Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:52, 26 May 2008

Palestine Redirect‑class Low‑importance

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Misplaced Pages. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related Redirect This redirect does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on 5 April 2008. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article was nominated for deletion on 2008 April 24. The result of the discussion was keep.

Archives

Archive 1 2003 - 2007

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 " 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 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 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 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 18:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

MOS change

Minor note, per Misplaced Pages: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 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 10:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Issue fixed. Jaakobou 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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 13:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC) clarify Jaakobou 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 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 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 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 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)

Misplaced Pages: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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines use that term. There's no reason not to have a spearate 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 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

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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 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.” . 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 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.,

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%). 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 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)

Cartoon

I removed this because it is giving massively undue weight to PMW's interpretation of a cartoon, as I explained in the edit summary. It is of course not clear at all that the cartoon is a celebration of 9/11 - the only reason it has been placed at the top of the article is because a propagandist advocacy group has alleged that they see it as such. That's a pretty flimsy basis to have it here at all, let alone in such an attention grabbing place. It's all anyone casually glancing at the page will see. I'm removing it again - please give a rationale as to why it should stay if you want it to. --Nickhh (talk) 09:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

It is quite clear (to me at least), that a cartoon showing OBL raising his fingers in a "victory" sign made up of smoking WTC buildings is supportive of OBL. However, thsi is no tbaout your opinion nor mine, but about the celebrations of the 9/11 attacks. The cartoon is as good a representation of that as any other image, and the caption clealry states this is PMw's interpretation. Canadian Monkey (talk) 03:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

PMW is an anti-Palestinian non-RS. Find another RS that interprets the cartoon as a celebration. Imad marie (talk) 05:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

PMW is considered a WP:RS. We've had a few discussions on this before. In short, CNN and other major sources, believe they are RS and use their translations for reports.

Samples: The Washington Times,Washington Post,BBC,Reuters, Forbes,Jerusalem Post,Channel 2 (Israel),The New York Times.

I hope this satisfies the RS issue. Jaakobou 05:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I reverted the cartoon back. I independently came to the same conclusions and Jaakobou per WP:CENSOR. --GHcool (talk) 17:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Huh? The fact that some papers and broadcasters have used PMW's translations is evidence that a cartoon needs to go into the lead of an article as the dominant image, based on their assertions and interpretation of what it means, with the qualifier in small print? Please. We could argue the point endlessly about whether it is a celebration (it clearly isn't itself - it's a drawing showing Bin Laden supposedly celebrating), but as you quite correctly point out, what you or I think of the meaning behind the cartoon is irrelevant - however you go on to contradict yourself on that point by asserting that it is a "good representation" of alleged celebrations. And "small number of .." is going back in, despite your claim that they are weasel words. Isn't three a small number? Or are your going to contest that point too? Please do, I look forward to an interesting debate. This article is enough of a racist travesty as it is without this sort of nonsense masquerading as a principled stand against so-called censorship. --Nickhh (talk) 07:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The fact that well known mainstream newspapers of record and national broadcasters from the New York Times to the BBC have used PMW’s translations is not reason, in and of itself, to use their article, but it is more than enough to rebut the claim that PMW is not a reliable source.

The words “a small number of…” are clearly weasel words, apparently intended to minimize the importance of these events (an appearance which is corroborated by your history of editing on this article –from your attempts to have it deleted, wholesale, to your describing it as a ‘a racist travesty’). To you they may seem a small number, to others they may seem a lot – there is no need for this subjective editorializing. As to your claim that “three…is uncontroversially a small number” – that is again a context-dependent POV. Three is a very small number of spectators in an NFL game. Three is not a small number of brain surgeons operating on a patient. Three is a small number of bees in a hive, but it is not a small number of rapists in a gang rape of a woman. You may think three cases of celebrations of mass-murder is a small number, others see it differently. That is why we don’t editorialize and interject our personal interpretations of the fact. As a side note, I don’t know where this “3” came from. In fact, our article provides details about 4 such instances, (in Nablus, East Jerusalem, Ein-el-Hilweh and Rashidiyeh) but I have not seen a source claiming these are the only instances. Quite to the contrary: looking at this CNN article used as a source for the article, it mentions a fifth one – in Ramallah. If we are going to introduce quantifiers, we should stick to the ones used by the sources themselves. For example, the BBC article used as a source captioned its images of celebrating Palestinians “Many Palestinians at refugee camps in Lebanon celebrated”, and the Fox article says “thousands of Palestinians celebrated”

