Talk:The Electronic Intifada

Unnecessary "citation" tags

Just removed two extraneous "citation needed" tags... in both cases, the information was supported by an associated external link in the text. 128.232.240.178 18:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Criticism not substantive

I'm not going to delete it, but the only criticism of EI listed at the moment is that EI is "an explicitly pro-Palestinian political and ideological Web site". Well, the website is named Electronic Intifada-- so the fact it's explicitly pro-Palestinian isn't exactly a meaningful criticism. Should I add a "Criticism" section to the Veterans of Foreign Wars article stating that the VFW is "explicitly pro-veteran"? I guess my point is that pointing out the obvious, in and of itself, hardly qualifies as "criticism" and is just plain dumb. --Nicky Scarfo 17:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdiaz8 (talk • contribs) 03:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree - the section over criticism is not substantive. Electronic Intefada is biased towards the Palestinian perspective and has been accused of such by many. If the article is to state that EI "states facts" then you must acknowlege the vast number of criticisms that have been aimed at EI.

Abraham Lev —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.132.222.240 (talk) 07:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Usage of EI

I am wondering why "EI" is used to indicate Electronic Intifada throughout the article. Firstly, the article shows that it should be "ei". Secondly, it's a website, not a newspaper or other source that should be italicized. If we are going to use it capitalized we should make that clear in the opening. gren グレン 20:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Because that's how we did it at EI from February 2001 onwards. Just because the logo is lowercase doesn't mean that acronyms cease to exist. If you want to be correct, the name of the publication is The Electronic Intifada, don't forget the "The". Flyingmonkeyairlines —Preceding undated comment added 23:54, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Founders of EI

Can someone with editing capability please remove the link from "Nigel Parry" to the celebrity photographer with the same name? They are not the same person. Flyingmonkeyairlines —Preceding undated comment added 22:41, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Question: If Laurie King, and Nigel Parry are not Laurie King and Nigel Parry, should they 1)Not be mentioned as non-notable or 2) shouldn't we be told something about them, ie who they are and what is their background? And it would be nice to know something about Arjan El Fassed too considering he is one of the founders. Tundrabuggy (talk) 14:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Information is available at EI's staff bios page. Arjan El Fassed is also the author of a Dutch-language book called Niet iedereen kan stenen gooien. Bangpound (talk) 16:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Nothing here about Nigel Parry and is there a start-up date associated with the founding? Tundrabuggy (talk) 21:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

See Introducing the Electronic Intifada. Bangpound (talk) 02:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes thank you. Still not finding out anything about who Nigel Parry might be, though. Is this from DiscoverTheNetworks.org about Abunimah and the Electronic Intifada, accurate in your estimation, or to your knowledge?

Born in Washington, DC on December 29, 1971, Ali Abunimah is a Palestinian American who serves as the Board of Directors Member for the Chicago-based Arab American Action Network. He is also a co-founder of the Electronic Intifada website, which was created by activists affiliated with the International Solidarity Movement. His personal website, abunimah.org, acts as a clearinghouse for his writings, which are fiercely hostile toward Israel and the United States.

DiscoverTheNetworks.org's biography of Ali Abunimah is not verifiable. DiscoverTheNetworks.org is not WP:RS. The quotes are not sourced. The facts are just wrong. I wouldn't use it. Bangpound (talk) 12:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Old News - CAMERA and Wikipedia

I've poked through the history for both the article and discussion - but there's no explanation as to why this edit removed all mention of EI blowing CAMERA's infiltration campaign of Wikipedia.

The only note I can find, is the edit history, which states, "CAMERA and Wikipedia: rm section. this is off-topic". I have no idea what "rm section" means. "remove"? Because it's off-topic? How it it off-topic? EI was rather involved in the event.

As it stands, there's a link to CAMERA, which is not explained at all to the casual reader. Surely it should be explained? Perhaps documented as well, since it is, to the Wiki community at least, relevant enough to warrant it's inclusion on the article of those that broke the story?

I can't see any reason why it was removed. If it's redundant - well, look around. Lots of articles contain redundant information, where the same information is repeated on multiple articles.

