E.M.Gregory (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Tag: 2017 wikitext editor |
||
Line 97: | Line 97: | ||
"Farrakhan, he called Jews termites, and Linda Sarsour and Tamika Mallory and leaders of the Women’s March are embracing him and praising him. He called us termites. How much more do you need?" [https://www.jta.org/2018/11/13/news-opinion/united-states/deborah-lipstadt-wrote-new-book-anti-semitism-pittsburgh-happened?utm_source=JTA%20Maropost&utm_campaign=JTA&utm_medium=email&mpweb=1161-6875-92365] 13 November 2914. |
"Farrakhan, he called Jews termites, and Linda Sarsour and Tamika Mallory and leaders of the Women’s March are embracing him and praising him. He called us termites. How much more do you need?" [https://www.jta.org/2018/11/13/news-opinion/united-states/deborah-lipstadt-wrote-new-book-anti-semitism-pittsburgh-happened?utm_source=JTA%20Maropost&utm_campaign=JTA&utm_medium=email&mpweb=1161-6875-92365] 13 November 2914. |
||
*'''Note''' that Lipstadt references [[2019 Women's March]]: Actress [[Alyssa Milano]], who spoke at the 2018 Women's March, told [[The Advocate (LGBT magazine)|''The Advocate'']] that she has refused to participate in the 2019 March unless organizers [[Tamika Mallory]] and [[Linda Sarsour]] condemn what have been described as [[homophobic]], [[antisemitic]], and [[transphobic]] comments by the Nation of Islam leader [[Louis Farrakhan]].<ref name="SobelMarch">{{cite news |last1=Sobel |first1=Ariel |title=Why #MeToo Activist Alyssa Milano Will Not Speak at Next Women's March |url=https://www.advocate.com/women/2018/10/30/metoo-activist-alyssa-milano-wont-be-stopped |accessdate=9 November 2018 |publisher=[[The Advocate (LGBT magazine)]] |date=30 October 2018}}</ref><ref name="ComdemnFarrakhan">{{cite news |title=Actress Alyssa Milano won’t speak at Women’s March unless its leaders condemn Farrakhan |url=https://www.jta.org/2018/11/07/top-headlines/actress-alyssa-milano-wont-speak-womens-march-unless-leaders-condemn-farrakhan?utm_source=JTA%20Maropost&utm_campaign=JTA&utm_medium=email&mpweb=1161-6764-92365 |accessdate=8 November 2018 |publisher=[[Jewish Telegraphic Agency]] |date=7 November 2018}}</ref><ref name="HarvardDown">{{cite news |last1=Harvard |first1=Sarah |title=Alyssa Milano refuses to speak at Women's March events unless co-chairs step down |url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/alyssa-milano-womens-march-linda-sarsour-tamika-mallory-islam-noi-rallies-me-too-a8622971.html |accessdate=8 November 2018 |publisher=[[The Independent]] |date=7 November 2018}}</ref><ref name="FloodFarrakhan">{{cite news |last1=Flood |first1=Brian |title=Alyssa Milano won’t speak at Women’s March unless organizers condemn Louis Farrakhan |url=https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/alyssa-milano-wont-speak-at-womens-march-unless-organizers-condemn-louis-farrakhan |accessdate=9 November 2018 |publisher=Fox News |date=8 November 2018}}</ref>[[User:E.M.Gregory|E.M.Gregory]] ([[User talk:E.M.Gregory|talk]]) 16:40, 14 November 2018 (UTC) |
*'''Note''' that Lipstadt references [[2019 Women's March]]: Actress [[Alyssa Milano]], who spoke at the 2018 Women's March, told [[The Advocate (LGBT magazine)|''The Advocate'']] that she has refused to participate in the 2019 March unless organizers [[Tamika Mallory]] and [[Linda Sarsour]] condemn what have been described as [[homophobic]], [[antisemitic]], and [[transphobic]] comments by the Nation of Islam leader [[Louis Farrakhan]].<ref name="SobelMarch">{{cite news |last1=Sobel |first1=Ariel |title=Why #MeToo Activist Alyssa Milano Will Not Speak at Next Women's March |url=https://www.advocate.com/women/2018/10/30/metoo-activist-alyssa-milano-wont-be-stopped |accessdate=9 November 2018 |publisher=[[The Advocate (LGBT magazine)]] |date=30 October 2018}}</ref><ref name="ComdemnFarrakhan">{{cite news |title=Actress Alyssa Milano won’t speak at Women’s March unless its leaders condemn Farrakhan |url=https://www.jta.org/2018/11/07/top-headlines/actress-alyssa-milano-wont-speak-womens-march-unless-leaders-condemn-farrakhan?utm_source=JTA%20Maropost&utm_campaign=JTA&utm_medium=email&mpweb=1161-6764-92365 |accessdate=8 November 2018 |publisher=[[Jewish Telegraphic Agency]] |date=7 November 2018}}</ref><ref name="HarvardDown">{{cite news |last1=Harvard |first1=Sarah |title=Alyssa Milano refuses to speak at Women's March events unless co-chairs step down |url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/alyssa-milano-womens-march-linda-sarsour-tamika-mallory-islam-noi-rallies-me-too-a8622971.html |accessdate=8 November 2018 |publisher=[[The Independent]] |date=7 November 2018}}</ref><ref name="FloodFarrakhan">{{cite news |last1=Flood |first1=Brian |title=Alyssa Milano won’t speak at Women’s March unless organizers condemn Louis Farrakhan |url=https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/alyssa-milano-wont-speak-at-womens-march-unless-organizers-condemn-louis-farrakhan |accessdate=9 November 2018 |publisher=Fox News |date=8 November 2018}}</ref>[[User:E.M.Gregory|E.M.Gregory]] ([[User talk:E.M.Gregory|talk]]) 16:40, 14 November 2018 (UTC) |
||
:I agree it would be vioalation of [[WP:DUE]] not to include this --[[user:Shrike|Shrike]] ([[User talk:Shrike|talk]]) 17:05, 14 November 2018 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:05, 14 November 2018
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Removal of material on "jihad" comments
