Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:03, 8 May 2009

Artistic Tributes to Rachel Corrie was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 22 March 2009 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Rachel Corrie. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

Rachel Corrie received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Rachel Corrie article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14Auto-archiving period: 14 days

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Palestine Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Misplaced Pages. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Anti-war This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anti-war, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the anti-war movement on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Anti-warWikipedia:WikiProject Anti-warTemplate:WikiProject Anti-warAnti-war ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Policies

(Please do not archive. New editors are asked to read this section carefully before editing.)

Because this is a contentious article, all edits should conform strictly not only to WP:NPOV, but also to the policies and guidelines regarding sources: WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:RS. Jointly these say:

• Articles may not contain any unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, analyses, or ideas.
• The above may be published in Misplaced Pages only if already published by a reliable source.
• A "source" refers to the publication Misplaced Pages obtained the material from (e.g. The New York Times). It does not refer to the original source of the material (i.e. wherever The New York Times obtained the information from).
• A "reliable source" in the context of Rachel Corrie means:
  • articles in mainstream newspapers, books that are not self-published, scholarly papers, official reports, trial transcripts, congressional reports or transcripts, and similar;
  • 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.

Deletion Review For Artistic Tributes to Rachel Corrie

I asked for a deletion review for Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Artistic Tributes to Rachel Corrie

Alright since we got a consensus for creating Artistic Tributes to Rachel Corrie Yet none of you bothered to even vote for deletion article, and 1 admin apparently voted for merging it back into main page, and some POV users trying to delete it either get ready to a huge merge, or do something about it. Kasaalan (talk) 09:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Created new title, containing documentaries, cartoons, and political reactions. Kasaalan (talk) 09:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Some Israeli-POV users (I didn't refer the article deletion nominator by the way) trying to getting the whole Public Reactions to Rachel Corrie Page deleted. I will try to bring it back. Kasaalan (talk) 17:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Since we created the article on consensus, can you state your opinions on User_talk:MBisanz#Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion.2FArtistic_Tributes_to_Rachel_Corrie page. Kasaalan (talk) 19:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

K, Why don't you link to the DRV page here when you get it set up? IronDuke 19:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

What you think of the merge into main page, can you possibly explain here. Kasaalan (talk) 20:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Well I set up a deletion review page before yet not much editors voted. Before opening a second title I will wait our dedicated editors back on discussion page. They insisting on merging into main page, I simply tried to explain, we created the sub page on consensus of different parties in main page, and we have a length issue here, but admin not verdict likewise. They expect us to merge the content into main page, which will bring lots of long discussions here and distract us a lot. Kasaalan (talk) 19:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

For reading previous discussion's on deletion reviews you may follow the links. Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Artistic_Tributes_to_Rachel_CorrieMisplaced Pages:Deletion_review/Log/2009_April_16 Kasaalan (talk) 00:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Current case is the page reverted back into Public reactions to death of Rachel Corrie. All main page editors invited in adding content, and neutralizing the article if it contains any POV approach. Yet it may get another deletion review. So if any deletion review it gets, try to decide if you want a merge into main article, or keeping it as a sub article. Kasaalan (talk) 16:24, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Following the numerous discussions, I've decided to undo the forced merger (it's been a month but who cares) and relist the article at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Public reactions to death of Rachel Corrie. A second DRV (for an article that wasn't deleted) is just nonsensical so people can call it whatever they want. Kasaalan can continue there but I would ask he drop the "Israeli biased users" remarks. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

That remark wasn't for you, but some users that troll the page because of my other edits in some related pages, and work hard on the case. So try not to get offended, since I don't know about your edits.

