Talk:1983 West Bank fainting epidemic

Neutrality

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)

Can you offer concrete criticism before just template tag bombing the article? The article appears to be quite professionally done. Conspiracy theories tend to be one-sided affairs. Plot Spoiler (talk) 17:53, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the article appears to be quite professionally written, however the whole tone of the article is one of anti-Israel conspiracy and as such appears to be written from one POV, the purpose of the tags is so that the article is checked by someone more familiar with resolving POV issues than me, please leave the tags in until it is reviewed. Mtking (talk) 22:25, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

So you can't even provide specific examples of how this may be POV but you're going to tag it anyway? Sounds more like WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which is not a legitimate reason for tagging. Plot Spoiler (talk) 22:34, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Now you are just being paranoid, what is wrong with asking for a outside view ? Mtking (talk) 23:16, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

the user has explained the criticism. and i agree here. there is a bias in the article. the israeli view is given extensively space, journalists, scientists, diplomats, officials,.. are quoted abundantly to all aspects of the "affair" throughout the article while the palestinians themselfes hardly have theirs say. also it seems that highlighting that israel was treated unjustly is overemphasized (see for example the wording in the intro). the used sources partly reflect the bias of the article.--Severino (talk) 23:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

aLso, the opinion of an israeli professor (or 2) doesn't justify categorizing the "affair" as "blood libel". --Severino (talk) 00:15, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry everybody can't come out looking 'good' from these libelous accusations. An article can be NPOV and without falling into moral equivalence. Plot Spoiler (talk) 01:15, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

the editor's comments make it vividly clear (and confirm) that the article is not written from an NPOV but from an israeli POV.--Severino (talk) 10:02, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Origin of the article

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)

Besty, the whole issue is notable and all the media coverage of the issue came not because it was a "mystery epidemic" but because of the inflammatory accusation that it was Israel attempting to poison the schoolgirls. Renaming the article "1983 Palestinian schoolgirl illness" would not only be hilarious, but not factual. NPOV does not = moral equivalence. Plot Spoiler (talk) 02:10, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Quoting WP:NPOV: "Editors must write articles from a neutral point of view, representing all significant views fairly, proportionately, and without bias." Moral equivalence is not what I was proposing; NPOV is. Also, as per WP:NOTADVOCATE, articles should not be written "to convince people of the merits of your favorite views." betsythedevine (talk) 02:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the choice of article name is somewhat misleading and think that as well as a major re-write moving it to a better name is needed. Also worth considering is does this really meet the WP:GNG and or is it just not WP:NOTNEWS Mtking (talk) 03:17, 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)

Bear in mind that Israel does not have a "right to defend itself" here. This is an encyclopedia. There are rules. "Editors must write articles from a neutral point of view" is not a joke or a nice to have. It's a mandatory requirement for all editors. It means quite simply that if an editor can't do that they can't edit. No one claimed "that Israeli sources should not be used". Betsy said "this article relies heavily on three POV sources". That is not racism. That's a helpful observation by an editor about the degree to which the article complies with policy at the moment in their view. Please, let's not devalue words. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Article versus source

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)

Fixed, thanks for noticing. Broccolo (talk) 14:44, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Let's deal with NPOV

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)

the bias in the article is a fact and mocking WP users' complaints about it won't compensate for it. rather, the article should be given fair balance and NPOV. in this discussion users have already detailed some of the problems with the article. despite the recent changes, it reads like an indictment, narrated and delivered from an israeli POV. and not like a wikipedia article.--Severino (talk) 15:20, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I said that three of your sources, including one book by someone whose last name is "Israeli," are POV. Broccolo's attempt to turn this coincidence of one author's name into "racism" is such WP:BATTLEGROUND that it calls into question his/her competence to edit in this topic area. betsythedevine (talk) 15:28, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Betsy, are you really going there, trying to destroy the editor? Just focus on the article. Plot Spoiler (talk) 16:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

So if Broccolo calls someone a racist on this talk page, that is legitimate -- but if the accused one responds, that is "trying to destroy" Broccolo and getting off-topic? Good grief. betsythedevine (talk) 16:33, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Where/how did he call you that? Plot Spoiler (talk) 16:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

