Talk:Linda Sarsour/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Farrakhan controversy

Thread retitled from ""Removing WP:UNDUE info sans context"".

would @Sangdeboeuf: care to explain what this means Factchecker_atyourservice 23:57, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

It means that the content of Farrakhan's remarks are unrelated to the subject at hand. Likewise the full text of the "vaginas" tweet is presented without explanation. This isn't the place to document every controversial tweet by a political activist. Why should any reader care that Sarsour tweeted the words "A$$ whippin"? See WP:COATRACK and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:05, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

You have zero clue what you are talking about.Factchecker_atyourservice 00:07, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Factchecker_atyourservice, please explain why you believe:

• the phrase "giving a speech about 'Satanic Jews' and claiming, 'when you want something in this world, the Jew holds the door'" is necessary to understand why his remarks were seen as anti-Semitic; and
• the phrase "they '[didn't] deserve to be women,' and that Gabriel was 'asking 4 an a$$ whippin'" is necessary to understand why critics construed her tweets as apparent proof of intolerant views. KalHolmann (talk) 00:17, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Uhhhhhh for starters, reading the anti-Semitic comment helps the reader understand why it was anti-Semitic and why she was criticized for embracing Farrakhan and not condeming it; meanwhile, reading the bizarre card-check comment against Gabriel helps the reader understand why it was "controversial, deleted" and why Sarsour was criticized for saying it.

Anyway, these are not requirements for inclusion in the first place so there was no reason to remove the material. Certainly UNDUE and INDISCRIMINATE and COATRACK all provide zero support for the removal and no other policy was cited.Factchecker_atyourservice 00:28, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Factchecker_atyourservice, your response beginning "Uhhhhhh" indicates that you are impatient with my questions and perhaps patronizing towards my stupidity. In either case, I oppose restoration of the disputed content (as quoted in my bullet points above) on grounds it would violate WP:NPOV. It is enough to report that remarks were considered anti-Semitic without reproducing the anti-Semitism in all its ugliness. Likewise the misogynistic attacks. It's simply unnecessary to delve into scurrilous detail to make the point that critics have lambasted the subject of this WP:BLP. Readers whose thirst for scandalous vulgarity is not quenched by our encyclopedic overview may utilize our links to the sources, which happily provide the juicy language. KalHolmann (talk) 00:51, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Your argument lacks any basis in policy. Quote specific policy language supporting your view or there is nothing to discuss. So far, 4 policies have been name-dropped and none of them have any relevance to this dispute. Factchecker_atyourservice 01:10, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Factchecker_atyourservice, you are dismissive and condescending, writing:

• "You have zero clue what you are talking about."
• "Your argument lacks any basis in policy."

If you can muster consensus for your position with such highhanded tactics, I will be surprised. KalHolmann (talk) 01:21, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Please cite specific policy language demonstrating support for your argument. So far, 4 policies have been name-dropped and none of them have any relevance to this dispute, and no effort was made to show otherwise.

It's not so much a matter of "tactics", it's a matter of substantive content policy. We reflect things that are widely discussed by RS in connection with an article topic unless there is a policy-based reason not to. There is none here. The quotes are not lengthy. And as mentioned, without the quoted matter the reader is simply left wondering, who thought the comments were anti-Semitic, and why? what was said?

Moreover, although the comments were typical of Farrakhan, they got special attention because of the appearance of support by Sarsour, a person otherwise associated with Liberal values of tolerance and progressive views on reordering society.Factchecker_atyourservice 01:26, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

We should present the vagina tweet in full, as it is widely repeated in the context of Sarsour - perhaps her most oft repeated and analyzed saying. As for whether we should quote Farrakhan in full - I think what is important to convey is that these remarks were widely considered anti semitic.Icewhiz (talk) 05:11, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

The reaction to Farrakhan has nothing to do with Sarsour; I have seen no reliable sources that indicate any personal relationship between the two or any remarks by Sarsour addressing the controversy. The material is therefore off-topic and WP:UNDUE concerning the subject of this article. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:45, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

We reflect things that are widely discussed by RS in connection with an article topic unless there is a policy-based reason not to. That's not how things work. See WP:ONUS. -- irn (talk) 12:50, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

If widely covered - ONUS which is for items passing V, but possibly not DUE, would not apply as the wide coverage would demonstrate DUE.Icewhiz (talk) 20:52, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

@Irn: ONUS simply requires an editor adding material to demonstrate that the material should be added per WP's applicable content policies.

