Talk:Reactions to the September 11 attacks/Archive 1

Archive 1

Benjamin Netanyahu statement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal to delete the "Al-Muhajiroun" section

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

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

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

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

Changes to section heads & removal of material

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

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

Dear Nickhh,

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

Cheers, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

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

Latest change to the introduction

per this diff: [1]

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

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

Dear Nickhh,

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

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

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

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

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

Cordially, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Possible topics for expansion

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

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

No reason for "Controversies" distinction

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

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

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

Merge proposal

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

Merge completed

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

New merge proposal

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

Merge procedure

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

Foot dragging

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

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

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

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

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 02:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If the decision is KEEP (including any variant such as NO CONSENSUS, REDIRECT, or MERGE), ... [instructions on how to use {{Afd-mergeto}} and {{Afd-mergefrom}} follow]

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

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

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

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

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

Right wing Christians

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

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

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

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

Merged Celebrations material

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RfC: Redirect to what?

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

Support redirection to Reactions to the September 11, 2001 attacks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments

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

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

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

The Pope's reaction

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

Hamas' reaction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Relevance

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

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

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

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

Cheers, pedrito - talk - 17.09.2008 07:50

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

Cheers, pedrito - talk - 17.09.2008 08:23

While the quotes are certainly sourced, they introduce a bad bias and POV into the article. Jaakobou's version seems to far more balanced it doesn't have the implication of a prominent Israeli figure saying that the September 11 attacks were a good thing, as that was almost certainly not the intention of the remark. --MZMcBride (talk) 08:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow, two previously uninvolved editors so far in a thread with 5 posts... Let me guess, has Jack been trolling for support on IRC again or did he just mail you directly?

Anyway, regarding the topic at hand, considering the hatchet job this article does on the Palestinians, the level of euphemistics applied to Netanyahu's statements seem somewhat unbalanced. I've re-inserted the source so that any casual reader can de-crypt the phrase "helpful to the understanding of Israel's troubles with the Palestinians" as he or she best sees fit.

Cheers, pedrito - talk - 17.09.2008 09:34

I'm not entirely sure as to what you mean when you say "euphemistics", but trying to make a point on article space is improper. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Euphemistics is when you write that something was "helpful to the understanding of Israel's troubles with the Palestinians" when the quoted source says "good for Israel". Other people call that WP:SYNTH or even WP:OR. I'll step aside and let other editors dish this out, since I don't think this interaction will lead anywhere.

Cheers and have a "helpful to the understanding of whatever" day, pedrito - talk - 17.09.2008 10:39

I have reinserted the text in question with minor changes. It now reads:

The day following the attacks, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon urged the world to fight terrorism and declared a national day of mourning in solidarity with the United States. "Prominent Israelis also promptly linked the attacks to that country's plight." Former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, famously described as the "senator for Israel", told Israeli radio on September 12 2001: "This was a very good thing for Israel's relationship with the United States." Support for Israel in the United States was indeed reinforced by the attacks, and in April 2008, Netanyahu reiterated similar sentiments, stating, "We are benefiting from one thing, and that is the attack on the Twin Towers and Pentagon, and the American struggle in Iraq," citing these events as having "swung American public opinion in our favor."

I do not see how reporting exactly what Israeli officials have said regarding the attacks introduces POV. The sources cited are reliable. The person quoted is a former PM and considered a "senator for Israel" even when not in office. If there are problems with the formulation, I am open to discussing it, but this mass blanking and poor paraphrasing of the material is really unacceptable. Let's try to to work together to improve the passage, not obliterate it. Thanks. Tiamut^talk 15:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I would point out that the "Prominent Israelis" quote, being by itself in one sentence as a quote, gives no context and can lead to a very justifiable statement of weaseling. I would suggest that particular quote not be used if the actual intent is to use Netanyahu and/or Sharon to support the point. Instead, say "Netanyahu said X", and "Sharon said Y" and leave it at that without the implications that the quote otherwise engenders. MSJapan (talk) 17:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The formulation isn't mine. The information comes from Adrian Guelke's Terrorism and Global Disorder on page 133, quoting James Bovard, he writes:

"'Prominent Israelis also promptly linked the attack to their country's plight. Former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, speaking of the terrorist attacks, told Israeli radio on September 12, 2001, "This was a very good thing for Israel's relationship to the United States."'

Guelke continues, "As Netanyahu correctly surmised, the events of September 11 reinforced support for Israel in the United States." In other words, this juxtaposition of information comes from the source itself. I don't really see how it's weasally at all. If your concern isWP:OR, it's an WP:RS putting it out there, not me. We can attribute the information to Guelke and Bovard though, if anyone thinks it needs to be attributed. Tiamut^talk 22:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Major concerns

I am deeply concerned with the direction this article is taking. This diff, in particular, is deeply concerning, since the meaning of the two versions are diametrically opposite. The former version suggests that the official response of all countries/nationalities was a condemnation of attacks, however there were incidents which were recorded of Palestinians celebrating; the latter version suggests that reports of Palestinians celebrating were faked and that all countries/nationalities officially condemned the attacks, except -- although Israel outwardly expressed disappointment at the attacks -- internally Israel was happy because the event was beneficial for U.S.-Israel relations. It seems to me, then, that the recent changes made by Tiamut, in particular, are deviating from the objective retelling of events to a dangerous WP:SYNTH/WP:OR intended to slant the article in favor of various anti-Semitic 9/11 conspiracy theories which claim that Israel had the most to gain from the attack and that, therefore, "the Jews" were responsible for the event. Normally, especially since I signed up with WP:IPCOLL, I try not to get myself involved in editing disputes. However, the changes to this article are so deeply troubling and POV that, at the risk of an edit war, I am reverting to the previous, stable version of the article. ← Michael Safyan ^(talk) 23:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Say what? I added the following text:

The day following the attacks, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon urged the world to fight terrorism and declared a national day of mourning in solidarity with the United States. "Prominent Israelis also promptly linked the attacks to that country's plight." Former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, famously described as the "senator for Israel", told Israeli radio on September 12 2001: "This was a very good thing for Israel's relationship with the United States." Support for Israel in the United States was indeed reinforced by the attacks, and in April 2008, Netanyahu reiterated similar sentiments, stating, "We are benefiting from one thing, and that is the attack on the Twin Towers and Pentagon, and the American struggle in Iraq," citing these events as having "swung American public opinion in our favor."

The "Palestinian celebrations" section, I merely copy edited, mostly moving information already there around for clarity. Nothing major removed and nothing added - Look at the diff] closely.

I don't really understand the need for hyperbole in this discussion. This statement (It seems to me, then, that the recent changes made by Tiamut, in particular, are deviating from the objective retelling of events to a dangerous WP:SYNTH/WP:OR intended to slant the article in favor of various anti-Semitic 9/11 conspiracy theories which claim that Israel had the most to gain from the attack and that, therefore, "the Jews" were responsible for the event.) is dangerously close to a personal attack and certainly fails to assume good faith. As I point out in the section just above where there is an ongoing discussion about this material, none of what I wrote is WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. The ideas are linked by the source itself, which is a WP:RS. So please, instead of engaging in wild speculation, could we try engaging the text itself? With specific recommendations? Thanks. Tiamut^talk 00:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for naming you, specifically, Tiamut and also for assuming that your edits were in bad faith. It was wrong of me to do so. Nevertheless, I still find these edits to be incredibly problematic -- not just the addition but also the copy-editing (for example, putting celebration in quotations when there is no source to suggest a direct quote) -- and I find that, even if unintentionally, these edits lend themselves to these various anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. Therefore, I stand by my reversion, although I recant having brought up the issue in this way. Again, sorry for accusing you of malintent. ← Michael Safyan ^(talk) 00:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for apologizing about the bad faith assumptions. About "celebration", I added the quotes because the source discussing that particular celebration in Jerusalem, indicates that she did not think it was in fact a spontaneous celebration. It's an expression of her POV. If you feel it creates undue bias, remove the quotations. But I don't see how the rest of the copy edit is problematic, based on your comments.

