Talk:Susan Abulhawa

She is a Kuwaiti, not a Palestinian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.178.124 (talk) 09:28, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't think, with all sympathy for the Palestinian cause, we can treat "Naqba" or "catastrophe" to mean the creation of the state of Israel or the Palestinian exodus as a neutral term and just let it stand. The real naqba for the Arab world, as everyone with a brain knows, was the creation of the state of Saudi Arabia in 1932, but leave that aside: this isn't another example of endemic pro-Israel bias, it's simply a way of not accepting emotional terms for historic events which can be described otherwise. We wouldn't refer to Riyadh or Cottbus or Astana as "the shithole", though they undoubtedly are.Sartoresartus (talk) 15:11, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I have edited this page to create neutrality in tone and to remove the non-essential quotes that read like a soapbox. I have not done so with any bias for or against the subject. I have no such bias either way. I merely want to see the page read like an encyclopedia entry, rather than a soapbox. Best wishes, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 06:12, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

When I was last on Wiki a topic called Controversy should be integrated and not stand alone. Even worst it is not balanced. I am not sure that things have changed but on such a tiny page to have a controversy section dedicated to what exactly? Her article is not long enough to have so much over some social media message about someone thinking she was praising Hamas is that WP:NOTABLE what is the criteria for inclusion? . Hausa warrior (talk) 19:24, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Description of suggested change:

Diff:

ChristofferItzakah (talk) 23:13, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

 Not done

Hi ChristofferItzakah. I cannot do this, because I cannot find Abulhawa saying anywhere "rewriting history for the past eight decades". She did however, suggest that the union had folded for zionists: "which was apparently was bothersome to zionists. whereas the previous leadership of Ebrahim Osman-Mowafy withstood zionist bullying, his tenure ended in early December, when a new president took office. the usual zionist threats are working on him, it seems." So I did edit the text, but not in the way you wished. Please feel free to discuss this with me if you disagree! Friendly, Lova Falk (talk) 17:34, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Raskolnikov.Rev deleted a new section of this article which is crucial to understanding the entire personality and life of Susan Abulhawa, before I was anywhere near finished with creating it. There are many reliable sources that describe her vitriol, which is only slightly hinted at in the article as it is now. Readers are entitled to understand what a hate-filled person Abulhawa really is, not because I say so, but because of her own inflammatory statements repeatedly made in public. Why are you trying to whitewash her obvious hatred of Jews and others? And BTW, The Times of Israel is a reliable source, whether or not you think it is partisan, and is not an argument to not use it. Do you think she did not say "Jews poisoned the water"? Did she not call Sarah Milgrom and Yaron Lischinsky "human garbage" and "genocidal cheerleaders"? She wrote that on X. DaringDonna (talk) 07:13, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Your edit created a section accusing the subject of this page of being an antisemite, stating it in wikivoice, with only one partisan source to back it up with. This is a gross violation of BLP and other standards.

You are furthermore demonstrating precisely why your edit fails WP:BLP, WP:DUE and WP:NPOV standards in your argument for its inclusion here, violating WP:NOR by mentioning supposed posts on social media that have convinced you of the truth of this charge, and the necessity to include it on the page. This also violates WP:TENDENTIOUS and WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND.

Moreover, your edit is in reference to a recent event that did not receive sustained coverage, which also violates WP:RECENTISM, and the aforementioned WP:DUE.

To reiterate the relevant WP:BLP standards: "Contentious material about living (or, in some cases, recently deceased) persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing."

"Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment."

"Summarize how actions and achievements are characterized by reliable sources without giving undue weight to recent events. Do not label people with contentious labels, loaded language, or terms that lack precision, unless a person is commonly described that way in reliable sources."

"Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of small minorities should not be included at all. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased, malicious or overly promotional content."

