Talk:Brigitte Gabriel/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Introduction

There is someone who keeps replacing her introduction with NO citations. If you're going to change her introduction or anything on this page, it must be cited.

Daxri — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daxri (talk • contribs) 03:56, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

It has happened again. Someone is deleting the introduction that has 3 citations and is replacing it with an introduction that has ZERO citations. If you are going to change anything on this page, it must be cited. Daxri

It has happened again. Someone is engaging in an "edit war" with me and is giving NO citations. This is currently NO citations for the Brigitte Gabriel introduction. How is wikipedia page introduction allowed to have NO citations? Daxri —Preceding undated comment added 15:56, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

It isn't "someone", it's three editors. Please read the history to see their reasons. And yes, the lead/introduction is allowed to have no citations, read WP:LEAD. You are the one edit-warring against 3 editors. Doug Weller talk 16:52, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. Everything in an encyclopedia should have citations. I cited a biography done on her about her anti-terrorism work and also cited to a list of her books as proof that she is an author. The list is on a website that has no way for anyone to buy the books, so it's not promotional. It's literally just a list of books she's published. She is an author. That should be included in her occupations as well as her introduction. Daxri —Preceding undated comment added 21:54, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I'd also like to know how it's "peacock" material to state that she is an author who has published 3 books and has done counter terrorism work. Those are both facts. Not "peacock". Daxri —Preceding undated comment added 22:01, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

@Daxri: Are you saying that you disagree with what WP:LEAD says or that you didn't read it? Doug Weller talk 09:05, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

It is obvious that I disagree with what WP:LEAD says. As I stated before saying someone is an author and has done anti-terrorism activism work is not peacock. Those are facts. That's what she has done with her career: write books, give lectures, and go anti-terrorism activism. Facts. Which I cited and then you deleted. Daxri

@Daxri: - If you disagree with what WP:LEAD says, go have a conversation on the LEAD talk page and get the policy changed. Until then, we'll follow the policy. And calling an Gabriel a "counter terrorism advocate" is like calling George Wallace an "advocate for ordered societies". NickCT (talk) 20:09, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

True, we aren't going to ignore WP:LEAD just because an editor with barely over 100 edits doesn't like it. Our guidelines and policies are there for good reasons. Doug Weller talk 20:24, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

No, both of you are being ridiculous and you are misinterpreting my words. I DISAGREE with YOUR INTERPRETATION of the polices. AS I stated before, I didn't break any policies because what I wrote wasn't "peacock" it was facts. Ya'll obviously have an issue with Brigitte Gabriel, because you won't allow facts about her career on this page. Daxri

"A "counter-terrorism advocate" is not an occupation, this is the kind of made-up concoction that one puts on a book jacket to attract eyeballs. I'd also highlight your extremely deceptive editing practices here, such as marking your edit as a grammar fix. TheValeyard (talk) 12:06, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

@Daxri: - re " you are misinterpreting my words" - Are you for real buddy? You literally said "It is obvious that I disagree with what WP:LEAD says". How is it a misinterpretation when we assume you disagree with what WP:LEAD says. Perhaps you should try to be a little clearer?

Regardless, using a term like "counter terrorism" has many problems beyond WP:LEAD. There's WP:DUE and WP:BALANCE. Very few sources describe Geller's action as "counter terrorism". Very many sources describe Geller's actions as "islamophobic". Which term should we use? NickCT (talk) 21:17, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Like I said I don't believe I broke any rules or guidelines, because what I wrote were facts not "peacock." As for@NickCT You are supposed to state BOTH. For example: "Some sources have called Brigitte Gabriel/Pamela Geller an Islamaphone<give citation> and other sources have stated that her counter-terrorism advocacy is mistaken for Islamaphobia<give citation>. THAT'S CALLED BEING UNBIASED. But all of you obviously have a bias because you're only writing one side. You are supposed to write BOTH sides to be unbiased. Daxri —Preceding undated comment added 00:55, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Not all "sides" are equal. TheValeyard (talk) 01:34, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

@Daxri: - TheValeyard is right. If a large number of mainstream sources call her a duck, and a small number of fringe sources call her a stork, it would be entirely inappropriate to use wording like "Some sources have..... other sources". WP:BALANCE tells us to accurately reflect to whole sum of reliable sources on a subject. Your wording would create false equivalency between those two positions. NickCT (talk) 14:26, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

No, still not accurate. The majority of Americans in the 1820's believed slavery was a good thing. Does that mean we say "Well the majority of sources say slavery is great, thus that's the only side we'll report." Or something more recent, in the year 2008, most Americans believed gay marriage is wrong, does that mean we report only one side saying "Gay marriage is wrong"????? No you report all sides of an argument. Just because the majority believe something, does NOT make it true. This is called a "Consensus Fallacy." This level 101 in argumentative writing. You must report both sides because only reporting one due to its majority appeal is not accurate. Especially when it comes to a person and their reputation. Daxri —Preceding undated comment added 20:16, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

@Daxri: - You can certainly report all sides, as long as you report them with WP:DUE weight. In otherwords, report each view point with the level of weight it receives in the sources.

