Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:23, 17 September 2008

This article was nominated for deletion on 7 July 2008. The result of the discussion was keep and merge Celebrations of the September 11, 2001 attacks to this article.

Benjamin Netanyahu statement

The paragraph is attributed to "Ma'ariv", and I don't think we need multiple references to include something, does it say that anywhere in WP policies? and the time of the reaction is irrelevant, a reaction is a reaction regardless when it happened. Imad marie (talk) 06:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The time of the reaction is relevant since all of the rest of the reactions occurred immediately after the attacks. It is also a case of WP:Undue weight and a borderline case of WP:NOR (or at least misattribution) since the cited article doesn't call this a "controversy." --GHcool (talk) 16:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• Time of the reaction is not a factor, Japanese Prime Minister Tomiichi Murayama's apology to the Koreans 60 years after the war crimes against them is considered to be a reaction. Why are you assuming that a reaction must be immediate?
• Non of the reactions under controversies are labeled as so in their references, we use our common sense to decide what's a controversy, if you think the title of the section "controversies" is inappropriate then we can find a better title, but I think this is the best one.

Imad marie (talk) 09:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• Time of the reaction is a factor because every other reaction in this article occurred immediately following the attacks. The article must remain consistent.
• It doesn't matter if Imad marie thinks "controversy" is the correct word since that would violate WP:NOR. --GHcool (talk) 17:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Read my comments above again: nothing in the article title implies that the reactions are immediate, and no other entry in the article has been named "controversy" in the reference, if you think the expression "controversy" is not appropriate, suggest new one. Imad marie (talk) 19:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The "controversy" thing doesn't even matter since this statement doesn't even belong in the article at all. The article is de facto about reactions that occurred immediately following the attacks. If we include every single statement about the attacks since 2001, the article will go on forever. This violates WP:Undue weight and the general consistency of the article. --GHcool (talk) 19:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment - after reading the article, I am still stumped as to what the Netanyahu statement has to do with it. It's completely irrelevant to the article, not just because it wasn't immediate, but mostly because it was not a reaction to the 9/11 attacks, and wasn't even really about the 9/11 attacks. From what I understand, the section deals with reactions, such as the Palestinian celebrations, which were made as a reaction to the attacks. A random statement from a source which quotes another source which quotes a politician saying that the 9/11 attacks were possibly good is not something that deserves mention in an article called 'Reaction to the 9/11 attacks'. What further concerns me in this particular case, is that the Haaretz article also says that Ahmadinejad made some statements about how 9/11 was a pretext to invade Iraq and Afghanistan, and I don't see anyone suggestion that it should be put in the article under 'controversies'. -- Ynhockey 20:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Well said, Ynhockey. --GHcool (talk) 00:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

And we have controversies about Palestinians, Saudis, Americans ... so why are you objecting to this particular entry? About the immediate reaction, that's not a valid argument, we have "Al-Muhajiroun" who had plans for conferences in the second anniversary of the attacks. Also about "and wasn't even really about the 9/11 attacks", ofcourse it was, this is a clear statement about the attacks. Imad marie (talk) 07:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

If Imad marie wishes to add the Israeli reaction to 9/11, I support and encourage him to do so, but to add the immediate reaction (i.e. the September 2001 reaction) to maintain the consistency of the article.

Imad marie has not responded to the argument given before that the addition of this statement violates WP:NOR since the source does not describe it as a "controversy." --GHcool (talk) 18:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The Israeli immediate reaction is already added, check "Rest of the world".

You have been ignoring my comments: almost non of the entries under "Controversies" are labeled as so in the references, if you think the term "controversy" is not appropriate, then suggest a new term. I already explained that, and I expect a reply about it. Imad marie (talk) 06:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Singling out Israel as the only country with a "reaction" that took place 7 years after the attack violates several wikipedia policies (mostly WP:Undue weight but also perhaps NPOV and NOR). Please stop. --GHcool (talk) 19:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Not the only country, we also have "Al-Muhajiroun" two years after the attacks. I will ask for WP:3O. Imad marie (talk) 05:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

We already have a third opinion. See Ynhockey's response above. --GHcool (talk) 06:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Well I'd rather have opinions other than Ynhockey's, no hard feelings. Imad marie (talk) 07:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think a reaction long after the fact is relevant to the purpose of this article, Neither Al-Muhajiroun or Netanyahu's. If you feel you must, add a section "long after the fact responses", throw Netanyahu AND Al-Muhajiroun then see if the section becomes an indiscriminate collection.--Work permit (talk) 07:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Please see Japanese_war_crimes#Post-1945_reactions, we have reactions that happened in 1972, 1995, 2006...

