Template:BLP noticeboard

Template:Friendly search suggestions


When will the article be available for editing?

And on what reason is it locked? ImreK (talk) 19:46, 23 January 2017 (UTC) To me it looks like somebody is trying to cover up Sarsour's tweets endorsing shar'ia law. Wikipedia is rapidly loosing credibility with this activity. ImreK (talk) 19:55, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is a claim that has not been substantiated. You are analyzing the primary source which is not reliable for that claim.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:38, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's been pretty well-established this woman is a proponent of Sharia and tweets hate speech against former Muslims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nimic86 (talk • contribs) 05:12, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To the contrary, reliable sources including the Washington Post have called such claims "false." Other posts have falsely claimed that she supports the imposition of Islamic law on the U.S. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:34, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:TWITTER and WP:USINGPRIMARY it is totally acceptable within Wikipedia rules. There is no controversial statement being made, there is no editioralizing going on, and in fact using someone's social media on the Wikipedia page of said person IS acceptable and a reliable primary source, the WP guidelines explicitly say so.. Mark Miller, you are out of line here. There would only arise an issue when we ONLY use Twitter as sources for this article. Testosterenbom (talk) 22:06, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't think that book's title is "The Hjabi(sic!) Monologues". Somebody is really being unreasonable with this edit ban. ImreK (talk) 20:03, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Malone Kircher, Madison (November 15, 2016). "Fake Facebook news sites to avoid". New York Magazine. Retrieved November 15, 2016.

Mark Miller, do you mean to say that Wikipedia cannot quote the person in question because the mode of communication being used is Twitter? Even if it is that person's own Twitter account? That seems absurd. If it is the subject speaking with their own account, how is it unreliable information? I came here looking to see why this page was so empty despite the subject being of high public importance at the moment, and this is why the page lacks information?! Concerned Wiki User 23:39, 23 January 2017 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.95.191.39 (talk • contribs) 15:39, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will continue.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:41, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Under the section; "Reliability in specific contexts" it also states;

"Editors must take particular care when writing biographical material about living persons. Contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately; do not move it to the talk page. This applies to any material related to living persons on any page in any namespace, not just article space."

--Mark Miller (talk) 23:44, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You asked; "...Wikipedia cannot quote the person in question because the mode of communication being used is Twitter?". No, that is not what I am saying. Quotes from living people must be attributed to a published source. Contentious quotes require multiple strong sources and the use of quotations itself has a very specific guideline as well.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:46, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You asked "Even if it is that person's own Twitter account?". Yes, especially if it ONLY that person's twitter account. We cannot write original research. We only summarize the published information so that the claims can be easily verified as accurate and fairly summarized, using reference that meet a set criteria.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:52, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In the section of "WP: Identifying reliable sources" under "Self-published sources (online and paper)" it states;

Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book and claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media are largely not acceptable. Self-published books and newsletters, personal pages on social networking sites, tweets, and posts on Internet forums are all examples of self-published media.

--Mark Miller (talk) 00:00, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is not 'self-published research'. No expertise on any subject is being claimed. It is not biographical material, it is autobiographical because you can quote her directly, leaving out the possibility of interpretation becoming a problem.
Twitter is simply a forum for the expression of opinions, and that expression is surely relevant and accurate in the case of public figures making their opinions known via Twitter. Donald Trump's page seems to have a direct Twitter quote or two, albeit sourced not directly from Twitter but from news sources. There are sources to be had on this subject's tweets too. The subject is currently mired in controversy over her opinions, not whether or not she is an expert on the subject of Sharia or anything else. That controversy is a subject of public interest, and deserves to be accurately documented here. At present, someone like me wondering who the hell she is and what she actually believes cannot use Wikipedia to discover the truth. I had to trawl through multiple sources to see what the story was. Concerned Wiki User 00:16, 24 January 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.95.191.39 (talk)
Tweets are often used to document a candidate's support for stuff. For if Trump tweeted "I want to build a wall," on Twitter, that could be used a source or be quoted. Sarsour claiming that Shari'a is "reasonable" according to the Tweet previously referenced, does not make her an advocate for Shari'a law. There is no concrete evidence of fighting for shari'a save for that one tweet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shah9901 (talk • contribs) 00:24, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Tweets are only notable for Wikipedia if they have been commented or reported on in a reference already published by a reliable author, publisher and source.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:33, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not certain that Drmies suggestion that self-authored pieces are not usable is supported by policy, given that we allow self-published sources (per WP:SELFPUB & WP:BLPSELFPUB). However, in this case, the self-authored source does not appear to verify any of the information in the sentence to which it is attached. Support removal. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 22:15, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Huh. Isn't it common sense? If you allow for self-sourcing, if you allow content based only on self-sourcing, then basically you allow for the inclusion of every single factoid. Every single blogger in the world can have an article of unlimited size because editors can include every single opinion the person has ever had as long as that person has written it up. At some point, my dear Ryk72, we have to start working with some common sense. Surely you know that not everything can be captured in policy. Drmies (talk) 03:09, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies, In short, "no, not as a total blanket ban"; but explanation would be off-topic for this discussion, and we're in rude5 agreement for removal; happy to discuss elsewhere (and happy to be enlightened if wrong). And I thank you for the term of endearment. I had not known you cared, and am touched. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 04:06, 26 January 2017 (UTC) Clarify: Agree that we do not allow articles based only on self-sourcing; and that we should not include references that only serve as links to the referenced work. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 04:33, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, obviously I agree with your first point, Ryk72; as for the second, esp. for journalists, politicians, other public figures this is touchy. I have seen hundreds of those articles where "Mr. X supported this or that position (on Jerusalem, abortion, Beyonce, etc.)" is sourced to an op-ed they wrote, and as far as I'm concerned no opinion is notable until secondary sources make it so. (This is a recent example.) But at least in this case we agree, and that's a start. Take it easy, Drmies (talk) 05:53, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Drmies: That's a fair point, but I don't entirely remember the circumstances as I have been rather busy in RL since protecting this. I will review this situation in a few hours when I get the time: if you return before then and feel the protection unnecessary, please go ahead and modify it. Vanamonde (talk) 10:15, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I took another look. Honestly I'm not sure why I didn't do exactly as you said, back when I protected it. In any case, I have downgraded to EC protection because semi-protection clearly did not stop the BLP vios/this is still a highly visible and sensitive article. Fix away. Vanamonde (talk) 17:09, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced that these tweets can be used as cited references. W.r.t WP:TWITTER, they appear to fail points 2. & 3. Other editors opinions may, of course, vary. In any case, what we cannot do is make any inferences or conclusions from them, per WP:NOR. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 16:02, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • [ec with Ryk] Snopes is considered reliable, yes. As for the rest of your comment/summary, there's a lot of unpacking to do here; it's just really complex. What TWITTER does not give us is a license to include "Ariana Grande said that she supported covering pre-existing conditions under Trumpcare"--in other words, a statement doesn't become noteworthy because a person made it. I'm not concerned here with reliability (and editors reading WP:TWITTER should realize that not all tweets by subjects about subjects are true--people do have reasons to lie, about age for instance) but with editorial judgment and article content. So no, it's not just about "drawing conclusions from [tweets]", though that is certainly an issue here and, as I said above, in this case it's made worse by the fact that there is huge gap between different understandings of what sharia law is supposed to be--or even what "support" means. If someone tweets "sharia law in principle requires greater self-awareness of one's morality" (I'm just making something up) that doesn't mean that person "supports" it. Etc. Yes, original research does enter the conversation. Drmies (talk) 16:03, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some sources

I think this snopes article should be included once the article is editable again. Wolflow (talk) 04:35, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a source;

Is it strong? Well, it's a fashion magazine but it does have editorial oversight and a record for fact checking so it would have some limited use if the author has some expertise. It might be useful for cultural or women's issues.

Who is Mattie Kahn? She is a writer in new York that has appeared in ELLE magazine and Vanity Fair. She has expertise and experience writing about women in a cultural sense.

Sarsour was the subject of social media attacks only a few days after helping organize the 2017 Women's March .[1]

Some might argue we should have multiple references for this. Are there other sources that meet Wikipedia criteria to verify this claim?

The News editor of Colorlines wrote this.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:53, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Women's March Organizer Faces Islamaphobic Attacks on Social Media".


Should this be added? Perhaps however, we like to remember that Wikipedia is not a newspaper. We are not here to add the latest news item at the moment it appears. It happens but...when we have controversial subjects, time always helps clarify issues.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:55, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another source that verifies the claim; [1].--Mark Miller (talk) 02:03, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Huffington Post is indeed a reliable source. That particular article mentions the claim from other sources that she supports Sharia law, but it does not quote any of her tweets that are quoted in those other articles. Instead, it simply dismisses the claim that she supports Sharia law as being "Islamophobic." In my opinion, this is irresponsible journalism on the part of Huffington Post. They should have quoted her tweets, instead of dismissing the claim that she supported Sharia law.
Here are four of her tweets:
https://web.archive.org/web/20170123220836/https:/twitter.com/lsarsour/status/534073703588700160
"10 weeks of PAID maternity leave in Saudi Arabia. Yes PAID. And ur worrying about women driving. Puts us to shame."
https://web.archive.org/web/20170122172847/https://twitter.com/lsarsour/status/116922589967949824
"shariah law is reasonable and once u read into the details it makes a lot of sense. People just know the basics"
https://web.archive.org/web/20170123022332/https://twitter.com/lsarsour/status/598327052727615488
"You'll know when you're living under Sharia Law if suddenly all your loans & credit cards become interest free. Sound nice, doesn't it?"
https://web.archive.org/web/20170123195630/https://twitter.com/lsarsour/status/598326262218813440
"If you are still paying interest than Sharia Law hasn't taken over America."
Bk33725681 (talk) 07:52, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Tweets are not RS as per wikipedia policy.Messiaindarain (talk) 08:07, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Accepting Israel

Here is a source that states that she said "Israel has right to exist."

http://ikhras.com/fake-activist-exposed-the-real-linda-sarsour/

If this article is cited, there should be some discussion of the Arab-Americans who are accusing her essentially of being a sell out. Jonmayer18 (talk) 22:55, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request

Please add the following...