Also I call devoted page editor's opinions on the matter primarily. Kasaalan (talk) 00:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Irrelevant. Knock those remarks off now or I'm blocking you. Take that as a serious threat. I'm not kidding around. This material is controversial enough without your commentary. You've called on devoted editors for months now, and none have any interest. May I suggest either going start onto their user talk pages or dropping the argument? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't have any business with you, I am not sure why you try threaten me exactly. First of all you are creating accusing remarks on me everywhere, especially in admins pages and my replies only meant to be a reply on your claims of my bad faith. If you don't want to discuss the issue, it is fine by me, if you don't accuse me then I don't have to reply on anywhere. I don't know your edits or I don't know you, I only may answer on your serious and false accusations on me, and that is only thing I try to do. I have no interest in discussing with you further about this issue in your talk page or elsewhere, except the deletion review, if you don't blatantly accuse me anymore . Kasaalan (talk) 10:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

But I may try posting messages on user pages, too. Yet putting a link in main article page is a better idea yet I tried to put a remark on main page about the deletion review, yet another used erased it. Kasaalan (talk) 10:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

About the deletion review looks like canvassing, that's the concern. Asking people to edit isn't a concern, asking particular people to comment on "not-a-vote but somewhat is" AFD and DRV environments are different. I hope that's clear. As to you, I happen to wander through different articles and say your conduct here which I wanted to respond to. There really is no need for the "Israeli-biased users" crack or other types period, and you've been here long enough to know that's not productive. Regardless of what you may think, I've done quite a bit of article creation and work in my time here, and you'll see that I find the talk page extremely productive for discussion. Generally, I try to start a new section on every section I removed (people don't usually argue about additions of text). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

The only concern in the particular people you refer, was being able to interest in the article. The deletion reviews only lasts for a while, and without the judgment of the active main page editors it is not so healthy discuss a deletion review. The messages sent both public and personal talk pages, mainly including page some active editors of the past and the users in project page that seemed active. If you track the messages you can see it is the same, and sent to project page users via talk page and in public, from opposing views, so claiming it was canvas is untrue.

Does objection to the addition of a quote to x page because it belongs to y page, and objecting again to the addition of the same quote to y page because it belongs to x page. sounds logical to you. There are some clear reasons for me to say it loud both publicly and the relevant user's talk page. But I don't want to discuss it further, since it is actually not productive anymore, and not much relevant here.

I have commented you only did 2 edits in Rachel Corrie article, I haven't comment on your other edits of other pages, I don't know of them.

I am in favor of adding opposing views to the articles for balancing them, while some other editors are in favor of removing some other views. Kasaalan (talk) 11:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

What other main page editors think on sub page Public reactions to death of Rachel Corrie The deletion discussions are in progress for 5 more days

The deletion request is in progress, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Public reactions to death of Rachel Corrie. We have various page editors from opposing views, that haven't state an opinion for Public reactions to death of Rachel Corrie subarticle, neither in talk page here or deletion request discussions yet. It is strictly relevant with this page, because either it will be deleted, merged back into main page, or kept by some wikifying somehow, which means a lot of work whatever the outcome of the decision is. And a consent from opposing views is required somehow for either improving the article, or merging it back into main page. Kasaalan (talk) 16:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Reliable Sourcing for "Saint Pancake"

Salon.com

The relevant quote: "Corrie, who suffered massive internal injuries when she was either crushed by a bulldozer or buried under construction debris, was routinely dubbed "Saint Pancake" in such venues, or described as "terrorist-loving swine."" Jclemens (talk) 04:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I will try reading the source fully, a good reference

We do not see the infamous photograph of the keffiyeh-clad Corrie burning an "American flag" -- not a real flag, but a crude children's drawing of one -- at a demonstration about a month before her death. Nor do we see the torrent of exaggerated and often shocking verbal abuse to which Corrie was subjected, postmortem, on right-wing bulletin boards and Web sites. Corrie, who suffered massive internal injuries when she was either crushed by a bulldozer or buried under construction debris, was routinely dubbed "Saint Pancake" in such venues, or described as "terrorist-loving swine." (That's without getting into the grotesque sexual fantasies and elaborate conspiracy theories.)

Bitton approaches Corrie's death from an Israeli point of view, which means she sees it quite differently from the way Americans do. For her, it's partly a forensic puzzle -- an episode of "CSI: Gaza" without a clear resolution -- and as a philosophical challenge to the military and political status quo. It's important to understand that within Israel, Corrie's encounter with a military bulldozer (an enormous armored machine called the Caterpillar D9, built in the United States to Israeli specifications) and the subsequent investigation were a relatively minor news blip, not the full-on media frenzy we enjoyed.

