, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

@Homeostasis07: I addressed your concerns; should the article mention that Sarsour has favorably spoken about Sharia law, while opining that it shouldn't oppose on non-Muslims?MagicatthemovieS (talk) 01:33, 5 February 2019 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

Thanks @MagicatthemovieS: but I don't really understand your latter point. The article does include text claiming she was subject to "false reports" about her advocating "imposing sharia in the United States". Is there more to this story that I missed in my review? Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:44, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

@Homeostasis07: Sarsour doesn't want to impose sharia on anyone, but we should probably mention that she defends it, per [5] MagicatthemovieS (talk) 02:34, 5 February 2019 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

@MagicatthemovieS: Add it if you want, but I'd also ask that you add context for the claim, because it could easily be misleading: i.e., the source says that Sarsour "regularly defends Shariah on social media, arguing that it doesn't impose on nonadherents and that Muslims must follow the laws of the land wherever they live." The source also goes on to explain what Sharia actually is. This might be a slippery slope, though, because adding one thing might mean you'd need to add more things which don't necessarily relate to Sarsour in the first place (does this article really need a detailed description of Sharia law?) Homeostasis07 (talk) 02:42, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

@Homeostasis07: I do think that this info should be included; why don't you add the Sarsour Sharia stuff to the article and word it the way you think is appropriate?MagicatthemovieS (talk) 03:36, 5 February 2019 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

If you want to include this, it'd be better if you add it, @MagicatthemovieS: Something in 'Religious views' along the lines of: "In response to numerous American states passing legislation which would block the introduction of any "foreign law", legislation which often focuses primarily on Sharia law, Sarsour has regularly defended the practice on social media. She has clarified that people of other religious denominations would not required to adhere to Sharia, and that it would not take precedence over existing civil laws." What I've written here is quite truncated and doesn't explain very much. I really don't believe this is necessary. But it can all be referenced to the NBC source you've linked to above. Other sources explaining in detail what she has specifically said about Sharia might be required to add proper context. Homeostasis07 (talk) 19:26, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

@Homeostasis07: Thanks so much for your help! Is the article pass-able now?MagicatthemovieS (talk) 22:14, 5 February 2019 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

I like AlsoWukai's intermittent re-write of what we were discussing above, so I'm happy to pass this now. Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:23, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   This is the criteria that troubled me most in promoting. The article has been the subject of protracted and aggressive edit wars in the past, but is currently stable due to extended page protection and discretionary sanctions (i.e., all articles relating to the Arab–Israeli conflict are subject to these sanctions). Should these protections be removed in future, however...

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Criticism sections

I am aware this is a figure who holds some views which some find to be objectionable. She has also made statements which have been highly criticized. Therefore I ask where did the criticism section go (if there ever was one)? I am a user and not a bot so please dont confuse me with a bot (talk) 04:20, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

• Separate "criticism" sections are discouraged: they all too frequently became trash cans full of ... well, trash. Read the article carefully and you will find that various criticism are actually in the text. Drmies (talk) 04:27, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Muslim Brotherhood

Sarosur has defended the Muslim Brotherhood via Twitter, as recorded here https://freebeacon.com/culture/eight-linda-sarsours-controversial-tweets/

I think we should mention this in the article. Thoughts? Yes, The Washington Free Beacon is partisan, as are CNN, MNSBC, and The New York Times.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 02:08, 13 February 2019 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

No, sorry, CNN, MSNBC and The New York Times are not partisan. They are, rather, gold-standard reliable sources. The proper comparison for the overtly-partisan Free Beacon would be, say, Shareblue Media. And no, if someone asked to include something in Donald Trump based solely on a Shareblue article, I would equally say it doesn't belong there. Further, as discussed below, your depiction of the group as a "terrorist organization" (clearly designed to create the idea that Sarsour supports terrorism?) is not supported by the sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:19, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Moreover, your proposed addition lacks the context that in 2011, the Arab Spring was widely viewed as a positive force in the region, to the point where the American government was informally supporting and later formally recognizing the Muslim Brotherhood. I could find literally dozens of articles and tweets from across a broad bipartisan spectrum (including John McCain and Lindsey Graham) making favorable public statements about the Muslim Brotherhood. If it's not relevant enough to include in John McCain's or Lindsey Graham's biographies (literal U.S. Senators involved in foreign contacts with the MB), I can't see how you can justify the inclusion of a single tweet from an activist. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:24, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, first of all, let's be clear that all sources introduce some degree of bias. However, clearly the Free Beacon does not have the same reputation for reliability that the others mentioned in this thread do, and for BLPs, we should really only rely on sources that meet a very high standard. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 04:05, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Also, let's not introduce any WP:OR in defending or attacking any particular organization. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 04:06, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