I'll leave it for a couple of days - if there's no complaint, then I'll just have a go at restoring it. GrizzledOldMan (talk) 11:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Righto - added back in. GrizzledOldMan (talk) 08:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I really think this section should be deleted. Maybe I don't understand the whole history of the controversy but it doesn't seem to matter much in the context of EI's history and it's unclear how they were involved. They were the group to uncover the whole controversy? Even so, it really doesn't seem to merit being on this page. I would like to hear other people's responses. Otherwise, I will consider deleting it. ShamWow (talk) 20:59, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. There were also people who wanted it to stay in February - I doubt their viewpoints have changed now. It is interesting and relevant what discoveries ei has made. If you consider it to give undue weight to the CAMERA issue, feel free to add information on other news stories ei has been involved in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.157.166.210 (talk) 13:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

While most of the Wikipedia campaign action took place on Wikipedia itself, several editors have consistently inserted reference to EI's involvement in several related articles. It would be inconsistent to remove it from this article. cojoco (talk) 01:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Shamwow, they EI did uncover the emails, they were printed in Harper's, and the rest of the action occurred on WP, with some editors sanctioned. It's as much a WP story as an I/P one. cojoco (talk) 01:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems discussion stopped in 2009, but it's worth it to bring it up again. EI has published many articles relating to the conflict, and there is no real reason to highlight just this one story on the article's page. It makes more sense just to leave that info on CAMERA's page. Unless there is going to be a broader catalog of stories investigated by EI on this page, the CAMERA entry is irrelevant, I feel.--Dvm258 (talk) 23:05, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

dvm - i could go either way on this. not sure we want to start listing stories written about (imagine doing that for the washington post....), but i also think that there is some EI connection here worth mentioning. maybe someone else will have a better idea? Soosim (talk) 09:40, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I was unaware of this story until a couple of days ago. I was heading for trouble on the Talk Page for Hezbollah causing me to try Googling - israel re-writes history of palestine - and was surprised to find this story about CAMERA, EI & Wikipedia among the results on a non-wikipedia website. It's important for the general reader to be able to easily verify at this stage that it isn't just some crazy conspiracy theory/urban myth/ propaganda - would be weird to have no mention of the story here...86.148.15.250 (talk) 13:15, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Allegations of anti-semitism

The allegations of anti-semitism section is far to long as it currently stands. The allegations were made by a group on the political fringe, and the Dutch government has so far not acted on the allegations. I will try and re-write the section, and shorten it considerably. Should the Dutch government organization cease funding ei, naturally that would be notable. As it is now, it is simply not a very notable accusation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snipanlol (talk • contribs) 06:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

How about something like this - under reception after the part about NGO monitor we add something like, "additionally, according to NGO monitor, EI is anti-semitic/makes anti-semitic statements", an allegation denied by EI and its dutch patron", with sources et al where necessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snipanlol (talk • contribs) 08:23, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

A common tactic used by the Islamists and their Communist allies is to discredit Jews by labeling them a "fringe group." This helps to draw attention away from the fact that they themselves are fringe groups. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ysrael392 (talk • contribs) 00:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

This "Accusations of anti-Semitism" section is asinine. It is a common discrediting tactic used by pro-Israeli government activists against anyone who even dares to talk about Palestinian human rights. As a co-founder and editor of EI from 2001 to 2007, as a longtime anti-Apartheid activist, and as a UK person whose relatives fought in and served in WWII to defeat Nazis, I made sure racism or even people with questionable phrasing didn't ever get near being published on EI. That's why there's no Carlos Latuff cartoons on EI, despite him submitting many. While much of Latuff's stuff wasn't problematic, some of his cartoons had classic anti-Semitic tropes (eg. hook-nosed Jews clutching dollar bills). So, I never published a single cartoon. If there truly was anti-Semitism on a site—which is 100% public record—presumably there would be a link to one or more examples? LOL, of course NGO Monitor/CAMERA/etc didn't have any such thing. Like many of their ilk, they are dishonest, tiresome, and asinine. flyingmonkeyairlines (flyingmonkeyairlines)

ray hanania's comments

these comments: Ray Hanania, Palestinian journalist, says that the Electronic Intifada "is a propaganda site for anti-Israel hatred that demonizes anyone who challenges their notion of a "One State Solution.'"

which i added, were written by ray in 2008, while he was on hiatus from the jpost and ynetnews. he published many columns on his on blog, and many were sent out to be posted elsewhere. not sure why this isn't acceptable since it is in his own voice. Soosim (talk) 14:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think an opinion published by mideastyouth.com is acceptable. The site is user generated and it doesn't qualify as an RS except about itself so the content has zero weight in this context. richardfalk.wordpress.com is in his own voice too. Would you accept that ? Sean.hoyland - talk 17:30, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Intersting that you sat that, because an article you edited (Dahiya doctrine) actually uses richardfalk.wordpress.com as a source for a rather controversial comment, and I didn't sse you object to that there. Perhaps you missied it. Shoudl I take it that you'll support removal of it? Ruby Tuesday ALMWR (talk) 19:27, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that it had been added and I wasn't aware that it had been removed, but yes, I support it's removal because it's not an RS in that context. I also support mideastyouth.com's efforts and I don't disagree with the view that EI is a propaganda site. None of that matters though because it's not about me, it's about editors complying with policy. If everyone did that, including complying with the policy on sockpuppetry, the topic area would be a far better place. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:21, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