Saint pancake may be somewhat a nick to be included in the article, but since the reliable source refers to non-reliable and hateful speeches, I am not sure anything contains swine should be added into main article. It is a clear and direct insult, and most possibly against crime to call anyone like that in the first place. If we going to add that we should add similar comments in any politician's pages. Kasaalan (talk) 10:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I favor the text as I originally inserted it: succinct, and reporting what the source said briefly. "Saint Pancake" has been discussed many times on this page, and the crux of the argument has always been "When an RS picks up on the usage, then and only then is it time to include that insult in this article" Well, it's hard to call Salon anything but an unbiased, independent RS--they're certainly not a right-wing fringe source. I think the the more full quoting of the article starts to border on WP:UNDUE WP:COATRACKing--maligning the right-wing bloggers and news sites, who Salon clearly does not endorse or agree with. Jclemens (talk) 16:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

My previous reply

I checked for nicknames "st. pancake" and "pancake corrie" in google. The reference for these nicknames are limited to a few hundred pages or even below and over 95 percent of them are personal blogs or comments. If the nicknames were common, it might have worth to mention in the article, even if it contains insult. Yet mentioning an insult might also be against wikiguidelines in the first place for legal reasons. Your example biographies have nicknames, yet these nicks are both common in public and used by press frequently. Also your source is a scholarly student journal for arts which refers to one particular blog. You have a point, but not so strong. Also for memorial Rachel Corrie Foundation sell pancakes to raise money, which might also be a possible root for the nickname. Yet again there isn't an apparent connection available.

Yet this time with a wider coverage around 800-1.200 pages available on google about revelant nicks. Still most of them are blog pages like blogspot.com or wordpress.com but the nick has wider coverage now. And also some reliable sources mention this particular nick.

But there is a huge difference between adding saint pancake and terrorist lover animal name derivatives. I may be in favor of Saint Pancake being included, as my previous reply. So discussing st pancake nick is constructive, yet other direct hatespeech insult is not, which isn't has coverage anyway. Kasaalan (talk) 22:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

If you're suggesting that we remove the more egregious (and frankly less humorous) insults, I am in agreement. We haven't heard from the editor who added them, but if he doesn't contribute to the discussion here, I will remove them tomorrow. Jclemens (talk) 23:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not wild about adding "St. Pancake". Yes, Salon is a good source, but it's only one, and it's quoting right wing blogs (which, like left wing blogs, aren't usually good sources). If notable people were using it, maybe... but I don't see that. IronDuke 23:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but the source or Salon's info isn't important. As an RS, they're presumed to have done fact checking to validate what they write. The fact that a good RS has mentioned "Saint Pancake" has forever removed it from the list of blog memes and placed it into the Misplaced Pages mainstream, per WP:V and WP:RS. There's simply no longer any justification for not including it, as it has been commonly acknowledged by Corrie's supporters and detractors to have existed. It's a posthumous insult, and as much as WP:UNDUE required it be kept out if there wasn't a reliable source for it (and in the archives, there's another college newspaper that was debated as possibly reliable but certainly isolated), WP:UNDUE also requires that it be included in relative proportion to the number of RS covering it. One mention, in the section of reactions critical of Corrie's actions, seems to be both the smallest and largest mention under that reading of WP:UNDUE--I neither want it gone, nor am I suggesting all of the insults relayed by the Salon article be included. Jclemens (talk) 23:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

In this case, some other reliable sources that mention this may be found, but even if there wasn't any, there are some couple hundred of blogs exist anyway. If we clearly state they are right wing blogs, boards that contain some hatespeech, it may be good for public opinion somehow. Yet also other editors' should voice their opinion in this case. Why no discussions in talk page recently, but again people chose to edit revert procedures. Kasaalan (talk) 09:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Also we may need more criticizing views for the article, you may be right, I advocate the best way to improve balance is addition of critical sources, while keeping other info. So if you find reliable sources on criticizing actions of Rachel or ISM, and share them in discussion page, I am in favor of adding them to the article if there is any balance issue, as I did before. Kasaalan (talk) 09:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

My opinion is that if it's "good for public opinion somehow" is not only irrelevant, it borders on POV pushing. Your job here it not to make Rachel Corrie look good. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Your opinion doesn't count since you obviously don't bother to read what I write. I am in favor of adding the nick, but other editors opinion also matter. My job not looking her good, looking her bad, or deciding what looks her good or bad unlike your state of mind. Kasaalan (talk) 12:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I didn't understand what you mean with "good for public opinion somehow". Please explain. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I meant freedom of information. Kasaalan (talk) 16:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

