Talk:Brigitte Gabriel

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)

content errors

There is one piece of the article which I think should be deleted, the small paragraph claiming that Gabriel previously incorrectly identified Hezbollah as the organization that terrorized her family from 1975 to 1982. It is sourced by a website entitled Al-Ahram Weekly. I looked at it, and the article appears to be nothing more than a long rant against Gabriel, hurling insults at her. The website is also extremely anti-Israel and makes several false accusations against it. In light of this, I am not sure how reliable the claim that she made the alleged mistake is, especially considering I have found no other source supporting the idea. If another one cannot be found, then the paragraph should be deleted, as its current source contains errors and bias. --69.128.204.110 (talk) 04:42, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I looked at the website again and found more factual errors that it makes about Brigitte Gabriel. I do not find it reliable and am removing the paragraph that I previously spoke of until another source can be found. --69.128.204.110 (talk) 15:52, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

All you have to do, is to look below to see that Dr. Frank Lamb's article was published by other sites other than Al-Ahram. Therefore your beef with Al-Ahram falls apart over here. Moreover you cannot get rid of a source just because you believe it is biased. In other words you have to find a source that says Dr. Frank Lamb is biased, in order to remove it. That's way it's done. Otherwise you saying it is biased, could be perceived as your own POV. George Al-Shami (talk) 07:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay. Maybe, if he has been published by other sites, a different one could be used other than Al-Ahram. I won't remove it again, but the website itself appears to be biased. Would you call a website that contains a number of inflammatory anti-Semitic cartoons unbiased? --69.128.204.110 (talk) 21:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, around the world, there is no news organization that is 100% unbiased, just by talking about one thing and not talking about something else; you could mention a bias. For instance the Dutch newspaper that printed the Muhammad cartoons; can we say they're biased against Muslims? Up until now people had a problem with Al-Ahram, not because of the alleged anti-jewish cartoons, but because of its former pro- (Egyptian)regime bias. However I don't think you could frame a news organization to be anti-jewish, just because it printed cartoons that some would consider offensive. I'm from North America, and I could tell you that I have seen many caricatures of the stereotypical Jew in North American newspapers. I saw that once in USA today, and in the New York Times; and the New York Times is owned by a German Jewish family. There is a URL below that features the article by Dr. Frank Lamb from a different site, but I am reticent to use it, because the host site is not as prestigious as Al-Ahram online. But, I forgot to mention, most importantly, that if you want to remove it; you have to have a consensus. Al-Ahram is an old newspaper that was founded in 1897; a blog does not carry the same weight as Al-Ahram. Furthermore I believe you are making generalizations just because you read or was told by somebody about a cartoon in Al-Ahram. I have read Al-Ahram for many years, and I could tell you that, aside from supporting the recently deposed Mubarak, it was a pretty credible site, which published many articles from Western political analysts and thinkers. As it stands now, there is no consensus to remove the Al-Ahram source, and I don't think the below URL, which also published Dr. Frank Lamb's article, is as credible as Al-Ahram. If you have problems with Al-Ahram, then the onus is on you to find another credible site that has published Dr. Frank Lamb's article.George Al-Shami (talk) 02:28, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Maybe the alternate Dr Franklin Lamb article located at http://www.worldproutassembly.org/archives/2008/03/from_lebanon_wi.html might be better since it lists his credentials at the end of the article, and they are substantial: Franklin P. Lamb, PhD Director, Americans Concerned for Middle East Peace, Wash.DC-Beirut Senior Fellow, The Institute for Middle East Policy Dialogue, USA

His published book: The Price We Pay: A Quarter Century of Israel's use of American Weapons against Lebanon (1978-2006) is available at Amazon.com.uk or Lebanese Bookstores (soon also in Arabic). And in the USA, the title is available at www.LebaneseBooks.com, and currently enjoys Free Standard Shipping.122.107.147.121 (talk) 15:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Any other views? The above URL links to an organization. Can somebody find the same article published in a more credible site? George Al-Shami (talk) 23:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see it but his credentials are also listed on the Al-Ahram site as well: The writer is director of Americans Concerned for Middle East Peace, Washington, DC-Beirut, and is senior fellow at the Institute for Middle East Policy Dialogue.

So what that previous IP complainer was on about I don't know. I found another link http://www.countercurrents.org/lamb250208.htm but I think Al-Ahram is just fine.122.107.147.121 (talk) 03:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The issue at hand is Dr. Franklin Lamb's ability to be objective in his assertions that Brigitte Gabriel is lying. That is a bold and libelous statement on his part. According to Ms. Gabriel's New York Times bestselling book that details the account of her life during war she indeed lived in a bomb shelter. Even in his own article Dr. Lamb neglects to point out one single person by name that would go on record with him saying that Ms. Gabriel is not telling the truth when giving her account of the bomb shelter scenario. It raises the red flag of verification and unless it can be substantiated (verified) by someone else other than Dr. Lamb it should be removed from the article entry. Ccslick (talk) 23:21, 1 August 2011 (UTC)Ccslick

Dr. Franklin Lamb's name being associated to the cite on Al-Ahram has VERY SERIOUS problems concerning it's attribution to Dr. Lamb given that the article is clearly copyrighted by Al-Ahram Weekly. All rights reserved, while asserting that; "* The writer is director of Americans Concerned for Middle East Peace, Washington, DC-Beirut, and is senior fellow at the Institute for Middle East Policy Dialogue. A version of this article was first published on PalestineChronicle.com." PalestineChronicle.com search function reports "We did not find results for: Lost from Lebanon" and for "Franklin Lamb" it yields 83 articles ONE of which is titled "From Lebanon with Hate" http://palestinechronicle.com/view_article_details.php?id=13510 which appears to be THE ACTUAL SOURCE of the "plagiarized" copy used in the GROSSLY BIASED REWRITE "VERSION" presented by the Al-Ahram Weekly who has also claimed a fraudulent copyright in it. Obviously ANY attribution should be made to the ORIGINAL article not only because the source document CAN be verified, and under Wikipedia rules "Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted" and as a result of this PROOF ANY copy cited as Al-Ahram Weekly should be considered as an UNRELIABLE SOURCE regardless of any 'opinion' that it is a 'pretty credible site'. Changed cite. Zparqi (talk) 05:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

