Talk:1983 West Bank fainting epidemic

Neutrality

I think that there are neutrality issues which an expert needs to look at. For example the lead seams very one-sided.Mtking (talk) 05:18, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Can you offer concrete criticism before just template tag bombing the article? The article appears to be quite professionally done. Conspiracy theories tend to be one-sided affairs. Plot Spoiler (talk) 17:53, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the article appears to be quite professionally written, however the whole tone of the article is one of anti-Israel conspiracy and as such appears to be written from one POV, the purpose of the tags is so that the article is checked by someone more familiar with resolving POV issues than me, please leave the tags in until it is reviewed. Mtking (talk) 22:25, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

So you can't even provide specific examples of how this may be POV but you're going to tag it anyway? Sounds more like WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which is not a legitimate reason for tagging. Plot Spoiler (talk) 22:34, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Now you are just being paranoid, what is wrong with asking for a outside view ? Mtking (talk) 23:16, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

the user has explained the criticism. and i agree here. there is a bias in the article. the israeli view is given extensively space, journalists, scientists, diplomats, officials,.. are quoted abundantly to all aspects of the "affair" throughout the article while the palestinians themselfes hardly have theirs say. also it seems that highlighting that israel was treated unjustly is overemphasized (see for example the wording in the intro). the used sources partly reflect the bias of the article.--Severino (talk) 23:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

aLso, the opinion of an israeli professor (or 2) doesn't justify categorizing the "affair" as "blood libel". --Severino (talk) 00:15, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry everybody can't come out looking 'good' from these libelous accusations. An article can be NPOV and without falling into moral equivalence. Plot Spoiler (talk) 01:15, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

the editor's comments make it vividly clear (and confirm) that the article is not written from an NPOV but from an israeli POV.--Severino (talk) 10:02, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Origin of the article

This article seems to rely heavily for its facts and point of view on a 2002 book by Raphael Israeli called Poison: Modern manifestations of a blood libel. [1]

In 1983, some Palestinian leaders claimed "Israeli authorities, or perhaps extremist Jewish settlers in the West Bank" had done something that sickened large numbers of West Bank schoolgirls with the goal of intimidating Palestinians. [2] To call such suspicions by the ugly and inflammatory term "blood libel" is about as NPOV as saying a street-corner fistfight is just like mass-murder. Neither that Time magazine article nor the articles in the NYT give any evidence of a "media frenzy" or for uncritical acceptance of any "blood libel."

The topic of this article should be 1983's mystery schoolgirl epidemic, not ugly suspicions some people voiced about Israel. There are actual NPOV sources such as [3] and [4] and [5]. Another contemporary source [6] says that both Arabs and Israelis initially thought that some "poisonous substance" had caused the symptoms.

Instead, this article relies heavily on three POV sources: Israeli's book, a favorable review of Israeli's book [7] (Sample quote: "In the ensuing, hate-filled campaign, many players came forward who would later, in the first and second Palestinian uprisings, knowingly or unknowingly diffuse false information and anti-Israeli propaganda on a large scale."), and a protest addressed to the UN by Israel's permanent representative.[8] The NYT's apology for giving more weight to Palestinian than to Israeli POV is also quoted -- the imbalance for which the NYT apologized is very small compared to the opposite imbalance in this article. betsythedevine (talk) 01:58, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Besty, the whole issue is notable and all the media coverage of the issue came not because it was a "mystery epidemic" but because of the inflammatory accusation that it was Israel attempting to poison the schoolgirls. Renaming the article "1983 Palestinian schoolgirl illness" would not only be hilarious, but not factual. NPOV does not = moral equivalence. Plot Spoiler (talk) 02:10, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Quoting WP:NPOV: "Editors must write articles from a neutral point of view, representing all significant views fairly, proportionately, and without bias." Moral equivalence is not what I was proposing; NPOV is. Also, as per WP:NOTADVOCATE, articles should not be written "to convince people of the merits of your favorite views." betsythedevine (talk) 02:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the choice of article name is somewhat misleading and think that as well as a major re-write moving it to a better name is needed. Also worth considering is does this really meet the WP:GNG and or is it just not WP:NOTNEWS Mtking (talk) 03:17, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