Per your comment, maybe we can create a new section: "Post 9/11 opinions", or something like that, where 9/11 conspiracy theories can be added to it too. Imad marie (talk) 08:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

No, that's a terrible idea. Fringe theories don't belong in serious Misplaced Pages articles except for articles about the fringe theories themselves, and even they must be written from a neutral point of view. Imad marie's simply wrong, as his 3rd opinion lends proof to, for arbitrarily giving WP:Undue weight to a comment that occurred 7 years after 9/11. --GHcool (talk) 17:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Your analogy to Japanese_war_crimes#Post-1945_reactions is stretched. The vast majority of reactions post 1945 have to do with, official apologies by Japan, compensation, debate within japan. This makes the entire subject of reaction "post-1945" significant. "post-2001" reactions to 9/11 is just trivia. You would be on much firmer ground if Al-Qaeda apologized and offered compensation to the victims.--Work permit (talk) 01:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to delete the "Al-Muhajiroun" section

This section is about a non-notable event that took place two years after 9/11. Since this isn't actually a reaction to 9/11, but rather, a commemoration of it, I propose that we delete it from this article. Unless there are any serious objections (and by "serious objections" I mean objections with a good reason behind them), I shall delete the section within the next day or two. --GHcool (talk) 06:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

No, you only want to delete the section because you don't want Netanyahu statement to be added. A reaction is a reaction regardless when it happened, check Japanese_war_crimes#Post-1945_reactions, we have reactions that happened in 1972, 1995, 2006... Imad marie (talk) 07:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Why do you insist on adding only the Netanyahu statement but not the Ahmadinejad statement in the same article - that is not exactly NPOV editing, it looks like the exact opposite. Besides what is the notability of the statement? This article is already a mess, starting with the controversy section, with everyone adding a random reaction without providing any context or proving any notability. Novidmarana (talk) 17:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with the Netanyahu statement except for the fact that they should both be deleted for the same reason: that they do not belong in an article where every other reaction occurred immediately following 9/11. --GHcool (talk) 17:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Changes to section heads & removal of material

A while a go the not-perfectly-named-but-broadly-accurately-named "Controversies" section was renamed to "Positive views on the attack". This was a) slightly misleading, in that some of the controversies listed were about comments on why the attacks happened, not comments welcoming the attacks per se; and b) has now allowed another editor to start deleting sourced and notable material. --Nickhh (talk) 11:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Also the changes to the lead have left it with appalling garbled English. I will do some copy editing and reworking of the structure when I get a chance, unless someone beats me to it. This may involve reverts of several recent changes. --Nickhh (talk) 11:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear Nickhh,

Your English is not much better so I'd request you cut back on the incivility please. Content-wise, the article has a lot of room for improvement, but most of it has nothing to do with "reverting". On a side note, your changes up to now are fine with me.

Cheers, Jaakobou 11:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you want to go to independent arbitration on that? The intro as written (by you as it happens) was so flawed it was impossible to pick through and mend it. Plus see my comment below. --Nickhh (talk) 12:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Latest change to the introduction

per this diff:

I have no qualms about improving the grammar and fixing up the language. However, the changes to the intro were mostly based on removing redundant and too elaborated material and this material, which goes beyond the WP:LEAD guidelines, should not be reverted back into the introduction. At least not without proper discussion. Jaakobou 12:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC) clarify. 12:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

And it shouldn't have been removed in the first place without proper discussion. I did not revert material wholesale, I used elements of an older version and merged them with the then-latest version - it is not particularly longer or more detailed than that version (in fact it uses a near identical structure, format and content - the phrasing is just slightly improved), so a total revert is unwarranted. I'm restoring my version. --Nickhh (talk) 12:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear Nickhh,

You've now done 2 reverts and I have done 2 as well. I am now posting a request for page protection so that we can resolve this through discussion rather than 'refvert+talk page comment'. After posting this requestion, I'll come back and we'll, hopefully, discuss the content issue properly.

