Talk:Linda Sarsour/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Criticism section

I think this article needs some of its content from the section on controversy moved to a new section called criticism, with additional details. This person has been criticized by many notable public figures, including Sam Harris and Courtney Love. Additionally, the tone of the whole article seems very defensive, and it needs a review by a senior editor. On the talk page, too, at least two editors seem to have personal connections with this person who are refusing to consider or are outright twisting criticism by others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icantevennnnn (talk • contribs) 22:05, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Please read WP:CRITICISM - separate "criticism" sections are deprecated because they essentially create a WP:POVFORK within a given article. Critical and supportive views should be balanced within each section the article in accordance with their prominence in reliable sources. That a singer and actress has criticized someone is not necessarily worthy of inclusion. As for the claim that anyone here has a personal connection with the article subject, you need to support that claim with evidence presented on the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard or withdraw it as casting aspersions on other editors is strictly prohibited. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:28, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

You are one of the editors I mentioned. Calling someone a singer as if to dismiss their views is offensive. Sam Harris is a noted public intellectual. I gave a partial list because this article is close for editing and there is no way to edit it, but there are many prominent public figures who have criticized her views and it is important to mention them here to make the article more diverse. I object to you and another editor dismissing everyone who disagrees with you as vandals. I stand by my view that the tone of this article is very defensive, and an explanation is provided for everything someone has said about her or every time she has done something distasteful, as if to protect her from being depicted as negative. I think it is against editorial neutrality to protect someone's image on Wikipedia. I repeat that this article needs a review from a senior editor to protect it from clearly biased people like you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icantevennnnn (talk • contribs) 22:43, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

You either need to present evidence for your claim at the appropriate noticeboard or withdraw it and apologize to me. Of course, you have no evidence because it's patently false. Making wild, unsupported and false allegations about other editors is strictly prohibited as a personal attack. If you continue, I will request that you be administratively sanctioned. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:50, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I am presenting arguments. Your threat for sanction says more about you than what I am interested in discussing, which is neutrality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icantevennnnn (talk • contribs) 00:21, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I decline to engage with an editor who makes malicious, false statements about me. Nor am I required to. Have a nice day. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:11, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

The "explanation provided" alongside criticism of Sarsour comes directly from the cited sources. To cherry-pick the criticism and leave out the response would violate Wikipedia's policy of neutrality – specifically, the requirements of due weight. This is not about "protecting someone's image", but about adhering to Wikipedia's policy on Biographies of living persons, which must be written fairly, cautiously, and with awareness of potential harm to the subject from published claims about them. Criticism of a person is not appropriate unless reported on by a reliable, secondary source.

Why anyone would conclude that the article is overly favorable to Sarsour is baffling to me – criticism from several people, including columnist and editor Emily Shire, leaders of the ADL, and other Jewish leaders, is presented without comment. If anything, there's currently too much focus on criticism of Sarsour, but that is what the available sources choose to report. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:42, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Sangdeboeuf, I do understand your point, and please assume that I am only interested in improving the article. Regarding my view of it being defensive, here is one example: There is currently a section in the article on her views about Israel-Palestine conflict which begins with what she has stated about it. Another widely discussed current topic, especially here in the US where this subject lives, is immigration and assimilation. Is it unreasonable to expect something about her own views on Sharia law (not what Ayaan says about it which is currently what appears) which she has defended multiple times? Especially when such statements have led to notable people such as Sam Harris accusing this person of being divisive? Is this irrelevant?

I will chime in, part of the problem is you have made no substantive suggestions (until now) beyond "I want to see criticism of her". So it might help matter if you provide.

A. Some actual text you want to add

B. The source you wish to use to support it.

As an example, you have provided no sources for the claim Ms Sarsour supports Sharia law, which you want to see criticized. The problem here are that

1> As far as I can tell we do not yet mention he views, so there is no need to have a criticism of them.

2> You have provided no evidence for what her views are.

3> You have provided no evidence as to what Mr Harris has said about it.

4> You have no demonstrated this is a noteworthy or major controversy.

You need to provide more then just a list of demands, you need to make an argument based upon reliable sources.Slatersteven (talk) 11:30, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the above points. What is relevant is determined by how much coverage something has received in reliable sources, per the Neutral point of view policy. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:21, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I have now provided specific changes with evidence in the three sections below.Icantevennnnn (talk) 13:28, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Sharia law

No we cannot call her a sharia law advocate, we might be able to say "she has been called a sharia law advocate".Slatersteven (talk) 12:44, 25 July 2017 (UTC) And we do say just this in the article, so what needs to be changed?Slatersteven (talk) 13:18, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

This person has been called a Sharia Law advocate, so it should be mentioned in general, not just something on Ayaan has accused her of. The following references call her Sharia defender or pro-Sharia law-- The article currently mentions Ayaan Harsi Ali calling her a "sharia defender" based on an NY times article but doesn't mention that very same reference which adds "As to the accusations that Sarsour is a defender of Sharia law, the fact-checking website Snopes looked into the claims last week and found that Sarsour has indeed posted messages on Twitter that seem to take a defensive stance about Sharia law. Snopes’ calls to Sarsour seeking clarification have not been returned.Icantevennnnn (talk) 13:22, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I( fail to see what you are trying to used Snopes for, we do not use Snoopes an an authoritative site. We can change the text to read "she has been describes as an advocate of Sharia law". But then we also need to add her responses to these other claims.Slatersteven (talk) 13:29, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

The article calls her a defender quoting Ayaan but it should also say advocate based on my citations.Icantevennnnn (talk) 13:27, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

So what is your suggested text?Slatersteven (talk) 13:36, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

The Times of Israel piece you cite is unacceptable for use in the biography of a living person, because it's an opinion column with zero fact-checking; please read the top of the column, which says quite clearly, This post has been contributed by a third party. The opinions, facts and any media content here are presented solely by the author, and The Times of Israel assumes no responsibility for them. In case of abuse, report this post. By the post's own admission, it has not been fact-checked or edited by a third party at all; this means it's not even useful as a WP:NEWSBLOG, because zero editorial controls have been applied to it. It fails our requirements as an independent reliable source.