• An attempt to shoehorn a pejorative name used by a few right-wing unreliable sources directly into the article? Hmm, that smacks of an end run around consensus after the community roundly rejected the wikilawyering attempts to get "Saint Pancake" into the encyclopedia as a redirect. One does have to wonder at the motives of editors that are spending so much time desperately trying to get this distasteful epithet into the article. Haven't you got anything better to do? Oh, and some alphabet soup? WP:RS (a reliable source quoting an unreliable source is still unreliable), WP:BLP and WP:HARM (which still apply to the recently deceased), and most important, WP:UNDUE. Black Kite 14:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

  1) Please describe how many RS must cover a meme that begins in admittedly unreliable sources for it to be included.

  2) Please describe how long Corrie must be dead before WP:BLP and WP:HARM no longer apply to her.

  3) Please describe how WP:NOTCENSORED applies to a distasteful epithet?

  Please remember to WP:AGF. My only motivation is that coverage of Corrie be complete. Jclemens (talk) 15:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

• • 1) Certainly more than one, especially when that one is a movie review, for goodness' sake.

    2) Given that the epithet amounts to taking pleasure and poking fun at someone's death, how about "until all her close relatives (especially her parents) are dead"?

    3) I didn't invoke WP:NOTCENSORED.

    4) I do try to AGF, but I can still think of no good reason for repeatedly trying to insert revoltingly bad-taste epithets into someone's article on a top ten worldwide website, which could be read by any of her relatives. Black Kite 15:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

    (removed redundant sigs, since you didn't reply inline)

    1) So two would be sufficient? Or is it N+1, where N is the number currently available?

    2) Your position is clear; I differ.

    3) I didn't say you invoked WP:NOTCENSORED; I did. In that "because it might offend someone" isn't a reason to take anything out of Misplaced Pages, ever. If it meets WP:V, which "Saint Pancake" does, the feelings of those who dislike it cannot, by policy, be used to impair the creation of an encyclopedia--that is, a neutral reference source that mentions the bad parts and well as the good. Jclemens (talk)

    4) I don't find that relevant, per my answer to #3. As I haven't impugned your personal motivation for rejecting what I believe to be a clearly reliably sourced insult, please do not impugn mine for advocating its inclusion. Jclemens (talk) 16:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

    • As I said below, the only reason for including any negative epithet about a person should be that it is used regularly in reliable sources to refer to this person. Let's look at Google News for example - "Saint Pancake" = 1 hit (the Salon article ). "Rachel Corrie" - 4,090 hits (). I think that's pretty conclusive. Black Kite 16:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

      How does that square with WP:UNDUE, which says "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each" Are you asserting that the inclusion of a reliably sourced viewpoint can be "rounded down" to be not covered at all? Jclemens (talk) 16:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

      You've just answered your own question - "...all significant viewpoints ... in proportion to the prominence of each...". If you're suggesting that a viewpoint with one solitary Google News reference (and that a movie review) compared to over 4,000 for the subject themselves is significant or prominent, I really don't know what to say. On that basis, you could insert the fact that GW Bush was regularly called "Monkey Boy" into his article (Look - 58 Google News hits). We just don't do that. Black Kite 16:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

      Again, how many reliable sources does it take to prove significance, and how does WP:NOTCENSORED play into that? I don't have a problem with GWB being called "monkey boy", and that is essentially an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. If you'd like to add "monkey boy" to Public image of George W. Bush, be my guest. Jclemens (talk) 17:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

      See my reply to IronDuke below. Clearly I wasn't serious about Bush, I was merely making the point that using your argument would mean that we could probably construct an argument for using any offensive epithet that's ever been mentioned, even in passing, in one reliable source. And that's clearly a recipe for disaster. Black Kite 17:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

reply to jclemens - i'm not sure which of the statements are supposedly "humorous" - was it 'Saint Pancake' and 'terrorist-loving swine'"(your additions) - and which you view as egregious - "shocking verbal abuse" or "grotesque sexual fantasies and elaborate conspiracy theories" (mine)? this one movie review is used as a source just to somehow justify adding this 'nickname' and nothing else. frankly, i think it probably is useful information to include that corrie was the subject of "shocking verbal abuse grotesque sexual fantasies and elaborate conspiracy theories" on right wing blogs, but using a movie review to justify quoting "st pancake" specifically (both here and as a redirect) seems spurious. untwirl(talk) 14:19, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

