Talk:Tomorrow's Pioneers

Palestinian traditions and lifestyles?

• Most of what I'd consider to be Palestinian traditions and lifestyles have little to do with many of the ideas that seem to be espoused on this show. Instead, it may be more appropriate to say that the show deals with Radical Islamist traditions and lifestyles, as the current wording gives the impression that all Palestinians (or maybe a majority thereof?) espouse these sorts of extremist views, which I do not believe to be the case. There's a big difference between a desire for peace and freedom, and a murderous lust for world domination which all of the sources for this show lead me to believe is the ideal it espouses. If anyone feels I'm wrong, you can revert me, but please do also explain why here. Thank you. 71.61.81.160 18:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

One of the translators that CNN use made the following statement that sums that up.

"One cannot be objective and say that this show is a representative of the Palestinian society any more than any right wing televangelist American who calls for "dropping a nuclear bomb on the state department or calling for the assassination of a president of another country and say that such outrageous statements are representative of the American people or culture."

I assume he is refering to the statements that Jerry Falwell made on his own show.

Also while I'm talking about the CNN translation. Shouldn't the MEMRI link in references be deleted since it has been discredited? I'd be ok with it staying as long as there is mention in the article that is has been. Wayne 00:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Has this been verified? So far all I've come across is MEMRI translates it one way, CNN's Arab division translates it another way. Any reliable 3rd party out there that has settled this yet? Tarc 13:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Can anyone provide a reliable and usable link (for WP:V) to that statement from the CNN translators? From what I gather from non-usable/unlinkable blog discussions, there were some errors in the MEMRI transcripts but nothing to suggest wholesale egregious mistranslations. If they are discredited from usable sources that conform to Wikipedia:Reliable sources - it can be incorporated in the article.--Eqdoktor 21:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

There have been individuals who supported the CNN translation but of course we can't use those. I still condemn the program as it has no place in teaching children but if the translation was wrong then it reflects unjustly on the Palestinians. The main differences were:

• Sanable: We want to fight. (CNN: We want to resist)
• Sanabel: I will commit martyrdom. (CNN: I’ll be a martyr) - The head of MEMRI (Yegal) later said in the media that the child meant " committing a suicide bombing" - The CNN version is an acceptable concept in the dictionary definition.
• Sanabel: We will annihilate the Jews. (CNN: The Jews are shooting us)
• Farfour: ..becoming masters of the world.. (CNN:..becoming excellence in the world..) - direct translation ignoring English grammar.

As you can see the mistranslation went beyond simple errors (according to CNN) so there has to be a third party (preferably non Arabic) somewhere to confirm which one is right. In the meantime there is this site that has the Arabic Transcript, Arabic transcript written in English alphabet, English translation and MEMRI's English translation. This may actually be a reliable source from looking at the speaking engagements of the author and his bio. What do you think? Wayne 01:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

After reading some of Abu Khalil's writings I'm now even more inclined to accept him as a source so don't write him off for being Lebanese. Wayne 02:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Since I cannot read/write in Arabic, I cannot make any sort of call on the nature of the claimed errors in the MEMRI transcripts. The matter is not settled. I have read opposing blogs in that CNN is as guilty of selective interpretation as MEMRI is accused of - This blog. Like all debates concerning this region - everyone seems to have their own take... Be that as it may, if anyone can come up with sources that conform to Wikipedia:Reliable sources and not have WP:REDFLAG issues (if its an egregious mistranslation - the world media would have picked up on it stat), it can be put into the article. As it is, translation "issues" appears to be a blogosphere battle which cannot be used in the Wikipedia article (Wikipedia:Reliable sources again). --Eqdoktor 06:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I've reviewed the article and I believe that the MEMRI link is unnecessary (making no judgment call on its disputed nature). I've removed the MEMRI transcript link and replaced it with the CNN article that summarizes the TV program item. The removal of the MEMRI link should not be an issue as:

• The article does not cite the MEMRI transcript as a reference source in the body of the article.
• The article does not directly cite any YOUTUBE video that uses the MEMRI transcript.
• The article does not refer to any of the statements pointed out as possible errors in the transcript (as shown above).

--Eqdoktor 09:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I've found a decent ref from the Guardian newspaper that discusses the issue. Its now detailed and linked in the "controversy" section.--Eqdoktor 17:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is a link to video of Glenn Beck's radio broadcast (2007-05-09) in which he discusses CNN yanking the video. He talks to Yigal Carmon, the head of MEMRI, one of the several groups involved in preparing the translations. He specifically discusses the "The Jews are shooting us" mistranslation. — Loadmaster 19:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

And here is an article in The Guardian espousing the exact opposite view of the translation, stating that Carmon got it (or some of it) wrong. It entirely ignores the whole issue, though, which is the outrage over a children's show preaching the evils of Jews to Palestinian children. — Loadmaster 19:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I've reworded the section to more accurately reflect what is cited in the various sources. Its now labelled "controversy" as MEMRI's Carmon fully insists that their interpretation is correct. The online site that Whitaker wrote in 'Comment is free' is an online blog hosted by the Guardian newspaper for its staff.--Eqdoktor 08:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems clear to me that of the 4 examples shared by Wayne, only one of the examples ("We will annihilate the Jews." vs "The Jews are shooting us") is different in any meaningful way. I have listened to the clip myself it seems to me that the mistranslations most likely comes from the fact that the audio equipment Al-Aqsa TV uses to record the children's voices and then to re-broadcast the Tomorrow's Pioneers is of such poor quality that the translators couldn't make out the proper enunciation through two layers of distortion. If the translators didn't even have access to the original broadcast then they were listening through three layers of distortion as this was a (1)recording of a (2)broadcast of a (3)recording of a child. This triple-distortion is what you get if you watch the youtube clips. I would give both parties the benefit of the doubt here and assume that both translations were good-faith attempts. Thibbs (talk) 01:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

clarification wanted

What is "pull the programme or even change the curriculum" supposed to mean? -- Deipnosophista 20:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

That they refused to pull the program, and they also refused to change the content of the show to a less...controversial style. 216.61.238.76 22:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct. Any educational show, even Hamas-run, has a curriculum of what they cover and what they don't, educationally. -- Zanimum 15:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Hamas refutes message

"Critics such as the Anti-Defamation League have argued[4] that the show promotes anti-American, anti-Israel, and anti-Semitic sentiment, although the producers of the show claim that this is not the case.[5] " The cited article does not have the producers claiming that this is not the message, merely that the West should not dictate children's education in Palestine. Is there another link where they claim it does not promote "anti-American, anti-Israel, and anti-Semitic sentiment?" I didn't see it in any of the other links, but I was skimming them a bit faster. If not, I think we should remove the second part of the sentence. 76.171.1.21 22:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The CNN reference has the producers viewpoint of the show that actually backs up the above line.

The station's deputy manager, Hazem Shaarawi, insisted the show is "about Palestinian kids." "They express their feeling regarding what they witness -- if it's occupation it's about that, and about the prisoners and how to lead the world," Shaarawi said.

I've modified the intro to directly quote this line from Shaarawi but I think its equally as valid left as it is ("although the producers of the show claim that this is not the case."). --Eqdoktor 07:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

That looks good, thanks. I figured that someone probably did say something refuting, but the old citation didn't back it up and I missed it when I went through the links.76.171.1.21 02:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Response Section

An editor has added a paragraph. I'm not happy with it it for several reasons.