About your second point, on how these edits lend themselves to these various anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. The source is Adrian Guelke quoting James Bovard in Terrorism and Global Disorder. It is they who juxtapose the idea that prominent Israelis linked the attack to their own country's situation and they who follow up that sentence with Netanyahu's quote and then follow that with mention of how the attacks increased positive American sentiment toward Israel. That's the information included in my edit, direct from the source, and I just do not get how it's in any way inappropriate to include it here. There is no policy-based argument in your comment whatsoever. Could you please elaborate? Tiamut^talk 00:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

And by the way, even when you think you are absolutely right, reverting is a sure-fire way of perpetuating an edit-war. My edits, both time, were not reversions, but additions of material, or modifications of existing material or material I had added that had been blanked. I'm trying to work collaboratively here. I hope you are too. Tiamut^talk 00:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Accordingly Michael, I've restored the material you reverted away, while removing the quotes around "celebration". If you can be more specific about how the material is not relevant to this article or which policy exactly that your objection falls under, I am open to discussing the matter further and working towards a compromise version that addresses any valid concerns. Thanks. Tiamut^talk 02:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no need to refer to the same quote twice. The article is not about what is happening in 2008. I've also tried to point the quote in its proper-context, since without explanation, it makes it sound as if Israel is pleased with the attacks as Michael correctly noted above. Sposer (talk) 15:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Tiamut, thank you for removing the quotes around celebration. Still, there are issues. Both Sposer and I, and I suspect others as well, feel that the present wording makes it sound as if Israel or even just Netanyahu was pleased that the attacks occurred. The sentence "Support for Israel in the United States was indeed reinforced by the attacks,..." was the most problematic in that it echoes much of what appears in the "truther" movement (Israel benefited the most or a lot, ergo Israel was behind the attack). Furthermore, as Sposer notes, this is not even on topic, since this is a 2008 source. I am also concerned by the phrase "Prominent Israelis"; I realize that this is in a direct quote, but it does not add anything and borders on WP:WEASEL. I am also concerned with the phrase "famously described as the 'senator for Israel'" as well as the Netanyahu direct quote where a paraphrase would suffice. I recommend that the Israel section be rewritten and amended to the following:

The day after the attacks, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon urged the world to fight terrorism and declared a national day of mourning in solidarity with the United States. Former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu "linked the attacks to [Israel's] plight" and speculated that the attacks might improve U.S.-Israel relations.

Michael Safyan ^(talk) 18:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Reorganizing countries

Right now, the page is organized into "United States", "Western World", "Islamic World", "United Nations", and "Rest of the World". I think that this categorization -- especially "Western World" vs. "Islamic World" vs. "Rest of the World" -- is problematic, especially since there are Muslims who live in Europe (which is generally categorized as part of the "Western World") and there are states which are predominantly Muslim such as Turkey which would be classified as being part of the "Western World." I recommend that we use the World Bank Country Grouping ("Africa", "East Asia and Pacific", "Europe and Central Asia", "Latin America & Caribbean", "Middle East & North Africa", and "South Asia"), the United Nations Country Grouping, or some other commonly used, well-established, and well-defined country grouping mechanism. Your thoughts? ← Michael Safyan ^(talk) 04:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but the section "Islamic world" is important, because the attacks were carried out by Muslim men, so the reaction of the Islamic world is of particular significance. Imad marie (talk) 08:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not saying that the material should be removed; rather, it should be categorized under "Middle East and North Africa" or a subsection thereof. ← Michael Safyan ^(talk) 09:08, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, so what is your proposed structure? please list it here, and shows us how the "Islamic world" would fit in the new structure. Because as you know the Islamic world spreads in Asia, Africa, and other regions. Imad marie (talk) 10:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

"Most" Islamic leaders

There are 1.5 Billion Muslims in the world. How many leaders would "most" really cover? How is it that we can claim that "most" of these leaders condemned the attacks? I believe that "some" leaders would be more accurate. Also, their "condemnations" against the attack were mostly forms of doublespeak designed and aimed to not only condemn the attacks of 9/11, but also criticize the legitimate self defensive aspirations of actual nations. The source cited here clearly indicates this. Many of these same leaders cited have been responsible for pushing false propaganda claiming that Israel is behind 9/11. For example:

The Arab media has made similar statements. In a 2004 report issued by the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), numerous sources quoted in the Arab press reiterated conspiracy theories blaming both the U.S. government, as well Israel and/or Jews, for the 9/11 attacks. A typical comment published in April 2004 by the Egyptian government daily Al-Gumhouriyya indicated that not only were Jews involved in the attack, they were also behind the government and media cover-up. The article stated: "We also find a heavy blackout by America regarding the results of the investigations into the September 11 events. So far it has published no conclusions, and has not told us who the real perpetrator of these events is, as revealed by the investigations. Since America knows very well that the Jews and the Mossad are behind these events, it will never declare the results of the investigations..." "In June 2004, Jaam-E-Jam, the Iranian government TV channel, aired a series about the 9/11 attacks. The program stated, "The claim that Israel was involved in the blasts of September 11 and used it as a basis of America's new strategy for fighting the world of Islam disappeared in the media coverage, but world public opinion still believes this possibility."

All of that information is from here. It's very sad to me that Wikipedia is misleading its casual readers this way. The fact is that "some" Muslim leaders used doublespeak to "condemn" the attack, and later blamed the USA and Israel for it. Very few leaders in the Muslim world actually condemn Islamic terrorism, but rather, most actually promote it, which is why there have been nearly 12,000 terrorist attacks committed in the name of Islam since 9/11. --Einsteindonut (talk) 19:40, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

The article is about the immediate reaction. The immediate reaction was condemnation. By most, I would say virtually every national leader condemned the attack publically, even if he was lying. Unfortunately, one cannot prove that they were lying. I do not see anything in the article you refer to that can imply your statements about doublespeak on crescentlife. Consider the site itself. It is about people getting along and accepting each other. It would be against that site's principles to suggest Islamic doublespeak. Please note that I am not saying that I think the reactions of many of the Moslem nations was honest. I am saying that the public statements were almost uniformly against the attacks, no matter what their true beliefs were.Sposer (talk) 19:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

There are 1.5 Billion Muslims in the world. How many leaders would "most" really cover? How is it that we can claim that "most" of these leaders condemned the attacks? How many Islamic countries are there in the world? According to this article there are 52. What would "most" be? I'd say we'd need statements from at least 1/2 of these nations to verify the claim that "most" of them condemned the attack. But that would just be among those predominantly Muslim countries. How many Muslims are there in the world? 1.5 Billion? How many "leaders?" That would mean millions of leaders, no? Did the source reference millions of "leaders" No. Just a few and the few it referenced were using doublespeak.

Therefore, I believe that "some" leaders would be more accurate. Also, their "condemnations" against the attack were mostly forms of doublespeak designed and aimed to not only condemn the attacks of 9/11, but also criticize the legitimate self defensive aspirations of actual nations. The source cited here clearly indicates this. As previously noted, many of these same leaders cited have been responsible for pushing false propaganda claiming that Israel and actually the USA were behind 9/11.