Finally, please stop removing sourced material. You don’t like The Weekly Standard – we get that, but that is not reason enough to remove sourced criticism which comes from a notable journalist – Charles Enderlin. Canadian Monkey (talk) 04:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I miscounted - four cases in total are referred to in the article, not three. And yes that is a small number, per your examples, when compared to the mass reaction the other way. You however seem to be making the more fundamental error of getting confused between the number of alleged demonstrators and number of demonstrations, judging by your comments above. Also asserting generally that the Weekly Standard and PMW are reliable sources (debatable anyway, especially when it comes to comment or interpretation) is not of itself a good enough reason to keep in the specific points sourced to them in this article, especially when it comes to what goes in the lead. Misplaced Pages is not a cut & paste of every single thing that has ever been said by every newspaper, magazine or activist group. Please actually address the actual issues in this case, which as ever revolve largely around WP:UNDUE. --Nickhh (talk) 10:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

If you think my examples confirm that 3 (or 4, or 5) is a small number, regardless of context, then you misunderstood them. Do you think it is appropriate to describe a woman who was gang raped by 4 rapists as “She was raped by a small number of rapists”? I don’t. Similarly, I don’t think 5 instances of celebrations of mass murder is a small number of such celebrations. You seem to think so, but that would be another case where we disagree- and for that reason we don’t put our personal, biased opinions into the article, and we don’t describe something as “a small number” unless a reliable source has done so. I am not making any “fundamental error” – I am aware of the difference between the number of celebrators (which was in the high thousands) and the number of instances of such celebrations. What I am saying is that if quantifiers are to be used, they must be those used by reliable sources – such as in the examples I gave. That would entail changing the lead to something like “The September 11, 2001 attacks occasioned a outbreaks of public celebration by thousands of Palestinians in some Arab communities in and around the Palestinian territories.” If that is compromise you are willing to accept, I am fine with it.

As to the sources – neither WorldNetDaily nor PMW is used in the lead – the next time you remove sourced material I will treat it as vandalism. Canadian Monkey (talk) 16:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Fairly obviously, I was referring to those of your examples which you agreed constituted a small number. I didn't think I would need to spell that out. As requested, I'm adding a source for the "small" quote. It's an AP report and is quite recent, so also has the benefit of having been written with some perspective. However of course you have still not addressed any of the points about due weight (the PMW allegations are of course in effect in the lead, as the cartoon has been put level with it. I never claimed the Weekly Standard reference was). I can do without the slightly pompous accusations of vandalism please, and I'd also rather you backed off from the constant use of the gang rape analogy. --Nickhh (talk) 17:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for (finally) producing a source that describes the number of celebrations as "small". I've restored the relevant cartoon, but moved it lower in the page to address your concern - I hope this compromise will be acceptable. As to the WS criticism - if we includes Arafat's gesture, we can include criticism of it, sourced to a reliable source. Canadian Monkey (talk) 23:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Suggested compromise: Would the word 'several' solve the amounts of "outbreaks of public celebration" part of the argument? Jaakobou 10:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I am fine with this, or with my suggestion above. Canadian Monkey (talk) 16:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

See above. --Nickhh (talk) 17:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Nickhh, Please clarify. Jaakobou 20:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Title of the article

Is the title of the article appropriate? shouldn't it be: "Palestinian celebration of the attacks"? or something like that... Imad marie (talk) 11:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

The article mentions some public show of support by non-Palestinians in Iraq. But I would not be opposed to changing the title, per your suggestion, as it seems the majority of celebrations were indeed by Palestinians.Canadian Monkey (talk) 16:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I would not want to see the title of the article changed. If there were other celebrations, they can be listed. Jaakobou 20:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

They can? Even the celebrating Israelis? // Liftarn (talk)

What other celebrations? Now 7 years after the attacks I think we can judge if there were any other celebrations, if we don't have any, then this article title is inappropriate. Imad marie (talk) 05:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

A title change would falsly suggest all the Palestinians celebrated the attacks and would be cause for more WP:AFD requests, I'm sure. Rather than seeking to narrow down the article, we should seek to expand on it by adding relevent information. However, the "5 Israelis"="Israeli celebrations" is a bit of a WP:FRINGE and quite WP:UNDUE. Jaakobou 07:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

It's quite obvious that the article is entirely based on the Palestinian celebration. And you are right, a title with "Palestinian celebrations ..." would be POV, a neutral title would be "Sept 11 celebrations by some Palestinian protesters". Imad marie (talk) 07:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• Redirect-Class Palestine-related pages
• Low-importance Palestine-related articles
• WikiProject Palestine articles