Talk:Linda Sarsour/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Neutrality & balance

Thread retitled from "NPOV, Balance, Undue".

I tagged this article with a POV tag because it contains vague phrasing that needs to be clarified or removed, and it is unbalanced toward certain viewpoints. Sarsour is a highly controversial figure so we must be careful about weight and balance. Bari Weiss, NYTimes staff editor and credible journalist, authored this opinion piece. There are numerous other RS that have provided both sides in a balanced manner. The CNN's Tapper dispute was highly published as were incriminating tweets by Sarsour according to CBS NY. Some of the most notable concerns have been expressed by Politico, this Huff article, Snopes questioned her (Redacted) and support of Sharia Law but she has not responded to them, this IPT report actually cites RS to some of her most incriminating comments, and this source provides some balance to the opposing views from which to draw.

Like other editors, I have seen instances of UNDUE in the article, but don't have time to point them all out right now, so I'll provide a few examples of peacock terms/weasel words, use of Wikivoice instead of in-text attribution, and unbalanced opinion which brings POV into play.

• Arab American Association of New York section: Sarsour's activism has drawn praise from liberal politicians and activists. In 2012, during the presidency of Barack Obama, the White House recognized Sarsour as a "champion of change". After President Donald Trump took office, the White House removed the mention of Sarsour from its website.
• ....Sarsour "has tackled issues like immigration policy, mass incarceration, stop-and-frisk and the New York Police Department’s spying operation on Muslims — all of which have largely inured her to hate-tinged criticism." (Also see Politico article
• 2017 Women's March... "Following the march, Sarsour was targeted with false reports that she supported the militant Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and advocated imposing Islamic law in the United States."

I will replace the POV tag per the polite notice by Sangdeboeuf on my TP, which was much appreciated. ^{Atsme📞📧} 03:11, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

References

"Incriminating" - I suggest you change your language here, because that word implies some sort of criminality on behalf of the article subject, which would be a BLP violation.

The Weiss opinion piece is already included and discussed in the article; you need to explain what you think should be added or expanded.

I have redacted your unsupported claim of "ties" to a terrorist group as a BLP violation. Your claim that Sarsour "supports Sharia Law" is similarly unsupported; in fact, we have a reliable source which calls the claims that she supports installing sharia in the U.S. "false" - false reports that she supports Islamic State militants and favors replacing the U.S. legal system with Islamic religious law per the AP. Unless you have an actual reliable source which contests this factual statement (not an opinion column by someone with a political ax to grind), there's nothing to discuss as far as that goes.

The Times of Israel article you cite is already cited in this biography. Is there anything you think is missing?

I'm not sure what you think is POV about saying that Sarsour "has drawn praise from liberal politicians and activists." It's sourced, and is a concise way of stating the source. If you think it should be expanded to call out specific supporters, I wouldn't object to that.

Also not sure what's "lopsided" about a quote from a reliable source. If you think something should be added from that source, please advise what you think should be added.

The claims that she supports ISIS are factually false as per the cited reliable source, the Associated Press - In the days since she helped organize the massive Women’s March on Washington, the Brooklyn-born, hijab-wearing activist has been targeted on the internet by false reports that she supports Islamic State militants and favors replacing the U.S. legal system with Islamic religious law. If you have an objection to the reporting of the AP, you need to take it up with the AP, not us. It's a cited, undisputed factual statement as per WP:YESPOV: Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:37, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, we've been over most of this already (check the talk archives). Weiss, Tapper, et al. are opinion sources and therefore by definition do not represent a "balanced" view. The phrase "incriminating tweets" is highly POV and is based on no reliable, mainstream secondary-source analysis that I am aware of. We base articles primarily on such secondary-source analysis, and do not engage in original interpretations of primary sources (such as tweets) ourselves. The CBS source referenced above is from a local CBS affiliate station which merely reproduces some sound bites by a New York assemblyman who apparently took offense at some of Sarsour's tweets – there's nothing here to get too excited about (see § Sound bytes and § Boy with rocks above).

Sarsour's activism has drawn praise from liberal politicians and activists. This is an entirely factual statement based on this JTA article (identical to the Times of Israel article cited above) – it could perhaps use in-text attribution for the sake of precision (avoiding weasel words), but I don't see anything controversial about it.

After President Donald Trump took office, the White House removed the mention of Sarsour from its website. What's to clarify? She was taken off the website – The End.

...all of which have largely inured her to hate-tinged criticism. Other sources indirectly support the "hate-tinged criticism" part, such as The Associated Press and The Washington Post. In any event, Politico doesn't contradict any of that, so I'm not sure why it was cited here.

