Talk:Rashida Tlaib/Archive 2

Controversies section
I don't know much about the situation, other than I believe the changes by are almost certainly not WP:BLP (and likely not WP:DUE) compliant,. Per WP:CRITICISM, I think we need more than just two second-rate sources to add such a section. Maybe if we can find better sources, we can put these elsewhere in the article, but it probably doesn't need its own section.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:12, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

How are they second-rate? No one has disproved any of the things that has been posted. Steve King, Danny Davis, and Steve Scalise all have sections mentions how they are associated with fringe figures. This should be included as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.45.91.166 (talk • contribs)

These are not true controversies. True controversies would be widely reported by neutral reliable sources. In contrast, these attempts at Guilt by association are reported by a very few, very partisan sources. They present very, very weak "connections" to fringe figures; they do not establish that she is "associated" with them.
 * Tlaib follows more than 1000 Instagram accounts, according to the Spectator; that does not make her "associated" with every one of them. Two partisan sources singled out one "follow" to criticize. (Per WP:RSP, the Spectator primarily consists of opinion pieces, which this reference is.) That doesn’t amount to a notable enough controversy for this biography.
 * Any politician gets photographed thousands of times with thousands of people. That does not mean they have any particular association with any particular person who appears in a photo with them. One partisan website chose to highlight one such photo. That does not amount to a notable enough controversy for this biography. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:49, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Then why are there sections on the pages of other congressmen like King and Davis that show them with fringe figures. Dominic Green is a respected historian and the Spectator is a respected paper. Pages for republicans cite the New Republic and Mother Jones that also are largely opinion pieces. Finally the claim that she could not have know its contents is absurd. As the Spectator notes Instagram did not hide these contents, she makes regular personal post on there, and thus likely has a good grasp of who she chooses to follow. Given that she claimed to support a two state solution during the campaign and then having one said she supported a One-state solution clearly there is at least reasonable belief to note who shes follows online. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.45.91.166 (talk) 19:17, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Here is another article in Israel Hayom, which is a right-centre paper, but also on its wiki page says is the most widely read paper in Israel. https://www.israelhayom.com/opinions/letting-congressional-anti-semitism-slide/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.45.91.166 (talk) 19:26, 13 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply. With regard to your other-stuff-exists arguments about other Republicans: OK, let’s look at those articles.
 * Scalise gave a speech to a white nationalist convention, which was widely reported; the speech, Scalise’s apology, and the reactions of his supporters and detractors get 13 mainstream references in our article. Now THAT is a controversy.
 * Steve King is "the Congressman most openly affiliated with white nationalism", as it says even in the lead. This is based on his own statements and actions, and there is a huge section - about one-third of the article - documenting his controversial statements and actions. This extreme ideology of his is so well documented that his own party stripped him of his committee assignments. Now THAT is controversy.
 * Ron Paul has a multi-part “controversies” section; all of it is based on his own actions and statements; none of it is based on association with controversial figures.
 * What “Davis” are you referring to?
 * Bottom line for other-stuff-exists: none of the articles you listed mention a passing association with a fringe individual, or a "follow" of a particular site, as being a cause of controversy. It takes much stronger evidence than that to be included in a Wikipedia biography.
 * The Hayom article makes some valid points, such as pointing out some of her political positions; yes, some of her positions are controversial, and they are already reported in the article in the political positions section. That's different from claiming she is "associated" with every Instagram account she follows. On the other hand, the Hayom article says Hamideh attended Tlaib’s swearing-in; if that can be confirmed it makes a slightly stronger case for "association" than merely appearing in a photo with him. However, based on how we handle the other articles you cite, it's still not enough for a mention; merely knowing someone fringe-y is not used as a basis for controversy, or even mentioned, in those other articles you cited. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:51, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Danny K. Davis he is a rep from Illinois who has associated with the Nation of Islam on numerous occasions. Simply put though I must disagree. The article from Israel Hayom mentions the fact that the mainstream media has not mentioned this case. In my opinion the comparison with Steve King is fair, Tlaib herself also supports an extreme agenda regarding her support for a One-state solution which no other member of congress supports and is considered a fringe view in international politics.