user:betsythedevine this article is not about girls illness. This article is about accusations and condemnations that were issued against Israel by Arab leaders, by the world media and by UN because of girls illness. Nobody but New York Times ever apologized, nobody ever said the accusations were false. The accusations against Israel were made. You are trying to deny Israel's right to defend herself. Your claim that Israeli sources should not be used to defend Israel from false accusations are racist. I strongly suggest you avoiding such claims. If you like to write an article about girls illness by all means go for it. This article is about blood libel against Israel. I have tried to make it is as neutral as possible. I did not even mention that many girls faked the illness and flashed victory signs as soon as foreign reporters left their hospital beds. I did not mention that some doctors kept healthy girls in hospitals. All the sources you found only confirm NPOV of the article. You found medical sources that describe the illness as mass hysteria not as a poison. The sources you found are not about false accusations made against Israel. They are about phenomenon of mass hysteria. I included in the article this information: "From their part, Israelis accused Palestinians of using gas to provoke mass demonstrations and protests, which really happened in a few places." The only difference between accusation of Palestinians and accusations of Israelis is that Israel was the one to be blamed for the situation by everybody. Israeli UN ambassador is referring to this document, in which Security Council expressed a "great concern" about " poisoning" . Don't you think that it would have been only fair to issue another address after it has been proven there was no poisoning? Broccolo (talk) 04:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Bear in mind that Israel does not have a "right to defend itself" here. This is an encyclopedia. There are rules. "Editors must write articles from a neutral point of view" is not a joke or a nice to have. It's a mandatory requirement for all editors. It means quite simply that if an editor can't do that they can't edit. No one claimed "that Israeli sources should not be used". Betsy said "this article relies heavily on three POV sources". That is not racism. That's a helpful observation by an editor about the degree to which the article complies with policy at the moment in their view. Please, let's not devalue words. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Article versus source

What the article says, citing Gerstenfeld's review of Israeli's book:

"One of the initial reports by Ha'aretz claimed Israel had used a nerve gas on the Palestinian population."

What Gerstenfeld actually said about Ha'aretz:

"In one of its initial articles on the event, the Israeli daily Haaretz implied that there were indications Israel had used nerve gas." (Emphasis added.)

There is a huge difference between "implying" and "claiming." There is also a huge difference between saying "x did y" and "there are indications x did y." It is hard enough to guess what Israeli objected to in that early article without having Gerstenfeld's third-hand report further distorted.

What the article claims:

"Of all the magazines and newspapers that initially reported on these false accusations against Israel only the New York Times, stating that "The Times amplifies articles or rectifies what the editors consider significant lapses of fairness, balance or perspective," agreed with Israeli and American doctors who "later concluded that the symptoms, including dizziness, nausea and headaches, had been caused by mass hysteria."

What Gerstenfeld says:

In retrospect, it is not surprising that among the worst distorters of the truth were French dailies such as the Communist L'Humanite, the socialist inclined Libération, and Le Monde. None of these apologized after the facts became known. The New York Times was one of the few media outlets that did so, but even that was only on an inside page.

In other words, three "French dailies" distorted the truth but never issued apologies for doing so. The NYT was not the "only" paper to apologize but one of a few. This is entirely different from the article's claim that no media outlets anywhere aside from the NYT ever reported on medical conclusions about the epidemic. This article is not only based on heavily POV sources but it adds even more POV with no basis in even those sources. betsythedevine (talk) 10:57, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks for noticing. Broccolo (talk) 14:44, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Let's deal with NPOV

Some of you are unhappy I used more Israeli sources than Arab ones. I agree I did. What do you think about including this Arab source: "Moreover, Israeli terrorism has reached the point of the implementation of schemes for the collective poisoning of students and inhabitants." I could include it, if it is fine with you.I am asking everybody who is unhappy about neutrality of the article to include each and every Arab and pro-Arab source you could find, and then let's take the tag off the article.--Broccolo (talk) 14:58, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

the bias in the article is a fact and mocking WP users' complaints about it won't compensate for it. rather, the article should be given fair balance and NPOV. in this discussion users have already detailed some of the problems with the article. despite the recent changes, it reads like an indictment, narrated and delivered from an israeli POV. and not like a wikipedia article.--Severino (talk) 15:20, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I said that three of your sources, including one book by someone whose last name is "Israeli," are POV. Broccolo's attempt to turn this coincidence of one author's name into "racism" is such WP:BATTLEGROUND that it calls into question his/her competence to edit in this topic area. betsythedevine (talk) 15:28, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Betsy, are you really going there, trying to destroy the editor? Just focus on the article. Plot Spoiler (talk) 16:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

