Talk:Celebrations of the September 11, 2001 attacks/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

First section

"the Times Newspapers Ltd. report is not particularly helpful". Not particularly helpful? To whom, and to what? Aye... Aye-- to you, and to your agenda! Do you say the Times of London is a lesser publication than your German sources? Oh do not say it, for I delight not in mockery. Why must I vouch for the Times reporter when you vouch not for your German reporters? Eloquence. Eloquence. We need more than Eloquence, we need honesty!... Now give an honest reason other than "not particularly helpful" and we may avoid an edit war. (Sorry, I just finished watching Othello) JDG 06:35, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Have you actually read my edit comment? Also note that I did not remove the report. As for the German reports, which I watched as they happened, they showed the video of the celebrations in full length. The Times report includes neither pictures nor video -- it just makes a claim without backing it up. It does not even name a correspondent. Don't you think Israeli newspapers would have jumped all over this if it had happened? Instead they showed the same pictures you're seeing in the article. I'm not saying it never happened, I'm just saying the evidence so far is rather weak. —Eloquence 17:57, Sep 12, 2003 (UTC)

Yes I read your edit comment, but I hadn't noticed you moved/changed the reference to the Times piece-- so I thought you'd blown it away completely. I will investigate more & probably beef up evidence for large number of celebrants. Readers will be able to follow links and decide for themselves. BTW, thanks, Eloquence, for being one of the more active Wikipedians. I think we have something great going here-- our equivalent to what came out of the 19th century French salons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JDG (talk • contribs) 00:00, 13 September 2003 (UTC)

I agree, Wiki is great fun and very useful, but you inevitably become a bit paranoid about the articles you started or rewrote -- I did not mean to be rash. Please do add more details if you find them. As for comparing two revisions of an article, did you know that you can see a list of the specific changes between two versions by clicking on the "cur" (compare to current version) and "last" (compare to last version) links on the history link? —Eloquence 00:25, Sep 13, 2003 (UTC)

comment (2004)

You may also compare the reporting of first the "celebrations" and then how quitet it was when it turned out to be fake. Also compare that with that nothing was mentioned about celebrations in Israel after the Flash Airlines Flight 604 crash. // Liftarn —Preceding comment was added at 08:56, 11 March 2004 (UTC)

comment (2007)

- Aljazirra Report of "such" a response from former prime minister Netanyahu, neither celebrations in israel of the attacks are not solid proof that these events actually happaned. Aljazirra is widely known for its Anti-Israeli state of view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob1969 (talk • contribs) 12:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Questionable claim

In numerous cities of the Islamic world,

September 11 was again celebrated in 2002, 2003, and 2004 with crowded streets filled with dancing chanting men and celebratory gunfire, documented at al-Jazeera and very briefly in the Western media.

Direct citation please. When, where, who, how, what was the reaction? --Eloquence* —Preceding comment was added at 17:24, 17 September 2004 (UTC)

Sources

Ok, Snopes and Der Spiegel are good sources, but something that looks like a forum, freedomdomain.com (it labells itself "Freedom Domain Political Conspiracies Hemp Marijuana Freemen" and that doesn't inspire confidence) and a Tripod personal page are not really reliable sources. Can we agree to remove them? // Liftarn —Preceding comment was added at 12:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Celebrations elsewhere

• From British atheist Tariq Ali's Clash of Fundamentalisms (I've made bold the relevant passage):

The Catholic Church victimised worker or peasant priests who organised against oppression. The Iranian ayatollahs dealt severely with Muslims who preached in favour of a social radicalism. If I genuinely believed that this radical Islam was the way forward for humanity, I would not hesitate to say so in public, whatever the consequences. I know that many of your friends love chanting the name ‘Osama’ and I know that they cheered on September 11, 2001. They were not alone. It happened all over the world, but had nothing to do with religion. I know of Argentine students who walked out when a teacher criticised Osama. I know a Russian teenager who emailed a one-word message—‘Congratulations’—to his Russian friends whose parents had settled outside New York, and they replied: ‘Thanks. It was great.’ We talked, I remember, of the Greek crowds at football matches who refused to mourn for the two minutes the government had imposed and instead broke the silence with anti-American chants.

But none of this justifies what took place. What lies behind the vicarious pleasure is not a feeling of strength, but a terrible weakness. The people of Indo-China suffered more than any Muslim country at the hands of the US government. They were bombed for 15 whole years and lost millions of their people. Did they even think of bombing America? Nor did the Cubans or the Chileans or the Brazilians. The last two fought against the US-imposed military regimes at home and finally triumphed.

Today, people feel powerless. And so when America is hit they celebrate. They don’t ask what such an act will achieve, what its consequences will be and who will benefit. Their response, like the event itself, is purely symbolic.

I think that Osama and his group have reached a political dead-end. It was a grand spectacle, but nothing more. The US, in responding with a war, has enhanced the importance of the action, but I doubt if even that will rescue it from obscurity in the future. It will be a footnote in the history of this century. In political, economic or military terms it was barely a pinprick.

What do the Islamists offer? A route to a past which, mercifully for the people of the seventh century, never existed. If the ‘Emirate of Afghanistan’ is the model for what they want to impose on the world then the bulk of Muslims would rise up in arms against them. Don’t imagine that either Osama or Mullah Omar represent the future of Islam. It would be a major disaster for the culture we both share if that turned out to be the case. Would you want to live under those conditions? Would you tolerate your sister, your mother or the woman you love being hidden from public view and only allowed out shrouded like a corpse?

I've read other reports, scattered here and there, of celebrations outside of the Muslim world. DVDs of the event were selling widely in China, for example. It is dishonest and false to claim that this was restricted to "Arab Muslim communities", as the Wiki entry says.

• 9/11 reminds Chinese of America, global bully by Jehangir Pocha, San Francisco Chronicle, September 9, 2003

Ask Beijing residents what they will do Sept. 11, and they beam and tell you about moon cakes, the round pastries they make to mark the Moon Festival, which falls on that day this year.

Memories of another time that have inscribed the date indelibly in the minds of millions are faint, but slowly they emerge, and when they do, the recollections are not only of shock and dismay but also of the jubilant celebrations that greeted news of the terrorist attacks on U.S. targets.

"It was night, most people were going to sleep -- but as the news spread, people came out to dance and cheer," says Janice Wu, 28, a hotel manager. "They were screaming and lighting firecrackers -- it was like a big party."

The isolated celebrations were quickly discouraged by China's embarrassed government, but even now, two years later, the anniversary of the attacks reminds some people more of America's reputed sins against China and the world than of the loss of more than 3,000 innocent lives.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitrus (talk • contribs) 08:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• "Why Some Mexicans Have Mixed Emotions About 9-11" by John Ross, International Relations Center(think tank), September 19, 2001

MEDIA COVERAGE STRESSES IDEALOGICAL IMPLICATIONS

...

Some of the commentators, such as Televisa's Joaquín López Dóriga, unsuccessfully sought to conceal their mirth as the twin towers crumpled to earth. "The symbol of world economic power is no more," Dóriga yapped excitedly as re-runs showed the destruction on a seemingly endless tape loop.

Later, the star newscaster would boast that prior to this terrorist version of Pearl Harbor, only Mexico had ever had the audacity to attack the United States on its own turf, remembering how Pancho Villa invaded Columbus, NM, for a few hours during the Mexican Revolution.

The devastation depicted on the TV screens looked remarkably like the destruction wrought by the 1985 killer 7.8 earthquake here in Mexico City, which buried unknown thousands of people beneath the rubble of ill-constructed buildings, prompting the capital media to loudly lament the loss of life.

But in this case, not only the middle-of-the-road television broadcasts but also the left-leaning media expressed veiled satisfaction over the synchronized assault on the symbols in New York and Washington.

La Jornada, the national left-center daily, editorialized that, while it could not endorse the slaughter the paper well understood its root causes--multiple U.S. crimes against the world.

The influential publication devoted pages to the 1993 Oklahoma City federal-building bombing, which killed 163 and is attributed to right-wing militia operative Timothy McVeigh and his associates, in an effort to raise the possibility that the U.S. had actually bombed itself.

Columnists cited the U.S. role in the 1898 blow-up of the battleship Maine in Havana harbor, the 1964 "incident" in the Gulf of Tonkin that served as pretext for the first bombings of the Vietnam war, and the Nazi-set fire in the German Reichstag of 1935 as circumstantial evidence of U.S. complicity in the events of Black Tuesday.

CAPITAL RESIDENTS' REACTION, A COMPLEX MIX

In the streets, initial reaction ranged from shocked sadness over the waste of civilian lives to revelry over the destruction of the icons of imperialism.

I sat at my desk in the old quarter of Mexico City, staring in horror at the fuzzy images of the disaster. Suddenly, a brass band from impoverished Oaxaca state began to aggressively toot its horns beneath my balcony, as if in celebration.

Many Mexicans sent messages of sympathy to their U.S. friends, supposing that their grief was worse than that at home.

Meanwhile, one activist got so giddy that he went to the U.S. Embassy on Reforma Boulevard and handed out a list of Yankee imperialist war crimes that included Hiroshima and the genocide of North American Indians. In the new spirit of Mexican democracy, police promptly hauled him off.

I ran into Pepe G. in the Vascona Bakery. I know Pepe from years of covering demonstrations in which he often participates in the great central plaza a few blocks away. He was grinning from ear to ear. "How beautiful!" he said. Pepe did not mean the bread rings and the pineapple tarts and the creampuffs. He meant he was glad that someone had finally dealt a major blow to the Colossus of the North. "What balls the pilots had!" he marveled.

Such reactions may feel callous and off-the-cuff, but they are nonetheless rooted in the history of mistreatment Latin America has had at Uncle Sam's hands.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitrus (talk • contribs) 09:35-09:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• Web Visitors in China Cheer for the Explosions in London —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitrus (talk • contribs) 10:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

It may have helped that it was the same date as the 1973 Chilean coup d'état. // Liftarn —Preceding comment was added at 12:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Suggested move

It is pretty clear that a lot of the "celebrations" were forged. Suggested move to "Alleged celebrations of the September 11, 2001 attacks". Bless sins 20:12, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

BS's whitewash as usual. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 08:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Blatant POV racism as usual. // Liftarn

Whoever reads this, WP:DFTT. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 19:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Palestinians in Lebanon

this article is too centristic on palestinians in the west bank... i've seen this image from lebanon, but i did not have the time to further explore this. Jaakobou 11:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Christians in USA

This article is too centristic on Palestinians and the arab world. I've seen this and this image from USA. We have sources[1][2][3] so it could be added. // Liftarn —Preceding comment was added at 12:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

They don't seem to be about street celebrations held immediately after the attacks. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

And that makes it better? It's one thing to celebrate without knowledge of the full extent, but an entierly different thing doing it fully knowing how many died. // Liftarn —Preceding comment was added at 14:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

he (User:Jayjg) has a point.. i don't really know anything of the story but it looks more like a "testify" rally of an ultra christian nutjob group (i've seen a few generic documentries)... i think there is room to make an article about it... but don't think it has more room here than a "see also" ... perhaps also a small line about a "minor celebration" of X or Y (i havn't read the material and we should use the phrasing from the articles and who made this attribution to avoid conflict over phrasing) also happening in the US when the "see also" is added.