All of the sources mentioned above are extremely partisan, but that's irrelevant. The Free Beacon article does not hide that it's a hit piece. It should not be cited, at least not without attribution. And tweets do not belong per WP:Recentism. wumbolo ^^^ 08:16, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Personal Life: Religious Views section

Hi, the paragraph on Sarsour's views on wearing the hijab outlines various debates between Sarsour and others, but does not seem to highlight Sarsour's own personal views on wearing the hijab outside of a few words. Perhaps adding more sources discussing what Sarsour herself has said about it would clarify the situation? Fjora123 (talk) 00:08, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Fjora123 I've added this quote from Sarsour from the source I will unequivocally say here that I stand with the brave courageous woman in Iran who are standing against compulsory hijab, but they also need us to create a narrative that says you also stand with my right as a Muslim woman in America who is having to endure Islamophobia." -- you think this summarizes her position well enough?--Calthinus (talk) 22:36, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Women's March sections

A colleague recently combined the two Women's March sections; I think this confuses the article, which is PRIMARILY, though not completely, chronological. Thoughts?MagicatthemovieS (talk) 01:01, 14 February 2019 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

By colleague, I imagine you must mean fellow editor, which means me. I do appreciate the collegiality! I made the change because the chronology of a number of the sections overlap anyway, and because this is probably an intractable problem, I thought it preferable to have at least the Women's March sections grouped under a single subheader. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:36, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

BLP violation reverted

I have reverted the addition of controversial, negative and poorly-sourced material about this biographical subject; per the terms of BLP, it must not be reinserted without clear consensus on this talk page.

The material in question depicts Sarsour as supporting a purported "Islamist terrorist organization" (stated as fact), the Muslim Brotherhood. For one, this is sourced solely to a single tweet quoted in the Washington Free Beacon, a right-wing partisan news organization; this would be tantamount to including something in Donald Trump's biography based solely upon an article in Shareblue Media — I shouldn't need to explain why this obviously implicates due weight considerations. If the sole source for this claim is the Free Beacon and no other, less-partisan, source has taken interest, that suggests it's not worthy of encyclopedic inclusion. Secondly, declaring the Muslim Brotherhood to be, factually, a "terrorist organization" is not compatible with NPOV requirements; our own article on the organization discusses the contentiousness of that claim, and the fact that the only countries which formally declare it a "terrorist organization" are themselves authoritarian or outright dictatorships. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:16, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

RfC closures

Per request at WP:ANRFC, I have closed Talk:Linda Sarsour/Archive 15#Request for comment: Teresa Shook criticism and Talk:Linda Sarsour/Archive 15#Request for comment: ADL criticism. The results were, respectively:

There is consensus to include A and C, and no consensus with regard to B.

There is consensus against including this content.

Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 20:38, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Sharia again