It is not an invitation for others to "veto" content because they just don't like it. Opposition to proposed material should be expressed in the language of applicable WP policies because there must be a policy-based reason for it. We are talking about comments for which Sarsour was specifically condemned even though she did not say them herself, and for not disassociating herself from the person who did say them, due to their anti-Semitic nature, and under the regime of reverting currently in play, the article simply teases that the comments "were seen" as anti-Semitic, which both erroneously suggests that only some people thought the comments were anti-Semitic, and leaves the reader wondering why they were seen as anti-Semitic, or why the comments generated the furor they did. Factchecker_atyourservice 19:13, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

I have edited the article to conform the disputed Farrakhan reference to our single cited source. I removed "controversy ensued" because The Atlantic does not substantiate any such "controversy," and deleted the phrase "after remarks of his that were seen as anti-Semitic." Please, let's either abide by the sole cited source or add other WP:RS to expand Sarsour's alleged support for Farrakhan's anti-Semitism. KalHolmann (talk) 19:25, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, are you saying you removed the reference to the comments entirely?Factchecker_atyourservice 19:52, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Factchecker_atyourservice, in my foregoing comment, I included the diff showing exactly what I did. Does the link not work for you? KalHolmann (talk) 19:54, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

I've reverted the edit. The text may not be perfect, but it impartially summarizes the controversy. John-Paul Pagano is an inadequate source to assert "ties" between Sarsour and Farrakhan, even with a direct quote. He does, however, directly address the controversy in his initial paragraph: "Today, [The Women's March] finds itself embroiled in an unexpected controversy after the initial refusal of several of its leaders to distance themselves from one of America’s leading anti-Semites, the Nation of Islam’s Louis Farrakhan". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:56, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

An Atlantic article is sufficient source.Icewhiz (talk) 04:03, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm glad you're so certain. Others may have their doubts. In any event, no such "ties" have been substantiated in any published source that I have seen. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:39, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

The Atlantic is a RS. This is not an opinion piece - but an article, and it explicitly says " No one, however, expected to discover that three Women’s March co-chairs—Linda Sarsour, Carmen Perez, and Tamika Mallory—had ties to Farrakhan".[1]. We have a RS saying ties (apparently based on attending events and public speaking/tweets) - QED. Per the Forward, " Linda Sarsour, had also made positive statements about Farrakhan".[2].Icewhiz (talk) 07:12, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Latin sayings won't help. You've been editing long enough to know that reliability depends on context, and we don't treat any source as gospel. In this case, the sources are suspiciously vague. What "ties"? Which "positive statements"? We need more than "apparently" per one Wikipedian's interpretation. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:25, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Multiple source discuss connections or ties between the Women's march at large, Sarsour in particular, and Farrakhan. If you want to exclude a source - you'd need to show why it is not reliable. Specifically, you are attempting to exclude a source here that RSN typically sees as highly reliable.Icewhiz (talk) 07:48, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

There are tons of other sources, both media sources and civil rights organizations, discussing this topic in connection with Sarsour. What is the argument for exclusion? A widely sourced 14-word quote is UNDUE in a 2000+ word article? Point to policy ASAP please. Factchecker_atyourservice 04:14, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Then please provide reliable, independent sources commenting on the controversy – not editorials, op-eds, or political advocacy organizations, as BLPs require more rigorous sourcing than other articles. The policy, as Irn pointed out, is WP:ONUS – it's up to those wishing to include material to gain consensus for it. See also WP:ARBBLP#Principles. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:07, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

The source already supplied is a reliable source. We are not obligated to provide numerous sources. Also, opinion sources are reliable sources. Also, the opinions of highly regarded civil rights organizations usually go into articles about people they have criticized or praised.