last note: no, it most certainly doesn't make it better, i think it makes it worse. Jaakobou 14:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

ok, i just went over the sky news report^[4]... it's not really as relating to the attacks of 9/11 imho as it does to the 7/7 bombings... side note/joke: these americans are not very jubilant... heh. Jaakobou 14:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

heh, they actually do use the term "preach" on the FOX link^[5] this one seems connected mostly to Jerry Falwell and Gay relating articles (in the USA). Jaakobou 14:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't suggest a separate article but an addition to this one. Oh, and if you want to write an article about Celebrations of the 7 July 2005 London bombings go ahead, but I think it will be a bit stubby. The article is just for a source that they do go around with plaquards saying "Thank God for Sep 11". // Liftarn —Preceding comment was added at 14:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Those aren't celebrations. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

A celebration is defined as "a joyous event or party" and they enjoyed it (and even thanked God for it). // Liftarn —Preceding comment was added at 14:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think walking around with placards counts. This article is about celebrations of the attacks in the immediate aftermath, as covered in the world press. Please try to avoid original research. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

From where do you get the idea that it is only celebrations in the immediate aftermath that are acceptable? I also thing WBC was quite quick to celebrate, they seem to do that whenever something bad happens. // Liftarn —Preceding comment was added at 16:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

currently based on my initial inspection of the links, it seems like a non-notable as an in-article text on this Celebrations article... seems far more fitting to the main 9/11 article. a "see also" is still a reasonable addition, but beyond that would be unrelated. Jaakobou 17:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Fraudulent statement and link removed

The following appears to be fraudulent, since the link at the bottom of the page never pointed to Times Newspapers, it points to another "freedomdomain.com" page, one that is dead.: "On the day of the attacks, Times Newspapers LTD. (British) reported that 3,000 celebrants were pouring into the streets of Nablus and dozens of people were celebrating in Arab East Jerusalem. From-> Freedom Domain Political Conspiracies Hemp Marijuana Freemen"

I had intended to add the following - but it's not currently available at the link I expected: A member of a group of Christian observers in Hebron that day reported "At no time that week did I see a Palestinian dancing or hear one expressing approval for what the terrorists did to my fellow citizens in New York or Washington, DC. The Palestinians in Hebron know that my organization, Christian Peacemaker Teams, often criticizes U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East, and they had plenty of opportunity to express their own bitterness regarding U.S. policy to us. But they didn't." -> - Settler Violence and September 11 A Report from the Mean Streets of Hebron - Kathleen Kern, with Christian Peacemaker Teams in Hebron. PalestineRemembered 15:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's please stick to NPOV

The reports by major European papers and broadcasters were hardly "a minority of media analysis". In fact, to my knowledge, it was the only analysis of the footage. The quote from the Panorama report was inexplicably removed, even though it was already referenced to an unofficial transcript, and a simple Google search would have turned up the report itself. The heading "Criticism" suggested that someone is being criticized; that is not the case, the very authenticity of key footage is being called into question. Both the celebrating children and the chanting woman were, according to the only independent investigations of this footage ever conducted, incited to do so. There is very little credible evidence of actual celebrations of the 9/11 attacks.--Eloquence* 15:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Removing something sourced to a maillist posting is hardly "inexplicable"; rather, it is a quite proper enforcement of WP:V. Thanks for finding a proper source. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

"symbolically donated blood"

How does one "symbolically [donate] blood?" Did Arafat give blood or did he not give "blood for the victims of the attack?" --GHcool 06:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

did you ever see arafat "live" on TV? the guy had "the shakes" bad... anyways, the whole situation was very weird. his people were so busy threatning lives of photographers that nobody wanted to give his donation much airtime.

from a web inspection it seems that he did donate as i remembered, but that's not the meanning of the title "symbolic (gesture)". there's (1) his shaky health status, (2) an orcastrated "we support you" chanting photo-op "blood drive" (3) every donation counts, but when a (politically motivated) leader makes one, it is allways considered a symbolic gesture. jordan's king abdullah also made the similar gesture (albeight without a tv-op spectacle) and with (4) this arafat donation being drowned by a reaction to bad press, make his motives a little bit suspect. lastly (5) arafat has a history of violent terrorism against civillians which makes for even more of a "retrospectively symbolic" donation. hope i answered all your questions.

last note, the blood did not travel across the ocean, mostly because there were barely any survivers and no need for the blood. Jaakobou 09:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

even though Tewfik seems to have followed round every single one of my recent edits and reverted them, I'm not going to push this one, as the donation probably was symbolic, in that his blood was probably never used. My reason for deleting the word was that I think people wanted it in simply to cast doubt - by their own admission - on Arafat's motives, as if it was PR stunt rather than a genuine gesture of solidarity, when of course they have no way of verifying that. I don't know either way - but then neither does anyone else. And btw, just because one BBC reporter made a judgement that it was "for show", that doesn't settle the issue either, even if it does happen to accord with your POV. --Nickhh 08:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[Interjected] I responded to this on your Talk. Tewfik^Talk 09:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I think he was too old to be a viable donor. // Liftarn —Preceding comment was added at 08:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, now we know the truth. He didn't give any blood, symbolically or otherwise. The whole thing was faked. -- Zsero (talk) 10:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

cameramen blocked

i plan on working this in later if it's not already covered fully.

http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=2&x_article=265

cheers to everybody. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure, but try to find a reliable source first. // Liftarn —Preceding comment was added at 13:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

he's already using a reliable source .Isarig 17:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC) — Preceding comment signed "Isarig" added by Former user 2.

Where? The only link I see is to CAMERA and they are no no way reliable. // Liftarn —Preceding comment was added at 12:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

you are welcome to your personal opinion of CAMERA, but they are a reliable source according to WP standards. Isarig 16:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC) — Preceding comment signed "Isarig" added by Former user 2.

They are? "Reliable sources are authors or publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand.". I don't see how a propaganda organisation like CAMERA can be seen as "trustworthy or authoritative". Questionable sources should only be used in articles about themselves. // Liftarn —Preceding comment was added at 06:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

considering both BBC and The Guardian are presented as WP:RS regardless of their inherent bias, CAMERA fits into the same criteria as using it for "CAMERA states/reports that..."... this is about reports, and this body is considered "trustworthy and authoritative" in that department. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

BBC and The Guardian are reputable news providers, CAMERA is an interest organisation as best and a propaganda organisation and as such they are a questionable source. // Liftarn —Preceding comment was added at 09:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Charges of bias have been leveled at both the BBC and the Guardian, and many consider them to be as partisan as any of the sources you object to. The BBC world service, in particular, is the propaganda arm of the British FO, which funds it. All this is moot though- you are welcome to your personal opinion of CAMERA, but it meets WP's requirements for a reliable source. Isarig 16:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC) — Preceding comment signed "Isarig" added by Former user 2.

Err... No, I don't think so. About themselves yes, but not in general. // Liftarn —Preceding comment was added at 16:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

what you think is entirely irrelevant. They meet WP requirements, that's all that matters. Isarig 16:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC) — Preceding comment signed "Isarig" added by Former user 2.

[Outdent] Says who? WP:V says "Questionable sources should only be used in articles about themselves.". // Liftarn —Preceding comment was added at 16:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

But there is nothing to suggest that CAMERA is a questionable source. You are using circular logic. Isarig 17:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC) — Preceding comment signed "Isarig" added by Former user 2.

CAMERA have been described as "a Boston based powerful ultra-right pro-Israel lobby group that tries to suppress criticism of Israel on US media. It uses its financial and political clout to force media elements to tow Israel's party line.". I think that would suggest they are somewhat unreliable. // Liftarn —Preceding comment was added at 07:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

And the BBC has been described as "Push[ing Arab Narrative" and it has been alleged that it 'Touts Hamas Line'. Would this suggest it, too, is somewhat unreliable? Isarig 12:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC) — Preceding comment signed "Isarig" added by Former user 2.

No, because the BBC is by so many considered the emodiedment of unbiased reporting. that there are some nutcases that don't like unbiaser reporting is another issue. Also you are comparing a news source with an interest organisation here. // Liftarn —Preceding comment was added at 12:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

And it is considered by others to be the epitome of biased reporting. It is funded by the British FO, which sets is goals. But hank you for that eloquent display of double standards. Isarig 12:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC) — Preceding comment signed "Isarig" added by Former user 2.

There is no double standard here. News sources are (for the most cases) reliable, interest organisations (for the most cases) have a bias. It's as simple as that. // Liftarn —Preceding comment was added at 12:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

news sources can (and often are) biased. For a simple experiment, try to imagine how you would react to WP articles sourced to Arutz 7, or to the Metula News Agency. As to interest organizations and your double standards, please explain why CAMERA should be avoided, but the POV quotes from the Israeli Committee Against House Demolition which you insist on inserting into the House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are just fine and dandy. Isarig 04:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC) — Preceding comment signed "Isarig" added by Former user 2.

Surely it would be a good thing for people who add observations to these pages to actually have some vague idea of what they are talking about? The BBC is not "funded by the FO". Nor does the FO "set its goals". Nor, although to be fair Isarig doesn't say this, are the BBC or the FCO "Arabist" [sic]. Although they do claim someone says they "tout" a "Hamas line". Words fail me at this point. --Nickhh 23:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

It would certainly be a good idea. So for your personal edification, as you clearly have no idea whatsoever about the BBC World services's source of funding, here it is, stright from the horse's mouth: "It is funded primarily through grant-in-aid from the FCO" [6]. Note also that this appears under the heading of "Promoting the UK". It is hard to imagine a more biased source than one which is funded by the FCO, for the purpsoe of "promoting the UK". And in case you think this is some misrepresentation by the FCO, the BBC itself says the same thing about the BBCWS: "The World Service provides news in English and 42 other languages and is funded by a Foreign Office grant. " [7]. As to the FCO setting teh BBCWS's goals, again, read the BBCWS web site itself: "The Foreign Secretary is responsible for agreeing with the BBC World Service its objectives and medium term priority target audiences defined geographically and by audience segment, and appropriate performance measures." [8] . Perhaps if you knew a little more about the topics you post about, words would not fail you quite so quickly. Isarig 04:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC) — Preceding comment signed "Isarig" added by Former user 2.

Thank you for the somewhat patronising sarcasm. I actually know quite a lot about this topic, for various reasons. My post said "the BBC is not funded by the FO". It is not. I don't know why you are now going on about the BBC World Service, which is a very small and distinct part of the overall BBC structure - yes, earlier on in this thread you correctly made the specific assertion that the World Service is funded by the FCO, but you then started referring simply to "the BBC" as being so funded. This is incorrect, and I was slightly surprised to see someone claim it. Maybe you were just being a little loose with your language at that point, but, on the basis of what was actually written, you were still wrong.

