Talk:Linda Sarsour/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

CUNY speech controversy

Regarding this edit, the New York Times article about the CUNY speech protests says:

[P]rotesters 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 [...] The controversy over Ms. Sarsour’s appearance is the latest dispute in a heated national dialogue over free speech on university campuses [...] This time, conservatives are leading the charge against Ms. Sarsour [...] Her critics are a strange mix, including right-leaning Jews and Zionists, commentators like Pamela Geller, and some members of the alt-right.

To me this is pretty clear in placing members of the alt-right at the rally. However, the text was intended simply to attribute a general attitude of protest over the speech; maybe it would be clearer to say that the above were "protesting Sarsour's CUNY speech" instead of "protesting Sarsour's speech at CUNY". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:08, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

UNDUE. Guilt by association. Your version of the article tries to create the impression that only "conservatives" and Far Right figures have had the temerity to criticize Sarsour. Liberals, secularists, atheists, the ADL, have all criticized Sarsour's positions (be it on Sharia, women's rights, or Israel-Palestine). Your editing on this article is clearly tendentious. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 23:13, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Then please suggest some reliable sources to back up the assertion that "Liberals, secularists, [and] atheists" have criticized Sarsour. Also, we already mention criticism from leaders of the Anti-Defamation League. Per the source in question in this edit,

Sarsour is also a figure loathed by conservatives, in large part for her support for the movement to boycott, divest from and sanction Israel, which some see as inherently anti-Semitic. Although she has said she wants to see Israelis and Palestinians coexist, many on the right do not trust her. Now, they are mounting a furious campaign to prevent her from speaking [...] The heated exchange [at Dartmouth] was recorded by CAMERA on Campus and subsequently disseminated on social media [...] Right-leaning outlets quickly seized on the exchange.

The criticism of Sarsour is clearly framed as coming from the right, in this and many other sources used in the article, and it's neither undue weight nor weasel wording to say so. I propose restoring the original wording. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:29, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

No need to clutter up this talk page. We can click on the article. Which also lists criticism from The Algemeiner, The ForwardItalic text, and yes, the ADL. None of which are conservative or Alt Right. I could just as easily use this article as a source (http://forward.com/scribe/374617/linda-sarsour-lgbtq/) and say "this source clearly frames Sarsour as anti-LGBT". It would be unbalanced to do so.

Stop playing games. Any neutral observer can see that you are going your best to remove any negative information from this page. And what you've been forced to keep, you're trying to mischaracterize as "conservative" and/or "Alt Right". Leave it. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 23:39, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Once again, attributing criticism to "conservative" and "alt-right" commentators is well-backed-up by sources — see the NYT quote above re: "conservatives are leading the charge", "right-leaning Jews and Zionists", "members of the alt-right", etc. It's an editor's interpretation that Algemeiner Journal and The Forward are not conservative sources. But we don't base content on editors' interpretations or opinions. We summarize what reliable sources say — if The New York Times and Newsweek (among others) say that conservatives have criticized Sarsour, then it would violate NPOV to leave that out while vaguely alluding to generalized "criticism". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:56, 3 August 2017 (UTC)~

The article you link to, The Forward, categorizes the magazine's political alignment as "progressive." In particular this link calls it secular and, at least at its founding, leftist, with no indication that its politics have moved to the right. The ADL has opposed McCarthyism, and supported SSM and gun control. You can call that being left-wing an "opinion," but that's really stretching the definition of "opinion."

I agree that throwing "alt-right" into the mix is guilt by association. We might add to vegetarianism that the most famous adherent to a largely plant-based diet was Hitler, or add to Antifaschistische Aktion that the most fervent anti-fascist was Stalin. We might point out that the most prominent organization founded post-Civil War northerners was the NRA, while the most prominent organization founded by southerners at the time was the KKK. There's a reason we don't; such associations are attempts to defame organizations and viewpoints, not to inform the public about them. At this point, "alt-right" is primarily a slur by which Sarsour has attempted to delegitimize her opponents, and mimicking this rhetoric here would violate WP:UNDUE, WP:BLP, and WP:NPOV. Calbaer (talk) 00:50, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I think there's some confusion here over what we base articles on. It doesn't matter if Sarsour has called her opponents "alt-right"; reliable sources clearly state that criticism has come from the alt-right. If that's guilt by association, then you have to make an argument that the New York Times is falsely impugning Sarsour's opponents. It also doesn't matter what the editorial stance of The Forward is. We can't interpret it to say, "Liberal magazine The Forward was critical of Sarsour" unless a reliable source comments on it. We stick to reliable sources, and so far the preponderance of reliable sources emphasize conservative criticism of Sarsour. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:13, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

