Welcome to the MedLibrary.org Wikipedia Supplement on Talk:Celebrations of the September 11, 2001 attacks -- Please Click to Return to Front Page

	Celebrations of the September 11, 2001 attacks is part of WikiProject Palestine - a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative, balanced articles related to Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page where you can add your name to the list of members and contribute to the discussion. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Palestine articles.
NB: Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritizing and managing its workload.
Stub	This article has been rated as stub-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the Project's importance scale.
	After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.

This article was nominated for deletion on 5 April 2008. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article was nominated for deletion on 2008 April 24. The result of the discussion was keep.

Archives

Archive 1 2003 - 2007 Archive 2 early 2008

Contents 1 Merge? 2 Premature merging 3 Comments from an uninvolved administrator 4 An outsiders viewpoint 5 RfC 5.1 Comment 5.2 Poor form 6 Merge procedure 6.1 Cartoon (2nd) 6.2 Merging 7 Moving forward

Merge?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Strong support, seeing as practically every user who wants this POV piece to exist is an Israeli or pro-Israeli bigot with an axe to grind. ʄ!•¿talk? 09:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: I can't say what it is that may have triggered this, but there is a clear issue when you've decided to blanket accuse everyone you disagree with as 'pro-Israeli bigots'. I'm referring to this policy: Wikipedia:CIV#Engaging_in_incivility (see also WP:NPA) and my concern is the abusive tone directed at a country of origin. Judgmental commentary directed at fellow editors detract from an ability to discuss your concerns in a calm manner (see also: Erosion_of_critical_thinking). The golden rule, in my opinion, is "Comment on content, not on the contributor." (from the NPA)
    With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: It's simply a statement of clear fact. Reread my previous post & you will find I actually made no "blanket" accusations, as shown by the modifier "practically" before "everyone". Also no abuse was directed towards Israel, I'm actually surprised by your tone that you didn't cry antisemitism at the first given opportunity, no matter how tenuous. All I'm saying is it's highly suspect when something like 90% of the people wanting to keep this article all have the same ideology. ʄ!•¿talk? 13:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. The topic concerns a distinct controversy, separate from the general world/islamic countries reactions, primarily by governments. It deserves a separate article. Nsk92 (talk) 12:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support. The "Reactions" article needs to be fleshed out, and this merger would be a step in that direction. Many people have had many things to say regarding this topic, and more ought to be included, perhaps not subdivided quite so strongly by geography. "Controversies," at least, should appear under their appropriate geographical headings and not made to appear as if they are entirely distinct from the cultures from which they arise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aratuk (talk • contribs) 22:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support the merge. This article seems mostly a POV fork as it focuses one POV.Bless sins (talk) 17:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Editor	Support/Oppose	Comment
User talk:Moreschi	Support	topic is dubious validity, article isn't great, non-trivial material better off at Reactions#Islamic world - 12:42, 29 May 2008
User talk:Nickhh	Support	If given due weight and context would not dominate the "Reactions .." 16:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
User_talk:Sherurcij	Support	a celebration is a reaction. 19:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Otolemur	Support	03:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
User:Imad marie	Support	fact that this article was created before Reactions should not stop us from merge 06:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
User:Smb	Support	This is well within the scope of Reactions. Neither page is too large. 22:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
User talk:Chadlupkes	Support	Makes sense to have all of the world opinion on a single page to compare and constrast. 15:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
User talk:Liftarn	Support	waited for an expansion of this article for a very long time, never will happen so until such a time comes I would support a merge.
User talk:Terrawatt	Support	As one person commented, "Obvious POV fork." I couldn't agree more. 06:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
User_talk:Happyme22	Support	A 'celebration' is a 'reaction'. 01:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
User talk:Pedrito	Support	This is a fake controversy that seems to exist only here on Wikipedia. Does not merit its own article. 27.06.2008 12:10
PalestineRemembered	Support	Opposition comes across as a purely bureaucratic objection to moving articles forwards. 19:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
User talk:Fennessy	Support	practically every user who wants this POV piece to exist is pro-Israeli bigot with an axe to grind. 09:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
User:Aratuk	Support.	The "Reactions" article needs to be fleshed out, and this merger would be a step in that direction. 22:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
User talk:Bless sins	Support	This article seems mostly a POV fork as it focuses one POV. 17:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
User talk:GHcool	Neutral	On second thought, I'm neutral about it. - 16:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
User talk:Shamir1	Neutral	no big difference so long as all information is kept where it belongs and is not removed. 18:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
User:Andrewa	Oppose	Arguments in favour appear to be pure politics. 09:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
User talk:Jaakobou	Oppose	I believe a merger would deprive a proper examination of the celebrations controversy. 12:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
User talk:Yahel Guhan	Oppose	don't see problem is with having both articles. nothing wrong with this article and its title. 20:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
User talk:PÆonU	Oppose	There needs to be some editing, but this article should stay where it's at. 12:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
User talk:Itzse	Oppose	those who want this information suppressed are voting for the merger 17:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
User talk:StuffOfInterest	Oppose	this is a distinct controversy and should be treated separately from the general reactions. - 12:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
User talk:Ynhockey	Oppose	celebrations article has much more relevant info than reactions ... merging against all WP principles 18:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
User:Nsk92	Oppose	The topic concerns a distinct controversy, ... deserves a separate article. 12:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

