Jump to content

Talk:Rachel Corrie/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14

WP:ONEEVENT

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

You could also suggest a move to Death of Rachel Corrie, which would require limiting her bio and focusing more on the reactions. That would seem reasonable to me. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
You are simply wrong, she is not only notable for her death, but her previous actions in evergreen and olympia, her published letters that describes her political thoughts and her life in there. She has a notable life. Yet it is not just a single person we talking about, the later outcomes also matters, the suitcases against IDF and bulldozer company, is also notable because there is a system involved. Throwing a guideline, doesn't actually helpful, but reading it is. "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a particular event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, low profile, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted." She is not only covered in context of the event. The theater production also based on her writings for example. Kasaalan (talk) 01:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
It was a suggestion, nothing more. I'll leave it for the IP address to consider, but the attacks aren't necessary. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Saying someone is wrong, telling they throw guidelines implying they don't actually read them fully or understand them is not attacking. Calling every answer as attack isn't necessary either. Kasaalan (talk) 02:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I think I would like to nominate this article for deletion or redirection/rewritting based upon WP:ONEEVENT. 24.61.10.180 (talk) 01:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Since I am unable to complete the AfD request I would like for an established user or administrator to complete the AfD opening process with the reason of WP:ONEEVENT. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.10.180 (talk) 02:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
This is quite preposterous. Corrie's article clearly passes the guideline, and any AfD will obviously close with a keep verdict, probably "speedy keep." <eleland/talkedits> 02:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Eleland is right, there's no point and no way it will be deleted, sorry. ONEEVENT is for people who remain low profile--bad jokes aside, Corrie's posthumous fame and notability has not vanished, see e.g. Rachel (movie)Jclemens (talk) 02:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
AfD is a waste of time on this one. I'm going to go ahead and revert since the IP can't complete it. If a named user wants to, can't stop them and won't try, though that too would be a waste of time.Bali ultimate (talk) 02:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Pardon me but the AfD instructions clearly state

Unregistered users placing this tag on an article cannot complete the deletion nomination and should leave detailed reasons for deletion on Talk:Rachel Corrie. If the nomination is not completed and no message is left on the talkpage, this tag may be removed.

I have placed the AfD tag on the article and I have placed this note on the talk page very clearly indicating that I would like to list this article for deletion. Are you stating that this policy should not be followed? Does this have to be elevated to Wikipedia administration? 24.61.10.180 (talk) 02:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

And 5 editors are opposed [1] [2](and a sixth is all but; he's opposed to even a merger of this article). We're not here to do your will if you won't get a logon. The WP:CONSENSUS here is not to complete the AfD. There is nothing preventing you from creating a login, unless you are a previously blocked/banned user (not saying that you are, but that would be the only circumstances under which you wouldn't be allowed to create a login/username).Bali ultimate (talk) 02:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Even IPs have the right to participate, so... Groan. I'll finish the AfD process for you if you insist. That being said, this is pointless. This article won't be deleted and the debate will likely be closed within 24 hours. If you're determined leave a detailed note for your reasoning beyond just WP:ONEEVENT. AniMatetalk 02:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Please don't. Why is this IP so adamant about not gettign a login, should be the question here.Bali ultimate (talk) 02:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
No, the only question is how long you should be blocked for your extremely clear violations of policy by removing an active AfD tag. 24.61.10.180 (talk) 03:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
From my experience, I regard it as almost ludicrously unlikely that he would be blocked for this. J.delanoygabsadds 03:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Are you seriously suggesting that your interpretation of WP:CONSENSUS can overrule and violate the AfD policy? Simply because you disagree with my nomination does not give you the right to remove the AfD notice. If you do not agree then step aside until the AfD is completed. Then, make your opinion in opposition to this AfD noted on the appropriate page. I guess the bold wording indicating that the AfD notice is NOT to be removed doesn't apply to some people. 24.61.10.180 (talk) 02:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination

{{adminhelp}} I have added this article for deletion as I believe Ms Corrie does not satisfy the requirements of WP:ONEEVENT. She is notable for nothing other than her death. Her life was not notable. Pursuant to the instructions on the AfD notice which say

Unregistered users placing this tag on an article cannot complete the deletion nomination and should leave detailed reasons for deletion on Talk:Rachel Corrie. If the nomination is not completed and no message is left on the talkpage, this tag may be removed.

