Talk:Rashida Tlaib/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

One-state solution

I am putting this here for the IP user 71.163.227.19, in hopes that they might find it in their heart to use it. This user wants to add to the lede the statement that Tlaib supports "the elimination of the state of Israel", which is a curiously strong way of describing the One-state solution. The references above, but no discussion, were given by them. NewEnglandYankee (talk) 03:21, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

IP, please stop trying to force "Arab Palestinian" into the lead per WP:ETHNICITY. Bennv3771 (talk) 04:02, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

References

PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING SHE IS AGAINST THE TWO STATE SOLUTION: https://www.jta.org/2018/08/15/top-headlines/jewish-democratic-group-pans-mich-candidates-pledge-slash-israeli-military-aid

https://jstreet.org/press-releases/j-street-will-not-endorse-candidates-who-do-not-endorse-a-two-state-solution/#.W-XQUJNKiUm

PLEASE READ BECAUSE THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS ARE NOT TRUE IN THIS ARTICLE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.38.230.65 (talk) 18:23, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

IPs and editors with less than 30 days and 500 edits may not edit material relating to the Arab-Israeli dispute

I'm adding this because it's clearly an issue in the article. This is part of the discretionary sanctions regime at WP:ARBPIA. Such edits can be reverted without counting as ordinary reverts. Serious problems over this can be reported to WP:AE. Doug Weller talk 17:00, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

@Christian A. Schneider and Lord daemonar:: Specifically, this is Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel_articles#General_Prohibition … that said, though, the edits you and the IPs (or are you all the same people?) are making seem well cited and reasonable, so I'm highly tempted to reinstate them, unless Doug Weller (talk · contribs) has specific objections. They're also kind of complex - the idea is that Tlaib now supports a 1 state solution, but there are several different attempts at putting this information in this article, so I'm going to have to think about which is the best. If you can make a specific "best" proposal among the edits giving this information, that would help me choose! --GRuban (talk) 18:32, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I only post and edit under my own name. Christian A. Schneider (talk) 19:12, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I am only myself. I don't make additional accounts to screw around. I'm also a very casual Wikipedia editor; I don't do much around here.Lord daemonar (talk) 10:52, 15 November 2018 (ETC)

I'd also like to note that an IP user excised a fair amount of sourced Israel-related content in these diffs without providing any edit summaries. I usually tend to avoid making substantive edits on Israel/Palestine issues but felt this removal warrants further scrutiny. The sources removed were In These Times, Jewish Telegraphic Agency, Haaretz, The Forward, The Daily Wire, and The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles; I'm not familiar with them but they seem like RSs. Beyond ARBPIA, I'd support changing editing permissions to autoconfirmed for a week or two.-Ich (talk) 19:03, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Can someone please remove the claim that she is a Palestinian-American? There is no such thing as Palestine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.168.122.46 (talk) 14:47, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

State of Palestine. We have a Wikipedia article on Palestine! Check it out. MatthewRMiller2 (talk) 19:03, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Those edits concerned me and I'd like to hear what others think. In my experience this woman has several "problems": She's a woman, she's a politician, her religion is other than Christian, and her parents are immigrants from Palestine. In my experience Wikipedians tend to be fair and balanced in their outlook but we do draw plenty of editors who are more than willing to battle to get their own slanted viewpoint into our articles. That said, I did look at the articles mentioned above and also am not familiar with the sources, but as far as I could tell they seem OK for us to use. But still, to me, the fact that they are all Jewish sources seems problematic. I know we are a global encyclopedia but she is an American politician, not a Jewish politician. If this information is significant enough for her bio, shouldn't we be able to find it well-covered in American sources as well? Gandydancer (talk) 21:06, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it's accurate or fair to call Haaretz or The Daily Wire a "Jewish source." Haaretz is an widely respected left-leaning Israeli newspaper. The Daily Wire is a far-right American news and opinion outfit that happens to have been founded by a Jew. Calling them "Jewish sources" seems dog-whistle-y to me. Additionally, though the Jewish Telegraphic Agency and The Forward are expressly "Jewish", the JTA is a longstanding and reputable news agency. The Forward, on the other hand, is a magazine that, though once vigorously left-wing and perhaps reputable, has become a shadow of its former self that virtually anyone can publish on. I'm unfamiliar with the In These Times and The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles. Lord daemonar (talk) 11:02, 15 November 2018 (ETC)

That's the reason why I quoted an American source. Still it was judged 'to have issues' and my edit was reverted. However the article was corrected now by somebody else. Thank you for that. Christian A. Schneider (talk) 16:11, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Get a better picture

The one that's up now is disgraceful. She's a public figure, get a better photo of her — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.90.111.115 (talk) 21:37, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Swearing on the Quran

The article should mention that Tlaib swore her 2019 oath on the Quran. [1]--73.137.178.251 (talk) 22:51, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Why? The article makes clear she's Muslim. She wouldn't be expected to swear in on a Christian Bible. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:25, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

"I used my own *personal Quran* that my best friend of 25 years gifted me to use for the ceremonial swear in (basically a photo with Speaker Pelosi)," Tlaib wrote.Tlaib corrects news reports, says she swore in on personal Quran--2601:C4:C080:81C:709C:4F99:5AC6:110E (talk) 20:11, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

This video could be imported

https://www.voanews.com/a/ilhan-omar-rashida-tlaib-become-first-muslim-women-in-us-congress/4647991.html Video is from VOA, so it's PDVictor Grigas (talk) 03:49, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

or this one https://www.voanews.com/a/rashida-tlaib-set-to-become-first-muslim-woman-in-u-s-congress/4518434.html Victor Grigas (talk) 03:54, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

or this one https://www.voanews.com/a/michigan-muslim-american-candidate-for-congress/4451370.html Victor Grigas (talk) 03:56, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Image caption removed?