Without even mentioning conservative sources, Sarsour was discussed—mostly condemned front and center—by commentators and reporters in New York Times, Washington Post, ABC, CBS, CNN, Jerusalem Post, Haaretz, Times of Israel, The Atlantic, New York Magazine, Slate, Vox, Buzzfeed, Rolling Stone, Anti-Defamation League, the Simon Weisenthal Center, The Advocate, Forward, Tablet, and so on and so on and so on and so on and

Factchecker_atyourservice 15:58, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

The brief reference currently in the article is sufficient; anything more would be undue weight in a brief biography. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:43, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

One wonders how this bio will ever be longer than a brief bio when entering significantly covered events gets called UNDUE (length wise) because the bio is brief - this is not the first event in this cycle.Icewhiz (talk) 18:04, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

The onus is on you — please explain why you believe a random quote of Farrakhan's (among many zillions of quotes one could include from him) needs to be included in a biography of someone who is not Farrakhan? The quote neither mentions Sarsour nor apparently was made in context of anything Sarsour did. It's a clear attempt to make this article about something else than it really is. We don't go quoting things Donald Trump says in articles about conservative politicians just because he's said something controversial/offensive/racist/stupid and then we might be able to create some guilt by association. That's not what we're here to do. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:09, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

It's not "random". Go get a dictionary because you plainly don't understand the English words you are using. It was the specific 14 widely quoted words that Sarsour was widely blasted for in the media. DUE and ONUS are not permission to revert material you simply DONTLIKE. Factchecker_atyourservice 19:54, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Wait, so you're arguing that we should include a quote by Farrakhan because Sarsour was criticized for it? That makes literally no sense. Go edit Louis Farrakhan if you want to include criticism of a quote by Louis Farrakhan. You don't have consensus to include it here, and therefore it stays out until and unless such a consensus exists. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:52, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

You're proposing ignoring massively well-sourced and clearly DUE criticism on the ridiculous pretense that it's not about Sarsour. Silly argument is silly, goes nowhere. Factchecker_atyourservice 21:03, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

You're gonna need a consensus to add the material and you don't have the !votes. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:06, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Maybe a random aside, but this keeps popping up on my watchlist, so I've done some reading and there is a TON of criticism regarding this out there. Not specific to Sarsour always, but I wouldn't even know what articles it belongs in. Any ideas? Arkon (talk) 20:29, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

I haven't read much but my impression is that most of the articles single out one or more of the 4 organizers: Sarsour, Bland, Mallory, Perez. I got the impression that article focus seems to differ based on which ones of the 4 returned calls for comment and which ones didn't respond, but Mallory and Sarsour seemed to be featured more prominently than the others. Factchecker_atyourservice 20:42, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

The Atlantic column cited here is an opinion column, not a reported news story; that much is made clear by the entirely-opinionated final sentence: That the group refuses to be accountable for a high-level alliance with an open anti-Semite disqualifies it from ranking among today’s movements for social justice. The opinion of its author must be cited as an opinion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:54, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Just some other cites: here, here, here, here...there's more. Arkon (talk) 21:11, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

You need to actually add a couple of those cites, because right now you're citing the existence of a "controversy" to a single author's opinion column. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:11, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

You (or anyone) is welcome to do so, sorry I suck at ref formatting. Arkon (talk) 00:14, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Arkon, thanks for those references. I was aware that The Atlantic piece was not an ideal source when I added it. I was anticipating more thorough analysis in mainstream publications to come. Opinion pieces are generally not reliable sources for factual statements per WP:RS. Criticism and praise especially require reliable, secondary sources per WP:BLP. The ADL ref saying that Sarsour made a "glowing" Facebook post is definitely WP:UNDUE – if her Facebook activity is relevant, then there should be reliable, independent sources commenting on it. The absence of such coverage is a definite WP:REDFLAG that the material is out of proportion to its real-world importance. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:56, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Welcome on the refs! I think the ADL thing might be worthy of it's own section honestly, as I generally would treat it similar to the SPLC which would fit in there either way in a similar situation. No strong opinion though. Arkon (talk) 01:17, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what's being suggested here – an entire section on one ADL criticism of a single Facebook post? As noted above, criticism and praise require reliable, secondary sources. The ADL is a primary source for its own statements. – see WP:BLPSTYLE. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:27, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh sorry, no I mean a talk section regarding inclusion of that text. Seems separate from this discussion. Arkon (talk) 01:29, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Tamika Mallory is probably the one most tied to Farrakhan, with Linda Sarsour and Perez coming second. Bland is usually inserted into the mix due to responding. These ties aren't new, they've been commented in the past, e.g. during 2017 - [3] [4] [5]. As for secondary coverage of the ADL's stmt regarding Sarsour - I added some - and there is plenty more coverage mention the trio - ADL, Farrakhan, and Sarsour.Icewhiz (talk) 05:45, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Update

Re-reading the above discussion, this seems to be a largely manufactured "controversy" on the part of various commentators, and the quality of the sources doesn't suggest that it's a relevant issue for an encylopedic bio. The Atlantic is after all an editorial magazine, not "hard" news, and John-Paul Pagano's essay is basically an opinion piece.