As for the World Service itself, the FCO only sets certain of the BBC WS goals, relating as you have pointed out to performance, where it broadcasts etc - it specifically guarantees its editorial independence. You may think of course that such a guarantee is meaningless, and you may or may not be right, but the FCO does not directly dictate the editorial content or direction of BBC WS reports, which is what in my view you were trying to suggest, in order to discredit it as a reliable source. --86.137.203.163 17:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I was sure I was still logged in when I posted that last comment. Obviously not --Nickhh 17:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Yasser Arafat's blood donation

The alternate text of the image is "Yasser Arafat symbolically donates blood in the aftermath of the attacks on the US". The caption of the image is "Mr Arafat made a show of donating blood".[9] Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

How do we want to parapharse this? I removed the word "symbolicaly(sp)". Thanks--Tom 13:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

We could just record what the source cited says, that "Mr. Arafat made a show of donating blood." Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

That looks fine. I now see what the alternate image caption says and agree. Sorry and Thanks--Tom 13:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Now it's even worse. You can't just find one news report/analysis piece, and quote a website photo caption it as if it is fact! What if I were to find, for the sake of example, a media source which says "Yasser Arafat, despite being frail and unwell, donated blood to express his genuine sympathy for the people of the US". Would we replace the current cynically-worded text with that? The insertion of the words "for show" as if it is a definitive judgement remains WP:OR whether you've found one webpage (from whatever source) that uses those words or not. If you're just going to "recite what the source says", then you make clear that it was the source that said it, in the main text. --Nickhh 21:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Most of the links support that this was a symbolic act. Anyways, --Tom 23:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Actually the one or two I looked at don't back that interpretation. And does this mean that I can now insert the phrase "George Bush is an idiot" into that article on the basis that a Google search would reveal 1000s of links to news articles, comment pieces and blogs etc that make or suggest the connection? Sources are meant to provide verifiable facts or attribution of interpretation, not simply interpretation as if it were standalone fact - anyone can find a whole load of web references that appear to back a particular point of view, even from mainstream media sources. --Nickhh 09:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Nickhh, I actually removed the word "symbolically" originally before digging deeper into this. I hear what you are saying, but you need to look at the bulk of material out there and then try to make the best of it. I, myself, prefer to include less than more and allow the the reader to determine what the "truth" is. You sort of have to pick your battles around here and this is pretty low on my radar. If you feel really strongly about this then proceed or do what you will, thats the great thing about WP. Again, I sort of agree with you in that I would leave the commentary out, especially on image captions. Its a picture a Arafat giving blood, period. The rest is editorial, commentary, speculation, yada, yadda, yadda about his motives. Anyways, I am stepping out. Cheers and good luck. --Tom 13:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Well I think we agree on the principles, but also that this one word or two isn't worth getting too excited over. Thanks though --Nickhh 13:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. However, you would not believe how many edit wars I have seem to be involved in over just ONE word :) It MUST be me, right? :) Cheers! --Tom 14:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Palestinian Media Reaction

I have again restored the section on Palestinian media coverage. What are your grounds for its removal? There is a great deal of focus in the article on media reaction, and it seems that local reaction might be important. Especially since it adds to the NPOV of the article. For those familiar with the region, it's obvious that the celebrations are not characteristic of the Palestinian response. This makes it all the more important to document local reaction to such things. Perhaps additional sources of evidence will be useful. Menaus 21:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Is there a single video report that isn't disputed?

I've looked at the CNN video - it shows the exact same sequence of children and the same woman, the very footage that was examined in full in the Panorama report. And the "handing out of sweets" was shown by Panorma to be exactly what was used to get these people to celebrate on camera! There are dubious sources showing numbers like "3000 people" pouring into the streets, as far as I remember, that also goes back to a single Israeli source. Is there any video report whose authenticity isn't wildly questionable? --Eloquence* 14:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Questionable cartoon

• About Image:BinLadenVictoryOverWTC-AlHayat-12-9-2007.JPG which at the time had the following caption:
  "Palestinian cartoon celebrating the September 11, 2001 Attacks. Published by Al-Hayat al-Jadida, Palestinian Authority official daily newspaper, on September 12, 2007 Reported by PMW.

What does the cartoon caption say? The picture alone is not at all proof of celebrations of the attacks by Palestinians, as the original image caption alleged! --Eloquence* 14:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

it says: "Exclusive to Al Hayat Al Jadida", when in doubt, try clicking the source file. it also has a note that the PA continues a long tradition of celebrating 9/11. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

We still have no reliable source saying the cartoon in any way is a celebration. It seems far more likley it is a comment like so many other cartoons. // Liftarn —Preceding comment was added at 10:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

please go over the source file notes and try to avoid false claims. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell the source is PMW and I don't think they are really reliable. // Liftarn —Preceding comment was added at 20:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

This cartoon is relevant and it is not acceptable to claim it is not a celebration BUT THIS IS A COPYVIO. We have to delete this or to get permission not from PMW but from the cartoonist who drew this. Good luck. Alithien 11:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

i've asked about this on the "sources talk noticeboard" (don't remember the shortcut) and was told that i can post it under the copyright i've given... we can open this for talk somewhere though if you're still concerned. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Liftarn, as have been noted by Alithien, there is very little needed to claim this is a celebration. On top of this, I do believe that PMW is considered reliable (albeit partizan) source for translations and observations on the Palestinian authority, their translations have been used by notables such as CNN and others. if you insist on the claim that "this is not a celebration", then please be so kind as to go over WP:RS. If you still believe that you have a case to prove that PMW is non-reliable, feel free to open up a new subsection and i will start an RfC regarding the issue. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

there is a difference between saying it is a "Palestinian cartoon celebrating" (i.e. the cartoon or rather the cartoonist and the publishing newspaper that does the celebration) and "cartoon, showing Bin Laden celebrating" (that Bin Laden is doing the celebration). // Liftarn —Preceding comment was added at 11:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

umm, this is not bin laden himself, it's a cartoon of his and PMW reports the story. is there some way you'd like to promote this dispute to other people or other reasons before i open a WP:3O or something ? how about a suggested re-write? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

So if I find a cartoon of a celebrating Bin Laden in say Washington Post is it Ok to add it to this page saying that Washington Post celebrated 9-11? I don't think so. A rewrite would be a good idea. Here on the talk page the caption says "Palestinian cartoon, showing Bin Laden celebrating the September 11, 2001 Attacks." and that sounds better. But then the cartoon has no real place on the page. // Liftarn —Preceding comment was added at 12:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

if someone credible reports that the USA celebrated 9-11 and his samples include several cartoons like this one and the others in the PMW article, you are more than welcome to add it also... i'm not into censorship. your suggestion is not half bad though, except where you say it's 'bin laden celebrating' because our source is not just about bin laden - it has more info than just bin laden. maybe we should add a paragraph into the article quickly explaining the PMW article's text so that people won't think this text was only because of the bin-laden cartoon?

p.s. i updated the image here with the reference that we added to the article so that the link is visible. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

PMW is, as I already said, not really reliable. They are utterly biased so their claims can not be taken seriously. We sure can add that PWM claims this or that. // Liftarn —Preceding comment was added at 13:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

If that is not copy-violation, I wonder what could be copy-violation.

Liftarn, how do you want to prove that PMW is not reliable ?

And anyway, anybody who sees the cartoon can immediately see where it comes from... It is purposedly done for that :-)

I have just a concern about the guy who signed this : STEPH ??? That doesn't sound much Arab, does it ? Alithien 08:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't have to prove that PMW is unreliable, the burden of evidence is on the one who claims they are reliable. // Liftarn —Preceding comment was added at Revision as of 08:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Ridiculously biased source. It is not up to Liftarn to show it's not reliable, it's up to you to prove it IS reliable. I removed the picture. 83.233.154.50 14:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

ok, like i said, CNN and other major sources, believe they are RS and use their translations for reports. here's a few links to major news sources who reported their stories:

The Washington Times^[10],Washington Post^[11],BBC^[12],Reuters^[13], Forbes^[14],Jerusalem Post^[15],Channel 2 (Israel)^[16],The New York Times^[17].

i hope this satisfies the RS issue. if not, let me know and we'll open some dispute resolution process. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

So they themselves claim they are reliable? Gee, that sure settles it. Not! // Liftarn —Preceding comment was added at 15:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The real question is how this cartoon is related to celebrations. Political cartoons are commentary, and I don't see how this commentary is "celebrating" the attacks. It features Bin Laden claiming the attacks as a victory. As far as I know, Bin Laden approves of the attacks. But what does this reveal about Palestinian public opinion? I think it is inflammatory to general American sensibilities and is therefore shocking. It's no wonder that the propaganda machine PMW circulated it. I don't see how the cartoon adds anything of substance to this (already heavily biased) article, Jaakobou.Menaus 16:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

(1) i don't see why the article is already heavily biased, there's a full WP:UNDUE section regarding the remote possibility that the cameraman might have tampered with the people celebrating. (2) i'm not the one making the commentary regarding the celebration, PMW are claiming a long history of celebrating the event and they are listed as the reporting body. I admit that there is room to expand on their report into the article to further present the public opinion aspect that is reported along with the september 12, 2007 cartoon. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Jaakobu, thanks for your comments above. It's clear to me now that there is no evidence that the cartoon "celebrates" the attacks and that this is purely an interpretation by "observers" of the PA. We should not carry such interpretations of what is at best a marginal issue, but if we do, we should clearly attribute them rather than making them our own. This is the essence of WP:NPOV.

Please explain how you feel the section about the authenticity of the video reports is of undue length. The only part of it which should (IMHO) be removed are the comments about media in general. But this is the key video footage that has been shown over and over again, including the reports cited in the main article, and its authenticity has been called into question by serious investigative reports: a woman says she was given cake to celebrate, a man was observed inciting the children who are allegedly celebrating the attacks. How is that not relevant, and in fact, how is it not so relevant that it should be given even greater prominence in the article? --Eloquence* 23:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

(1) it doesn't matter what's clear to you since wiki is not registered either in your name or mine 0 what's clear is that PMW are reporting it - and we made sure that they are mentioned as the reporting body in the article.

(2) a single tv segment saying that the scene might have been tampered, is clearly not an inclusive research - plus they don't clearly say "the scene is obviously staged" but rather tell the audience to keep an open mind when scenes from conflicts are presented.

(3) references in the article body speak of more than just a couple children celebrating, and anyone who's knows a tad about arab culture also knows it's traditional to give out baklava and similar "cake" on happy occasions. who other than panorama presented "serious investigative reports" ?

-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Dagens Nyheter and Der Spiegel managed to track down and interview the woman. It used to be in the article. // Liftarn —Preceding comment was added at 08:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

that is a possibility, but you have to find the links. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Like I said. It was in the article. With some time it would be possible to find out when (and by who!) the links were removed. // Liftarn —Preceding comment was added at 10:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

you are free to look it up - here's the article's history: [18]. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Panorama section break

It's interesting that you claim undue weight in one part of the article, yet want to make a cartoon with questionable meaning the opening picture of this article.

Panorama is a highly regarded investigative reporting format on German public television. To my knowledge, it is the only serious news outlet that has actually examined the origin of the video footage that was simply rebroadcast through other channels. Above, I asked if there was any TV footage of "celebrations" that isn't part of this set. You haven't shown any, which means that the entire article may very well place undue weight on news reports that were not investigative in nature, but that simply rebroadcast footage shortly after the attacks. The Panorama report was quoted in other German news media, including Der Spiegel. If we aren't culturally biased towards English-speaking sources, we should consider the credibility which these sources have in their language which, as a journalist and native German, I can assure you is very high.