I'm not aware that "Israel National News" (an apparently-strident Religious Zionism media outlet) is a reliable source here; it's a debate worth having, but we shouldn't be citing specifically-partisan media outlets for claims of fact about living people they oppose. In-text attribution is probably fine.

We need to be quite clear and precise about what Sarsour has said and has not said. She has said that she adheres to principles of Sharia in her own life; I don't see any reliable sources cited which say that she's an "advocate" for making Sharia part of American civil law. She has certainly discussed Sharia principles on Twitter, in an apparent effort to educate people as to what it means and does not mean, and how she believes the public image of Sharia has been twisted both by Islamophobes and by extremist Muslims. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:14, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I think then we can add her own comments, and then something about the reaction to them (sourced to RS).Slatersteven (talk) 15:34, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Personally, I was OK with the previous version, Sarsour adheres to Islamic religious law, or sharia, in her personal life. Sarsour has discussed the meanings and values associated with Sharia, including varying interpretations of the code's requirements, her acknowledgment that some Muslims have used it to oppress others, and what she views as public misconceptions of its tenets. Somali-born activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali criticized Sarsour as a "defender of sharia law." It succinctly and factually sums up what her tweets and comments about sharia directly say, and then includes an opinion statement that she is a "defender of sharia law." We can let readers decide at that point. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:41, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I think we could change "Somali-born activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali" to "critics".Slatersteven (talk) 15:44, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Sure, how about "critics, including Somali-born activist," because that way we do identify at least one specific person holding that viewpoint and don't just genericize it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:49, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Seems good.Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I'd avoid saying "critics" unless a reliable source explicitly refers to criticism by more than one person. That seems like obvious editorial synthesis to me. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:09, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Both Fox and Israel national news call here that, so maybe just at an attribution to them as well?Slatersteven (talk) 16:17, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't. If we quote Fox and INN, then why stop there? Why not find out what Stormfront and Infowars have to say about it? Any such criticism needs a reliable, secondary source to support it, otherwise BLPs would just be a morass of conflicting opinions, where the most strident ones inevitably take up the most space. That doesn't serve the interests of an encyclopedia. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:28, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Mainly because Stormfront and Infowars is not RS. If Fox says it, we can quote it, even though you don't like Fox. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:11, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

No, that's not how reliable sourcing works. There's no test that marks a given publication (like Fox) "reliable" for everything. context matters in gauguing reliability in particular cases, and the burden to achieve consensus is on the person(s) seeking to include the material. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:49, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Observer reports: "Sarsour has noted on Twitter that sharia law also forbids the charging of interest on loans, and that Saudi Arabia has a generous paid leave policy for new mothers." A lot more information on this issue in that article. I don't think there is any dispute that she supports Sharia Law, no matter how one wishes to explain it away. Icantevennnnn (talk) 07:40, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Again, "supports Sharia Law" is a non-sequitur. Supports it how? The source doesn't say and it references claims by "the right-wing Clarion Project think tank," which we aren't going to give credence to here. The only statement of fact the article makes about Sarsour's views is that Sarsour has noted on Twitter that sharia law also forbids the charging of interest on loans, and that Saudi Arabia has a generous paid leave policy for new mothers. If you want to include that particular quote from The Observer, I'm fine with that. We're not going to leave readers with the impression that Sarsour supports imposing Islamic law on the United States (or anywhere else) because that's not supported by the sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:44, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

In reference to the new topic, if she has said "I support sharia law" we can include that, would anyone care to provide a link to her actually saying this?Slatersteven (talk) 13:24, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

As a devout Muslim she supports sharia law (e.g. in her personal life, as a choice by Muslims, etc. - there are sources for this I believe) - that's not the "question" here - but rather does she support the imposition of sharia law on non-Muslims. She has spoken out against banning Sharia law (local initiatives). I don't believe she ever called for the imposition of sharia law or the forced conversion of non-Muslims to Islam explicitly. These are, I believe, inferences or speculations regarding her unstated position on the matter - though there have been quite a few people making these inferences (her organizational association (again - possibly disputed) with the wider Muslim Brotherhood lends some credence to these inferences, however Western wings on the Muslim Brotherhood have avoided staking out such wide claims - focusing more on the current minority situation of Muslims in the west. In Muslim countries the brotherhood does support Sharia law I believe). So wording her would have to be careful - though I do think attributing this to someone / some groups (e.g. X/Y/Z have claimed she supports the imposition of Sharia law) would be in place (given the amount of said allegations/speculations).Icewhiz (talk) 14:57, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that this is a BLP, as such we must be very careful what accusations to include (this applies to any material that can be seen as negative). We would need some pretty spectacular sources (I.E. people) saying this. It is not good enough for it to have been published (even in an RS). I has to be one step above "just RS".Slatersteven (talk) 09:37, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

"Anti-Israeli"

We need ore then mone source, we have to establish this is a noteworthy controversy,and I do not think that just saying "throw rocks at cars" is important enough to include. I would rather then was rather more then name calling. Also+ we can only call her (and we must attribute this) to what RS say, so if an RS just says "she has said nasty things about Israel" we cannot say she is anti-Israeli.Slatersteven (talk) 12:44, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Can you move the above as a reply to my comment (as it was posted after).Slatersteven (talk) 13:26, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Israel National News calls her anti-Israel She has also been accused, by a Democratic New York State Assemblyman, of saying that throwing rocks at cars in Israel is a good thing This has also been said by a third party: "Sarsour once praised Arab stone-throwers in Judea and Samaria, calling their attacks 'The definition of courage'. She also expressed her disgust for Zionism, calling it 'creepy', and dismissed anti-Semitism, saying it doesn’t 'exactly compare' with Islamophobia." More on this: "This April, Sarsour drew further criticism after she shared the stage with Rasmea Odeh, the (Redacted). During the April 2nd event in Chicago with Odeh, (Redacted), saying she was 'honored and privileged to be here in this space, and honored to be on this stage with Rasmea.'"

