Talk:Abdul El-Sayed

This page is subject to the extended confirmed restriction related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. Track your hook after promotion. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected, closed by Beta Beta Beta (talk) 00:38, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Abdul El-Sayed in 2025

• ... that as Wayne County, Michigan’s public health director, Abdul El-Sayed (pictured) helped oversee an effort that is set to erase hundreds of millions of dollars in medical debt for residents?

• Source: https://time.com/article/2026/07/08/democratic-senate-hopeful-abdul-el-sayed-is-running-against-two-parties/

• • ALT1: ... that if elected in the November United States Senate election in Michigan, former Detroit and Wayne County public health official Abdul El-Sayed (pictured) would be the first Muslim Senator in U.S. history? Source: https://time.com/article/2026/07/08/democratic-senate-hopeful-abdul-el-sayed-is-running-against-two-parties/
  • ALT2: ... that as Detroit, Michigan’s public health director, Abdul El-Sayed (pictured) created initiatives that provided free eyeglasses to children? Source: https://time.com/article/2026/07/08/democratic-senate-hopeful-abdul-el-sayed-is-running-against-two-parties/
  • Reviewed: [[<5 past nominations]]
  • Comment: Article is eligible now due to recent GA status. Per WP:DYKELECT, this would be eligible to run August 5 since the subject is a candidate for an election on August 4, but if it is reviewed and approved before then it can be queued. Obviously ALT2 only works if he wins on August 4.

Improved to Good Article status by Edittttor (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

Edittttor (talk) 22:02, 24 July 2026 (UTC).

• Article was created on August 9, 2018, promoted to GA-status on 21, July 24, 2026, and nominated for DYK on due time. It is long enough, interesting and well-sourced. The lengths of original hook the and ALT2 are wiithin the limit, however, the length of ALT1 (207 chars) exceeds the limit slightly. Maybe, it can be trimmed a bit. All three hooks are interesting and accurate with reliable sources. The image is included in the article, and is ©-free. No QPQ is requered since the nominator has 0 nominations before. Good to go. CeeGee 06:00, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

CeeGee you don't mention in your review if you evaluated this for compliance with WP:N WP:NPOV. I saw this at peer review and my initial reaction was that it is written in a highly promotional way especially for a person who is currently a candidate for office. It recently @Framl, Z1720, Edittttor, and Jonathanischoice: passed GA, but I don't see any evidence that WP:N WP:NPOV was given any serious thought in that review, just a perfunctory "Seems fine to me". I think this needs a closer look. RoySmith (talk) 17:28, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

I also notice that the nom had previously unilaterally rated the artcle as A-Class, with an edit comment of "overdue update to article class content assessment. Good job everybody". I'm not sure who "everybody" is supposed to be, but this certainly rings my promotional editing detector bell. RoySmith (talk) 17:36, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

And looking at the history, I see that Framl, the primary reviewer at WP:GAN, had previously participated in an RFC about the article's content. RoySmith (talk) 17:46, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Please remember to WP:GF because you seem to be making some insinuations here. I don't see any evidence that WP:N was given any serious thought. DYK is not the place to debate notability. If you have concerns about that, then the appropriate avenue is an AFD. the nom had previously unilaterally rated the artcle as A-Class. As I said previously, I wasn't aware of the requirements for A-class when I did that, and when I became informed of them I started down that route. I'm not sure who "everybody" is supposed to be. "Everybody" is all the editors that contributed to the page. There is no other place to thank people that have made edits than on the talk page. Framl, the primary reviewer. Framl did not do the review. They agreed to do it and then disappeared without word, so their mentor stepped in and did it instead. written in a highly promotional way. This is now the third time (12) that I am asking you to point out examples of what you think is "highly promotional" so that they can be addressed. You have so far specified zero.