Please keep in mind that the report quotes the woman herself as saying that she was given cake in order to celebrate in front of the camera, and that she was horrified by the actual attacks. And the footage -- where she takes the cake, then waves her hands around a little -- supports that. "Undue weight" applies when there are actual competing points of view involved. But there aren't -- there isn't a point of view with substantial sourcing that claims the footage to be authentic. The only investigation into its authenticity that has ever taken place finds it to be questionable at best.--Eloquence* 01:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Eloquence, please don't misrepresent the Panorama article, the woman says she was horrified to find out that the images of her celebrating were on American television, not what you said. do you have any other sources (with a link please) other than panorama's "serious investigative reports"? plaese note the number of sources reporting that palestinans were indeed celerating. note also that the woman's daughter is also quoted in the article. regardless of if you personally believe the images are fake, clearly, there is not enough support to that perspective.

if you can find another proper source, i'll probably drop my undue perspective (pending on the source quality), but for now - i think that the "staged" perspetive is more thanwell presented based on what the single source says. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 01:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

btw, reverting and then placing a totally disputed tag is not the great way to get a good response from the person you are in content dispute over. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 01:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

-- i reverted because i noticed you used an incorrect/false copy-paste translation, i suggest you find someone who speaks germen before you copy-paste bad translations again into articles. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

-- i just added another machine-translation (babelfish), it's still not 100% accurate, but it's closer to the source. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Didn't Der Spiegel and Dagens Nyheter in cooperation managed to track down and interview the woman? That's how it was reported in Dagens Nyheter anyway. // Liftarn (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

small number of

this edit - [19]. needs a source.

current text on reporting is:

The Times (British) and Fox News (American) reported that 3,000 celebrants were pouring into the streets of Nablus and dozens of people were celebrating in the traditional gesture of handing out sweets. The Times notes that in traditionally Arab East Jerusalem, there was a smaller gathering of about two dozen people.[11] FOX News adds that in Ein el-Hilweh (Lebanon), where about 75,000 Palestinians live, and also in Rashidiyeh camp south of Tyre, revelers fired weapons in the air.

i believe that the use of "a small number of" is not based on any of the sources and is WP:OR. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

These sources show a total of four demonstrations, two in the Palestinian territories/East Jerusalem and two in Lebanese camps. I'm sorry but I really don't think it's original research to say that this is a "small number", considering how many camps, towns and villages there are across the Middle East. Especially when compared to the gestures of sympathy, both official and popular, this really needs to be put into context which is what my edit tried to do. --Nickhh (talk) 13:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

ps: and of course the edit refers specifically to the events, not to the reported number of participants (which in any event were also limited, relatively speaking) --Nickhh (talk) 14:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

find a source. otherwise it's subjective WP:OR (read that link please). Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I've read it thanks. A long time ago. There comes a point where things don't have to be sourced you know. Without some reference to how limited these things were, this article is utterly misleading, and arguably a POV-fork. --Nickhh (talk) 15:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

And actually of course it's not OR for another reason - like a good introduction it merely summarises the details, as sourced in the rest of the article. Those make clear that the overwhelming expression throughout the Mid East and elsewhere was one of sympathy; hence, by comparison, the number of celebratory events was "small" by any definition. --Nickhh (talk) 15:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

"occasioned spontaneous outbreaks" is good enough without adding the !number, "small number of" .. see WP:WTA. please avoid soapboxing for how you perceive the mideast reactions. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

(Reset) I'm sorry Jakaabou but it is very frustrating dealing with an editor who doesn't understand the nuances of English. "Occasion" as a verb means simply to cause or give rise to - it carries no suggestion of how frequently or not things happen. So it is not an "addition" to talk about a small number. Four is a small number. And please stop quoting wiki-rules at me all the time. Especially when they have nothing to do with the issue at hand, and when you don't seem to give much of a toss for what half of them mean yourself. --Nickhh (talk) 18:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

ps: I think someone may have gotten into your account. It was used to make this edit a couple of days ago. I can't square your points here with that edit - especially because tiny is a way stronger word than small. --Nickhh (talk) 18:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

you made a fairly (note the westboro church) good point with the CJCurrie link. i won't go deeply into my !correspondance with him/her and how things devolved - however, that certain dispute was resolved with a ref i have added to the article which noted the number 5000. hence, the final concensus, was accoring to the 'ref based' policy i have stated here.

on point, i believe the word 'occasion' suggests singularity in events rather than continuity ("what's the occasion?"/"on occasion"). therefore, i don't quite believe my comment was in error despite the explanation. i'm open to find a middle ground phrasing (for our dispute) that will not insert original research regarding the intensity and quantity of the celebrations (i.e. ref based). what sources do we have on this issue? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

blood again

the dispute is over arafat politically motivated action and that was the consensus we reached a while back. the first phrasing was 'symbolically donated blood', based on a number of sources and also the text of the image in the BBC article (right click that picture and click properties). however, there were objections to the term symbolically and we ended up agreeing on the text used in the article body. started here: [20] and ended here: [21]. anyways, i'm open to suggestions that stay true to the notion that it was a politically motivated action. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually I don't recall there being a consensus - as I remember it there was an unresolved dispute and I simply got bored of fighting over a couple of words so left it. Having said that, the imputing of specific motives to Arafat is so obviously a piece of original research I'm not sure why it is or was being debated. Jaakabou has no idea what his motives were, and the fact that the BBC website suggests the donation was symbolic is irrelevant - reporters will use descriptive phrasing sometimes and provide their own interpretation. The only indisputable fact is that Arafat gave blood, and that's all Wikipedia needs to say. Anyone can read the article and decide for themselves that it was for show or symbolic, if they want to. --Nickhh (talk) 14:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

It probably was symbolic since he was too old to be a viable blood donor anyway, byt that is (as you point out) original research. // Liftarn (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 14:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

forget about what i think, i was repeating the words of sources talking about his medical condition and other such issues. we've managed to quietly stop the feud when BBC was the source used for the text... when the "symbolically" was still under dispute despite it's being used on the BBC article, we've settled on the image's under-text... there is no dispute that he made a show out of it (unlike for example, abdullah of jordan). Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to note that the piece linked was actually an "analysis", ie commentary, piece, not a news report. Forbes states that "Arafat gave blood to be shipped to the U.S." ([22]). Washington Post says "with photographers on hand, Arafat donated blood for victims" ([23]). CBS says "Arafat donated blood for U.S. victims joining a global effort to boost blood supplies." ([24]) et cetera et cetera ad nauseum. "Symbolically" is already an unwarranted compromise with POV-pushers and I'd leave it to just "donated" if I was willing to waste more time arguing with the brick-wall-faction here. <eleland/talkedits> 02:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I objected originally to the "made a show of" caption but relented since a source was provided. Since Eleland has presented multiple sources to support his version, again we must find a nuetral version. "Symbolically" fits that category since the "made a show" implies a motive which isn't fair even if it is somehow the "truth". Even "symbolically" implies a motive but it seems more nuetral.Anyways, --Tom 13:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, now we know the truth. He didn't give any blood, symbolically or otherwise. The whole thing was faked. Enderlin is certainly a reliable source for this, because it's an admission against interest. His entire career is now tied up with the Palestinian cause, and an admission like this damages him, but he made it anyway. -- Zsero (talk) 10:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if Joel Pollak is a reliable source. It's his blog. // Liftarn (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 12:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

note

5 Israelis in New York, based on an op-ed is not enough to give an "Israeli celebrations" by-line. please rework to a more proper level and try using better sources also; a fuzzy Haaretz op-ed story is not quite what you'd expect if this was noteworthy. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

You are right, the title was inappropriate, however I disagree with you that Haaretz is not a good reference to use. Imad marie (talk) 12:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

An Haaretz vague op-ed echoing a US story is not reliable on it's own for 'facts'. I still can't see what makes this 5 "suspicious" people worthy per WP:UNDUE but I'm open to a more toned down suggestion on a possible inclusion. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

As noted in the protection summary, there's has been a disproportionate ratio of reverts -to- discussion here. I think due weight considerations are rather key: how many reliable sources claimed this as a celebration (how many non-op-ed-authored ones, especially)? Another dimension of undue weight is whether it makes sense to go on at such length at five people, whereas elsewhere, we're talking about massive numbers — not only that, but, confirmed celebrators and not merely suspected ones. El_C 19:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Not just Haaretz reported this incident, foxnews and NYTimes and ABC News reported it as well. Jaakobou, we can work a suitable tone for the inclusion of the incident. Imad marie (talk) 21:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I still think you need a reliable followup to that "reported by the NY Times"; as well, as mentioned, the scales (five people versus many thousands) are rather skewed. But I'll let you two work it out. El_C 21:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

More importantly, there's nothing at all to indicate that the five were celebrating anything. Dancing, handing out candy, openly declaring joy, those are all unmistakeable signs of celebration; the Israelis were not reported to be doing any of these things. All they were reported to have done was speak loudly and take photos — exactly what thousands of people were doing that day. Is there any reliable source that states unequivocally that they were celebrating, or indeed doing anything unusual? Vague innuendo about "suspicious behaviour" won't cut it. -- Zsero (talk) 01:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The burden of evidence is especially great because the actual motivation to celebrate is absent. El_C 03:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Zsero and El_C: (New York Times) says: "and were seen congratulating one another afterwards.". Haaretz says: "shouting in what was interpreted as cries of joy and mockery", that is celebration to me. Also we do not need to compare their reaction to the reaction of the "thousands" of Palestinians, this is not a comparison, according to the tile this article should document any incident that is related to celebrating the Sept 11 attacks. Imad marie (talk) 07:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I've made a source search and did not come up with any serious material. I'd be happier if you find the actual NYT source so we can review it. Other than that, I can see is some police who arrested 5 Israelis taping the attack saying the Israelis acted "suspicious" by not being overly intimidated by a terror attack, a fairly common event in Israel, across the river. I'm fairly certain this doesn't fit as a "celebrations" section, but if properly cited and properly written, it could possibly be added somewhere - gather some normative sources first and make sure they are more than "rumor mill" op-ed types. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 07:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that we need some quotations from the original story, but also, as I mentioned earlier, followup (i.e. what happened in the end). This isn't about what celebration may mean to us, as per our own interpretations (i.e. as a synthesis), but rather what reliable sources said about these these five Israelis and whether their conduct was termed a celebration, clearly. El_C 08:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

How does one distinguish a "congratulation" from an ordinary greeting? Who, exactly, "interpreted" their shouting "as cries of joy and mockery", and what possible basis could they have had for this "interpretation"? The fact that this weasely statement appears in what's otherwise a RS doesn't make it a reliable statement. All it amounts to is speculation and innuendo on the part of some anonymous person, quite likely an antisemite. (I've seen the deposition of one of these Israelis about his treatment in detention, and the blatant antisemitism he reports on the part of the guards is shocking.) -- Zsero (talk) 14:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree what we need any further references, the references are clear, 5 Israelis were arrested celebrating the attacks in mysterious circumstances. References say that their motives were vague and unclear, but that's not a reason not to include the incident, this can be mentioned in the article; I mean their vague motives. Imad marie (talk) 18:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

NO. There is no reliable source, or any reason at all to believe, that they were celebrating. It is pure innuendo. -- Zsero (talk) 18:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for being late to reply: it seems that eyewitnesses have reported the strange behavior of the 5 Israelis. neighbors have reported that the men were dancing and acting happy. Additional resources I found (I know they are not very solid references) are: 1 and 2, this is what the ABCNews article says too. I couldn't find the NYTimes article as it seems it is not published online. Can a neutral entry to the article be something like : "eyewitnesses have reported that 5 Israeli men were reacting to the attacks with joy", AFAIK the detained men did not deny those claims. Imad marie (talk) 10:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Imad marie, that's a far more reasonable suggestion. However, I'm not yet sure this "report" (how reliable are these eye witnesses?) is so notable. can you please converge all the relevant sources in here so we can see how notable this eye witness report has been? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, based on the testimony of those eyewitnesses the 5 men were arrested for more than 2 months, before being deported to Israel, so I'd call their testimony significant. Now, why would the eyewitnesses be honest about the "puzzling" behavior but lie about their "joyful" behavior? that doesn't make sense. Please take a look at this article, it compiles information from different references; eyewitnesses have seen the Israelis "Dancing", "congratulating one another", "making fun of the World Trade Center ruins" and "jumping for joy". Imad marie (talk) 16:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Imad marie,

This is not an advocacy forum. If you want to persuade me that this material should be included (and I'm willing to keep an open mind about this) - you can't link to whatreallyhappened.com and expect to keep me interested.

