Talk:Nonie Darwish/Archive 1

Statements
Several statements of fact here may not be true: !)That Mustafa Hafez was sent to set up the fedayin, when his role may very well have been to try to control them. 2)That said fedayin killed 400 Israeli civilians from 1951 to 56. It is doubtful that 400 Israelis were killed in total during that period, much less civilians killed by the Gaza fedayin. Prime Minister Sharrett's diary probably refutes that assertion, as well as number 1. The reports of the UN Mixed Armistice Commissioners should certainly be examined for evidence of anything like that number of Israelis killed. Regardless of the actual numbers killed, if such ststistics are cited there should be some context and balance provided, such as the fact that Israel was then continuing to expel Palestinians, particularly bedouin expelled to Egypt, and many more Palestinian infiltrators were killed than Israelis. Most of these infiltrators were not guerrilla fighters, but were simply people trying to get back to their homes, to retrieve property or to harvest their crops. The UN had promoted their right of return, and Israel had accepted that right by accepting UN membership under the terms of Resolution 273...Etc.

http://wmca.salemwebnetwork.com/Ministries/Understanding_the_Times/Archives.asp is an interesting source for info on this person... - Mustafaa 15:45, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Darwish should probably have her own encyclopedia entry, rather than putting all the information about her (and other similar organizations) on this page. Given the history of the edits and creator, I suspect that Newt isn't that familiar with Wikipedia yet. Jayjg 15:51, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't know; I've seen no evidence that "Arabs for Israel" has any members other than her. Unless a reasonable number of other members can be shown to exist, it might be more appropriate to redirect one to the other. - Mustafaa 15:59, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think that the wording "claims to be the daughter of a non-Palestinian 'shahid'" ... "claims to have been raised in an atmosphere of hatred for Israelis and Jews" ... "claims to promote reconciliation, acceptance and understanding" implies that Darwish's claims about her background are disputed. Unless there are sources with information demonstrating otherwise, the tone should sound more descriptive and less adversarial. Newt 21:21, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with changing the word "claims" to "says"; I do, however, object to your getting rid of much of the article's information. - Mustafaa 23:28, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, this article is based only on her claims. There are no independent sources verifying her claims. Therefore, there should be some indication that the information comes from one source which may well be biased and has not been independently verified or confirmed. People sometimes make things up for the sake of celebrity or to capitalize on the market demand for this kind of material. Norma Khouri, for instance. An encyclopedia should recognize this possibility to avoid publishing false or misleading information. --Alberuni 01:47, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I still think Nonie Darwish should have her own page, and this page should be about Arabs for Israel. Jayjg 01:28, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * How about moving the entire article to Nonie Darwish, since it's really about her and her views and her website? --Ed Poor


 * I still think that both topics deserve an article; there's much more that could be said about both the organization and the individual. Perhaps Newt will weigh in on this. Jayjg 20:10, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * She is not notable and there is no evidence that her "group" even exists outside of her. Why is she worthy of encyclopedia article? Being an a columnist for a right-wing online magazine? If there's much more to be written, why aren't you writing it? --Alberuni 20:24, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, she's notable enough to have gotten some press and 2,400 Google hits. And I'm not writing it because I don't know much about her, and because I'm giving the new editor Newt some room to work on a topic that's of interest to him, assuming he hasn't been scared away by the unfriendly welcome he got. Jayjg 20:35, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I can find 2400 hits for "THE INTERNATIONAL JEW" but that doesn't make it eligible for a Wikipedia article. Notability is not measured in Google hits. Also, if you "don't know much about her" how do you know "there's much more that could be said about both the organization and the individual"? Talking out your shofar again? --Alberuni 21:54, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I second Ed's suggestion. There is no evidence that her "group" has any members, and its public face appears to be her alone; and, while not very notable, she probably is just about notable enough to deserve an article. - Mustafaa 11:17, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I changed the article from being about the (possibly non-existent) organization Arabs for Israel to being about the writer and her website. --user:Ed Poor (deep or sour) 15:09, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

Conflict of interest notice
Like Darwish, I am interested in "promoting reconciliation, acceptance and understanding between Israelis and Arabs." I mention this just in case anyone suspects that my agenda conflicts with Wikipedia neutrality guidelines (you heard it from me first). --user:Ed Poor (deep or sour) 15:14, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

Related factoids

 * Ishmael Khaldi, an Israeli Bedouin, spoke on Carnegie Mellon University campus on Wednesday, October 15th, 2003 to a group of over forty people. Ishmael was invited by the Young Zionist Organization of America (YZOA) to speak as part of the “Arabs for Israel” speaker series. The speakers series presents voices of dissent in the Arab community who present a positive view of Israel.