There's no confusion. I never advocated the use of unreliable sources. But you yourself have argued that information appearing in a reliable source (i.e., coverage of Courtney Love's criticism by the Jerusalem Post) isn't sufficient to include that information in the article, because it is "not relevant to a general-interest biography." I'm saying the same is true of lumping in alt-right opinions into those against her speaking at CUNY, e.g., those of the state assemblyman or Holocaust survivors. The alt-right might be relevant to the Tapper comment, since it contextualizes it, but mentioning them in criticism of a speech where the vast majority of critics were in the mainstream gives them undue weight.

On a side note, it also seems odd for the article to parrot NYT's claim that her defenders include "some prominent progressives and liberal Jewish groups," the words being the same and only the order switched. None of these groups and only one prominent progressive is named in the article. That claim should either go in quotes or be replaced by mention of the Brooklyn city councilman quoted as being a Jewish supporter, along with any other supporters that might be mentioned by reliable sources. (I'll note too that the NYT uses the weasel word "some" both in describing alt-right critics and Jewish defenders. Vague and unsubstantiated statements are not the best examples of parts of the NYT article to include. Specific statements are.) Calbaer (talk) 03:27, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I disagree that criticism from the alt-right is not pertinent here. Other sources mention her being "harrassed by members of the far right" (Newsweek) and "criticism from some right-wing speakers and pundits, including Milo Yiannopoulos" (Time). In any event, the New York Times mentions her alt-right critics in the same sentence as "right-leaning Jews and Zionists (and) commentators like Pamela Geller", and specifically mentions "alt-right" imagery at the CUNY demonstration. Alt-right figure Milo Yiannopoulos is shown speaking there as well. So what is your source for the assertion that the "vast majority" of her critics here were of the mainstream? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:47, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

* Replacing the "Jewish groups" defending Sarsour with "two Brooklyn rabbis" is not true to the sources used in the article. They state that "liberal Jewish groups" (The New York Times) and "some Jewish leaders" (Time) defended Sarsour's​ right to speak at CUNY. The Daily News op-ed linked to in the Time article is by two rabbis, but we aren't using that as a source. Once again, we summarize sources without going beyond what they say. WP:WEASEL doesn't apply when sources themselves are vague, and we shouldn't use original research to conclude that the op-ed authors are the only ones being referred to here. I strongly suggest using the more general wording. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:05, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

As WP:BLP states, "the burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores material." Lack of a name of a group is lack of evidence, and grounds for omitting such questionable information. Only the aforementioned op-ed and politician are given in the reliable sources offered; no groups are named. Specific people and groups should be mentioned, be it Yiannopoulos, Gellar, the rabbis, or the politicians. Otherwise any critical reader is going to notice a glaring gap, the type that erodes trust in Wikipedia. A narrative of "alt-right attacks, Jewish groups defend" is convenient for the subject matter's purposes, but Wikipedia is about presenting facts, not narratives for the benefit of its subjects. Weasel words indicate a narrative. Until there's a reliable source - or any source, for that matter - of a single Jewish group doing the things mentioned here, we should not say that there are "some." Calbaer (talk) 23:07, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

* I've opened a discussion at the NPOV noticeboard to clarify this and other issues raised in this section. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:34, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

By original wording, if you mean the claim that members of the alt-right took part in the protest, restoring it would certainly be inappropriate since it's not supported by the source. Scaleshombre (talk) 00:15, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

