Talk:Ibraheem Samirah

Heckling Trump

He did it, and got alot of news coverage for it. It belongs in the article. I removed a piece that violates WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, and WP:WEIGHT. If there is more about heckling Trump that we should include, we have to develop WP:CONSENSUS here. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:13, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Also, keep in mind that as this article is about post-1932 American politics, it is subject to discretionary sanctions and WP:1RR. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:16, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Ibraheem S Samirah Official Delegate Photo.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:36, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Alleged antisemitism

@Muboshgu: "right wing" isn't a disqualification of a source. Furthermore, here's Haaretz asserting the very same thing as the examiner. That's a left wing publication. Whether the whole spiel is WP:DUE is questionable, but blanket deletion is not appropriate. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 20:17, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Bellezzasolo, "right wing" isn't a disqualification, so I should have been a bit more clear in the limited characters of an edit summary. Those particular sources are biased to the point of invalidating what they report. It's also a case of WP:DUE weight, as those sources promote their viewpoint. Whether or not this should be included should be hashed out here due to WP:BLP and discretionary sanctions on post-1932 U.S. politics and the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:57, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Muboshgu, the sources you removed are credible, they're not included on any banned sources list on Wikipedia. I spoke to you about them months ago when you removed them back then. I replaced the content after tweaking it on your suggestions so it's just ridiculously you're blanking it again. I find it completely appropriate to list Samirah's transgressions against Jewish people—from his family's ties to extremist groups, definitely the Islamic Action Front (IAF) (which seeks to destroy Israel through Jordanian armed forces) and allegedly Hamas which caused his father to be flight-listed for years—said the KKK is worse than Israel and hell is excited to have Ariel Sharon (a prominent Israeli statesman who led Israel's response to the coordinated Arab-invasion of Israel), to literally assaulting a Jewish reporter and getting arrested protesting Sanders, the first prominent Jewish presidential candidate we've ever had, note he didn't protest Clinton despite her more pro-Israel and pro-war stances. He also got foreseeable removed from a Jewish festival and insinuated Jews are dirty, a prominent anti-semitic trope plus linked a page on his Twitter profile that stated: Zionist Jews are plotting to take over Jerusalem (note: it's akin to Hamas propaganda used in Gaze and Palestine). Do you really think these are not relevant since he's legislating policy? Why is racism against Jewish people fine to let slide?

Bellezzasolo, Kleuske, Flyer22 Frozen, Fyrael, and Muboshgu Samirah or his supports are actively trying to expunge his record, the content was first blanked by user:Is0811a notice IS for Ibraheem Samirah and 811 is the area code for DC which neighbors the district where Samirah represents and where he went to university and then by user:Johnbellgotahaircut note John Bell is a balding moderate Democratic military veteran from a neighboring State Senate seat so it's a jab at him because he can't really get a hair cut. Samirah has publicly stated in the Atlantic that he believes in politics of forced change, not through civility or dialogue. He or his supports are literally championing that philosophy on this page so it amazes me why we're attempting to bend to their political white-washing evident from their actions on Wikipedia to other past actions and statements.

I think it's only fair that readers know what his past statements are (some of whom he's even apologized for), his connections (his support for his father despite definite IAF membership and potential ties to Hamas), and finally the cavalier attitude towards civil discourse evident to his conduct on Wikipedia. If you replace his actions towards Jews with Africans, another racially abused group, I don't think there'd be as much pushback on this, and we somehow as a society don't understand why anti-semitism is coming back and why Jewish people are afraid for their livelihoods and safety. Unfortunately, this page is just a small taste of it. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 23:07, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the topic or dispute. I reverted here and here, but that's because I was patrolling with WP:Huggle and the significant blanking or cutting looked disruptive. It looked to be purely POV-motivated. I suggest going through with some form of WP:Dispute resolution such as a WP:RfC, report Johnbellgotahaircut (talk · contribs) for edit warring at the WP:Edit warring noticeboard if the editor keeps edit warring, and start a WP:Sockpuppet investigation if one has evidence of sockpuppetry going on at this article. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:42, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Also, as noted at the top of this talk page, this article is under discretionary sanctions. So it is under WP:1RR and limited to one revert per editor every 24 hours. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:47, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Flyer22 Frozen, it's pretty clear, in my mind at least, we've got a case of sock puppetry here with the aforementioned users having closely held user names to the topic and their edit histories. Do you think my observations hold weight? I will report them if they keep this up. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 23:54, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

