Talk:Mona Eltahawy/Archive 1

Archive 1

Citizenship

In her own words, Mona Eltahawy wrote in a 2001 Women's eNews article:

"Let's start with my country, Egypt. I am married to an American who has started the process of applying for my citizenship in this country. I cannot do the same for my husband in Egypt."

— Zerida 06:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

"Has started the process of applying" does not equal "citizen". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by138.88.144.157 (talk • contribs).12 March 2006 (UTC)

The article was written five years ago. The evidence clearly suggests she is an American. Unless you have concrete evidence she is not, post it, otherwise it stays. Notice we've just reached the 3-edit rule, after which I will have to report it. — Zerida 21:11, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The affirmative burden is yours. Further, a husband does not apply for US citizenship (hence "started the process"), a husband applies for permanent residence, from which the individual after 3 years (if still married) or 5, then MAY apply on his or her own for US citizenship. This is not claimed. Furhter, as a practical matter, such a process, assuming it takes place, stretches out over more years than 5 because of the normal bureaucratic delay.

In any event, she never has claimed US citizenship and the burden is on YOU to verify it (there are ways). Because of the hall-monitor threat, I will await 15 days for you to prove by public evidence, then I will revert. I also could insert the "factual accuracy is questioned" thing, but fortunately, I dont know how.

Please verify an assetion beyond suggestion or implication. US citizenship is like pregnancy, one is not "a little bit pregnant" ; one is not a suggested a citizen.

PPS -- The three-edit or three revert rule does not apply to biography of living persons. PS - She also referred to Egypt as "my country" not the USA.

Dispute of American claim (burden is on claimant to prove); note also subject's description in current Al Sharq al Awsqt -- "Mona Eltahawy (www.monaeltahawy.com) is a New York-based *Egyptian* columnist. She wrote this commentary for THE DAILY STAR."

Update

In an email correspondence with Ms. Eltahawy dated March 13, 2006, she writes:

"...I have no problem whatsoever being described as Egyptian American - particularly because I do understand the need to highlight our growing community. A writer in Canada recently described me as Egyptian American when he quoted something I wrote. So in a nutshell, I have no problem being described as Egyptian American [...] On Saturday [March 18, 2006], I will be speaking at the Egyptian American Alliance for Youth - so I'm taking steps towards that hyphenated title! Thank you for your interest in my work and my views."

Case closed! — Zerida 23:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Although she does not claim to be one, in fact she says the opposite -- "I'm taking steps towards that hyphenated title!" (I am taking steps towards being pregnant means NOT pregnant) -- and she has no problem with the designation, *I* raise no further objection. But case is not technically closed if others raise it as an objective point. -- anon

page protection

thank you Ekabhishek - and i just had to say that the increased vandalism is due, well, to vandalism (hers).... Soosim (talk) 17:13, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

poster

reading the ayn rand quote "In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man." didn't seem as incendiary .. only when the visual image is seen the connection is made and it becomes clear why mona had to step up (http://egnorance.blogspot.ch/2012/09/in-any-war-between-civilized-man-and.html) .. especially when the implied meaning comes into place to deliberately call one population civilized vs savage, then the whole becomes so racist -- especially the civilized part when anyone knows how similar the situation to apartheid has become unfortuantely.

thinking more about the quote .. the real question becomes, what do we define as civilized and what as savage. for example in the European imperialist behavior invading the Americas, the indigenous people could be very well seen as the civilized where as the warring invaders as the savage. --72.10.168.91 (talk) 09:02, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mona Eltahawy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.womensenews.org/bios.cfm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:04, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

African-American

I've reverted "African-American Muslims" back to "American Muslims" as this is not typical WP usage for Egyptian people. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:20, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Books and Works

She recently published another book in 2019. Proposed edit: In September of 2019, Eltahawy released her second book, The Seven Necessary Sins for Women and Girls. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Box1249 (talk • contribs) 19:37, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

References

Remove her Designation as Journalist

Eltahawy was arrested in a blatant act of vandalism against a poster and a photographer. She wasn't there to cover the story, she was there to spray paint the poster red.

Supposedly a journalist, in a very public act of activism.