So if Broccolo calls someone a racist on this talk page, that is legitimate -- but if the accused one responds, that is "trying to destroy" Broccolo and getting off-topic? Good grief. betsythedevine (talk) 16:33, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Where/how did he call you that? Plot Spoiler (talk) 16:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

When he said "user:betsythedevine … You are trying to deny Israel's right to defend herself. Your claim that Israeli sources should not be used to defend Israel from false accusations are racist." [9] As pointed out, of course I made no such claim. The assertion that three heavily-used sources were POV-biased does not imply that other sources by other Israelis are biased or "should not be used." 17:02, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I have a proposal. Instead of editing this talk page, let's edit the article. Please do include any information you believe should be included, but if you want to remove some information let's discuss it first. I believe it is a fair approach. --Broccolo (talk) 15:50, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

• One more time I am asking everybody to concentrate on improving the article. So far I have seen only the sources found by user:betsythedevine. I agree on adding more medical information, but we should keep in mind that this article is not about mass hysteria, this article is about blood libel against Israel. I was accused for using mostly Israeli POV sources. Please add more information from Arab POV sources. Let's make the article less POV.--Broccolo (talk) 19:55, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

"we should keep in mind that this article is not about mass hysteria, this article is about blood libel against Israel" - This is your personal opinion and the opinion of (solely or almost solely) partisan sources. Nonpartisan, reliable-source interpretation of the affair seems to be primarily as a case of hysteria. Your own desire to put a spin on it does not trump this. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:29, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I think Roscelese mades a fair point. Something notable happened, an event, something factual, and we should describe that "something". There are various ways of interpreting what may have caused it, what it may represent or be an example of etc and we should describe those too without making assumptions about which interpretations are more pertinent than others. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Of course mass hysteria in 1983 in West Bank is notable, and probably an article should be written about this medical phenomena, but the article I have written is not about mass hysteria itself, it is about reactions on it.Reactions are also notable, and should have an article on their own. I used the sources I was able to find, and once again I urge everybody to improve the article with another sources. I do not mind at all adding more information on mass hysteria until it is not undue weight, but this article is about reactions and not about this medical phenomena itself. Broccolo (talk) 13:05, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

You do not own the article, and your original intentions for it do not determine where it goes. As I said (and you don't seem to disagree) the prevalent opinion in reliable sources is that this case is important as a case of mass hysteria, not as a case of anti-Israel bias. The fact that this is how reliable sources see the incident means that this is primarily how we should cover it. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:21, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories involving Jews and Israel category

Has someone described it as a conspiracy theory ? It's not mentioned in the article yet. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:20, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I can't seem to find the corresponding category for "Conspiracy theories involving Muslims and Palestinians." Which is odd. At the time, some Israelis said it was all a big show (girls were faking) to make Israel look bad OR that the PLO was doing the poisoning itself to make israel look bad. Some Palestinians believed Israel was doing the poisoning. This was all laid to rest by mid april -- outside investigators (WHO et al) had convinced everyone there was no environmental or organic cause. That was the end of the he said/she s aid over this. There is no conspicacy theory either way. But if the current cat is in there, we need the second cat in there as well.99.120.1.227 (talk) 18:33, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Unless someone adds content to the article that cites a reliable source, preferably several sources calling it a Conspiracy theory, the category needs to be removed. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:43, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Real or invented, this is still a conspiracy theory. There were other similar cases however. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 22:57, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

the categorizing seems to be part of the intended bias. i agree with the objections, in terms of NPOV.--Severino (talk) 00:04, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Hodja. It's an NPOV fact. It was a conspiracy to accuse a certain group of people of poisoning others. Plot Spoiler (talk) 00:49, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

My personal inclination would be to keep the "conspiracy" cat. I think that categories are mostly a technical feature that help navigating articles, and it serves the purpose. But could you please look at my link about a very similar incident in another country? This is interesting and may be worth noticing here. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 02:23, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