Word of caution: If you or any of your friends make another revert, I am going to post a 3RR complaint. Jaakobou 13:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Jaakobou, my version of the lead, as I said above, does not change the format or content of the one you had put here. Nor does it add much more in the way of detail, which regardless you seem to be claiming is "junk" or "redundant". The main impact is to improve the English - which you yourself suggested I was allowed to do (very gracious of you btw). Yet you insist on reverting my improvements wholesale. Perhaps you should compare the two versions a bit more closely. There is very little to discuss, short of you explaining why I should not report you for vandalism and disruptive editing. And quit it with the implicit stalking and tag-team editing accusations. Your behaviour had been so much better lately. --Nickhh (talk) 13:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Being that you've gone and made a 3rd revert, I've postponed my page protection request to give you a chance at self-reverting so that an official complaint would not be necessary.

With all due respect to your grammar changes (supplemented by adding redundant junk to the lead), I will not discuss content with you while you stalk me and edit war to boot.

Cordially, Jaakobou 13:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not stalking you. I tidied up the lead earlier today in an article I worked on a while ago in its early stages (and which you never wanted to exist), and you then started edit warring your preferred scrappily-written version back. I had no choice but to revert you in turn. I also noticed that you were canvassing help in getting the same article merged and left a message on your talk page asking you to clarify your proposal. Anyway please explain what "redundant junk" I have put into the lead - you keep talking about this, but as I've said, please compare the two versions closely before leaping off into another fight. --Nickhh (talk) 13:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

(Reset) Per this request: Jaakobou you seem to be assuming that the only legitimate changes that can be made to your last version of the intro are those that improve the grammar and phrasing, and that in turn the only way this can be done is for someone else to point out the errors on the talk page, to check first if you consent to the actual changes. If anyone does anything other than this, you reserve the right to revert them wholesale. This is of course not the case and seems dangerously close to a WP:OWN attitude.

In any event my changes were mostly focused on a language rewrite for better phrasing, and were not a direct revert to any previous version. There is nothing undue or imbalanced in the lead as it is now, and it continues to follow the structure and format you had there, but with a small amount of additional detail on three points - the names of the main hostile countries who offered sympathy; the UNSC resolution; and the fact that some reactions focused on blaming the US for inviting the attacks. All of these are covered in more detail in the main article, but are key points that are worth briefly flagging up in the lead. --Nickhh (talk) 13:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Possible topics for expansion

In an effort to provide more complete coverage, perhaps the US reaction section could include some information on civilian reactions as well as the currently highlighted US Government/Military reactions? There is a plethora of data on the reaction and some of the missteps taken by American citizens against their neighbors and countrymen of Asian descent. (Like the amazingly stupid attacks on Sikhs as an obvious example.) There probably should be some coverage on aid and charity efforts for survivors and victims of the attacks as well. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 18:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

That kind of material would probably be better off in the Aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks. That article is more about the practical and other consequences of the attacks, especially internal to the US, and in fact some of those points are already included there albeit briefly. This article is more about the reactions people had to the event itself as expressed by world leaders, the general public etc around the world. And of course, there's plenty more material to add about this, so long as it doesn't become merely a list of quotes and tributes. --Nickhh (talk) 07:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

No reason for "Controversies" distinction

If this article is structured geographically, why are the various "controversies" relegated to their own heading, although they each possess the quality of happening in or concerning a particular location? I can see no answer other than that a value judgment has been made, that controversies are to be disassociated from the places they occur, perhaps to ensure no blame is imparted to the relevant regions or the people living in them. I say "blame" because, honestly, the various localized sections paint what seems to be a rosier picture from an American point of view, with what Americans would consider the appropriate expressions of grief, while all unpleasantness is spared for the end.

Geography really (and increasingly) is incidental to culture, the delineation of which seems to be the real goal of creating these headings, only "culture" is somewhat more difficult to subdivide. There is probably an overall better way to organize this article rather than by the places the reactions are coming from, such as possibly by the content of those reactions. "Official international support," maybe, and "Public demonstrations," perhaps?