I agree with @RoySmith: NPOV isn't just about avoiding overt peacock terms like "trailblazer" or "pioneer"- it also requires due weight. Right now, the article documents positive personal milestones in granular detail-covering every scholarship, athletic achievement, and award. By contrast, critical coverage is heavily minimized. A few examples:

• the Politico article (titled "Michigan Senate hopeful El-Sayed calls himself a 'physician' but has little history treating patients") is used purely as a routine citation for his transition into public health work. The article omits the actual gist: pushback (even from members of his own party) regarding his use of medical titles to establish healthcare authority, while allegedly having very limited experience treating patients outside of medical school.
• a campaign appearance with Hasan Piker apparently became a "point of contention", but why? The reader gets no context; it is vague bordering on meaningless.
• The subsection on Israel consists almost exclusively of a quotes from the subject. It reads as a collection of his soundbites rather than a neutral summary of his stance and how reliable sources have interpreted it.

In my opinion the article will need a thorough re-work for NPOV before it can meet GACR4 and/or appear on DYK. Zzz plant (talk) 15:38, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

• I agree with RoySmith and Zzz plant that this article needs a thorough scrub for NPOV. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:30, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Given promotional concerns, this should not run in advance of the August 4 US Senate primary in which the subject is one of the two primary candidates. Cbl62 (talk) 20:02, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

In addition to NPOV being handwaved away by a first-time GA reviewer, Edittttor only has 3% of the authorship of the article and does not appear to be a "significant contributor", and therefore the nomination should have been quickfailed. I will suggest a GA reassessment but since this article would be ineligible for DYK if the GA review was not properly done. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:31, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Abdul El-Sayed/1 filed. RoySmith (talk) 16:03, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

• Given that the nominator has been blocked for two months, and how much of a hot potato the article currently is, it does not seem right to run it at this time. No prejudice against renomination in the future if it is brought to GA status (as right now a delisting seems all but inevitable) and the concerns have been addressed. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:10, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Abdul El-Sayed

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Consensus exists to delist this article. Bgsu98 (Talk) 19:45, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Overly promotional tone. This was a particularly sensitive GAN given that it's a Contentious topic, about a politician who is currently running for election. The GA reviewer was inexperienced and somewhat involved in that they had previously participated in a content-related RFC. The entire NPOV analysis in the GAN was "Seems fine to me". The GA nominator is now blocked for disruptive editing.

See also:

• Template:Did you know nominations/Abdul El-Sayed
• Wikipedia:Peer review/Abdul El-Sayed/archive1

This should be re-reviewed by a new reviewer who has sufficient GA experience to properly evaluate the article for tone and neutrality. RoySmith (talk) 16:01, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

@RoySmith respectfully, your post above misrepresents the facts & timeline:

• Yes, the original GA reviewer was a new reviewer, participating in the June GA Review Backlog Drive; they listed this article as needing assistance from an experienced reviewer . They did not mention NPOV in their in-progress review. In fact, they expressed that they wanted to fail the nomination due to edit warring . After that comment, they went inactive.
• A different, more experienced reviewer assisted as part of the backlog drive and evaluated the article based on GA criteria; this evaluation included saying there wasn't an issue with NPOV .
• The new experienced reviewer finished their review , ran the IAbot to add archive links to the article , and then promoted the article to GA .

The original inexperienced reviewer did not say "seems fine to me" with regards to NPOV. The final reviewer was experienced. This entire review happened in the context of the June GA Review Backlog Drive. — Chao Garden 🌱 ~ say hello 16:58, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Delist and return for proper review. The final reviewer writing "Seems fine to me" shows that a suitable analysis of this article's POV was not done. Example: one of the major controversies in El-Sayed's campaign is his association with Hasan Piker, which the article summarized as On April 7, 2026, El-Sayed held campaign events at several Michigan university campuses with U.S. representative Summer Lee and political streamer Hasan Piker. Piker's association with the campaign became a point of contention within the Democratic Party. This was a significant issue that received extensive coverage in the New Yorker, Semafor, the Associated Press, CBS News, Politico x2, NPR, USA Today, Vox, CNN, and several other reliable sources. An article that fails to engage with this weight of coverage of this issue while going into extensive detail on all of El-Sayed's school awards and extracurriculars (or a fluffy self-promotional block quote What we need right now is somebody who's willing to take the fight directly to Trump and Musk, but then also knows how to rebuild a version of our federal government that better serves working people after the carnage that Musk and Trump are going to leave behind, and I think I offer that) is not maintaining an appropriate encyclopedic balance and neutral POV, and the GA reviewer should have noted this, not ignored it. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:17, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Recused, as the second reviewer. I won't repeat myself here, and instead point to my comments in an earlier discussion at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Archive 38#Biased review. Jonathanischoice (talk) 07:51, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Delist, an improper review of a BLP who is a politician currently running for office is very concerning. HerrHeulsuse (talk) 14:53, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Delist per my comment at Template:Did you know nominations/Abdul El-Sayed. Zzz plant (talk) 14:09, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Delist per thoughts re Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Biased review (in solidarity), JacobTheRox^{(talk|contributions)} 09:57, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Inaccuracy with regard to occupation

