Talk:Celebrations of the September 11, 2001 attacks

First section

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

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

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

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

---

You may also compare the reporting of first the celebrations and then how quitet it was when it turned out to be true. Also compare that with that nothing was mentioned about celebrations in Israel after the Flash Airlines Flight 604 crash. [1] // Liftarn

- Aljazirra Report of "such" a response from former prime minister Netanyahu, neither celebrations in israel of the attacks are not solid proof that these events actually happaned. Aljazirra is widely known for its Anti-Israeli state of view.

Questionable claim

In numerous cities of the Islamic world,

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

Direct citation please. When, where, who, how, what was the reaction?--Eloquence*

Sources

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

Celebrations elsewhere

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MEDIA COVERAGE STRESSES IDEALOGICAL IMPLICATIONS

...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CAPITAL RESIDENTS' REACTION, A COMPLEX MIX

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Web Visitors in China Cheer for the Explosions in London

It may have helped that is was the same date as the 1973 Chilean coup d'état. // Liftarn

Suggested move

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

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

Blatant POV racism as usual. // Liftarn

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

Palestinians in Lebanon

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

Christians in USA

This article is too centristic on Palestinians and the arab world. I've seen this and this image from USA. We have sources[2][3][4] so it could be added. // Liftarn

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

And that makes it better? It's one thing to celebrate without knowledge of the full extent, but an entierly different thing doing it fully knowing how many died. // Liftarn

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

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

ok, i just went over the sky news report^[5]... it's not really as relating to the attacks of 9/11 imho as it does to the 7/7 bombings... side note/joke: these americans are not very jubilant... heh. Jaakobou 14:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

heh, they actually do use the term "preach" on the FOX link^[6] this one seems connected mostly to Jerry Falwell and Gay relating articles (in the USA). Jaakobou 14:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't suggest a separate article but an addition to this one. Oh, and if you want to write an article about Celebrations of the 7 July 2005 London bombings go ahead, but I think it will be a bit stubby. The article is just for a source that they do go around with plaquards saying "Thank God for Sep 11". // Liftarn

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

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

A celebration is defined as "a joyous event or party" and they enjoyed it (and even thanked God for it). // Liftarn

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

From where do you get the idea that it is only celebrations in the immediate aftermath that are acceptable? I also thing WBC was quite quick to celebrate, they seem to do that whenever something bad happens. // Liftarn

Fraudulent statement and link removed

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

I had intended to add the following - but it's not currently available at the link I expected: A member of a group of Christian observers in Hebron that day reported "At no time that week did I see a Palestinian dancing or hear one expressing approval for what the terrorists did to my fellow citizens in New York or Washington, DC. The Palestinians in Hebron know that my organization, Christian Peacemaker Teams, often criticizes U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East, and they had plenty of opportunity to express their own bitterness regarding U.S. policy to us. But they didn't." -> http://www.tikkun.org/magazine/index.cfm/action/tikkun/issue/tik0111/article/011112b.html - Settler Violence and September 11 A Report from the Mean Streets of Hebron - Kathleen Kern, with Christian Peacemaker Teams in Hebron. PalestineRemembered 15:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's please stick to NPOV

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

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

"symbolically donated blood"

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think he was too old to be a viable donor. // Liftarn

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

cameramen blocked

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

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

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

Sure, but try to find a reliable source first. // Liftarn

he's already using a reliable source .Isarig 17:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Where? The only link I see is to CAMERA and they are no no way reliable. // Liftarn

you are welcome to your personal opinion of CAMERA, but they are a reliable source according to WP standards. Isarig 16:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

They are? "Reliable sources are authors or publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand.". I don't see how a propaganda organisation like CAMERA can be seen as "trustworthy or authoritative". Questionable sources should only be used in articles about themselves. // Liftarn

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

BBC and The Guardian are reputable news providers, CAMERA is an interest organisation as best and a propaganda organisation and as such they are a questionable source. // Liftarn

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

Err... No, I don't think so. About themselves yes, but not in general. // Liftarn

what you think is entirely irrelevant. They meet WP requirements, that's all that matters. Isarig 16:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Says who? WP:V says "Questionable sources should only be used in articles about themselves.". // Liftarn

But there is nothing to suggest that CAMERA is a questionable source. You are using circular logic. Isarig 17:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

CAMERA have been described as "a Boston based powerful ultra-right pro-Israel lobby group that tries to suppress criticism of Israel on US media. It uses its financial and political clout to force media elements to tow Israel's party line.". I think that would suggest they are somewhat unreliable. // Liftarn

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

No, because the BBC is by so many considered the emodiedment of unbiased reporting. that there are some nutcases that don't like unbiaser reporting is another issue. Also you are comparing a news source with an interest organisation here. // Liftarn

