User:Andromedean/sandbox

Electronic Intifada (Again)
I constantly run into the problem of editors refusing to except Electronic Intifada (EI) as a reliable source. Could someone suggest a method of obtaining a binding decision one way or the other on this? Can arbitration or mediation help in reliable source disputes? This isn't a dispute against any one person, but we need to make an objective decision which can be referenced when editors from any article attempt to exclude EI for political reasons only.

I believe the case for including EI as a reliable source is overwhelming. The only excuses I've seen for excluding EI are WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT which is not an argument to use in talk page discussions; or that it's biased, which isn't a reason for exclusion. See the opinionated source guidance in WP:NPOV.


 * Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.

Wikipedia editors simply claiming EI is unreliable without evidence should carry less weight, than those who cite secondary sources or direct proof that EI have made valid mistakes, particularly mistakes which they refuse to retract. So far I've found no direct evidence of any factual mistakes. EI has however, exposed mistakes with fact-checkers and the unsuitability of Wikipedia editors. Therefore, far from being an unreliable source the opposite seems to be the case.

There are some comments on EI on the reliable sources noticeboard from secondary sources, (obviously we need to be cautious about criticisms from pro-Zionist commentators), and on the Wikipedia page for EI. Personally, I find the last one in the following list deeply worrying, and we should be particularly vigilant against unfounded criticisms of EI for this reason.


 * "They claim to have been favourably reviewed in several "mainstream" sources, including the center-right Jerusalem Post. An unfavourable review at the Jewish Telegraph Agency wire still called it a useful resource for understanding Palestinian opinions.
 * The Financial Times apparently said: "The Electronic Intifada is a highly professional site, apparently designed and run from the UK, which blends links to newspaper stories, in-depth comment on the way the conflict is being presented in the media, the Live From Palestine "diary project" and snippets such as a running total of Palestinian and Israeli deaths. The design is clean, using interesting fonts and images, and the material is up to date. On Tuesday morning there were already links to a dozen articles covering the Gaza City attack"
 * An ITV program called "The Web Review" supposedly gave EI a 10/10 rating "In form this site is a slick newsroom, rational and cross-referenced.
 * In an April 2008 article, online publication Electronic Intifada revealed the existence of a Google group set up by CAMERA. The stated purpose of the group was "help[ing] us keep Israel-related entries on Wikipedia from becoming tainted by anti-Israel editors". Five editors involved in the campaign were sanctioned by Wikipedia administrators, who wrote that Wikipedia's open nature "is fundamentally incompatible with the creation of a private group to surreptitiously coordinate editing" Here it is reported in the New York times"

The Media Bias Fact check site based on international fact-checking sites backs up these claims, awarding a high factual reporting rating for EI. This site also states:


 * "Electronic Intifada has a very strong Pro-Palestinian bias in report choices and does not always cover both sides of the story. There is frequent use of loaded emotional words that are positive for Palestine and negative for Israel. However, Electronic Intifada is generally very well sourced to credible media outlets. In reviewing fact checks we could not find any instance where EI directly failed a fact check from major fact checking sources. We did however find a case where EI refuted a pants on fire claim from Politifact that stated the Baltimore police were trained by Mossad."

I also notice reliable sources such as the New York Times and Washington Post often reference EI. So if EI weren't reliable this would render these publications unreliable?

I therefore suggest that according to Wikipedia rules EI should be eligible as a source, subject to adjusting the language to a neutral tone.

--- This was dutifully recorded by the thankfully silent Zionists who were in the audience on that occasion; and then [they] came up and berated him afterwards for what he had said. They clearly had two problems. One is they don’t want to study history and, secondly, having lived in this country for a very long time, probably all their lives, they don’t understand English irony either. Manuel does understand English irony and uses it very, very effectively.

One of the activists Richard Millet recorded a video for Mail online in which he clearly admitted to being one of the silent Zionists Jeremy Corbyn referred to: "Hi there, I am Richard [Millet], the blogger which Jeremy Corbyn says hasn't got a sense of English irony". Later in the interview he explained how well Jeremy Corbyn knew him. "He knew my name, he knew I was Jewish, in that context he made the reference othering me saying I had no sense of English irony".

Millett has also previously evicted by Police from a Parliament meeting during a pro-Palestinian meeting when pro-Israel activists protested. Therefore, one interpretation of Corbyn's remarks is that a "rather aggressive pro-Israel activist didn’t understand “English irony,” whereas an Armenian-Palestinian born in Jerusalem, whose first language is not English, did."

Despite leaning towards Labour in the immediate postwar decades, along with most other immigrant communities, much of the Jewish population supported Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s, especially in her own seat of Finchley. Many Jewish voters returned to Labour in the late 1990s under New Labour, with polling generally showing Jews as evenly split between Labour and Conservatives, which remained the case in 2010 when Labour appointed its first Jewish leader Ed Miliband. However in August 2014 Miliband came under pressure from Jewish donors and supporters to the Labour party over his stance towards Israel's ground incursion into Gaza in the Summer of 2014, after describing it as "wrong and unjustifiable". Jewish support for Labour subsequently fell to an estimated 15% in the May 2015 general election (compared to 64% for the Conservatives).

After Miliband was defeated, Jeremy Corbyn was chosen as Labour leader who had extensively campaigned for Palestinian rights, and came under sustained accusations of anti-Semitism. During the snap General Election of 2017 under his premiership it is estimated that 26% of Jews voted for Labour.

Also in September 2018 34 Charedi rabbis part of the Jewish Orthodox community, signed a letter defending Jeremy Corbyn and distanced themselves from claims in the media that the Jews of Britain are outraged towards him.

Activists Shraga Stern and Naftoli Friedman who have taken responsibility for the letter believe the Labour Party’s 'antisemitism crisis' is a “smear with a Zionist agenda”, describing it as “cruel and unjustified”

Origins of Ashkenaz, Ashkenazic Jews
Elhaik has recently estimated the maternal line of Ashkenazic Jews to be almost entirely European, and their DNA to have only 3% ancient ancestry linked to Israel, Lebanon, parts of Syria, and western Jordan. He concludes their most recent ancestors must be from elsewhere.

Using new analytic methods of extracting and analysing DNA from ancient skeletons it has been possible to date them by tracking mutations over time. This has also been helpful in tracing genetic origins. Elheik has developed these techniques further to allow genetic comparisons between ancient Israelite's and modern Jewish ethnic groups. These comparisons suggest the most similar Jews to the ancient Israelites buried in the Rakefet Valley are Yemenite and Mesopotamian Jews, but their genetic similarity is less than 10%. This confirms Elhaik's previous analyses ascribing less than 5% ancient Levantine ancestry to Ashkenazic Jews and their potential relatedness to the Ashina tribe. The Y chromosomal haplotypes of the ancient Israelites are typically E1b1 and T1 haplotypes, commonly found today in Africa with lower frequencies in the Middle East and Europe. An analysis of Judaeans from the first century AD also confirmed the prevalence of the T haplogroup, found today in less than 10% of Ashkenazic Jews.