I endorse Drmies' removal of undue-weighted material; three paragraphs on a 5-minute news story are clearly too many. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:00, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
- I agree that the 3,167 byte section to her use of "jihad" was excessive, however this does merit a mention in the article - e.g. a two sentence mention (as opposed to the three paragraphs that were cut). Icewhiz (talk) 08:23, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
- I disagree. In fact, I support a drastic rewrite to eliminate most of the as-it-happens "controversy" stuff as well as the focus on breaking-news reports. Wikipedia is not a news aggregator, but you wouldn't know it from reading this article. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:50, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
- This was a formal speech she gave to a major national organization. The speech was covered by the media. I think adding it to the page is appropriate, in brief form.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:13, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
- Activists give speeches; that's their job. Media sometimes cover those speeches; that's the media's job. That doesn't automatically make an event encyclopedically relevant, especially when the coverage is brief. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:46, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
- OK, I've re-added a brief mention of this to the part about various accusations of wanting to impose Sharia and so forth, merely because it was described in Time magazine and the SPLC's Hatewatch blog as an example of partisan critics taking her remarks out of context. Feel free to make any necessary adjustments, but I think that the weight given to this issue should not exceed a sentence given the sourcing available. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:24, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
The Women's March is Sarsour's signature event. It was the 2017 Women's March that catapulted her into the national spotlight, and she is chairing the January 2019 March. It therefore seems pertinent that Alyssa Milano, who spoke at the 2018 Women's March, had publicly stated that she will not speak this year because of Sarsour's failure to condemn the homophobia, antisemitism, and transphobia of Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan. meterial was removed.[1]
- Wikpedia is not a news source. The 2019 Women's March article already mentions this (and little else, in fact). When independent, reliable sources contextualize this in terms of Sarsour's own life and career, then it may be appropriate to include. You're also omitting Sarsour's rebuttal to Mallory's critics and the fact that, according to The Independent, Sarsour did denounce Farrakhan in 2017, and that other activists have come to Sarsour's defense since Milano's statement. Giving these facts their due weight in this context would require mentioning them as well. However, the whole affair is too recent and hasn't made it past a single news cycle yet. I suggest patience here. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:01, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
- Actually, the story ran in The Advocate on 30 October. It got picked up by national and international outlets on November 7. Today, Nov. 9, it's gone mildly viral. E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:09, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
- Here is the story that broke this story; Why #MeToo Activist Alyssa Milano Will Not Speak at Next Women's March, it ran in the The Advocate (LGBT magazine). Frankly, there is so much coverage of this [2] that omitting looks partisan.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:04, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
- We're not omitting it. You yourself added the information to the 2019 Women's March article. That's where it is the most relevant, in my opinion. We don't need and shouldn't have multiple articles documenting the same breaking news. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:38, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
- That seems like a valid WP:SPINOFF article, as she is the chairwoman of the March. I don't think it's more relevant there, as 2018 Women's March doesn't mention any speakers (it focuses on the general participation). OTOH, I agree that defending Mallory is less important for this article (or the other) than including Mallory's controversies on her article. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) wumbolo ^^^ 13:10, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
- We're not omitting it. You yourself added the information to the 2019 Women's March article. That's where it is the most relevant, in my opinion. We don't need and shouldn't have multiple articles documenting the same breaking news. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:38, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
- Note this is evolving. We now have the SPD associated Friedrich Ebert Foundation nixing an award due to
"Linda Sarsour, a member of the board and former president of Women's March USA, is notorious for her propagation of antisemitism towards Israel"
andSarsour "also spreads antisemitic conspiracy theories that resemble the classic antisemitic trope of blood libel. In September 2018, for instance, she claimed that when US police officers shoot unarmed black people, Jewish persons responsible would lurk in the background."