• The translations are not included in any reliable translations I've seen. In fact I can only find them repeated in self proclaimed Zionist publications with no attributions and in every case they appear to use the same source.
• Grant Swank seems to have largely copy/pasted his article from the original source that has the interesting title "A disgusting message from the friends of Jimmy Carter, George Soros, Juan Cole, Rashid Khalidi and Norman Finkelstein" which also contains quotes from Mein Kampf and comparisons of Muslims to Nazi's which alone is reason to revert as POV.

I don't like to revert without comment so this was it. Please check sources before editing. Wayne 15:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Revert War over Final Show

I notice there has been a revert war going on over the final show. There are now multiple news sources talking about how the Mouse was killed in the final broadcast. So why does somebody keep deleting this information, even when a poster gives sources for the information? http://www.abcmoney.co.uk/news/29200795734.htm http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1183053066405&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull http://www.kansascity.com/451/story/170693.html http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19509117/ 75.120.83.241 21:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I deleted it the first time it was added, because at that time there was no source given, and it sounded bizarre. Subsequently that was remedied. I guess you can never underestimate the crudity of Hamas propganda efforts... However that may be, there was no real "revert war" that I can see. AnonMoos 02:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly, the "Jew" was also a black person. I wonder if Hamas has similar hatreds towards black as it does towards Jews. - MSTCrow 23:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

It has ended, right? Why does the infobox and other text indicate it is still in production? Dr Sarcastor 23:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

better to wait a little bit (at least one week) before we conclude it is indeed the final show. Jaakobou 23:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, apparently the show is still going, albeit with a new animal. So (unfortunately), the show does go on. Evan1975 04:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

In Prison

Wanted: a reference for this edit. Jaakobou 18:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

issue fixed. Jaakobou 23:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Arabic spelling

The word Farfur is actually not found in the Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic, or I would have already added the Arabic spelling to the article. AnonMoos 13:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Really? That's weird. It's spelled Farfur and Farfour, depending on the source, but strange that they'd use a word that isn't readily used. -- Zanimum 16:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Translation of Farfour

I have read of two different explanations for the meaning of the name Farfour.

1. The one presented in the article currently is that farfour is derived from the "diminutive of fi'r which means 'mouse' in Arabic."
2. The other explanation is that Farfour means 'butterfly' in Arabic.

If there are any native Arabic-speakers editing, I would be interested to know which version is correct. -Thibbs (talk) 01:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC) (repositioned: Thibbs (talk) 14:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC))

Response from Disney?

The Walt Disney Company has been strangely quiet about this. Has the notoriously litigious company said anything about legal action against Pioneers? All this article mentions is Diane Disney Miller. Evan1975 03:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

this was the "no statement" issued: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8P8V2FO1&show_article=1 and an explanation is given here: http://jimhillmedia.com/blogs/jim_hill/archive/2007/05/22/why-the-walt-disney-company-didn-t-release-the-hounds-on-hamas-mickey-mouse-as-well-as-on-shijingshan-amusement-park.aspx

-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Youtube copyright infringement?

I'm not sure about my international copyright law, but doesn't Al-Aqsa TV retain intellectual property rights to this material? If so, linking to youtube videos of the show clearly violates wikipedia policy concerning contributory infringement...
In the words of the guideline, "If you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry [1]). Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors." (Please see: Links normally to be avoided and Restrictions on linking and Linking to copyrighted works) -Thibbs (talk) 22:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

1. 1 - Al Aqsa TV is part of a terrorist organization.
2. 2 - Al Aqsa TV is not a legal entity sanctioned by any country.
3. 3 - There is no international licensing covering distribution of this racist stuff outside of Arab countries where it sells (along with Mein Kampf and The Protocols of the Elders of Zion oh so very well.
4. 4 - you're obviously more interested in trying to hide the shows and their translation from people than any so-called "copyright" claim.

I call bullshit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ForeverFreeSpeech (talk • contribs) 22:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Well I'm sorry you feel that way, ForeverFreeSpeech. Like I said I don't know the ins and outs of copyright law as it applies to foreign or even terrorist organizations and I would certainly question the bredth of your understanding of these laws given your points #1-3. As far as pont #4 goes, I can assure you that my intention is the exact opposite of hiding the translations of this show from people. I invite you to re-examine the extent of the edits I have made to this article to see exactly how much "hiding" I actually did. Personally, I believe their actions are deplorable and I take offense that you presume I am trying to hide any of their actions from the world.

I can also assure you that if this had been any article with links to YouTube I would seek that they be removed. YouTube is well known as a haven for copyright infringers and I doubt you will find many reputable articles on wikipedia which link to YouTube clips. I have referred this matter to the copyright people at wikipedia and I think we should defer to their judgment. As further support for my argument, several of the links you wish to retain are "dead links" with no video at the end, and I would wager that the remaining "good links" will be "dead" within a few years. YouTube videos disappear all the time and they seem like a very poor method to use as citation in the article. I have created alternative cites to the videos in the manner prescribed by the wikipedia guidelines which you deleted just previously. I have re-inserted them.

I would aslo like to note that I have seen text transcripts of the video at the MEMRI site and I think that those would be very appropriate citations. If someone wants to see the actual videos they can easily access them by doing a simple search on YouTube (not to mention simply searching in Google). I contemplated inserting a line in the article which would discuss the existence of the videos on youtube, but I though this might also fall afoul of contributory infringement laws. I suppose the obliquest possible reference could be made that "Videos of the show with translation subtitles are common online," without explicit reference to YouTube, but I believe the YouTube videos (at least) are completely without merit. -Thibbs (talk) 02:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Calm is needed. Thibbs, perhaps you can bring up the links you wish deleted and list what you wish to substitute? That would help your case, to prove there is 1:1 parity and nothing missing. M1rth (talk) 03:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you M1rth. I am interested in removing the YouTube clips which are being used as citations for quotes in this article. I had previously deleted them and replaced them with citations to the episode following (Template:Cite_episode) due to my understanding that YouTube linking was discouraged in the interest of avoiding contributory copyright infringement. I am unsure of the copyright status of such materials since as far as I know Palestine has never signed a copyright treaty with the US, however I posted a link at (Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions) to ask for clarification.

The way I see it:

• (1)To be properly cited these videos must be put in Template:Cite_episode format (which does include a section for url if video is copyright free and if we must have video clips)
• (2)I would shy away from using YouTube clips wherever we could and instead link to MEMRI or PMW clips (if we absolutely had to have video links).
• (3)Since some of the MEMRI clips currently displayed are in fact dead links, and this seems to be the nature of most internet video clips, I would much rather use translated transcripts which the MEMRI have provided online and which have a greater likelihood of remaining online.

Here are a few of the transcripts which I feel would be more appropriate as citations: Example 1, Example 2, Example 3, Example 4, Example 5, Example 6, Example 7, and Example 8. Further transcripts can be found here. I think this would do away with a need for any of the videos currently linked to in lieu of proper citation.