I requested that you link all the reliable sources you have found so both I and others can asses the notability and value of this event. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Jaakobou, please take a look inside whatreallyhappened.com, you will find good references: foxnews, and ABCNews Imad marie (talk) 18:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Do we have doubts here that eyewitnesses reported the men as acting in a "celebrating" manner? Imad marie (talk) 18:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Allow me to make it clearer. I currently don't have time to go and do source fishing on this topic. If whatreallyhappened.com gives links to original reliable sources, then accumulate these sources here for public review. To note, whatreallyhappened.com is not considered a reliable source on it's own and therefore, cannot be used to say that someone else reported something.

p.s. I do have doubts regarding behavioral examination ability of anonymous eye-witnesses in a heated situation where the subjects they "study" speak a different language and come from a country far more familiar with terror attacks. I also have doubts regarding the notability of this event. So,trying to keep an open mind that this material might be worthy of inclusion, I request that you do the work and persuade by supplying the reliable sources. Converging all the relevant sources on the talk page would certainly help a proper examination of the material. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

None of the sources cited so far are reliable as to the point under debate: whether the five were seen celebrating. The journalists report second-hand accounts about supposed anonymous witnesses who seem to have jumped to conclusions based on no apparent evidence, or whose words were so interpreted by the law-enforcement people to whom they spoke. The person who allegedly saw them "exchanging high-fives" is particularly incredible, since that's a peculiarly American gesture. (The same is true for reports that the Syrians on Northwest Airlines Flight 327 were making thumbs-up gestures; in most places outside the USA that is a rude gesture, not a sign of approval or confirmation.) And while a far-away witness might see someone jumping, how on earth can he tell that it's for joy, rather than, e.g., to get a better view? What is reliably reported of their behaviour seems completely ordinary and not at all like celebrating: they saw what was happening, they exclaimed excitedly to each other in a language that the witnesses did not understand, and they took photos — exactly as thousands of others did. In hindsight their arrest seems the result of nothing more than the understandable hysteria of those days.

Imad cites the fact that they were detained for two months as somehow indicating that the original eyewitness reports that led to their arrest were "significant". But that is not true at all. They were detained for so long because they were in the USA illegally; in ordinary circumstances, once the FBI decided not to charge them with anything, they would have been deported as soon as possible (unless they chose to contest the deportation), but John Ashcroft ordered (without apparent legal authority) that all illegal aliens arrested should be retained, regardless of evidence or lack thereof. So they were kept until that order was rescinded, despite not being suspected of any 11-Sep-related crime.

Imad also wrote "AFAIK the detained men did not deny those claims", i.e. that they were seen celebrating. This source cited by Imad shows otherwise. I've also seen the deposition of one of the prisoners, and he certainly denies any such thing. -- Zsero (talk) 05:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I found the New York Article, it says:

Sherri Evanina, a F.B.I. spokeswoman in Newark, said five men were detained late Tuesday after the van in which they were driving was stopped on Route 3 in East Rutherford.

She said witnesses had reported seeing the men celebrating the attack on the World Trade Center earlier in the day in Union City.

Zsero, you don't need to speak someone's language to evaluate his facial expressions. Also, I can't imagine that the 5 men were not surprised at the sight of crashing of a plane into a 110-story tower because they are used to "Palestinian attacks". Imad marie (talk) 08:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The following is quoted from 9/11_advance-knowledge_debate#Israel:

According to an FBI spokesman, the men explained that they were celebrating because "...the United States would now have to commit itself to fighting [Middle East] terrorism, that Americans would have an understanding and empathy for Israel’s circumstances, and that the attacks were ultimately a good thing for Israel."

As noted by Christopher Ketchum, in Counterpunch:

What is perhaps most damning is that the Israelis’ celebration on the New Jersey waterfront occurred in the first sixteen minutes after the initial crash, when no one was aware this was a terrorist attack.

In other words, they were seen celebrating immediately after the first plane hit, at a time when major news agencies were still reporting the event as a catastrophic accident.

This is the reference. Imad marie (talk) 09:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Currently presented sources lead me to believe that this material belongs under a "rumor mill" subsection on the main 9/11 article. I can't see this event as verified and notable enough "celebrations" since, even if we take 'counterpunch' and 'eye witness' accounts, they are not really reporting a 'celebration', but rather 5 non-Americans who were not in shock... I've seen many articles of equal volume where individuals were not in shock and even pleased. I currently, considering presented sources, don't see this story as fitting for this article. If you can make a different source based presentation, I may change my mind, but this is my belief based on the currently presented 2 sources. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Come on! this is no rumor! Many references have reported this and NYTimes would be the strongest reference. According to NYTimes: F.B.I. spokeswoman said witnesses had reported seeing the men celebrating. Those are the exact words of the FBI spokeswoman, there is no rumor about that, and celebrating is different than not in shock . Now, the witnesses may have been correct or incorrect about their judgment about what they saw, in all cases The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Even if the witnesses were wrong in their judgment, that's no reason not to add something like "witnesses have reported to see 5 men celebrating while taping the attacks". Imad marie (talk) 12:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Despite a difference in perspective, I'm not trying to fight you but rather trying to help you. An "[anonymous] witnesses had reported" source, no matter on who they reported it to is simply not enough for a "celebrations" section. Considering the currently presented sources, I don't see this as anything more than a "Rumor Mill" section on the main 9/11 article. Please go over WP:UNDUE and if you still disagree with me, you can open some form of WP:DR, possibly WP:3O or WP:RfC... I'm even willing to help you with that.

p.s. unless we get a solid sources (not counterpunch) report that the 5 were indeed celebrating (not repeat anon. eye witness accounts) or an admission that they were in fact celebrating, I can't see this fitting the celebration article. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The alleged anonymous "eyewitness reports" are worthless. These people presumably called an FBI switchboard operator with what they had seen. The operator would have passed the message on to agents, who would have passed it to each other, and eventually to a spokesman who told the press about it. By that time, any details would be completely unreliable, having been overlaid by layers of supposition and conclusion-jumping by each link in the chain. This is different from a reporter speaking to an alleged witness and reporting directly what that person claimed to have seen.

I suppose one could discern celebration from people's facial expressions, but a) one would have to be rather closer than these supposed "witnesses" are described as having been; and b) there's no indication that the "witnesses" did base their conclusion on facial expressions. -- Zsero (talk) 18:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a nice scenario, but you don't have any evidence to assume such a scenario. The solid fact we have now is the NYT article. I will file a WP:3O for our dispute here. Imad marie (talk) 09:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure 3O will give a reply since we are already 3 people. Just thought I'd giv you the heads up before you waste your time on that one. You can try other WP:DR routes though. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

So what do you suggest, WP:FTN? Imad marie (talk) 10:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking WP:RfC, but WP:FTN might help direct the issue also. In general, I can't see anything happening with the sources you've found, but these other outlets exist for outside opinion. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:FTN says: "The notability of a fringe theory must be judged by statements from verifiable and reliable sources" is this going to convince you or do we have to go with the bother of WP:FTN? Imad marie (talk) 12:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, the problem is not the New York Times itself, but rather the fact that the entire story relies on anonymous eye witness and that it's scarcely reported also. I haven't yet seen how FTN operates, and I doubt that I personally (and Zsero) would be convinced without higher quality witness sources. However, since you are very convinced, I'm willing to try and keep an open mind and see what other sources and opinions say on this. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I have reported our dispute here... Imad marie (talk) 13:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Also reported in The Jewish Week "They were stopped by a police at about 3 p.m. Sept. 11 after two women saw them standing on the roofs of the moving company and their van, smiling as they took pictures of each other with the burning World Trade Center in the background." and The Sunday Herald "Three individuals were seen celebrating in Liberty State Park after the impact. They said three people were jumping up and down.". // Liftarn (talk)

Those Israelis did celebrate indeed. Imad marie (talk) 06:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Nawal Abdel Fatah quote

Please explain your removal [25] of an integral part of the U.S. reports from the article. WP:UNDUE -- as represetative as 5 Israelis in New York could possibly be justified as "factual"; however, it was clearly more newsworthy and reported by numerous mainstream sources.

• 'Attacks celebrated in West Bank' by The Times (Hosted by freedomdomain.com)
• MSNBC 911 Coverage of Palestinians Celebrating (VIDEO);
• FOX News report on the Palestinians Celebrating (VIDEO)

Please self revert. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Since when are direct quotes from two nobodies an "integral part" of reports? Seriously, is Nawal Abdel Fatah a chosen spokesperson of the Palestinian people? Or is her daughter Palestine's Next Top Model? Or were their views officially endorsed by the Palestinian government? No, none of the above, which is why this is not notable and undue weight.

Get serious. Would you tolerate every right-wing gun-nut being cited as a source on American political views? Or how about Avigdor Lieberman on Israeli views regarding Arabs?

Again: yes, the quotes are well sourced but no, they are not WP:NOTABLE and WP:UNDUE.

Cheers, pedro gonnet - talk - 27.03.2008 07:31

I disagree with your insulting "how about Avigdor Lieberman(!!!)" tactic for explaining why you believe this quote is undue. Have you went over the article's 'celebration' sources which found this woman's TV cameo newsworthy? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Jaakobou, newsworthy has nothing to do with representative. Nawal Abdel Fatah's statements went around the world because they were shocking and that's what sells news, not because they were representative of Palestinian views on 9/11.

And what's so insulting about comparing her to Avigdor Lieberman? His statements regarding what to do with Arabs in general and Palestinians specifically are at least as shocking as what Mrs. Fatah had to say, yet we would probably all cringe if he were used as a source on general sentiment of Israelis towards Arabs.

