Talk:Ali Abunimah

message: :Image:One-country-abunimah.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 04:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:One-country-abunimah.jpg

message: If you search Ali Abunimah's history of radio appearances, you'll see there are hundreds of debates with people that are more notable  -- Dennis Ross and a former Prime Minister of Jamaica. He's been interviewed at length by Ron Kampeas and been on major world media.  There are more notable and longer interviews and radio appearances among hundreds in the subject's career. He's also written articles that have appeared in The New York Times, the Chicago Tribune and The Guardian. If the article is going to contain references to specific media appearances then there has to be some rationale for why something is included. It's also not mentioned in Daniel Pipes so why does it matter here? 166.137.138.79 (talk) 01:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: A debate is a good way to clarify someone's ideas. If you believe there are more notable debates than the one with Daniel Pipes, feel free to add them, but don't just delete the debate, leaving nothing. --Nbauman (talk) 19:18, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability of Daniel Pipes and 2002 debate 

message: I've removed a paragraph from this article. Here is why:
*i) Abunimah does not mention bin Laden in his NYT editorial. Referencing this editorial under a headline that screamed "Osama" was, as such, rather inappropriate.
*ii) The other Abunimah work mentioned in this section (dated from 2000), includes the observation that people should be skeptical (but not dismissive) of the State Department's claims regarding Osama bin Laden, due to the Clinton administration's dubious rationalizations of the 1998 bombing of the Sudan. This is one observation out of many in the article in question, most of which had nothing to do with al-Qaeda. For us to use the National Review (a hostile source) as our only source for this rather complicated matter is not consistent with WP:NPOV. CJCurrie (talk) 02:18, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: My recent edit

message: In 2009, Abunimah wrote an article for the Electronic Intifada entitled, Israeli Jews and the one-state solution.
At one stage in this article, Abunimah writes the following: 
Israel’s self-image as a liberal “Jewish and democratic state” is proving impossible to maintain against the reality of a militarized, ultra-nationalist Jewish sectarian settler-colony that must carry out frequent and escalating massacres of “enemy” civilians (Lebanon and Gaza 2006, Gaza 2009) in a losing effort to check the resistance of the region’s indigenous people.
User:Soosim has extrapolated this in the following ways:
:"Abunimah claims that Jews and Israelis are not part of the "region's indigenous people."" ()
:"Abunimah claims that only Palestinian Arabs are part of the "region's indigenous people."" ()
In fact, Abunimah has not done either of these things, and the suggestion that he has is a serious WP:BLP violation and should be removed from the article on sight. CJCurrie (talk) 06:43, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: hey cj - hope all is well. thanks for your pointing this out. i will look more carefully at it in the future. sorry. why don't we just use the entire quote as you have it here above - is that ok? he certainly wrote that as is. and thanks for the other edits and revisions.  well done!  oh, one more thing. abunimah = electronic intifada. it is his, so saying he 'wrote for' isn't quite right, since indeed he is the founder and editor. Soosim (talk) 11:56, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a better idea: why don't we summarize the main argument of Abunimah's article and include his comments on Zionism within that context, rather than presenting them in isolation. Also, Abunimah is the founder and editor of the EI, but he's written for other papers as well; hence, "wrote for" is appropriate. CJCurrie (talk) 04:38, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: "Israeli Jews and the one-state solution"

message: Regarding this: Abunimah never says Foxman influenced Brevik as it is so boldly written now. It is clear his only point is that Foxman is contributing to the climate of Islamophobia. -asad (talk) 15:34, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the information about Abraham Foxman should be included. I'm not trying to defend anything that he is saying, but this is an article about him, so his notable viewpoints should be represented.Comatmebro ~Come at me~ 23:07, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abunimah on Foxman 

message: I'd like to draw attention to the sequence of recent edits made by user DaltonCastle which add a really quite biased slant on the whole article, with fragments such as "It has been noted that one of the prominent themes at Al-Awda’s demonstrations has been support for terrorist groups" which are completely unsourced and have a significant impact on the tone of the article, making it seem as though it is trying to discredit him rather than simply have information on him. I'm unsure on how this should be approached but I don't think this level of flooding an article with inflammatory "news" on someone belongs in a Wikipedia article. —Mr. MetalFlower · chat  · what I done did do 19:48, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Is anyone at all going to do anything about this? I really don't know what to do or who to talk to. Since my post here the editor has continued to flood this article with things such as entire sections based on an "news" article labelling Ali's site "anti-semitic" and "funded by a dutch NGO". It's really getting hugely out of hand and changing the entire tone of the article. —Mr. MetalFlower · chat  · what I done did do 22:01, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: recent edits

message: This section contained major error claiming Abunimah participated in the Mavi Marmara voyage.  The editor who added this claim offered no source to prove it.  I've corrected this to note that Abunimah did participate in the Gaza Freedom MARCH in 2009, (not the Gaza Freedom Flotilla of 2010, as had been claimed).  There are many sources supporting this.  I offered a Democracy Now news segment which included an interview with him in Egypt.
Richard Silverstein (talk) 07:37, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Mavi Marmara

message: Regarding this edit: 
If the article 2014 kidnapping and murder of Israeli teenagers is correct, then: "A Hebrew-language Facebook page calling on PM Netanyahu to assume his responsibilities and requesting that a Palestinian "terrorist" be executed every hour until the three youths are restored to their families, gained 10,000 thumb-ups within hours" 
However, Gilead  Ini himself seem to misrepresent this, by saying Abunimah translates  "terrorist"  to "Palestinian". He does not. He cuts out a word in a twitter-feed; not an uncommon thing to do, I would assume. Huldra (talk) 22:19, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Except, of course, that it is The Guardian and the New York Times that called Abunimah on the false translation, and printed corrections.  It speaks to Abunimah's reliability and reputation.ShulMaven (talk) 21:00, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh? Your Guardian article does not even mention Abunimah by name, it say: "• This article was amended on 18 June 2014. An earlier version incorrectly stated, due to a mistranslation, that a post on a Facebook page was "calling for Israel to kill one Palestinian an hour" when in fact it referred to "one Palestinian terrorist" an hour." Please don´t  turn mistranslation into false translation. Your other refs are to blogs.timesofisrael.com and Camera; hardly the most WP:RS for a BLP of a Palestinian activist. Huldra (talk) 21:10, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  BLP-violation 

message: I stumbled across this -- http://dartington.org.uk/about/fellows-and-associates/ali-abunimah/ apparently Abunimah is an employee of the UK government!  Surprised, as I had assumed he was American, I came to the article and saw nothing.  That strikes me as a pretty big miss?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.168.151.104 (talk) 20:48, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Abunimah is not an employee of the Social Research Unit at Dartington, but an independent associate. And in any case, the unit is not part of the UK government but, as its site states, "an independent charity". So there is nothing relevant here to add to the article. RolandR (talk) 21:19, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wondering why this isn't in teh article 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Ali Abunimah. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070205130259/http://www.abunimah.org:80/ to http://abunimah.org/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:49, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Substituted at 07:17, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: As Electronic Intifada is depreciated, its use is generally discouraged. However, I would consider this to be a case of ABOUTSELF. Does someone disagree? FortunateSons (talk) 01:15, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  I consider the use of EI-sourced acceptable here, does someone disagree