When he said "user:betsythedevine … 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." [9] As pointed out, of course I made no such claim. The assertion that three heavily-used sources were POV-biased does not imply that other sources by other Israelis are biased or "should not be used." 17:02, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I have a proposal. Instead of editing this talk page, let's edit the article. Please do include any information you believe should be included, but if you want to remove some information let's discuss it first. I believe it is a fair approach. --Broccolo (talk) 15:50, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

• One more time I am asking everybody to concentrate on improving the article. So far I have seen only the sources found by user:betsythedevine. I agree on adding more medical information, but we should keep in mind that this article is not about mass hysteria, this article is about blood libel against Israel. I was accused for using mostly Israeli POV sources. Please add more information from Arab POV sources. Let's make the article less POV.--Broccolo (talk) 19:55, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

"we should keep in mind that this article is not about mass hysteria, this article is about blood libel against Israel" - This is your personal opinion and the opinion of (solely or almost solely) partisan sources. Nonpartisan, reliable-source interpretation of the affair seems to be primarily as a case of hysteria. Your own desire to put a spin on it does not trump this. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:29, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I think Roscelese mades a fair point. Something notable happened, an event, something factual, and we should describe that "something". There are various ways of interpreting what may have caused it, what it may represent or be an example of etc and we should describe those too without making assumptions about which interpretations are more pertinent than others. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Of course mass hysteria in 1983 in West Bank is notable, and probably an article should be written about this medical phenomena, but the article I have written is not about mass hysteria itself, it is about reactions on it.Reactions are also notable, and should have an article on their own. I used the sources I was able to find, and once again I urge everybody to improve the article with another sources. I do not mind at all adding more information on mass hysteria until it is not undue weight, but this article is about reactions and not about this medical phenomena itself. Broccolo (talk) 13:05, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

You do not own the article, and your original intentions for it do not determine where it goes. As I said (and you don't seem to disagree) the prevalent opinion in reliable sources is that this case is important as a case of mass hysteria, not as a case of anti-Israel bias. The fact that this is how reliable sources see the incident means that this is primarily how we should cover it. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:21, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories involving Jews and Israel category

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)

I can't seem to find the corresponding category for "Conspiracy theories involving Muslims and Palestinians." Which is odd. At the time, some Israelis said it was all a big show (girls were faking) to make Israel look bad OR that the PLO was doing the poisoning itself to make israel look bad. Some Palestinians believed Israel was doing the poisoning. This was all laid to rest by mid april -- outside investigators (WHO et al) had convinced everyone there was no environmental or organic cause. That was the end of the he said/she s aid over this. There is no conspicacy theory either way. But if the current cat is in there, we need the second cat in there as well.99.120.1.227 (talk) 18:33, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Unless someone adds content to the article that cites a reliable source, preferably several sources calling it a Conspiracy theory, the category needs to be removed. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:43, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Real or invented, this is still a conspiracy theory. There were other similar cases however. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 22:57, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

the categorizing seems to be part of the intended bias. i agree with the objections, in terms of NPOV.--Severino (talk) 00:04, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Hodja. It's an NPOV fact. It was a conspiracy to accuse a certain group of people of poisoning others. Plot Spoiler (talk) 00:49, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

My personal inclination would be to keep the "conspiracy" cat. I think that categories are mostly a technical feature that help navigating articles, and it serves the purpose. But could you please look at my link about a very similar incident in another country? This is interesting and may be worth noticing here. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 02:23, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

To clarify, this isn't a discussion about whether we think it is a conspiracy theory. We don't matter. "It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories." If no content is added to the article based on reliable sources that describe it as a conspiracy theory I am going to remove the category. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:25, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

New title

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)

I suggest something a bit more detailed: "1983 Palestinian schoolgirl fainting incident" Plot Spoiler (talk) 19:44, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that it was an "epidemic" not an "incident." An "epidemic" (one caused by mass hysteria and the power of suggestion) is what the medical literature all calls it. None of it treats it as an "incident" (a rather strange sort of incident, extending as it does over about 10 days and in multiple locations). This is why the Tanganyika laughter epidemic (the case of mass hysterica whose transmission was most similar) is so named. 99.120.1.227 (talk) 19:50, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

This isn't simply notable as a medical phenomenon. It's more notable for the fallout between the Israelis and Palestinians regarding certain accusations. Plot Spoiler (talk) 19:54, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Again, this is your personal opinion. References to it in reliable sources, from a cursory look, appear mainly to discuss it as a hysteria.

