Talk:Israeli–Arab organ donations

Orthodox view of organ transplant

Mila, please notice that this quote

Pete Tobias, rabbi of the Glasgow New (Reform) Synagogue says:

“ The ramifications of this organ donation - something not supported by orthodox Jewish law - are extraordinary. A Palestinian girl will grow up in east Jerusalem, and the seat of her emotions will be governed by the kidney of a murdered Glaswegian Jew ”

get the article into places it shouldn't go. Orthodox Judaism, and even large branches of the ultra orthodox one, do allow and encourage organ donations from dead or living person. I can easily source it, but I think better solution would be to replace this quote.

Sincerely --Gilisa (talk) 16:18, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK preparation

(copied from Mbz1's talk page):

I have pretty much finished my tweaks to the Yoni Jesner and Ahmed Khatib article now. If they meet with your approval, I think this one can be promoted now. Gatoclass (talk) 11:30, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your work, Gatoclass. I only put back one important quote, and if you do not mind the article is ready to go. Thanks. Oh, yes, and I am adding you as a creator.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:24, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem with the quote is that it's pretty clear it's a sardonic editorial comment by the journalist, rather than an actual statement by Zubeidi. It really isn't credible that Zubeidi would make such a self-incriminating statement himself. We should stick to actual quotes rather than interpretive comments to ensure accuracy. It would be a shame if you withdrew the article given that it's an uplifting story from an otherwise depressing conflict, but I would have to oppose promotion if you insisted on including it, so hopefully you will reconsider. Gatoclass (talk) 15:25, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

In such case, all mention about Zakaria Zubeidi should be taken off altogether. Will you agree with that?--Mbz1 (talk) 15:38, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I thought it was an informative quote and worth keeping in the article. But if you'd prefer not to have it there without the other material, I guess I can agree to its removal as a compromise. Gatoclass (talk) 15:53, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, then please do it. I cannot edit this article myself now. I am under 1RR restriction. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:56, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Done. Are we agreed on this version for DYK now? Gatoclass (talk) 16:05, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

not done.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:08, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I just noticed, Unomi reverted right after I removed it. I have directed him to this discussion, so hopefully this can be sorted out now. Gatoclass (talk) 16:10, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the inability to retain the 'better than blowing up children in busses' line as a good reason to remove all mention of his statements, such a quote by the leader of the Al-aqsa is noteworthy and gives depth to the article. Unomi (talk) 16:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

(copied from Unomi's talk page):

The removal was done as a compromise for DYK promotion. Please see the discussion at Mbz's talk page. Gatoclass (talk) 16:08, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes the compromise between a good version and a bad version is a bad version, are you seriously defending removing the quote, which nicely mirrors the quote of the section above, due to her not being able to retain the 'better than blowing up children in busses'? Unomi (talk) 16:12, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the quote "nicely mirrored" the other one, but I guess Mbz objects because she doesn't want a comment that presents an alleged suicide bomber mastermind in a sympathetic light. As a compromise, perhaps there's another quote from the article we can use as a balance? Gatoclass (talk) 16:25, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

There are a few choice quotes in the source article, but really, this is an amazing quote - as I understand it, Al-Aqsa was one of the groups which Hamas had trouble keeping from firing rockets during the pre gaza war lull, yet here we see the multi-dimensional nature of their character, if this upsets the preconceptions of the reader, then so much the better - this seems to me to be one of the hallmarks of 'a good read'. Unomi (talk) 16:42, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree, but this discussion isn't so much about what's best for the article in general as it is on finding an acceptable compromise for its promotion at DYK. If Mbz, who authored the article, doesn't want it promoted if it includes the quote, it makes it kind of awkward to try and do so. There may be some other means of balancing the article though. I will be logging off shortly however and won't be able to continue this discussion much longer today, so will probably have to come back with a further suggestion or two tomorrow. Gatoclass (talk) 16:57, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

This quote, if used alone without the other one, presents terrorists as a peaceful, people loving men, who are not against the Jews, but are only against "occupation". Without stating my opinion about the word "occupation" (I mean Camp David accord, when the "occupation" could have ended, but instead the Intifada began) this quote does not work out for me, simply because it is not true. It is well known that suicide bombers committed the terror acts against children, women and elderly, and BTW not only Jews, but Muslims as well. Ones they exploded a cafe in Haifa, that was owned by an Arab man, and both Jews and Arabs were killed in that explosion. I did not object any changes you made, but that one, and no I would not like to add a quote from the mother of the boy.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:13, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, but there may still be an alternative solution. I might make another suggestion or two tomorrow. Gatoclass (talk) 17:18, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Sure, take your time.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:43, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good, sleep well. Unomi (talk) 17:00, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, on reflection I think Unomi has a point about quotes, without the Zubeidi quote there are two quotes from the Israeli side and none from the Palestinian, and I think it only fair there is a Palestinian voice in there as well.