In the grand scheme of things (especially considering the Islamic worldview) we're still living what could be the "immediate reaction" of 9/11. Therefore, even reactions a few years later in the form of anti-Israel and anti-US propaganda should be seriously considered. --Einsteindonut (talk) 20:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

First, I would drop the "doublespeak" claim, we are not here to judge the honesty of Muslim leaders.

Second, conspiracy theories do not belong to this article, this article reports the main notable reactions to the attacks.

Third, most of the "reported" reactions of the Muslim leaders were condemnation, if you think otherwise, then present RS that reports reactions of leaders that supported the attacks. Imad marie (talk) 22:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

If the speaker was not notable, that is valid. Given that even Farrakhan condemned the attacks, it is reasonable to suspect this person was not notable. However, the Middle Eastern press has promoted conspiracy theories consistently that either the U.S. or Israel was behind 9/11, including the lie that Jews were warned about the attacks. This was going around right after the attacks in some circles, although I don't have the references at this point. However, if that can be found, it absolutely does belong in this article as part of the Islamic world's reaction.Sposer (talk) 02:36, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theory

I think this is notable and originally added to the article, as per my note above. However, rather get some opinions and consensus. Here is the text I propose adding:

However, one notable reaction resorted to anti-Semitism and conspiracy theories, claiming that the attack was perpetrated by Zionists and that Jews and Israelis were warned of the attack ahead of time. The story was first reported on September 17 by the Lebanese Hezbollah-owned satellite television channel Al-Manar and is believed to be based on the September 12 edition of the Jerusalem Post that stated "The Foreign Ministry in Jerusalem has so far received the names of 4,000 Israelis believed to have been in the areas of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon at the time of the attacks. .". Both turned out to be incorrect; the number of Jews who died in the attacks is variously estimated at between 270 to 400. The lower figure tracks closely with the percentage of Jews living in the New York area and partial surveys of the victims' listed religion. The US State Department has published a partial list of 76 in response to claims that fewer Jews/Israelis died in the WTC attacks than should have been present at the time. Five Israeli citizens died in the attack, including one who was killed fighting his airplane's hiijackers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sposer (talk • contribs)

The information is certainly notable, and you might want to wikilink to 9/11 conspiracy theories. You might want to reword the first sentence, though.... saying "reaction resorted to" just doesn't sound right in English. Here is a possible rephrasing of the first sentence: "A notable reaction involved the proliferation of anti-Semitic rumors and conspiracy theories, claiming that ..." Additionally, you might want to make use of this source. Aside from these suggestions, I think this addition is quite sensible given that this material is notable and well-sourced. So, yes, I support this edit. Best of luck. ← Michael Safyan ^(talk) 07:53, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

We need to define the scope of the added material. If it's "Hezbollah's reaction", then surely it is a notable significant material to add. If it's "conspiracy theories" then please note that not just Muslims were involved with this, so it must be put under a different section. Imad marie (talk) 08:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Only Hezbollah had the immediate reaction that it was the Jews that did this. THe other conspiracy theories developed much later. One of the biggest groups specifically states that the Israel/Zionest/Jewish ones are completely bogus. That the Arab media has had articles like this for years afterwards makes it notable in the Islamic reaction section and not as a separate conspiracy section. Michael is correct however. I should wikilink the other article. I will wait a bit before putting this in though to let some other editors weigh in.Sposer (talk) 13:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Just making a general comment that I fully support a conspiracy section. Seems to me that this is the true reaction of much of the Arab and Islamic world, as well as a reaction of the left.--Einsteindonut (talk) 16:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

This article is meant to be cover the relatively immediate basic responses to the event rather than convoluted conspiracy theories about what happened. As mentioned above there is a separate conspiracy article, where we can dump all the controlled demolition, Bush & Cheney planned it, the Jews did it etc minority nonsense. It doesn't need to be shovelled into this page to prove a (supposed) point about how terrible all those Muslims and the European left are (and as for those comments above, please keep your prejudice to yourself and spare us your views on what constitutes "the truth"). --Nickhh (talk) 09:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Images again

Currently this article has two images - the set of newspaper front pages and the Palestinian cartoon. Someone removed the photo of an Iranian vigil. Anyway, to go back to an old debate, isn't the cartoon simply out of place? There are of course 1000s of front pages, pictures and cartoons about 9/11 and it seems this one is only singled out because it serves the POV purpose of highlighting PMWs (dubious) assertions about what it signifies. It just seems massively WP:UNDUE, not least because images are one of the first things that jump out at readers from articles and colour their perception from that point on. We know there were negative reactions, which should be covered, but a) they were relatively marginal & b) it is not clear that this cartoon should be included in that category anyway, despite the claims being made of it.

In my view it needs to go, and other suitable images found. The vigil was fine I thought. I am sure there are others as well that give a far more representative and/or significant view of the overall reaction around the world as a whole. --Nickhh (talk) 09:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The reliability of PMW was questioned twice in WP:RSN and in both times uninvolved editors gave their opinion that PMW is definitely not RS. But some editors were insistent that PMW is RS and I was just too tired to argue.Imad marie (talk) 11:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Just a note. This cartoon looks more ironic and ambiguous than at first glance it appears to be. Look at B-L's nose, and recall the Arabic insult: 'Your head is like a . .' I don't wish to be offensive, but that is what it communicated to me at a glance.Nishidani (talk) 09:23, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

In both cases their reliability was established. This is getting disruptive since it's only been 2 months since editors showed you that they are reliable.[2] Are we going to have to copy-paste our arguments every 2 months so that you won't remove content?[3] Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think it's you who's being disruptive here. PMW's reliability was NOT established twice in RSN here and here. Imad marie (talk) 09:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, then - let's call it non-consensus by Pedrito, Kyaa, Imad and fellow members of I-P articles. Regardless, this is still disruptive since you remove the content and act like there was a true consensus. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no consensus for it to be here either of course. And the issue about PMWs reliability for translations is entirely separate from its reliability for interpretation or political comment, which is what we have here with this cartoon. In addition the biggest issue is about WP:UNDUE. To repeat my question above - why this cartoon, and this cartoon only, out of the 1000s that have been printed about 9/11? Pin a copy up on your bedroom wall Jaakobou if you like it that much, but let's not have it here as a cheap but inaccurate smear out of all proportion to its relevance. --Nickhh (talk) 12:18, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

ps: According the PMW note, the cartoon was published in 2007. Given that the point of this article is broadly about immediate reactions, it is even more undue and irrelevant than I thought. Material has been removed from this page on account of having been at some distance from events, eg here and here (actual removal takes placehere). I think the second example is especially pertinent. --Nickhh (talk) 14:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Due to the timing of the cartoon, I also do not think it belongs here.Sposer (talk) 14:44, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Roger that. The Netanyahu quote sets an interesting precedent. Cheers, pedrito - talk - 15.10.2008 14:48

The raised issues on the discussions for merging the "celebrations" article into the reactions article was that content would not be removed. Considering what I'm seeing here, I would have no objection to splitting the two back again and re-adding the removed content there. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually my recollection is that you long opposed the merge whatever form it took, and that you even tried to get the Reactions article deleted altogether. Can you point to where your approval for the merge was conditional on retaining all the information, the cartoon included, that was at one point in the Celebrations article? And more importantly I'm afraid you would also need to also point to the following WP policies -

a) The one that says that once merged, material that was in one of the original articles at the point of merger can never be changed.

b) The one that says that your view - that in this case material should not be changed - is the most important of all the opinions put forward in the merge/delete discussions (plenty of editors argued for a merge without any preconditions)

c) The one that says that you can unilaterally undo a community consensus to merge, months after the event.