NOTE: The "From Lebanon with Hate" article was not found at the above link to palestinechronicle.com, but was found at this link: http://www.palestinechronicle.com/from-lebanon-with-hate/#.U7IlqaiZVTc The article is dated February 22, 2008, and was found by searching "Franklin Lamb" on the palestinechronicle site, and scrolling down through three or four pages of article titles to the date. Christian424 (talk) 04:13, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Loose with the Truth

I'm removing the paragraph with the claim by Lamb that Gabriel said her family was terrorized by Hizbullah during the Lebanon War. In the three years since this paragraph was added, no one has found any source for Lamb's claim, which Lamb himself did not reference. Lamb made the claim in order to argue that Gabriel was loose with the truth, but as he did not give any reference as to where or when Gabriel made the accusation against Hizbullah, Lamb's claim can not be considered reliable.Jdkag (talk) 05:01, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Islamophobia

Gabriel has been accused of being 'anti-Islam' and Islamophobic. She has made sweeping remarks about Muslims.

Generally if someone has made such remarks about Jews, and media sources called this person, we would title the section antisemitism.VR _talk 07:38, 10 March 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. --69.128.204.110 (talk) 18:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

"A phobia is by definition an irrational fear." In the Crusades of the Middle Ages, from years 1095 to 1291, it's estimated that Christians killed anywhere from 20,000 and 500,000 Muslims. Adolph Hitler, a Catholic, is estimated to have been responsible for the murder of 5 million Jews. Harry Truman, a Southern Baptist, killed over 100-thousand Japanese by dropping atomic weapons. Andrew Jackson, a Presbyterian, killed an untold numbers of Native Americans in his zeal to colonize the west. George W. Bush, a Methodist, ordered the invasion of Iraq and is the man most responsible for the deaths of 100's of thousands of Iraqis. Timothy McVeigh, a Catholic, killed 169 people in the Oklahoma City bombing. The overwhelming majority of serial murders are white males of some Christian faith. But it's the 19 al-Qaeda terrorists, who murdered the nearly 3,000 people, who inspire a rational fear? You tell me, what is an irrational fear and what is real? Is the fear based on facts, on the historical record, or on someone's ethnic or religious affiliation? It seems as though if the world were being rational, it has most to fear from white Christians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.98.121.228 (talk) 01:49, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Uh, do you have something against Caucasions? A person really can't help the color of their skin.

Aside from that, a few of your facts are inaccurate. Timothy McVeigh claimed to have a few "Catholic values" but in regards to religion said he was an Agnostic. Hitler, though on a rare occasion referenced God for political benefit, is clear to have been disgusted by Christianity. He called it "an invention of the Jew," a product of "sick brains," and "gutless." In fact, the Nazis listed Geistlich (pastors, priest, and clergy) right alongside Jews in the concentration camps. The majority of Europeans who sheltered Jews during WWII were Christians. I would hardly label Hitler a Christian. As for America's war with Iraq, there was a strong suspicion of nuclear weapons, which could easily result in mass destruction. Your number of deaths is in addition highly inflated.

On the other hand, there have been in the last ten years an estimate of seventeen thousand Islamic terrorist attacks. Their literature often refers to Israel as "the small Satan" and America as "the great Satan." Is further comment necessary? --12.187.9.2 (talk) 22:06, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

"ACT! for America has been widely described as anti-Muslim." hardly seems relevant enough to have in her intro paragraph. This can be talked about later down when ACT! is brought up again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nimic86 (talk • contribs) 04:26, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Archived

I tidied up a lot of the old discussions. Clearly the living subject is a bit controversial. Moving forward, please remember WP:BLP applies on talkpages also, attacking opinionated uncited claims and comments about living people are violations of policy. Also please keep discussion focused on content additions and removals etc and avoid WP:FORUM discussions and please avoid posting external links that are not WP:RS as such they are of no benefit to the article because they are unable to be added to it, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 16:32, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Page protected

There have been unacceptable breaches of Wikipedia policy on this article. New editors in particular should read WP:COI and WP:3RR, as well as perhaps taking some comfort from WP:BALANCE. In the meantime, I recommend some WP:TEA and while you drink it, I've semi-protected the article. --Dweller (talk) 16:57, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Editing Brigitte Gabriel's Page

In editing Ms. Gabriel's page today I did not think there would be this eruption and such a war here. I dont think that it really helps the article to have her name as other than Brigitte Gabriel and for security and privacy purposes it should be deleted. The article is a negative portrayal of what her mission and I know that being a public figure as she is there are always going to negative things written about such a controversial person but in all fairness maybe you could have written some positives about her in the article to balance the negatives. I appreciate your help in the editing process and you did a great job with your research. I just recommend that the article remove her name and in its place as Brigitte Gabriel only. Also lastly, the Alan Kornman incident was not of her doing and she is not affiliated with this at all. Yes, it happenned at an ACT Chapter Meeting but it was denounced by her and the matter was taken care of. Once again - thank you for your edits and your research. I just wish we would could have some fairness her.