If you still disagree with these examples being here there are others that could be used in Controversies. Such as sharing a Carlos Latuff cartoon. Speaking at an event for American Muslims for Palestine which the ADL considers ant-Semitic, being labeled the number 5 anti-Semite by the Simon Wiesenthal Center in 2019, and finally giving a view of history that prompted a response from historian Benny Morris I firmly believe this section should stay.

https://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/ny-jerry-nadler-trump-rashida-tlaib-cartoon-20190823-nr6wvxu425gazhrsgw44dxrwya-story.html

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/tlaib-omar-share-image-by-artist-who-once-entered-irans-holocaust-cartoon-contest

https://forward.com/opinion/429787/the-left-can-no-longer-excuse-its-anti-semitism/

https://jewishjournal.com/news/united-states/303241/jewish-groups-criticize-omar-tlaib-for-sharing-anti-semitic-cartoon/

https://www.clevelandjewishnews.com/jns/tlaib-to-address-american-muslims-for-palestine-gala/article_827933ba-9df5-5f28-93e1-e32f35761247.html

https://www.algemeiner.com/2020/03/02/tlaib-to-address-american-muslims-for-palestine-gala/

https://tennesseestar.com/2020/03/02/tlaib-headlined-event-alongside-speaker-who-has-expressed-support-for-hamas/

https://www.investigativeproject.org/8188/a-weekend-with-american-muslims-for-palestine

https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/wiesenthal-releases-ten-worst-outbreaks-of-antisemiticanti-israel-cases-611310

http://www.wiesenthal.com/assets/pdf/top-ten-anti-semitic.pdf

https://www.newsbreak.com/news/1470588938426/rashida-tlaib-headlined-anti-semitic-hate-fest

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/05/rashida-tlaib-misled-skullduggery-listeners-israel/589417/

I believe that these links speak for themselves. Along with the fact that The Spectator, Israel Hayom, and Dominic Green being respected sources I see no reason to remove what was posted — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.45.91.166 (talk) 21:49, 13 September 2020 (UTC)


 * The "article in Israel Hayom" is actually an opinion piece by a senior research analyst for CAMERA, which monitors American media for their coverage of Israel. Opinion pieces are not reliable sources. Ironically, the opinion piece notes that mainstream U.S. media has given no coverage to this story, which is why it fails weight for inclusion. It's not our role to help CAMERA get its message across. Mainstream media are just as capable of reading CAMERA's findings and can decide what to do with them. Only if they provide wide coverage to the story can we include it. Incidentally, CAMERA set up accounts in order to post false and misleading information into Wikipedia articles. TFD (talk) 23:56, 13 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Stop with this goal-post moving nonsense. The idea that if the mainstream doesn't cover it you don't include it is absurd and false. If ThinkProgress and The Nation published a piece about Steve King or some other Far-right Republican following an account based around anti-black racism and it was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that they did follow it, but for some reason no one in the mainstream media reported on it, you would include it. Its not your job to cover for the people on these pages, its to post correct information on them for the general public. Post the factual information and let the people decide what to think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.45.91.166 (talk) 00:07, 14 September 2020 (UTC)


 * No one said you were a CAMERA agent. When you make comments like that it makes me question whether we can have a productive conversation. I notice that you have not opened an account and have little experience in contributing. Wikipedia has a number of policies and guidelines that we must all follow. I don't want to argue with you about whether these policies are good or bad. If you object to them, this is not the page to do so. Per News organizations, opinion pieces, such as the one written for Israel Hayom, are not reliable sources and per weight, articles only include information that has weight in mainstream reliable sources. If you want to argue about other article such as "Steve King," do so on their talk pages. It has nothing to do with this page. The original sources you used were the Capital Research Center, an opinion piece in The Spectator and StopAntisemitism.org. The first two are not reliable and I cannot find anything about the last source. You might wonder why topics that get a lot of coverage on shows such as Hannity, Limbaugh and wherever else you get your news are ignored in Wikipedia. It's because they are ignored in mainstream news sources. TFD (talk) 01:28, 14 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I misread what you said about Camera and for that I am sorry. I don't watch Hannity or Limbaugh nor am I a Republican. I fail to see how the first two sources are not reliable as stated before The Spectator and it author Dominic Green are respected sources. The facts of the matter are Congressmen across the political spectrum from far-rightist like King to far-leftist such as Davis all have controversies sections yet for some reason Tlaib does not despite there being clear evidence for there to be one. Given the rise of anti-Semitic acts by both the far-left and far-right I believe that what I said stands. If you can not understand that then I must question that your claims to objectivity are simply a ruse to cover for someone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.45.91.166 (talk) 01:39, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I provided a link to the guideline News organizations. It says, "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." Reliable sources/Perennial sources says, "The Spectator primarily consists of opinion pieces and these should be judged by WP:RSOPINION and WP:NEWSBLOG." Whatever is done on another article is of no relevance to this article. Argue about it on their talk pages. Personally, I would never create a controversy section for any topic, per Avoid sections and articles focusing on criticisms or controversies. If we can write informative arguments about Adolf Hitler without criticism sections, we should be able to do that about U.S. congressmen and women.
 * Wikipedia articles are not the place to find what the media doesn't tell you, it's where to find a summary of what the media tells you. As the man from CAMERA says, the media have chosen to ignore this issue. If you don't like that, either persuade CNN, NBC, etc., to cover your concerns or get Wikipedia to change its policy.
 * TFD (talk) 02:03, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