She has also expressed opinion that Zionism and feminism are incompatible. Sarsour said to The Nation, “It just doesn’t make any sense for someone to say, ‘Is there room for people who support the state of Israel and do not criticize it in the movement?’

This issue drew so much criticism that noted female actress Mayim Bialik of The Big Bang Theory show, who is Jewish, wrote a whole post about it.Icantevennnnn (talk) 13:23, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

What some actress thinks is irrelevant, we do not quote celebrity opinion. Also we do not engage in Synthesis, cannot say because she says X that means she is Y. Nor can we say she is X because person B called her so. We can only say "person B has called her X".Slatersteven (talk) 13:39, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Also why is the opinion of some New York State Assemblyman important, who is he?Slatersteven (talk) 13:42, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

You also need to make it clear that these are not her words, but are all words that Israel National News claims she has said. And praising bombers does not make her anti-Israeli so that is an irrelevance.Slatersteven (talk) 13:45, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Israel National News is a strident Religious Zionism news outlet; we ought to use it here with care if at all, perhaps only with in-text attribution. It would be like using Media Matters for America to source facts about Donald Trump.

As Slatersteven said, the application of a contentious appellation such as "anti-Israeli" needs far more sourcing than that to be stated in Wiki-voice rather than as the opinion of certain people. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:18, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I'd go further than in-text attribution and say that criticism should only be included if reported on by a reliable secondary source; see my comment below under "Courtney Love". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:09, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Does this count? I think two things are clear. This person has been involved in anti-Israel gestures and rhetoric. And she has, multiple times, not only defended Sharia Law as being a reasonable thing that has been misunderstood but presented it as a better alternative to American capitalism. The question is how we include such information without seeming like it is biased towards her. Icantevennnnn (talk) 06:56, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't think either of those things you claim are "clear." Some people have accused her of being "anti-Israel," but opposing certain political policies of Israel does not make her objectively "anti-Israel," any more than Ted Cruz's opposition to the Affordable Care Act (a political policy of America) makes Cruz "anti-American." It is an opinion, and nothing more.

We can say that Sarsour has noted that Sharia prohibits interest. That she's "presented it as a better alternative to American capitalism" is original synthesis of a few tweets. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:20, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

What about Algemeiner Journal? . One has to understand that a minor activist like Sarsour being anti-israel will be a primary interest to mainly Jewish centered publications. Just because the NY times refuses to say anything about it, doesn't mean it never happened. This is a legitimate publication, check its Wiki entry. Icantevennnnn (talk) 08:20, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

You should check out the NPOV policy, specifically WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, which requires us to attribute statements of opinion. Biased statements of opinion can be presented only with attribution. The claim that someone is "anti-Israel" is inherently opinionated and unless it's self-professed, we must attribute the claim. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:35, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

As it is right now, I feel like the real policy is to ignore everything that comes from Israel or Jew-centered news source and conservative news source. Icantevennnnn (talk) 10:00, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

The the real policy is we do not put words into peoples mouths, we attribute it to the person who made the calim.Slatersteven (talk) 12:08, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

sources: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. It really should be controversial that she is pro-Palestinian, anti-Zionist (or anti-Israel), and pro-BDS. Linking her directly to Hamas is more tricky (Members of her family are clearly linked. She is clearly under the the "wide umbrella" of the Muslim Brotherhood (Hamas is the brotherhood's Palestine branch)) - and requires sourcing. But anti-Israel or pro-Palestinian (two sides of the same coin)? She's been identified as such from the get go - from her earliest days in activism - before taking the national stage.Icewhiz (talk) 12:42, 26 July 2017 (UTC) And a few things she said - [7] [8] (interview with her in summer 2014 - during the latest Gaza war) [9] [10].Icewhiz (talk) 12:51, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

And if she had been "identified as such" we must attribute it, or at least make it clear (assuming it is a wide enough held view) that she has not in fact admitted it (thus this means we cannot put it in Wikipedia voice). We can say "she has been called anti-Israeli", we cannot say "she is anti-Israeli".Slatersteven (talk) 12:56, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

She has been identified as such - by multiple pro-Israel sources (some above), along with the likes of Daniel Pipes (who has a long-running feud with her) - just about every Israeli/pro-Israeli source (including Ha'aretz I believe, which is very liberal and pro-Palestinian) states she is anti-Israel. Regarding statements by herself, here's a recent interview with her - [11] the headline being a claim Zionism is incompatible with feminism, and continuing to multiple alleged (by Sarsour) transgressions by Israel against Palestinians, mentioning support for BDS (against Israel). Her pro-Palestine stance and support for BDS against Israel is no secret - these are positions she has taken in the open for many years (including, I believe, calling Israelis "white supremacists" - [12]).Icewhiz (talk) 13:24, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

If she had been identified as such that is what we say "she has been called anti-Israeli", but what we cannot say is she is.Slatersteven (talk) 13:31, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