Hi @Amishai GG: I see you removed the image caption on the main image in this article. I tried to ask you about it on your talk page, but you removed my question without answer or comment. Which, I guess, is your right on your talk page, but we really should discuss it somewhere, such as here, on the talk page of this article. As I wrote on your talk page, image captions are quite useful, especially for images of people, since people change a lot over time and in context. So, can you explain why you removed the caption on this image? Thanks. --GRuban (talk) 20:41, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Looks like Amishai has edited since the ping, but has not responded either to this comment or to the one on their talk page. I don't like just reverting without discussion, but there doesn't seem to be an alternative. --GRuban (talk) 20:22, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Official House portrait

Can anyone find her official House portrait? It should be usable as a work produced by the US govt. and can replace the current infobox photo. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 04:57, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

RSN discussion started re bigleaguepolitics.com

See WP:RSN#Is Bigleaguepolitics.com a reliable source for an accusation against Rashida Tlaib? It's also in WND and another minor website, but they both took it from Bigleaguepolitics, so WP:UNDUE applies also, especially in a BLP. Doug Weller talk 15:55, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Not a good source. BTW, I understand that Dual loyalty means a conflict of interest, not an anti-semitic canard. Fixed. My very best wishes (talk) 18:29, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Well those aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. The classic anti-semitic canard is the accusation that Jewish people have a conflict of interest between their patriotism and their ethno-religious affiliation. Correctly or incorrectly, the ADL and others were accusing her of invoking that idea and we should make that clear. Nblund ^talk 19:02, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

I did not check all these sources, but my impression is that she blamed US senators, not Jewish people. How this is an "anti-semitic canard"? I would agree she is anti-Israel, but it is better to simply quote her views, rather than make such conclusion in WP voice. My very best wishes (talk) 19:17, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Because the sentence wasn't quoting her views, it was quoting the views of "several Jewish groups, including the Jewish Democratic Council of America and the Anti-Defamation League..." I agree that we shouldn't put this in Wikipedia's voice, but we aren't. 19:45, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, I am simply looking at the publications in Haaretz ([2], [3]). According to Anti-Defamation League: "Though the legislation discussed is sponsored by four non-Jewish Senators, any charge of dual loyalty has special sensitivity and resonance for Jews, particularly in an environment of rising anti-Semitism." Jewish Democratic Council of America: "“We oppose your charge of dual loyalty. It's wrong, dangerous, and hurts the cause of peace. Whether one supports a particular bill or not, it's offensive to insinuate that senators would be driven by anything other than the best interests of the U.S.” OK. How to properly summarize this? A canard? The source does not tell it. If anything, these pro-Israel organizations are making statements to support US senators who support Israel. OK. We do tell she was criticized. My very best wishes (talk) 19:57, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Both statements are noting that charges of "dual loyalty" have sometimes been used to marginalize Jewish people. Are you saying that you don't think the ADL is criticizing her for (in their view) evoking an anti-semitic canard? Or are you just saying that you personally disagree with that criticism? Nblund ^talk 21:09, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

First of all, what exactly changes do you suggest? I think current version is fine. Secondly, as clear from the quotation and sources above, ADL does not accuses her of promoting antisemitic canard. Maybe there is another source/link? Finally, to properly summarize content, one should understand the meaning of the claim. My understanding is that she accused US senators of a dual loyalty, which in this context means a pro-Israel position or possibly conflict of interest. Would not you agree? My very best wishes (talk) 23:08, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't really think you answered my question. The version prior to your revert seemed fine to me, but I'm okay with any wording as long as it clearly conveys that the ADL and others were accusing her of treading in to antisemitism. Are you objecting to the term "canard"? We can eliminate that, but, if we are going to cite the ADL's criticism, then we need to clearly convey that they were accusing her of implicit antisemitism.

My understanding is that she accused US senators of a dual loyalty, which in this context means a pro-Israel position or possibly conflict of interest. Personally, I think that is probably what she meant, but the ADL didn't interpret it that way. We're not discussing her intended message in this edit, we're discussing what the ADL accused her of saying. Nblund ^talk 01:31, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

We had happen to disagree what the source actually tells. Then, the best solution is to quote it directly. My personal opinion though: the claim by ADL (as cited by Haaretz) is absolutely ridiculous. Well, but that is what they said. My very best wishes (talk) 02:49, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: The issue, based on what was reported by the sources, was over whether she had invoked an anti-semitic canard, and the consensus among a number of commentators seemed to be that she had. The notion that Jews have a "conflict of interest" is an anti-semitic canard, and it's not clear who she was referring to, so I would recommend you try and demonstrate a little more sensitivity before making non-policy based arguments like I understand that Dual loyalty means a conflict of interest, not an anti-semitic canard. and defending her remarks, which isn't the job of an editor. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:58, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

No, I did not defend her remarks, and I personally disagree with her position on this subject. But we all must respect WP:BLP. This is all. My very best wishes (talk) 04:06, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: And what is the BLP issue, specifically? BLP does not preclude inclusion of controversial content that has received significant WP:RS coverage. This is addressed in WP:WEIGHT, WP:PUBLICFIGURE, and MOS:LEAD. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 04:25, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

I think your edit clearly violates WP:WEIGHT in the lead. My very best wishes (talk) 04:55, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

The edit only added a single sentence, which probably is on the lighter side relative to the WP:SECONDARY coverage it's received. And the guidelines under MOS:LEAD say that the lead is where an article should address such controversies, so long as they're already covered elsewhere in the article (which this is). Wikieditor19920 (talk) 05:00, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Were either of her parents Israeli citizens?