Cordially. --Nickhh (talk) 16:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

@Jaakobou: You will self-revert and remove the image or nothing will convince you that PMW is not RS? Cordially. Imad marie (talk) 17:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Imad, you make it really hard for him to self-revert, and though I think if it was me, I wouldn't, even though I think it should go. I can think of two reasons to revert: (1) It was published six years after 9/11, although you've argued that in the past that there should be no time limit (I disagree with that as you know), (2) Because the particular cartoon had no text, its meaning was theoretically open to interpretation (though I can't see how Osama with the Twin Towers burning could be seen as that opinion suggesting sorrow over the event). Just because the cartoons were reprinted on PMW is irrelevant since the point is the cartoon itself, which was not originally published on PMW, but rather in a Palestinian mouthpiece. Although most anti-bias groups have a bias themselves (like ADL, CAMERA, PMW, and similar ones in the Arab world), it is usually done by undue weight or leaving out some facts, but with the basic story being true (which is why they should be RS). A cartoon, however, is a cartoon, and those cartoons are absolutely disgusting. PMW in this case is as RS as anything, because the vehicle the cartoon was copied into is irrelevant. If he had access to the original, you are saying you would be okay with the cartoon? Somehow, I seriously doubt it! I thik the cartoon should be removed only because it came six years after 9/11.Sposer (talk) 21:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello Sposer. I (and I think Pedrito too) have a concern; PMW have one objective in mind: finding the errors (or what they think are errors) in the Palestinian media and presenting it to the West. Take a look at their home page (and maybe some sub-pages), does it look like a reliable, third-party source? I doubt. If I bring a cartoon from a similar pro-Arab site, would you accept it?

Answering your question: if Jaakobou had access to the original cartoon, and posted it here, I would have still objected; because it is not Jaakobou's job to dig into dozens of Palestinian cartoons published about Sept/11 and then pick the cartoon that he likes (just like what PMW did in this case). Also, Jaakobou is ignoring two threads in RSN, which is really annoying. Imad marie (talk) 05:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Here is what you are not understanding (or ignoring). I see non RS sources used all of the time. This PMW article shows a particular Palestinian paper celebrating the attacks annually. Now, if this Palestinian paper is considered mainstream, or is considered a major source of news and opinion in the territories, then this is showing a pattern. What needs tostill be done is to ensure that these cartoons were not singled out by the paper as being horrible things to say about 9-11. Showing such cartoons in anything but that light is nauseating and disgusting. So, in a real encyclopedia, as to one where people are pushing their POV, somebody would go back and review the PMW article and the actual papers. If the conditions I noted were met, the article would be RS, period, end of discussion. Obviously, I don't read Arabic and am not on that paper's email list, so I cannot check this. But the paTtern is pretty clear. There is an annual celebration of this horrible event in this paper. If you can honestly tell me that isn't the case, I would love to hear it. Regardless, the cartoon does not belong in this article, because it is not an immediate reaction mor is it an article about long term attitude toward 9-11 across the world (I would argue againt an article focusing merely on such heinous attitudes as being wp:undue.)Sposer (talk) 11:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

It seems you are right in saying that I'm not understanding you, are you saying that we must verify the information in PMW? is this how RS works? I think not.

Anyhow, we both agree that the image should be removed, for different reasons. Imad marie (talk) 16:11, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I am saying that PMW cannot be said to not be RS out of hand. Each situation should be considered separately. I am sure if somebody bothered to verify the legitimacy of the article, those against the cartoon would say it is OR rather than fact checking, which is very sad. Anybody who is not ignoring the facts can see that in this case, regardless of PMW's bias, that the newspaper that published the cartoon (and the ones on the anniversary of 9/11 for years before 2007) is implying joy over what happened (even if they also might say that it is not the Islamic thing to do, which it isn't of course). The cartoon belongs in an article discussing current world view of 9/11 (if such a thing exists, and no, I am not going to start a war by writing one), but not in this one. I find it nauseating that people give the RS BS as an excuse for not putting the cartoon in however. That is what I am trying to say.Sposer (talk) 17:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm talked out on this, and was even before recent events. Consensus is that the image should go, and no real arguments have been put forward as to why this should not happen. --Nickhh (talk) 21:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Nickhh,

Let's try to work collaboratively on this please. In the merge discussion, the main argument against merger was that content might get removed due to political motives. This was raised by various involved and uninvolved editors because the same people who were making the merge proposals first tried two failed AfDs. Currently, the article is missing some wide chunks of the "merged" article and these were mainstream notes and not fringe notes by a single German reporter (Krüger Spitta) which is far less notable than PMW. The content from the previous article should be retained or that the previous article should be recreated. We need to work collaboratively to create a neutral presentation of notable perspectives, not just the perspectives that are preferable to a certain two/three man clique. In that respect, Sposer is unaware of the previous AfD/Merger discussions - and I would appreciate their suggestion on where they would consider PMW's critique mentioned - on this article or the other or possibly on a third article. I'm fine with recreating the other article since this topic is indeed notable enough for it's own article.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Jaakobou I have been collaborative on this point, some would even say accomodating. That is why I have not simply removed the image myself, but have debated the point here at inordinate length. You are also well aware of where that ended up for a short period, so I find appeals for "collaboration" ring a little hollow. I also consider your insinuations that I have not been collaborative, as well as accusations of a "two/three man clique" to be a breach of WP:NPA. Imad has similarly left the act of removal in your hands rather than edit warring over it. As you know I argued for the removal of this image way back when it was in the separate article, so I am doing nothing new. There was a debate (inconclusive) at the time of merger as to exactly what material would come over, and debate over content will continue as it would in any WP article. The delete/merge debate can be found here. I personally do not see a clamour at either point from editors, involved or uninvolved, saying everything is conditional on retaining this cartoon.

You have still not answered why this cartoon is notable above all others that are out there, or in what way it is part of a "neutral presentation of notable perspectives", rather than contributing to the exact opposite. Equally you have not explained why you would delete reference to a 2008 quote from a former Israeli PM and current main opposition figure as undue and out of time, but are insisting on including a 2007 cartoon from one Palestinian newspaper, together with the (dubious) interpretation being put on it by a partisan pressure group. Finally I'm sure you're aware that an article that has been through an AfD cannot simply be recreated. --Nickhh (talk) 14:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Nickhh,

With all due respect, not edit warring doesn't equate collaborative spirit. Certainly, diverting two on article issues to another which is not cannot be described as "accomodating" either. There is currently an active two man clique trying to remove this cartoon - one is actively edit warring over it despite contributing very little to the discussion, basically making you into a 'editor+troll' combo, something you're not unfamiliar with.[4]

There's been approx 3 AfDs and 4 merger discussions, I doubt anyone's going to follow them all again and certainly your link is non representative to a "what content should be transferred" overview. To take it further, a good number of editors expressed their opposition/support with a note that content should be retained rather than editors using the merger as an excuse to omit notable and reliably cited data.