"In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article, even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 08:25, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Please dont bully me with threats to block me. You deleted my edits before I was finished. The Times of Israel is a reliable source. Abulhawa's Wkipedia article, and her extreme remarks should be recorded here. Are you denying she posted her hate-filled comments on her X-account? Are you saying the reports in the "partisan press" are false? Here are some sources :

• Australian literary fest hosts Palestinian writers who peddle antisemitic tropes
• U Penn “Palestine Writes” Organizer Susan Abulhawa Cheers Gaza Massacre
• UPenn donors were furious about the Palestine Writes Literature Festival. What about it made them pull their funds?
• Canary Mission
• Unbearable views
• Israeli Apartheid Week (IAW) 2023 Featured Expressions of Antisemitism
• Writers’ ‘truth’ is anti-Semitic hate
• Palestinian-American author supports killing of Israeli diplomats in DC
• Prominent Palestinian Writer Dismisses Victims of Fatal DC Shooting as ‘Genocide Cheerleaders’
• Influential Palestinian author callously calls DC Jewish Museum victims ‘genocide cheerleaders’
• Swaths of Anti-Zionist Movement Legitimize Killings at D.C. Jewish Museum

"Now we’re supposed to feel bad for two genocide cheerleaders after watching these colonizer baby killers slaughter people by the hundreds every day for two years. I’ve seen the inside of too many children’s skulls to give a crap about the human garbage who get off on mass murder.” This is what the ADL and many others reported that Abulhawa tweated on X/Twitter about the cold-blooded murder of two completely innocent people in Washington DC in May 2025. Are you saying that Abulhawa did not say this? And even if I can prove that she did, it should not be on her Wikipedia article because she said it recently? Or it should not be on her Wikipedia article because it makes her look bad? All your usage of Wikipedia initials to tell me all the rules I am violating is a bullying way of telling me, and all the Jews that are feeling attacked right now, that hate speech towards Jews is not really hate speech, and does not need to be included in an encyclopedic description of the person who not only holds those extremely offensive and dangerous views but boldly says them and posts them in the most public forums available to her? Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral. Leaving out crucial information from her article distorts this women's life, only adding them can return balance.

How do I get more people into this conversation?

If you truly believed in the goals of Wikipedia, you would help me formulate a NPOV way of describing Abulhawa's remarks about these issues, instead of tip-toeing over them, and white-washing her hate speech. I am happy to hear your ideas of the best way to include her true opinions about Jews and Israelis that is accurate, NPOV and any and all other Wiki initials you care about. Thanks. DaringDonna (talk) 19:57, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

In your reply you have ignored the rules and standards for WP:BLP's I cited, and instead decided to double down on claiming that you are convinced the subject of this page is an antisemite and that it must be included on the page for that reason. You then went on to cite multiple deprecated sources, including fringe and tabloid outlets that are not RS like Canary Mission, the ADL and New York Post, to push your view onto the page.

You have shown that you should not be editing in this subject area as you do not understand the basic rules and standard we have for editing this encyclopedia, particularly for WP:NPOV, WP:BLP and WP:RS. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 03:53, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

As written, the article cites WP:RS for Abulhawa's statements and reaction to them. It does not accuse her of being an antisemite. Please read WP:RECENTISM (an essay, not policy). We shouldn't be excising content covered in multiple WP:RS. Also, Times of Israel is not a partisan source, it is an WP:RS. If you have an issue, take it to WP:RSN, which you have not done. Longhornsg (talk) 03:39, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Being asked to follow Wikipedia policies is not bullying. Accusing another editor of white-washing hate speech is definitely WP:UNCIVIL though. EvansHallBear (talk) 17:52, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

@Raskolnikov.Rev, how is Abulhawa's Ukraine controversy "WP: Recentism" when this controversy happened 2 and a half years ago? JPHC2003 (talk) 17:52, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

There is no "Ukraine controversy" that is ascribed to the subject of this BLP in RS. You added two lengthy paragraphs of content surrounding a single event that happened two years ago that has not received any sustained coverage, only sporadic news coverage when it happened. That is WP:RECENTISM and violates WP:BLP, WP:DUE, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NOTABILITY standards.

These state:

BLP: "BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement. Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subjects, and in some circumstances what the subjects have published about themselves. Summarize how actions and achievements are characterized by reliable sources without giving undue weight to recent events."

DUE: "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, juxtaposition of statements, and use of imagery."

NOTNEWS: "News reports. Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion and Wikipedia is not written in news style. For example, routine news coverage of announcements, events, sports, or celebrities, while sometimes useful, is not by itself a sufficient basis for inclusion of the subject of that coverage (see WP:ROUTINE for more on this with regard to routine events). Also, while including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews."

