Jump to content

Talk:Brigitte Gabriel/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Improving the Early Life in Lebanon Section

This section is in dire need of improvement. I see that some attempts have been made but they were reverted. I hope that we can all work together to improve it I am going to make a number of changes in the next couple of days. I would really appreciate being contacted on my talk page if you plan to revert them so we can discuss the changes.Daniel J. Leivick 01:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The reason I have trimmed down the biography section is not that I doubt she has described her life in this way, it is that a personal (and controversial) autobiography should not be depicted as fact on wikipedia. As it stands it reads like she wrote it rather then an objective observer, because we cannot source most of her story beyond her own claims they should not be included.Daniel J. Leivick 03:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I made a number of edits to the biography section roughly returning it to the shortened state. Each edit is explained as best I could. I tried to do two primary things, first remove the redundant historical content as it is not necessary with a link to the civil war especially as many of the events discussed have little to do with her. Secondly I tried to remove as much of the propaganda

What exactly violates Neutrality about her biography, career history, or quotes?

Talk page accusations (especially baseless ones) does NOT make an article "disputed neutrality"

Some individuals are getting away with some smearing. The majority of this article concerns her personal biography, career history of employment/work activities, and notable quotes. Who has the authority/personal contacts to dispute that these facts are wrong?

I suggest the "Neutrality in dispute" label be removed from the main page immedidately. No one has shown any evidence the facts of her career or personal biography are incorrect or in dispute.

rjp2006

Brigitte Gabriel has fabricated much of what she says

She has made claims that it is also part of the Muslim religion to torture people as a sign of manhood. She has also very close links to PR firms working for Israel and the U.S. government.

http://canadiancoalition.com/forum/messages/17543.shtml

I was at the lecture, and Brigitte Gabriel's version of events is utter fabrication, as evident by my video of the event, the official representatives of the Univ. of Memphis, and dozens of non-muslim eye witnesses. Here is what really happened: http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=11&ar=199

http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=11&ar=199

69.196.164.190


Can you prove that she has fabricated much of what she says? I don't think you can. 68.211.205.106 06:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Show us the video evidence that is claimed in the link. Mre5765 15:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Islam category

Can we discuss this? (→Netscott) 06:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

From what I can see, she is against Islamism and not Islam per se. ←Humus sapiens ну? 06:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
What about creating a Category:Anti-Islamism or Category:Anti-Islamists? (→Netscott) 06:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

She is bigoted and calls muslims "Osama bin laden look alikes"

This woman is biggoted in her views. She makes sweeping generalizations about Muslims and Islam. That is why she should be placed under the anti-Islam sentiment category. In her recent interview on CNN, the reporter told her that Hezbollah won the elections in Lebanon fair and square, and she countered that "these terrorists have multiple wives and many children, they voted themselves in..." obviously she was not referring to Hezbollah per se, for Hezbollah is a minor faction of a few thousand, but to Shiite Muslims. That is anti-Islam sentiment. That is the same type of rhetoric of minorites reproducing "like rats" used by bigots worldwide. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Freiheit94 (talk • contribs) .

Your charaterization of her here is based upon your own conjecture otherwise known as original research. If anyone is going to be labeled anti-anything then verifiable reliable sources need to be cited when doing so. As well for a categorization to be valid a body of points of view (a consensus) that add up to neutrally to a person being labeled as such (in the category) should exist. (→Netscott) 07:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Freiheit94: 1st, please sign your posts in talk pages, and 2nd, I can only see that she is against radical Islam or Islamism. The rest is in your head. ←Humus sapiens ну? 07:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I see Gabriel's brain-dead supporters will do anything they can to whitewash her views. She's been described by the New York Times as an Islamophobe and has referred to Arabs as "barabarians" and claims that they have no soul. If she's not an anti-Muslim bigot, she's certainly a racist. It was only a matter of time before the truth came out about this hatemonger.Shabeki (talk) 19:09, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Her comments prove her to harbor anti-Islam sentiment

According to her interview and the article which responded to "Muslims Muzzling Memphis" by Gabriel, Brigitte does harbor anti-Islam sentiment. David Duke's comments, articles, lectures form a large enough body of evidence to place him under the Racism and anti-semtic people categories.Freiheit94 07:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC) Freiheit94

I haven't read in the article where she's labeled as expressing anti-Islam sentiment and even if such content was found there, one article would not constitute a "body" of views. Do you have other citations to support your view that she should be included in this category? (→Netscott) 07:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

---

I modified the part about her time in Lebanon, simply because it was written like some kind of fundamentalist propaganda piece and included incredibly biased statements. Wikipedia should not state, as fact, that all "Muslims" (the entry made no distinctions) want to behead all Christians - much less that that was the cause of the Lebanese civil war. However, it should be noted that I haven't checked any of these statements for factual accuracy - just made them sound a little less like a Judeo-Christian diatribe against all things Islamic. --- G. H.

Well OK , but how about signing in with a username instead of an anonmymous log in? As far as accuracy you can watch her presentation to the Heritage Foundation where she discusses her early life in Lebanon. The events mentioned are also corroborated by ample historical records of the region--CltFn 12:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
CltFn- Please don't use inflated language like "corroborated by ample historical records." It's becoming a common trend in your edits.
To address your answer: In writing a biographical summary, we should use neutral sources, not the words of the biographee herself. Also, as far as I know, thier are no "historical records" on Gabriel's life nor her family's. Perhaps thier are records of the events surrounding her life, but in terms of her interpretation of those events, the historical record doesn't help her case.--Kitrus 08:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Brigitte does not fabricate anything. Islam is out to dominate our world and they MUST BE STOPPED! What part of that do you disagree with? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slickstersc (talk • contribs) 19:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

WHAT THE HELL IS THIS?

This has to be the most fabricated, biased article on wikipedia. Who wrote it? Brigitte's mother? Poor grammer, poor diction, and poor logic. I am deleting much of it. Aljazzera44 23:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)Aljazzera44

It's kind of funny perusing through the references and seeing most of them being attributed to Brigitte Gabriel herself.Shabeki (talk) 21:27, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

HAHA

What a dumb article. Biased and filled with lies.

First of all there was never anything called "Arabic Lebanese Army", and if you search google you'll only find four entries, the first being from wikipedia. It's unfortunate that an aspiring encyclopedia would have such an error for this long. The closest thing there ever was to an "Arabic Lebanese Army" was the "Lebanese National Movement", and it was in general a [u]leftist[/u] organization. It did not characterize itself as a "muslim" organization, and in fact its leader was a Durzi.

