Jump to content

Talk:Rachel Corrie/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10→Archive 14

Inclusion of nickname "St. Pancake" in Reaction Section

Resolved

I sympathize with individuals who are fans of Rachel Corrie in their objection to the use of "St. Pancake." However, the nickname is a reality. Trying to suppress this information, which is relevant, is questionable. I understand that technically, there is an WP:RS issue because many items in popular culture are just there and don't have an RS detailing the phenomenon. Wikipedia rules cover just such instances under WP:Reliable source examples where the source is the best available, and it is noted in the text of the article that a reliable source issue exists. It is also covered, I believe, more than adequately under wp:Common knowledge. Again, the fact that the nickname may be insulting to some, and crass, is not the issue. The simple fact is that the nickname is THERE, is USED a lot, and indeed, the term "St. Pancake" appropriately redirects in Wikipedia to Rachel Corrie. I understand that RS is an issue. Maybe someone more expert than I can resolve the RS issue more eloquently, but to exclude the citation based on a narrow technicality (to which there are clear exceptions allowed) borders on deliberately suppressing relevant information simply because "I don't like it." 24.21.105.252 (talk) 20:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

ETA: I have restored the paragraph in "REaqction." Please remember that Wiki despute resolution defaults to INCLUSION during a discussion. If consensus calls for redaction, then that is done AFTER discussion and dispute resolution. So, please don't revert the edit again while we work out how RS is best addressed in this case. Also, I know that there are RS Purists out there who insist that there are no exceptions to RS. That is simply not reality, and I suggest such purrists re-familiarize themselves with the WP:five pillars where it calls to cite verifiable sources "whenever possible." Obviously, there are circumstances where such IS NOT POSSIBLE, and this is one of those. A clear statement of a RS issue is there in the text and in the references, and thus it conforms to WP:RS24.21.105.252 (talk) 21:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia isn't an encyclopedia of insults. The appropriate place to publish this would be on blogs, Encyclopedia Dramatica, Urban Dictionary, or little green footballs (as you've already linked to). Nor is this a matter of "purism" - this simply doesn't belong by any standard. arimareiji (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC).
That is your opinion, and I disagree. It is very relevant to the subject Rachel Corrie, as it is a popular culture nickname for her, that is derived from the controversy of her actions and death. That is may "sully" her reputation is quite outside of the purview of Wikipedia. She was a controversial public figure, and inclusion of the information about a prominent nickname, derisive or not, is as relevant as any other negative public reaction to her. 24.21.105.252 (talk) 21:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, it isn't a technicality. If you think that an exception is warranted, state your case with similar matters and, if we still won't come around to your POV, ask for a third opinion. I should add this has been considered before and not used. Check the archives.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I did check the archives. And, I should note that the presence of past discussion on a topic of inclusion does not preclude re-opening it. I will be back with precedent, which I assume is what you mean by "similar matters." 24.21.105.252 (talk) 21:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Quite on another subject, I wonder what a checkuser of yourself might show. I note that you've been here a week, and in the warning that was issued to you, you responded by commenting on OrangeMarlin's editing style. Interesting.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
See WP:AGF Attacking a person rather than addressing the content of what they say is a personal attack.24.21.105.252 (talk) 22:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) If you consider what I said an attack, you must really be inexperienced on Wikipedia. Guess you are just precocious in limited areas.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Precedent for inclusion of nicknames

Resolved

The following are precedents of political figures having mention of a nickname included in the article on the person:

Is an even dozen OK? I could keep going like the energizer bunny on this one. Nicknames are well used for inclusion in Wiki articles about famous persons. Especially persons famous in the political arena, where such nicknames are more likely to be of a harsh nature.

These precedents in addition to the plainly stated WP:RS exceptions noted above, WP:Five Pillarsand WP:common knowledge all argue for inclusion of her nickname in the context of "Reaction." Please note that I am not agitating for it to be cited in the lead, or in a position to be a "defining"element of her as a person. The nickname simply exists in the context of public criticism of her actions, and should be included. Denial of this informational, good faith edit is a denial of reality, and that is not what Wikipedia is all about. 24.21.105.252 (talk) 22:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

So which ones of those use littlegreenfootballs and Urban Dictionary as their sole sources? arimareiji (talk) 22:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I have already cited exceptions to WP:RS that apply in exactly this circumstance. When I addressed RS, you required precedent. Now that I cite precedent, you are back on RS. Please see WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. There clearly are BOTH precedent AND WP:RS exceptions to cover exactly this circumstance. 24.21.105.252 (talk) 22:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
With all respect, that isn't true. For each of those, I could probably find a RS that lists a "common knowledge" nickname for them. Not true for Corrie. I looked. Just a collection of blogs and sites which aren't RS but have a strong view on the I-P conflict. For each of the above, as well, that was their nickname in life. We won't give credibility to an attempt to label her after her death which has not gained wide currency.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Really, Wehwalkt? You checked all of over 22,000 google results for "pancake corrie?" I'm very impressed. Here is one that you might have missed: It is a straight up scholarly article from an established, editorially-controlled collegiate publication which references the nickname. Looks like a legitimate secondary source to me. Do you object to this as a RS?24.21.105.252 (talk) 23:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
It says, "On one popular blog, Rachel is referred to as “St. Pancake.” ". Your point being what?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Point being that it is a WP:RS that references the existence of the nickname. That was your objection, was it not? That the precedents that I cited for famous people referenced RS as to the existence of the nickname? Or are you moving the goalposts again.... 24.21.105.252 (talk) 00:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
That it is common knowledge, which was the exception you are trying to shoehorn this in under, is what I asked for. You've given me an article that merely says that one popular blog has called it so. Next?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Wrong. I listed common knowledge as ONE OF SEVERAL justifications for inclusion of the nickname. I one again refer yo to WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. There is a RS citing the nickname, and ample precedent for inclusion of nicknames for famous people. It is going back in.24.21.105.252 (talk) 00:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Obviously if you put in material that does not meet WP standards, it will be reverted in due course.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

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. Kasaalan (talk) 00:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I (gasp) agree with Kasaalan. The only thing that the article in question showed, even if a RS, is that one popular blog called her St. Pancake. And, um, Kasaalan, I really, really, REALLY doubt the origin of the nickname is her supporters' penchant for selling pancakes to benefit the cause. There's really something unappetizing about the whole thing there. I can't help thinking transubstantiation.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Inclusion most certainly and without serious question DOES meet WP standards. I would caution you to familiarize yourself with WP:GAMING and consider that the inclusion adds information relevant to "Reaction," is properly cited, and meets ample precedent. In short, your objections are noted and fall far short of a reasonable objection.24.21.105.252 (talk) 00:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, that is not the case. You conflate a questionable RS's statement that "a popular blog" has called Corrie that into a belief that this is a widely known nickname, deserving of encyclopedic coverage. The rest of your argument is that, well, that's the best you could find, it should be good enough. Unhappily it isn't. You have no sourcing with RS for what you want beyond what i have stated above, and no consensus for your proposed edits.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
The nicknames do certainly refers to Rachel Corrie's crushing by a D9R. I just mentioned the pancake sale might also be a root for a double referencing nickname. Anyway I even checked the reliable sources like newspapers or magazines on google, yet they again mainly consists of user comments under articles. Maybe in Hebrew there might be more reference for these nicknames. Kasaalan (talk) 00:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure about Rachel Corrie in this matter, but it should be noted that if a person is commonly referred to by a nickname (such as Dick Cheney and Scooter Libby, among others), then there is precedent to use the name, or at least include it, in the article. It would require multiple reliable sources referring to the person as such, however. Happyme22 (talk) 00:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record, I see that 24.21.105.252 left messages on the talk pages of four users, asking for their opinion on this thread. Certainly, that is not forbidden. It is not something I indulge in, there are better ways to get a third opinion.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
And your point is what, besides ONCE AGAIN attacking the editor and ignoring the content of my statements? I selected at random several people who have commented on Israeli-Palestinian topics, and asked for their opinion. That is a more accurate barometer for me than the opinions of editors who "squat" on a topic with a history of dogmatically contesting anything which isn't glowing praise of the subject.24.21.105.252 (talk) 01:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Personally, I think that simply requesting a third opinion is a better way to go. It is a lot more public, and you can't be accused of hand picking the respondents. JMO. Anyhoo, you stated that "Inclusion most certainly and without serious question DOES meet WP standards." Seem to be some serious questions raised by some respectable editors.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I've logged your opinion, and sorted it appropriately by it's importance to me. Thanks for sharing.24.21.105.252 (talk) 02:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment: It probably depends on the volume and quality of the sources. In general, I would oppose nicknames in biographies unless they have clear widespread notability. What sources have been brought in regards to the nickname? JaakobouChalk Talk 02:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Only the one you see in this thread at the IP's comment of 23:39 yesterday, as far as I am aware.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Point mooted. "St. Pancake" deleted as an "attack page" as there are absolutely no RS and V that makes this a notable nickname. "Common Knowledge" doesn't apply, because it never applies to individuals, its about "the sky is blue" or "shit stink" not "so-and-so is this-and-that". Just because you have heard about it, does it mean it is CK applies. Gotta granted you, that was some heavy wiki-lawyering you did there, my hats off! --Cerejota (talk) 15:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

"Common knowledge" is about as common as "common sense" in my view. Well, the no reasonable editor could disagree with the IP user thing has kinda fallen flat. Anyone for IHOP?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

A Non-"St. Pancake" edit

Resolved

I've created a new short blurb from the Human Rights Watch report, per earlier discussion. I snipped off what I believe to have been a prejudicial characterization of HRW, and inserted material from the report to explain the basis for their claimed conclusion. arimareiji (talk) 02:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks generally OK, I may play with the wording at a later time, but right now is not the best time, with pancakes and fluorescent jackets flying through the air.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
If I have nightmares about being attacked by fluorescent pancakes flying through the air, it's your fault. ^_^
(wait a minute, wasn't that a Star Trek episode?) arimareiji (talk) 02:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Either that or a screen saver.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
You can read the detailed information I posted above on safety jackets to overcome your fears. Kasaalan (talk) 12:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Artistic Tributes

Rachel Corrie Song The lonesome death of Rachel Corrie Billy Bragg The Guardian

rachelcorrie.org Memorial "The Death of Rachel, Corrie - song by David Rovics, Rachel Corrie - by Ten Foot Pole, The Passing of Rachel Corrie - Poem by Ed Mast, "On the brink of..." - a poem by Suheir Hammad"

Reaction Against ISM

Israeli Embassy Press Release against ISM by Shuli Davidovich Press secretary, Embassy of Israel Kasaalan (talk) 10:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps these will serve as useful references for uncited material in the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

D9R

Resolved

Do we have anything that actually says the bulldozer was a D9R? We say it in the lede; it is nowhere in the article. I'm not talking about Kasaalan's detective work, I'm talking about what it says in sources. I've already taken it out of the Munger section because it was not supported by the sources.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


The model used in Corrie's case was a D9R for sure, and we can verify it by event photographs clearly. I don't consider certain cases like this as Original Research while it doesn't contain any conclusion or snythesis, if you refer the article in general. I located the exact model over reference photographs. Yet then I also found the sources stressing it was a D9R. Here are some possible references for later use along with D9R stress.