You can cite WP:DUCK, and reasons why you think it's a WP:DUCK case, in the SPI. And you might want to mark the WP:CheckUser part of the SPI so that a CheckUser will look at the matter if the clerk and/or CheckUser think you have a credible case. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:57, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Flyer22 Frozen, thank you for your input. I'll do that if this continues. It's pretty clear to me based on their actions from edits, times, user names, to volume. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 00:08, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

UPDATE: We not only have a case of anti-semitism to deal with and how that's properly written up in the article for public consumption, but we've now got an unequivocal example of both conflict of interest and sock puppetry at work. It's all stemming from an elected official, namely Ibraheem Samirah, so we've got an interesting case on our hands. From his account, Is0811a (talk · contribs), presumably liked to Johnbellgotahaircut (talk · contribs), he just stated it's him. When he was attributing the source for part of his most recent edit, specifically, one about himself in the Washingtonian, and he literally wrote "me" in the author's listing spot. He also properly sourced another citation from Virginia onAir, where he was being interviewed by Shuaib Ahmed, prior to writing "me" on the author's listing spot in the aforementioned citation that I provided to us for examination on hitting the conflict of interest and probable sock puppetry thresholds. Samirah obviously knows how to compose references properly on Wikipedia, and he just slipped up and wrote "me" without realizing the significant consequences that his actions hold on Wikipedia. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 03:34, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Additional notice: he just falsely quoted or at least misattributed a quote regarding his father's case from United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit Judge James Byron Moran. He quoted the reference, stating it was "totally asinine," but the source doesn't mention it all. I'm presuming Samirah is lying about his father's case. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 04:06, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Closely demonstrated knowledge without providing sources: Samirah has also edited of his supposed Afro-Arab and biracial descent. This claim is stated without presenting any evidence of it, at least not on Wikipedia, so it appears to be another lie by Samirah or best-case scenario for him, it's closely held information known by someone closely associated with him. Samirah made another closely demonstrated edit of personal knowledge or downright lie about his father visiting his "sick grandmother," but he doesn't back it up with the citations listed. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 04:36, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

This is, at least in part, untrue. The cited 7th Circuit case discusses this: In 2002, the year after the denial of his second application for adjustment of status, the plaintiff learned that his mother, who lives in Jordan, was ill. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:19, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Samirah added his birthdate to his article without properly attributing it, and I've been trying to find it via public records. So, this is another instance of closely held information or perhaps an outright lie. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 04:54, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Best case self-promotion, worst case downright propaganda, Samirah has edited his article to not only sound favorable to the public at large, just read his edits to the Early life and education section for evidence. He completely white-washes all evidence of his personal anti-semitic behavior (some of which he has previously apologized for) and tries to turn his father's travel ban from the United States over connections to Islamic extremism into a sympathetic-sounding piece. He regularly claims the victim card while on the campaign trail, which is relevant to us since he's now interjecting himself on Wikipedia. Notice his edit summaries, Samirah plays the victim card routinely while establishing an extreme level of hypocrisy. He complains of bias, yet he continues to write an extreme form of it. The reality is his father had deeply troubling connections to Islamic extremism through the IAF and potentially Hamas, and he routinely praises his father for his political activism. The federal government made a couple of mistakes on how they handled Samirah's case, specifically on notifying him at the time of his original exit from the United States to visit relatives in Jordan, and he successfully argued that in court after 11-years of being prohibited from entering the US. It should be noted his Islamic extremism was never completely rejected in court since he actively held membership to the IAF, and he potentially maintained ties to Hamas. Both of these lurk in the background of his case. The court never cleared Samirah of his alleged ties to Hamas, they just found the available evidence was not strong enough to maintain his travel ban for terrorist-related activities.