Other suggested sources, including The Forward, Jezebel, Tablet, and Bari Weiss in the Times (op-ed) are similar, and none substantiate any "ties" between Sarsour and Farrakhan. The most substantial coverage I could find relating to Sarsour is this article in The Forward (again, basically an opinion essay) that says Sarsour posted a Facebook video of her speaking at an 2015 rally with Farrakhan, described as "a pageant for Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam" (via Charles Blow in the Times).

Crucially, I haven't found any follow-up analysis from any reliable, secondary sources (in BLP terms) for either the "controversy" or Jonathan Greenblatt's tweeted response to Sarsour. An encyclopedic bio needn't document every tweet about somebody that makes the news, and I doubt that ten years from now this issue will seem relevant. The article already covers other accusations of anti-Semitism against Sarsour in detail; the suggestion of guilt by association in the Farrakhan case (by "several commentators") doesn't add anything of value. I would suggest omitting the Farrakhan issue entirely pending more in-depth sourcing. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:33, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh - Farrakhan / Sarsour is definitely relevant- even a cursory BEFORE of news items shows this been covered more in more than 300 distinct google-news items (and google combines coverage from around the same date on the same topic). It is also clearly a topic of continuing coverage - e.g. "But all too soon, the Women’s March broke my heart. Its leaders, Tamika Mallory and Linda Sarsour, famously refused to repudiate known anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan after he made horrifically anti-Semitic remarks at an event that Mallory proudly attended. ..... This is a straw man argument, cynically deployed to protect Mallory and Sarsour from what Jews are actually upset about: The anti-Semitism of their affiliation with Farrakhan, the whiff of anti-Semitism one gets when people deny that Israel has always been the homeland of the Jews, and the outright racism of accusing seven million Jews of being thieves and murderers."[6] or Women's March Leader Linda Sarsour Tries to Call Out Anti-Semitism While She Openly Supports Louis Farrakhan, or [7].Icewhiz (talk) 08:26, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree Sangdeboeuf. A different set of WP standards is being used to edit this article compared to one of a woman who is not a Muslim. By its very nature an article such as this one tends to draw biased editors. Gandydancer (talk) 15:32, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I've started an RfC (below) to seek more input on the issue. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:01, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

References

Request for comment

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is clearly a consensus to exclude. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 10:32, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

---

Should the following be included or excluded from the article?

In March 2018, several commentators argued that Sarsour and other Women's March leaders had failed to disassociate themselves from Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan after he made anti-Semitic remarks during a speech. Jonathan Greenblatt, the CEO of the Anti-Defamation League, wrote that Sarsour's "most notable" response to Farrakhan's remarks was to praise his youthfulness on Facebook.

—Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:01, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

• Exclude. This is evidently a tempest in a teapot; if this material is relevant anywhere, it's at the 2017 Women's March article. Our bio of Sarsour already covers various allegations of anti-Semitism against Sarsour herself in detail. An encylopedic bio need not document every instance of such criticism per WP: NOTNEWS and WP:PROPORTION, especially where Sarsour is a peripheral figure to the controversy. I doubt that ten years from now the issue of one-off tweets from Sarsour's critics on whether or not she sufficiently dissociated herself in this case will seem relevant.