Following the march, Sarsour was targeted with false reports that she supported the militant Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and advocated imposing Islamic law in the United States. That would be according to The Associated Press, one of the most reliable sources available. And the reports can be assumed to be false absent substantiated evidence to the contrary. This should not be controversial. What "clarification" is needed here exactly? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:17, 11 October 2017 (UTC) (updated 19:39, 11 October 2017 (UTC))

The snopes article should be cited in the article. We should consider (with great care!) mentioning her relatives in greater detail, as they are covered in depth in RS, and per my reading she has interceeded in their favor and made other public comments regarding them (which we do presently partially include). This also ties in to criticism already present regarding Odeh.Icewhiz (talk) 04:21, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

[P]er my reading she has interceeded in their favor and made other public comments regarding them [...] This also ties in to criticism already present regarding Odeh. Then please provide secondary-source analysis from a mainstream, reliable source to show that this is at all pertinent to an encyclopedic biography (We don't use Wiki contributors' analytic "reading" of sources, by the way). Also, if the only (non-partisan) source for a given statement is Snopes.com, then the statement is most likely out of proportion to coverage in mainstream, reliable sources. Snopes bases its content on rumor and urban legends, and there are BLP reasons to exclude such content. Apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources should be treated with extreme caution in biographical articles. See also WP:FRINGE. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:51, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

"Incriminating" - I suggest you change your language here, - NBSB, there is no BLP violation in anything I said, so stop the nonsense. Read the sources I cited and linked. There was no cause for you to redact anything, as I was stating what Snopes said the same way I'm being told it's what the sources say. ^{Atsme📞📧} 05:30, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

@Atsme: per WP:BLP, "it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives" and "A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law". This policy applies to talk pages as well as articles. To assert without evidence that something a person has written is "incriminating" is at the very least a borderline BLP violation. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:39, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Sangdeboeuf - you obviously haven't been reading any of the Trump articles. 😂 ^{Atsme📞📧} 06:54, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an excuse or an answer. Each article is written and judged on its own merits. If you think something needs to be changed on Donald Trump articles, feel free to suggest edits there. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:14, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

As noted, if the only source you can find for something is Snopes, it probably doesn't belong here. Snopes can be a useful source for analysis, but we aren't going to use Snopes as a source to repeat otherwise-unreliably-sourced claims that can't be found anywhere else. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:47, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

It's perfectly fine for the purpose it serves. There are multiple other articles that are very easy to find. Go back and read the sources I sighted at the beginning of this section - IPT has plenty.

Leave the reflist up with my citations where it belongs. Secondly, please calm down and stop being so defensive. The fact that you think Snopes is the only RS that has questioned the tweets tells me you haven't done your research. Lay-off the allegations about incriminating and read Webster or Oxford dictionary for Pete's sake - I used it appropriately. Also read the highly publicized tweets by Sarsour, do your homework before you start criticizing others and stop the nonsense. Your behavior is not collaboration, it's disruptive - I'm here trying to help get this article right. I explained what the issues are, I cited sources, so instead of wasting time arguing that there are no issues with DIDNTHEARIT and IDONTLIKEIT responses, either collaborate and help fix them, or I'll call an RFC for each of the issues I've found. Which do you prefer? ^{Atsme📞📧} 06:11, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

This isn't a game of 20 questions; you haven't proposed any additions for us to discuss. If you think specific changes need to be made, please lay out what changes you would make, and then we'll have a basis to discuss what should and shouldn't be changed. The burden lies with the person proposing the change. Please avoid making personal comments; it's disruptive and unhelpful. We aren't here to read people's tweets, we're writing encyclopedic biographies based upon reliable secondary sources. I'm not sure why you think an RFC is some kind of threat; it's a standard Wikipedia process I would welcome if you believe it's necessary. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:12, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Snopes is generally RS, though using the sources cited by snopes is usually preferred (as it is a trietary source). It is however telling they chose this balance (which is what trietry sources should be used for). The article is currently missing early coverage of Sarsour, focusing mainly on RECENT news items. In this regard the Columbia Jounalism 2004 item cited by snopes could be an important source of information for this period.Icewhiz (talk) 06:13, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Note that that source is not the Columbia Journalism Review (an indisputable reliable source) but rather work of students at the Columbia Journalism School; student journalism is often fairly reliable, but we should be careful with it. That said, I'm not really seeing much in that source to add that isn't already there, other than perhaps mentioning that part of her work with the Arab-American Association was in support of John Kerry. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:32, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Sangdeboeuf - read WP:Talk page guidelines: Another helpful template is {{reflist-talk}}, which causes <ref>...</ref>-type material to be emitted immediately instead of at the end of the entire page. You could also use the NOTE feature. Regardless, that isn't what I was referring to - my clarify comment was to provide more information for why it was removed, otherwise there is no need to even mention it. We don't leave readers with cliff-hangers. ^{Atsme📞📧} 06:47, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Here's a few more RS that will help balance this article and rinse off some of the whitewashing: The Tower, Jerusalem Post, Cincinnati.com. There are more. ^{Atsme📞📧} 09:13, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

"The Tower" is published by the Israel Project, a right-wing, pro-Israel advocacy group, and must be viewed as a polemic, partisan source much like The Daily Caller or Media Matters for America, and the article you linked is an opinion column, suitable only to cite the opinion of the author if deemed relevant. It cannot be used as a source for factual statements about Sarsour. The Jerusalem Post story is nothing more than a reposted celebrity's tweeted opinion; again, if there's consensus that Love's opinion of Linda Sarsour is relevant, you need to demonstrate that. The Cincinnati.com article contains not a single mention of Sarsour, so I'm not sure how it's supposed to be relevant here. Perhaps you pasted the wrong link? Again, simply throwing up links to sources is not particularly helpful; you should propose specific additions or changes you believe should be made. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:27, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

We are looking for sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The article cites numerous mainstream, reputable sources that meet that standard. If the goal here is to counter some perceived "whitewashing" of the topic by the existing sources, then that's not neutrality but rather false balance. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:56, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