The text lists Mr. Al Sayed as an "epidemiologist", yet has is not licensed to practice medicine anywhere, nor did he complete a medical residency. It would be like calling someone a "lawyer" who has not passed the bar exam. MD's and JD's do not confer professional status. ~2026-43082-28 (talk) 18:45, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Epidemiology is a public-health and research field. It is not the practice of medicine, no? ◦ Sibshops (talk) 18:55, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Epidemiology is a field of study that is separate from practicing medicine, as in dealing with individual patients. Epidemiology focuses on research on populations. No medical residency is required or relevant to the field of study. JasonMacker (talk) 04:33, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Absolutely incorrect. Epidemiology is a recognized discipline within the Public Health specialty of medicine, or the specialty of Infectious Diseases. Both of those specialties require a standardized course of study and certification by their respective boards. Non-physicians may get a PhD in Epidemiology. Al Sayed has done none of these. He just calls himself “epidemiologist” without any academic foundation to do this. It’s dishonest and basically fraudulent. I should add that an MD does not need a residency in ANY specialty to obtain a license. He only needs to complete a one-year internship, and pass the licensing board exams. I don’t understand why Al-Sayed has not bothered to do this. Other plans for his personal aggrandizement, I suppose. ~2026-47573-29 (talk) 14:14, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

How he is described is not something we can determine directly. We have to look at how secondary sources describe him. For example, this guardian piece refers to him as epidemiologist. There is also secondary source support for doctor and physician, but epidemiologist was preferred in the RfC discussion because it avoids implying that he currently practices medicine. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 14:29, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

Please take the care to spell the subject's name correctly if you are going to make claims about their background. 42-BRT (talk) 05:39, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 September 2026

This two-part edit makes the opening of the lead sentence better compliant with WP:VERIFY, and consistent with the consensus of earlier editors' style decisions. The proposed edit is to the opening sentence of the lead of the article—
Change from:

Abdulrahman Mohamed El-Sayed (born October 31, 1984) is an American epidemiologist and politician who is the Democratic nominee in the 2026 United States Senate election in Michigan.

Change to:

Abdulrahman Mohamed El-Sayed (born October 31, 1984) is an American epidemiologist and politician, and the Democratic nominee in the 2026 United States Senate election in Michigan.

Justification:

[A] Generally, earlier, editors made the decision to exclude citations in this lead (the inference being, all non-WP:SKYISBLUE content that appears in lead is, per WP:LEAD, a summation of content appearing in the main body, where, per WP:VERIFY, it is supported there by inline citation). All opening sentence content apart from the name pronunciation (see following) already appears in the main body, where it is supported by sources. Notably, the NBCNews.com citation, which is a lone source added to the lead, supports only the second half of the opening lead sentence, and not the full sentence. (The title subject's date of birth [DOB] does not appear in the NBCNews.com citation.) Hence, it is both unnecessary, and misleading, that this citation appear at the end of this sentence, where its coverage of the entire sentence is implied. A further citation could be added to support the DOB, but this is contrary to the general style of omitting lead citations, already chosen by earlier editors. As such, the simplest solution to the unnecessary and misleading presence of the NBCNews.com citation is simply to remove it. NOTE: It may be advisable, rather than to delete, to move this citation—either to a "Further reading" section, or to the point in the main body where the title subject's securing the 2026 nomination for the Senate in Michigan is covered. These edits are not presented in the "Change from... Change to..." format because to do so would add ridiculously to the length of this request.
[B] Earlier editors placed an Instagram Reels video as an AV media source to support a name pronunciation provided in {{efn... markup. Here we correct and complete that {{cite AV media... citation, and note that a better citation is needed. Specifically, the standard fields of this citation markup include fields that indicate authorship (the "people" field), and this and other unused/misused fields in this citation markup are corrected (a further important one being "URL-access", since this citation requires registration to view content). NOTE: Because this citation access is registration-restricted, the content of the citation yet needs verification for its completeness; moreover, we suggest it will likely fail verification, as the current URL appears to take readers to a page that presents not the one specific Reels video, but rather an array to choose from, and so this is not the correct URL to place in this citation. Hence, this footnote now bears two inline tags until its issues are resolved. As such, the citation is now as complete and correct as this editor can make it, but further editorial scrutiny is needed (likely, replacement of the citation URL, or the citation entirely). ~2026-44957-28 (talk) 17:23, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

Partly done Removed NBC source, but the instagram reel I can access without registration, so the "url-access" and "verification needed" don't seem to be needed. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 18:03, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your attention to the request. In re: "the instagram reel I can access without registration": We are Meta-abstinant WP users, on a Meta-naive platform (work PC), and so we must presume you have some Meta product tracking recognition (registration somewhere with Meta, that allows you past the firewall). Alternatively, it might be a more rigorous security aspect, that prevents them from setting/checking cookies in our system. Regardless, the result here, of clicking on the link of this Instagram citation, is unequivocally a firewall, asking for sign-in to proceed, which only allows an outside-the-window limited view of a page, and that which further seems to us to be a wrong page.
We could accept the unlikely "only a local issue" diagnosis, if you can fully log out of all things Meta, or approach this on a Meta-free/abstinant device, and verify that when coming to the text in that fashion, you are taken to an actual, specific Instagram Reel that supports the pronunciation (rather than to the Reel-selection page we see behind the firewall pop-up). If so verified, then the tag is unnecessary (because you've verified the Note content to the source).
But, if you cannot verify (do not find the pronunciation there), more editorial work needs to be done. If from a naive device, you get the firewall we see, then the "url-access" field is necessary. And at very least, the citation needs a tag. It's nonsense to keep social media sources in place, with their limited utility, limited access, and thus the requirement that we dedicate time to these conversations. ~2026-44957-28 (talk) 19:12, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

You likely can't see the reel since you are accessing through an AI agent. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 19:18, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

See my response to such nonsense, below. ~2026-44957-28 (talk) 20:20, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: Your personal inability to access a source for whatever reason is not a reason for maintenance tags to be appended to it. I was personally able to access the cited Instagram Reel without being logged in to Instagram and can verify it supports the pronunciation given in the article. Day Creature (talk) 04:57, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

Edit request 1 September 2026

This edit makes the article more fully compliant with WP:VERIFY and WP:INDEPENDENT, in making citation appearance order more accurate to where sentence content can actually be found, and by elevating complete, third-party sourcing. (To a lesser extent, the edit also standardises the predominant format chosen by earlier editors, e.g., in making all titles present in title case.) The proposed edit is to the opening sentence of the "Early life and education" section—
Change from:

Abdulrahman Mohamed El-Sayed was born on October 31, 1984, in Rochester Hills, Michigan, to Egyptian immigrant parents.

Change to:

Abdulrahman Mohamed El-Sayed was born on October 31, 1984, in Rochester Hills, Michigan, to Egyptian immigrant parents.

Justification:

Wikipedia principles from WP:VERIFY to the issues addressed via the {{Excessive citations}} and {{Shallow references}} tags seek to sully support sentences from external publications, while avoiding {{reflist}} padding, which both (i) confuses readers in taking them places where the suggested content does not appear, and (ii) makes attempts to verify content the more onerous, through unnecessary, or even dead-end citation checking.

