Talk:Celebrations of the September 11, 2001 attacks

note

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Imad marie,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I found the New York Article, it says:

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

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

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

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

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

As noted by Christopher Ketchum, in Counterpunch:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nawal Abdel Fatah quote

Please explain your removal [1] of an integral part of the U.S. reports from the article. WP:UNDUE -- as represetative as 5 Israelis in New York could possibly be justified as "factual"; however, it was clearly more newsworthy and reported by numerous mainstream sources.

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

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

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

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

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

Cheers, pedro gonnet - talk - 27.03.2008 07:31

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

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

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

Cheers, pedro gonnet - talk - 27.03.2008 08:32

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blocked page changes

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

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

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

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

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

MOS change

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

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

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

Bad Source tells lies about newspaper reports

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

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

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

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

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

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

Merge proposal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Requested move

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear Nickhh,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nickhh,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Merge proposal 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear Nickhh,

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

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

Dear Idiot,

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

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

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

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

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

Proper merge procedure

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

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

Yes, Palestine

Diff

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

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

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

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

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

Intro text

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

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

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

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

No other POVs? Surely you jest. There’s anther POV already in the article- that they celebrated because they were promised sweets, and another one that they “celebrated” because journalists requested they do so, so they could stage a fake celebration. Yet another POV is that they celebrated because they support Al-Qaida, and because they’ve been incited by their leadership and media into blind hatred of the US, as this source (which is already used in the article) says: “This hatred is the result of years of hate incitement against the U.S. by Palestinian political leaders ... by the PA media and ... schoolbooks.” [2]. We either present all POVs, in a background or ‘speculations about motivation” article, or we mention none of them. But we certainly can’t present just one opinion in the lead. Canadian Monkey (talk) 02:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Imad marie,

I've suggested that the justification for the celebrations (i.e. frustration at the US policy) be listed on the article into a background section instead of the 1st paragraph as you and Canadian Monkey were in conflict over.[3], [4]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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^[5],Washington Post^[6],BBC^[7],Reuters^[8], Forbes^[9],Jerusalem Post^[10],Channel 2 (Israel)^[11],The New York Times^[12].

I hope this satisfies the RS issue. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 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. Wikipedia 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 [sic] 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)

(Reset) Sorry, I really didn't think it was that controversial. I would still argue that the cartoon itself should not be here at all - a picture should illustrate the topic of the article, not be posted as merely an alleged example of something. I'd happily have a straight text reference to the PMW allegations, but I don't think myself it needs more than that. Equally with the Weekly Standard, a reference to the report that no donation actually took place would be totally in order - a value judgement about the worth or otherwise of the gesture, based on one op-ed is not. I'm sure if I trawled the web I could find a comment piece from an online magazine thanking Arafat for his "brave gesture of solidarity" or whatever, but I wouldn't be putting that in there. --Nickhh (talk) 10:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

We obviously disagree about the cartoon, you think it should go, I (and at least two other editors) believe it is relevant, and liked it being on top. I think we've achieved a decent compromise. If you find some reliable source thanking Arafat for he fake gesture, I have no problem with you adding it to what's already there. I also don't mind rewording that section to remove value judgment, and leaving just the fact that the donation did not happen but was a staged photo-op. Canadian Monkey (talk) 18:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to edit anything else here, apart from one last thing - as I'm sure you've noticed I don't think this whole subject merits a page of its own anyway. Given that, I agree that it looks a little better now. The "I like it [where it is]" language about the cartoon has been used by another editor as well, and says all we need to know about this page I'm afraid. To throw your words back at you, you can "believe" something is relevant when it is clearly contentious as to whether it is or not, but "the lead is not the forum for your beliefs". --Nickhh (talk) 20:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Suggested compromise: Would the word 'several' solve the amounts of "outbreaks of public celebration"[13] part of the argument? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 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^{Chalk Talk} 20:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Requested move 2

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^{Chalk Talk} 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^{Chalk Talk} 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" "Celebrations of 9/11 attacks by some Palestinian protesters". Imad marie (talk) 07:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Palestinian celebration of the attacks is obviously not a good title; Which attacks? Palestinian celebration of the September 11, 2001 attacks is too long. Other suggestions? Trying not to just rehash the old arguments, please. Andrewa (talk) 04:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I already suggested a better title: "Celebration of 9/11 attacks by some Palestinian protesters", the precision of the title is more important than its length. Imad marie (talk) 05:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

That adds information to the title, but not precision. Should we also say what they were wearing at the time? No, information such as this belongs in the article text. Andrewa (talk) 10:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Article_titles, "Titles should be short—preferably fewer than ten words", the suggested title is 8 words in length (including "of" and "by") so I don't see a problem with the title length.

The entire article is based on the Palestinian celebration, so what is the problem with showing that in the title? You are strangely comparing an important fact like the celebrants nationality with what they were wearing!! Imad marie (talk) 10:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

If there are ever citeable reports of celebrations by other nationalities, it would be appropriate to add the information to this article. The topic is any celebrations. Agree that the nationality is more important than the dress, but both are incidental. Celebrations by any nationality would have been equally offensive to the USA. Andrewa (talk) 04:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

So you want to keep the current title in case there are future celebrations? It's been 7 years since the attacks, and it's very unlikely that the article will include any other celebrations. And it's obvious that the current structure of the article is based entirely on the Palestinian celebration. Imad marie (talk) 07:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

No, that's neither what I said nor what I want. I've given my reasons that this is a better name. The topic is celebrations in general, not just Palestinian ones, and it's a good topic, and one of enormous interest... as this discussion itself demonstrates. There is no reason to believe that the celebrations were restricted to Palestine, but nor do I have any good evidence that they were not. And such speculation doesn't belong in the article of course. Agree that the current article is based on the Palestinian celebrations, obviously. Andrewa (talk) 06:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

If I get no objections, I will proceed with the move. Imad marie (talk) 10:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

There are a few objections above. It's quite uncivil to suggest they don't exist. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC) remove judgemental tone. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

And I'm waiting for a reply for my last comment, if any exist. Imad marie (talk) 10:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I object to the move as proposed (i.e. to "Celebrations of 9/11 attacks by some Palestinian protesters"). The people who celebrated the 9/11 attacks were not protesters; they were celebrants. Although the celebrations detailed in this article have a political element to them, they cannot be interpreted as protests. Remember: the celebrants considered the 9/11 attacks to be a good thing. Nobody protests a good thing. Celebrations of the 4th of July by people who are in favor of America's independence cannot be considered protests any more than celebrations of 9/11 by people who are in favor of the deaths of innocent Americans can be considered protests. --GHcool (talk) 16:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Reply posted. See above. Andrewa (talk) 04:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Problem

The article was previously nominated for merging, but did not succeed. The problem may be revisited. This article and International reactions to the September 11, 2001 attacks should be merged to form a single article with the title Views on the September 11, 2001 attacks. This article actually documents the positive views on the event. The people holds positive view forms a minority while the mainstream view is negative. This may solve the NPOV problem. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 06:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

You have a point, now that International reactions to the September 11, 2001 attacks is created, I don't think that listing every single reaction is possible, and on the other side, listing some reactions and leaving others is not good. An article named Views on the September 11, 2001 attacks may be a good alternative.

And I still hold my previous opinion, this content fork article is needless. Imad marie (talk) 07:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. The article is important enough and long enough that it deserves an article on its own called "Celebrations of the September 11, 2001 attacks" or, alternatively, something like "Palestinian celebrations of ...". Just so long as this article remains separate from the general international reactions. --GHcool (talk) 16:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree with GHcool. Canadian Monkey (talk) 23:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's cut the crap and be frank here, who wants this article to exist? pro-Israeli/anti-Palestinian editors who want to show Palestinians as celebrants of mass murder, this article is a clear Israeli propaganda. If wikipedia has the slightest sense of NOPV then it would not allow such an article. Imad marie (talk) 06:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

You have twice nominated this article for deletion, and the community has twice rejected this. The closing sysop described the second AfD nomination as ill-considered. So I'm sorry that you feel that way about Wikipedia, but it appears to me that you are the one promoting a POV here. And of course you're now also ignoring the policy on personal attacks. Andrewa (talk) 10:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I acknowledge that my second AFD was "ill-considered" as it was not the best way to resolve our dispute. But that does not make my argument any less valid. And shall I remind you that there was near-consensus in the first AFD that this content fork article is needless? Imad marie (talk) 10:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Your so-called argument is a personal attack. In terms of Wikipedia policies it has no validity whatsoever, rather it is a simple waste of our time just like the second AfD. Disagree that the first AfD reached any near consensus in support of this particular claim, as your rewording here is significant. But even if it had, there's been no subsequent consensus reached despite much discussion on the issue. Trying to go back to that previous (failed) attempt is another simple waste of time. Andrewa (talk) 17:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I imagine that if I were Palestinian, I would fight doubly hard to make sure that this article would remain on Wikipedia. Why should only the sufferings of the Palestinian people only be included on Wikipedia? Celebrations ought to be included as well, don't you think? --GHcool (talk) 17:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The suffering of other people is not something for you to make fun of. Imad marie (talk) 17:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I think the two of you should back off a bit. Imad is correct to be unhappy with the comparison and Ghcool is correct to be unhappy with the beating of a single point to death. Btw, Imad, comments like these[14] are unhelpful either. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The term Celebration is both POV and dubious. This article documents positive views on the attack. On what basis positive view is labeled as "celebration"? For example, Saddam Hussein had a positive view on the attack or at least he supported the rationale behind the attack. But "celebration" means social gathering or observance of feast day. Saddam Hussein did not arrange social gathering after the attack, hence he did not celebrate it, but supported it. Thus mention of Saddam Hussein under the title celebration is factually inaccurate. Wikipedia is supposed to give all possible viewpoints. There are different views on the 9/11 attack. The article International reactions to the September 11, 2001 attacks documents negative views, which is the mainstream view. Those who criticized the attack had negative view and those who expressed support had positive view, simple. If the two articles can be merged under a single title Views on the September 11, 2001 attacks, it will help to ensure the NPOV approach. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

