Talk:Qanta Ahmed

IJR, commentary sections

The use of Independent Journal Review in the section on Ahmed's commentary about Islamism seems highly suspect. The opinions offered at RS/N about this site in February 2017 and again in May–June 2018 are decidedly mixed. None of the users favoring the source provided evidence for its reliability. I suggest we remove this citation. Of course, unless another, more reliable, source is found to supplement the Fox source, then Ahmed's statements about Linda Sarsour should be removed per BLP policy, given that they are pretty inflammatory, and should properly be cited to multiple independent sources.

In general, sections on people's views and/or commentary seem pretty unencyclopedic – Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate collection of soundbites. Why should readers care what Ahmed thinks about Islamism and/or Israel at all? I suggest removing most, if not all, of the quotefarm-y stuff based on primary sources, and merging any analysis, interpretation, evaluation, or synthesis by independent sources into the "Literary and journalism career" section.—Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:28, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

This article is fairly short, and should definitely include Ahmed's public advocacy - as is regular with activits. Fox is definitely a WP:RS for an attributed statement by Ahmed on Fox. Icewhiz (talk) 11:36, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Where does any Wikipedia policy or guideline suggest filling out brief articles with a lot of indiscriminate quotations? What independent, reliable sources describe Ahmed as an activist? And I wasn't questioning the Fox article's reliability. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:21, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Far from indiscriminate. The Guardian describes her as a "human rights activist Qanta Ahmed" [1]. And it would seem this in-depth piece at IWF covers the Jihad/Sarsour issue a well. Icewhiz (talk) 12:34, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

"Indiscriminate" here means presented without context or explanation from independent, reliable sources. The Independent Women's Forum is a think tank with an avowed conservative bent and no reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that I can see. No way would I use this as a source for any contentious material, let alone about a liberal feminist activist like Sarsour. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:40, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

The BLP subject of this article is Ahmed, and IWF is probably a more than fine source for representing Ahmed's views. Icewhiz (talk) 13:42, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm glad you're so certain. Others may have their doubts. And BLP policy applies to any material about living persons in any article. Last I checked, Sarsour was also a living person. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:52, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

The IJR piece looks like it's from their clickbait/blogging division, not the news division, which has at least aspired to some kind of respectability (see this Business Insider profile for more on that). At the top of the page it shows the article's "votes" – not a good journalistic indicator. Jenni Fink, the author, is listed as a "starter", whatever that means. You can also check out her "votes" and her "badges" and add her as a "friend". She's said to be "not currently active" (There are almost 2,000 active "members" listed on the site) – this has all the hallmarks of a click-driven blogging platform, essentially a self-published source.

The Fox News piece is basically just a video of Ahmed's Fox & Friends appearance dressed up with a bit of Sarsour's background to make it look like actual reporting – no byline, just churnalism. This is definitely a primary source for Ahmed's accusations against Sarsour – there's no place for this in any BLP article. I've removed these refs along with the text about Sarsour. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:05, 13 December 2018 (UTC) (edited 04:33, 20 December 2018 (UTC))