In the meantime, I'm assigning the "controversies" to their localities, alongside otherwise unqualified, and presumably therefore more legitimate, reactions. Aratuk (talk) 22:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal

It has been suggested that Celebrations of the September 11, 2001 attacks be merged with Reactions to the September 11, 2001 attacks. Please make your thoughts on the proposed merger known on the respective talk page. Thankyou. ~ smb 11:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Merge completed

I merged "Celebrations of the September 11, 2001 attacks" into this article. Actually it was just a redirect because I did not think there is any significant material to move from the celebrations article. Imad marie (talk) 21:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

New merge proposal

The last result is null and void. The poll is renewed. Please consider voting on this page. Ta. ~ smb 21:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Merge procedure

I've created a sandbox for this article here, everyone is invited to discuss the final article shape after the merge. Although IMO there is nothing to merge, all the significant information has been already been moved. Imad marie (talk) 16:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Foot dragging

Hello user Jaakobou. The result of the AfD was keep and merge Celebrations... into Reactions.... To answer your question, "since when do AfD's call for deletion of linkage?", (diff) it surely follows that there is little point in maintaining a link to a page that is soon to be redirected. But if the deletion was premature, I will happily give it more time.

What puzzles me is, you were first made aware of this proposal months ago, (diff) yet only two weeks ago, when the matter was raised again, you expressed a desire to further prolong the issue, stating: "I'm still considering how to handle this dispute in a manner that would last long term." (diff) Will you kindly explain what you meant by this?

Editor Imad marie has informed all involved parties that a sandbox is open to discuss the finer points of the merger. Please make use of it. — eon, 22:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

1. AfDs are about deletion/keeping, not merging. A merger is based on article talk page discussion and community input.
2. Even assuming a merge was a possible outcome from an AfD (it isn't), you're not an admin and in no position to impose the results of any AfD.
3. Even assuming that you were an admin (you're not) and that AfDs were capable of deciding merger (they arn't), no merger has occurred and a large chunk of material is still missing from the page.
4. No offense intended, but I'm not much interested in polemics on how you interpret my comments on this issue. I do however suggest that you don't do any similar redirects in the future without proper investigation of wikipedia policies.

With respect, Jaakobou 02:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

First, yes AfD's can result a merge (check this for example). Second, consensus has been reached to merge this article (through 2 RFC's and AfD). If you feel there is missing information in the reactions page, add them to the sandbox article. Imad marie (talk) 05:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

You are mistaken on both the AfD issue and the manner in which you pick and choose what to merge before removing the link to the main article. There's been no consensus for that one and your edit summary was innapropriate. Jaakobou 10:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

There has been consensus to merge. And now we should discuss the merge procedure. Imad marie (talk) 10:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I suggest we do all the discussions in one talk page rather than proliferate to many pages. Jaakobou 11:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Trying to argue that the AfD doesn't constitute a consensus to merge is silly. It's a community venue that resulted in a practically overwhelming consensus to merge. Trying to dismiss it by claiming that AfDs don't deal with merging is dealing in semantics. Anyhow, discuss how the merge will be conducted on Talk:Celebrations of the September 11, 2001 attacks. Sephiroth BCR 20:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou Jaakobou. I have asked two Administrators to comment on the matter, to see exactly whose understanding of Misplaced Pages policy is at fault. — eon, 20:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I've been asked to comment here as the administrator closing the AfD. WP:AFD provides in its first paragraph (my underlining):

Articles for deletion (AfD) is where Wikipedians discuss whether an article should be deleted. Articles listed here are debated for up to five days, after which the deletion process proceeds based on Misplaced Pages community consensus. The page is then either kept, merged and/or redirected, transwikied (copied to another Wikimedia project), renamed/moved to another title, userfied to the creator's user page or user subpage, or deleted per the deletion policy.

Additionally, WP:DPR#AFD provides in step seven of its description of the AfD process (my underlining):

If the decision is KEEP (including any variant such as NO CONSENSUS, REDIRECT, or MERGE), ...