She should be classified as Anti-Israel Activist not a "journalist". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.222.194.29 (talk) 22:58, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. This person is not a journalist; in fact, I'm not sure why she even has a wikipedia page. (BLP violation removed). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.72.221.136 (talk) 04:12, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

She has appeared on numerous news outlets and reported for several journalistic organizations. She is a journalist. Just because she was arrested for spray-painting graffiti on a controversial ad set up by Pamela Geller, a noted and much-discredited anti-Muslim bigot, does not discredit Ms. Eltahawy. Many journalists have been arrested for numerous crimes where they involved themselves in a story. I still remember Geraldo Rivera getting into a fistfight with a member of the KKK. Since the American Freedom Defense Initiative (which created the ad) is an umbrella group for Stop Islamization Of America, a very notable hate group, I don't find Ms. Eltahawy's actions (however inappropriate as they were) discrediting her as a journalist. If they are, then Geraldo Rivera is not a journalist either. If anything, I see the anti-Eltahawy comments here (which aren't even appropriate for a wikipedia talk page) as telling of the some peoples' pro-Israel bias. Shabeki (talk) 07:54, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

She is a journalist lol we have to defend her; (BLP violation removed) Nlivataye (talk) 12:13, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

She is both in my opinion and most people that give the arrest incident a fair shake when looking at the evidence will see that this is almost certainly activism rather than journalism. I was looking into changing the occupation to include both but wasn't sure how to source it. As far as Israel I wouldn't say she is "Anti-Israel" ab initio. If you look at her comments over time, they seem to be basically opportunistic. Israel is the 'opiate of the masses' when it comes to Egypt and then the poster is countering radical Islam when saying "Support Israel, Defeat Jihad" and she is against that even though the poster is trying to push back on the influence of people she is pushing back against in Egypt ie. Muslim Brotherhood. Its just a convenience thing.

GhostsOfGironde (talk) 09:14, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

She self-describes as Muslim

Earlier someone removed the desciptor "Muslim" from this article with the edit summary "her website doesn't state that she is Muslim". That's true, however during her recent Doha Debates appearance she repeatedly prefaced her comments with "As an Arab and as a Muslim, I...". The transcript of the debate is available online and linked from her website, so if at some point someone again describes her as Muslim in this article, I think it can be left in. Babajobu 10:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I haven't seen any mention of this, so I'd like to see a credible source first. Shabeki (talk) 07:56, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be fair to mention that many (I want to say most but I didn't take a poll) would call her a Kafir كافر based on a lot of her views and behavior. Meaning that many in that community might say she is an ex-muslim that still claims the label. It could also be said that she uses the word Muslim as a self description in an ethnic sense rather than a religious one. But Islam is a religion not an ethnicity so I guess that would be a new thing. But at the same time like you said, she self describes as Muslim so I think both seem appropriate if used in a neutral manner.

GhostsOfGironde (talk) 09:06, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Other people's opinions about her religious conformity are not relevant. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:00, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Can you please provide the standard for "relevancy" that you are using and its source (I mean like Wikipedia policies or something)so I can read it for future postings. Thanks.

@Roscelese:

Trim subway incident

I've removed the Blaze because it's not a reliable source, and also corrected the misrepresentation of the ad and the weird cherrypicking of the NBC interview. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:00, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Just saw this. I didn't think it was cherrypicking because the part about the NBC ad focused on the free speech portion and the issue was described a lot as an issue of free speech as it was the subject of a free speech court case and that is what the two subjects in the New York Post video are arguing about. Its also what a lot of the sources spoke about. After it was removed, I was trying to work with GorillaWarfare to make it acceptable. I was trying to work with her on the Talk page. I started on her talk page. I then asked in the this Talk page for suggestions of other portions of the interview to add in if anyone thought it was necessary to comply with the rules.