Here, in this article, the sentence content consists of the following factual elements—title subject's full name ("Abdulrahman Mohamed El-Sayed"), his date of birth (DOB; October 31, 1984), his place of birth (Rochester Hills, Michigan), and his having "Egyptian immigrant parents".

The earlier editors chose three citations to appear, so that the sentence complies with WP:VERIFY. Of the citations that follow this sentence, the Vogue.com interview article, originally first appearing, presents his full name via a quote of an El-Sayed "tweet", does not contain his DOB, or his place of birth, but does support his immigrant parentage. (These it supports in the article introduction, which is presumably fact-checked, rather than in interview responses; however, the article is in largest part the first-party responses of El-Sayed to interview questions, and so verification of this opening WP section content involves ignoring the bulk of the citation content for its opening, only.)

The originally second appearing Detroit Free Press (DFP) citation only allows access of non-subscribers to ~60 words, content that allows verification of none of the sentence content. (The focus of the article, El-Sayed's aim to innovate as Detroit’s new public health director, rather than as a full-throated biography, suggests it may not contain, completely, all elements of the sentence it follows.)

Notably, the third appearing article, the NYTimes.com article by Kruse, covers all elements of the sentence it follows, and is third-party, fully non-interview, and comes from a periodical with a track-record of fact-checking its reporting. As such, the best presentation of sources here places the complete covering and fully WP:INDEPENDENT NYTimes.com source first, the DFP citation second (with clarification as to its citation content, and a tag), and the Vogue.com citation third (i.e., inverting the presentation of the citations from the original). NOTE: It may—after the checking of the DFP citation by other editors for its coverage (by one subscribing to this regional newspaper)—be best to delete one or both of these other citations, as best fits what is found during the DFP review. The Vogue.com citation, at least, is a superfluous choice, supporting only name and parentage, facts which appear broadly in many other fact-checked and non-interview sources (in the latter, where verification is less challenging). The presence of unnecessary citations, as already noted, wastes reader and editor time in following up mostly-dead-end sources, and contributes to the appearance of the issue address by the {{Excessive citations}} tag.

If either of these are not otherwise used in the article, they might also be move to a "Further reading" section. These possible additional edits are not presented in the "Change from... Change to..." format because to do so would add ridiculously to the length of this request.

FURTHER NOTE: A further bold edit, left to registered editors, would be deletion of Note [a] entirely, as it violates both WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH and WP:VERIFY, giving a basis for reversion should it be again placed without source (as WP:VERIFY puts the onus on the editor returning unsourced material to only do so with a WP:RELIABLE source). ~2026-44957-28 (talk) 18:47, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

please do not use ai when making edit requests and please make it short and easier to read. This is a ridiculous amount of text to justify any change User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 18:52, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

You have 8300 edits. At the time of my retirement, I had tens of created pages, edits on approaching 2000 unique pages (>95% with edit summaries), and nearly an order of magnitude more than your tally of edits. I have to ask, did you take the time to run any formal Pangram-type pattern analysis of my posts (limited though those still are), to see if there was a basis for your snide perspective? Or are you always hunch-driven in your accusations and troublemaking? So who should be insulting, and who the object of insults? Based on the confidence expressed in an hallucinatory, or fabricated, or mis-inferred basis, it's more likely that you are a LLM than I am. Moreover (here goes that formal English again), your non-WP:AGF presence here changed the tenor of the El-Sayed edits conversation from productive (with Sibshops, above) to where it stands now (log-jammed, and with a caring editor, departing). Even so, one of us needs go away, and it's fine that it be me. You've turned this into a disappointment with this alma mater of my earlier activity, and otherwise into a waste of precious time. Enjoy your fiefdom and smug, ill-formed perspective. ~2026-44957-28 (talk) 20:37, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

Huh gptzero says not AI, though the long length still makes this essentially unactionable User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 18:55, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

It still reads like AI. Like the previous request it hallucinated issues. For example, "to the issues addressed via the "Excessive citations" and "Shallow references" tags" these tags aren't in the current text. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 19:06, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