We can say she is pro-Palestinian and supports BDS against Israel. As for anti-Israel - yes - we'd have to attribute that (to just about every pro-Jewish source) - or just leave it at "pro-Palestinian and supporter of BDS against Israel" (and leave the reader to understand this is "anti-Israel"). Here's Haaretz recently identifying her as supporter of BDS, and Sarsour herself supporting "Palestinian resistance" - [13].Icewhiz (talk) 13:37, 26 July 2017 (UTC) Or this (in article already) - [14] “I am a critic of the State of Israel. I always will be. I have come out in full support of BDS.”. Sarsour is careful to distinguish between her antipathy toward Israel and her support of Jews. “Because I am a critic of the State of Israel people say I’m anti-Semitic, but that isn’t true,” she said. - so she is a critic of the state of Israel and supporter of a one-state - Pressed by Haaretz to detail her views, Sarsour said that she believes in a one-state solution that, experts agree, will not be a Jewish state because the larger population will be Palestinian. “I don’t think a two-state solution is viable, is logistically possible, with the illegal building going on” in the West Bank, Sarsour said. “My hope is that it will be one state, one man one vote, that everyone is treated equally. Then you can say that part of the world is a true democracy.”. She is claiming she is not anti-Semitic, just a staunch critic of Israel. If she is a self-avowed "critic of Israel" - that's perhaps enough for anti-Israel without attribution - but would leave it at "pro-Palestinian and supports BDS against Israel".Icewhiz (talk) 13:43, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Being a critic and being "anti" is not the same. And no, unless he says she supports BDS we cannot say she does. We are told she supports this by loads of sources, yet not one line of text by her is quoted to support this. [15] has her (apparently) saying that BDS is a tactic used to fight for the rights of Palestinian women, and not a tactic to destroy Israel. But at least it seems to have her saying she supports it as a tactic. So if we include her support for BDS we need to make it clear what (and why) she supports.Slatersteven (talk) 13:58, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

It another way of saying the same thing (just pro-X is the same as anti-OPP-X). Regarding BDS there are numerous statements (not just related to feminism! The feminism piece was all on how Zionism/pro-Israel is incompatible, in her eyes, with feminism). for instance this - [16] “I am a critic of the State of Israel. I always will be. I have come out in full support of BDS.”. So she is a full supporter of BDS against Israel. This is a clear statement.Icewhiz (talk) 14:02, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

OK, I would rather see the full interview so we can have some context, but yes she does seem to support BDS here. I think we can say she does.Slatersteven (talk) 14:08, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Please remember that we cannot publish our own interpretation of what someone has said. We can quote Sarsour saying she supports BDS (we do), we can say that others have criticized her for supporting BDS (we do), but saying "Sarsour supports BDS" is an interpretation or analysis, not to mention vague and unencyclopedic. "Supports how?", one wants to ask. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:56, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

It is not OR that when someone says "I support X" for us to say "she supports X".Slatersteven (talk) 10:05, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Stating "She supports" implies that we have evaluated her statements as true – as such, it's an interpretation of a primary source. Per WP:NOR, we can say "She supports X" only if reliable sources state, "She supports X". But it still wouldn't be encyclopedic. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:02, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry but I disagree here. If a person say X us saying they think X is not interpreting it. But if this is such a huge issue, fine lets just say "she had said she supports BDS".Slatersteven (talk) 11:05, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

That's fine with me; in fact, it's already in the article. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:09, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Courtney love

This (to my mind) is not enough, it does not matter if she is an Icon, a picture can be an icon it does not mean it's views are worthy of inclusion. What needs to be demonstrated is that Ms love's views are noted by RS on a regular basis. That she is in fact a first point of call for opinions about feminism, and not just a rent a foot on mouth.Slatersteven (talk) 12:44, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I just spent half an hour providing evidence on what I think should be added, and now it has been deleted, I believe by you. Please add it back. It provides evidence.Icantevennnnn (talk) 13:06, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I have? When?Slatersteven (talk) 13:10, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Where did all the material go which I just wrote? I had information on all three sections on Sharia Law, Anti Israel Views, and Courtney Love. I am not sure who deleted it. I assumed it was you since you are the one I am discussing it with.Icantevennnnn (talk) 13:15, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

What material? This is your last edit [17] before you asked where all your material had gone. I think you may be getting your talk pages mixed up. Which is why it is best to talk about additions to articles on that pages talk page, so we all know what we are disusing and where.Slatersteven (talk) 13:16, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I'm so sorry. Yeah, it was on the other page. I think it is best if I move it here to provide context. I apologize. I have now moved it here.Icantevennnnn (talk) 13:19, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Courtney Love, in addition to an internationally known celebrity, has been called "a third wave feminist icon" in this book and this book So does it count when Ms Love says Ms Sarsour is "a vile disgrace to women" and "anti-American' and 'anti-Semite' and a 'fraud'. I leave it up to others to decide.Icantevennnnn (talk) 13:25, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

An icon and a pundit are not the same thing. She can be iconagraphic as a representation of an ideal and still not be regarded as an expert.Slatersteven (talk) 15:36, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

No. We do not should not cherry-pick defamatory statements about a living subject by persons of dubious relevance and then throw up our hands and say, "You decide". That is simply editorializing by proxy, not to mention intellectually lazy. Biographies must be written cautiously and conservatively, remembering that an actual human being has to live with the potential consequences of what we write. Per the Biographies of living persons policy, "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources". That means that editorials, polemical essays, and celebrity bloviating are a no-go – all are primary sources for the author's opinion, so they fail this requirement. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:15, 25 July 2017 (UTC) (updated 22:58, 25 July 2017 (UTC))

There are plenty of secondary sources for Love's comments; just do a Google search on her name. Clearly we can't exclude all opinions or social media statements wholesale, especially considering that in 2017 such statements often make major news (and policy!); the question then - assuming we agree on reliable sources, such as The Jerusalem Post - is one of notability (of the statement, that is, not Ms. Love, of course). I'm not endorsing either viewpoint, but just countering the idea that her statement should be excluded due to it being one person's opinion. Calbaer (talk) 22:34, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Virtually all the results for that Google search are highly partisan or focused on a particular ethnic/religious group. That's a pretty big red flag that the material is sensationalized or otherwise not relevant to a general-interest biography. Most of the sources would also not pass scrutiny for reliability, in my opinion. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:02, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