[M]y clarify comment was to provide more information for why it was removed, otherwise there is no need to even mention it. I assume this refers to Sarsour's "Champions of Change" profile being removed from the White House website under Trump. More context would be nice, but the AP doesn't provide any, and I'm doubtful that any such information will be forthcoming from the current administration, which is notorious for purging information from its websites without comment. It's debatable whether this detail is encyclopedic, but one would have to be living under a rock to have absolutely no clue as to why it was done, given the president's well-known comments about Muslims. Therefore, I think the tag would simply be gratuitous. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:43, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with atsme that the net effect of the general tone, sectioning, phrasing and verbiage results in the article coming across as POV. I wouldn't call it unduely biased in any direction, but it feels as if it has been written by someone who is a proficient writer with a lot of source material to draw from who perhaps leans toward a more biographical style. I'd be hesitant to make sweeping changes, but in order to address the tag which has been placed, it might be prudent to make a single example edit in the body, discuss the effect and continue in the same vein if the consensus is that the resultant text sounds more encyclopedic. This editorial strategy of pausing for discussion might be a bit slower, but it will get results more easily than someone making ten edits and having the baby thrown out with the bath water because they got reverted. Edaham (talk) 12:43, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Is it a problem for Wikipedia's biographies of living persons to be written in a "biographical style"? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:38, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Dead right. "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives.". Encyclopedic biographies are factually illuminating in areas of notability. Published biographies aim to set apart the subject of their writing through what we would consider undue focus on superfluous information for the purpose of setting apart or sensationalizing their subject. This article isn't a glaring example of the latter, but it could use some of the aforementioned tidying up. Edaham (talk) 17:25, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

(Comment removed) What changes would you propose exactly to tidy up the article? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:46, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

As I said, I'll make a change first, state the reasons for the change based on policy and we can discuss it here. Regarding the page history in which you struck out your comment, which indicated you hadn't actually read the policy text you supplied, writing in an encyclopediac style vs that of a literary biography isn't a "semantic quibble". Impartiality not typically found in a published literary work is a core part of our manual of style Edaham (talk) 00:59, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

References

Hamas, Sharia

Snopes questioned her alleged ties to Hamas and support of Sharia Law but she has not responded to them [...]
— User:Atsme 03:11, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Regarding Sarsour's putative "ties" to Hamas and views on Sharia, here's what the AP says:

Other posts have falsely claimed that she supports the imposition of Islamic law on the U.S., citing, as evidence, a sarcastic tweet she made in 2015 that was actually intended to ridicule conspiracy theories about secret Muslim plots to take over the American legal system.

Bloggers and conservative websites also circulated a picture of her at a convention of Muslim civic leaders, standing with a group of people that included a Milwaukee activist whose brother was arrested in Israel in 1998 and convicted of giving $40,000 to a Hamas leader. The photo, they said, was proof of 'ties' to Hamas.

If either of these conspiracy theories are deemed relevant to her bio, then established, reputable sources like the AP are the ones we should use, rather than Snopes or partisan advocacy publications (as noted above). —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:48, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

That she supports imposition of Sharia is FRINGE, and is stated as false by AP above (and in general this a FRINGE directed towards many Muslim orgs and activists). However her private religious support of sharia (as a choice) - is a separate matter.

Regarding Hamas - there are multiple differentx vectors in RS, and AP does not refute this - they are merely commenting on the weakness of arguements based off of a particular photo.Icewhiz (talk) 20:17, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Exactly, Icewhiz - our job is to summarize and provide what can be verified by RS - we do not cherrypick/whitewash to support a particular POV using questionable sources, and we should not unduly criticize for the same reason. If critics allege or express concerns that reflect mainstream concerns, we include it with in-text attribution - we do not take sides or support advocacies, regardless of our personal beliefs. WP is not a soapbox for others to promote their advocacies. We provide factual information that has received published attention in MSM without injecting our own POV to determine what is or isn't a reliable or unreliable source. It also does not mean we cherrypick what we want and censor everything else that was published in a RS. Criticism belongs in the article - and we don't editorialize to make it seem better or worse. If an editor is having a hard time determining what allegations/criticisms belongs, I suggest reading the TPs of the Trump articles, Fusion GPS, Obama articles, Clinton articles, Comey articles and so forth. They will more than likely answer your questions.

I've also noticed in this BLP that sources like Al Arabiya News, Al Jazeera, and the Jewish Telegraphic Agency are considered RS by some whereas The Tower and Jerusalem Post are not. I disagree. Experience tells us that when an article is compliant with NPOV, we typically don't have lengthy back and forth discussions. If the information is verifiable per WP:V, has received widespread attention in the media (be it good or bad), is an integral part of a BLP's ideology/life history/motivation, it belongs in the article. For example, if Sarsour believes in the practice of Sharia Law, regardless of whether or not she wants it to be the rule of law in the US, it should be mentioned in the article because it has received media attention. She expresses herself by tweeting, not unlike what Trump does, so published tweets in RS belong in this article as long as they are presented in a neutral, dispassionate tone. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:17, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

”Believes in the practice of sharia law” seems to me to be a synthesis, and also an oversimplification. Her tweets represent comment on various parts of sharia law, explaining what she believes to be misconceptions and misunderstandings of some of its tenets. Implying, broadly, that she supports everything which has ever been called “sharia” is simply not supported by the sources. At best we could say that she has tweeted about the specific issues commented upon. Extrapolating beyond that would be inappropriate.