"she says"
This tiny article has the phrase "she says" in it 5 times. I think this is an excessive amount of skepticism, verging on expressing a POV. Jayjg 17:09, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * It's stylistically bad, I have to admit. I've replaced most of them with a single "According to her articles" at the beginning. - Mustafaa 17:23, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Maybe you could come up with a substantiating source for her claims. --Alberuni 17:24, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Why do you keep trying to get me to work on this particular article? Jayjg 18:09, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * You keep sniping at other people's edits and dismissing other people's concerns about the article. You are the one who wrote, "I still think that both topics deserve an article; there's much more that could be said about both the organization and the individual". It's obviously important enough for you to comment on. Why not do some work? Be bold! Just write it yourself. --Alberuni 18:30, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, it's a tempting offer, but I have other things to work on right now. Jayjg 18:37, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

sheesh, why bother?
copied from my user talk page: Well, I have to say I'm pretty surprised by what my article evolved into. It's now unrecognizable from my original, and written completely POV from the perspective of someone who sounds really scared to admit there might be some pro-Israel Arabs out there. It's actually not antithetical to be both pro-Palestinian AND pro-Israel, and there do exist groups that have a more positive approach. However, at this point, it's probably a waste of time for me to exert a lot of effort here, the place has been hijacked by zealots only interested in Israel-bashing and filtering out alternative Arab perspectives. Newt 20:16, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * "If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it." Nice knowin' ya. --Alberuni 21:34, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You think it's POV, specify how. In my experience, there are a whole lot more pro-Zionist zealots on Wikipedia trying to filter out alternative Arab perspectives than there are Israel bashers... - Mustafaa 20:47, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I can think of a few Israel bashers of the top of my head (not you, of course). And the Israel bashers are particularly un-civil; their rudeness and poisoning of Wikipedia makes far more of an impact on the project than the allegedly large numbers of the "pro-Zionist zealots". Jayjg 23:37, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * If it's any comfort, I didn't have you in mind either; while your POV is obvious, you are notably scrupulous in your editing. Some, however, are not - and they've been active a lot longer, and in much greater numbers, than the person you are alluding to.  Just ask User:Joseph E. Saad. - Mustafaa 00:24, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * There can never be enough pro-Zionist zealots for some people. --Alberuni 21:35, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * For others, no Talk: page comment is complete without some violation of No personal attacks or Civility. Jayjg 23:40, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Current Religion?
Does anyone knows Nonie's current religion? Is she a Christian now? Or perhaps an Atheist? 88.154.170.171 00:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

According to her interview on CNN with Glenn Beck, she never left Islam; she just speaks out against terrorism and discrimination against women in some Muslim countries.

Edits by me
Hello wikipedia. After hours of research, I found about a dozen highly bigoted and racist quotes by Ms. Darwish. I added them to Wikipedia (being careful to provide a link with which anyone could verify that these are her quotes [all of the quotes come from her own websites.]) Unfortunately, someone deleted all of my work. I added it back in and ask that other wikipediaers respect my efforts and research. Lets not censor wikipedia. After anohter 30 minutes of work, I managed to find four videos of her, which I of course provided links to. --75.17.191.141 10:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Inappropriate censoring of the article by user Humus_sapiens
I just noticed that user Humus_Sapiens (who based on his profile is very active in pro-Jewish Wikipedia sites) took out my researched observation that Ms. Darwish offers no guidance on the specific disputes between Arabs and Israelis. For example she offers no guidance on what to do about Israeli settlements. I think this is an important comment because without specific guidance she offers no solution. It's all fine to say we should love eachother and live in peace, but in her opinion, what should be done about these settlements? I discovered this after carefully reading her website and articles, but careful research doesn't stop Humus_Sapiens's censoring mouse and keyboard.

I also noticed that Humus_Sapiens deleted my observation that all of the "facts" in the article are from her mouth only and have not been verified by any source whatsoever. There is no evidence that any of those things happened. Especially dubious is her claim that Nasser came to a little girl and asked her if she would avenge her father's death by killing Jews. This is laughable, but I guess censor Humus_Sapiens doesn't want the credibility of these statements questioned.