You can read about it hear : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebanese_National_Movement

In the article the "author" tried to make it sound as if muslims wanted to kill christians for no other reason other than their faith, which is ridiculous and contrary to reality. If anyone wanted to kill anyone else because of their faith it would be the chrisitan maronite groups, specifically the fascist phalanghe party which ignited the Lebanese civil war when it slaughtered people in a Palestinian bus. It was also lebanese christans who directly committed the Sabra and Chatilla massacre, which was commissioned by the oh so benevolent Israel, who itself had its fair share of killings, last but not least when it concerns Lebanon the 1200 mostly civlians dead in the recent launched by Israel in summer of 2006.

In other words, muslims are not murderous blood sucking people who just want to behead others in the name of allah, as the article alleges, and maronite groups are not just victims who Israel saved from certain doom. -- bobo Nov 10, 2006

Who is Durzi? Many Muslims want to kill Christians; many who do not want to, remain silent. The latter is one of Brigitte's biggest complaints. Brian Pearson 01:02, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

LEBANESE ARAB ARMY (LAA), AKA "al Jaysh Lubnan al Arabi" did indeed exist: "The establishment of the LAA was announced on January 21, 1976, by Lieutenant Ahmad al Khatib, a Sunni Muslim officer in the Lebanese Armed Forces. Khatib urged his fellow Muslims to mutiny and desert the army. Within several days, he rallied 2,000 soldiers, including 40 tank crews, to his side. At the zenith of its power, the LAA controlled three-quarters of all army barracks and posts in Lebanon." http://www.country-data.com/frd/cs/lebanon/lb_appnb.html And since a picture is worth 1000 words, here is a picture (3rd down) of PLO leader Yasser Arafat and PFLP leader George Habash flashing victory signs and linking arms with LAA leaders Mjr. Ahmed Boutari and Lt. Ahmed al Khatib http://www.azkoul.net/pages/WarPages/images_war7.htm Not bad for a non-existent organization that has no Wikipedia link, wouldn't you agree? Here's another interesting piece of information: The recently assassinated arch-terrorist Imad Mughniyeh was a member of Arafat's elite guard units 'Force 17' when they were deployed in Lebanon in the late 70's and early 80s, where he was "employed" as a sniper, targetting Christians on the other side of the Green Line. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imad_Mugniyah As for the Lebanese Civil War being ignited at the point when the Christian Phalangists opened fire on a Palestinian bus, suffice it to say that is the usual 'casus belli' given by the mass media outlets, such as BBC and others, but it is a dubious claim, as the Ain el Rummaneh church massacre immediately preceded the widely publicized bus massacre: "On the morning of April 13th, 1975, unidentified gunmen in a speeding car fired on a church in the Christian East Beirut suburb of Ain El Rummaneh, killing 4 people including two Maronite Phalangists. Hours later, Phalangists led by the Gemayels killed 30 Palestinians traveling in Ein Al-Rumaneh. Citywide clashes erupted in response to this "Bus Massacre."" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebanese_civil_war The bottom line is this: No one is trying to make Brigitte Gabriel out to be a historian or scholar the way they do with Norman Finklestein, whose polemics often verge on tirades, angry outbursts, and personal attacks. Gabriel is informing people about the way she views things, based on her experiences, and if one were to peruse background information on the Lebanese Civil War, one can easily come to the conclusion that not everything she says is necessarily made up. J.D. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.68.95.65 (talk) 02:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Info icon
Info icon

This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it. Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed. I'm putting this message on the talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy. In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material violating someone's copyright. If you are not sure whether the link on this article should be removed or if you would like to help spread this message, contact us on User talk:J.smith/YouTube Linklist. Thanks, ---J.S (t|c) 00:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

In some cases videos are authorized by their source for release on Youtube, thus are quite legitimate sources. This article explains a trend with commercial outlets in regards to Youtube --CltFn 13:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality strongly required

What is this? An auto biography? Where are the sources and evidence for all this fairy tales actually happened? How do you know she didn't invent her entire biography? Where is the neutrality of this site? This is supposed to be an encyclopedia article, not a speech by Brigitte.

They are qualified as claims made by Brigitte, not as fact. Brian Pearson 01:14, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

In every biography we just know what the people said about themselves. She didn't claim anything outlandish. Did she?--Skatewalk 04:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

The "early life" section as it is now is cut down considerably from a longer version that made some pretty serious claims of atrocities perpetrated by Arab militias during the civil war. It is still important to make a distinction between between established facts about a persons life and anectdotes told by a person during a speech. --Daniel J. Leivick 04:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I now I saw the older versions they were rubbish, but this one is ok to remove the NPOV. It was restored by an Assyrianist who has no clue about who Brigitte is. Can you please remove the NPOV because I dont want to provoke him to spam this article. --Skatewalk 19:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

LOL

Yeah maybe I'm crazy or something but it sounds like an autobiography done in the third person. ЯKolothMailbox|Rlink 04:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Biased Article

Her place in Lebanon is not known. The name of the place is very important to know the authenticity of the story.

It is understood from the story that she was in the South. That area was not hit hard during the 1975-1976 war. If she lived in a shelter for 7 years, this means that her house was bombarded in 1971 (ABSOLUTELY FAKE STORY).

The link to her book has an external link (is kinda spam?). It is promoting her book.

From http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=24567 she refers to her birthplace as Paris of the Middle East (from this we could construe Beirut) but she only refers to where she lived later as South Lebanon (maybe because Israel bulldozed it down since then so yes it now is "Southern" Lebanon). She says she stayed in some shelter between 1975 and 1982 (don't know where you got the 1971 date from !). Links to author books are not spam unless it simply is a page promoting the book and which link are you talking about anyway ? Also please sign your posts with 4 tildes. (Before you lot think I'm some american zionist christian apologist I'm actually an anti-Israel/Islamophobic/Anti-Christian/Darwinist/Atheist/pro-Europe/SecularHumanist/Anti-Microsoft (I think thats enough *ists). Ttiotsw 01:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


She specifically names the town in which she was raised as Marjayoun. --69.128.204.110 (talk) 21:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