108.45.91.166: You said If ThinkProgress and The Nation published a piece about Steve King or some other Far-right Republican following an account based around anti-black racism and it was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that they did follow it, but for some reason no one in the mainstream media reported on it, you would include it. The state of the Steve King article (and other such articles) proves the opposite of your point. Actually we do NOT put this kind of trivial information (“he followed so-and-so’s account!”) into our articles. None of those articles lists any such thing; they focus on the person's actual words and actions. No mainstream source would bother reporting on something so trivial - just as they didn’t with Scalise, King, Paul, Davis, or Tlaib.

Thanks for the link to Danny K. Davis. Again, his article proves the opposite of your point. His “controversy” section contains three items: a close relationship with Sun Myung Moon (he “crowned” Moon in a religious ceremony for heavens sake), a trip to Sri Lanka paid for by the Tamil Tigers, and a personal testimony about how close he is to Louis Farrakhan. These document actual relationships. Nothing as trivial as “he follows Farrakhan on Twitter!”

You have provided a dozen or so references here, of which maybe two are neutral reliable sources. More to the point, they are all over the map as to what they are about; there is no consensus around “this is controversial!” (BTW she shared the Carlos Latuff cartoon because it was ABOUT HER, not because she considers him a soul mate.) The one thing that might be worth reporting: we might mention somewhere that the Simon Wiesenthal Center listed her as number 5 on their list of top 10 antisemites in 2019. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:12, 14 September 2020 (UTC)


 * So basically every other wiki page is wrong, for including opinion pieces, non-neutral reliable sources, and controversies sections and instead you are true defenders of what wikipedia want yeah got it. You have both contradicted yourselves and have bent over backwards to defend a member of congress who actions at the very least warrant mention. Cut this nonsense and just put up the section. This pages is already bare bones by wiki standards and you pointlessly have a mention of a congressional investigation of her that is under "other issues" which doesn't make sense does it? How about put that under controversies huh? Maybe just maybe do that to actually have this page fit with other pages. Stop Pussyfooting around the issue. Jerry Nadler called her out on Latuff, but no it is not wiki worthy because you deem it so. None of what has been posted has been proven false. Finally there is a clear consensus on the issue from the articles posted, on repeated occasions Rep. Tlaib has associated, followed, and given support to groups that prompt or are anti-Semitic. It really is not a hard thing to understand.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.45.91.166 (talk) 02:37, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * If you have a problem with policy and guidelines, this is not the place to argue about it. If the associate at Starbucks tells you that they can't put a shot of whiskey into your cappuccino due to state laws and company policy, do you give them GBH in the earhole or do you write to Howard Shultz and your congressman? Because however satisfied you may feel about abusing the associate, they will not and cannot give you what you want. TFD (talk) 04:22, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Comparison doesn't work cause your not giving me anything. If anything the comparison would be a government inspector coming over and telling you that the floor is not built to code and then cites how all the other ones are. You then proceed to yell at the inspector and say that they are all wrong except for yourself. I have no desire to drag this out and fight over this. I am sorry for cases where I overstepped, but I stand by what I have posted and do not feel that answers given are correct or fair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.45.91.166 (talk • contribs) 05:10, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not going to defend what has been done in other articles. There are over 6 million Wikipedia articles and I haven't checked all of them for adherence to policy and guidelines. If you think there are problems with any of them, discuss it on their article talk pages. I have however approached articles about people across the political spectrum with the same policies and guidelines. If you think those policies and guidelines are wrong, get them changed. Or get NBC, CNN, etc., to cover the concerns you have about Tlaib. Don't ask us to break polices and guidelines because you think they are unfair or because you think they have been broken in other articles. Also, please sign your posts. TFD (talk) 15:51, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * So once again you excuse is just to say everyone else is wrong, but you got it right. Even though Mitt Romney has a section talking abut he had a hidden account, which I'm fine with having, why??? Cause its news!!! You want to get ride of controversial and instead replace it as social media go for it. So stop with the whole "I am asking you to break guidelines or policy" it posting a news story proven to be true I'm not asking you to defraud the company or something. This is not a job it just some free time to post information for other people. So no I don't believe that those pages have broken policy I just think you just don't want this information. Not my problem actions have consequences. user:108.45.91.166.
 * A compromise has been reached below and thus I feel that this discussion has no need to go on. Thank-you and have a good day108.45.91.166 (talk) 19:30, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