If we were writing in the 1820's and the majority of sources supported slavery, we'd reflect that. Wikipedia isn't a place for original ideas or soapboxing. We follow the sources. NickCT (talk) 20:37, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Which I DID. I reported that she does counter-terrorism advocacy with ONE cited source while keeping the line about her being an "Islamaphobe" which had several more sources. Sounds weighted to me. This goes for both Brigitte Gabriel and Pamela Geller (seeing as how my edits on Geller were also brought up on this Brigitte Gabriel thread). Daxri —Preceding undated comment added 20:54, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

WTF

Who the heck is dropping fact tags on the most basic info like her status as a Lebanese Maronite. Yeah because swarthy looking people named "Gabriel" are always from other places, there are no Gabriel's in Lebanon. Quit politicizing the article with tags, idiots.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.66.26.32 (talk) 11:50, 16 December 2006

How about no dirka dirka jihads edit this page or even comment it because it apparently pisses em off. Let her views and accounts be put into the article. After all she was THERE and you all weren't so who are you to contradict that?? Someones got to take out this "she claims' stuff. It is obviously biased.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.49.174.56 (talk) 23:02, 21 January 2007

Is it also biased to say that she claims that Arabs are "barbarians," have no soul or that Islam is evil?Shabeki (talk) 19:12, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Gabriel does not criticize Muslims in general but rather the religion and the Islamic terrorist attacks (which number up to almost seventeen thousand since the 9/11). She has stated numerous times that she does not believe all Muslims are terrorists and that she even knows a few moderates. Criticism of a religion is not racist. Islam is not a race. Nor is questioning the claims that Islam is a "religion of peace" a "phobia." A phobia is by definition an irrational fear. There are Islamic terrorist attacks every day, so being skeptical towards the "religion of peace" slogan is perfectly understandable, especially for someone who grew up in the middle of it. Accusing someone who disagrees with you of having a phobia is a poor attempt to dodge criticism and actually rather juvenile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.215.19.175 (talk) 08:07, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, the article is not an article it is a piece of an Internet encyclopedia. Ms Gabriel is not an expert in Middle Eastern politics, or Islam. Gabriel is also not a party to U.S intelligence, nor has she ever held any office that would give her access to such information. Her educational background is business administration - so what she says is claim, it's her opinion she is not notable enough, nor does she have the educational or professional background to be considered an expert or notable source of reliable information in this particular area (middle eastern conflicts, Islam, geopolitics etc). Orasis (talk) 04:22, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

What??? Not an expert on Middle East politics or Islam??? You have to be kidding. And you are?

Look, when I see things like she is an "anti-Islamic extremism activist" or labeling someone as a "conspiracy theorist," or "Islamophobe," "neocon," etc. etc. in any article, it loses all credibility. That is a sign that it is extremely biased. This is the problem with Wikipedia. It's largely written by people who cannot be objective and refuse to leave their personal biases out. The majority of articles I have read on individuals are all based on someone's opinion, which they often arrive at by citing other extremely biased less than credible sources, such as (and I see this one often) the "Southern Poverty Law Center," an organization funded directly by George Soros! Hardly unbiased or credible!

And further, Brigitte Gabriel IS notable among anyone who is seriously interested in the threat of Islam and Sharia in the United States, terrorism, who wishes to hear honest debate, not "politically correct" psychobabble, and is interested in a history of how we got where we are today, a topic which she is far more qualified to speak on than anyone contributing to these articles.

In addition, Brigitte Gabriel uses primary sources in her lectures, quoting from the Qur'an, and documents written by the Muslim Brotherhood, especially "The Project," a 1982 document discovered in 2001, a copy of which she has, and which discusses their 100 year plan for World Domination, and how they will conquer America and the West via "civilization jihad." WilliamNOtis (talk) 13:57, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Your rant about Gabriel and George Soros makes you as unreliable and biased as the anonymous IP trolls above. Shabeki (talk) 16:42, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

"Criticism" category

I find it odd that a category of "criticism" is included. I have not seen this on other pages and looked at some controversial figures to see if their pages included that. They did not. Seems like an effort to discredit Brigitte Gabriel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:CF36:E4C0:7DD6:5712:B9D5:B090 (talk) 23:47, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

criticism because none of her claims are verified — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:191:5FA0:901A:542C:ACB7:C8B0 (talk) 11:30, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Criticism section and structure of article

The article is almost structured in a debate format, with a section for her viewpoints, criticisms and her response. This is not the preferred structure for an encyclopediac article. WP style is to avoid Criticism/controversy sections. She is a controversial figure. Her views and responses to them should be put into the main text of the article, without ghetto sections for 'for' or 'against' views. Ashmoo (talk) 09:59, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 November 2018