Human Rights Watch "Razing Rafah, Mass Home Demolitions in the Gaza Strip" Report

In a late 2004 report, “Razing Rafah, Mass Home Demolitions in the Gaza Strip,” Human Rights Watch stated that since September 2000, over 1700 homes in Rafah were demolished as Israeli occupation forces cleared a wide buffer strip and constructed a large steel wall along Rafah’s border with Egypt. “The pattern of destruction strongly suggests that Israeli forces demolished homes wholesale, regardless of whether they posed a specific threat, in violation of international law. In most of the cases, Human Rights Watch found the destruction was carried out in the absence of military necessity.”

Israeli Investigations "There were 2 operators were in the cabin of the D9R"

According to the U.S. Department of State, on March 17, 2003, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon promised President Bush a “thorough, credible, and transparent” investigation into Rachel Corrie’s killing. After an investigation in 2003, the Israeli military concluded that the two soldiers in the D9R Caterpillar bulldozer that killed Rachel Corrie did not see her, though eyewitnesses indicate that she was clearly visible. The case was closed, no charges were brought, and the Israeli Government declined to release their report to the U.S. Government. On June 11, 2004, in response to inquiries from the Corrie family, Lawrence B. Wilkerson, Chief of Staff to Colin Powell at the U.S. Department of State, wrote of the IDF report, “Your ultimate question, however, is a valid one, i.e., whether or not we view that report to have reflected an investigation that was ‘thorough, credible, and transparent.’ I can answer your question without equivocation. No, we do not consider it so.” On March 17, 2005, in testimony before members of Congress, this position was reiterated by Michael G. Kozak, Acting Assistant Secretary of the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor at the Department of State.

Reactions

On March 18, 2003, Congressman Brian Baird (WA-D) introduced House Concurrent Resolution 111 calling on the U.S. Government to conduct a full, fair, and expeditious investigation into Rachel Corrie’s death. At the close of the 108th Congress in 2004, the resolution died in committee without hearing, though seventy-seven members of the House of Representatives had signed on in support.

Informational Release from Craig and Cindy Corrie, parents of Rachel Corrie October 15, 2007

Dear Friends,

In the afternoon of March 16, 2003, in Rafah, at the southern tip of the Gaza Strip, my twenty-three-year-old daughter, Rachel, was crushed by an Israeli military D9R Caterpillar bulldozer as she stood between that bulldozer and the home of the Nasrallah family, attempting to prevent that home’s demolition. Rachel traveled from the U.S. to Rafah in January 2003. In her journal, she wrote “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 U.S. and other militaries.” ...

Cindy Corrie January 15, 2004

But if you only refer to Moshe Nissim case, my mistake reporting it as a D9R, no source mentions it is a D9R, they say D9 in general term and don't mention the exact model, since he break in Jenin Camp in 2002 it is possible he might have used a D9R, they were even manufactured back in 1995, yet reporting it as D9 is essential. Kasaalan (talk) 09:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Archive

Resolved

I took the liberty to move some long and mostly closed cases to the archive. Kasaalan (talk) 14:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Objections to using a Human Rights Watch report as a source?

Resolved

Would anyone like to step forward and explain objections to using the HRW report filed under the UNHCR as source material for this article? Sorry to keep repeating myself, but I want to make sure we have a clear consensus. arimareiji (talk) 13:29, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

It's been a few days, so I'm going ahead with WP:BRD. We can always take the topic up again, of course. arimareiji (talk) 23:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
HRW is exceptionally careful, a top-rate RS. PRtalk 21:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Widely accepted reference, they might also be wrong depends on context, but notable and exact enough to be referenced in general terms. Kasaalan (talk) 16:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Copyediting

IMO, "ISM accounts" is prejudicial - even if "Some eyewitnesses" is moved, the ISM people quoted are eyewitnesses, whatever POV they may have. It's intended as a reminder of both the strengths and weaknesses of eyewitness testimony, and some of those weaknesses are apparent here. Technically, "recorded and published by the PCHR" is more accurate than "to PCHR." The affidavits were "to" the IDF investigation, whether or not the IDF considered them useful. arimareiji (talk) 14:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I'd prefer leaving and/or amplifying the "other" section to balance the heavy weight of ISM accounts, possibly even to the extent of being able to strike "ISM and other." I'll see if I can find more contrasting examples such as the one provided by "Some eyewitnesses," though I could certainly use help. I don't think the IDF is particularly fond of letting soldiers relate their accounts publicly, or even outside the military. arimareiji (talk) 14:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd avoid using the same phrasing twice, then. Or we could move the bulldozer guy's account into the section and just call it "Eyewitness accounts".--Wehwalt (talk) 14:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I didn't see the bulldozer guy's account when I looked, but it would be invaluable if I overlooked it or if it can be found elsewhere. For it to be an "eyewitness" account, though, I'd think it has to be a quotable first-person rendition. So far the only thing I've seen has been "I hit someone," which is hardly probative. arimareiji (talk) 14:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Um, second paragraph of Autopsy and investigation section?--Wehwalt (talk) 14:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Aiyaaa, I looked right past it in my sleepiness. Excellent idea. But IMO, the section needs a lot more balance to the IDF side before it can be aught but "ISM and other." arimareiji (talk) 14:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
True. Since the IDF did not release its report, we may be rather stuck for it, though. Also, I suggest we put in the dates of the affidavits, at least once.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Giving details are important especially the dates. Also lawyer Raji Sourani who took the PCHR eyewitness accounts is the director of PCHRif you like to point out. "Joint Laureate, Robert F. Kennedy Memorial Award for Human Rights; Amnesty International Prisoner of Conscience, 1985, 1988, International Commission of Jurists EXCO Member, IDAL EXCO Member." Kasaalan (talk) 15:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

That makes his clients more truthful?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually no. Notability and credibility are different issues. But the lawyer who takes the eyewitness statements is also an important detail. And he seems to be notable at the Human Rights area somehow and worked more than 20 years, since he prized an award in 1985. Again I just give the quote for info, not suggested to put his backlife in Rachel Corrie Article. Raji Sourani has a Wikipedia page, so it is better to point out his name. Kasaalan (talk) 15:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Given that he was serving in a notarial capacity, I don't see that it is necessary. As you say yourself, it doesn't imporve their credibility. For what other reason should we include it in the article?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
It might even make the testimonies more untruthful. Yet the lawyer's name who took the eyewitness is a useful detail for referencing purposes. Raji Sourani might even be the biggest liar on earth, but without stating his name noone can search on that name. Kasaalan (talk) 16:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Having read his article, I'm giving considerable thought to nominating it for deletion. As for the name, it is trivia, and interested people can peruse the statements directly and if sufficiently motivated, look up the name of the lawyer on WP or google.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
After I read it in more detail, I can tell it contains very one sided arguments. Yet instead deletion we should try neutralizing or improving it first, the article is already a stub and still will be useful if neutralized. And at least you can put a link to the page where you suggested it for deletion. Kasaalan (talk) 16:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
By the way he is not just a lawyer, he is also the founder and director of PCHR which documented the eyewitness statements and active in the Israel Courts for Human Right issues. There is a concept in journalism especially for investigating cases called 5_Ws. "In journalism, the Five Ws (also known as the Five Ws (and one H)) is a concept in news style, research, and in police investigations that are regarded as basics in information-gathering. It is a formula for getting the "full" story on something. The maxim of the Five Ws (and one H) is that in order for a report to be considered complete it must answer a checklist of six questions ... Who, What, Where, When, Why, How." Mentioning the names can be considered better than not mentioning them in general. Kasaalan (talk) 19:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not settled if Raji Sourani name will not be mentioned. Kasaalan (talk) 12:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Philip Munger Hatemail Case

I replaced the previous version "but was cancelled following what Munger alleged were threats to him and some of the student musicians." with "but was cancelled by Munger's definite request, arguing the hatemails and threats sent to him and especially some of the student musicians."

Which parts you object, the show cancelled by Munger's insisted request he claims, he showed the reason as the hatemail and threats especially the students' get. Is there a strong reason that we shouldn't believe him than use allegedly as an adjective. Claim is already doing the work.

Allegedly is a biased word. Merriam Wesbter definition alleged: of questionable truth or genuineness. "had doubts of the alleged miracle" Claimed is much more neutral. Merriam Webster claim "claim synonyms: argue, assert, contend, defend ..."

Hatemails

"Almost immediately, Munger says, he was inundated with unsolicited e-mail from outside Alaska, a lot of it hateful -- "just threatening, harassing, bizarre ... short of the stuff you'd take to the troopers."
But some of his student musicians received threatening messages too, Munger says -- and that was a different story. It was one thing to invite problems on himself; it was quite another to inflict them on his students.

Munger claims he requested the performance to be cancelled

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

Hatemails

"Even before a forum was held to discuss his work, he says, hate email was showing up on his computer."
"Bishko himself is taking heat. He says he's been receiving threatening emails."
The Anchorage Press Sound of Silence

Also found a link for The Skies are Weeping cantata. This site is possibly official for the performance. Kasaalan (talk) 20:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, first, I'm not wild about the term "hatemail", which strikes me as a neolog. This being a formal encyclopedia, I'd prefer to use more familiar terms like "threatening email" or the like. Note that Munger himself admits that it was "short of the stuff you'd take to the troopers", leading me to believe it couldn't have been that threatening, since even implied threats transmitted over wire are punishable under federal law. Since even the articles attribute these allegations to Munger and do not state them as facts, I think it best we do the same.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Hatemail is for expressing hate, threat is more serious I suppose, yet not greatly sure.

Philip Munger's Statement

"People were shouting, leaving, arguing and interrupting me, as I tried to deliver this prepared statement:

Over the past five days local artists preparing for the premiere of "The Skies are Weeping" have been subjected to a growing crescendo of internet virus attacks, hate mail and bizarre religious-political polemics. It appears to be orchestrated. Some of the incoming venom is quite threatening.

After consulting with staff here at the University of Alaska Anchorage Department of Music, I have decided that I cannot subject sixteen students, whose names, fortunately, have not been released to anyone, 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.

This decision has been mine alone, with no pressure whatsoever from the school or university.”

Cantata In The CrossHearts The Persecution of an American Musician by Laura Dawn Lewis or HTML

Hate mail is his own written statement.

The Cantata In The CrossHearts The Persecution of an American Musician by Laura Dawn Lewis article, also mentions the IDF operator mentioned in the text in detail. Kasaalan (talk) 21:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

What about changing "alleged" to "stated"? I don't want to use "hatemail" because I think that is a neologism.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Stated is perfectly fine. I am no great fan of neologism either, threath is enough as you say, I used hatemail for lessening the strength of threath also he used the phrase himself, but most possibly noone cancels his own performance just for some hatemail anyway. Some example emails can be read from User Page yet I am not sure if the mails limited to these or not. He especially stresses the threats made on the students rather than his own and the cancellation was his own decision. If we mention these in short, it is fine by me. Kasaalan (talk) 21:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I have read emails a little further, and as you suggested they already have tracked the sender and possibly took some legal actions against him.

Fake Email Threath by an Imposer

From: Jeff Pezzati Subject: for Philip Munger Date: April 6, 2004 3:52:05 AM AD To: Phillip Munger

Hello Philip,

My name is Jeff Pezzati, I am a professor of composition at the University of Southern California. My pieces have won ACSAP, BMI prizes and the Prix di Rome. I have been informed of your anti-Semitic cantata that is to be performed. This will not be tolerated by the American composer community. The suicide victim "Rachel Corrie," who you are apparently trying to honor in this piece, killed herself for the cause of promoting Arab terrorism and murder against Jews. I have discussed this with such colleagues as John Corigliano, John Harrison, John Adams, etc. We have all agreed that your music is to be banned from performance in the continental United States. Consider yourself blacklisted.