Re: the title - I dislike "poison affair" because that implies there was actually poison involved, and it doesn't appear to be in common usage by reliable sources (unlike the original Poison affair). There doesn't appear to be one name that is primarily used, so we should use a descriptive name instead that incorporates "1983," "fainting" and "epidemic" in some way. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:09, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Again, this is your personal opinion, based off of your cursory examination. I was basing my assessment off the sources provided. The POV condescension and smugness in here is unbelievable. Sorry, you don't have a monopoly on truth or neutrality, and when you talk in such a way it makes coming to reasonable compromise all the more difficult. Plot Spoiler (talk) 20:28, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

"I was basing my assessment off the sources provided" - Well, there's your problem, isn't it?! The POV problem with this article is that it doesn't bother to cite all the sources that discuss the event as a medical phenomenon, instead choosing to use self-published complaining about how everyone hates Israel. I, on the other hand, did some independent research. I wish you the best of luck when you (hopefully) begin to do the same. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:32, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

First of all, I didn't create the article, or name it, and I recognize there are some issues with it. But keep up the condescension and failure to WP:Assume good faith. You're building up a nice record. Plot Spoiler (talk)

Hardly. You (seem to be saying that you) didn't look at anything that wasn't cited; it doesn't mean it was for malicious reasons. Now, if you have comments to make on the article and its sources/potential sources, instead of about me, let's keep talking. I'm flattered, but I'd much rather talk about the best way to improve the article, ie. by taking the interpretation that most reliable sources take and so on. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:42, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

a google research shows that "Poison affair of Palestinian schoolgirls" is not really a labeling in use for the "case". this raises also the question in what way this was indeed an "affair". also, it seems that what we call extremist or fringe "sources" like "bibleprophecy.blog" and others exploit(ed) the case in a way which shouldn't be reflected here.--Severino (talk) 21:01, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

There is clearly a consensus at this point that the current title does not work and this is not an affair. Let's move on from that point already. Plot Spoiler (talk) 21:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

<--Compromise? How about "1983 Palestinian schoolgirl fainting epidemic"? betsythedevine (talk) 21:31, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. Still think it's more notable as a political incident than as a medically verifiable epidemic. Plot Spoiler (talk) 21:50, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I still prefer West Bank fainting epidemic, but could live with 1983 West Bank fainting epidemic. The problem with confining it to "palestinian schoolgirls" is that some israeli women soldiers were affected as well. Most important is to not call it an incident -- so it's not an "incident." And not to call it a "poison affair" since there was no poison, and it wasn't an "affair." There was a real medical (psychosomatic) event. The key bit is this medical oddity -- as far as i can tell the only recorded case in modern times of such a mass hysteria in that part of the world (sadly, none of the sources have spelled that out yet -- it appears to be assumed. No other such incidents are in any bibliography I've found so far).99.120.1.227 (talk) 22:48, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Removing information

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)