GhostsOfGironde (talk) 12:22, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

2012 Arrest Reversion Issue

This is my proposed revision of the original post I made. It replaces The Blaze with FoxNews. One of the main reasons I used The Blaze the first time is because it put in the context of the events occurring in and around the time of the “Innocence of Muslims” video which gave context as to why Muslims would be more easily upset by the poster even if it wasn't speaking specifically about them and allowed the reader to go to a source that viewed the uncut New York Post video in full. The Blaze does appear to have the arrest date slightly off since the AP published their piece on September 25th 2012 and The Blaze claimed that it was on the 26th. But honestly with an arrest, that could still be accurate depending on when an arrest is considered to have occurred (Booking can easily be after midnight the day of the handcuffing). I tried to find a list of approved sources that I had seen before but could not find it – I also looked for a prohibited sources list and could not find that either – I see them now per GorillaWarfare's explanation on revision: “05:06, 6 December 2020‎ GorillaWarfare talk contribs‎ 18,510 bytes -915‎ Undid revision 992602231 by GhostsOfGironde (talk) WP:RSP#Blaze Media -- please discuss your proposed additions on the talk page per WP:BRD, as they have been repeatedly contested and have had issues with NPOV, OR, and sourcing” Thank you – much more explanatory than previous reversion explanations. I do have an issue with approved sources and carte blanche denial of others instead of piece by piece editorial screening in general because there are crazy falsehood all over the political spectrum with truth mixed in but those laments are probably for another place). Here is the proposal:

In late September, Mona Eltahawy was arrested for attempting to spray paint over an advertisement while a supporter of the advertisement stood in front of it. The ad referred to Radical Muslims, and more specifically Jihadists, as "savages". In a video of the incident taken by the New York Post and then later played on CNN and MSNBC in part, the poster can be seen as saying "In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man. Support Israel. Defeat Jihad". While being interviewed on MSNBC's UP with Chris Hayes, Eltahawy claimed the video of the incident shows her being silenced. In response, Jeffrey Toobin as panelist pushed back on the assertion saying "You weren't being silenced." Eltahawy then re-characterized the treatment of her during the incident as bullying. Haye's, disagreeing with the ad's content, took exception with her tactics with regards to defacing the poster. Toward the end of the incident two police officers approached the area and arrested her. In an interview on CNN, she confirmed she was arraigned and charged with Criminal Mischief, Making Graffiti, and Possession of a Graffiti Instrument. She defended herself by saying what she had done was freedom of expression and that her actions were civil disobedience.

End of proposal.

The following is pertinent to this dispute because of Mona Eltahawy's self description as a radical Islamic Feminist. Per my communications with @GorillaWarfare: , I could not find the video of the Fairfax business owner describing the looting on Google again but I'm sure it is floating around somewhere – however, I believed it may be Aryeh Rosenfeld's store mentioned in this article: Jewish Star (please note the headlining photo).

The ADL did release an article calling a lot of the information “disinformation” but it really misses the point. It compares the use of the word pogrom only to the Kristallnacht. Kristallnacht was only one specific pogrom occurring on 9–10 November 1938. It occurred in Nazi Germany but pogroms occurred for years on end in Russia and many of them weren't based on explicit organization but a failure to stop the chaos because it benefited some ruling class' political ends (see quote with bold word “complicity” below). Also, the description of mini-pogrom doesn't trivialize the matter, while perhaps calling it a full on pogrom would. I really think the ADL is releasing this so the problem can be viewed in context and so as to not scare the community and not give people with mal-intentions ideas. Disinformation will always occur in these types of situations – but that shouldn't discount the rest of what actually happens. Even the ADL article admits: Some of the vandalism documented during the looting in Los Angeles did include or express antisemitic or anti-Israel animus.

and they sourced it: https://jewishjournal.com/los_angeles/316561/los-angeles-synagogue-vandalized-with-free-palestine-f-israel-graffiti/

