Talk:Qanta Ahmed

This article was nominated for deletion on 8 March 2012 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Science and Academia

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group.

Medicine Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women writers Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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))[reply]