Dr. Pezzati

Suspicious over the hotmail e-mail address "Dr. Pezzati" used, the overly simplistic sentence structure and a blatant threat attached to a well-known institution, we investigated. No doubt the University of Southern California would want to know of anyone using the school's good name to levy threats. A simple call to USC, a couple of e-mails and Mr. Pezzati is exposed for what he is, a fraud.

Tracking the hotmail account used, further investigation showed this "Dr. Pezzati" is a musician with a punk rock band, hardly a doctor and not award winning, at least with the awards mentioned, with no ability to "Blacklist" anyone. The comedy in all this is the e-mail terrorist Pezzati obviously does not realize that by using a the name of a public institution in threatening an individual and misrepresenting himself as its employee, he's opened himself up to all kinds of grief from lawsuits to criminal charges beginning with the State of California on down.

Student Threath Case and Cancellation

For the composer, the onslaught of threats by Pezzati and others proved effective. By Tuesday, April 6, the threats against student performer increasingly specific prompted notification of UAA security and appropriate administrators.

By Thursday, Munger became convinced that professional educators, no matter how firm their belief in freedom of expression could not risk students to the growing level of insecurity many were enduring.

Performance of "The Skies are Weeping" at this time and place is withdrawn for the safety of the student performers. This decision has been mine alone, with no pressure whatsoever from the school or university.”

Anybody who went into that meeting thinking my concerns for student safety to be exaggerated or unwarranted, and who also left the meeting feeling the same way, should not be making such safety decisions.

Hard to decide case for wording, threath is available yet its content unsure. There are some certain threaths to the composer via email somehow, yet by an imitator, also which refers "character assasination" as composer stated more than an actual assasination. We don't have the claimed threats students received. Yet the performance cancelled by composer's own request, for some might be [but not so evident because we don't know the content of the mail students received] physical threaths targetting the student performers as a precaution. Kasaalan (talk) 22:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

What the prase "just short of the stuff you'd take to the troopers." means. Kasaalan (talk) 09:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I took out the sentence on the fourth movement because it was felt that we were overemphasizing, and I felt it bogged down the paragraph. If you want it, put it back.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


This title is not resolved by any means, after the recent changes all we talk is after debates and threats instead mentioning "The Skies are Weeping" Cantata's Artistic Tributes. We don't mention lyrics of the cantata, contained from 3 poems written for Corrie by 3 different poets, Corrie's own letters edited by Munger, Moshe Nissim excerpts, devoted part to Tom Hurndall, excerpt from Bible. But we talk on and on over unartistic details. We can talk about them but if we don't mention what is inside the cantata how this section is artistic tributes.

Alaskan composer Philip Munger wrote a cantata about Corrie called The Skies are Weeping. It was scheduled to premiere on April 27, 2004 at the University of Alaska-Anchorage, where Munger teaches. Many objected to the upcoming performance, including members of the Jewish community, and a forum co-chaired by Munger and a local rabbi was held. After the forum "disintegrate[d]", Munger announced, "I cannot subject 16 students... to any possibility of physical harm or to the type of character assassination some of us are already undergoing. Performance of The Skies are Weeping at this time and place is withdrawn for the safety of the student performers.”[36] Munger later related that he had received threatening emails "[just] short of what you'd take to the troopers", and that some of his students had received similar communications.[37] The cantata was eventually performed at the Hackney Empire theatre in London, premiering on November 1, 2005.[38]

Either add some info, or change the context. Kasaalan (talk) 12:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Munger's inbox

Resolved

I'm still not sure why "just short of what you'd take to the troopers" was removed, considering that it's an excellent nutshell characterization of the messages he says that he and students received. It obviates a great deal of arguably-includable material about meeting with the dean, and meeting with campus security, and a detailed explanation of the fine differences between hatemail and threats, and orchestration, and the alleged Dr. Pezzatti (sp?), and the USC response, etc. Finally, it turns bland back-and-forth into something the reader can pay attention to whether they believe it or not - see Wikipedia:I_wouldn't_know_him_from_a_hole_in_the_ground#An_example. Could you please explain? arimareiji (talk) 22:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec x 2) I felt that if Kasaalan didn't understand it, he's probably a good guinea pig for Joe the Reader, and so we're probably off base. As for your other concern, I don't think the two are parallel because, as you yourself point out, there's plenty of inference to show it is coming from the IDF. The cantata paragraph is not all coming from Munger. While I appreciate your rephrasing the IDF paragraph that way to prove your point, it doesn't quite fly because of the respective contexts.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
If Kasaalan doesn't understand idiomatic English, that doesn't mean Joe Reader will. Wrt the IDF paragraph, you have one standalone phrase, one standalone sentence, and one centrally controversial term (blind spots) which are all "stated as facts" that are neither embedded between or participial to "The IDF spokesman said." In a couple of the phrasings that you've replaced, you're adding "Munger says" to a phrase that's both embedded between and participial to "Munger says" statements. arimareiji (talk) 22:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, if you can propose compromise language, do so. I've tried and it hasn't been satisfactory--Wehwalt (talk) 23:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
My original version: "but was cancelled following threats to Munger and some of the students."
Your original version: "but was cancelled following what Munger alleged were threats to him and some of the student musicians."
My most recent version: "At the end of the forum Munger announced that the performance had been "withdrawn for the safety of the student performers," following messages to himself and some of the student musicians that he said were "[just] short of the stuff you'd take to the troopers.""
Your most recent version: "At the end of the forum, Munger announced that the performance had been "withdrawn for the safety of the student performers," at his request, citing hatemail he said he had received."
Your original objection was sound, so I made a couple of different changes in the phrasing structure that did make it clearer. For the most part, since then you've mainly been inserting increasing amounts of "he claims" into my phrasing. That's not really a compromise, it's an amplification of the same position that you held in the beginning.
My current compromise version: "At the end of the forum Munger announced that the performance would be "withdrawn for the safety of the student performers," following messages to himself and some of the student musicians that he said were "[just] short of the stuff you'd take to the troopers."" There's no doubt about who said everything in that sentence. It also obviates a lot of argument over how to characterize his characterization of the messages, given that he states his POV pretty clearly himself. arimareiji (talk) 23:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC).
That's basically what you inserted before. If you move the "he said" up in the sentence so it is "following what he said were messages 'just short of the stuff you'd take to the troopers.'" that would be OK I see no need to mention the student musician/performers twice, esp when there is some doubt due to Munger's variant stories.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it is basically what I said before, and it's still a compromise between our original positions. It makes it clear that he said everything in the sentence, so why does it need an awkward rephrase that serves to cast doubt on Munger? Can you provide a reliable source that articulates doubt about "Munger's variant stories"? Adding it would be much more productive than trying to get the phrasing to do so.
Wrt changing "himself and students" to just "himself": Your proposed change alters the meaning to make him sound histrionic, i.e. "I'm scared for the students because I got threats." Would it suffice to change "student musicians" to "students," since "musicians" really is a noncontributory repetition that can be removed without changing the meaning? arimareiji (talk) 00:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
More a question of editorial judgment, in my view on your first point. If someone tells various stories, you can't be bothered to tell them all, so you just say what you can and make sure it is attributable to him. Your second point really goes to the first, because in one of the articles he omits the students except to say they were had remained anonymous to the hatemailers.
Would it be fair to say that for all the talk about grammar and awkward sentences and all that, that this boils down to you think the hatemail should be included without inline attribution and I think there should be inline attribution?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
No, it wouldn't. With respect to IDF, you (correctly) don't object to a sentence which contains zero attributions for three separate phrases which would need it by the standard you're applying to Munger. Here, you're objecting to a sentence which contains three phrases, two directly attributed and one of which is enclosed by two attributions and referred to participially by one of them. In your previous version, the sentence needed four attributions for three phrases - does that not speak of excess?
Again, can you provide a reliable source to articulate the doubts about Munger that you think this sentence should express? Two sides are always more interesting than one, and it would be good to include. arimareiji (talk) 00:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I've explained my reasoning. When there are varying accounts, you have to exercise editorial judgment. If you think it is overattributed, restructure the paragraph, but it is my editorial judgment that due to the various stories Munger has told on that point, I want him to stand behind that as a fact, not us.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC) Incidently, that IS a little bit of a strawman argument you're making with the IDF quote, neh?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

He is, and clearly so. And again, I'm not going to go vandal on a perfectly-acceptable paragraph just to illustrate that one subject gets lenient treatment and another gets questioned at every turn. If you have a source that justifies treating Munger this way, that's one thing - but otherwise it's meta-WP:SYNTHESIS. arimareiji (talk) 00:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, got distracted by a page protection request. Anyway, I've played with the language and made it the sort of gray area phrasing I like in case of doubt.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
This isn't a compromise, this is simply pre-emptively putting your version up. Without a source that backs up your assertions about Munger being untruthful, using the phrasing to cast aspersions on his credibility is unjustified. Especially by contrast, as noted above. arimareiji (talk) 01:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
"In these types of disputes, it is important to note that verifiability lives alongside neutrality, it does not override it. A matter that is both verifiable and supported by reliable sources might nonetheless be proposed to make a point or cited selectively; painted by words more favorably or negatively than is appropriate; made to look more important or more dubious than a neutral view would present; marginalized or given undue standing; described in slanted terms which favor or weaken it; or subject to other factors suggestive of bias." Please stop trying to make Munger look as stupid as possible. The ongoing pattern isn't cute, and this is getting close to jumping the shark. arimareiji (talk) 01:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I've rephrased it, breaking it down into two sentences this time, one for each source, and relying as far as possible on quotes from Munger.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you; I didn't anticipate how much your second edit would complement the first. I'm making two minor modifications; one is changing it back to "[just] short." "Just short" was indeed a misquote, but "just... short" is awkward and "short" erroneously excludes the "just" that I believe was meant to modify the phrases following it. arimareiji (talk) 02:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, what do you expect of a weekly free newspaper? I took out the stray t that was in there, too. It all looks good.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

IP deletion

Resolved

For the first time in a while, I'm inclined to agree with an IP editor. Is there an RS for that? If it's unsourced or sourced to someone with an ax to grind, I think it needs to go per Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Criticism_and_praise, which overlaps into any bio. arimareiji (talk) 15:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Almost a direct quote from the Mother Jones article.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
It needs attribution to Hammer, then. It's RS, which surprises me, but I don't think it can be argued to be a "fact" per se. IMO it would be good to merge those juxtaposed parentheses, and add the missing one at the end of the quote.
But to be honest, it still bothers me for the reason that it's not directly related to her relationship to them. It's about them, which is a different subject. arimareiji (talk) 15:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
It's sourced at the end of the sentence. But really, I don't care if you take it out. I put it in when Tiamut and Kasaalan were making this, as IronDuke put it, hagiography. I think things are a little more balanced now.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for this, I was that (not masked!) IP editor. While the attribution improves the para, I still agree with Arimareiji that views on the exact nature of the ISM are a separate issue. -- (Jim Weldon) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.240.76.2 (talk) 09:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Time Wasting Undo Attitude