I don't believe consensus was ever reached to include the statement that Sarsour "regularly defends" Sharia law – see archived discussion. The NBC source has a single brief paragraph on Sarsour and offers no examples of Sarsour "defending" Sharia law. The source is apparently referring to her ironic tweets about interest-free loans, etc., which weren't a "defense" so much as mocking right-wing paranoia over the issue. If Sarsour were truly a regular "defender" of Sharia law we'd have heard much, much more about it than from a single article which doesn't even focus on Sarsour. Reliability of any source depends on context. Here, the context is provided by the AP, which says Sarsour wrote a "sarcastic" tweet in 2015 "to ridicule conspiracy theories" about a Muslim takeover of the U.S., and by Snopes, which says, "depending upon one’s point of view, she either advocated that legal system in the U.S. or lamented the poor understanding of its meaning and application (particularly that its principles apply only to Muslims and not those of other faiths)". That doesn't sound like a clear-cut defense of anything in particular. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:53, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable to me. Good fix - agree. My very best wishes (talk) 04:17, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the emphasis on the "defends" language is inappropriate. MagicatthemovieS, I would request that you join this discussion and attempt to gain consensus for your proposed wording here before reinserting it, addressing the concerns expressed by Sangdeboeuf and others. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:14, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Sarsour has tweeted with no apparent irony that sharia is "reasonable" and "misunderstood" and said that she would like to educate liberals on it, feeling that they do not grasp it. That qualifies as defending it. Her understanding of sharia is not the most extreme out there, and I have made sure to stress that she does not think sharia opposes on non-Muslims and her respect for civil laws. The original wording should stand.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 05:31, 23 February 2019 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

Where this came from? Which sources? According to current text of the page "personal attacks by conservative media outlets, including false reports that she supported the militant Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and advocated imposing sharia in the United States.[6][8][18]". And frankly, saying in twitter "I would like to educate you about this" does not qualify as anything nefarious. My very best wishes (talk) 15:29, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Hmm, so we do have a RS (NBC News) stating that she "regularly defends Shariah on social media". However, we should treat this rather perfunctory reference in a piece not devoted to Sarsour keeping in mind the policy In general, article statements should not rely on ... passing comments. My bigger concern is less with the word "defends" itself than with the word "regularly" and the present tense, in reference to what seems to be a couple of old tweets with disputed interpretation. I think that particular phrasing is certainly undue in the lead. On the other hand, this is a centerpiece of the narrative used by her political opponents, and that should be covered in the article somehow, which it already is, in a couple of places. Eperoton (talk) 15:37, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

@My very best wishes:@Eperoton: It's more than just a few Tweets. If "defends" and "regularly" are the issues, may I suggest that the article reads "Sarsour has defended sharia law."MagicatthemovieS (talk) 15:49, 23 February 2019 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

Are you talking about this? Then it should be cited completely: "Linda Sarsour, a Brooklyn-born Palestinian-American rights activist and co-organizer of the Women’s March movement, regularly defends Shariah on social media, arguing that it doesn’t impose on nonadherents and that Muslims must follow the laws of the land wherever they live.". OK, this just a single source, and it is already mentioned on the page - as a single phrase in section "Personal life". Should this phrase from a single source be included to the lead? No. My very best wishes (talk) 15:51, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

@My very best wishes:@Eperoton: Sarsour's defence of sharia is a key element of the controversy surrounding her, as stated in the article. Her defence needs to be in the lede.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 15:54, 23 February 2019 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

So you claim. But if that's the case, why can you only find a single reliable source using that language? If there's only a single source using the "regularly defends" language, it's not a good fit for the lede; what do a broad consensus of sources say? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:59, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

@MagicatthemovieS:, perhaps I'm not up to date on Sarsour's sharia comments. Can you point me to her other instances of defence?

I wouldn't object to the wording "has defended on social media" with the qualifications mentioned in the NBC source and by MagicatthemovieS would be fine in the article body. If we have other RSs giving an alternative interpretation of the tweets, we should cite them too.

The coverage of the sharia controversy doesn't seem to have been broad enough to be due in the lead. It's mostly mentioned in conservative criticism, in contrast to the recent Women's March controversy, which was covered across the political spectrum. When the sharia controversy was mentioned in sources like AP, it was in reference what the source characterized as false accusations, which went beyond simply stating that she has defended sharia. Eperoton (talk) 16:02, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

So far we found only one source about it, and it sounds as an opinion piece about Sharia in general. Anything else? What is exactly her argument? I do not see it. I think her views about it can of course be included, but we must tell something of substance here, not just vague "she supports". My very best wishes (talk) 17:18, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

What has Sarsour's defence of Sharia amounted to, exactly? Connecting it with her tweets is WP:OR unless a source frames it that way. The passing mention in the single NBC source doesn't meet the standard set by WP:PUBLICFIGURE: " If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out."