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

There is no double standards here. News sources are (for the most cases) reliable, interest organisations (for the most cases) have a bias. It's as simple as that. // Liftarn

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

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

It would certainly be a good idea. So for your personal edification, as you clearly have no idea whatsoever about the BBC World services's source of funding, here it is, stright from the horse's mouth: "It is funded primarily through grant-in-aid from the FCO" [7]. Note also that this appears under the heading of "Promoting the UK". It is hard to imagine a more biased source than one which is funded by the FCO, for the purpsoe of "promoting the UK". And in case you think this is some misrepresentation by the FCO, the BBC itself says the same thing about the BBCWS: "The World Service provides news in English and 42 other languages and is funded by a Foreign Office grant. " [8]. As to the FCO setting teh BBCWS's goals, again, read the BBCWS web site itself: "The Foreign Secretary is responsible for agreeing with the BBC World Service its objectives and medium term priority target audiences defined geographically and by

audience segment, and appropriate performance measures." [9] . Perhaps if you knew a little more about the topics you post about, words would not fail you quite so quickly. Isarig 04:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

Yasser Arafat's blood donation

The alternate text of the image is "Yasser Arafat symbolically donates blood in the aftermath of the attacks on the US". The caption of the image is "Mr Arafat made a show of donating blood".[10] Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Palestinian Media Reaction

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

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

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

Questionable cartoon

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

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

We still have no reliable source saying the cartoon in any way is a celebration. It seems far more likley it is a comment like so many other cartoons. // Liftarn

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

As far as I can tell the source is PMW and I don't think they are really reliable. // Liftarn

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

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

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

there is a difference between saying it is a "Palestinian cartoon celebrating" (i.e. the cartoon or rather the cartoonist and the publishing newspaper that does the celebration) and "cartoon, showing Bin Laden celebrating" (that Bin Laden is doing the celebration). // Liftarn

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

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

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

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

PMW is, as I already said, not really reliable. They are utterly biased so their claims can not be taken seriously. We sure can add that PWM claims this or that. // Liftarn

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

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

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

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

I don't have to prove that PMW is unreliable, the burden of evidence is on the one who claims they are reliable. // Liftarn

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

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

The Washington Times^[11],Washington Post^[12],BBC^[13],Reuters^[14], Forbes^[15],Jerusalem Post^[16],Channel 2 (Israel)^[17],The New York Times^[18].

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

So they themselves claim they are reliable? Gee, that sure settles it. Not! // Liftarn

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dagens Nyheter and Der Spiegel managed to track down and interview the woman. It used to be in the article. // Liftarn

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

Like I said. It was in the article. With some time it would be possible to find out when (and by who!) the links were removed. // Liftarn

you are free to look it up - here's the article's history: [19]. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Panorama section Break

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Didn't Der Spiegel and Dagens Nyheter in cooperation managed to track down and interview the woman? That's how it was reported in Dagens Nyheter anyway. // Liftarn (talk)

small number of

this edit - [20]. needs a source.

current text on reporting is:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

blood again

the dispute is over arafat politically motivated action and that was the consensus we reached a while back. the first phrasing was 'symbolically donated blood', based on a number of sources and also the text of the image in the BBC article (right click that picture and click properties). however, there were objections to the term symbolically and we ended up agreeing on the text used in the article body. started here: [21] and ended here: [22]. anyways, i'm open to suggestions that stay true to the notion that it was a politically motivated action. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

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

It probably was symbolic since he was too old to be a viable blood donor anyway, byt that is (as you point out) original research. // Liftarn (talk)

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

Just to note that the piece linked was actually an "analysis", ie commentary, piece, not a news report. Forbes states that "Arafat gave blood to be shipped to the U.S." ([23]). Washington Post says "with photographers on hand, Arafat donated blood for victims" ([24]). CBS says "Arafat donated blood for U.S. victims joining a global effort to boost blood supplies." ([25]) et cetera et cetera ad nauseum. "Symbolically" is already an unwarranted compromise with POV-pushers and I'd leave it to just "donated" if I was willing to waste more time arguing with the brick-wall-faction here. <eleland/talkedits> 02:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

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

Well, now we know the truth. He didn't give any blood, symbolically or otherwise. The whole thing was faked. Enderlin is certainly a reliable source for this, because it's an admission against interest. His entire career is now tied up with the Palestinian cause, and an admission like this damages him, but he made it anyway. -- Zsero (talk) 10:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if Joel Pollak is a reliable source. It's his blog. // Liftarn (talk)

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)

Nawal Abdel Fatah quote

Please explain your removal [26] 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)

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)