This cartoon is not notable above all others but it did stand at the head of PMWs report. If you have a better suggestion that is linked to a reliable source, I'd be happy to discuss which of the images is better. Please link your suggestions so we can review them.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 06:23, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Jaakobou,

• You still have not answered the questions about notability, or timescale (referring to it being "at the head of PMW's report" isn't actually addressing the fundamental point about notability, or the reliability of PMW as a source for this kind of thing, and ignores the timing point altogether)
• It is not up to me, or anyone else, to provide you with alternatives to a wholly inappropriate cartoon. I will however do some research for you
• An accusation of edit warring doesn't sit well from the individual who is reverting those edits each time they are made
• Consensus is for removal, there is no way round this point, whatever past discussions you are apparently referring to. I do not recall a different consensus in the past in any event, nor have you provided any links to where it exists
• Your accusation that I am a "troll" is totally out of order. I have asked you to stop this kind of thing

--Nickhh (talk) 08:15, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Alternative cartoons

There are plenty of far more representative cartoons, dated to the immediate aftermath, which would be far more appropriate for use here. I assume that every single newspaper in the world ran a cartoon on September 12th covering the attacks, (many probably featuring the twin towers with smoke billowing out of them, and/or Bin Laden's face). Most stand as a simple reaction to the event, rather than a cartoon six years after it, posted here with a highly dubious commentary from a partisan group aimed at proving a totally secondary political point. As I said above, I'd be more than happy with photos of a vigil, some immediate commemorative event or whatever. However as I also promised above, here are a couple of links showcasing some. Some will be more "notable" than others in terms of where they were printed (if at all), this is merely what I found on a quick web search, also ignoring any copyright issues.

http://www.cagle.com/news/Bestof2001/intro.asp (with follow on pages) http://www.cartoonstock.com/newscartoons/directory/numbers/9-11.asp http://www.cartoonistgroup.com/bysubject/sept11/index.php

--Nickhh (talk) 08:31, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I don't quite follow the purpose of these suggestions. Please, how are any of these relevant to the section in discussion? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:22, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Then re-read what I said when I opened this thread. You are not suggesting, surely, that my stance is and always has been that we should lose this image and simply replace it with a different so-called "celebration" cartoon? I have been quite clear from the outset that it needs to be replaced with a totally different image of something else entirely, and repeatedly asked for an explanation as to why this cartoon, from the 1000s of others - the image being used is totally unrepresentative of the article, and hence WP:UNDUE. Even if it is being judged with reference to that particular section, you would need to show why PMW's highlighting of the cartoon is worthy of inclusion, especially in such a dramatic way (eg by the use of an image). Added to that, you have still not explained why you believe that 2008 comments by Netanyahu are "irrelevant" and "not notable" and out of time, whereas a 2007 interpretation by a non-WP:RS of one cartoon (among 1000s, as pointed to above) somehow escapes those filters. Jaakobou, I can only conclude that we are now entering the realm of the filibuster. --Nickhh (talk) 14:17, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. this section is about Palestinian celebrations, and the cartoon illustrates them. If it is to be replaced, it needs to be with a similar cartoon, of Palestinian celebrations, not with some random cartoon about 9/11. NoCal100 (talk) 14:32, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

A second person who will not actually answer questions as to why PMW's allegations of celebrations, as supposedly evidenced by this cartoon, are notable? (And you've taken a leap beyond this to assert, as if it were a matter of fact, that the cartoon does illustrate celebrations). Or why a cartoon from 2007 is being included here at all, whatever it supposedly signifies? --Nickhh (talk) 14:48, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Images do not have to be notable in and of themselves - in fact, most images that are notable will not be usable, do to copyright restrictions. Images only have to be illustrative of notable material. The Palestinian celebrations were notable, and this image illustrates them. NoCal100 (talk) 14:57, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Er, my point above was about whether the allegations that this cartoon is a celebration were notable or even relevant, not whether the image itself was notable. If by the "Palestinian celebrations" you mean the street protests that were reported (and, correctly, covered in the article), this cartoon does not of course illustrate those in any way, unless my eyes are missing something.--Nickhh (talk) 15:03, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

No, you were actually very specifically questioning the cartoon's notability. To wit, you wrote "why this cartoon is notable above all others that are out there", and then complaining that I was not answering your question. I have answered your question, and explained Wikipedia policy regarding images. By "Palestinian celebrations" I mean the entire range of "Palestinian celebrations" - cheering in the streets, handing out candy, celebratory firing of guns, and publication of supportive cartoons. This cartoon nicely illustrates the latter. If you'd like to replace it with images of the dancing in the street, I won't object. NoCal100 (talk) 15:23, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

No, my "point above", in the previous comment, was very specifically about the notability of the PMW allegations themselves. My second point in that post referred, yet again, to the fact that this cartoon is from 2007. You have still not answered either question, which is what I was asking you and also Jaakobou to do. Beyond that, yes, I have made the broader point that a more representative image of overall reactions would be better than this cartoon (when highlighted as a "celebration"). I am a little confused as to why you persist in misrepresenting everything I say, or not reading it properly before responding, on this talk page and even more so on the Wikiquette page. For example you have falsely claimed that I have had to apologise for something I have said; you have also falsely accused me, inter alia - of making an insincere apology, of being "disingenuous" for supposedly not mentioning something I had specifically mentioned, of bringing a content dispute to the Wikiquette page (which, even worse, I was supposedly then "misrepresenting"), of wanting to "battle" on that page, of inventing a consensus (when the consensus was in fact clearly 4-1 for removal) etc etc. Please can you stop this and actually just focus on the issues at hand, without this constant sniping and factually inaccurate criticism and attempted point-scoring, all spreading out from this page? I would also point out that in fact WP guidelines [sic] on images, even though they do not use the word "notable", do require that images are "relevant" and "significant", as common sense would suggest they should be. I would also add that you appear to have swooped in to delete material sourced to the UN via Electronic Intifada on another article without any discussion, so am also confused as to why different standards apply to interpretations sourced directly to PMW, which is no less of a partisan activist organisation or site than EI. My substantive comments re article content are to be found below. I will not respond to any more personal attacks or misrepresentations of what I have or have not said, here or elsewhere. --Nickhh (talk) 13:24, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The PMW allegations are not mentioned in the article, which makes your repeated reference to them a strawman argument. You concede that you did, in fact, made the point that the cartoon is not notable, yet persist in complaining about my response to that point, which highlighted your basic misunderstanding of wikipedia policy. I am happy that you finally took the trouble to read Wikipedia:IMAGE. I am less happy with your misrepresentation of what it says. As you note, images have to be relevant, and clearly an image showing support for the 9/11 action is relevant to an article about reactions to 9/11. Images to not have to be "significant", as you claim, rather, what Wikipedia:IMAGE says is that they need to be "significantly relative to the article's topic" - the significance is attached to the relevance, not the image. This is very basic English comprehension. I am not misrepresenting anything you say - I am merely drawing your attention to the things you do say - in a way that sheds a less that complimentary light on your actions. You did bring a content dispute into the Wikiquette page, you did falsely claim there was a consensus for the image removal there (and continue that misrepresentation here - at last count, it is 4 for image removal, 2 against, which is not a consensus for removal) and you do appear to be continuing your personal battle with Jaackobu there. You were blocked for incivility, which would make your appeal to Wikiquette disingenuous. I was incorrect in stating you had to apologize - I saw that the blocking admin offered to unblock you if you apologized, and subsequently saw you were unblocked, so I assumed (incorrectly, it turns out), that you did apologize. However, the fact that you did not apologize, makes your appeal for civility on the etiquette page MORE insincere and disingenuous, not less so. Finally, if you want to discuss the use of reliable sources on the Mohammed Omer article, please do so at that article's Talk page. NoCal100 (talk) 16:57, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, I will at least try to answer some of the points which broadly touch on article content, while trying to avoid responding to the latest personal slurs and patronising comments (which I have struck out) -

The PMW allegations are not mentioned in the article, which makes your repeated reference to them a strawman argument.

Well if that was really the case, the cartoon certainly should not be here. However of course, they are in fact mentioned, if only in the note under the cartoon.