OK I know we're going over old ground here, but no-one has ever really explained why these events need a whole article to themselves, separate from the mainstream and more general reaction documented elsewhere. They've just claimed that they need one. I don't think there's any equivalent article to this one anywhere on Wikipedia. And no, "the community" did not reject proposals to move or merge the information: one or two partisan editors, as well as a couple who aren't familiar with the issues here, simply dived in to say "Keep", which then means the closing admin - probably correctly under Wikipedia policy, which allows effective acts of veto - says there was no consensus to merge. Judging by the comments of one editor above on this talk page, the reasons as to why they want these one or two events highlighted separately is fairly obvious. --Nickhh (talk) 19:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't making fun of other people's suffering, but I admit, that I my comment could be considered disrespectful. On the other hand, I would never celebrate other people's suffering. --GHcool (talk) 19:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

IMO that last comment is exactly the sort of thing to avoid on talk pages. Andrewa (talk) 00:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

(Sigh) It has been explained at great length. The explanations have not satisfied you, and it seems unlikely that any ever will. The community did reject the proposals, that's what the process is designed to determine. To dismiss the contributions of others because you have unilaterally decided that they (we) are partisan editors or aren't familiar with the issues is another personal attack. Let's move on. Andrewa (talk) 21:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Well actually no, it hasn't. Most editors who wanted to keep the separate article just kind of said "well that's what I want" or "I like this article", and failed to address the point that the material was covered elsewhere and that Wikipedia doesn't have similar standalone pages for other "celebrations" of notorious events. Most used some variation of "Keep - these events happened and were reported" (as if Wikipedia were some sort of newspaper, which needs articles on each single reported event that's ever happened) or "Keep - this is an attempt to bury or censor information" (even though most of the material was being kept, and it was actually a question of whether these events should be unduly highlighted here in a way that other comparable ones have not been). One editor even said that the demonstrations were a spur to US politicians uniting behind the war on terrorism. I apologise btw if my drawing rational conclusions from these comments constitutes a personal attack. Anyway I've accepted that it's probably a lost cause to think in the light of such comments, anything here will change. So yes, let's move on. --Nickhh (talk) 10:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The only rationales that I found for having this separate article, both provided by Andrewa:

• These couple of demonstrations provided a scandal that focussed and polarised US politics, with both parties supporting the War on Terrorism.
• separate articles allow some people to use their watchlists more effectively.

To me both of those arguments are not valid. It seems that some editors are playing the "no consensus" game. Imad marie (talk) 10:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, so there's been a lot of noise on the subject. It would be surprising, given the nature of the topic, if this were not so. Firstly, many of us feel that Wikipedia has a great deal of influence in the world. Secondly, highlighting or focussing on this particular aspect of 9/11 (in whatever way) serves a particular political cause, and conversely, anything that diminishes its prominence serves the opposing cause. And so Wikipedia is in the middle, trying to present the information in whatever way is most, well, informative.

At the risk of repeating myself, ISTM that this is a particularly notable aspect of the whole business. In some ways, it's the saddest and most challenging note of the whole sad story of 9/11. So even if the article was to be merged, deleted, or whatever else is proposed, it will be recreated regularly, and some (not all) of these recreations will be for the best possible reason: People want to read about it, and Wikipedia is there to allow them to do this.

On the other hand, what's the argument for merging or deletion? Repeatedly, we are told that the coverage would be less biased if this particular article did not exist. That's a valid argument IMO, but a very weak one.

There's plenty of material for a separate article, this material is noteworthy, accurate and verifiable, and people want to read it. In the face of that, we should be very cautious about removing the article. Allegations of bias are inevitable, both ways. So I tried to step back, and say, OK, politics aside, what else is going on here?

My suggestion is, concentrate on the quality of the article. Easier said than done perhaps. What was really going on? What happened? How did people react? Once I started to ask these questions, the topic became so interesting that I really wondered how anyone with Wikipedia's goals at heart could want to remove the article. I still do. Andrewa (talk) 17:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for providing a rationale. And no, you are not repeating yourself.

I realize that those celebrations (rightfully) made many people feel bad about it, but we need put our feelings aside and think about encyclopedic values and rules, and the rule is: we can't have a separate article for each reaction. We need to be fair, what applies here applies there, and per Nickhh's argument, we don't have another article like this elsewhere in wikipedia, we don't have an article about celebrations of King David hotel bombing, the Shehadeh killing, Cave of the Patriarchs massacre... So concentrating on those celebrations and ignoring all the condemnations from the Palestinian leadership and the Muslim world is just not neutral, and unfair. Imad marie (talk) 07:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

To which rule do you refer? The rules are Wikipedia official policy. If there were sufficient material to create an article on these other events, and if someone cared to write it, then we should welcome it. Why not? Andrewa (talk) 09:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Because we can't create a separate article for every event that is covered by the media, and because we are concentrating here on one side of the story without showing other sides.

The rules I was referring to are WP:NPOV and WP:CFORK.

And you haven't answered my question, do you think it's rightful for me to go create separate articles about celebrations of King David hotel bombing, Cave of the Patriarchs massacre... ? Imad marie (talk) 10:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

If you believe there's enough material to justify an article, go ahead, be WP:BOLD. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:24, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Support this. But also bear in mind WP:POINT. If you don't believe that these articles should exist, then creating them to serve as a straw man won't achieve anything, as if they're subsequently merged or deleted, it won't prove anything. Andrewa (talk) 22:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I hope I have now answered your question. Now how about mine... is this rule one that exists, or just one that you think should be proposed? Suggest you read WP:PAPER before getting too excited about it. Andrewa (talk) 22:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Merge?

This topic is of dubious validity, the article isn't great, and what non-trivial material that is here would be better off at Reactions to the September 11, 2001 attacks#Islamic world, where a more balanced presentation can be more easily given. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 12:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I object to the merge. This topic is too large to be covered within an article. It needs to be dealt with separately, otherwise the "Reactions to the ..." article will become too long and too focused on this one topic. --GHcool (talk) 16:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

On second thought, I'm neutral about it. --GHcool (talk) 16:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree to merge, unsurprisingly. I was going to post the following in response to your now-struck-out post, but there was an edit conflict:

This is exactly the point - I'm not sure the topic is "too large" to be covered within another article, unless we choose to make such a big issue of it as some people have seemed to want to here. If it was given due weight and context, it most certainly would not dominate the "Reactions .." article. The standard format for this sort of thing is, as I've repeatedly pointed out in previous debates, to have it as part of a wider article. See King David Hotel Bombing, Baruch Goldstein etc, which each have references within them to controversial and potentially offensive celebrations of the killings involved. --Nickhh (talk) 16:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmm.... but how do you decide whether it's a big issue, and what due weight and context is? Andrewa (talk) 19:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• Agree to merge, a celebration is a reaction. Sherurcij ^{(Because you can't fight terror by spreading fear)} 19:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support merger. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 03:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support merger. The fact that this article was created before Reactions to the September 11, 2001 attacks should not stop us from doing the right thing and merge this content fork. Imad marie (talk) 06:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose merger. Arguments in favour appear to be pure politics. Andrewa (talk) 09:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Andrewa, I urge you to change your contribution habits in this article. What you are doing here is just objecting to other people's suggestions without negotiating their arguments or discussing it with them. Did you have an interest to reply to or discuss Otolemur's comment? Rather than just object and question the motives of the merge... Imad marie (talk) 10:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you find my contributions unhelpful. But, to clarify, I was questioning the arguments, not the motives. I can see no reason to change my habits; I have discussed these suggestions at length, and remain willing to do so. Andrewa (talk) 11:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

And, just BTW, it's not a fork, as I've pointed out before. Andrewa (talk) 11:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The edit to which you refer added nothing new. It presupposes that there is a POV problem with the current title, which is the main issue. Andrewa (talk) 22:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - Thinking about this, I believe a merger would deprive a proper examination of the celebrations controversy and that we should keep a main article separate from the 'reactions' article for people who are interested in more information than a paragraph and a half would provide. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support merger. This is well within the scope of Reactions to the September 11, 2001 attacks. Neither page is too large. ~ smb 22:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment to attract more opinions into this request, I will file an RFC. Imad marie (talk) 11:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I have also formatted the tags correctly, so users can discuss the issue on a single talk page. ~ smb 11:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support - Makes sense to have all of the world opinion on a single page to compare and constrast. Chadlupkes (talk) 15:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support merge. I have waited for an expansion of this article for a very long time, but it looks like it never will happen so until such a time comes I would support a merge. // Liftarn (talk)