Please change "Brigitte Gabriel (Arabic: بريجيت غابرييل‎; born Hanan Qahwaji,[3] 21 October 1964) is a Lebanese-American conservative author, anti-Muslim activist, and founder of the group ACT! for America." to "Brigitte Gabriel (Arabic: بريجيت غابرييل‎; born Hanan Qahwaji,[3] 21 October 1964) is a Lebanese-American conservative author, Islam critic, and founder of the group ACT! for America." because the term "critic of Islam" replacing "anti-Muslim activist" would be more accurate. The page already contains proofs Brigitte Gabriel is not an anti-Muslim activist. JulienSorel1965 (talk) 14:54, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

The current text is well supported by strong sources in the body of the article. The lead just summarizes the body of the article. See WP:LEAD. Jytdog (talk) 23:47, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Bias issues

I’m aware there is a talk section for this but seeing as those concerns were brought up quite awhile ago I though a fresh discussion would be warranted given recent editing. I previously removed from her intro the description of her as an “anti-Muslim” activist and received serious push back, despite there being no evidence actually private Fed besides an opinion piece from the NYT which stated her views as anti-Islamic (not anti-Muslim). It seems the anti-Muslim description has been removed only for it to be added that her activist group has been called an anti-Muslim hate group.

It’s clear that there are edits that are attempting to do whatever they can to call her a bigot with the veneer of objectivity. I need more time to dig through the citations but at first glance it appears the citations are from editorial opinion pieces, which seems to be insufficient to warrant the claim that her organization is a hate group and the mere fact that some have decided to classify a group as “anti-Muslim” doesn’t meant this allegation can be justifiably included in the introduction of a living person - if it were, it would essentially allow the very harshest critics descriptions to be included as her objective biography.

I’m just wanting to raise a red flag here and get feedback on improving the objectivity of this article. I’ll admit that I need to do deeper research before making substantive revisions myself, but from a cursory reading on the subject of the article, her views seem to be largely critical of the religion of islam as a doctrine, and this is being equated by others to be anti-Muslim bigotry. People are free to infer that, but it’s not an objective description of her views, even if others can be cited to hold the view that she is a bigot. This is a living person and such a clearly biased and critical article risks becoming libel. So this article is in desperate need of revision. Mylescoen12 (talk) 22:23, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

BLP

WP:BLP says: 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. Calling her group "an anti-Muslim hate group" in the lead is violating this rule, while deleting her response to her critics is violating WP:NPOV. Thus I reverted to a somewhat better version. Regards, Jeff5102 (talk) 08:59, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 November 2018

Please change "Brigitte Gabriel (Arabic: بريجيت غابرييل‎; born Hanan Qahwaji,[3] 21 October 1964) is a Lebanese-American conservative author, anti-Muslim activist, and founder of the group ACT! for America." to "Brigitte Gabriel (Arabic: بريجيت غابرييل‎; born Hanan Qahwaji,[3] 21 October 1964) is a Lebanese-American conservative author, critic of Islam, and founder of the group ACT! for America." because, as discussed on the talk page, there's NOTHING proving she's opposed to Muslims people as a whole. No source can confirm that while many sources already placed on the page can testify that she's a critic of Islam. Please let's correct this inaccurate adjective to keep this page fair, not a biased qualification of Brigitte Gabriel. JulienSorel1965 (talk) 12:33, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done, (although there's certainly still some room to change it) for a couple main reasons. First, a "Muslim" is a person, while "Islam" is a religion, and calling her "anti-Muslim" isn't well supported (one source does use this language specifically, but that's not enough to justify putting it in the lead). And second, when it comes to WP:BLP, I'd much rather err on the side of WP:NPOV language. Her criticism of Islam is clear and well-supported in the article (even changing partly back to "anti-Islam" would be okay), but "anti-Muslim" is quite a bit more inflammatory and not well-supported. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:29, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

 Undone the lead summarizes the body and there is a significant amount of content about this in the body. Erasing it completely was not acceptable and a violation of NPOV and BLP. If you feel strongly about this you will need to take this to an RFC. Jytdog (talk) 17:44, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Other than one quote from one source, there doesn't seem to be any material in the body of the article that supports this. Can you be more specific? –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:49, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

I've edited the article to clarify further. Before you go further into this I suggest that you carefully read the whole article and the sources in it. We live in some crazy times but we are not going to normalize this sort of hate speech. We are writing for the long term. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 18:00, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

"We live in some crazy times but we are not going to normalize this sort of hate speech.".... that doesn't sound very NPOV to me, I must say. Regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 09:13, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 September 2019