This above Jewish Star link/source is describing the events as an actual pogrom (which I kind of agree with ADL on not saying). While perhaps not a full on pogrom, mini-pogrom or proto-pogrom is pretty spot on because it looks like the Democrats were so desperate to win the 2020 election that they allowed the protests during a pandemic (the government could have chosen to shut them down but they didn't. Instead, they shut down other legal activity and See: “In three years between 1903 and 1906, about 660 pogroms were recorded in Ukraine and Bessarabia; half a dozen more in Belorussia, carried out with the Russian government's complicity” Kind of like the party out of power on the Federal US level but in power on the State level where a lot of the riots happened did through deliberate inaction and public relations defense of protests– it took a while before the riots where openly condemned...and it was definitely long after the May 30th 2020 Fairfax incident). The Democratic leaders should have known from the sentiments that could be seen in some of the protests that it might overflow into the Jewish Community in those riot areas- which it did. And this time it was a few business and spray paintings but next time we don't know. And it can change on a dime. So I think these movements have a serious anti-semitism problem that needs to be confronted – because its a lot worse than just kicking a few women out of the women's march. And lets not forget that the leaders of BLM self described themselves as Marxists, which is a knowingly/proudly anti-religious ideology – so what I'm saying isn't that off base. The 'not scaring' people justification that I think the ADL might be using is also something I think should be transported here to Wikipedia on other pages – namely the Misogyny page, where it has a headlined paragraph in one of the sections called “Misogynistic Terrorism”. While some of those incidents may technically be terrorism (haven't looked into all of them yet but intend to) they aren't the regular use of the word because they are all lone wolf attacks – unless I'm missing something and there are actual terrorists groups organizing against women – which would be terrifying. Without actual terrorist organizations though, using that language is simply inducing fear without respect for the outcome that inducing that fear may produce. I say this because Islamic Lone Wolf attacks are primarily given so much credence because they are in conjunction with a highly organized terrorist apparatus already existing. Basically – people don't need to call it terrorism – mass killings would be a much better description even if some of them are politically motivated (like I said, I haven't check them all – I know at least one was political– probably more were motivated by politics but have not looked at all of them yet). It just seems unnecessary/inflammatory and has the potential to instigate those types of groups into reality – which at least I think would be bad. I may have more to say on that article but will put it on the talk page there if I do and like I said – these types of problems are not just on the Wikipedia page mentioned – they are elsewhere too, on and off Wikipedia.

Further, the comparisons of Islamophobia and Anti-Semitism needs to stop in the sense that they are analogous because the comparison is out of touch with reality in The West. Muslims have over a billion adherents on the other side of the world under established governments that can send money and set up organizations to protect their population if they choose. The Jews do not. And to say that a poster trying to defend Jews against violent Jihadists is Islamophobic/Racist is tantamount to saying any defense of the community against a religious minority will be discredited as such. Its not just not fair, its dangerous to them as it is tying their hands behind their back's while they are being hit and deeming any defense they make as racist. One could argue that Israel could send money to set up organizations but we already know who is keeping that country too busy for them to contribute to such an effort: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas

I'd like to note none of this includes any of the statements that current sitting elected US politicians have made about Israel. That is a whole other issue that could have a separate post. Really you could probably write a book on the subject of this talk post.

The post I am recommending is an apt description of the sources when the videos are watched. Please watch all the interviews sourced: FoxNews, MSNBC, and CNN (and unsourced NY Post Video). If someone disagrees, please explain the reasoning. More could be added from the interviews but I think the initial post got the point across giving both sides of the interview/story. I put Eltahawy's own defense of herself in it as a response to the criticism leveled by Jeffrey Toobin and noted that Chris Haye's didn't agree with the message in the poster either – even if I did. I also think that since Eltahawy is defending her actions the video should be allowed to be sourced for the reader to view in full or at least linked (perhaps linking already isn't even an issue since its not actually sourcing – please advise). Especially given as I said the fact that she is defending her actions (seemingly proud of them) and the interviews only show a portion of the New York Post video which she in no way disputes the authenticity or characterization/editing of when she had opportunity to do so. Here is the New York Post video in full: NY Post Video ~ Thank you for hearing/reading my argument and please forgive any typos. If you think more should be added to my proposed piece from the interviews, I'm open to hearing what you would propose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GhostsOfGironde (talk • contribs) 04:37, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Dude, I have no idea what you're ranting about. This is not a personal blog. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:18, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