From her Early Life and Education section: "The eldest of 14 children, Rashida Harbi was born on July 24, 1976, to working-class Israeli Arab immigrants in Detroit. Her mother was born in Beit Ur El Foka, near the West Bank city of Ramallah, Israel. Her father was born in Beit Hanina, a neighborhood in Jerusalem."

If her mother was born in the West Bank, then her mother is not an Israeli citizen. If her father was born in Beit Hanina, he most likely had Jerusalem resident status, but was not an Israeli citizen. It is possible that he was an Israeli citizen. Does anybody know? I am wondering how her bio can state that she was born to Israeli Arab immigrants, when it is not clear whether either of her parents was an Israeli citizen. Also, it is unusual to see "Ramallah, Israel" -- Ramallah is not considered to be an Israeli city. Mideastprofessor (talk) 22:09, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

The sources say she is Palestinian. It looks like an IP editor vandalized a bunch of things and I only reverted the most obvious. It should be fixed now. Nblund ^talk 22:22, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Lead

The subject's controversial remarks about Israel and BDS must be covered in the opening per MOS:LEAD, which states The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. For those who haven't been following the sources, this is one of the most significant aspects of the subject's public profile. Here are the sources that have reported on this:

• Washington Post, Power Up: Two Muslim-American congresswomen force Democrats to grapple with Israel divide
• Haaretz, Rashida Tlaib Responds to anti-Semitism Accusations, U.S. Jewish Groups Strike Back at Rashida Tlaib: 'Tell Us More About Dual-loyalty'
• JPost, TLAIB STARTS TERM IN CONGRESS ACCUSING ISRAEL ADVOCATES OF 'DUAL LOYALTY'

What the sources and policy guidelines say should always prevail over knee-jerk reactions to controversial content. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:52, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

• This is very simple. The lead should provide a brief summary of the page. Text you want to include summarizes content of this very small section (just a few phrases, may be 3% the page). Why do you want to give so much weight to this particular controversy? Because it was covered in press? Yes, it was, but all other content on the page is also well sourced. She is not known for this specific controversy. Or you do it because you want to emphasize a negative information about the person in the lead? Doing so is against our WP:BLP policy, sorry. My very best wishes (talk) 03:55, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

This is utterly wrong and a misrepresentation (misuse, really) of WP:BLP. Her remarks on the controversy have garnered significant coverage, which makes it a significant controversy and gives it WP:WEIGHT. I'm much more interested in your argument as to how this does not carry weight, which is directly contradicted by the sources. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 04:22, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

If this was anything really significant, then it would be covered on at least 20% of this page. But it is not. Hence you are trying to emphasize something that you think was significant. But OK, let's see what others think. If you get consensus for inclusion in the lead, then fine. My very best wishes (talk) 04:32, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. I don't generally try to be mathematically precise when adding content, but this appears to be significant just based on the reporting. But as you said, likewise, if there's no consensus that can be reached, it'll have to stay out. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 04:50, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

I do think that her views on Israel are notable, but I don't think it's remotely neutral or encyclopedic to just describe her views as "controversial" without specifying exactly what they are or who has criticized them. Unless readers are already familiar with the BDS movement, they wouldn't even know what side of the issue she was on from reading this sentence. Nblund ^talk 05:19, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

It's a neutral, factual description of what has been reported by the WP:SECONDARY sources that have covered the topic. Here's another piece from the New York Times that described it as such:

Almost daily, Republicans brashly accuse Ms. Tlaib and Ms. Omar of anti-Semitism and bigotry, hoping to make them the Democrats’ version of Representative Steve King as they try to tar the entire Democratic Party with their criticism of the Jewish state.

And while Democratic leaders publicly defend them, some Democratic colleagues are clearly uneasy. Representative Ted Deutch, Democrat of Florida and a founder of a bipartisan task force to combat anti-Semitism, said some of the lawmakers’ comments “fall into longstanding anti-Semitic tropes.”

Whether you or any of us agree or disagree that her remarks or support for BDS are justified, there is no question that they have been controversial. This has been a prominent aspect of her tenure and public profile thus far, and the sentence I added noting this is well within the guidelines under MOS:LEAD and WP:DUE. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 05:30, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

I think that views by a person are a lot less important than her actions (how she voted and which laws did she author?). However if we wanted to describe her views and controversies in the lead (I am not sure), we would have to tell something like "She is a member of Democratic Socialists of America, she supports efforts to impeach President Trump, supports "Medicare For All" and supports the Palestinian right of return and a one-state solution for Israel". That might be something reasonable, instead of cherry picking something you probably care about. My very best wishes (talk) 06:15, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

It's hard to call this cherrypicking when the majority of sources reporting on the subject have addressed this controversy. What you're proposing is balancing out what the sources have deemed significant (by covering it) with what you think is significant—which is WP:SYNTH and prohibited. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 06:49, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

By the way, you haven't addressed any of the sources that I've posted, which is primarily what guides content in BLPs. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 06:50, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

The Times article doesn't just say "her views are controversial". It attributes the view to specific groups and individuals, it balances those criticisms by discussing her defenders and noting the partisan motivations behind some of the critiques, and it offers specific information about her beliefs rather than vague references to "controversy". The edit that was removed here failed to do any of those things. Nblund ^talk 15:12, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Why not just say she supports BDS? Obviously the positions for which any politician is known are controversial ones. TFD (talk) 15:59, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