You concede that you did, in fact, made the point that the cartoon is not notable, yet persist in complaining about my response to that point, which highlighted your basic misunderstanding of wikipedia policy.

I'm not "conceding" anything of the sort, I "conceded" that I made the broader point that the image itself is "not representative", which is what I've consistently said (although as it happens, I do claim that the image is not notable by any normal standards). Nor am I complaining about your response even to that point - what I have been saying is that you are not responding to my two specific questions, which I very clearly addressed to you when you arrived here, just as I had been addressing them to Jaakobou. To repeat them again, they are - 1) what is notable about the PMW allegations, as supposedly represented by the cartoon? 2) why is a cartoon and an allegation from 2007 being included here, when all other post-2001 comment and coverage has been excluded?

I am happy that you finally took the trouble to read Wikipedia:IMAGE. I am less happy with your misrepresentation of what it says. As you note, images have to be relevant, and clearly an image showing support for the 9/11 action is relevant to an article about reactions to 9/11. Images to not have to be "significant", as you claim, rather, what Wikipedia:IMAGE says is that they need to be "significantly relative to the article's topic" - the significance is attached to the relevance, not the image. This is very basic English comprehension.

I had read the images guideline before as it happens, nor am I clear on what basis you might presume to know that I had not. Anyway, the "significantly relative" phrase is clearly a drafting error (as has been noted on the talk page for that guideline), and I will admit that I took the liberty of assuming what it is actually trying to say - which is that an image needs to be "significant in relation to the article's topic" or "relatively significant to the article's topic". Either way, that's saying the image has to be significant, with reference to the context. You, on the other hand, appear to have the skill of understanding nonsense as it is literally written, and then translating it into something even more incomprehensible ("the significance is attached to the relevance, not the image") which is much to be admired, especially when combined with an attempt to mock my supposed problems with "very basic English comprehension".

I am not misrepresenting anything you say - I am merely drawing your attention to the things you do say - in a way that sheds a less that complimentary light on your actions.

Everything I say here is open and can be read by anyone else. I do not see what extra light you are single-handedly shedding on any of it. However you are continually suggesting that I have said or done things that I simply have not (eg see below).

You did bring a content dispute into the Wikiquette page;

Well no I didn't. As above, anyone else can check what I wrote there. After setting out the background - without asking for any comment on it - I proceeded to discuss the specific problems I had with talk page comments from Jaakobou eg about "trolling" and "cliques", on that and on other pages.

you did falsely claim there was a consensus for the image removal there (and continue that misrepresentation here - at last count, it is 4 for image removal, 2 against, which is not a consensus for removal);

No, I very clearly and accurately said that there was "consensus from every editor apart from Jaakobou". I then expanded on that to say that myself, Imad Marie and "two other editors [Pedrito and Sposer]" supported removal, while "no-one has come in to support retention". That adds up to 4-1. Consensus does not mean unanimity. You came along later, making, as you now point out, 4-2. I'm still struggling to work out what is false about any of what I said, or - again - how you could be mis-reading it so blatantly.

and you do appear to be continuing your personal battle with Jaackobu there.

No, I am asking him to tone down his language, as I did several days ago on his talk page. If I'd really wanted a battle, I'd have gone straight to ANI. As I'm sure someone as well-versed in WP policies and practice as yourself is aware, Wikiquette Alert is actually a very informal and non-aggressive early step in dispute resolution.

You were blocked for incivility, which would make your appeal to Wikiquette disingenuous.

And unblocked. In any event, that issue - such as it was - has been dealt with through that process. Just because A may have been impolite or rude to B at one point (and I still maintain that I was not, but anyways) does not mean A cannot raise the issue of prior and subsequent personal attacks from B, nor does it invalidate any such complaint. To describe someone as "disingenuous" is to suggest that they are lying or concealing something. I was doing no such thing.

I was incorrect in stating you had to apologize - I saw that the blocking admin offered to unblock you if you apologized, and subsequently saw you were unblocked, so I assumed (incorrectly, it turns out), that you did apologize. However, the fact that you did not apologize, makes your appeal for civility on the etiquette page MORE insincere and disingenuous, not less so.

I think this is one I shall simply ignore, other than to say I did not apologise because there was nothing offensive or abusive in the one single even vaguely inappropriate comment I may have made, and also to direct you to the previous answer.

Finally, if you want to discuss the use of reliable sources on the Mohammed Omer article, please do so at that article's Talk page.

No thanks, do you think I want to come face to face with this level of bullying and aggression again, mostly based on fabrications which are now plastered across two talk pages? --Nickhh (talk) 17:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Break

Everybody is talking around all these points so let me summarize, since without it, all sides are able to ignore what they choose too (and all sides are):

(1) Since the cartoon is six years after the fact, and everything else, outside of the clear POV and OR attempt to put the Netanyahu quote in, is about the immediate reaction to 9/11, there is no reason for the cartoon to be in the article.

(2) The cartoon is extremely notable, but not for this article. It is 100% to anybody not sticking their head in the sand, or not trying to peddle misinformation, that the cartoon shows a clear desire by this particular paper to celebrate the terrorist attack on the United States. It probably belongs in the 9/11 article itself, or in some article discussing ongoing views of 9/11. Alternately, this article can be expanded to cover the ongoing view of 9/11. Maybe add a section as "Aftermath of 9/11". However, that is going to lead to an enormous war as it will certainly turn into a referendum on the Bush administration, the terrorists, and lead to an even worse POV pushing episode than we currently have. For that reason, I strongly urge that we don't go down that road. This, by the way, would still not make the Netanyahu quote notable, since the slant being propopsed by the POV editors pushing it has nothing to do with his meaning in the statement.

(3) The PMW RS thing is a bunch of garbage. They may not generally be RS, but the article is highlighting a clear trend, and anybody denying that is full of it. Each article needs to be measured on its merits, and there is 100% zero doubt what those cartoons represent. Hiding behind who wrote it is a load of you know what. If there is an article that the cartoons belong in, I think we should add them with the PMW citation. Reliable and truthful. However, I would not recommend creating an article just for them, because that is just looking for trouble and would wind up a slanted piece and a giant edit war as well.

In summary, somebody feel free to remove the cartoons, because they don't belong, but please stop adding lies and twisting meanings. There is only one reason the cartoon does not belong: because it was not an immediate reaction. The immediate reaction, except among a very few, was sadness and despair. Sadly, within a year, that changed, but I don't see that as being part of this article.Sposer (talk) 15:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

As it happens I do deny that there is a trend of Palestinian cartoons "celebrating" Sept 11th, and do think there is quite a lot of doubt about what this cartoon at least represents. I mean, it would appear to show Bin Laden celebrating, but it's quite a leap from that to say that the cartoon is endorsing or echoing that celebration itself. As we know, the Palestinian authorities and media went out of their way to condemn the street celebrations, and reportedly to suppress footage of them (even if only because they knew how damaging they were, if you want to be cynical about it). It seems highly unlikely that they would then promote celebrations in newspapers. I have seen plenty of commentary in newspapers around the world over the past seven years suggesting that bin Laden has somehow "gotten away with it", by virtue of not being caught and/or because 9/11 "provoked" the US into military action.