• I do not see either move as a big difference so long as all information is kept where it belongs and is not removed. --Shamir1 (talk) 18:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Has anything changed since last time? I don't see what the problem is with having both articles. There is nothing wrong with this article and its title. Yahel Guhan 20:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support. I was just looking over the second request for deletion, and it looks like many participants there voted not to delete because they assumed that this article would be merged instead. As one person commented, "Obvious POV fork." I couldn't agree more. --Terrawatt (talk) 06:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support A 'celebration' is a 'reaction'. Happyme22 (talk) 01:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose There needs to be some editing, but this article should stay where it's at. PÆonU (talk) 12:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support This is a fake controversy that seems to exist only here on Wikipedia. Does not merit its own article. pedrito - talk - 27.06.2008 12:10

• Oppose merge strongly Because this is the only place where this information is given. Moreschi might be right, that we would be better off with this information in Reactions to the September 11, 2001 attacks#Islamic world. But I checked there and found that, that article only deals with "government" reactions; not the reaction of the ordinary man on the street. For those who question if this information is true; let me tell them, that I personally eye witnessed hundreds of Arabs standing on the Street corners of Fourth Avenue in Brooklyn, watching in delight as the Twin Towers were burning. I remember it vividly how the laughter was nothing I have ever seen; their bellies were shaking up and down and couldn't stop laughing from extreme happiness, as if they had won the mega lottery. Of course I'm sure many Arabs were not enjoying it; but the Arabs I saw on that day displayed vivid satisfaction and extreme glee. BTW I later checked the NYT to see if they will report on it, and found as expected that they only made a mere mention of it burried somewhere deep into the paper. So as can be seen from the above votes; those who want this information suppressed are voting for the merger; then they'll worry how to suppress it there; or better, won't allow it there on the grounds that, that article only deals with government reactions. There are also some who voted here with the best of intentions for merging, who do not want to suppress this information; and had I seen this information there; I might have also voted for "merger". So I would ask, all who voted for a merger to please reconsider; thanks. Itzse (talk) 17:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I have no doubt that the celebrations did actually happen, however I don't think that those celebrations merit a separate article. Please check Reactions_to_the_September_11,_2001_attacks#Celebration_of_Palestinian_protesters, the celebrations are covered, no one is trying to hide information here. Imad marie (talk) 18:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, I don't think we needed your story about the Arab celebration in Brooklyn, if you don't have an RS about this then I'm sorry to tell you that your story means nothing. Imad marie (talk) 19:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you do need me telling the story, because if you read on this page, many have argued that it doesn't deserve an article because it didn't happen; so I am here to tell that even Imad marie knows that it happened, and RS are not needed on talk pages, where people (according to you RS) are talking.

Also, Imad marie; in all fairness; how could you make such a statement that "no one is trying to hide information here". How can you make a statement about everybody and vouch for everybody? Are you that naive? Is Wikipedia only for holy people who never lie? Itzse (talk) 20:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Because since the delete/merge efforts started (about 3 months ago), I did not notice any censorship efforts from anyone, maybe I'm right and maybe I'm wrong but this is what I noticed.

And suppose someone has hidden intentions to hide the information later on, how is he going to succeed? the material is already covered in Reactions_to_the_September_11,_2001_attacks and no one can remove it unless he got consensus. Imad marie (talk) 05:57, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - until involved parties learn to do a proper merge and not just blank a page with a redirect. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 18:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

  This comes across as a purely bureaucratic objection to moving articles forwards. PR^talk 19:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

  Well, if the merge was being done to truly bring content together I would likely support it. Unfortunately, the way it has been handled, it is obvious that an attempt is being made to remove everything from this article rather than merge it. I guess if it didn't work with AfD, parties here feel they'll have better luck with a merge than doesn't merge any content. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 21:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

  I'm widening my oppose beyond procedural. As mentioned by Nsk92 (talk · contribs), this is a distinct controversy and should be treated separately from the general reactions. The comments in this merge discussion show how contentious this issue is which is a good reason to treat it separately. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 12:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• Strong oppose in its current form. Aside from what StuffOfInterest said (premature closure by a non-admin and involved party - not good), there's one more issue: the fact that the celebrations article currently has much more relevant info than the reactions article. It's also better structured and sourced. Therefore, merging all the info in this article into reactions would introduce undue weight, while reducing this article's size and then merging would be against all Wikipedia principles of providing knowledge and proper context. The topic currently has a decent article and is notable in itself, so there's no reason to merge. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 18:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - I have notified an uninvolved admin whom I encountered in the past, User:Sephiroth BCR, or the discussion in order to help manage this issue. As long as both sides don't make any steps like blanking+redirecting without proper consensus, I don't see another course of action. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 18:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Ynhockey, please explain what "relevant info" this article has and "reactions" article doesn't? Imad marie (talk) 19:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Strong support, seeing as practically every user who wants this POV piece to exist is an Israeli or pro-Israeli bigot with an axe to grind. ʄ!•¿talk? 09:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: I can't say what it is that may have triggered this, but there is a clear issue when you've decided to blanket accuse everyone you disagree with as 'pro-Israeli bigots'. I'm referring to this policy: Wikipedia:CIV#Engaging_in_incivility (see also WP:NPA) and my concern is the abusive tone directed at a country of origin. Judgmental commentary directed at fellow editors detract from an ability to discuss your concerns in a calm manner (see also: Erosion_of_critical_thinking). The golden rule, in my opinion, is "Comment on content, not on the contributor." (from the NPA)
    With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: It's simply a statement of clear fact. Reread my previous post & you will find I actually made no "blanket" accusations, as shown by the modifier "practically" before "everyone". Also no abuse was directed towards Israel, I'm actually surprised by your tone that you didn't cry antisemitism at the first given opportunity, no matter how tenuous. All I'm saying is it's highly suspect when something like 90% of the people wanting to keep this article all have the same ideology. ʄ!•¿talk? 13:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. The topic concerns a distinct controversy, separate from the general world/islamic countries reactions, primarily by governments. It deserves a separate article. Nsk92 (talk) 12:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support. The "Reactions" article needs to be fleshed out, and this merger would be a step in that direction. Many people have had many things to say regarding this topic, and more ought to be included, perhaps not subdivided quite so strongly by geography. "Controversies," at least, should appear under their appropriate geographical headings and not made to appear as if they are entirely distinct from the cultures from which they arise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aratuk (talk • contribs) 22:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Suggested edit

Suggested new version

The following is a suggested replacement to current version of "Palestinian reactions" subsection of the article. (written by Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC))

Discussion can be made here.

Palestinian reactions

Initial response

The Palestinian Authority, which had immediately condemned the September 11th attacks, moved to censor further reports of public celebrations, with Palestinian information minister Yasser Abed Rabbo stating that "a few kids" were unrepresentative of the Palestinian people.

Palestinian police were reportedly trying to prevent demonstrations of joy, with limited success with the Jerusalem Post reporting that Palestinians forcibly confined foreign journalists to a Nablus hotel on September 11 evening, guarded by armed Palestinians while festivities took place in the streets outside. Palestinian Authority officials and Tanzim militia members issued threats and warnings to reporters adding that they "would be held responsible if the footage was shown", adding death threats. Ahmed Abdel Rahman, Arafat's Cabinet secretary, said the Palestinian Authority could not "guarantee the life" of an Associated Press cameraman if footage he filmed of post-9/11 celebrations was broadcast.

As a result AP decided not to release a tape reportedly showing Palestinian policemen celebrating and shooting into the air, in addition to civilians dancing. AP and Reuters followed by limiting their coverage to a small number of still pictures and videotapes with Rahman's statement prompting a formal protest from the AP bureau chief, Dan Perry.

The Palestinian media promptly condemned the celebrations that were televised around the world as unrepresentative of mainstream Palestinian public opinion, suggesting that the imagery was being exploited to vilify the Palestinian people. The lead editorial in Al-Hayat Al-Jadida (PA official paper), for example, wrote:

Those ignorant few who did that [celebrate] do not represent our public opinion. In fact, such ignorant behavior might have happened in other parts of the world, but unfortunately the cameras did not reach them..."

This opinion was joined by Hanan Ashrawi, who condemned the attacks as an "unconscionable... blow to humanity as a whole." Ashrawi characterized the attacks as "evil": "We feel your pain, we feel your sorrow, we will do everything we can to help".

In the week after the attacks, Yasser Arafat appeared on television, purportedly donating blood in a symbolic gesture, to the victims of the attacks, Arafat's gesture was criticized by The Weekly Standard as staged and insincere. also urging Palestinian schoolchildren in the West Bank and Gaza to take to the streets in demonstrations supporting the US. The move, was seen by the media as a "spin control" attempt the PA when placed in the context of rising reports about foreign correspondents being forbidden from covering Palestinian celebrations.

Hamas leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin asserted that the attacks were "a result of injustice the U.S practices against the weak".

Later responses

One of several cartoons that PMW believe to be part of a long Palestinian tradition of celebrating the September 11, 2001 Attacks. - Published by Al-Hayat al-Jadida, Palestinain Authority official daily newspaper, on September 12, 2007.

In early October 2001, following the US invasion of Afghanistan, a Palestinian protest in support of Bin Laden took place in the Gaza Strip. The protest, in which 2,000 Palestinians were reportedly participating, took an extraordinary turn when Yasir Arafat's police force fired on demonstrators, killing at least two people, including a 13-year-old boy. An event interpreted by the New York Times as a sign of "how much Mr. Arafat wanted to avoid any echo of Palestinian celebrations right after the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington."

