Talk:Rashida Tlaib

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 October 2023

At the end of the section on the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, this press report should be added, “ Democratic Rep. Rashida Tlaib, of Michigan, refused to apologize Wednesday for saying a day earlier that Israel is to blame for the hospital explosion that day in Gaza, despite evidence from the U.S. defense department that the blast was likely caused by an errant projectile from Palestinian Islamic Jihad”. 2601:401:4280:29E0:A1A5:53A3:D909:4E66 (talk) 12:19, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. NotAGenious (talk) 15:35, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

How about this https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/tlaib-refuses-apologize-blaming-israel-gaza-hospital-blast/story?id=104085727207.180.140.243 (talk) 14:16, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

"Widely regarded"

The word widely in relation to the perception of the phrase "from the river to the sea" comes from a Hakeem Jeffries quote and should not be posited as fact as it currently is in the wording of this article. --203.211.79.215 (talk) 04:31, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes,just read that section and it's not a factual claim. Widely regarded by whom? Where? 96.253.107.232 (talk) 05:00, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

It looks like it has been removed. Historyday01 (talk) 15:40, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Regarded by Israel, and most not terrorist countries.207.180.140.243 (talk) 14:17, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Censure

The recent censure (November 7th, 23), that passed in the house must be added to her political part of the profile... 2601:400:C180:670:5171:E5FF:7BE8:973B (talk) 04:43, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

There is now a subsection for this censure in the political positions section. Wow (talk) 05:08, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

the description of the censure is very biased and not historically correct, is there a way to get a more accurate description of the censure than calling the ask for the end to genocide as "controversial"? 2600:4040:71EA:7200:D461:E4EA:5489:677E (talk) 20:56, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Eh, I think the current description and section is pretty good. Historyday01 (talk) 15:02, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

I hear what you are saying, but that section does, currently, include many perspectives. Historyday01 (talk) 15:46, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 November 2023

The claim that "From the river to the sea" is a reference to a one state solution is false and misleading.

There are two in known suggested solutions to the current situation with regard to the Israel and Palestinian conflict.

1) Two state solution references the case where two states will reside aide by side, one Israeli and another Palestinian, with well defined borders.

2) One state solution references the case where Israelis and Palestinians will live within Israel as a single state.

The saying "From the river to the sea" does in fact not reference any of the aforementioned suggested solutions but rather is a genocidal saying demonstrating the intent of the Hamas terrorist organization to eradicate the state of Israel and kill all Jewish citizens, thus eliminating their presence on all geographical locations from the Jordan river and to the Mediterranean sea, equating to all territories that are part of the Israeli sovereign state.

This is neither a two or one state solution but rather part of the murderous charter of the Hamas that can be easily looked up.

Stating that this has any relation to any solution is misleading, wrong and is sugarcoating a genocidal claim.

It is offensive and no different and analogous to claiming that "Arbeit Macht Frei" (in German "work shall set you free" and famously hung in the entrance to Auschwitz) is a reference to saving income for old age. 2A0D:6FC0:1DFB:3700:D328:79BB:8DB7:93EE (talk) 11:04, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

I've removed the description of what the slogan means, but haven't replaced it with anything. The slogan itself requires a significant amount of explanation that this article is not the place for – as it is wikilinked to its own article (From the river to the sea) additional information is easily available to readers. Tollens (talk) 12:00, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

As that article explains, the term can have different interpretations and pre-dates Hamas by decades. Also, it's not a good sign when an argument begins with references to Hitler and the Nazis, unless that is the topic of discussion. TFD (talk) 14:06, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Ok. I just removed the part saying it is "a nationalist Palestinian slogan associated in the past with calls for Israel's elimination" as doesn't help people. I say this because the page linked (which Tollens mentioned) continues to have debates about its neutrality. We don't need to say there is "a definition" UNTIL the neutrality problems on that page are solved. There are editors hard at work on improving that page, so we shouldn't undercut them here. She used the phrase, there is no denying, but we shouldn't wade into the definition of the phrase. I believe my edit is aligned with what Tollens pointed out ("The slogan itself requires a significant amount of explanation that this article is not the place for") on November 18th. Historyday01 (talk) 20:01, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Tlaib and Nakba recognition Resolutions