Having said all that, that's merely my amateur analysis and kind of irrelevant. More to the point - on top of the timing issue, where there seems to be more consensus among us - is that these cartoons, or PMW's analysis of them, do not appear to have been highlighted in other reliable sources as being a big thing (or, in WP language, "notable"). And I'm afraid that PMW themselves are a pretty marginal and avowedly partisan source, whether one believes they are accurate in what they say or not. --Nickhh (talk) 13:01, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Well, a main issue that seems to be in need of sorting is "immediate" vs. "long term". I'd be willing to have us adding a note to both the "aftermath" article or this one that one is immediate and the other is long term. Is this an acceptable suggestion? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:38, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Previous edits (including as you know some of yours) to remove material from this article seemed to work on the assumption that this article is for immediate reaction. And this still doesn't address the notability/relevance issues. Where does this leave the cartoon in any event - are you suggesting that it would move to the Aftermath article? --Nickhh (talk) 17:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Having just gone to look at the Aftermath article again, I don't see that it would fit there. The distinction between this page and that one is not really to do with immediate or long term issues, but to do with reactive statements or actions (eg of condolence, criticism etc) vs. practical consequences (eg in terms of security, economics etc). As I say, nor would this deal with the notability issue. If the cartoon and these allegations are going to go anywhere, I would suggest the Palestinian Media Watch page itself, not least because they say more about PMW's views and opinions of Palestinian cartoons than they necessarily do about the actual nature of Palestinian cartoons themselves. That is, it's better as an example of one of PMW's claims than it is as an undisputed and notable example of Palestinian celebration. --Nickhh (talk) 18:13, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Nickhh,

I'm not sure tagging together different issues which hold no correlation between them works well for this discussion. If your concern is that PMW should possibly be considered non-reliable, that is an issue which should go through RSN. They have been published just about everywhere, so doubts about whether they accurately depict the nature of the Palestinian authority and frame of mind seems subjective. Regardless, this is not the issue I was hoping to resolve - but rather I was pointing towards Sposer's concern that the content is a long term analysis rather than a short term one for 'close proximity' reactions. This is a valid concern that I am in agreement in resolving. Sposer, btw, did not agree with your presentation on PMW's analysis but this is besides the point.

Cordially, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm really not being funny, but I don't understand quite a bit of what you're saying here (eg the "tagging together different issues", or what your proposed solution is). As I have explained, neither the Aftermath nor the Reactions article are currently suitable places to put this cartoon, which was published 6 years after 9/11. As for PMW being a reliable source, as discussed and linked above, this has been to RSN previously, and its reliability by WP standards has simply not been established according to any 3rd party comment elicited there. I know you, Sposer and I'm sure others happen to agree with PMW's interpretation of this cartoon, but that's not the point. And it is not of course "subjective" or POV of me to state what is after all true by definition - that a piece of subjective interpretation, by a partisan group, is exactly what it purports to be. I therefore offered an alternative place for it to go (which deals with both the timing issue, and with my and others' NPOV/UNDUE concerns) and you have not clearly explained what the problem with that solution is. My proposal seems to me to be an obvious compromise, which satisfies both your wish to have this cartoon and PMW's interpretation of it in Wikipedia, but also my legitimate policy-based concerns about it being used to highlight a dubious and one-sided viewpoint in this article. Now can we please get somewhere with this, as I am really bored of the amount of time I have had to spend debating what I would have thought should have been fairly obvious points according to any standard interpretation of WP policies and guidelines for this sort of thing. --Nickhh (talk) 11:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The cartoon is really not the issue. Claiming that because PMW are partisan then we should WP:CENSOR their analysis of Palestinians -- regardless of their established expertise, notability, and reliability towards the subject matter[5] -- is a perspective which is in clear violation of the NPOV policy. The 6 year issue seems like a red herring since you condition the resolution of one issue with the other. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC) add link 17:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Point-by-point -

• The cartoon (and the interpretation being put on it) is precisely the issue. That's what we've been discussing isn't it, since it seems about 1964?
• I am not arguing for censorship, I am merely saying we need to be clear - per policy - that this is PMW's view, not some uncontroversial statement of undisputed fact. Dumping the image on this page gives the impression that PMW's perspective on the cartoon is taken as read, and that Palestinian cartoons not only celebrate 9/11 but that they are also a significant and notable aspect of the overall world reaction. As I suggested, it would be better placed on the PMW page itself rather than having it here, where it is WP:UNDUE and not WP:NPOV.
• Linking to a past comment by someone who has been on your "side" over this issue does not prove your point. Also the distinction has to be made between referring to other reliable sources as and when they use PMW translations, and a direct sourcing to PMW, especially in respect of their interpretation/opinion. This point was made very clearly when the issue was raised at RSN (linked previously)
• Please stop accusing me (or, more subtly this time "[my] perspective") of being in "violation" of this, that or other WP policy. Not only is it usually pretty inaccurate, it's also personalising the issue unnecessarily.
• The 6 year issue is not a red herring. You yourself have cited it when removing other material. It is also an issue for me, as is the balance/neutrality/notability issue - the fact that there are two or more distinct reasons why in my view this material is inappropriate only compounds the problem. I don't understand what you mean when you say that I "condition the resolution of one issue with the other"

Could you please respond specifically to the suggestion of moving the image to the PMW page? You keep heading off in other directions or repeating points whenever asked straight questions, or whenever specific proposals are put to you. There's going to come a point when I start concluding that this is just, as I've suggested, pure filibustering. It's exhausting for everyone else who has to write in response to you, and for those who have to see all this stuff on the talk page. Thanks --Nickhh (talk) 18:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Further to (all) the points above, I just spent a couple of seconds on the PMW site, specifically this part of it, where they - as a form of self-promotion and self-validation, like many pressure groups - flag up where their reports and press releases are getting traction of any kind, even a brief mention, from the mainstream media (it was of course the basis for the links pointed to above). Let's gloss over the fact that most of the links seem to be to coverage in places like FrontPage Magazine, Fox News, Arutz Sheva, The Washington Times etc, which while not damning per se, does at least confirm that we are dealing with something that tends to appeal to one side of an ideological debate. What is more telling, looking at the September 2007 entries, is that they do not file a single link to any coverage whatsoever of their push on this cartoon. That is, no WP:RS in the media appears to have picked up or promoted this POV. I'm sorry, but if even PMW can't provide the evidence that their take on all this was close to nudging the mainstream, or got any media coverage however slight, even in the right-wing media, what on earth is it doing here, splashed into this article as one of only two images here? My compromise suggestion - which Jaakobou has still failed to respond to directly - that this cartoon and PMW's take on it should move to PMW's own page (if it is to go anywhere), now seems even more appropriate, per WP:SELFPUB. --Nickhh (talk) 15:29, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

IMO, discussing this with the editor(s) who object to the removal of the image is not going anywhere; as usual they are going to object no matter what. We need outside opinion, my concern is that this article has gone through too many DR procedures. Imad marie (talk) 16:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Clarification of issues: as far as I am concerned, the discussion right now is about resolving whether PMW's perspective is more/less notable than that of Ms. Kruger Spitta and which article is to include long term analysis of the events. I'm thinking of opening this for community review unless we can find some consensus. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:41, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's not clarifying the issues, that's yet more obfuscation and diversion. Why are you dragging the Spitta stuff into this? (As it happens I'd happily see all that paragraph go, and have always said that - it seems kind of obscure to me and I don't think we need excessive analysis anyway of the reports of the celebrations. They were reported as having happened, and it broadly seems that celebrations of some sort did take place). You are still not answering the points about undue weight or reliable sourcing in respect of PMW and their take on this cartoon, and its use as an image here; nor are you addressing the compromise solution I have proposed. Thousands of words later. Imad is right, and this obstructionism has gone on too long and wasted too much of everyone's time (especially mine). I guess I am too indulgent, and have a naive faith in the ability of common sense and rational argument to win out. I'm sure it eventually would if we went to DR, but a) per Imad we've already done this plenty of times (eg the RSN about PMW, where an outside editor explained the problem with using PMW on its own, without the filter of secondary reporting); & b) we'd have to spend yet more hours repeating the obvious all over again. Kind of like in British politics, if you want to shelve or bury an issue, hold an inquiry. --Nickhh (talk) 17:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Dear Nickhh,

As my previous comment suggested, I see two issues which should be resolved with the new changes in content as well as preparing the ground for collegiate atmosphere in resolving the handling of other notable content which is currently missing from the article. As I've stated before, I'm thinking of opening this for community review unless we can find some consensus. Would appreciate dispute resolution relevant thoughts.