PR says - please double-check I've got each persons views and comments correct. (My own comment didn't say support but was intended as such). 15 in favour of a merge, 2 neutral and 8 opposed. I was going to put the RfC results into a similar table, but I've only done this much in order that people can decide whether it's useful. PR^talk 17:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Premature merging

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

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

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

Imad marie,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments from an uninvolved administrator

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

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

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

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

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

Sephiroth, thanks for helping out here! Just a note regarding WP:CFORK, if you check the edit histories, the "Celebrations" article dates back to 2002[1] and this "Reactions" article dates back to earlier in 2008[2]. Also, if you check the earliest history on the "Reactions" article you'll see that the editor who started that article is the same one who has been pushing the hardest to merge (or should I say eliminate) the "Celebrations" article. If anything, I would come to the conclusion that the "Reactions" article is actually a content fork.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

An outsiders viewpoint

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

RfC

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

Users who support the merge:

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

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

Users who oppose the merge:

1. Oppose. As I wrote in the comments above, the subject of the article represents a distinct controversy, separate from the general world recations to the 9/11 attacks. There is plenty of coverage by reliable sources of the controversy, and this coverage is not limited to the short period right after the events happened. So notability is not in question here and the subject definitely deserves a separate article. The best I can tell, much of the arguments for merge are based on ideological and POV considerations: some people feel that the article is designed to malign the Palestinians. The article was nominated twice for AfD recently essentially on those grounds. To quote from the original nomination: "This is an anti-Palestinian propaganda launched by some editors". What the motives of the people who created the article are, the decision of merging or not should not be made on the basis of investigating these motoves (which might indeed have been suspect), but on the formal merits of the case. And, as I said, for me the bottom line is that the subject is definitely distinct, and well-covered by numerous sources over a prolonged period of time. Everything else is irrelevant, as far as I am concerned. Attempting to delete or merge away this article looks like a clear violation of WP:NOTCENSORED to me. Just to double-check my instincts, I did a quick google search to see if the subject is still being covered. Of course, there are quite a few more recent sources, apart from those cited in the article, such as [4][5], [6], [7], etc (the last one discusses a book that appartently also contains substantial coverage of the event). Now, one can argue about neutrality of these sources, and how they should be mentioned, but there is little doubt controversy still exists as a separate topic and that it made considerable and lasting impact that is reflected by its prolonged coverage. Deleting the content by merging this article would be just plain wrong. Nsk92 (talk) 13:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
2. Oppose. As a POV fork attempting to replace a long standing article with a new one. The logic behind this being a POV fork is as follows:

   On 5 April 2008, user Imad marie (talk · contribs) launched an AfD of Celebrations of the September 11, 2001 attacks [8] with this comment:

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

   The AfD was closed as Keep.

   On 17 April 2008, user Imad marie started a new article[9] named International reactions to the September 11, 2001 attacks which was later renamed to Reactions to the September 11, 2001 attacks.