I was going to make a couple of suggestions, the first was to add some material about Al-Aqsa's role in suicide bombings to the Zubeidi material to give it more balance, but it turns out the Al-Aqsa page is poorly sourced and I haven't the inclination to research the topic myself. So that leaves me with the second suggestion, which is a quote from the mother. I suggest the following:

While denouncing the Israelis who shot her son as "criminals", Ahmed's mother Abla explained why she agreed to the donations:

"We saw a lot of painful scenes in the hospital. I have seen children in deep need of organs, in deep pain. It doesn't matter who they are. We didn't specify that his organs would go to Arabs, Christians or Jews. I didn't want my son to suffer, I didn't want other children to suffer regardless of who they are".

Gatoclass (talk) 05:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I've no objection to include the above quote by the boy's mother.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:23, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Now we just need to see what Unomi thinks. Gatoclass (talk) 05:42, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Gatoclass, tell you what. I am going to withdraw DYK nomination right now, and do what you want with that article. I'm taking it off my watch list. And if it will be tried to get promoted with unomi's edits I will have to object it.--Mbz1 (talk) 06:18, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Mbz, as you must surely realize, nobody WP:OWNs content on Wikipedia, and if Unomi wants to take an interest in this article, there is nothing I or anyone else can do about that. We have to do our best to work with other people on this project whether we want to or not. Since we have a convention at DYK that submissions are not promoted until disputes have been resolved, we have to try and get the agreement of all parties including Unomi to ensure promotion. Please be a little patient, I think we can't be too far from an agreement now. Gatoclass (talk) 06:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Not to sound too antagonistic; As I understand that the DYK nomination is held hostage contingent on the removal of the quote and that DYK is apparently held to be a 'big deal', out of respect for the involved parties I will hold off from editing the article rather than contribute to a deadlock situation. However, from reading the article on Zubeidi, it seems that 2 years after this event "he renounced militancy and committed himself to cultural resistance through theater", so perhaps this could be considered something which gives more insight and 'balance', not only a story of giving life to the 'opposite' side but also a line regarding the laying down of weapons, can't get more 'feel good' than that. Also doesn't this warrant a mention: "The move was hailed by stunned Israeli leaders as a "remarkable gesture for peace", particularly given the circumstances of Ahmed's death, and a bridge between warring communities."?

In general the article seems to fail to capture the content and direction of the Guardian source, indeed it fails in that regard with the TimesOnline and Washington post sources as well, personally I think we are failing to document what makes the events so extraordinary, the context and reception. I am not familiar with how DYK works, but is there a deadline here? This article could be amazing with a bit more work. Unomi (talk) 06:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there is a deadline with DYK nominations, but there is probably still a week or so for this one. In regards to your comments, I would certainly oppose any WP:COATRACKish inclusions about Al-Aqsa or Zubeidi, which in my opinion would be contrary to the spirit of the article. As for the "reception" of these actions, now that you mention it I did think that it might be worthwhile to work into the article the information from the Guardian piece which states:

The stereotype of Palestinians as Jew-haters, as an explanation for the violent resistance to the humiliations and controls of occupation, is now so dominant in Israel that news of the Khatibs' decision was greeted with astonishment

- However I don't think it's absolutely essential and I don't want to spend any more time on this article than I have to since I have content of my own I'd like to be getting on with. Gatoclass (talk) 06:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

While I certainly do not intend to make coatracky edits, it is entirely possible that some of my edits may appear so, and I would appreciate feedback should that perception be held.

I was simply working from the premise that readers coming to the article may not have bring with them a full understanding of the context (as given in the source articles), indeed, I was quite surprised at some of the things that I read in the sources. From that point of view the article lacked a foundation from which the significance could be established, as we see it has now been nommed for AfD on largely the same grounds. Perhaps we as editors at times either presume the reader knows what we do, or worse, that we hesitate to give background out of deference to 'our internal status quo'.