  I haven't seen any follow-up analysis from any reliable, secondary sources about the vague "ties" between Sarsour and Farrakhan that John-Paul Pagano and others are alleging. The Atlantic is after all an editorial magazine, not "hard" news, and Pagano's essay is essentially an opinion piece. Other suggested sources, such as The Forward, Jezebel, Yair Rosenberg in Tablet, Bari Weiss in the Times, and (recently) Commentary, Independent Journal Review, and Hen Mazzig in Tablet are likewise all opinion sources and not reliable for factual claims. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:16, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

• Exclude If anything, based on the sourcing, a brief mention could be added to the Women's March article. It doesn't seem Sarsour is the central figure of the media coverage about this.Seraphim System ^(talk) 01:19, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude per "Attributing and specifying biased statements". It is very important who made the criticism. See George Orwell's rule 4: "Never use the passive where you can use the active."[8] Some people say the world is flat. That statement has no use unless we say who they are. TFD (talk) 05:42, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
• Include - even a cursory before shows that the Sarsour/Farrakhan angle is widely criticized since circa March - hundreds of news items from March to present. The wording of the section might be due for an update given coverage since its introduction, but it is clearly a relevant topic for Sarsour.Icewhiz (talk) 05:53, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude - UNDUE and basically parroting far-right propaganda.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:19, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude. I read the whole article before reading this RFC and it struck me that this bit stood out as trivial and inconclusive as it exists. Unless more of a point can be demonstrated on this bit I agree that it reads like a "tempest in a teapot". Also, there's enough else in the article to show how some people try to malign Sarsour. Jzsj (talk) 19:34, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude as a report of a non-tempest: the commentators appear to be commenting about the ABSENCE of any responsive tempest from Sarsour. --Dervorguilla (talk) 00:52, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
• Include these aren't just side comments or noteworthy because of no action. This is notable and newsworthy and has been in the news and reported and very relevant to this page. We should not censor Wikipedia just to publish a progressive viewpoint. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:49, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Opinion essays and op-eds do not have the same editorial oversight as news reporting from reliable outlets. That's why we don't use them as sources for factual claims, especially on BLPs. Where are the reliable, mainstream news outlets reporting on this issue? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:26, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude Undue and I agree with VM Gandydancer (talk) 04:08, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
• Include - the existing mentions seem sufficient and possibly DUE a bit more. I google for her and the March and get 92 thousand hits -- I google for her and Farrakhan and get 19 thousand -- seems over a fifth of mentions of her and/or the March mention the Farrakhan topic, so it was a very prominent commentary within the March mentions of her and so should be noted, offset a bit that it is more an issue of the March that she is closely tied to rather than solely about her actions. The existence of the complaint is well-established by RS and comes from both left and right sides. Looking down the first page or two of google, I see...
  • The Atlantic The Women's March Has a Farrakhan Problem
  • Slate Embracing Farrakhan Betrays The Most Essential Principles of The Women’s March
  • National Review The New Left Trumps the Old Right
  • Washingon Post The anti-Semite who’s haunting the left
  • Vox Why Women’s March leaders are being accused of anti-Semitism
  • Washington Times Women's March under fire over links to Nation of Islam's Louis Farrakhan, anti-Semitism
  • NY Post Women’s March members bail over ties to Farrakhan
  • CBS Women's March leader Tamika Mallory defends relationship with Farrakhan (only passing mention of Sarsour, mostly to say she has praised Assata Shakur, a convicted murderer and would-be revolutionary)
• Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:59, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Once again, these are opinion sources, tabloids (NY Post) or not about Sarsour. The number of "hits" doesn't determine our content; Wikpedia is not an indiscriminate collection of random trivia. We need sources that we would actually include in the article. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:18, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
    • Washington Post, CBS, etcetera are NOT tabloids. If you want more there are plenty in a simple google -- the criticized groups seem to have substantial (adl.org, jpost, haaretz; arabamerica; gaystarnews), and many others on all sides note the issue exists with her involved - Politifact, FoxNews, LA Times, NY daily, RollingStone, Breitbart, TheFederalist, SFgate, Snopes, Dailybeast, ... it is widely noted and a large percentage of mentions of her and the march also mention this criticism. And the question here is WP:DUE "represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." The topics of WP:INDISCRIMINATE i.e. NOTSTATS, NOTLYRICS, NOTRELEASENOTES seem not relevant -- this is not a sport, song, or software item. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:24, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
      • That's correct: "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources". As already stated, Sarsour is mentioned only in passing in the majority of sources, including The Washington Post (opinion) and CBS (which doesn't mention the Sarsour-Farrakhan connection at all). As WP:INDISCRIMINATE states, "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia" (the examples given are not meant to be exhaustive). And BLP policy specifically cautions against claims that imply guilt by association such as these. Our subjects are human beings and deserve to be treated fairly, not subjected to thinly sourced rumor (which is also policy). —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:32, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
• Include (Summoned by bot) Relevant, well-sourced and worthy of inclusion. Coretheapple (talk) 15:54, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude. Appears to be a manufactured issue and wikipedia isn't the place for this. Seanbonner (talk) 05:38, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude. The cited sources aren't about Sarsour. They're about the march, and only mention Sarsour in connection with the other leaders. The content belongs at 2017 Women's March, not here. I don't see any justification for why this one particular aspect of the march should belong here, while so many of the other (more positive) aspects of the march do not. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:27, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude At this point, with much more serious allegations of anti-semitism directly against this subject that are already documented in this article, such an indirect accusation is pretty much WP:MILL. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  04:34, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude. A tempest in a teapot, if it belongs anywhere it would be on the 'March' page. Not so much guilt by association, as guilt by failure to dis-associate to some people's satisfaction. Many of the sources given above don't even mention Sarsour in passing, let alone in depth. Pincrete (talk) 15:23, 17 July 2018 (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.