per English, more coverage in German - [3][4]. Icewhiz (talk) 14:54, 11 November 2018 (UTC)- I think this is relevant and should be added to this article. Coretheapple (talk) 17:30, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
- I think we need far better sources for what she allegedly said than a batch of graduate students. Is there another source which can corroborate the claim about her saying "Jewish people lurk where unarmed people get shot"? Because that seems pretty bizarre. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:44, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
- So, I appear to have found the "source" for that "claim," and it is a gross misrepresentation of what she said. Sarsour criticized a program which took US police officials to Israel, because, she sargues, having American police trained by Israeli police and military would lead to more stop-and-frisk and shootings of unarmed people. One might agree or disagree with that point of view, but it's absolutely not the same as saying
when US police officers shoot unarmed black people, Jewish persons responsible would lurk in the background
. That is not remotely a fair representation of her words or meaning. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:52, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
- So, I appear to have found the "source" for that "claim," and it is a gross misrepresentation of what she said. Sarsour criticized a program which took US police officials to Israel, because, she sargues, having American police trained by Israeli police and military would lead to more stop-and-frisk and shootings of unarmed people. One might agree or disagree with that point of view, but it's absolutely not the same as saying
- So an award by a German NGO (which has not been mentioned in Sarsour's bio) has now been rescinded. Nothing there about Milano or the 2019 march. How is this relevant exactly? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:51, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
- Fallout from association/stmts with Farrakhan and other issues vis-a-vis Jews. All these repudiations are clearly related.Icewhiz (talk) 19:16, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
- We're under no obligation to include gross misrepresentations of Sarsour's positions and statements; in fact, that's clearly prohibited by BLP policy which directs us to consider fundamental fairness and sensitivity to our article subjects. The bit about "blood libel" and "Jewish people lurk..." is right out because she never said it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:19, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
- Better sources exist, e.g. [5][6]. Israel and the ADL are somehow reponsible. Regardless - what is really notable is the nixing of the award by the left wing APD - not each and every stmt that caused them to do so.Icewhiz (talk) 19:30, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
- Read to the bottom: "The opinions presented by Algemeiner bloggers are solely theirs and do not represent those of The Algemeiner, its publishers or editors."[7] Steven Emerson's Investigative Project on Terrorism responsible for those two links is a highly questionable self-published source. Nor are The Algemeiner or Jewish Voice particularly mainstream publications. We're writing an encyclopedic bio here, not Dr. Weird's Tales of the Unusual. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:53, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- Better sources exist, e.g. [5][6]. Israel and the ADL are somehow reponsible. Regardless - what is really notable is the nixing of the award by the left wing APD - not each and every stmt that caused them to do so.Icewhiz (talk) 19:30, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
- We're under no obligation to include gross misrepresentations of Sarsour's positions and statements; in fact, that's clearly prohibited by BLP policy which directs us to consider fundamental fairness and sensitivity to our article subjects. The bit about "blood libel" and "Jewish people lurk..." is right out because she never said it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:19, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
- Fallout from association/stmts with Farrakhan and other issues vis-a-vis Jews. All these repudiations are clearly related.Icewhiz (talk) 19:16, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
- I think we need far better sources for what she allegedly said than a batch of graduate students. Is there another source which can corroborate the claim about her saying "Jewish people lurk where unarmed people get shot"? Because that seems pretty bizarre. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:44, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
- I think this is relevant and should be added to this article. Coretheapple (talk) 17:30, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Content of the tweet