It is clear that user Humus_Sapiens is editing this site to present a Pro-Israeli and Pro-Jewish viewpoint. This sort of censoring really should not exist on Wikipedia.

I'm not going to fight these points, as long as my quotes stay in, but I do want to protest. --75.17.191.141 10:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Removal of quotes
User:Jayjg in this edit removed the following from the article:[snip]

--Deodar 22:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes? What's your point? Jayjg (talk) 17:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Some of those quotes come off as really racist. While in your edit summary you say that they best belong in Wikiquote you didn't put any of them there, you just straight out removed them.  I'm merely ensuring that the quotes, some of which portray her in a bad light, don't simply go down the memory hole.  --Deodar 18:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, it's not surprising that some of those quotes come off as "really racist", since the IP editor who added them spent hours poring through stuff by Darwish cherry-picking what he/she thought was the most racist stuff. I'm sure you'll agree that adding this kind of material to the article is a violation of both WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. Indeed, your addition of these quotes to the Talk: page, solely to ensure that quotes which you think place a living person "in a bad light" are quite visible for all to read, seems to be a similar violation of those policies. I'm quite suprised you would take this action; perhaps you should rectify it. Jayjg (talk) 18:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Jayjg, your argument is crazy in the sense that those quotes are correct and not slander written by a party out to get her. These quotes are no different than quotes from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad saying that Israel should be wiped off the map or whatever is the contents of his latest rant.  It is interesting that your whole argument for removing the quotes changed -- are you working from the basis that they should be removed first and that the particular argument you use to get them removed is a secondary consideration?  Interesting.  --Deodar 18:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * So, you're suggesting that a bunch of quotes cherrypicked specifically with the intent of making someone look racist, and not famous or remarked on by other commentators in any way, comply with WP:NPOV and WP:BLP? In fact, they're undoubtedly also original research. As for the Ahmadinejad analogy, it obviously fails, since the few quotes attributed to Ahmadinejad in his article have been widely quoted and debated in reliable sources, and commented on by various heads of state etc. That's why Ahmadinejad's quotes are notable, whereas these quotes are "trivia". As for your claim that "my whole argument changed", of course it's nonsense. Edit summaries are small, and I typed in the most obvious reasons for removing the quotes. I suppose I could have said "quotes go in wikiquote, and these quotes also violate WP:NPOV, WP:BLP and WP:NOR", but what would be the point? They don't belong for any number of reasons, and the fact that the quotes are trivia and lists of quotes go in Wikiquote are simple non-controversial ones. However, what is indeed "interesting" is your speculation regarding my actions and motivations; and, of course, it's a violation of yet another policy. Please use the page for discussing article content, and try to avoid personalizing this in your on-going campaign. Jayjg (talk) 19:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * My suggestion is that we start to be specific about which quotes are cherrypicked and which are more representative or notable -- you said yourself before this starting to get personal that some really did belong in Wikiquote. Then let's remove the unnecessary ones and keep a few choice ones for Wikiquote that are representative.  What do you say?  --Deodar 19:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * As is clear from the above comment, they were all cherrypicked, and none are notable. Quotes belong in Wikiquote, and quotes that go in wikiquote should come from reliable third-party sources, and should not the personal favorites of every fan or foe who happens to have read the individual's work. Jayjg (talk) 20:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * After doing some research, I agree that non are particularly notable and the current selection is POV. I tried to find any mention of this women in the press and I could find very little, her apparent marginal role in public debate has probably saved her from anyone scrutinizing her closely.  --Deodar 23:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that the quotes are not-notable, though I protest your other needlessly pejorative comments. Ben, you've still left these non-notable, POV quotes on the Talk: page. At this point I'm having a hard time understanding why. Is it your intent to leave this BLP violating material here so that it both endangers Wikipedia and propagates throughout the internet? Jayjg (talk) 06:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Funny accusations considering you just strangely scolded me for AGF. Heh.  Let's try to be mature about things Jayjg and remember that respect on Wikipedia is a two-way street.  --Deodar 16:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You never mentioned why this fits under BLP? I was reading through the guidelines and there is a lot of talk about relying upon good sources to ensure that the article is accurate.  No where does it say that accurate but possibly unflattering information is a BLP violation.  I still feel that the material is OR and POV but I can't see how your argument that it is a BLP violation according to the BLP guidelines?  I'm crazy busy today -- as I have been for months -- but I'll take this up in a more neutral forum because with just us two, things usually don't go very far.  --Deodar 16:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)