"Sarsour organized the Women's March on Washington, held on January 21, 2017, the day after the inauguration of Donald Trump as President of the United States.[1]"

There should be no controversy about this, and it is the reason she's currently in the news. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:08, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Before organizing the Women's March on Washington, Linda Sarsour fought for Muslim holidays in NYC schools". Vox.com. January 16, 2017. Retrieved January 23, 2017.
Is there a stronger reference for that? Perhaps one with attribution to someone who can be verified to have expertise or is a notable author/journalist?--Mark Miller (talk) 02:26, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest;

Sansour was one three national co-chairs recruited by Teresa Shook and Bob Bland for the 2017 Women's March held the day after the inauguration of Donald Trump as President of the United States.[1]

--Mark Miller (talk) 02:43, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think Sarsour did as much organizing as the other co-chairs, but your proposed edit is fine with me. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:05, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. The entire idea was that of Teresa Shook, a grandmother in Hawaii who created the original Facebook event that spawned others. Shook and Bob Bland got together and then recruited the co-chairs. It's a matter of clarity and encyclopedic value.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:11, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The idea was Shook's and Bland's. Then Bland brought in Sarsour and the other co-chairs, and they together did all of the organizing. However you want to word it along those lines works. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:00, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Shook did more than have an idea, she organized the original Facebook event, a real call for an actual event in this case. Shook then organized with Bland to create the national chairs. That is more than an idea, that is the top of the organizational line.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:04, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
She created a Facebook event and invited 40 people, then went to bed. This is all semantics. Let's just say Sarsour co-chaired it. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:09, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Alter, Charlotte (January 20, 2017). "The Women's March on Washington United Progressives". Time. Time Inc. Retrieved January 23, 2017. ((cite news)): Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)
Done I've added the sentence. Made a few tweaks to the links; if you don't like them I will revert. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:40, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:12, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thank you.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:34, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Couple of things, Muboshgu. Could you fix the double wikilink to Inauguration of Donald Trump with a link to his page on his name and possibly wikilink United States please.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:42, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Mark Miller: I can't, because I'm not an admin. Which is why I used an edit request in the first place rather than make the change myself. I can do it whenever protection is decreased. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:13, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies! It was MSGJ that made the changes. I wrote that that wrong.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:28, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the duplicate link - apologies didn't spot that - but are you sure you want to wikilink United States because WP:OLINK specifically advises against? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:48, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate "of"

Please add the word, "of", this should read, "...was one of three..." Sansour was one of three national co-chairs recruited by Teresa Shook and Bob Bland Ai4ijoel (talk) 04:56, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done Good catch — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:07, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Name.

Howcome she's Linda if she's Muslim? --Yomal Sidoroff-Biarmskii 04:18, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Born in Brooklyn

She was born in Brooklyn: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/author/linda-sarsour

Bk33725681 (talk) 07:34, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Was married in an arranged marriage at age 17

http://www.ny1.com/archives/nyc/all-boroughs/2011/07/25/one-on-1--arab-american-association-director-finds-time-for-it-all-NYC_143662.old.html

Bk33725681 (talk) 09:11, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Hijabi Monologues

Linda Sarsour is not a graduate student. Linda Sarsour is a High School Graduate - she does not have a Bachelor's degree. Sandeep1964 (talk) 14:59, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any reliable source to indicate this? RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:28, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please change: Linda was one of three graduate students of the University of Chicago in 2007 that developed performance art based on stories about veiling called; "The Hijabi Monologues".[1] To: Sarsour has appeared in "The Hijabi Monologues", a performance art piece based on stories about veiling.[1] - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 22:21, 24 January 2017 (UTC) modified per MOS:SURNAME - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 04:06, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know I read somewhere that she was entering college around 2000. The fact that this was a graduates performance and the manner in which the source writes this, I have to agree, it doesn't really say she was one of the graduate students, just one of the performers. That's actually a good catch. Support edit request.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:38, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Mark Miller: Thanks. Appreciate the positive feedback. One thing I missed - MOS:SURNAME - I've amended the request to "Sarsour" instead of "Linda". - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 04:06, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b Sahar Amer (9 September 2014). What is Veiling?. Edinburgh University Press. p. 228. ISBN 978-0-7486-9684-0.
Done I also included a link to veil, hope that's okay — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:05, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks!--Mark Miller (talk) 05:47, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"pure New Yorker"

and a self-proclaimed “pure New Yorker, born and raised in Brooklyn”.New York Foundation: Linda Sarsour Lanlan lanwan (talk) 06:58, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not done for now: please wait for comments from others — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:08, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting semi protection

I am requesting semi-protection after the full protection is over.Messiaindarain (talk) 08:26, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Missvain (talk) 17:06, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Missvain: partially expired, is that as you wanted it? –2A03:2267:0:0:A1ED:A98A:F87E:A843 (talk) 13:55, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved
 – by Missvain, thx. –2A03:2267:0:0:ACDA:2A2:3ECC:6878 (talk) 13:25, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting a Controversy section

edit As detailed above, there is a Snopes article summarizing some of her controversial public statements and public conduct, including (i) a very controversial affiliation, and (ii) controversial comments on banning women from driving. I don't think her comments on "Sharia law" are particularly controversial since there is so much public misunderstanding of Sharis law and she was not supporting a controversial aspect of Sharia law (at least as it applies to her area of expertise (which is not finance). If she were putting herself forward as an economic expert then supporting a ban on interest would be controversial but in context, I think she is just trying to point out how misunderstood Sharia law is.) However, there is another article quoting her public statements and controversial statements toward other women, and she HAS put herself forward as a women's advocate so I think these comments from 2011 merit identification. Jonmayer18 (talk) 17:13, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Twitchy is a partisan site on the level of Media Matters for America; we should generally avoid partisan clickbait and seek high-quality mainstream reliable sources. Examining that link, again, all it is is a bunch of tweets back and forth, with little to no context or actual secondary-source reporting. I don't think that is useful here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:20, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How is then Huffington Post "non-partisan". They were massively campaigning against Trump and make their money based on pageviews, so "clickbait" is a very POV-way to say "earning money with page views". Don't get me wrong, but the way Wikipedia documents things here looks like "fixing history". Part of the story is missing and the rest is only backed up by equally partisan media outlets. ImreK (talk) 23:31, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The current article refers to attacks online by Islamophobics, but does not provide the context for those attacks, which includes the tweets identified above. Shouldn't there be some context to explain the current text? The way it reads right now, unnamed people are angry with her and attacking her on the basis of her religion. However, reviewing the articles above it is clear that there is some context to the controversy beyond just Islamophobia. Further, while twitchy and breitbart are partisan, snopes is not. And the huffington post is also partisan, but it's been cited. There ought to be some context added here. I suggest:
Subsequent to her appearance at the Women's March, many conservatives questioned whether she was an appropriate advocate for feminism based upon prior public comments she had made regarding religious law and prior personal attacks on other female leaders.
then you can mention the islamaphobia point. Jonmayer18 (talk) 22:48, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Last, shouldn't there be some fodder added from her New York Times front page profile?
As it stands, the alleged Islamophobia attacks are completely out of context. It still looks to me like some people are really busy covering up her pro sharia tweets. ImreK (talk) 23:27, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

She had a very controversial run in with the well known Islamic reform promoter Ayaan Hirsi Ali that is surely relevant to this section. Fox News - Ayaan Hirsi AliCdOl0lO (talk) 18:22, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP concerns make this non-viable based on that single flimsy source. An entire two-paragraph section based on one short blurb is totally insufficient and WP:UNDUE. A review of WP:CSECTION may also be helpful. Grayfell (talk) 22:05, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so this on it's own might not constitute adding a new section. All of the other controversies that have been slipped into the rest of the article and this together might not constitute a controversy section. But how is Ayaan Hirsi Ali talking directly about the issues that Linda is involved in, also in relation to her own comments to her, on issues that Ayaan is involved in a "flimsy source", given a notable person as Ayaan is and Fox News are. You can probably see I have added a section on this page to discuss this.CdOl0lO (talk) 22:29, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There's this from the Eastern Director of Simon Wiesenthal Center (not just a random talking head): Linda Sarsour Is ‘An Arsonist In Our Midst’ | MK17b | (talk) 18:14, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We already include a substantial number of opinions about Sarsour's political viewpoints and positions; I'm not sure how the addition of one more would benefit this article. Wikipedia biographies are not compilations of every opinion, positive or negative, ever expressed about a particular person. What from that particular article do you believe should be included, and why? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:44, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BLP issues and consensus

I have reverted a substantial edit to this article on several grounds, including failure to adhere to the biographies of living persons policy. For one, the addition cites and quotes several sources which are highly partisan and which do not meet reliable sourcing criteria for claims about living people, notably FrontPage Magazine, the Daily Caller and GatewayPundit. Secondly, it uses terminology which is inappropriate; the words "accusation" and "allegation" suggests criminal activity when nothing of the sort seems to be so much as claimed by anyone. Thirdly, as has been discussed above, Sarsour's tweets are a primary source and we should be looking to significant reliable secondary sources for analysis, and if that can't be found, we should avoid making claims based on what someone may or may not interpret from them. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:39, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NorthBySouthBaranof - I've added some context for how she rose to such prominence of leading a major progressive march. Her accomplishments did not begin with the March and I think this is well documented in reliable sources. In addition, there is a sentence which states that "some suggest" she was a victim of islamaphobia. I happen to agree, but there was a context to the controversy and I don't think the lone "huffington post" link is reliable, or, if it is, it reflects POV as discussed above. There needs to be references to the controversies generated leading up to the event and after (i.e. de-partnering with some pro-life groups, her vocal support of religious law which many feminists do not believe is supportive of feminism, the decision not to let Clinton be referenced at the march, and her attacks on some conservative female activists). I can't really see a basis for including the huffington post article--which is based on a series of quoted tweets--and at least one of the many article citing and discussing her own tweets. I think the algemeiner is a fair perspective from the "other side" of the huffington post piece (which as others have pointed out (ImreK), glosses over the basis of some of the questions that have been raised). Jonmayer18 (talk) 18:42, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Protected and reviews required

I've upped the protection on this, extending the time it is protected and requiring reviews of edits due to extensive BLP violations, etc. Thanks everyone. Missvain (talk) 04:38, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the ongoing edit war, I have made this article sysop edits only until things get rectified. I suggest using sources like AP and Reuters and keeping things as boring as humanly possible. If you have a strong feeling (good or bad) towards the subject, I suggest you don't edit the article about her, at all, as clearly neutrality is a challenge for some folks here. Thanks. Missvain (talk) 04:47, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How about Washington Post? https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/religion/attacks-target-muslim-american-activist-after-dc-march/2017/01/26/2e1758b6-e416-11e6-a419-eefe8eff0835_story.html ? I don't think its nice to say that "neutrality is a challenge for some folks here." As you can see from the WaPo article, there are concerns about alleged ties. Also, for 3 weeks, this article cited a one sided huffington post piece with nothing explaining the controversy. Jonmayer18 (talk) 18:57, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That article precisely proves my point — it says the only "evidence" anyone cites for the Hamas claim is "a picture of her at a convention of Muslim civic leaders, standing with a group of people that included a Milwaukee activist whose brother was arrested in Israel in 1998 and convicted of giving $40,000 to a Hamas leader." That's not evidence, it's guilt-by-association smearing through three levels of the game Telephone. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:44, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I agree we need to be careful with identifying "alleged" ties, when they are inflammatory. I never drafted anything about 'alleged' Hamas ties, but when someone else did, you said that American thinker and Jerusalem Post aren't reliable sources because they don't fact check or present both sides. Here, this WaPo article says "she has acknowledged publicly that members of her extended family have been arrested on accusations of supporting Hamas." I am not the one who asked for such a source, you are. Perhaps you don't think it justifies adding anything, but it exists. Yes, I agree there is not enough regarding the photograph to say anything concrete in wikipedia, but there might be at a later date. Sarsour is the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit against Trump regarding exclusion of refuges and non-citizens. I thought that was interesting.Jonmayer18 (talk) 18:57, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Revert based on BLP grounds