Discussion/Objections/Suggestions

• Changes focus mostly on Journalistic approach by the PA which I felt were missing a lot of input. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

"The Palestinian Authority, which had immediately condemned the September 11th attacks, moved to..." Perhaps this needs to be expanded upon first. For example, what exactly did the Palestinian Authority have to say? ~ smb 16:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Smb,

There's a number of PA comments in there, I may expand on your suggestion later. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 06:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you name this article: "anti-Palestinian propaganda"? I object to your suggestion, the protest against Afghanistan war, or the protest supporting Osama, has nothing to do with "Celebrations of the September 11, 2001 attacks". Imad marie (talk) 12:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Imad marie,

Your reaction is really uncivil and a borderline personal attack. You're suggesting I want to turn the article into a propaganda sounding board while it was the media which made a clear connection that the shooting in Gaza was related to the celebrations, not me.

We can't agree on everything, but the WP:BATTLE atmosphere you've been cultivating[15] ever since Nickhh gave you[16] and a couple others[17] "battleground" suggestions/motivations, has to stop. I understand that it is important to you that wikipedia will present Palestinian related material with neutrality, but I request that you please review WP:BATTLE, WP:CIV, and also Erosion_of_critical_thinking.

On topic, to answer your concerns, a clear connection that the shooting in Gaza was related to the celebrations was made by the media, and support in Osama Bin Laden is certainly not an unrelated issue also. I hope this answers your concern regarding lack of connection, I disagree with your 'article title' related argument completely - the article discusses contentious issue which, among others, relates to Palestinian Authority actions just as other articles who discuss Israeli contentious activity exist also.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 06:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC) a bit more, 06:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I independently came here to think that this article serves as a propaganda, this opinion was not influenced by any other editor, and the fact that a small group of editors here have managed to impose their will on a larger group of other editors strengthen this opinion.

On topic, this article is about celebrations, we don't need to put details on the PA initial and later responses (even if it is covered by the media), and nothing in the article title suggests that this article is about "Palestinians", so we should not include every single detail about the PA reaction, or Palestinian celebrations. Imad marie (talk) 07:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The Palestinian Authority reaction to the Palestinian celebrations is definately what I would consider relevent and encyclopedic material. However, I'm open to hear a policy/source based argument on why you believe it is not.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

p.s. due to it's offtopic nature, I replied to the WP:OWN charge on your talk page. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The policy I'm referring to is WP:UNDUE. The title of this article suggests that it is about celebrations that supposingly occured in different countries of the world. So detailing the Palestinian celebrations, and then the PA immediate response, and then the PA later response, is UNDUE. Imad marie (talk) 08:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Surely it's the other way around? If the title were to include the word "Palestinians" then that would imply (weakly) that there were celebrations by other groups, just as if the article at London were moved to London, England that would (weakly) imply that there was another London. Andrewa (talk) 10:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Regardless, nothing in the title suggests that the article is about Palestinians, and that's why its undue to detail the celebrations/initial response/later response to that extent. Imad marie (talk) 10:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

So, do you agree that it's the other way around as I suggested? Andrewa (talk) 14:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I disagree. But our disagreement has nothing to do my undue argument. Imad marie (talk) 05:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Question: What part of Undue are you citing? we have a reliable source making a clear connection for the events. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 05:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Do not make changes before getting consensus.

This article is about celebrations, your suggested version, has a response section (initial and later) larger than the celebration section. What you are doing here is focusing on the PA reaction when you should be focusing on the celebrations itself. Imad marie (talk) 05:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I can't quite break the PA reaction for the celebrations into a separate article and the reactions are always more interesting than the event in itself. Can you please cite the policy section for your statement that this should not be part of the article? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 05:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Here is a sample aftermath section for your inspection: September_11,_2001_attacks#Aftermath. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 05:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

My argument is clear, you are inserting a whole section with its details (support of Osama, killing of a 13-year-old boy ...) for a small relation cited by NYTime: "avoid any echo of Palestinian celebrations", the details of the section you inserted are of no connection to the article title, and this is undue.

Second, you are giving too much focus on the PA reaction, more than you are giving for the celebrations itself. Again, undue. Imad marie (talk) 05:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm OK with inserting a small sentence like: "the PA repelled further related protests as Arafat wanted to avoid any echo of the celebrations". I object to inserting a whole new section with its details because I think that would be WP:UNDUE and WP:SYNTH. Imad marie (talk) 06:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

If I understand your comment correctly, you are saying that the PA use of firepower or any details from what Palestinians were doing in support of Bin Laden is a synthesis of sources? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

(reset) Three point:

1. The NYTimes article you referenced makes a tiny relation to the celebrations, you use the small sentence that makes the relation to insert a whole new section with details that are hardly relevant to the article to advance a position, this is WP:SYNTH.
2. Nothing in the article title suggests that it is merely about the Palestinians. I see no reason that we should go into that detail about the PA reaction (initial and later responses). Like I said before, I'm OK with inserting a small sentence about the later reaction, but inserting a whole new section is WP:UNDUE.
3. The author of the NYTimes article gives another possibility for the motive of the PA reaction: "Also, he apparently did not want to be seen as backing what could prove to be the wrong horse in Mr. bin Laden". Are you going to present this point too? to show all sides of the story.

Imad marie (talk) 07:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify the dispute and allow us to move forward. Is your only objection with the material lyes in the final paragraph? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the "Later responses" section. Imad marie (talk) 19:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Eyewitnesses

For the sake of neutrality, and as agreed here, I will remove any celebrations in the article that were reported by eyewitnesses. Imad marie (talk) 10:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Imad marie,

I have to be frank here that I see no agreement for your content removal. To me it seems like a reaction to the previous material, which you hoped on writing in, being noted as fringe.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

This is pathetic. Numerous reliable sources state that Israelis were celebrating in Jersey, but the information is removed, supposedly because there weren't enough sources, or the sources were allegedly "fuzzy" in the perception of Jaakobou et al. Now Jaakobou turns around and re-inserts information from only one source... and accuses others of disrupting Wikipedia, while he's at it. <eleland/talkedits> 13:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The removal of this material was supported only by a claim of agreement that is patently false. There was no agreement. Whether or not there is any substance to your other claims, Jaakobou is correct to revert in this particular instance.

There's a lot in the section to which Imad marie linked above. Are there any particular arguments that you feel should be revisited? Andrewa (talk) 14:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Please don't do that. There was no agreement to it. Andrewa (talk) 14:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Well you are invited to reach an agreement below. Imad marie (talk) 05:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

That seems to be a different issue, and less contentious. Andrewa (talk) 07:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC) Perhaps I was being too generous... from your comments below, it appears that this particular edit was a mere disruption. Andrewa (talk) 01:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Celebrations reported by eyewitnesses

Palestinians were not the only to celebrate the attacks, there are the Israelis and chinese. We should agree here if celebrations reported by eyewitnesses should be included here. Imad marie (talk) 05:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The New York Times article says that five Israeli citizens were arrested after being reported celebrating the attack. Of course this doesn't mean they were Jews; About 75% of Israeli citizens are Jews. If you feel this incident should be included then I certainly have no objection, but it's entirely possible that these five men were Palestinians, so it doesn't change the article all that much, unless we can find more information on the incident.

The San Francisco Chronicle article says that students in China lit fireworks to celebrate the destruction of the twin towers. It's not specific about where and when, but it implies that this has been reported in more detail elsewhere. I think you should look for those other reports. But it's a very interesting and relevant article, and the information should IMO be included in our article. Andrewa (talk) 07:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Jaakobou, since you were the one to object to including celebrations reported by eyewitnesses, I hope you can add your opinion here. Imad marie (talk) 20:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

It would be far better if you found other reports of the Chinese celebrations that the SFC article you quote clearly implies exist, rather than inviting others to repeat arguments they have already presumably given. Or, what specifically did Jaakobou say that you interpret as opposing the inclusion of this material? Was it perhaps more the way it was phrased rather than the information itself? For example, to say as you did above that the NYT article is about an Israeli celebration is very misleading. It would be considered clever politics by some I guess, but it's exactly the sort of thing we don't want in the article. Andrewa (talk) 01:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

No, before going for the hustle and search for reports for the Chinese celebrations, we need to agree here: Are we going to include celebrations reported by eyewitnesses? this article must be consistent, one rule should apply for all.