Currently there is no mention of rep. Tlaib's comments or resolutions related to the recognition of the Nakba. I had initally added the follwing addition towards her position under the 'Israel-Palestine' subheading however it was reverted due to some questions on the neutrality of sources. This is of course totally valid and I understand why it was done. That being said, I believe her position regarding the Nakba is both relevant from a political view, as her attempt to provide recognition to it is the first in U.S. history, and as personal, as it is clearly a leading personal reason behind her positions relating to the conflict. I had attempted to have a variety of perspectives among the sources used but I just wanted to verify if these sources may be leading in any way that takes away from the factual content behind her positions:

In 2022 and 2023, Tlaib introduced resolutions aimed at recognizing the Nakba with the proposal stating that "A just and lasting peace cannot be established without addressing the Nakba and remedying its injustices towards the Palestinian people" while endorsing the Palestinian right of return. The introduction of the resolution resulted in sharp rebukes by fellow congress members such as Senators Rosen and Kennedy who respectively stated that the "establishment of the only Jewish state a ‘catastrophe’ is deeply offensive" and that "The Capitol grounds should not be a pedestal to legitimize anti-Semitic bigotry". Tlaib responded to criticism against her introduction of the resolution by acknowledging organizations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch as having concluded a system of Aparthaid as having been imposed on Palestinians. LosPajaros (talk) 03:37, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

I think this is worth including, but the Jewish Journal article seems pretty biased and appears to have a pro-Israel and Zionist perspective. The DYUZ article just reprints what is in Al Jazeera (it says so at the end of the article). Otherwise I'm not going to remove the articles, even though sites like The Times for Israel can take a rightward slant. Historyday01 (talk) 23:33, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

References

Discussion of House censure in lead

After I made this January 5 edit, the lead included the following paragraph: "Tlaib was censured by the House of Representatives on November 7, 2023. The House's censure resolution indicated that Tlaib had put forth false narratives about the October 2023 Hamas terror attack on Israel and had expressed support for the destruction of Israel; Tlaib claimed that the resolution contained falsehoods".

After a series of major edits by Historyday01, the lead now includes only one sentence about the censure, which reads: "The Republican-controlled House of Representatives censured Tlaib on November 7, 2023".

I believe that the current sentence fails to provide due weight in the lead to Tlaib's House censure, creates an NPOV problem, and also unnecessarily forces readers into the body of the article to find out why Tlaib was censured. Rather than getting into an edit war, I am raising the issue here. What do other editors think? MonMothma (talk) 19:53, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't say my edits were "major," as much as they were very small, actually, in terms of the totality of the article. I was attempting to limit editorializing in the opening section and otherwise removing unnecessary links and claims (like that she is "far-left", which I mentioned on your talk page which creates a clear NPOV problem if it is included). I would be willing to change the current sentence to:

"The Republican-controlled House of Representatives censured Tlaib for her views on the 2023 Israel–Hamas war, on November 7, 2023; Tlaib claimed that the resolution contained falsehoods."

Personally, I'm wary to expand this sentence too much, as the intro section has no sources. If readers wanted to read more about the censure resolution(s), they could read the section further in the article. I don't think that is too much to ask readers to do.Historyday01 (talk) 20:21, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:LEAD, the decision about whether to include citations in the lead is made on a case-by-case basis. Sometimes, lead sections do not include citations; instead, citations are provided in the article

Currently, the final two sentences of the lead read as follows: "Afterwards, Tlaib was censured by the Republican-controlled House of Representatives. Tlaib claimed the censure resolution contained falsehoods". This is unsatisfactory for the same reasons I outlined above. MonMothma (talk) 12:50, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