Stop blanking stuff

The early life in Lebanon section seems to have been blanked by some editors who seem to think that if the life of a subject of an article is non complimentary their favorite ideological group that it should be blanked. To those folks, I say stop the blanking.--CltFn 04:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I made a number of edits to the biography section roughly returning it to the shortened state. Each edit is explained as best I could. I tried to do two primary things, first remove the redundant historical content as it is not necessary with a link to the civil war especially as many of the events discussed have little to do with her beyond happening in her country. Secondly I tried to remove as much of the depictions of violence, without sourcing beyond her own claims they are not appropriate for this page as they border on propaganda. I also removed some POV sentences that felt out of place on wikipedia. This is not "blanking" this is deliberate editing for quality and NPOV, Islam is far from my favorite ideological group and I have no interest in hiding things that are non complimentary I merely want the article to be the best it can be. Thanks for helping with the article.Daniel J. Leivick 01:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Daniel J. Leivick -You should not have blanked out her own statements on the matter , which rightfully belong in the article. The section made it clear that this is what she states and it is her POV which is perfectly fine to be part of the article as the topic of the article is her. What you are doing is reducing the article to bland statements which do not explain anything as to who she is and what she is all about. By putting a whole bunch of "she claims this" , "she claims that" you are advancing a POV that suggests that what she is saying is suspect or dubious. What you have done is turned a good hard hitting and interesting article into generic page of bland statements. --CltFn 04:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

First I am very glad that we can discuss this without edit warring. Much of what I deleted was Gabriel's historical account of the Lebanese Civil war which does not have place on her page as it was merely an event that happened in her country during her life time. Perhaps if her account differs significantly from what is described on the Civil War page a section could be devoted to her opinions on the war. Secondly while user CltFn describes the current state of the article as bland, I would describe it prior state as far to heated, bordering on propaganda. Descriptions of torture, the murder of babies and the like should not be placed in an article if they are largely second and third hand accounts. Thirdly the prior state of the article was too long to come solely from words of the subject of the article, we don't get to write our own bios on wikipedia even in its current state it could use some alternate sources. The "she claims" modifiers are vital as it makes it clear where fact appropriate for wikipedia to cite end and claims made by a controversial source begin. Lets keep discussing how this article can be improved. Daniel J. Leivick 20:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The long and explicit version which I endorse was written to reflect Brigitte Gabrielle's account of her life during those early years in Lebanon, precisely as she stated it in the Heritage Foundation video linked at the bottom of the page. My view is that biographic articles need to provide the context of the unfolding events that shaped the circumstances of the subject in question and which provide insight as to the course of conduct that they have embarked on as a result. Brigitte Gabriel's life has to be presented to a readership which in many cases may have had little comprehension of the history or on the ground realities of the past 40 years of Lebanon. Much of the Gabrielle's life during that period was shaped by the ethno-religious conflicts of Lebanon during those years and the harshness of those events needs to be included in her life story. Those events help us to understand why Brigitte Gabrielle takes the positions that she takes in regards to the middle eastern conflicts. When we omit to mention these things, through an aversion of harsh facts, and what I would call an unfortunate adherence to political correctness then our articles wind up failing to inform the reader on important information on the topic of concern. The question is are we going to write articles that present the whole story or are we only going to present vetted articles which only present selected bits that won't offend anyone but won't tell us anything either? Sadly the prevailing trend of mainstream media leans to the latter which is why the news networks are mostly useless in relaying news and why after watching the evening news you have learned exactly nothing about events that will have a major impact on our lives. Now if Wikipedia could rise to the challenge and provide articles that give the whole story then we would have something to be proud of--CltFn 07:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I would say that information regarding political events in Lebanon that directly effected Gabriel are open for inclusion, ie her house being bombed and being saved by Operation Latani. Events that indirectly effected her or merely occurred during her life time are not really appropriate ie Palestinians refugees flooding southern Lebanon and PLO bases being constructed are not really necessary although they are of course appropriate for the Lebanese Civil war page. The problem with putting excess historical elements in this article is they present a very one sided view of the Lebanese Civil war. Discussing only the alleged atrocities of Islamic militias neglects alleged atrocities committed by Christian militias. No one article can "give the whole story" thats why it needs links to the stories that surround it. Daniel J. Leivick 22:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Independent Source

Yesterday I added the following sentence "It should be noted that those accounts are solely Gabriel's, and that they have not yet been validated by an independent and unbiased source.", which was later deleted by Mr.Daniel J. Leivick with the remark "I think that it is clear that this is solely her account.". On a first look I would agree, however even though that it's clear these are her own accounts, it still does not establish the fact her accounts have never been verified by independent and unbiased sources, which I think is necessary given her obvious anti-islam / anti-muslim biases. Therefore I would argue to include that sentence or any with an equivalent meaning. However before doing so I'd appreciate it if Mr. Leivick writes down what he thinks, since it would serve no purpose if we just keep adding and deleting the same comment over. --bobo, Dec 12, 2006

In my opinion the use of words like "she claims" and "she states" make it abundantly clear that these are her words rather than indisputable facts. The addition of a paragraph like the one you purpose makes it feel as if her statements are likely to be false which is also not verifiable. I would not be opposed to a rewrite of the section along the line of "In a speech to the Heritage Foundation she described her early life as..." I still do not like the fact that the early life section only cite one source but the addition of a disclaimer pushes the POV to the other side a little. Daniel J. Leivick 01:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I've tried to post the following information, but it keeps getting deleted:

I think it is objective to point out that despite her very public life - being a journalist in Israel, that no independent source can be found. I have researched this question through the net, with her book publisher, and with several non-profit organizations who work on Interfaith relations. This information is not pejorative, but objective. Given the ongoing debate about his issue, it seems that at the very least a disputed tag should be placed on this issue. Can someone help me do this?


Perhaps this whole entry should be deleted

Here is a definition of sourcing given to me -

Basically nothing that you've experienced personally can be included in Wikipedia. All of our content has to be attributable to a reliable source. If you want to add something to Wikipedia (particularly when it comes to biographical details) it must be easliy verifiable by readers. Obviously personal experience does not qualify. (→Netscott) 05:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Given this definition - it seems that this whole entry needs to be deleted: 1) the majority of this entry is Ms. Gabriel's personal experience. 2) Nothing in her entry is attributable to a reliable source - all of her biographical material comes directly from her. 3) Nothing can be verified.

Darryl Fairchild

Misinterpretation. To make this simple, "claims" of any kind must be supported by references. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 05:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I had a personal conversation with Ms. Gabriel. She shared information that I believe is important for her entry. However, despite my attempt to provide a citation - similar to those used in Turabian - my entries continue to be deleted. I can give the names of all of those present, the date, the location, etc. Is there anyway to include this information in Ms. Gabriel's entry.