Jaakobou previously objected to the inclusion of celebrations reported by eyewitnesses, on the claim that they are fringe theories. Now we should agree on a unified rule, for all. Imad marie (talk) 05:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The story Imad marie refers to referencing the alleged Israelis celebrating doesn't really go into much detail. It is mentioned at the very end of a three-page story and the person quoted doesn't even make it clear whether he knows for sure that the people celebrating were Israelis. Perhaps if there's some kind of follow-up story to this one that goes into more detail, it might be interesting to look at, but it would be pretty difficult to base anything conclusive off of this shady article without crossing the line into WP:Undue weight and even WP:NOR. As for Imad marie's question regarding eyewitnesses, I think WP:V is very clear on this issue. --GHcool (talk) 05:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue the 5 Israelis story, as this has been discussed in length before. I'm making a simple question: should we include celebrations reported by eyewitnesses? Your answer is being vague, is it a yes or no? and what are you referring to in WP:V that is "clear on this issue"?! Imad marie (talk) 05:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree that the story of the five Israeli citizens, of unknown ethnic background, adds little. It could be phrased so as to mislead, as Imad marie demonstrated above, but I assume we won't do that in the article. Assuming that, nor does it do any harm IMO. I'd put it in. Andrewa (talk) 06:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you insist on having a rule before acting, perhaps you should raise it at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), and we can all take a break from this particular issue here while it's considered there. I predict rejection as a trivial waste of time, but feel free to have a go. Andrewa (talk) 06:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The Village pump is unnecessary here. And you keep evading the point, if some information has been removed previously from the article on the bases that "reported by eyewitnesses", then all other information reported by eyewitnesses should be removed too, for the sake of neutrality. Please don't evade this point. Imad marie (talk) 07:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The issue depends on what information we have of the issue. There is no connection between the "5 Israelis" urban legend that Israel knew in advance of the attacks, and the Palestinians -- known for not appreciating US foreign policy -- celebrating in Lebanon who appeared on AP photographs as celebrating. I totally agree that other celebrations should be noted... maybe we can find material from al-Qaeda for the article? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

You are comparing the motives of the two groups, but I don't see the motives of the celebrations connecting to the article; the "in advance knowledge of the attacks" or "not appreciating US foreign policy" is not significant, what is significant is that they did celebrate. Imad marie (talk) 08:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Imad,

I'm not comparing motives. I'm comparing a fringe theory with an established, Associated Press documented, event.

Cordially, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmm... What's the evidence that it's an urban legend? I looked at Snopes and the only really interesting hit I got was this one, which possibly deserves to be referenced in the article. But it's not related to the 5 Israelis. Andrewa (talk) 11:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The "old footage" issue is already registered into the article under "Rebroadcast footage". The other urban legend has a few samples here. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Good point regarding the Snopes reference, I missed that somehow. But, I didn't find the connection in the link you gave concerning the other urban legend, which was my main point. Andrewa (talk) 12:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Look for "4000" and also for "Mossad", you'll find what urban legend is involved with the 5 Israelis. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, but not an urban legend on this evidence. I agree that one or both of the two incompatible claims reported here about five men (described as Israelis in one report and Jews in the other) may concern the same five men reported in the NYT article, but it's just a conspiracy theory unless there's evidence that it's widely believed. Andrewa (talk) 16:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The reporting of the five Israelis, is a fact. The Israeli advanced knowledge of the attacks, is a conspiracy theory. Imad marie (talk) 08:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a fact that these reports were made, and I think there's a prima facie case for the NYT article being factual, although even here it would be good to have a second source. But the NYT article doesn't say very much, and there is doubt as to reliability of the other sources named so far. Andrewa (talk) 03:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Please check eleland's comment below, he has provided more sources. Imad marie (talk) 05:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The second NYT article should IMO be quoted in the article as it speaks of their nationality not just citizenship. The others are possibly partisan. Andrewa (talk) 15:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

That point is very easily answered: Two wrongs don't make a right. I admit I didn't answer it before, simply because I assumed that it went without saying. It is also part of the logic of WP:POINT of course.

The pump is the correct place to discuss policy. Policy is the closest thing Wikipedia has to rules. If you want to set rules, then you'll need to go through the process of setting them. You can't just make them up and expect others to follow them. If you've thought better of it, then agree that the pump is unnecessary. Andrewa (talk) 10:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not trying to set WP rules here.

As you can see here, my opinion was is that we should include celebrations reported by eyewitnesses, an opinion that was rejected by some other editors, so for the sake of neutrality, one standard should be set for this article, either we include celebrations reported by eyewitnesses, or we remove them all. Imad marie (talk) 13:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Imad marie's argument is a false dichotomy. "[E]ither we include celebrations reported by eyewitnesses, or we remove them all" is not a good argument, nor will it serve to make Wikipedia more effective. The answer lies somewhere in the middle: we ought to include certain eyewitness evidence that satisfies WP:V, but not all eyewitness evidence. --GHcool (talk) 16:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

All reported celebrations satisfy WP:V. If you think different, then please explain how, rather than giving vague comments. Imad marie (talk) 08:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Numerous reliable sources report that five Israelis were arrested after acting in a manner that was perceived as celebrating by at least one witness. The Forward reports [18] that the Israeli consulate acknowledges the five men were embracing, but claim it was out of grief rather than jubilation. According to the New York Times, [19] "By some accounts, they seemed to be making light of the tragic situation. [...] The men were taken into custody, with news reports leaving the wide impression that the authorities had detained a group of suspicious men taking pictures or rooting for the terrorists from the New Jersey side of the bridge." According to their own account, they had simply pulled over to ask directions when they were suddenly and arbitrarily arrested. [20]

It is clear that no RS-consensus exists that the men were in fact celebrating. This excludes the possibility of our claiming that they were in fact celebrating. However the fact that witnesses interpreted their actions as celebratory is reported in numerous reliable sources of the highest quality.

Again, I'd like to know why one FOX News report of gunfire in a Palestinian village is supposed to be nice solid and reliable, but not numerous reports from better quality sources including the New York Times, which explicitly references multiple reports and multiple accounts of an Israeli celebration. (Gunfire can mean anything, I recall when Saddam was executed, there were reports of gunfire from Shi'ite areas celebrating his death and gunfire from Sunni areas mourning it...)

I realize that this is a sensitive issue because the "5 Israelis" story has predictably become enmeshed with preposterous antisemitic conspiracy theories. I don't see any need even to mention the barely plausible end of this spectrum, even though it has surfaced in at least one reliable newspaper report, [21] (Sunday Herald) which is that the Israelis were intelligence agents in New York tracking al-Qaeda cells, maybe even with foreknowledge of 9/11. That claim has been made, but it's a very extraordinary claim and the level of support for it doesn't match the claim. However, I see absolutely no justification for excluding information about the Israeli 5 altogether; they existed, they were perceived as celebrating, they were arrested, all of this is verified by reliable sources of the highest calibre. Wikipedia is not here to settle this controversial issue but we should report on the controversy itself.<eleland/talkedits> 18:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I find this claim a bit puzzling... do you really think that every report is verifiable? Andrewa (talk) 15:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The answer is quite simple. This article is about celebrations, meaning actual celebrations, not alleged/percieved celebrations which may not actually have existed. The Isralies existed, but whether or not they actually were celebrating seems to be disputed within the sources you mentioned, and by the Israelies themselves. This differs from the Palestinian example, where it isn't disputed as to whether or not it is actually celebratory. YahelGuhan (talk) 05:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

True, but it doesn't answer my question. Let me put it another way: The claim that All reported celebrations satisfy WP:V seems to be so preposterous that I wonder what Imad marie meant. Surely, it can't mean that we should believe every report? Andrewa (talk) 10:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

My point simply is: "eyewitnesses have reported seeing 5 Israelis behaving strangely, a behaviour in which they interpreted as celebrations", this is a proven fact, regardless of whether the Israelis have actually celebrated, but the reporting of the eyewitness is a fact. Multiple sources cited this, including:

• Haaretz: "in what was interpreted as cries of joy and mockery" [22].
• NYTimes: "witnesses had reported seeing the men celebrating the attack" [23]
• The Sunday Herald: "Three individuals were seen celebrating in Liberty State Park after the impact. They said three people were jumping up and down." [24]

And there are other sources. The point is, if you are not going to trust the eyewitnesses for their judgments, and call it "fringe theories", then why does this article include the reported celebrations in Ein el-Hilweh, where eyewitnesses interpreted the "gun fires" as celebrations? Imad marie (talk) 10:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The "eye witnesses" in the case of Ein el-Hilweh were Associated Press reporters of Arab descent, not anonymous New Yorkers. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

What difference does it make? please explain. Imad marie (talk) 11:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I honestly don't know how to relate the difference to you. If you believe there is no difference, I don't mind you opening the second issue for WP:FTN like you did with the 5 Israelis. That would be a good way to resolve this dispute with outside input. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

You can easily change your opinions and arguments. When I tried to insert the paraghraph about the Israelis in March, you objected to it on the claim that eyewitnesses are not credible enough, and now when I remove the paraghraph about Ein el-Hilweh, you come up with a new argument, something about Arab descents and New Yorkers. Now I ask you again, please explain how it makes a difference... Imad marie (talk) 18:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Imad marie,

Could you please find the diff of the paragraph I removed to jog my memory?

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

<-resetting indenting, in reply to My point simply is above...

OK, I thought it had to be something like that. That fact is a harmless claim; It's also for example true and I imagine verifiable that people report seeing pink elephants from time to time. Just because it's verifiable that they have reported this doesn't justify us in listing a pink subspecies under elephant.

I'm guessing this is the whole issue. I can't see anybody who has opposed the adding of verifiable information to the article, even if as in this case it seems to border on being irrelevant to the article topic, which is celebrations, not reported celebrations. What I and I guess others would object to is to report the speculation from some of these articles as if it were also factual. Andrewa (talk) 01:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Premature merging

I'm not following why an editor with nothing more than rollover privileges is redirecting this article when there's no clear consensus and the destination was not examined to have the material from this article merged into it. Currently major relevent material is missing from the destination article and also, I'm fairly certain that there is no clear consensus to merge. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually it was 11:4 (counting the opening editor), and in the first AfD, 13 editors voted for merge (counting the opening editor) against 6, doesn't this give you an indication that you're going in the wrong direction here?!