If no citations are in the lead, then it shouldn't be too long. Otherwise, I see no issue with the current lead (with Plumber's recent additions). I stand with what I said in my comment yesterday. Your arguments on this subject are not convincing me otherwise, to be perfectly honest. Historyday01 (talk) 20:55, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

The lead is getting too long and should go back to the balance obtained with this version before the additional text was put back in. 〜 Adflatuss • talk 21:17, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm fine with going back to that lead. MonMothma's edit, following mine, does the opposite of "restoring clarity, NPOV and balance to lead re: censure." Having a lead that's too long will not help readers. I recommend that MonMontha's edit be reversed. As such, I fully support the recent edit by @User:Makeandtoss, which said to "do not add quote[s] without context or counterarguments." I further disagree with MonMothma's recent paraphrasing, as it creates the same problem as previous edits made by MonMothma. The version BEFORE the additional text was added should be restored.Historyday01 (talk) 18:57, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

The article's treatment of the House censure continues to be unacceptable. There are major problems with both the lead and the censure section.

The final paragraph of the lead currently reads as follows: "On November 3, 2023, Congresswoman Tlaib accused President Joe Biden of supporting the genocide of the Palestinian people during the Israel-Hamas War as Israel's actions in the Gaza Strip killed over 23,000 Palestinians. Tlaib was censured by the Republican-controlled House of Representatives including 22 Democrats for her comments four days later, but asserted this resolution contained falsehoods".

In addition to being inartfully drafted and slightly POV (the placement of the term "Republican-controlled" is suspect), this paragraph is deeply misleading. The paragraph makes it appear that Rep. Tlaib was censured because she accused President Biden of supporting genocide. In fact, the censure resolution (see here) notes five different things Rep. Tlaib has said, but makes no mention whatsoever of her comments about President Biden.

Within the body of the article, the censure section spends more time on Marjorie Taylor Greene's proposed censure resolution (which went nowhere) than it does on the content of the actual House-passed resolution.

Overall, the article tends to obscure the content of the resolution.

I intend to make edits to the censure section. I also intend to revise the censure paragraph in the lead to read as follows: "On November 7, 2023, Tlaib was censured by the House of Representatives. The censure resolution, with which Tlaib strongly disagreed, alleged that Tlaib had spread false information about the 2023 Israel-Hamas War and had expressed support for the destruction of the state of Israel". MonMothma (talk) 23:03, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

The problem I have with your proposed paragraph is it gives too much weight to the resolution. I think we can keep the first sentence, but tack it into next-to-last paragraph of the lead section, saying something like: "Later, Congresswoman Tlaib accused President Joe Biden of supporting the genocide of the Palestinian people during the Israel-Hamas War as Israel's actions in the Gaza Strip killed over 23,000 Palestinians.

Then, the final paragraph would just two sentences: "On November 7, 2023, by a vote of 234-188, Tlaib was censured by the U.S. House of Representatives, for her other comments related to the the Israel-Hamas War. She disputed the resolution as containing falsehoods."

Since the entire resolution remains controversial, I'm not sure that summarizing it as you have done "alleged that Tlaib had spread false information about the 2023 Israel-Hamas War and had expressed support for the destruction of the state of Israel" does readers any good. It could also give the impression that the page isn't neutral. In terms of the article's body, and as the person who wrote/revised that censure section, I think it is worthwhile to mention MTG's resolution because it was the precursor to the censure resolution that passed, and the current censure resolution is the "moderate" version (which is why they were able to get enough votes to pass it). I would go as far as to say the Congress.gov link isn't necessary (I believe the quotes I got there are in the NBC News article) since there have been A LOT of articles about this censure resolution, many of which quote and summarize the resolution.

And from what I'm aware of, in terms of citing sources, is that secondary sources are preferred to primary sources. As it states on WP:RSPRIMARY, "Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources, i.e., a document or recording that relates to or discusses information originally presented elsewhere...Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. Although they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. Although specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred...All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." So, the latter is why I'm wary, in situations like this article from citing the exact source. Sometimes it is unavoidable, but I would not say this article falls into that. Historyday01 (talk) 01:54, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Historyday01, I am not wedded to citing the resolution itself, so feel free to remove that citation if you'd like. (I don't see a problem with keeping it in, however, because there is no WP:OR problem here.)