Cordially, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you don't just drop out of this discussion after failing to answer every point put to you and then suddenly reappear a week later out of the blue and revert back to your favourite version. Whatever else might happen in the future with this or any other article, this cartoon - especially when it's being used as an advert for PMW's unique interpretation of it - is simply not relevant or significant enough for this page. Put it on the PMW page. I and others have explained our thoughts on dispute resolution - we've been there (eg RSN). Nor is there any serious dispute to resolve. If you want to open something up, feel free and I'll just copy-paste everything I've said at great length here about WP:NPOV, WP:IMAGE, WP:UNDUE, WP:SELFPUB etc on the subject. In the meantime the cartoon is staying out. --Nickhh (talk) 19:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Clarifying the problems with the image

The above thread is so over-extended now, and other editors are suddenly diving in to put the cartoon back, I thought I would restate the problems. They fall under two broad headings (either of which on their own would be enough to pull this image) -

• Timing

The cartoon is from 2007. Other material which is not reaction from the immediate aftermath of the attacks has been removed, often by the same editors insisting that this image remain.

• Relevance & Due Weight

The cartoon is not definitively a "celebration". All we have is PMW claiming that it is. You may agree with this analysis or not, but no mainstream WP:RS appear to have picked up or endorsed this interpretation. WP:IMAGE says images should be "relevant" and "significant", WP:UNDUE applies too as this is a minority viewpoint being presented with a massive splash, through the use of an image.

There are 1001 other images that would better represent the more usual reactions to 9/11. I'd be surprised if there are not copyright issues as well (although I have not looked into this). Per WP:SELFPUB I have suggested that this cartoon go on to PMW's own page if it is to go anywhere, as an example of one of the claims they make. No-one has explained why this would be a bad compromise, or in fact responded to that suggestion at all. --Nickhh (talk) 09:43, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I may add; it was made clear twice in RSN that PMW is not considered to be RS (here and here. Some editors' insistence on ignoring those threads can only be interpreted as disruptive. Imad marie (talk) 09:52, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Clarification of issues: as far as I am concerned, the discussion right now is about resolving whether PMW's perspective is more/less notable than that of Ms. Kruger Spitta and which article is to include long term analysis of the events. I'm thinking of opening this for community review unless we can find some consensus. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:41, 24 October 2008 (UTC) (copied 13:43, 31 October 2008 (UTC))
(Note to Imad:) Nothing was made clear on RSN, please don't misrepresent past discussions and your first link to the discussion on Abbas is irrelevant to the notability and reliability of their analysis. This is not a BLP issue as was with Abbas. Why did you link to that one and not to some of the other discussions that were relevant to the current issue? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:47, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

It is noteworthy that your repeated response/"clarification" does not dispute or address any of the points I made under either of the two main headings above, nor have you managed to do this at any point during the extensive debate above. I suspect this is because there is very little you can say to either. Nor, more confusingly, have you responded to a pretty generous suggestion that the cartoon can go on the PMW page, or even acknowledged it. The Spitta issue is a red herring which you only brought up suddenly a few days ago - the PMW/cartoon content needs to be assessed on its own merits, not by comparison with other material which may well be equally undue or somehow faulty (and I have already said I would have no problem with the Spitta material going). As for which article should include long term analysis, we already seem to have consensus now that it does not belong here, so I don't understand what you would be asking the community to review. Indeed you were instrumental in pushing for that consensus, eg deleting a report from 2008 here and confirming your views here. As for RSN, the threads pointed to both elicited the same observations from different outside editors - PMW is self-published and not generally a reliable source by itself.--Nickhh (talk) 14:33, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring

Oh and now some of the old faces are emerging from the woodwork to revert the cartoon in, despite not discussing it here at all. And doing so with absurd edit summaries like this one. Um, if - as you claim - the allegations aren't in the article (technically they are not I suppose, in that they are only referred to in the caption to the cartoon), what on earth is the cartoon meant to be illustrating and how is it relevant to the page?. Answer the questions that have been left hanging on this talk page for months, and which I have just clarified above, or I can only conclude that this is disruptive and tendentious editing. --Nickhh (talk) 14:55, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Quit WP:OWNing the article and using WP:TE to try to keep your prefered version. Thank you. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 16:38, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that was incredibly constructive... But judging from your talk page, I gather that's not what you're here for. Cheers, pedrito - talk - 31.10.2008 16:52

Please comment on edits, not editors. The above is a personalk attack that you need to avoid. NoCal100 (talk) 17:54, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The cartoon illustrates PNA-sponsored celebrations of 9/11, so it is relevant to the section in which it is displayed. NoCal100 (talk) 17:54, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Did you understand in anyway that PMW is a bad source? Did you read any of Nick's questions? Did you bother to answer? Imad marie (talk) 21:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I understand that you think PMW is a bad source. I disagree with your POV. I read Nick's question. He asked "what on earth is the cartoon meant to be illustrating and how is it relevant to the page?", to which I answered " The cartoon illustrates PNA-sponsored celebrations of 9/11, so it is relevant to the section in which it is displayed" - Please read above, and in the future, avoid the kind of uncivil tone you have used. NoCal100 (talk) 03:07, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

It's a good thing you brought up the uncivil tone thing, maybe you can avoid the tone in comments like this and other comments you made. Imad marie (talk) 05:55, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I requested page protection until issues are resolved. The edit-warring on this page has got to stop, and I don't see another way to do it, given that there are so many editors involved in the edit-war. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 16:50, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Accusations of WP:OWN and tendentious editing sit ill coming from those engaged in repeated reverting while persistently refusing to discuss the problems with this image on the talk page. And NoCal you are well aware that the questions at issue go beyond simply the one I put in an edit summary, so you are being a little, ahem, "disingenuous" there by claiming to have answered them. For ease of reference, they are summed up here. This is nothing to do with whitewashing or censorship, as has sometimes been claimed - no-one is saying the text about the street celebrations should be removed, for example. This is simply about the accurate representation of available information about a topic, with due proportionality. Images are important to an article because they leap out at the passing reader, and will be assumed to be representative of the issue being covered. However what we have here is an image from six years after the event, which one partisan group alleges depicts something which is possibly related to the topic of this article. There appears to be no mainstream secondary support for that interpretation. On that basis it no more belongs here than a picture of a cat belongs on the dog page. Or to take an example closer to home, what would your response be to this article including a picture of Netanyahu, with the caption ".. who welcomed the 9/11 attacks, according to Israel Media Watch"? Would you not think this was, well, contentious and out of all proportion? Simply repeating your personal opinions that "PMW are a reliable source", or that "this image shows a celebration" does not make either view more true, nor does it mean that WP:OR and WP:RS no longer matter. If you wish to see this place end up using images the way Conservapedia does, to score political points, then go ahead (I recommend the Obama and Evolution pages in particular). --Nickhh (talk) 10:11, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

Do the editors objecting to the removal of the image suggest any DR methods? Imad marie (talk) 18:03, 1 November 2008 (UTC)