Cheers, pedro gonnet - talk - 27.03.2008 08:32

We have multiple sources who believed it to be representative enough of the events.

p.s. This page is not a facebook forum for random political rants, attacking individuals from a system that allows the same liberties to both Arab and Jewish MKs. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Wrong, the sources make no such claim to representativity. And who have I attacked? pedro gonnet - talk - 27.03.2008 10:25

If you're going to act clueless, fine. If you want the issue resolved, you'll point to something other than your WP:OR interpretation of "representativity", which, to my opinion don't hold much water considering the sources. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

"If you're gong to act clueless ..."? WP:NPA please Jaakobou. Anyway as long known this whole article is a rather silly breach of WP:UNDUE and a pretty blatant example of WP:Content forking, with a subtle hint of anti-Arab racism lingering around it to boot. I mean are one or two reported instances of Palestinians supposedly celebrating the 9/11 attacks really so notable as to be worthy of a whole article? What relevant material there is here is already covered pretty succintly in the International Reaction section of Aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks. That section could probably do with a small amount of expansion to give more specific details - but mostly on the expressions of sympathy that came from all over the world, including the Middle East, not on fringe events like the ones flagged up here. --Nickhh (talk) 17:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

If you have an edit suggestion to Aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks, feel free. However, I can't see why you portray the meainstream cited sources which note 3000+ participans as "fringe". If you or your friend have a source that states them to be fringe, that is another story. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually on reflection I think there probably should be a fuller "Reactions ... " article. That would document the widespread official and public expressions of sympathy and condemnation, including in those countries where you might have expected a more hostile response from some people (eg Iran, Cuba). It would then also include a brief reference to the more marginal occurences, like these demonstrations or the comments of far-right US Christians about how 9/11 was God's revenge on a Godless country etc etc. I'm sorry though that you really think 3,000 people is a huge number - it might be when you're standing in the middle of them, but as part of the overall Mid East population it's nothing, especially when the weight of the reaction was massively in the opposite direction.. And please point me to the pages where two gatherings of a few thousand people get a whole Wikipedia article devoted to them (excluding anything where those events led on to, or were merely the start of, a wider series of similar events). This page is a nonsense, whether or not I or anyone else makes edits elsewhere. --Nickhh (talk) 20:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't tell CNN, MSNBC, FOX, and others whether 3000 people in Ramallah (23,737 residents in 2004) is newsworthy. I don't think and never said it's a huge number but if you have anything similar registered on reliable sources, I'd almost certainly support it's inclusion in the article. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Who said it wasn't newsworthy? I certainly didn't, and "my friend" above accepted it was entirely newsworthy as well. Sometimes I wonder whether you even understand 20% of what you read or write here (and on this point, the 3,000 figure was reported in Nablus, a somewhat more populous place than Ramallah). We're not talking here about newsworthiness, but about whether these one or two instances are notable enough to have an entire page devoted to it in an encyclopedia, especially when there are no other pages here about any other single reaction to September 11th. If you can't see the difference there, well what can anyone do? At least you can't edit war here, since the page is locked --Nickhh (talk) 22:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Snide remarks are disruptive and I request you avoid making them. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Well I'm sorry about that, but I and many other editors find your editing behaviour disruptive - and of course it's far more disruptive to this encyclopedia and its contents than an occasional quick dig on a talk page born out of predictable frustration. And when you make a proper apology for posting p#ss-taking "mourning" templates on your user page (rather than complaining about being taken to task for it, and making daft counter-allegations about "insult barnstars"), and stop making "Arabs are indoctrinated terrorists" rants on article talk pages, I and others might take your complaints on this front a bit more seriously. A little off-topic I guess, but I think it needs to be pointed out to you. --Nickhh (talk) 08:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

My comments, concerning Saudi funded Wahabism and terrorism were distorted. However, I've accepted that they have offended a few people and will in the future consider my phrasing more carefully. This is certainly not a justification for you to make snide remarks a week and a half later. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Blocked page changes

I have a problem with the removal of "wearing a long black dress" from the article. I believe this portion of the change should be reinstated. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

comment:This is probably the best example of a violation of WP:POINT or WP:OWN I have yet seen. This redefines frivolousness.204.52.215.28 (talk) 15:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

According to user Jaakobou, the mention of 5 celebrating Israelis is biased, but to him, the opinion of an anonymous unknown Palestinian woman (wearing a black dress) is important. This article is a clear POV anti-Palestinian propaganda. Like user Nickhh had said: this article need not to exist and mention of the events here can be covered in Aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks and that's it. Imad marie (talk) 17:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Imad, this is not about POV, it's about notability. The quote for that woman and her daughter represent the sentiments of the 3000 people who were reportedly celebrating (on and off camera). That woman appeared on news reels (video) in CNN, MSNBC, FOXNEWS, BBC and many many others also. The 5 people were only representing themselves and the only testimony to their alleged(!) celebrations is anon. eye-witnesses. This article, btw, gives huge room (possibly undue, but I did not fight it) to the German article that claims the images were possibly manipulated and very little material regarding the Palestinian silencing/threatening of news personnel. I think you've lost perspective on how newsworthy a single anon. statement is, and you've seen the response on the FTN board to know that I'm not the only one who finds this material unworthy for inclusion within this article.

Anyways, if you want to have this article deleted, you can try pursuing this option on WP:AfD. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

MOS change

Minor note, per Wikipedia:Layout#Standard appendices and descriptions when the page is unlocked the External links section should be moved to after References. WLU (talk) 15:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Will do. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. See also: {{request edit}} {{editprotected}}. — Athaenara ✉ 17:30, 31 March & 14:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Bad Source tells lies about newspaper reports

The "untitled document" here, claiming to be a reprint of the Times newspaper is dated "TUESDAY SEPTEMBER 11 2001". The 911 attacks weren't in UK newspapers on Tuesday 11th, - since the attacks happened at around 2.00pm in the UK, they couldn't possibly have been. Why are such blatant lies being carried? Where are the sysops, why is this racist propaganda allowed to happen? This is two-thirds of the story, there's little other evidence for any celebrating! 86.156.111.207 (talk) 09:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

There's other sources as well for the same story, so while you have a valid point raised, there's no reason to believe the material in the article is false just yet. A quick search manged to find this dead link -- http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,3-2001314505,00.html -- directed to an article of the same name. I am currently trying to find clarifications of this article; will keep you updated. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Issue fixed. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The issue doesn't seem to be fixed, the times link doesn't work. And the article doesn't mention the much more widely discussed and published case of the 5 Israelis celebrating the attacks. That case is central to the 911 conspiracy discussion, and three of the participants went on Israeli television confirming what they were up to. Everyone knows that Wikipedia is biased - this article is a very good example of it. 86.156.111.207 (talk) 10:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Seems that The Times requested restriction of access to their archives. However, I accessed the article on 1 April 2008 and it was the one mirrored on freedomdomain. The 5 Israelis issue was already discussed on WP:FTN and rejected by the community.

Cordially, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal

If we can find RS for other groups or nations who celebrated the attacks then this article is worthy to exist on its own, however the celebration of a couple of thousands of Palestinians is not worthy of an article and can be merged into Aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks in a balanced way. This article now represents WP:POVFORK. Imad marie (talk) 12:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Perspectives on merge/keep this were conflicted and I haven't decided for myself which is the best way to go. Anyways, I'd request you lay off the WP:POVFORK statements which is a "content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines", which is not the case with this article since the article is written as reasonably NPOV as several other problematic articles such as 2006 Lebanon War photographs controversies and from the other side of the fence Allegations of Israeli apartheid. In fact, it's probably written better than both since nothing is overstated (Except possibly the "Germany's Panorama" section).

On the current issue, I'm not sure on what process should be pursued to archive consensus on this so I suggest you place a notice on the main 9/11 page (or some other forum, possible a history WP:RfC) asking for perspectives on whether this article should be merged or kept separate. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

As I've suggested before, my preference is to have a "Reactions to ..." article, into which some of the material here can be incorporated as relatively small sub-section. That way we get the balance, and yes, "context" of a) the far wider expressions of sympathy from all over the world; and b) the prominent groups or individuals (it was more than just a few thousand Palestinians) who also apparently reacted by welcoming the attacks, or laying the blame on the US for inviting them. I'd happily do some work on that if someone wanted to start it off. --Nickhh (talk) 13:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

You should probably let someone more neutral handle this one. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

That's quite a loaded statement, as well as being hilariously funny given who's written it - do you mean I am not neutral? Do you mean that I shouldn't even contribute to this article? Who made you the guy who decides who can and who can't edit on specific pages? And do you know what my views actually are, on this or any other matter?

Anyway, that aside, here are some places to start for research ..

• World leaders - http://www.september11news.com/InternationalReaction.htm
• Muslim reaction in US and elsewhere - http://groups.colgate.edu/aarislam/response.htm
• Pat Robertson & Jerry Falwell - http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/14/Falwell.apology/
• Yusuf al-Qaradawi - http://www.islamonline.net/English/News/2001-09/13/article25.shtml
• Fringe group who nonetheless get a lot of coverage in UK - http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/09/10/sept.11.ukposter/
• Canada poll (to pick a country at random) - http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/2006/09/07/911poll.html

--Nickhh (talk) 14:47, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I support Nickhh's suggestion, a similar article is International reactions to the 2006 Lebanon War. Imad marie (talk) 15:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Although having looked at that one, it's structured as a (very long) country-by-country list which I'm not sure would be the best way to do this kind of thing. Also it should also probably avoid turning into just a collection of quotes. And while I've popped in, here's a another post-event controversy from the UK that I recall from the time. --Nickhh (talk) 09:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I might change the merge request to a move request to International reactions to the September 11, 2001 attacks. Imad marie (talk) 11:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I created a sandbox article here, anyone is free to edit it. Imad marie (talk) 11:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Could someone please explain why merging is a good idea? Separate articles allow better use of readers' watchlists. Merging strips readers of the ability to learn just about the positive public reaction, or just the negative public reaction. Geo Swan (talk) 16:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Separate articles do not allow better use of watchlists and are a general pain in terms of watching. I would say that merging does exactly the opposite of what you are claiming and allows readers to more easily access the information they want. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

If we assume good faith on both sides, we'd have to conclude that separate articles allow some people (such as me) to use their watchlists more effectively, but hinder others (such as SqueakBox). Andrewa (talk) 21:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus. JPG-GR (talk) 23:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I Suggest moving this article to International reactions to the September 11, 2001 attacks, I created a sandbox article at my userspace here to have a look on how the article might look like, everyone is free to edit it. Imad marie (talk) 06:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

That title would be misleading. This article is not about "international reactions", it is about the celebrations which took place in some locations and the reaction to such celebrations. Not the reaction to the attacks themselves. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 10:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Please see the discussions here and here. The celebration of a few thousand Palestinians is not worthy of an article on its own. Imad marie (talk) 11:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose the move. This will always be a controversial article, but it's a good topic. There seems to be rough consensus that these celebrations did take place, and regardless, the reactions to the stories of such celebrations are a very significant part of the overall reaction, affecting far more people than were involved in the reported celebrations. Andrewa (talk) 12:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• Reply It is not celebratios, it is just a single celebration that some Palestinians did, this celebration is not worthy of an article of its own, and not worthy of all this Controversy built around it. Imad marie (talk) 16:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Whether it's to be called several celebrations or one doesn't seem terribly important to me. I'm inclined to agree that it's not worthy of all this controversy, but there you have it... the controversy does exist, and not just in Wikipedia. So, we should report this controversy, not make judgements on whether the controversy is appropriate, and certainly not suppress reporting just because we support political views that are not served by the reporting of these facts. No change of vote. Andrewa (talk) 17:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