One-state solution in lead

@Sangdeboeuf: What is so controversial to you about " in which Israelis and Palestinians coexist"? It is mentioned elsewhere in the article. Having this piece of information in the lead simply clarifies what she thinks is a "one-state solution". Others think a "one-state solution" means the annihilation of the other party. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:21, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

I take issue with this Makeandtoss. It's asserting how something would look in a hypothetical future on a page not about that -- something we shouldn't do. Furthermore, experts disagree on what a one-state solution would likely look like and if we assert one thing about it for NPOV we would have to mention the entire debate -- hopefully if it did occur there would be coexistence, but on the other hand the "Rwanda solution" as some call it has risks as we are talking about getting two peoples that have been hating and killing each other for decades to agree on how shared governance should look (Yugoslavia presents a case of how a shared state originally proclaiming "brotherhood and unity" between different ethnic groups that mostly didn't previously have a history of murdering each other and did have a shared language -- Serbo-Croatian -- nevertheless devolved into attempts at genocide). We shouldn't assert anything either way, good or bad, about what such a solution should look like on a page like this that isn't about it. --Calthinus (talk) 14:15, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

We're not asserting anything, we're reflecting what Sarsour herself said - "I do believe that Israel has the right to exist,” says Sarsour. “I mean I wouldn't want — I mean where are they gonna go? That's why I want a one-state solution. I think we can all live together in one state with peace and justice and equality for all." Her stated position is for a single state with peaceful coexistence. It's not up to you to decide whether that's right or wrong or possible or whatever. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:38, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not deciding whether it's right or wrong (I personally have no idea what would happen in such a future), I"m saying we shouldn't decide it's right. NorthBySouthBaranof at the same time I thought about it and realized if we don't include that she supports the "peaceful coexistence" goal of the 1ss (not the Hamas version) she could sound like Hamas which is obv quite NPOV. I added "would theoretically" -- hopefully this addresses both issues? --Calthinus (talk) 14:40, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

No. It's entirely objectionable because it appears nowhere in any source and is entirely prohibited original research. You don't get to decide what is and isn't "theoretical." The source quote exists and you may not modify Sarsour's statements because you personally don't believe it's realistic, I guess? If we're going to put this in the lede, it's not for us to muck about with her quotes and statements. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:42, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranof, WP:AGF please don't assert what you think my personal views are, especially when I just explicitly stated I don't know and don't take any position on whether it's realistic (seriously, it's a really tough issue and it depends on so many things) -- quit strawmanning me, please. And I don't think Wikipedia should either -- WP:NPOV on a very controversial issue. Perhaps this shouldn't be in the lede at all, after all she did also support the 2ss on one occasion.--Calthinus (talk) 14:45, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Also, the current wording has become even more problematic: ..and Jewish groups for her outspoken stance on Israel, including her support for the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement and a one-state solution to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in which Israelis and Palestinians coexist "with peace and justice and equality for all." -- this could be read to make it sound like Jewish groups oppose peace and justice and equality for all, which is pretty hurtful. That is not the issue they take with her, and it should not be included in the things they take issues with. It can be separately discussed if we are talking about her views in isolation.--Calthinus (talk) 14:54, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

This issue is being blown out of proportion. A "one-state solution" needs clarification, is it a Hamas one-state solution? Simply have a short quote about what she thinks is a one-state solution in the lead and voila! Makeandtoss (talk) 16:14, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