Catherine Martin —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cocomac7 (talk • contribs) 17:10, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi. That wasn't a war it was just a little wiki spat and then the real business of discussion begins, the only way to works things out here is through discussion and WP:CONSENSUS - clear policy violations are removed and then discussed if need be. So you want to remove the real name for security and privacy and you feel the article is unbalanced towards criticism and that she was not connected and actually denounced the "Alan Kornman incident" - so there are alt least some issues to discuss now, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 17:29, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I trimmed the content about other people, such as Kornman - they are nothing to do with this living person. If people want to add content about other people from ACT! For America - they need to create an article for the group. As for the name, I can't see where it is cited from and if it is well known I don't know I will look later on a google foo search. - WP:BLPPRIVACY and WP:WELLKNOWN are the guidleines that I think are related. - Off2riorob (talk) 17:34, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

The name "Nour Saman" is not Gabriel's real name. It is another alias she used while working as an anchor. It is cited to an article in the NYTimes (see here) which is cited in our article. Gabriel's real name, according to Debbie Schussel, is available online at the latter's blog. I won't be adding it to the article because I don't think Schussel is an WP:RS. If an WP:RS prints it though, as they printed the name "Nour Saman", then of course, it should be included in our article. Tiamut^talk 18:34, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, just getting slowly up to speed. Off2riorob (talk) 18:52, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

edit requests

Can you please add / change the following: Gabriel also used to tell audiences that Hezbollah <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah> was the group that terrorized her family for the seven years between 1975 and 1982. She stopped making this claim after people objected, pointing out that Hezbollah was formed after she left Lebanon, as a direct result of the Israeli invasion and occupation of 1982.[13] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigitte_Gabriel#cite_note-AL-AHRAMweeklyonlin e-12>

(She never made that statement and said that Hezbollah terrorized her family. She always say that Hezbollah was founded in 1982. She always say that the Muslims formed "Jaish Libnan Al-Arabi" Arabic Lebanese Army headed by Ahmed Al-Kahtib and those are the ones who bombed her home).

Also please change this paragraph below:

Using the name Nour Semaan, Gabriel was a news anchor for World News, an Arabic-language evening news broadcast of Middle East Television <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_East_Television> , a Marjayoun-based station that was run by the now defunct SLA <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Lebanon_Army> and funded by Israel <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel> .[16] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigitte_Gabriel#cite_note-15> [13] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigitte_Gabriel#cite_note-AL-AHRAMweeklyonlin e-12> Broadcast in Israel, Egypt <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egypt> , Syria <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syria> , Jordan <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordan> and Lebanon <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebanon> , through her work there, Gabriel covered the Israeli withdrawal from central Lebanon, the Israeli Security Zone (occupied South Lebanon), and the Palestinian uprising in the West Bank <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Bank> and Gaza <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza> . The television station moved to Cyprus for a time and was later purchased by Pat Robertson <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Robertson> .[13] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigitte_Gabriel#cite_note-AL-AHRAMweeklyonlin e-12> Gabriel moved to Israel[13] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigitte_Gabriel#cite_note-AL-AHRAMweeklyonlin e-12> before immigrating to the United States in 1989 where she founded e-12> a television production, marketing and advertising agency.[17] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigitte_Gabriel#cite_note-AboutMsGabriel-16>

To this:

Using the name Nour Semman, Gabriel was a news anchor for World News, The Arabic language evening news broadcast for Middle East Television and was based in Jerusalem Israel from 1984 till 1989. Broadcast in Israel, Egypt <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egypt> , Syria <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syria> , Jordan <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordan> and Lebanon <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebanon> , through her work, Gabriel covered the Israeli withdrawal from central Lebanon, the Israeli Security Zone in southern Lebanon, and the Palestinian uprising in the West Bank <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Bank> and Gaza <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza> . The TV station was based in Nicosia Cyprus. Gabriel immigrated to the United States in 1989 where she founded a television production, marketing and advertising agency. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CatherineMartin7 (talk • contribs) 19:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• - thoughts - any thoughts or comments on these edit requests? Off2riorob (talk) 08:32, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

It appears from the above comments that Ms. Gabriel's aide has recently edited using two accounts, the second one [1] initiated after I issued a level 3 warning (under a different IP) to CatherineMartin7 [2]. Given the provocative nature of Ms. Gabriel's rhetoric and the aggressive attempts to erase large tracts of sourced content by someone openly confessing a conflict of interest, it would be wise to assess these requests with healthy skepticism. 99.184.134.27 (talk) 12:02, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

The Hezbollah anecdote was previously discussed above, under 'content errors', and it appears that the source's credibility was reviewed at that point. 99.184.134.27 (talk) 12:10, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - perhaps we can review this discussion,'content errors'... anew. I will look a bit later as I have a few things prior to this, regards. I don't really have interest in the editor/whois/previous etc - I want to focus on the content. There are claims of wp:undue and falsehoods in the content so its good to look at them. Off2riorob (talk) 13:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Your focus with respect to content is appreciated, and if there are factual or neutrality issues they ought to be scrutinized. That said, sockpuppet concerns are valid, and often indicate conflict of interest, if not disruptive, agendas. Thanks for your efforts, 99.184.134.27 (talk) 15:56, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Article by Bob Smietana of the Tennessean the other day gives Gabriel's real name as Hanah Kahwagi Tudor; it is actually Hanan Kahwagi Tudor. Should be added and cited. - Ylanne — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ylanne (talk • contribs) 04:58, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Dr. Franklin Lamb's name being associated to the cite on Al-Ahram has VERY SERIOUS problems concerning it's attribution to Dr. Lamb given that the article is clearly copyrighted by Al-Ahram Weekly. All rights reserved, while asserting that; "* The writer is director of Americans Concerned for Middle East Peace, Washington, DC-Beirut, and is senior fellow at the Institute for Middle East Policy Dialogue. A version of this article was first published on PalestineChronicle.com." PalestineChronicle.com search function reports "We did not find results for: Lost from Lebanon" and for "Franklin Lamb" it yields 83 articles ONE of which is titled "From Lebanon with Hate" http://palestinechronicle.com/view_article_details.php?id=13510 which appears to be THE ACTUAL SOURCE of the "plagiarized" copy used in the GROSSLY BIASED REWRITE "VERSION" presented by the Al-Ahram Weekly who has also claimed a fraudulent copyright in it. Obviously ANY attribution should be made to the ORIGINAL article not only because the source document CAN be verified, and under Wikipedia rules "Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted" and as a result of this PROOF ANY copy cited as Al-Ahram Weekly should be considered as an UNRELIABLE SOURCE regardless of any 'opinion' that it is a 'pretty credible site'. Changed cite. Zparqi (talk) 05:51, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I removed the text that asserts that Brigitte Gabriel previously claimed that it was Hezbollah who terrorized her family from 1975 to 1982. Please allow the edit to remain. Gabriel never made such a claim. Yes, the material is sourced (by a newspaper that is openly anti-semitic), but that does not necessarily guarantee its accuracy. The person who wrote the article was trying to discredit her. To each his own oppinion, but the statement alleging Gabriel's "error" is blatantly not true. --96.60.171.236 (talk) 05:39, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