I take that to mean that under our current policy, "merge" can be a valid outcome of an AfD, as is indeed frequent practice.

One procedural issue did cross my mind during the closure: It was not the "Celebrations" article that was nominated and tagged for AfD, but the "Reactions" article. As such, I asked myself whether the outcome of an AfD could legitimately include the merger of an article ("Celebrations") that was not within the formal scope of the AfD. In the end, I decided that it does not matter: the only outcome of an AfD that is authoritative (in the sense of being directly enforced with administrator tools) is the decision to delete, while any variant of "keep" is subject to changing consensus. That is to say, if the AfD's "merge" consensus is perceived as illegitimate by a yet more substantial consensus (i.e., not just a handful of objectors) on this talk page, the merger will, as a practical matter, not take place.

Either way, I think that the proper forum in which to discuss any substantial doubts about the validity of the AfD's outcome would be deletion review.  Sandstein  20:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I might add that up until June, I was also of the opinion (as Jaakobou appears to be) that AfDs should not result in "merge". I was persuaded otherwise, however, by Tariqabjotu; see User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2008/June#Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Tim Russert tributes.  Sandstein  21:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Jaakobou, do you seriously have doubts that we have consensus to merge?! we have two RfC's and one AfD that resulted "merge". Actually, we had consensus since 5 April to merge. Imad marie (talk) 21:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Right wing Christians

Since these are seriously fringe groups, especially Westboro (spits), perhaps we could find a different title for the section? Not all right wing Christian's believe in the whacked out manner that these poor examples do. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 16:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree that they should probably be categorised and treated separately from eg Falwell - he was a big figure on the Christian right, they are a totally marginal group. Falwell also seems to have apologised for or backtracked from what he said (or was interpreted to have said) --Nickhh (talk) 16:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

IMO, the previous structure was better, with the "controversies" section". Imad marie (talk) 20:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Do we really need to mention them? --66.229.17.181 (talk) 13:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Merged Celebrations material

The two areas of dispute are, as above, a) the use of the cartoon to illustrate the PMW allegations, and b) the level of detail on the debate around authenticity of the footage.

My personal view is that the cartoon should not be here and should not have been in the original article. If we need to illustrate the celebrations, we can use a picture of the actual celebrations. If we do that however, we need in turn to add in some other images for balance, eg of the Iranian vigils, of some front page newspaper headlines or whatever.

As for the authenticity debate, given that the conclusion of it all seems to be that the demonstrations did happen I'm not sure why it is all needed here. It doesn't seem to be an ongoing notable debate, and none of the other reactions documented here have that level of detail or analysis. So I would suggest that this is heavily trimmed.

Thoughts? --Nickhh (talk) 15:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe the authenticity debate should be contained since it was a notable event and this is discussed from time to time by fringe theorists. I do believe that it could be tightened however. I agree we should replace the cartoon as an image of the actual celebrations would be superior and will not stand in the way of any logical move toward that end. I would also welcome an image on that article related to one of the speeches given by a non-United Statesian leader. (And I wouldn't mind if this discussion was moved to the Reactions article as well. I think it is time that we put this to bed via merger of histories etc.) There is little left in this article to merge and anything missed is not lost forever. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 16:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

(note the above was copied from the Celebrations of the September 11, 2001 attacks talk page) --Nickhh (talk) 16:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I reverted a change in the redirect -- it had been modified to redirect to "Palestinian reaction," which strikes me as an effort to smear Palestinians. There have been reports of other ethnic groups that celebrated the attacks, including the so-called dancing Israelis, so I think it is wrong to single out one group. --Terrawatt (talk) 23:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Whereas it is indisputed fact that a group of Palestinians celebrated the 9/11 attacks and were recorded doing so by CNN and Fox, the fringe and anti-Semitic September 11th conspiracy theories implicating "the Jews" -- including allegations that a group of Israelis celebrated the attacks -- are entirely unsubstantiated. This has already been argued at great length, after an editor attempted to include such unsourced allegations in the "Celebrations..." article, and I don't intend to revisit the subject. Moreover, it is irrelevant to the change in the redirect. I believe this article should redirect to Reactions to the September 11, 2001 attacks#Palestinian reaction and not to Reactions to the September 11, 2001 attacks, since the "Celebrations..." article was merged into the "Palestinian reaction" section and, therefore, redirecting to that section will cause the least disturbance to old links. Furthermore, readers who search for "Celebrations.." will be more likely to find the material they are looking for, if the article redirects to that section. ← Michael Safyan 00:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that it's highly unlikely that anyone will be searching Misplaced Pages for the topic "Celebrations of the September 11 attacks." That's why the article by that name was controversial: it was an obvious POV fork. Redirecting it to the section on Palestinians is an obvious attempt to continue the same POV-pushing agenda, and it's unacceptable. --Terrawatt (talk) 21:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