His contributions to the Policy positions lede are entirely sourced from his campaign website, which is another instance of extreme self-promotion or downright propaganda. I'm leaning towards the latter, given everything he's done thus far. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 05:41, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Buzzards-Watch Me Work, based on this, I believe those accounts are the politician himself or someone editing directly on his behalf. I did not intend to lend weight to that sort of whitewashing. My concerns were of a BLP nature specific to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict that are secondary to the subject attempting to whitewash his own article. – Muboshgu (talk) 06:07, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I should also mention, his probable sock puppet account, Johnbellgotahaircut (talk · contribs), was involved in revisionist history over this edit. The article makes it clear he'll disagree with anyone who doesn't stand with him, even if they hold the same position. In this case, being anti-Trump as he's citing one of his fellow Democrats wanting more "decorum" from him as ill-advised. He then tries to spin it as directly opposing racism or bigotry for his anti-civility when he'll basically throw you under the bus so the speak for just tactical disagreements. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 07:22, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Muboshgu, yes, it's quite shocking how much he's attempting to whitewash it. I do understand your initial concerns but completely disagree with your assessment over his anti-semitic behavior. When you weigh his actions, connections, and statements, I do find it hard to just tie it to general anti-Israel beliefs. But, we must first deal with his conflict of interest and sock puppetry before we can go about writing it. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 07:30, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

___

References

NPOV/COI

I have added these tags to the article and I'm opening a discussion here. Much of the positions and biography section reads as if it belongs in a campaign brochure rather than an encyclopedia. The discussion above seems to suggest that the subject of the article (or someone very close to them) is editing. I concur with those above that his ties to anti-semitic organizations and figures deserve more mention in the article (albeit in a manner that complies with BLP). Finally, I'd note that the article's assertions (which I removed) which claim misconduct on the part of George W. Bush + figures in that admin would fail BLP as well. Vagenie1 (talk) 19:05, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Mossad conspiracy theories

To avoid a series of reverts, I want to open a discussion referring to them as conspiracy theories is enough. The statement he made has no anti-semtiic tropes as far as I can tell, sure anti semites use conspiracies of the mossad to justify their wider anti semitic worldview but nothing in his statement is anti-semitic. Also again Samirah made several Anti-zionist talking points that claim not separating Judaism and Zionism is anti-semitism in the statements after the statement that he was called out for, to unsubstantially describe this as rooted in antisemitism is violating NPOV. No Jewish group in the article even accuses him of antisemitism, I assume this is part of biased writing written by one user which for some reason been maintained without any discussion. Also I removed two unsubstantiated copied sentences mentioning this story as motivation why Youngkin improved his votes from Jews, the tweet citation only states that local jewish leaders raised alarm after it wasn't even picked by local news but likely only times of Israel, it broke in October after he lost a primary, its far too farfetched to justify being on Wikipedia. ShortlegPenins (talk) 17:53, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

It is quite clearly an anti-semitic conspiracy theory. I have added an additional citation labeling it as such. Vagenie1 (talk) 21:28, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that a Hill opinion piece meets the requirement to ascertain that. Also I will be reverting any mention of Samirah playing a part in the shift among Jews to vote for Youngkin, this is a huge jump to claim that a delegate who got ousted continued to be a voter issue months after he lost in June until November. A standard to make a claim like that would need some local reporting interviewing Jewish voters in the area he represented for it to be substantiated ShortlegPenins (talk) 01:10, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

The standard to make a claim is that it is made in a reliable source, which this is. I have slightly adjusted it to say "ahead of" rather than "contributing to" just to more strictly reflect the source Vagenie1 (talk) 21:58, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

You cited two unreliable sources, a random tweet and an opinion piece, that don't even say what you added to the article. This WP:OR is a complete WP:NPOV violation. मल्ल (talk) 20:02, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I got a COI message for saying this and thanks for pointing this out succinctly. ShortlegPenins (talk) 18:43, 10 November 2024 (UTC)