Looking at multiple sources, the picture is more nuanced; in addition to the AP, Haaretz says (emphasis added), "conservative blogs and web sites, such as the The Gateway Pundit, have labeled her a supporter of Sharia Law (citing Sarsour’s comments about paid maternity leave in Saudi Arabia) ... [Sarsour] has previously dismissed such allegations". WaPo says, "Many of her accusers say she is an advocate of sharia, or Islamic law ... She, like many other U.S. Muslims, regard sharia as a guide for their private religious practice".

If Sarsour were a true-blue defender of Sharia, then why do most sources frame the issue as a right-wing conspiracy theory? As was discussed previously, omitting the second part of these statements while saying Sarsour "defends" Sharia, full stop, would give readers a false impression while reinforcing a made-up right-wing talking point. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:15, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Good points - I totally agree. If all she does is advocating paid maternity leave and the right to privately practice religion, then what kind of "criticism" is that? My very best wishes (talk) 20:18, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Personal life

I've removed this sentence. The whole "on the other hand" thing reeks of WP:FALSEBALANCE, and the claims are not supported by the sources. The first source is an edited interview with Haider, second is an op-ed that briefly mentions Mahmoud. Both are poor sources on their own, and neither one ties Haider's and Mahmoud's words into the kind of tidy narrative suggested by "...occasionally drawn criticism from groups X, Y, and Z". That part is pure WP:SYNTH (Note that such removals don't count toward 1RR – see WP:3RRNO). –Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:35, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

You better believe it counts towards 1RR—your disagreement with how this material is presented does not fall into any legitimate exemption. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 13:18, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

By the way, I am not endorsing this material or objecting to it's removal; however, I do not think we should be construing 1RR exemptions so broadly. That is almost certainly likely to become contentious very quickly, especially if others follow suit. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:32, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

It's not the style of presentation I was objecting to, but the fact that the material synthesizes weak sources to make evaluative claims that don't seem to be directly stated by the sources. See WP:STICKTOSOURCE. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:34, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree with the removal and believe it was justified. However, "criticism from feminists" is not controversial in my opinion. wumbolo ^^^ 18:58, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Unless a source explicitly says that "feminists" have criticized Sarsour, then that part is WP:OR. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:49, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

The article describes criticism from individuals who can be described as feminists. As long as the sentence doesn't say all feminists, I fail to see the WP:OR. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 05:18, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

That's actually the definition of improper synthesis. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:45, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I actually agree with removing this. The sources are too thin and the writing does seem a bit like WP:SYNTH. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 05:25, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Brief Q&A in tomorrow's Washington Post

Tomorrow's Washington Post has a brief interview with Sarsour in which she comments on many of the controversies addressed in this article. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:15, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

• Ottesen, K.K. (February 19, 2019). "Linda Sarsour reflects on the power—and risks—of being a Muslim activist". The Washington Post.

That's not very usable as it is WP:PRIMARY, although it is perfect for WP:PUBLICFIGURE disputes. However, it is a good explanation of what Sarsour actually meant in the interview in The Nation. wumbolo ^^^ 11:15, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Is an interview primary? If it is we've got an awful lot of primary sources in our bio articles. Gandydancer (talk) 15:15, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

WP:IV explains it. wumbolo ^^^ 16:27, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you so much! This will be very helpful for me. Sourcing is a very difficult matter and the better one understands it the better his/her editing will be. More than once I've come across copy that is taken from an interview by Joe Blow and I've objected to it without knowing where to go for backup for my opinion. The article is long and complicated - I'll read it as time permits. Thanks again. Gandydancer (talk) 16:47, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Thats an essay. The interview is usable for her responses to accusations made against her. nableezy - 17:44, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I am aware that it is an essay. Essays are not necessarily unhelpful. One of the contributing editors to that piece is one of the editors that I hold in very high esteem. Gandydancer (talk) 17:50, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

The interview can certainly be used as a source for Linda Sarsour's statements on these issues, per WP:USINGSPS. Some lines I think would add quite a bit to the article are:

On her religious views and activism

• I haven’t given up on my country. I believe in the potential. I believe in the Constitution. I believe that this is the land of religious freedom and that that applies to Muslims.