If it is truly unlikely that anyone will search Misplaced Pages for "Celebrations...", then why even have the article? I think you make a mistaken assumption. Consider the following scenario: people are debating about the Arab-Israeli conflict or about the September 11th attacks, and one of the people mentions that Palestinians celebrated the attacks. Isn't it likely that someone participating in the conversation might want to look it up and see if it did, indeed, happen? The article should redirect appropriately so that the material which readers seek is easily found, not to bury information which might be otherwise undesireable or embarrassing. As for your accusation that the article name was "an obvious POV fork", the article title was selected because it was the most accurate and because it most concisely summarized the content of the article. Furthermore, as was mentioned in a previous discussion, it is not possible for the article to be a "POV fork", because "Celebrations..." was created first. While it is true that "Reactions..." is a more general article, that does not make the original "Celebrations..." article a "POV fork". In any event, I am not opposing the merge. It is perfectly fine for the content to be part of a larger article, and I respect the decision of the merge. However, the old article should redirect to the article's original content for the reasons I explained in the previous post. Thank you for your time. ← Michael Safyan 00:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

You ask, "If it is truly unlikely that anyone will search Misplaced Pages for "Celebrations...", then why even have the article?" Well, that's the reason we don't have the article. It was merged into "Reactions" for that very reason, in addition to the fact that it was crafted to advance an anti-Palestinian POV agenda, which is what made it a POV fork. As far as your scenario is concerned, people debating the September 11 attacks would look up "September 11 Attacks." Since you seem committed to edit warring over this, I'll launch a RfC. --Terrawatt (talk) 05:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Redirect to what?

Should Celebrations of the September 11, 2001 attacks redirect to Reactions to the September 11, 2001 attacks or to Reactions to the September 11, 2001 attacks#Palestinian reaction?

Support redirection to Reactions to the September 11, 2001 attacks

Support redirection to Reactions to the September 11, 2001 attacks#Palestinian reaction

• Support: see my earlier comments. ← Michael Safyan 06:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support. That is the section most of the material from the celebration article was related to. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 13:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support Common sense. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 14:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support but rename I think the section should be renamed to something that does not use the word Palestinian because although the section only covers their reaction at the moment, I am quite certain that I remember there were celebrations other where too albeit not on this scale. So in the spirit of neutrality I think a rename of the section to "Celebration" or "Celebrations of the September 11, 2001 attacks" will not be harmful in any way but make a redirect there even more plausible. So#Why 14:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose I bet Palestinians weren't the only ones who celebrated, but redirecting it to there would make it seem so and would be POV. Maybe there should be a section on celebration in general, which would include the peculiar incident of the five celebrating Israelis in New York: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=75266&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0CE2DD1E38F937A2575AC0A9679C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=2FunkMonk (talk) 02:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Reading the article I dont see why this incident should be included, as they articles only speculate about celebrating Israelis. All we can say (and maybe not even that) is that they exhibited a puzzling behavior, according to the articles. Novidmarana (talk) 03:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The articles state that five Israelis were caught by the FBI because they were seen celebrating while filming the burning WTC towers. Probably as notable as the Palestinian celebrations, if not more, since Israel is supposed to be an ally of America. FunkMonk (talk) 03:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Could you please cite properly, this is not what the article says - the article says, quote "The five men were detained on administrative grounds by the immigration service, officials said.". Furthermore, notability is not established by your POV, but by reliable, secondary sources, and this is the difference to the Palestinian celebration which have been widely covered. It would be absolutely ridicolous to include the allegation that there were five (sic!) Israelis celebrating. Novidmarana (talk) 14:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

A direct quote from the first article: "The Foreign Ministry said in response that it had been informed by the consulate in New York that the FBI had arrested the five for "puzzling behavior." They are said to have had been caught videotaping the disaster and shouting in what was interpreted as cries of joy and mockery".

