This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
1983 West Bank fainting epidemic article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
![]() | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on March 21, 2019. |
I think that there are neutrality issues which an expert needs to look at. For example the lead seams very one-sided. Mtking ( talk) 05:18, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
This article seems to rely heavily for its facts and point of view on a 2002 book by Raphael Israeli called Poison: Modern manifestations of a blood libel. [1]
In 1983, some Palestinian leaders claimed "Israeli authorities, or perhaps extremist Jewish settlers in the West Bank" had done something that sickened large numbers of West Bank schoolgirls with the goal of intimidating Palestinians. [2] To call such suspicions by the ugly and inflammatory term " blood libel" is about as NPOV as saying a street-corner fistfight is just like mass-murder. Neither that Time magazine article nor the articles in the NYT give any evidence of a "media frenzy" or for uncritical acceptance of any "blood libel."
The topic of this article should be 1983's mystery schoolgirl epidemic, not ugly suspicions some people voiced about Israel. There are actual NPOV sources such as [3] and [4] and [5]. Another contemporary source [6] says that both Arabs and Israelis initially thought that some "poisonous substance" had caused the symptoms.
Instead, this article relies heavily on three POV sources: Israeli's book, a favorable review of Israeli's book [7] (Sample quote: "In the ensuing, hate-filled campaign, many players came forward who would later, in the first and second Palestinian uprisings, knowingly or unknowingly diffuse false information and anti-Israeli propaganda on a large scale."), and a protest addressed to the UN by Israel's permanent representative. [8] The NYT's apology for giving more weight to Palestinian than to Israeli POV is also quoted -- the imbalance for which the NYT apologized is very small compared to the opposite imbalance in this article. betsythedevine ( talk) 01:58, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
user:betsythedevine this article is not about girls illness. This article is about accusations and condemnations that were issued against Israel by Arab leaders, by the world media and by UN because of girls illness. Nobody but New York Times ever apologized, nobody ever said the accusations were false. The accusations against Israel were made. You are trying to deny Israel's right to defend herself. Your claim that Israeli sources should not be used to defend Israel from false accusations are racist. I strongly suggest you avoiding such claims. If you like to write an article about girls illness by all means go for it. This article is about blood libel against Israel. I have tried to make it is as neutral as possible. I did not even mention that many girls faked the illness and flashed victory signs as soon as foreign reporters left their hospital beds. I did not mention that some doctors kept healthy girls in hospitals. All the sources you found only confirm NPOV of the article. You found medical sources that describe the illness as mass hysteria not as a poison. The sources you found are not about false accusations made against Israel. They are about phenomenon of mass hysteria. I included in the article this information: "From their part, Israelis accused Palestinians of using gas to provoke mass demonstrations and protests, which really happened in a few places." The only difference between accusation of Palestinians and accusations of Israelis is that Israel was the one to be blamed for the situation by everybody. Israeli UN ambassador is referring to this document, in which Security Council expressed a "great concern" about " poisoning" . Don't you think that it would have been only fair to issue another address after it has been proven there was no poisoning? Broccolo ( talk) 04:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
What the article says, citing Gerstenfeld's review of Israeli's book:
"One of the initial reports by Ha'aretz claimed Israel had used a nerve gas on the Palestinian population."
What Gerstenfeld actually said about Ha'aretz:
"In one of its initial articles on the event, the Israeli daily Haaretz implied that there were indications Israel had used nerve gas." (Emphasis added.)
There is a huge difference between "implying" and "claiming." There is also a huge difference between saying "x did y" and "there are indications x did y." It is hard enough to guess what Israeli objected to in that early article without having Gerstenfeld's third-hand report further distorted.
What the article claims:
"Of all the magazines and newspapers that initially reported on these false accusations against Israel only the New York Times, stating that "The Times amplifies articles or rectifies what the editors consider significant lapses of fairness, balance or perspective," agreed with Israeli and American doctors who "later concluded that the symptoms, including dizziness, nausea and headaches, had been caused by mass hysteria."
What Gerstenfeld says:
In retrospect, it is not surprising that among the worst distorters of the truth were French dailies such as the Communist L'Humanite, the socialist inclined Libération, and Le Monde. None of these apologized after the facts became known. The New York Times was one of the few media outlets that did so, but even that was only on an inside page.
In other words, three "French dailies" distorted the truth but never issued apologies for doing so. The NYT was not the "only" paper to apologize but one of a few. This is entirely different from the article's claim that no media outlets anywhere aside from the NYT ever reported on medical conclusions about the epidemic. This article is not only based on heavily POV sources but it adds even more POV with no basis in even those sources. betsythedevine ( talk) 10:57, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Some of you are unhappy I used more Israeli sources than Arab ones. I agree I did. What do you think about including this Arab source: "Moreover, Israeli terrorism has reached the point of the implementation of schemes for the collective poisoning of students and inhabitants." I could include it, if it is fine with you.I am asking everybody who is unhappy about neutrality of the article to include each and every Arab and pro-Arab source you could find, and then let's take the tag off the article.-- Broccolo ( talk) 14:58, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Has someone described it as a conspiracy theory ? It's not mentioned in the article yet. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:20, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
This tile seems tabloidy/noirish, not to mention it doesn't make much sense. I propose a title that focuses accurately on the event: West Bank fainting epidemic. There doesn't seem to a commonly accepted nickname for this case of mass hysteria, and this name seems descriptive and to the point, allowing for a much cleaner first sentence and paragraph. I.e. "The West Bank fainting epidemic of 1983 involved almost 1,000 people, mostly teenaged girls, in the largest recorded case of mass hysteria in Palestine. Until it was determined this was a pscychogenic epidemic, it also fed dark claims and counterclaims between Palestinians and Israelis, coming as it did amid their bitter and long running conflict." That strikes me as an improvement, at least on the headline. 99.120.1.227 ( talk) 19:22, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
<--Compromise? How about " 1983 Palestinian schoolgirl fainting epidemic"? betsythedevine ( talk) 21:31, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
I just re-added into the article Khaled Abu Toameh thing. Could we please discuss the information that is getting removed from the article before it is actually removed?-- Broccolo ( talk) 20:08, 14 May 2011 (UTC) What would you like to talk about? What aspect of removals and edits do you think have made this article less neutral and accurate? That would be helpful. 99.120.1.227 ( talk) 05:28, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
The genesis of this strange title was the original author's intent -- to make israel out to be yet again an unfairly maligned victim of some conspiracy or other. The reality as has been shown is much more complex. Here's the original opening paragaph:
Let's count the errors here. To reduce this to "a false accusation of poisoning... made against Israel by Arafat" is a gross distortion of what happened, as well as rather stuningly obtuse, when we consider that this was according to the medical literature, a bona fide case of mass hysteria that sent 900 people to the hospital. It turns out there were lots of false statements during the epidemic. Israelis falsely said this was some leftist plot, members of the Israeli military said that the PLO was maybe poisoning its own people to make israel look bad etc... This is hardly surprising. The Palestinians and the Israelis hate each other and mud is constantly being flung back and forth. The second sentence had an error (margalit didn't say this was a blood libel). The third sentence has two errors. Arafat's "accusation" didn't start a "media frenzy." In as much as there was a media frenzy, it was driven by all those fainting schoolgirls (and the early reporting in the israeli press, quoting israeli officials, that traces of nerve gas had been found etc...). The UN did NOT condemn Israel in this affair. Quite the opposite -- the UN investigation cleared Israel of doing anything wrong. The final sentence is also wrong. The New York Times did indeed apologize for some of its reporting. There is no evidence that other newspapers, however, did not also apologize, and certainly no source said that. Having read a lot of the media coverage from the time in the past few days, it all seems mostly responsible and focused on figuring out what was happening. So, how do we get the name changed? These 3 would all be fine with me: 1983 West Bank fainting epidemic, West Bank fainting epidemic, or 1983 West Bank mass hysteria outbreak. Let's get this done. 99.120.1.227 ( talk) 18:16, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
1. This convinces me you don't know what "UN Condemnation means" some UN member state saying something mean about israel doesn't amount to "UN condemnation." Really. The UN did look into this alarming matter, and as the record shows, cleared israel of all possible wrongdoing (while also finding, along with everyone else, that it was a genuine case of mass hysteria). I'd recommend not even trying to write something from primary UN documents, given your track record so far. 2. What you've written in point two is a patent falsehood. It's become quite clear that you're a propagandist who has no interest in accurately reflecting what happened (I mean, really. You have a userpage that appears to celebrate the death of Israels "enemies"). 99.120.1.227 ( talk) 18:48, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
The US Centers for Disease Control headed its April 1983 review of the outbreak Epidemic of Acute Illness - West Bank, from the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. I've added in some details from that report. Westbankfainting ( talk) 22:29, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
This edit [ [10]] appears to insert a falsehood. That Baruch Modan detrmined that "only in 3-4 first incidents the girls were really sick.He said all other incidents were a "deliberate hoax." It's source to the blood libel book, but it's unclear what passage says this. The only relevant passage i can find in the free preview of the book completely contradicts this claim. On Page 100 is a lengthy summary of the US investigation that found it was a mass psychological event brought on by "anxiety" (agreeing with Israel's lead investigator, the WHO, the CDC and the Red Cross) and that "Professor Modan said he did not dispute the conclusion (in the american report) that the victims suffered from genuine symptoms of illness." Could the editor explain precisely which page of the book informed this edit, and could you quote it at length here? It flies in the face of a passage in the same book, as I've shown, but also against all of the press reporting and medical reporting from the time. (The wire services and the medical journals all quote Modan as saying it was a real psychological event, i.e. Modan believed they were "dealing with a case of mass hysteria rooted in the tense anti-Israeli climate in the occupied West Bank" which is cited and used lower down in the article). A clarification for this nugget that contradicts every other statement from Modan on the affair would be helpful for a start. 99.120.1.227 ( talk) 18:43, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
This article has been fully protected for two weeks per WP:AN3#User:99.120.1.227 reported by User:ברוקולי (Result: Protected). Questions about the sources have been raised. If the editors here can't reach consensus about the sources to be used, consider asking at the WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. If agreement is reached, the protection can be lifted. In case of any book sources, it would help if people can state whether they have access to the full text of the book. Thank you, EdJohnston ( talk) 00:04, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
<--As per various comments above about reliable sourcing, I have filed a request for feedback at WP:RSN. betsythedevine ( talk) 03:55, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
it was mainly the work of westbankfainting which transformed this article from the "original" unbearable bias below all wkipedia standards to a reasonably objective one now...-- Severino ( talk) 11:00, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
I hereby propose that the article be renamed 1983 West Bank fainting epidemic. Please discuss below:
Support
Oppose
Comment
Moved.© Geni 01:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Point 1: Your english really isn't good enough for that level of analysis of the text. Btw, do you have full access to a hard copy of that book? I doubt it. At any rate, your interpretation of his words is contradicted multiple times by his own clear statements in wire copy and so forth. Do you have any explanation for why in this book and this book only he contradicts himself (indeed, even "within" the book?) My reason -- and most native speakers reason -- is that he didn't say what you claimed he said. But we might as well here your reason, if you have one. Point 2: Israeli sources all referred to poison first, yes. Have you read the paper the Israeli government's psychiatric investigator published in 1985? It contradicts what you've written in point 2. Westbankfainting ( talk) 20:59, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The first sentence needs to be changed to reflect the move to a new name. This would work: "The 1983 West Bank fainting epidemic occurred in late March and early April 1983 and was brought on by mass hysteria." There is also a typo in the fourth paragraph below "The Epidemic" heading. The paragraph begins: "The CDC and others defined the outbreak as occurring in three WEAVES." This last word should be changed to WAVES. Westbankfainting ( talk) 18:09, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
The longstanding version of this article was far more neutral and comprehensive and i've reverted back to it (this diff [14] shows the recent rewrite). The "pov" tags were actually placed at a time when the article looked much more like the version rewritten too. Bali ultimate ( talk) 20:06, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Became
And one more (i will show the original version and the rewritten version). Any neautral observer will see what was done here.
Became
The deliberate distortion in service of a cause, watering down elements that provide context in a nuanced, non-black and white manner, particularly attempts to see things from the Palestinian perspective and the Israeli perspective, becomes clear ever time the new edits are examined in light of what they changed. Bali ultimate ( talk) 20:06, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
1983 West Bank fainting epidemic article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
![]() | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on March 21, 2019. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I think that there are neutrality issues which an expert needs to look at. For example the lead seams very one-sided. Mtking ( talk) 05:18, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
This article seems to rely heavily for its facts and point of view on a 2002 book by Raphael Israeli called Poison: Modern manifestations of a blood libel. [1]
In 1983, some Palestinian leaders claimed "Israeli authorities, or perhaps extremist Jewish settlers in the West Bank" had done something that sickened large numbers of West Bank schoolgirls with the goal of intimidating Palestinians. [2] To call such suspicions by the ugly and inflammatory term " blood libel" is about as NPOV as saying a street-corner fistfight is just like mass-murder. Neither that Time magazine article nor the articles in the NYT give any evidence of a "media frenzy" or for uncritical acceptance of any "blood libel."
The topic of this article should be 1983's mystery schoolgirl epidemic, not ugly suspicions some people voiced about Israel. There are actual NPOV sources such as [3] and [4] and [5]. Another contemporary source [6] says that both Arabs and Israelis initially thought that some "poisonous substance" had caused the symptoms.
Instead, this article relies heavily on three POV sources: Israeli's book, a favorable review of Israeli's book [7] (Sample quote: "In the ensuing, hate-filled campaign, many players came forward who would later, in the first and second Palestinian uprisings, knowingly or unknowingly diffuse false information and anti-Israeli propaganda on a large scale."), and a protest addressed to the UN by Israel's permanent representative. [8] The NYT's apology for giving more weight to Palestinian than to Israeli POV is also quoted -- the imbalance for which the NYT apologized is very small compared to the opposite imbalance in this article. betsythedevine ( talk) 01:58, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
user:betsythedevine this article is not about girls illness. This article is about accusations and condemnations that were issued against Israel by Arab leaders, by the world media and by UN because of girls illness. Nobody but New York Times ever apologized, nobody ever said the accusations were false. The accusations against Israel were made. You are trying to deny Israel's right to defend herself. Your claim that Israeli sources should not be used to defend Israel from false accusations are racist. I strongly suggest you avoiding such claims. If you like to write an article about girls illness by all means go for it. This article is about blood libel against Israel. I have tried to make it is as neutral as possible. I did not even mention that many girls faked the illness and flashed victory signs as soon as foreign reporters left their hospital beds. I did not mention that some doctors kept healthy girls in hospitals. All the sources you found only confirm NPOV of the article. You found medical sources that describe the illness as mass hysteria not as a poison. The sources you found are not about false accusations made against Israel. They are about phenomenon of mass hysteria. I included in the article this information: "From their part, Israelis accused Palestinians of using gas to provoke mass demonstrations and protests, which really happened in a few places." The only difference between accusation of Palestinians and accusations of Israelis is that Israel was the one to be blamed for the situation by everybody. Israeli UN ambassador is referring to this document, in which Security Council expressed a "great concern" about " poisoning" . Don't you think that it would have been only fair to issue another address after it has been proven there was no poisoning? Broccolo ( talk) 04:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
What the article says, citing Gerstenfeld's review of Israeli's book:
"One of the initial reports by Ha'aretz claimed Israel had used a nerve gas on the Palestinian population."
What Gerstenfeld actually said about Ha'aretz:
"In one of its initial articles on the event, the Israeli daily Haaretz implied that there were indications Israel had used nerve gas." (Emphasis added.)
There is a huge difference between "implying" and "claiming." There is also a huge difference between saying "x did y" and "there are indications x did y." It is hard enough to guess what Israeli objected to in that early article without having Gerstenfeld's third-hand report further distorted.
What the article claims:
"Of all the magazines and newspapers that initially reported on these false accusations against Israel only the New York Times, stating that "The Times amplifies articles or rectifies what the editors consider significant lapses of fairness, balance or perspective," agreed with Israeli and American doctors who "later concluded that the symptoms, including dizziness, nausea and headaches, had been caused by mass hysteria."
What Gerstenfeld says:
In retrospect, it is not surprising that among the worst distorters of the truth were French dailies such as the Communist L'Humanite, the socialist inclined Libération, and Le Monde. None of these apologized after the facts became known. The New York Times was one of the few media outlets that did so, but even that was only on an inside page.
In other words, three "French dailies" distorted the truth but never issued apologies for doing so. The NYT was not the "only" paper to apologize but one of a few. This is entirely different from the article's claim that no media outlets anywhere aside from the NYT ever reported on medical conclusions about the epidemic. This article is not only based on heavily POV sources but it adds even more POV with no basis in even those sources. betsythedevine ( talk) 10:57, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Some of you are unhappy I used more Israeli sources than Arab ones. I agree I did. What do you think about including this Arab source: "Moreover, Israeli terrorism has reached the point of the implementation of schemes for the collective poisoning of students and inhabitants." I could include it, if it is fine with you.I am asking everybody who is unhappy about neutrality of the article to include each and every Arab and pro-Arab source you could find, and then let's take the tag off the article.-- Broccolo ( talk) 14:58, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Has someone described it as a conspiracy theory ? It's not mentioned in the article yet. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:20, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
This tile seems tabloidy/noirish, not to mention it doesn't make much sense. I propose a title that focuses accurately on the event: West Bank fainting epidemic. There doesn't seem to a commonly accepted nickname for this case of mass hysteria, and this name seems descriptive and to the point, allowing for a much cleaner first sentence and paragraph. I.e. "The West Bank fainting epidemic of 1983 involved almost 1,000 people, mostly teenaged girls, in the largest recorded case of mass hysteria in Palestine. Until it was determined this was a pscychogenic epidemic, it also fed dark claims and counterclaims between Palestinians and Israelis, coming as it did amid their bitter and long running conflict." That strikes me as an improvement, at least on the headline. 99.120.1.227 ( talk) 19:22, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
<--Compromise? How about " 1983 Palestinian schoolgirl fainting epidemic"? betsythedevine ( talk) 21:31, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
I just re-added into the article Khaled Abu Toameh thing. Could we please discuss the information that is getting removed from the article before it is actually removed?-- Broccolo ( talk) 20:08, 14 May 2011 (UTC) What would you like to talk about? What aspect of removals and edits do you think have made this article less neutral and accurate? That would be helpful. 99.120.1.227 ( talk) 05:28, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
The genesis of this strange title was the original author's intent -- to make israel out to be yet again an unfairly maligned victim of some conspiracy or other. The reality as has been shown is much more complex. Here's the original opening paragaph:
Let's count the errors here. To reduce this to "a false accusation of poisoning... made against Israel by Arafat" is a gross distortion of what happened, as well as rather stuningly obtuse, when we consider that this was according to the medical literature, a bona fide case of mass hysteria that sent 900 people to the hospital. It turns out there were lots of false statements during the epidemic. Israelis falsely said this was some leftist plot, members of the Israeli military said that the PLO was maybe poisoning its own people to make israel look bad etc... This is hardly surprising. The Palestinians and the Israelis hate each other and mud is constantly being flung back and forth. The second sentence had an error (margalit didn't say this was a blood libel). The third sentence has two errors. Arafat's "accusation" didn't start a "media frenzy." In as much as there was a media frenzy, it was driven by all those fainting schoolgirls (and the early reporting in the israeli press, quoting israeli officials, that traces of nerve gas had been found etc...). The UN did NOT condemn Israel in this affair. Quite the opposite -- the UN investigation cleared Israel of doing anything wrong. The final sentence is also wrong. The New York Times did indeed apologize for some of its reporting. There is no evidence that other newspapers, however, did not also apologize, and certainly no source said that. Having read a lot of the media coverage from the time in the past few days, it all seems mostly responsible and focused on figuring out what was happening. So, how do we get the name changed? These 3 would all be fine with me: 1983 West Bank fainting epidemic, West Bank fainting epidemic, or 1983 West Bank mass hysteria outbreak. Let's get this done. 99.120.1.227 ( talk) 18:16, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
1. This convinces me you don't know what "UN Condemnation means" some UN member state saying something mean about israel doesn't amount to "UN condemnation." Really. The UN did look into this alarming matter, and as the record shows, cleared israel of all possible wrongdoing (while also finding, along with everyone else, that it was a genuine case of mass hysteria). I'd recommend not even trying to write something from primary UN documents, given your track record so far. 2. What you've written in point two is a patent falsehood. It's become quite clear that you're a propagandist who has no interest in accurately reflecting what happened (I mean, really. You have a userpage that appears to celebrate the death of Israels "enemies"). 99.120.1.227 ( talk) 18:48, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
The US Centers for Disease Control headed its April 1983 review of the outbreak Epidemic of Acute Illness - West Bank, from the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. I've added in some details from that report. Westbankfainting ( talk) 22:29, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
This edit [ [10]] appears to insert a falsehood. That Baruch Modan detrmined that "only in 3-4 first incidents the girls were really sick.He said all other incidents were a "deliberate hoax." It's source to the blood libel book, but it's unclear what passage says this. The only relevant passage i can find in the free preview of the book completely contradicts this claim. On Page 100 is a lengthy summary of the US investigation that found it was a mass psychological event brought on by "anxiety" (agreeing with Israel's lead investigator, the WHO, the CDC and the Red Cross) and that "Professor Modan said he did not dispute the conclusion (in the american report) that the victims suffered from genuine symptoms of illness." Could the editor explain precisely which page of the book informed this edit, and could you quote it at length here? It flies in the face of a passage in the same book, as I've shown, but also against all of the press reporting and medical reporting from the time. (The wire services and the medical journals all quote Modan as saying it was a real psychological event, i.e. Modan believed they were "dealing with a case of mass hysteria rooted in the tense anti-Israeli climate in the occupied West Bank" which is cited and used lower down in the article). A clarification for this nugget that contradicts every other statement from Modan on the affair would be helpful for a start. 99.120.1.227 ( talk) 18:43, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
This article has been fully protected for two weeks per WP:AN3#User:99.120.1.227 reported by User:ברוקולי (Result: Protected). Questions about the sources have been raised. If the editors here can't reach consensus about the sources to be used, consider asking at the WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. If agreement is reached, the protection can be lifted. In case of any book sources, it would help if people can state whether they have access to the full text of the book. Thank you, EdJohnston ( talk) 00:04, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
<--As per various comments above about reliable sourcing, I have filed a request for feedback at WP:RSN. betsythedevine ( talk) 03:55, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
it was mainly the work of westbankfainting which transformed this article from the "original" unbearable bias below all wkipedia standards to a reasonably objective one now...-- Severino ( talk) 11:00, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
I hereby propose that the article be renamed 1983 West Bank fainting epidemic. Please discuss below:
Support
Oppose
Comment
Moved.© Geni 01:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Point 1: Your english really isn't good enough for that level of analysis of the text. Btw, do you have full access to a hard copy of that book? I doubt it. At any rate, your interpretation of his words is contradicted multiple times by his own clear statements in wire copy and so forth. Do you have any explanation for why in this book and this book only he contradicts himself (indeed, even "within" the book?) My reason -- and most native speakers reason -- is that he didn't say what you claimed he said. But we might as well here your reason, if you have one. Point 2: Israeli sources all referred to poison first, yes. Have you read the paper the Israeli government's psychiatric investigator published in 1985? It contradicts what you've written in point 2. Westbankfainting ( talk) 20:59, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The first sentence needs to be changed to reflect the move to a new name. This would work: "The 1983 West Bank fainting epidemic occurred in late March and early April 1983 and was brought on by mass hysteria." There is also a typo in the fourth paragraph below "The Epidemic" heading. The paragraph begins: "The CDC and others defined the outbreak as occurring in three WEAVES." This last word should be changed to WAVES. Westbankfainting ( talk) 18:09, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
The longstanding version of this article was far more neutral and comprehensive and i've reverted back to it (this diff [14] shows the recent rewrite). The "pov" tags were actually placed at a time when the article looked much more like the version rewritten too. Bali ultimate ( talk) 20:06, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Became
And one more (i will show the original version and the rewritten version). Any neautral observer will see what was done here.
Became
The deliberate distortion in service of a cause, watering down elements that provide context in a nuanced, non-black and white manner, particularly attempts to see things from the Palestinian perspective and the Israeli perspective, becomes clear ever time the new edits are examined in light of what they changed. Bali ultimate ( talk) 20:06, 26 December 2011 (UTC)