On the Farrakhan controversy

• And then the call was for all of us to denounce the Minister Farrakhan. I don't denounce people, KK. I never even denounced Trump. Because we are all trained in Kingian nonviolence. And what we've been taught is that you attack the forces of evil, not the people doing the evil.

On antisemitism

• We came out and said we unequivocally reject anti-Semitism. We reject homophobia and all that good stuff. But for some people, anything short of a denunciation was not going to be enough. We have updated our unity principles to explicitly include Jewish women, we have a steering committee of about 20 women, three of whom are Jewish women, and a program that includes Jewish women.

Thoughts? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:39, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I support these only if they are quoted in full. That's because there can be different interpretations of them so any editorializing would be unsourced. By the way, these are good and useful quotes, and I'm personally a fan of putting block quotes throughout articles. wumbolo ^^^ 19:09, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

In the Real World, everyone deserves an opportunity to explain themselves, but on WP none of these quotes are likely to survive WP:PRIMARY challenges, and including one of them in the article is likely to strike the casual reader as a providing a soapbox and not encyclopedic or neutral. Eperoton (talk) 05:23, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Lead

I also removed 3rd para in the lead. It does not belong to the lead. Her views are already described in previous paragraph. Also, the ref from washington post tells she condemned anti-Semitism, which contradicts the summary. My very best wishes (talk) 01:53, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

You've been reverted. The lead is to address more than her views; it's also intended to address prominent controversies. The Women's March falls under this category, particularly the allegations of antisemitism and associations with Louis Farrakhan. Review the archives for further discussions on this. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:03, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

We are talking about this edit. What this paragraph suppose to summarize? This and this sections? If so, do you seriously believe this is proper summary of those sections? My very best wishes (talk) 15:08, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Correct. The Farrakhan controversy is expounded on under 2019 Women's March, and her position on Israel and BDS is under Palestine-Israel, in which both the "praise" and "criticism" summarized in the lead are covered in greater detail. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:14, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

• Based on your edits, you are trying to bring "criticisms" (perhaps with some "praise") to the leads of BLP pages. Sorry to disagree, but no, we should do this differently: (a) let's focus on the most important factual information about the living person, not on the opinions of others, especially if these opinions were disputed and controversial; (b) let's simply summarize the body of the page, and this is not "criticism and praise" - we do not even have such sections! My very best wishes (talk) 19:00, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

MOS:LEAD: The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:05, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

By the way, this lead was formed as the result of input and deliberation by a number of editors other than my self over several weeks (months) of discussion, and the article passed GA status with this version. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:06, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

What "controversies" do you mean? 2019 Women's March? It is already noted in the first paragraph. My very best wishes (talk) 03:23, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: Are you willing to read the 2019 Women's March section or any of the sources of the matter or are you asking another editor to explain the controversy to you? The lead reflects the key facts about her public profile. Do us all a favor and refrain from edit-warring. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:26, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• I disagree. The article has two subsections about Women's Marches. It should summarize them in the lead. The fundraising efforts are also not covered in the lead for some reason, and the feud with Ayaan is too stale to be a BLP violation if in the lead. I don't know why the lead says that she is a Muslim in a separate sentence. wumbolo ^^^ 19:22, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@Wumbolo: Just to be clear, are you agreeing that the mention of the controversy over the Women's March belongs in the lead? If so, I believe the content should be restored; I find it very troubling that multiple editors are now making reverts and removing material[6] on this page without discussing them, especially since edit warring was one of the issues that almost prevented this article from earning GA status. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:39, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree that it should be restored, although I'd shorten it to something like "Sarsour and the rest of 2019 Women's March's leadership drew calls to resign after allegations of anti-Semitic incidents" because I would avoid mentioning Farrakhan in this lead without consensus. wumbolo ^^^ 20:08, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Gotcha, thanks. I'd restore the material with those minor changes myself, but I'm already at WP:1RR. I'd also appreciate if some of the reverting editors would join this discussion and make their specific concerns clear, so we could start working towards a new consensus. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:19, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I think "allegations of anti-Semitic incidents" is worse than the version that was in the lead before. It would make it sound like Sarsour has been accused of anti-Semitic actions or statements herself. Eperoton (talk) 00:16, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