I did not mean to include the Zubeidi quote in order to paint him as a saint (in truth I don't remember reading of him before this article), but simply because it struck me as a remarkable quote, I could spend reams of text trying to explain the reasons why, but I think that you share sentiment. The bit about having laid down arms 2 year later in preference to performance theater was not to enhance his stature per se but the balancing was thought to be the departure from violence.

The article seems to hold the promise of presenting 2 beautiful stories born of tragedy, I truly hope that it is neither deleted nor devolves into getting 'points' - but also that it is able to capture what is presented in the source articles, which seems to be of people looking past the constructs of their socio-political plight. Unomi (talk) 07:44, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Discussion on what the sources say re Samaah Gadban

here is wrong. This source says: "Ahmed's heart was transplanted into a 12-year-old Israeli Arab girl"--Mbz1 (talk) 06:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

No, it is not wrong, see TimesOnline, and WaPo Unomi (talk) 06:12, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, even the source that you state proves me wrong says: The girl who received the heart, Samaah Gadban, is from Israel's Druze community in the Golan Heights. Unomi (talk) 06:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Well it says both Arab and Druze, so either should be acceptable. Gatoclass (talk) 06:42, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, quick question from the uninitiated, isn't "Arab Druze" redundant, or alternatively isn't it incorrect within the context of Israel as "Israeli Druze" is a listed as a ethnic group separate from Arab? If we describe her with the full description given by source she would be an Israeli Druze Arab, which seems pretty unwieldy, I propose simply: Israeli Druze. Unomi (talk) 17:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I am against "Israeli Druze".

This source says: "Ahmed's heart was transplanted into a 12-year-old Israeli Arab girl"

This source says: "Ahmed’s heart is now beating inside an Israeli Druze Arab girl".

So, either Arab or Arab Druze or Israeli Druze Arab is fine. "Israeli Druze" is not fine? Why? Well, first of all no source used that description. Second of all not all readers know that Druze are Arabs, and not all readers will hit the link to see the page. IMO it is important to underline that the girl is Arab. Let me please explain why it is important. What Ahmed's parents did was absolutely heroic, kind, and I even cannot find the right words to describe it, and it is also should be noted that Israeli doctors did not select Jews only to receive the organs. From 6 people, who received the organs two were Arab children. This fact proves one more time that in Israel all the children are treated the same way, and not accordingly to their ethnicity and/or religion.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Alright, thats fair. Unomi (talk) 20:23, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Discussion re AfD

Hmmm, well now the article has been AfD'ed, so it seems we are not as close to resolving outstanding disputes as I had hoped. Gatoclass (talk) 07:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I think its just waiting for a speedy keep by a helpful closer, though.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:07, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Well the user may have a point that the link between the two individuals is tenuous. I thought so myself when I first looked at the article, but decided in the interests of collegiality to overlook that. Gatoclass (talk) 07:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be a shame to lose the Yoni Jesner connection, it could still be made in any article on Ahmed Khatib but it would probably be unlikely to retain all the information? Any thoughts on what we should work towards? Unomi (talk) 08:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

• He may have had a point. If he failed to do a wp:before search, and note all the RSs, around the world, connecting the two. At this point, as his work has been done for him, and the sources reflected in the article lede that connect the two, his continued forum shopping effort seems a bit POINTy.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Split

The AfD resulted as no concensus. However, the concerns haven't been addressed. The least thing that can be done is splitting this page to two pages , Ahmed Khatib and Yoni Jesner. Maashatra11 (talk) 18:08, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

There was no consensus for such a split at the AfD. It was raised as a possibility there, but not accepted. There is widespread coverage of the two together. The least that can be done is to respect the AfD, and not engage in POINTy forum shopping.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:22, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Split is out of question, Maashatra11. Please stop vandalizing the article. Get over it. It was kept as is. Period.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not vandalizing. Please stop calling me like that. There are many concerns about the notability of these individuals and it has not yet ben fully established. However, the split is the least thing that could be done. Connecting unrelated people together is pure WP:POV. It doesn't matter if a theoretical relationship between them was evoked by one or another program in television, period. And Epeefleche, if you wish to call my attempts to remove POVs from Wikipedia "forum shopping", so be it.Maashatra11 (talk) 18:51, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't you understand that it is not me, who connected those boys and their families? They are connected by the conflict itself, as well as by many reliable sources. Their stories should be told and read together! Please find something else to do.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:56, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Going ahead and splitting the articles counter to local consensus here and any consensus at the AfD does seem like a pretty bad idea. How about slowing down and talking it out? Unomi (talk) 19:16, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