My main concern with your proposed language is its vague reference to Tlaib's "other comments relating to the Israel-Hamas War". I don't see that as an improvement; in fact, it is problematic. I cannot see any reason not to tell readers what the resolution said. The way I have worded it makes it clear that we aren't speaking in the encyclopedia's voice, but are merely setting forth what was alleged in the resolution. Because of that, I don't see a POV problem. MonMothma (talk) 05:14, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I would prefer a shorter mention in the lead, merged with the prior paragraph. Something like:

Tlaib has called for an end to U.S. aid to Israel and supports the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign in order to lead to a one-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Her comments on the conflict led to a 2023 censuring by the House of Representatives.

I feel this is due without being quite so recentist, and I wouldn't be opposed to lengthening it if hindsight reveals this is a more major aspect of her biography. I looked to other articles about congressional censurees, and this length seems about standard (yes, yes, WP:OTHERCONTENT, but it's a hint at least). Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 05:25, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Firefangledfeathers, I respectfully disagree. Censure is too significant to be relegated to one sentence in the lead. I don't think the paragraph I have inserted is undue or recentist. MonMothma (talk) 09:55, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I removed elaboration on the censure if we are not going to elaborate on her responses, also considering lede should be kept as a brief summary. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:29, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

That's why my above-suggested text ("On November 7, 2023, by a vote of 234-188, Tlaib was censured by the U.S. House of Representatives, for her other comments related to the the Israel-Hamas War. She disputed the resolution as containing falsehoods") was relatively short for the same reasons. The only issue is that the resolution, which MonMothma cited in their comment, doesn't talk about her support for the BDS campaign, but rather her criticism of Israel, U.S. aid to Israel, the Al-Ahli Arab Hospital bombing, using the From the river to the sea slogan, and reported promotion of "false narratives" and claims of "unbecoming" conduct. As such, I would support the above text, perhaps adding "related" after the word "her" to make clear she wasn't censured for support for the BDS movement or a one-state solution. Perhaps there can be a merger of the text I purposed and the text Firefangledfeathers proposed. Historyday01 (talk) 13:57, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I am equally fine with my proposal and Makeandtoss's. Adding "related" to mine would be fine with me. The only issue I have with H01's proposal is the last sentence, as I think we should either include both the rationale of the censure and Tlaib's defense or neither. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:12, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I'd be fine with removing the last sentence from my suggested text (so it would read "On November 7, 2023, by a vote of 234-188, Tlaib was censured by the U.S. House of Representatives, for her other comments related to the the Israel-Hamas War"). I feel like the rationale for the censure needs more than one sentence to summarize it, and would be better to put in the censure section, if that makes sense. Historyday01 (talk) 15:43, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Mentioning the numbers is too detailed for the lede in my opinion. Why not include also the rational opposing the censure? It's either both or none, and when it's both, it's too detailed. I am with keeping things as is. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:53, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Hmm. The lead keeps changing so many times it is hard to keep up! But, yes, I support your current edits (i.e. the present version at this current time) to the lead. It's in the spirit of my suggested text. Historyday01 (talk) 16:33, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

The current version of the lead (as of diff is unacceptable because it's inaccurate. Tlaib was not censured "owing to her position on the 2023 Israel-Hamas War". As per the censure resolution, there is much more to it than that. It's misleading. We were better off with the version I drafted. I am having trouble understanding why there is an aversion to including a sentence in the lead that accurately summarizes the censure resolution. MonMothma (talk) 18:12, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