One more thing on the Toahmeh source at the hudson institute (http://www.hudson-ny.org/1488/hassan-nasrallah-mossad-agent Is). It was written decades later by a political activist (not a scholar) who appears to get all of the facts wrong (if we compare his assertion to the news articles at the time, the reports by medical professionals, and so forth). No where except in Toahmeh's article, in which he airily refers to "sometime in the early 1980s" (which makes it clear this isn't a matter he knows much about), is the claim made that "the girls were trying to avoid exams. They claimed Israel had put poison in the tanks that supplied drinking water to their school and began "fainting" in the school yard when photographers and TV crews arrived." This time line is wrong, the girls never accused anyone of poisoning water tanks, the medical literature all makes it clear that the fainting episodes started BEFORE there was any media attention (unsurprisingly). The thing about "exams being postponed indefinitely" is also mentioned in none of the press reporting at the time or the medical reviews. In fact, israel closed the schools for three weeks, then they reopened as normal. So in summary it's an opinion piece from a source with a very strong, anti-palestinian point of view that only mentions the 1983 fainting epidemic in 2 paragraphs (as part of a strange metarphor about Hassan Nasrallah spouting nonsense about Israel assassinating a Lebanese PM) and gets almost all the specific facts wrong. Or, put another way, none of the volume of work dedicated to this instance, by the CDC, Israel's health ministry, The American Journal of Psychiatry, articles in the New York Times, etc... reports any of the things that Toameh wrote in August of 2010. That's why it's an unacceptable source for the article.99.120.1.227 (talk) 20:25, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Excellent analysis IP 99. PS: Khaled Abu Toameh is a paid speaker for Hasbara Fellowships. His articles are almost the only source for our lovely and misleading article on the Committee for the Propagation of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice (Gaza Strip). You might want to take a look at it after you are done cleaning up the POV problems here. Nice job by the way. Tiamut^talk 20:42, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

So can rename it already?

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:

"Poison affair of Palestinian schoolgirls or The Jenin syndrome was a false accusation of poisoning Palestinian schoolgirls made against Israel by PLO and Yasser Arafat in 1983. Dan Margalit from Ha'aretz and Raphael Israeli called this accusation "a blood libel against Jews". This false accusation generated media frenzy, and prompted UN condemnation of Israel. Only New York Times issued a small clarification after the accusation proved to be untrue."

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)

• Err.

1. Arab representatives in UN labeled Israel and the labels have never been removed from the records. Please see here page number 104. I will probably write one more article using UN record only.
2. There was no epidemic neither physical nor psychological.With first few real incidents all others were a deliberate hoax used to label Israel. See the same source pages 8 and 9. Broccolo (talk) 18:41, 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)

I think 1983 West Bank fainting epidemic is the most accurate and NPOV title suggested. I would support a move to that title. Perhaps we should open a formal move request at WP:RM? We can wait to do that after discussing here to see if we have consensus around one title. Tiamut^talk 19:27, 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)

Another falsehood?

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)

Please be careful in your wording see pages 8 and 9. Broccolo (talk) 18:53, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I very much doubt that Poison is WP:RS for facts of this case. Lexington Books is a vanity press, not a fact-checking respectable publisher. Furthermore, Raphael Israeli's other writings about these incidents here and here make it clear that his goal is not providing accurate information about an incident almost 20 years past when he wrote his book. The goal is to delegitimize critics of Israel by finding untrue allegations in the past and linking such allegations on the one hand to modern critics of Israel and on the other hand to such antisemitic horrors as the Blood libel. Just to quote widely-reported[11] [12] [13] condemnation of such wider usage by President of Jewish Funds for Justice Simon Greer, "The term 'blood libel' is not a synonym for 'false accusation.' It refers to a specific falsehood perpetuated by Christians about Jews for centuries, a falsehood that motivated a good deal of anti-Jewish violence and discrimination. Unless someone has been accusing Ms. Palin of killing Christian babies and making matzoh from their blood, her use of the term is totally out-of-line." betsythedevine (talk) 18:58, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

To be kind to the editor, it appears he didn't understand what he read. Modan said that the vast majority of complaints were genuine (it's clear in context that he's talking about the first 3-4 WAVES -- i.e. Arrabeh, to Jenin and so forth) but that some fakers emerged after Sunday April 3, 1983. Unfortunately, I'm taking this on faith. The book is clearly quoting someone at length, the editor who inserted the misunderstood text says it was Modan, but i can't determine that since all of the contextualizing pages are not available. I don't think the editor in question has a hard copy of the book either. 99.120.1.227 (talk) 19:15, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Protected

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)

Ed: On the one hand, The Centers for Disease Control, The World Health Organization, the Red Cross, Israel's lead psychiatric investigator Albert Hefez, and the then Director General of Israel's Ministry of Health Baruch Modan all concluded that this was a legitimate psychological epidemic, that it started when the girls in Arrabah smell something strange, that the media attention came later, and none of them mention anything about girls trying to avoid exams. Reuters, the Associated Press, Time Magazine, and the New York Times (I'm limiting myself to sources of information currently used in the article) also all confirm the medical findings. On the other hand, Khaled Abu Toameh an pro-Israel activist and commentator, muses about lazy shoolgirls making the whole thing up, saying that israel poisoned their water, that they staged faintings the moment cameras arrived, "sometime in the early 1980s." Once one looks at all this, it's clear that Toameh is completely out of step with every serious study on the matter. {his piece referring to "sometime in the early 80s" was written in 2010). As for the "unreliability" of the "Blood Libel" book because it's issued by a vanity press, that's one problem. But the bigger problem has been the original editor's lying about the contents of the book (or, charitably, complete misunderstanding of what he reads in such a way that it bolsters his position).Westbankfainting (talk) 00:14, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

According to WP:PP an article should not be fully protected when only two people are edit-warring over it. Instead, they should be warned and then blocked but the article should remain editable. Basket of Puppies 00:31, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

It's a pity because it needs to be moved to 1983 West Bank fainting epidemic a far more descriptive and accurate title (since there was no poison, it wasn't an "incident -- went on for 10 dayrs or so --, wasn't just shoolgirls, etc...)Westbankfainting (talk) 00:37, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your move proposal. The current name is entirely inappropriate. I don't think I can move the page while it's fully protected, however. Basket of Puppies 00:41, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I also agree with the proposal. I have been commenting mostly on the talk page to avoid another accusation of edit warring, but I endorse the good work that has been done on the article as well as here by former IP Westbankfainting (would the nickname WBF be ok with you?). betsythedevine (talk) 00:55, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

If consensus is reached for a new title, I can move the article. (It would be better to have a formal move discussion). I see the apparent issues with the sourcing as a collective problem, that all the active editors might want to reflect on. (Nobody has used RSN yet). If there is good consensus that there is no problem with the sources, I suppose I should let it go. I have warned Westbankfainting that if he continues to use terms like 'lying' he may be blocked for personal attacks. EdJohnston (talk) 01:18, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Ed -- Wouldn't you agree that the Centers for Disease Control, The World Health Organization, the Red Cross, Israel's lead psychiatric investigator Albert Hefez, and the then Director General of Israel's Ministry of Health Baruch Modan are good sources for this? And that if they're all in agreement with each other (which they are) and used medical teams to reach their conclusions (which they did) but are completely contradicted by two paragraphs in an opinion column written in 2010 about an event "sometime in the early 1980s" by an opinion columnist who hasn't investigated the epidemic at all that their views should carry the day? If not, why not? Westbankfainting (talk) 01:28, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't talk to the admin, talk to the other editors here. If you can convince them, that's what will change the article. EdJohnston (talk) 01:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

If you're not going to actually think critically about the material and participate, then your involvement is likely to do more harm than good.Westbankfainting (talk) 01:38, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

See WP:ADMIN which explains the role of admins. If you are new to Wikipedia, it would pay to ease off on the lectures. EdJohnston (talk) 01:48, 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)

Am I missing something? Lex Press's website does look really sketchy (the "we'll have a pretty manuscript for you in a couple of weeks!" business and so on), but I can't find an explicit statement that it's pay-to-publish. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:45, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

It is not pay-to-play but according to forums at The Chronicle of Higher Education Lexington Press is very unselective and does no fact-checking. betsythedevine (talk) 05:04, 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)

Title change proposal

I hereby propose that the article be renamed 1983 West Bank fainting epidemic. Please discuss below:

Support

1. As nom. Basket of Puppies 01:34, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
2. Since it's repeatedly called an "epidemic" by all the medical sources and the main stream press.Westbankfainting (talk) 01:37, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
3. Agree, as per discussion above. "West Bank" a better descriptor than "Palestinian schoolgirls" and shorter too. betsythedevine (talk) 01:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
4. Agreed. This seems to be, for now, the most appropriate title. Silverseren^C 02:23, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
5. RS treat it as a medical phenomenon rather than as a political one, in contrast to statements made by those editors who have admitted a desire to spin; proposed title is appropriate. Roscelese (talk ⋅contribs) 04:24, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

   Yawn, yawn, yawn. And all the RS that treat it as a political phenomenon as well? Plot Spoiler (talk) 04:45, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

   Such as? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:46, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

6. Support, much better name (would like to see "epidemic" changed to "episode" as I think that better describes this) Mtking (talk) 04:33, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

   I agree that episode is even better. "1983 Palestinian schoolgirl fainting episode" Plot Spoiler (talk) 04:45, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

7. Support. Supported by the RS. Now that the article was "saved" allowance should be made for improvement of the title off the intended bias.--Severino (talk)
8. Support, with or without "fainting". "Epidemic" is supported by the sources. Both Israeli soldiers and Palestinian girls were affected. Best alt title offered so far. This one is terrible. Tiamut^talk 22:10, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
9. Support. Another scholarly work - Bartholomew, Robert E. (2001). Little Green Men, Meowing Nuns and Head-Hunting Panics: A Study of Mass Psychogenic Illness and Social Delusion - files it (on p. 49) under Epidemic Hysteria in Schools. Konstock (talk) 19:19, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. Clearly the title needs to be changed but I propose "1983 Palestinian schoolgirl fainting incident". This is mainly notable as a political incident, not as a medical phenomenon (as supported by more notable media sources and not obscure journals). Attempting to de-politicize seems to serve other ends. Plot Spoiler (talk) 03:46, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
2. A few comments/objections. #1. Why 1983 in the title? Do we have other such episodes in the same place, but in a different year? #2. The title must include "schoolgirls" because the phenomenon was gender-specific. #3. "Fainting" is questionable and looks like OR to me, because there were other symptoms as well. BTW, the symptoms are poorly described in this article. Did they receive any permanent health damage or not? That tells a lot about possible cause. Did they experience any seizures? Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 19:28, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
3. per Plot spoiler & Hodja Nasreddin. Broccolo (talk) 18:34, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment

• I comment as an uninvolved editor. We can't specify schoolgirls in the title because others who were not schoolgirls also fainted. Why not move to 1983 West Bank fainting phenomenon, (omitting the year if you like)? The word "phenomenon" is totally neutral and faithfully reflects the text in the article. It means "extraordinary or remarkable event" (which it was), something which was "observed or happened" (it did), and something whose "cause or explanation is in question" (which is also true). Article titles can be flexible and don't have to parrot the keywords in the text. For instance the title of the Japan Airlines Flight 123 article doesn't mention that 520 people died, or that the aircraft crashed into a mountain, etc. Doesn't need to because it's all in the text.Moriori (talk) 23:49, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

We must follow the sources. Just look at the titles of publications currently in the list of references in the article: two most common keywords are "schoolgirls" and "poison". They are both present in current title, but none of them can be found in new title that was invented by someone here. Hence the "oppose". I think "epidemic" would be fine. How about Poison epidemic of West Bank schoolgirls? But "epidemic" is more POV than the uncertain "affair". (I am too "uninvolved.") Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 02:33, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

• I'd be fine with that, but it appears that the references call it 'epidemic'. Not sure how much the RS has to support the title, tho. Basket of Puppies 23:54, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

• It appears to me that consensus has been reached on this topic, with 9 supports for rename and 3 opposes. I'll ask an admin to effectuate this name move. Basket of Puppies 01:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Moved.©Geni 01:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

IP allegations

• IP 99.120.1.227 alleges that "some fakers emerged after Sunday April 3, 1983". It is not what the source states. "Since' last Sunday..." The doctor is talking about Sunday, April the third. So since last Sunday not after the girls were faking, and how many girls got "sick" since Sunday, April the third? 350 girls got "sick", almost half of all the cases
• I agree that Israelis newspapers could have published "poison" allegation first , but who were the first one to use the word poison? Arab leaders were. "Yasser Arafat, chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization, declared that it was all part of a "planned and systematic crime against our people." Israeli officials, stung by such accusations, charged that the Palestinians were exaggerating the seriousness of the illness for political effect." So Arafat claimed and Israelis responded after they, Israelis" were "stung". Broccolo (talk) 18:31, 21 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)

Ah. Yes, to finally put this nonesense to bed (it's amazing how your misunderstanding of english text is so consistently in a particular direction). I've finally found an acacemic paper on the matter lead authored by Baruch Modan himself, published in The Lancet on December 31, 1983. The title? "The Arjenyattah Epidemic." ("Arjenyattah a coinage for ARrabba, JENin, and Yattah.) I don't feel like spending $30 to reconfirm what I already know, but here's the abstract (which conforms with the article as it now stands and with every public statement of Modan's as currently reflected in the article): "A massive epidemic of psychogenic aetiology occurred in three districts of the West Bank over two weeks in March-April, 1983. It affected 949 individuals, 727 (77%) of them adolescent females. The symptoms were not accompanied by positive physical signs or by laboratory findings. The epidemiological pattern was pathognomonic of that of a psychogenic disorder. The initial trigger was probably the odour of H2S escaping from a faulty latrine in the schoolyard of the first affected school. Subsequent spread of the disease was due to psychological and extra-medical factors, including publicity by the mass media. Spread was stopped immediately after closure of schools."Westbankfainting (talk) 21:15, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Needed edits

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)

1. Support I support the above requested edit. Basket of Puppies 22:01, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 02:05, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

neutrality

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)

Could you and Gilabrand both explain what it is about your respective preferred versions that you feel is more neutral? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:53, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

It's mostly that the current version more accurately represents the sources used. His edit involved changing words within direct quotes from the sources, i found on review, and was designed to present the epidemic as more one of politics and political propaganda than as an actual epidemic aside from politics (i.e. pushed the actual happenings down below/reduced it's weight relative to attempted propaganda uses). Bali ultimate (talk) 22:41, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

BU: Can you please point to one specific edit that is problematic? I don't see any problems with GB's edits and vague hand waving is not conducive to collaborative editing. Thanks.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:13, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

The edit's in question - which are designed en toto as part of an internet propaganda exercise having to do with the israeli palestinian conflict -- degrade the article into something that is a tool of politics, rather than an accurate, neutral and nuanced account of what happens (the history of this page is fascinating in that regard -- have a look at it's earliest iterations). Information has been selectively removed, in some cases, and other information has been overemphasized, to make Israelis look like victims and Palestinians/their supporters look like a bunch of nasty schemers. On top of everything else, the editors have edited quotes (that is to say they have distorted the words of others -- which all other things aside is gross misconduct). Looking at the history, this article is nowhere near as distorted a propaganda hit piece now as it was when it was started, but it's been slanted back in that direction again, by editors with a very clear agenda. I won't be troubling about this much more. One more distortion of the historic record on Wikipedia? What else is new?Bali ultimate (talk) 15:53, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I have flagged a small sampling of the introduced errors, leaving aside entirely questions of why (for instance) epidemiologists explaining this was very similiar to the laughter epidemic were removed (the reason obviously because the keyboard warriors would like to "de-medicalize" the event as much as possible). The errors and distortions are of such volume that it begs to be reverted back to the prior version for starters (claims that this was a problem of prose are absurd when weighed against the many introduced errors of fact -- factual accuracy is a higher order concern).Bali ultimate (talk) 17:57, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Another good one. What possible reason would an editor interested in accuracy and completeness (rather than carrying on a political squabble via this website) have for removing this text and citation from the old version? The original text was in a section named "accusations and political backdrop." That section has since been rewritten and renamed to (aftermath)Bali ultimate (talk) 19:50, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

• Palestinian officials accused Israelis—either the government or settlers—of using "chemical warfare" to either drive them out of the West Bank or to sterilize their young women. PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat alleged it was part of a "planned and systematic crime against our people." Some Israeli officials accused the Palestinians of using poison to provoke mass demonstrations.[1]

• The Christian Science Monitor reported that events earlier in March had "produced a pervasive atmosphere of distrust throughout the West Bank. West Bankers' fears are fanned by statements like that of Deputy Speaker of the Knesset (parliament) Meir Cohen... who said in mid-March that Israel had made a fatal mistake when it did not drive 200,000 to 300,000 Arabs of Judea and Samaria (biblical names for the West Bank) across the river Jordan in the 1967 war." The Monitor reported that "expulsion of Arabs from the West Bank has been advocated by the Kach movement of American-born Rabbi Meir Kahane, active on the West Bank" and that the outbreak came amid a "major Israeli settlement drive," creating an environment in which Palestinians were ready to believe they were being poisoned by Israel.(Source - "Poison" controversy is latest symptom of distrust on West Bank, Trudy Rubin, The Christian Science Monitor, April 5, 1983)
• On 29 March 1983, the Deputy Permanent Observer of the Palestine Liberation Organization to the United Nations Hasan Abdul Rahman sent a letter to the President of the UN Security Council in which he charged that the fainting spells were caused by Israeli poisoning. Rahman wrote that a "sulfurous powder" was found at two schools, and that a coke bottle containing a "noxious substance" and "emitting fumes" was found at a third school. He concluded "it is without question that a new phase in Israel's campaign of genocide against the Palestinian people has been launched."[9]

• Brigadier Shlomo Iliya, the head of Israel's military administration in the West Bank, said on April 5 that his men had arrested a number of Palestinians, insisting that "political agitators" were behind the outbreak. He told a press conference that "Palestinian student organizations and other political bodies were behind the illness."[10]

• The Israeli government was of two minds about what was going on at the time of the epidemic. While Baruch Modan, the director general of Israel's health ministry believed they were "dealing with a case of mass hysteria rooted in the tense anti-Israeli climate in the occupied West Bank," Brig. Iliya said "we tend to think it was all provocation designed to stir up the normally quiet Jenin streets." Not all military officials agreed with him. Brig. Gen. Moshe Revah, head of the Israeli army's medical corps, acknowledged that 10 Israeli soldiers in Jenin had fallen ill, while two wearing gas masks had not. "Border patrolman are not immune from such phenomena."[11]

Became

• "Palestinian officials accused Israeli of using "chemical warfare" to drive them out of the West Bank and sterilize young women. PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat alleged it was part of a "planned and systematic crime against our people." Some Israeli officials accused the Palestinians of using poison to provoke mass demonstrations.

• On 29 March 1983, the Deputy Permanent Observer of the Palestine Liberation Organization to the United Nations Hasan Abdul Rahman sent a letter to the UN Security Council in which he charged that the fainting spells were caused by Israeli poisoning. Rahman wrote that a "sulfurous powder" was found at two schools, and that a coke bottle containing a "noxious substance" and "emitting fumes" was found at a third school. He concluded "it is without question that a new phase in Israel's campaign of genocide against the Palestinian people has been launched."
• The Israeli military administration said a number of Palestinian "political agitators" were behind the outbreak.[10] Brig. Gen. Moshe Revah, head of the Israeli army's medical corps, reported that 10 Israeli soldiers in Jenin had fallen ill, while two wearing gas masks had not. "Border patrolman are not immune from such phenomena."[11]"

And one more (i will show the original version and the rewritten version). Any neautral observer will see what was done here.

• "Albert Hefez, the lead psychiatric investigator of the epidemic for the Israeli Ministry of Health, found that it spread through the community much like the Tanganyika laughter epidemic, though he also said its spread was boosted by the reporting of the Israeli press and Palestinian distrust of Israel's intentions in the West Bank. "The social and historical context of this incident may throw light on the subsequent snowballing of events," he wrote. "The Djenin area is located in the Jordan West Bank region occupied by Israeli forces since the 1967 six-day war. The Arab population perceives the situation as a temporary occupation but some tend to believe that the Israelis would do anything to perpetuate the status quo."

Became

• "Albert Hefez, the lead psychiatric investigator of the epidemic for the Israeli Ministry of Health, said the reporting of the Israeli press and Palestinian distrust of Israel's intentions in the West Bank may have contributed to the incident. "The social and historical context of this incident may throw light on the subsequent snowballing of events," he wrote."

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)

• Absent any attempt on the part of the other editors to explain why they feel their version was more neutral, I wouldn't have a problem with you restoring your version. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:28, 5 January 2012 (UTC)