See my alternative proposed wording above ("protesting Sarsour's CUNY speech"). —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:24, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Depends on the point you're trying to clarify. I think (correct me if I'm wrong) you're concerned readers might not understand that the demonstration both happened at CUNY, and it was a protest about her CUNY speech. The other salient point might be that the protest happened a week prior to her speech. Maybe that could be worked into the sentence. Scaleshombre (talk) 00:41, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I was mostly referring to the fact that various figures were protesting, both in print and at the rally, the fact that the speech was happening. Maybe a poor choice of words. I'd be fine with mentioning the rally happening a week before. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:18, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Many figures right of center, as well as Jews of all stripes (with some far left exceptions) objected to Sarsour. Members of the so called alt right also joined in, but there is little reason to focus on them as the objection here was much wider. Finally, it would be pertinent if Sangdeboeuf were to divulge any COI if it exists here, considering the extent of attempts to remove well sourced information.Icewhiz (talk) 04:54, 5 August 2017 (UTC) Retracted as not appropriate forum.Icewhiz (talk) 11:20, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Making an accusation of a COI against an editor on a talk page is a prohibited personal attack and you need to retract it. If you have evidence of a editor having a COI, you need to present that evidence at WP:ANI or the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard. Otherwise, comment on content, not contributors. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:05, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

We go with what RS say, so if RS have said "largely conservative or alt-right" so do we. Also it does not matter if "the most left wing source I can think of because I have defined it as left wrong" says she is anything, unless they are talking about the CuNY speech.Slatersteven (talk) 09:31, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

* What exactly is the rationale for removing all mention of Milo Yiannopoulos and Pamela Geller from this section, as was done here? Both are mentioned prominently in the NYT article, which extensively quotes Yiannapoulous, showing a photo of him at the anti-Sarsour rally. The overriding theme in reliable sources here is the partisan nature of the objections to the speech. I suggest restoring the removed text. Without it, the rest of the paragraph doesn't make much sense. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:37, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Also, how is the following sentence "disparaging" – "The university chancellor, dean of the college, and a group of professors defended her right to speak, as did some Jewish groups"? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:58, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Possibly so in relation to the unspecified and unsourced (beyond the two rabbies) Jewish groups.Icewhiz (talk) 18:04, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

That doesn't explain what's "disparaging" about it. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:18, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Hopefully this edit clears up the role played by the "alt-right" in the controversy. To wit:

Among those critical of the choice of Sarsour as speaker were conservative commentators Milo Yiannopoulos and Pamela Geller, along with members of the white nationalist alt-right movement.

—Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:43, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Placing emphasis on naming Milo and Geller is WP:UNDUE. Yes - it is verifiable they protested against Sarsour. However it is also verifiable a host of other people protested, talked, wrote, published, etc. against Sarsour. Mentioning Milo&Geller, who didn't receive all that wide coverage in relation to other critics - for instance Emily Shire who received much more coverage and in-depth treatment, or even Qanta Ahmed (who is an expert on the subject matter) - is an attempt to affect the balance of the article by implying that Sarsour's critics are primarily far-right, which is far from the case.Icewhiz (talk) 07:52, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

By that logic we should also omit mention of Hikind, Tapper and the ADL from the article for lack of coverage and/or notability, right? But in fact there are plenty of sources (both news and opinion) covering the Milo/Geller imbroglio, notably Time magazine. Others include The Daily Beast, The Forward The Forward (again), Jezebel, Gothamist, Mondoweiss, Mondoweiss (again), Middle East Eye, another piece in The Forward, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, Mic, and the New York Daily News The "host of other people" critical of Sarsour are irrelevant for the purposes of WP:BLP. What matters is secondary coverage of the criticism. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:01, 26 August 2017 (UTC) (updated 04:10, 28 August 2017 (UTC) to include The Daily Beast)

And as I mentioned above, Yiannapoulous is featured prominently in the NYT article. It would in fact be WP:UNDUE to omit mention of him here, based on that source alone. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:20, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

You do realize, I presume, that we would have to place some of Milo's and Geller's actual stmts if we merit their inclusion as critics.Icewhiz (talk) 09:24, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Based on what policy? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:32, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

I am sure we could find a few policy items on this, including BLP issues regarding them. However, the basic point is that if you deem them notable regarding Sarsour (based on all coverage of them in relation to Sarsour), then their stmts would be notable as well.Icewhiz (talk) 09:41, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's a non-sequitur. Milo's and Geller's verbatim statements do not necessarily belong unless there is significant coverage of them and they are not in violation of WP:BLP. That's what "due weight" means. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:52, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