There's almost always "more to it" than the lead content. It's possible for summary to be misleading, but I'm not seeing it in this case. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:28, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it is clear consensus had been reached that rejects adding the additional content to the lead. 〜 Adflatuss • talk 18:51, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree at this current time, but it is possible we may want to revisit this in the future (like a year or so ahead, if something changes). I don't think the intro should be static. Even so, I would say it functions well now. I noted in an earlier comment she was censured for "her criticism of Israel, U.S. aid to Israel, the Al-Ahli Arab Hospital bombing, using the From the river to the sea slogan, and reported promotion of "false narratives" and claims of "unbecoming" conduct." You could say that these views are related to her views on the conflict, i.e. "owing to her position" on the conflict. But, I'll let the person who added that language (Makeandtoss) speak more to it. Historyday01 (talk) 20:36, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

They are definitely related to the conflict, and the cited sources agree. Most of the ones I checked introduce the censure in their own ledes as being related to her comments on the Israel–Hamas war. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:56, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Of course the censure was related to Tlaib's views on the Israel-Hamas War, but there is more to it than that. The censure resolution also reprimanded her for spreading false information on the conflict and for calling for the destruction of Israel. Saying she was censured "owing to her position" on the conflict soft-pedals the actual content of the censure. While I would prefer to add more detail in the lead on this issue, I recognize that other editors see the matter differently. Accordingly, I have revised the relevant sentence to read as follows: "On November 7, 2023, she was censured by the House of Representatives in response to her public statements on the 2023 Israel–Hamas War and the overall Israel-Palestinian conflict". MonMothma (talk) 08:58, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

"Far-left"

On January 1, I added content describing Tlaib as "far-left". For this proposition, I cited The New York Times, Politico, and The Hill. Historyday01 and Plumber have each reverted this edit. While Plumber offered no justification for the removal, Historyday01 contends that the term is both "not relevant" and a violation of WP:NPOV. I disagree on both counts. Descriptions of a political figure's ideology are highly relevant to that political figure's Wikipedia page, especially in sections on that figure's political positions. As to NPOV, I merely used the same adjective that has been used by multiple reliable sources. I welcome the insights of other editors on whether this adjective should be included. MonMothma (talk) 20:25, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I stand by that stance. The term "far-left" can be derisive term (see page 18), especially when it comes to U.S. politics, and has been used to demonize those with progressive views /ideas. In any case, "far-left" is a politically-charged term, without a doubt. I am concerned about your dedication to keeping that term. I agree with you that "descriptions of a political figure's ideology are highly relevant to that political figure's Wikipedia page" but that adjective is NOT needed to do so. Anything about her political positions can be added to... the political positions page. Just because an adjective is used by three sources, does NOT mean we should use it too! Notably, even on Far-left politics (a page I don't think should exist at all and should be merged into another page) it says "the term does not have a single, coherent definition." Historyday01 (talk) 20:40, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

We should not be overmuch concerned about whether or not the term far-left is applied to Tlaib. Since her most prominent current political stance—a ceasefire in Gaza—is supported by 66% of Americans and 80% of Democrats, it did feel inappropriate. Are 80% of Democrats far-left? Probably not.
Far more important is the removal of her accusation that Joe Biden supported the genocide of the Palestinian people. A sitting member of Congress calling the president of their own party a genocidaire is unprecedented in the history of the United States. It is easily the most prominent moment of Tlaib's entire career. Tlaib's statements belongs in the lede but was removed without explanation. --Plumber (talk) 01:10, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

That's fair. It looks like you re-added it, an addition which I definitely support. And yes, I agree with you about the term "far-left" being applied to her. Historyday01 (talk) 05:00, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