The article describes several controversies that Sarsour has been involved in, such as the "jihad" remarks, reactions to her CUNY speech, and the Dispute with Ayaan Hirsi Ali. None of these are mentioned in the lead, for good reason. Neither is Sarsour's involvement in the 2017 march described in any detail in the lead. What makes the 2019 march "controversy" more important than these other events? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:44, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Enough with the scare quotes. What distinguishes this as a prominent controversy is WP:SECONDARY coverage, which determines weight. It's difficult to justify mentioning her involvement in the 2019 Women's March without the controversy that embroiled it for almost a year, namely because of the actions of her and her co-chairs (alleged refusal to condemn Farrakhan). Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:37, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Oh, which action was that? Their nonaction? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:54, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Precisely. Some of the misguided damage control efforts certainly didn't help either. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 04:15, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Is there a source for that statement, or is it your own opinion? Please remember this page is WP:NOTAFORUM for expressing your personal views of the subject. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:47, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Her statements were covered in the news.[7]. In fact, here's a timeline of all of them.[8]  Wikieditor19920 (talk) 05:14, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

So it's just you calling them "misguided" then. Got it. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:42, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I maintain that the Women's March controversy and her involvement in it has significantly more WP:WEIGHT than the others based on the degree and depth of coverage, but I also recognize that Sarsour has a public profile that precedes and seems independent of the Women's March. That considered, the prominence of the Farrakhan furor will probably only diminish over time. The lead already establishes that her remarks/stance on the Israel-Palestine issue have made her a controversial figure, and I'm satisfied that the body of the article at this point provides sufficient background as to why. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:56, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Paraphrasing versus Quotations

MagicatthemovieS I think some of your paraphrases of quotes are good, and we certainly don't want an article overburdened with quotations, since articles should generally be written in WP voice. However, I think some of your revisions introduce a bit of editorializing, and in these instances I think it's best to simply quote the source:

• A Facebook post in which she defended Representative-elect Ilhan Omar by attributing criticism of her support for BDS to "folks who masquerade as progressives" but are more dedicated to Zionism than democracy or freedom of speech led to the American Jewish Committee accusing Sarsour of drawing on antisemitic tropes. It looks like here half of her quote was provided and the other half paraphrased. I believe we should remove the paraphrasing and provide the full quote.
• Sarsour later apologized to supporters of the march, saying that she and her colleagues regret not that they did not quickly make their commitment to combating antisemitism clear. We should provide a quote from the statement instead of synthesizing it.
• In a public debate with Iranian feminist activist Masih Alinejad about the veil, Sarsour elaborated on her views that the hijab is a spiritual act and not a symbol of oppression, and stressed the Islamophobia experienced by hijabi women in the West. I think it's appropriate to quote the subject about her own views here, if you can find one.

I know you may not have had a hand in all of these, but since you've been pretty active on this page I thought it worth bringing to your attention (or anyone else who agrees/disagrees/etc.). Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:31, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@Wikieditor19920: It's impossible to please everyone! I paraphrased several quotes because another user felt that this article was so reliant on quotes that it constituted plagiarism. I prefer the quotes, he doesn't, and he's the one in charge of whether my DYK nomination passes, so I will defer to his judgement.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 21:34, 22 February 2019 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

WP:PLAGIARISM occurs only if there isn't a proper in-text attribution, so that's not a concern so long as those protocol are followed. I maintain that quotes from the subject herself would be preferable in the three lines I cited above. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:42, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

The CopyVios are clear false positives. I would not advocate making these changes to satisfy arbitrary requests by a DYK nominator. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:11, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

• Comment@NorthBySouthBaranof: I think this is the appropriate section because it relates to paraphrasing. With this revert, you indicated that you feel my rewording constitutes editorializing. I don't agree, and if you'll read the source, it accurately describes what occurred: "blasted" is a synonym for "criticized," and the sequence of events was 1) Shook criticized Sarsour alleging antisemitism, 2) Sarsour criticized Shook alleging racism, 3) Sarsour apologized. Where do you think that my edit got this wrong? As for why the reword was necessary in the first place, a) it's far too wordy, and b) I think words like "targeted" are far more problematic. Perhaps the happy middle ground would be to simply quote Sarsour? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:51, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Typo?