No objections from me. This can be noted in the lead, along with her other views. However, I still wonder, why one should describe views by a US politician not on the important US-related subjects, but about Israel. My very best wishes (talk) 20:51, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Because that's an oversimplified, incomplete representation of what's been reported. The prominent controversy that's been covered by the New York Times, Haaretz, the Washington Post, and others are her remarks ("forgot what country they represent" comment) and her active support for BDS. Regardless of whether editors on this talk page find that controversial, the sources seem pretty clear that they are considered as such. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:00, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree that her support of BDS is noteworthy. What does saying "Her remarks on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict have caused some controversy" add to that picture? BDS is obviously inherently controversial, and referencing her "remarks" seems a little misleading considering that we appear to be referencing a single tweet. Why not be more explicit? Nblund ^talk 19:06, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

We're certainly in agreement there. I think that the bottom line is that her position and at least one of her remarks on on the Israel issue have garnered some controversy; this doesn't need to present her views in a negative light, but at the very least this should be represented somehow in the lead. While we could be more explicit, I think the goal in the lead should be to try and give as general a summary as possible, preferably no more than a single line, and provide greater detail in the body of the article. Perhaps an appropriate way to word it would be Her position on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, including her support of the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions campaign against Israel, has drawn criticism by conservatives, as well as some Democrats and Jewish organizations. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:04, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

It would be neutral and accurate to say that her views have been criticized by politicians and groups who disagree with her position on Israel and BDS, and defended by politicians who agree with those positions, but this is sort of a WP:YOUDONTSAY statement. Are there any prominent supporters of BDS who haven't been criticized by opponents of BDS? Are there any liberal politicians who haven't been criticized by conservatives? It's hardly neutral to discuss her views on Israel exclusively through the lens of her critics. Nblund ^talk 22:59, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

That's not what's being proposed. Her views on Israel should be described in the context of what's been reported by WP:RS. By the way, she's actually been accused of antisemitism according to a Haaretz piece, so just noting that her position has been controversial would be the watered down version. And you saying you agree that her support for BDS is notable is like agreeing that water is wet; obviously it's noteworthy based on what the sources have reported. And like I said earlier, whether or not you or me or anyone editing Wikipedia thinks this is a "legitimate" controversy is irrelevant, per WP:DUE: in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:33, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I haven't cited my personal views on the legitimacy of the controversy, so I'm not sure why you keep bringing that up. Your suggested edit cites her critics without discussing their motivations or mentioning her defenders. That's not really consistent with the Times source, which discusses both sides and notes that the antisemitism charges are partly driven by an effort to "tar the entire Democratic Party with their criticism of the Jewish state." It's accurate and neutral (and probably more informative) to say "Her support of BDS has been criticized by groups opposed to BDS, and defended by groups that support it". Why not say that? Nblund ^talk 00:10, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Because that's creating a WP:FALSEBALANCE. The point of view more prominently reported on has been the criticisms leveled against her, both for the position and remarks. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:35, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

We're not talking about someone who thinks they faked the moon landing here. WP:FALSEBALANCE says all significant viewpoints should be represented. We could say "Her support of BDS has been criticized by groups opposed to BDS", but this looks patently obvious once you strip out the innuendo and vagary. Alternatively: we could just say she supports BDS and is more critical of Israel than many members of her caucus. Nblund ^talk 02:00, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

• Comment. Just to clarify, I think her personal views should not be mentioned in the lead. At most, we should simply state what her views are, without delving into criticisms, responses to criticisms, etc. We have the body of the page for that. My very best wishes (talk) 01:40, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

MOS:LEAD says otherwise: The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. I find it interesting that everyone's rushing to challenge this heavily reported on material, whereas noting that she was appointed to a particular committee, something which has received comparably less coverage, is inserted without a second thought. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:54, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Indeed - given the widespread coverage of the criticism/condemnations/etc. vs. other less covered aspects of Tlaib this bears mentioning the lede.Icewhiz (talk) 17:17, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Because it's apparent that other editors in this discussion are uncomfortable with her views being described as "controversial" but seem to agree that they nonetheless warrant a mention in the lead, I've inserted a compromise: her views on BDS and Israel, as well as the Trump administration, are now noted in the lead, but without any mention of controversy. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:04, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Looks reasonable to me. Nblund ^talk 02:07, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that looks OK to me. My very best wishes (talk) 03:05, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Controversy of Association with Hamas Supporter Abbas Hamideh

Wikipedia should weigh in on her association with Hamas Supporters - about whether this is true, false, or misrepresented. It appears to be true that she posed for a photo, smiling ear to ear along with Abbas Hamideh, a rather radical anti-isreal campaigner on record for supporting Hamas, on the US list of terror organizations. The source of this picture is his twitter feed. The ADL appears to have asked her to explain the picture (so there should be written records of this). The end of this controversy is very unclear; I cannot find repeated references to it in the big US newspapers, only a reference to it in Fox news, clearly shallow click-and-outrage bait, and israeli newspapers, which I am unsure about. Can someone please illuminate us in a not-too-prejudiced way? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.243.51.80 (talk) 21:34, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

"Impeach the motherfucker"

Do we need that paragraph at all? Her saying "impeach the motherfucker" at a MoveOn event, is that not WP:NOTNEWS / WP:RECENTISM? At the least, including Trump's response seems inappropriate to me, but I've been reverted. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:24, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely we do. Additionally, statements made by the President are implicitly notable. The paragraph fairly presents both sides. Commenting on the [in]appropriateness of a political statement and risking taking a political side would be unbecoming of a Wikipedia administrator. --Acyclic (talk) 18:11, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Acyclic, I'm not taking a "political side", and I'm not acting as an administrator in this matter, so it's quite inappropriate that you bring it up. I'm talking about WP:NPOV and including Trump's response producing a lack of balance. If this was to be balanced, we could then add in Nancy Pelosi's assessment, "I don’t think it’s any worse than what the president has said", and the other coverage pointing out some of those things. But then the whole thing becomes WP:UNDUE weight as the 24 hour news cycle forgets this entire incident. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:19, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. On the contrary, it's the presence of Trump's response that IMHO adds balance. Without it, it's a one-sided attack against the President. It's clear that we have different perceptions of what is NPOV. Also, it's not our place to make Wikipedia forget it prematurely. I have no opinion on the inclusion of Nancy Pelosi's comment; I personally don't see a problem with including it. --Acyclic (talk) 19:32, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Acyclic, I'll await feedback from others as we establish consensus before doing anything else. I will say that at the least, Trump's response should be trimmed. As of now, it's longer than her comments at the MoveOn event. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:13, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