I think it is undue to state the exact content of a tweet, which can be concisely explained in prose. This is really WP:Recentism and WP:NOTNEWS. If the tweet is kept, we can only anticipate when it will become a WP:Coatrack for similar full quotes. In order to introduce the two subjects of the tweet, there has to be several sentences of context more than what would be necessary than if we only discussed the "idea" behind it. This is too incomplete at the moment, and if it were complete, it would be wholly undue. Looking at other very similar articles, Kevin D. Williamson does not quote any tweet in full, and Roseanne Barr had an RfC, but I think that her tweet was too cryptic to properly describe without quoting it (and her situation was much more significant and high-profile). The "optics" of showing a shocking tweet can be achieved neutrally, by citing its critics. Furthermore, if someone wants to read the tweet in full, it's right there in the sources. wumbolo ^^^ 22:05, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
- This is not recentism - she has beeh criticized for this tweet for many years. Your edit was not a summary - sue did not compare Gabriel to Ali. She did tweet about "taking away their vaginas" - with one of the two being a FGM survivor and outspoken critic of FGM.Icewhiz (talk) 22:09, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
- The tweet itself (from 2011, later deleted) could be said to be "many years" old, but it's not even two years since Sarsour rose to prominence as one of the 2017 Women's March organizers and began to attract serious media attention. Wikipedia's standard for recentism is the ten-year test, not the two-month test or the two-year test. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:52, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- In this case the content of the tweet was a lot of what the controversy was about. Removing it is misleading.--Calthinus (talk) 17:32, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- The tweet itself (from 2011, later deleted) could be said to be "many years" old, but it's not even two years since Sarsour rose to prominence as one of the 2017 Women's March organizers and began to attract serious media attention. Wikipedia's standard for recentism is the ten-year test, not the two-month test or the two-year test. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:52, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
"Islamists'" views on Sarsour
NorthBySouthBaranof the quote in question pertains to allegations that Islamists view Sarsour as a "house Arab". I have indeed searched to see if this is true. Well some leftists call her that [[8]]. Do Islamists? Is Deepti Hajela an expert on Islamist discourse? Regarding the "randomness" of other quotes, I will have to respectfully disagree with the insinuation that the ADL, ZOA, Ali etc are "random".--Calthinus (talk) 19:34, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- The ADL's pretty mainstream. The ZOA? They're well noted for fringe ties to conspiracy theorists, alt-right celebrities and racial slurs. If you're gonna cite ZOA as mainstream, you can hardly then dismiss the local paper for the place where Sarsour grew up and lives. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:41, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- When did I say ZOA was mainstream? I don't support it by the way. Anyhow-- deal with the topic at hand. Is or is not Deepti Hajela in Brooklyn qualified to speak about what Islamists think of Sarsour? (How many Islamists are there in Brooklyn? Is there a notable Islamist movement in Brooklyn? Is she an expert on them elsewhere? I don't think so...) --Calthinus (talk) 19:44, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- Deepti Hajela is a reporter for the widely-respected Associated Press; you're going to need something more than baseless, unsupported speculation here. Do you have evidence that she isn't qualified to report on the things she's reported on? What entitles you to suggest that you know more than her editorial staff at the Daily Eagle and the Associated Press? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:48, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- Another strawman. Surely if we are going to pigeonhole Islamists we should have a source that is about... actual Islamists? Plenty of things are said in passing in good articles that should not be taken out of context and placed on pages like was done here.--Calthinus (talk) 19:52, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- Please explain how you believe the quote is taken out of context. And no, it's not a "strawman" - you have charged that Hajela is not qualified to report on these issues, yet you have refused to provide evidence in support of your claim. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:54, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- The context is a local newspaper article that is not going to be viewed as an authority on Islamist thought. Wikipedia is moreso. Is it acting as such here? Of course the views of actual Islamists on Sarsour, both positive and negative, could be interesting. But is "House Arab", with its allusion to slavery (cf "house negro" - an American cultural reference - alas Islamists who are mostly right-wing don't usually focus much on slavery lest some embarassments might surface, nor is it averse to the idea of women spending most of their energies in the house...), really a term of abuse in actual Islamist discourse? Most scholarship on it would instead connect it to left-wing Muslim activism in the West, not Islamists (see here: [[9]]). --Calthinus (talk) 20:05, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- Please explain how you believe the quote is taken out of context. And no, it's not a "strawman" - you have charged that Hajela is not qualified to report on these issues, yet you have refused to provide evidence in support of your claim. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:54, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- Another strawman. Surely if we are going to pigeonhole Islamists we should have a source that is about... actual Islamists? Plenty of things are said in passing in good articles that should not be taken out of context and placed on pages like was done here.--Calthinus (talk) 19:52, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- Deepti Hajela is a reporter for the widely-respected Associated Press; you're going to need something more than baseless, unsupported speculation here. Do you have evidence that she isn't qualified to report on the things she's reported on? What entitles you to suggest that you know more than her editorial staff at the Daily Eagle and the Associated Press? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:48, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- When did I say ZOA was mainstream? I don't support it by the way. Anyhow-- deal with the topic at hand. Is or is not Deepti Hajela in Brooklyn qualified to speak about what Islamists think of Sarsour? (How many Islamists are there in Brooklyn? Is there a notable Islamist movement in Brooklyn? Is she an expert on them elsewhere? I don't think so...) --Calthinus (talk) 19:44, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
For the record, the "house Arab" quote from the Brooklyn Eagle piece (with "Additional reporting by Mary Frost") is not found in the original AP version of the article credited solely to Hajela. So I don't think the phrase can be attributed to her. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:53, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- Good catch. So then it is Mary Frost(another local journalist[[10]]). Leading us to the same sketchy scenario as before. Again, why are we presenting this authoritatively as representing Islamists?--Calthinus (talk) 22:07, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- The stmt is also factually incorrect - at least mainstream islamists (in the mainstream sense of political Islam as opposed to the "radical islamist" fringe) embrace her - e.g. CAIR and ISNA - she regularly appears as a speaker in their events. Maybe extreme elements reject her - but that is not clear from that quote.Icewhiz (talk) 04:51, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
- Icewhiz Not sure I would call all of CAIR or ISNA Islamists on the mainspace, since the word can have very different connotations to different people. I suspect their Islamist/non-Islamist complexions are mixed in both cases, reports seem to go either way, with CAIR having ties to both teh Muslim Brotherhood and more left-leaning groups. ISNA in particular is interesting though, if we are to hold Schwartz' view that they are essentially a pro-Saudi group, their view on Sarsour could be … interesting. Nevertheless their views, and the views of groups that are uncontroversially known as Islamists (Ikhwan etc) could be interesting to include, if RS emerge. --Calthinus (talk) 17:59, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
- I was careful to say Islamist in the non-radical sense - political islam sense. Both have some connection/inspiration with the MB. Islamist has come, often, in popular discourse been hijacked to mean radical islamist (or jihadist) - but the technical meaning is different. Regardless of the exact term - she is quite accepted (keynote speaker) in some mainstream Islamic religious groups (which ISNA claims to be) in North America.Icewhiz (talk) 18:18, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
- Mary Frost's version of the article is a RS on news-like things, but the generalization in question seems to fall under WP:EXCEPTIONAL. "House Arab" is a distinctly English -- indeed American -- pun and there doesn't seem be any trace of it on the internet being applied to Sarsour aside from the blog post by Jonathan Azaziah, who's not an Islamist in any sense of the term. Eperoton (talk) 04:38, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Icewhiz: No worries, I knew what you meant, I just wanted to make sure everyone else did lest we risk another derailment. I had some sources months back on both praise and criticism from Muslim voices (mostly non-Islamist actually, but Muslim) -- perhaps some could find its way into this article which curiously has a fair number of Wasps talking about what "Islamists" think and little actual Muslim commentary.