Moreover, we do not write in the biography of every observant Jew that “they believe in the practice of Mosaic law.” I am unsure why we would need to write in the biography of an observant Muslim that they adhere to their religious practices as well. Like essentially everyone who practices religion, they are probably more or less strictly adherent to many of the tenets of their religion, while perhaps honoring others only in the breach. These are cans of worms which probably are best left sealed. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:16, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

If the information is verifiable per WP:V, has received widespread attention in the media (be it good or bad), is an integral part of a BLP's ideology/life history/motivation, it belongs in the article. That is your opinion, it is not policy. It is, in fact, specifically contradicted by policy, namely WP:DUE and WP:BLP, which command us, as editors, to be sensitive in what we write about living people, to consider the possibility of harm, and to base what we write about people on mainstream reliable sources and to give predominance to mainstream viewpoints. We are explicitly ‘’not’’ a compendium of everything ever said by or about a person. The very purpose of editors on Wikipedia is to judge what, among the firehose of information available, belongs in someone’s biography. We make explicit choices to exclude material all the time. That someone said something at some point about Sarsour may very well be verifiable, but the mere fact of verifiablity does not in any way require us to include it. Verifiability is a bare minimum floor, not an unimpeachable bar. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:32, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Activism career: minor activities

I'd suggest that we shouldn't list every minor chapter in Sarsour's activism career – that isn't the purpose of an encyclopedic biography. We base articles on existing evaluation, synthesis and analysis from reliable, secondary sources. Where that kind of coverage is absent, we shouldn't simply catalogue every published event she's been involved in – a Wikipedia article is neither a newspaper nor an activist's résumé. Some minor events that in my opinion could be removed include the Hijabi Monologues and the NFL anthem protests. The St. Louis cemetery fundraiser is on the borderline. The "controversy" was covered entirely in niche publications – I'm not seeing any of the aforementioned analysis or evaluation from mainstream sources. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:28, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Boshell

The Brian Boshell incident seems like another case of WP:NOTNEWS – is there any evaluation from reliable, mainstream sources to show how this episode fits into Sarsour's life and career? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:38, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Clearly not everything Sarsour was involved in was national news. In fact most of her lifelong activities were not. A small fundraiser with subsequent questions regarding delivery really is not something that is national news grade - it however highly significant in the narrow context of Sarsour. An altercation with a homeless man sleeping at the doorstep of her office, and Sarsour calls of hate crime, were actually national and international news. The article should cover events that are significant in Saraour's life and career (during all years, including the void currrently in the article between 2000 and 2005 presently). At present, the article is not even close to a length we should consider redacting.Icewhiz (talk) 21:47, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

It's not a question of length, but of balancing the major and minor aspects of Sarsour's life and career. There is no minimum length for articles. Once again, something being "national news" doesn't make it encyclopedic. Breaking news stories are mostly primary sources – Wikipedia is a tertiary source. We are here to summarize accepted knowledge on a topic, not report the news. We rely on published evaluation and analysis to tell us what is "significant" in a person's bio, and we don't have those kinds of sources for the events I mentioned. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:03, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Sarsour has become a national public figure since the January Women's March, so the "narrow context of Sarsour" actually includes coverage in national publications. For that reason, we shouldn't give undue weight to events that are covered mainly in local or niche publications. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:17, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

National level coverage of Sarsour occured mainly in 2017 in relation to the march and post march activities (and seems to be dying out, though there are still lots of attack pieces in fringy right wing media, it might or might not pick up again). Prior to this there was a national spurt around the champion of change by Obama. But for the most of her career she has been a NY area / Aarab activist and covered by regional and niche publications. When doing a bio we try to cover the entire life of the subject - we definitely do not base iclusiin based on it reaching WaPo. Just look at multiple national level pols who were previously state level.Icewhiz (talk) 05:19, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

When doing a bio we try to cover the entire life of the subject – this is not based in any policy I'm aware of, especially if the only information available is routine news coverage. If Sarsour is not already a national figure, then when and if she becomes one, there will be more published secondary-source analysis/synthesis about her earlier life and career that we can use. Until then, we should follow WP:NOT and avoid trivia and filler. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:34, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

When covering a subject, we attempt to domso fully, particularly when there are RS. Regarding Boshell - This was covered very widely, in international sources as well, back when she was a local figure. This definitely merits inclusion.Icewhiz (talk) 06:55, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

In terms of policy you are running foul of RECENTISM in your proposal to ignore previous less wide coverage, as well as I believe a number of bio specific style guides.Icewhiz (talk) 06:57, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

WP:RECENTISM actually supports my argument that Wikipedia is not a newspaper and that material should be treated with due weight. If there are additional sources that show how the Boshell incident is relevant to Sarsour's life and career, feel free to add them. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:35, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

I've started an RfC on this topic below. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:22, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Sound bytes