What you are doing is original research, you can't do that on Wikipedia. A legitimate source is used and you have to discuss first before you remove! Not the other way around.George Al-Shami (talk) 18:42, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Why do you insist on keeping text that is inaccurate? As I have previously stated, Brigitte Gabriel never once claimed that Hezbollah was the organization that terrorized her family from 1975 to 1982. The author of the Al-Ahram Weekly article made a mistake. From the very beginning Gabriel has always described Hezbollah as being formed in 1982, and unless you can find one speech that she delivered that said otherwise, allow my edit to stand. --96.60.171.236 (talk) 22:37, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, you might want to become acquainted with Wikipedia:Verifiability, which is a policy ...and compare that with: Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 17:26, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

96.60.171.236 how do you know Dr. Frank Lamb made a mistake? How can we verify that he made a mistake? You seem to argue a lot about the personal details of BG to the point, where I suspect you are BG herself. Whether you are or you aren't it doesn't matter, you are not above the rules of Wikipedia. A number of editors have reverted your edit, because it does not follow wiki guidelines. It is not up to you to say whether something is true or not unless you have a reliable source that disproves Dr. Frank Lamb. You have been warned about this, if you continue, then this will be taken to the noticeboard.George Al-Shami (talk) 23:11, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

In answer to your "suspicions," no, I am not Brigitte Gabriel, nor have I ever met her in person. It is your choice whether or not to believe me, or to continue on with the ridiculous assumption that every time a person attempts to remove a bit of false criticism from a Wikipedia page, it must be the act of the subject him/herself. As seen above in this section, I am not the only editor who believes that this particular material should be deleted. I have twice explained my reasons for doing so.

In addition, the source is strongly anti-Semitic in nature. The author slams Gabriel right and left, repeatedly insulting her in ways that go beyond criticism and border on a personal attack. He accuses her of making a false claim, yet he never quotes her or gives a source. The article is not entirely accurate on a few other points. He argues that she was never in Lebanon after the creation of Hezbollah, though according to Gabriel's account and this Wikipedia page, she was.

If anything, do not state his assertion as pure fact. Dr. Lamb has not provided evidence for his accusation, so in order to make the statement a little more balanced, why not alter it to something more along the lines of "She has been accused of previously claiming..."? --96.60.171.236 (talk) 03:09, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Dr. Frank Lamb is anti-semitic? And this is according to who? Oh...this is according to you. Ok according to your POV. Ok, well if you ever plan on making good faith edits to this article, please check Wikipedia:Verifiability. Sincerely, George Al-Shami (talk) 02:04, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

The newspaper under which the article was published has featured a number of highly offensive anti-Semitic cartoons and made claims that Jews "make Matza from the blood of non-Jewish children." Considering that the subject of this Wikipedia page, who is being verbally attacked in this newspaper, is a strong supporter of Israel, don't you think the accuracy of the claims should be called into question? If it is going to be unbiased, state that Dr. Lamb has accused her of error but stay neutral on whether or not this is true. --96.60.171.236 (talk) 20:34, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I am going to rephrase the statement. Reasons have been explained. --96.60.171.236 (talk) 03:57, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Deranged

I added that she was called "deranged" by Hussein Ibish.

http://www.ibishblog.com/blog/hibish/2009/10/01/brigitte_gabriel_vicious_and_probably_deranged_islamophobe Boobymonster (talk) 18:32, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

To who keeps removing, these sources come from credible sources. Boobymonster (talk) 03:38, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Blogs like this do not meet WP:RS. The rules for biographies of living people are very strict see WP:BLP. Unless this is reported by a major publication it can't be included. --Daniel 04:05, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

<personal attack redacted> IraqiLion (talk) 10:53, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Then as an editor with a history in this topic (and zero sympathy for Gabriel), let me add that blogs are not considered reliable sources since they are self-published and without editorial oversight. Also, this characterization of Gabriel as "deranged" is a colorful insult, not a useful criticism; it does not belong in a biographical article on Wikipedia. / edg ☺ ☭ 11:48, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Let me add that I agree with practically everything Hussein Ibish says in that blog post. We still cannot used it. Gabriel is an increasing visible figure—there should be reliable assessments. / edg ☺ ☭ 12:47, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Antisemitic

Added that Brigitte Gabriel is antisemitic based on this video created by Omar Baddar

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1NrNXgd-_oY Boobymonster (talk) 18:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

This edit pulls an out-of-context judgement based on a likely misinterpretation of a Gabriel speech (from 1:10 into the YouTube video):

Here is Brigitte on the alleged "genetic defect" of most Jews:

"Anti-Semites and Anti-Israelis have tapped into that part of the DNA of most Jews that paralyzes them from being confrontational when attacked."

—May 6, 2005, "Environments of Hate", frontpagemag.com

It's a bit of a stretch to interpret this statement by Gabriel as "anti-semitic". I was ready to say Omar Baddar looked like a credible individual, but delusive attacks like the one above demonstrate why Wikipedia policy requires editorial oversight in matters like this.