"Celebrity gossip and diaries. 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 overly detailed articles that look like a diary. Not every facet of a celebrity's life, personal details, matches played, or goals scored warrants inclusion in the biography of that person, only those for which they have notability or for which our readers are reasonably likely to have an interest."

The subject of this page is not known for her stance on the Ukraine war and is not cited for it in RS aside from this one event that happened two years ago. What warrants its inclusion on this page, let alone to such a large extent, even more than her pro-Palestinian activism which is core to her activism and widely cited in RS, when there was no sustained coverage of it in RS?

I oppose including it at all as it was a minor controversy related to a single event over two years ago that did not receive any further coverage whatsoever, let alone substantial coverage, and the subject of the page is not known or cited for her stance on Ukraine in RS aside from brief news coverage surrounding this one event over two years ago.

But if others disagree and believe it does merits inclusion, one line suffices, not two lengthy paragraphs.

If you disagree, you can propose an RfC with the options being no inclusion at all, inclusion but with one or two lines at most, and inclusion for the two lengthy paragraphs you added initially. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 12:31, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

@Raskolnikov.Rev At this point, you're kidding me, right? A story with 6 different articles from mainstream Australian news doesn't merit inclusion because there wasn't "sustained coverage"? JPHC2003 (talk) 04:19, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, we need significant coverage from reliable sources for anything generally, but what's the enduring biographical significance of this? That's what weight means here. We are WP:NOTNEWS or a scrapbook, so wide coverage of a single event is not the only factor. The weight of biographical significance differentiates an encyclopedia from a trivia bank. JFHJr (㊟) 05:57, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

And does coverage indicate an enduring impact relevant to notability or other normal biographical aspect? I think that's much the point of enduring coverage questions above. If it were significant and enduring on a biographical level, coverage outside the 1E would mention that. JFHJr (㊟) 06:40, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes,@JFHJr is correct. There was no sustained or significant coverage to warrant the inclusion of an event that sparked marginal sporadic news coverage in a few local outlets covering the local event, and which has no significant bearing on the activism of the subject in question. You can't even point to any coverage of it outside the country where it took place in, let alone any from the period after it happened in any secondary sources.

All of this still violates the standards I explicated in my previous reply, of WP:RECENTISM, WP:BLP, WP:DUE, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NOTABILITY.

The fact that you are so concerned to include mention of a completely marginal and irrelevant event that received only sporadic news coverage at the time it happened in a few local outlets, for which you have no secondary sourcing aside from these few local primary news coverage sources, and have phrased it previously and again now in a way to cast a negative light on the subject of the page, suggests to me that your edit is not motivated by expanding the page to give the reader a better understanding of its subject. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 06:56, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Small correction: the local news coverage is not WP:PRIMARY. But that's not the point at all. JFHJr (㊟) 07:01, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

"You can't even point to any coverage of it outside the country where it took place in"

If because it didn't get mentioned a few months later or anything is grounds for ditching it, follow the guidelines, but it was covered outside of Australia. The British Guardian and the Times of Israel mentioned it. JPHC2003 (talk) 08:32, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

The criteria for inclusion in BLP's and per WP:RECENTISM and the other standards I noted is significant and sustained coverage in addition to it having some enduring significance in relation to the subject for it to be WP:DUE. As @JFHJr said, "so wide coverage of a single event is not the only factor. The weight of biographical significance differentiates an encyclopedia from a trivia bank."

I do not believe a singular controversy from two years ago concerning a topic the subject of this BLP is not known for (Ukraine) and which only received sporadic and temporary coverage around the time of the event itself warrants that. Both the Guardian and ToI pieces fall in that category. Notice also that they are not focused on Susan Abulhawa, but on the festival controversy more broadly, and the other subject it includes, Mohammed El-Kurd, also does not have this momentary controversy that did not see any significant and sustained coverage included on his page (rightly so in my view).