- @Eperoton: Thank you, this is exactly my point. The "house Arab" term is not one actual Islamists are known to use, making Frost's commentary here ... unnecessary at best.--Calthinus (talk) 05:47, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
- Mary Frost's version of the article is a RS on news-like things, but the generalization in question seems to fall under WP:EXCEPTIONAL. "House Arab" is a distinctly English -- indeed American -- pun and there doesn't seem be any trace of it on the internet being applied to Sarsour aside from the blog post by Jonathan Azaziah, who's not an Islamist in any sense of the term. Eperoton (talk) 04:38, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
- I was careful to say Islamist in the non-radical sense - political islam sense. Both have some connection/inspiration with the MB. Islamist has come, often, in popular discourse been hijacked to mean radical islamist (or jihadist) - but the technical meaning is different. Regardless of the exact term - she is quite accepted (keynote speaker) in some mainstream Islamic religious groups (which ISNA claims to be) in North America.Icewhiz (talk) 18:18, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
- Icewhiz Not sure I would call all of CAIR or ISNA Islamists on the mainspace, since the word can have very different connotations to different people. I suspect their Islamist/non-Islamist complexions are mixed in both cases, reports seem to go either way, with CAIR having ties to both teh Muslim Brotherhood and more left-leaning groups. ISNA in particular is interesting though, if we are to hold Schwartz' view that they are essentially a pro-Saudi group, their view on Sarsour could be … interesting. Nevertheless their views, and the views of groups that are uncontroversially known as Islamists (Ikhwan etc) could be interesting to include, if RS emerge. --Calthinus (talk) 17:59, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
- The stmt is also factually incorrect - at least mainstream islamists (in the mainstream sense of political Islam as opposed to the "radical islamist" fringe) embrace her - e.g. CAIR and ISNA - she regularly appears as a speaker in their events. Maybe extreme elements reject her - but that is not clear from that quote.Icewhiz (talk) 04:51, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
BDS and perceived anti-Zionism
@Calthinus: This edit makes absolutely no sense. Jewish leaders have also criticized her for her support of BDS and perceived anti-Zionism
—? The only "Jewish leader" that the source mentions having commented on the BDS issue is Jonathan Greenblatt,[1] who is already quoted on this question earlier in the same paragraph. The phrase also ignores the left-wing Jewish groups that are described as having "lavished praise" on Sarsour. The ones taking issue with Sarsour's perceived anti-Zionism are described in the source as "right-wing and some centrist Jews". Attributing criticism to vague "Jewish leaders" is a misrepresentation of the source cited. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:29, 12 November 2018 (UTC) (I've edited the text to correct the misleading prose. —Sangdeboeuf (talk))
- Um as you can clearly see right next to the section you just edited, the praise was already mentioned and I didn't touch it... ahem. Anyhow, the edit was to ameliorate the fact that hte page previously said people criticized her for saying feminism was incompatible with "uncritical support of Israel" when the source says no such thing. It said people criticized her for saying "unabashed" supporters of Israel can't be feminists. Later there is a quote in the source where she criticizes those with "uncritical" support. Very different; misrepresentative. I corrected this to say what the source actually said people were criticizing her -- perhaps you're right, in a redundant way, maybe it would have been better to just remove this sentence. Not sure why that merited the tone in this post above^.--Calthinus (talk) 23:03, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- You left the part about praise from "liberal politicians and activists" in a different subsection alone while adding the vague "Jewish leaders have also criticized..." Which Jewish leaders? According to the source, not just any Jewish leaders. As for the part about "uncritical support", that was another way of saying "unabashed support". The source cited states:
[Sarsour] drew fire from Jewish leaders for telling The Nation that unabashed supporters of Israel cannot be feminists. "It just doesn’t make any sense for someone to say, 'Is there room for people who support the state of Israel and do not criticize it in the movement?'"[1]
[emphasis added]. "Unabashed" clearly means "uncritical" here. Not seeing the confusion at all. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:40, 12 November 2018 (UTC)- What I did in the diff is clear [[11]] -- all I did was replace "saying that feminism is incompatible with uncritical support of Israel" with "her support of BDS and perceived anti-Zionism". "Jewish leaders" was in the sentence before, so why are you going on about that? I did not delete any reference to "praise" that previously existed (actually, insisting I had when the diff is excruciatingly clear that I only touched one sentence... is WP:TE). I am 100% certain that you would not care if it was not me who did the edit. And no, I don't agree with your interpretation of the source that "unabashed support" refers to the "uncritical support" from her quote.--Calthinus (talk) 23:46, 12 November 2018 (UTC) EDIT: Okay I confess I misread the source, in that it does refer to the quote from teh same Nation interview. Not sure why all of this was necessary nevertheless....--Calthinus (talk) 00:00, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