You are right, we should report this controversy. But creating a separate article for it and calling it "Celebrations of the September 11, 2001 attacks" is giving this controversy way undue weight. Imad marie (talk) 17:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be talking structure here, whether the article should be merged, rather than what it should be named if, as previously decided, it is not merged. And Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Undue weight isn't about structure anyway, or reporting of facts (as opposed to viewpoints). But the main thing is, this discussion is about the article name. No change of vote. Andrewa (talk) 21:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support the move. This article needs more eye-balls on it, its badly referenced. The Times report was mirrored but false, the alternative source provided is unavailable. Other reports seem to suffer the same problem refering to newspapers that came out on the day of the attack, an impossibility. 86.156.111.207 (talk) 16:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support It would make for a very different article as the number of people celebrating were a tiny minority whereas many people and places had strong reactions. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support absolutely, as per previous comments in other discussion areas - since when did Wikipedia have articles about every one-off (or two-off) event reported in the media years ago? That's what newspaper databases are for. This is notable enough for a mention and some detail, sure, but only as part of a much wider article. Is there are an article on "Celebrations of the Baruch Goldstein massacre"? No, and nor should there be - the fact that a small number of people have commemorated that event at times is simply - and correctly - noted on the main page. I'm sorry, but to a neutral observer the existence of this page as it is simply reeks off a cheap attempt to paint all Palestinians as eager celebrants of mass murder. --Nickhh (talk) 16:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose The topic of this article is celebrations, not international reactions, meaning celebrations by fringe extremist parties, not international governments. Thus the new title would be very misleading, and would change the topic of the article. Yahel Guhan 04:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
• Reply to Andrewa and Yahel. The thing is, we don't have "groups" who celebrated the attacks, now 7 years after the attacks we can tell that no one "celebrated" (in its definition) the attacks but those group of Palestinians, so then we have to change the title to Palestinian celebration of the attacks, but then again, the title will give the wrong impression that all Palestinians celebrated, so we need to change the title to Celebration of some Palestinian protesters of the September 11, 2001 attacks, which is nonsense, and not an encyclopedic title. As I've said before, this event is not worthy of an article of its own. Imad marie (talk) 05:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

None of this seems to have the slightest bearing on whether there's anything wrong with the current title. Suggest another reading of WP:NC. Andrewa (talk) 00:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose currently suggested changes. Suggestions seem too supportive of removing information, something rejected on the AfD. If the nom would come without a we can tell that no one "celebrated" disclaimers which are not supported by the article cited sources, I would have stayed out of it as I have on the AfD. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC) clarify Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Please check this, the celebrations are covered. No one is trying to censor information here. Imad marie (talk) 14:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The not included material about media suppression by the PA, and some of the other material seems more than relevant; but what bothers me is more the language used here and on the AfD. Most of the "unimportant" commentators seem highly involved in my opinion and don't place the benefit of the project above petty localized conflicts. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The suppression point can be added to the wider article. Please explain your bizarre accusations of a conflict of interest - who has a conflict of interest here? In respect of what? And I agree with you about not allowing this project to be derailed by localised conflicts - for example by having whole articles being named, created and maintained apparently for the purpose of making political points about groups of people, as opposed to helping develop an encyclopedic, measured and broad record of significant events. --Nickhh (talk) 17:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Nickhh, please refrain from a WP:BATTLE approach. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

As requested, kindly explain your "conflict of interest" allegation. --Nickhh (talk) 18:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear Nickhh,

In my opinion, some of the editors who decided to advocate how unimportant this article must be have a conflict of interest but decided to !vote regardless of a strongly-affiliated political perspective into the reported events. Does that answer your question? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you need to re-read WP:COI and understand what it actually means. And also stop suggesting that people who disagree with you about what to do with pages are not entitled to express those views on talk pages or in AfD debates (also re-read WP:BATTLE, in respect of grudges and importing personal conflicts). And do you know what my "strongly-affiliated political perspective" is anyway, for all that it matters? No need to answer that btw--Nickhh (talk) 19:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I think this non-discussion is germane to the 'requested move' proposal and I'm not interested in battling this out with you. I remind that if the nom would come without a we can tell that no one "celebrated" disclaimers which are not supported by the article cited sources, I would have stayed out of it as I have on the AfD. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree. This proposed move is patently another blow in the battle to rewrite history. The celebration(s) happened. Thousands of people were involved, which is a very small minority of the Palestinians of course. A far greater number of people reacted, some severely, and the political consequences were significant and are ongoing. Those are the facts, they are encyclopedic and verifiable. The attempt to suppress them by article deletion failed. The attempt to merge them into another article where they would no doubt remain a battleground but be harder to police also failed. So there's now an attempt to hide them behind a relatively obscure article name, in violation of WP:NC. I'm happy to assume good faith but that doesn't mean holding onto that assumption in the face of evidence. Andrewa (talk) 00:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

So you honestly believe that the motive for creating this article was not political? Imad marie (talk) 05:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I have no opinion on that, I haven't even looked to see who created it or what their previous edit history was. But I do think that it's a good topic, and the failure of the attempts to delete and merge it seem to indicate that I'm not alone in this opinion. Andrewa (talk) 10:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

As you can see in the AfD, the majority of the votes were in favor of merging the article, but then we thought the section International reaction is too small for this merge, and that's why we proposed the separate article "International reactions of ...". So I wouldn't call the requests a "failure". Imad marie (talk) 11:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

My point is simply that this is now the third Wikipedia procedure invoked with much the same aim. The attempt at outright deletion might not have failed (;-> but it certainly didn't succeed. The resulting proposal to merge was also subsequently rejected. Andrewa (talk) 17:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Nor have you explained why this relatively minor event requires a whole article to itself. Nobody is trying to rewrite history or pretend these things didn't happen - but since when did Wikipedia contain standalone articles about every single event ever reported at any point by the world's media? As I said above, we don't have articles here called "Celebrations of the Baruch Goldstein massacre" based around the reports of gatherings at his graveside, or "Celebrations of the Shehadeh assassination" based around reports of Sharon's initial comments that the attack - which killed his wife and nine children as well - was one of Israel's "greatest successes". We note these points as part of wider articles, which look back on events with a broader perspective. This is about a pretty basic principle of due weight, not an attempt to "suppress facts". --Nickhh (talk) 07:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

For whatever reason, Sharon's comment has faded into the sorry history, as has Shehadeh himself. But 9/11 has not, any more than Archduke Ferdinand has or is likely to. And, as I pointed out before, you are misquoting this pretty basic principle when you apply it to facts. That particular guideline concerns opinions. Andrewa (talk) 10:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

How do we make a definitive judgement about what has or hasn't faded into history? Quite a lot of people do still make a big thing these days about that Sharon comment. Of course no-one would claim that 9/11 has faded into history, but this page isn't about 9/11, it's (currently) about one single, minority aspect of the huge reaction to 9/11. That's where the concept of undue weight comes in - a concept which does of course exist as a "pretty basic principle" outside the world of a wikipedia guideline (which I don't think I have quoted at any point). And arguably this is in fact about WP:UNDUE weight being put on the supposed "viewpoints" and "statements" of a few thousand Palestinians, by creating a whole article about them based on a couple of demonstrations 7 years ago. --Nickhh (talk) 11:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Nickhh,

You are making my point that this is not a "Requested move" suggestion but rather a "This topic/article is Undue" suggestion.

Cordially, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I've got no idea what you are referring to or what you are talking about. In my view this page needs to be merged/moved because as a standalone article, it gives a skewed and unbalanced impression of reactions to events. There's not enough material to justify its existence as a fork from another, broader article. The problem is of course that this page was started before any fuller "reactions" page, so the work needs to be done back to front - ie create the bigger article, and then merge this existing info into it, alongside other reactions which were much better reported and acknowledged. Anyway I think I've pretty much explained where I'm coming from now. --Nickhh (talk) 15:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not a fork; As you say, it existed first. My suggestion is, work on the broader article so it's obvious that the material is well covered by it, and then the merge request will succeed. My guess is that you'll find this coverage impossible to achieve. But have a go. Andrewa (talk) 17:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Jaakobou on this. Move isn't the real agenda here, merge is. Andrewa (talk) 17:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

These couple of demonstrations provided a scandal that focussed and polarised US politics, with both parties supporting the War on Terrorism, and whose political and military effects continue to this day. It's like saying the assassination of JFK is a few rifle shots, decades ago... which I guess it is. Andrewa (talk) 17:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

(Reset) We have been putting some work into a draft, proper reactions article, as mentioned above - that's the whole point. And again you're confusing a main event (the 9/11 attacks, the JFK assassination), with one small part of the wide range of reactions to that event. The former of course remain significant and notable, the latter may or may not be in a broader context. Nor do I understand what on earth you are talking about when you say that these Palestinian demos were the spur to the war on terrorism and are having political and military consequences even now. I think you're confusing the issues here as well --Nickhh (talk) 07:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support as per minority argument. pedro gonnet - talk - 15.04.2008 13:22

I created International reactions to the September 11, 2001 attacks, will work to enhance it in the next couple of days. I will remove the move request now. Imad marie (talk) 18:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. Celebrations are not the same thing as International reactions. This appears to be an attempt to bury the information. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Of course these celebrations were reactions to the event, one among many. What else are they? And how is the information being buried when it would be included in any fuller article? By that logic we should start up a "Celebration of the King David Hotel attacks" page, to make sure that this vital information isn't "buried". --Nickhh (talk) 13:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Merge proposal 2

Per the discussions here, here and here. This article giving undue weight to the celebration relatively to the international reactions. Imad marie (talk) 08:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the celebrations received far more press than any of the other reactions. So much so that once the Associated Press took control over the entire market (BBC, CNN, FOXNews, MSNBC, etc.) with their images from Israel (and then were shut down by Palestinian Authority death threats); Reuters still tried to tap into the market by producing images of Palestinians celebrating in Lebanon the following day... quite frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if the in-Lebanon photographer payed the celebrants to celebrate and I'm surprised no one has written serious articles about the ugly Reuters/AP battles to always get the most controversial images out. I'm not surprised at how quickly the Associated Press made all images of the incident vanish once they made their money and wanted an open option to keep reporting from Arab territories... but you're entitled to your opinion about what's "undue weight" also.

But, isn't opening a 3rd thread on this issue a bit of a stretch when it's clear your perspective was not a consensus? There's better ways to follow dispute resolutions and unless you're adding a new argument to the discussion then there's no clear reason to beat the same point at us with a stick.

That said, I respect the civil approach you've kept throughout the discussions even when you disagree with the opinions of others.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

So it seems we will not have consensus. WP:DR? Imad marie (talk) 12:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:COIN? Imad marie (talk) 13:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. Try to think of what you want to achieve with the article and what points you have to support this perspective. If all you want is to delete information because you feel it's undo, then this point was already addressed by the community and there's really no purpose in opening this for further mediation unless you are certain you can bring something more to the discussion table. I don't think anyone ignored your (single) point just that people, a good number of them uninvolved editors, disagreed.

I can maybe suggest you find a mentor less inflammatory than Nickhh to perhaps give you better advice than I or Nickhh have given until now... although, I think I've been quite responsive regardless of our disagreement. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 02:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I have to remind you again, most of the votes in the AfD supported merge. Anyway I opened a thread here. Imad marie (talk) 06:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Although unfortunately of course it's not a democracy here - so long as one or two editors hold out, the result will be "no consensus", regardless of who those editors are and how many of them there are. At the risk of personalising this somewhat, or even being "inflammatory", all of those opposing were the usual suspects who seem to view Wikipedia as a forum for promoting Israel and knocking Palestinians, apart from one editor who didn't seem to have the faintest idea of what he was talking about (claiming that these couple of demonstrations helped unite US parties behind the war on terrorism.) And for the twentieth time, no-one is trying to delete information here - just look at the full article. I have always said that much of the material in this article should be retained in a combined one. If you feel anything is missing from the account there, please add it, although preferably not by wholesale cut & paste of the Celebrations article. And certainly not by adding that cartoon, which has nothing to do with anything apart from the promotion at the top of the article of the bizarre views of the partisan advocacy group Palestinian Media Watch.