And about the missing content, what is the content that you believe was not merged? "World reaction" is redundant, and "Authenticity" is insignificant, so I think the merge was fair, if you believe otherwise, define the areas that you think were missing from the merge. Imad marie (talk) 17:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Imad marie,

Is there a special reason that you've nominated yourself an admin and you're now edit-warring? Wikipedia is not a democracy and I don't see that a consensus has been reached. A couple of 'rollback' editors who decide that there's a consensus is just as binding as me deciding that there's no consensus.

The 'rollback' editors avoiding discussion and redirecting this article when there's no clear consensus and the destination was not examined to have the material from this article merged into it shows poor judgment. Your follow-up edit-warring is in very bad taste.

Cordially, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I came here to check and add something else entirely (I've been assured that one central part of the "Palestinians celebrating" story, the CNN film, is fraudulent, and was known to be fraudulent 10 days after 911, I'm not yet sure if the references stand up). But if consensus is being trampled here by an editor with legitimate ownership of this story then I'll come back another time. PR^talk 18:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't get it. A quick look at the section above shows nothing resembling a concensus to merge. I'm going to be reverting shortly if noone else has already done it. This is a discussion which really needs to bring in outside eyes. I believe this was specifically suggested the last time Imad marie tried to merge. Can someone show me if and when this was listed on Wikipedia:Proposed mergers to bring in non-involved eyes for the discussion? As another point, use the proper merge tags when merging articles. See WP:MERGE#Performing the merger for further guidance. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 18:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

StuffOfInterest, we already used the proper merge tags, and filed RfC for the merge, in Talk:Celebrations_of_the_September_11,_2001_attacks#Merge.3F. Imad marie (talk) 18:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Did you use the {{R from merge}} template and do a copy/paste to conform with GFDL? There are steps from WP:MERGE#Performing the merger which needs to be followed to maintain proper history in the article. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 18:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

11:4 is rough consensus. In a recent AfD I was involved in, the page was deleted 13:6. The vote is even stronger in this case. ~ smb 18:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

(reply to Jaakobou): Consensus can only work among reasonable editors who make a good faith effort, I really doubt that consensus here is possible, or even applicable, many editors continue to object to merging without giving any "reasonable" rationals. And about "good faith effort", it's difficult to assume good faith here when you are promoting now to merge Reactions to the September 11, 2001 attacks with Aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks. Imad marie (talk) 18:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments from an uninvolved administrator

I was asked by User:Ynhockey to give my thoughts on the closing of the merge discussion as an uninvolved administrator. As a disclaimer, I have not edited any articles relating to this topic (9/11, Palestine, Israel, et al) or participated in any type of discussion relating to these articles. First and foremost is that the discussion was closed by a user who !voted to merge the article. This frankly is a poor decision and a clear conflict of interest, and in that light, the merge was not appropriate, regardless of the state of the current discussion. The only case in which such a thing would be remotely appropriate was that the merge had no opposition, and even then, it would be better for an uninvolved party to perform the merge.

Anyhow, onto the actual arguments. As it stands, the current status of the discussion is 11 support !votes and 7 oppose !votes. The primary argument that I've gathered from the discussion is what constitutes appropriate weight for such a topic, and whether an article is necessary for this topic. The supporters of the merge argue that the article does constitute undue weight on an aspect of the overall topic and is thus an unnecessary content fork, while the opponents of the merge believe that an article would allow appropriate weight to be given in order to provide a comprehensive view of the subject for reader understanding. All the support !votes more or less follow this line of thought, with some noting that the article cannot be reasonably expanded to a point in which a merger would be construed as undue weight in the parent article. The oppose !votes generally follow this line of thought as well, although Andrewa's !vote veers towards being a personal attack on the proponents of the merge. The rest of the oppose !votes follow the line of thought I expressed above. Ynhockey and StuffofInterest also express that the merger was conducted poorly. In the spirit of rough consensus, StuffofInterest's !vote becomes a procedural oppose. In this light, the !vote becomes 11-6, which can either be construed as a rough consensus to merge or no consensus, a gray area.

Upon examination of the article, I think the amount of weight given to the subject is stretched very far. The celebrations appear to be primarily or solely based in Palestine and as such, an isolated event widely reported on by the general media. The article then goes on in detail on whether the actual footage of the celebrations were authentic. If the content as it stands was merged, then I could see the current content presented with adequate weight. Reactions to the September 11, 2001 attacks does not become overly bloated or long if a proper merge is conducted. I think that in general, very POV topics should generally be included within the scope of a more balanced topic. Furthermore, Reactions to the September 11, 2001 attacks is not exactly written well and probably could be expanded, which would further marginalize the celebrations of the attacks within the scope of the overall article. That said, I think discussion should move into an actual draft of what would constitute a merge to appease the procedural opposes, and to see whether the article can be suitably merged. Yes, the article is notable on its own merits, but it moves very close to the provisions against content forks and our guideline on summary style. I say this without prejudice against the article itself, which again, is notable on its own merits, but I think that a merger would better present the topic and provide a compromise to defuse the situation.

To conclude, the initial merger was inappropriate and the closing user should take care not to perform similar acts in the future, and the interested parties should move towards an actual draft of what could be considered a merger. Barring a substantial expansion of the article that makes the article an appropriate split per WP:CFORK, WP:WEIGHT, and WP:SS, a merger is probably appropriate.

Cheers, Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 22:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Sephiroth, thanks for helping out here! Just a note regarding WP:CFORK, if you check the edit histories, the "Celebrations" article dates back to 2002[25] and this "Reactions" article dates back to earlier in 2008[26]. Also, if you check the earliest history on the "Reactions" article you'll see that the editor who started that article is the same one who has been pushing the hardest to merge (or should I say eliminate) the "Celebrations" article. If anything, I would come to the conclusion that the "Reactions" article is actually a content fork.

As for what I think should have happened, I would have recommended to expand the scope of the "Celebrations" article and then rename it to the title currently held by the "Reactions" article. This would have avoided a fork of the topic while still expanding the over all scope.

To make it clear, I am not opposed to merging the overall pair of topics together as "Celebrations" is a subset of "Reactions". Still, I definitely believe that there is very much a CoI for Imad marie (talk · contribs) to push so hard for the merger into the article that he/she created. Being that the "Celebrations" article has a much longer history, to maintain a record of the edits made it would actually make more sense to follow the following steps:

1. Rename "Reactions" to a new name (perhaps something along the lines of "broader reactions").
2. Rename "Celebrations" to "Reactions".
3. Merge content from the "broader" article into the new "Reactions" title.

I know this sounds a bit round about, but it preserves the majority of the edit history into the merged article.

I'd like to ask that someone please revert the redirect on "Celebrations" back to the article content until this is all sorted out.

Thanks. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 23:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you're trying to ask for a history merge, and I don't think that it's necessary for GFDL concerns. The article isn't being deleted and the contribution history will remain open. The only thing that will go on the "Celebrations" page is a redirect, whatever appropriate merge templates, and any useful cats. And even though the "Celebrations" article was created before the "Reactions" article, it still logically follows that the former is a subset of the latter, and ergo, the "Reactions" article is the parent article. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 01:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

No content was merged again when Marie re-redirected this page. That isn't a merge, that's a purge for POV reasons. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 06:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Small note: I was introducing more material about the Palestinian Authority response to Palestinian celebrations but came up against harsh resistance from Imad marie to adding relevant content. You can review the version and the discussion which followed here. To clarify, I'm still interested in adding the "later responses" section whose details Imad called 'without connection to this article and undue'. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 07:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I thought User:Jayjg removed your material because you used unreliable reference? Imad marie (talk) 16:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I think I must clarify my position here. It's true that I have worked hard to merge this article, but it's not like my efforts where unilateral; 13 editors have voted to merge this article in its first AfD, and like I said before, a small group of editors have managed to impose their will on a larger group of editors. Maybe I have CoI regarding this article, but a look at the ethnic background of the objecting editors to the merge shows that we have an ethnic conflict here.