I have reverted edits which make claims about Sarsour sourced only to a link to the American Thinker, an extremist right-wing house organ known for publishing white supremacist/nationalist garbage and certainly not a mainstream reliable source for claims about living people. In addition, none of the cited sources state that Sarsour's comments about "female public figures" were "attacks" and the interpretation of "minimizing" is based upon personal analysis of a tweet (which, as discussed above, is to be avoided because of the limitations of that medium). NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:41, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

American Thinker is a not considered a reliable secondary source. We cannot use it. I support your decision. Thanks User:NorthBySouthBaranof. I saw you brought the situation to the Admin Noticeboard. I'm going to defer to other admins, since I have been following the situation here. Keep me posted on what happens. Missvain (talk) 04:49, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edits by NorthBySouthBaranof

In this edit, NorthBySouthBaranof misrepresented quoted sources. First of all, Algemeiner says clearly "Other critical reports focused on her comments minimizing Saudi Arabia’s treatment of women", but NorthBySouthBaranof changed it for simply "comments regarding Saudi Arabia's treatment of women", which is misleading, since that could mean that Sarsour is denouncing the treatment of women in Saudi Arabia instead of minimizing them (what the source says). Second, NorthBySouthBaranof repeatedly accused a conservative online magazine of being "white supremacist", without providing evidence or reliable sources, as an excuse to keep out the accusation of (Redacted). As far as I'm concerned, I don't see why the American Thinker can't be quoted with proper attribution just like other organizations and opinion articles that are mentioned in this article.--Yschilov (talk) 05:00, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have redacted a poorly-sourced and highly-defamatory claim about a living person from the above text; find a reliable source for the claim or it has no place on Wikipedia. If you need assistance understanding what is and is not a reliable source, please see the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:03, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't respond to my comment, you only tried to censor me. But in case you are interested, other sources also highlight her alleged connection with Hamas, such as this one and this one.--Yschilov (talk) 05:06, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Yschilov. Just letting you know, that Jerusalem Post and the Daily Caller are not reliable secondary sources because they are non-neutral publications. Therefore we cannot use them on Wikipedia. If say, the AP or Reuters talks about a connection to Hamas, then we can consider using it in the article. You can read more about reliable sources here. Thanks! Missvain (talk) 05:09, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You have no idea about Wikipedia's policy, don't you? Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.--Yschilov (talk) 05:11, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources are, however, required to be fair, accurate and have a reputation for fact-checking, and The Daily Caller is not known to have a widespread reputation for any of the above. When writing about living people, we are required by policy to write with sensitivity and an avoidance of sensationalism. Claims that a living person has ties to a terrorist organization are highly defamatory and should only be included if it is clear that mainstream reliable sources are reporting such. We should avoid claims made only by highly-partisan outlets whether on the left or right side of the spectrum. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:16, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Missvain (talk) 05:18, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Jerusalem Post article simply repeats the existence of "a Daily Caller report" and the Daily Caller article, besides being not a reliable source (it's also a right-wing house organ), is the worst sort of guilt by association smear campaign and has no place as a source here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:12, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As for the "minimizing" comment, please see the extensive discussion above about analysis of single tweets; the claimed comment "minimizing Saudi Arabia's treatment of women" which the piece cited was a single tweet. As encyclopedists taking a long view of things, we should be avoiding the inclusion of opinionated analysis of a person's single tweet — it's well known that 140 characters limits the ability of a person to include context or nuance. It is not fair to the article subject, in my opinion, to describe a 140-character comment about a single part of Saudi Arabia's as "minimizing" everything else. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:12, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As I explained above, partisan sources are acceptable, provided they are attributed. Calling something "right-wing" or "left-wing organ" doesn't mean anything. It's like saying "I don't like it".--Yschilov (talk) 05:16, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Partisan sources are only acceptable in matters regarding living people if they are reliable sources and the American Thinker is absolutely not viewed as a mainstream reliable source. If you disagree with that categorization, you are welcome to open a discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard, but this is a longstanding consensus. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:17, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. If we had a Reuters or AP article discussing this subject and wanted mention that the American Thinker or whatever had mentioned it also or to quote something, that would be different. It can't be the primary source for information given that it is not a mainstream publication. Missvain (talk) 05:20, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not talking about the American Thinker right now, but the Daily Caller, and a reliable secondary source like a newspaper which published that claim. Here's another source. It's all over the web. The woman is accused of having ties with Hamas. It's a fact.--Yschilov (talk) 05:21, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Replace American Thinker (in my sentence) with the Daily Caller or Jerusalem Post. We also can't use Snopes for this. Find me an AP, CSPAN, BBC, or Reuters source and we can talk about these things. Missvain (talk) 05:26, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Who are you to decide that we can't use the Daily Caller (with attribution) or Jerusalem Post? JP is a known Israeli newspaper and is extensively used in WP.--Yschilov (talk) 05:29, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You have things entirely backwards; the onus is on you to justify inclusion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:31, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone can accuse anyone of anything; we are an encyclopedia and we are not required to repeat those accusations in our biographies. To the contrary, our policy on biographies specifically requires us to avoid spreading unsubstantiated rumors and gossip. You are new to editing this encyclopedia, so I suggest that you take time to read our policies before editing controversial and contentious articles, particularly biographies of people whom you have a personal or political opposition to. If you have joined Wikipedia in order to make articles about people you dislike portray them negatively, you are on this encyclopedia for the wrong reasons. We are not a vehicle for you to smear people. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:31, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I"m an admin who isn't very impressed with the fact that JP just cited the Daily Caller. Find some more reliable sources, outside of JP quoting DC and we can talk. As a journalist, my editor would fire me if I wrote a piece about an unverifiable claim found on a Libertarian-leaning news source. Find me another source, like I said before, AP, CSPAN, CNN, BBC, whatever, to back the claim and I'm all ears. :) Missvain (talk) 05:33, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't come here to "portray" anyone. I just found out about this organizer of the "Women's March" and all the surrounding controversies, including her support for theocracy and links to Hamas. I think her rejection of such claims must be presented also, but to hide those accusations doesn't seem to be a reasonable option.--Yschilov (talk) 05:42, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are now welcome to discuss your proposed inclusion of this material, but you must gain consensus among editors that it is suitable for inclusion; the only reliable source here is the Jerusalem Post, and the Jerusalem Post briefly mentioning that outlet's unsubstantiated claims before reporting on the widespread condemnation and rejection of the claims does not seem to really belong in her biography. As the Biographies of Living Persons policy dictates, this article must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: 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 when exercising editorial judgment. If reliable, non-partisan sources substantiate the claims, they can be revisited; otherwise, we should not allow this biography to become a vehicle for partisan guilt by association smears which are, at this point, entirely contained within the right-wing blogosphere. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:28, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
With your criteria, we shouldn't present her controversies regarding Saudi Arabia and Sharia law either. I propose to include the accusation of Hamas links together with her rejection of such claims.--Yschilov (talk) 05:32, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]


On that note I suggest you two busy yourselves elsewhere on wiki and let an admin review your case. This article is going to stay sysop locked down for the time being. Missvain (talk) 05:33, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And all of this drama happens less than 5 days after I removed full protection on this article, in the hope that folks would work things out...wondering if I should have just left it locked. Vanamonde (talk) 06:32, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should. Sorry your good effort didn't work out as planned :( I did my best to calm the storm! Missvain (talk) 06:56, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How about Washington Post? This article discusses the allegations, its a reliable source, and it discusses the allegations from all angles, including providing a chance for Sarsour to respond? https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/religion/attacks-target-muslim-american-activist-after-dc-march/2017/01/26/2e1758b6-e416-11e6-a419-eefe8eff0835_story.html ? I'm less concerned about addressing the alleges ties and more concerned that the Huffington post article is cited with muddy description "some say" To me that violates Wiki's policy on Weasel Words. I propose to identify the author by name.Jonmayer18 (talk) 17:41, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sharia

Only one of the three offered references for the Sharia statement contains the word Sharia. Please add a ((fact)), or remove the detail until you have this straight. Suggestion: Candice Malcolm writing for the Toronto Sun stated …. The overlong statement mentions three authors for multiple claims, but these authors do not correspond to the three references, it should be split. And/or find a better reference for this critical (for a BLP) point. I can't tell if it's an "alternative fact". Minor nit: Please add a paywall warning in an ordinary ((cite news)) for the Toronto Sun reference. –2A03:2267:0:0:F075:9C96:DB07:A83A (talk) 15:07, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No progress so far. How about a sourced statement with a link to Islamic banking, over a redirection Islamic banking and finance explains that this is a part of sharia, but it's not the juicy stuff folks could expect from sharia. Generally I'd agree with Mark Miller about the notability of tweets, but a self-published tweet as a reference in a BLP would be still better than the vague Toronto Sun article. Actually realdonaldtrump and POTUS could be notable even if some mainstream media fail to quote them correctly. (same user on logon strike) –2A03:2267:0:0:B0B0:8E4A:14BD:606B (talk) 11:25, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also see Talk:Executive_Order_13769#CAIR_v._Trump. –2A03:2267:0:0:A186:E76:F33A:ED11 (talk) 16:45, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Could you sign you talk page entries? The controversies about her religious law positions extend to her position on Saudi Arabia/women driving, and more general statements about religious law. I agree that adding the word "Sharia" adds more heat than light and I'd prefer to leave it as "religious" law. But I also think we might want to break out the two issues here into separate sentences: (1) he support for religious law (her tweets, the NY Times Article) have raised concerns, and (2) attacking some women in terms that have offended some feminists (the toronto sun article). The Saudi Arabia issue is really part and parcel of issue number one, so long as we phrase it as "religious law and countries".Jonmayer18 (talk) 19:16, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do that with four tildes, what you see is what you get without login. @Be..anyone: on login strike, having fun? BTW, various truther sites are delighted by the CAIR lawsuit, because Sarsour is the first plaintiff, it's tricky to find a reliable source like KABC-TV. –2A03:2267:0:0:B159:B3CD:8864:D064 (talk) 05:01, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The issues in this section reported by me (various 2A03:2267 IPv6) are resolved, thanks. –2A03:2267:0:0:A1ED:A98A:F87E:A843 (talk) 14:04, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brigitte Gabriel and Ayaan Hirsi Ali genital mutilation controversy

My edits regarding Lindas comments toward Ayaan Hirsi Ali were reverted because they should have "not such lavish, insulting detail". Might I remind the editor that that is exactly what "Controversy" means, and if readers find it insulting that these statements have been made, they should be equally as insulted if they are censored. Everything was factual, notable (Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Brigitte Gabriel are very notable, including that Ayaan is a victim of genital mutilation and speaks often on this point, and in relation to Islam) and referenced. Ayaan spoke at length on this issue, so this summary is anything but "lavish", given that she also addressed Linda's stance on Sharia Law, which was not even mentioned in this summary.