And for the record Jaakobou, I am not Imad marie's mentor - we simply ended up working together on this because we shared a similar point of view about what an awful article this was. And please stop flinging around vague WP:BATTLE accusations, but instead please point me in the direction of where I have encouraged any disruptive behaviour around this issue. Even though I would of course say this, I am a far less "inflammatory" editor here than you are. Perhaps you would care to compare our block logs, or let me know about any topic bans I've received - I'm sorry, but if you're going to make cheap accusations, I'm going to respond to them. --Nickhh (talk) 08:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the point in responding to this comment; If you feel you've been mis-characterized, I am not planning on persuading you. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take that as confirming the accusation to be as worthless as it obviously was anyway. --Nickhh (talk) 09:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't intend on persuading you, but it was an accurate description of the "pointers" you've been giving Imad marie, Pedro Gonnet, and Eleland. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Back to the margin and back to topic: now the main "Reactions .." article is up and running, this separate article serves no clear function and is an unnecessary content fork composed largely of duplicated material. Arguably it is a clear POVFORK as well, due to the issues (ie the small number of celebrations by a small number of Palestinians) it selectively highlights. --Nickhh (talk) 10:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Jaakobou, you have stated before that you would not oppose the merge as long as it does not hide information. Imad marie (talk) 11:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

If we have no objections, I will proceed with the merge. Imad marie (talk) 19:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I object. The result of the merge proposal was no consensus. You can't just immediately propose the same change after no consensus was formed. You must wait at least a few months to ask if there is a new consensus. --GHcool (talk) 21:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

No, if you are referring to the first merge proposal, that proposal was to merge to Aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks, and then we thought that merging to the larger reactions page would be better. The first proposal we opened for 3 days only and that's not enough to decide if we have consensus or not. Imad marie (talk) 05:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Now, per Nickhh's last comment, we have the larger reactions article, the celebration article is a fork covering a minor celebration. Objectors to the merge need to show why this celebration is significant enough to have an article of its own.

Jaakobou, I ask you again, you said earlier that you would not object to the merge as long as it does not hide information, so what changed your mind now. Imad marie (talk) 05:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose merge. The undue weight argument appears to misunderstand the way Wikipedia policies and guidelines use that term. There's no reason not to have a separate article. In turn, the claim that this is a fork of another article also seems to misunderstand that term. Andrewa (talk) 21:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Reply: What changed your mind? "My suggestion is, work on the broader article so it's obvious that the material is well covered by it, and then the merge request will succeed". Have you compared the articles recently?

I have also explained why I think it is legitimate to raise this as an undue weight issue. And in what way is this not a fork, when that guideline defines a content fork as a "separate article .. treating the same subject". It then further defines a POV fork as a content fork intended to "highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts"? I understand these guidelines perfectly well thank you. --Nickhh (talk) 13:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems both Andrewa and Jaakobou changed their minds, they both said earlier they would not oppose the merge as long as it does not hide information. Imad marie (talk) 15:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I think my concerns were explained above. Please review them. User:Jaakobou 16:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

If you'll allow me to summarise, they seemed to broadly consist of a) claiming sources would be needed to show there were no celebrations if this page were to go (despite the fact no-one has made this assertion, and despite the fact that the record of these celebrations is included now in a fuller "Reactions .. " article); and b) claiming that several other media outlets carried AP photos of one of the celebrations at the time (like, so what? Wire agency photos are widely sold on and syndicated, as is wire agency copy). As with the Saeb Erekat debate you are insisting on proving something happened, as if other editors are denying it happened or are denying it was reported at the time. We are not: we are simply challenging the significance of these relatively minor events, from the broader perspective. That is why no-one has started the following "Celebrations .." articles, based around these media reports - King David hotel bombing, the Shehadeh killing, Cave of the Patriarchs massacre. --Nickhh (talk) 16:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear Nickhh,

1. I've already read your comments and there's no need to further advocate your perspective on the King David hotel bombing, Shehadeh killing, and the Cave of the Patriarchs massacre related incidents.
2. This article has been through community observation and my personal perspective was not widely rejected. Therefore, its not helpful (or very civil) to discuss the issue as though the only objection was coming from me.
3. I'd appreciate it if you don't make inaccurate summaries of how you perceive my attempts to resolve this dispute; or other disputes which have nothing to do with this one. Combining a number of disputes into this one and making this a personal issue is a WP:BATTLE I'm not interested in conducting.

Cordially, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear Idiot,

1) I am not "soapboxing". If you understood anything, you would appreciate I am saying that there should NOT be articles on these subjects. I am just making the comparison.

2) I have never suggested you are the only person opposing the merge/delete. If you actually read this thread, you would have noticed I had only just replied to another editor who opposed the move before I replied to you.

3) I'm not sure my summary of your argument was inaccurate and I'd be grateful if you'd explain how it was. Nor are you btw making any attempts to resolve this dispute, you are just blocking a blindingly obvious change. And I am not combining other issues into this or making this personal - I am making a wholly legitimate point about your similar but obtuse editing and debating technique on two different articles. In both cases you either are unaware of the fundamental issues, or are deliberately avoiding them. --Nickhh (talk) 18:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

ps: if you don't stop with the tedious - and up to a point self-fulfilling - wikilawyering about WP:SOAP or WP:BATTLE I will take you to WP:AE

I haven't changed my mind, but I agree that quoting me out of context can make it seem that way. Andrewa (talk) 04:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Proper merge procedure

Why is this thread being duplicated on two separate articles? If you wish to conduct a merge, I would recommend following established procedure. Please read up on WP:MERGE, place {{mergefrom}} and {{mergeto}} tags on the articles, create a linked discussion area from the merge tags, and post a note on the main 9/11 page to draw outside eyes onto the topic. Right now you are having a conversation in a closed community which will only lead to headaches in the future. Also, if a merge does happen, you don't just change one article into a redirect. There are templates to put in, and you need to actually merge content over. If you don't think any content needs to come over then you should go through WP:AfD instead. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 11:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

You are right, I will remove duplicated material from Talk:International reactions to the September 11, 2001 attacks now, and seek better ways to end this dispute. Imad marie (talk) 11:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Palestine

Diff

The sources quoted in that article and the body text doesn't support the phrase "The September 11, 2001 attacks occasioned spontaneous outbreaks of public celebration in a number of Arab Muslim communities." It supports a phrase suggesting that the primary outbursts of 'happiness' were in occupied palestine. There is one source quoted that lists support in lebanon, but it is in a palestinian refugee camp. Furthermore, I would consider FOX news in the wake of 9/11 to be my LAST source for anything muslim and in the middle east.

The evidence suggests that the people happy about 9/11 were those directly impacted by Israel and who saw the US as the source of Israeli strength in the region. To generalize that to "a number of arab mulsim communities" is to disparage an unknown number of those communities. That sentence is only accurate if the number is basically 1 (Palestinian arabs) or 0. Protonk (talk) 00:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that Wikipedia WP:NPOV supported the use of the term "occupied Palestine" to describe the location of Palestinians in various Israel/West Bank areas. Last I checked, Palestine was not yet a recognized country; I hope this explains my concerns better.

Cheers, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't, but it isn't a country. works for a community. And If I'm going to make generalizations about communities, I would prefer to pick the smallest community possible before assuming homogeneity (I'm not saying that you are doing that). Protonk (talk) 00:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Intro text

I'm not sure that the "where U.S. backing for Israel has been a source of frustration" fits in the first paragraph. I can see it fitting into a background section on the article, but not in the way it's currently written which makes me think of WP:WEASEL. Suggestions/thoughts? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

weasel? in what way? those people celebrated because they were frustrated at the US policy, and it's referenced. What are you objecting to? Imad marie (talk) 20:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

It is improper to state as fact the opinion of a single op-ed writer in the lead. This is especially true when the article itself makes mention of Arab support for the attack (e.g: in Iraq) which has nothing to do with Israeli actions. I'm inclined to agree with Jaakobou that it may fit into a background section, where we can properly attribute this POV to those who hold it, alongside with those who hold other opinions. Canadian Monkey (talk) 22:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you will find other POV's, this is a fact, those Palestinians celebrated because they were frustrated at the US policy. Anyway if you find other POV's then we should move the content somewhere as you suggested. Imad marie (talk) 06:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

No other POVs? Surely you jest. There’s anther POV already in the article- that they celebrated because they were promised sweets, and another one that they “celebrated” because journalists requested they do so, so they could stage a fake celebration. Yet another POV is that they celebrated because they support Al-Qaida, and because they’ve been incited by their leadership and media into blind hatred of the US, as this source (which is already used in the article) says: “This hatred is the result of years of hate incitement against the U.S. by Palestinian political leaders ... by the PA media and ... schoolbooks.” [26]. We either present all POVs, in a background or ‘speculations about motivation” article, or we mention none of them. But we certainly can’t present just one opinion in the lead. Canadian Monkey (talk) 02:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Note: There's certainly room to expand on this though I believe the "Hate Incitement" and the "US Policy" points are the main perspectives/positions/POVs and that the others are smaller points. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Imad marie,

I've suggested that the justification for the celebrations (i.e. frustration at the US policy) be listed on the article into a background section instead of the 1st paragraph as you and Canadian Monkey were in conflict over.[27], [28]

I'll give an example of how placing such justifications in the 1st paragraph can be seen as being WP:WEASEL:

• Imagine the 1st paragraph on Israeli West Bank barrier would read as the following:
  

Israeli West-Bank barrier is a barrier being constructed by Israel consisting of a network of fences with vehicle-barrier trenches surrounded by an on average 60 meters wide exclusion area (90%) and up to 8 meters high concrete walls (10%).[1] It is located mainly within the West Bank, where Palestinians have been sending suicide bombers and other militants from to strike at Israeli civilians...

Such a non encyclopedic phrasing gives an excuse, just as the current phrasing of the celebrations article does, to the construction of the wall (or the jubilation over the 9/11 attacks) within the first paragraph; and is WP:UNDUE and WP:WEASEL for both articles. That information would be far more proper on a background subsection.

I suggested it would be more proper if we registered the Palestinian anger of the US into a 'background' section, which seems like the proper place to explore into this with reliable references (I tend to object commondreams.org as WP:RS but I'm sure we can find proper replacements for the same content). After it's written into a background, we can expand the lede in a more encyclopedic manner possibly including this statement but in an improved more neutral manner. Is there a way that your current phrasing could be improved to explain the issue better than it would in a background section?

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Canadian Monkey, yes I believe frustration is the only motive. Sweets were allegedly promised for a woman, but 3,000 protesters cannot be asking for sweets, (support for Al-Qaida) and (blind hatred of the US) both go under frustration as the US policy.

Jaakobou, this article is already a propaganda as is, we don't need any additional propaganda material about the Palestinians hatred for the Americans, and don't think you will find any RS for that.

If anyone can show other motives, with RS, then we should put the material in a section other than the lead. Other than that, I see it fitting well in the lead. Imad marie (talk) 09:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

You are free to believe whatever you like, but the lead is not the forum for your beliefs - it is a place where we summarize the facts, without providien rationalizations, interpretations or excuses. You've asked for other points of view - I've given them to you. I am now, per your agreement earlier, removing this from the lead. Feel free to create a new section, titled "speculation about motivation for the celebrations", or something similar, where you can quote the opinion (or belief), that this was a result of frustration with US support for Israel, alongside the opinion that this was the result of PA leadership incitement, or the result of general support for Al-Qaida. Canadian Monkey (talk) 22:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)