If you are insinuating that I am Plot Spoiler's puppet [1] (or that he is mine), then let me assure you that is not the case. Let me also re-iterate that you've already been warned a couple of times about calling other editors sock puppets without proof[2], and that this has been found to be sanctionable. Ruby Tuesday ALMWR (talk) 22:55, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Yea, that is one bizarre claim... I recommend you strike it immediately Sean or I suppose it's technically a BLP defamation. Plot Spoiler (talk) 23:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

No RT, I'm not insinuating that you are Plot Spoiler's sockpuppet (motive ? why would PS need to use sockpuppetry ?) and PS, no I won't strike it. RT, I do think you are a probably sockpuppet though as is Jamussy. Warned by Shuki ? Don't be silly. Sockpuppetry is not allowed so if you are a sockpuppet you should say so/stop editing or at the very least be absolutely sure that every single edit you make is according to policy in which case no one will care. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:02, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

If you you think that he is a sock you should ask him like in other cases on his talk page.--Shrike (talk) 08:41, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

If an editor is not causing any disruption to content and the only editor they are commenting about is me, I don't care whether they are a sockpuppet. It would be better if there were no sockpuppetry but that is not possible right now. There is a line, when people cross it or start dancing around it, they get my interest. If they don't cross it, they can go about their business. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:11, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

sean - i don't care about richardfalk's blog. i care that if someone of relevance to a subject writes something in the first person and what they wrote is relevant to the subject, then it is fine. if i wrote about cell phones, who cares. i am irrelevant. but if ray hanania, an active, outspoken, public figure in the usa/israeli/palestinian sphere writes about EI, then it is relevant, and outweighs where it was posted. Soosim (talk) 06:31, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

But it doesn't qualify as an RS. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:02, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

sean - this started when a previous quote by ray hanania was removed because of a dead link. indeed, the article is nowhere to be found on that website anymore. so i looked around to find a substitute. no real good ones, but plenty of mediocre ones. anyway, what is your opinion about these two items:

-- here is the original article, reprinted in a google group: http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.jewish/browse_thread/thread/35dc137193e73671

-- and/or using the 'wayback machine' showing that the original article was there at one point: http://web.archive.org/web/20100119044827/http://palestinenote.com/cs/blogs/blogs/archive/2010/01/15/electronic-intifada-dominated-by-hypocrisy-and-selfish-politics.aspx

I don't understand why you are scraping the blog barrel though to build an encyclopedia. How about Emmanuel Navon, an Israeli academic (bio), who described EI as "a highly developed site that centralizes the Palestinian propaganda war on the Internet"[3] ? Sean.hoyland - talk 20:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

unfair sean - i am not scraping the blog barrel. not a nice comment. i am using ray's own words, period. he writes in many places, one of which is the blogosphere. it is in his own voice. what's wrong with that? Soosim (talk) 17:20, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I do apologise then. Allow me to rephrase. Why are you trying to use questionable sources to add contentious claims about a third party organization in an article covered by discretionary sanctions that require us to "utilize reliable sources for contentious or disputed assertions" when we're not supposed to do that ? I thought you would be happy with my herzliyaconference.org academic source. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:29, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 March 2019

I suggest (at least temporarily) removing the link to Nigel Parry's page until such time as it can be confirmed you've got the right Nigel Parry? - see recent request on article Talk Page - in view of the sensitivity of the subject it would be seriously wrong to link to the wrong person! If you still believe the link is correct I suggest your reasoning needs to go on the talk page 86.148.15.226 (talk) 23:28, 10 March 2019 (UTC) 86.148.15.226 (talk) 23:28, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Done, for now. I suggest someone contact Ali Abunimah and ask him, Huldra (talk) 23:50, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

I am the Nigel Parry who co-founded EI. https://twitter.com/flyingmonkeyair or http://nigelparry.net (see bio there). The celebrity photographer you linked to, also called Nigel Parry, is not me. If you want to link to something, use nigelparry.net. nigelparry.com, my old personal website, is defunct. flyingmonkeyairlines (User talk:flyingmonkeyairlines —Preceding undated comment added 23:59, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 September 2021

Reference 4 to about.com needs fixing. Change to either

• the person‘s CV at http://nigelparry.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/nigel-parry-resume-201908.pdf, or
• the archive at https://web.archive.org/web/20150924182707/http://middleeast.about.com/od/e/g/electronic-intifada.htm, or both.