OK, look. The points about “following” a fringe person on social media, or retweeting a cartoon (about herself!) by someone controversial, do not rise to the level of encyclopedic controversies, and I have said all I intend to say on that subject. That argument is a non-starter, per consensus here even if you don’t agree. The Wiesenthal Center ranking might be validly considered under controversies, but you supplied only the Primary Source, i.e. the center itself; did that ranking get reported by any significant secondary sources? If not it probably doesn’t belong either. On the other hand, the congressional investigation is a legitimate controversy, reported by CNN. It does not appear to be in the article currently and it should be somewhere - along with any followup if there is any. What do others think? Should this congressional investigation go under Tenure, or is it enough to support a Controversies section even if it is the only entry? -- MelanieN (talk) 15:51, 14 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I'll just be repeating myself at this point, but your rationale makes little sense and is contradicted by the actions on other pages. Donald Trump on social media has an entire section about when he retweeted an Islamophobic video by Britain First which should be mentioned!!! Especially given that many statements and actions by Trump are considered Islamophobic the same applies here. I don't care that the cartoon was about her and neither did Nadler, the ADL, or other organizations. The man in question is considered by many to be anti-Semitic (he got second place for Iran's holocaust cartoon contest!!!). We're talking about a 44 year old woman, who is elected to enact policy in the United States, and regularly posts on social media if she is too lazy to check where her sources come from then that's not my problem.


 * In regards to the SWC center I posted a link from Jerusalem Post above, so there is your "secondary" source.


 * Forgive me for not including that, but when all you do is delete everything I post as opposed I don't know editing it, I for some reason don't feel like adding even more stuff. If you think that this is worthy of being up how about YOU put it up or let me and then edit where YOU think it could be better.


 * Simply put the actions by the editors for this page has been dishonest. You say my first thing was not story was not mainstream news even though The Spectator is the oldest running magazine in the world and is as mainstream as can be in British Politics and the other was an article reposted in Israel Hayom the most-widely read paper in Israel (i.e. their Washington Post or New York Times). Once I stated that the goal post was then move to say that they were not "verifiable sources" I posted articles that linked to the ADL which is considered a "verifiable source" on wikipedia. So yes I do find the actions of the mods for this page to be dishonest, hypocritical, and partisan. This has nothing to do with politics its abut calling out elected leaders on either side of the spectrum who choose to associate with bigots. I don't care what your beliefs are you can support the Palestinian people without being an anti-Semitic or hanging out with people who support terrorism, bigotry, or the believe the Blood libel; I and many others do it just fine. So enough of this and lets actually discuss the merits of this case. user: 108.45.91.166.
 * OK, on the merits: I would support a "controversies" section that mentions the congressional investigation and the Simon Wiesenthal Center rating now that we have a secondary source for it. How do others here feel about that? -- MelanieN (talk) 19:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * P.S. Thanks for "signing" your messages, but this - user:108.45.91.166 - is not the best way to do it. The best way is to type four tildes ~ at the end of your message, or to put your cursor at the end of your message and click on the signature link at the top of the editing page. The four tildes will automatically generate your signature and a date/time stamp, like this: -- MelanieN (talk) 19:19, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * That is a compromise I am perfectly fine with. Sorry about the signing I am a little new to this. Thank you for the response108.45.91.166 (talk) 19:27, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * IP, the reason you find yourself repeating yourself is that you ignore what other editors say. As I pointed out to you, News organizations says that we cannot use opinion pieces for statements of fact, no matter what the source. And while the Spectator may be a great publication, read what Reliable sources/Perennial sources says about it. It doesn't matter what other articles do. TFD (talk) 20:12, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I have not ignored it, I concede that at the end of the day you feel that The Spectator articles are not worthy including, I disagree but I see it will go nowhere.108.45.91.166 (talk) 17:35, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * MelanieN, my concern with that is that we would be applying inappropriate weight. The Office of Congressional Ethics for example determined that Tlaib "did not comply with the letter of the relevant laws and regulations governing her receipt of salary payments from her Campaign. However, the Committee also concluded that there was no evidence to show that Representative Tlaib intended to unjustly enrich herself and made efforts to ensure her compliance with the applicable requirements. In light of this, the Committee determined there was no sanction merited, provided that Representative Tlaib returns the funds that she improperly received to her Campaign in full within a year of the date of the Committee's Report." That probably explains why mainstream media gave it so little coverage. Also, the text written by the IP does not provide a fair and balanced summary of the source. We should never say that an accusation was made against someone without publishing their response, especially when it is in the source we use. TFD (talk) 20:47, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I did not write the part about the house investigation it was already there under "political issues" since that it not a political issue I made a Controversies section and then added in the parts from before. If CNN covered it I see no reason for it not to be on here it is mainstream news source, just simply add what the committee said regarding campaign law and it should be fine. Then add the Simon Wiesenthal Center report plus with the Jerusalem Post article and that should be fine. Thus a full picture is giving that while the house looked into it, they saw no need to do anymore.108.45.91.166 (talk) 17:35, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link, TFD. The investigation, and its gentle outcome, did receive some coverage and I think we could include a mention of it. Probably "Political issues" or "Tenure" is the best place for it. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:14, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * You are welcome. I can't see much coverage in major media of the outcome following the conclusion of the case. Apparently her campaign legally paid her approx 5K per month after she quit her job to run for Congress, but payments for the two months between her election and swearing-in ($10,800) were not allowed and had to be repaid. I suppose you could write it up in a non-Daily Caller type way, but it's questionable whether it has weight for inclusion. I would like to ask the IP why they thought it important to add information about the investigation without mentioning Tlaib's reply or bothering to look up its outcome. TFD (talk) 00:39, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * That seems like a mistake it would be easy to make. A matter of not reading the fine print more than anything else. You're right, that's probably why it got so little coverage. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:43, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree. Also, the Simon Wiesenthal article seems to go over material already in the article about Tlaib's views on Palestine and BDS. This shows the lack of balance in criticism sections. Tlaib is very open about her views on this, and it attracts a lot of criticism. That's how the article presents it. But to start with the criticism first assumes that her position is wrong. TFD (talk) 00:52, 15 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I did not add the part about the congressional investigation, I moved it because it was under political issues, which is used to refer to policy positions. Since that is not a political position I moved it to controversies. I do not wish to drag this out, but the lack of a controversies section is to my mind very silly. Ignoring the original postings I made about the Instagram issue, I feel that the other examples more than warrant a section. Regarding the Carlos Latuff cartoon, I provided sources that are rated reliable by Wikipedia which show that this was an issue when it occurred. I posted articles that talked about the meeting with American Muslims for Palestine which is considered extremely anti-Israel/Semitic by the Anti-Defamation League another source considered reliable. The Simon Wiesenthal Center statement seems perfectly fine and more than enough for a mention. Finally in regards to the one-state solution it is mentioned that she has faced heavy criticism for that positions, which is correct so why not mention it?108.45.91.166 (talk) 00:39, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

PIA changes
Source please on opposes the existence of Israel. She may support a binational state, but that doesnt necessarily mean the same thing. As far as the controversy section, see no secondary reliable sourcing for the capital research center bit, nor for guilt by association from stopantisemitism.org. Could maybe work in the last bit if some more sources can demonstrate an actual controversy. Also, much of that is covered by the ARBPIA 1RR fyi.  nableezy  - 03:08, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed and endorse the reversion to last stable version. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:15, 27 March 2021 (UTC)


 * The secondary source is one from the Specator. Here are some more  . Yes a bianational state would end Israel in most cases. 3Kingdoms (talk) 18:41, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * JNS is an opinion piece, Free Bacon isn't reliable (see for example here neither is the Spectator (eg here).  nableezy  - 18:45, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Opinion pieces can be used and are used regularly here, you don't seem to understand that. 3Kingdoms (talk) 18:49, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * An opinion piece cannot be used in a BLP unless it is written by an expert in the field. Sean Durns of CAMERA is not that. Please dont comment on what you think I do or do not understand.  nableezy  - 18:53, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Why not? The other is from Dominc Green who has ", PhD, FRHistS is a critic, historian and the deputy editor of The Spectator’s US edition. The author of four books, he writes widely on the arts and current affairs, and contributes regularly to the Wall Street Journal and the New Criterion." One of his degrees is in Jewish Studies so yeah he can talk about this. 3Kingdoms (talk) 19:00, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Why not? You seriously asking why we cant use a CAMERA hit piece in a BLP? Well, for starters, RS requires sources that are reliable. And CAMERA has been repeatedly found not to be that. That JNS picked up a CAMERA piece and ran it as an opinion doesnt change that. I dont think any of those sources are reliable, and both per WP:ONUS and nableezy ''' - 19:14, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay just don't use that one. Use Specator and Center media original report. I did remove opposes the existence of Israel because you are right it is loaded and instead a simple one-state solution is better to have. 3Kingdoms (talk) 19:16, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The Capital research center has also been found to be unreliable (see here). We dont use poor sources in BLPs, it isnt that complicated a thing. You need rock solid reliable third party secondary sources for contentious claims about a living person. Not whatever right wing blog that matches a view you want included.  nableezy  - 19:24, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Is what they posted incorrect? Please explain your issue with the Specator as well. here is another source talking about the comforting part that was removed 3Kingdoms (talk) 19:32, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I dont think the material on being humbled that Palestine was a safe haven for Jews following the Holocaust really merits mention per WEIGHT, but dont dispute that it occurred. Just dont see it as important. As far as the Spectator, Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources. And opinion pieces dont demonstrate WEIGHT.  nableezy  - 20:48, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You have them mixed up Specator is about following an anti-semitic Instagram. The humbled part is mentioned by USA today, the Atlantic, and Haretz. 3Kingdoms (talk) 02:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not mixing anything up, thanks. The humbled part is to me a news cycle story, and doesnt have any persistent coverage to show it merits mention in a biography of Tlaib.  nableezy  - 03:15, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * That's your opinion and it doesn't matter Atlantic, USA Today, and Haertz all mentioned it all are labeled reliable sources. And yes you did mix them up. 3Kingdoms (talk) 15:32, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Sustained coverage would demonstrate weight. WP:NOTNEWS means we dont just regurgitate any random news cycle because an editor thinks its important. If you can show that this has had some actual impact on anything at all then it may qualify for inclusion, absent that including it is a WP:DUE violation. And no, I still dont have them mixed up. Maybe consider for a second you dont understand what I am saying instead if insisting that I dont understand what I am saying.  nableezy  - 15:44, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * USA Today, the Altantic, and Haretz are all reliable and this got a response from then President Trump, so yes it was important. We currently have sections about Ralph Northam's abortion comments and Steve Scalise's talking at a white nationalist conference. Both have fallen from the news cycle but were news then so they remain. Same here. If you object how about you go through all politicians pages and remove everything like that? By wiki standards this should remain.You just don't like possiably critical comments being put up on this person cause reason. This is not a hard concept to get. 3Kingdoms (talk) 16:27, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no sustained coverage, so no it is not important. Again, kindly dont presume to think you know what I do or do not like. WP:NOTNEWS and WP:DUE require more than the news of the day to be included in a biography. Finally, by either revert or comment here, there are three users all agreeing that this material is not suitable for this article. You are of course welcome to seek wider input at WP:NPOV/N or through an RFC, but as it stands there looks like a consensus against this material. Wikipedia not being a place where the person that can talk the longest wins the argument, I dont really see the need to continue making the same point over and over in the hopes that it convinces the 1 in the 3-1. Kindly do not restore that material absent a consensus for it, WP:ONUS is also not a hard concept to get.  nableezy  - 18:19, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes there was, you just choose not to listen. Your entire point boils down to I just don't like it and thus no point. That is not an argument. 3Kingdoms (talk) 00:44, 29 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Also you did not answer my question "is what Capital Research Center posted true or not true?" 3Kingdoms (talk) 02:53, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Your question isnt relevant, whether or not an instagram account is anti-semitic is something for a reliable source to comment on, and that isnt one. Whether or not it matters if Tlaib followed an account is likewise something that needs reliable sources showing that it matters to give it any weight in our article. This is not a compendium of random facts or a listing of what some random conservative blog thinks is wrong with Tlaib.  nableezy  - 03:15, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Not an answer, is it or is it not true? Second how is The Spectator with an article by a respected Historian not reliable? The "blog" is not what is wrong with her, just reporting, they asked for comment and got none. You do not seem to understand how this works regarding using sources. 3Kingdoms (talk) 15:32, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I assure you that I understand how this works. And again, your question is not relevant. Dominic Green (writer and musician) shows no indication that he has any qualifications that would make him himself a reliable source. Maybe on the topic of the history of jazz, but he has no relevant academic publications on the topic at hand here.  nableezy  - 15:44, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Not an answer. Again please say if what they posted is true or not. "PhD, FRHistS is a critic, historian and the deputy editor of The Spectator’s US edition. The author of four books, he writes widely on the arts and current affairs, and contributes regularly to the Wall Street Journal and the New Criterion." One of those degrees is in Jewish studies, so yes he is reliable to write on Anti-Semitism. You just don't like the content cause reason. 3Kingdoms (talk) 16:19, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Ive answered that the question is not relevant. A degree doesnt establish expertise, being published in academic works such as peer-reviewed journals or books published by high quality presses would. And none of that is true. A random editorial by a non-expert is not a reliable source in a BLP. Kindly dont presume to know what I do or do not like, thank you.  nableezy  - 18:14, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Still did not answer "is what they posted true or not". Your point is nonsense, simply goalpost moving and thus irrelevant. He has more than enough creditionals, which to me only says that you simply don't like what he talked about. Look if can't be bothered to argue a point then just stop. 3Kingdoms (talk) 00:44, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I dont need to answer that question. This is not your personal website where you determine the rules. The rules you just broke however, WP:BLPRESTORE and WP:ONUS, are the rules here. Was not the best idea to continue edit-warring while multiple admins are discussing a long block and or topic ban, but will see how that turns out first.  nableezy  - 01:12, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I did not break the rule. I have provided numerous explains of why they are fine sources. Its a simple question why not answer. Is it true or false. It not I'm inclined to say that you do think it is true, which makes the objection all the more curious. Finally I am not edit-warring, I made the change after 24 hours. Please provide actual evidence to why you object instead of goalpost moving. 3Kingdoms (talk) 04:16, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The goalposts have never moved. I have provided evidence in the form of RSN discussions about the sources finding them not to meet our standards. Please review loaded question and WP:RS for why the question is totally irrelevant to this discussion.  nableezy  - 17:21, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes a bianational state would end Israel in most cases. - that's your opinion. We cannot state your opinion as a fact in Wikivoice - in fact, we can't state anyone's opinion as a fact in Wikivoice. At most, if deemed due weight, we could potentially include a sourced opinion to that effect, stated as an opinion, and it would have to be appropriately balanced by sourced opposing opinions. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:44, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Lets not get into this I will simply say that Benny Morris has written enough on this to say what will happen under a bianational state. Finally I removed that part. 3Kingdoms (talk) 02:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

‘free.palestine.1948’ Issue
Are sources that mention this. Given that the person here is most know for the wider issue of the Palestine Israel conflict and its impact in America. I do not see why not include it. ,, ,, One about wider connection to anti-Semitic groups 3Kingdoms (talk) 04:46, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * None of those are reliable sources. Especially in a a BLP.  nableezy  - 14:39, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Wiki rules says that just because it is not labeled reliable does mean it is not or that it can't be used. The Specator articles are more than enough. 3Kingdoms (talk) 16:24, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * And which rule says that?  nableezy  - 17:21, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * "If your source isn't listed here, the only thing it really means is that it hasn't been the subject of repeated community discussion. That may be because the source you want to use is a stellar source, and we simply never needed to talk about it because it was so obvious.[a] It could mean that the source covers a niche topic, or that it simply fell through the cracks." Specator has no consensus. 3Kingdoms (talk) 18:21, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, that page lists sources that have been repeatedly covered at RSN. That does not mean that sources that fail WP:RS may be used. A collection of opinion pieces simply do not establish any weight for it to be included here. Including the opinion of non experts in a BLP is likewise not permissible.  nableezy  - 18:29, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * And it doesn't mean they can't be used, what don't you understand? Next Dominic green is "an adjunct lecturer in politics at Boston College, a fellow of the Royal Historical Society and the Royal Society of Arts". He has degrees in religious history and Jewish studies, he is qualified to talk about this, your objection is simple goalpost moving and means nothing. 3Kingdoms (talk) 19:34, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Nowhere in WP:RS does it say having a degree establishes expertise. Being published in reputable academic works does, and this person is not published anywhere on this topic. He is not an expert and his opinion does not carry any weight to be included. No goalpost has been moved, and unfortunately for you this isnt your website where you decide what counts and what doesnt. Again, I see no reason to continue arguing the same point, you do not have consensus for your change and continuing to revert war it in would be a manifestly bad idea. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 00:07, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It also says no where that they need to be "published". It is goalpost moving. I know its not mine, no problem for me, I just want and actual discussion which you have not done. 3Kingdoms (talk) 04:06, 30 March 2021 (UTC)


 * It's excessive weight. If readers want to know the pros and cons of the one state solution, there's an article for that. Also, when we introduce fringe theories, we need to explain their relationship to mainstream ones. We wouldn't have a paragraph on the article on Neil Armstrong explaining the theory that the moon landing was faked without saying that it was a fringe theory. TFD (talk) 02:23, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I am a little confused. The articles in question don't revolve around the one state solution. Its based around connection to an Anti-Semetic account, I based the section on the one for Marjorie Taylor Greene. Also I am confused by the Fringe claim. Dominic Green, Freddy Grey, and the Specator are not fringe groups. Also your comparison confuses me and I don't really get it. 3Kingdoms (talk) 04:04, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Humbled section
To make this easier I am going to divide into one of the things previously removed, Regarding the " Humbled Holocaust" comments here are sources from reliable sites to justify it being here ,,,,,, , ,. The last one is the one from Benny Morris which I believe got to the heart of the issue, these other ones can be used to along side. 3Kingdoms (talk) 04:25, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * All in a single news cycle, no evidence of any sustained coverage or any impact at all. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 14:37, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Your point? And just wrong. There is no single news cycle rule, you are simply using an abiratry claim cause I just don't like it. Not an argument. 3Kingdoms (talk) 16:23, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thats nice of you to feel that way, but I likewise think you are wrong and do not have an argument that trumps WP:WEIGHT and WP:NOTNEWS. Material should show some lasting impact to be included. This doesnt meet that bar. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 17:22, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * How a response from most major newspapers and politicans is not weight makes no sense to me. As said before there is no singles news cycle rule, true not everything a person does should be added but based on most congressional pages this is news and should be added. 3Kingdoms (talk) 18:15, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTNEWS and WP:OSE. A single news cycle shows no enduring coverage or any particular impact and as such merits no coverage here. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 18:30, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * " routine news reporting of announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia" This is not routine reporting, talking about where a congressperson is going on whatever trip is not news this is. Again your claim is abrtiarty and nonsense it is simply I just don't like it. You have not engaged on the merit of the argument. Please provide an example of what you consider outside of a "news cycle" 3Kingdoms (talk) 19:31, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * If there were sources showing some lasting impact a month or so later that would be outside of the news cycle. And yes, reporting on what a congressperson says is routine. What matters for an encyclopedia article is if that ended up mattering in any way. You can keep saying things like my argument is nonsense, but unfortunately for you that isnt something that you get to decide. There are three users who have opposed this addition for reasons grounded in policy. You are of course welcome to seek wider input. But continuing to revert is indeed edit-warring, which I very much advise you to stop doing. As mentioned in an earlier section, this isnt a last man standing game. Your change has been disputed by several editors, and you have not established a consensus for making it. Nobody needs to convince you of anything, nobody needs your permission here. You can either try to establish a different consensus by engaging the wider community or you can move on. I dont feel the need to repeat the same argument over and over, especially when the response is invariably rude and condescending. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 00:05, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Once again there is no rule for that. For someone who lectures about following the rules, you don't seem to have a good grasp yourself. And no they are not grounded in policy. You refuse to actually argue and instead make up rules causeI just don't like it. The other person posted that it was "dubious sources" which is not correct. They then went on some thing about the two vs one state solution which has no bearing on the issue at hand. Finally I don't know who this third guy is so really its just two with you being the only one really engaged in this. Its not my site and its not yours either. 3Kingdoms (talk) 04:16, 30 March 2021 (UTC)