And about the complaints that the merge was performed with a simple "redirect" without moving the relevant information from this article. Would the objecting editors explain what significant material was left behind in the merge? all the significant information is already there in the "reactions" article, if anyone objects to that he/she should point out to the missing material. Imad marie (talk) 16:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

What ethnic background are you suggesting Imad? Do you believe that certain ethnic backgrounds should not be allowed to edit this sort of article? Do you have something against a certain ethnic background? Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 16:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't anything against any ethnic background. But considering the nature of the I-P conflict, it seems that some editors want to show Palestinians as celebrants of mass murder. Imad marie (talk) 17:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Based on the plethora of sources which reported on such celebrations, Palestinians did celebrate this particular mass murder. Not all Palestinians, not even many, but it is verifiable that some did. It is encyclopedic to document this as part of the coverage of the historical incident and such sad behavior should not be swept under the rug but should rather be written about in a way consistent with our policies and guidelines. Erasing this article with only a few lines of summary on the other article does not give the weight that these reported incidents had in media. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 17:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Further, the article this is being merged to does not address the question of the authenticity of the reports as this one does. It does not inherit any of the images from this article nor does it gather any of the actual celebrations which were shown on television and in the newspapers. The coverage in the other article is lacking compared to that in this article. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 18:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the celebrations did happen, I'm not questioning that, but IMO, this article serves as a propaganda, do we have another article like this elsewhere in WP? Why are the celebrations so significant that they are included in the sept/11 template? And as I said before, this is not just my opinion, 12 other editors agreed with me in the first AfD. If I did not have this support I would have backed off. Imad marie (talk) 18:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit conflict - Every article on Wikipedia which states true facts about an incident which portrays someone or some people in a bad light would be considered by those who would like to suppress it as propaganda. That's why Wikipedia has rules to insure that facts aren't suppressed by those who don't like it. These celebrations which I eye witnessed in Brooklyn are indeed very significant, exactly because of what it says, and should not be suppressed, or minimized in any way by a merger. If making everyone feel good is the way to go, then Imad Marie; will you help me remove everything written in WP which portrays Israel in a bad light, and I'll help you remove everything written in WP which portrays the Arabs in a bad light? Do we have a deal? Itzse (talk) 18:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The celebrations received coverage in nearly every media outlet in the entire world. This makes the event notable. The primary criteria for inclusion in this encyclopedia. This article is about a notable, verifiable event which gathered significant coverage from a number of independent sources. A local consensus does not overcome one of our defining principles, that notable events are worthy of coverage. There are articles on other media events, one which comes to mind off hand is Dewey Defeats Truman, another is the Jyllands-Posten Mohammad Cartoon controversy. Are there articles on other "bad behavior" by a minority events? Sure. I'm certain there are articles on Klu Klux Klan marches, on the 1968 Chicago riots at the democratic convention, and most likely other unpalatable incidents of a quasi-political vien. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 18:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

(Reply to Itzse and Kyaa) You think that this article is necessary to cover important information, but there are other editors who think that the article is needless, and that the material can be covered in a balanced way in the "reactions" article. The question is: Aren't the objecting editors willing to back off if they see that their opinion is a minority opinion and the majority of editors support the merge? Imad marie (talk) 19:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Some who argued that the article is needless, argued that it didn't happen, which will not be rectified by a merge. If objecting editors are objective, and ethnic background (in reverse) doesn't get in the way then indeed some would back off; but do you believe that to be the case? Especially that some have stated their personal bias on numerous occasions. Therefore we need not second guess anybody (pro or con), just follow the rules which in this case didn't warrant a merge. Itzse (talk) 20:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Only one of the supporting editors thinks the celebrations did not happen, and only one is Palestinian. Imad marie (talk) 20:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

And some of the others are pro-Palestinian; which shouln't be a problem if pro-Israeli isn't a problem either. Regardless, we have to follow the rules which didn't warrant a merger. Itzse (talk) 21:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Administrator Sephiroth BCR has been kind enough to offer solid advice. Taking Reactions to the September 11, 2001 attacks as the ordered parent article, would the user who expressed concern that this merge was a little hasty, and incomplete, please identify the omitted material so it can be correctly incorporated. ~ smb 19:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

smb, being that the "Reactions" article has not had edits since 1 July by the merging editor[27], I think it is safe to say that no material was merged. Imad marie (talk · contribs) just replaced the "Celebrations" article with a redirect and called it a merge. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 19:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Because as I said before: IMO all the significant information is already there. "World reaction" is redundant, and "Authenticity" is insignificant. If anyone disagrees he/she can suggest better ways to merge. Imad marie (talk) 20:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

We have a good number of editors who think this article should be merged, I will proceed with the merge again and I hope we will not have move war over it. Per Kyaa's comment: "Further, the article this is being merged to does not address the question of the authenticity of the reports as this one does. It does not inherit any of the images from this article nor does it gather any of the actual celebrations which were shown on television and in the newspapers. The coverage in the other article is lacking compared to that in this article.", I will move the "authenticity" section and the videos, but I will not move the cartoon as this has been already problematic, see Talk:Celebrations_of_the_September_11,_2001_attacks#Cartoon. Imad marie (talk) 05:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure you read Sephiroth's comments at the beginning of this section, but let me quote: "First and foremost is that the discussion was closed by a user who !voted to merge the article. This frankly is a poor decision and a clear conflict of interest, and in that light, the merge was not appropriate, regardless of the state of the current discussion. The only case in which such a thing would be remotely appropriate was that the merge had no opposition, and even then, it would be better for an uninvolved party to perform the merge." You have demonstrated too much personal interest in the topic to be the one doing this merge. Please back off on this or you will likely find yourself blocked for edit waring again. Go to the appropriate message boards and invite an uninvolved editor (or admin) to rule on the arguments above and carry out the merge. Once a rough merge is done, then the wars can start new as to what should or should not stay in. I would also highly recommend not doing anything over the next couple of days. The US is in their primary national holiday today and a lot of editors likely will not be around this weekend. If you start taking actions during this time it may appear you are trying to work the timing to your advantage. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 12:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Precisely. On July 4, I was at the San Diego Zoo and watching the Disneyland fireworks later, and thus unable to edit for very long :p Anyhow, my recommendation was that you hammer out the details of what was to constitute a merge before actually performing the merge (like in someone's userspace draft, probably would have been better had I pointed that out). I also see that the page is currently protected (which I thought would eventually be necessary), which makes such a solution necessary in any case. To Imad Marie, I realize you are acting in good faith in your efforts, but do realize that any attempt by an involved user to assert that consensus exists in a very controversial case doesn't carry a lot of weight unless there is clear support. In any case, have someone make a userspace draft of Reactions to the September 11, 2001 attacks with the merged content and discuss away. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 02:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Sephiroth for your advice, I'm willing to go ahead with your advised procedure, however I think some editors who are a minority will prevent the merge even if it is a majority decision. Imad marie (talk) 09:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I have just re-read the entire merge debate from the beginning and I am even more opposed to any merge than I was originally. It looks to me like the merge proponents are motivated in large parts by ideological considerations of some kind, and it really rubs me completely the wrong way when notable and well sourced information is attempted to be deleted, seeming to whitewash an event somebody does not like and wants to pretend did not happen. There is lots of coverage by reliable sources of this controversy, the coverage is not confined to the short period of just when the event was happening, and the controversy is clearly distinct from the general world reaction to the Sept 11 attacks. There are balance problems in the article, but there is simply no way any kind of a merge would be acceptable here. Nsk92 (talk) 10:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I should also say that the content has clear informational value. I remember quite well seeing the images of those celebrations on TV and thinking "what the heck?" and wanting to know what exactly happened there, whether the story was real, and what the extent of the events was. I am fairly sure that many other people had and still have similar questions. I have read this article for the first time a few days ago and I found the content fairly illuminating. Nsk92 (talk) 10:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

An outsiders viewpoint

I haven't seen this article before today and - as an outsider, so to speak - I'd just like to say that the article does seem very imbalanced and in need of some sort of drastic revamp; a merge or a rewrite perhaps? (How is it imbalanced? Well, there are only four headings, 'World reaction' (1 paragraph), 'Reports' (3 paragraphs), 'Palestinian reaction' (8 paragraphs and a cartoon) and then a short section on 'Authenticity'. Leaving aside the ins and outs of the matter, that sure doesn't look like a balanced account to me). Setwisohi (talk) 13:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

RfC

A dispute on whether merging the article to Reactions to the September 11, 2001 attacks is appropriate.

Users who support the merge:

1. Support. Unencyclopedic, obvious POV fork. --Terrawatt (talk) 14:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
2. Support This is well within the scope of Reactions to the September 11, 2001 attacks. No information need be lost. This is a no-brainer. ~ smb 21:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
3. Support Although I think this RfC is totally needless, but I'm posting my vote again here per Sephiroth's advice. And by the way, there is another (kind of) voting going on here. Imad marie (talk) 21:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
4. Support. The RFC may seem needless, but those articles are a minefield. Honestly I'm blown away that celebrations has lasted this long. Protonk (talk) 05:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
5. Support, yes this has gone on way too long. pedrito - talk - 09.07.2008 10:46
6. Support Imad marie raises a good point. When the nearest relevant article to this one is itself deemed to be irrelevant, there is no need to keep something like this which is so clearly skewed. ʄ!•¿talk? 13:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
7. Support Chadlupkes (talk) 14:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
8. Support Is it too late for another to say 'Merge'? If not, then please do merge to 'Reactions to the September 11...' article. Setwisohi (talk) 15:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
9. Support merge (again). Long overdue. The article is still little more than a stub. // Liftarn (talk)

• Support (why are people using the # — this is a discussion, not a vote) — Perhaps created in good faith with the mistaken belief that the "Reactions to…" article was meant only for official government responses, etc. However, as the article name suggests, it is for all "Reactions to…", not "Official state reactions to…" − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 10:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Users who oppose the merge:

1. Oppose. As I wrote in the comments above, the subject of the article represents a distinct controversy, separate from the general world recations to the 9/11 attacks. There is plenty of coverage by reliable sources of the controversy, and this coverage is not limited to the short period right after the events happened. So notability is not in question here and the subject definitely deserves a separate article. The best I can tell, much of the arguments for merge are based on ideological and POV considerations: some people feel that the article is designed to malign the Palestinians. The article was nominated twice for AfD recently essentially on those grounds. To quote from the original nomination: "This is an anti-Palestinian propaganda launched by some editors". What the motives of the people who created the article are, the decision of merging or not should not be made on the basis of investigating these motoves (which might indeed have been suspect), but on the formal merits of the case. And, as I said, for me the bottom line is that the subject is definitely distinct, and well-covered by numerous sources over a prolonged period of time. Everything else is irrelevant, as far as I am concerned. Attempting to delete or merge away this article looks like a clear violation of WP:NOTCENSORED to me. Just to double-check my instincts, I did a quick google search to see if the subject is still being covered. Of course, there are quite a few more recent sources, apart from those cited in the article, such as [28][29], [30], [31], etc (the last one discusses a book that appartently also contains substantial coverage of the event). Now, one can argue about neutrality of these sources, and how they should be mentioned, but there is little doubt controversy still exists as a separate topic and that it made considerable and lasting impact that is reflected by its prolonged coverage. Deleting the content by merging this article would be just plain wrong. Nsk92 (talk) 13:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
2. Oppose. As a POV fork attempting to replace a long standing article with a new one. The logic behind this being a POV fork is as follows:

   On 5 April 2008, user Imad marie (talk · contribs) launched an AfD of Celebrations of the September 11, 2001 attacks [32] with this comment:

   "This is an anti-Palestinian propaganda launched by some editors. The title of the article gives the impression that celebrations broke out in multiple countries all over the wold, however when you read the article you find that it only covers the Palestine's celebration. What relevant material here is already covered in the International Reaction section of Aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks and there is no need for a separate article here."