IMO, the core necessary portion from Trump is at least "Well, I thought her comments were disgraceful...I think she dishonored herself and I think she dishonored her family." --Acyclic (talk) 23:32, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I would cut it down to this:

"In an op-ed she wrote co-authored by John Bonifaz for the Detroit Free Press, Tlaib broke with other Democrats by calling for impeachment proceedings against Trump to commence before Special Counsel Mueller to complete his criminal investigation. She later attracted further controversy by referring to Trump as a "motherfucker" during a speech to MoveOn."

It is usually best to be concise for the convenience of readers. If anyone wants the blow by blow details, they can follow the sources or someone can create a "Rashida Tlaib use of word "motherfucker" controversy.

TFD (talk) 23:24, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I've trimmed Trump's quote. Maybe we should trim it further. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:31, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Or maybe we shouldn't, at least until the end of Trump's presidency plus a year. It's quite trim now. --Acyclic (talk) 20:13, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

• I think this is good in current state. That is her important and reliably published opinion, no matter if someone likes it or not. My very best wishes (talk) 19:26, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Omitting something that actually happened shows political bias. It was on TV for a month we all know it happened, why try and obfuscate it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:A760:DFE0:D9F6:1234:265F:35AF (talk) 19:22, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

bds in lead

whats the sourcing for her support of BDS being to pressure Israel to withdraw from the settlements (as opposed to all of the occupied territories)? nableezy - 16:38, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Since there is no sourcing for that bit, and it isnt referenced elsewhere in the article, I am removing it. nableezy - 19:46, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Her support as is our all BDS supporters for terrorism against Israel, I have corrected that mistake. you have an obvious bias against Israel and should not edit any pages on this matter.72.22.189.98 (talk) 14:05, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Without opposition

The second paragraph indicates " She ran unopposed in the general election" this is untrue. I would recommend indicating she was "without Republican opposition" in the 2018 general election https://mielections.us/election/results/2018GEN_CENR.html#06013000 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.9.75.192 (talk) 20:15, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

In addition, it is imperative to remember Tlaib's legacy as one of the only representatives to endorse Bernie Sanders for President in the 2020 presidential primary election, along with other progressive members of Congress [AOC, Omar, Pocan, etc]. Please add this to her main Wikipedia page - it is an important part of her progressive politics legacy.

Semi-protected edit request on 14 May 2019

Change married at age 22 to 21. Tlaib herself says, at 11:50 in this NYT interview, "I got married at twenty one" 80.255.164.20 (talk) 13:56, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

References

Need more data. The reference in the article, Heavy, says in two or three places that she got married in 1998 when she was 22. She was born in 1976; she can't have been 21 in 1998. Do we take her word for it, or look for independent evidence? -- MelanieN (talk) 23:24, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I looked for more sources too before but since she is divorced now, not much info on her wedding out there. In 1998, she would be 21 to start the year and turn 22 on her birthday right? WikiVirusC^(talk) 16:39, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Holocaust Controversy

Tlaib's comments regarding the Holocaust (and the "calming felling") were added recently by User:Yomrlax, but quickly swept away by User:Coffeeandcrumbs. I'm trying to understand why one person's public comments not allowed on WP, but another persons comments that are much more veiled, are allow: Katie Hopkins#Manchester Arena bombing. To me, those both sound to be on par when it comes to controversy, so what specific WP policy allows one and not the other? Cpflieger (talk) 19:50, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I reverted the edit because it was presented from a particular POV with no context. There are many RS that describe the fact that her comments were taken out of context. I will not resist a presentation of the controversy from a NPOV based on RS and that clearly states the comments were taken out of context. Otherwise, selectively latching onto two words is WP:Undue and violates WP:NPOV.

I also find it interesting how two different sleeper accounts are interested in the same thing. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 20:32, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I hope you aren't accusing me of any nefarious activity simply because I don't edit articles frequently; I'm not a sleeper, and I ask that you treat me as an editor in good faith. I simply came to look up info on Tlaib, found the omission to be questionable, so I checked the history.

After looking at the addition closely, I see that it is certainly out of context, with only two words. Perhaps more explicit text from RS could be used that give the full context with a NPOV. Would that be agreeable?Cpflieger (talk) 14:15, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

I see another poor edit was done to include this incident (for lack of a better term). Perhaps it should be added properly. Cpflieger (talk) 21:55, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Israel

Per similar concerns at Ilhan Omar, the news-of-the-moment about entry to Israel is not at all important enough to justify a position in the opening of her biography. Zaathras (talk) 23:37, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Just a note that other than one editor at Talk:Ilhan Omar calling for the material’s removal but was on 1RR, none of at least seven editors who weighed in have seen fit to remove all the material from Omar’s page, of which five editors support inclusion. starship.paint (talk) 00:35, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I think it bears inclusion as well, here and there, just did not want it to sit in the lead while discussion ensued. Zaathras (talk) 01:53, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Oh yes, I do agree that it isn’t needed in the lede, just the body. starship.paint (talk) 01:57, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Hebrew mobile version has been corrupted