- Please re-read what I wrote above. Nowhere did I say that you removed any mention of "praise". I'm going on about it, as you call it, because you left "Jewish leaders" alone while completely changing the meaning of the sentence to suggest that Jewish leaders are united in their criticism of Sarsour on the topics of BDS and Zionism. You are 100% wrong if you believe that I would not object to any editor making such a change in contradiction to what a reliable source actually says. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:15, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
- What I did in the diff is clear [[11]] -- all I did was replace "saying that feminism is incompatible with uncritical support of Israel" with "her support of BDS and perceived anti-Zionism". "Jewish leaders" was in the sentence before, so why are you going on about that? I did not delete any reference to "praise" that previously existed (actually, insisting I had when the diff is excruciatingly clear that I only touched one sentence... is WP:TE). I am 100% certain that you would not care if it was not me who did the edit. And no, I don't agree with your interpretation of the source that "unabashed support" refers to the "uncritical support" from her quote.--Calthinus (talk) 23:46, 12 November 2018 (UTC) EDIT: Okay I confess I misread the source, in that it does refer to the quote from teh same Nation interview. Not sure why all of this was necessary nevertheless....--Calthinus (talk) 00:00, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
- You left the part about praise from "liberal politicians and activists" in a different subsection alone while adding the vague "Jewish leaders have also criticized..." Which Jewish leaders? According to the source, not just any Jewish leaders. As for the part about "uncritical support", that was another way of saying "unabashed support". The source cited states:
References
- ^ a b Sales, Ben (May 2, 2017). "Linda Sarsour: Why the Palestinian-American activist is controversial". Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Sarsour's antisemitism
When a public figure gets this much WP:RS coverage for her racism, it merits a section on the page. A Q & A with Deborah Lipstadt, scholar of antisemitism. Q. "How do you view Linda Sarsour’s activism and fundraising on behalf of Jewish causes, and her collaborations with progressive Jewish groups?" A."There are lots of people who proclaim they’re against anti-Semitism — “Pittsburgh? Terrible!” Linda Sarsour, you know. At the same time, on the other side of her mouth, she’s talking about don’t humanize Israel and when you wear a Jewish star it makes me feel unsafe. She’s talking out of two sides of her mouth. "[At an event in September, after criticizing Israel, Sarsour said, “If you’re on the side of the oppressor, or you’re defending the oppressor, or you’re actually trying to humanize the oppressor, then that’s a problem…” In 2017, speaking at a march protesting racism, Sarsour said, “I’m going to be honest, there are instances of things that happened to me at this space that made me feel unsafe.” Some people took that as a reference to Zionist signs.] "I don’t trust people like that. One of the reasons I’m particularly not trusting of someone like that is that there are so many Jews on the left who come so cheap. They wrote me, “Look, Linda Sarsour criticized Pittsburgh, look, she’s helped to rebuild a cemetery,” etc. Give me a break. Anyone who’s not going to criticize what happened in Pittsburgh … someone gets credit? OK, so she’s raising money to help rebuild a cemetery, that’s very nice. But at the same time she’s making awful statements about Jews. Not just about Zionists but about Jews. "Farrakhan, he called Jews termites, and Linda Sarsour and Tamika Mallory and leaders of the Women’s March are embracing him and praising him. He called us termites. How much more do you need?" [12] 13 November 2914.
- Note that Lipstadt references 2019 Women's March: Actress Alyssa Milano, who spoke at the 2018 Women's March, told The Advocate that she has refused to participate in the 2019 March unless organizers Tamika Mallory and Linda Sarsour condemn what have been described as homophobic, antisemitic, and transphobic comments by the Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan.[1][2][3][4]E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:40, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
- I agree it would be vioalation of WP:DUE not to include this --Shrike (talk) 17:05, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
- ^ Sobel, Ariel (30 October 2018). "Why #MeToo Activist Alyssa Milano Will Not Speak at Next Women's March". The Advocate (LGBT magazine). Retrieved 9 November 2018.
- ^ "Actress Alyssa Milano won't speak at Women's March unless its leaders condemn Farrakhan". Jewish Telegraphic Agency. 7 November 2018. Retrieved 8 November 2018.
- ^ Harvard, Sarah (7 November 2018). "Alyssa Milano refuses to speak at Women's March events unless co-chairs step down". The Independent. Retrieved 8 November 2018.
- ^ Flood, Brian (8 November 2018). "Alyssa Milano won't speak at Women's March unless organizers condemn Louis Farrakhan". Fox News. Retrieved 9 November 2018.