Change "founder of the anti-Muslim group ACT! for America" to "founder of the anti-Islam group ACT! for America". It's unfair to characterize the group as anti-muslim. Islam is an ideology, not a race, and ideologies can and sometimes must be criticized, for their violence. Also, the sources used to describe the group as "anti-muslim" are biased, and wikipedia must be an impartial source of knowledge. 200.217.81.165 (talk) 06:16, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

 Note: I don't understand. Muslims are followers of Islam. Is there a distinction between "anti-Islam" and "anti-Muslim" I am not aware of? NiciVampireHeart 15:06, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

 Note: closing request as no response to my above query in 4 days. Please feel free to re-open this request and provide any extra information and reliable sources as required. NiciVampireHeart 23:56, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 October 2019

Switch out the picture for Gabriel. Not able to upload a legit picture. Emmakristine (talk) 21:02, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Eh, switch to which picture? Huldra (talk) 21:56, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I did not upload the picture because the picture came up as invalid due to possible copyright issues, but there are no copyright issues with the picture I am trying to upload. Emmakristine (talk) 20:06, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

If there are no copyright issues, then I would suggest that you upload the picture to commons, and solve any problems with the people there.

At the moment there are no other pictures of Gabriel on Wikipedia, so there is no other picture to change to, Huldra (talk) 20:22, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

"In 2009, Gabriel stated Islam "promotes intolerance and violence"" Footnote 35

Taken in context she is clearly referring to Islamofascism or radical Islam. Posting out of context quotes is really unhelpful to Brigitte's reputation in particular and Wikipedia's reputation in general. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ForHim1 (talk • contribs) 16:52, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

To merge on the grounds that book it not independently notable of its author, so best discussed together. Klbrain (talk) 21:22, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

---

I propose merging Because They Hate into this article, because I don't feel that the book is independently notable for a stand-alone article. See Talk:Because They Hate for extensive discussion on the article's notability between me and MusenInvincible. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:59, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Support. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:17, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

No Support. an editor "feeling" (because I don't feel that...notable) is not a strong reason for merging an article, because other editors' feelings who have read and be influenced by the book could be different. As long as comply with the Wikipedia core policies WP:COPO (even though it's stub article with tags) and WP:PRESERVE, it still can be preserved. — MusenInvincible (talk) 06:36, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support. Book does not seem notable on its own and this would be the appropriate location for a merger.--User:Namiba 19:34, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

  Y Merge completed Klbrain (talk) 21:24, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Page vandalized, her last name is not "Sharmouta"

User "BeholderGuard" has vandalized this page by adding "Sharmouta" (Arabic for prostitute) to her last name. Meanwhile, editing this page is restricted such that this sexist insult cannot be removed. Please address this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.112.111.100 (talk) 22:56, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Personal life

We should add that she’s married and have kids as she admitted during her interview with Dave Rubin Nlivataye (talk) 15:02, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Information removed

Louis P. Boog can you explain this edit? Was it a GF mistake? Because you marked it as minor even though it removes sourced content and the edit summary "link added" also does not explain why the content was removed. Thanks, VR _talk 19:19, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Vice regent Yes, I can. I had an old page of Brigitte Gabriel open, from before your edit. Saw there was no link for The Independent and thought I would add one. In the mean time you had made your edit. Sloppy of me but no agenda to downplay what the media says about Brigitte Gabriel. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 19:43, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification! VR _talk 01:11, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

This article as it stands in late November 2012 is terribly biased

Almost every section of this article uses language that critiques, slurs, or denigrates Ms. Gabriel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.177.196.183 (talk) 21:18, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Not True!George Al-Shami (talk) 03:03, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes True, Al-Shami. User:Kca-colonel — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.44.114.190 (talk) 00:57, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

certainly seems to be very critical of her. Generally, reading these you will find supportive and critical Information. I suppose the issue is that the article presupposes that everyone should agree that her point of view is wrong. It even insinuates subtly through use of tone that those who support her are in some way "bad too. All this article does is question her credibility. 2A02:8086:C8E:E400:2D8E:DB93:B232:DEE4 (talk) 00:24, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

I was going to say the same thing. The primary references are WAPO and NYTimes which are terribly biased against her. And quotes were taken from opposition only, no friendlies who attended events or interviewed her. This is a horrible misrepresentation of her and only goes to show the biased, leftist views of Wikipedia. Kielmj (talk) 13:07, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

100% agree.

I'm reading her first book now.

I haven't seen a single thing wrong in it so far.

Look at how hateful and racist"The Squad" are. She is so right. US is voting in it's self destruction. Just like the European countries have done recently. 47.25.83.211 (talk) 17:13, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

none of her claims are verified

as a christian Man i say none of her claims are verified. In Syria and Lebanon there are tons of christians living next door with Muslims— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:908:191:5fa0:901a:542c:acb7:c8b0 (talk) 04:29, 7 July 2018 (UTC)