If you really can't stand Linda having a section named "Controversy", with this and all the other points that have been weaseled to not look like a controversy, would you care to suggest a title under which to put this information?

For reference this was the added text: "" In February 2017 Ayaan Hirsi Ali, an atheist, feminist, critic and advocate of the reformation of Islam criticised Linda for making an abusive tweet about her in 2011, equating her with Brigitte Gabriel, a journalist and anti-Islamic activist, suggesting that they should be assaulted, and that she wished she could remove their private parts because they "don't deserve to be women."

Ali, a victim of genital mutilation while living in Somalia, criticised Sarsour as a "fake feminist" who is not interested in universal human rights, in reference to Linda's appearance at a Women’s March in Washington DC in January 2017.[1] "" CdOl0lO (talk) 22:14, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "'Defender of Sharia': Ayaan Hirsi Ali Slams Women's March Organizer". Fox News. Retrieved 2 February 2017.
To rehash what I said above, if the best you can find is this one brief blurb from a short Fox News talking heads bit, this is WP:UNDUE. Going into such lavish detail about Ali is non-neutral in the extreme, since this article is not about her. Being "equated" with Brigitte Gabriel is vague to the point of being confusing, even having read the source, and more substantial, neutral sources would be needed. Since this is blurb summary of an interview which lacks a byline, it's only barely even WP:SECONDARY. Rushing to including every mention of a controversial figure in a Wikipedia article is WP:GOSSIP, which is not part of Wikipedia's function. Grayfell (talk) 22:32, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
These statements reveal pertinent facts about her, especially in the light of current events, Lindas part in them, and all surrounding it. Regarding the equating of the two, well.. the "=" sign is an equation in any language, literally. Or if you did not care to check the reference (presumably as another successful swatting of a ranting islamophobe, without looking into what was said) I will type the exact line of Linda's tweet "@lsarsour Brigitte Gabriel= Ayaan Hirsi Ali. She's asking 4 an a$$ whippin'. I wish I could take their vaginas away - they don't deserve to be women". If you are confused by saying that Bridgette is being equated with Ayaan, I can only guess it is a cultural thing. Everyone I know would agree the first sentence would be best described as the two being equated. Ayaan is the primary source, speaking and verifying the tweet about her from Linda, published by Fox, the secondary source. Yes Fox are partisan, but not more so than many other major news organisations, and Ayaan would describe herself as left leaning, with fox right leaning. I see no reason to doubt the validity of this source. It's not "the best I can find", I'd never heard of Linda Sarsour before today, I'm not sitting here trying to slander her. These are pertinent facts. And no I don't usually watch fox news either.. I haven't seen more than Ayaan talking directly about this tweet, for me at least that is enough to know it is legit. If it does happen that more sources than these need to be found, I will look in the coming days, and I have no doubt they will come.
I agree that giving lavish detail about Ayaan could be non-neutral, but here it is directly relevant to Linda's important stance on genital mutilation, feminism, and Shari Law, and Linda would have known this about Ayaan as someone tweeting about her, the act, and it being an important topic surrounding feminism and Islam generally, which they both aim to address - clearly from different angles. That's why this is not simply WP:GOSSIP.CdOl0lO (talk) 23:19, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Further to the point that including some details about Ayaan is not "lavish", it would be lavish to say that Ayaan is also a "Somali-born, Dutch-American activist, author" as these points have no relation to this statement. The statements made about Ayaan were given to give enough background to put the statement in it's full context, and no more. All of the facts mentioned may be seen as insulting to some, but their potential to cause insult derives directly from their relevance to the issues addressed in this article. Relevant facts (assuming validation from sources) should not be censored because they may be insulting to some viewpoints, or applauded by others, when this relevant. Omission of this type is addressed in WP:NPOV. The paragraphs could be reworded to ensure this, granted.CdOl0lO (talk) 23:51, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We use independent sources to determine what is and is not pertinent. Yes, she did equate the two of them, but the section you added was ambiguously written (it was not clear who was being equated to who) and provided no necessary context. Why where they equated? Who, other than Ali, actually cares? Did a single, very nasty tweet from 2011 start a "controversy", and was it in any way encyclopedically significant? It doesn't appear so from the one source you provided. Assumptions about what Sarsour did or did not know about Ali are WP:OR at best. This was one tweet, and no matter how obnoxious it was (and it was very obnoxious) it's not a controversy without secondary coverage. It's telling that the Fox news blurb did not actually include the tweet, or even a bowdlerization, as it removes readers' ability to assess the sincerity of the tweet for themselves. That smack of "outrage culture" to me, but again, without secondary sources, it's nothing at all. You mention that Ali is the primary source, but that's the problem. We don't want primary sources. As an encyclopedia (a tertiary source) Wikipedia strongly favors WP:SECONDARY sources. This coverage is short, lacks context or any indication of lasting significance, and it's only partly secondary. Grayfell (talk) 00:07, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The "criticism" section is being cut down and right now mostly consists of rebutting criticisms that are not even explained. I wrote the intro part of her "political advocacy section" -- now I think that the point of the criticism section is lost--anyone can investigate whether criticisms are valid or not, the point of the section is to identify them. I propose to identify the criticisms neutrally and fairly, rather than cram them into one setence. Also I think the abortion rights point belongs in the criticms section. Last, the sentence defending her based on the article by Deepti Hajela is out of place -- its not criticism so I propose to delete it. If we had separate sections for each critique maybe counter criticism would be appropriate, but not presently. I plan to expand the three citations to Emerson, abortion rights, and Ali/Malcom. Jonmayer18 (talk) 01:50, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We have to balance two concerns here. One, reflect criticisms fairly; another, reflect them with due weight. A BLP is not a receptacle for all criticisms made of a person, but only for the ones that reach a certain threshold of prominence, and then they need to be presented with due balance. I'm concerned that your version gives an undue weight to the criticisms in relation to their coverage in RSs, but I will let it remain and see what others think. Eperoton (talk) 04:14, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The current citations in the "criticism" section was subject to a pretty extensive discussion above and resulted in what's in there after admin review. The addition of a counter "weight" now is subject a relevance threshold: how is the Deepti Hajela article addressing any one of the criticisms at issue? Her article addresses false reports in the far right media that Sarsour wants to "replace" the US system with Sharia. That would indeed be an unfounded criticism which is why its not what in the current article. The current article identifies a critique that Sarsour defends religious laws that oppress women and she has attacked anti-Islam female activists who have first hand experience. Could your citation move up and be put after the huffington post citation regarding accusations of islamaphobi? The current placement of the sentence leads to the inferences that it relates to the prior sentence when it does not. Jonmayer18 (talk) 20:00, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We certainly don't want to imply a misleading connection between different types of criticism, but we also don't want to implicitly validate other criticism by separating it out into a special "non-unfounded" section. In fact, it's the only criticism that has received coverage in independent RSs. I think we should rather merge the two statements to strengthen the sourcing to Huffington Post, which on its own should arguably be treated according to WP:BIASED for politically charged statements.
I'm not sure if you saw the summary of my edit reverting your attribution to the AP reporter. AP publishes newsroom reports and occasional editorials. Its news reports are a WP:RS and can be used to sources factual statements without attribution, unless there's evidence of disagreement between RSs. The attribution to AP was there to mark a transition rather than for policy reasons. This is different from usual opinion pieces, which can be used to source statements only about opinions of the author and hence need attribution. Attributing a statement unnecessarily is a form of editorializing which casts doubt on its factuality ("Some say that the earth is round") and hence violates WP:NPOV. Eperoton (talk) 21:47, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There has been extensive media, criticizing Sarsour's tweet regarding Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Brigitte Gabriel. Both domestically and internationally. Including:

New York Times[4], Fox News[5], The Washington Times[6], The Spectator[7], The Daily Caller[8], Independent Journal Review [9], The Daily Wire[10], The Post Online (Dutch)[11], The Daily Telegraph (Australia)[12], Toronto Sun [13], Herald Sun[14], Document (Norway)[15], Kattukse Vrienden Voor Israël (Dutch; Blog)[16], Calgary Sun[17], Real Clear Politics (Highlight of Bill Maher's HBO show, which mentions the tweet)[18], Breitbart[19], The Daily Caller [20], Actuall (Spanish)[21], Swarajya (India)[22], ABC Nyheter (Norwegian)[23], The Christian Post[24], The Spectator[25], Prochoix (French)[26].