Also, let me say that 7-minute YouTube videos of text essays are horrible, but if these must be cited, please include the time where the relevant statment is made. The {{Cite video}} template, which contains parameters for time and quote, makes this easy. / edg ☺ ☭ 12:47, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Text deletion

A significant portion of this article was deleted on the basis that it is Gabriel's own testimony. However, that is pretty much the only account of her background available. She lived in the bomb shelter with her parents, who are both deceased. The militia fighters who rescued them when they became trapped were killed in the fighting. If the issue is that better sources are needed, add them rather than blanking the whole section. --68.6.227.26 (talk) 00:04, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but if her book is the only account of her "early life", that fact only matters in one way to a BLP article. That is, if no one else has written about her "early life" except herself (the topic of the BLP article), then the information is not notable and has no place on Wikipedia BLP. This is the very point of the policy against content that can only be sourced to the topic him/herself (besides its obvious defense against biased sources) - it prevents frivolous information on the page. If this information is notable, it will be found in other sources supported by something other than the LP's own claims. The page has been restored to its original form. If you can find reliable sources that do not rely solely on the LP's own writings, you should certainly add information you find with the proper citations. BLP content has specific rules, for good reason. ToFeignClef (talk) 01:11, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Other sources aside from the book can be found, and they can replace the book citations in the text. --68.6.227.26 (talk) 06:19, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

You have yet to produce anything to back this up. Thus, the deletion is valid. I don't need to remind you why, as it is explained in detail above. ToFeignClef (talk) 01:14, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Is Al-Ahram Weekly a reliable source?

It has previously been pointed out that Al-Ahram Weekly has published anti-Semitic cartoons and has made the claim that Jews "make Matzah from the blood of non-Jewish children." It seems to be anti-Israel as well, and Brigitte Gabriel is a strong supporter of Israel.

In any case, I don't see the need to go into detail about the different ways the source attempts to discredit Gabriel's personal account. The claim about Gabriel supposedly telling audiences incorrect information about Hezbollah is one of many attacks the author of the Al-Ahram Weekly article makes. --68.6.227.26 (talk) 22:54, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

There is no consensus on removing the passages that you decided to remove by yourself. The previous claims have never been substantiated. Al-Ahram is an independent reliable source which helps keep this article npov.George Al-Shami (talk) 01:06, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

The Al-Ahram article about the "blood matzah" was published on October 28, 2000 and was written by Adel Hamuda. It is titled "Jewish Matzo Made from Arab Blood". It said, in part, that "The bestial drive to knead Passover matzahs with the blood of non-Jews is [confirmed] in the records of the Palestinian police where there are many recorded cases of the bodies of Arab children who had disappeared being found, torn to pieces without a single drop of blood. The most reasonable explanation is that the blood was taken to be kneaded into the dough of extremist Jews to be used in matzahs to be devoured during Passover." See Blood Libel by Judith Apter Klinghoffer, History News Network

As for the anti-Semitic cartoons, here are a few examples: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], and [10]. --68.6.227.26 (talk) 03:10, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I saw you source (history news network), however I went to the Al Ahram website (http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/) and I tried many search queries in their search engine about "blood matzah" and I couldn't find the article in question. How do we know this article was not fabricated? Can you please find the original Al Ahram article?

Concerning the "anti-semitic" cartoons, I checked each and every one of them and to me they look like Anti-Zionist cartoons. The images of the star of david are the representations of the flag of Israel, which represents the state of Israel. These cartoons are political in scope and they don't appear to be religious or suggestive of a hatred towards jews at all. In the first set of cartoons the former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is caricatured; Sharom happened to be the Israeli Prime minister at the time; and the flag of his country prominently displays the star of david. In the second cartoon Benjamin Netanyahu is being caricatured; the cartoon was drawn in 2012, as Netanayhu is the current prime minister of Israel. In the third cartoon an Israeli helmet is shown to depict the Israeli army. The message this cartoon is trying to convey is that the state of Israel continues to make serious military threats against Iran; a 100% political message, nothing to do with a hatred of jews. In the fourth set of cartoons the Star of David, once again represents the State of Israel. The rest of the cartoons are the exact same. You need to look at real anti-semitic cartoons of the third Reich, where Jewish people in genereal were caricatured as greedy individuals with large hooked noses. The "anti-semitic" accusation does not hold any water here at all.George Al-Shami (talk) 04:55, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

The first image is of a man covered in Magen Davids with a swastika on his shoulder holding a scythe. Another is of a Grim Reaper with the star of David over his face. Another is of a snake covered in star of David symbols. Every image contains the star of David, the symbol of Jews and Judaism, and portrays the Jew/Israeli as either evil, a murderer, or "controlling" the US, international community, etc. Most have no distinction between Jews and Israel. Several have the stereotypical hooked nose.

In regards to the Al-Ahram article about "blood matzah" I am uncertain that it is still available on the website. However, it has been discussed in numerous other reliable newspapers, including the Los Angelos Times (see [11]), Haaretz (see [12]), and the BBC (see [13]). The BBC article reports that "The editor-in-chief of Egypt's leading daily, Al-Ahram, has received a French court summons for alleged incitement to racial hatred." In addition, the "blood matzah" article is mentioned in other places on Wikipedia, such as Antisemitism in the Arab world and Mustafa Tlass. I highly doubt that it is all fabrication.

Anyway, I did not edit this article for these reasons, but because I don't see the need to go into detail about the accusations Al-Ahram makes against Gabriel. The allegation that she was wrong about Hezbollah is just one of numerous attacks made against her, and the author does not support his statement by quoting Gabriel or specifying when exactly she was supposed to have said it. --68.6.227.26 (talk) 05:52, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

My friend, you are deliberately ignoring the telltale signs of the cartoons that point to political commentary. Take a look at the snake cartoon again, look at the background! The snake is superimposed on the flag of Israel and the Stars of David are colored blue, the cartoon is clearly referencing or alluding to the State of Israel and not international Jewry.