On the mobile version of the Hebrew translation of this article, someone has edited the original subheadline of the article ("פוליטיקאית אמריקאית ממוצא פלסטיני" which means "American politician of Palestinian descent") and has replaced it with the derogatory "פוליטיקאית אמריקאית ממוצא העם המומצא", which means "American politician descended from the invented/imaginary nation." I tried in vain to restore the correct subheadline but was unable to do so. I am referring to the gray subheadline that appears in the mobile version of the page, directly under the name of the article. Please edit. --AviJacobson (talk) 00:09, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

• @AviJacobson: - [4] seems fine. Is there still a problem? starship.paint (talk) 02:04, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Election results

As of today, the list of Democratic primary election results does not specify to which election, or to what year, they refer. Is it the state legislature?Purplethree (talk) 14:21, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

@Purplethree: - fixed it, is it alright? starship.paint (talk) 02:10, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Early life, education and early career

"The family sometimes relied on welfare for support.[9]" Is this properly sourced? There is one source that requires paid subscription to source.Sandvol (talk) 09:29, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Well I could not read the source either but at any rate that is an excellent example of cherry picking. I did try to google for something and didn't find anything. I did find this interview which is worth a read. I will remove that info and thanks for bringing it up. Gandydancer (talk) 17:17, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

"Tlaib is the first DSA member from a Midwestern district elected to the U.S. House" Possibly False

This line in the lede may not be true, Rep. John Conyers, also of Michigan, is identified here as a DSA member. Conyers is also listed as a DSA member in this article so wikipedia is contradicting itself.96.47.70.66 (talk) 19:41, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't know how well-documented Conyers DSA membership was, but neither of the cited sources appeared to support the statement, so I've removed it for now. Nblund ^talk 19:56, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Controversies

Is there a reason there is no controversies section? 2601:187:4002:4160:9D80:7B4F:9215:D797 (talk) 18:01, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Please see WP:CONTROVERSYSECTION. Such sections are highly discouraged, because they become "catch all" sections for any minor criticism, violating WP:NPOV. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough. Then to further this inquiry, why have all of her negative behaviors been excluded from this Wiki page? 50.212.14.35 (talk) 17:40, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

What isn't in the page that should be added? What specific text do you propose to add? Please provide reliable sources to cover every proposed addition. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:00, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

https://nypost.com/2020/01/29/rep-rashida-tlaib-still-hasnt-apologized-for-pushing-a-blood-libel-against-jews/

https://thefederalist.com/2020/01/27/rashida-tlaib-retweets-modern-day-blood-libel-and-media-remains-silent/

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/rashida-tlaib-blood-libel-tweet-strive-higher-standards

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/rashida-tlaib-irresponsibly-spreads-anti-semitic-blood-libel

https://www.jewishpress.com/news/us-news/rashida-tlaib-retweets-blood-libel-against-jerusalem-jews/2020/01/25/

https://www.jewishpress.com/news/us-news/rashida-tlaib-retweets-blood-libel-against-jerusalem-jews/2020/01/25/

https://www.timesofisrael.com/tlaib-deletes-retweet-claiming-settlers-killed-boy-found-dead-in-rain-filled-pit/

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/jan/28/rashida-tlaib-responds-after-adl-accuses-her-of-sp/

https://www.dailywire.com/news/rashida-tlaib-promotes-false-blood-libel-claim-demonizing-jews-refuses-to-apologize

https://foxwilmington.com/headlines/anti-defamation-league-condemns-rashida-tlaib-for-blood-libel-retweet-falsely-accusing-israelis-of-killing-palestinian-boy/

The list goes on and on. 02:15, 10 February 2020 (UTC)2601:187:4002:4160:416A:FF08:172E:5CE2 (talk)

How abut this? https://www.dailywire.com/news/watch-jewish-dem-thrown-out-of-tlaib-event-for-confronting-her-anti-semitism?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=dwbrand2601:187:4002:4160:357C:FD3A:F21F:8041 (talk) 14:08, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

This isn't even going to be talked about? 2601:187:4002:4160:D9E3:8C8E:1CC9:8791 (talk) 07:14, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Unless it's a Trump controversy, it's tough to gain consensus ;-). Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:04, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Nobody has proposed any text additions. We're not just going to start clicking links and know what you're thinking. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:11, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Note that first of all most of the links are not to what are deemed reliable sources. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources which lists some of the sources as unacceptable. The other issue is WP:WEIGHT: if it's ignored in reliable sources, then it doesn't belong in the article. The Federalist's headline explains the weight of this story well: "Rashida Tlaib Retweets Modern-Day ‘Blood Libel’ And Media Remains Silent." TFD (talk) 14:12, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 April 2020

Rashida Tlaib and her husband are related to each other as her Husband is related to ehr mother. https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/in-w-bank-family-of-first-palestinian-american-woman-in-congress-celebrate-1.6633174 87.153.235.97 (talk) 13:33, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Not shown that this is relevant enough to include in this article, at least sounds like WP:UNDUE to mention since it makes it sound like they are closely related, something that the source doesn't make clear. – Thjarkur (talk) 17:36, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Template and categories

I removed the Template:American socialism in in this edit. I also removed several categories that do not apply as not discussed in the article and not meeting WP:CATDEF. These were:

• Category:Anti-Zionism in the United States
• Category:Michigan socialists
• Category:Muslim socialists

--K.e.coffman (talk) 21:21, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

IPs are not allowed make edits related to the Arab-Israeli conflict

and thus can be reverted at will. They can however use this talk page. Doug Weller talk 14:00, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

In any case, IP or not, they should not have restored the edit once it was challenged. I will repeat an earlier warning I put on their talk page. I see you have already explained the situation to them. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:41, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

The current wording of the notice suggests that the entire page is under the restrictions (and least in the list of restrictions). Honestly, trying to enforce 30-500 on just one portion seems way too energy intensive if that was the original intent. I've ECP the page, but if I've goofed up feel free to revert me. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:19, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Removed addition.