To clarify, this isn't a discussion about whether we think it is a conspiracy theory. We don't matter. "It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories." If no content is added to the article based on reliable sources that describe it as a conspiracy theory I am going to remove the category. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:25, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

New title

This tile seems tabloidy/noirish, not to mention it doesn't make much sense. I propose a title that focuses accurately on the event: West Bank fainting epidemic. There doesn't seem to a commonly accepted nickname for this case of mass hysteria, and this name seems descriptive and to the point, allowing for a much cleaner first sentence and paragraph. I.e. "The West Bank fainting epidemic of 1983 involved almost 1,000 people, mostly teenaged girls, in the largest recorded case of mass hysteria in Palestine. Until it was determined this was a pscychogenic epidemic, it also fed dark claims and counterclaims between Palestinians and Israelis, coming as it did amid their bitter and long running conflict." That strikes me as an improvement, at least on the headline.99.120.1.227 (talk) 19:22, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I suggest something a bit more detailed: "1983 Palestinian schoolgirl fainting incident" Plot Spoiler (talk) 19:44, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that it was an "epidemic" not an "incident." An "epidemic" (one caused by mass hysteria and the power of suggestion) is what the medical literature all calls it. None of it treats it as an "incident" (a rather strange sort of incident, extending as it does over about 10 days and in multiple locations). This is why the Tanganyika laughter epidemic (the case of mass hysterica whose transmission was most similar) is so named. 99.120.1.227 (talk) 19:50, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

This isn't simply notable as a medical phenomenon. It's more notable for the fallout between the Israelis and Palestinians regarding certain accusations. Plot Spoiler (talk) 19:54, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Again, this is your personal opinion. References to it in reliable sources, from a cursory look, appear mainly to discuss it as a hysteria.

Re: the title - I dislike "poison affair" because that implies there was actually poison involved, and it doesn't appear to be in common usage by reliable sources (unlike the original Poison affair). There doesn't appear to be one name that is primarily used, so we should use a descriptive name instead that incorporates "1983," "fainting" and "epidemic" in some way. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:09, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Again, this is your personal opinion, based off of your cursory examination. I was basing my assessment off the sources provided. The POV condescension and smugness in here is unbelievable. Sorry, you don't have a monopoly on truth or neutrality, and when you talk in such a way it makes coming to reasonable compromise all the more difficult. Plot Spoiler (talk) 20:28, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

"I was basing my assessment off the sources provided" - Well, there's your problem, isn't it?! The POV problem with this article is that it doesn't bother to cite all the sources that discuss the event as a medical phenomenon, instead choosing to use self-published complaining about how everyone hates Israel. I, on the other hand, did some independent research. I wish you the best of luck when you (hopefully) begin to do the same. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:32, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

First of all, I didn't create the article, or name it, and I recognize there are some issues with it. But keep up the condescension and failure to WP:Assume good faith. You're building up a nice record. Plot Spoiler (talk)

Hardly. You (seem to be saying that you) didn't look at anything that wasn't cited; it doesn't mean it was for malicious reasons. Now, if you have comments to make on the article and its sources/potential sources, instead of about me, let's keep talking. I'm flattered, but I'd much rather talk about the best way to improve the article, ie. by taking the interpretation that most reliable sources take and so on. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:42, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

a google research shows that "Poison affair of Palestinian schoolgirls" is not really a labeling in use for the "case". this raises also the question in what way this was indeed an "affair". also, it seems that what we call extremist or fringe "sources" like "bibleprophecy.blog" and others exploit(ed) the case in a way which shouldn't be reflected here.--Severino (talk) 21:01, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

There is clearly a consensus at this point that the current title does not work and this is not an affair. Let's move on from that point already. Plot Spoiler (talk) 21:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

<--Compromise? How about "1983 Palestinian schoolgirl fainting epidemic"? betsythedevine (talk) 21:31, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. Still think it's more notable as a political incident than as a medically verifiable epidemic. Plot Spoiler (talk) 21:50, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I still prefer West Bank fainting epidemic, but could live with 1983 West Bank fainting epidemic. The problem with confining it to "palestinian schoolgirls" is that some israeli women soldiers were affected as well. Most important is to not call it an incident -- so it's not an "incident." And not to call it a "poison affair" since there was no poison, and it wasn't an "affair." There was a real medical (psychosomatic) event. The key bit is this medical oddity -- as far as i can tell the only recorded case in modern times of such a mass hysteria in that part of the world (sadly, none of the sources have spelled that out yet -- it appears to be assumed. No other such incidents are in any bibliography I've found so far).99.120.1.227 (talk) 22:48, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Removing information

I just re-added into the article Khaled Abu Toameh thing. Could we please discuss the information that is getting removed from the article before it is actually removed?--Broccolo (talk) 20:08, 14 May 2011 (UTC) What would you like to talk about? What aspect of removals and edits do you think have made this article less neutral and accurate? That would be helpful.99.120.1.227 (talk) 05:28, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

So can rename it already?