The passage that you are alluding to was already edited to suit a pro-Grabriel pov last year. I don't know if I'm having a discussion with the same editor from last year (I have a hunch, it is), nonetheless, the Al-Ahram article is written by a respected university professor. Moreover if you read the article thoroughly you will see that many groups including Jewish groups, have taken issue with some of the controversial comments she has made during her speeches; this is sourced in the article. I do see a need to keep Dr. Lamb's criticism as it is independent and credible. Moreover if you check other Wiki articles, you will see that they take the similar approach. I invite you to check the Norman Finkelstein article; there is a controversies and criticism section.George Al-Shami (talk) 22:11, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Please address the reason I edited this article. I do have doubts about the reliability of Al-Ahram, but I did not remove it from the article. I just condensed it because I did not see the need to go into the specifics on how the sources attempted to discredit Gabriel. Two newspaper articles are given, but they clearly contradict each other.

And no, I don't believe I have discussed editing with you on the Talk page of any article on Wikipedia before now. --68.6.227.26 (talk) 23:32, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Eh did I not say in my last response " I do see a need to keep Dr. Lamb's criticism as it is independent and credible"; how does that not address the topic in question. Look, your argument would not be accepted on other wikipedia articles. It is obvious that you want the article to censure the criticism the subject has received. I gave you a good example earlier (NF article) as a basis for my position. The finkelstein article receives a high number of edits. I'll provide you with another example, Rashid Khalidi, check out the criticism section and you will see that they have elaborated on the criticism.George Al-Shami (talk) 06:59, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to censure criticism. I just don't think it is necessary to list ways the two sources have tried to disprove Gabriel's personal account in the section on her background. Personally, I think the text would be better in the section on controversy. --68.6.227.26 (talk) 07:17, 14 November 2012 (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)

Nothing exceptional to add to the political-social dialogue

She really has nothing to more to add to the overall conversation than any other person out there. The key to her success has been the timing of her entry into politics( during crisis in the middle east, her birthplace (though distant from her now) and her looks ( a middle eastern profile. These three factors were what Americans were looking for at the time of her entry into the media circus of post-911. Does she have any real different perspective on things, no. As is stated in the opening of the wikipedia article on her, she merely is the voice of everyday people. This fact should be more prominent throughout the article.101.51.237.131 (talk) 01:26, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No original research -- ToFeignClef (talk) 21:00, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Those who hear her can decide if she contributes new information/insights/experiences. This WP article was useful to me. (After re-reading this section, I see your point(s). Feel free to edit the article with your wisdom.) — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:07, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Debbie Schlussel podcast

http://podcaster.fm/podcasts/viewEpisode.aspx?podcastitemid=2672151&title=Debbie+Schlussel+about+Hanan+Tudor+aka+Brigitte+Gabriel+of+Act+For+America

I'm not fan of Debbie Schlussel but there are alot of interesting notes she mentions about the historic inaccuracies of about the bomb shelter account and how Brigitte Gabriel is profiting nicely after 9/11 when prior her family were struggling from her husband Charles Tudor failing busniess. Its 40 mins long but I recommend it be listened to. To avoid an editing war since I'm not sure where podcasts stand under references rules according Wiki . I decided not to add it to the article. --♥Yasmina♥ (talk) 02:27, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

SPLC as judge and jury

We've been discussing this in the BLP noticeboard in relation to another article where the same edit was made. Please take a look and let's talk. Jason from nyc (talk) 01:41, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Brigitte Gabriel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110728182703/http://americas.irc-online.org/am/4493 to http://americas.irc-online.org/am/4493

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:17, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Brigitte Gabriel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090806142103/http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2008/887/focus.htm to http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2008/887/focus.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101019234806/http://www.jewishindependent.ca:80/archives/Dec09/archives09Dec18-06.html to http://www.jewishindependent.ca/archives/Dec09/archives09Dec18-06.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:27, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Source "Gabriel 2006"

Numerous citations in this article point to "Gabriel 2006" as the source. As far as I can tell, the article doesn't actually describe what this source is. I'm guessing that it's a book written by the subject of the article, likely "Because They Hate: A Survivor of Islamic Terror Warns America" . Two issues about using this as a source. First, as a biased non-scholarly book, it is not a reliable source. Second, WP:SELFSOURCE warns against using sources written by the actual subject of an article in the article itself, unless i) The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim. ii) It does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities). iii) It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject. iv) There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity. v) The article is not based primarily on such sources. Current use of the book violates those principles. I'm going to remove the self sourcing, and replace with citation need tags. LK (talk) 09:49, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Early Life change

I've changed the title of the "Early Life" section as there is no need for "Personal account of" to preceed it. EG: https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=site%3Awikipedia.org+%22Personal+account+of+early+life%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8 - no other articles do this. Instead I've added it to the section itself, not the title. Phatwa (talk) 11:48, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Content error with footnote not supporting what it claims to support

The reference to Israel funding Middle East Television has a footnote #23 but that footnote's content doesn't reference Israel and ME Television has a wiki page that clearly states its owner is a Christian network based in Indiana. I believe the reference is intentionally stated wrongly to give the impression she worked for an Israeli network by distorting the fact that ME Television broadcast off an Israeli satellite. Jomiku (talk) 22:00, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Middle East Television was a propaganda station of the South Lebanon Army, an Israeli collaborationist group during the occupation. It was later sold off but that's what it was when Gabriel was working for it. TiC ^(talk) 12:28, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Source? Anastrophe (talk) 15:44, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Just search "Middle East Television" in any press archive during the period of the Israeli occupation. It was frequently quoted, and attributed, as a mouthpiece of the SLA. TiC ^(talk) 17:58, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

My point is that anecdotal claims are effectively irrelevant to the issue at hand. A claim or implication in the article with a cite that doesn't support it, must be corrected with a reliable source, otherwise the material needs to be removed. Anastrophe (talk) 18:04, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

What the fuck? "Anecdotal claims?" Words have meaning you can't just blather about "anecdotal" when you don't like something TiC ^(talk) 02:42, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

First off, chill. Secondly, I asked for a source, since you made a sweeping claim. Source quality is fundamental to encyclopedia quality. When you make a claim in talk, and are asked for a source, generally, it's a source we're looking for, not 'go look it up', since this is a collaborative project. Since you weren't willing to proffer a source to defend your statement, it became little more than anecdotal discussion, which doesn't move the encyclopedia forward.