   On 24 April 2008, user Imad marie next launched a second AfD of Celebrations of the September 11, 2001 attacks [10] with the comment:

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

   This second AfD was also closed as Keep.

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

   "I merged "Celebrations of the September 11, 2001 attacks" into this article. Actually it was just a redirect because I did not think there is any significant material to move from the celebrations article."[11]

   Imad marie twice tried to have the "Celebrations" article removed and when that failed tried changing it to a redirect without moving anything over. After this past behavior, the only way I could support a merge is if we are discussing and polling on the actual text of any merge as suggested by Sephiroth BCR (talk · contribs) several days ago.[12]. If I knew what the result of any merge would look like then I might be convinced that this is not yet another attempt at simply removing a long existing article (here since 2002[13]) by calling it a fork of a newly created article (here since April[14]). --StuffOfInterest (talk) 22:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

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

Comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

Poor form

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

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

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

Merge procedure

I've created a sandbox for this article here, everyone is invited to discuss the final article shape after the merge. Although IMO there is nothing to merge, all the significant information has been already been moved. Imad marie (talk) 16:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Aside from the cartoon discussion which is going on here, I think we can proceed with the merge now. Imad marie (talk) 08:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Where was this compromise? I don't recall seeing any, and would be grateful for a link. As said elsewhere in my view we just don't need this overwrought analysis of the footage, structured with various sub-sections, to cover the authenticity point. It's just too much detail really, and basically undue weight to have this much focus and text on the reactions from one small group of people. It doesn't really need much more than that "CNN denied claims that the footage was old" etc. And that's hardly whitewashing - if that was the point, I and others would be arguing for more weight to be given to the suggestions that the footage might not show 9/11 celebrations. --Nickhh (talk) 08:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Cartoon (2nd)

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

Forgive the copypasta:

PMW is considered a WP:RS. We've had a few discussions on this before. In short, CNN and other major sources, believe they are RS and use their translations for reports.

Samples: The Washington Times^[15],Washington Post^[16],BBC^[17],Reuters^[18], Forbes^[19],Jerusalem Post^[20],Channel 2 (Israel)^[21],The New York Times^[22].

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

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

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

I have started a new thread at WP:RS/N, namely here. Cheers, pedrito - talk - 17.07.2008 08:11

I can't seriously believe people are still trying to force this cartoon in, regardless of whether we have two or one articles here. Of all the print media images (cartoons, front pages etc) from around the world, are we actually saying that the most significant, and the only one we are going to use here, is one from a Palestinian newspaper which is simply being used by a partisan advocacy group to make an allegation of something? And there is of course a difference between other reliable sources using PMW as a translation resource, and Wikipedia pretending that PMW's doubtful editorial assertions can be pasted into articles here with a massive visual splash, through use of this cartoon to highlight them. Nor is there a need for endless analysis of the footage - it's just as undue weight here as it was when the article was separate. --Nickhh (talk) 08:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

If you can provide an alternate, I am not unwilling to consider it. So far in all of the discussions none has surfaced or been presented, instead we have people attacking the source rather than trying to act in a collegiate atmosphere where we work to build a better article. So, give us some options Nick, Pedro, and Imad. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 08:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, there are 100s out there on the web, but I'm fairly ignorant when it comes uploading images as well as to WP policy on copyright. If we are going to have images - and there's no reason why we have to of course - I think this article overall would be far better illustrated by a newspaper front page or a photograph of a significant world personality responding, or a photograph of a vigil of some sort. --Nickhh (talk) 12:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Of which none is related to the topic at hand. Well done! Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 12:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The topic being what, the slandering of Palestinians? Well done! pedrito - talk - 17.07.2008 13:05

Wow. Just wow. That was insightful and on topic Pedro. I have left you a message that such blatant attacks and slurs could lead to problems in relation to the general sanctions imposed under the IP arbcom decision. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 13:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

This discussion may well be taking place on the "Celebrations .. " page, but it is of course about what images will be on the new merged "Reactions .." page, so my suggestions were entirely on point. Unless Pedro was correct as to what the topic really is. And please, this "attacks and slurs" stuff doesn't come well from someone who rather ineptly tried to take the p#ss above, and around a week ago accused me of "stalking" and trolling because I made some edits to one of these pages, while, er stalking me to various other users' talk pages to make those accusations. Collegiate atmosphere indeed. --Nickhh (talk) 13:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh I forgot, working together is only acceptable when they are your ally. Thanks for the reminder. I'll keep that in mind in my continued forays into Palestinopedia. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 13:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

(EC) That just sailed 4 or 5 miles past the point... If you want photos of the Palestinian celebrations, then why don't you show just that? How about the stills from the Erdmann article? Or from the video that PMW has of the event? Seriously, lamenting that there is no replacement for an image that has nothing to do with the article and balking at suggestions that actually have something to do with the article and then getting all lawyerish when you get called on it is just not good taste.

Cheers, pedrito - talk - 17.07.2008 13:37

Yes Pedro, cause asking for suggestions of other possible images and suggesting that the picture to be used is negotiable wasn't exactly what I did earlier. I'm trying my fucking hardest to work with you all here, but seriously, I'm done trying to work with you. I'll work despite you to try to improve this encyclopedia since I do not believe that there is any hope of asking you to work together in this arena. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 13:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

And Kyaa of course I tried to work together with you by offering, as per your request, alternative options for images. You responded with a childish and muddle-headed brush off. So quit the self-righteous indignation. Oh and if this really was "Palestinopedia", I doubt an article like this one, with its main image based around an unsupported and partisan PMW accusation, would have lasted as long as it has. --Nickhh (talk) 13:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Images of the two towers does not equate to images of the celebrations of september 11th in Palestine. This is blatant diversion and I will not fall for it. I'm sorry Nick, but when I asked for an image I supposed that anyone with reasoning skills would understand that we need one which relates to the subject matter of this article, not to the broad topic. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 13:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

And I thought anyone with reasoning skills would understand that a front page headline, or world leader speaking or a mass vigil (as all documented in the main article) is a reaction of some sort to the event in question. And an image of one of those things would therefore be appropriate to an article about the reactions to 9/11. Equally Pedro has given you alternatives if you still want something specifically relating to this relatively minor element of the overall reactions (ie the Palestinian celebrations). Quit whining. --Nickhh (talk) 14:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Apparently a reminder is needed.... Tomer^talk 14:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Kyaa, why are you asking other editors to find an alternative image? why don't you do that yourself? and second question, why is it a must that we have an image of the celebrations? Imad marie (talk) 20:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Jaakobou, about your weird revert, an uninvolved editor gave his opinion here that PMW is not RS, so what is your point exactly?! and what consensus you want? do you want 3 AfD's and 2 RfS's and waste everyone's time to get consensus?! Imad marie (talk) 16:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Merging

Apart from the cartoon disagreement, can we merge now? Imad marie (talk) 15:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

If I don't get objections, I will proceed with the merge. Imad marie (talk) 16:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Moving forward

OK, let's all take a step back. Even those who originally objected to the merge now seem to be agreed that it should happen, it's just a question of how it is done. Pretty much all the content seems to have been moved across from the Celebrations article into the Reactions. As I understand it this wasn't the idea - we were going to work on a sandbox version of how a merged article would look as there has been long disagreement about how the material should be presented, even in the standalone Celebrations article, but it seems to have been done now.

I've let a note on Sephiroth's talk page, but it seems to be that to go forward we need to -

• 1) Dump the standalone Celebrations article as there's no material left to bring over
• 2) Edit the material that has come across into the Reactions article

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)

Discussion open for continuation here as that's the main article where any editing needs to take place --Nickhh (talk) 16:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia content modification information:

• This page was last modified on 5 August 2008, at 17:21.

Wikipedia Authorship and Review

Wikipedia content provided here is not reviewed directly by MedLibrary.org. Wikipedia content is authored by an open community of volunteers and is not produced by or in any way affiliated with MedLibrary.org.

Wikipedia Usage Guidelines

This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article on "Talk:Celebrations of the September 11, 2001 attacks".

The URL for this specific entry is:

• http://medlibrary.org/medwiki/Talk:Celebrations_of_the_September_11,_2001_attacks

All Wikipedia text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for details). Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.