While not all of these are WP:RS, the amount of reporting on this is an indication that WP:UNDUE does not apply and that mention of this incident is more than warranted TAG (talk) 17:16, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to look at every link here, but they seem to be hosted blogs or opinion columns. Many public figures generate a large amount of critical commentary. To pick a couple of random examples, one could compile a whole book of criticism of Betsy Devos or Eric Holder, but these articles mention those criticisms very sparingly, based on news stories in major sources which state something like "X has been criticized". In contrast, here we have criticism without independent RS coverage accounting for half of the section about her political activism. Eperoton (talk) 17:58, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
While yes, some are opinion column, you do jump to the conclusion (because you aren't going to "look at every link here") that most of these links are opinion columns. They're not. Actually, a large amount aren't. Additionally, hosted blogs in RS publications, such as the Women in the World hosted blog of the NY Times[27] is generally considered an acceptable source. The restrictions on blog usage are to restrict criticisms from random joe-shmoe-nobody's personal blogspot posts.
I'm not saying it's appropriate to have an entire section on this issue, but it would be appropriate - given the weight of coverage - to have at least one line that says "Following the 2017 Woman's March she received sizable criticism over an obscene tweet made against Brigitte Gabriel and Ayaan Hirsi Ali."TAG (talk) 18:26, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, here's the thing about the "obscene tweet", and it has to do with general BLP principles. What we have in those columns is spin about the tweet, without any fact-checking by RSs. Even my attempt to quote the tweet itself in a footnote in order to report facts rather than innuendo has been removed. Treating BLPs as a repository for criticism plucked directly from primary sources opens the door to any kind of false, libelous accusations. Do you think this is a reasonable interpretation of BLP policy? P.S. Just to be clear, I appreciate the efforts by you and other editors to arrive at a fair-minded summary of the primary sources, but I don't believe this is what we should be doing according to policy. Eperoton (talk) 19:20, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@The Armchair General: Sorry, I actually missed the first paragraph of your reply. Can you point me to the links which are RSs? Thanks. Eperoton (talk) 20:09, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
RealClearPolitics[28],The Washington Times[29], Fox News[30], ABC Nyheter (Norwegian)[31], Independent Journal Review [32], Herald Sun[33].
Additionally, both the NY Times, The Christian Post[34], and This Daily Telegraph (Australia)[35] piece should go to RS board for review.TAG (talk) 20:36, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. None of this looks to me like independent newsroom coverage of criticism. The Fox News link is a summary of their own programming. The others appear to be opinion columns or media blogs. We should be especially cautious about sources that don't have a clear separation between news and commentary. Editorial control and reputation for fact-checking is the basis of reliability for news sources. For example, the Herald Sun piece is presented as news, but our article identifies Tim Blair as belonging to their opinion section. Ironically, the criticism that has the most going for it from a policy standpoint is the accusation that Sarsour is signaling support for ISIS when she raises her finger. It's covered by AP and Daniel Pipes' column gets weight from his academic credentials. In any case, I think we'd be both wasting our time by digging deeper into these minutia, at least unless my concerns get some traction here. Eperoton (talk) 21:45, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

commonscat

Please add a line ((commonscat|Linda Sarsour)) at the top of the section with external links. –2A03:2267:0:0:ACDA:2A2:3ECC:6878 (talk) 13:05, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Vanamonde (talk) 14:48, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ayan Hirsi Ali

The opinion of Ayan Hirsi Ali is not exactly what I'd expect on the BLP of another person in a "criticism" section, cf. WP:BLP#Balance. For comparison, Cyndi Lauper's criticism of Madonna is unsuited for a Madonna BLP.[36] –2A03:2267:0:0:5482:DF43:D187:726 (talk) 14:40, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's a concern. At first I thought that tweet crossed the threshold of independent mainstream coverage on account of the NYT ref, but on closer inspection it seems to be a hosted blog of an organization called Women in the World. The organization is related to journalism, but its blog is not an established news outlet. I think we should quote the tweet itself, in preference for reporting facts rather than innuendo, but I would suggest moving it to a named footnote and placing Ali's name alongside the other two in the preceding sentence. Eperoton (talk) 15:36, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
^.^b Resolved by you among others. OP: –2A03:2267:0:0:D554:BD9D:B9B5:805 (talk) 00:46, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hosted blogs in RS publications, such as the Women in the World hosted blog of the NY Times[37] is generally considered an acceptable source. The restrictions on blog usage are to restrict criticisms from random personal blogs. Use of this as a source should probably best be taken up in the RS noticeboards TAG (talk) 18:31, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what the policy says. Per WP:NEWSBLOG, "These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because the blog may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process." There's no evidence that NYT fact-checks this blog. I kept it because the organization has something to do with journalism, but we don't know who wrote the piece. The ref has since been removed. Eperoton (talk) 18:45, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically because it says "These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution" is why I feel that this source should go to the RS Noticeboard. TAG (talk) 18:54, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We could take it to the noticeboard if there's an active dispute about it's reliability. I think it's ok for quoting a tweet, but I won't press this point, at least for now. My point in this section had to do with notability. Coverage in NYT would make a controversy notable in itself; coverage on this obscure blog does not. Eperoton (talk) 19:03, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sarsour v. Trump

Please replace [[Lawsuits_against_the_immigration_policy_of_Donald_Trump#Sarsour_v._Trump|Sarsour v. Trump]] by [[Legal_challenges_to_Executive_Order_13769#Sarsour_v._Trump|Sarsour v. Trump]] in the 2017 Sarsour v. Trump wikilink only, not in the prose. –2A03:2267:0:0:5535:3CA8:BFE6:19FB (talk) 09:22, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mark Miller: unsourced makes no sense for the perfectly fine wikilink to Sarsour v. Trump (see above), of course it is sourced on the target page. The PDF linked from the CAIR PR exists, and is now available on wikimedia commons, somebody found the official court copy and uploaded it. Please revert this updating the link as suggested above, or add some ((not done)) blurb here and disable ((SPER)) as "no consensus" as you see fit. –2A03:2267:0:0:6950:B6C2:65B3:DD2F (talk) 09:21, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wikilink no longer exists. — Train2104 (t • c) 16:01, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you mean, Sarsour v. Trump certainly exists, only the PDF on commons was deleted. Therefore a statement here could now simply adopt the PDF used as reference on Sarsour v. Trump, e.g.,

In 2017 Sarsour was a plaintiff in [[Legal_challenges_to_Executive_Order_13769#Sarsour_v._Trump|Sarsour v. Trump]], a lawsuit against the immigration policy of Donald Trump.<ref>[https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3438628/CAIR-Suit-EDVA-20170130.pdf 1:17-cv-00120 Sarsour v. Trump Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief]</ref>

The wikilink should appear somewhere in the article, I don't care how (copied reference, reference only in the target section, or in a see also section.) –2A03:2267:0:0:E109:A231:1DCA:CA56 (talk) 14:25, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Article is fine without. ProgrammingGeek talktome 16:53, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Right of Israel to exist

I added this piece to the article

Sarsour is anti-Zionist and does not acknowledge the right of the state of Israel to exist.[1]

and it was reverted with the comments that it contradicts to other sources and needs discussion. Whereas I am not a fan of Jerusalem Post, it is difficult to not notice the fact that Sarsour is a vocal opponent of Israel (though she claims to not be antisemitic) and in some way the statement should be in the article. If there are sources with opposite claims, we can present both, I am fine with that.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:00, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed material making the above claim about Sarsour, because it is unsupported by any actual quotes from her, and is directly contradicted by at least two reliable sources — the Associated Press and an interview with NY1. Quoting those sources, the AP says Ironically, Sarsour’s acknowledgement that Israel has a right to exist, her support of a Jewish man, Bernie Sanders, for president and her relationships with politicians like Mayor Bill de Blasio have earned her criticism by some Islamists as a self-aggrandizing “house Arab.” NY1 quotes her thusly, "I do believe that Israel has the right to exist,” says Sarsour. At best we're in a situation of conflicting sources, interpretations and claims, which requires writing much more nuanced statements than a blunt, untempered factual claim that is directly contradicted by her own sourced statements. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:00, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The source you have provided does not contain any material supporting the author's claim about Sarsour; it's simply a bald assertion of fact. Contrasting with that is a direct quote by her that says she does believe Israel has the right to exist. At best, iff there is consensus for including the JPost claim, it must be worded as the author's opinion, not a statement of fact. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:05, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am fine with what you suggest.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:07, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Btw there are other sources which say she denies the existance of Israel: [38][39]--Ymblanter (talk) 11:15, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried to implement this proposal. Eperoton (talk) 15:03, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I can in principle live with that. However, the sources are talking about two different things. Sarsour herself endorses Israel as one state with Arab majority and Jewish minority. This is very different than the current state of Israel, a Jewish state, which she was accused of in denying the right to exist. It would be good to separate the two.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:27, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see evidence that the cited sources make that distinction, though admittedly I didn't try to read the JPost article beyond the relevant statement after that page hit my browser with phishing malware just now. They do make the categorical claim about denying Israel's right to exist (JPost and your other source more explicitly than Emerson). If we find a more nuanced coverage of her views, we can reflect it too. Eperoton (talk) 16:38, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
On closer inspection, this is in the NY 1 piece. I've made that addition. Eperoton (talk) 16:48, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good for me, tnx--Ymblanter (talk) 16:49, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me; I just made one tweak, and that's to flip it around so her statements are first. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:28, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Wilner, Michael (24 January 2017). "Linda Sarsour, Women's March organizer, works to link civil rights struggles to Palestinian cause". Jerusalem Post. Retrieved 12 February 2017.

Criticism of decision to exclude anti-abortion groups

@Yschilov: It looks like you're mixing up different issues here. The source talks about Sarsour's role in the decision. We can have a factual statement to that effect (in fact, we did, before it got reframed as criticism). The source also quotes some criticism of the decision itself. The source does not say that someone criticized Sarsour's role in that decision, which implies that she was singled out for criticism. That's WP:SYN. Eperoton (talk) 13:54, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No response and the user has been indeffed for socking. Eperoton (talk) 16:55, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit reverted which repeats unreliably-sourced claims