There is nothing about this exchange which is disputed: Courtney Love said what she did, and Linda Sarsour responded. No one questions this; the mere existence of unreliable sources is irrelevant. We just stick to the reliable ones... if we judge this notable. That is the ground upon which this should be argued. Hopefully your comment about whether this is "relevant to a general-interest biography" is recognition of this. Calbaer (talk) 23:34, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to the mere existence of unreliable sources, but to the fact that virtually all the sources that come up are of that ilk; it suggests that the exchange (such as it is) has been sensationalized and overblown. Certainly identifying some reliable sources on the topic would help to establish its relevance; any suggestions would be welcome. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:15, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I think a better solution would be to mention Love's comment in the context in which it was spoken. Love was referring to a racially divisive fundraiser started on an unproven claim by Sarsour. Maybe add it with reference to that incident? Icantevennnnn (talk) 06:54, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

In general it seems to be an issue of what people who criticize her are relevant? Are only people an editor here considers as relevant, relevant? Her response to all criticism is almost always the same, her critics are members of alt-right or Islamophobic. The question is, should we point out her divisive and harmful words, or should we too protect it thinking everyone who criticizes her is an alt-right or islamophobic. For instance, CNN's Jake Tapper criticized her for her support of a terrorist, and her immediate reaction was to call him member of alt-right. One should be careful when cherry picking. If one group appears to cherry pick only negative information, it should also be considered whether it is because another group is cherry picking only positive information. Icantevennnnn (talk) 08:27, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I think you're reading a different article than I am; it seems to me this biography is already chock-full of people who criticize her, to the point of becoming undue weight. Encyclopedic biographies are not compendia of every single time the article subject has been criticized, and we don't include every single opinion from every single side. That's not what we're here to do. We're here to write a neutral, balanced and fair-minded biography. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:47, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

No one is asking to include every single thing that has been said about her, but only that which is relevant. Being anti-isreal or supporting a terrorist is relevant. At least I think it is.Icantevennnnn (talk) 08:58, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

No, you are just asking we use the opinions of celebrities and not experts.Slatersteven (talk) 12:06, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

That's a false choice. Anyway, Tapper is an expert (on politics), not a celebrity, so at least his interaction with Sarsour could be included by your criteria. Calbaer (talk) 17:47, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

You did check the title of this sub thread? This is why we should stick to disusing one subject in one place. So do you agree that we should not be including celebrity opinion?Slatersteven (talk) 17:49, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I suppose you didn't understand what I meant: I meant that it's a false choice to say that you have to omit celebrities to include experts, as you indicated in accusing an editor (not me), "[Y]ou are just asking we use the opinions of celebrities and not experts." So far, my opinion is that the interchange with Love doesn't rise to the level of notability, but, when/if it ever does, it's reliably sourced and it shouldn't be dismissed due to her expertise being something other than politics or due to the disproportionate interest of partisans and those having skin in the game. Calbaer (talk) 19:43, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

"Reliably sourced" how? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:37, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

What I meant was that just being a celebrity is not enough to make a statement significant for the purposes of inclusion (the main defense made for two "sources" here bu another user, and the subject of this thread)). WP:UNDUE means we should avoid includeing opinion unless it significant to the subject (not just reported). As such we would not (for example, and no matter how much coverage it received) report Ms Loves opinions of the big bang or open heart surgery (except in her own article). So yes opinions should be excluded unless they are experts, or at the very least highly respected pundits whose opinions are sought (not merely just reported on).Slatersteven (talk) 09:32, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

References

Claimed support of individuals with links to terrorism

If someone here is interested in helping me balance this article, please take a look at this article and other articles with similar topic in which this person's support of people with terrorism links such as Assata Shakur and Siraj Wahhaj is highlighted. I would appreciate your contribution. Icantevennnnn (talk) 09:12, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Here's an exhaustive investigation on her (Redacted).(Redacted) Icantevennnnn (talk) 09:16, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

That document says literally nothing about her purportedly "supporting terrorists" and it's not remotely an acceptable reliable source anyway. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:57, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

To clarify, that document is a list of her statements in which she has (Redacted) or those linked to terrorism. It can be used for further research to understand her (Redacted) and her subsequent anti-semitic statements. I put it here for those who wish to help contribute on this subject.Icantevennnnn (talk) 10:13, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

No, it's not — the document makes literally no statement or claim that "she has supported terrorists," and as it's an entirely-unreliable source anyway, it has no place on this talk page. I've redacted it as a BLP violation. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:15, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Those are her own statements. No need to censor it, although I understand why you did it. It's on the internet, anyone can read it. Icantevennnnn (talk) 10:17, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

You need to understand what the Biographies of Living Persons policy requires of us. We do not use unreliable sources and we do not use talk pages to make accusations about article subjects or to grind an ax against them. I read the document and there is literally no point at which the document claims that anything Sarsour said was "supporting terrorists." The closest you get is Downplaying Terrorism Plots, which... yeah, even if true, is not remotely the same as "supporting terrorists." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:19, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't talk with you on this because you are distracting this discussion from the main point over semantics. What part of "this person's support of people with terrorism links" was a personal accusation? I think accusing me of grinding an ax against this subject is completely out of place because there is no evidence and it's a personal attack, which I am not interested in.Icantevennnnn (talk) 10:31, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

You posted a link to an unreliable source with the highly-inflammatory claim that it included information on her support of terrorists, your words right there. The document contained literally nothing which supports your assertion and contains no claim that Sarsour supported terrorists. Do you understand that that's not allowed here? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:38, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I've also redacted several defamatory statements about living persons that were part of the above exchange. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:44, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I am posting this report again, which one use here is trying to censor. It is not the main source, but is a collection of her own statements in which she underplays terrorism, makes false accusations against those fighting terrorism etc. Every statements in this report has a legitimate source that can be verified. It is provided here because the report is very long and copy pasting it here won't work. Since this is a talk page, I believe it should be allowed here, unless one wants to hide it.Icantevennnnn (talk) 11:26, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