I've been watching the fracas on this page from afar, and I see that much is devoted to precisely how we portray specific soundbytes from Sarsour and the reactions to these. This is a rather pointless exercise. Sarsour is a public figure; she makes frequent public statements. She is also a political figure, meaning that every one of her statement will be subject to an absurd level of scrutiny from a media which must fill its pages. None of this coverage has enduring value, and we should stop spending so much effort, and so much space in her biography, on such content. Vanamonde (talk) 07:17, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I quite agree; one of the tidbits recently added was her reaction to the capture of Saddam Hussein, which happened long before she came to prominence as an activist. If the more recent sound bites lack enduring value, then this one must have even less – I've tagged it as possibly WP:UNDUE. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:45, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

The Saddam quote js still being brought up today. What else did she say or do of note in 2003? She was an activist back then. We do not redact past information from bios without basis.Icewhiz (talk) 03:58, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

We also don't include literally everything anyone has ever said. We're writing concise encyclopedic biographies, not quotefarm compendia. The onus for inclusion lies on the person wishing to include something to justify why it belongs in the article. While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:10, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

The Sadam quote from Newsday is definitely a keeper. We don't have many RS about her early days as an activist, but here's Sarsour commenting about a major event in a major NY newspaper. It gives the article more depth and breadth by providing a window into Sarsour at a time when she was just taking her first steps onto the public stage. Scaleshombre (talk) 04:30, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

If the quote is actually relevant today (which I doubt), please provide updated, reliable, mainstream sources that give it more than a trivial mention (It's debatable whether Newsday is a "major" New York newspaper, but in any event, we are writing a global encyclopedia). The Newsday article is focused on reactions to a single, dramatic event from a range of people – the coverage is broad but shallow. As such, it's not much of a "window" into Sarsour's early career. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:52, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

* Another user has started an RfC on this quote below. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:51, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

See also Sarsour's response to President Obama's remarks on the San Bernardino shooting – one possibly reliable source, NPR, has just a sound bite with no analysis or context of how this fits into Sarsour's bio. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:36, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I've removed that material. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:05, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

There is copious sourcing discussing that one. However inline it is often preferable to cite coverage that is not polemic. The stmt iitself is significant in relation to her activities to stop gvernment monitoring of Muslims.Icewhiz (talk) 04:40, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Then please cite some "not too polemic" coverage that puts the remarks in that context. Without analysis or interpretation from a reliable secondary source, all we have is a sound bite – not very encyclopedic. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:10, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

e.g [1] [2][3][4][5]. We could place the quote in context of her civil rights activities to stop the "singling out" of Muslims for terror suspicions.Icewhiz (talk) 07:57, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

That's your analysis of the quote. I'm asking for reliable, secondary source analysis to show that this isn't just routine coverage of a fleeting sound bite. The Erik Wemple essay is opinion, not news, and is about a different interview altogether – it doesn't mention Sarsour's response to Pres. Obama's remarks on "rooting out" extremism. Media Matters and Mic don't contain any analysis or interpretation other than saying that Sarsour "called out" Pres. Obama as an example of "Muslims shattering hateful preconceptions", which is more or less polemical commentary, and not very enlightening. I'm ignoring the links to The Daily Caller, which I assume are a joke (and not a very funny one). —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:18, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

And then there was the flash in the pan that was the Jake Tapper "ranks of the alt-right" brouhaha – there's been no substantive coverage in reliable sources that I've been able to find since the first flurry of articles. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:47, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

The Trapper incident was widely covered and condemned. Regarding the Saddam quote, it is still brought up by her detractors: [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]. While I don't think we should adopt her detractors' tone or interpretation of the Saddam comments, the Saddam comments are well sourced and given the wide referencing to them - should be in the article. They certainly should be in when we have a void in our article for the 2001-5 period. Typically, in a bio, we try to cover all periods in the life of the person covered, and we do not expunge information according to present day interpretation, convenience, or POV. Considering that this is the most widely cited, and most available information from back then (we also have 2005 and 2007 coverage regarding her arranged marriage and her views on arranged marriage and domestic violence - which aren't as widely cited today) - it should be in.Icewhiz (talk) 07:10, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Once again, we are interested in sources that show that these comments of Sarsour's have continuing importance. It's clear that Sarsour's detractors will take issue with just about anything she's ever said, so the fact that certain comments of hers have been "condemned" or repeatedly trotted out for political purposes isn't relevant to an encyclopedic biography. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:48, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Do we have any other position\activity of hers from 2002-5? The fact this particular stmt of hers from 2003 is still being brought up multiple detractors in 2017 is a clear sign of its importance. She said many things. Some things (not all, but many) get attacked in a single news cycle. Few stmts are referenced years later. This one still is, a decade and a half later.Icewhiz (talk) 18:02, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

There's nothing in Wikipedia's policies or guidelines I'm aware of that says we must cover all periods in the life of the person. Rather, we choose content based on its importance in reliable, published sources. None of the recent biographical profiles of Sarsour that I've read have had anything to say about the Saddam episode. It's a once-pertinent sound bite that now is evidently just a target of fascination for islamophobic conspiracy theorists and other WP:FRINGE sources. The Newsday article might be useful for the page on the capture of Saddam Hussein, which focuses on that specific period, but is scarcely pertinent here. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:10, 6 September 2017 (UTC) (updated 02:11, 7 September 2017 (UTC))