• Indeed, which is why I have removed it. "Spurious" is putting it kindly. Black Kite 15:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
• "Saint pancakce" is black humor--"terrorist swine" is just crude, much in the same way that the Christa McAuliffe jokes of the late 80's were. While some might find the former amusing (see the DRV on Saint Pancake for a couple), I can't see anyone else finding the latter amusing. Jclemens (talk) 15:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I appreciate it's black humour, but we shouldn't be in the habit of repeating stuff like that unless it's both impeccably sourced and used regularly in reliable sources to describe that person (and even then, I'd hesitate). Black Kite 15:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec) jclemens: you said, "If you're suggesting that we remove the more egregious (and frankly less humorous) insults, I am in agreement. We haven't heard from the editor who added them, but if he doesn't contribute to the discussion here, I will remove them tomorrow." you added both of those statements yourself. see this - . untwirl(talk) 15:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Apologies if I was unclear; I did add both of those statements, but the material to which I was referring was the edit you made here to expand the sentence to include "grotesque sexual fantasies and elaborate conspiracy theories,"--Why DID you expand the quote to include those? Jclemens (talk) 16:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

so the expansion of context is what you are now calling "egregious"? your response, which i quoted above, was agreeing with kasaalan's statement,

"But there is a huge difference between adding saint pancake and terrorist lover animal name derivatives. I may be in favor of Saint Pancake being included, as my previous reply. So discussing st pancake nick is constructive, yet other direct hatespeech insult is not, which isn't has coverage anyway."

was i mistaken in my assessment that you were agreeing that the "terrorist swine" quote was "egregious," and that you were attributing that addition to me? untwirl(talk) 16:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, although the fault on clarity certainly rests in part with me. I didn't see any way to fairly represent what the actual RS had said, without including both insults that Salon had explicitly quoted. "Saint Pancake" is unique in application to Corrie; many people have been called "terrorist-loving swine", yet both are cited. I'm OK with removing the latter and keeping the former for precisely that reason. Jclemens (talk) 16:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

in response to your question of why i added that context, in my opinion that is the only part that belongs. it is an independent evaluation by the author of the review, not a quote from an unreliable source. untwirl(talk) 16:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

You'd prefer an indirect paraphrase of blogs taken from an RS over a direct quote from blogs taken from that same RS? Jclemens (talk) 16:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually saint pancake is a distasteful joke, for a girl who have been crushed by a bulldozer, and a couple hundred right-wing pages referring her as such. I don't know exact policy of wikipedia for such issues, therefore more experienced users' opinion matters much, the originating source for the nick is apparently right-wing blogs and boards, there may actually be a couple of more reliable sources referring those right-wing sourced nick. The actual question is whether it is a good or bad nick, should we include it for readers' opinion in context of freedom of information. Is it their right to know that some right-wing users use, or is it disrespectful after a tragic death. But we should discuss this somehow. I am generally in favor of adding info, because if there is something wrong about the nick it is right-wing blogs biased language and actually showing their approach, on the other hand a nick is not an opinion or criticism. But more editors who are familiar with relevant policies, discuss this matter the better. Kasaalan (talk) 16:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