In the sentence "... she and her colleagues regret not that they did not quickly make their commitment..." is the "not" immediately after "regret" a typo? JennyOz (talk) 13:23, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

 Fixed--- Coffeeandcrumbs 06:42, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Sole BLP resident of Category:Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions

Sarsour is now the sole BLP that is included in the Category:Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions. This is disproportionate emphasis. @MagicatthemovieS: please self-revert.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 21:03, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Disproportionate based on what? She's one of the movement's most prominent backers, according to plenty of reliable sources. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 05:48, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Disproportionate based on the fact she was singled out. I would support the addition of other supporters of BDS or the creation of a subcategory, Category:Proponents of Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions or Category:Supporters of Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions. We could add the following: Socialist International, Rashida Tlaib, and Ilhan Omar as well.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 08:43, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Additional members of the category: Lee Rhiannon, Israeli Apartheid Week, and CUPE Ontario and disinvestment from Israel.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 09:33, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

... agree that such a move is ill-conceived without first having done the contextualizing research...the African National Congress, some city councils in the UK, the province of Navarre, the American Studies Association, Steven Salaita, Hilary Rose (sociologist), Stephen Rose, Academic boycott of Israel, etc. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 10:09, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

DSA membership

The section "Political party involvement" states that "Sarsour is a member of the Democratic Socialists of America." However, the citation for this, a link to this article, specifically says "While the movement is not officially associated with Palestinian-American activist Linda Sarsour, the two are aligned politically." I would thus recommend that this section is corrected. -Xbony2 (talk) 23:20, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Xbony2, I just added this source from a few days ago: Svart, Maria; Director, DSA National (July 23, 2019). "Special Mid-Month Dispatch". Democratic Socialists of America (DSA). Archived from the original on July 27, 2019. Retrieved July 27, 2019. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help). --- Coffeeandcrumbs 23:44, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Coffeeandcrumbs thank you for adding this. Two more things: could you remove the first source (since it contradicts the newer item), and could you add this article to Democratic Socialists of America? Thank you in advance :) -Xbony2 (talk) 01:30, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Xbony2, done. Cheers. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 01:35, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Resignation in lead

Another editor seems to have purged the mention of controversy and anti-semitism allegations from the lead regarding her resignation. This improperly removes key context from her stepping down, and amounts to whitewashing. It is inaccurate to say that she was not the subject of the anti-semitism allegations. The WaPo, which broke the story, reported: The Women’s March is replacing three inaugural board members who have been dogged by accusations of anti-Semitism, infighting and financial mismanagement — controversies some say have slowed the organization’s progress and diminished its impact. The NYT reported After the 2017 march, the four co-chairs ousted one of the group’s earliest organizers, Vanessa Wruble, who is Jewish. Ms. Wruble later helped establish a new organization and made accusations of anti-Semitism. Clearly she is not the only target of the accusations (they were leveled against her co-chairs as well), so I think it is appropriate to note that she stepped down (apparently was forced out) with others. What is not appropriate is to remove mention of the controversy entirely. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:21, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

The cited source says that Mallory and Perez-Jordan were accused of anti-Semitism; the source does not specifically connect Sarsour to anti-Semitism. You may not use generalities to misrepresent sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:25, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof: No--as shown by the quotes above, source cites specific instances of anti-semitic comments by Mallory and Perez in addition to saying that the Women's March leaders as a whole had been accused of anti-semitism. She was part of the Women's March leadership when the accusations of anti-semitism against the leaders were made. If you are suggesting that somehow that doesn't apply to her, then you would be the one making misrepresentations--and an incredibly dishonest argument. This is also one that's been entertained here before, and which proved utterly unpersuasive. Check the talk archives. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:35, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