The coverage includes their stmts, the same grounds for asserting their notability as participants apply to their stmts. Regarding BLP policy, other BLPs do not have to follow wiki policy, we as editors do, and we would need of course to attribute them to Milo and Geller. While I think we should keep these two out of the article, if they go in then so should their stmts.Icewhiz (talk) 10:18, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Then by all means, propose a draft of the text you want included, preferably using only the most reliable sources. But just to be clear, there is no principle of Wikipedia that says we must include any content. Consensus can always decide that a given statement does not improve an article and should be omitted. In this case, grossly offensive statements about Sarsour, even properly attributed, are unlikely to meeet BLP standards. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:09, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Attributed statements may be placed on BLPs, particularly if we think the people who said them are of note and if the statements are of note (for instance - you might look at David Duke and statements there). Again - I prefer to leave this out all together - I don't think Milo and Geller organizing a small protest is of great note here, you seem to differ. However the most widely quoted statements from these protests were: "Linda Sarsour is a Sharia-loving, terrorist-embracing, Jew-hating, ticking time bomb of progressive horror" for Milo (per [1][2][3][4] amongst others) and “a pro-terror, vicious anti-Semite.” for Geller (per: [5][6][7][8][9][10][11]).Icewhiz (talk) 11:28, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

So then Milo and Geller are out[12] while Democratic assemblyman Hikind and his unnamed Holocaust survivors are in?[13] This looks like definite POV-pushing. In the sources we cite in the article, Milo himself gets as much coverage, if not more. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:57, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

The above quotes are exactly what I meant by "unlikely to meet BLP standards". Per WP:BLP, "it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered". I don't see any encyclopedic need to repeat Milo and Geller's actual words, since they are merely slander that doesn't address any specific controversy. What is pertinent to the mission of the encyclopedia is that Milo and Geller were both involved, as reflected in the secondary-source coverage. I suggest at least a brief mention of them for the sake of a balanced picture. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:25, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

You are the only one here who thinks Milo and Geller should be in. Hinkind organized the wider anti-CUNY activities (which also lead to the small protest Milo and Geller were in). Milo and Geller's statement are not particularly slanderous (all be it harsh in tone) - if they were made by a more notable figure (who doesn't routinely attack many liberal figures in such words) - we would certainly include them. To a certain extent - "it isn't news" that the right edges of conservatism are opposed to Sarsour - when she's garnered so much heat from mainstream conservatives, center-left liberals, and Jews (of all stripes, with the exception of anti-Israel orgs like JVP). If Milo and Geller are in - so are their statements, you can't have it both ways.Icewhiz (talk) 04:53, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: and you are the only one insisting that we quote Milo's and Geller's grossly degrading remarks, which I believe are a strong BLP violation. Rather than inserting them against consensus, it would be more productive to seek other users' opinions and make a policy-based argument for inclusion, per WP:ONUS. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:20, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

@Sangdeboeuf: you are the only one who supports inclusion of Milo and Geller at all (in conjunction with other edits describing opposition to Sarsour as "conservative", "nationalist", or "alt-right" - on which other editors have chimed in). I, and from my understanding other editors, don't think they should be in at all. However if their objections to Sarsour are deemed notable (which I believe is not notable) - the grounds for said objections should be described as they describe them (either as a direct quote, or as a paraphrase).Icewhiz (talk) 07:27, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Note that non-Wiki public figures are not bound by Wiki BLP policy, and that such quotes (when significant) are used on-wiki with attribution. Had Trump, Obama, the SPLC, or other notable people/orgs referred (and amply covered) to Sarsour with the same or similar stmts - it would definitely be in. The grounds to exclude Milo and Geller is that their views, and framing/wording/tone, are to a certain extent ROUTINE (per all similar figures) and that they themselves are fairly FRINGE - however such exclusion applies to mention of them as well as the quote.Icewhiz (talk) 07:35, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

The argument that Milo and Geller's opposition is "routine" and therefore not suitable to describe here is, frankly, nonsensical. However, rather than dragging out this discussion, I've started an RfC below to address the dispute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sangdeboeuf (talk • contribs) 00:23, 5 October 2017 (ITC) (UTC)

References

Brian Boshell sentencing

Thread retitled from "Boshell and WP:SYNTH in edit summary".

