Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:54, 21 December 2017

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Linda Sarsour article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article: You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive) You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. Further information The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are: Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required. With respect to the WP:1RR restriction: Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring. Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence. After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions. Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!

This page is subject to the extended confirmed restriction related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Politics and Government This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. New York (state) This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York (state)Misplaced Pages:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state) ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Women This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Islam This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Feminism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Linda Sarsour article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Request for comment: San Bernardino attack

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

If a consensus is to be reached, it may be better to pursue the line of enquiry raised by User:The Four Deuces: finding and including secondary source analysis of Sarsour's views on the connection between Islamic terrorism and the Muslim community. This would address the concerns about quotefarming, while allowing for more information regarding her views to be included in the article. Brustopher (talk) 15:30, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Should we include Sarsour's comments in response to U.S. President Barack Obama saying that Muslims should "root out" extremism following the 2015 San Bernardino attack? (updated 19:52, 16 October 2017 (UTC)) —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:43, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

The text in the article is as follows:

In the wake of the 2015 San Bernardino attack, President Obama called for Muslims to take responsibility and "root out misguided ideas that lead to radicalization". Sarsour objected to Obama's singling out Muslims, saying, "We would never ask any other faith community to stand up and condemn acts of violence committed by people within their groups", commenting that many domestic terrorist plots had already been foiled because Muslims reported them to authorities.

1. "Transcript: President Obama's address to the nation on the San Bernardino terror attack and the war on ISIS". CNN. December 7, 2015.
2. Gjelten, Tom (December 8, 2015). "Some American Muslims Irritated By Obama's Call For Them To 'Root Out' Extremism". NPR.
3. Solis, Marie (December 7, 2015). "10 Actual Facts About Muslims You'll Never Hear From Donald Trump's Mouth". Mic.

Some previous discussion may be seen in the midst of Talk:Linda Sarsour#Sound bytes.Icewhiz (talk) 10:26, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

• No. As a prominent American Muslim activist, Sarsour will be sought out by the media to weigh in on any number of issues. That doesn't mean that every sound bite is encyclopedic. Misplaced Pages is not a newspaper or an indiscriminate collection of quotations. The sources cited (Mic and NPR) don't provide any evaluation or analysis that would establish the relevance of these comments to her life and career. Quoting her remarks here seems to lend undue weight to this specific incident. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:46, 16 October 2017 (UTC) (updated 21:58, 22 October 2017 (UTC))

  I'm seeing several other comments favoring inclusion because Sarsour is "notable" primarily for speaking publicly on such issues. This ignores both WP:NOT and WP:DUE. That Sarsour is known for speaking about issues doesn't mean that we include every single thing she's ever said to a media interviewer. As far as I can tell, this content is out of proportion to its coverage in mainstream, reliable sources. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:09, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

  Echoing Pincrete's and Irn's comments below, the phrase "many domestic terrorist plots had already been foiled" appears to be editorializing, or editorial synthesis – What Sarsour actually said was that "40% of plots that have been foiled in this country, have been disrupted by Muslims". Is this "many"? It's hard to tell. We do need to explain how quotations are relevant to an article's subject, but using original research is not the way to do it.

  On a different note, I added essentially the same content, with the same sources, to 2015 San Bernardino attack § Political reactions, where it appears stable so far. We don't need it in both places – in my opinion, the remarks are more relevant to the article on the attack itself. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:23, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

  IF used at all, the 40% text is more exact, there is little need or benefit to the paraphrasing above. Pincrete (talk) 09:20, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

• comment - do we really need an RfC for an obvious "absolutely"? Sangdeboeuf, read my comment to you above. 18:18, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes - it represents her position and outspoken comments which made her notable. 23:38, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
• No Not yet (Summoned by bot) The less comments and quotes the merrier. BLP, not an almanac. Atsme, which comment? I see several by you. L3X1 (distænt write) 22:23, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
• yes fine, if it is sourced. A reaction by a prominent activist to a presidential announcement or public address isn't a random soundbyte. Also, I hope the RfC process isn't being used here to maintain a revert and slow down the process of inclusion of material into the article. If this is the case the RfC tag should be removed so that normal discussion and editing can resume. Additionally, the word sound bytes crops up some 25 plus times here as a means of calling the suitability of inclusion of certain contents into question. Bear in mind that this term can be used with reference to an overarching variety of potential inclusions, some of which are perfectly acceptable for inclusion. The policies concerning NOTNEWS are not set in stone and give editors considerably more leeway than policies like MEDRS or BLP. The interpretation of NOTNEWS should not be used to selectively exclude content or demand further contextualization in a manner similar to BURDEN. The focus here should be on a well written article, which helps us understand the subject. An inclusion of a certain amount of her statements seems acceptable as she is apparently notable for making them. Edaham (talk) 01:46, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
• Comment I haven't investigated this in enough detail myself, but the comments here are off the mark. Sourcing is necessary for coverage in a BLP, but it is not enough. To include something in a bio, we need to show that it is a significant part of coverage of Sarsour in reliable sources. Vanamonde (talk) 04:35, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

  Maybe you should investigate it then. The subject of this article is notable predominantly for making political commentary. The RfC is asking whether or not a sourced piece of her commentary belongs in her encyclopedia article. The answer to this question is that it is left to the discretion of the editor dealing with the material as to whether or not to add it. You are correct that RS is insufficient. The relevant parts of policy to which you didn't (but should) refer include

  1)WP:NOTNEWS A diary. Even when an individual is notable, not all events they are involved in are. For example, news reporting about celebrities and sports figures can be very frequent and cover a lot of trivia, but using all these sources would lead to over-detailed articles that look like a diary. Not every match played or goal scored is significant enough to be included in the biography of a person.