Does this sound like a good idea? -Thibbs (talk) 04:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we should include both the video and the transcripts. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 05:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

p.s. some of the video's are by PMW and not by Memri. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 05:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, for now I'll do phase one of my above plan since I think this one is ovbious. So I'll put the links to the videos into the url section of the citation template wikipedia gives. It appears that the copyright people are against links to any YouTube videos so I will delete those, and additionally I will delete the dead non-YouTube links. I'd love to hear from anyone who actually knows international copyright law whether the videos are in violation because as much as I disapprove of the actions of the group who produced this material, I do think their rights before the law ought to be respected. -Thibbs (talk) 21:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

OK I have finished this now and referring to my last post, that was steps (1)-(3) not just step (1). I actually modified my steps (2) and (3), however, by de-linking dead links and youtube clips rather than deleting them. Deleting them would have indicated that there was no source for the statements, and this is clearly incorrect. I only deleted two cited links entirely, but neither of them were in proper citation form and were nothing more than a naked url. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thibbs (talk • contribs) 22:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

comment - the removal of the PMW youtube links are unacceptable. PMW have a policy of publishing straight to youtube and they have their own user: pmwvideos which you just removed [2]. Please correct this issue asap. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I have just been adding several transcripts. I think I added all of the MEMRI transcripts and I have added several of the PMW transcripts as well. There are more PMW transcripts which could be added and I'll try to see what I can do to add these at a later date. As I add them it strikes me that the videos are almost completely redundant as far as the information goes. Nothing would be lost from an understanding of the article by simply linking to the transcripts. Similarly, the PMW and MEMRI videos were often videos of the same episodes and thus completely redundant. Nothing is lost by only retaining the links to one copy of each episode.

Althout PMW posts directly to YouTube, they also post asx files on their website which I think is a more appropriate way to view them if they don't violate copyright after all. These asx files can be accessed through the transcripts I have been posting. Wikipedia's policy is to rarely link to external videos if at all possible. Rather, if videos are necessary for a full understanding of the article then they should be uploaded to wikimedia and linked properly. -Thibbs (talk) 00:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, something is lost when you link only the transcript and not the visual, which is an understanding of the (mostly visual) childrens'-appeal nature of the television show. There has to be a better solution than the way you're going about this, Thibbs. M1rth (talk) 19:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Note: I've reinserted the removed PMW vids. They officialy publish on that youtube channel. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I won't remove any videos since you guys seem to think they are legal and necessary (and this is becoming an editing war), however I would note that

1. From what the people at Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions are saying it sounds like linking to youtube is against wikipedia policy under ANY circumstance.
2. To be properly cited these videos must be put in Template:Cite_episode format (which does include a section for url if video is copyright free and if we must have video clips). If the videos are not intended as cites then they belong in the External Links area.
3. I am still doubtful that even non-YouTube clips would be legal considering copyrights reserved to Al-Aqsa TV (I still have received no answer about this from the legal people)
4. Wikipedia has a policy concerning video uploads here, which seems to me to be the ideal solution (unless the videos are too large). I think this may be exactly the better solution you're searching for, M1rth.

I don't really object to the videos. I've had a change of heart and I agree with you M1rth, that the video does, after all, add something to the article. I simply have never seen video linking at wikipedia, and I thought this was due mainly to copyright rules. If the videos do not violate copyright and are cited correctly then I have no issue with them at all. I'm not sure where to direct my copyright questions seeing as Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions only told me that youtube was to be avoided and didn't touch on the specific legality of using the videos in non-youtube form. I suppose I could ask the arbitrators, but I feel silly doing that since I don't think we're in need of arbitration here. Do any of you have any good idea where on wikipedia I could ask for help in clarifying the copyright laws? -Thibbs (talk) 23:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Final word: The copyright people have written back and their views can be found here [here]. To summarize what they said:

1. Wikipedia is governed by US Copyright law.
2. Palestine exists in legal limbo and as such the safest (in terms of falling within copyright laws) is for us to consider it as governed by the laws of Israel.
3. Israel and the US are both WIPO members and as such the US respects Israeli (and by extension of #2, Palestinian) copyrights.
4. If the works do enjoy copyright protection then we cannot link to either complete videos or complete transcripts.
5. If the works do not enjoy copyright protection then we should not link to youtube anyway since youtube hosts other videos which infringe upon other copyrights. Rather we should link to the MEMRI versions of the videos.

So, it is now clear that what the copyright people are saying is that, firstly, due to point #5 we cannot link to youtube even if it is the official PMW publications due to general youtube infringement (this was my gut feeling anyway). Secondly, due to point #4, we cannot use complete transcripts of videos although we can use partial ones. I know all of the videos currently linked to from this article are not complete episodes so I think we are safe there, and I will check the transcripts in a few days.
I will make the appropriate changes by removing the youtube urls, and if anyone can find MEMRI versions or other non-youtube versions then we should try to use those to replace the ones I will have removed. As I said before, I think uploading to wikimedia is a better solution than the way we've been going about this. The incomplete PMW videos would be fine except for the fact that they are hosted at youtube, so if anyone wants to upload the .asx files which PMW produces to wikimedia then I think that would be a boon to the article. Similarly, any youtube clips could probably be uploaded to wikimedia to clear them of association with youtube. -Thibbs (talk) 22:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Memri versions are not the same as the PMW versions and the copyright people's "preferences", on where to take material from, neglects that PMW uses the site as an official outlet. If you wish to remove any videos you will have to pursue official mediation on this one. see WP:DR. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe the copyright people's "preferences" do take into account that PMW uses the site as an official outlet. I did mention this fact in my question to them (new link: here) and it seems clear to me that they read the whole question. To suggest that they didn't take this point into consideration strikes me as a groundless supposition. What are you basing this on? I agree they did not make specific mention of the fact but I believe this is because they find YouTube as a whole to "host obviously infringing content." I think the differences in translation should perhaps be added to the translation section of the article with citations to the non-infringing transcripts which contain the subtitles in question. Although I eventually came to see M1rth's point about the benefit of including the actual videos, I believe that two versions of the same video with slightly different translations would be redundant in a way which could be prevented by simply linking to the non-infringing video and the PMW transcripts.

If you are dead-set on the article containing links to the PMW videos I would suggest downloading the PMW's .asx files which it hosts on its website and then visiting Wikimedia to upload. In terms of copyright, this would probably be the safest option discussed so far (apart from the non-use of the videos) considering that the copyright team at Wikimedia seem to really know their copyright law well. -Thibbs (talk) 02:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no objection to you replacing the youtube link with a link to a wikimedia uploaded .asx file. I can't support removal of integral content without proper substitute. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

As I've explained this is in no way integral content. The video aspect doesn't seem to be your concern but rather the textual English translations. The PMW transcripts will certainly suffice.