I'm concerned about the edit summary on this edit, because it's pretty clear WP:SYNTH. The statement "Be clear why this agreement was reached" in context of the edit suggests that the only reason Sarsour agreed to the treatment program for Boshell is the "protests in favor of Boshell" — which is an entirely-unsupported original synthesis appearing nowhere in the cited articles. No source suggests, let alone states, that Sarsour was pressured into the agreement in any way and we cannot create any inference that she was. None of the cited articles so much as suggest, let alone state, that Sarsour ever wanted Boshell imprisoned. In fact, the only quote I can find from Sarsour states precisely the opposite, in which she says "He needs help." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:30, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

This edit makes clear that User:Icewhiz is fully and intentionally creating the original synthesis, when no source supports any such link. Unless you have a source that says Sarsour was "pressured" or made the decision because of the protests, you're creating an original synthesis, and that's not kosher. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:35, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

It is well-sourced there were protests in favor of Boshell getting treatment and that this issue raised deep divisions in the Bay Ridge community. Regarding wording and placement - I am not insisting on anything - this can be a separate sentence if you think there is an implication between one and the other.Icewhiz (talk) 06:39, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't see any source saying Sarsour ever opposed having Boshell get treatment. Thus, there is no need to reach the "protest" part because there is no source saying there was any conflict involving Sarsour. "Deep divisions in the Bay Ridge community" might be relevant to an article about Bay Ridge, but they aren't relevant to Sarsour's biography. Boshell pled guilty to attempted assault as a hate crime, was sentenced to a treatment program with Sarsour's agreement, the end. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:41, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

There are sources: The community isn’t buying the story the mainstream media and Sarsour are spinning. A 30-year resident of Bay Ridge, who requested anonymity, tells National Review Online, “Instead of an incident with a drunk man, [Sarsour] is using this as her final proof of Islamaphobia in America . . . Brian [Boshell] has a 25-year history of outbursts . . . There is a lot that’s questionable about her not knowing who he was.” This resident, who says she knows Boshell and his family personally, says his mental health started to decline when he was 20 years old, after he witnessed his mother and sister die in a car accident. “Everyone knows who he is. [Sarsour] knows who he is,” a 22-year Muslim resident of Bay Ridge tells National Review Online........ Doherty speculates that Sarsour is seeking attention in hope of succeeding Bay Ridge’s term-limited councilman in 2016. “She’s attempting to make it political because she has her eye on [Vincent] Gentile’s seat,” Doherty tells NRO.[14].Icewhiz (talk) 06:56, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what you think those sources say, but they don't say that Sarsour ever opposed having Boshell get treatment. We aren't going to cite an anonymous source quoted in a right-wing magazine. The unsupported speculation about her motives is entirely WP:UNDUE. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:19, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

To be entirely clear, Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research performed by an editor here.[9] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. If a single source says "A" in one context, and "B" in another, without connecting them, and does not provide an argument of "therefore C", then "therefore C" cannot be used in any article. What Icewhiz's edit does is take Source A, which says that some community members requested that Boshell receive treatment rather than prison time, and Source B, which says that Boshell was sentenced to treatment with Sarsour's agreement, to create Inference C, "Sarsour only agreed to treatment because there was pressure." That is a textbook original synthesis stated nowhere in any reliable source, and is thus not acceptable in this article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:40, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I was wrong. I admit that - but it wasn't what I was trying to do. I was trying to keep this short and tack this onto the existing sentence (previously it was a separate sentence) for conciseness (which seemed to be the issue in previous edits). Note that sources clearly state that Sarsour advocated for this to be treated as a hate crime (which carries a stiff prison sentence) - in the days after this happened. I think that community protests supporting (#FreeBobo) the assailant are significant. Can we put this in as a separate sentence without making any inferences? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icewhiz (talk • contribs) 06:52, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Here's the thing: The crime was treated as a hate crime. Boshell explicitly pled guilty to two hate crimes. Advocating for something to be charged as a hate crime does not imply a desire for "a stiff prison sentence." It does perhaps imply a desire for appropriate recognition of, and punishment for, crimes motivated or including bias. I would not object to a sentence discussing that community members wanted him to get help for his mental illness & substance abuse problems, as long as it doesn't create an implication that Sarsour didn't want him to get that help. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:56, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Hate crimes are punished much more stiffly than non-hate crimes (I'm sure we could pull stats - I'm cloudy on NY specifc laws, but elsewhere this often escalates / multiplies / sets minimum setencing), but to avoid synth: The case lays open the ambiguous and often illogical nature of hate crime laws. Had Boshell merely shouted “b****” without the word “Arab” before hurling the garbage can, he would probably be facing only another misdemeanor. Some Bay Ridge residents expressed concern on social media about whether Boshell, who could be facing a seven-year sentence, would be able to handle a prison populated by gang members and rapists. [15]. The crime was treated as a hate crime after: She quickly took to Twitter, where she has more than 18,000 followers, to label the incident a hate crime. She also called Boshell a “bigoted drunk” on Facebook. At the time of the incident, Sarsour was on her way to a Manhattan forum about police-community relations, where she retold her story to the NYPD deputy commissioners present. A hate-crimes unit was then dispatched. [16]. It is also unusual that police will meet with the community other allegations of "railroading" some 11 days after the arrest: Representatives from the NYPD’s hate-crimes unit will be in attendance at the next 68th Police Precinct Council Meeting on September 16th. “Anyone who feels that Boshell was railroaded should come to the meeting,” a representative tells NRO. Icewhiz (talk) 07:03, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranof How about you put it in - with your wording and placement? I think it should be in. I'm really not stuck on any particular wording. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icewhiz (talk • contribs) 07:04, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