• The AFD [1] showed overwhelming it should be kept. The two people are mentioned together, as was discussed in the AFD, in both news articles as well as a documentary. I'm against any splitting based on that. Dream Focus 17:56, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive, POINTy, non-consensus editing

• I agree that Maas's approach here is decidedly disruptive. First, as the article was at DYK queue, he nomed it for AfD. He failed to garner consensus support for his AfD. He argued at the AfD for splitting this article. He failed to garner consensus support for that as well.

For good reason. While Maas for some reason argues that the two people are not connected, that of course fails completely to recognize that The Guardian, ABC, The Sunday Times, the Telegraph, the Gulf Times, Dawn, the Church Times, and BBC World Service all focused on the two together. All of this is clear both in the article, and in the failed AfD.

Upon his AfD failing, he now both: a) seeks to split this article (his suggestion that was not accepted at the AfD), and b) starts a non-consensus, POINTy, forum-shopping creation of both of the articles he sought to create by split -- here and here. He also removes the A10 speedy delete tags (the reason for the tag being that all that information is already in this article, and that his creations did not "expand upon, detail or improve information within the existing article(s) on the subject").

The result of his redirects to the two pages that were created against consensus is that they of course do not direct to this page.

This pattern of disruptive editing is rising to a level that is of concern.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:04, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Epeefleche. Those are not just any stories. Those are very special stories about heroism and kindness inside of anger and violence. They happened in different years, but many sources connect them because they add kindness to each another. Please do not split that kindness in two. You may loose some of it in the process.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:15, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Completely agree. It re-enforces the impact of both the peace gestures to treat them together, and as a good number of sources present the two incidents together, we should do so to. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:47, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Mazen Joulani should be added

Can we add Mazen Joulani ([2]) to the title ? Or shalln't we because he wasn't featured in the BBC documentary? Or because he wasn't young? Maashatra11 (talk) 00:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Happy to have a discussion, but first things first. Kindly delete the against-consensus articles that you've started.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

OMG, Maashatra11, few minutes ago you wanted to split the article, and now you want to add another story? Well, I did not know about this story before you brought it up, but IMO it cannot be added without violating POV. What the relatives of the man did is very kind and very brave, and I have absolutely no right to diminish this in any way, but the cause of the man's death is not entirely clear. I assume there was no official confirmation he was shot by the settlers. That's why IMO it might be better to avoid adding his story to this article.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we could add a couple of words about this to the end of the article. However, there doesn't seem to be a full date on the source article, what year did it occur? Gatoclass (talk) 09:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

This article says the date is 2001. Maashatra11 (talk) 09:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be better to leave this info out. We don't know how widespread the practice of organ donation across the conflict is, so to avoid instablility I suggest that further such examples are omitted at least until the article has made its way through DYK. Gatoclass (talk) 10:35, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• I think user Maashatra11 is being WP:POINTY. If the case wasn't included in any news articles or documentary, then you can't include it. Dream Focus 17:58, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Think what you want, but you are wrong as it was very much included in the news . See [3] and [4]. I even added a link to abcnews article in my first post. Didn't you see that link? It isn't news? Maashatra11 (talk) 18:09, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, well there may be enough for a standalone article on Joulani. It doesn't look though as if he has been linked to either of these other donors, so adding him to this article might be considered a tad WP:SYNTH-ish. Gatoclass (talk) 18:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the linkage between Khatib and Jesner was itself a WP:SYNTHESIS was made by some major news company (I guess it was the BBC or some other major media corp) which many other news companies followed afterwards. Maashatra11 (talk) 18:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree w/Gato. Synth, as used in wiki terminology, relates to editors linking matters. Not to, as in the case of Khativ and Jesner, news media from all around the world linking them. When editors do it, it is synth. That's not the case when news media does it--there, we are simply reflecting the RSs, rather than being driven by our own personal views.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:05, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Restored to DYK suggestions

Since the AfD was closed as no consensus, the article has been restored to DYK suggestions per Mbz's request. Gatoclass (talk) 09:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Zakaria Zubeidi

His quote is pure propaganda, and since it has no historic value it shouldn't be in the article. Because of the NPOV policy a balancing quote, and this is not good for a wikipedia article, but to quotes page on wikiquote. Broccoli (talk) 14:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. It is a propaganda of course.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

It is a quote pertaining to the circumstances made by a prominent member of the community ( as established in the sources). You opinion of its relative value as propaganda is immaterial. Unomi (talk) 15:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Since Mbz hadn't objected to the quote over the last few days, I assumed she had reconciled herself to it. As that appears not to be the case, I have substituted the previously agreed-upon quote from the mother. Gatoclass (talk) 15:17, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

The quote is propaganda and POV. It should not have been included. I just did not feel it was good enough reason to deny the DYK for so much needed article, but I strongly object the including of the quote. I only hope that the readers of the article are educated enough to understand what this quote really worth. --Mbz1 (talk) 15:26, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

The quote is a quote. Sources relay this quote to show the impact and response from the community ( which the sources indicate that Zubeidi was a prominent member of). When one of the notable terrorist / resistance groups go out of their way to endorse the donation of organs to Israelis that is certainly something which deserves mention in our article. Unomi (talk) 15:40, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree, but we reached an agreement about the version of the article that would go to DYK and it's a little late to start debating it now. You are of course welcome to continue improving the page after it has made its way through the DYK process. Gatoclass (talk) 15:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

We've agreed on one quote. I believe the mother's quote should stay, the other one should go.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:57, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I am completely nonplussed at this "We've" stuff, the removal of the quote seemed intended on appeasing, superfluously, the misapprehensions of one editor regarding what constitutes NPOV. The discussion on this talkpage does not seem to indicate a wider consensus regarding supporting the censorship of notable commentary regarding the organ donations. This quote was relayed by multiple high quality sources, likely as they, as I, find it compelling and grants context. Unomi (talk) 17:20, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

was killed versus died

Quite a few times the text "Yoni Jesner was killed in a Palestinian suicide bombing in 2002" or "Yoni Jesner was murdered in a Palestinian suicide bombing in 2002" was replaced by "Yoni Jesner died in a Palestinian suicide bombing in 2002". What he died from, a heart attack, stroke or what? People do no "died" in suicide bombings, they are getting killed or murdered. If "murdered" (that btw was used in the source) seems to be too strong, than "killed" should be used. There's no way around it.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:38, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Merge to Children and minors in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict ?

Please see previous discussion in AfD here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Yoni_Jesner_and_Ahmed_Khatib. This article doesn't seem to meet the standards for a separate article, though it probably could be merged into an another one, like for example Children and minors in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict (in fact it's included there already!)

Please comment and give your opinion on whether you think it should be given a separate article or merged to Children and minors in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict or another article. Thank you! --85.250.163.152 (talk) 13:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

• Your move (which you originally undertook unilaterally, despite the AfD discussion) is not supported by the AfD close. This has been considered, and has not been accepted. I know you are a newbie editor, but you really have to respect consensus.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
  • In fact, Mr. Epeefleche, you're wrong! There was NO CONCENSUS in the AfD, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yoni Jesner and Ahmed Khatib. So I just proposed what has already proposed in the discussion: A merger. I'll proceed with it as there was no concensus or reasonable reasons why not to merge. Cheers, 89.139.219.61 (talk) 12:48, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Following an edit war over this merge, I've protected the article for a week. PhilKnight (talk) 14:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't support the merge, per WP:UNDUE. Just leave a link to this article from that one in the "See also" section. Gatoclass (talk) 14:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

• Agree w/Gato.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Split

Anybody objecting the splitting of this article to Yoni Jesner and Ahmed Khatib ? These two considerably notable boys deserve their own separate articles. Is there a possibility to make a vote or something? So It can be sure the split is agreed by the community. Lily232323 (talk) 22:35, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose It's a stronger article combined, than split. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:44, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Discussion ceased. It was opposed previously as well. Removing the split tag. Op47 (talk) 18:40, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Possible copyright problem

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Diannaa (talk) 16:44, 26 April 2015 (UTC)