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)