How the Rachel Corrie Foundation Page is not a reliable source for international plays. They clearly link to the international play webpages giving dates. Links are old and not working, great deal, yet do you have any sound argument to doubt a foundation falsely claims there were plays that doesnt performed. Do wikipedia gain anything by your deletes, is there any good reason to doubt the play performed in 7 countries worldwide. Seriously I am asking this, if you need a better source why don't you help searching for it instead deleting it, this way I am doing all the research work and you play with them as you like. Difference Rachel Corrie Foundation International Plays Page Kasaalan (talk) 15:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Because per WP:RS, they aren't a RS. Perhaps less time would be lost, Kasaalan, if you read the policy and stuck strictly to it, rather than trying to massage nonRS into RS in order to prove points.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
They list the plays with date and location, it is your own comment that it is not a RS for the international plays, but you cannot explain if they have any motive to publicly lie about the international plays. For suspecting a lie there should be a reason to lie in the first place. Also even if Rachel Corrie Foundation isn't reliable source for where My Name is Rachel Corrie play have been performed, you could contribute the article by searching and checking if the plays has been held or not before you claim they aren't reliable. But you take the easy way, undoing them, self-claiming RCF is not reliable. Then I have to make all the reasearch for proving even tiny details like obviously stated performances with dates and location in the foundation page one by one, then you object the sources again, then I find even better sources, then the discussion page gets longer and longer. Kasaalan (talk) 15:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Kasaalan, you are the one that thinks the international performances need to be in the article. If only because of exhaustion, I'm inclined to let you have that one, but I insist it be reliably sourced. You want it in the article, you go get your own RS, please. Don't look to others to do the work for you. The place for the international performances is in an article about the play. And there is one. With a section called "Forthcoming Performances". Send it over there.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
If I go place a seperate reference in the article for every single stage, will that make you happy. You claim RCF is no reliable source for the play with no good reason, just like the info provided might be deliberately untrue, but My_Name_is_Rachel_Corrie article clearly references all stages mentioned at RFC page, one by one. You are not in charge here or boss in any way, so talking like letting me have something is utter nonsense. Main objective in wikipedia is providing reliable info. You just trying to object everytime with your favourite reliability card, yet you don't bother to research before you object. If you would search you could easily find all the stages has been referenced and replace the unreliable link you refer with the reliable one. But instead you try deleting information. Are you even object that, when talking about a play it is important how many countries or different stages the play performed. Statistics are neutral by themselves, but you try so hard to find statistics somehow unneutral. Kasaalan (talk) 18:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Kasaalan on this one, Wehwalt - it's a short blurb, has enough importance to the tangent to justify inclusion, and isn't unduly self-serving. It wavers on the border of it, but there's no direct connection between RCFPJ and the play. And a quick glance through Google shows that there are indisputable RS'es for individual countries. It would be a waste of time and space to list several references when one (albeit less than a perfect RS) corroborates a relatively-neutral assertion. arimareiji (talk) 19:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
PS Kasaalan - please note that accusations such as PR made ("you're not boss so your opinion doesn't count") are a Really Bad Idea for an ongoing relationship between editors. For an editor who disappears for long periods of time, like PR, it's not as self-evident. For an editor who stays with a page, like you or myself or Wehwalt, it quickly leads to irreparable mistrust. I believe you mean well, even when we don't agree, and I take your arguments seriously even when I get frustrated with them. I would have trouble believing that if you adopted PR's style of attack. arimareiji (talk) 19:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
You have done some good job on editing and discussion. I take you seriously even when I object you for misjudge, like the most of the editors including Wehwalt, and also his scepticism is very useful sometimes, but "I might let you have this one" is not the attitude I can stand. And time to time his baseless objections solely founded on his alleged "you put this because you think this way and want the readers to think that way therefore I delete unreliable material" argument. I said he is not the boss, neither of us is, but I didn't say "your opinion doesn't count" in any way. As I claimed earlier I cannot refer him as neutral in some of the cases, since before you came we couldn't even settle on the very basics. Our only communication is through Wikipedia, I am not expecting any friendly manner, so I may only refer to a professional connection if there is any. I have spent several dozens of hours researching including some very hard to find details and references, yet undoing and deleting with no clear reason is just wasting my time. He may use some common sense or seriously search for a better reference himself, for whether the plays has been held or not, instead deleting them, if our objection is trying to improve the article. Otherwise trying to keep the article as it is is not a good objection in the first place. Kasaalan (talk) 20:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) May I make a suggestion, moving forward? If you think that a source should be counted as reliable, stand up and say so. If your argument has merit, it will be re-inserted. Or if it does need a more reliable source, it usually doesn't take long to find one. Finding an undisputable reliable source is the easiest way to win arguments - trying to win them on the talk page is usually more trouble than it's worth. It takes a lot more time that way.
Wikipedia relies on reliable-source material, and it is necessary to delete material that's not reliably sourced. But please note that per WP:BRD it's also completely appropriate to re-insert material that is reliably sourced. Please don't think that just because someone says your source is unreliable, that's the end of it.
Wehwalt is right in saying that he's under no obligation to go out and find more reliable sources. That may be frustrating, but it also means he's not trying to find sources to contradict you. That's a good thing, trust me. I would be much more worried if he was trying to find sources to contradict me. And Wehwalt - sometimes you do need to loosen up a little. Not that I have much room to talk; I probably need to loosen up even more than you do. arimareiji (talk) 20:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd loosen up, but it's hard to do so while typing with one's nose while wearing a straitjacket. But I digress. I'm OK with the foundation web site being used, so long as we all know it doesn't establish a precedent. That means, Kasaalan, that it's not to be used for claims that those SOBing Israelis murdered St. Rachel, or for any other fact about which reasonable minds could differ. Just because a fact (loosely speaking) is not in the article, regardless of whether you spent hours ferreting it out, that does not mean we have to jump on board with you and help to add it. As I have told you several times, WP works in what is told summary style. It means we don't include any random fact. And we are all equal as editors, but think well, Kasaalan, about the reputation that you are building as an editor. I'd suggest, as an editor of some experience, that five kilobyte talk page entries and pointy edits to the article aren't, quite possibly, the best way to go. Just my opinion.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
And oh yeah, Kasaalan, just so you know, a wikipedia article is NOT a reliable source. May seem odd to you, but that is how it is.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Got caught by an edit conflict; my reply is to Kasaalan.
Kasaalan - Wikipedia can't be used as a source in Wikipedia articles, per this policy. And rachelswords.org falls afoul of conflict of interest, per the cited page: "The play, whose cancellation in New York launched our own initiative, is now being produced in theaters all over the U.S. and internationally." RCFPJ is usable with respect to the play, because it's not "unduly self-serving," but rachelswords.org isn't. Your previous revision (the "ten" one) is fine. arimareiji (talk) 21:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I already know Wikipedia might not be a reliable source, yet in wikipedia article it is clearly referenced how and when the performances taken with sources. I also found the best source for the plays happen to be rachelswords.org with very detailed info on stage performances. Replaced Rachel Corrie Foundation link with this one. My Name is Rachel Corrie wiki article is also weak in context missing lots of stages, so I created a section on this matter in its discussion page. Kasaalan (talk) 01:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't matter whether the source has detailed info, it can't be used if it's "unduly self-serving." By their own words, they have a conflict of interest in this specific matter. Why would you want to replace a usable source with one that's not usable? arimareiji (talk) 01:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Correct. It is not an RS. Other sources can be used in its place, though less convenient. --Wehwalt (talk) 02:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Thirded. IronDuke 03:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

How you reach the conclusion the rachelswords.org is "unduly self-serving" or "unduly self serving" means they will blatantly lie in front of public. Isn't it obvious why I used the source, rachelswords.org has every single stage performed on earth with dates and names of the stages with clear linking to their webpages. This source just states the facts, no interpretation involved, unless anyone can claim they lie, this is the best source we have. Can anyone show me, any of the info provided is false, or any site pointing the page is lying for "self serving" reasons. No other source is as complete as this one, because this one is updated, this primary source is the best and most reliable source we have from first party. Moreover the page is verifiable since it links to the every single theather webpage except 2. Why don't you take your time asking the theathers if they performed the play before you claim the source is unreliable. But then why you claim, without spending a little time for proving the site is unreliable for staging info, which means they clearly lie in front of public. Kasaalan (talk) 12:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Kasaalan, we follow policies here at WP. You know of them, you have thrown them in our faces on occasion. Those policies say this is not a reliable source. That's how it is. Your remedy is not in throwing a few more kilobytes of special pleading at us, it is in either finding another source, doing without, or having the policies changed. I leave you to your decision.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Policies doesn't say rachelswords.org is unreliable for staging info. "Self-published sources may be used only in limited circumstances, with caution." I take the caution and searched the plays mentioned. There is no dicussion involved for the matter, or any source objecting the stages didn't have been held. There is no reason to doubt the staging info, but even if you do you can always verify the info provided. Kasaalan (talk) 13:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
You can't read only the first line of the policy ("Self-published sources may be used") and then ignore the rest of it ("so long as... 2. it is not unduly self-serving"). You're also ignoring the fact that "so long as... 5. there is no reason to doubt its authenticity" is a completely separate point. You're defending it on the basis of point 5, but no one except you is saying point 5 is the issue. Point 2 is the issue.
"Unduly self-serving" does not mean "they will blatantly lie in front of the public". It means they have a serious conflict of interest. Example: I own a company that sells XYZ product. Someone edits an article to say "XYZ product is the best on the market," and uses my website as a source. It may actually be true that XYZ product is the best on the market, but that doesn't matter - they can't use my website as a source because it's "unduly self-serving." In the same way, rachelswords.org is an unduly self-serving source for how many venues the play is performed in, because their express stated purpose is to get it performed in as many venues as possible. arimareiji (talk) 16:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Did I use the reference to say the play is the best play ever. No. No comment involved, I just stated a fact. In the same manner you can object a theatre's own page as there is conflict of interest, they might not actually performed the stage, but it would be pointless. They have enough proof on the site for the stages has been held, they are clearly dated, linked and given location. I also proved every single stage is true by research. Foundation link is only containing 7 of the stages, which is also an old non-updated page. This source is better, and fully trustable for staging info. The link contains verifiable info and I verified it. Rachels Words is not a commercial site, just a pro-Rachel organisation with full endorsement of Rachel Corrie Foundation. As a first party they are reliable enough to mention verifiable details. Kasaalan (talk) 18:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
An example is only an example. And an example is only as good as the listener's willingness to understand. You refuse to understand, so this is what it comes down to: "In the same way, rachelswords.org is an unduly self-serving source for how many venues the play is performed in, because their express stated purpose is to get it performed in as many venues as possible."
Combined with "Self-published sources may be used... so long as... 2. it is not unduly self-serving," that means rachelswords.org can not be used. "Unduly self-serving" is completely separate from any questions about "truth" or "honesty." "Unduly self-serving" only means they have a serious conflict of interest. arimareiji (talk) 23:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Verified My Name is Rachel Corrie Staging Performances

I will put a link for each verified staging listed under rachelswords.org.