The _biggest_ problem here, however, is that between the time User Jomiku posted his question on the 22nd, and when you replied today, the material in contention had already been changed to remove the claim - since, as noted- the source didn't corroborate it. So what we have here is a useless discussion, asses to elbows, by no small measure moved forward by me. So...peace out. Anastrophe (talk) 03:57, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 May 2017

The opening paragraph concludes with "ACT! for America has been widely described as anti-Muslim." This is inaccurate, and no citations were provided in an attempt to back up this claim. This sentence should either be removed or concluded with a notification that citations are needed to support this point. 50.101.246.28 (talk) 16:41, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

The details of the claim are within the body of the article. It is generally not necessary to cite details in the lede if they are fully covered within the body. Anastrophe (talk) 17:07, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Closing this request as Not done: per above. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:35, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 May 2017

Brigitte Gabriel (Arabic: بريجيت غابرييل; born Hanan Qahwaji,[3] 21 October 1964) is an American conservative journalist, author, political lecturer, anti-Islam activist, and founder of two non-profit political organizations, the American Congress For Truth and ACT! for America. ACT! for America has been widely described as anti-Muslim. Ruby1991 (talk) 08:36, 24 May 2017 (UTC) Brigitte Gabriel (Arabic: بريجيت غابرييل; born Hanan Qahwaji,[3] 21 October 1964) is an American conservative journalist, author, political lecturer, anti-radical-Islam activist, and founder of two non-profit political organizations, the American Congress For Truth and ACT! for America. ACT! for America has been widely described as anti-Muslim.

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. —MRD2014 📞 contribs 00:48, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Excessive primary sourcing

We should use restraint in terms of direct quotation. We do not need multiple paragraphs of lengthy direct quotation from the subject, from primary sources (e.g., interview with a website). There are still some direct quotations, which are OK in moderation so long as not excessive. We are an encyclopedia, not a megaphone for the subject's views. Neutrality^talk 02:34, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

How about we summarize the quotation on Wikipedia, and tell it how in her voice, to avoid both issues?Music314812813478 (talk) 02:59, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

The article does not appear to be particularly heavy with quotes, particularly for a BLP. Just as WP is an encyclopedia and not a megaphone for the subject's views, WP is an encyclopedia that is not intended to silence the subject's views, particularly when those views are largely the reason for the subject's notability. I see no need to reduce the number of quotes. Please review WP:BLPSELFPUB. All qualifications there are met. Anastrophe (talk) 16:35, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

The problem is usually how the views/quotes are chosen. Editors' picks? In which case they'll be chosen according to the editors' povs. That's why we really should try to rely on secondary sources that at least show that a reliable source has considered the views to be worthy of notice. Doug Weller talk 18:21, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

If this were a particularly long BLP, overwhelmed with quotes, I'd agree. As a collaborative encyclopedia, obviously editors choose what quotes are noteworthy. But the subject is primarily noteworthy as an advocate and activist, so the subject's views and expressions of those views are fairly central to the accuracy of the BLP. Otherwise, it's easy for it to be overwhelmed with POV from people who disagree with the subject's views - which would violate BLP rules. Anastrophe (talk) 18:55, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

That said, if some of the quotes could be shortened without altering context or the overriding expression intended, then I've certainly no objection to that. Anastrophe (talk) 18:57, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

White House

There is NO evidence that Gabriel met with Donald Trump at the White House. In fact, she did not, so the entry is incorrect. She merely met with an aide. Should be corrected — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.119.70.74 (talk) 12:16, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

An assertion that was found to be inaccurate…

…by the Christian Science Monitor. (under Opinions on Islam)

Only it wasn't, they applied her assertion only to Europe, throughout the entire article. They even admit this:

"Note that this is an extrapolation of estimates gathered in Europe; Gabriel’s claim refers to a percentage of Muslims worldwide. That total number is more than 1.6 billion, according to the Pew Research Center."

…and then continue. Bit shameless really. As such, I think this is a disingenuous use of the article to act as a rebuttal and will remove it. If anyone wishes to improve upon it to keep it in, I'm for that too, just put it below and we can hash something out. Yb2 (talk) 02:00, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

The article literally says that it was "inaccurate" and proceeds to explain why. That you disagree with the reasoning and the reliable source is not a reason for removal. If you want to elaborate on the CSM's reasoning do so yourself. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:27, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

The article simply stating it's inaccurate doesn't mean we have to switch our brains off. It's such a fatuous argument made that removal is, in my opinion, best. If I have to argue "the article says it's inaccurate but actually only applies it to Europe" that is a waste of space, even on a platform that has (in theory) unlimited space. Yb2 (talk) 01:03, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

The text is attributed to CSM. CSM is a reliable source, and Wikipedia reflects what reliable sources say. Similar claims as those made by Gabriel have been deemed false by fact-checkers, so this is not a one-off.[14] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:15, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

"Wikipedia says 1 in 5 people are Chinese but if we apply this to Europe we find that less than 1% of the people there are Chinese so the claim is false."