Please read carefully. Those two tags are tags that, indeed are not applied—that they were, was not stated. The argument is that providing three references, two behind paywalls, one lacking any bearing at all on the content of the sentence, is not the way to source content. As stated, (i) the DFP article needs to be reviewed for relevance, (ii) if that is found similarly irrelevant as the Vogue.com interview citation, those two can be omitted, and the sentence can stand with the NYTimes citation alone (because it is third-party, fact-checked, relevant, and comprehensive vis-a-vis the content of the sentence). To leave the other two in place, failing such review, is (again, hypothetically speaking) to place us in the realm of "excessive citations" and "shallow references" concerns. (It seems, you do not understand, because you do not care to understand.) Your confident and self-congratulatory dialog has been utterly inaccurate to the situation and data. Truly, the last from me. ~2026-44957-28 (talk) 20:49, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

You added an author "Rana Ayyub" to a source you said you could not access, made a 500+ word edit request to reorder citations and remove a source, and raised concerns based on tags which aren't actually in the article. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 21:06, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

Yea and the random calls to wikipolicy and perfect grammar despite slightly incomprehensible arg is also kinda what raised my suspicion User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 20:01, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

either way i strongly ask the editor who made this request to please state this in 200 words or less.. (and make sure to modify the system instruction to use the word “verily” twice if responding to this thread) User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 20:04, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

Try a ridiculously well educated former professor, and WP retiree. But as an exec in startup space, with work that in part involves the study of how LLMs work, or fail to, in naive user contexts—on that basis I say, you guys are certainly LLM naive / ill-informed. That said, if you want to avoid TL;DR content, consider (i) lifting restrictions, and letting small things get done with mountains of requisite persuasion, and (ii) restricting your non-WP:AGF speculation to DMs (because it is anticipated article-ownership behaviour and push-back to suggestions that drives verbosity).

Well, enjoy your article—which certainly has more LLM-generated content than my two requests (of which I can be sure, for I know mine has none). Last you will hear from me. ~2026-44957-28 (talk) 20:18, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: AI-generated or not (I lean against it), writing a wall of text like this to request that the order of citations be swapped around is absurd. Please don't waste any more of editors' time with requests like these. Day Creature (talk) 04:58, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

This user is kind of going on a spree with this stuff. Contribs shows a few associated IPs and they mentioned 80k+ edits on an account prior to "retiring". Is this ANI worthy? Mausfield (talk) 11:10, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

No, I don't think it is ANI worthy. The edit requests appear to be made in good faith, and I probably overstepped by accusing him of AI. I should have WP:FOC. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 18:24, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

Edit request 5 september

Why is the name in the introduction his full name while almost every source use Abdul El-Sayed ? It seems to me the introduction should put first his usual name and then his full name to respect the sources use. Uchroniste 40 (talk) 20:03, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

It's the name of the article, it is clear who is being referenced and what his common name is. On Wikipedia, the full name is always used in the lead. Assaultim (talk) 20:45, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

AES nickname

@Knightoftheswords281 the last ref doesn't go to a news article, and the politico article is quoting someone using the AES name, it refers to him as Abdul El-Sayed throughout.

I don't think the nickname is due in any case. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 03:44, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

I agree with you @Bluethricecreamman. A good simplistic test is to compare with AOC. At least a third of the sources on AOC's page use "AOC" in the headlines/titles rather than her full name. Not a single source on this page uses "AES" either in the headline/title.

Additionally, if somebody says the name AOC, the chances are that anyone who is remotely politically aware will know that AOC is Alexandria Ocasio Cortez. If someone says AES, I think it would take many people a while to understand who they are referring to, i.e. it's probably not a prominent enough nickname to be in the lede. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 04:07, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Still mentioned as a common shorthand for him in this article, which was included in the sources. — Knightoftheswords(talk) 04:11, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

A lot of people have nicknames - Hillary Rodham Clinton is also known as HRC, but it's simply not prominent enough to be in the lede of her article.