The genesis of this strange title was the original author's intent -- to make israel out to be yet again an unfairly maligned victim of some conspiracy or other. The reality as has been shown is much more complex. Here's the original opening paragaph:

"Poison affair of Palestinian schoolgirls or The Jenin syndrome was a false accusation of poisoning Palestinian schoolgirls made against Israel by PLO and Yasser Arafat in 1983. Dan Margalit from Ha'aretz and Raphael Israeli called this accusation "a blood libel against Jews". This false accusation generated media frenzy, and prompted UN condemnation of Israel. Only New York Times issued a small clarification after the accusation proved to be untrue."

Let's count the errors here. To reduce this to "a false accusation of poisoning... made against Israel by Arafat" is a gross distortion of what happened, as well as rather stuningly obtuse, when we consider that this was according to the medical literature, a bona fide case of mass hysteria that sent 900 people to the hospital. It turns out there were lots of false statements during the epidemic. Israelis falsely said this was some leftist plot, members of the Israeli military said that the PLO was maybe poisoning its own people to make israel look bad etc... This is hardly surprising. The Palestinians and the Israelis hate each other and mud is constantly being flung back and forth. The second sentence had an error (margalit didn't say this was a blood libel). The third sentence has two errors. Arafat's "accusation" didn't start a "media frenzy." In as much as there was a media frenzy, it was driven by all those fainting schoolgirls (and the early reporting in the israeli press, quoting israeli officials, that traces of nerve gas had been found etc...). The UN did NOT condemn Israel in this affair. Quite the opposite -- the UN investigation cleared Israel of doing anything wrong. The final sentence is also wrong. The New York Times did indeed apologize for some of its reporting. There is no evidence that other newspapers, however, did not also apologize, and certainly no source said that. Having read a lot of the media coverage from the time in the past few days, it all seems mostly responsible and focused on figuring out what was happening. So, how do we get the name changed? These 3 would all be fine with me: 1983 West Bank fainting epidemic, West Bank fainting epidemic, or 1983 West Bank mass hysteria outbreak. Let's get this done.99.120.1.227 (talk) 18:16, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

• Err.

1. Arab representatives in UN labeled Israel and the labels have never been removed from the records. Please see here page number 104. I will probably write one more article using UN record only.
2. There was no epidemic neither physical nor psychological.With first few real incidents all others were a deliberate hoax used to label Israel. See the same source pages 8 and 9. Broccolo (talk) 18:41, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Another falsehood?=

This edit [[10]] appears to insert a falsehood. That Baruch Modan detrmined that "only in 3-4 first incidents the girls were really sick.He said all other incidents were a "deliberate hoax." It's source to the blood libel book, but it's unclear what passage says this. The only relevant passage i can find in the free preview of the book completely contradicts this claim. On Page 100 is a lengthy summary of the US investigation that found it was a mass psychological event brought on by "anxiety" (agreeing with Israel's lead investigator, the WHO, the CDC and the Red Cross) and that "Professor Modan said he did not dispute the conclusion (in the american report) that the victims suffered from genuine symptoms of illness." Could the editor explain precisely which page of the book informed this edit, and could you quote it at length here? It flies in the face of a passage in the same book, as I've shown, but also against all of the press reporting and medical reporting from the time. (The wire services and the medical journals all quote Modan as saying it was a real psychological event, i.e. Modan believed they were "dealing with a case of mass hysteria rooted in the tense anti-Israeli climate in the occupied West Bank" which is cited and used lower down in the article). A clarification for this nugget that contradicts every other statement from Modan on the affair would be helpful for a start.99.120.1.227 (talk) 18:43, 15 May 2011 (UTC)