In just about every bio I have worked on there was an attempt to cover all life periods of the subject. Saddam is more notable than Sarsour, it would have to be on her page before his. The Saddam quote is also repeated by mainstream conservative criticism. It is WP:V and highly notable and significant to her world view, which is why it is repeated today.Icewhiz (talk) 18:17, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Then please cite some reliable, secondary coverage showing that the criticism is at all relevant. We are talking about a period of three years – not a major stage of life. If there is a lack of mainstream secondary coverage of this time in Sarsour's bio, it's WP:UNDUE to shove in any old content just to fill the space. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:29, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I've removed mention of the San Bernardino and Jake Tapper sound bites. As Vanamonde93 has stated, media talking heads will use an inordinate amount of time and digital ink reacting to provocative statements by figures such as Sarsour, then move on to the next titillating story. This kind of coverage produces little analysis or evaluation that would be useful to an encyclopedic biography. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:52, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

There is no consensus for this. This is beyond a soundbite - this is criticism of the sitting president's anti-terror policy that was widely covered. If you think this is notable for inclusion the 2015 San Bernardino attack diff - it is definitely merits inclusion on her page. On a broader note, this is relevant as part of her ongoing activities to stop the singling out and discrimination of Muslims (dating back to the NYPD surveillance of Muslims).Icewhiz (talk) 06:42, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

The burden to achieve consensus is on those wishing to include disputed material. Saying "no consensus" is not an answer to any of the objections raised so far. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:21, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Literally anyone can criticize the "sitting president's anti-terror policy". But being "widely covered" doesn't make it encyclopedic – Wikipedia is not the news.

What I think about what belongs on any other page is immaterial – each Wikipedia article is judged on its own merits. We also should avoid duplicating content on multiple pages.

Finally, it may be one editor's opinion that the San Bernardino remarks are relevant to Sarsour's "ongoing activities", but I have seen no published, mainstream viewpoints making that comparison. We base articles on such published viewpoints, not opinions and analysis by Wikipedia editors.

I've started an RfC on this topic below. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:21, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Honorifics

I will get around to cleaning up the honorifics on this page when it is somewhat more stable, but I'm posting this here because this is a problem more with the writing style of the editors here than with anything else. Obama should be "U.S. President Barack Obama" the first time he is mentioned, and just "Obama" thereafter. Likewise Trump. We do not adopt the style of the U.S. media (or any other media), and we are a global encyclopedia. Using just "President" as a prefix multiple times is unnecessary and inappropriate. Vanamonde (talk) 08:24, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Vanamonde93. I agree that copy editing is needed throughout, but as with so many controversial public figures, the frenzy of the advocacy/breaking news/hot topic has to subside before our copy editors/Wikignomes can tidy it up. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:22, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

RFC: Iraq War statement

Should the following be in the article? Please state Include/Exclude (+modifications for Include if you think some are required): In 2003, after the capture of Saddam Hussein, Sarsour said she and other Palestinians felt humiliated by the way Hussein was displayed, adding, "I think he's done a lot of things he shouldn't have done, but I was hurt. My Arab pride was hurt".Icewhiz (talk) 13:20, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

References

Survey

• Exclude Not encyclopedic info. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:47, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
• Exclude (Summoned by bot) Agree with Sangdeboeufl's comment below. L3X1 (distænt write) 14:09, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
• Include Notable (or at the time, soon-to-be) figure discussing a major event, in RS. Scaleshombre (talk) 14:59, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

  Not a valid rationale at all. By this reasoning every time any celeb is on a talk show like Letterman or Colbert and said anything about a major event, we'd be bound to quote them.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  20:57, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

  Not the same, in this case we have an Arab American activisst speaking about an Arab American issue AND this is about the ONLY thing we have on record for her in 2001-5 (we also have her views on marriage which are also out at the moment).Icewhiz (talk) 15:42, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

• Exclude Echoing arguments made by Sangdeboeuf, verifiability does not guarantee inclusion per WP:VERIFY Kerdooskis (talk) 19:46, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
• Exclude as random "current events" (or in this case, obviously no-longer-current events) trivia. Professional activists (and I say this as one for over a decade) issue opinions like this on literally thousands of things; it's their job. If we catalogued Sarsour's Arab-, Muslim-, and Palestinian-activism positions on everything, that would be an incredibly long list of random bullet points that don't intrinsically relate to the subject or to each other.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  20:57, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
• Include, I think it's relevant in the context of this article and subject's views. Coretheapple (talk) 14:36, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
• Exclude per my comment above about sound bytes. Vanamonde (talk) 17:36, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
• Exclude -- insignificant coverage of the remark so WP:UNDUE to include it. Also, I'm not seeing a contex for this to fit in to the article -- as written it does not seem a significant factor worth inclusion, or even seem clear where it would fit. Markbassett (talk) 04:41, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
• Qualified Include - provided there is adequate coverage in multiple third party sources, verify that the sources exist, avoid citation overkill, and be compliant with UNDUE and NPOV. ^{Atsme📞📧} 13:25, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
  • To be clear, "compliance" with WP policies such as WP:UNDUE is usually a matter of editorial judgement (see discussion below), and verification that "sources exist" does not guarantee inclusion. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:21, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
• Exclude - It's an out-of-context soundbite. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:26, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
• Exclude - Not enough coverage of this quote to deem appropriate for inclusion. Jay2net (talk) 16:57, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

• Exclude -- just a soundbite of unclear significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:28, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