  2)Misplaced Pages:Too much detail before inserting the new material, one should consider the significance of his/her additions. Is it something the topic is widely known for? What is its connection to the topic's notability? Any indiscriminate detail should be removed.

  These questions we are asked to ask by our policy have been answered, or have at least yielded enough information about the subject to act according to editorial discretion. Is the commentary something the subject is widely known for? yes. What is its connection? its a prominent piece of commentary which could help our readers come to an understanding of the kind of thing on which this political commentator and activist commentates. Should it be removed on the grounds of either of the above policies? Highly doubtful. There may be some other reason to remove or not to restore it, i.e. WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE, which places BURDEN on the person wishing to restore or keep contested/deleted material, but the specific piece of info seems to pass the "significance" issue. Edaham (talk) 05:21, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

  For the record, Misplaced Pages:Too much detail is an "explanatory supplement", not a policy at all. The above argument is therefore just one editor's opinion. I'll leave it to others to decide whether it's a convincing argument or not. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:52, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

• Yes. What makes activists notable - is their speaking and lobbying, not much else. In this case we a small activist on the national scale (back in 2015 - not the same caliber as she is now) who is making a rather severe rebuke towards the President - the same President one must note that vastly increased her national notability in the first place ("champion of change") - and on the same issue she was recognized for previously - namely -- stopping the singling out of Muslims in the context of terror and policing surveillance in NY - so this is a continuation of her previous efforts in the New York area - on a national scale. This was and is covered. If we were to take an axe to the article and cut out anything related to public speaking - we'll end up with an article here that contains her personal life, the car accident, and her appointment to director of AAANY.Icewhiz (talk) 06:09, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

  ...this is a continuation of her previous efforts in the New York area - on a national scale. This was and is covered. Please provide a reliable source that makes this connection, otherwise this is original research. Also, this has nothing to do with "public speaking". Sarsour's remarks about San Bernardino weren't from a speech; they are sound bites from media interviews. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:15, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

*Comment I sympathise with Vanamonde's post above, little info is provided to we RfC-ers and I could not find any prior discussion above either about content, context or level of coverage of Sarsour's 'response' to Obama, nor what content is proposed here. I'm not going to give a 'vote' on an abstract Q. without this info and it is not reasonable to ask commenters to do so. How can anyone meaningfully provide a response in the absence of this info? Pincrete (talk) 09:33, 18 October 2017 (UTC) Fixed by Icewhiz, thanksPincrete (talk) 21:25, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

• Yes providing it has solid sourcing. Her notability derives primarily from her widely discussed comments on current events.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:05, 18 October 2017 (UTC) Endorse wording and sources provided above. Adding this is appropriate because her notability derives from her comments on public events, and the media coverage they provoke.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:36, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
• Include, but ... "Sarsour objected to Obama's singling out Muslims, saying" should be modified to "Sarsour responded by saying". The element of her 'objecting' is unnecessary as her quote 'stands on its own' and the text is borderline editorialising. Pincrete (talk) 21:25, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
• No There's not enough space on this Misplaced Pages for every time Sarsour made a comment against or for a position. I see no reason to add it, Misplaced Pages isn't a collection of all information. We're an encyclopedia, and adding unnecessary information isn't encyclopedic. Now, if President Obama responded back to Sarsour, then sure, it'd be encyclopedic, but just the statement is not. _{Adotchar| reply here} 09:50, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
• No - I agree that this is well-sourced and doesn't appear to violate any policies, so it could be included, but I see no reason to include it. Taking Sangdeboeuf's point into consideration, we need to show in the article text itself how these remarks are relevant to her life and career. At this point, I don't see that. All I see are some quotations that got some media coverage. -- irn (talk) 20:53, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
• Comment I don't really have anything to add, but I've added the RfC to the category of "religion and philosophy" in hopes that perhaps the feedback request service can help bring attention to the discussion from interested people. Feel free to revert if you feel this was unnecessary.  I dream of horses  If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message  (talk to me) (My edits) @ 04:54, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
• No It is non-notable, yet-another-comment. --G (talk) 09:01, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
• Comment If this was a controversy that was covered in the media at the time, then the article should show how experts and others weighed the comments by Obama and Sarsour. I suspect it was not and the purpose of the story is to illuminate Sarsour's views on the connection between Islamic terrorism and the Muslim community. So why not summarize her views on the issue and leave out the the reference to Obama, the date, and the direct quotes. TFD (talk) 00:00, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

  I can see the merits of this. The position, of not holding the Muslim community accountable for the acts of an individual, is notable - and Sarsour has been a leading voice in this (and we heard echos of this following the Paddock shooting (on how non-Muslims groups are not held accountable for the acts of individuals, while Muslims are)) - the exact particulars of the San Bernardino and Obama are much less significant.Icewhiz (talk) 06:27, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