I have reverted an edit which simply repeats poorly-sourced, polemic claims about Sarsour, based upon a source that simply lists those claims while noting that the evidence for them is flimsy at best. If the best sourcing for these claims that can be found is the far-right FrontPage and the certifiably-nonsense GatewayPundit, it doesn't belong in her biography. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:07, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you need a border-line conservative source, the Center for Security Policy is "relevant" (=WP page exists, described as "not very highly respected" by the BBC), and their publication See no Sharia ISBN 1530234336 also exists, available online as PDF, 272 pages, about 15 lines cover Linda Sarsour, incl. 7 lines quoting Linda Sarsour. –2A03:2267:0:0:E109:A231:1DCA:CA56 (talk) 14:53, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted your revert on the grounds that you've misunderstood/distorted the point of the article which wasn't to regurgitate but, in keeping with the raison d'etre/modus operandi of the website, verify the claims about Sarsour that have been made by those websites, which is why the authors state at the end of their article that they tried to contact her to ask her about the claims and, more importantly, noted that they did not receive a response [from, presumably, her]. Blagamaga (talk) 21:11, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed it again on BLP grounds; the fact that they make no effort to investigate the veracity of the claims and simply end with "we haven't heard back from her" makes it nothing more than regurgitation. Do not reinsert it unless there's consensus on this page to do so. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:49, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you read that sentence in full you would realize that: 1) their efforts to verify the claims is evidenced by their attempts to contact her via e-mail and Facebook and 2) your assertion that their statement of the fact (what incentive would they have to lie?) that they didn't hear back from her "makes it nothing more than regurgitation" just makes no sense at all. Be advised that your continued inability/refusal to understand this basic point will result in further action by me to move this content dispute upwards along the dispute resolution hierarchy. Blagamaga (talk) 01:59, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of what one may think of reliability of this website, I see no indication that ignoring their query was a significant incident in Sarsour's biography. Eperoton (talk) 02:07, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That may be true (perhaps you meant autobiography) but doesn't mean that it's not significant to her biography, much less her biographical account on Wikipedia. Blagamaga (talk) 02:22, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I mean biography as in WP:BLP. Whether or not it's significant depends on how much independent coverage in RSs it receives. If she pleaded the fifth it was reported in newspapers, that would be significant. If she didn't reply to an email, and no one but the folks who sent it seem to find it notable, that doesn't belong in a BLP. We wouldn't even report it if a major newspaper noted that someone didn't return their call. That's not news in itself, much less encyclopedic content. Eperoton (talk) 02:57, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Analytically, most of the content that's in the article hasn't received "much independent coverage in RSs" but that is not stopping us from thinking that the content is not insignificant (i.e. doesn't warrant removal) so what's the difference here? Blagamaga (talk) 03:38, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Except for some criticism sourced from opinion columns, this article is based on independent coverage in RSs, as far as I can tell. If you ask me, using opinion columns for criticism directly is problematic for a policy standpoint, but many editors accept limited use of such sources, and on this point I go with whatever consensus happens to converge to in each case. Not replying to an email is a different category. Frankly, this is the first time I've seen anyone want to put such information into an article. Eperoton (talk) 05:00, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But you wrote that the significance of a piece of biographical content depends on how much independent coverage in RSs that it receives and not on whether or not it is "based on independent coverage in RSs" so the fact that you've written just that makes it seem as if you're agreeing with my argument that the main consideration in deciding what biographical content to include on the Wikipedia biographical page of a living person isn't/isn't just "how much independent coverage in RSs" that that content receives. But in any case (and for the sake of moving the discussion on), to be sure, the article isn't an "opinion column," it's a fact-finding article that is produced by a reliable source and the confluence of her political status, the gravity of the claims against her and the importance of the main article to the shaping of the public's opinion/debate about her makes her non-response to the claims a legitimate matter of public interest and therefore warrants inclusion in the article. Blagamaga (talk) 06:14, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage in RSs is the main criterion for inclusion, per WP:NPOV. Some sources are reliable for facts and others only for opinions of their authors. Selecting sources from the latter category based not on independent coverage but rather on our own assessment of their significance in problematic per WP:NOR, but sometimes there is a good reason and consensus for some of these choices. I don't see a good reason for this particular proposal, nor a consensus for it. As I wrote above, the issue here is not even reliability of the source, but significance of Sarsour's non-response. Your assessment of its significance appears to be OR and it is not shared by other editors. Eperoton (talk) 16:20, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Right to exist

I have reverted an edit which reinserted the weasel-worded claim that "others have stated that Sarsour denies Israel's right to exist." We have a reliable source in which Sarsour is directly quoted as stating that Israel has a right to exist; this places a high bar for the inclusion of claims to the contrary. The cited source for the claim includes no evidence that it is Sarsour's viewpoint nor any direct quote in which she makes such a statement;, but rather makes a bald factual assertion unsupported by anything. Thus, at best, we must include the contrary claim only as a cited opinion of the source's author, not as a weasel-worded unnamed "others say" — and frankly, I would oppose even that inclusion, on the grounds that it places undue weight on a highly-contentious negative claim not apparently supported by the facts. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I provided three sources in the topic above, and you have seen that, so I am not sure why you say there is only one source.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:35, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why you believe "The Washington Standard" is a reliable source, because it's not remotely one; moreover, the article you cite is a reposted opinion piece by Pamela Geller, a right-wing political pundit who self-published it on her own website, thus also failing reliable sourcing standards. The algemeiner source is similarly an opinion piece by someone widely viewed as a right-wing Islamophobe, and nowhere does the opinion piece state that "Linda Sarsour denied Israel's right to exist;" so I'm not sure why you believe it supports the claim you're making. If you disagree, please provide the line in the opinion which supports the claim that Sarsour denies Israel's right to exist.
The broader problem is that you're not finding dispassionate news stories by mainstream publications, you're finding thinly-veiled hitpieces published by fake news sites and right-wing commentators. Meanwhile, the Associated Press specifically reported one month ago that Sarsour's acknowledgement that Israel has a right to exist ... earned her criticism by some Islamists as a self-aggrandizing “house Arab. The weight given to a right-wing political pundit's clearly-biased commentary on a person they politically oppose is not the same as the weight given to a reported news story by a mainstream media organization. We are not a site for republication of political hit-jobs by a person's political opponents. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:13, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It would help if you stopped describing every website/article/person/opinion that you just happen to not like as "unreliable," "hit job/pieces," "fake news sites," "right-wing" and "Islamophobe." It won't lead to constructive edits on the main article, it's not going to make people who disagree with you inclined to engage constructively with you and it just makes you sound desperate to puff up her biography. Blagamaga (talk) 22:40, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you would like to make the case on WP:RSN that "The Washington Standard" (an obvious fake news site) is a reliable source, I invite you to open a discussion there. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:44, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're the one who is making that accusation so I'd strongly advise you to take yourself up on that invitation. Blagamaga (talk) 02:02, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
On closer examination, I've reinstated a narrower and more precise version of the criticism that you've removed ([40]); two other editors have already allowed the inclusion of this kind of criticism ([41] and [42])and at any rate it is what you also allowed too in your edits ([43], [44] and [45]) until you inexplicably changed your position on this issue from at least the 26th of February. Do not revert this edit as there's already been 4 (including you) editors who have okayed the original version of the edit that I've reinstated. Blagamaga (talk) 02:53, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Serious WP:WEASEL and BLP issues here that should be resolved before restoring, not by edit warring. We have a direct quote saying one thing, and a single, context-free sentence stating as fact the exact opposite. We cannot just leave it hanging like this. Just saying that "it has been alleged" without going into any details is very messy. Linking all these in a chain like this is WP:SYNTH, as well. Grayfell (talk) 03:15, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you're suggesting a compromise on how the text should be edited, it would help if you proposed what changes you have in mind on here first instead of just blindly and one-sidedly reverting my edits as you did here [46]. Blagamaga (talk) 03:23, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know what I did, and everybody else can see the article history as well. The burden is on you to include this quote and to provide context which explains the conflict. The talk page is the place to do that, not the article. Grayfell (talk) 03:32, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I already have (3 users including NorthBySouthBaranof had already okayed the original version of the edit that I had reinstated before you decided to engage in your mindless edit warring). Blagamaga (talk) 03:41, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, "mindless". I don't agree with that interpretation at all, so why don't you hold off and wait until a more clear consensus emerges. Going through my recent history and reverting my edits to totally unrelated article appears to be WP:POINTed behavior, and is not productive. Grayfell (talk) 03:57, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Of course you don't/won't but that's because my legitimate (and courteous) revert of your revert ([47]) has subsequently mysteriously led you to edit my edits in paroxysms of rage. If there's some substantive point/argument that relates to the content dispute at hand that you'd like to make, then do so; otherwise you're just stalling for time while pretending to take the high ground. Put up or shut up: it's that simple. Blagamaga (talk) 04:25, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In light of the aforementioned conversation/debate I propose that the following sentences:

"Sarsour does not support either Hamas or the Palestinian authority and has expressed support for Israel's right to exist, but also believes in nonviolent Palestinian resistance to Israel.[10] She has been described as a proponent of the BDS movement,[22] but Sarsour has said that she supports the right of Israel to exist.[10]"

Be combined into this:

Sources have variously described Sarsour as holding contrasting positions on the question of Israel's right of existence ([48], [49], [50], [51]) a proponent of the BDS movement (cite to existing sources) and a supporter of nonviolent Palestinian resistance to Israel (cite to existing sources). Blagamaga (talk) 05:42, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Paroxysms of rage" would be a pretty good band name, I wonder if it's already taken. That's not going to work. Sources do not describe her as holding contrasting positions, you are describing her that way based mainly on one specific outlet. That's WP:OR. An op-ed which calls her a "Jew hater" is not a usable source for statements of fact about her, either. We have multiple sources saying that she supports Israel's right to exist, and one which says she doesn't and provides no other context. Without something else to support/explain this, it just flat-out doesn't belong. Grayfell (talk) 05:56, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(Redacted) Blagamaga (talk) 07:01, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
On a sidenote you are one tricky guy/gal/dicky/dick not only did you revert this poor bastard's edits with the comment of "Revert non-neutral changes from WP:COI editor" ([52]) you're also the same person who welcomed that editor to Wikipedia! ([53]) What you've just done is kind of the social equivalent of rape by deception, but seeing as how you're really good at doing what you do, why not put your energy to good use, get off Wikipedia and join the CIA? Blagamaga (talk) 08:12, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