5 September 2017

Thread retitled from "page ownership issues still ongoing, refusal to address biased wording and cherry-picking of sources".

Discussion is over. Editors reminded of applicability of discretionary sanctions to this article and its talk page.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
literally 8 mins after edit, immediate reverts by same old suspects. Over precisely the same edits that were discussed ad nauseum weeks ago. Overly-involved editors ought to recuse themselves. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 18:12, 5 September 2017 (UTC) NorthBySouthBaranof, with what must be the 50th-plus revert on this article over contentious edits. Pasting "edit-warring" notices on MY talk page. Absurd. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 18:15, 5 September 2017 (UTC) Yes, they were discussed and rejected. One who is leveling accusations of "overly involved editors" should be careful not to throw stones. We are here to write balanced, neutral encyclopedic biographies, not polemic attacks on people we politically disagree with. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:17, 5 September 2017 (UTC) Rejected by who? You? Why do you get to reject what is included? Especially considering that you consider it reasonable to exclude sources as venerable as the New York Times. Why do clearly overly-involved editors monitor this page for the slightest change and immediately click "undo" whenever something which is added which they "politically disagree with"? For the record, I share a pretty much identical point on the politically spectrum as Linda Sarsour. Except that I am opposed to intolerance against ALL people. Sarsour encourages intolerance towards certain people which undermine her very specific, very modern, very contrived wishy-washy identity politics. She constantly and consistently denigrates people of color - particularly women of color - because they are inconvenient to her Brooklyn-centric, privileged narrative. I rarely use wikipedia, and when I do, I click for changes on an article I'm interested. I try to improve it - and you restore the bias and weasel words and delete sources. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 18:29, 5 September 2017 (UTC) This sounds like you have a personal ax to grind against Sarsour. You should probably not be editing Sarsour's biography if you cannot do so with a sense of detachment and encyclopedic fairness, as directed by foundational policy. This is not a place for you to express your apparently-passionate opinions and ideas about Sarsour. It's a place to write an encyclopedic biography. If you can't do so, you should find some other articles to work on. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:34, 5 September 2017 (UTC) I have reverted the attempted blanking of the above section; it is not a personal attack to discuss ZZ98's now self-disclosed personal bias against Sarsour any more than it is for ZZ98 to level accusations about "overly-involved editors." We all have biases about everything, but part of our job as Wikipedia editors is to set aside those biases; and if we cannot set aside those biases to write neutral, fair articles based upon high-quality reliable sources, we should avoid editing in those areas. There are several topic areas I personally choose to avoid, because I do not trust myself to avoid possibly introducing my personal biases. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:56, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

criticism from Muslim, liberal, secularist, ex-Muslim, and non-partisan sources

The widely circulated Bari Weiss (liberal, NY Times) article

Emily Shire (liberal)

Dr. Zuhdi Jasser (Muslim, non-partisan)

Emma-Kate Symons (NY Times, non-partisan)

"Women In The World" summit (NY Times, liberal, feminist)

Gaby Del Valle (tertiary source, from Leftist outlet) "Why do liberals love to hate Linda Sarsour?"

Qanta Ahmed (self-described "Liberal Muslim")

Malhar Mali (secular Muslim)

Steve Emerson in Newsmax is a conservative tertiary source which is relevant to this debate: "Liberal Critics of Women's March Co-chair Ignored"

And I'm sure I could easily find more if I had the time.

ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 17:52, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand that the critics referred to in the particular context of her discussion of jihad as a struggle against Trump are all conservatives. As per the sources cited, only conservatives argued that her reference to jihad was a purported threat of violence or a call to attack Donald Trump. So for that particular statement, it is well-supported that the only criticism came from conservatives. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:42, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Nope. Read: http://ijr.com/opinion/2017/07/266347-sorry-linda-sarsour-using-jihad-political-context-entirely-inappropriate/ "While a non-violent understanding of this word is always welcome, she failed to acknowledge a very simple set of truths: one, that easy use of this word against America’s leadership is something she knew would garner her massive media attention; and two, that no Muslim-led government the world over, and no Islamist group, understands jihad to be this simple or benign... In fact, the organization she was speaking for – ISNA – is one of the Muslim Brotherhood’s many spawn in this country, and the Brotherhood itself declares, “jihad is our way and dying for Allah is our aim.” When they say this, they don’t mean “the jihad of op-eds for human rights and dying from natural causes” – they mean violently fighting the unbelievers." ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 06:05, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Zuhdi Jasser has received hundreds of thousands of dollars from conservative groups and is described by the Washington Post as "an active Republican." His criticism may be relevant, but it doesn't demonstrate that Sarsour has been criticized by non-conservatives. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:31, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

I find it interesting that you are obsessed with trying to add anything and everything to this article's "controversy" section, yet immediately race to obliterate reliably-sourced discussion of controversies about Jasser's funding sources. Curious that you want lots of criticism of Sarsour but cannot tolerate a single mention of criticism of Jasser. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:32, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Is The Algemeiner conservative? [17] The article discusses her use of "jihad" specifically. It's a Jewish journal, certainly not unbiased when it comes to Islam, but I don't think it's conservative. James J. Lambden (talk) 19:27, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

The author of that op-ed is Steven Emerson, and we helpfully have an article about him and his rather controversial opinions about Muslims; the last time he was in the news was when he decided to spout off about Birmingham as a "no-go zone" and London having Muslim religious police roaming around beating people up. Not sure about a consensus, but I see a few sources describing him as conservative, others as Islamophobic, and David Cameron called him a "complete idiot." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:41, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

What a terrible article: "Some have called Emerson a terrorism and intelligence expert, while critics have said that he is an Islamophobe" – what does one have to do with the other? I would imagine Israel has both the highest percentage of terror experts and "Islamophobes." Regardless, Islamophobic and idiot are not relevant as far as I'm concerned but "conservative" is. If true it supports your claim. I will investigate. James J. Lambden (talk) 19:50, 26 August 2017

Emerson is not Israeli, he's American. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:58, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

I understand. I used that example to Illustrate that "terror expert" and "Islamophobe" are not contradictory (as the text in Emerson's article implies.)

Apparently Emerson worked for a Democratic senator, published a book critical of Reagan and covert operations and opposes the US's friendly relations with Saudi Arabia. This does not sound like a conservative and I was not able to find RS that describe him as a conservative. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:17, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

fwiw, I do not believe Qanta Ahmed is a conservative. Liberal secular Muslims (and former muslims) are quite concerned with the red green embrace.Icewhiz (talk) 19:59, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Not sure what any purported "red green embrace" has to do with anything here; let's stick to the sources, and the cited secondary sources here from Time and WaPo (as opposed to op-ed columns) note that the criticism came from conservative quarters. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:06, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

It is one thing to say policy does not allow us to include what we know to be true unless it is reported in RS. It's another to say it allows to include what is demonstrably untrue. I would be interested in sources that describe Emerson as conservative.