   The AfD was closed as Keep.

   On 17 April 2008, user Imad marie started a new article[33] named International reactions to the September 11, 2001 attacks which was later renamed to Reactions to the September 11, 2001 attacks.

   On 24 April 2008, user Imad marie next launched a second AfD of Celebrations of the September 11, 2001 attacks [34] with the comment:

   "I have already nominated this article for deletion three weeks ago, the result was "not delete" and a recommendation to discuss merging the article. So why am I nominating the article for AfD again now? Because a new article has been created: International reactions to the September 11, 2001 attacks, and discussions happened on whether to merge/delete the celebrations article, no consensus was reached about that, and that's why a deletion review is needed here. The way I see it, the celebrations article is a content fork of the international reactions article, and arguably a POVFork, the celebrations article covers a minor event in the context of the reactions to the Sept 11 attacks, and does not include any significant information that the reactions article does not."

   This second AfD was also closed as Keep.

   On 1 July 2008, user Imad marie posted on the "Reactions" talk page:

   "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."[35]

   Imad marie twice tried to have the "Celebrations" article removed and when that failed tried changing it to a redirect without moving anything over. After this past behavior, the only way I could support a merge is if we are discussing and polling on the actual text of any merge as suggested by Sephiroth BCR (talk · contribs) several days ago.[36]. If I knew what the result of any merge would look like then I might be convinced that this is not yet another attempt at simply removing a long existing article (here since 2002[37]) by calling it a fork of a newly created article (here since April[38]). --StuffOfInterest (talk) 22:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

3. Oppose Per my comment in the last straw poll. YahelGuhan (talk) 07:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
4. Weakest support with the caveat that no material be lost or "forgotten". Edit: changed !vote due to statements leading me to believe that any merge will not retain the material in this article in a suitable form. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 10:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
5. Oppose. - I still believe a merger would deprive a proper examination of the celebrations controversy and that we should keep a main article separate from the 'reactions' article for people who are interested in more information than a paragraph and a half would provide. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment

You can't seriously start a new poll simply because you don't like the results of the last one. Uninvolved administrator Sephiroth BCR recommends that we now move toward merger, final wording to be agreed. ~ smb 13:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The last poll I can see above has 11 votes for the merge, 8 opposed and 1 neutral. Hardly what I would call consensus for the merge. I believe that wider input is required here and that is what the RfC is intended to do. Nsk92 (talk) 13:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

You are counting votes that were cast in protest after (a) Imad marie redirected the page, and (b) an uninvolved administrator was asked the comment on the merger. In the spirit of rough consensus, the recommendation was that we take Reactions to the September 11, 2001 attacks as the parent article and move toward an orderly and agreeable merger. ~ smb 18:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Although I think calling an RfC here was a bit disruptive with the poll above, it might be better just to let the RfC run and allow everyone who !voted in the above poll to recast their !votes. After that, you can get a clear view on whether consensus exists on the issue. Feel free to leave friendly notices to everyone who !voted in the above poll to comment in the RfC here (and no, it's not canvassing :p). Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 20:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, but if the result doesn't go my way, I reserve the right to ignore it and start a new poll. :P ~ smb 21:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

My problem with the original poll is not that the results did not go the way I wanted but that too few people knew about the poll. On a controversial topic like this one, an earlier RfC would have been preferable. Nsk92 (talk) 21:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Poor form

This is turning silly now. User:StuffOfInterest has nominated the logical parent article, Reactions to the September 11, 2001 attacks, up for deletion. ~ smb 21:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Yup, and he/she called it: "content fork"... Imad marie (talk) 21:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

In view of the results of the new poll and of the recently closed AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reactions to the September 11, 2001 attacks, it is clear that there is a substantial consensus for the merge. So, although I personally disagree with those favoring the merge, the RfC should now be closed and a merge should be affected (hopefully not in a way that will "merge out" too much verifiable info). I am removing the RfC tag above.Nsk92 (talk) 19:52, 12 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) 16:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I've already stated what needs to be in the final merge and since, in your so unbiased opinion, there is nothing to be merged, I would ask someone else to create and coordinate this merge since I do not believe you to be able to do so. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 09:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I concur with the above sentiments as stated by Kyaa the Catlord. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Everyone was invited to contribute to the sandbox, so it's not about me. Anyhow if you think the sandbox should be created in another's editor userspace thats fine with me, it doesn't really make a difference. Imad marie (talk) 10:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Rather than hiding any discussion away, perhaps it would be better to hold this sort of discussion out in the open on the Reactions page. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 10:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's have our merge discussion in this page. Does anyone have a problem with the sandbox being hosted in my user-space (again, anyone can edit) ?. If yes, does anyone volunteer to have the sandbox article in his user-space? Imad marie (talk) 20:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter at all whose userspace it's in. Anyone can edit it, so it's a bit of a moot point. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 21:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Well exactly, I'm not sure where any discussion is being "hidden" here, although whether it's been slightly confusingly (and perhaps inevitably) spread across several pages is another matter. As to the content - as far as I can tell, and since I last looked - all the material is already included, other than one rather insignificant and oddly interpreted cartoon, and excessive detail regarding a slightly convoluted debate about the authenticity of the "celebration" footage. For those who do think that changes or additions need to be made, let's stick with the sand box as proposed. --Nickhh (talk) 23:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems there isn't any suggestions to move any further content. If not, then we should proceed with the merge. Imad marie (talk) 17:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

No suggestions, I will proceed with the merge. Imad marie (talk) 05:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

And again, you simply redirected. This is NOT a merge. We have asked you to merge the material from this page into the reactions page, not simply redirect it. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 06:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Did you even read the above comments? I (and other editors) asked for suggestions on the additional material that should be moved, no reply for 3 days. Imad marie (talk) 06:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

And we've given this in the PAST. Must we repeat it every single day for you to listen to our input? We want all relevant material covered properly, the imagery from the West Bank included, and the allegations and subsequent investigation into the legitimacy of the celebrations included as well. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 06:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Protected the page (again). Those involved please write out a draft in someone's userspace and discuss it. Go leave friendly notices on all the participants of the above RfC and poll and work it out. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 06:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I am attempting to merge the material into the Reactions article. I have asked for some of the code so I can do so on your talk page Seph. Thanks. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 06:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so I've merged most of the relevant and missing material to the Reactions article minus the image that I cannot get due to being unable to snag the code due to the article being protected. I am certain that more material from this article is suitable to be merged into the other one but I am at work and do not have time to go over that whitewashed article with as much scrutiny as is required. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 06:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Update: Image has been added to the other article. Thanks Sephy. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 06:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

IMO: The "Investigation of news reporting and allegations of fraud" section is relatively too long. I suggest removing the "Rebroadcast footage" section because it is insignificant, CNN has denied the rebroadcast footage. Also we can shorten the "Germany's Panorama" section. And I object to inserting the cartoon per this. Let's see what other editors think about that.Imad marie (talk) 07:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Apparently there was a compromise hashed out which would still stand after the merge imho. One editor cannot stand in the way of consensus. If you wish to tighten up the prose, I'm not against this but in the light that there was allegations that these celebrations were staged and that footage of them was respooled from earlier celebrations, I believe that we should continue to have a subsection on such. Some palestinians(should this be capitalized?) challenged the coverage and that challenge should be contained and the results of the investigations should be documented. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 07:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Cartoon

About PMW, is it really a RS? it's just an anti-Palestinian site. Imad marie (talk) 07:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Forgive the copypasta:

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^[39],Washington Post^[40],BBC^[41],Reuters^[42], Forbes^[43],Jerusalem Post^[44],Channel 2 (Israel)^[45],The New York Times^[46].

As was shown previously in the discussion you linked to. Labelling it an anti-Palestinian site is just as silly as labelling FAIR or Media Matters for America as "just anti-American sites". Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 07:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

No, it is not silly, please read this. Imad marie (talk) 07:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

One person's opinion on the matter does not negate that PMW's reporting is reliable enough for mainstream sources to use. jossi's a fine administrator, but I disagree along with Reuters, CNN, the Washington Post, and others as to the validity of her "judgement". Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 08:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)