Yes, notability is not decided by me, but by reliable sources, such as the NY Times and Haaretz, who published those two articles. I bet there are more. FunkMonk (talk) 15:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

There are more, if you do the Google search you will find that this is extensively covered by conspiracy webpages and not at all by the mainstream media. There is one Jerusalem Post article, which only confirms that they were arrested for admininistrative reasons (ie they were illegally in the US). No wide coverage, inclusive articles as with respect to whether they celebrated or exhibited puzzling behavior = should not be included as it is not related to the article. That is a huge difference to the Palestinian celebration which received wide media coverage, apart from that there is difference between the reaction of five people and the reaction of three thousand people. Five people is rather private, three thousand is not private. And all that is assuming that they were indeed celebrating, because that is rather dubious given the Haaretz and NYT article. Novidmarana (talk) 16:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

That conspiracy web-sites cover the incident is irrelevant, and as it is, the incident and the sources are reliable enough, but sure, I'll see if I can find more. Also, there's a huge difference between people who are attacked with weapons bought with American money every day celebrating an attack on America, and citizens of a country which couldn't exist without the help of America celebrating the same attack. Unfortunately, many old articles about the incidents can not be found online anymore, unless you pay, so the question is if mirrors can be used. Anyway, here are some more articles: http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=123885&page=1 http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F01E5DF103CF93BA35753C1A9679C8B63&scp=13&sq=israelis+world+trade+center&st=nyt http://www.zwire.com/site/mercury_101801.html

Articles that you have to pay to see, unfortunately: http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/nypost/access/80581989.html?dids=80581989:80581989&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Sep+13%2C+2001&author=AL+GUART&pub=New+York+Post&edition=&startpage=012&desc=TRIO+WHO+CHEERED+ATTACK+FACE+BOOT+AS+ILLEGAL+ALIENS http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/jpost/access/86830206.html?dids=86830206:86830206&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&date=Oct+26%2C+2001&author=MELISSA+RADLER&pub=Jerusalem+Post&edition=&startpage=01.A&desc=Israelis+mistaken+for+terrorists+home+soon http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Page/document/v5/content/subscribe?user_URL=http://www.theglobeandmail.com%2Fservlet%2FArticleNews%2Fprintarticle%2Fgam%2F20011217%2FUHELDM&ord=81825524&brand=theglobeandmail&force_login=true http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/jpost/access/91668643.html?dids=91668643:91668643&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&date=Nov+23%2C+2001&author=ALLISON+KAPLAN+SOMMER&pub=Jerusalem+Post&edition=&startpage=01.A&desc=Five+held+in+US+say%3A+They+treated+us+like+terrorists FunkMonk (talk) 16:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed in length here. Imad marie (talk) 06:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support as this is the section about celebrations, the rest of the article is about reaction other than celebrations. Novidmarana (talk) 03:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
• Redirecting to "Palestinian celebration" is problematic, as it seems to imply a certain POV on things. Would we ever have an article titled Palestinian celebrations of the September 11, 2001 attacks? Such a title would bring up the same perennial problems we saw at the original celebrations article, only worse. There's a few ways to resolve that, though. Could rename the section, or target a parent section. Could redirect to the article in general. – Luna Santin (talk) 17:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Apparently the section has been renamed. Therefore, please make the following amendment:

Wherever Reactions to the September 11, 2001 attacks#Palestinian reaction appears in the discussion above, read instead Reactions to the September 11, 2001 attacks#Palestinian celebration.