By the way, with this source we may call 2 sources mention that term. Kasaalan (talk) 17:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the key issue here isn't "reliability", it is notabilty. The question isn't, "Do right wing blogs use the term?" They do. Nor is it, "Is the term accurate?" That's just a non-sequitur. The question: "Is the term notable?" Presence on blogs is not enough. But if RS's quote those blogs enough, it can be conisdered to have entered the mainstream. I don't think that's happened yet (and may never happen), but Jclemens is justified in asking just how many good sources would be needed for it to happen. IronDuke 17:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's a good question to ask - though it's something of a "how long is a piece of string" argument (as are many issues of notability - this argument takes place all the time on AfD). However, at the moment, I think it's clear that a single Google News result - and that a movie review - clearly doesn't cut it. Should multiple RSs start to use the term on a regular basis, then it's certainly something we could revisit. Black Kite 17:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Also during my research I found out, Little Green Footballs site claiming the term is originated and popularized by them. "Terms that Originated on Little Green Footballs St. Pancake - Disparaging nickname for Rachel Corrie, a American activist who voluteered to help Palestinian militants in their attacks on Israel; she was killed after being crushed by a Israeli bulldozer while "defending" Palestinian smuggling tunnels. She was subsequently beatified by the extreme left, and in mockery of her new holy status, LGFers dubbed her "St. Pancake," in reference to the manner of her death. (Charles himself is reportedly not fond of the nickname.)" Maybe useful. Kasaalan (talk) 17:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's its origin. LGF, of course, is not a reliable source. Black Kite 17:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Well the site is extremely POV, yet it is better to mention details like the origin. I didn't know the origin before, at least he claims his site is. Also if his claims are true, it is officially accepted the relation of nick and the cause of Rachel's death. Actually the nick is sickening, but I approached the case in journalism manner, as in freedom of information somehow. If some extremists say that, maybe it is better to know how they call her. Still I have doubts over how this sounds in English, since it is my second language. By the way the site has a Little Green Footballs#Rachel Corrie subtitle if anyone cares. Kasaalan (talk) 01:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I remind people here that the standard for inclusion on Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not possession of an impeccable pedigree. This nickname is pretty clearly verifiable, and as for neutrality, well, it's not a neutral nickname, but the fact that it's common use in one sector of the political world, that fact is. On a related note, would Black Kite care to unsalt the name so a suitable redirect can be created? The DRV was closed with delete at least partly on the strength of the argument that there were no reliable sources using the term. Now that one has materialized, and the term refers unambiguously to the subject, I see no reason for not using it, or at the very least reopening the discussion. After all, we have quite a few other redirects that are not exactly complimentary to their subjects. Ray 18:05, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

• The deletion of the redirect was done through WP:CSD#G10 (attack pages), was confirmed at DRV (Misplaced Pages:Deletion_review/Log/2009_February_1), and as such would need a new DRV in order to be re-created. Meanwhile, the standard is not verifiability but notability. If the use of the term is in frequent and regular use to describe that person then it should not be difficult to find reliable sources which quote it. In this case, as mentioned above, searching Google News for such reliable sources returns one single hit. If you wish to start a new DRV based on that single movie review, then be my guest. Black Kite 18:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

  So you are acknowledging that the Salon source is sufficient to render "Saint Pancake" verifiable per WP:V? Jclemens (talk) 19:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

How many reliable sources are needed for inclusion (straw poll)

Please sign your name below in the appropriate spot, giving not just a !vote, but also your reasoning--what influences your vote? WP:UNDUE, WP:BLP, WP:NOTCENSORED, or something else entirely...? Jclemens (talk) 19:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

• I believe that the Salon source, as referenced above, is sufficient RS'ing to include "Saint Pancake" as an insulting nickname for Corrie in this article.

• I believe that any two ("multiple") reliable sources would be sufficient RS'ing to include "Saint Pancake" as an insulting nickname for Corrie in this article.

• I believe more than two (please specify a number) reliable sources would be necessary to include "Saint Pancake" as an insulting nickname for Corrie in this article.

• Comments on the poll

• In what context? I think it's excessive to put it in the lede, but if considering whether to add it in the Criticism section, that could be appropriate. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree with above. It would be appropriate in the criticism section, if described as an epithet used by political opponents. It certainly doesn't belong in the lead. WP:NOTCENSORED. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Why not add it to the Salon mention (cite 35) at the top of the criticism section (it is the same article), and merge it with things like Ellis' work? Make it a short paragraph on how nasty the blogs have been in particular, since it doesn't look like the mainstream opposition would go that far. It also helps my concern about the full mention of Ellis. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Funny thing, that's exactly where I put it before Black Kite removed it. I'd hate to be seen as edit warring, but I don't see anything wrong with you or anyone adding it back in. To the above comments--yes, the intention would be to include it once and only once in the criticism section. As much as I believe it is appropriate to include it once, it should clearly neither dominate the article nor appear in the lead. Jclemens (talk) 23:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