Furthermore I again draw your attention to the position taken by the people at Media copyright questions: they agree with the removal of all YouTube clips. I'm not sure what the next step is if you disagree with this third party opinion. Are you expected to abide by independent decisions obtained through official channels? Or perhaps there are ways in which you can gain a second or third opinion to overrule the copyright people? I'm not very well-versed in dispute resolution. -Thibbs (talk) 15:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

"storylines designed to indoctrinate Palestinian children with hatred"

This is not a neutral statement which simply reports the facts. I believe it is clear that this program indoctrinates Palestinian children with hatred, myself, but I believe this point can be achieved by simply reporting the facts and refraining from violating WP:NPOV. -Thibbs (talk) 17:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

So if MEMRI's translations have been challenged...

why are they being cited as reliable sources?P4k (talk) 03:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can see the reliability of the MEMRI translations as a whole is not at issue. The only difference that has been suggested here in talk comes from one episode, #101, where the MEMRI and CNN translations differ substantially. Otherwise the two different versions (CNN and MEMRI) seem very comparable. See above. -Thibbs (talk) 04:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tomorrow%27s_Pioneers&curid=11154936&diff=196711942&oldid=196691683

Feel free to explain what the problem with my edits was.P4k (talk) 07:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

First, you were stripping sources. Second, you appear to be removing a perfectly valid description. According to policy, this looked to me more like an attempt to "slow vandalize", e.g. slip bad edits past people watching by making tiny bits at a time. Care to explain why you were removing sources? M1rth (talk) 07:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Because they weren't reliable, like I said in my edit summaries. One is a blog, the other is world net daily.P4k (talk) 07:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The other thing: I don't think the rabbit looks like bugs bunny, so provide a source for it if you want to say it.P4k (talk) 07:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Reference on Bugs: link. On the rest, stop trying to push out things without discussion. As I understand it those links have remained through consensus of editors. M1rth (talk) 07:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

...Whatever. The sources aren't reliable, they don't deserve to stay just because no one's objected to them up to now.P4k (talk) 07:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

If you want to change consensus, make a good point rather than trying to be sneaky about removing things. M1rth (talk) 07:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

blogs aren't reliable, world net daily isn't reliable.P4k (talk) 08:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Also can you please stop commenting on my motives?P4k (talk) 08:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

M1rth, I know that you're familiar with at least some of WP policies, such as WP:BITE and WP:BLOCK, since you've cited them extensively in the past. This shows a remarkable learning curve for such a new user and I congratulate you. I suggest you move on to examine WP:V, one of our core content policies, which clearly disallows a random .blogspot.com cite, and is near-universally understood to disallow Front Page Magazine for most purposes. <eleland/talkedits> 18:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Use of quotation marks

I believe that the use of quotes around words like "martyred" and phrases like 'life in Palestine' (both in the intro) are either in violation of WP:AWT or are simply gramatically incorrect. Quotes are most commonly used in text to signal actual quotations or to signal ironic usage. (The full list of all seven uses can be found here). In this case I think it would be factually incorrect to say that the quoted portions I listed above were ironically used when the intro clearly indicates that we are speaking withing the context of the show. By this I mean that the show doesn't say Farfour was "martyred" but rather that he was martyred (without quotes). The way it has been edited now is the syntactic equivalent of changing the description (randomly taken from the Big bird article) from:

the six-foot yellow bird can roller skate, ice skate, dance, sing, write poetry, draw and even ride a unicycle.

to

the six-foot yellow bird can "roller skate", "ice skate", "dance", "sing", "write poetry", "draw" and even "ride a unicycle."

Such ironic usage in the context of the show is simply incorrect despite the fact that we the audience in the real world know that the giant mouse was not literally martyred. If instead the quotes are intended to provide quotations then I would suggest that they be expanded into clear quotation length (more than one word), and that they be properly cited. I propose the removal of these quotation marks and potentially others like them. -Thibbs (talk) 08:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

You can't compare "martyred" with "write poetry" and expect me to take the two to be equivocal. The show's "martyred" is completely different than the mainstream comprehension of 'martyrdom' - and that includes half of the Muslim world, not just the western world. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

You've missed my point. Within the context of the show, Farfour's martyrdom is every bit as real as Big bird's poetry writing. The two are syntactically equivalent insofar as both are examples of fictional activities treated non-ironically within the context of the shows they are in. Does this make sense to you? -Thibbs (talk) 08:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand your position, but disagree with it due to the "ambivalent" nature of use of terms. The propaganda display uses phrases like "martyred [by the pig Jews]", "resistance [against the evil non-muslims]" and I will never accept anything other than a quotation marking on 'martyred' within this propaganda context. If you have other suggestions on taking on the abused terminology and making it clear that the show's own context is not generally accepted (unlike roller skating and dancing), I'm open for suggestions. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of whether or not you agree with the use of the terminology, within the context of the show this ambivalent usage is the usage the creators have given it. I understand that you might find the concept of the martyrdom of a costumed animal character to cheapen the word "martyrdom," however this is the usage that the creators of the show have chosen and if one is to report accurately on the show in the show's own terms, then one must avoid the error of using the ironic form. It is incorrect to say that "two previous animal character co-hosts ... were later also 'martyred' in a story which blamed Israel..." because this implies that "in [the] story which blamed Israel," "co-hosts ... were later also 'martyred'." In reality the show would not have employed the ironic form as this would hurt their own biased position. Taking the show in its own terms surely you would agree that the creators did not intend anything ironic about the "martyrdom" of the characters. Please don't think I am equating the seriousness of the "martyrdom" in this show with the "roller skating" in Sesame Street. I merely used this example to illustrate that when speaking within the context of a show the ironic use of quotes is inappropriate. Just as the creators of Tomorrow's Pioneers would not say "Farfour was 'martyred,'" likewise the creators of Sesame Street would not say "Big bird 'roller skates.'" -Thibbs (talk) 09:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

As it stands now it is either gramatically wrong or it violatesWP:AWT. I don't think it will be misleading to readers that this is not the standard use of the term if it is clearly explained in the text of the intro that the "martyrdom" is in the context of the show. Perhaps you could add a section on the normal (and contrary) viewpoint if you think that would benefit the article, but I would argue that the intro should explain the show on its own terms as does the article on Sesame Street. -Thibbs (talk) 09:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I somewhat agree with your concerns regarding the possible ironic implication (i.e. possible need for clarification). I give you free reign to try and fix the phrasing in a way that explains the term to be from the show's perspective (albeit, not a generally accepted description)... I may play with it a tad (in hopes for a version agreed upon by the both of us) but if it fits both our concerns, I won't touch it.

Here's a suggested phrasing on a similar situation that I can agree to - Hamas movement hailed a deadly attack on a Jewish religious school in Jerusalem tonight as "heroic,".

cheers, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

made an attempt, hope it suits you. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, it's not ideal for me, but anyway this is a pretty minor point all in all. I'll see if I can think of anything at some point in the future. Let me note that I understand your arguments, too, and I think they are valid. I think we are approaching the article from two different and equally useful vantage points. You are speaking externally to the show from the vantage point of our reality and I am speaking internally within the show's reality. Both viewpoints are necessary for a complete understanding of the show but efforts should be made to clearly separate the two vantage points from each other within the article so as to avoid confusion and error. Anyway for now I'll leave it as is.

Out of curiosity, what was the rationale behind putting 'life in Palestine' in quotes? Surely the children are discussing their versions of actual life in Palestine, right? Was this a direct quote or is it intended to suggest that life in Palestine is not really like it is described by the children? -Thibbs (talk) 18:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The show's level of indulgence in it's 'loaded' perspective makes it that, to even describe it is cause for linguistic and historical errors. I wouldn't want to get deep into the conflict, but politically speaking even if 'Palestine'; is suddenly an acceptable terminology for a current day territory (and I'm not certain it is), certainly Hamas has a different perspective on what constitutes this 'Palestine' than a mainstream perception of what it might be... There's also the issue of the fable stories the show tells to be "their lives", it might be correct to describe it as the narratives Hamas indoctrinates them with, but surely not as 'their lives'.

I hope this is some type of answer to your curiosity.

Cheers, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

As far as the differences between the show's version of reality and actual reality, I think the two versions should both be presented in the article, but presented separately to avoid confusion. This will probably require a major rework of the intro among other things.

As to 'life in Palestine,' I think I understand. You are saying that Saraa and her co-host are discussing 'life in Palestine' while the call-in guest children are discussing (at least their understanding of) life in Palestine (without quotes). Is that about right? -Thibbs (talk) 23:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I think your suggestion might work, but it might send the article in the direction of WP:TOPIC. I don't think you got my suggestion regarding 'life in palestine' completely... life in Gaza is so loaded that I'd rather not 'explain' all the "truth!", false and indoctrinated narratives that goes on there. I would not want to soapbox, but since you're asking for clarifications, here's a short documentary that perhaps helps understand a little bit. Please also remember my previous note regarding 'Palestine' and the validity of the term, esp. when Hamas is involved. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

(Zooming indents back out) - I finally had a little time to look at the intro again and it seems that in some of Jaakobou's previous re-arrangements the intro had been changed such that the perspective from within-the-show's-reality has now become a real-world perspective. This is different than it was, but I think it's just as valid a way to introduce the topic and in fact I think it is most likely the superior method. As long as perspective remains consistent throughout (as it is) I would now keep the intro in its current form. I made a few style changes which I hope shouldn't be objectionable in any way, and I deleted the "(died/killed)" part which had been added to satisfy me earlier because as I read it now it is fine without this and it seems to clutter the sentence unnecessarily. Thank you for trying to address my concerns though, Jaakobou. I did appreciate that. -Thibbs (talk) 21:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Judaism, Zionism, and Israel

(from above) ...I made a few style changes which I hope shouldn't be objectionable in any way, and I deleted the "(died/killed)" part which had been added to satisfy me earlier because as I read it now it is fine without this and it seems to clutter the sentence unnecessarily. Thank you for trying to address my concerns though, Jaakobou. I did appreciate that. -Thibbs (talk) 21:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you got the 'evils of Zionism' bit as I was working from within the referenced text. I'm semi-changing this a bit back since my version was based on the reference and it's more accurate also. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Zionism was a bigger issue in the episode of the death of Farfour than Israeli identity. Your source explains this in the Feb 11 section. 'Evils of Zionism' is not a direct quote, of course, but I intended it as alternate/ironic construction just like 'life in Palestine.' I would say that the degree to which the concept of Zionism was implicated in Farfour's death might warrant its inclusion in a combined statement about where blame was laid by the show's creators for the deaths of Nahoul and Farfour. I'm sure in the minds of the creators, the Israeli "siege of Gaza" (which Nahoul's death was blamed upon) was perpetuated by the same Zionists who they blamed for Farfour's death. It just struck me that this was reading a little creatively into the unspoken thoughts of the show's creators. Do you see what I mean or do you think this is just a matter of personal preference? -Thibbs (talk) 22:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I understood where you were going, but I felt it goes into the ambiguous propaganda terminology realm a bit much and decided it is my preference to stick with the source's paragraph and limit a bit on the show's distorted narratives since it would be impossible to cram so much input on the fallacies of their logic into such a small paragraph (their "anti-zionism" is actually Quran inspired Islamist antisemitism and has very little to do with the Jewish national liberation movement). Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

p.s. I'm still open to interesting suggestions if you have them. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that the inclusion of Zionism in the intro as one of the show's stated targets would require anyone to cram any of the fallacies of the producers' logic into the intro. The intro, as I understand it, is meant to describe what the show is about and not to illustrate what its numerous inaccuracies are or where they lie. Despite their incorrect understanding of Zionism, this is the term they have chosen to use in the episode in which Farfour is "martyred". In this particular episode, in fact, the concept of Zionism takes the central role and is directly blamed for the death of the co-host, Farfour. This is strongly supported by the Feb 11 section of your source (mid-way down).

Don't mistake me, certainly I believe the creators blame the Israelis as well. In fact it seems that they conflate the two terms frequently, however in the interest of accurately describing groups targeted by the producers to blame for the "deaths" of their animal characters it seems that Zionists would be an necessary group to at least mention. Jews would be another important target to mention, again despite the fact that the producers would doubtless consider all three categories as one and the same. My suggestion is to change the line which limits the blame to Israelis to instead include all three main categories of people upon which the show blames the "deaths" of its characters, namely Jews, Israelis, and Zionists. I would submit that the version I had written before does exactly this in a neutral manner. Do you disagree?

From edits made earlier today it seems that Pedro Gonnet agrees with my analysis. It should be noted that M1rth's revert is meritless as in this case the remarked-upon violations of WP:NPOV were made by Al-Aqsa TV and not by any wikipedia editor. This very NPOV violation is, in fact, rather the theme of the article. -Thibbs (talk) 21:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

(a) Not to justify M1rth, Pedro and I went through a ridiculous mediation (I'll spare you the details). So I respectfully request that you don't use his 'opinion' as a "relevant point" (if he brings up sources though, that is more than valid). (b) I'm not sure you've understood my point about the problem of giving too much narrative points to ambiguous terminology.

I understood your suggestion, but I disagree that we need separate and create another "new" terminology about the terms 'Israel', 'Zionism' and 'Jews'... clearly, mainstream perceptions and interpretations of them is not the same as that of the show. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not certain I fully understood your last post. I think it would be entirely appropriate to cite groups that the show has specially mentioned and targeted for blame while discussing that very topic. It is valid to say "the show blames Israel and Israelis" but I think it is more accurate to say "the show blames Jews, Zionists, and Israelis" or something along those lines. I recognize that the show puts a spin on those words, but those are the very words they use in the show and as such they are explicitly the targets blamed. By blaming the Zionist, the show attacks Zionism (which extends beyond Israel). By blaming the Jew the show attacks Judaism (which again extends beyond Israeli membership). To limit the blame which the show levels to only Israel and Israelis you imply that the show's message bears only local import. I believe that this is incorrect. While Israel is probably the show's biggest target, the show does not address the matter so narrowly. It seems to me that by narrowing the language in the article to only one of the three main target groups you've justified their use of the terms 'Jew' and 'Zionist' as simply euphemisms for 'Israeli.' I don't believe that the text and language of the show necessarily warrant such justifications.

I haven't yet heard any reasonable explanation for suppressing the accusations of the shows creators against Jews and Zionists in favor of mentioning only the Israelis. Just because the show incorrectly uses the terms doesn't mean that they have not repeatedly and specifically used those precise terms as targets for blame. Understand that I don't wish to use all three terms to attack the goals of the show but merely to provide an objectively accurate and full description of their explicitly stated targets of blame. In such highly politicized matters, self-censorship in reporting on the primary sources could be construed as distinctly suspect.

I don't want to get into your mediation problems with Pedro Gonnet, but I take it that they have been settled now and surely his opinion counts for just as much as yours or mine. If you would really be opposed to acknowledging his input then perhaps we should ask for a third party opinion on this matter. Or have my arguments made any impact? -Thibbs (talk) 01:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that the show does not target "Zionists" but rather attacks the shows extremely perverted version of what they teach children that Zionism is... clearly, if a middle east show portrays an Israeli leader as drinking the blood of Arab children, it is not an attack on that leader's "love for Arab children's blood". I'm open to some form of mediation on how to phrase this in a neutral manner, but as of now, I haven't seen one that works for me... the show has an anti-Israel Islamo-fascist agenda, the term "zionism" (and others as well) is just part of it's sloganeering and has very little to do with actual meaning of the term. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

You have stated that "if a middle east show portrays an Israeli leader as drinking the blood of Arab children, it is not an attack on that leader's "love for Arab children's blood."" I agree with this. Such a show would through its own portrayal be blaming the Israeli. This is true even if the shows creators had never met an Israeli, knew nothing about them, and imagined them to be demons. The fact that the show used the Israeli in its portrayal directly supports this.

Thus, I am not suggesting that we claim Tomorrow's Pioneers is attacking the Jews' and Zionists' "love for Arab children's blood." (to use your example) but rather that the show attacks Jews and Zionists. Since the show attacks these groups by name as well as (arguably) by portrayal, it is proper to cite these groups as targets of the show and it is an arguable violation of WP:NPOV to suppress these accusations.

I like your idea of mediation. It seems I am entirely unable to convince you that despite the lack of understanding which the show demonstrates, its explicitly stated targets remain targets since the wider audience may well have a full understanding. To analogize, the Ku Klux Klan's explicit views of blacks are certainly distorted beyond reality however blacks remain among those that would commonly understood to be the targets of the KKK. To elide the term 'blacks' in a discussion of the KKK's targets would violate WP:NPOV despite the KKK's lack of understanding of the term. -Thibbs (talk) 16:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Putting your words into consideration, I'm now thinking that the addition of 'Jews' and 'Danish' would be a good inclusion. I don't think that "Zionists" fit the attacked group, because the show (to be colorful in phrasing:) "doesn't have a clue". So, to clarify, I'm very open to adding 'Jews' and 'Danish' as attacked groups.

And, I'm also open to a phrasing that states the show attacks it's own perception of Zionism, perhaps with adding a source that notes this perception to be a "Evil Jeoos rule the world" propagandish mis-perception rather than a "debatably" correct one. Anyways, like I've stated, I'm open to suggestions (or some form of mediation) on how to phrase this in a neutral manner, but as of now, I haven't seen one that works for me. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 01:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not agree with the idea that including the term 'Zionism' in a list of Hamas' targets (or the targets of the show's creators anyway) requires an explanations that Hamas misunderstands Zionism. I think such an explanation would be unnecessary, however I suppose if it's a good compromise neither side should be completely satisfied and in the end it would probably be more valuable to include too much information than too little. Anyway, putting my objections against this aside here is what I have come up with:

First "tweak" (previous version)

• As such, two previous animal character co-hosts, the Mickey-Mouse-lookalike Farfour and Nahul the bee, were used to "champion violence, promote hatred of Israel and preach about world Islamic supremacy." Both of these characters were later also, as the show described them, "martyred" in plot-lines either directly or implicitly blaming Israeli Jews and furthering the show's message of the 'evils of Zionism.'

Partial reversion (previous version, changes bolded)

• As such, two previous animal character co-hosts, the Mickey-Mouse-lookalike Farfour and Nahul the bee, were used to "champion violence, promote hatred of Israel and preach about world Islamic supremacy." Both of these characters were later also, as the show described them, "martyred" in plot-lines either directly or implicitly blaming Israel and Israelis for their death and furthering the show's anti-Israeli message.

Proposed compromise (proposed changes bolded)

• As such, in furtherance of the show's anti-Israeli message, two previous animal character co-hosts (the Mickey-Mouse-lookalike Farfour and Nahoul the bee) were used to "champion violence, promote hatred of Israel and preach about world Islamic supremacy." Both of these characters were later also, as the show described them, "martyred" in plot-lines either directly or implicitly blaming their deaths upon The Jews, Israel, Israelis, and/or what they believe to be Zionists.

Thoughts? -Thibbs (talk) 20:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Seeing no opposition, I have gone ahead and made the change. I hope this satisfies everyone. Please discuss it here if there is a problem rather than reverting immediately. -Thibbs (talk) 15:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

One final quick note: I should probably explain that the reason I neglected to add the term 'Danish' as well is that the show does not blame the "martyrdom" of Farfour or Nahoul either directly or implicitly upon the Danes. The sentence would be factually incorrect as it currently stands if the Danish were included. Perhaps this target group could be inserted elsewhere in the article, though. -Thibbs (talk) 17:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Importance ratings

Since Jaakobou feels the need to revert me here, I'd like to have a discussion on the proper WikiProject importance ratings for this article. I can't for the life of me imagine that anybody seriously believes this article is about as important as Geography of Israel, Supreme Court of Israel, Palestinian Arabic, United Nations Security Council Resolution 338 etc. Come on, people. <eleland/talkedits> 20:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a current event of high to mid importance level to at least one of the projects. I can agree to taking one of them down to 'low' and the other to 'medium'. Cheers, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Huh? "High" importance?? ...are we next going to make Donald Duck "high importance" for USA? Is the a joke? IF it is a current event, well, use the "current event" template. Regards, Huldra (talk) 13:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

.Ok, I see that Gilabrand has changed the importance level to "High" for wikiproject Israel; and if the Israelis on the project say that, then I certainly accept it. My comment above about the "High" level was basically for wikiproject Palestine, (it was the one I saw), which I maintain was/is/should be "low" (unless the Palestinians on WP say anything else.) Regards, Huldra (talk) 13:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

In-Universe Tone

It is important to establish the familial relationships of characters in a show in order to fully understand the show's dynamics. All articles which I have seen on wikipedia which deal with fictional families clearly illustrate the familial relationships and this serves to explain why the characters interact the way they do. Although due to the inflammatory nature of the show, most readers of this article will probably be primarily interested in the political elements of the show, yet it is necessary that explanations of the in-universe convolutions not be dismissed as simply "po-faced" or "goofy" and summarily deleted. Jaakobou has frequently brought up the concern that readers may confuse politically controversial in-universe elements such as the "martyrdom of Farfour" for reality and while I think this takes a particularly dim view of the general readership I suppose it is safest to hold the more radical in-universe statements to a heightened standard of reporting. As such, Jaakobou and I have extensively discussed the use of quotation marks (see above) to indicate an external ironic construction thereby distancing the show's reality from that of actual reality. I do not believe that such a distancing is required in non-political contexts, however. For the reasons just given I will re-insert the section regarding the nature of the in-universe familial relationship between Uncle Hazim, Nahoul, and Assoud. -Thibbs (talk) 01:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

dnftt.P4k (talk) 02:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I may be mistaken but I think he's serious about it. He seemed genuinely concerned.-Thibbs (talk) 05:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Links to samples of the show and shows with similar intent

Would this add anything to the article? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWIFhKYiMqU&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=so5U1lhpb9M&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=so5U1lhpb9M&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9lL81QhiR8&NR=1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gi-c6lbFGC4&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5S995NCeaUg&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tneSE6nJiLw&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcmHvczBGqg&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZEGsnWZKh8&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSwpAX1xvrc&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ExZVimjST8&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFz8DwvJP6Q&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FsuF1it68tg&feature=related

Shows with similar intent: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4e8FpFkBRM&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yw2EisVqKZ4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhbHVEGnYD8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rm8CrkPa3Ao http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixNvWo3vbXU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_zoZvPHbfg 69.234.204.165 (talk) 17:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

We have discussed this in depth above. The consensus of the copyright department is that YouTube clips should be avoided since YouTube links to other copyrighted material. I believe that the reason this is considered unacceptable is that it violates contributory infringement laws.

That said, although I was originally opposed to videos on wikipedia in general, I have changed my mind and I now think that the clips you have provided links for would potentially be a useful addition to the article. Since we are unable to link to YouTube, however, the way to go about this while distancing wikipedia from YouTube is to upload these clips to Wikimedia here. As I suggested earlier this would provide additional validation for the use of these videos since the wikimedia people tend to subject the videos to a thorough review and this would help settle my fears that irrespective of anything else these videos violate international copyright law. (if this is the case then even the Memri clips will have to go.)

Note: Many of the links you provided are links to PMW videos. The PMW hosts .asx versions of these videos on its website which are freely downloadable. Although they may have to undergo conversion to another file format in order to be uploaded at wikimedia, this would probably be the best source for them if you are interested in the PMWs videos particularly. I believe User:Jaakobou was keen on their inclusion too, so perhaps the two of you could work together.

Thanks for the suggestion though, and good luck getting them uploaded. I would love to see them up here under the proper license and in a non-contributorily-infringing context.

-Thibbs (talk) 19:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Condoleezza Vs. Condoleeza

Translations of the Tomorrow's Pioneers episode broadcast on April 20, 2007 have incorrectly misspelled the name of Condoleezza Rice as "Condoleeza." That this misspelling can be attributed to the translators and not to a wikieditor is indicated by use of the phrase "[sic]" immediately following the word "Condoleeza" in the quotation in the article. Since it is wikipolicy that accuracy of sources maintain a high priority for good editors (see WP:SOURCE), it is preferrable to use the misspelled but accurate version over a properly spelled but inaccurate/sourceless one. I assume the edits which have been made in the past were good-faith and I applaud the efforts of these detail-oriented editors however for the reasons just given we must allow this misspelling to remain as-is. Cheers, Thibbs (talk) 22:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Plot

I notice a tag has been added to the episodes section that suggests they are too long and too detailed. This is probably accurate, and this portion of the article should be reexamined. I think it is important, however, for us to retain as much of the context that this section provides us with as possible. Mentions of and links to political and historical figures, for instance, I believe should be retained whenever possible. References to political events like battles, wars, and treaties, and references to geographical locations should also be retained. The show is so divisive that without this context all we are left with are highly biased articles for reference. I have tried hard to include both viewpoints in the article's main body but I think the Episodes subsection is highly important as a third perspective - one from directly within the show. This way we the readers can see what cultural touchstones are invoked and get a much better sense of where the show is coming from. With that said, I think everything that's been trimmed up till now has been apprpriate since it has dealt stricty with the removal of physical-action plot and has left references to the greater world intact. -Thibbs (talk) 16:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Image Caption

"Farfour mimes carrying an AK-47 in episode 103 of the series." How could it be episode 103 if there are only four seasons with 17 episodes apiece in the info section..in my books 4 x 17 is only 68... -Raudys (talk) 14:39, 13 April 2009 (ET) Are you retarded? The 1 means season 1 and the 03 means Episode 3. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.192.10.107 (talk) 18:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

You can't count to ONE-HUNDRED-AND-THREE can you? Sometimes periods help. Ex. 1.03 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.166.112.82 (talk) 03:18, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

anti-caucasian themes?

Sorry, I'm not entirely sure what "anti-caucasian" entails. Last time I checked, the Palestinians have no beef with the Chechens and Azerbaijanis. I realize that, somewhere along the line "Caucasian" became a buzzword to refer to all "white" people, thanks to pseudoscientific racist 19th century anthropologists (See:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasian_race), but maybe we've grown up enough to stop using such terms...? Markeilz (talk) 06:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

From the linked article: "The term continues to be widely used in many scientific and general contexts, usually with its more restricted sense of "white"." Do you prefer that we change anti-Caucasian to anti-white? Because there is no reason to make it as generic as "racist" - it is what it is. Racism against whites. Breein1007 (talk) 08:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The line in the lede currently reads: "antisemitism, anti-Americanism, anti-Zionism, Islamic extremism, Islamic socialism, Islamic supremacism, Islamism, jihadist proselytism, and other anti-Western and racist themes." For quite a while I have found this to be awkwardly list-like and inappropriate at least for the lede (perhaps a full list could be given in the body of the article). While each claim could probably be demonstrated through citations, is there some way that we could merge some of the terms that are more similar?

"Antisemitism" and "anti-caucasian" seem like they could be merged into "racist" for example. "Anti-Americanism" is surely subsumed under "anti-Western." Isn't "Islamic socialism" a form of "Islamism?" "Jihadist proselytism" is definitely a matter of "Islamic extremism," and perhaps the closely-related "Islamic supremacism" could also be merged here. If possible I'd like to see this list reduced so that it sounds more broadly encyclopedic and less like a list of closely-related charges differing only in minutia. Any thoughts? -Thibbs (talk) 16:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Well said, Thibbs. How about just anti-western, antisemitic and Islamic extremist themes? Seems to cover the main criticisms, at least for the intro. It seems almost redundant to call a Palestinian group anti-Zionist... how many pro-Zionist palestinians do you know?

Markeilz (talk) 19:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

That sounds a lot more encyclopedic to me. -Thibbs (talk) 20:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, changed it. It reads more like an introduction now. If you want to elaborate on specific occasions of "anti-whiteness" to the main part of the article, feel free.Markeilz (talk) 05:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Passive statement?

“Other sources have also pointed out that MEMRI's translation "I will commit martyrdom" should more accurately have been "I'll become a martyr" – a passive statement rather than an active/aggressive threat.”

Is this supposed to mean that the sentence “I'll become a martyr” is in the passive voice? Because that would be completely wrong. Tom S. Fox (talk) 12:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Sources for the controversial translation

I found additional sources for the translation controversy for the show of April 13. It took me some time, so I put them here in case somebody else needs them:

• Youtube clip of the show in question, with MEMRI subtitles: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkNE__TiMZo
• Transcript of the MEMRI subtitles: http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/2190.htm

I think it is quite clear from the video that it is the Farfour Mouse who says "I will shoot". To this, the little girl on the phone replies something in a low voice, and it is not translated. To me it sounds implausible from the context that the little girl would say "We will annihilate the Jews", although the show's hosts do their best to push her in that direction. -- Heptor _talk 12:49, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

The most controversial statement, "we will annihilate the jews", is 33 seconds into the clip. The voice is crisp and clear, can somebody who understands Arabic please verify if the subtitle is correct or not? -- Heptor _talk 13:01, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

The 'Deceased' Section

I love this section! It's so satisfying to think of Maniacal Mickey, Kill-a-Cat Bee and Cannibal Bunny as being dead. Not just on the show, but literally stone-cold dead!!! Now to get that stupid bear! - CharlieBrown25 (talk) 07:53, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Tomorrow's Pioneers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081218010829/http://www.addounia.tv:80/index.php?d=183 to http://addounia.tv/index.php?d=183&id=6664

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:56, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Tomorrow's Pioneers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070513033835/http://www.cnsnews.com:80/ViewForeignBureaus.asp?Page=/ForeignBureaus/archive/200705/FOR20070509b.html to http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewForeignBureaus.asp?Page=/ForeignBureaus/archive/200705/FOR20070509b.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:45, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Tomorrow's Pioneers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070627031857/http://www.pmw.org.il/Bulletins_may2007.htm to http://www.pmw.org.il/bulletins_may2007.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080820113230/http://www.alaqsavoice.ps/radio/?action=det_prog&id=59 to http://www.alaqsavoice.ps/radio/?action=det_prog&id=59
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewForeignBureaus.asp?Page=%2FForeignBureaus%2Farchive%2F200705%2FFOR20070509b.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080820113230/http://www.alaqsavoice.ps/radio/?action=det_prog&id=59 to http://www.alaqsavoice.ps/radio/?action=det_prog&id=59

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:26, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 external links on Tomorrow's Pioneers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080311224322/http://www.pmw.org.il/Bulletins_feb2008.htm to http://www.pmw.org.il/Bulletins_feb2008.htm
• Added archive https://archive.is/20120708013304/http://fekry-namous.maktoobblog.com/423868/%D8%B9%D9%84%D9%85-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A3%D9%88%D9%84%D8%A7%D8%AF to http://fekry-namous.maktoobblog.com/423868/%D8%B9%D9%84%D9%85-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A3%D9%88%D9%84%D8%A7%D8%AF
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091006194813/http://www.pmw.org.il/Bulletins_Apr2009.htm to http://www.pmw.org.il/Bulletins_apr2009.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070703164306/http://switch5.castup.net/frames/20041020_MemriTV_Popup/video_480x360.asp?ai=214&ar=1497wmv&ak=null to http://switch5.castup.net/frames/20041020_MemriTV_Popup/video_480x360.asp?ai=214&ar=1497wmv&ak=null
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080229100736/http://www.internews.fr/spip.php?article389 to http://www.internews.fr/spip.php?article389
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080704115043/http://www.pmw.org.il/tv-hamas.htm to http://www.pmw.org.il/tv-hamas.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080228225333/http://pmw.org.il/bulletins_jul2007.htm to http://www.pmw.org.il/Bulletins_Jul2007.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080203113422/http://pmw.org.il/Bulletins_Aug2007.htm to http://www.pmw.org.il/Bulletins_Aug2007.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080311224322/http://www.pmw.org.il/Bulletins_feb2008.htm to http://www.pmw.org.il/Bulletins_feb2008.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070516040104/http://switch5.castup.net/frames/20041020_MemriTV_Popup/video_480x360.asp?ai=214&ar=1446wmv&ak=null to http://switch5.castup.net/frames/20041020_MemriTV_Popup/video_480x360.asp?ai=214&ar=1446wmv&ak=null
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930012955/http://itn.co.uk/news/dcc3bb053d9e55037f16c8311d0e5193.html to http://itn.co.uk/news/dcc3bb053d9e55037f16c8311d0e5193.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081124175616/http://wexler.house.gov/list/press/fl19_wexler/090908_hamastv.shtml to http://wexler.house.gov/list/press/fl19_wexler/090908_hamastv.shtml
• Added archive https://archive.is/20120905221339/http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-hr1069/text to http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-hr1069/text
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080112011627/http://www.factsontheground.co.uk/?p=120 to http://www.factsontheground.co.uk/?p=120
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080112011627/http://www.factsontheground.co.uk/?p=120 to http://www.factsontheground.co.uk/?p=120

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:01, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Make Wikipedia better

How about we make Wikipedia a non biased encyclopedia and settle out our differences. I argue that it is a known fact that groups like MEMRI are anti-Palestinian. As for terrorist views, let's call it controversial at least. And it is true that they are struggling against Israel and that they do fight. So let's compromise. I shall revert the page temporarily for now until we compromise and get some ideas. Any ideas? 2600:8803:BE00:17F:980F:177F:5872:F15B (talk) 01:33, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Do not revert. Per WP:ARBPIA3#500/30, IP editors and accounts with less than 500 edits and 30 days tenure cannot edit this article. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 01:35, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

You have to bring WP:RS and you should consider WP:OR and WP:DUE polices also.--Shrike (talk) 11:04, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

"Current" cast?

It's been off air over eight years now - surely this section needs relabelling to "Final cast" or somesuch? 62.190.148.115 (talk) 16:14, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Good call! I've edited the article to add the "current" characters' date ranges, and merged the two sections. -- Zanimum (talk) 19:56, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Assoud is also farfor's cousin

If farfor's cousin nahoul is the older or younger brother of assoud, dosen't it also make assoud farfor's cousin Johnashu (talk) 13:32, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

How!!

Just how are the people who worked on Tomorrow's Pioneers not arrested for not only plagiarism but for hate crimes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clip877876 (talk • contribs) 15:25, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Clip877876What is your question about the article?Naraht (talk) 00:24, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Because Hamas claims the Gaza Strip. FanofMultimedia123 (talk) 11:31, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

There are more episodes that are not listed here

The show aired after 2009, however I'm having a hard time finding episode names or descriptions for these episodes. A few sources I have of this is this page talking about one of the late actors, this Memri clip, and another Memri clip. I've also seen somewhere episodes dating to as recently as 2021, however I do not remember the link to these. I don't think I have enough sources to add these to the page myself, so if anyone else has more information that'd be great. AlexChillOut (talk) 02:21, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 August 2022

Pddevlin041 (talk) 20:49, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I want to edit this article because the show premiered new episodes in 2021,2010 and in the years 2013-2015. If you want to see some proof watch this YouTube video by Nick Crowley https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qklT3hYcr4&t=2644s

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. That YouTube video about a show brainwashing children is not a reliable source. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:57, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 July 2023

The show was / is actually still running as of October 2022, with its most recent host characters "Fakor and Karkour." It can be viewed on their official YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCm6VZglruZxqnWKnp0o9l0w/videos. I propose to make an edit to acknowledge the fact that this show has been running / revived far beyond 2009.

Arawaasdorp (talk) 18:14, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 January 2024

Remove the words "It contains antisemitism...anti-Americanism... Anti-Westernism". That statement is a generalization, not clearly backed up by the evidence cited. The entire article is written from only one point of view.

Thank you, 208.126.44.104 (talk) 17:32, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: These claims are made throughout the article and appear to have sources cited at the end of the sentence or paragraph. You'll need to establish a consensus on this page arguing how the statements are a generalization, not clearly backuped up by the evidence cited. —Sirdog (talk) 03:18, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

This show appears to have a modern version published on YouTube

Recently while browsing YouTube I stumbled upon this channel: https://www.youtube.com/@user-ry3fj9jl2y. It appears to have modern episodes of this show that aren't described in this article. I have also found this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaPOPnlqRis, which appears to be a clip from a modern episode of this show. 176.64.22.170 (talk) 16:25, 10 February 2024 (UTC)