This kind of logic is so fatuous that I don't care if it came from the most reliable source I've ever found. More complex or arguable assertions, fine, but this is so incredibly basic and wrong that I won't support its inclusion on Wikipedia, it's supposed to be NPOV. The article does not support the claim it makes at the most basic level. It does verify that she made the claim. I am not interested in whether the claim is true or false only that we present the facts as known. If you wish you could add something like "These claims have been challenged" not that they have been found inaccurate when they patently have not (by said article).

By the way, I fixed your signature on your first reply, it had gone missing. Yb2 (talk) 23:53, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Forgive me, but I need some clarification on this matter. First, is what is in question whether or not Brigitte Gabriel made the claim about 15-25% of Muslims (she did), or is it whether the claim is accurate (depends)? Is the source intended to provide verification that she made the claim, or is it an attempt to prove or disprove the claim? And is what is being requested that the quote by Gabriel be removed, or the source? From my perspective, the quote is wildly incomplete. Just that single line, without the context of the rest of her commentary during the panel, is misrepresentative. I think best would be to simply link to the video of the panel where she made the claim ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-vvoRwJSPc ), which provides full context - but then it gets into the area of primary sources and copyright, which would have to be sorted out, and I'm not that deeply attached to the matter to put in the time. As to CSM's article, it is a reliable source, but the purpose of a source is to provide verifiable reference to what is quoted, not necessarily to present counterclaims, unless that is what the article is overtly providing - which it is not. As to whether it has been deemed 'false' is not in evidence, as the source is overtly an opinion piece (not 'just the facts'), and clearly has a POV it is pushing forward. We can just as easily find reliable sources that include her quote, and which are supportive of her opinion (and it is an opinion she expressed, regardless of how she elaborates it). Anastrophe (talk) 03:12, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

I dare you to find a RS that supports her assertion. It should be "easy" apparently. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:24, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Since that's not what I suggested, I'm just going to ignore the unnecessary snark. Anastrophe (talk) 18:05, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

You said "We can just as easily find reliable sources that include her quote, and which are supportive of her opinion". That's ludicriously false. Working 24/7 for a year, you won't find a RS that defends her comment. What's more important, the implications of your bizarre position ("hey, we can find a RS to support any position, therefore Wikipedia should stop using reliable sources") are false. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:13, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

"I dare you"[...] and then you turned around and twisted it into "supports her assertion", which is a completely different question from whether they support her opinion. Thus my response. Anastrophe (talk) 18:28, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2014/06/dana-milbanks-heritage-disaster-190551 - noted journalist, opinion piece on reliable news and opinion site, providing context for an opinion quoted here in a BLP. Fully satisfies RS. Anastrophe (talk) 18:40, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh, and within the referenced site, it provides the full video, so readers can review the primary source without us getting into any ugliness about use of primary sources, copyright, etc. Anastrophe (talk) 18:44, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Lastly, this: "What's more important, the implications of your bizarre position ("hey, we can find a RS to support any position, therefore Wikipedia should stop using reliable sources") are false." is patently uncivil. Please don't put words in another editor's mouth then attack them for it. There's simply no need for it, let alone the policy matters involved. I presented a number of questions, and concerns. Getting snark and hostility back for them offers no value in improving the article. Anastrophe (talk) 19:07, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

(1) She's making a factual assertion, (2) That Dylan Byers piece for politico does not confirm that her claim was accurate. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:12, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

1. She's presenting a factual assertion; this is a BLP; References are intended to provide a reliable source for the quote; they are not intended to refute or contradict the claim - not unless we are characterizing what the source said within the BLP. As it stands, it's a single sentence presented without context, which is a method used frequently to misrepresent what a person is talking about.

2. Correct, Dylan Byers's piece does not confirm that her claim is accurate. When did this BLP become an instrument for that? It confirms that she said it, which is what a reference is for. We do not quote the subject of a BLP without a reference that provides a means for the reader to confirm that she truly said it.

3. Note that it did not take me 24/7 for a year to find a reliable secondary source that provides the reader with 'clean hands' access to the entirety of what she said, and that defended her comments. So, is there objection to either replacing the existing cite, or adding this additional cite? I think the latter is more appropriate, particularly for a BLP. This should not be an attack piece (which it already gives the impression of being). BLP rules are very strict, and for good reason. Actually - I retract my query as to whether there are objections to adding the reference. It fully complies with RS, and provides an alternate source for her quote. I'll add it.Anastrophe (talk) 20:54, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Just as Politico is a RS, so is CSM. Both belong in the article. As for #1, we should both present claims reported in RS and the relevant context that RS provide (such as whether it is accurate or not). It's whitewashing to remove RS content that reflects poorly on a subject. As for #3, you did not find an RS to support her ludicrous claim as you claimed you could easily do. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:35, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

I repeat, please stop with the inflammatory tone. They are based on misrepresenting what I wrote. Here's a refresher of precisely what I wrote: "We can just as easily find reliable sources that include her quote, and which are supportive of her opinion". Do those words match your characterization? No, they do not. Please stop misrepresenting my words. Further, as I wrote - I retracted my request for objections, and went with precisely what I said I preferred - providing two sources. So the additional rhetoric is moot. Anastrophe (talk) 22:13, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 11 September 2017

can we add her twitter profile picture as a picture of her? Notumengi (talk) 14:24, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Not done: Unless the image is clearly licensed as free-use, that would be a copyright violation. regards, DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 15:31, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

@Notumengi Trying to find a picture of anyone with no copyright restrictions is like trying to find a needle in a hay stack. It is a worthless endeavor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daxri (talk • contribs) 16:03, 29 November 2017 (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)

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[15] 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)

Birth name

I'm concerned about the sourcing for her birth name - the article attributes it to an unnamed source. Has she stated it anywhere? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:58, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Buzzfeed? NickCT (talk) 22:05, 30 November 2017 (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

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)

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)

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 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 Merger complete. 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)