• I've got a far better idea. Why don't you stop forum shopping and take your unpleasant political posturing to a website that might appreciate it more, because Misplaced Pages has never been, isn't now, and will never be a venue for inserting hurtful epithets into the articles on people. Have some basic human dignity and quit it now. AGF? No, because you've shown your true colours - well, to be honest that happened on the DRV. Those who think it's a good idea to insert this into the article should be ashamed of themselves. How do you think this makes Misplaced Pages look? Disgraceful. Black Kite 23:17, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

  Thanks for your honest, heartfelt feedback. I'm sorry you find this distressing, but WP:NOTCENSORED. Corrie's death sparked a wide variety of reactions, and per WP:YESPOV, reporting on the mean and hateful things said about her in a dispassionate and encyclopedic manner is the most appropriate thing for Misplaced Pages to do. Jclemens (talk) 23:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)#

  You're almost believable. But not quite. Feel free to re-insert it. WP:BLP is exempt from WP:3RR. Black Kite 23:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

  If I was gaming the system in an attempt to get you blocked, I would do precisely that, because consensus (3 v 0 at this point) at Misplaced Pages:BLP/N#Rachel_Corrie--living_person is that Corrie isn't a living person, which agrees strongly with the Coroner's findings in the matter. :-) Again, there's plenty of time to hash through the policy and sourcing issues--I'm not in a rush to include it prematurely. Jclemens (talk) 23:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Would you guys agree to an RFC discussing it? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. I'll submit to any community-based, policy-driven resolution process. However, having said that, I'm not sure there's no chance of developing a consensus here. It seems like several people are in favor of including "Saint Pancake" in the criticism section based on the reliable sourcing from Salon. If that's the consensus within the article's editors, is there any real need for an RfC? Jclemens (talk)

Oppose the creation of any such disparaging and rather vicious redirects for this person, or any person, whether dead or alive, whatever their politics and how one might feel about them. There are plenty of blogs to get your mean on, if that's your thing.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

What, exactly are you opposing? No one has proposed creating a redirect. Jclemens (talk) 23:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, User:Ray did, in the above section. Black Kite 23:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, so he did. At any rate, Bali ultimate, are you responding to Ray's comment or to something else entirely? Jclemens (talk) 23:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

• I don't think any number of sources are going to make this acceptable. AniMate 23:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

  Mind If I move your comment to the appropriate part of the poll? Jclemens (talk) 23:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

  My apologies, I misread. NO amount of sources? Not even if the NYT and WaPo both ran front page articles? Jclemens (talk) 23:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

  I'm not going to deal in hypotheticals. AniMate 00:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

  And is there a policy or guideline on which you base your statements? Jclemens (talk) 00:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

  Yes, WP:UNDUE and per WP:BLP, If I may quote BLP: ... material we publish about living people can affect their lives and the lives of their families, colleagues, and friends and In the case of deceased individuals, material must still comply with all wikipedia policies and prompt removal of questionable material is proper. BLP doesn't just exist to protect the subject or even the living, it's protection extends to their families. AniMate 00:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

  But your quote of WP:BLP mentions "material we publish about living people". How does WP:BLP apply to Corrie, six years dead? WP:BLP mentions deceased people in one short section, mentioning that all (other) policies and guidelines should apply. WP:BLP doesn't seem to apply in this case, does it? -- Noroton (talk) 00:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

• It's undue to mention "Saint Pancake" in the article when there is only one reliable source. Use of "Saint Pancake" seems to be from a "tiny minority", which is the kind of opinion or fact that WP:UNDUE says should be ignored. One single ghit at Google News is not enough. Having a redirect page for "Saint Pancake" may be justified. I'm not sure about that. Is it worth the possible pain caused to Corrie's family to help readers trying to find out what "Saint Pancake" refers to? I don't know. -- Noroton (talk) 00:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