Thank you. ← Michael Safyan 22:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The Pope's reaction

How come no mention of the pope's reaction? He is a prominent world leader? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spikeleefan (talk • contribs) 11:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Hamas' reaction

The article mentions that Hamas is a terrorist group, appealing to its official designations as such by entities like the US, Japan, Canada and Israel. However, at the time Hamas made statements (on Sept 12, 2001) concerning sept11, it was not so designated by many these mentioned entities. Only after Hamas won the Palestinian elections, well after Sept 11, and well after Yassin made his comments about Sept 11, was there a large push in the World community to designate Hamas a terrorist organisation. It would be better to remove, in this article, the appeals to Hamas as a terror organisation. Not only because the article is offering a misleading timeline (the comments by Hamas on sept 11 were prior to the designations mentioned), but because a simple wiki link to Hamas would provide all the information needed about Hamas. Another point is that many may consider appeals to authority for designating groups as terrorist to be difficult to do in a neutral fashion. I think it is possible to do this, but the way this article is presently written seems problematic. A third point is that this article is not topical to Hamas, so it makes no sense to attempt to provide extraneous context. Wouldn't it be better to just provide Hamas' comments on Sept 11, with a short description of Hamas including a wikilink to the main article on Hamas? crf (talk) 17:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC) crf

I agree. This biased edit went unnoticed. Imad marie (talk) 18:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

How was that edit "biased"? The edit complies 100% with WP:TERRORIST. If anything, the previous version was biased in that it used the term "militant" (an euphemism) to describe what nearly every country in the world recognizes as a terrorist organization. Are you honestly suggesting that my well-sourced edit should be replaced by an unsourced and weasel-worded version? ← Michael Safyan 01:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Michael Safyan, statement is well-sourced and the wording does not suggest that it had been designated as a terrorist organization at the time of the 9/11 attacks. The information is not extraneous because this extra information makes it even more clear that the official Hamas reaction is not what one would expect a priori. Novidmarana (talk) 03:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The statement is well sourced, but why is the terrorist designation in the recent years related to the reactions that were in 2001? The way I see it, this statement is WP:SYNTH. Imad marie (talk) 06:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Imad marie, if you believe that the current phrasing may incorrectly suggest that they were officially designated as a terrorist organization at that time, the correct, encyclopedic, and Misplaced Pages-compliant way to deal with the issue is to add a phrase like "has since" or "later" to make it clear that the designation came about at a later time. Simply deleting the material is not the proper way to go about it. Nor does the material violate WP:SYNTH. Also, I am going to double-check to see when each of the various countries put Hamas on their list of terrorist organizations, so that in case some of the countries listed Hamas before 9/11 and some designated Hamas after 9/11, we do not inadvertently suggest that all of the countries listed Hamas after 9/11. ← Michael Safyan 15:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

You haven't answered the question. Why are the reactions related to the "terrorist designation" that happened in later on years? Imad marie (talk) 22:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Whether they were officially designated as a terrorist organization or not at that time is wholly irrelevant. Unless you can prove that they changed their stripes from peace-loving friendly guys and gals at the time they were designated, rather they having been designated as such based on their body of work as terrorists for years prior to such designation, suggesting that "terrorist" does not belong in the article is beyond POV-pushing and moving into deliberate deception. The wording itself is poor though. I think you can remove all the stuff about the suicide attacks and just state that they are a terrorist organization. Sposer (talk) 00:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Relevance

With all due respect to Netanyahu, one comment he made in 2008 is not notable for this article. Even if it's used to suggest Israel "enjoyed" the results of the attacks. Jaakobou 16:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. It is an interesting point by Netanyahu (and almost certainly true IMO) but this article is about reactions to Sept 11 and that section is on the reaction of Israel. If one put such a comment in an article about American-Israeli relations it make more sense, but it isn't a comment that has anything to do with how how Israel reacted to the attack. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Jack, removing two sourced quotes (here) is not just rephrasing and toning down some of the undue content. If you want to have them out, you're going to have to give a valid reason.

And I'm not stalking you -- I've had this page on my watchlist since it was started. Funny you should bring up stalking, though, after your recent appearance on Palestinian prisoners in Israel...

Cheers, pedrito - talk - 17.09.2008 07:50

Thanks for the refactoring. So you're removing his September 12, 2001 quote because the 2008 quote (the kind of context you usually like) is not notable? First of all, you're mixing the quote, second of all, it is notable as it was reported by many mainstream media outlets.

Cheers, pedrito - talk - 17.09.2008 08:23