Misplaced Pages

And also

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

"I'll concede that you've made at least that much effort, possibly more, to make the article neutral as opposed to only pushing the POV of one side. If not, I stand by my previous rewording to "activity."

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.

"I'm comfortable with letting my statements to this point stand on their own merit in refuting the above. arimareiji (talk) 07:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)"

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)

HRW is on the front lines of fighting human rights abuses in despotic Arab countries, such as Iran and Saudi Arabia, where religious minorities, homosexuals, and women often find themselves subject to the worst kinds of abuses. That they treat Israel and the United States exactly the same in this regard is a testament to their reliability. HRW started out monitoring the Soviet Union for various abuses and it's reputation for accuracy and care rose progressively until it is second only to the International Red Cross (we tend to forget the latter because it's only meant to report to government, not publish anything). In the I-P conflict, HRW has been very critical of Israel, of the Palestinian Authority, and of Hamas. Each rankles at the criticism of itself and praises the criticism of the others.

When I last checked, there were objections from most editors to Tom Gross's article in there - and yet, there's more of it now than there was before. What's going on at this article? PR 10:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Very long discussion, didn't read every part but some users cannot get the idea on what reliability is in real terms.

If you have reliable source on HRW is not neutral against Israel you can state that in the article, yet that is not a reason to delete and silencing, erasing, shortening or not using their claims as a reference, they are notable enough worldwide according to the wikipedia, journalism and generally academic standards and should be mentioned as they are. Also they are much more credible than Israel on army investigation about their own personnel. Israel covers their wrongdoings partisanly, that is why international opinions matters much on the case. Yet United Nations not only accept HRW but also use their reports on its official pages, that is enough by any standard to mention their claims in the article.

Actually we should also add some more info on house demolishions with statistics since that is the reason Rachel Corrie went to Gaza. There are statistics on the case in HRW and UN reports.

Let alone in artistic tributes, Tom Gross is not even neutral and eligible to be mentioned anywhere in the article as being extremely partisan, by the way since he worked mainly for Israeli newspapers and doing consultancy for untransparent organisations, he has a great conflict of interest for the matter, yet for being neutral and multi voiced we don't try to delete his opinion to the case, since what he say in the article might have some notability, yet if you like to mention his claims in the article, that results providing Palestinian side answers to his claims become necessary. Tom Gross argues there are forgotten Rachels that is true 6 of them, yet he doesnt provide the statistics on Palestinian loss of children, women, civillians during same period. I will add that info along with demolished houses, and agriculture lands by IDF to explain the current situation by reliable sources. By the way I still didn't get answers on why do we mention Tom Gross' same POV article in references, externals links and additional readings 3 times seperately. Isn't double linking once is enough in references.

I added Palestinian side claims to the smuggling tunnels on they used for bringing food against Israeli claims on they used for bringing weapons. That is what the neutrality mean, giving enough info on both side's claims. You cannot just say Israel says tunnels are for weapons, but not mention Israeli blockade on the area or lack of food, medication or gasolin in the area. They may only cook their meals once a day under wood fire to feed their children a bread is 7 dollars under siege.

Israeli side users should try to research and find better sources to add the article against Rachel, if they seek more neutrality somehow, yet they try to erase info from ISM sided views, or unbalancing the current sources, and that doesn't help. Actually the more editors the better, because some partisan users really try to shape the article as however they like. Kasaalan (talk) 15:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Once this present dispute is over, let's discuss the contrasting food/weapons claims in a new section - you have a point, although it needs examining from an WP:RS standpoint. I only re-included the weapons claims because the way it was written made no sense with both sides' claims removed. You're right that the other side should be added back in. But how we add it back in will result in many long debates. And right now, in this section, we're talking about these reverts and whether there's consensus for or against them. arimareiji (talk) 16:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

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.wikipedia.org/search/?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)

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 '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) ].

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: "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."

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)

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 Misplaced Pages: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)

Misplaced Pages: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) 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: . 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 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 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 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)

NPOV?

I don't see the issue here.

All Misplaced Pages 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", 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 " 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 offering themselves as human shields in Palestine and I 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)

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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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. 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 Misplaced Pages: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)

billy bragg

regarding this revert by ironduke: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?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 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, 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 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 (,,,,,,,) 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.)

Songs and Poems Dedicated to Corrie

Songs

• Rachel Corrie (Alessio Lega)
• The Death of Rachel Corrie (David Rovics)
• 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)
• Amira al Gazi (Princesa de Gaza) (Ángel Petisme)
• Peaceable Kingdom dedicated to Rachel Corrie Patti Smith
• The Lonesome Death Of Rachel Corrie Billy Bragg
• Rachel (Klimt 1918)
• The Ballad Of Rachel Corrie (The Gram Partisans) anti-war songs Music Inspired by Rachel Corrie Critical Concern
• The Skies Are Weeping,' a cantata by Philip Munger
• "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. 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)

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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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. Kasaalan (talk) 23:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

1. "Promoting Impunity: The Israeli Military's Failure to Investigate Wrongdoing". UNHCR Refworld. Human Rights Watch. 22 June 2005. Retrieved 2009-01-30.
2. The Anchorage Press, Amanda Coyne, April 22 - April 28 2004
3. "Flashpoint Cantata", Anchorage Daily News, April 25, 2004, available at http://dwb.adn.com/life/story/5003946p-4931783c.html
4. "The Review". Camden New Journal. New Journal Enterprises. 28 Oct 2005. Retrieved 2009-01-07.
5. Bragg, Billy (2006-04-04). "The Lonesome Death Of Rachel Corrie - Free Download". billybragg.co.uk. Retrieved 2009-01-18.