But it does not say (assuming it is RS) that she supports terrorism or individual terrorists. In fact some of her comments about the patriot act could have been said by many non Muslim libertarians. This makes me very dubious about the slant being put on her statements.Slatersteven (talk) 12:05, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

She has associated with Palestinians convicted of terrorism - specifically Rasmea Yousef Odeh [18] [19] [20]. She has also met with Hamas people - [21] [22]. There are claims her family are linked to Hamas, and she has admitted members of her family served time in Israeli prisons - [23].Icewhiz (talk) 13:06, 26 July 2017 (UTC) I believe (based on interviews with her) that her stated position, when asked, is that she doesn't support terrorism - however there is a large amount of "tangents" with various sources have connected her with (family, appearing with former terrorists, associating with people who raised funds for Hamas in the US, etc.).Icewhiz (talk) 13:08, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

So she has spoken at the same events, and some people she knows knows terrorists. This all looks a bit too Synthasy for me.Slatersteven (talk) 13:16, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

It's a bit more than speaking at the same event - it's being on-stage together in a specific event promoting an individual convicted for a terrorist attack (Rasmea Odeh). I do believe this should be mentioned - but not in Wiki's voice - saying someone on the lines of "X/Y/Z criticizes Sarsour for appearing/associating/etc. with terrorists, after A/B/C". This is a widely repeated claim by her critics.Icewhiz (talk) 15:01, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I think we need to word this carefully, in order to ensure we do not say something that implies this is a real issue. For example appearing in support of someone who has been released from jail as an advocate of rehabilitation or prison reform is not the saem as supporting thier criminal activity.Slatersteven (talk) 15:07, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

"A widely repeated claim by her critics" is not necessarily suitable for inclusion unless a reliable, secondary source has reported on those critics' claims. We aren't in the business of spreading rumors or accusations on behalf of a person's critics. See WP:BLPSTYLE. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:00, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

There are claims her family are linked to Hamas, and she has admitted members of her family served time in Israeli prisons. Those claims are entirely unsubstantiated and moreover it's guilt by association — Sarsour can't choose what members of her family do, good or bad. We can say "X criticized her for speaking at an event with convicted terrorist bomber Rasmea Odeh," that's fair enough. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:40, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

This is guilt by association. It is actually grounded in fact I believe, at least for some of the family (which she admitted was in prison). I am not sure this should be out as this comes up in many critical pieces - I do think it should he attributed to whomever is making these claims. I will note she has stated (while understanding and supporting the cause, etc) that she belives in nonviolence.Icewhiz (talk) 17:55, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry but we cannot include guilt by association. No even attributed this would be too silly for words ""has accused her of supporting terrorism because some of her relatives are in Israeli jails for unspecified crimes". This is a BLP fail on so many levels.Slatersteven (talk) 17:58, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

She herself has reponded to these claims, in interviews going back a few years. She is a public figure. If we leave it out, we will face this creeping back in as well as the article being incompleten in terms of public information. I would suggested mainly including her response to such claims, and not the claims themselves - in relation to the family ties.Icewhiz (talk) 18:07, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

We already include that much; She has stated that members of her extended family have been arrested on accusations of supporting Hamas, but said they were not necessarily charged with crimes and that their situation was "just the reality of Palestinians living under military occupation". That phrasing is fine with me; what I would object to is phrasing that set of facts as "she associates with terrorists," or similar. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:29, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Right, I do not see what needs to be added, other then her response.Slatersteven (talk) 09:25, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Her appearance with Rasmea Odeh needs to be worked in. Saying Rasmea Odeh was convicted for her role in the terror bombing of supermarket - is not a BLP violation - it is a matter of record. So is Odeh's US conviction for immigration fraud and subsequent relinquishment of US citizenship and deportation. Convictions in court do no violate BLP policy. Sources: [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29]. This was not a mere "coincidental coappearance" - Last month, Sarsour shared a dais with her co-organizer of the women’s march, (Redacted) Rasmea Odeh, who’s in the process of being deported to Jordan (Oden was convicted in Israel of killing two Hebrew University students in a 1969 terrorist attack). Sarsour embraced Odeh, gushing to the audience that she was “honored to be on this stage with Rasmea.”Icewhiz (talk) 11:22, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

What is a BLP violation is to label someone a "terrorist" with no explanation, or to make unsubstantiated accusations of "supporting terrorists". And please be careful with sourcing – opinion essays and editorials, even in mainstream publications, are not generally reliable for statements of fact about living persons, let alone partisan outlets like Heat Street (the source of the above excerpt). —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:43, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

The problem (As I have said before) is that supporting a person as a woman against sexism (for example) and supporting their terrorism. It is A BLP violation to try and link this with supporting Ms Odeh terrorism. As to Ms Odeh's conviction for immigration fraud, as far as I know that is not a conviction for terrorism (yet).Slatersteven (talk) 11:57, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict). Sangdeboeuf - You redacted "former terrorist" - which is not a BLP violation for someone convicted for a terrorism charge (and subsequently convicted in the US for immigration fraud relating to non-disclosure of her conviction). Regarding sourcing here - I provides several - including ny-times. Heat Street is a center-right publication published by the publisher of WSJ - it is not a premier source, but not a bad source. The "honored to be on this stage with Rasmea." can be be easily verified with the PRIMARY video of the event - [30]. In any event, criticism of her association with Rasmea Odeh (which beyond appearing at this event involved co-organizing the women's march and more) - is widespread and has been covered by RS - for instance here by ny-times - [31]. op-eds in opposition and in support of Sarsour's appearance at CUNY (in light of her association with Odeh) ran in major outlets - including WaPo for instance. I see hundreds of +"Linda Sarsour" +"rasmea odeh" google-news hits. This has been raised by multiple sources - and has also been defended. It should be in the article - attributed to her critics.Icewhiz (talk) 12:14, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