• Exclude -- dubious significance, Tony Blair also objected to some 'undignified' treatment of SH, but nobody reads any significance into that. Pincrete (talk) 21:42, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

This was discussed under § Sound bytes, above. We rely on secondary-source evaluation and analysis in writing articles. There is no such analysis of this quote that I have seen in reliable sources, and not everything that appears in the news media is suitable for inclusion. This particular quote does nothing to illuminate Sarsour's life and political role, as is the case with most of the sound bites that have been debated ad nauseam here. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:47, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Another user has argued[14][15] that we shouldn't leave a "void" for this time period in the article, as if writing a biography were merely a case of ticking boxes on a checklist. However, this ignores the fact that NPOV depends on summarizing facts in proportion to their coverage in mainstream, reliable sources. None of the in-depth profiles of Sarsour that I've read have mentioned this quote, or the Iraq war, or Saddam at all. The fact that the quote has become a target of fascination for Islamophobic conspiracy theorists and other WP:FRINGE sources does not make it encyclopedic information. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:15, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

This quote is still being brought up by her detractors in various opinion pieces more than a decade later. It is verifiable and is an important position regarding her self identity. The article at present does have a void of a few years in terms of her public activity with Iraq and her views on marriage expunged. We typically try to present a full bio.Icewhiz (talk) 14:48, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

As was explained under § Sound bytes above, media outlets (especially the right-wing media) get paid to scrutinize nearly every word that issues from Sarsour's lips. That doesn't make every sound bite relevant to an encyclopedic biography. What reliable, mainstream sources support the notion that this is an "important position regarding her self identity"? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:03, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

This is oft raised by polemic sourced as may evidenced from a sarsour+saddam gnews search. That this is repeatedly noted confers notability to this saying, regardless of the quality of the repeater. The actual saying itself is sourced to a RS. Besides repeated polemic sourcing in 2017, this has appeared also in other occasions, eg 2012 when she was relatively unknown [16].Icewhiz (talk) 18:13, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

To clarify, the relevant policy is due weight, not notability. In any event, Algemeiner Journal is hardly a mainstream source, and Steve Emerson's essay there is merely another polemic against Sarsour. To repeat, which reliable, mainstream sources contain any analysis to support the connection with Sarsour's "self identity"? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:16, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

It's completely abnormal for a bio article here to have a "sound bytes" section (which is misspelled anyway; it's "sound bites"). This is a WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE violation.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  20:58, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

For the record, there is no "sound bites" section in the article. The section on § Sound bytes is part of this talk page. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:04, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Brian Boshell incident

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

---

Should the article on Linda Sarsour describe the 2014 attempted assault and hate crime by local homeless man Brian Boshell and his later court-ordered drug and alcohol treatment? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:24, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• No - hopefully our encyclopedia will not resort to including drunken episodes by local inebriates. Not sure why it's even a matter for discussion. Just delete it. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:58, 14 October 2017 (UTC) ^{Added source 23:30, 16 October 2017 (UTC)}
• Yes. This is a major incident, covered widely by international news sources ([17]). The incident is still mentioned in 2017 in reference to recent threats to Sarsour, and has also generated some post-attack coverage regarding support for Boshell whom some Bay Ridge residents felt was being railroaded due to the prominence of Sarsour ().Icewhiz (talk) 07:12, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

  One of those two sources is an apparently self-published blog. That kind of source should never be used for material about living people other than the author. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:21, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

• Yes Wikipedia is about notable events as related by reliable sources; not about editors' quality judgements. The incident involving the aricle's subject, i.e. the attack against Sarsour, should be included; details about the alleged attacker have little merit here. -The Gnome (talk) 09:23, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

  Editors' "quality judgements" are what distinguish an encyclopedia from an indiscriminate collection of information. "Notable events" get their own articles; I'm not seeing any evidence that this specific event meets notability guidelines. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:43, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

  This event, including community reactions (e.g. #freeBobo) actually probably would pass standalone as an event - it meets GNG as well as WP:NCRIME.Icewhiz (talk) 06:36, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

  If it's notable enough for its own article, then we don't need to retell the entire incident here. It puts undue weight on this specific event. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:46, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

  It's notable primarily for Sarsour. If this wasn't a political activist claiming the NYPD didn't react appropriately to threats of a homeless person to decapitate her (+ hurling a trash can) - this wouldn't have been notable (Or at least I don't recall such cases receiving international media attention). Clearly we could have a long article on the event and a small summary here (say 2 lines), but since this is mainly relevant in the context of Sarsour herself a smallish (4 lines) entry on a not very long article is probably better editorially.Icewhiz (talk) 06:52, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

  It is incorrect to claim that everything notable deserves its own article in Wikipedia. And merely mentioning a notable incident evidently does not place undue weight to it. As to editor's judgements they are of course welcome, as long as they are not mere casual dismissals such as labeling a notable incident a "drunken episode by [a] local inebriate." Hope this is clear now. -The Gnome (talk) 10:37, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

  Incident happened back in 2014, received some local and very limited national attention so it wasn't notable, except perhaps to those involved. I added a source in my iVote to clarify what some editors may confuse as "casual dismissals" regarding my use of the term "drunken episode" etc. The NY Daily News wrote: "Sarsour, who wears a hijab, said she knows Boshell as a neighborhood boozer but didn’t peg him as and [sic] anti-Muslim." The Guardian referred to him as "a drunken man", and also noted that Sarsour said the police dispatcher "was not told that the man was screaming Islamophobic epithets, but that a violent man was chasing two women down a street." ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:30, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