I am not sure that The New York Times uses the term "far-left" as a pejorative term. Regardless, per WP:UNCENSORED, the encyclopedia is supposed to reflect what reliable sources have said on a topic, not sanitize content that may make editors uncomfortable. No one has stated any valid basis for excluding this adjective, which is well-sourced and relevant. Is this an instance of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT? MonMothma (talk) 13:07, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Sigh. As I have said time and again, it IS a pejorative term. You don't have the consensus to re-add it. Besides, adding the term clearly violates NPOV and WP:UNCENSORED (it says "Content will be removed if it is judged to violate Wikipedia's policies (especially those on biographies of living persons and using a neutral point of view)"). Whether I like or dislike the term "far-left" for this article matters little. Simply, I don't mind describing her political positions, but slapping a label on her crosses the line of neutrality to non-neutrality. The term is not "Well-sourced" as you claimed (you picked some sources that used the term and that counts as "well-sourced") to you. We can reflect what reliable sources have said WITHOUT using the term. The page has done a pretty good job of this, at this point, without editorial disputes, and I'd like to see that continued in the future. Historyday01 (talk) 20:50, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

To add onto this, I strongly disagree with your recent edit which said "reinstating edit inappropriately reverted yesterday." I stand by my changes to that section. I see no issue with talking about how supporters of Tlaib posted messages on social media. What's the issue with that? Isn't it due balance to include those who opposed and supported Tlaib? I'd be fine with adding the statements from Marsha Blackburn and Brad Schneider to the previous paragraph. If so, the new sentences (it would be the fourth paragraph in the "Censure" section), after could read as follows:

Supporters and opponents of Tlaib posted messages on social media. Opponents included Representatives Marsha Blackburn and Brad Schneider. Blackburn said that Tlaib should "want freedom for Palestinians, which starts with eradicating Hamas." Schneider stated that although Tlaib's censure resolution was not "perfect" in form or language, he claimed that she used "inflammatory language" that "amplifies Hamas propaganda”, and said that the resolution was the "only vehicle...to formally rebuke the dangerous disinformation and aspersions" by Tlaib. Supporters included MuslimGirl.com founder Amani Al-Khatahtbeh, Justice Democrats spokesperson Usamah Andrabi, Jewish Currents editor-at-large Peter Beinart and Representatives Cori Bush, Ilhan Omar, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Some thanked Tlaib or encouraged people to donate to her re-election campaign, while others called out the U.S. Congress for not endorsing a ceasefire, criticized lack of condemnation for Palestinian casualties, or called the censure "shameful" and "disgusting."

I hold out a sliver of hope that this changed text is amenable. Historyday01 (talk) 22:10, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Historyday01, your arguments are not persuasive. What Wikipedia policy is violated by the inclusion of the term "far-left"? I can't think of one. It seems that you misunderstand WP:NPOV. You cited WP:UNCENSORED, which reads, "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—‌even exceedingly so. Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia". That language strongly supports inclusion.

As to the language on what supporters and opponents of Tlaib said on social media after she was censured: Your revert was improper. As I mentioned on your talk page (before you swiftly deleted my post), there is a one-revert-per-24-hours rule on this page that you violated. In any event, I don't see why comments on social media are significant enough to merit inclusion at all. I would rather leave them out. If we are going to mention them, we should include both supporters and opponents in proportion to their coverage in reliable sources. It appears that your revised paragraph does this. MonMothma (talk) 17:38, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I saw your comment on the talk page and stand by my removal of your post from my talk page, as I felt it was more appropriate to have the discussion here instead. I am glad about the support for inclusion of my proposed paragraph.

Moving onto your first paragraph, In terms of a Wikipedia policy, I stand by my invocation of NPOV and UNCENSORED. I still feel that the inclusion of that term violates NPOV and moves the page from neutrality to non-neutrality. I am not convinced by the small number of sources you marshalled to support the inclusion of "far-left". If you really dig into who has used this term, you will find its usage in the NY Post, Fox News (here and here), Fox Business, New York Sun (behind a paywall), John Locke Foundation, The Telegraph, JNS (implied), Heritage Foundation (implied), House Republicans, National Review, Daily Mail, Republican Governors Association, Frontpage Magazine, Washington Examiner, and Washington Times.