I would also say if the non-conservative criticism is limited to this one source, that is not sufficient to remove "conservative" from our description of it. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:17, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranof, let me get this clear: you object to any mention in this article of criticism emanating from sources not typically described as "conservative", no matter how well sourced? ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 06:00, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Looking at the sourcing of the Jihad criticism while most of it is indeed in conservative sources - not all of it is. I don't think we should retain conservative as a label in the article - in general I think it is bad form to make blanket generalizations. We could perhaps name of some of the outlets and individuals who have done the criticizing her, but we should refrain from labeling them.Icewhiz (talk) 06:18, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that's repeatedly not what I've said. Please read the cited sources in the individual section under discussion, about the claims that Sarsour's references to jihad had anything to do with threatening violence against Donald Trump. The cited sources from Time, Newsweek and the Washington Post, all state that this viewpoint was expressed primarily or exclusively by "conservatives" or "conservative sources." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:18, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

And yet you keep ignoring the sources I've provided you, which demonstrate that what you're saying is false. You choose to revert instead, demanding "consensus" (i.e., your permission to change anything). ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 15:53, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

You have yet to cite a single non-conservative source which interpreted Sarsour's use of the word "jihad" as a threat of violence against the president. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:01, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

This thread looks like a huge exercise in improper synthesis of published sources. Either that, or using the talk page as a forum for debating the subject. If there is a proposed contribution to the article, please state it concisely along with the sources to be referenced. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:42, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof: Courtney Love, a supporter of Hillary Clinton and a Democrat, said Sarsour was various things on June 8 ([18]) - as a response to the Jihad coverage of 6-7-8 June (and onward). Now, Love may not merit inclusion (it is debatable (hashed out at length above)) but this is definitely not a conservative.Icewhiz (talk) 15:06, 28 August 2017 (UTC) My bad on this (I was confused by dates + this appearing as byline in coverage of the Jihad stmt) - seems this is related to fund raising for a Somali who was involved in a brawl.Icewhiz (talk) 15:13, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I've got a Democrat on-record. Dov Hikind is on-record on this too - [19] WORDS MATTER. TAKE SARSOUR’S THREATS SERIOUSLY Linda Sarsour’s recent threats against President Trump and his administration should be taken very seriously..... This actually was covered by secondary sources (all be it not great ones) - [20][21]. Now I don't think this is notable enough to place in the article, but this certainly supports striking conservative from the Jihad exchange, as we have at least one Democrat on-record who is concerned about Sarsour's Jihad comments.Icewhiz (talk) 15:32, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Breitbart is categorically not a reliable source on Wikipedia, and I'm not convinced about the other one either. Moreover, even if there is *a single* non-conservative, we have multiple indisputable reliable sources discussing this as a conservative phenomenon. So at the very least, we are going to say "largely" or "primarily" from conservative sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:42, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

It is WP:V as we have the actual primary source (his Facebook), but I wouldn't place this in the article in any event (while he was instrumental on CUNY - he didn't receive a wide stage for this comment). I don't disagree that the Jihad angle is largely or primarily conservative.Icewhiz (talk) 15:51, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

If it hasn't been reported on in an independent reliable source, it is not usable here. Please see WP:BLPSPS - self-published sources such as Facebook pages are acceptable as sources in biographies only when verifiably published by the article subject. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:26, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I was not arguing for inclusion (and I was rather explicit in stating so), but rather opposed the blanket labelling of conservative, which this stmt refutes, as it is an example of a non conservative. Sourcing is sufficient to V Hikind said so.Icewhiz (talk) 19:02, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

It's debatable how conservative or not Dov Hikind's record is, but to say "Hikind criticized Sarsour, therefore not all criticism is conservative" is textbook WP:SYNTH. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:52, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

References

Boy with rocks

(refactored from User talk:Sangdeboeuf)

[22] It is amply sourced that she allegedly supported Palestinian rock throwing with that tweet.Icewhiz (talk) 18:26, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

It's not. I just looked at the sources; neither the CBS nor the Brooklyn Eagle say she "endorsed violence", allegedly or not. I note that you now say "rock throwing", but the article text had violence. The NY Post doesn't even verify that text. Not every little fart is of encyclopedic value, and here it's pretty clear that the sources a. aren't very strong and b. don't support the text of the BLP. Drmies (talk) 18:32, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

The "endorsing violence" is less supoorted (some say this, others do not, one NYC councilman called it barbarous) - however the tweet itself passes V and is widely cited. Leaving in her non violence quote on one NY radio station interview, while other sources paint a different picture is a problem. Could this simpley described as per CBS "a tweet showing a young boy apparently throwing rocks at Israelis with the caption saying, “the definition of courage."Icewhiz (talk) 18:51, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

As I explained above, as a person who receives substantial media attention, Sarsour's tweets will be commented upon by the news on a daily basis. That does not make them encyclopedic information. Vanamonde (talk) 02:58, 8 September 2017 (UTC)