• no. And further more, consideration is required as to whether or not his name should be included on article or talk pages per BLPCRIME and PERP. A vote for the inclusion of this perpetrator and the details of his actions should demonstrate historic significance - indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage. I cannot see evidence of this beyond repeating the details of the incident in sporadic coverage of the article's subject. It would also be appropriate When deciding whether to include his name, to assess its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories. Lastly we are asked to, Consider whether the inclusion of names of living private individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value to the understanding of the subject. In this case it seems that we can omit this information without fear of concealing details which go toward a robust understanding of the subject of the article. Edaham (talk) 09:32, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
• No - It's a minor, unremarkable incident, all told, and by removing it, we both tighten the encyclopedia and protect Boshell. The argument that "there was a hashtag" seems nonsensical given that literally anyone can start a hashtag. The claim of "international news sources" is overblown (I count a conservative magazine, a local paper and Huffington Post) and it doesn't really contribute anything toward our understanding of Sarsour. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:05, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

  For the record, there was this article in The Guardian, which is more or less straightforward news reporting of the initial incident, with no evaluation, analysis or follow-up coverage. That's all that I see for "international" coverage. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:59, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

• No, a sentence max. (Summoned by bot) UNDUE. L3X1 (distænt write) 18:48, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
• A sentence or two max.Pincrete (talk) 21:56, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Having voted "Yes", I should perhaps clarify that the mention in the article could, of course, need not be more than a sentence long. This is evidently not a major event. -The Gnome (talk) 16:21, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

• (summoned by both though I now watchlist this page). It received sufficient coverage such that it is worth a sentence or two. Coretheapple (talk) 16:35, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
• No. Puts undue weight on a minor incident receiving no evaluation or analysis in mainstream RS. Also issues of privacy of Boshell. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:39, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

  Ms Sansour lives in Bay Ridge, Brooklyn, NY. The local blog Hey Ridge, far from treating the episode as merely the actions of an "inebriate" "homeless" person, provides analysis of the social background of the attack, which one would reasonably argue provides important context:

  ...the episode brought out a deep division within the neighborhood. Neighborhood demographics have been changing for decades, and Boshell belongs to the old-guard tribe of white, blue-collar, Irish and Italian Catholics who once dominated the neighborhood. Irish and Italian immigrants have had a fraught history of their own, but at least in Bay Ridge have unified in recent years in their resentment against the influx of newcomers who have moved to the neighborhood, altering its character irrevocably, especially in the less affluent census tracts where Boshell’s career in vagrancy was centered.

  It’s the newcomers, the Arabs, the Asians, the Mexicans and Ecuadorians—even the white “hipsters”—who are the real source of resentment to the members of the [old school] Tribe. They feel their way of life is being eradicated by these outsiders, as evidenced by the comments made in innumerable public meetings about the “immigrant problem,” the many comments on Facebook complaining about “hipsters” and gentrifiers. It’s very clear to those of us who moved here from elsewhere that there is a limit to the hospitality of the locals. Outsiders are made—in many ways, large and small—to feel unwelcome here.

  Hardly an episode that merits no mention in Wikipedia at all, then. -The Gnome (talk) 06:54, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

  Including supporters of the attacker packing a police meeting and speaking on his behalf. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icewhiz (talk • contribs) 07:10, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

  I'm sure that's gratifying for Boshell, but the Brooklyn Reporter piece makes no more mention of Sarsour then the other sources. There is still no comment from reliable sources on how this fits into Sarsour's life and career, if at all. And as I mentioned above, Hey Ridge is an apparently self-published blog, and therefore should never be used for any material relating to living people. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:30, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

  As Sangdeboeuf has mentioned, Hey Ridge doesn't meet our standards as a reliable source, so any use of it as a source here is right out. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:24, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

References

Discussion

This seems to place undue weight on a trivial incident. There were some news and opinion pieces written about it at the time, including in British newspaper The Guardian, but the only significant secondary-source analysis I've seen is from this apparently self-published blog post, as well as National Review, who of course use the incident to try to demonize Sarsour. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and a biography shouldn't just be a catalogue of every newsworthy incident involving a moderately well-known public figure like Sarsour. If there were reliable, mainstream sources showing how this fit into Sarsour's life and career, then it might be encyclopedic information, but I'm not seeing those kinds of sources. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:18, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Need to include the criticism and public concern over her activities without editorializing. It's an integral part of what made her notable. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:58, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:BLP, "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources". Regarding such criticism, National Review is a primary source for the author's opinion here. As was noted earlier, Wikipedia policy instructs us to favor mainstream viewpoints, and to consider the possibility of harm to the subject from what we publish, so not all criticism belongs anyway. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:10, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

I concur with NorthBySouthBaranof above that protecting Boshell is also a concern. The crime was not a major incident, and Wikipedia is not a tabloid. We must be mindful of Boshell's privacy as well. Especially if sources on his mental illness are accurate, it would be WP:UNDUE to publicize his crimes and sentencing absent some interpretation or evaluation from reliable, mainstream sources. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:57, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

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