Clearly, this shows that this term is not some neutral descriptor, but one used against Tlaib. I would even venture that WP:GRATUITOUS, which states "Material that could be considered vulgar, obscene, or offensive should not be included unless it is treated in an encyclopedic manner. Offensive material should be used only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available," is relevant here. In this case, using the term "far-left" is offensive, and non-neutral. Furthermore, its omission would NOT call the article to be less relevant, accurate, or informative. And there is a suitable alternative! It is describing her specific views in the political positions section, as editors have already been doing (and should continue to do). Furthermore, inclusion of the term "far-left" plainly violates WP:BLPSTYLE, which states "do not label people with contentious labels, loaded language, or terms that lack precision, unless a person is commonly described that way in reliable sources. Instead use clear, direct language and let facts alone do the talking."

In the case of Tlaib, it IS a contentious label AND is loaded language. There is no doubt about that. I would not say she is "commonly described" that way, based on the fact that the above-mentioned (and unreliable) sources use that term, and the fact I could only find FOUR news outlets (Politico, NY Times, The Atlantic, and The Hill) use it. As such, it is illogical to say that this counts as her being "commonly described" that way. Just as easily, there are eight recent articles about Tlaib in the Detroit Free Press, Newsweek (also here), Local12, AP, CBS News, Roll Call, and NPR which do not use the "far-left" descriptor.

Clear and direct language could be used. Adding to this, using the term is a case of WP:UNDUE and creates a sense of WP:FALSEBALANCE. Using the term far-left further violates WP:IMPARTIAL, on some level, as the article is no longer impartial. I hope you change your view on this. Historyday01 (talk) 18:54, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Historyday01, thank you for your most recent post. I was not aware of the language in WP:BLPSTYLE that you cited. I withdraw my argument in support of the "far-left" label. MonMothma (talk) 00:04, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm very glad to hear of this development. Historyday01 (talk) 00:35, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

References

Lede

Let's not elaborate on the censure in the lede if we are not going to elaborate on her responses to the censure. Best way is to keep it concise and the details for the body. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:45, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi Makeandtoss. Could you fold your thoughts into the ongoing #Discussion of House censure in lead? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:22, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree. And it looks like the discussion has been folded in, at this point. Historyday01 (talk) 13:50, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

ADL

Why is it that after every listed position Tlaib has made about Israel, an ADL “criticism” is listed? Are the ADL an unbiased organization? Obviously not, and mentioning them after every Tlaib stance constantly reinforces this “antisemitic” opinion into the reader’s mind. MoMoChohan (talk) 22:52, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

So true 2600:8800:4914:600:E4FE:C660:7A5E:D6FC (talk) 02:58, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Opinion? Maybe. In the same way gravity is a “theory”.

if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck. And people who are experts at spotting ducks say so. Then she might in fact be a duck. 2601:18F:801:1D20:94C9:2258:557A:8175 (talk) 16:59, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Poor sourcing not up to BLP standards

Given the recent development at WP:RSPADL the constant reference to the ADL w/r/t Tlaib's positions on Israel/Palestine and antisemitism is no longer a simple issue of NPOV as previously treated. This page is in need of major revisions. andrew.robbins (talk) 13:55, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

What "major revisions" would you suggest? Obviously, we don't want to give ADL too much weight. I removed some mentions of the ADL in my recent edit.--Historyday01 (talk) 16:07, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

My initial read of the new RS guideline is that it probably shouldn't be mentioned in the I/P context at all. That being said, I think your edit is 90% of what I'd go for (and the remaining reference is from 2019 which is obviously more justifiable). andrew.robbins (talk) 17:26, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Right. I know there was an issue with citing ADL on From the river to the sea too, and in light of the recent discussion the use of ADL there should also be revisited. Historyday01 (talk) 17:45, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 August 2024

Tlaib's sister, Layla Elabed, is cofounder of the "Uncommitted" movement for the 2024 presidential election. Another source here. Request to add to "Personal Life". Wisenerd (talk) 03:16, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

'gaza genocide'

Fot some reason, someone put an edit in that merely says 'gaza genocide' could someone remove this? 120.19.140.42 (talk) 07:20, 10 August 2024 (UTC)