I added in a section that has since been removed. No clear reason has been given besides lack of "agreement" so I ask what reason does someone have for it not being up? Sources were linked and came from no place that is consider not reliable? Most members of Congress have a sections like that, so what is the objection. Also claiming this has something to do with the Arab-Israeli conflict does not make sense. 3Kingdoms (talk) 20:13, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

@3Kingdoms: The topic you are adding is about Israel and Palestine, right? How is that not related to the Arab-Israeli conflict? EvergreenFir (talk) 20:16, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

No it is not about that. It is about a person facing criticism for statements, actions, and associations. It would be like saying that when President Trump related retweeted anti-Muslim videos that the person is talking about Islamic immigration to Europe. 3Kingdoms (talk) 20:21, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

The key part here is "broadly construed". It falls under the wide umbrella of the Arab-Israeli conflict. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:26, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Is that a 1RR exemptions? PackMecEng (talk) 20:33, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Well lets agree to disagree. Anyhow, I still fail to see what the problem was with what posted. 3Kingdoms (talk) 20:38, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Well lets take a look at the series of edits in question, break it down, and see what we can keep from it. PackMecEng (talk) 20:45, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, would love to have some feedback/debate 3Kingdoms (talk) 21:17, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)So the section heading and opening are probably going to be an issue for the others. Perhaps kill the first paragraph and change the section heading to just "Controversy". Controversy sections are frowned upon in general but sometimes are fine. The next two paragraphs seem okay to me, the J-Street & podcast ones. Paragraph 4, the August 2019 part, has an issue with the first ref not linking to the source. I think it is this one from New York Daily News which RSP is kind of an eh source. The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles looks like they meet RS. I don't know about The Forward, someone more informed could probably chime in and let me know but I do not see any red flags. I would drop Fox just to make life easier, it is already supported by other sources. Paragraph 5, November 2019, seems pretty straight forward. I am sure other sources could be found but is certainly notable, CNN is a strong source, and I do not see issue with the content. Perhaps expand if some think it lacks context. Paragraph 6, December 2019, might be undue weight need to see if more sources show it was important and had impact. It could also be moved to the Israeli–Palestinian_conflict since that already talks about her involvement in the BDS movement. Last one, I don't know much about the Algemeiner Journal RSN seems to think it is reliable though so good enough. Overall I think pretty good, I might move most to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict section I mentioned above and perhaps things like House Ethics Committee investigation to its own section. I get the BLP concerns calling her anti-semitic in the opening and heading. If we just cut those it should be okay. PackMecEng (talk) 21:39, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank-you, I concur. I added the anti-Semitism part, because Steve King's page had racist comments next to it, so I thought this would be needed. I agree with everything you suggested, thank you for the help.

We already have a section which discusses Tlaib's views on the Arab-Israel conflict; anything additional about those views should be added to that section, not installed in a new section.

"Controversy" sections are deprecated in biographies, particularly those of politicians. You will note that Mitch McConnell's biography does not have one, nor does Nancy Pelosi's. Similarly, we are not going to have a section titled "Accusations of anti-Semitism" here any more than we're going to have a section titled "Accusations of fascism" in Donald Trump's biography. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:32, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Steve King, Danny K. Davis,Ted Yoho, and Cedric Richmond all have controversy sections. Additions were not about her view's on the issue, but associations and accusations by groups. 3Kingdoms (talk) 23:48, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

The added text is just too far from any reasonable standards of content that it's not worth sifting through to see what belongs. Best practice of course is to include controversial information where it arises. For example there is no reason to include her discussion of her support for the one state solution in a controversy section, when it's already mentioned under "Israeli–Palestinian conflict." That's the place to discuss her views of Palestinian and Israeli statehood. TFD (talk) 00:58, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Uh what? There is nothing unreasonable about what was posted. As noted above this is not about her view, but her statements and interactions with people. 3Kingdoms (talk) 21:44, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

She was criticized by Ben Shapiro? The guy who tweeted, "Israelis like to build. Arabs like to bomb crap and live in open sewage," that Palestinians are "rotten to the core" and "breed[] terrorism, anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism?" The guy who also tweeted, "Like, say you have a hot sister. You fantasize about it, maybe you steal her underwear a couple times?" Do you think any reasonable person would care what he says? You think he can talk about a Palestinian without prejudging them? Why not add what David Duke or Richard Spencer have to say about her? TFD (talk) 01:30, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Eh there are a bunch of sources for that one, we can drop Shapiro and just leave it at The Anti-Defamation League, Rep. Jerry Nadler, and othe Jewish groups condemned them for sharing it. That would probably help. PackMecEng (talk) 03:17, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Evidently a lot of reasonable people do care what he thinks since he was mentioned in the article, I don't pay attention to him so I really could care less. Of course I have no problem removing him, the others are more than enough. As noted above there are more than enough sources. 3Kingdoms (talk) 05:01, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Since there has been no response, the additions should be added back in with the changes made by PackMecEng plus the removal of Ben Shapiro's mention. 3Kingdoms (talk) 04:35, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Was there a good place to stick the house ethics committee investigation stuff? PackMecEng (talk) 22:01, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I say just make a section that say ethic's investigation either as it's own thing or a subsection of a controversy section. 3Kingdoms (talk) 00:15, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Of course there's been response - you just don't agree with those responses. Right now, there is no consensus for your proposed additions. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:12, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