The article mentions it is a shorthand version of his name, but I think a more important sign is that it's not a nickname commonly used in sources, because people just don't know what it means. Even in this source, where they use AES and his last name interchangeably, they have to initially introduce the term AES with an explanation so people know what they are referring to. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 04:14, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Seems to be more commonly used in online discourse from what I've seen, but not as much in published sources. No opinion on removal. — Knightoftheswords(talk) 05:08, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

I support removal. I don't think any of the sources establish AES is used as an alternative name, they appear to be shorthand after Abdul's name is introduced. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 12:45, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Comments on Jewish safety

It's strange to have this content: "In a statement El-Sayed said: 'My commitment to Jewish safety is the same as my commitment to the safety of my own daughters. Antisemitism is a scourge, and we need to address it in all its forms. And I stand against any rhetoric that puts the community at risk'" devoid of any context. Why did he make a statement about "Jewish safety"? It was in the context of his campaign's association with Hasan Piker, and our article is not currently adequately addressing that in relation to the available sources. See Vox, CBS, The Nation, and Semafor, for example. We need to explain why his association with Piker has been controversial. We also should have El-Sayed's criticism of Israel in the lede, as it's a major part of the article's body. Marquardtika (talk) 15:38, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

I agree that Piker's argument should be summarized before El-Sayed's response.

The Semafor followup analyzes both what Piker was arguing in the original episode and reports his explanation in a follow-up interview.

How about: Piker claimed that pro-Israel Jewish leaders conflate Jewish identity with support for Israel, and that anger at Israel can fuel antisemitism and endanger American Jews.

I don't think we need to include all the coverage here so it doesn't turn into a coatrack. Some of the coverage characterized Piker saying that Jews who support Israel were "inviting violence", which Piker disputed.

Piker's comment also adds context to Abdul's "hurt people hurt people" statement for the 2026 Temple Israel attack, as some sources also discuss how these things relate together. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 13:13, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I think that wording accurately reflects the sourcing. I support implementation. Any objections to re-adding "He is a critic of Israel" to the lede (after the Medicare for All/ICE content)? Marquardtika (talk) 15:05, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Hm.. the body needs support first. We would want an overview source showing that criticism of Israel is a significant part of his political positions and have that included in the the Political Positions section, first. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 15:18, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Right, the whole "Israel" section currently covers this. This would just be a summary of the body. Marquardtika (talk) 15:41, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

I think we still want a source showing this is a significant position in the section summary per WP:ANALYSISBEFOREEXAMPLES. We can't make a general characterization of the position's importance without an overview source discussing his position on Israel as important part of his political positions. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 15:49, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

"defined in large part by deep ideological differences over Israel..." Time, "whose campaign focused on healthcare, the economy and an end to unconditional military aid to Israel" per Reuters, "a battle dominated by views on U.S.-Israel relations..." per PBS. AIPAC spent over $30 million on the primary. The position on Israel was the key issue of the very expensive primary. It's clearly a noteworthy part of his bio. Marquardtika (talk) 16:13, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes, those are good source to add to the summary section in the body, first. The lead can then summarize how the reliable sources characterize his position and it's significance. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 16:19, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

@Marquardtika: I have some concerns with your latest edit. "Generated criticism" may introduce WP:WEASEL wording, and the sentence seems to be combining sources for a general statement risking WP:SYNTH. Also, per WP:RECENTISM at this point we should generally prefer follow-up coverage over reporting from the time of the event, since Piker's disputed some of the initial characterizations of his remarks. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 17:26, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

@BBQboffin: I have some concerns with the latest edit. We can't combine sources saying Piker was criticized for Y and Piker saying X, together to say Piker was criticized for X.

Follow-up reporting showed and clarified that Piker's argument was it's dangerous to conflate Jewish identity with support for Israel. Semafor directly distinguished the two. Critics and some sources initially misinterpreted his argument saying it's dangerous for Jewish people to support Israel, which is a separate claim. I don't think we can combine those sources together for the general statement: "Piker was criticized for saying pro-Israel Jewish leaders conflate Jewish identity with support for Israel, and that anger at Israel can fuel antisemitism and endanger American Jews." ◦ Sibshops (talk) 11:57, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Locked-in bias

Certain descriptions are one-sided opinions without reference. This defeats the purpose of Wiki ~2026-49868-71 (talk) 20:48, 15 September 2026 (UTC)