THEATER PRODUCTIONS TO DATE

  • Teatro La Plaza, Lima, Peru Ran until 31st October 2007; plans to tour until summer ‘08 [6]

General Links

The Boston Globe Who's afraid of 'Rachel Corrie'

About the play based on Rachel’s writing

List of Some Stages Performed

  • Production History:
  • Royal Court Theatre London April 2005*
  • New York Theatre Workshop NYC Mar 2006 - CANCELLED
  • West End’s Playhouse Theatre London Mar - May 2006
  • Galway Arts Festival/Edinburgh Fringe Ireland Jul - Aug 2006
  • Minetta Lane Theatre/Royal Court NYC Oct 2006
  • CanStage Theatre Toronto 2007/08 Season
  • Seattle Repertory Theatre Seattle Mar - May 2007
  • Kitchen & Roundhouse Theatre Silverspring, MD Jul 21, 2007 – 1 night production
  • Contemporary American Theater Festival West Virginia Jul 6 - Jul 29, 2007
  • Oregon Stage Works Ashland, OR Aug 2007
  • Cyranos Theatre Anchorage, AK August 22, 2007 – staged reading
  • Mosaic Theatre Plantation, FL Aug 2007 - CANCELLED
  • Synchronicity Performance Group Atlanta, GA Sep 2007
  • Watertown New Rep Watertown, MA Mar 2008

Will be edited in detail. With absolutely no reason to doubt staging info has been objected by reliability card. So we can try verifying one by one. Kasaalan (talk) 13:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

You've yet even to explain, Kasaalan, that this rather trivial detail needs to be in this bloated article. Shouldn't it be included at the article on the play? If the reader is interested in the play, he can easily click across. Please consider that Arimareiji and I are both experienced editors, with some knowledge of what should and should not be in an article.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
If you are an experienced editor try acting like one and don't object reliable info as unreliable. The source is reliable and verifiable, if you object the source you should first come with a sound argument or proof. Yet I will take my time proving each stage one by one. I will also post this proof on My Name is Rachel Corrie article, since it lacks the necessary info. After the research, we may clearly say in how many countries, in how many languages and on how many different stages the play has been performed. Which is a good and universal indication on notability, either you are aware or not, for a play. Kasaalan (talk) 14:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, and it may do well in the article on the play though it is still (as has been pointed out by two editors) not a reliable source under WP policies. Some non reliable sources contain truthful information. However, that does not mean we can use them. However, the number and places of performance have little to do with Rachel Corrie herself, it is like saying how many times A Man for All Seasons has been performed and where in the article on Thomas More.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

You say so but when we read Tomas More article we even read more detail under the artistic tributes section.

"In 1966, the play was made into the successful film A Man for All Seasons directed by Fred Zinnemann, adapted for the screen by the playwright himself, and starring Paul Scofield in an Oscar-winning performance. The film won the Academy Award for Best Picture for that year. In 1988, Charlton Heston starred and directed in a made-for-television remake of the film."

"He is also the focus of the Al Stewart song A Man For All Seasons from the 1978 album Time Passages, and of the Far song Sir, featured on the limited editions and 2008 re-release of their 1994 album Quick."

So he won an Oscar, a notability indication, why do you think it mentioned in the article. And there exist a pretty much detailed info, even for a single song. In all novel titles it is better to mention how much the book sell, or how many different languages it is translated. Kasaalan (talk) 15:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Great, if someone involved in MNiRC wins an Oscar for it, I will have absolutely no objection to it being included. But where does it say how many countries the AMFAS has been produced in in the article? Musta missed it.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Added all necessary links. If you will object to any of them you can check the references, most of the links are theaters own pages, some theatres don't have history of the plays performed so I used outside links. Kasaalan (talk) 16:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I admire your hard work, but the point is not germane. Just because there is a truthful fact on the website does not mean it is a reliable source.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
The source is reliable for staging info. I am not trying to add rachelsword as a reference for any argument. Site lists facts. I proved the facts by link checking. Now if anyone will object the integrity of the staging info, he should check the links and tell me what doubts he still has. First party sources can be used for details about their involvement, if they are not belied by other sources. If someone says he is 45 year old, you don't object unless you have some reason to not believe him. Still some international staging is missing I will try adding them too. Kasaalan (talk) 16:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Please see the bottom of "Time Wasting Undo Attitude" section; respond here if you'd prefer. That might be a good idea, to keep the thread all in one place. I'll look for your response in both places. arimareiji (talk) 17:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Let Me Stand Alone

The Book should be mentioned in brief, but where it should be referenced, under Artistic Tributes or elsewhere.

  • Let Me Stand Alone Now available in the US and UK. Book Website: www.letmestandalone.com
  • Book publisher W.W. Norton & Company has published the complete journals of Rachel Corrie with an introduction and annotations by the Corrie family.
  • Let Me Stand Alone reveals Corrie’s striking gifts as a poet and writer while telling her story in her own words, from her earliest reflections to her final e-mails. ... Her writing reverberates with conviction and echoes her long-held belief in the oneness of humanity: “We have got to understand that they dream our dreams, and we dream theirs.”
  • January 2008 | hardcover | ISBN 978-0-393-06571-8 | 5 1/2″ x 8 1/4″ | 256 pages | Memoir[8]

The News and Reviews[9] about the book and play. Kasaalan (talk) 16:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The book seems to be published by a reputable publisher and in fact is scheduled for a paperback release shortly. I suggest, that since the family did the introduction, that we include it in the parents' activities section. I'm not sure it is worth a subsection to itself, perhaps add to the lead paragraph in the section. "In addition, the Corries and other family members have edited and released excerpts from Rachel Corrie's writings in book form, entitled Let Me Stand Alone, which was released in 2008."--Wehwalt (talk) 17:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Resolved

The only ISM link at the article is [10] about rachel corrie's parents. There is a Rachel Corrie archive of ISM which I traced back to find some more info on the matter from their view.

ISM statement on the killing of Rachel Corrie original full text statement of ISM
The closest eye witness account on the murder of Rachel Corrie written by Tom Dale. Some more quotes can be taken from his statements.
"We’d been monitoring and occasionally obstructing the 2 bulldozers for about 2 hours when 1 of them turned toward a house we knew to be threatened with demolition. Rachel knelt down in its way. She was 10-20 metres in front of the bulldozer, clearly visible, the only object for many metres, directly in it’s view. They were in Radio contact with a tank that had a profile view of the situation. There is no way she could not have been seen by them in their elevated cabin. They knew where she was, there is no doubt.
The bulldozer drove toward Rachel slowly, gathering earth in its scoop as it went. She knelt there, she did not move. The bulldozer reached her and she began to stand up, climbing onto the mound of earth. She appeared to be looking into the cockpit. The bulldozer continued to push Rachel, so she slipped down the mound of earth, turning as she went. Her faced showed she was panicking and it was clear she was in danger of being overwhelmed. All the activists were screaming at the bulldozer to stop and gesturing to the crew about Rachel’s presence. We were in clear view as Rachel had been, they continued. They pushed Rachel, first beneath the scoop, then beneath the blade, then continued till her body was beneath the cockpit. They waited over her for a few seconds, before reversing. They reversed with the blade pressed down, so it scraped over her body a second time. Every second I believed they would stop but they never did."
Parents speaking out to keep alive memory of child killed in Gaza quoted from Pittsburgh Post Gazette interview with Rachel's Parents
Rachel Corrie is the new Anne Frank on postponement of the plays with transcripts and sound records
The New York Times Distorts Key Facts About Cancellation of Play on Activist Rachel Corrie answers to Too Hot to Handle, Too Hot to Not Handle article
Counterpunch: “What Rachel Saw”
Haaretz: Until the bulldozers stop

also first link at reference is 24 not working [11] Kasaalan (talk) 19:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The witness statement we have for Tom Dale from an article in Mother Jones article which is already included in our article reads as follows:

The bulldozer built up earth in front of it. Its blade was slightly dug into the earth. She began to stand up. The earth was pushed over her feet. She tried to climb on top of the earth, to avoid being overwhelmed. She climbed to the point where her shoulders were above the top lip of the blade. She was standing on this pile of earth. As the bulldozer continued, she lost her footing, and she turned and fell down this pile of earth. Then it seemed like she got her foot caught under the blade. She was helpless, pushed prostrate, and looked absolutely panicked, with her arms out, and the earth was piling itself over her. The bulldozer continued so that the place where she fell down was directly beneath the cockpit. I think she would have been between the treads. The whole [incident] took place in about six or seven seconds."

I'm not sure, but I think we can link directly to the account of Tom Dale in his own words two days after the event, which you linked to here, for this information instead. I'm not clear if it's okay to use them in this particular case since it is Tom Dale's account that is being referenced itself. Wehwalt, IronDuke, help on this please?
One last thing, I would really prefer if you made edits to the article itself. Begin with small edits, introducing the material you feel is missing. It doesn't have to be perfect. I'll fix references behind you and stuff, but it's very hard to discuss these things in the abstract here without understanding exactly what it is you want to do. So just do it. Be WP:BOLD and if you get reverted, WP:BRD. Okay? Tiamuttalk 22:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

This section was actually link collection more than a discussion. We can discuss later if the links are needed. Kasaalan (talk) 13:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

1) FOIA no record found for Rachel Corrie
2) COUNTRY REPORTS ON HUMAN RIGHTS PRACTICES FOR 2004 VOLUME II REPORT SUBMITTED TO THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, U.S. SENATE AND THE COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE.
3) US Congressman and Represantative Statements for the Case

Kasaalan (talk) 15:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Kasaalan: Your point being? We address the legal case and the congressional resolution in the text already. If you think the Washington state bill is useful, I have no objection to it being mentioned along the same lines as the Congressional resolution is, that is, a brief description without quotation, and what happened to it.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
PR collapsed the text for clarity which is a good work, to see the text click show button at right. My point is first trying to gather the legal documents for the case, against D9R company, at US Courts, by US Congress Reports, etc. Publishing earlier for possible objections. I won't edit the main page in any way as in discussion page of course, should be brief yet also publishing here so all of us can reach the content, and made objection or citation better. Congressman Statements would also be good for Reactions heading. And for court cases for example "On September 17, 2007, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal on political question grounds, and did not reach the merits of the suit." says in the wiki article and above I found is the original Ninth Circuit papers pdf which will be the first hand source for its dismissal of Rachel's parents' claims.
As generally the medical and legal sections needs improvement on references, so instead newspapers, I am trying to reach first hand original sources and publishing them here, I possibly wont do any change to the first page over these parts, untill collecting more court papers, reading and analyzing them.
I also added the full name of Rachel, which is another good side of court papers. And PR your hiding of the text helped a lot. Kasaalan (talk) 18:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Kasaalan, we already ref the official text of the opinion on the official 9th Circuit Web site. Something wrong with that? It neutrally states the outcome of the case.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
I didn't imply there was something wrong with the neutrality. Just tried to add direct reference to it, yet my fault, I missed the direct reference to the court paper was already given. Kasaalan (talk) 22:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Also, Kasaalan, this page is very long and difficult to deal with because it is hard to find stuff, and, well, perhaps you could "gather" the quotes in your sandbox? It is easy to set one up, in your userspace.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
There is much of value on this page, eg the discussion on the reliability of the ISM at the top. I'm not entirely sure what Kasaalan's documents add to the discussion. But I noticed that he's found affadavits from witnesses and those, if put in collapsing boxes and summarised properly, and if we can treat them as an RS, are potentially valuable indeed. PRtalk 19:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
That is fine, and I'm not trying to discourage him. But, as Polonius said, brevity is the soul of wit.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:19, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
A sandbox might also be good idea, I may publish there more easily, than publish here more briefly. Yet this text collapsing also great for brevity, and publishing here also shares the info, because other editors may also benefit from the text if they like to read them or object more easily for the text is under their hand, and if they choose not to they don't need to do anything because it is hidden. After long discussions we began to getting closer to a settlement on some issues. And definately we are getting higher quality sources in terms of reliability. Kasaalan (talk) 21:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

This is more than a reference share than a discussion. This contains Official Papers, Legal Court Proceedings and Statements for the Rachel Corrie case and contains some valuable info. You can keep, move or archive this and in case you archive it we can discuss the references when they are needed. Kasaalan (talk) 13:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup

I've taken a shot at getting rid of the worst of IronDuke's concerns, while still leaving enough hagiographic material to, I believe, satisfy anyone who wants some positive details of Corrie's early life. I've also done a lot of cleanup. It may not satisfy everyone, but what we have now, I think is a balanced perspective, not sickly sweet or calling her any names, but balanced. It's a good point for any further discussions that anyone may think is needed.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:30, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I will also ask everyone to avoid overlinking. There is no need to link common words, like "lungs". Anyone who has them knows what they are.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:25, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

You overerased actually only left one, that are not just common words, medical terms, which for every word a doctor need to be trained for years to be an expert. Everyone knows them as words, wikilinks explain them in more detail than they know.
I readded the conclusion of autopsy, all the factors together leads the death not just one. Readded the internal wiki links for medical terms. And Cordesman quote has some integrity issues I pointed at top. Also we dont need that source anymore, if Arafat visit will not be mentioned. And why did you erased the IDF report summary? It was very important, and a direct summary.
Israel Defense Forces report titled "The Death of Rachel Corrie", cited by Human Rights Watch from an obtained copy of the summary with emphasis in original, concluded "Contrary to allegations, Ms. Corrie was not run over by a bulldozer, but sustained injuries caused by earth and debris which fell on her during bulldozer operation. At the time of the incident Ms. Corrie was standing behind an earth mound and therefore obscured from bulldozer crew's view, whose line of sight was inherently limited." Kasaalan (talk) 16:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Lots of changes you made, with some deleting, I couldn't track most of them, just my objections on my latest edits. Kasaalan (talk) 16:51, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
This time I only delinked ribs, lungs, and spinal column. All are common terms, and anyone likely to be on WP will know what they are. Low value links. I suggest you insert the language from the report later in that section. And given the comments by the Palestinian doctor in the Hammer article, I now agree with you on cause of death. I left a clear edit summary for each change I made.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:53, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Try reading the article straight through without worrying about who wrote what. I think you'll find it acceptable.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:00, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I care about the changes, not about who did them, but the hard part is if you add something it is easy to check its integrity, when you delete or paraphrase it is way harder, before I do a complete check I try to focus on some details. I don't know which programme she took at Evergreen so added attended to Arts Faculty, I read she took arts and international relation classes and an Arabic course, but I am not sure what she studied exactly, maybe stage costume design, but she might attended as a graduate so referring her education as taking courses might be misleading. But finding what she studied is important so I am researching it. Leaving out Cordesman quote is a good choice. I still don't know why you erased the IDF report summary, it is needed and important. Also found proceedings of Corrie family in the Israel Courts.[12] or [13]

The Deceased was taken to the Abu Kabir Forensic Institute and a post-mortem was performed that same day. Prof. Yehuda Hiss, Director of the institute, drew up an expert opinion, and in its conclusion he noted the principal anatomical findings, as follows:
“(1) Fractures of the ribs, left [not specified which] bone, scapulae, posterior processes of the thoracic spine.
(a) Several tear wounds in the right lung
(b) Hemothoraces (700 ml total)
(c) Punctate hemorrhages in the sclerae and the pleurae
(d) Hemorrhages in the back muscles.
(2) Tear of the left upper lip
(3) Abrasions and desiccation of the left face
(4) Lingual hemorrhage
(5) Evidence of medical therapy
And at the end of his opinion, he further notes:
“On the basis of the results of the post-mortem that I performed on the body of Ms. Rachel Aliene Corrie, 24 years, I state my opinion that her death was caused as the result of compression of the thorax (mechanical asphyxia) with fractures of the ribs, thoracic vertebrae, scapulae as well as lacerations in the right lung with hemothoraces. Also found was a laceration wound in the upper lip and abrasions of the skin on the left cheek”. Attached a copy of the pathology opinion of Prof. Hiss Appendix A. Kasaalan (talk) 23:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
The IDF summary, if needed, should be put elsewhere in the section. Since you put Arts Department as a proper noun, I was rather concerned. The fact that she did an independent study project in her senior year as she did suggests it had something to do with her major. Umm, is the Abu Kabir institute in Tel Aviv?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:39, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Abu Kabir major pathology institute in Israel says the dictionary. It might be an Institute of Tel Aviv University [14], and possibly be the same as Israel's National Center of Forensic Medicine referred in HRW report, because Hiss was the director of NCFM. "Professor Y. Hiss, M.D. [MD here possibly Medicinae Doctor one who has a degree in medicine] Director, Abu Kabir Forensic Institute, Holon [city in Israel] Israel's Chief Legal Pathologist" [15]. Not sure why you mentioned her independent study in the senior year exactly, but we should state what undergraduate program she took when we learn it. IDF report is critically needed, because it reflects IDF view to the case, and the title of the section is Autopsy and Investigation, so whereelse you suggest putting it and why? Kasaalan (talk) 22:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
I'd put it next to the Guardian report of the autopsy report, since they are basically similar. If you do an independent study in your senior year, in my experience, it is to complete your major because you are probably needing courses to complete your major, else why are you still in school? However, TESC is a bit of an oddball school, and anything might go there.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:34, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes she had 1 more year to complete the graduation, I referred to what profession she studied at Evergreen, I still don't know that. That info is crucial, we still not have exact info on the courses she took in the article.
"That's the reason for the repression. That's why we sweep off the street immediately; clean away the blood; remove the bus. And within an hour we're told on television that life has returned to normal. Within an hour life has returned to normal. Only the victims are transferred to Abu Kabir [the forensic institute in Tel Aviv]. This Abu Kabir thing is interesting. There's something in it. Of all the Arab names that existed in this country, why is it that we have left precisely this one? After all, no one says he's going to Sheikh Munis [the name of the Arab village on the ruins of which Tel Aviv University now stands]. Yet here, here of all places, that name was kept. We don't say the Forensic Institute in Tel Aviv, we say Abu Kabir. We say that he was taken to Abu Kabir. Which is also the meaning of the name: the tremendous father. A kind of semi-hellish meta-entity. Abu Kabir." [16]
Yes Guardian report is similar, I may try to add some parts left out parts in guardian link from HRW report, maybe completely requote if needed or merge. In any case I will double reference the autopsy report of HRW with electronicintifada or hic-mena.org link and IDF report with HRW link. Kasaalan (talk) 22:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Interesting, thank you. I would avoid EI if possible, since it may not be accepted.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Other link has the same exact info, so using EI is not crucial. I can use other link. Kasaalan (talk) 01:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I am settled on the text, yet 1 more reference needs to be added. Wehwalt said non-EI link would be fine but asking again. Used for reference for autopsy report and for total amount Corrie family requested from state at Israeli court. For Medical Term Autopsy Conslusion If this reference is fine I am settled. (Preceding unsigned comment was added by Kasaalan (talk) on 05:07, 13 January 2009; autosigned by arimareijibot.)

Kasaalan, I'm not happy with the source, sorry. It seems to be a .doc document representing (I imagine a translation of) what was filed in the case against the IDF. What a party alleges are not facts, they are allegations. I would rather have a third party source reporting what was said.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand the nature of the dispute in this one; what's going on? I looked through, and HRW seems to have functionally the same assertions - is it worth fighting to include hic-mena or EI to say the same thing?
I have to agree with Wehwalt about hic-mena. An allegation (even if it's made in court) isn't a reliable source unless the court upholds it, and even then it's not certain. arimareiji (talk) 05:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
The paper has 2 things to be used. First, the original autopsy report by Israel goverment institution in medical terms which I offer to be used not in text, but as a double reference. And second the amount of money Corrie sued IDF at Israeli court which is near 300 k. Also this is a valuable source for locating what are the main claims of the Rachel side are. We cannot judge a conclusion by the claims, yet we can locate what their claims are. Kasaalan (talk) 13:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I have no objection to it being used as a ref for the very limited purpose of how much money the Corries were looking for (odd isn't it, that in an Israeli court they were suing in dollars). As for what their claims are there are enough secondary sources that we can use that this is not necessary. The Corries have been shouting their claims all over creation for the past six years, come on.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Using it as a double reference isn't a good idea. Remember, every assertion has to be linked to the source of the assertion - we'd have to rephrase it to match both sources. Even if we did include it, the attribution would have to be rephrased in a way that would be awkward and would weaken the assertions.
With respect to using it as a source for the amount they're suing for, and the main claims of the Rachel side: What changes do you propose to the text? It's hard to know how appropriate it would be without seeing the actual changes you plan to make. If you paste only the sentence(s) you plan to change/insert with the change(s) in boldface to this section, plus a sentence right before it or right after it (to help identify where the change is), I promise I won't complain about cutting/pasting this time. ;-)
I would suggest directly editing the article instead, but I don't want you to be discouraged by a cycle of "K edits, A reverts, K edits, W edits K's edit, K reverts, A edits K's edit, etc." Considering that the source is controversial, that's a strong possibility. If we do all the editing here, that shouldn't happen. arimareiji (talk) 20:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

IDF Operator Mentioned in The Skies are Weeping

4. Recitative
"What is documented in this portion, though shocking, is on record in the [Note: "most widely circulated"] Israeli Newspaper Yediot Aharonot's, May 31, 2002 articleJenin, A Soldiers Story by Tsadok Yeheskeli. The link will take you to the English translation of the original Hebrew article. We also cleaned it up to make it easier to read. That version can be accessed HERE. The sentiments are not made up. They were expressed by D-9 bulldozer operator Moshe (Kurdi Bear) Nissim elaborating on his participation in the Jenin Massacre earlier that year)."

In The CrossHearts The Persecution of an American Musician by Laura Dawn Lewis

"It is the first absolutely sincere Israeli eyewitness testimony on what actually happened in the Jenin Refugee Camp, by one of the soldiers who did it. He is quite proud of his mission. Apart from the shocking revelations, this is also a startling human document. After publication - and in spite of it - the unit to which the man belongs received from the army command an official citation for outstanding service."