There is also WP:RSUW, it is not enough for this to have been covered. She shared a stage with a (Redacted), about a subject unrelated to terrorism or the (Redacted) actions (no these are not BLP violations, she was convicted).Slatersteven (talk) 12:24, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

We should follow what WP:RS says if they mention Odeh conviction in Israeli court while discussing her links with Sarsosour then we should too per WP:DUE--Shrike (talk) 12:15, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

There's a difference between writing that someone was "convicted of a crime" and writing that they are (or were) a "criminal". Likewise "terrorist" – it's a label used for political purposes, since there is no universal definition of terrorism. In a BLP, it goes against writing "responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone". Even when reliable sources use terms like terrorist, MoS advises using such labels only with attribution. Regarding specific terrorist acts, Wikipedia is not omniscient; therefore we should stick to what is verifiable – "X confessed" or "X was convicted", etc. If we labeled every person a terrorist whom authorities describe as such, then we'd have to apply the label to Nelson Mandela and Tenzin Gyatso as well. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:32, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

We can simply say that Odeh was convicted for the murder of 2 and the wounding 9, sentenced to life, subsequently released some 10 years later (1980) as part of a prisoner exchange deal with the PFLP, and deported and stripped of US citizenship due to concealing these facts when immigrating. Simple - and sticking to the record without interpretation.Icewhiz (talk) 13:37, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

So you want the article to say something like "appeared on a stage with Odeh who was convicted for the murder of 2 and the wounding 9, sentenced to life, subsequently released some 10 years later (1980) as part of a prisoner exchange deal with the PFLP, and deported and stripped of US citizenship due to concealing these facts when immigrating", really? And why is this relevant?Slatersteven (talk) 15:59, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Clearly quite a few RSs and opinion pieces have criticized her over the company she keeps. All you have to do is google the two names together and see the torrent of connections, including calls to prevent Sarsour from speaking at an engagement a few months later at CUNY.Icewhiz (talk) 17:44, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Then propose a properly cited text.Slatersteven (talk) 19:21, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, a "torrent" of criticism is not automatically suitable for inclusion without reliable, secondary sources reporting specifically on the criticism itself. Wikipedia's purpose is not to select and amplify partisan or sensationalistic commentary. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:01, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Which exists - for instance by the New York Times here (quoting both block with coverage of tie-in and Sarsour's response to said tie-in later down in the NYT piece) - [32]. The debate about Ms. Sarsour’s speech began last month with Dov Hikind, a conservative Democratic state assemblyman who represents a largely Orthodox community in Brooklyn. Mr. Hikind said Ms. Sarsour should not have been chosen, pointing to her recent appearance in Chicago with Rasmea Odeh, who was convicted in Israel of playing a role in the bombing of a supermarket that killed two civilians in 1969. Mr. Hikind also pointed to a picture Ms. Sarsour once posted on Twitter of a Palestinian boy standing across from police officers with rocks in his hands. Ms. Sarsour wrote that the photo was “The definition of courage.” Mr. Hikind said in a phone interview, “You can’t support a terrorist and then be the commencement speaker at a university that my taxes help pay for.” ...... Ms. Sarsour said she had nothing to apologize about for her views. She said there were questions about the integrity of Ms. Odeh’s conviction many decades ago. The photo of the Palestinian boy was taken during a week when about 200 Palestinians had been killed, she said. And she said she had never planned to speak about Israel in the commencement address.. Any objections for a summary of this quoted text to be included?Icewhiz (talk) 06:28, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, who the hell is he, why is his viewpoint noteworthy?Slatersteven (talk) 09:00, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

New York Times found this noteworthy - note that Dov Hikind is the only critic raising this argument - he is identified by NYT as the first - organizing protests and actions- it has since been repeated by others and street protests - enough so that the NYT ran a in-depth report on the subject of the controversy of Sarsour speaking as an invited guest. I believe this is a better quote to include than “Linda Sarsour is a Sharia-loving, terrorist-embracing, Jew-hating, ticking time bomb of progressive horror,” the conservative media personality Milo Yiannopoulos said at a rally on Thursday outside CUNY’s main office, as protesters held signs with images associated with the often racist and anti-Semitic language used by what is known as the alt-right, a far-right, white nationalist movement. by Milo Yiannopoulos (in the same NYT piece).Icewhiz (talk) 09:13, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

The NYT is (in part) the new paper of New York, so of course a local politicians views will be of note to them. Now with Mr Yiannopoulos you are on better ground as he is a national (and indeed international) figure. He is an...but at least a noteworthy one.Slatersteven (talk) 09:24, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I prefer not to insert that Milo quote - note there were several other opinions in this regard (including a WaPo opinion piece in defense of her appearance) - Hikind is notable as he "started it" (and he is notable enough for a WP page) - I don't think (from reading the coverage) that NYT would have given him the stage if his message didn't echo onward. Sarsour herself is also a New-York figure (most of her activism until recently) - and this was a New-York engagement (with New York protests). This Sarsour-Odeh connection has been repeated by many (in many conservative outlets and in Jewish/Israeli outlets (including liberal ones)) - using NYT's secondary coverage of this is probably better than listing various who made a stmt. (e.g. just in the NY Post - Stephen Flatow [33] as well as others [34] [35])).Icewhiz (talk) 09:36, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

We should not use those as they are opinion pieces. And you have still not suggested any text. Until I now what you intend to say I cannot agree to anything you want to include.Slatersteven (talk) 09:42, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Allow me to demonstrate

Text 1

"Linda Sarsour embraces Sharia law terrorism and anti-antisemitism"