There is an additional problem for your edit, which goes to the point I made earlier as regards the motivation for your repeated inclusion of this information and the way you frame it. And it is further backed up by the Guardian piece you have cited. You stated in your edit: "Following the start of the Russo-Ukrainian war, Abulhawa was criticized for making statements aligning with Russian propaganda." The first problem is that your source for this is an opinion piece in a newsletter making this claim, which you failed to attribute and instead put in wikivoice. The second problem is that the Guardian piece you now cited has Abulhawa explaining her tweets that you put in wikivoice as "aligning with Russian propaganda", and disavowing that characterization and expressing her support for Ukraine and bringing Putin to justice for his crimes. If you were aware of this when you made that edit, it further indicates that your edit was an intentional violation of core BLP standards as you did not include this information.

Regardless, as I stated before, given that this controversy has no direct relevance to the main activism and work the subject of this BLP is known for, and it only received sporadic and momentary coverage during the event itself, I don't believe it warrants inclusion per the standards I noted. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 11:05, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

"and disavowing that characterization and expressing her support for Ukraine and bringing Putin to justice for his crimes. If you were aware of this when you made that edit..."

I put that statement in the article this first time, and you removed it. I assumed that including it again would breach your two sentences suggestion. And yes, it is a fact that "Denazifying Ukraine" was a key feature of Russian propaganda in their invasion. Criticizing a figure doesn't negate the previous falsehoods, as that's a logical fallacy known as affirming a disjunct. Don't accuse me of POV-pushing, please. JPHC2003 (talk) 07:21, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Here from BLPN. The Guardian mentioned it as recently as this June: "Louise Adler is a veteran publisher and artistic director who faced criticism for programming Palestinian voices long before 7 October 2023, including Susan Abulhawa, who called the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy, a “Nazi-promoting Zionist” in a social media post." . It was also mentioned in an academic book published this month: "Because Abulhawa's criticisms were also directed at Ukraine's leader Zelensky, who had aligned the plight of Ukrainians against the Russian invasion with the 'plight' of israel at the hands of Palestinians, prominent Ukrainians in Australia also spoke out against Abulhawa's participation (Tumarkin 2023)." (OA article version: )

Don't refer to 1E, that's a notability guideline and irrelevant for discussing within-article decisions. Nothing in NOTNEWS prevents covering such incidents: this is not routine, trivia, or gossip, and readers will reasonably be interested. DUE doesn't prevent us referring to this in a couple of sentences. Applying this invented standard of needing sustained, detailed coverage of everything in a BLP would gut them all of content. We are not memoryhole operators. Fences&Windows 11:00, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

"The Guardian mentioned it as recently as this June", that's a one-line reference in an article that is not about that subject but about the broader issue of censorship in Australia for speaking out about Gaza, and it links back to its 2023 piece which has Susan stating the exact opposite of what was put in the edit in wikivoice of her "aligning with Russian propaganda".

"It was also mentioned in an academic book published this month", this reference is also focused on the censorship of Susan Abulhawa in relation to that event by what the authors describe as "Zionist activists", and rejects the notion that she "aligned with Russian propaganda".

If in two years since that event and the sporadic and limited news coverage it received its only references are that Abulhawa was the subject of a censorship attempt by "Zionists", that makes the edit that was made all the more egregious, not less. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 11:15, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

There was significant coverage of this controversy. Ukrainian groups protested the Adelaide Writer's festival. How does this not meet the standards of this page? Agnieszka653 (talk) 18:01, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

There wasn't significant, substantive and sustained coverage of it, only a few superficial news reports when it happened over two years ago. It therefore fails BLP standards as I detailed here and here. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 18:27, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

I understand the BLP standards but I don't agree regarding significant coverage. This has been on the page prior and it did generate coverage from multiple press outlets in Australia. The one I linked to is the Sydney Morning Herald, there is also coverage from the Australian. Agnieszka653 (talk) 18:36, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

It hasn't been on the page prior, as there was no consensus to include it. And as I noted here referencing WP:BLP and WP:DUE standards, I don't believe two general news reports from two years ago of an event that has no bearing on what the subject of this BLP is primarily known for constitutes sufficient coverage to warrant inclusion in a BLP. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 19:00, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Then what was this edit from March 2023? [] it is here as well as accusations of antisemitism. Agnieszka653 (talk) 19:06, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the intro and infobox, please remove the birthday but keep her birth year. There are plenty of sources for her birth year but could not find a single reliable source for the birthday. 2600:382:2B20:325A:559A:DD33:4243:8367 (talk) 21:35, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done Day Creature (talk) 22:52, 8 October 2025 (UTC)