With Sangdeboeuf's recent edit, I'm fine with the current version. --Calthinus (talk) 16:34, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

I split the statement to make it clearer, but I'm not sure why Sarsour's idea for fixing the Israel–Palestine conflict even needs to be in the lead section. No one is expecting Sarsour herself to solve the crisis, independent sources that I've seen barely comment on her views about it, and it's certainly not what her critics get so exercised about. It seems unduly weighted to me. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:20, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

I would support removing it from the lede.--Calthinus (talk) 17:49, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

A "one state solution" in this context means an end to the Jewish state of Israel - which is why most Jews (as well as others) oppose it - her stmts on this matter were not favorably received, to say the least.Icewhiz (talk) 18:26, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

By all the usual suspects, no doubt. But we need more than the predictable shrieking of well-paid outrage peddlers to show that it's a noteworthy part of her biography. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:29, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Whoa, whoa, slow down there. The Anti-Defamation League is among the groups that have criticized her views on the 1ss and BDS. Are you saying J Greenblatt is a well-paid outrage peddler? I strongly suggest you revise that statement.--Calthinus (talk) 21:44, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

I was not referring to BDS, but to the comment about "an end to the Jewish state of Israel". If you have a reliable source connecting the ADL to the issue, by all means let's have it. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:01, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Oh - that's a pretty mainstream view in regards to the ramification of a one-state solution (with "right of return" on top of it). Here's a source that was but a google search away - She has endorsed the movement to boycott Israel and has come out in support for a one-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict – a position that critics of that prospect say equals the end of Israel’s existence as a Jewish state.[9][10].Icewhiz (talk) 22:08, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, the view Icewhiz stated could have come from the ADL handbook [[11]]. The view is shared by left-wing J Street. So, Sangdeboeuf, did you just say the ADL were well-paid outrage peddlers? --Calthinus (talk) 22:11, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

I can see that all it takes to get somebody to provide an actual reliable source is to make a scandalous remark. I shall have to remember that. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:42, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Edit request

Now that the RfC under § Farrakhan controversy above has been closed for over two days now with a result to exclude, would somebody kindly remove the text in question from the article? Not sure whether that would fall under WP:1RR, so I've held off on doing it myself. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:13, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Maybe an uninvolved admin such as Bishonen, Drmies, or Vanamonde93 would care to look into it? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:35, 22 July 2018 (UTC)  Done by Vanamonde93. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:48, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

"Far-left" Jewish groups

@NorthBySouthBaranof: - the cited source clearly says - She has for several years worked closely with groups on the far-left edge of the Jewish community, like Jewish Voice for Peace and Jews for Racial & Economic Justice. Because Sarsour is an outspoken critic of Israel and backs boycotts, divestment and sanctions, mainstream Jewish groups have long held her at arms’ length.[12] - a description that amply fits JVP (a group that has run an ad campaign seen as anti-semitic [13]). Calling these fringe groups - "left-wing Jewish groups" - is highly misleading, and POVish.Icewhiz (talk) 21:13, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

And a ten word fragment (which is mainly common phrases) - revert per copyvio - is not a copyvio - though we could attribute it.Icewhiz (talk) 21:16, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

The phrasing is unusual, combining "far-left edge" with "Jewish community" in a way not normally seen. That's a creative combination of words of the type that's protected by copyright. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:26, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Not so creative in regards to radical left wing Jewish groups - however we could paraphrase to - radical left wing Jewish groups.Icewhiz (talk) 22:00, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Not only is the phrasing unique, the report is dated. Editors can't have it both ways: either this is a biography that takes a long-term view of its subject or it's a breathless summary of news reports written in the present tense. By the latter standard -- which most editors seem to favor -- a source from January 2017 is ancient and should be identified as such, not cited as if it was published last week. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:50, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Well it happens to be the cited source for the statement "left-wing". Are you suggesting then, that we remove it entirely? That seems to be the natural conclusion of what you're saying. --Calthinus (talk) 21:54, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

No, the natural conclusion of what I wrote is that the majority of editors are morons. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. But since you've made your choice clear, I added a date to the source in the text. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:57, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Calling JVP left-wing..... Is misleading. JVP is on the fringes of the American Jewish community - to the extent that much of the community repudiates JVP. JVP's political position hasn't changed since 2017 - they have been fairly constant since their founding.Icewhiz (talk) 22:00, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