In a recent interview, Ms. Sarsour confirmed to the Nation maginize, and the Nation published her confirmation, which resolves the above dispute[1]. Ms. Sarsour does not support the existence of a Jewish state of Israel. The prior source that NorthBySouthBaranof has been relying upon is an anti-Israel activist site which essentially says that she supports Israel's right to exist as a critique of her. The Nation is a more reliable source, it is more recent, and it avoids any ambiguity as to what was meant in the prior interview. The current article is inaccurate, which is problematic for a BLP. Jonmayer18 (talk) 17:43, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We have two sources for her support of Israel's right to exist -- a direct quote and a statement of fact from AP which is not attributed to any activist site. Where does she say in the Nation interview "I do not support the existence of a Jewish state of Israel"? We can refine her position on this issue, but our formulation needs to have direct support in RSs. Eperoton (talk) 17:55, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How do you suggest to refine? The direct quote is from a non-reliable source that seems to be an attempt to ATTACK her for supporting Israel (or giving in to pressure from the mainstream). As for the AP article, it's unattributed and pre-dates the Nation article. Bottom line: the NYT published an article questioning whether a vocal critic of Israel, but not other countries, is standing up for women in light of the success of women in Israel compared to other countries. Ms. Sarsour sat for an interview with the Nation in response and the interviewor's headline is: you can't be a feminist and a Zionist. This clearly relates to her "support" for Israel's right to exist. Not sure why we need a "direct" statement when the only prior RS is an indirect statement. We are not supposed to be doing original research anyways.Jonmayer18 (talk) 19:00, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In what universe is NY1, a major news station in the largest city in the United States, a "non-reliable source"? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:03, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Jonmayer18: AP is a RS for facts, and we use their statement of fact. NY1 reported a direct quote from Sarsour, and it's a RS for that quote. Both are used verbatim, and there's no OR involved. In contrast, the rest of your comment above involves inferences that would violate WP:OR. If we have a more nuanced description of Sarsour's position from a RS, we can use that too, but without OR. Eperoton (talk) 23:06, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Eperoton: I'm ok trying to nuance the issue based on the Nation interview and the other interviews you've cited (although I don't think its an inference that someone with such firm anti-Zionist views would be opposed to a Jewish State of Israel, but I trust wikipedia readers to understand that). (Sorry my comment above related to the prior citation to Ikhras, which I did not think was reliable. Yes, AP and NY1 are reliable, although in this case I think the positions they identify I believe have been superceded.Jonmayer18 (talk) 02:26, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Jonmayer18: I think we've taken the currently available sources on this issue about as far as they allow us to go without OR. We've already summarized the actual statement about feminism and Zionism from the Nation. I happen to think it's likely that Sarsour's vision of one state solution is incompatible with Israel retaining its status of a Jewish state. If she states so explicitly in a future interview, we can reflect that, but we can't edit based on such inferences. Eperoton (talk) 02:54, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That is entirely incorrect. This biography currently cites an indisputable reliable source in which Sarsour is directly quoted as stating that she supports Israel's right to exist. Please direct me to the statement in a reliable source where she says Israel does not have a right to exist. Her expressed opposition to certain interpretations of Zionism does not constitute a statement that she does not believe Israel should exist; that is your personal interpretation of her statement and editors' personal opinions have no bearing on what we write in Wikipedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:03, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Northbysouth I'm not sure what you are saying, but I think you will have to accept that Linda Sarsour does not believe in a Jewish state in historical Palestine. She has referred to Zionism as "creepy" and she gave an interview with the Nation where she said that a feminist, such as herself, cannot also be a Zionist. Are you doubting the headline of the Nation article or are you saying that someone can oppose Zionism but support the existence of the Jewish State of Israel? If your POV is the latter, please explain. Zionism was and is the political movement for a Jewish state in historical Palestine/Israel (although not necessarily in ALL of that territory). It has many opponents and they all deserve to be treated fairly. It is fair--not POV--to say that an opponent of Zionism opposes the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state. Indeed, from an Arab Palestinian's perspective, its quite understandable. I don't see why youd want to hide it. Lets square away this difference.Jonmayer18 (talk) 18:51, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am not under any obligation to explain my POV, because my POV isn't an issue here. You don't have a reliable source that says she doesn't believe Israel has the right to exist, and to the contrary, we have at least two reliable sources in which she is either quoted as saying Israel has the right to exist or it is stated as a fact. That's the end of the story here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:54, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No talking on the talk page? Whatever the basis was for the AP article (I assume that's your "indisputable" RS, not News NY1), it pre-dates the Nation interview. I don't know what changed her mind, but if you want to talk through the steps of her political development I suppose thats ok. I think we need to cover her position accurately, not politically.Jonmayer18 (talk) 19:11, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately for your preconceived desires, Sarsour does not say in the Nation interview that she doesn't believe Israel has a right to exist. You cannot invent words she does not say or twist statements into other meanings merely because you want to depict Sarsour in a certain manner. Conservapedia may allow you to do that, so that might be a better place for you to participate. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:15, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I note that your past editorial history demonstrates that you have had issues with properly citing reliable sources and with misrepresenting those sources as relates to people who have expressed opposition to Israeli policies. @Malik Shabazz: has discussed this with you previously, and I suggest that before throwing yourself into another such issue, you educate yourself on our foundational content policies relating to living people, verifiability, reliable sourcing, original research and synthesis. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:30, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In the situation with Malik Shabazz, I had cited an article within an RS but he dug into the citations within the article and had a good argument that the article itself was inaccurate on the relevant point. His tone and demeanor were inappropriate however. He was removed as an admin after he apparently, among other things, told other people to "suck [his] dick" and referred to a user as a "Jewboy". This merited removal for cause. I believe there may be some other sanctions. I have never been called a conservative in my life and you don't know my desires. I would ask you to please read The Wikipedia policy on [personal attacks] Jonmayer18 (talk) 21:13, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are being rude and resorting to ad hominen attacks. Malik was removed as an admin i believe, so I'm not sure whether my dispute with him really supports you. As you seem to have forgotten, I built out this article with many points about Sarsour, including that she worked to secure two Muslim holidays for NYC school district. I'm familiar with and I have read all the policies you cited. Have you? As to the point at hand: The Nation article is an RS, it is not original research, can be verified by clicking on it and it indeed says that Sarsour is opposed to Zionism being part of the feminist movement, of which she is a leader. I gather you don't see a quote from her, but the AP article does not have a quote either. There is a prior quote where she calls Zionism, "creepy" and "racist"[2]. I think that twitter cite is ambiguous and of course it is original research, but perhaps is assuages your concern with accuracy. Assuming you aren't just opposing my edits on personal grounds or out of loyalty to Malik Shabazz, how about these changes in asterisks.
She **has stated that she** supports Israel's right to exist,[18][10] and favors a one-state solution for the Israeli-Palestinian question under conditions that would foster "peace and justice and equality for all."[10] Sarsour has been described as a proponent of the BDS movement.[19] **She has questioned whether Zionists can be feminists**.[cite]
If the scope of our disagreement is whether someone can oppose zionism and believe Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish state, its not so terrible. Its just an article.Jonmayer18 (talk) 20:09, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.thenation.com/article/can-you-be-a-zionist-feminist-linda-sarsour-says-no/
  2. ^ https://twitter.com/lsarsour/status/263651398250545152?lang=en

Layout

Please delete ===Notes=== ((reflist|group=note)) ===Citations===, because there are no "notes". –2A03:2267:0:0:5D69:75E5:31BD:EBE9 (talk) 17:38, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Eperoton (talk) 01:43, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Sarsour in her own words

https://web.archive.org/web/20170123220836/https:/twitter.com/lsarsour/status/534073703588700160

"10 weeks of PAID maternity leave in Saudi Arabia. Yes PAID. And ur worrying about women driving. Puts us to shame."

https://web.archive.org/web/20170122172847/https:/twitter.com/lsarsour/status/116922589967949824

"shariah law is reasonable and once u read into the details it makes a lot of sense. People just know the basics"

https://web.archive.org/web/20170123022332/https:/twitter.com/lsarsour/status/598327052727615488

"You'll know when you're living under Sharia Law if suddenly all your loans & credit cards become interest free. Sound nice, doesn't it?"

https://web.archive.org/web/20170123195630/https:/twitter.com/lsarsour/status/598326262218813440

"If you are still paying interest than Sharia Law hasn't taken over America."

71.182.242.48 (talk) 10:48, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 18 March 2017

Template:Formerly

69.124.66.136 (talk) 21:47, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is unclear what you want to change.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:51, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources

I have removed statements from this article that are not supported by reliable sources. Neither Twitter nor someone's personal blog are suitable reliable sources for claims about a living person, particularly negative claims or criticism. Please see WP:BLP for guidance on sourcing statements about living people, specifically Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:42, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What this article is and is not

Wikipedia articles, particularly biographies, are not compendiums of every time any person has ever said anything about that person. It is my feeling that recent edits have begun to turn this article in that direction — constantly adding quotes from opinion pieces in which various people critical of Sarsour opine that they don't like something she has said or done. That is fair enough, she is a public figure and some inclusion of criticism is necessary and proper. But what is not "necessary" is to add countless pile-on opinion quotes that add nothing to Sarsour's biography other than yet another note that someone disagrees with her. In an effort to keep this article from placing undue weight on critical views, I have removed a critical view after yet another critical view was inserted. To reiterate, we are in the business of writing concise, balanced biographies, not providing a reprinting platform for a person's critics. I invite further discussion here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:07, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Given Blagamaga's unwillingness to consider my good-faith compromise edits and repeated blind reversion thereof, I have reverted the article to status quo ante per the bold, revert, discuss cycle and request that proposed edits be discussed here before implementation, so as to avoid further edit-warring. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:18, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reversions

@NorthBySouthBaranof: Why did you make these reversions? Blagamaga (talk) 06:22, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because you were unwilling to consider the point I offered in my compromise edit and instead simply blindly reverted it not once, not twice but three times within 30 minutes. That's edit-warring, and at that point, it suggests that we all need to step back and discuss what changes we'd each like to see in the article before implementing wholesale changes. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:25, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't even consider it because the reason that you gave sounded like something that you pulled from your backside; there's no need for compromise edits like that when you are free to counterbalance those kind of op-eds by including the contrastive kinds of op-eds that portray her in a (more) positive light. On the contrary, if you can refer me to a Wikipedia editing policy/convention where it states/shows that op-eds that are critical of a living person are used in the Wikipedia biographical article of that person in such a way that "if one [op-ed] is added, one needs to be removed," then I may reconsider my position on this issue, but unless you can do that there's no reason why I should've accepted the compromise edits that you offered. Also, while it's understandable that you're prepared to trust what was written in the AP article at face value, I am not prepared to give her that benefit of the doubt, so unless you can come up with a better compromise edit than the one that I made (which reports the "false reports" as facts anyway), then the edits that I made for that paragraph should stand.
I will assume that the edits which I made and you did not change in your compromise edit are not under dispute and will re-add them into the article at the earliest opportunity.
I note that I did not get a response from you with regards to these comments so your reply to them is requested.
I say in closing that in light of my prior interactions with User talk:Grayfell who has constantly intervened out of spite on your side of the multiple editing disputes that we've engaged in, I will be ignoring any input that that user may have to our exchange and, absent your explicit opposition, take as a precondition of my willingness to discuss my edits with you my assumption of your acceptance that the resolutions to our disputes that we may arrive at are peremptory beyond whatever objections that that user may have to them. Blagamaga (talk) 08:31, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you understand how Wikipedia works. Inclusion of material is done by editorial consensus. There is no consensus that your proposed additions are appropriate. It is now incumbent on you to discuss your proposed changes and gain consensus for them. Continuing to edit-war disputed material into the article is disruptive editing, particularly when that material is negative in nature.
That you are "not prepared to give her that benefit of the doubt" is of no relevance to the encyclopedia, and indeed, suggests that you may not have a good enough grasp of our policies to edit biographies of living persons. Your personal opinions about Sarsour have no bearing on how we treat facts cited to news stories published in reliable sources. The statement in question is a factual statement, and as per the NPOV policy, Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. There are no reliable sources contesting the factual statement in question, therefore it will be stated as a fact in this article.
Your nonsensical ramblings about "preconditions" and of completely ignoring a third user in this discussion are just that, nonsensical ramblings. You don't get to establish "preconditions" and you don't get to ignore Grayfell merely because you don't like his viewpoint. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:33, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@NorthBySouthBaranof: I can respond to what you wrote six ways from Sunday but in the interest of time and effort, I'll just say this: the less that you stop acting like you occupy some moral high-ground (Redacted).
Since there's so much in my proposed edits that we substantively disagree on, it would be best for us for the purposes of clarity that we go through them one-by-one. Let's start with this: I will assume that since the edits which I made and you did not change in your compromise edit are not under dispute (if they were, you'd have modified the material accordingly as part of your compromise edit), you will not disapprove of/allow their re-addition into the article. Yes? Blagamaga (talk) 22:32, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I decline to engage with editors making personal attacks rather than policy-based arguments supported by reliable sources. Until you present the latter, we have nothing to discuss. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:19, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Israel right to exist revision.