Jenin: A Soldier's Triumph in his own Words and I made them a stadium in the middle of the camp The original translation By Yediot Aharnonot into English is available with Gush Shalom Comments

Found the source for related articles and quoted direct translation by the newspaper printed the interview. Kasaalan (talk) 21:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Just my opinion - the original wording (before 5 Jan) comes across as being meant to mock Munger: "the fifth movement of which, taking the perspective of a bulldozer driver, was entitled "I Had No Mercy"." "Taking the perspective" was (and still is) WP:OR, and selectively snipping the last two words of the title made it sound histrionic.
Giving the actual reasoning full voice is more neutral, but isn't a particularly good characterization of the whole cantata. For that matter, it comes across as borderline soapboxing, though now in the opposite direction from before.
My suggestion: Use a quote which characterizes the whole cantata instead. Possibly two quotes - one being Bishko's (per Munger) "dreadful, beautiful music" and the other being one that more broadly characterizes it. arimareiji (talk) 03:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I played with the text a bit. I think I answer your OR concern, because I'm stealing the language from ref 39, and we can put it in quotes if you like, though I think it isn't needed. The thing is, that ref is unclear as to whether the "dreadful, beautiful music" refers to movement four or to the whole thing. I think it is fairly neutral now. We're giving more space to this in a bloated article than to the play, which certainly got more attention. I think it is NPOV enough.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Misunderstanding, I think - what I was proposing was to ax it and replace it with something to more broadly characterize the entire cantata (not just the fourth movement). I don't think it's good to devote so much attention to a quote, that gave rise to the fourth movement, of a cantata, created to characterize the death, of our subject. It's a bit too far meta-Corrie instead of directly about Corrie. The interview it was based on is interesting wrt IDF bulldozer drivers' POV, arguably enough to use in external links instead, but I think the current state contributes to the bloat. arimareiji (talk) 04:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Play with it. This is wiki. But I think we do need to phrase it in such a way so that the reader is aware that our source for the emails is Munger. And yes, there is room to doubt him. He could have cold feet and want to blame someone else. Not saying that is so, but we should not state the emails as a fact; we should let the reader decide.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Personally, I think that: At most he had given a pro forma "I should cancel this for the students' safety" to the dean before the forum. The ugly atmosphere of the forum pushed him to the edge, and the nasty confrontation with his friend near the end was the last straw. The (mostly) emails spooked him, don't get me wrong - but they weren't the final cause. That's just my hunch, though.
I'm not sure on the timing of my last change versus your response; is the current state satisfactory? And I will play with the fourth movement (I keep thinking bowel every time I type that) later, but I need to go to work in short order. arimareiji (talk) 06:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Er, no, by reverting my edit, you turn it into a fact. Artists are tempermental, as I gather you'd agree. We don't know his exact reasons. The "just short of what you'd take to the troopers" quote seems to be designed to head off the obvious next question, "Why didn't you call the cops?" I'd rather not dignify Munger's allegations with the cloak of facthood (so to speak), but attribute it to him and let the reader decide.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

They tracked one mail account down, learned he is an imposer and his threaths are false, and might opened lawsuits against him, yet it is not very apparent in the article if he took the legal actions or how they resulted.

"Tracking the hotmail account used, further investigation showed this "Dr. Pezzati" is a musician with a punk rock band, hardly a doctor and not award winning, at least with the awards mentioned, with no ability to "Blacklist" anyone. The comedy in all this is the e-mail terrorist Pezzati obviously does not realize that by using a the name of a public institution in threatening an individual and misrepresenting himself as its employee, he's opened himself up to all kinds of grief from lawsuits to criminal charges beginning with the State of California on down."

Philip Munger's Statement

"People were shouting, leaving, arguing and interrupting me, as I tried to deliver this prepared statement: Over the past five days local artists preparing for the premiere of "The Skies are Weeping" have been subjected to a growing crescendo of internet virus attacks, hate mail and bizarre religious-political polemics. It appears to be orchestrated. Some of the incoming venom is quite threatening. After consulting with staff here at the University of Alaska Anchorage Department of Music, I have decided that I cannot subject sixteen students, whose names, fortunately, have not been released to anyone, 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. This decision has been mine alone, with no pressure whatsoever from the school or university.”

In The CrossHearts The Persecution of an American Musician by Laura Dawn Lewis

"Almost immediately, Munger says, he was inundated with unsolicited e-mail from outside Alaska, a lot of it hateful - "just threatening, harassing, bizarre ... short of the stuff you'd take to the troopers."

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

Yet I still don't know what "just short of what you'd take to the troopers" phrase means. Kasaalan (talk) 14:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

It means that it in Munger's opinion, it wasn't criminal, it didn't go so far as to break the law. But don't worry, I took that out. I've tried to shorten the text. In view of the fact that depending on which article you look at, Munger is all over the map on whether threats were made to the students, I've felt it better to avoid the point.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
  1. In the sources Kasaalan has provided, and in almost every source I've seen that gives him a lot of "airtime" rather than soundbites, he says pretty explicitly that the last straw was when the students started being threatened. Exception: In his statement at the end of the forum, he makes a point of saying he's glad the students' names haven't been released and says only "some of us are" (not "I am") getting threats. Considering how the forum went, I'd guess he was trying to follow WP:BEANS and not give anyone ideas.
  2. I don't think it's completely accurate to characterize "just short of what you'd take to the troopers" that way. He's primarily implying the inverse - that he considers it to be such a serious threat that it almost warrants going to the police. Keep in mind that stalking and threatening are usually ignored by police unless you can explicitly prove that the person plans to harm you (with the possible exception of domestic violence cases), so that can be a high standard.
  3. The following is from the article now. I think it's fine the way it is, because there's plenty of inference for the reader to know the source for the entire thing is the IDF spokesman. If it's TLDR, just read the last sentences of each:

    A spokesman for the IDF told the Guardian that, while it did not accept responsibility for Corrie's death, it intended to change its operational procedures to avoid similar incidents in the future. The level of command of similar operations would be raised, said the spokesman, and civilians in the area would be dispersed or arrested before operations began. Observers will be deployed and CCTV cameras will be installed on the bulldozers to compensate for blind spots, which may have contributed to Corrie's death.

This is how it would look if we apply the standard you're applying to Munger, that every conceivably-disputable concept has to be attributed:

A spokesman for the IDF told the Guardian that the IDF did not accept responsibility for Corrie's death, but he said that they intended to change operational procedures to avoid similar incidents in the future. The IDF spokesman also asserted that the level of command of similar operations would be raised, and promised that in the future civilians in the area would be dispersed or arrested before operations began. In addition, the spokesman said that observers will be deployed and CCTV cameras will be installed on the bulldozers to compensate for alleged blind spots, which he implied may have contributed to Corrie's death.

While literally true and fair by the book, this construction 1) is extremely awkward to read and 2) unduly implies that the person you keep making a point of saying "claims" all of these things is an untrustworthy source and shouldn't be taken seriously. arimareiji (talk) 10:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I read the hatemail article in wikipedia and it contains threaten concept just like insult "Hate mail (as electronic, posted, or otherwise) is a form of harassment, usually consisting of invective and potentially intimidating or threatening comments towards the recipient. Hate mail often contains exceptionally abusive, foul or otherwise hurtful language. The recipient may receive disparaging remarks concerning the subject's ethnicity, sexuality, religion, intelligence, political ideology, or sense of ethics. The text of hate mail often contains profanity, or it may simply contain a negative, disappropriating message.", since we don't know too much detail on email students receive we can wikilink to hatemail hateful emails for not exaggerating or underrating the situtation unless we have the content of threats to the students, also "character assasination" is a stress, rather than actual assasination, so the physical threats may fall under might be or precaution category in this situation we should stress that too somehow. "Munger stated[claimed] after the student performers received the same kind of hateful emails just like him, the made the decision for cancelling the play." Kasaalan (talk) 11:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I added a wikilink to hatemail over the last edit. Kasaalan (talk) 11:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm OK with Kasaalan's changes. I'd noe, Arimareiji, that there was the one source in which he said that the students' names were not public. Thus, it would be unlikely that they would receive hatemail. Given Munger's varied statements on this point, I think some attribution is needed. --Wehwalt (talk) 14.00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Your objection is logical, yet there might have been some inside sources, because Bishko even got emails before the discussion, and Munger states the emails are orchastrated. Actually this might have been the very fact why Murger get intimidated for students safety. Because if they can get the students names before they released to the public, they might have been serious. Yet this are just possibilities, unless we get some clear sources pointing the contents of the threats students receive we should be careful about the wording. I cannot decide which one of you is more right on the subject exactly because I didn't understand your suggestions in detail very well for my English not that great. Actually the case is interesting, and intertwined, yet you should adress how much detail we need more on this particular subject, if we should add more info for the subject. Personally I prefer long detailed articles, with clear sectioning, but you might prefer more summarized articles. So if you can address your suggestion on the info and detail needed, we can discuss in more detail. Yet the article is not bad at all in this current shape, if we should mention it as a summary, if you need more detailed info I read the articles on the subject and we can add some more key points. Kasaalan (talk) 17:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
If we're speculating on reasons to believe or disbelieve Munger, he said they haven't been released. That doesn't mean some fruitloop couldn't have Googlesearched UAA webpages and blogs until he found a few, which would be sufficient for "some" of the students.
I believe I could manufacture a much-stronger case for claiming that my illustrative WP:POINT about the IDF spokesman should be used to make sure the reader knows who said it, starting with "alleged blind spots." I haven't made that edit, and I won't make that edit, because I believe it's inappropriate to repeatedly use "stated/said/claimed/asserted/etc" if the functional result is to cast doubt on credibility. If the attribution is already reasonably clear from nearby context, repeated addition of "So they say" is POV. arimareiji (talk) 19:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't think the two are parallel, but I'll play with the language some more. We need to shorten that whole paragraph anyway.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Could you explain why the two aren't parallel? arimareiji (talk) 21:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The last version was not bad or too long actually and your last edit made the context drastically weaker, also IDF operator is important to be mention, if you want to shorten the paragraph there are other ways.

"Alaskan composer Philip Munger wrote a cantata about Corrie called The Skies are Weeping. The fourth movement, "I Had No Mercy for Anybody", entirely based on excerpts from an interview with a D9 operator, Moshe Nissim.[1][2]"
"Following the forum, Munger announced that the performance had been "withdrawn for the safety of the student performers," on his request, stating [arguing] the "orchastrated" hatemails, he and especially his students had received.[3][4] It was eventually performed at the Hackney Empire theatre in London, premiering on November 1, 2005.[5][6]"

Constantly repeating, arguing saying is not good. But in The Skies are Weeping case stating or arguing is not all bad, because he is the only source. Use Kasaalan (talk) 21:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I tried reedit.

Alaskan composer Philip Munger wrote a cantata about Corrie called The Skies are Weeping. The fourth movement, "I Had No Mercy for Anybody", entirely based on an interview with D9 operator Moshe Nissim.[7][8] The work was scheduled to premiere on April 27, 2004 at the University of Alaska-Anchorage, where Munger teaches. Many objected to the upcoming performance, including members of the Jewish community, and a forum co-chaired by Munger and a local rabbi was held to solve issues, yet resulted even more quarrels. Following the forum, Munger announced that the performance had been "withdrawn for the safety of the student performers," on his request, stating the "orchestrated" hatemails, he and especially the student performers had received.[9][10] It was eventually performed at the Hackney Empire theatre in London, premiering on November 1, 2005.[11][6]

Edits are in bold. Official Weblog is Reliable Source, why did you remove it as unreliable. "This is the web site of "The Skies are Weeping", a new cantata by Philip Munger, in memory of Rachel Corrie. Its world premiere will be at the Hackney Empire, London, 1st. November 2005. This site is updated as information about the production becomes available." Kasaalan (talk) 21:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Because this article is about Rachel Corrie, not about the cantata.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I did a search, trying to find a reliable source for the Moshe Nissim (the rampaging bulldozer driver) translation so that it could be added as an external link. I couldn't find one. Everything I found was blatantly partisan (i.e. had POV commentary included), except a couple of listservs - which aren't WP:RS. Without a reliable source for the inspiration for the fourth movement, it should be removed. It's barely tangentially-related to Rachel Corrie - it's a quote, that gave rise to the fourth movement, of a cantata, created to characterize the death, of Rachel Corrie. arimareiji (talk) 23:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

You misjudge on the matter. First of all the interview is not only a source of inspiration for the fourth movement. The entire fourth movement is entirely based on the excerpts taken from the Yediot Aharonot interview with Moshe Nissim, I can prove that. Yediot Aharonot, is "the most widely circulated newspaper of Israel" and English translation is belong to Yediot Aharonot or by Gush Shalom not so sure, but Gush Shalom is just quoting the context. The comments are made by a leftist "hardcore" Humanitarian Israeli-Jewish Peace Organisation Gush-Shalom [Aims]. They even clearly link to the original newspaper article with date [on May 31, 2002] for the interview, it is not my fault the interview is old and link now not working. Also I found a hard time to locate the comments what you labeled as partisan. They are just comments against Moshe Nissim's statements. I strongly object taking out the interview. Yet I will try finding an even better source. Kasaalan (talk) 09:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Found 1 academic source entirely quoting from gush-shalom Harry F. Clark Professor of Labor Studies and Industrial Relations at Michigan University