@GhostsOfGironde: I have already pointed you to WP:RSP, where you can see that Fox News is generally avoided for use on topics relating to politics. The New York Post is also not a usable source. All additions to this page should be based on secondary sources, not your own description of videos and interviews. As for your long comment about pogroms, this page is not a forum for you to muse on your own ideas around the incident, the comparisons between antisemitism and Islamophobia, etc. Please keep your comments focused on specific changes to this article, as extremely long and off-topic comments make it difficult for other editors to help you achieve what you're trying to do. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:27, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Its having real world effects. This is a plea for unity. Please work with me. GhostsOfGironde (talk) 20:05, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't know what "real world effects" you are describing, but Wikipedia's policies on using reliable sources and carefully reflecting what is said in secondary sources (rather than presenting our own interpretation of events or videos) is firm. I am highly skeptical that any real-world events will be helped by adding POV and BLP-violating content about Eltahawy, or unreliably-sourced claims, which is what you have been doing. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:52, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare:I was referring to more than just this Wikipedia Article on Mona Eltahawy having real world effects which is part of what I think reading the "Talk Page" articles you sent will help with(or other "Talk Page" articles that exist). This is just the one page I was working on at the moment. I told you on your talk page that I intended to write the above earlier here, at least I meant it to mean that when I wrote: "Yeah, you're correct, we were definitely both editing at the same time. Wish it was live. Anyways, cooled down a little but its really not that hyperbolic [pogrom/riot stuff] if you were there near the area. I can get you the video on the talk page." - that is why I included it here. I meant this Talk page because you had said you would weigh in on this talk page if I posted something here. I guess it could have been unclear. Perhaps I should have placed that part back on your talk page.

This is some, not all, of the real world effects I was talking about: Antisemitic Incidents Hit All-Time High in 2019 and Feminists treat men badly. It’s bad for feminism. (We can talk more about it on each other's talk page's if you want(and the other effects I mentioned existing but don't want to get into it here). I only mentioned it here so as to respond to your response to me. If you want, you can start a section on my talk page or ping me on yours).

As far as the post, I didn't think that I gave my interpretation of the videos/article sources on any of the proposed posts for the 2012 Arrest Incident but included the relevant information to the story. That is why I asked for whoever read my previous talk post to watch the video and suggest additions if they thought other information from the articles/interviews should be added.

I initially didn't think that Fox News article was really politics but when you reverted it I assumed it must have been. I think for that reason I just thought it was okay for you to do the revert since I thought the Fox News source was in fact politics. I had no problem with the revert in that case because I later noticed Fox News has three boxes on the approved sources list and figured I made a mistake. The first time I looked, the green one stood out to me so I went ahead and used the source. I looked into it though and realized the source isn't in the politics section of the Fox News site. If you look at the web address it puts the section of the site it is a part of. In bold you can see it:

https://www.foxnews.com/us/woman-arrested-for-spray-painting-over-anti-jihad-ny-subway-ad The "US" means it is part of the US News section I believe.

and when it is politics the web address would read like this:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-to-nominate-a-four-star-army-general-for-secretary-of-defense

Can I have your permission as a moderator to revert it?

Also, I found a 'CNN' article that I don't have time to get to tonight but it basically says similar information that the original 'The Blaze' source said so that it could be sourced and say something similar to the original post (not the proposed post- like I said in the "talk" section on the Mona Eltahawy page, I didn't like that the proposal didn't put in context that even moderate Muslims had reason to misinterpret/or be upset with the sign due to events surrounding the time period and the fact that the proposal didn't mention the free speech issues - both of which I remember being mentioned in the CNN piece). I'll try to look it over later in the week. If you don't want to communicate with me further I can look for other moderators/editors to help. I just thought it would be good to have agreement with a moderator that is involved in sort of similar types of material given the subject matter here. Just let me know.

GhostsOfGironde (talk) 05:56, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

The decision on the reliability of Fox News applies to any articles they publish that pertain to politics, not the URL of the source. So no, that is not a usable source. As for any changes you wish to introduce based on this CNN source you mention, I would strongly encourage you to post a draft of your suggested changes on this talk page rather than editing the article directly, since there have been serious issues with your changes in the past. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:54, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

References

Per the CNN suggestion of putting a proposal on the talk page first - YES!!! That's exactly what I had in mind when I contacted you initially (I don't expect you to do any heavy lifting though - I know you have your own pages to worry about). This week has been busy and I wasn't able to get to the proposal but I'm going to look it over probably this weekend and will ping you if I suggest a proposal. Have a good weekend.

GhostsOfGironde (talk) 23:10, 11 December 2020 (UTC)