I really really really don't want to get into a Israel-Palestine argument with anyone but I'm gonna put this out there. I think that this statement, on the article, needs to be revised: "She supports Israel's right to exist, and favors a one-state solution for the Israeli-Palestinian question under conditions that would foster "peace and justice and equality for all."

From my understanding, based off of commentary from many experts on the demographics of the region, a "one-state" solution is in fact a de facto end to Israel's existence!? I'm not sure what the best rewording would be. TAG (talk) 16:56, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We can only reflect assertions explicitly stated in RSs, which the passage you quote appears to do. Making article changes based on inferences like the one you suggest would violate WP:SYN. Eperoton (talk) 17:07, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The conclusion you appear to be attempting to draw is your original synthesis of two separate ideas, and that is explicitly not what Wikipedia is about. That she supports Israel's right to exist and prefers a particular political solution to the Israeli-Palestinian question are not inherently mutually exclusive. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:12, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not trying toWP:SYN. It just appears (from my understanding of the general consensus view on this issue) that these views are conflicting in nature and perhaps that should be noted. However, I'm not trying to make waves, I will back off from my suggestion for revision. TAG (talk) 17:51, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tone

This entire section reads more like political marketing material instead of encyclopedic content. Does anyone want to try to clean it up?

"Sarsour does not support either Hamas or the Palestinian authority, preferring nonviolent Palestinian resistance to Israeli occupation policies.[9] She supports Israel's right to exist,[19][9] and favors a one-state solution for the Israeli-Palestinian question under conditions that would foster "peace and justice and equality for all. Sarsour describes herself as a supporter of the BDS movement.[20] ". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob drobbs (talk • contribs) 23:26, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since this has already been discussed above, you're going to have to be a lot more specific. Grayfell (talk) 23:32, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What Bob drobbs is saying is that the material reads like a press release, and needs to be reviewed for ((tone)) by neutral, non-involved editors. I agree with this, and I have never heard about the woman before I stumbled on this page ten minutes ago. Wikipedia should not just post slightly rephrased self-published WP:VANITY material. E.g. it isn't clear how a perfectly hollow phrase like "peace and justice and equality for all" adds any encyclopedic value. It conveys zero information on the subject, it is an inane statement that would not be rejected by anyone, ever, and it is clearly just here to lull the reader into feeling good about the article subject. WP:ENC means to remove such thing and increase information density of pages without sacrificing objectivity. --dab (𒁳) 14:33, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The statement is a direct quote from her as to what she believes about the future of the Israeli/Palestinian question. We include direct quotes from article subjects all the time. It is also a descriptor and qualifier for the one-state solution statement. The entire section is reliably sourced and is the result of extensive discussion and consensus over time. You're welcome to propose changes, of course, but we are hardly going to remove a reliably-sourced statement by the article subject about her own political views and positions in a section that is explicitly about her political views and positions. This is particularly true given that we include a number of quotes from people who oppose her political views; it seems patently unfair to extensively quote Sarsour's political opponents and not quote Sarsour herself in her own biography. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:41, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I just counted; we directly quote Sarsour five times in this biography, while we directly quote her political opponents twice, a political supporter once and an outside observer once. That does not seem like an improper ratio in Linda Sarsour's own biography and it certainly doesn't seem to me to be "vanity material." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:13, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Calls for Jihad

Grayfell, I noticed you accused me of "misrepresenting the source to make a political point" in this reversion. If we could assume good faith for a moment, let's take a look at the source: "Activist Linda Sarsour, co-chair of the 2017 women's march against Donald Trump, called for a "jihad" against the president at the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) convention in Chicago over the weekend." That's the very first sentence of the non-partisan RealClearPolitics piece. Mind explaining the rationale behind your claim and edit a bit more, please? Thanks. Hidden Tempo (talk) 21:50, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit emphasized the most incendiary part of a newspaper article without bothering to include the larger context. This isn't a newspaper article, this is an encyclopedia. We don't pick what has the most punch, and we sure as hell don't ignore the rest. We try to include context and nuance in deference to BLP. As an experienced editor you should know that already. Grayfell (talk) 21:54, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article literally led with the fact that Sarsour called for Jihad against the POTUS. Journalists tend to lead with the most important part of the story, unless he/she tries to bury the lead by putting information that does not advance his/her preferred narrative near the end of the article or further back in the newspaper. Just to be clear, you are opposed to the phrase "called for Jihad," when the source says "called for Jihad." Do I have that right? Perhaps we could work together to ensure that the sources are represented accurately while maintaining neutrality, instead of accusing each other of bad faith and patronizing our fellow editors. Hidden Tempo (talk) 22:03, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The RCP piece isn't non-partisan and it's not a newspaper article -- it's a media blog by a former Breitbart editor. In any case, there's enough press coverage of these statements to support a clear presentation of what she actually said rather than just how it was spun left and right. Eperoton (talk) 22:06, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, it's not a huge deal for me. I just don't appreciate false accusations in people's reversions. Not really helpful to fostering a collaborative environment. Maybe someone will do a RfC down the line regarding the wording. Hidden Tempo (talk) 22:28, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
AGF doesn't mean ignore POV. The Washington Post article supports that the only reason this is significant is because Breitbart and their colleagues flip-out whenever they hear the word 'jihad'. Even Breitbart acknowledges that she didn't in any way call for violence, so... why does this matter? There's nothing here other than spin. The comments were from a routine speaking engagement, and would otherwise not be worthy of any mention at all. The Washington Post article clearly explains that the speech "at first gained little attention". She used a word that her political opponents don't like and refuse to understand. If we provide enough context to explain this, it's likely going to be undue, but if we don't, it's a BLP violation. That seems like a good sign this is the usual political farting and outrage culture, and should just be removed until more substantial sources come along. If we are going to include it, we need to provide context. Not optional. Grayfell (talk) 22:34, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, if it weren't for her encouragement to wage Jihad against the United States government, the speech wouldn't have been notable. But she did, so here we are. No matter how we feel about the word's evolution, it carries a far different connotation today than it did on September 10, 2001. This isn't my personal view - it's a demonstrable fact. Left-wing blogs and newspapers (Salon, WaPo, NYT, etc.) are defending Sarsour as well as Islam in general, while independent and right-wing outlets (RCP, Daily Caller, Breitbart) are criticizing Sarsour. Sarsour is presently defending her remarks on Twitter, and attacking her critics at regular intervals. Whether or not this incident should be a significant part of Sarsour's life is irrelevant - it is significant. And there is context. I included Sarsour's denial that she was calling for violent Jihad, rather than peaceful Jihad. But as I said, it's not a huge deal at least on my end, and I see other editors are already modifying my first draft which is great. I was just a bit taken aback by a stranger on the Internet suddenly accusing me of bad intentions, as I assume I'm here for the same reason that you are: to improve and expand the encyclopedia. Cheers. Hidden Tempo (talk) 01:29, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Subtle. If you want to dismiss reliable "Left-wing blogs and newspapers" and defend sources you obviously already agree with ("...encouragement to wage Jihad against the United States government") as being "independent and right-wing outlets", than you're not approaching this neutrally. I'm not accusing you of bad intentions, I'm saying that your edit was not acceptable because it misrepresented sources. Grayfell (talk) 04:48, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is that in contention? Sarsour used the term Jihad, but she claims that she did not mean violence. I don't think any RS are saying that she didn't use the word Jihad or reference the White House/federal government. I switched up my language out of style, not "agreement." I find writing to be more interesting when the same terms are not used repeatedly - but I have no opinion of the content of Ms. Sarsour's speech. I have no problem saying that left-wing outlets defend Sarsour, while right-wing blogs and newspapers criticize Sarsour. My main point is that it's become a huge story for the media all over the political spectrum, emphasizing its notability. Hidden Tempo (talk) 04:56, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're missing my point, still. Slicing them into ideologies without regard for how reliable they are, and trying to present both 'sides' as relevant or somehow equivalent, is not appropriate. This is false balance, and again, you have very obviously chosen a side here. The way you've framed this content and attempted to frame this discussion favors unreliable sources and tabloid-like language over BLP compliant content.
She never "claimed" she didn't mean violence, she didn't mean violence as the preceding context very fully shows. She went out of her way to establish that jihad meant something completely unrelated to violence. Where, other than the great right-wing flip-out, is the word "wage" used? It's loaded language selected for emotional impact. This behavior isn't Wikipedia's problem, but it's not something we should take seriously, either. She was using a word to a Muslim audience that actually understood what the word meant. Wikipedia should advocate for information and literacy, so we should also attempt to use the word correctly, and shouldn't validate gossip or similar outrage-driven pandering. Grayfell (talk) 05:23, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The last time I started outlining the laundry list of reasons why The Washington Post and The New York Times are not reliable, I wound up over on the AE board so maybe we could chat about that on my talk page. The word "wage" is not used in liberal outlets, only on conservative outlets (or "right-wing flip-out", as you prefer to call them). This information is reflected in the material. As WP:RS dictates, biased sources are very much usable, so long as they put in the proper context. But I agree that we shouldn't use wage in the article. It seems to make people very angry, indicating that it's NPOV language. I'm happy with the material as is. Hidden Tempo (talk) 05:42, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statements on anti-Semitism

I've again removed a paragraph citing two primary sources to contrast Sarsour's statements on anti-Semitism[54] with an opinion writer's response to them.[55] This kind of material is WP:UNDUE unless reliable, secondary sources have commented on the exchange specifically – such sources are needed to maintain an impartial perspective, per WP:BALANCE. The phrase "mendacious claim" also runs afoul of WP:BLPSTYLE, unless once again specifically quoted in secondary sources. See also WP:NOTEVERYTHING. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:02, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Holocaust survivors

This is not "guilt by association" since she supports BDS and works with Rasmea Odeh (those are the main concerns of the survivors). It's definitely not "undue" since letter to New York Governor is notable and supported by a reliable secondary source (Jpost is a known newspaper). I would say anything that involves 100 Holocaust survivors is notable enough to be mentioned. You can write Linda's supporters response (if there's any), but you won't remove this sourced content just because it's inconvenient for certain political agenda.--Chupamus Vergus (talk) 06:31, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's very little in reliable sources to support a significant "association" between Sarsour and Odeh, so it's WP:UNDUE to make reference to it here, at least without more than a single biased source to back out up. The Jerusalem Post being a "known newspaper" is irrelevant – not everything published in any newspaper is suitable for an encyclopedia. And the Holocaust and its surviving victims are scarcely pertinent to this biography – Sarsour is not directly connected to anything related to the Holocaust. The relevant policy is WP:BLPSTYLE – the material and source paint Sarsour in an unduly critical light, and therefore should not be included without more thorough sourcing to back up the noteworthiness of this event. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:25, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A discussion has been opened at the BLP noticeboard on this issue.[56] —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:48, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Categories