Found another source in The Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions (ICAHD) Study Obstacles to Peace

Also it is clear that Munger used this source, because even wording is the same. If you like you add wording as Gush Shalom claims quoting it or any precaution word, but the source is this as it is, and erasing it is a big mistake after several long hours of research and discussion. I will research further on who made the translation and try to locate original Hebrew version. Gush Shalom Archive with Comments And if you like Non Commented Non Copyedited Bulletin Board Version Kasaalan (talk) 09:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

As I have said before, WP is written in summary style, thus this is overdetail. In addition, it is being offered for pointy reasons, to show that this is the attitude of Israeli bulldozer drivers who therefore were at least wildly reckless if not murderous in the Corrie case. After all, that is no doubt why Munger put it in there. If you want to write an article about the Cantata, it might well do well in there. It is not appropriate for the Corrie article.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

More archiving

Are there any unresolved threads before this point in the talk page, or is it safe to archive everything above that point? If there's anything up there which still needs to be debated, please speak up so it doesn't get filed away. If there are no objections before then, I'll archive it on Sunday. arimareiji (talk) 02:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

No, and given the short attention span of everyone here, I have no objection to getting a bot to archive automatically after 2 weeks. By the way, there is a red link for an archive under the table of contents.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Some arguments still not settled, yet archiving them is better, we can bring them back from archive when needed. Archive them totally, and I may bring back some useful info when needed, if it is fine by you. Kasaalan (talk) 20:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Object - I think it would be a bad mistake to archive much of this page. I count 300kb - many pages are bigger than this and don't create a problem for people's browsers. I can see a number of discussions above that need to instantly accessible - eg do we accept HRW as reliable? (Yes, it's considered very good indeed). Do we choose sources because they're NPOV, or because they comply with Wikipedia policy on RS? (Some editors we'd have expected to be experienced seem not to understand how we do things). And there have been cases of foot-dragging that new editors to this page would find interesting, if not startling. PRtalk 21:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Kasaalan and PR, please list everything that is unresolved and it will be left in place. PR, please make your list current - HRW is being used on the page. Leaving resolved debates in a grossly-overswollen talk page serves no purpose except to make a point. arimareiji (talk) 22:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
My apologies, I didn't appreciate these were your TalkPages, to do with as you wish, extending us the gracious courtesy of maybe keeping parts we're particularly attached to. PRtalk 08:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I could say exactly the same in reverse - what gives you the prerogative to say we must keep resolved debates up indefinitely when the talk page is 3x the normal threshold for archiving? Your stated rationale was to show new editors that "some editors... seem not to understand how we do things.") That's making a point rather than serving a useful purpose, and showing that it's a tldr battlefield is not conducive to encouraging new editors to jump in. arimareiji (talk) 13:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
ps: Kasaalan, that's absolutely appropriate. Archives aren't meant to be graveyards - any time that an argument that was resolved pops up again, please do link people to the resolved debate as a first step in getting it re-resolved. Hopefully by doing so, such debates can be shortened. arimareiji (talk) 23:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Kasaalan - as one simple example, I think we resolved our difference about the current wording in Purssell's quote about jackets. But if you think it's an ongoing, current debate, please say that you want to keep the section "Safety jacket in detail" on the page. Or if there's any other section you spoke in that you think is a current debate, please say so.
It's mostly been you and me and Wehwalt debating. If only the three of us spoke in a section, and if all three of us agree that a section is resolved, then I think it's fair to move that section to archive. arimareiji (talk) 13:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

PR you have a good point actually, but lately we discuss often and a long discussion page is not good for timewise and bandwidthwise. The discussion page need to be fresh and short somehow. It maybe a good point to let new editors know how to read archives, so we can put a text explaining it at top in bold. And actually if you help more actively on current discussions it would be better for the article. Since only 5 editors seems to help recently including you and for tiamut is off for a while which leads the number to 4. So if you can help the discussions more actively we can have a more neutral and a higher quality article overall. And it may be better to archive entirely than regather them here if needed. Kasaalan (talk) 14:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC) 1 Official Papers, Legal Court Proceedings and Statements 2 Direct Official Reports Quoted by Human Rights Watch Leave this sections because they contain links and quotes needed later. Archive the rest including archive discussions, and the sections can be reversed back here when needed. Some of the cases still unclosed yet takes too much space and makes the page hard to edit. Kasaalan (talk) 14:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

If you believe PR has a good point, then we don't have consensus and I spoke too soon. You've spoken up in almost every section, so if you agree with PR that these cases are unclosed/unresolved, we can't archive them until we do get a resolution or until at least a month has passed without comment - that's the minimum standard for article talkspaces. My apologies, I had the mistaken impression that we had reached agreement on some points. arimareiji (talk) 15:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Of course, PR has a good point, why shouldn't he. We can put a text info on how to read archives for new editors on top of the page. Yet, the long archive page is not making the page any better. We should archive them but we can dearchive needed parts during edit. They will be needed in long term again, because I am not settled on some cases like deletion of tenth grade speech, or dove parade for her early life, yet I cannot discuss all the page at one time. Other than 1 Official Papers, Legal Court Proceedings and Statements 2 Direct Official Reports Quoted by Human Rights Watch Leave other sections, you can archive them since they will be needed only in long term. Kasaalan (talk) 23:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Archiving is only for material that has been resolved - pulling material back and forth defeats the purpose, which is to save temporarily resolved debates as unchanged reference material and keep only active debates on the discussion page. (Not vice versa.) Linking to it is perfectly acceptable, if the question comes up again for debate.
Routinely cutting/pasting from archive is not acceptable, because it makes it impossible to know whether someone is editing out material they don't like. That's why there are warnings on archive pages that say "Don't edit here, reopen the debate on the main discussion page." Until there's consensus among all discussing parties that an issue has been temporarily resolved, putting it in archive is completely inappropriate. I wouldn't have brought it up if I had known that you feel this all needs to be rehashed.
Moving on, Wehwalt - am I correct in saying that you have no unresolved objections in sections where you and I were debating? If so, that means we'll be able to start archiving that material once 30 days passes on everything that precedes it. arimareiji (talk) 00:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
(wakes up). Yes, that's fine. (goes back to sleep)--Wehwalt (talk) 00:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
In that part of the archive in Hagiography section I still have objections as it lead a big trim instead neutralizing for some parts, yet that section is too long and I don't have any intention to discuss over them untill we have agreement on more important matters. For other sections like safety jacket we are settled. We settled on HRW report, and Eyewitness Accounts to be used as a reference so actually we settled for some really important references. For example I still object on wording for Tom Hurndall, since he has been shot by an IDF sniper for sure, he convicted for it by English court and more importantly in Israeli courts for manslaughther, along with false testimony, so there is no reason for me to not mention he shot by an IDF sniper which is an important detail. Some sections already out of discussion like Cordesman quote. Also while you archive include archive discussion too since it is too long. Kasaalan (talk) 10:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I would like to adopt a system of checkmarking sections "Resolved" when all who participated are in agreement that the issue is temporarily closed. It would make it easier to move material to archive - we would be able to move material to archive every time a large continuous group (starting from the top) of sections are all marked "Resolved" (or have passed 30 days with no new comments). I'm going to start marking the ones I think we agree on; if anyone disagrees please unmark them and/or discuss here. arimareiji (talk) 19:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Please note that the first archive will be on 18 January, and will include everything from the first discussion section to Official Papers. This would reduce it by 127k (30%) if the page stayed its current size of 422k (14 Jan). If Cleanup can be resolved before then, it would include everything down to this section, leaving Tom Hurndall as the new first discussion section. This would reduce it by 171k (40%). The more we can agree to close out, the better.
If all goes well, I'd like to include this in the Policies section: "Material will not be archived until all discussing parties agree it is resolved, or until 30 days pass without further comment, whichever comes first. To keep sequential order, no section will be archived until all the sections before it have been archived." arimareiji (talk) 22:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
If threads are inactive for a period, of time, they should be archived. If anyone still wants to refer to the information in archive, it's a simple enough matter to say "Please see previous discussions at (link)." If there's a particular thread that anyone wants to stay on the "live" page, just add a bonafide comment to that thread, and the datestamp will keep it from being archived. But archiving must proceed, and soon. --Elonka 03:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)I suggest we start by archiving the first 11 topics and all other resolved ones. There is no great need to keep specific squential order. This page is huge. We need to get it under control.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Since there do not appear to be any further objections, I have added an archivebot. It will automatically archive any threads which have had no activity for 2 weeks or more. --Elonka 04:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
With all due respect, I objected at your talk page before you made the nonspecific suggestion here which has now been translated into adding a bot. I'm still waiting for your response. arimareiji (talk) 04:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Arimareiji, all of the threads will still be available in archive, nothing is going to disappear. All we're doing is making the live talkpage easier to manage. In fact, I'll go one better. If you'd like to keep a snapshot of how this talkpage appears right now, just check this permalink.[17] That will provide the whole page in its 430K glory, if you would ever like to look at it for reference. --Elonka 04:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
(suboutdent) I asked that you give me until the end of the month to make sure this settled down in a peaceable manner, and said you had my blessing to do whatever you wanted if the situation wasn't resolved in that timeframe. Your nonspecific response (at which time you would have seen that archiving was supposed to start two days from now anyway) was "we need to do something soon," which I took as concurrence. Until and unless the two editors I mentioned below concur, which I was trying to achieve by gradual consensus rather than by fiat as you have, I'm removing the bot. arimareiji (talk) 04:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Just let it go, Arimajeiri, we have bigger fish to fly. We can always adjust the bot later. I sincerely believe that we won't miss any of it.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Without K and PR's specific concurrence, I would disagree. This page is finally starting to settle down to a more peaceable routine and the massive tl;drs have dwindled to a trickle. I don't want to see that flame up because they wanted threads left in place, and start cut/pasting material back and forth. They have made objections along those lines. arimareiji (talk) 04:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  1. ^ In The CrossHearts The Persecution of an American Musician by Laura Dawn Lewis
  2. ^ Jenin: A Soldier's Triumph in his own Words
  3. ^ The Anchorage Press, Amanda Coyne, April 22 - April 28 2004 [18]
  4. ^ "Flashpoint Cantata", Anchorage Daily News, April 25, 2004, available at http://dwb.adn.com/life/story/5003946p-4931783c.html
  5. ^ "The Review". Camden New Journal. New Journal Enterprises. 28 Oct 2005. Retrieved 2009-01-07.
  6. ^ a b Weeping Skies London Premiere Weblog
  7. ^ In The CrossHearts The Persecution of an American Musician by Laura Dawn Lewis
  8. ^ Jenin: A Soldier's Triumph in his own Words
  9. ^ The Anchorage Press, Amanda Coyne, April 22 - April 28 2004 [19]
  10. ^ "Flashpoint Cantata", Anchorage Daily News, April 25, 2004, available at http://dwb.adn.com/life/story/5003946p-4931783c.html
  11. ^ "The Review". Camden New Journal. New Journal Enterprises. 28 Oct 2005. Retrieved 2009-01-07.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rachel_Corrie/Archive_8&oldid=1079709121"