  Pretty sure the redirect was deleted a while ago and that it was endorsed at deletion review. That being said, you're correct. One news hit does not notable make. AniMate 00:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose with extended explanation any reference to this deceased person, or any other person living or dead, in an encyclopedia article as "Saint Pancake" or a similiar vicious name, no matter their politics, unless the disparaging nickname is demonstrated to be highly notable via it's use multiple times in rock-solid reliable sources with strict editorial controls. Such appearances don't count when they are repeated in an article to tear them down. That is, if someone in a reliable source used "St. Pancake" next to "terrorist-loving swine" as examples of the "torrent of exaggerated and often shocking verbal abuse to which Corrie was subjected, postmortem, on right-wing bulletin boards and Web sites," that would not count as establishing this is a commonly accepted vulgar epithet for someone. After all, the epithet is being repeated to try to say something about the people who coined it -- not to give it weight as an acceptable or appropriate moniker. Another hurdle from the, ah, let's call it the yet to be written Politically-motivated pottymouth nicknaming guideline, would be that the person must be a significant public figure for us to even consider verging into attack territory. For instance, I notice that we have a "slick willie" for Bill Clinton on here. That's Ok. A. It's not that vicious. B. Literally everyone knows who bill clinton is, and probably the vast majority of us have heard him called that -- was and is in wide circulation, and C. He's a huge public figure. In this case, a childish and vicious nickname was made up on a right-wing blog and this coinage was picked up on.... other right-wing blogs. Common decency, a sense of proportion and weight, an understanding that this is not a nickname that has caught on in the general public about this rather fringe person (we have far too much about her on wikipedia, but that's another discussion entirely), all point to not allowing these sorts of childish attacks here. The bias should be against inclusion of such material at all times, except in rare and unusual circumstances, like Slick Willie.Bali ultimate (talk) 00:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

  I agree with everything Bali ultimate just said (at 00:35). Very convincing. Seems like a good argument against resurrecting the redirect page. -- Noroton (talk) 00:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Blindingly Obvious Facts

I'm not sure if we have adequate sources for the Blindingly Obvious Facts references. There are three sources: (1) The playright's own blog for a description of the event (not independent clearly); (2) a simple listing that it was performed (no information other than mere existence); and (3) a review by AussieTheatre.com. The review is short and seems perfectly adequate but is that the "multiple" sources we need? WAMC has a small piece here (listen to about 10:15-10:33) which is probably better than the playwright's blog as a description (plus a bit more of how far the piece went). Views on whether the radio piece is a significant enough mention? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

If it has enough to meet WP:V, and AussieTheatre.com would seem to be fine on that score, then the inclusion is really up to the consensus of the editors per WP:NNC--each item in an article doesn't have to have multiple, independent RS to establish its own notability. Jclemens (talk) 23:17, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:ONEEVENT

I feel a bit scared asking this, as I know Miss Corrie's death is a very emotional topic. Please know that I am asking this sincerely. I just read the WP:ONEEVENT policy. After reviewing everything about Miss Corrie it seems she is notable for one event- how she died. Certainly there has been a massive amount of press regarding this, but I thought that WP:ONEEVENT indicated that someone known for just one thing can't have a wikipedia article. I don't see that anything else in her life before her death was notable. Might someone be able to respond to this? Thank you. 24.61.10.180 (talk) 00:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

You could also suggest a move to Death of Rachel Corrie, which would require limiting her bio and focusing more on the reactions. That would seem reasonable to me. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

You are simply wrong, she is not only notable for her death, but her previous actions in evergreen and olympia, her published letters that describes her political thoughts and her life in there. She has a notable life. Yet it is not just a single person we talking about, the later outcomes also matters, the suitcases against IDF and bulldozer company, is also notable because there is a system involved. Throwing a guideline, doesn't actually helpful, but reading it is. "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a particular event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, low profile, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted." She is not only covered in context of the event. The theater production also based on her writings for example. Kasaalan (talk) 01:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

It was a suggestion, nothing more. I'll leave it for the IP address to consider, but the attacks aren't necessary. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I think I would like to nominate this article for deletion or redirection/rewritting based upon WP:ONEEVENT. 24.61.10.180 (talk) 01:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Since I am unable to complete the AfD request I would like for an established user or administrator to complete the AfD opening process with the reason of WP:ONEEVENT. Thank you.

• Old requests for peer review
• All unassessed articles
• WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
• B-Class Palestine-related articles
• Low-importance Palestine-related articles
• WikiProject Palestine articles
• B-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Unassessed Anti-war articles
• Unknown-importance Anti-war articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics