Talk:Rachel Corrie/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 14

lead (again)

i changed it back from investigation ruled/parents maintain to the more npov descriptions. Untwirl (talk) 05:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

English please.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

if you were following this discussion instead of doing blind reverts you would know exactly what i mean. i'm not going to dumb it down for you every time. Untwirl (talk) 05:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy to see you were following the discussion. I thought for a second you just followed me here. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

i'm disappointed to see that you feel free to revert without following the discussion. don't flatter yourself by accusing me of stalking you; this page is on my watchlist. maybe you should take some time to read up on the discussions here and then comment. Untwirl (talk) 05:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

rachelcorriefacts.org

this site is not in compliance with the rules for this page.

at the top of this discussion page are 2 policies that are broken by this website:

no personal websites, blogs, or other self-published material unless the website or blog was Corrie's own, in which case it may be used with caution, so long as the material is notable, is not unduly self-aggrandizing, and is not contradicted by reliable third-party sources; no highly biased political websites unless there is clearly some editorial oversight or fact-checking process.

it needs to stay removed, not be reverted back in like this diff by brewcrewer http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Rachel_Corrie&diff=268176341&oldid=268085228 Untwirl (talk) 04:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually that site is not compliant with any standards at all. Extremely one-sided views from extremely one-sided sources. But it may be used partially whenever the site contains notable information or critics, yet all of its worthable content are belong to the external articles anyway, so using them might be more proper. Lots of critical links exist in the site. Kasaalan (talk) 00:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Moving disputed material from lead to talk page for further discussion

This material seems to violate WP:NPOV; and, because it seems particularly problematic in the lead, I am moving it here, the talk page, until the issues involved are settled.

The Human Rights Watch investigation asserted that "the bulldozer drivers ... could see the activists even when in close proximity" and that the IDF investigations were neither credible nor impartial, although "the possibility that the bulldozer operator could not see Corrie cannot be ruled out."

My own view is that this material makes the lead one sided (POV), and that it would be better to place it elsewhere in the article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Making the edit and then asserting we should start discussing it is hardly different from your earlier reversion sans discussion - especially since it already was being discussed before your arrival.

In addition, you don't appear to be paying attention to what you're reverting - your edit leaves in place the correct assertion that the IDF conducted two investigations, then follows it with the earlier incorrect version which makes it appear there was only one. You're saying almost the same thing twice in a row, and this is completely apart from the concerns already expressed about making the IDF sound as official as possible while marginalizing those who disagree. WP:UNDUE explicitly forbids trying to use the most-credible sources on one side and the least-credible sources on the other. arimareiji (talk) 20:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Malcolm. It's probably best that the contentious and less NPOV-ish version stay out until there's a consensus for it's insertion. I've resolved the redundancy. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) WP does not "forbid" NPOV. Quite the contrary. (If I made a mistake when moving the material, I am sorry.) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Please don't put words in my mouth. As I said, WP:UNDUE explicitly forbids trying to use the most-credible sources on one side and the least-credible sources on the other. arimareiji (talk) 20:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

In addition, please note that using terms (such as NPOV) doesn't bolster your argument when you can't point to -where- the policy you claim supports you says such a thing. That could be viewed as simple gamesmanship. arimareiji (talk) 20:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

(response to Brewcrewer) The change to the present version, which happened several days ago, strengthened both to equal positions, by comparison with them both being weaker before but much moreso the Corrie side. Mix-and-matching to the strengthened version of the IDF side and the earlier, much weaker version of the Corrie side is even more undue than the earlier version alone. arimareiji (talk) 20:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

i agree with the change made by arimareiji. it is important not to cherry-pick the sources to find the least credible ones to present a viewpoint. Untwirl (talk) 20:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

also, the material needs to stay in until there is consensus to remove it, not the other way around. Untwirl (talk) 20:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

To me it seems that arimareiji's last two edits to this page amount to WP:Wikilawyering, particularly: 3. Asserting that the technical interpretation of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines should override the principles they express. The important WP principle is WP:NPOV. If there is a NPOV article, I will be happy. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. You feel that it's Wikilawyering to demonstrate that a policy applies, or conversely to demonstrate that a policy claimed as applying does not? Policy seems to disagree with you on that. No matter how many times you repeat NPOV, it doesn't support you if you don't demonstrate any vestige of an argument for why it applies. It's not a magic charm. arimareiji (talk) 21:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

You keep pointing at WP:IDONTLIKEIT as though it were policy -- you have even referred to it as such. Not only is it not policy, it ain't even close. It's an essay. Read what it says at the top: "Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. Heed them or not at your own discretion." Will you stop quoting it now? IronDuke 02:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Belated, but - point conceded and thank you for the correction. I still think it's a valuable framework for constructing standards, but you're right that it is indeed not policy. arimareiji (talk) 03:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

IronDuke, suggestion: Rather than continuing to war over which characterization to use of the two sides, would you concur with (at least for now) removing both versions by ending it at "The details of the events surrounding Corrie's death are disputed."? Malcom's errant claim to have done so actually gave me the idea, I admit. arimareiji (talk) 02:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Works for me. IronDuke 02:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Once this present teapot cyclone is over, I'll definitely do so. Or (feel free to laugh) if you make that deletion, I'll support it fully both here and elsewhere. I just don't think it would be good for me to do so while Malcolm has an AN/I up. arimareiji (talk) 02:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

i am good with that, for now. lets end it at "disputed" and discuss the best way to balance the lead and concisely present the findings of both investigations. Untwirl (talk) 03:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you both. ^_^ arimareiji (talk) 03:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Good solution. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

NPOV?

I don't see the issue here.

All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing significant views fairly, proportionately, and without bias.

There is a military view in the lead, so why is it a violation of NPOV to have a sourced view of another significant organization? 212.200.240.232 (talk) 11:15, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

i agree that the findings of both investigations should be stated briefly and impartially in the lead. Untwirl (talk) 16:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

All parties findings including Corrie family, IDF, Israel Goverment, US officials, HRW, ISM should be mentioned in the lead in summary, saying disputed is not enough. Kasaalan (talk) 01:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Who is Removing info again with no reason at all

While an Israeli military investigation ruled the death was an accident, Corries' parents and the ISM maintain that Corrie was run over deliberately.

Since 1975, the Corries had hosted a number of international students from exchange programs, and during her sophomore year in high school, Rachel took part in an exchange herself, travelling to Russia to stay for six weeks with a family in Sakhalin

After the forum "disintegrate[d]", Munger announced, "I cannot subject 16 students... to any possibility of physical harm or to the type of character assassination some of us are already undergoing. Performance of The Skies are Weeping at this time and place is withdrawn for the safety of the student performers.” Munger later related that he had received threatening emails "[just] short of what you'd take to the troopers", and that some of his students had received similar communications. The cantata was eventually performed at the Hackney Empire theatre in London, premiering on November 1, 2005.

In 2006, songwriter Billy Bragg used the melody from Bob Dylan's The Lonesome Death of Hattie Carroll to compose a commemorative song called 'The Lonesome Death of Rachel Corrie', in which the lyrics from the original have been changed to reflect the circumstances of Rachel's death.

Who is removing info again in whatever way he likes. Removing info is another thing than adding info, the cencorship efforts will not result in the way you plan in long term. You can add different views to the article, that is always welcome, yet if you try to cut out other people's hard work like high school teenagers just because you dont like them, that is something else. If you will try to remove info adressing them is not enough. Either provide solid reasons to remove info or prepare to get reverted the same way. Kasaalan (talk) 00:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Early Life

Not sure whoever or why but some user deleted her 10 year old speech on world hunger is missing again. Her early life should be mentioned more or less.

"The material revealed a woman who was both ordinary and extraordinary: writing poems about her cat, her friends, her grand mother, the wind; but also, from a strikingly young age, engaging passionately with the world, trying to find her place in it. The earliest material we have is political; aged 10, Rachel wrote a poem about how "children everywhere are suffering" and how she wished to "stop hunger by the year 2000". Her juvenilia shows, as Rickman says, that she "already knew what language was. She was witty, a storyteller, she had flights of fancy". It also shows a rather sweet seriousness, and an insight into the wider world and her place in it. Aged 12, she writes, "I guess I've grown up a little. It's all relative anyway; nine years is as long as 40 years depending on how long you've lived".

In her teens, Rachel started to write about the "fire in my belly" that was to become a recurring theme. She visited Russia, a trip that opened her eyes to the rest of the world - she found it "flawed, dirty, broken and gorgeous". And she engaged in a striking way with her parents, with writing that beautifully expresses ordinary anxieties about safety and freedom, which become particularly poignant in light of Rachel's violent death. Aged 19 she wrote to her mother, "I know I scare you... But I want to write and I want to see. And what would I write about if I only stayed within the doll's house, the flower-world I grew up in?... I love you but I'm growing out of what you gave me... Let me fight my monsters. I love you. You made me. You made me."
...
Rachel's political evolution gathered pace in her early 20s. She went to Evergreen state college, a famously liberal university in Olympia, itself a famously liberal town. She began railing against how "the highest level of humanity is expressed through what we choose to buy at the mall". After September 11, she became involved in community activism, organising a peace march, but questioned the wider relevance of what she was doing: "People [are] offering themselves as human shields in Palestine and I [am] spending all of my time making dove costumes and giant puppets." When she finally decided that she wanted to go to the Middle East, she explained her reason quite specifically: "I've had this underlying need to go to a place and meet people who are on the other end of the portion of my tax money that goes to fund the US and other militaries."" 'Let me fight my monsters' Stage The Guardian

You may read the rest from the link. Kasaalan (talk) 11:36, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Artistic tributes

Regarding this "artistic tribute" by Dawud Wharnsby Ali. I think it should be removed until a reliable 3rd party source is added as a citation, which shows the notability of it. Otherwise, you enable any musician, to post a link to to their web site, to promote themselves. Again, I'm perfectly fine with this being added *if* you can find some reliable third party source(s) that felt it worth mentioning. --Rob (talk) 18:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Dawud Wharnsby Ali is a professional singer, he made an album, made a song dedicated to Rachel, you can watch the video in youtube. What kind of reliable third party you need to prove he wrote a song dedicated to Rachel Corrie. Beliefnet article Good piece of music not amateur song. He is notable himself, not every single song of his need to be famous. Kasaalan (talk) 01:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Completely removing all is wrong, but shortening it and keeping the content is a better way. Kasaalan (talk) 01:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Color-by-number (a comfort break from Talk:Rachel_Corrie#Discussion_of_NPOV_in_lead_section)

IronDuke - you appear to object to directly sequenced / threaded debate as evidenced by this refactor, and I definitely object to being selectively misquoted. Therefore, I'll hereafter refer only to the topic number, rather than quoting you at length.
Please do not continue to quote me out of context - i.e. by quoting me as saying only the italicized portion of "Minor means "I don't like it" when it's the only reasoning provided. Try reading WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which refers to calling something "cruft" or "trivia" without explanation as being examples of DONTLIKEIT. I believe most people would agree those terms are functionally synonymous with "minor."
The result, as I'm sure you're aware, was to make your response of "No, it doesn't. It self-evidently doesn't" appear to be a simple childish back-and-forth rather than a refusal to address the example I gave from policy.

---

Italics indicate your comments (i.e. comments by IronDuke).
I'm disowning nothing… what an odd thing to write. Your strawman is immaterial. Two editors "hammering out" a compromise does not consensus make. You link, as I said, to discussions that either have nothing to do with what is being discussed – or fail, usually utterly – to achieve consensus.

1) WP:CONSENSUS - "Consensus develops from agreement of the parties involved. This can happen through discussion, editing, or more often, a combination of the two." No minimum number is required. If two editors are the only parties involved, and others who are present don't object, then this is "consensus". If an editor who was not present objects at a later time and does not demonstrate why the previous consensus was against policy, it remains "consensus".

You said in earlier posts, in a general way, that my edits did not meet consensus. Later, you backed away from that and suggested that only some of the edits you reverted were against consensus. Even if HRW is an RS in this article (and I think that's debatable) we don't need a long disquisition from them in the WP:LEAD it's bad style, and it's also very partisan. And you haven't got consensus for this change, yet keep making it (and insisting that we should all abide by consensus). I find that… ironically sad.
And you were indeed arguing that what I wrote is not hyperbole. Perhaps you lack an understanding of what hyperbole means. I will do you the same courtesy you did me, and "spoon feed" it to you. "Hyperbole comes from ancient Greek "ὑπερβολή" (meaning excess or exaggeration) and is a figure of speech in which statements are exaggerated. It may be used to evoke strong feelings or to create a strong impression, but is rarely meant to be taken literally." You suggested to me that "I believe you said all that's needed by asserting that the lead should be phrased with 'though many consider HRW to be a seething cauldron of anti-Israel propaganda.'" And also "You may consider [HRW] 'a seething cauldron of anti-Israel propaganda.' No, obviously not – this is where the hyperbole comes in. I understand, I think, what you're up to here. You take a hyperbolic statement I'm making in the service of a larger point and pretend that I am making that statement in earnest in order to discredit my remarks. I think I'll save us both some time if I tell you that while that's sure to work on some editors, it absolutely won't work on me, and you'll be forced to endure my patient explanation to you (and all those reading) about just how wrong you are. You can keep up the disingenuous denials, but I don't think you're doing yourself any favors.

2a) Actually, what I said was that they were -against- consensus. If you don't want links to the discussions that establish point-by-point why you're reverting against consensus, don't ask for them. HRW's utility as a link is part of their case for inclusion; it's disingenuous to speak of this as if it were the only reasoning.

2b) I'm not going to reiterate the points demonstrating why the previous lead was skewed strongly in favor of the "official" IDF version ad infinitum. At some point it becomes your responsibility to listen and respond to them (or not).

2c) For the record: Yes, I believe your statement of "though many consider HRW to be a seething cauldron of anti-Israel propaganda" is hyperbolic. No, I don't believe that hyperbolic statements are always rhetorical (as you claim above). And yes, I still believe that your statement makes the issue clear.

You have indeed referred me to the discussion itself. And I keep asking you not to, as the discussions you are referring to do not serve your point. Where is the objection to the part of the Munger section I restored? Never mind consensus, where is the argument against it? I quote my own unanswered post above: "... what is the point of this? It seems largely to do with the 4th movement of Munger's piece... were my edits related to that? What is this thread meant to show?" Do you consider that thread to show consensus that the edits I made to the Munger section were not good?

3) Link to the discussion, for those who came in late. Your revert removed several edits discussed in that section. It hardly bolsters your claim to pretend that they're unrelated, when even a cursory glance disproves this.

No, it doesn't. It self-evidently doesn't.

4) See top of section; this doesn't address the points that I brought up and you clipped out.

Who said it was? Of course it's relevant. But the song is non-notable, is it not? Can you establish its notability, other than by assertion? And the Gross article is in because it complains about this very subject. Is that something you continue to "fail" to see? Nor did you respond to my point about how "moving" it to EL destroyed the piece's entire point. And I take it by your silence that you concede that you were wrong to remove the National Review segment. But tell you what I'll do: I'll move it to another section. Would that satisfy you?

5a) Editor A proposes inclusion of song. Editor B says it would be acceptable for later inclusion. Editor C includes it. Editor ID, much after the fact, removes it. I believe this is what most people would call "against consensus."

5b) Four editors agree that Gross's "Dead Jews Aren't News" article doesn't belong in Artistic Tributes because it's WP:POINTy and tangential. Editor ID, much after the fact, reverts it back in. I believe this is also what most people would call "against consensus."

5c) Gross's article was used to justify including the National Review piece "in response to" it. Said National Review piece was even more WP:POINTy and tangential than Gross's article.

5d) If you can find a section where Gross's article is related to the topic at hand and is not WP:UNDUE, be my guest.

Indeed… so you're saying that anything that's ever been written about RC can and should be included in the article, as long as it comes from an RS? No? On what basis do we exclude things? Can they be excluded because they are trivial? Or is that never a good enough reason to exclude something? For example, "Rachel loved to wear a Guatemalan poncho in high school," coming from an RS, should be in the article because it could be argued that it shows she was interested in foreign/exotic things?

6) If you think you can make a case that under the subject "Early Life" Corrie's high-school poncho is non-trivial by comparison to her participation in a student foreign-exchange program, go for it. But I believe such an addition would appear extremely WP:POINTy to outside and/or neutral editors.

Editorial in the Jerusalem Post (yes, editorials in JPost are RS's, even when written by people one disagree with) [[1]].

Note that in the following they even include a denunciation of the UN (which anyone who follows this issue understand is an organization which is rabidly anti-Israel).

"A number of leading NGOs had been slow to adapt to a post-cold-war world in which some of the greatest challenges it human rights have come not from governments, but from terrorists, war lords, criminal organizations, and other nongovernmental actors. Such respected human rights organizations as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch never fully grasped that the anti-Israel forces in Durban did not want to change the policies of Israel but to eliminate Israel as a Jewish state, and in that sense advocated the suppression of the human rights of Jews. Making the task of the Israel haters easier was their already established tradition of using the UN's human-rights apparatus against Israel . The UN Commission on Human Rights annually adopted five anti-Israel resolutions." (American Jewish Year Book 2002 By David Singer, American Jewish Committee pp 889-89)'

'See also: [2] "American Jewish Committee, a major Jewish civil and human rights group..."

The Jewish Divide Over Israel By Edward Alexander, Paul Bogdanor, Vernon Bogdanor, p. 129 ddiscusses "the prosecutorial inquisition of such venomously anti-Israel NGOs as Human Rights Watch!"

Off the subject of Israel , we have:

"In an open letter to the Board of Directors of Human Rights Watch, over 100 experts on Latin America criticized the organization's recent report on Venezuela, A Decade Under Chávez: Political Intolerance and Lost Opportunities for Advancing Human Rights in Venezuela, saying that it "does not meet even the most minimal standards of scholarship, impartiality, accuracy, or credibility."

And also

"We find it troubling that a report on Human Rights depends heavily on unreliable sources." [3]

7a) If you wish to include in a pertinent section that an opinion editorial says HRW and the UN are both horribly biased against Israel, go for it - as long as it's properly attributed as their opinion, isn't phrased in such a way as to make it appear factual, and its length isn't WP:UNDUE. One RS (an OpEd), duly noted.

7b) The American Jewish Committee (and its Yearbook) are no more of an RS than Palestinian Centre for Human Rights - they're both partisan organizations, albeit on opposite sides. If you wish to claim neutrality, it's not a good idea to argue for the former when in the past you've repeatedly argued against the latter. And "American Jewish Committee, a major Jewish civil and human rights group" is not a compelling example of their neutrality in I-P issues.

7c) It's hard to accept Bogdanor as a neutral RS when his website juxtaposes the cover of the book you reference with a large bold graphic of "The Top 200 Chomsky Lies" and a heavily-artifacted JPG of someone's face (presumably Bogdanor). Likewise, when his own "About" section for the book lists as its second endorsement "Superb... mandatory reading for anyone wishing to understand the madness of Jewish self-hatred... Paul Bogdanor manages to shed fascinating new light on Chomsky... In hundreds of documented facts and citations, Bogdanor traces Chomsky's candid devotion to seeking Israel's annihilation and the second Holocaust that would result from it. Nativ"

7d) To my knowledge, letters (open or not) are still considered primary sources. For anyone who cares, this was HRW's response to said letter.

I don't know what to say,. I obviously wasn't expecting that kind of generosity. So… if I show what I've done, you'll concede that I've done what I've shown I've done. Hmmm… tempting… just seized on a much better idea, though: why don't you go back and see for yourself? The subject seems to interest you, and you may well find it illuminating.

8) When you asserted that you've "been struggling to keep this article neutral since long before you got here," I challenged you to name a single edit you've made aside from rvv which was beneficial to Corrie's side. Your response was "I can absolutely do this. How will it alter your behavior if I do?" I said that I would withdraw my challenge to your claim to neutrality, and this is your response. I therefore again assert that your "neutrality" is better characterized as "activity." I have no particular desire to engage in a long and fruitless search to support your assertion of neutrality.

You haven't responded to my point that the HRW stuff contradicts itself, or whether the National Review stuff should be in.

Oh, and while I have your attention, when you write, "I'm well-aware of your long-term activity here." What does that mean… I've been on this article for a lot longer than you've been editing. Is this your first account? If not, what other accounts have you used? IronDuke 03:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

9a) I'm not sure why you think that admitting that in this specific case the IDF could be right is self-contradiction. Nor do I understand why you would think that if "Dead Jews Aren't News" isn't related to "Artistic Tributes," that a second article that was brought in on grounds of being related to "Dead Jews Aren't News" can be kept despite being even more tangential.

9b) Nice insinuation, but being aware of the fact that you've been engaging long-term in edits to remove positive characterizations of Corrie's side doesn't mean that I'm a sock. It means I'm (sometimes) observant. Feel free to bring it up at WP:SPI; it's your time to waste. arimareiji (talk) 16:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS - "Consensus develops from agreement of the parties involved. This can happen through discussion, editing, or more often, a combination of the two." No minimum number is required. If two editors are the only parties involved, and others who are present don't object, then this is "consensus". If an editor who was not present objects at a later time and does not demonstrate why the previous consensus was against policy, it remains "consensus".

• Didn’t “demonstrate?” That’s exactly what I’m in the process of doing. And generally speaking, no, two editors would be not enough for consensus in contested areas.

2a) Actually, what I said was that they were -against- consensus. If you don't want links to the discussions that establish point-by-point why you're reverting against consensus, don't ask for them. HRW's utility as a link is part of their case for inclusion; it's disingenuous to speak of this as if it were the only reasoning. 2b) I'm not going to reiterate the points demonstrating why the previous lead was skewed strongly in favor of the "official" IDF version ad infinitum. At some point it becomes your responsibility to listen and respond to them (or not).

• We appear to have come to an agreement here, so I’ll leave you with the last word.

2c) For the record: Yes, I believe your statement of "though many consider HRW to be a seething cauldron of anti-Israel propaganda" is hyperbolic. No, I don't believe that hyperbolic statements are always rhetorical (as you claim above). And yes, I still believe that your statement makes the issue clear.

• All right, you are officially starting to fascinate me. “No, I don't believe that hyperbolic statements are always rhetorical (as you claim above).” I won’t link to the definition again, as I’m assuming you got around to reading it, but it does say “This article is about the term used in rhetoric.” So… I will bite: when is hyperbole not rhetorical?

• “And yes, I still believe that your statement makes the issue clear.” I wish that statement was as clear as mine then… you mean… what by it?

Link to the discussion, for those who came in late. Your revert removed several edits discussed in that section. It hardly bolsters your claim to pretend that they're unrelated, when even a cursory glance disproves this.

• I repeat my previous repetition (and we can keep doing this as long as you fail to respond): I quote my own unanswered post above: "... what is the point of this? It seems largely to do with the 4th movement of Munger's piece... were my edits related to that? What is this thread meant to show?" Do you consider that thread to show consensus that the edits I made to the Munger section were not good?

See top of section; this doesn't address the points that I brought up and you clipped out.

• Ya lost me.

5a) Editor A proposes inclusion of song. Editor B says it would be acceptable for later inclusion. Editor C includes it. Editor ID, much after the fact, removes it. I believe this is what most people would call "against consensus."

• I’ll paraphrase you here: “I have no arguments against removing the song, but majorities rule.”

5b) Four editors agree that Gross's "Dead Jews Aren't News" article doesn't belong in Artistic Tributes because it's WP:POINTy and tangential. Editor ID, much after the fact, reverts it back in. I believe this is also what most people would call "against consensus." 5c) Gross's article was used to justify including the National Review piece "in response to" it. Said National Review piece was even more WP:POINTy and tangential than Gross's article. 5d) If you can find a section where Gross's article is related to the topic at hand and is not WP:UNDUE, be my guest.

• Okay, I’ll put it another section.

6) If you think you can make a case that under the subject "Early Life" Corrie's high-school poncho is non-trivial by comparison to her participation in a student foreign-exchange program, go for it. But I believe such an addition would appear extremely WP:POINTy to outside and/or neutral editors.

• How would I make such a case?

7a) If you wish to include in a pertinent section that an opinion editorial says HRW and the UN are both horribly biased against Israel, go for it…

• I don’t. That would be against Wiki policy, and common sense.

7b) The American Jewish Committee (and its Yearbook) are no more of an RS than Palestinian Centre for Human Rights - they're both partisan organizations, albeit on opposite sides. If you wish to claim neutrality, it's not a good idea to argue for the former when in the past you've repeatedly argued against the latter. And "American Jewish Committee, a major Jewish civil and human rights group" is not a compelling example of their neutrality in I-P issues.

• Actually "American Jewish Committee, a major Jewish civil and human rights group" is a compelling example of their neutrality. Or is the New York Times not a good source on this?

7c) It's hard to accept Bogdanor as a neutral RS when his website juxtaposes the cover of the book you reference with a large bold graphic of "The Top 200 Chomsky Lies" and a heavily-artifacted JPG of someone's face (presumably Bogdanor). Likewise, when his own "About" section for the book lists as its second endorsement "Superb... mandatory reading for anyone wishing to understand the madness of Jewish self-hatred... Paul Bogdanor manages to shed fascinating new light on Chomsky... In hundreds of documented facts and citations, Bogdanor traces Chomsky's candid devotion to seeking Israel's annihilation and the second Holocaust that would result from it. Nativ"

• You didn’t ask for neutral, you asked for RS's. I provided them. That you disagree with him doesn’t mean he isn’t an RS.

7d) To my knowledge, letters (open or not) are still considered primary sources. For anyone who cares, this was HRW's response to said letter.

• Wow! Of all the weak reasons you offered against my sources, that one takes a prize. It’s a primary source? That’s why you’re impeaching it? The mind… boggles. I guess you had to say something, didn’t you?

8) When you asserted that you've "been struggling to keep this article neutral since long before you got here," I challenged you to name a single edit you've made aside from rvv which was beneficial to Corrie's side. Your response was "I can absolutely do this. How will it alter your behavior if I do?" I said that I would withdraw my challenge to your claim to neutrality, and this is your response. I therefore again assert that your "neutrality" is better characterized as "activity." I have no particular desire to engage in a long and fruitless search to support your assertion of neutrality.

• I don’t think you said you would withdraw your challenge, you used vaguer language. And because of that, I actually dug up the diffs, but your recent posts make me feel like it’d be wasted effort to post them.

9b) Nice insinuation, but being aware of the fact that you've been engaging long-term in edits to remove positive characterizations of Corrie's side doesn't mean that I'm a sock. It means I'm (sometimes) observant. Feel free to bring it up at WP:SPI; it's your time to waste. arimareiji (talk) 16:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• Insinuation? Nothing doing. I asked you a direct question. So far, you have not answered it. Care to do so now? IronDuke 23:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Edit war

Arimareiji, I moved the disputed material to the talk page avoid continuing an edit war that was in progress. You're returning the material (slightly altered) [4] is not helpful. If you do not remove your recent edit to the article, I may take the argument to AN/I. Please remove that material until the dispute is resolved. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I've commented on my talk p., and on Gwen's, so I really should say it here: I do not think the material has any place in the lede. It should go elsewhere in the article. The details of controversy go in the article, not the lede. The lede is a reasonably neutral summary without it. DGG (talk) 00:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Malcolm Schosha, you didn't "move the disputed material," you repeatedly reverted back to one of two disputed versions. True "removal," which may be the best course of action if that's the final consensus, would be to put in neither and end it at the word "disputed". In addition, I note that your "warning" of an edit war is not in particularly good faith considering that your reverts began this latest iteration and that you yourself became involved by chasing an editor here whom you've been repeatedly warned to leave alone (and blocked, and blocked again).arimareiji (talk) 00:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

DGG, I'm surprised that you're again taking Malcolm's side of it. When you overturned Gwen Gale's week-block of him two weeks ago, you warned him thus (my bolds): "And the only practical way you will be able to avoid violating 3rr again is to avoid reverting altogether. Discuss the matter on the talk page instead. I suggest further, that you not concentrate of the exact wording of specific points in controversial articles--such disputes are rarely productive. The best thing to do with a difficult article, is usually to find some additional indisputably good sources.

"You now have a choice: if you do mean to stop editing, you can stop. If you want to contribute peacefully, you can. Or, if you contribute in the manner you have been doing, you will receiver longer blocks, soon quite likely indefinite. IO won;t hesitate to do it myself."

You're supporting him in having twice reverted without discussing, and reverted again three hours later, over specific wording. His reverts were, in fact, to remove reliably-sourced wording and replace it with unsourced wording. And they were quite arguably wikistalking, since he had no involvement with the page until the very user he was getting blocked for edit-warring against came here. arimareiji (talk) 00:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Just what do you think I should be blocked for? Disagreeing with you?

As for discussing on the talk page, I moved the disputed content to the talk page exactly so it could be discussed without the edit warring. That edit war was not my doing, and I was only the most marginal participant in it. It was you who ignored my try at ending the edit war by returning the same disputed content to the lead.

All that is disputed is the adding that content to the lead. No one has questioned its presence it the article in its proper place. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 00:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Again, you didn't try to end the edit war, or try to remove disputed content to the talk page. You continued to emplace one of two disputed versions. Despite being repeatedly blocked for edit-warring against Untwirl among others, you followed him here and "used up" your three reverts against him both directly and by proxy. 3RR is not an entitlement, nor is it license to follow an editor around and revert them. arimareiji (talk) 01:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)Arimareiji, you need to work on your mind reading skills, because your surmise that I "followed" Untwirl here is quite incorrect. I did not even know, at first, that he/she was editing this article, and I regard Untwirl as a single purpose account. If I intended to bother user:Untwirl, I would have gone to the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict article which that user edits almost exclusively. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 01:24, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Then why is it that you only made edits to the page after he did, and your edits were to revert him by proxy through PR and myself? arimareiji (talk) 01:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I had not noticed Untwirl's edits. There is no reason I would have followed Untwirl, and it is not my practice not to go out of my way to be in company I do not enjoy. The issue that got me involved in editing this article is the problem I saw in the lead.

Why are you making a big deal over my few edits? I did not start the edit war, it was going on before I first looked at this article. I made an effort to stop the edit war, an effort you chose to disregard. The real issue is your on-going edit warring. That is why I took it to AN/I. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 01:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

A genuine effort would have been to remove both. Not to repeatedly revert to one of the disputed versions. As for your claim that it was innocent coincidence that you came here and began reverting Untwirl, I've already spoken to it. arimareiji (talk) 01:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

It was Untwirl who reverted my edit. Was that his/her first edit to this article? I have not looked. That revert of my edit was certainly the first I saw of Untwirl today. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 01:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Clarification: As for your claim that it was innocent coincidence that you came here and began reverting Untwirl (who did arrive before you) by proxy through myself and PR, I've already spoken to it. arimareiji (talk) 02:24, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• Now on AN/I: [5]. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 00:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Now do some people try to trim off HRW reports or what. As one of the most reliable human rights organisation in the world I cannot even reason why the HRW report is so limitedly mentioned in the article. Yet some users even try to remove what is left. Kasaalan (talk) 00:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

HRW is at the highest level of reliability. Malcolm Schosha has a history of tendentious TalkPage conduct, including this, which was counted as something like 12-1 against, defended only by notorious Jayjg. PR^talk 22:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

"The notorious Jayjg"? You've been gratuitously insulting me fairly regularly now, PR. Redact that comment, and make sure to take out the insult to Malcolm too. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

"Notorious" is pretty low down the scale of incivility, but it is sarcastic and should be struckthrough. With respect to the rest of the sentence, "Malcolm Schosha has a history of tendentious TalkPage conduct, including this, which was counted as something like 12-1 against," I wasn't aware that providing examples of a user's history and then making a characterization of "tendentious" was incivility. WP:CIVIL: "to treat constructive criticism as an attack, is itself disruptive." arimareiji (talk) 07:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The statement is a personal comment, not a discussion of article content. The place to discuss other editors' behavior is a User:RFC, or the various boards for it. This page is for discussion of article content, not other editors. The relevant policy is not WP:CIVIL, but WP:NPA: "Comment on content, not on the contributor." Jayjg ^(talk) 16:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

"The Notorious JAY.J.G." It does have a ring to it. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 18:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, everyone, move away from the water cooler. Keep comments focused on the articles, please. Thanks, --Elonka 19:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

billy bragg

regarding this revert by ironduke: http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Rachel_Corrie&diff=270949657&oldid=270948390

i fail to see how Philip Munger, Alan Rickman, and Ben Ellis are notable, and Billy Bragg is not. untwirl (talk) 19:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know that BB is all that notable, but perhaps it's just never having heard of him. But that's not the point: Munger isn't notable either, but his work was in and of itself notable. AFAIK the BB piece isn't. Please feel free to add material that shows its notability, eg it won numerous significant awards, it caused controversy, etc. PS That wasn't you as an IP reverting it back in, was it?IronDuke 20:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

nope, wasnt me. agf, pls. i didn't even realize it was a revert, just thought that billy bragg is more notable than those other guys, for precisely the same reason (i hadnt heard of them, but i have heard of bragg). huffington post and the guardian both discuss the song, does that help you see its notability? untwirl (talk) 20:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I was assuming good faith. This is obvious when you see that I was asking you, not stating it as a fact. You deny it, I believe you. (That you assume I had feelings of bad faith about you, and that this itself is assuming bad faith, can be a subject for another time.) What do HuffPo and TG say about the song? IronDuke 21:05, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

first of all, the addition was made by robynm, not an ip. secondly, if i were to feel the need to ask you, for no apparent reason, "that isn't you, as a sockpuppet, adding things to this article, is it?" it would indeed show an assumption of bad faith on my part to put this accusation out there. phrasing it as a leading question instead a direct accusation doesn't make it less so.

these are just the first few links i found, not including tmany blogs (which are used as sources for the other artistic tributes.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/billy-bragg/the-lonesome-death-of-rac_b_19069.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2006/mar/28/israelandthepalestinians

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/living/articles/2006/03/27/bragg_delivers_the_news/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/07/AR2006040700434_pf.html untwirl (talk) 21:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, you might assume I was accusing you of being a sockpuppet, but it could also mean I was wondering if you had forgotten to log in. I'd hope you'd assume the latter, but as you say, it was Robyn (an account with a total of four edits), not an IP, so the point is moot. As for your links (and thanks for providing them):

The first two are Bragg himself, the second two contain brief mentions. Is there anything showing it's notable to Rachel Corrie? Did it cause a huge controversy (or any controversy at all)? As it stands, it's basically just trivia. I don't like those sections in regular articles, but I tolerate them. I really don't like them in sensitive areas like this. IronDuke 21:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

That seems somewhat less than forthright, given your affinity for inserting a paragraph about Tom Gross' "Dead Jews Aren't News" into the section. arimareiji (talk) 22:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Did you have anything helpful to say? IronDuke 22:05, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

everything in this section would be considered trivia, if there werent a section titled artistic tributes

there is nothing saying that these tributes have to be controversial. notable is enough untwirl (talk) 22:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm saying they aren't notable, and that passing mention does not equal notability. It's a minor work of no particular consequence, AFAICT. The other works have something to do with the ongoing story of RC's life, and the controversy surrounding it. If there hadn't been a controversy, we wouldn't have this article. IronDuke 22:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

and i think that if you are being inconsistent in your standards for editing this article, it is helpful to point it out. untwirl (talk) 22:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, would it be helpful for me to point out that your joining with amareiji in a rather basic tu quoque attack weakens your argument? And would it be still more helpful to suggest that people disregard your future arguments on the basis of that? IronDuke 22:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with IronDuke. Per WP:UNDUE, we can't have this article list each and every song that was sung in her honor. We should only keep the notable songs; the rest can be mentioned at the singers bio, if they have one at WP. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course you do, Brewcrewer. Ironduke, you've developed a rather uncivil habit of making up names for me. Would you terribly mind stopping it? arimareiji (talk) 22:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I think, following your logic, we can say that when a post reaches a certain level of presposterousness, future complaints in the same vein may be safely ignored. "Rather uncivil?" I have too much respect for you to believe that you believe that for even a fraction of a second. I got your name wrong. I'm sorry. Would you like me to fix it? IronDuke 22:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

No, I want you to stop doing it. It's at least the third time it's happened, although I'm sure they were all accidents. arimareiji (talk) 22:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I will endeavor to be more careful in the future. Really, a polite request goes much farther than fantasies of persecution. IronDuke 23:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

IronDuke - let's turn the standard around; how many RS's do you have showing that Tom Gross wrote a notable artistic tribute to Rachel Corrie? arimareiji (talk) 22:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

What? IronDuke 22:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

You and Brewcrewer brought back in the Tom Gross section, after it had been previously removed by a consensus of four editors to none for being irrelevant to the topic. Surely you can demonstrate the same level of relevance and notability per RS's that you're demanding of the Bragg song? arimareiji (talk) 22:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Really... I don't read the discussion as saying it was irrelevant. That's why the EL was still there. What happened was that the article's point was very badly skewed by whoever used it to footnote a highly misleading sentnece (in context). Tom Gross is a journalist specializing in Mid East issues. Bragg isn't. Got any more fish in a barrel for me? IronDuke 23:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and I replied to your post in a previous thread, sorry for the delay. IronDuke 23:05, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

So, a journalist specializing in MidEast issues wrote a notable/relevant artistic tribute to Rachel Corrie and this is true because you say so and you don't need to cite RS's? And an artist with 4 RS's to show notability and relevance couldn't have written a notable artistic tribute to Rachel Corrie because you said so and because you don't think the RS's count?

Do you really think that passes for debate, let alone having conclusively demonstrated your point? arimareiji (talk) 23:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Who said Gross wrote an artistic tribute? IronDuke 23:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Did you or did you not insert a section on his article "Dead Jews Aren't News" (the real title of the Spectator article, which is what was cited) into Artistic Tributes? arimareiji (talk) 23:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Guilty. IronDuke 23:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Is this debate about Gross still going on? There is no way we should be using a source this unpleasantly partisan "the media's favorite Palestinian spokespersons, such as Saeb Erekat - a practiced liar if ever there was one". Journalists fit to be considered as RS don't write like that. PR^talk 23:22, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

He has an impressive CV. Your feeling that his POV is antithetical to your own does not impugn him. IronDuke 23:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

If that OpEd by Gross, a "journalist specializing in MidEast issues," can be included in Artistic Tributes with no RS's to demonstrate relevance and notability to the subject, how can you argue in good faith that a song written by an artist with 4 RS's to demonstrate relevance and notability doesn't belong in Artistic Tributes? He may have an impressive CV, but remember that we only factor in expertise in the relevant field. I don't believe that being a "journalist specializing in MidEast issues" qualifies him to speak as an art critic. POV isn't a factor, relevance is. arimareiji (talk) 23:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

That you make your own point seem silly does not make mine so. Also, we're getting a dangerous number of strawmen in this thread. "an artist with 4 RS's to demonstrate relevance and notability..." I've already answered this point. "...being a "journalist specializing in MidEast issues" qualifies him to speak as an art critic..." Who said he was? He's speaking about the disparity between coverage of RC's death and other, Jewish Rachels. Not an art critic. Was that not searingly obvious from reading the piece? IronDuke 23:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

But as I said above, I'll break it out into it's own section in a bit... IronDuke 23:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

1. "I've already answered this point"... by saying you think they don't count. That's not compelling.
2. If you're conceding that he's not an art critic, then why does his opinion editorial belong in Artistic Tributes? He barely mentions "the Jewish Rachels" in the article, let alone the field of art.
3. Please title it honestly - either "Dead Jews Aren't News" attributed to the Spectator, or "The Forgotten Rachels" attributed to his website. arimareiji (talk) 23:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

1. "...by saying you think they don't count." No, I had a specific objection to all 4. You did not rebut it. That's not compelling.
2. Fine. See 3.
3. I'll do my best.

So... since we're agreed on Gross, can I take it you'll agree with me Bragg doesn't belong? IronDuke 23:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

(undent)Saying that an opinion editorial by a "journalist specializing in Mid East issues" (your own words) doesn't belong in Artistic Tributes is a far cry from saying that a song documented as relevant and notable in 4 RS's doesn't. You may not like his POV, but that's not a basis for asserting that four separate instances of his song or references to it appearing in unquestionably-reliable sources don't demonstrate notability. Appearance is prima facie evidence of notability, and I would be startled if you tried to argue that it's not relevant to the topic of Artistic Tributes. arimareiji (talk) 23:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC) (ec)

"Appearance is prima facie evidence of notability..." Of course it isn't. His own reference to his own song makes it notable? IronDuke 00:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

bragg has a career spanning near 30 years and has been called a "national treasure" by the Times and had a street in London named after him - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/431834.stm he is a notable artist who has made an artistic tribute to corrie. untwirl (talk) 23:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

What makes his contribution notable? I'm willing to accept that Bragg is the greatest musician of his, or perhaps any, generation. Why then is The Brightest Bulb Has Burned Out not in the George W. Bush article? Because it isn't notable. If Bush had responded to it, say, had said nasty things about Bragg, and a big brouhaha had ensued, then maybe. IronDuke 00:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't aware one of those four sources was SELFPUB, could you point out which one it is? Unless you're saying that his authoring it makes it SELFPUB, which would be an unusual definition and would definitely rule Tom Gross right out. arimareiji (talk) 00:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

You asked me -- very rudely -- to get your name right. May I ask you, as politely as possible, not to rephrase my arguments to serve what you wish I'd said? You make this process far more exhausting than it needs to be when I have to explain basic things (which you already understand) to you. IronDuke 00:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Then could you explain what the actual basis is for denoting it as SELFPUB? I'm honestly at quite a loss to understand why else you would say it's disqualified because it's "His own reference to his own song." arimareiji (talk) 00:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you see how you just did it again? IronDuke 00:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I see you not answering a rather simple question. You asserted that the sources don't demonstrate notability: "His own reference to his own song makes it notable?" I asked twice what the basis for asserting that was, once theorizing that you were referring to his having authored a source. arimareiji (talk) 00:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

"I see you not answering a rather simple question." Then you need a new prescription. You continued to assert that I was using SELFPUB as an argument. Nifty for you if so, but sadly not the case (and I'm hoping now you'll stop doing that). I'm saying an artist discussing their own work doesn't make it notable. Is that clear enough? IronDuke 00:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm aware of restrictions against using SELFPUB when it's unduly self-serving, as assertions of notability certainly would be. I'm not aware of any such restrictions against assertions of notability based on the fact that an RS publishes an artist's discussion of their own work. arimareiji (talk) 01:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Because it isn't an independent assessment. IronDuke 05:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but WP:NOTABILITY disagrees with you:

• "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." "Independent of the subject" qualifies "reliable sources," not "significant coverage".
• ""Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc." Whether or not the article is authored by Bragg, the work it appears in is not produced by Bragg or his agents.

In a nutshell, SELFPUB is excluded. And material which isn't SELFPUB is not. arimareiji (talk) 06:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

So you lay out the argument that destroys your position, then assert that it somehow refutes mine? I'm eager to hear more. IronDuke 07:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

If you choose to deliberately misinterpret "work" (i.e. The Guardian) as synonymous with "author" (i.e. Bragg), that's your affair. Everyone has the right to refuse to understand things they don't want to hear (i.e. "LALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU"), but that doesn't mean their refusal has to be treated as good-faith debate. arimareiji (talk) 09:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

"IronDuke, I have a guideline here that says 2 + 2 = 4, therefore that proves my contention that 2 + 2 = 5." The Guardian is not independent of the subject when he's the fricking author, is it? The "work" is not the Guardian, it's the article (otherwise a letter to the editor could be characterized as "According to the Guardian"). This is eye-gougingly obvious. IronDuke 01:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

ironduke, if dubya's article had a section called 'artistic tributes' i'd expect a song by someone as notable as billy bragg to be in there.untwirl (talk) 05:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Would you indeed? In any case, perhaps it's instructive that there is no such section on his article. It looks, at least superficially, like something that would appear in an actual encyclopedia. IronDuke 05:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Do some users confuse what undue means, how do you change weight in an artistic section. If you want to add artistic tributes against Rachel Corrie go on ahead, but will you try to subtract all works, by your famous notability gun. Billy Bragg is notable himself to be mentioned in wikipedia. He has 30 years music career, 12 studio albums. Billy Bragg discography Kasaalan (talk) 05:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not following you, sorry. IronDuke 05:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Even his myspace page [6] has 629.556 hits. Search over internet, Billy Bragg gives near 1.4 millon hits, Rachel Corrie is near 350 thousand, Justin Timberlake giving 26 million, yet dont forget musicians also mentioned in commercial store pages so their hits are more. Kasaalan (talk) 15:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Life's A Riot’ – and the first two or three albums released on Go! - were raw and economical, full of righteous indignation and romantic bitterness. That debut caught the national imagination, topped the independent charts and made Billy an unlikely star, going on to sell 100,000 copies in the UK and over 200,000 copies worldwide. Bard Of Barking's Best

The resulting album, Mermaid Avenue, was recorded in Dublin with US country rockers Wilco. Following its release to worldwide acclaim in 1998, Mermaid Avenue was nominated for a Grammy Award and included in Rolling Stone magazine’s list of the most influential albums of the 90s. To date it has sold 500,000 copies worldwide, and the follow-up, Mermaid Avenue Volume II, was released in the summer of 2000. Bard Of Barking's Best

Nominated for Grammy, sold hundreds of thousands and possibly over a million copies worldwide in total, he is notable enough. If his song is missing in Bush's page why dont you try adding it instead trying to prove its absance there should be an example for Rachel's article. Kasaalan (talk) 15:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. A kid dies, and a singer takes it to the bank. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

malcolm - do you have a comment on the content of this article? please strike your wp:soap untwirl (talk) 22:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Bragg, part 2

I believe that these eight sources ([7],[8],[9],[10],[11],[12],[13],[14]) amply demonstrate the notability of "The Lonesome Death of Rachel Corrie," and it should be included.

(Death by Bulldozer in Gaza Who's Afraid of Rachel Corrie SPIEGEL ONLINE, Bragg delivers the news The Boston Globe, Theater's Contested Ground The Washington Post, Hero or Fool FFWD Calgary's News & Entertainment Weekly, Fresh tracks from Billy Bragg Salon.com, Folk-punker Bragg promotes peace The Eagle Online, Billy Bragg The Lonesome Death of Rachel Corrie The Huffington Post, Billy Bragg The lonesome death of Rachel Corrie The Guardian)

• Marla Ruzicka, Rachel Corrie and 'Credibility' Counter Punch
• The Dangers of Playing It Safe This Magazine

"Rachel Corrie went to Gaza to draw attention to the plight of the Palestinians, whose voice is seldom heard in her country, the US. That she herself should be silenced - first by an Israeli bulldozer, next by a New York theatre cancelling a play created from her words - is a testimony to the power of her message. This song was written on a plane on March 20 and recorded at Big Sky Recordings, Ann Arbor, Michigan on March 22. The tune is borrowed from Bob Dylan." Billy Bragg mp3 and lyrics to the song is available via guardian

1. arimareiji (talk) 11:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
2. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 12:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
3. Kasaalan (talk) 15:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
4. untwirl (talk) 19:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

---

(Section for IronDuke to fill in to characterize his position on why Bragg should be excluded, and a similar list for people to agree.)

Caterpillar D9

Does anybody seriously care that it is "Caterpillar D9R armored bulldozer" as opposed to just a "bulldozer" or "armored bulldozer"? Really? How many people are familiar with what a "D9" is? I don't mind the detail in the article. I just objected to it in the lead, so I moved it down. It's not important enough to be in the lead. The lead is a concise summary of what's important about the subject. By moving it out of the lead, into the appropriate section, with a picture, there should be no problem for those seeking such detail. --Rob (talk) 19:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree. "Armored bulldozer" is enough for the lead. The manufacturer and model number are not necessary in the lead. Otherwise, why not also the engine displacement, and the manufacturer of the bullet proof glass too? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The exact model gives info about exact weight, exact speed, exact look, exact engine power, exact armor as IDF claims there were snipers around, as the rest. It is not only a D9 and as I exactly pinpointed a D9R which is modified and armoured version of the original. It is not a regular city bulldozer, it is originally a huge mining bulldozer, and modified version is armoured against sniper and rocket attacks. So everybody is an expert nowadays arent they, what car you have, do you have a car or do you have a ford or do you have a ford mustang or do you have a ford mustang gtr or do you have nothing. Kasaalan (talk) 01:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

It is also important because Corrie family sued the company that produce and sell D9R to Israel. You may cut off some repetition in article but you cannot remove it from the lead. Kasaalan (talk) 01:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Why put it in the lead? You didn't explain that. If the detail is important, include it in the body, along with most details. The overview is in the lead, the details follow. That's how articles are supposed to be written. It's particularly absurd for you to remove the detail from the body, to move it back to the lead. You're trying to make the lead more detailed than the body of the article! That's backwards. There's actually supposed to be repetition. Everything said in the lead should be repeated, with greater detail given in the body. Please review Wikipedia:Lead section. For example "In general, specialized terminology should be avoided in an introduction.". Also, if the "D9R" is very important, you should fully explain its important, in the body of the article. It's wrong to simply assume readers will see any significance. While you do provide a link to the related article, if a fact is truly critical, it shouldn't rely on a link to explain it. Of course, such an explanation belongs in the body (not the lead). --Rob (talk) 01:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

You may cut off D9R if it is over repeated was what I mean, I didn't mean to clear off D9R in body completely. The section is giving interest to the article not taking out interest so not against the Wikipedia guidelines.

"The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies that may exist. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject should be established in the first sentence of the lead. While consideration should be given to creating interest in reading more of the article, the lead nonetheless should not "tease" the reader by hinting at—but not explaining—important facts that will appear later in the article. [not very clear what it means to me] The lead should contain no more than four paragraphs, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear, accessible style to invite a reading of the full article."

"The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article. It is even more important here than for the rest of the article that the text be accessible. Consideration should be given to creating interest in reading the whole article. (See news style and summary style.)

In general, specialized terminology should be avoided in an introduction. Where uncommon terms are essential to describing the subject, they should be placed in context, briefly defined, and linked. The subject should be placed in a context with which many readers could be expected to be familiar. For example, rather than giving the latitude and longitude of a town, it is better to state that it is the suburb of some city, or perhaps that it provides services for the farm country of xyz county. Readers should not be dropped into the middle of the subject from the first word; they should be eased into it."

Again against your objections, any reader is familiar with Caterpillar Inc. brand, know what armour and bulldozer is, as well as what armoured bulldozer should mean at least roughly, D9R here is the specific brand model just like saying Ford Mustang apparently yet not something people is unfamiliar like longitude or latitude of a town. So even if you try to remove D9R part you should include the rest. But D9R part is more helping than confusing by linking to visual photographs which explains itself already. Latitude and longitude like technical terms are not self explanatory like a product image. Your edit is more like a censorship to remove Caterpillar from lead is wrong because without adding it, the lead is not giving context, the sues to both IDF and Caterpillar should also be mentioned in the lead because it missing info acccording to Wikipedia:Lead section. Saying only a bulldozer is wrong because it is not a regular city bulldozer as I explained above it is a huge mining bulldozer that armoured by IDF to destroy homes easily. Kasaalan (talk) 09:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

D9R is not a technical term as you suggest, but it is a model number of a brand like Ford Mustang GTR. Kasaalan (talk) 11:14, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Only armored bulldozer is a technical term within the sentences you removed Caterpillar is a brand and D9R is the model. Your arguments are wrong as I stated, either provide a sound reason to remove sentences from the lead or I will add the wikilinks again. Also lead is very short and does not cover whole areas of the article, therefore more info is needed in the lead covering lawsuits, family activism, and artistic tributes. Kasaalan (talk) 17:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

i have no problem with including the model name. it seems notable to highlight the difference between a regular construction bulldozer and the one used in this instance. untwirl (talk) 22:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Folks, instead of edit-warring about this, please try and find a compromise? Edit-warring is a completely ineffective way of trying to push a change into an article. Better is to seek consensus wording. --Elonka 19:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

As I expressed, a model name and brand name of a vehicle is not a technical term, and it is not a detail but a coverage of the article. D9 series are huge mining bulldozers actually so referring them as a bulldozer like it is a regular one is simply wrong and misleading. D9Rs are modified armored versions of civilian usage D9 series. In the controversy part IDF claims the operator did not see Rachel because restricted field of vision of armored D9R. Also Corrie family sued Caterpillar Inc. for selling D9R to Israel. So if the lead doesnt mention brand or model or armored bulldozer term the lead doesnt cover the article as a whole therefore conflicting with wiki guidelines. Kasaalan (talk) 00:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Songs and Poems Dedicated to Corrie

Songs

• Rachel Corrie (Alessio Lega)
• The Death of Rachel Corrie David Rovics [15]
• Rachel And The Storm (Casa Del Vento)
• Rachel Corrie Ten Foot Pole
• Seasons of Murder (Larry "Lorcan" Otway)
• Rachel Corrie (Larry "Lorcan" Otway) recorded on "The Times That Try Our Soul" CD
• Farewell, Farewell, Rachel Corrie (Holly Gwin Graham)
• No nel nome PACE (Agnese Ginocchio)
• Rachel Corrie Elizabeth Hummel [16]
• Amira al Gazi (Princesa de Gaza) (Ángel Petisme)
• Peaceable Kingdom dedicated to Rachel Corrie Patti Smith [17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24]
• The Lonesome Death Of Rachel Corrie Billy Bragg
• Rachel Klimt 1918 [25][26][27][28]
• The Ballad Of Rachel Corrie (The Gram Partisans)
• The Skies Are Weeping,' a cantata by Philip Munger [29]
• "Rachel Corrie" Mike Stout(disambugation), has written a song in tribute to the conviction and courage of Rachel Corrie.

Paul Carosi, Station Manager of Radio Free Pittsburgh and Radio Free Tunes, writes: I'm going to promote the "Rachel Corrie" song (Mike Stout) on other internet music sites in hopes that it will raise awareness about her belief in peace and humanity, along with her unjust death. Maybe we can make the world aware of the bulldozing of homes that she tried to stop.

Songs and artist names collected from Anti-war Songs Database database for "8179 songs by 2922 different authors and 9821 versions with Translations" and Music Inspired by Rachel Corrie Critical Concern

Poems

• Rachel (For Rachel Corrie) San Francisco poet Phil Goldvarg March 18, 2003
• "God the Synecdoche in His Holy Land" in memoriam Rachel Corrie Alaska poet Linda McCarriston
• The Skies Are Weeping Sri Lanka poet Thushara Wijeratna

Feel free to add to the list. Kasaalan (talk) 19:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Discussion for Songs and Poems Dedicated to Corrie

Is there a purpose to this? IronDuke 20:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I avoid pop culture like the plague, but even I've heard of Patti Smith and Klimt 1918. I would think that any of these that can be supported by good WP:RS's would belong - but at the same time, it would be completely undue to swell the Artistic Tributes much larger than it already is. It might be good to review and stack-rank all of the ones that qualify as notable, including the ones already in. The ones that are most notable could be briefly described, while the rest could be simply listed.

If the list of notable ones is too large, it may be necessary to split the section into its own article. arimareiji (talk) 21:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Really, there's just an endless amount of trivia we could lard -- er "stack-rank" -- the article with. IronDuke 22:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Nice AGF. If Bobby Joe Bubba writes a song to play on his air guitar, of course that stays excluded. But if a performer is highly notable, and if there's good WP:RS support for the song, then I'm not sure why you would object to its simply being listed sans detail. arimareiji (talk) 22:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Nothing to do with AGF. It's a silly idea, and I'm calling it such. "I'm not sure why you would object to its simply being listed sans detail." As you're not sure, I'll tell you: because it makes a cruddy article. It's just bloating the article with useless detail of highly questionable notability. See below... IronDuke 22:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec)

each piece's notability should be determined first and foremost. wiki's inclusion policy is specific, so the amount would be finite, and not "endless." there have been many artistic tributes to corrie, this is apparent. how many of them were notable has yet to be determined. we shouldn't brush all these off as trivia without examining each one individually. untwirl (talk) 22:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Just as a general note to the "St. Rachel" crowd, whoever you may be: turning this article into a shrine to RC will not help her, help her family, or help the Palestinians. What it will do is make the article look ridiculously hagiographic, which it seems lately to be constantly on the verge of, and therefore discredit both it and Wikipedia. IronDuke 22:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Just as a general note to the "St. Pancake" crowd, whoever you may be: turning this article into a mockery of RC will not help Israel. What it will do is make the article look ridiculously vindictive towards a dead woman, which it seems lately to be constantly on the verge of, and therefore discredit both it and Wikipedia. arimareiji (talk) 22:52, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Emphatically agreed, should such a thing ever be in danger of happening on this article, which of course it isn't. IronDuke 22:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Emphatically agreed, should such a thing ever be in danger of happening on this article, which of course it isn't. arimareiji (talk) 22:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I am pleased to find us in agreement on this sole point. IronDuke 23:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I am pleasantly surprised to find us in agreement on this sole point, that it's not in imminent "danger" of being overwhelmed by Godless Hordes on either side and doesn't need a Holy Warrior to defend it. arimareiji (talk) 23:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we are not as agreeable as we thought: I have no opinion as to "Godless Hordes," but this article, for months, has been the recipient of repeated insertions of hagiographic trivia. I mean, the list above? My... God? You wouldn't even have such a list in a full-fledged biography of RC. To be sure, there are haters who come here, too (I've reverted my share of literal "St. Pancake" edits, if memory serves), but they seem to bore easily. The canonizers are more tenacious. IronDuke 23:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

soo iron duke if i understand you correctly, and disregarding your 'Saint Rachel' rant, mentioning notable artistic tributes is now likened to a 'shrine'? or only the ones that you personally deem non-"hagiographic." i presume you have personally looked at every piece listed above and determined it to be non-notable. untwirl (talk) 23:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec)It wasn't a rant, please do settle down -- walk away from your computer if you have to. You aren't speaking of "mentioning," you appear to be advocating a swollen list of pseudo-notable songs. And you presume incorrectly; as you are keen on the subject, I leave it to you to demonstrate real, actual independent notability for each and every work you want to include. Then, when we have all agreed to that list, we can safely discard it as a violation of Wikipedia summary style. Ready when you are. IronDuke 23:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

IronDuke - I take it you probably also have no opinion about it needing a Holy Warrior to defend it? It seemed like a notable omission, but I'm sure it wasn't intentional or even Freudian. arimareiji (talk) 23:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec)A fascinating point, and trenchantly put. However, in future, you might want to ask yourself if it a) accomplishes something meaningful or b) uselessly clutters the talk page. I would, I think, incline toward the latter view. IronDuke 23:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

It is mainly your claims that the article is close to hagiography, and referencing yourself while arguing become more than ridiculous already. I don't have the impression you even have any knowledge on any art discipline, or on art in anyway. Why do you always try to argue something is notable or not, while you have no position to decide it. After we made a list on every artistic tribute we can find and sourced, we can later decide which ones notable on which degree. Also any effort for world peace may help Palestine as well as Israel just like rest of the world. Where you get the idea that your hate can prevail our actions in any way. [Yes you talk full of hate and don't ever try to remove my comments] Kasaalan (talk) 23:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, your knowledge on art disciplines is what? IronDuke 23:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Formally visual arts, professionally visual arts and literary, as a hobby experienced listener for certain genres of music if you care that much. Kasaalan (talk) 23:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Excellent. You know what that means on Wikipedia? Nothing at all. Your credentials, whatever they may be, are as irrelevant as my own. Also, I must insist -- not ask, insist -- that you cease personally attacking me. It is a violation of WP:NPA and a blockable offence. IronDuke 00:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Credentials unimportant true, yet actions are important, what is your reasoning while harshly claiming Billy Bragg is not notable, while he sold hundreds of thousands album copies over years around the world, can you tell others your source for your claims, no, is your only reason to call he is not famous that you don't know him or he made a song about Rachel or what. Kasaalan (talk) 00:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I never said he wasn't notable, I said the song wasn't. Are you reading my posts? IronDuke 00:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

This is Rachel Corrie page. So if a notable singer makes a tribute to Rachel Corrie, how can you reason not mentioning it is rational. Rachel Corrie page this is, a Rachel Corrie tribute these songs are by notable singers as you admit. Kasaalan (talk) 01:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I already answered this point. IronDuke 01:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

ironduke -i'll thank you not to misrepresent my position. i haven't, nor do i "appear to be advocating a swollen list of pseudo-notable songs." i explicity stated, "each piece's notability should be determined first and foremost." i'm happy to see that you agree that we should "demonstrate real, actual independent notability for each and every work" included in the section and not dismiss any piece as trivia without even examining its notablility. untwirl (talk) 23:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC) and funny you should tell me to calm down, i was just about to offer you a cup of WP:TEAuntwirl (talk) 23:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

You appeared that way to me -- thank you for the correction. Were you thinking of offering me the tea before or after you'd thought to characterize a calmly put position as a rant? IronDuke 00:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

You talk full of hate and that is not an offense that is my expressed opinion on how you talk and behave on your expressed opinions on talk page. I am commenting on the content you add which is your expressed opinions naming Rachel Corrie "St. Rachel" in a derogatory way, blaming others turning the article into hagiography while they improving article and clearly referencing their every single addition. You cannot make hateful comments on Rachel Corrie because you adore IDF irrationally forgetting you have to be neutral to the case, blaming other editors drastically, then get away with I insist don't personally attack me that is an offence threats. If there is an offense complain yourself first for sabotaging threads, if you get offended first calm down yourself and read others before you write. Kasaalan (talk) 00:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec)

I think people on this talk page have been very, very tolerant of you Kasaalan. Your refusal to adhere to Wikipedia rules and norms is not helping. I hope you will reconsider your approach. IronDuke 00:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

your calmly put position, phrased as "Just as a general note to the "St. Rachel" crowd, whoever you may be:" is patronizing and provocative soapboaxing which i (correctly) characterized as a rant. it is irrelevant to the discussion and adds no reason or argument for why any specific source should be excluded. untwirl (talk) 00:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

No, you are replacing reasoned argument with bilious spleen. There is nothing "correct" at all about your assertion. I'm sorry that you felt patronized -- you appear to be placing yourself in that crowd, if that's the case. IronDuke 00:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

"bilious spleen?" i really should get that checked out. ;) i'm not going to dedicate much time to this off-topic comment, but, for the record, it was obviously a thinly veiled accusation directed toward the editors supporting inclusion of artistic tributes. just because you didn't list names doesn't make it any less apparent. untwirl (talk) 03:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

"Doctor, it hurts when I do this..." levity aside, you're wrong. I know none of you well enough to say you are part of the RC fan club, but I sense a certain penumbra of fandom generally surrounding recent editing -- in all sections of her article. IronDuke 04:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Could all those with lots of spare black ink please calm down. Iduke is being most reasonable here with his point that this article should not be turned into a memorial (see WP:NOT#MEMORIAL). If editors get all upset when Corrie is not given the correct honor, there might be a WP:COI problem here. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

have you read the wp page you linked to?

"Memorials. Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements."

are you suggesting that rachel corrie doesnt meet notability requirements? untwirl (talk) 00:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Can you reason mentioning artistic tributes from Patti Smith or Billy Bragg turn the article into memorial. Kasaalan (talk) 00:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec) No, but it sounds like you're suggesting that once the notability standard is met, the article can be turned into a memorial. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

IronDuke is being most reasonable by saying that we shouldn't even examine the question? We're not talking about only addition, we're talking about figuring out which are most notable and quite-possibly removing existing ones from detailed description if they prove less notable. I.e. roughly-even exchange, and listing-by-name-only of the ones that are WP:RS'ed but aren't as notable as the top few. Very few have WP:RS'es, and we're not proposing including those that don't. arimareiji (talk) 00:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec)

brew, i am suggesting that any notable artistic tribute should be in the artistic tribute section. instead of mischaracterizing my position, how bout stating your own? you were obviously mistaken with the wp memorial page you linked to - perhaps you could be mistaken again? untwirl (talk) 00:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I am a veritable font of reason, in fact. We already have a section that's plenty long, in terms of artistic tributes (longer still with Bragg). We don't need any more. Summary. Style. IronDuke 00:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps true, in the sense that a fountain only shoots forth its "reason" and doesn't take any back in. You didn't address what I said, you addressed the strawman you've decided I'm presenting. arimareiji (talk) 00:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Fountains frequently reabsorb what they shoot forth. And you can always add water to a fountain. Please don't split rhetorical hairs with me, buddy, I got game. And I did indeed adress the strawman you presented. It's crackling merrily as we speak. IronDuke 01:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Instead putting effort on searching for notability of the songs or artists, it is easier to say they are not notable to cut it out. If you have good intentions why don't you put some research effort before you claim songs. Also the notability of the singer is enough for a tribute song to be mentioned in someone's biography page. Kasaalan (talk) 01:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Also the artistic tributes is not very long. It emphasizes on cantata written on Corrie, Theater play on Corrie excerpted from her writings, and fugue they are big events already summarized. Songs are different issue. Kasaalan (talk) 01:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. The list you link to at Kent State is absurdly long, and very bad WP style. Kent State is not, however, at this remove as controversial as RC is, so it stays, as many trivia sections do, because no one can be bothered to remove it. IronDuke 01:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Kasaalan, please back away from this. If someone goads you into being angry enough to say things that get you blocked, you lose - they don't. It's not worth it to argue with anyone who refuses to listen.

Yes, I know IronDuke will immediately say something cute like "You mean yourself, arimareiji?" That doesn't matter - all that matters is keeping it civil so that no one gets in trouble. arimareiji (talk) 01:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think K needs to back away, I just think he needs to not insult people. Is that too tall an order? And BTW, I think you do listen, Arimareiji, and have shown some flexibility, but you're more combative than you need to be. IronDuke 01:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

We began discussing don't worry. But what I said is said, whether I am guilty or not only myself can take the liberty of deleting my own writings. If we all remember Rachel Corrie was also a person that tragically killed and nicknaming her any way we like is a disrespectful manner in more than one ways then the talk page may get much more peaceful. Kasaalan (talk) 01:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

IronDuke - Could you explain in simple terms why someone should be urged against backing away and taking a breather when things get hot? That's one of the simplest principles of conflict resolution. arimareiji (talk) 01:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I actually think K is pretty calm right now. If he isn't, I suppose your advice is good. Kasaalan: would you mind terribly deleting the posts you made about me and "hate?" They aren't true, for one thing, but I think it would be good for you to delete it even if you strongly believe it to be true. IronDuke 01:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Also this article shouldn't be a combat arena that we will fight. But if you have good faith you should listen this, trimming article now is not helping. You should try to add more Israeli side information to the article to balance it, not removing info from it. We near no time try to remove israeli sources from the article even if some are pushing pov. What you should really focus is to find more against-Rachel or against ISM links. The neutrality will only be accomplished that way. But if you try to remove information here and there it becomes more like a censorship. Kasaalan (talk) 01:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Kasaalan, maybe this is a chance to clear something up: I am not anti-Corrie. I am not pro-IDF. I am not anti-IDF. I am not pro-Corrie. I just want a balanced article. Let's assume, for the sake of the argument, that I found ten songs, by ten notable artists, making fun of or disparaging Rachel Corrie. Would I put them in the article, to balance out the others? No. I might write, "Corrie has been the subject of numerous songs and plays, both positive and negative." Unless any of the songs or plays are notable in their own right, I wouldn't mention them here. IronDuke 01:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes you should include their artist and names too if they are notable. That is how an article is written. Saying numerous is only a summary you may only include it in the lead that way. We are doing the research for other people. Kasaalan (talk) 02:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but there's a limit to what we should include in an article we actuallly expect people to sit and read in a reasonable amount of time. What you are proposing above looks like a gigantic addition to little purpose in an article that's already plenty long. And yes, summary style is Wikipedia style. Do you not agree? IronDuke 02:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia has no space limitation. We already properly sectioned the titles. They don't have to read anything they are not interested. This is no refugee camp. Her death, her actions, her writings, tributes to her are notable. You may turn some sections into seperate articles, but removing info currently means wasting other editors time who try hard to improve article with extensive research. Be constructive and make a seperate page for artistic tributes if you like. But don't remove information without consent. That is wasted our numerous dozens of hours already over the improvement process of this article. Kasaalan (talk) 02:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you think there's any limit at all to how long an article should be? IronDuke 02:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

By the way the article is not extensive at all. One third of the article already consists of reference, see also and external references sections. The remainder is only two third of the page or even less when you remove contents section. And what remainder is actually consumed by her death controversy about trials and reports. We didn't even really mentioned her own writings and poems or actions of her early life enough. Kasaalan (talk) 02:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

If you feel article is too long, you may start creating some seperate articles for sections that needs their own page. Like I did to The Skies are Weeping, you may create a separate page for artistic tributes, or memorial events, or Rachel's families activities. Kasaalan (talk) 02:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, you might be onto something there. But since I consider most of what's on the table at present to be of marginal notability, perhaps someone else should do the honors. IronDuke 02:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Alright it is no use accusing each other, striked comments as you kindly asked on condition we all act more carefully characterizing Rachel or others, no emotinal feelings should be involved in the matter. Arimareiji we may create a bunch of sub articles dividing the article if you also help. Kasaalan (talk) 10:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, K, that is much appreciated. IronDuke 22:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

misrepresenting source

ironduke - your revert inaccurately suggests that the perfromance was cancelled due to it being denounced by the jewish community. the source states it differently: "Almost immediately, Munger says, he was inundated with unsolicited e-mail from outside Alaska, a lot of it hateful -- "just threatening, harassing, bizarre ... short of the stuff you'd take to the troopers."

But some of his student musicians received threatening messages too, Munger says -- and that was a different story. It was one thing to invite problems on himself; it was quite another to inflict them on his students.

He says he talked the situation over with Department of Music chairwoman Karen Strid two days before the public forum. She felt the cantata's debut performance scheduled for April 27 should go ahead as planned, Munger says. He alone argued that it ought to be canceled. Finally she concurred." i'm changing it back, but leaving in your addition. untwirl (talk) 17:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

You are riotously incorrect, of course. My revert suggests nothing but that the performance was canceled after the community meeting, which is true. That Munger had decided to cancel it before the meeting doesn't alter when it was in fact canceled, which was after the meeting. IronDuke 22:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Philip Munger's statements about The Skies are Weeping

My only substantive criticism of the entry as I found it yesterday, was that only the soprano slated to sing the solo part in Anchorage and I got threatening e-mails. As of the cancellation on April 8th, 2004, no student names had been released, hence no way for anyone to threaten them. Their safety was the primary reason for the cancellation, as the article states. ... I would prefer if the soprano involved in Anchorage have her name kept out if it doesn't impact thoroughness or accuracy in the article. She is still concerned about the 2004 threats.

Question: The ADN article, btw, says that some students received threats, & attributes that info to you.

I raised that issue with the ADN back in 2004, after the article came out. I've got the highest respect for George Bryson. He mistranscribed what I told him. It should be clear from my written comments of April and May 2004, that he didn't base his written account based upon my written statements prior to his article.

There may be a misinterpretation about the threats. I will try contacting him, and if I have a clear answer I will share here. Kasaalan (talk) 23:04, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

id- the sources actually state that the performance was cancelled prior to the meeting, due to threats, and the announcement was made after the forum. it seems that with comments like "you are riotously incorrect, of course" you are making this into more of an antagonistic discussion than it needs to be. please don't. also, i left it as a deference to you, but why is the quote from the rabbi necessary at all? untwirl (talk) 23:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Erm, no. You accuse me of "misrepesenting" sources (after calling my previous post a rant) and then see fit to offer a prim rejoinder to me to speak to you only in the most hushed, respectful tone? Pull the other one, it's got bells on. You want to elevate the tone? I'm all for it. Know a good place to start? You. As for the meat of your criticism, I define canceled as when he offically cancels it. He could have, for example, decided not to read the announcement after meeting in which case it would have been... uncanceled. It's only canceled when he says it is. Do you really not get why the quote from the Rabbi is necessary? Really and honestly? IronDuke 23:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

ok, calm down. i said your edit misrepresented the source. i did not say "you riotously misrepresented the source, of course." you previously went off on "a general note to whomever", claiming not to have meant anyone here. if that was directed at someone here, it was a personal attack. if not, it was soapboxing. by your reasoning about the cancellation, it was never really canceled until the date of the performance came and went because he could have changed his mind at any time up until then. a public announcement of a cancellation and a cancellation are not the same thing. he 'officially' canceled it and then, two days later, mad a public announcement of the cancellation. you removed munger's own statement of cancelling due to threats and replaced it with this:

"Many objected to the upcoming performance, including members of the Jewish community, and after a forum co-chaired by Munger and a local rabbi, who described the work as bordering on anti-Semitic and said it "romanticized terrorism" the performance was cancelled."

Do you really not get why the accurate representation of the reason for cancelling is necessary? Really and honestly? untwirl (talk) 23:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I will not use an adverb to describe the manner in which you continue to be incorrect. I didn't personally attack anyone, nor did I soapbox (I have a feeling you don't know what that means, by the way you are using it). There are people on this page who are detracting from the article, and they seem to share a POV. I didn't name them because I didn't see the point, and that doesn't explain why you personally attacked me. As for the part about Munger's statement, we already had that his students felt threatened, though I can see in retrospect how it makes sense to have that info twice, and the Jewish community's express position deleted.

I don't see how having an informal conversation with a colleague is "officially" cancelling it -- I think the announcement is what makes it official. Whatever, we are emphasizing different points, and it's a semantic discussion -- my being right is really beside the point. Really. IronDuke 00:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

IronDuke, NB: Untwirl -- who is a single purpose account -- has repeatedly violated WP:NPA by discussing his/her negative opinions of other editors, rather than discussing article content. I think the problem has now become WP:DISRUPT. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

oh that's rich malcolm. its clear from your behavior and repeated intervention from admins which of us is the disruptive one. feel free to report me if you think i am disruptive. do you have a comment on the content in question here?

id - how did i personally attack you? by characterizing your attack on the motivations of editors on this page as a rant? everyone was discussing article content before you felt the need to make that remark. however, this has dragged out far too long. lets just suffice to say you shouldn't have commented in an offensive way on what you perceived to be the motivations of others, and i should have ignored it and not commented on my perception that it was a rant. lets please return to discussing article content, unless you have a specific instance of me personally attacking you that i am not aware of; in that case, please let me know. untwirl (talk) 16:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I have to give you a bit of a hat tip here, U. You manage a very reasonable let’s-all-just-get-past-this kind of tone as you basically state: “IronDuke, let’s overlook your offensive post, and also my entirely correct reaction to it.” Which has it exactly backwards. There was nothing wrong with my post – there are many editors who come here to canonize RC and, as arimareiji points out, many who come to demonize her as well. I say no to both groups. That you were personally offended can only mean that you put yourself in the canonizer group – but I directed nothing specifically at you, so you were quite wrong to direct an insult directly at me (yes, calling my post, which was on-topic, a rant is an insult. I might have been off-base, but I certainly wasn't ranting.). Now, as you say, let's get back to article content. IronDuke 17:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

If we start discussing each other again the discussion will never end. My English is not that great can you people summarize what the comments I published mean in bold. Kasaalan (talk) 16:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. With respect to article content: IronDuke, do you have a reliable source that directly asserts that the cancellation took place either because of, or after, the forum? Because our three existing sources say nothing of the sort. Camden New Journal: "it was cancelled following email and telephone threats." Anchorage Daily News: "He alone argued that it ought to be canceled. Finally she concurred. Then, without telling the press, Munger wrote up a statement announcing the cancellation and took it to the public forum. " The Anchorage Press: "his cantata offended so many Alaskans that he canceled it."; his statement was "an announcement." arimareiji (talk) 16:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... hope I'm not being snarky here, but you should have kept reading the paragraph you quote.

“[Munger] says he talked the situation over with Department of Music chairwoman Karen Strid two days before the public forum. She felt the cantata's debut performance scheduled for April 27 should go ahead as planned, Munger says. He alone argued that it ought to be canceled. Finally she concurred.

Then, without telling the press, Munger wrote up a statement announcing the cancellation and took it to the public forum. But instead of reading it at the outset of the meeting and relieving some of the tension, he decided to keep it under wraps until the very end.” (bold added)

So… as I read that, he talked it over with Strid, they came to a decision about what he would do (not yet did do). Then, after the meeting, he did it. IronDuke 17:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

1. he decided to keep it under wraps until the very end. he decided to keep what under wraps? the news, or announcement of the fact that the show had been canceled. past tense.

2. the quote that you provided explained that he "wrote up a statement announcing the cancellation" - the cancellation being something that had happened that was going to be announced.

3. the wording you inserted "after . . . the performance was canceled" in also wrong time-wise because the announcement was made at the forum. at the end, yes, but not after. untwirl (talk) 17:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

"It" in the first and second sentences substitutes for "a statement announcing the cancellation" - not "the cancellation". Otherwise, you'd have the nonsensical "and took the cancellation to the public forum" and "But instead of reading the cancellation at the outset". Do you have any reliable source which directly asserts that the cancellation (not the announcement of it) came after or because of the forum? arimareiji (talk) 18:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, he decided to keep the announcement of the cancellation under wraps until the end. I read that as after, in the sense that the community had spoken, and this was Munger's post script. The announcement of the cancelation is the cancelation. The piece isn't canceled as Munger sits mulling it over at his desk, even if he has come to a decision. You would say, in fact, "Munger, sitting at his desk, decided to cancel it." That means it hasn't happened yet. He can't cancel the thing in his mind, can he? Further, it isn't canceled when the date passes and it hasn't happened. It is canceled, in this case, at the exact moment a formal announcement of such is made -- in this case after the meeting. If you want "canceled at the very end of the meeting" that's fine with me, too. IronDuke 18:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Again, do you have any reliable source which directly asserts that the cancellation (not the announcement of it) came after or because of the forum? While your reasoning as listed above may seem sound to you, it is exactly that - your reasoning, i.e. WP:OR. arimareiji (talk) 18:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Weirdly, my reasoning seems to have made it into an Anchorage newspaper. IronDuke 00:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

If so, it would behoove you to provide the quote and source. arimareiji (talk) 12:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The fact that Israel has just recently been forced to pay out for two UK citizens it's murdered was removed[30] even from this Discussion page - when it should bein the article. It's crazy to treat Israel as a respectable source to WP:RS when they've been forced to swallow their denials over other murders at exactly the same time! Let's hope the families of Iain Hook and Rachel Corrie get justice too. 80.40.225.228 (talk) 18:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

As I said the last time this was brought up: Please be reminded that as it says at the top of the page, this is not a forum. It's particularly not a forum for inflammatory POV speculation which is irrelevant to the article. We're pretty good at inflaming each other already; we don't really need any help. IronDuke, do you have a quote and source for the assertion that your reasoning "seems to have made it into an Anchorage newspaper"? arimareiji (talk) 18:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:BRD - not bold, revert, revert, revert

the latest quote doesnt have consensus for inclusion. it was boldly added. then reverted. now its time to discuss, not edit war. untwirl(talk) 03:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The "REACTION" section includes an HRW report from 2005, artistic tributes from 2007, kidnapping attempts from 2006, etc..., so to remove the Burston quote in the grounds that "it is from 2006 and therefore not a 'reaction' seems a little, shall we say, tenuous. NoCal100 (talk) 03:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

thanks for joining the discussion- do you disagree that this boldly added edit, which was reverted, should be discussed now before it is added, according to WP:BRD? untwirl(talk) 03:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Isn't this what we are doing - discussing? Would you like to discuss how a 2006 Op-Ed which directly discusses the event is not a reaction, but a 2008 remix of a 10 minute fugue comprised of right-wing blogs is a reaction? NoCal100 (talk) 03:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

i am happy to discuss these points, but dont you think we should follow the rules and leave it out until there is consensus to include it? someone added it, i reverted and waited for the discussion. you (and others) reverted it back in without discussion. i admit i am new, but i'm trying to get used to the way things work around here and this seems outside of the usual protocol. untwirl(talk) 04:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:BRD is a personal essay, not a "rule" or a policy. if you're happy to discuss - go ahead an discuss.NoCal100 (talk) 04:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

thanks for clearing that up. untwirl(talk) 05:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

(undent) The editorial is actually a good addition, if it's kept accurate to the substance of what he's saying. Using only the most inflammatory material, especially when one of his themes is that both sides need to tone down the excessive rhetoric, is ironically both WP:POINTy and missing the point at the same time. NB: "Pro-Palestinian" was his original phrasing, not "anti-Israel," and I've returned it to his actual words. arimareiji (talk) 05:06, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

this is actually a much better representation of what the article actually says. i had a knee jerk reaction to a posting to a 2006 "spin city blog" being added to assert the IDF's position. that was my initial problem with the edit. when i read the entire thing, i realized the same thing arimareiji is saying, that the article was mischaracterized, as well as the fact that in asserting the IDF as correct he sets up an imaginary universe where we "Forget, for the moment," that the ISM has a different story, and to "Consider, instead - accept, for the moment - only the conclusions of the IDF probe." untwirl(talk) 05:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words. IMO, regardless of whether he meant it as a hypothetical or as an assertion, he seems to be saying he believes it was accidental - but it's a point he's using to work towards a conclusion, it's not per se a conclusion. Personally, I liked his point about the excessive rhetoric and I'll try to keep it in mind. arimareiji (talk) 05:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

now, how am i going to argue with something sweet like that? ;) since its sourced to haaretz and not spin city, and since its attributed, it does seem to meet WP:RS]. i think your paraphrase is good, although i think "(he) assert(s) that Corrie's death was accidental" is too strong when in his comments he seems only to think its likely. untwirl(talk) 21:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Political Reactions Section

Should we have a separate title as political reactions section, or should we add other political reactions under reactions title since there are much more political reactions than we mention in the article even in the US.

Content

1) FOIA no record found for Rachel Corrie

2) COUNTRY REPORTS ON HUMAN RIGHTS PRACTICES FOR 2004 VOLUME II REPORT SUBMITTED TO THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, U.S. SENATE AND THE COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE.

3) US Congressman and Represantative Statements for the Case

(click blue button at right to see text)

Official Papers "Rachel Alaine Corrie (Deceased) ... 2005-0132 9/1/2005 9/2/2005 No Record" FOIA "The U.N. Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) and other groups reported continued delays in transporting goods to Palestinian refugees in the occupied territories. During Operation Days of Penitence in September and October, the IDF restricted entrance into the Gaza Strip, preventing humanitarian agencies such as UNRWA from delivering food and providing assistance. In October, UNRWA claimed that 24 of its staffers were detained by the IDF and that it was not notified. An Israeli official stated the number detained was not 24, but said that other UNRWA staff members were under indictment. Physicians for Human Rights, which offered weekly ‘‘mobile clinics’’ in Palestinian villages, has been denied access to Gaza for 3 years and has only limited access to the West Bank. On March 16, 2003, an Israeli bulldozer clearing land in Rafah in the Gaza Strip crushed and killed Rachel Corrie, 23, a U.S. citizen peace activist. Corrie was standing in front of the bulldozer and was wearing a reflective vest. Eyewitness demonstrators stated that they believe the driver knew Corrie was in front of the bulldozer as he proceeded forward. IDF investigations concluded that the operator was not negligent. U.S. officials who have seen the IDF report found inconsistencies among the statements of the people involved in the accident and other witnesses. The Corrie family believes that the investigation was not thorough, credible, and transparent and continued to pursue the case. In conjunction with the report of the IDF Judge Advocate General, the IDF implemented two remedial procedures for improved safety: The presence of more senior officers to oversee such operations and the designation of closed military zones with orders forbidding the presence of civilians in areas when IDF military operations are concluded. On April 7, 2003, gunfire from an undetermined source struck 24-year-old U.S. citizen Brian Avery in Jenin. The IDF denied responsibility for the incident. Avery, an activist with the International Solidarity Movement, was walking outside during curfew in the city when an IDF armored personnel carrier approached him. Avery was shot in the face and required considerable surgery and extended hospitalization. In December, a lawyer petitioned the Supreme Court to require Israel military authorities to investigate his shooting. According to B’tselem, the IDF had reportedly conducted an internal investigation and concluded that it was impossible to determine whether Avery was hit by IDF or Palestinian gunfire. At year’s end, the Israeli High Court had not delivered its decision in the case." COUNTRY REPORTS ON HUMAN RIGHTS PRACTICES FOR 2004 VOLUME II R E P O R T SUBMITTED TO THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, U.S. SENATE AND THE COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE. Court Papers "FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CYNTHIA CORRIE, on their own behalf and as Personal Representatives of Rachel Corrie and her next of kin, including her siblings; CRAIG CORRIE, on their own behalf and as Personal Representatives of Rachel Corrie and her next of kin, including her No. 05-36210 siblings; MAHMOUD OMAR AL D.C. No. SHO’BI; FATHIYA MUHAMMAD CV-05-05192-FDB SULAYMAN FAYED; FAYEZ ALI MOHAMMED ABU HUSSEIN; MAJEDA OPINION RADWAN ABU HUSSEIN; EIDA IBRAHIM SULEIMAN KHALAFALLAH, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CATERPILLAR, INC., Defendant-Appellee." uscourts.gov US Congressman and Represantative Statements "Statement on the Death of Rachel Corrie For Immediate Release - March 18, 2003 I am saddened and horrified by the death of Rachel Corrie on March 16. The U.S. must require -- and the Israeli government must provide -- all of the facts about what happened on Sunday. What we know is terrible: a young, unarmed woman was run over and killed by a D-9 armored bulldozer driven by a member of the Israeli security forces. What we must find out is important: How could the bulldozer driver fail to see a brightly dressed woman with a bullhorn? What orders are the drivers given? How are they trained? What are their "rules of engagement" with protestors?" Congressman Jim McDermott - News - Statement on the Death of Rachel Corrie "Expressing sympathy for the loss of Rachel Corrie in the Palestinian village of Rafah in the Gaza Strip on March 16, 2003. Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That Congress-- (1) expresses its sympathy to Craig and Cynthia Corrie and to their extended families, friends, and co-workers for the loss of Rachel Corrie in the Palestinian village of Rafah in the Gaza Strip on March 16, 2003; (2) calls on the United States Government to undertake a full, fair, and expeditious investigation into the death of Rachel Corrie; and (3) encourages the Government of the United States and the Government of Israel to work together to determine all the circumstances that led to this incident and to ensure that an incident of this kind never occurs again."Mr. BAIRD (for himself, Mr. MCDERMOTT, Mr. INSLEE, Mr. SMITH of Washington, Mr. DICKS, Mr. LARSEN of Washington, Mr. LEWIS of Georgia, Mr. WU, Mr. HONDA, Ms. ESHOO, and Mrs. CAPPS) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on International Relations "Expressing sympathy for the loss of Rachel Corrie in the Palestinian village of Rafah in the Gaza Strip on March 16, 2003. Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That Congress-- (1) expresses its sympathy to Craig and Cynthia Corrie and to their extended families, friends, and co-workers for the loss of Rachel Corrie in the Palestinian village of Rafah in the Gaza Strip on March 16, 2003; (2) calls on the United States Government to undertake a full, fair, and expeditious investigation into the death of Rachel Corrie; and (3) encourages the Government of the United States and the Government of Israel to work together to determine all the circumstances that led to this incident and to ensure that an incident of this kind never occurs again."Mr. BAIRD (for himself, Mr. MCDERMOTT, Mr. INSLEE, Mr. SMITH of Washington, Mr. DICKS, Mr. LARSEN of Washington, Mr. LEWIS of Georgia, Mr. WU, Mr. HONDA, Ms. ESHOO, and Mrs. CAPPS) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on International Relations "Whereas, America has a proud history of achieving social change which at times has required civil disobedience and protest; and Whereas, No citizen peacefully protesting here or abroad should face imprisonment or death for these actions; and Whereas, Rachel Corrie, a 23-year-old college student at The Evergreen State College and citizen of Washington state, died when an Israeli bulldozer crushed her as she protested the demolition of a Palestinian home; and Whereas, Rachel Corrie was dedicated to issues of peace and justice; and Whereas, As the youngest of three children raised in a home near Mud Bay, Rachel is recalled by her family as inquisitive and articulate, and very concerned about the world around her; and Whereas, Rachel attended an alternative elementary school her family helped found in the 1980s that focused on the environment, social justice, and peace; and Whereas, As a fifth-grader, Rachel and her classmates held a news conference on the steps of the State Capitol to call attention to world hunger; and Whereas, In high school, Rachel helped foreign-exchange students learn about America, and in college, she worked with the homeless, staffed a suicide hotline, and helped outfit children and adults as doves to march in an annual "Procession of the Species" parade; and Whereas, Regardless of anyone's stand on the Israeli-Palestinian question, Rachel's death was needless and should be investigated; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Washington State Legislature uphold the principles of free speech and the rights of all citizens to peaceable protest for whatever cause they choose; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Washington State House of Representatives request the President of the United States or Congress to conduct an investigation into the circumstances of Rachel's death and share the results of that investigation with the people of the United States." HOUSE RESOLUTION NO.2003-4647, by Representatives Romero and Hunt

Click the text at right side to See the context. Kasaalan (talk) 19:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

wow - you've done alot of work here! i think the legislative resolutions are notable enough to be included and the court case should have a mention (if its not the same as the one thats already in there). as far as the report, i'm not sure. does it contain info not already in the article? untwirl(talk) 22:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we should open a Political Reactions to Rachel Corrie Case and Legal Papers to Rachel Corrie Case like Artistic Tributes to Rachel Corrie page. Actually I may use some help on subpages like these, still more editing is needed. Kasaalan (talk) 07:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The house Corrie believed she was protecting?

Ironduke, what is in dispute with the wording that has been reverted? That she was protecting a house or which house she was protecting. Adding the part about "she believed" should be avoided it seems. Maybe just remove mention of Corrie and say something like..It was reported in 2006 that the Nasrallah family house was rebuilt with funds raised by The Rebuilding Alliance....Anyways, Tom 04:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

She was trying to do something, that also includes believing she was doing something, but adding an extra believe really makes the push. Like I try to answer you, but if you say, you believe you were answering me, it points you don't believe I am actually answering you, so that sentence not neutral at all. I didn't say she was protecting or she believe she was protecting since they both is not neutral, she was trying to protect is a neutral sentence though. Kasaalan (talk) 00:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Artistic Tributes to Rachel Corrie at AFD

I've started an AFD about the Artistic Tributes to Rachel Corrie, so if anyone wants to comment, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artistic Tributes to Rachel Corrie. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I voted not to delete or merge the Artistic Tributes to Rachel Corrie page with Rachel Corrie main article. I added a keep vote to the page since the page created after an agreement in here because the main article needs to be separated or will be too long for article and reference parts. Kasaalan (talk) 16:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I would like to reiterate my opinion that the amount of attention received by these artistic tributes is completely out of proportion to either their artistic merit or their political importance. Take, for example, the cantata by Philip Munger, The Skies are Weeping: this piece of music has about 3500 words devoted to it in the Wikipedia. Compare that to Handel's Messiah (2700 words), Beethoven's Mass in C major (400 words), or the Mozart Requiem (about 5000 words). Stravinsky's The Rite of Spring, arguably the most controversial piece of music ever written (there were riots at its first performance), gets 4700 words.

I am familiar with Philip Munger's cantata (I am probably one of the few) and, in my opinion, it is not a bad piece. But I don't think that even Philip Munger himself would consider it on a par with the great choral works of the classics, or suggest that it should receive more extensive coverage in this encyclopedia than Handel or Beethoven.

The article itself is really not about the cantata at all, but is almost entirely about the politics surrounding its composition, and specifically about the cancellation of the scheduled premiere because of objections from a segment of the Alaska Jewish community. It includes the complete text of a piece of hatemail sent by a hoaxter, but not a single musical quotation from the work itself. --Ravpapa (talk) 14:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The page you refer is not artistic tributes to rachel corrie page we discussing here. What we discuss here is Artistic Tributes to Rachel Corrie, and it has detailed contents of the my skies are weeping cantata and if you like we can expand the article by adding content but that is also no reason for deleting a summary like article.

If you would compare the articles by their word count, and if you feel mozart's composition needs heavier weight than why don't you try adding into it than feel like trimming other articles down. Simple question. Because adding and researching info is hard but deleting is easy. Take your time try improving the Mozart's article if you like.

You claim the article is long, maybe, but it has surrounding events and people that try to ban the composition from premiere. Some people try to threaten Munger to stop the premiere. So did Mozart got threaten messages for Requiem that we not heard of, or any of its performers felt their security in danger, or did anyone try to ban his Requiem from premiere. No. Same for Messiah (Handel). So anyone didn't mention it in the article, which doesn't add to the article. Or should we wait untill messiah to come for resolving this issue. Wikipedia has no space limitation but content limitation. If you holding the rabbi's side fine, but even if you do we should also expand his views in the article not substracting any. Limiting articles is no good way for helping wikipedia or any race or religion.

I don't have all the time in the world finding the references for the articles already took immense time. So if you are familiar with the cantata and classical music, why don't you add some info to that part or try improving it. Or if you like why don't you help wikifying the article. I can only welcome you but everyone complaining yet I didn't happen to came across much editors that help me improving the article. Kasaalan (talk) 15:18, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Because the article is not worthy of improvement. That is my whole point. Enough said. --Ravpapa (talk) 15:28, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

You voted for deletion here, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Compositions task force.

For my part I can say tough recording quality is low and choir-solo parts could be improved, music is good, 7. Rachel's Words, especially 1. Psalm 137 and 2. Dance for Tom Hurndall, some lyrics are strong, and visual performances are great.

You say you don't like to add to the article, fine, if you change your mind I welcome you improving the article. But what is your exact point here, does keeping the article long makes Beethoven offended. No. Then what. It makes you offended maybe. So what. The total number of works and length of Beethoven's, Haendel's or Mozart's works already multiple of times than the single work of Philip Munger. So your logic is not true. Kasaalan (talk) 16:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Also you should be clearly joking on the weight issue.

Let me follow your logic since Music of Israel is way longer than Music of China and longer than Music of Turkey, then the music of Israel should be more important than music of Turkey and way important than music of China. But this isn't the case, is it. No. So should we trim down music of Israel to balance weight. No. If I feel like the balance is broken, than I should add to the music of China page. It would be wrong otherwise, isn't it. The question here is, can you at least admit it.

My advice, if you follow a proper logic instead inventing new ones according to your personal political thoughts, the chances that you may end up with more reliable thoughts will be higher.

Admiring Rabbis and Israel shouldn't affect your opinions on the matter. Any article is worthy of improving. That is the whole point of wikipedia. Either you have time for it or don't. That is the job of independent editors. It may not be true for Israelipedia or Zionipedia but I am not an editor there.

Following your logic, Your logic is false, I proved it, end of discussion. Kasaalan (talk) 15:40, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Deletion Review For Artistic Tributes to Rachel Corrie

I asked for a deletion review for Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Artistic_Tributes_to_Rachel_Corrie. Kasaalan (talk) 13:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Corrie's death and subsequent controversy

The first few lines of this paragraph are completely POV. It takes the position, refuted by Israel, that the bulldozer was engaged in a house demolition. I tried to to balance it by including the Israeli POV, but it was undone because a user didn't like the source. The IDF report is mentioned in hundreds of sites, though it wasn't officially released to the media.

Additionally, the paragraph cites an anachronistic Al Jazeera source which contends that the the tunnels were being used "used for consumer goods impossible to acquire due to Israel's blockade." This information is from a 2008 report which was completely irrelevant in 2003 at the time of the incident because there was no blockade preventing consumer goods from entering Gaza until the June 2007 Hamas takover of Gaza.

I will delete the Al Jazeera reference and rewrite the first few lines when I get a chance. Wikieditorpro (talk) 03:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

First of all be bold and add material, but if you going to remove information from the article, you should first discuss. Second removing content will not help NPOV, but if you feel Israeli side is missing, do some research and post your results. I don't object that, more Israeli sided views might be needed, yet for balancing article removing non-Israeli side views is not a proper way also leads censorship. So I strongly object deleting Al Jazeera article, but adding a Israeli side article is fine with me. Kasaalan (talk) 10:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

If you feel this sentence should stay, you must demonstrate the relevancy to the issue at hand which you have failed to do. As I wrote before, the article deals specifically with circumstances that arose several years after this event and is therefore entirely anachronistic and irrelevant here.

A fear of censorship is not reason enough to keep irrelevant information in the article.Wikieditorpro (talk) 08:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

You claim it has not irrelevant but I cannot find where you proved your case, it is revelant logically against claims of the IDF, some other editors also agreed, because we discussed that before, search the archive if you like, for adding info on IDF side go ahead, but removing some claims against IDF's claimed reasons for destruction, yet that is censorship for the most part.

You have some point about the dates, actually I haven't noticed it before, yet the situation gets for worse during the years, true, but that doesn't mean there were no tunnels for food back then, and they just popped out from nowhere.

In the past year, he had significantly increased his household income by investing in a black-market, "tunnel" economy, which relied on smuggled goods siphoned through underground passages between Egypt and Gaza.

Israel has always maintained that the tunnels were used to smuggle arms and explosives, but Shweikh says food, gasoline, and household treats – chocolate, in particular - formed the basis of his trade.

"I purchase goods from the chocolate company directly in Egypt; from such companies as Galaxy, from Ferrero or the Kinder Company. I buy, I transfer money and they send me the goods, by way of normal businessmen … tunnel businessmen."

Actually the article shows IDF's approach didn't change over the years, and the smuggling was in progress before too. Same city, same people, same army, only date changes, but you still have a point. The case is very similar but I will also try to find a better source for the past in the meantime. Also some additional words should be added to the paragraph to make the situation clear. Kasaalan (talk) 09:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I kindly suggest you look up the meaning of censorship in the dictionary as you clearly do not understand its meaning. You have twice accused me of censorship for trying to remove irrelevant information.

"You have some point about the dates, actually I haven't noticed it before, yet the situation gets for worse during the years, true, but that doesn't mean there were no tunnels for food back then, and they just popped out from nowhere.""

It also doesn't mean that the flying spaghetti monster isn't god. If you want to add information, it's your responsibility to source it. It isn't anyone's responsibility to find a counter-source to remove material without a proper source. That's not how Wikipedia works (I'll exercise restraint and avoid any references to how Islamipedia might work.)

Instead of cherry-picking a couple of sentences and then distorting them to support your claims, read the article objectively:

"Following Hamas' seizure of power in the Strip in June 2007, Israeli restrictions on the flow of people and goods in and out of Gaza developed into a siege.

The stranglehold on Gaza, used to pressure Hamas to halt home-made missile attacks against Israel, has starved many civilians of basic food items and energy supplies.

To cope with the siege, a number of Palestinians began to dig tunnels between Gaza and Egypt through which dozens of household items, foodstuffs and gasoline were smuggled.

This underground, tunnel economy thrived for more than a year, and offered many Palestinian entrepreneurs an alternative investment channel."

Of course there were tunnels before, but it wasn't economically viable to use them to transfer basic goods, which could be transferred for a fraction of the price above ground. Claiming that they were used for goods is illogical, and a novelty which the Al-Jaeera article not only doesn't support, but when read objectively, contradicts.

Let me again remind you, that this article deals with the circumstances surrounding events in 2003. Wikieditorpro (talk) 08:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Found a source for 2003 Underground War Gaza by Sacco for New York Times 23 MB PDF. I will try adding more sources. Kasaalan (talk) 05:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)