Talk:The Electronic Intifada

message: 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)
thread_title: Unnecessary "citation" tags

message: 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)
thread_title: Criticism not substantive

message: 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)
thread_title:  Usage of ''EI'' 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Founders of EI 

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

text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Old News - CAMERA and Wikipedia 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Allegations of anti-semitism 

message: 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)
replies: text: Done, for now. I suggest someone contact Ali Abunimah and ask him, Huldra (talk) 23:50, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 March 2019 

message: 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)
replies: text:  I've used the second link. Thanks. Eevee01(talk) 08:42, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 September 2021