  I think that's generally a good approach to take; however, it's still important to cite published evaluation and analysis from secondary and tertiary sources. Otherwise, we still have an WP:INDISCRIMINATE issue, just with some details removed. If we simply state that Sarsour said "X" about singling out Muslims, the natural thing to ask is, "Why?" Or more specifically, "Why should I, as a reader, care about this?" —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:09, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

  I agree. It's always better to use secondary sources because usually interpretation of statements made is required and they establish the degree of support the views have. When we provide quotes, as in this case, it can always be questioned why they were chosen and whether they are presented in a neutral way. TFD (talk) 12:12, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

  I think we're in broad agreement here, but to clarify, we can't really summarize someone's "views" without engaging in original analysis and interpretation. All we could do is paraphrase the quotations themselves, which runs into problems of neutrality. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:14, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

  That's why I suggested using a secondary source which can summarize her views. Per "original analysis and interpretation," a secondary source provides "analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources." TFD (talk) 23:50, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

  Quite so. If only we had that kind of interpretation from a reliable source, then I wouldn't see any need to dispute the inclusion of the quotes at all. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:10, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

  The problem (here and elsewhere) in regards to Sarsour is that while there is ample coverage of these various attention-grabbing speeches and tweets, glowing bio coverage (that usually doesn't delve down to actual positions), and anti-Sarsour attack pieces (which actually do thread some of these together, but are problematical NPOV/RS wise) - there is little neutral coverage that actually analyzes all of these separately. So we end up with coverage of each little bit separately (e.g. for 2017 - "Jihad", "Zionism/Feminism", each fund raising bit - all are covered separately).Icewhiz (talk) 07:32, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

  She did repeat this position recently - Muslim New Yorkers are bracing themselves for hate crimes after terror attack (AOL, Mic) - “I told them, ‘You condemn these acts of terror, but you should not have to apologize because this perpetrator was Muslim. You can’t be in that frame of mind.’”.Icewhiz (talk) 07:34, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

  Actually, NPR does provide some generic analysis, as in "Muslim leaders say they want to help, but some are not happy that they are being singled out", which I summarized at 2015 San Bernardino attack § Political reactions. Sarsour is quoted, but nothing is directly stated about her or her comments. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:41, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, it is historically notable and well-sourced.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 23:32, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
• Yes. per Farang Rak Tham (talk) and others. That Muslim should push back when asked to "root out misguided ideas that lead to radicalization" is a significant issue in Muslim-Western relations. -BoogaLouie (talk) 19:09, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Is there a reliable source that directly supports the idea of these specific remarks by Sarsour being significant to "Muslim-Western relations"? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:58, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

References

1. Solis, Marie (December 7, 2015). "10 Actual Facts About Muslims You'll Never Hear From Donald Trump's Mouth". Mic.

Cemetery fundraising

I disagree with this edit by User:Sangdeboeuf.

(Removing minor events/controversies – little to no WP:ANALYSIS from mainstream sources – see Talk:Linda Sarsour/Archive 7#Trivia)

Under WP:NPOV, the criteria for including something in Misplaced Pages is WP:WEIGHT, and material should be included in proportion to its representation in WP:RS. The story of Sarsour raising money to restore a Jewish cemetery was reported in NPR, NBC News, Democracy Now, Jewish Post, Christian Science Monitor, Fox News, Philly.com, U.S. News and World Report, etc. and that should establish WP:WEIGHT. So it's not minor events or trivia.

Do other editors agree? If so, I will revert those edits. --Nbauman (talk) 14:23, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I believe that Sarsour's funding controversies in 2017 - both the cemeteries and relief for Harvey - should have some coverage per coverage this has received throughout the year.Icewhiz (talk) 14:29, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

The coverage mentioned is not necessarily enough to show that the event is significant in Sarsour's bio, and we don't need to catalogue Sarsour's every brief appearance in the news. See WP:PROPORTION: "discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic". If there are sources that show that the event was of lasting significance or offer other evaluation and analysis, feel free to suggest them. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:56, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

WP:PROPORTION says that material should be included "proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." There were many stories in WP:RS. What else is your criteria for "lasting significance"? --Nbauman (talk) 21:04, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

"Many stories" is relative. And there are many events reported in multiple news sources every day that don't end up in the encyclopedia. "Lasting significance" would be shown by, at minimum, coverage of this issue in reliable, mainstream sources over more than a single news cycle. Even better would be a source explaining why this event is important, so that we don't rely on original research to place it in context within Sarsour's bio. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:42, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

"Lasting significance" sounds awfully subjective on your part. I could show you a source like this https://jezebel.com/the-demonization-of-linda-sarsour-1797537513 and this https://www.timesofisrael.com/bds-activist-raises-56000-for-vandalized-jewish-cemetery/ and you could simply say, "I don't think that's lasting significance." That would just be your personal opinion. De gustibus non est disputandum. How about it? Do the Jezebel story and the Times of Israel story meet your standard of "lasting significance"? --Nbauman (talk) 08:54, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Editorial judgement is by nature subjective, but the burden to achieve consensus is in fact on the person seeking to include the disputed content. I don't think Jezebel is terribly mainstream, and Times of Israel is just more routine news coverage from the time of the event. Misplaced Pages is not a newspaper – to show that something is encyclopedically significant, we need to cite published evaluation and analysis, preferably from multiple mainstream, reliable sources. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:45, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Nbauman and Icewhiz are right. This content belongs in the article. ] (talk) 16:33, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

First you say that you're removing the cemetery story because -- even though there were multiple news reports -- they weren't analytical enough. So I showed you analytical stories. Now you say the cemetery story can't go in because you personally don't think Jezebel is "mainstream" enough, and the long analytical story in Times of Israel (which incorporated JTA reporting) is "routine news coverage." I disagree. I think they are analytical, there's been lots of coverage in WP:RS, and that meets WP:WEIGHT. It doesn't look as if I can convince you, but I think other editors agree with me. --Nbauman (talk) 23:04, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I'd appreciate less of the confrontational rhetoric, thanks. And consensus on Misplaced Pages is reached through reasoned discussion, not majority rule. I'm not seeing the purported analysis in the Times of Israel article, though I am seeing several prominent references to Sarsour's support of the BDS movement. Publications focused on Israel do seem to have a fixation with Sarsour for this reason. But Sarsour is American, and the incident happened in Missouri, not the Middle East. The lack of mainstream U.S. sources offering any kind of commentary or analysis on this event says to me that it's a minor blip on the news calendar, nothing more. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:16, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

This was covered by quite a few RSes. Many, but not all, sources were Jewish, as should he expected when there is funding controvesy around a Jewish cemetary. There is policy in Misplaced Pages to exclude Jewish sources, and I for one find it highly objectionable that such an editing criteria seems to be suggested here.Icewhiz (talk) 20:56, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Sangdeboeuf, I think it's fair to say that you're a deletionist. I'm not. I think you're raising the bar for "analytical" beyond what Misplaced Pages requires. There are enough WP:RS to include the cemeteries in the article. I've made my case and the consensus of editors working on this article seems to go with me. It's been nice debating with you.

The other deletion you made was about Sarsour's support for Kaepernick. I did a Google search for WP:RS and found several : Ebony , Moyers & Co. and New York Daily News Yes, I know you're going to say that those are brief references. In my judgment, they're enough for at least a brief mention in the article, maybe with Black Lives Matter. If other editors want to restore it, they've got my vote. --Nbauman (talk) 22:21, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

This discussion has been unnecessarily personalized from the outset. Rather than continue it, I've started an RfC on the NFL/Kaepernick question below. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:21, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: I said "publications focused on Israel", not "Jewish" publications. They are not equivalent. One could include most neoconservative U.S. publications (e.g. National Review, the Daily Caller) with the former. However, actual Israeli sources' fixation on Sarsour remains a curiosity. Sarsour is American, not Israeli. She has nothing to do with Israel apart from her public statements. Other American activists have made similar statements. Why would we have more Israel-based sources than usual for this particular biography, especially concerning issues where mainstream U.S. publications have little or nothing to say? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:28, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Much or Sarsour's notability comes from her identificaton as Palestinian and these positions. If she receives SIGCOV in RSes these should be represented in proportion to the amount of coverage she receives.Icewhiz (talk) 05:03, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, that hinges on just how "SIG" the "COV" is, and just how "R" the "S"es are. In this case, the coverage of the cemetery fundraising in Times of Israel lacks an explanation of how it's relevant to any broader issues or concerns. It's just regular news reporting. Not very significant, in my opinion. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:12, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I see quite a bit of coverage - from the beginning of the year and until recently: . "Regular news reporting" dies 2 days after the event. In this case - we have this event (as well the issues in disbursing the funds) - popping up months after the event - continuing through present time.Icewhiz (talk) 12:27, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Several of these sources are either opinion or routine local news coverage. I see also that no effort has been made to incorporate any of these sources into the article. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:03, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Kaepernick, NFL protest

The article currently states:

In August 2017 Sarsour spoke at the "United we Stand" rally in front of NFL headquarters in New York in support of Colin Kaepernick Sarsour laid out the protesters' demands Sarsour also asked protesters to call and tweet at Verizon, an NFL sponsor. Kaepernick thanked Sarsour and fellow Women's March organizers for their support.

Should this be included or excluded from the article? Other sources mentioned the event, including Ebony and Moyers & Co.. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:21, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Correction: The Moyers & Co. story was published a week before the rally. It mentions Sarsour only in the context of some of her tweets that Kaepernick re-posted. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:40, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

• Exclude. It's a minor blip on the news calendar. Sarsour, as a prominent activist, will be in the news for any number of activities that generate a brief flurry of news coverage with little to no follow-up evaluation or analysis in reliable, secondary sources. Just because this event was newsworthy and reported in multiple publications at the time doesn't make it encyclopedic; Misplaced Pages is not the news. To merit inclusion, this event would need reliable sources telling us why it is significant, so that we don't rely on original research to extract the meaning, or else end up with an indiscriminate list of every rally and speech that Sarsour has ever attended or given. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:22, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I note that most of the comments below arguing for inclusion don't cite any reliable sources to explain why this event is important; such arguments essentially amount to WP:ILIKEIT. Saying that activists are "notable" for their activism doesn't address the question of sourcing either. J.S. Bach is notable for composition; that doesn't mean that his biography should list every single one of his works. If someone wanted to create a List of public appearances by Linda Sarsour, that would be a different question.

    As for the existing sources, I'm not sure that Sports Illustrated or the New York Daily News are known for having a reputation for "fact-checking and accuracy" when it comes to living people. The Root is a relatively new online publication whose reputation is not yet established. In BLPs, we should be especially careful to use only the most generally reliable sources. If this were a "major controversy" and "significant" as some here have suggested, I would expect more mainstream coverage, per WP:REDFLAG. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:09, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

    • This is reliably sourced. SI is a premier source - and many other sources are available for this particular show of support - sources are not lacking. Not only that, but the Sarsour-Kaepernick relationship is receiving LASTING coverage, e.g. here - Muhammad Ali award caps big year for Colin Kaepernick, USA Today, 6 December 2017 - Linda Sarsour, a leading organizer of the Women's March on Washington, described in GQ's December issue what she told Kaepernick about his work. "I always tell Colin: 'You are an American hero. You may not feel like a hero right now, but one day, people will realize the sacrifices that you made for so many others.'".Icewhiz (talk) 09:22, 19 December 2017 (UTC) And per GQ - Colin Kaepernick Is GQ's 2017 Citizen of the Year "He helped us assemble a ten-person team of his closest confidants—including rapper J.Cole, director Ava DuVernay, activist Harry Belafonte, and Women’s March co-organizer Linda Sarsour—to speak on the subjects of activism, protest, and equality, and to offer some rare insights into Colin Kaepernick himself", and Sarsour herself here - Colin Kaepernick Will Not Be Silenced An activist is anyone who cares about something and has a talent that they're willing to put toward it. Every single one of us needs to prioritize: What is it that touches your heart the most? Is it the killing of unarmed black people? Is it domestic violence against women? Is it immigration and protecting undocumented people? I always tell Colin: "You are an American hero. You may not feel like a hero right now, but one day, people will realize the sacrifices that you made for so many others." There might even be a day when we'll be walking down Colin Kaepernick Boulevard and people will remember what Colin Kaepernick did, just like we remember Muhammad Ali. And I truly believe that in my heart. This is beyond a single protest (significant in and of itself).Icewhiz (talk) 09:39, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
• Include. Received SIGCOV in several RS. Political activists are notable for their activist activities, and these should be covered.Icewhiz (talk) 05:06, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
• Exclude per Sangdeboeuf, unless the NFL protest becomes associated with Sarsour. It's the difference between Jane Fonda visiting North Viet Nam in 1972 and Judy Collins singing at an anti-war rally in New York that year. One is worthy of notice, the other is just routine. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 04:13, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
• Include. to quote above "Political activists are notable for their activist activities". Not every activity mentioned in an article has to be on the order of Fonda's visit to North Vietnam. A one-sentence mention is appropriate. -BoogaLouie (talk) 20:33, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

  Where would such a sentence go in the article? It's not clear from any of the sources how this event fits into Sarsour's bio. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:39, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

• Neutral. But if included, limit to "In August 2017 Sarsour spoke at the "United we Stand" rally in front of NFL headquarters in New York in support of Colin Kaepernick" the rest is definitely trivia. Pincrete (talk) 23:36, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
• Exclude or greatly limit - something like the one line Pincrete mentioned. Just follow WP:WEIGHT - coverage seems not to the detail given -- the DailyNews site only said "Kaepernick also thanked Women’s March leaders Carmen Perez, Linda Sarsour, and Tamika Mallory. Women’s March helped to organize the rally and Mallory made a passionate speech to the crowd." And googling I only saw a medium media names -- and neither NY Post nor SI.com gave details of Sarsour involvement. Markbassett (talk) 06:13, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
• Exclude (Summoned by bot) If you want it put it in List of notable activities by Linda Sarsour. L3X1 (distænt write) 16:41, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
• Include. For Misplaced Pages, the main criterion for including something is multiple WP:RS, and it meets that criterion, as described above. When Sangdeboeuf complains that the WP:RS aren't "analytical" enough, he's just adding criteria that aren't supported by Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines, and using his own subjective, personal opinion. --Nbauman (talk) 06:34, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Multiple reliable sources also reported the weather this morning. Should that go in as well? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:47, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
    • No, because WP:RS specifically excludes routine reports like weather reports (as you should know from reading WP:RS). The reason the Kaepernick demonstration belongs in the article is that it shows Sarsour's concerns about social justice are not limited to Arabs, or Jews, but also includes black people. It may be WP:OR for me to say that, which is why I'm limiting myself to the more objective test of WP:WEIGHT. But it's also WP:OR for you to say it doesn't belong because you personally don't think it's important enough. In any case, we don't have consensus to exclude, so it stays in. --Nbauman (talk) 22:58, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
      • You hit the nail on the head with original research regarding the proffered evaluation of the event's importance. That is precisely why it is preferable to have commentary and analysis from secondary sources. Regarding consensus, I'm afraid you have it exactly backwards. The burden to achieve consensus is on those seeking to include disputed material. For this material to have sufficient WP:WEIGHT for inclusion, I would expect at least some kind of explanation from reliable sources of why it's significant. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:34, 27 November 2017 (UTC) updated 17:10, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
      • Misplaced Pages's guidance regarding "analytical" sources states: "articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources"; a secondary source "contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources". See also WP:PRIMARYNEWS. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:54, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
• Exclude per Sangdeboeuf. WP:TMD, WP:PERSISTENCE and WP:LASTING etc. This doesn't appear to contribute significantly and while not comparable to the inclusion of weather, it is somewhat comparable to including info on someone like an author every time they organize a book signing event. If they write a book, they are going to be assessed on it in terms of how the writing compares to their previous work and the direction they may take in the future. If they attend a public speaking event, then the info if covered will likely be quickly sidelined as a marginal event undertaken by the subject during the course of their professional practice. The same discretion should apply to this subject. If it's something which makes us reassess her positions or contributes significantly to an understanding of her career by way of sustained coverage then it should definitely be in the article. If this is not the case, then challenged material can and should be freely removed. Edaham (talk) 06:05, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
  • For the record, Misplaced Pages:Notability (events) isn't the relevant guideline, since this isn't about giving the event its own Misplaced Pages page. However, the reasoning offered is essentially the same as NOT#NEWS, NOT#EVERYTHING, and WP:PROPORTION. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:06, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
    • It was typed in a rush. The above quoted policies are what I had in mind. Edaham (talk) 04:53, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
• Comment. (Summoned by bot) Close question. I would lean toward include because this was and is a major controversy and multiple sources reported it. However, I think it should be shorter, just a sentence. Coretheapple (talk) 13:04, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
• include but more succinct.Fred (talk) 14:56, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
• include due to coverage in reliable sources. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 09:16, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

References

1. Rohan, Tim (24 August 2017). "Colin Kaepernick Supporters Rally Outside NFL Office". Sports Illustrated.
2. Helm, Angela (24 August 2017). "#ImWithKap: Hundreds Rally at NFL Headquarters for Colin Kaepernick, Call for Boycott if Demands Not Met". The Root.
3. Grossman, Evan (24 August 2017). "Colin Kaepernick tweets appreciation for protests as NFL continues to blackball him". Daily News. New York.

Asmi Fathelbab allegations

Per test and sources in this diff. These allegations are widely reported by several RSes. Our usual policy (exercised recently quite frequently with the #MeToo revelations) with public figures is to include such allegations when they are made publicly and reported, qualifying that said allegations are allegations - not fact.10:41, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Note - I would add to the text in the diff above Sarsour's late night denial of the charges (that I missed since the reporting I saw had her refusing comment, but did see now after checking Sarsour's twitter) - which is available on Buzzfeed (not a source I typically would use (though I might be wrong, they are becoming more RSey I think), but should definitely be reliable for an interview) - Women's March Planner Says A Report That She Ignored Sex Harassment Is "Character Assassination", Buzzfeed.Icewhiz (talk) 12:09, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

This is certainly relevant given her outspokenness on women's issues. I added the BuzzFeed source, which certainly should be a good RS for an interview. PasterofMuppets (talk) 12:49, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages editors really ought to exercise some consistency on matters like this. Some Bio pages are zealously guarded - with criticism buried deep and bracketed by numerous qualifiers and weasel words - while others are just a list of salacious innuendo. If RSs report, so should Wiki, right? ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 16:00, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

There is absolutely no way this won't be included. Allegations of this caliber, reported this widely, against a public figure always go in.Icewhiz (talk) 16:11, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

It is only one person who says Sarsour didn't believe her. It is only gossip - just because WP:RS report something, that does not mean it is suitable for Misplaced Pages. And the sourcing is not very good, it is sourced to foxnews, buzzfeed, and the Daily Caller- Newsweek and IBTimes are given as sources to make it appear better sourced, but they are both sourced to the Daily Caller. Not only is it a BLP violation, it looks like a sneaky attempt to make the sourcing look stronger then it actually is. Seraphim System 20:24, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

The initial report by the DC was widely reported on by RSes who assessed that the stmt by the former employee was indeed made by a former employee - which Sarsour herself confirmed in her long stmt via buzzfeed (which should be reliable for what Saraour said). There was no need to use the DC (who had the scoop, but DC publishing first is AOK if this is published elsewhere as thos was) for sourcing. This is a major, non gossip, issue and will end up here eventually.Icewhiz (talk) 20:32, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

• Concur that this material belongs in article because of her self presentation as an outspoken feminist.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:24, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I suggest you post it on BLP/n before restoring. Seraphim System 01:57, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Because of her self presentation as an outspoken feminist is a non-sequitur; that's a valid comparison to make only if a reliable source makes a similar comparison. It also presumes that there is any weight to the allegations. The sourcing regarding any actual controversy so far is poor; following WP:RECENTISM, WP:REDFLAG, and WP:NOTNEWS, it would be preferable to wait and see whether mainstream sources make anything of this. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:32, 20 December 2017 (UTC) (edited 02:52, 21 December 2017 (UTC))

When we start putting The Daily Caller interviews that were tweeted by Trump Jr. into our encyclopedia we will become no better than a gossip tabloid as well. Gandydancer (talk) 14:26, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Most of the details were confirmed by Sarsour herself () - who admitted Fathelbab was employed in the building and that a sexual harrasesment complaint was brought forward by Fathelbab to Sarsour, and that Sarsour dismissed the complaint. The difference between Fathelbab's and Sarsour's positions seem to be limited to the merits of the complaint as well as the tone/sayings of Sarsour. If this were only the DC - it would be one thing. In this case we have multiple RSes repeating Fathelbab's words - and one would presume (as Newsweek, Fox News, and others are reliable) that they verified that Fathelbab stood behind them (and in any event - Sarsour herself admitted to Fathelbab saying these things (in 2017) per her own denial of Fathelbab's claims). The Daily Caller being first to break an item - does not make the item insignificant or unreliable. If the Daily Caller (and the like) is the only outlet to report - then such a claim holds water. This is, incidentally, already covered by international outlets - e.g. UAE's The National - - as well as other countries.Icewhiz (talk) 15:27, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Whaw. Just whaw. I haven't seen worse hypocrisy, or double standards for years. Yes, I'm looking at you, User:Icewhiz, and you, User:E.M.Gregory: recall Talk:Elie_Wiesel#Molestation_allegations?? ...where allegations against Wiesel, which had been reported by several WP:RS...where Icewhiz stated this....and E.M.Gregory stated this? Seriously, I hope you have some self respect left, as my respect for both of you just went through the floor. Oh, and my opinion about including/not including this here is the same as in the Wiesel case: unless there are several other instances: this stays out of the article. Huldra (talk) 20:59, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Different situation. Wiesel is dead and could not respond to these claims which could not be corroborated in any meaningful fashion (beyond the accuser saying her ass was grabbed 28 years ago). In Sarsour's case, Sarsour herself admitted that she handled the sexual harrassment complaint (even going so far as prividing some (but not all) affidavits and documentation from the 2009 affair) and that she found the complaint with little or no merit.Icewhiz (talk) 21:13, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Lol! Yeah, as if a BLP article needs less proof than a non BLP article? And handling claims against another counts for more that claims against the person in question? Nice.... Keep digging. Huldra (talk) 21:31, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• Accuser: Linda Sarsour said sexual harassment 'doesn't happen to someone that looks like you', Fox News, 20 December 2017 - coverage + interview with the alleged victim on reliable source - so we no longer have (however scant, since RSes repeating the DC should've been assumed to have verified Fathelbab stands behind the statement in the DC) any sourcing issues regarding Fathelbab's allegations against Sarsour.Icewhiz (talk) 06:07, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Interviews are mostly primary sources and not a good indicator of WP:WEIGHT. Not to mention that Fox News is known to spread falsehoods and mislead its audience, especially about Black Lives Matter and pro-Palestinian activists. Even if their facts are correct on this one, Fox shouldn't be used to give weight to embarrassing allegations about an activist such as Sarsour. See also "Recentism" and other policy shortcuts in my comment above. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:43, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
    • This is not just an interview but coverage. Fox News is a reliable source per any RSN discussion and is not known to spread falsehoods. The Daily Caller does have issues (though since the initial coverage was repeated by more reliable sources - such as Newsweek - this wasn't such of an issue). This issue is not going away - and will be in the article eventually - it has been covered extensively by multiple RSes since it broke in the beginning of the week - and coverage will with all likelihood continue.Icewhiz (talk) 07:48, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
      • FOX's file: PunditFact, The fact-checks behind 'The Daily Show's' 50 Fox news 'lies'. I don't have a WP:CRYSTALBALL, so I don't know what will be in the article eventually, sorry. But rushing to include salacious material is not the way to write a BLP. Where are these multiple RSes anyway? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:04, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
        • non-comprehensive list - buzzfeed, Newsweek, Fox News,Fox News, International Business Times,NY Post, Washington Examiner, Washington Times, teen vogue, the National (UAE), Brooklyn Reporter... But I'm fine with WP:WAITing (even though Sarsour's denial, as well as the attributed sayings of Fathelbab do pass BLP - there is no rush here, and editor consensus will only become clearer as this evolves. Most other #metoo affairs were pushed into Misplaced Pages quite quickly (even with dedicated spinout articles) - but waiting is generally not bad)- this isn't going away, and coverage is widening.Icewhiz (talk) 08:36, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
          • That's good, since many of the above sources – BuzzFeed, Fox News, the New York Post, the Washington Times, etc. have a minimal, if any, reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Not sure about Teen Vogue(!). What would help is some proof that any of these outlets attempted to verify the truth of the allegations, instead of just reporting that The Daily Caller published a story containing unverified allegations against an activist who has been a regular target of right-wing smears, written by an author with a history of plagiarism. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:56, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
            • (edit conflict) Fox News is a reliable source - per multiple discussions in RSN. It is definitely reliable enough for an attributed saying from Fathelbab. While I used to share your views on buzzfeed (and Teen Vogue), you're out of date - see RSN BuzzFeed and Amazon.com and "serious"_articles_from_Buzzfeed,_Teen_Vogue,_and_Cosmopolitan Usage of "serious" articles from Buzzfeed, Teen Vogue, and Cosmopolitan - it is definitely reliable enough for an attributed (and very in-depth) denial by Sarsour. New York Post and Washington Times are reliable - though 2nd-3rd tier. We have Newsweek and International Business Times reporting on this - on their own byline - which is enough both to establish that this is an important piece of information and that Fathelbab actually said was she said (what I wouldn't use - is the DC's reporting on what additional anonymous colleagues said - and this was not repeated by RS (unless qualified by according to the DC)). The facts (such as they are - that Fathelbab alleged, Sarsour denied - what actually transpired is a she said she said affair, as always in #metoo) - are reliably sourced. From the extent of the reporting we can tell this is an important piece if information which is DUE. However, we will probably see more information and coverage come out if we just WAIT - which is fine in any event.Icewhiz (talk) 11:07, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
              • Regarding What would help is some proof that any of these outlets attempted to verify the truth of the allegations, instead of just reporting that The Daily Caller published a story containing unverified allegations against an activist who has been a regular target of right-wing smears, written by an author with a history of plagiarism (which seems awfully similar to some of the tweets on Sarsour's feed) - attacking the DC's reporter for his past copy pasting in Buzzfeed (but not fabrication) - is besides the point. No one is suggesting here to rely on the DC's reporting, and Fathelbab's claims were already verified (as claims by her) on the 18th by RSes who ran the story - and further corroborated by Fox's interview and reporting on her on the 20th (which is completely independent of the DC's initial report). Sarsour herself, in any event, corroborated most of the story (that Fathelbab was employeed, that there was a complaint, and that Sarsour rejected the complaint) - leaving us with a classical "she she said". WP:V is not an issue, and WP:BALASP is met due to the breadth of the coverage of this.Icewhiz (talk) 11:13, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
                • I don't think anyone's disputing that Fathelbab made the allegations. But saying that they have therefore been verified and corroborated is frankly laughable. The breadth of the coverage is so far limited to very marginal sources and/or routine news coverage (of the Daily Caller piece). The fact that all we have is she /she said is exactly the point – it's salacious gossip that doesn't belong in an encyclopedic biography unless and until reliable sources tie it into a larger trend. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:01, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
                  • Siraj Hashmi perhaps puts it better than me - BuzzFeed attempts to wave off Linda Sarsour accusations, but, if anything, it only raises more questions, Washington Examiner - however Sarsour corroborated quite a bit - namely that Fathelbab worked there in 2009, made a complaint, and that Sarsour rejected said complaint. The point of contention being the contents of that complaint (did it include groping), the merits of the complaint, and Sarsour's tone of response. Bringing up the Daily Caller (or its reporter) is irrelevant to the matter - as it has been picked up by others, including fully independent coverage on Fox - Accuser: Linda Sarsour said sexual harassment 'doesn't happen to someone that looks like you', Fox News.Icewhiz (talk) 16:08, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Huldra (talk · contribs) I question the attention payed to the contents of my edit by yourself seeing that you rolled it back 1 minute after it was made. Seeing as you haven't participated in the recent disscussion, which asserts that Fox is an acceptable source. My edit made it clear that the veracity of the allegations is still disputed - but their absceence would be a case of WP:BIAS in and of itself. Bellezzasolo (talk) 20:26, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• User:Bellezzasolo, firstly, you don't have 500 edits, you shouldn't be editing this article (you are welcome to making constructive suggestions on talk.) And I have certainly participated on talk, see above you.