Personal conversations are not reliable. Please read WP:REF and WP:VERIFY to understand the policies. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 05:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

WHY DOES AN UNEDUCATED BIGGOT MERIT THEIR OWN WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE? DELETE IT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.237.104.67 (talk) 13:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

First of all, she did receive an education. Secondly, why is it that anyone who criticizes Islam is bound to end up being labelled a "bigot?" Brigitte Gabriel's views were shaped from her own personal experiences. There are many people who don't want to believe what she says and therefore call her a "liar" and a "bigot." Anyone is capable of lying, of course, but I highly doubt that she is. Here is my reasoning: this is such a controversial topic, especially right now when those who express opinions like hers are being branded "racist," "intolerant," and then there's that new term going around, "Islamophobe," meaning anyone who disagrees with Islam. She likely knew she would be attacked like this before she began speaking out, and I think it was very brave of her to do so regardless. Finally, Gabrial does not condemn all Muslims as "evil terrorists" as some people believe. Here is a quote from her first book: "One of my friends though my five years of elementary school was a Muslim girl called Khadija, who lived in a nearby Muslim town. Khadija and I were inseparable...I knew that her family remained in our area and were not involved in any evildoing against Christians. There were plenty of good-hearted Muslims, but they were subdued and silenced by the radicals." Still think she's a bigot?--69.128.204.110 (talk) 02:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

biographical facts

X was born in 1965 in the village of alpha. her father was engaged in the business of beta. she went to gamma school. they lived next to delta military base. their village was attacked by delta miliitia. Some make the distinction between "Arab" and "Arabian." "Arab" is a term of shared language, culture, values, tradition. So one can be a Christian Arab or Mulim Arab. But some Lebanese consider themselves Phoenicians. Is that her contention. Then it needs to be brought out. I haven't read her books. It needs to be in the article if that is the case. Maybe she was from Damour. That was the site of a famous Palestinian militia massacre of a Maronite town. That helped set off the Civil war. Ironically a significant percentage of the Palestinian refugees are "Christian." Somebody knowledgeable needs to fill in this article with facts. She's a notable person, even though she appears to be one dimensional and partisan like Anne Coulter, the article shouldn't be deleted. Godspeed John Glenn! Will 12:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC) later edit Godspeed John Glenn! Will 13:03, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I just made an edit on the American Congress page doing a rooted/routed correction. Saw this little tidbit there

  • "Miss Gabriel, has stated repeatedly that her ideological underpinnings is rooted in childhood trauma. Her father, a Christian, Egyptian-born policeman posted in the Palestinian territory during the 1960s, was killed by a group of Muslim radicals. "

Obviously nobody is taking a close look at harmonizing these articles. If her father died in the 60's, then how was she with her parents in a bomb shelter in the 70's? Godspeed John Glenn! Will 12:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

And if her family is Egyptian, why the charade of claiming to be Lebanese? WTF? 72.145.135.128 13:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

If she was born and raised in Lebanon, that makes her Lebanese. Otherwise, you will have to declare most Palestinians, whose parents and grandparents were born outs side of Palestine, to be Syrians, Lebanese and Egyptians.

No if her father is Egyptian than she is by Arab standards considered an Egyptian since nationality is followed from the father even if she has Lebanese id —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.134.210 (talk) 23:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality is comprimised by victimization

A person given as much media attention as Brigitte Gabriel must be scrutinized further in such an article. Simplistic statements about the fear she experienced during her childhood imply a one sidedness of the civil war in Lebanon which no one with any knowledge of war could possibly believe. This implication is convienant for such a figure as Gabriel as it solidifies her statments about so called "Islamists" who would kill and torture in the name of God, completely mindlessly. Obviously this is her aim. Whomever disagrees that this article violates wikipedia NPOV please read from the NPOV page: 1. Some viewpoints, although not presented as facts, can be given undue attention and space compared to others. 2.The text and manner of writing can insinuate that one viewpoint is more correct than another. 3.While each fact mentioned in the article might be presented fairly, the very selection (and omission) of facts can make an article biased.

Why don't you have a go at improving the article. I agree the early life section could be shortened and would be happy to work on improving the the article. --Daniel J. Leivick 20:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I only reinserted the NPOV tag, not because I think it's POV, but because the NPOV tag was removed without discussion. — EliasAlucard|Talk 11:18 19 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Spreading Rumours

Where does it say she was related to entertainment?

Article is not neutral

She is a controversial figure regarded as a bigot by many people. That view is completely suppressed in the article OneGuy 13:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Though your comment might reflect the views of some Muslims , she could also be said to be widely regarded as a courageous and outspoken critic of Islamic fanaticism.--CltFn 12:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
It's not view by just some Muslims. It's a veiw of many others[1]. Regardless, both views should be in the article. She is considered a bigot by many people. Where is that view in the article? OneGuy 17:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
She is considered a traitor in Lebanon, among christians, among muslims, among everybody. The article is way off, she is given a false image that she herself knitted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.98.208.88 (talk) 00:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

If she was universally opposed, there is no way she would have been so succussful. And by "successful," I mean she has appeared extensively on television and radio, given hundreds of lectures nationally and internationally, and founded the nonprofit organization American Congress for Truth. Her books have high ratings at Amazon.com (both four and half stars out of five). She herself does not attempt to hide the fact that some consider her a traitor. In her own words, "I was one of the speakers at a Duke University 'Anti-terrorism rally' in October 2004...When I started condemning the justification of suicide bombing in Israel, Arab students started hurling insults at me. As I walked off stage, many of them were shouting in Arabic, 'How dare you betray the Arabic cause?' and 'You are an insult to the name Arab' and 'You are a traitor' and 'You deserve to be dead.'" That seems pretty up front to me.

Still, there are many who agree with her and advocate what she says. In the end, Brigitte Gabriel is neither universally loved nor universally hated. I doubt any public speaker is. --69.128.204.110 (talk) 21:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Mis-Quoting

The first part of the Quote is Wafa Sultan. [2]--Skatewalk 22:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Stop deleting the quote. The link to the audio file is right there in the paragraph [3] OneGuy 03:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Thats almost the same quote by Wafa Sultan!

Neutral article

No perfect but NPOV is needed. If she doesn't account for information added, why should it reduce the quality of the article! The extra material is a lame effort to add a bigotry factor to the bio.--Skatewalk 02:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Myspace

SO much of this article is lifted from her myspace it's ridiculous. (http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=270902763)

I'm surprised this silly con artist is even given space on wikipedia, but if she must be, at least try to VERIFY the information, or post a disclaimer that its fabricated. do we post articles about osama or whoever based on what they say exclusively? no obviously not, so why give this bigot the star treatment? ridiculous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.4.223.226 (talk) 10:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, somebody needs to fix this shit. She appears to be little more than another Walid Shoebat. <eleland/talkedits> 01:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
So you'd rather happilly see American Christians and Jews murdered in the name of "not insulting Islam"? Or are you one of those who blames Israel for everything in order to cover up your own failings? talk 08:23, 30 November 2010 (CDT) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.53.138.247 (talk)
Considering the this article's revision history, it seems more likely the MySpace page (http://profile.myspace.com/270902763) is copied from this Wikipedia article. / edg ☺ ☭ 01:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
The myspace is largely a copy of this page. I edited her early life section which is largely sourced from her own statements. I removed most of the ridiculous items and phrased it in such a way that it is clear that it is based on her own accounts rather than third party source about a year and a half ago. I really don't see any ad type language in this article at this time, nor do I believe there is any COI at work. I am going to remove the tags, but if anyone has any specific suggestions for improvements in neutrality or phrasing, I would be happy to work on the article. --Leivick (talk) 02:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Looks good to me. / edg ☺ ☭ 03:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
On closer inspection, the myspace isn't her's it is a fansite with a word for word copy from Wikipedia. --Leivick (talk) 04:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent) It's been improved but is still grossly biased by admission, ie, we don't mention that Gabriel's journalism career was with the South Lebanon Army's propaganda TV station, her speaking tours are promoted by Hasbara Fellowships and the Jewish National Fund, she only started calling herself an Arab when it became politically convenient in the United States (she used to adhere to Phoenicianism,) nothing she claims about her background can be independently verified and some of it has been inconsistent both with other things she's said and with the historical record of events in South Lebanon, the New York Times calls her a "leading Islamophobe," she claims that Western Muslims who say they don't support terror are actually participants in a conscious terrorist conspiracy -- all of them -- etc etc. The parallels between her claims and those of classical antisemites are extremely striking. I don't care how many times she's appeared on Fox News or WorldNetDaily as a "terrorism expert," it doesn't mean that her bio on Wikipedia ought to be a slightly re-worded version of her own website or "about the author" blurb. <eleland/talkedits> 07:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. Sourced bio or criticism of this nature would be worth adding. / edg ☺ ☭ 06:21, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that a lot of the content needs to be reviewed, and there appear to be several omissions. For instance, the NYT's labelling of her as a "crusader" and "radical Islamophobe" and subsequent justification of those descriptions by the public editor ([5]) remain unmentioned. ITAQALLAH 17:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I removed a number of links from this article that went against our external links guidelines and the idea that Wikipedia is not a linkfarm. Some of them seem like reliable sources so they may be used to cite this article. I've listed the links I removed below incase anybody would like to use them to cite this article:

Articles and speeches

Interviews and TV appearances


Video

Critical Views

Criticisms of Islam section

I just removed over 20kb of Because They Hate quotes on the grounds of sheer copyright violation. Did my best to summarize, discarded some minor points, and offloaded some quotes into footnotes. This section still needs analysis from reliable secondary sources — writing "Gabriel believes" in front of every quote does not satisfy WP:NPOV.

Since all this comes from the same book, it might also be nice to it to Harvard citation style (see Charles Darwin#Citations for an example). Since that sort of referencing is complicated, it might need to wait until this article becomes stable (yeah, right, that'll happen).

If this information is representative of the book it comes from, might be better to move this material to the section for that book. / edg ☺ ☭ 16:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

This is a real shame. I have spent many hours wading through her 2 books and then coming on here to summarize her main theological ideas. I believe what I have written on wiki captures exactly what she believes in. Since writing "Gabriel believes" is not valid, and no secondary/tertiary sources exist to this extent, exposing her ideological points on wiki will now not be possible. But then again, I suppose a reader could always purchase her 2 books and find out for themselves.122.107.176.248 (talk) 15:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

You can summarise her theses in a few sentences, you don't need wholesale copyvios to do that or to make your point. – ukexpat (talk) 17:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
OK - I see. Well at least some of my contributions have been retained and this on the whole has improved the article. Writing too much is not necessarily a bad thing since you can always cut out and keep the good stuff.122.107.176.248 (talk) 18:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I do appreciate your contributions, and I certainly understand the frustration of having one's hard work edited mercilessly. It just needed to be written more concisely, as befits an encyclopedia. Is there anything you think I should change? / edg ☺ ☭ 02:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
The article is looking quite good now. I did make some minor adjustments. I doubt if any secondary/tertiary sources will ever be found to justify what is stated in the article even though these are her actual stated beliefs. I did find this link which explains how to handle copyrighted text which states: "Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point", and that "Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited".122.107.176.248 (talk) 15:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I also found this wiki article which states that while "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable secondary sources", "Primary sources, on the other hand, are often difficult to use appropriately. While they can be reliable in many situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research." So using Primary sources cannot be ruled out entirely even though it is not the preferred method.122.107.176.248 (talk) 10:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Criticism section removed

I have removed criticism section as the source are base solely on blog and opiniom including deadlink .The article does not include comments from third party. Just becasue it was publised in New York Times does not mean it was a reliable source. Please refer wp:source#Self-published sources (online and paper).--Thundera m117 (talk) 01:45, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I also removed source like loonwatch and al-ahram given that the source itself is self-serving without third party backing its claim and it should not be considered reliable source.--Thundera m117 (talk) 02:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

There is no reason to remove the criticism section, as the article is misleading and unbalanced without it. She is a highly controversial figure whose ideology and factual accounts have been sharply criticized by a broad swath of mainstream sources, and this fact is hidden by the removal of even a small, insubstantial criticism section whose main merit is the provide links to other, fuller presentations of criticism. --Greek1979 (talk) 18:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Criticism sections are discouraged. They are no more appropriate than a section devoted solely to praise. If you have quality sources critical of this person, please integrate them into the text where appropriate. This is a biography of a living person, so the rules are a little different than on other articles. --Leivick (talk) 19:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Well stated Greek1979 my point exactly!! ♥Yasmina♥ (talk) 02:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Iranians are Not Arabs

Gabriel wrongly asserteed that iranians were arabs when she reffered to them as arab cowards who understand only the language of force. Why was it deleted? when a video where she clearly states that herself word for wordredacted section per WP:BLP♥Yasmina♥ (talk) 11:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:BLP biographies like this must be rigorously sourced. Youtube is not an appropriate source from which to write this type of biography. We need reliable sources. --Leivick (talk) 19:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


Explain to me why its not a reliable source? when the woman is speaking word for word verbally herself. infact one of the videos is from HER main youtube channel Act4America.Its like a burglary being filmed and the culprits faces being caught crystal clear on tape and then the police dimissing it by stating its not concrete evidence enough. Its clear you have a Pro-Gabriel bias just like other editors who wanted to keep that part out redacted statement per WP:BLP - applies to talk pages too.♥Yasmina♥ (talk) 19:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

It is not up Wikipedia editors to parse what people say. We need someone with authority to analyze Gabriel's statements. Read WP:BLP and WP:RS to understand what kind of sourcing is required in a biography of a living person. You are projecting regarding my biases. It is obvious from you vitriolic writing that you are biased regarding this person. In any case, I am neutral on the subject. If you look at this pages history including the talk page, you will see that I actually fixed this article when it was a pro Gabriel. --Leivick (talk) 19:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I have removed this youtube work again. While it may be proof that she said something, extreme care must be used when referencing primary sources (like a Fox News interview). If commentary about her words were reported by a reliable source, then that would change things. ♥Yasmina♥, chill....you can't write neutrally when you accusing others of pro/anti whatever. Note that you CANNOT write disparagingly about a biographical subject without reliable (third party) references, even on this talk page—hence I have redacted part of your commentary - Peripitus (Talk) 20:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

My bias against this person is that they are a liar and it's clear anybody who tries to point out with sources that reflects it gets brushed off.While crap from this woman's neo-con website is considered a realible source. Believe me I do not reflect my personal views on Gabriel in this article, no were near♥Yasmina♥ (talk) 21:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

So you are pushing your own non-neutral point of view. Sorry that's not going to fly. – ukexpat (talk) 21:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I dont even like Debbie Schlussel so how is it my POV? ♥Yasmina♥ (talk) 11:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Well actually it is neutral since Schulessel and Gabriel share the same stances against Muslism and Islam (in that sort of way) She isnt against Gabriel's views just doubts her honesty in her background and credibility ♥Yasmina♥ (talk) 02:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Debbie Schlussel

Since when is Debbie Schlussel's blog a reliable source?  – ukexpat (talk) 20:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Since debbie schlussel herself is an anti-islami activist and a journalist she also revealed Walid Shoebat is a liar. The woman herself is supposed to have the same views as Gabriel (even more extreme) and even states her as being a fraud. She cites quite noticebly how Gabriel's words are never concise and she says one thing then says another. I am sorry for all the Gabriel apologists who its hard to hear your idol is a phoney from a neo-con intrested in only making money♥Yasmina♥ (talk) 20:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not a "Gabriel apologist" and have done nothing to give you that impression. Please read WP:RS - blogs are not reliable sources. Next time please assume good faith. – ukexpat (talk) 21:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Added Criticisms

This article was lacking critical balance, and I have added some criticisms leveled against Ms. Gabriel, much of the information about her own claims however remains unsourced. I am also confused about her life timeline, she claims to have had to start living in a bomb shelter in 1975 but then was saved when Operation Litani began in 1978, yet this article says she lived in a shelter for seven years. The math doesn't add up. BenRafi (talk) 12:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3928169851397891989

Shes a liar & pure evil watch this

She claims Hezbollah is the reason she and her family lived a bomb shelter and israel invaded in 1978 because they allied with the palestinians.


THIS IS A BLANTANT LIE! hezbollah were never allies of the PLO. infact their mother group Amal killed as many palestinians as the Chrisitan millitas did. Another fact is hezbollah were formed in 1982 not 1978. AFTER israel invaded lebanon.

She says the also the muslims in lEbanon are less educated and poorer than the christians (well for the shiite that might true) but the richest families in Lebanon are SUNNIS. the Hariri clan is the richest family in Lebanon and one of the richest families in the world.

This is what she says about Palestinians (I'm not pro-palestian but i think this disgusting)

"I saw nothing but two faces, One the side of hate and evil(paliestinians) and one the side of love and compassion(Israelis)".

As christians to..the barbarism and monstrousity" "we have no point of reference to such saveragy"

Now Its true the PLO were monsters they did many massacres but shes forgeting (Lying) Falange and the chrisitans millitas did ALSO performed war crimes not only against palestinains in tel zattar karantina shatila and sabra but sometimes against fellow christians like al-ahrar and marada(ehden massacre) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.172.53.39 (talk) 00:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


You added not critinism,but typical stupid islamosfashist propaganda.Stop supported terrorism in comments.She is brave women who always said true! Marcus —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.78.6.252 (talk) 00:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

'I am not a muslim marcus, you moron. Hezbollah were never allied with the PLO (the SECULAR) terrorist organization that was massacring both SHIA and christian lebanese in south lebanon. Amal (the mother group of hezbolla) did kill as many palestinians as the christian millitas did. Hezbollah were formed in 1982 AFTER israel invaded lebanon with help of iran not before. I've pointed one basic HISTORICAL fact yet your still in denial. I dont like hamas or hezbollah. the woman supports terrorism herself when she shamlessly thanks israel for bombing lebanon (her own contry) because they are kiling shiites. Keeps calling for America and Israel to nuke iran and push for war. lol and you say I support terrorism?'

If you want to support a LYING hateful bigot like this because she tells you what you want to hear and is exploiting the actual fears Americans have about extremism than you are allowing yourself to be cheated by a con.
no propaganda you can check it out for yourself the woman lied in a conference in 2007 june when she said she had never heard of the hasbera fellowship (Which she is a spokeswoman for) even their pro-israel websites show her endorsing them BEFORE in 2006 before the conference was even made.

">—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.113.118 (talk) 02:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

First off, I'm pretty sure the wikipedia discussion centers are not meant to be a place for people to angrily rant about a person or thing they disagree with. Calling a woman "pure evil" because she speaks out against Islamic terrorism is a bit uncalled for. According to Brigitte Gabriel, Hezbollah was formed in 1982, during which time she was living and working in Israel but still returning to Lebanon on the weekends to visit her parents. I'm not going to address everything you said. However, I will add that one of the reasons why I like her is that she voices what she believes, even if some of the public furiously criticizes her and doesn't want to hear it. --69.128.204.110 (talk) 21:46, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Amen brother. I've met the woman, and she's lovely, talented, smart, passionate, articulate, etc. Oh, yea: she tells it like it is.E2a2j (talk) 00:23, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm sure people said similar things about Adolf Hitler, the KKK or similarly hateful people. The problem with Gabriel is that aside from her obvious racism against Arabs, she is indeed very bigoted against Islam. One member of her group ACT! for America (Orlando coordinator Alan Kornman) put up a YouTube video claiming that he was using the Qur'an for toilet paper and having urinated in a Muslim ablution. The video was taken down, but it was reported on fairly often. And of course, there was ACT! for America's opposition to some college professor being nominated to a city's Human Rights Commission simply because he's Muslim. If is representative of Gabriel's views (and there's no reason to believe that they're not), then "telling it like it is" is more akin to "spouting hateful bigoed rhetoric like a lunatic." Personally I think the "lady" is mentally ill, but I don't see any intellectual value in anything she says or does. She hasn't illuminated any threats to the free world that other, far more intelligent and mature people already have years before her.Shabeki (talk) 19:47, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

OK folks, let's keep it civil and get back to discussing the article. – ukexpat (talk) 02:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

will do but I have show sources and given some historical and some key facts that strongly questions her true motives and her "claims" of a islamic jihad against her family. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.113.118 (talk) 02:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC) will do but I have show sources and given some historical and some key facts that strongly questions her true motives and her "claims" of a islamic jihad against christians. She has fabricated so much in her "claims" i dont know where to begin. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8fa9yKQeTY in this video she claims that most lebanese muslims have more than one wife so they multiplied and thats why they outnumbered the christians. This is a blantant lie. 99% of LEbanese muslims dont do polgymy. What brigitte doesnt mention that the influx of palestinian refugees from 1948 from Palestine. Is what greatly shifted the demographics since palestinians today make up 12% of the population. christians about 40-45%. Now considering the wars that the palestinians caused in lebanon which led to high christian imigration. Do the math and see THAT was the real reason that shifted the balance. but why doesnt she mention this? because it conflicts with her agenda of demonzing all muslims & "loyalty" to israel.

The only thing islamic that could be related with the PLO is the fact there were allied with the muslim bloc in Lebanon during the war. which was made out of secular,communist,pan-arab nationalist and other groups. but very few were "islamist" movements existed and the ones who were massacring christians in Lebanon were mostly the PLO which is a mixed organization. The problem with brigitte is she mixes fact with fiction. Which is dangerous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.113.118 (talk) 02:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


Most of the things Brigitte says are blatant lies and racist. She is very clever in manipulating people by taking advantage of the prejudices and fears they already possess. She describes how Lebanon was a paradise when it was a Christian majority and how it turned into hell when Muslims gained majority and took over. She draws parallels with Europe and America and tries to feed anti-Muslim feelings by making the Americans and Europeans think that the same thing is happening in the US and Europe. This anti-Muslim sentiment will cause many ignorant Americans and Europeans to hurt Muslims in their countries.

The claim Brigitte makes that the amount of Muslims in Lebanon radically grew because they practiced polygamy is ridiculous. First of all it is not true that most Lebanese Muslims practice polygamy. Only a tiny percentage has more than one wife. She gives Osama bin laden’s father as an example of a polygamist. She says he had 53 children and while that is true, she doesn't mention that bin laden wasn't your average Muslim but an exception and belonged to the wealthiest family in Saudi Arabia and was related/affiliated to the Saudi royal family. Only the wealthiest men had/could afford multiple wives and today even the wealthy men don't take second wives anymore because it is perceived as backwards. Today wealthy Lebanese men, taking the example of western men, divorce their wives and marry a younger one with whom they have a second family and pay alimony and child support to their former family. Some wealthy men, just as their American/European counterparts, even have a mistress on the side whom they set up in an apartment. Basically this comes down to the same thing as Muslim men having four wives. There isn't much difference between a traditional Muslim polygamist and a modern man who has an ex-wife, current wife and perhaps even a mistress with whom he has children.

Second of all, it wouldn't make much difference to the number of children born in a country whether polygamy was allowed or not. Lebanese Muslims are biologically the same as other humans and that means that the percentage of men and women in their community is approximately the same. Since the number of women in Lebanon is set and there are approximately just as much men as women it would mean that if one guy had four wives, three other guys would have to be without wives and wouldn't procreate. Since a woman can have only one baby per year and a certain amount in a lifetime it wouldn't matter if she shared a husband with three other women or had 4 husbands herself. All a woman needs to get pregnant is a man with good sperm at the right time once a year, marriage and polygamy are not relevant. The amount of children that are born in a community depends on the amount of WOMEN a country has and these women's ability/willingness to have children.

Anyone with half a brain could see that the claims and accusations she makes are biased, racist and untrue. I can understand that some of the historical events could be believed if you don’t know Middle Eastern history but most other accusations she makes are obviously racist and anti-Islamic and if you would replace Muslim with Jew, she would have been stopped already. Only when it is about Muslims it is suddenly freedom of expression. Freedom of expression was created to be able to voice your criticism against something, for example your government, without having to fear for your life. What she is doing, is not using her freedom of expression to criticize Islam. She is actively gathering support to perform actions against all Muslims. She has repeatedly attacked Muslims in general (not only radical) and should be stopped gathering support for her crusade against islam. Ibrahim4048 (talk) 16:57, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

You know, she doesn't rely solely on her own experiences, though they do play a major role. In her first book she cited two hundred and sixteen different sources to support her claims. The issues she criticizes are in themselves horrible - terrorism, honor killings, discrimmination against women, genital mutilation, and so on. --69.128.204.110 (talk) 00:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I thought I'd add one more thing. As for your accusation of racism, Islam is a religion, not a race. A lot of pro-Islam people accuse their critics of racism, ignoring the simple fact that it was nothing to do with genetics. --69.128.204.110 (talk) 00:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

That is true. Islamophobes aren't necessarily racist. They're just plain bigoted. However, Gabriel is a racist, given much of her racist comments against Arabs.Shabeki (talk) 19:34, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

wtf? Lebanon aint an Islamic state

LOOOL!! anybody who has ever been there or is from lebanon (including the christians will tell you that) Here is this video she lies and says that the muslims fought and brought a islamic state in LEbanon. The general of the Army and President have to be by law a Maronite so why does she get away with telling these obvious lies? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21orCM7KkRI

She also says Islamist in replace of muslim conviently to fool people as if its the same thing. Most Muslims in Lebanon back then or now are NOT islamists. She also says that the Christian population in lebanon is less then 20% another lie. eastern Half of Beirut is mostly christian a city with about a million people. The closest estimate of the christian population of Lebanon is 30-45% it would be higher if the palestinian refugees wernt there. but why doesnt she mention this? The woman is a liar and working for an agenda. Despite the percentage the christians in LEbanon make up 50% of the parliment seats in goverment. hardly the credentials of a "islamic state". google haifa wehbe and see one of the most famous face of the "islamic state of lebanon" lol

I pity the people who fall for this womans lies. I dont even like islam myself but i still know she chats out of her ass and captializes the tragedies of 9/11 and Lebanese civil war to exploit the ignorant minds of those who know NO history. but for many ignorance is bliss. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miss-simworld (talk • contribs) 06:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, but were you there during the Lebanese War? Do you have personal experience like she does? If not, then Brigitte Gabriel is still the better source. It's like someone who lived during the American Great Depression and later writing a book on their harsh experiences, and then a foreigner who lived in Europe trying to tell the author that they know more about it than the people who were actually there. --69.128.204.110 (talk) 00:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Your analogy would make sense if said European were contradicting every major historical account of the Great Depression. But Gabriel has claimed that Arab Muslims and only Arab Muslims were responsible for and the major aggressors in the Lebanese Civil War, which is patently false. So I would take what she says with a grain of salt. It's called "critical thinking."Shabeki (talk) 19:52, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Dr Franklin Lamb

In reverting Miss-simworld's (also known as Yasmina) edits, it was brought to my attention of a duplicate Franklin Lamb Al-Ahram article. If Al-Ahram is contentious, then possibly the alternate is more palatable located at: http://www.worldproutassembly.org/archives/2008/03/from_lebanon_wi.html

There appears to be only one place on earth to purchase his book as well located at: http://www.lebanesebooks.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=239856&Category_Code=

From the reviews, it appears to be an excellent book. 122.107.141.196 (talk) 03:58, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Dr.Franklin Lamb is an idepenedant researcher he doesn't work for Al-Ahram however Ahram did print his article just as many sources did.♥Yasmina♥ (talk) 11:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

"Stephen Lee, the publicist at St. Martins Press for Gabriel’s second book, called her views "extreme".[10] "

I do not think this belongs in the lead. And the sentence is not very informative: In what sense are they "extreme"? Which views are "extreme"? Does she have "extreme" views on strawberries? What's the difference between "extreme" and extreme? I'd suggest we delete this sentence from the lead. 91.138.81.231 (talk) 13:38, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Criticism of Brigitte Gabriel

As the major contributor to this article I would like to state the following: I have thoroughly researched her 2 books, her ideas and her articles and she is totally logical and erudite. If you do a google search on "Criticism of Brigitte Gabriel" you will find blogs that attack her as a person but never her ideas. Criticism of Brigitte Gabriel's ideas will not be possible since the reality of the Muslim world is on display for all to see. Where Criticism of Brigitte Gabriel may be valid is whether Radical Islam is as serious a threat to a government takeover as she makes it out to be.

The only sourced criticism I can find is of The Intelligence Summit where she is a board advisor. My proposed addition is titled "The Intelligence Summit" and is after "Criticisms of Islam". It is as follows:

Gabriel is a board advisor to The Intelligence Summit which has been described by Ahmed Bedier of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) as holding events where "opportunists" are "[Muslim] bashing and cashing and making money from it." source: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0703/05/gb.01.html

It is the best sourced criticism I could find on Gabriel. However this is a criticism by association and so it may not be a valid addition. I would like to know the opinion of others before adding it.122.107.141.196 (talk) 23:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Al-Ahram is owned by the Al-Ahram Foundation and is one of the largest circulating newspapers in the world.The Egyptian government owns a controlling share of the stocks of the paper and appoints the editors. As appointees of the state, little censorship is exercised over them; it is understood that they are loyal to the state. Al-Ahram has largely ignored and trivialized the opposition parties to the ruling National Democratic Party and has not published much direct criticism of the Mubarak government.

The Anti-Defamation League, in a review of Arab newspapers in 2005, writes that al-Ahram "is given substantial leeway" by the government so long as they avoid "certain 'taboos'. Reporters Without Borders, in their 2005 report on press freedom in Egypt, reported that editorials in many newspapers, including al-Ahram, have become increasingly critical of the the National Democratic Party's control of the government and the corruption of the Mubarak regime. In an interview with Reporters Without Borders, Abdel Halim Qandil, editor of the weekly magazine Al-Arabi, said that the government interferes with independent operation of al-Ahram by controlling the printing presses and appointing the editors.

Please refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Ahram

That should not be considered a reliable source since the newspaper itself is self-serving media for the egyptian government and the criticism and disparaging remark about brigette is all base on orginal research and ideas.--Thundera m117 (talk) 22:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

You are against it being used as a source for two reasons, 1) You clearly have a Pro-Gabriel Bias 2) its an Arabic newspaper to disclude of it being added as a source merely because its an EGYPTIAN so what? Israelis may complain about Arabic media being biased again well guess what it goes both ways for them to claim Israel media and Neo-con media that is an insult to Journalism like fox news is considered unreliable and bias against them. You cant have it both ways. ♥Yasmina♥ (talk) 02:51, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I am in agreement with Tiamut. She has provided reliable sources and has quoted people who are all qualified to speak on Brigitte Gabriel. I was initially reluctant to quote from AL-Ahram myself considering that the newspapers in the Middle-East can be quite viralant in their anti-Semitism and anti-Zionist spiel. In this case however, Al-Ahram are simply re-publishing an article Dr Franklin Lamb wrote for the PalestineChronicle.com. Furthermore, Dr Franklin Lamb is a researcher and author at the American University of Beirut, and has published a book in 2007 which could be thought of as "counter-propaganda" to Gabriel's own "propaganda". His book is titled:

"The price we pay: a quarter-century of Israel's use of American weapons against civilians in Lebanon (1978-2006)" and can be viewed here:[6]

The book appears to be out of print. What a pity, it looks like it would have made a great read.

Tiamut's edits therefore should remain. She has written her words in as neutral a manner as can be given the subject matter which can appear to inflame the passions of some editors (see above multiple Yasmina edits). 122.107.141.196 (talk) 03:01, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Just to reply to to your personal attack, I'm not pro-gabriel, I'm not a Neo-con( in spite of the fact that I support them for National Security and foreign policy to defend our country) and I hope you stop making personal attack. You can accuse me of being bias , just don't forget to mirror yourself since everyone has their own bias in their own ways they perceive eventuality. I'll let that stand for now until someone is willing to call for RSN and Rfc if necessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thundera m117 (talk • contribs) 21:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Brigitte_Gabriel/Archive_1&oldid=1235503215"