Talk:Ali Abunimah

Fair use rationale for Image:One-country-abunimah.jpg
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 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)

Notability of Daniel Pipes and 2002 debate
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)
 * 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)

My recent edit
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)

"Israeli Jews and the one-state solution"
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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

Abunimah on Foxman
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)


 * 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)

Twitter and 1RR
Soosim, yes, I think I probably did violate 1RR by restoring a source at 2013-04-11T06:25:10 (a partial revert I guess) and removing twitter at 2013-04-12T04:52:36‎ (a full revert) now you mention it. I don't have the opportunity to self-revert, but if you had asked me to self revert I would have declined, so feel free to file a report. Twitter is not useful in this instance because there is no evidence that anyone that matters, secondary sources, cares. Restoring material to a BLP for which there is no evidence of notability in the form of secondary source coverage that has been removed in good faith is not allowed. It's a textbook example of cherry-picking from an information-space in order to engineer a specific view. Since we are not propagandists, we are writing an encyclopedia, this approach is not useful or appropriate. My removal of the twitter material was reverted here by a "new" editor who is clearly not suited to edit in ARBPIA, especially BLPs. The material should be removed until there is evidence that it complies with policy and consensus to include it.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 08:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * funny how computers work. you and i both thought you violated, but i guess not. if indeed this is the case, i apologize, but you don't need to apologize. no harm done. as for abunimah's tweets, as i am writing this, i see more and more are getting involved in this. are you saying that abunimah didn't tweet and say this? or just that he said it, but it is not notable? Soosim (talk) 07:41, 16 April 2013 (UTC)


 * It was the latter rather than the former. I don't have any reason to believe Abunimah didn't issue the tweets below.
 * “Supporting Zionism is not atonement for the Holocaust, but its continuation in spirit.”
 * “It's racist to think Jews need a special state and can't live with other people. Aren't they human like the rest of us?”
 * As I said, "there is no evidence of notability in the form of secondary source coverage". Without secondary source coverage it isn't possible to understand what decision procedure was used to sample 2 tweets from a dataset of nearly one hundred thousand tweets issued by Abunimah (at the time of checking). An editor has subsequently found a secondary source that contains the text of the first tweet. NGO Monitor, with the assistance of JPost, publicized Abunimah's view, although it doesn't mention twitter. So I suggest dropping the twitter cite, keeping the secondary RS but rewriting it so that readers understand who selected this text and why they think it is significant. The second tweet remains without any plausible explanation or justification for its inclusion. The relevant policy is Blp. Setting aside the absence of evidence of notability, the tweet does not meet the policy requirements. It is not directly related to the subject of this article, Abunimah. It's no more related that his tweet, "Beautiful day". Why is it there ? What is it for ? How was it sampled and by whom ? I have no idea what is going through the minds of the editors who have restored this to the article and what you think it tells the reader about the subject. No rational policy based argument for it's presence has been presented.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 09:57, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


 * User:Sean.hoyland, those tweets cut directly to the heart of Abunimah's "Views on Israel and Palestine". If his "Beautiful day" tweet was about the U2 song, not about the weather, then it would be relevant for a section on Abunimah's "Views on Irish rock bands" Scarletfire2112 (talk) 12:35, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


 * If that is the case, show me the reliable source that said that those tweets cut directly to the heart of Abunimah's 'Views on Israel and Palestine'. The only way I have of determining the validity of a statement like that is by looking at a reliable source that contains it. If a reliable source said something about his "Views on Irish rock bands" citing his "Beautiful day" tweet, then the RS would be relevant for a section on Abunimah's "Views on Irish rock bands". Inclusion would be determined by consensus of course.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 13:56, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


 * but sean, that is not what wp:twitter says, so why are you insisting on a different rule (RS?). Soosim (talk) 14:01, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * There isn't enough information in your statement for me to answer you. What precisely are you referring to ? Please quote the exact words.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 14:28, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * sorry - wp:twitter is so short, i thought it was clear. here it is: A specific tweet may be useful as a self-published, primary source. Soosim (talk) 05:19, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That is an essay. The relevant policy is linked above in my comment at 09:57, 17 April 2013.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 05:25, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Is anyone going to provide a policy/evidence based reason for including this tweet in this BLP ? The content has been repeatedly restored without anyone providing a policy based reason and despite lack on consensus. This behavior is inconsistent with Wikipedia's rules.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 06:09, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that the various comments made here by me and other editors directly address the policy concerns. In terms of reliability, that is addressed by Wp:TWITTER. And my comment at 12:35, 17 April 2013 shows how it is directly relevant to the subject at hand. As far as I can see, Blp does not require a reliable source to determine whether the information meets its criteria.Scarletfire2112 (talk) 08:51, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * But they don't address them at all. Your comment at 12:35, 17 April 2013 is about what you think the tweet signifies. I didn't ask what you thought the tweet signifies nor does it matter. You are not an RS. How is this "material about themselves" ? How does this content "not involve claims about third parties" ? How does it "not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject" ? See WP:BLPSTYLE "Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subjects, and in some circumstances what the subjects have published about themselves." All articles are covered by WP:DUE. Everything in them must be significant. See V "While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article." I am not able to understand how this tweet improves this article because no reliable source has been provided that explains why it matters and what it tells us about the subject. I am not able to understand why you are both taking actions that require WP:CONSENSUS when consensus does not exist on this issue. Try to explain why this article includes this information using a rational policy based argument that I will be able to understand. Explain why has this tweet been sampled out of ~98,000 tweets, why is it notable, who says it is notable and what it tells us about the subject according to an RS.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 09:28, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You keep on harping on RS, but as noted that is not an issue here. Tweets can be RS. Your comments based on the other parts of Blp are also irrelevant b/c it is clearly about Abunimah's views on a central subject in this article. And where is the consensus to remove this tweet(per "Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article")? Some editors think it does improve the article. Others think it does not and have simply been reverting without bothering to seek consensus. Scarletfire2112 (talk) 09:54, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No one has presented any RS based evidence that explains why this information should be included and how it improves the article. There have been assertions based on personal opinion. It's inclusion has never been justified based on policy. It was removed precisely because of that. But I see that neither of you are able or willing to seriously address the issues raised and provide answers that I can understand from a Wikipedia policy perspective. I don't think it is going to be possible for me to make the article comply with policy under these circumstances and there is nothing more I can do, so I've removed it from my watchlist.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 10:31, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

recent edits
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)
 * 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)

Mavi Marmara
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)

In addition, I've added a link to the video by lara lee that was smuggled out from a passenger on the Mavi Marmara, clearly showing that Israeli commandos had attacked unarmed passengers on board the ship. Tecspk

BLP-violation
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Wondering why this isn't in teh article
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)
 * 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)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link 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 II  Talk to my owner :Online 14:49, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

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

I consider the use of EI-sourced acceptable here, does someone disagree
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)