This would clearly not be acceptable.Slatersteven (talk) 09:48, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I suggest (I think this is better than listing people who made such criticisms - though that is possible): "Sarsour has been criticized for her joint appearance with Rasmea Odeh, who has been convicted by an Israeli court for her role in a bombing that killed two civilians, prompting calls to cancel a commencement address by Sarsour before City University of New York students. Sarsour said in response that she had nothing to apologize about for her views and that questions were raised regarding the integrity of Odeh's conviction."Icewhiz (talk) 10:00, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I think that what Sarsour needs re-wording, it needs to be made clear that she did not have nothing to apologise for but that she did not agree with what the critics said.Slatersteven (talk) 10:07, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

"Sarsour has been criticized for her joint appearance with Rasmea Odeh, who has been convicted by an Israeli court for her role in a bombing that killed two civilians, prompting calls to cancel a commencement address by Sarsour before City University of New York students. Rejecting the criticism, Sarsour said she had nothing to apologize for her views in general: “I’m Muslim, I’m Palestinian, I’m a woman in a hijab, I’m everything they stand against” and that questions were raised regarding the integrity of Odeh's conviction in particular."

If that is all the article says on the subject I think kit fails on weight grounds, this is hardly in depth coverage. This is a BLP we need more then one source, we need more then a few throw away comments.Slatersteven (talk) 10:23, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

This subject ("Linda Sarsour"+"Rasmea Odeh") - has a few hundred google-news hits in English [36] as well as hits in other languages. I think basing this off the NYT coverage is best - as we don't have a question of anti-Sarsour bias (the NYT if at all is biased in her favor, and is any event a premier source) - which would be present in conservative, Jewish, and Israeli sources who treated this at length - some of which are considered RS (e.g. - [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] )Icewhiz (talk) 10:42, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

References

We then then have her response. Also not all of these are of the same incident (and some even give others agreeing this conviction as dubious). The Women's march may have been a one of, and as such we cannot use it to infer anything about any person there. If there is a wider issue then we must present both sides.Slatersteven (talk) 08:15, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

The conviction itself is not dubious in any sense - it is a matter of record (in this case - also a recent very US immigration fraud case against Odeh for not disclosing it while immigrating - which led to her deportation and stripping of US citizenship). The claim that the conviction is dubious (to my understanding) is on the grounds that any Israeli conviction is dubious - nothing else. The criticism of her links to Odeh (in the woman's march and in a JVP event (both speakers, shared dias, Sarsour praising and embracing Odeh) - is widespread, and appears in several pieces on several different Sarsour related coverage since the Odea co-apps (e.g. in the recent "Jihad" coverage, and in the CUNY speech). We could start enumerating all of these in the article - but I think that would give this greater weight than it deserves.Icewhiz (talk) 08:33, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

It does not matter why it is called dubious, if we mention it we must mention why she (and other discussing this) have said about it. If it does not deserve enough weight to give a reasonable overview of what people have said (for example) in Ms Sarsour's defense then it does have enough weight to include what people have said about this to attack here. This is why people object to (and why Wikipedia does not allow) criticisms sections, they swamp articles with attacks and counter attacks.Slatersteven (talk) 08:39, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

• Certainly we can have well sourced statements, from Bari Weiss's article in the New York Times, for example, [43] about what Sarsour has said. The number of articles about her support for verified terrorists makes her statements on this topic notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:30, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

The Bari Weiss article shows (as do many articles) (Redacted). But you know the drill; it's an opinion piece, so by itself it probably won't hold up as RS. You need a solid array of sources to demonstrate that Sarsour has shown notable support for terrorists. Scaleshombre (talk) 00:58, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Opinion pieces are not generally reliable for statements of fact – see WP:NEWSORG. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:54, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

There are non-opinion pieces - provided above - covering the Sarsour/Odeh co-appearances. However, as what is notable about this angle is the vast multitude of opinion pieces (and coverage of said opinion pieces) of this angle - then actually either providing a list of critics who have raised this point, or alternatively classifying those critics (e.g. pro-Jewish and conservatives) would be relevant for the article. So - yes - one opinion piece raising this is irrelevant. Hundreds of opinion pieces - are relevant.Icewhiz (talk) 06:44, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

e.g. non-opinion piece coverage from multiple sources (in addition to links above)- [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62]. Seems she's also criticised for praising Siraj Wahhaj.Icewhiz (talk) 07:51, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I think some mention of this should be included, but you need to be a bit more careful in your non-opinion source selection and a little more watchful of what is and is not an opinion. Several of those are not reliable sources (The Daily Caller, for example) and several others are clearly-labeled or otherwise-obvious opinion columns; If this were the extent of Sarsour’s unseemly conduct, she might be dismissed as merely one of the Left’s more effective loonies... is not the sort of phrasing found in a dispassionate news article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:17, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof: Some of them aren't the best, agreed. Wouldn't choose dailycaller to source from in this instance - I brought it up as an example of non-opinion coverage... Others are OK. I prefer to base off of NYT - [63] (+maybe a few others - e.g. Haaertz, JPost, National Review) - with the following text: "Sarsour has been criticized for her joint appearance with Rasmea Odeh, who has been convicted by an Israeli court for her role in a bombing that killed two civilians, prompting calls to cancel a commencement address by Sarsour before City University of New York students. Rejecting the criticism, Sarsour said she had nothing to apologize for her views in general: “I’m Muslim, I’m Palestinian, I’m a woman in a hijab, I’m everything they stand against” and that questions were raised regarding the integrity of Odeh's conviction in particular."Icewhiz (talk) 08:38, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

That phrasing sounds fair to me. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:50, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds fair. But to reiterate, the right-wing media criticism of Sarsour is relevant only if it's mentioned by a reliable, secondary source per WP:BLP. Relevance in general is determined by coverage in reliable sources, not the opinions of Wikipedia editors. As another user pointed out above, we are not here to feed partisan media frenzies. Nor is it appropriate to analyze primary source material. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:11, 3 August 2017 (UTC)