Talk:Brigitte Gabriel

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  WTF 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  content errors

message: 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)
thread_title: Loose with the Truth

message: 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)
thread_title: Islamophobia

message: 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)
thread_title:  Archived 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Page protected 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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. Tiamuttalk 18:34, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the link, just getting slowly up to speed. Off2riorob (talk) 18:52, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

text: It appears from the above comments that Ms. Gabriel's aide has recently edited using two accounts, the second one  initiated after I issued a level 3 warning (under a different IP) to CatherineMartin7 . 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Editing Brigitte Gabriel's Page 

message: 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)
replies: text: It appears from the above comments that Ms. Gabriel's aide has recently edited using two accounts, the second one  initiated after I issued a level 3 warning (under a different IP) to CatherineMartin7 . 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: edit requests

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

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Deranged 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Text deletion 

message: 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)
replies: text: Not True!George Al-Shami (talk) 03:03, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes True, Al-Shami. User:Kca-colonel  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.44.114.190 (talk) 00:57, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  This article as it stands in late November 2012 is terribly biased 

message: 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)
replies: text: Wikipedia:No original research -- ToFeignClef (talk) 21:00, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nothing exceptional to add to the political-social dialogue 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Debbie Schlussel podcast 

message: 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)
thread_title:  SPLC as judge and jury 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Brigitte Gabriel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  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 ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:17, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:27, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Source "Gabriel 2006" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Early Life change 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Closing this request as  Not done: per above. —KuyaBriBriTalk 19:35, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 23 May 2017 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 24 May 2017 

message: 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. Neutralitytalk 02:34, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Excessive primary sourcing 

message: 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)
thread_title:  White House 

message: can we add her twitter profile picture as a picture of her? Notumengi (talk) 14:24, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 11 September 2017 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Criticism" category 

message: 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)
replies: text: Buzzfeed? NickCT (talk) 22:05, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birth name 

message: 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)
thread_title: Criticism section and structure of article

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 10 November 2018 

message: 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)
replies: text: , (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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: "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)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 16 November 2018 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Bias issues 

message: 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)
thread_title:  BLP 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 5 September 2019 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "In 2009, Gabriel stated Islam "promotes intolerance and violence"" Footnote 35 

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

text: 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)

text: Klbrain (talk) 21:24, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Page vandalized, her last name is not "Sharmouta" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Personal life 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Thanks for the clarification! VR talk 01:11, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Information removed