If this wording is verbatim from the source it should be revised but one source about "ADL slams pro-bds group's anti-semitic new campaign" from Haaretz is probably not enough to label them as fringe groups though—is it necessary to label them? We could just name a couple of examples like JVP.Seraphim System ^(talk) 22:05, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Are the two of you as clueless in real life as you act on Wikipedia? Look at the article's history, look at the change I made, stop arguing with a straw man, and stop writing in the present tense when you're citing out-dated sources. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:10, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

@MShabazz: "the two of you"? I haven't raised any objections to your edit and my question was an honest one.--Calthinus (talk) 22:18, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

@MShabazz: I for one would like to see the WP:RECENTIST fluff cut from the article entirely. But since my attempts to do so in the past were mostly stonewalled, I gave up. If you have any suggestions for improvement I'm all ears. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:13, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Enough of clue to notice that for some reason we're trying to stress in our article involvement and endorsement with Jewish groups and figures - all this while Sarsour is at odds with most American Jewish groups. Perhaps if we weren't trying to portray her alliances with the Jewish pro-BDS radical left fringe as something mainstream, we wouldn't have to label this group. As for RECENTISM - I seem to recall that covering her views (and marriage) on arranged marriages were seen as dated or UNDUE.Icewhiz (talk) 22:17, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, but the label of some unnamed groups as mainstream jewish organizations should be removed, unless there is much stronger sourcing than one article. I'm not saying that what Icewhiz is saying isn't true—but it is insufficiently sourced. Does the source actually say "mainstream"? Seraphim System ^(talk) 22:27, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

We currently have mainstream attributed to Haaretz. But there should be no problem in finding additional sources. The ADL is more or less the definition of mainstream Jewish and they've spoken up, as have other groups.Icewhiz (talk) 22:31, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't think thats enough to attatch a label - none of the things you have mentioned seem FRINGE. It's the implying that one is mainstream and the other is not that needs to be justified by strong sources. I think sources supporting you characterization of FRINGE is needed, not only showing that ADL is "mainstream", but the implied contrast.Seraphim System ^(talk) 22:38, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: Sarsour's views on marriage are not germane to her notability, and not mentioned by any of the national-level sources about her. Therefore WP:UNDUE. I may have implied before that it was a question of timeliness; if so, that was an error. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:33, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

I've restored the NPOV inline tag; scholarly sources tend to define Jewish Voice for Peace simply as "left-wing", not "far-left"; see e.g. The New Jewish Leaders: Reshaping the American Jewish Landscape (2011, p. ??), Trouble in the Tribe: The American Jewish Conflict over Israel (2016, (p. 2), and Contemporary Israel: New Insights and Scholarship (2016, p. 250). —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:59, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

These are actually irrelevant. By definition far-left is a subset of left. You would need to find a source refuting that they are far-left. Or, let the sentence be removed as it is out of place in the section to begin with and looks a bit like it's placed there to make a WP:POINT.--Calthinus (talk) 17:04, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

On the other hand, I would be fine with describing them as "activist", which indeed is one way they describe themselves. --Calthinus (talk) 17:46, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Due weight requires that we reflect the predominant views of reliable, published sources. Such sources don't tend to describe JVP as simply "activist", as though political activism in the Israel–Palestine area is ever neutral. The "point" here, according to Haaretz, is that Sarsour has been involved with left/progressive Jewish groups more than mainstream/centrist ones, which is consistent with her BDS advocacy and opposition to Donald Trump. We don't have to use the term "far-left", but the overall leftward tilt of Sarsour's activism is certainly relevant. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:05, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes but it compounds the existing problem the page has elsewhere with conflation of left = agree with Sarsour on Israel, and that disagree with sarsour = "right-wing" or "pro-Israel". Other left-wing groups like J Street have defended her right to speak but stated their difference with her over Israel-- articles you've cited also say things, some of which we've already discussed, which discuss how many Jews on the left choose to work with Sarsour on domestic issues they agree with her on, while disagreeing with her on her views for a solution to the I/P issue -- indeed one has the guy quoting Ben-Gurion to justify this.--Calthinus (talk) 18:18, 25 July 2018 (UTC)