It's also pretty absurd for you to suggest "misrepresentation" on my part while spinning a totally implausible "alternative interpretation." There is clear factual support for my argument in the sources that I have already provided. By no stretch of the imagination can you say that she was not the subject of the anti-semitism accusations as part of the Women's March leadership. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:38, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

You are in violation of the WP:BLP policy, which is the most severely enforced policy on Wikipedia. It doesn't matter a damn what you think is implied by what; you can only insert negative information on the basis of the direct explicit statements of reliable sources. Please note that I'm an administrator and perfectly willing to enforce this policy. Zero^talk 12:05, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

@Zero0000: I'll quote the source again and I'll also re-emphasize that reliably sourced information, even if negative, is not a BLP violation, which applies to unsourced or libelous claims: The Women’s March is replacing three inaugural board members who have been dogged by accusations of anti-Semitism, infighting and financial mismanagement — controversies some say have slowed the organization’s progress and diminished its impact.. Source. You should familiarize yourself with the sources before threatening a misuse of admin power; there is no BLP violation by adding this relevant, well-sourced information. The fact that she stepped down amidst controversy, and what that controversy is about, are key pieces of information and it is misleading to omit them. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:29, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Your wording invites readers to believe that Sarsour personally was accused of antisemitism, rather than accusations surrounding the leadership in general. The transition from general to specific is not in the source but it is in your edit. It isn't the inclusion of the information that's a violation, it is your misleading presentation. Zero^talk 00:36, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

"My" wording is in fact the source's wording, and there is no BLP violation. As per the source above, the WaPo explicitly named her as one of the leaders who faced allegations of anti-semitism, which is what led to her resignation. Do you disagree with that characterization of events? Because that's what's been reported. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:55, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I suggest the following rewording: Sarsour stepped down from the Women's March organization in September 2019 along with Bob Bland and Tamika Mallory, following some controversy over the organization's handling of accusations of anti-semitism. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:57, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Adding Sarsour's birthday.

This Wiki does not include her birthday, but she herself has posted tweets about her own birthday on March 19 1980, as shown here: https://twitter.com/lsarsour/status/1240659489067597825?s=19 https://twitter.com/lsarsour/status/843632938621325312?s=19

As it is her self-verified information, should the Wiki article be updated to reflect that? C41nb31t (talk) 00:55, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Categories

I removed several categories in this edit; they were:

• Category:Anti-Zionism in the United States
• Category:New York (state) socialists]]
• Category:Muslim socialists
• Category:Socialist feminists

Anti-Zionism is mentioned once in the body of the article, so the category is non-defining; pls see WP:CATDEF. In re: the other three cats, Sarsour is not described as such in the article. "Socialism" and "Democratic socialism" are not the same. --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:44, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Sarsour and Israel

Comment by blocked sockpuppet account. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:58, 20 March 2021 (UTC) (non-admin closure)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This article says that Sarsour is for Israels right to exist. She has explictly said she supports a one state solution, and (falsely) believes that the country is founded on Jewish Supremacy (https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/international/americas/1575389255-firebrand-activist-linda-sarsour-claims-israel-built-on-idea-of-jewish-supremacy). It also doesn't go into detail about the reasoning why she was removed from the Women's march: In private, she agreed with two women march leaders who said that Jews were behind the African Slave trade (https://forward.com/fast-forward/415873/perez-and-mallory-of-womens-march-believe-jews-led-the-american-slave/). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Austintexas000aaaa (talk • contribs) 20:15, 16 December 2020 (UTC) So the other Women's March leaders "removed" Sarsour for agreeing with them? That source doesn't say anything about Sarsour agreeing with anything or her stepping down. Whether a one-state solution is compatible with a Jewish Israel is a matter of opinion. See WP:STICKTOSOURCE.—Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:28, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Russian trolls

A section could be added about the Russian trolls who attacked her. Here's the link to the NY Times reporting: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/18/us/womens-march-russia-trump.html?searchResultPosition=1 Lamona (talk) 19:07, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't know about adding "a section", but we should add at least one sentence, maybe two. WP:BEBOLD – Muboshgu (talk) 19:32, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done--Jacobin 357 (talk) 21:01, 4 July 2023 (UTC)