From what I see all the concerns have been addressed. There was the issue of the heading. Done. There was the Fox sourcing and the like. Also done. Then there was mention of Shapiro. Done. If there are other issues we can certainly take a look and make nessicary adjustments. Until then claiming no consensus while failing to state any issues holds no weight or value. PackMecEng (talk) 03:23, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

There hasn't been any new wording proposed here. Both I and The Four Deuces have expressed concerns with the existing proposal, and simply removing Ben Shapiro's mention fails to address either of our objections. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:26, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Lets break down your objection. Starts with it should not be in it's own section. It wont be, it will be woven in the article where sections already exist. Then you go on about how controversy sections are bad, again there will not be one. That is all you have mentioned from what I can tell and it has been addressed. TFD states, like you, that it should go in existing sections. It will. Then later he mentions Shapiro should not be mentioned. He won't be. Have I missed any additional objections? PackMecEng (talk) 03:33, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I support doing that or having a controversy section personally, as noted above numerous congressmen have said sections, if not than doing the above is fine with me. I agree with ParkMecEng, all complaints have been addressed if you or anyone else, have any other, you will need to write them out completely and explain fully. If not then I don't see any reason for these changes to not be added. 3Kingdoms (talk) 03:52, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

As stated above, no objections have been given to changes, so I suggest we add them in. I can not at the moment due to not having made 500 edits, but anyone who can would be very appericated. 3Kingdoms (talk) 18:54, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I am about to head out but this afternoon I will try to get it broken up like we talked about and added in. PackMecEng (talk) 19:03, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Hey no problem. Whenever you get the chance.3Kingdoms (talk) 19:29, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

You don't get to claim "no objections" when editors above such as @NorthBySouthBaranof: clearly have objections. Very poor form. IHateAccounts (talk) 21:49, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

His objections were addressed. Since he has not given a reply I see no reason to not make the changes. 3Kingdoms (talk) 23:36, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done[5] Added the investigation stuff to a new section in the house section.[6] Also expanded it with the result. PackMecEng (talk) 04:08, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Looks great, nice job.3Kingdoms (talk) 05:01, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I have made several edits to your edits which satisfy my objections to the text. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Sounds good, thanks for the help. PackMecEng (talk) 05:40, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Why was the Atlantic article removed? It and its author are both RS? 3Kingdoms (talk) 06:04, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

It is an opinion column and he is claiming because of that it is undue weight.[7] I was going to take a look tomorrow to see if I could find some secondary sources bringing up the quote in context. PackMecEng (talk) 06:07, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia biographies are not comprehensive collections of everything any person has ever said about anyone. There's already extensive discussion of Tlaib's positions on the Arab-Israeli conflict; we don't need to include commentary and rebuttal of literally everything she's ever said. Given that that section was the weakest in terms of sourcing (a single opinion column) I chose that section to remove. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:03, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Since the podcast resulted in a response by the President, I think it is newworthy. However, since both the President and the Congresswoman's account is self-serving, I thought it would be better to add an accurate context for the comments from a respected source. 3Kingdoms (talk) 15:40, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Blinken

Here, her unfounded accusations against Blinken.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/rashida-tlaib-biden-antony-blinken.amp

--Vanlister (talk) 14:39, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Looks good.3Kingdoms (talk) 04:50, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

One-state solution

An addition has been made which claims that Tlaib "opposes the existence of Israel." This is not supported by any source, and apparently relies on a disputed interpretation of the one-state solution, which Tlaib does support. No cited source says that Tlaib opposes the existence of Israel, and thus we cannot possibly say it. Nor can we take sides in that disputed interpretation and unilaterally declare that anyone who supports a one-state solution "opposes the existence of Israel." Again, that some people may believe that does not convert it into fact.

Moreover, the WP:ONUS for inclusion of disputed material is on the person who proposed it, and thus it is incumbent on Pennsylvania2 to gain a consensus for inclusion of anything related to this matter in the lede. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:58, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Under a one state solution, then there would be a bi-national state. By definition that would not be Israel, a Jewish state. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 02:07, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

While you might be right, that would be synthesis, which is prohibited by policy. We would need a source that says there is consensus in the literature that her view would mean no more Israel. It's doubtful such sources exist, but readers can click on the internal link to determine what a one state solution would mean. TFD (talk) 02:14, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

As per TFD, that is one interpretation of a one-state solution. You may very well believe that interpretation, but it is neither unanimous nor consensus among reliable sources that it is so. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:10, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

While I think it is fair to say that many people, in the west, who argue for the one-state solution are being disingenuous https://newrepublic.com/article/61715/politics-other-means-0 (while others I think do argue from a good place) and Tlaib is not one of them. We should be careful in order to avoid editorializing. I think it is fair to say what critics of the One-state solution say here, however it should be tempered as their opinion. 3Kingdoms (talk) 15:18, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Destruction of Israel

Tlaib retweeted a slogan in favor of the destruction of Israel. "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,” a phrase that has been associated with calls to wipe out Israel.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/democrat-tlaib-shares-tweet-alluding-to-israels-elimination/

--Vanlister (talk) 19:08, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Looks good maybe just another article that shows the tweet in question. 3Kingdoms (talk) 04:05, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 May 2021

Please add at the end of the Law enforcement section:

Her comments were disavowed by many of her Democratic colleagues, including Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, Jim Clyburn and Tim Kaine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nordostsüdwest (talk • contribs) 22:09, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

References

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. In an article about her it seems unnecessary to list people who disagree with her. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

What School of Islam?

I noticed neither this biography, nor that of Squad-mate Ilhan Omar, explains what School of Islam either of their respective subjects subscribes to (that piece of information can go into their "personal life" sections). Bettering the Wiki (talk) 09:20, 27 August 2021 (UTC)