The archive is probably preferable, as it supports what I suspect is Mr. Parry‘s go-to pick-up line, „Wikipedia says I’m eclectic“. Karl Oblique (talk) 12:55, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done: I've used the second link. Thanks. Eevee01^(talk) 08:42, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Philip Cross: use of a Petra Marquardt-Bigman blog article from the Jerusalem Post

Editors are required to contribute neutrally. I suggest that editors such as Philip Cross demonstrate that they're prepared to use blog articles by the equivalent of, say, Asa Winstanley, before they add more content from blogs by writers such as Petra Marquardt-Bigman to articles such as the current one on the Electric Intifada. Once again, I remind Philip Cross that just because you can source something, in this case an opinion from a blog by an extremely partial journalist, doesn't mean that it need be added.     ←   ZScarpia   13:11, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Since Asa Winstanley seems to write almost exclusively for EI, which is considered an "unreliable source" on Wikipedia, it is unlikely I would ever cite him. Dr Petra Marquardt-Bigman PhD, who died last year,[Actually January 7 this year - PC] was rather more than simply a journalist and is an ideal source for her perspective regardless as to whether one is Zionist or anti-Zionist. EI's attitude towards Zionism and Jews is a legitimate subject to include in this article. Prove my suspicions inaccurate, Zscarpia, and cite Petra Marquardt-Bigman yourself. Philip Cross (talk) 13:30, 23 September 2021 (UTC) [Amended: Philip Cross (talk) 18:11, 1 October 2021 (UTC) ]

We don't use blogs for articles, except under exceptional circumstances established on a talk page. Everyone knows that. As to the tagging. Anyone can tag, but if they do so, they should make a case for each tag suggestion on the talk page beforehand. Half of the sources here are from newspapers not particularly enamoured of the EJ.Nishidani (talk) 21:48, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Blogs are admissible sources when they are from reputable publications and written by "professional writers" (WP:NEWSBLOG). At present, about a quarter of the citations are to EI, a remarkable proportion for a website considered unreliable. Philip Cross (talk) 05:42, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Then how would you respond to this remark on a similar issue at the StandWithUs page? at this very moment I.e.

Material by an organization about itself is ok to use in articles about them - WP:SPS : "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities", so let's dispense with that non-policy based bit of nonsense. Inf-in MD (talk) 23:23, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

The point being, on a pro-Israeli advocacy lobby's wikipage, policy is cited to allow SPS, and on this page, re an anti-Zionist outfit, SPS, you argue, shouldn't apply. Different editors, but, arguably, from a similar POV.Nishidani (talk) 13:27, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

An opinion on Marquardt-Bigman from the opposite side of the ARBPIA fence: "<redacted>"

[SUBSTITUTED --] Opinions from sources on the opposite side of the ARBPIA fence would probably show that anti-Zionists would tend to disagree with your assessment about her work being an ideal source. [-- SUBSTITUTED]

"Prove my suspicions inaccurate, Zscarpia, and cite Petra Marquardt-Bigman yourself." Who, say, do you suspect might be the person with the most extreme views whose opinions I've inserted in article space?

So, for example, Dr Robert Fisk (PhD)'s work may have "serious credibility problems" and is perhaps "best not cited at all" (see here), but: "Dr Petra Marquardt-Bigman PhD was rather more than simply a journalist and is an ideal source for her perspective regardless as to whether one is Zionist or anti-Zionist."

Is Bruce Bawer (see here) also "an ideal source for (his) perspective regardless as to whether one is Zionist or anti-Zionist?"

The Electronic Intifada is considered "generally unreliable", which doesn't, of course, mean that it cannot be used under any circumstances.

    ←   ZScarpia   02:01, 1 October 2021 (UTC) [17:54, 1 October 2021 (UTC): substitution made]

The last RSN discussion was 2018 and seems to have been disrupted by socks. Why am I not surprised? Question is whether it it might be possible to have EI upgraded to "attribute" level, I am willing to first work on this article with a view to that end, if anyone wants to join in.Selfstudier (talk) 23:20, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

UNDUE

האופה when something is challenged simply re-reverting is a violation of WP:ONUS. It is also OR to claim that some article on EI is something to be quoted here as opposed to the thousands of other articles the site has published. Please self-revert and seek a consensus for the changes instead of attempting to impose them through edit-warring. Also including a raid without a conviction is a straightforward WP:BLPCRIME violation. nableezy - 16:13, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Given the lack of any response I’m going to revert. If you want to include this material get a consensus for it. nableezy - 02:29, 3 November 2024 (UTC)