• Allso, lets see, in the Elie Wiesel case we have one named Jewish women making sexual assault allegations against a Non BLP subject. These allegations have been widely reported by multiple RS, (just google Jenny Listman), who corroborated the actual facts (both were at the same photo opportunity). The representatives for EW denies it.
• In the Linda Sarsour case we have a named Muslim woman, making allegations about a cover up by LS. Reported by multiple RS, and denied by LS.
• I say, that there is absolutely no way that the Fathelbab allegations have a place in this article, (a WP:BLP article) without also making room for the Listman allegations having place in the EW article (which is not a WP:BLP article). Make your choice. Huldra (talk) 20:34, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

@Huldra: firstly, you haven't contributed to the talk today until just now. Secondly, the 500 edit rule would only apply wrt an extended confirmed protected article. As has been mentioned, Wiesel cannot respond to the allegations. Sarsour has corroberated that allegations were made, but disputes the exact nature. That's completely different.

• User:Bellezzasolo, First, please learn to sign your statements, Secondly, Ive added a Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement template on the top to make it crystal clear. Thirdly, I participated here, on this talk page yesterday. (No, none of us are expected to be on WP 24/7). Fourth, other people have corroborated that Listman and Wiesel were together at the same event, but disputes what happened. That is completely the same. Huldra (talk) 20:54, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class biography articles
• Start-Class biography (politics and government) articles
• Low-importance biography (politics and government) articles
• Politics and government work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• C-Class United States articles
• Unknown-importance United States articles
• C-Class United States articles of Unknown-importance
• WikiProject United States articles
• C-Class New York (state) articles
• Unknown-importance New York (state) articles
• C-Class WikiProject Women articles
• All WikiProject Women-related pages
• WikiProject Women articles
• C-Class Islam-related articles
• Unknown-importance Islam-related articles
• WikiProject Islam articles
• C-Class Feminism articles
• Unknown-importance Feminism articles
• WikiProject Feminism articles