I would like to request that this AfD nomination be completed, in haste, by an established user or administrator. Certainly every step has been satisfied. Right? 24.61.10.180 (talk) 02:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll get to work on it. AniMatetalk 02:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
(ec)you just reverted an admin who told you to create an account. this seems disruptive. untwirl(talk) 02:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Who is disruptive? The person who follows the policy and appropriately places an AfD notice or the person who removes said notice in violation of policy. I beg of you, please answer. 24.61.10.180 (talk) 02:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
For the record, I have no problem with him reverting me. I often see IPs add AfD tags to pages, and usually people do not follow up with it. I apologize for the confusion. J.delanoygabsadds 02:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
IP editors are not allowed to nominate articles for deletion. You can read this for yourself at WP:AFD.Bali ultimate (talk) 02:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
That is hilarious and utterly untrue. I shall be reporting you to the administration of Wikipedia. 24.61.10.180 (talk) 02:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Knock yourself out. Start here WP:ANI.Bali ultimate (talk) 02:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

i posted this earlier on the ip's talk page - from WP:AFD: "Note that if you are editing under an IP address because you have not yet created a user account, you will not be able to complete the AfD process, as anonymous contributors are currently unable to create new pages (as required by step 2 of "How to list pages for deletion," below). If this is the case, consider creating or requesting a user account before listing an article on AfD." why should this ip not have to register and nominate it personally? untwirl(talk) 02:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec, @IP) There is no need to do that, and in any case, I see nothing actionable here. If you will tell me what your rationale for deleting the page is, I will be happy to file an AfD for you, although I will admit I don't see it going anywhere. J.delanoygabsadds 02:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I finished the AfD for the IP. AniMatetalk 02:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. It is unreal how difficult that was to do. 24.61.10.180 (talk) 03:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Me too. It seemed like forever before I could do one. The directions are not so clear. Now I can whip an AfD out in a couple of minutes. Steve Dufour (talk) 06:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
The complete article, actually is a solid proof of why article is not notable only for 1 event but for various of events, yet if users vote without bothering to read it, you even may get a couple of votes, even then if anyone verdicts before reading the article, I only assume they are not even qualified for a vote in the first place, because that obviously leads they didn't read the case. Read the policies before pushing them as a reason. Kasaalan (talk) 10:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry. Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but essentially remains a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them. ... If the event is significant, and/or if the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate article for the person may be appropriate. Individuals notable for well-documented events, such as John Hinckley, Jr., fit into this category. The significance of an event or individual should be indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable secondary sources.
You should discuss your case first here, with page editors, before nominating for deletion, if you do otherwise, either your debate closed too early, or everyone disagrees you anyway. So try presenting your case here first with some clear arguments. 9/11 is oneevent yet it lead iraq war, also try reading article fully. Kasaalan (talk) 10:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

AfD reopened

Resolved
 – Re-closed as snow keep and IP blocked. See you at WP:DRV most likely. AniMatetalk 18:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The anonymous IP shockingly familiar with all of our policies has reponed the AfD on this article, though they haven't replaced the tag. Any interested parties should have a say. AniMatetalk 17:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. Can't we just have a good ol' fashioned content dispute here without someone trying to nuke the page? WP:SNOW applied to the last one, and I don't think anyone but the nom disagreed. Jclemens (talk) 17:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to agree with Jclemens for the first and probably last time ever; Corrie is clearly notable. As I said above, 4,000 GNews hits? C'mon. Black Kite 18:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Artistic Tributes to Rachel Corrie

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

Created new title, containing documentaries, cartoons, and political reactions. Kasaalan (talk) 09:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Some Israeli-POV users (I didn't refer the article deletion nominator by the way) trying to getting the whole Public Reactions to Rachel Corrie Page deleted. I will try to bring it back. Kasaalan (talk) 17:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Since we created the article on consensus, can you state your opinions on User_talk:MBisanz#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FArtistic_Tributes_to_Rachel_Corrie page. Kasaalan (talk) 19:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
K, Why don't you link to the DRV page here when you get it set up? IronDuke 19:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
What you think of the merge into main page, can you possibly explain here. Kasaalan (talk) 20:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Well I set up a deletion review page before yet not much editors voted. Before opening a second title I will wait our dedicated editors back on discussion page. They insisting on merging into main page, I simply tried to explain, we created the sub page on consensus of different parties in main page, and we have a length issue here, but admin not verdict likewise. They expect us to merge the content into main page, which will bring lots of long discussions here and distract us a lot. Kasaalan (talk) 19:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
For reading previous discussion's on deletion reviews you may follow the links. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Artistic_Tributes_to_Rachel_CorrieWikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_April_16 Kasaalan (talk) 00:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Current case is the page reverted back into Public reactions to death of Rachel Corrie. All main page editors invited in adding content, and neutralizing the article if it contains any POV approach. Yet it may get another deletion review. So if any deletion review it gets, try to decide if you want a merge into main article, or keeping it as a sub article. Kasaalan (talk) 16:24, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

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

That remark wasn't for you, but some users that troll the page because of my other edits in some related pages, and work hard on the case. So try not to get offended, since I don't know about your edits.
Also I call devoted page editor's opinions on the matter primarily. Kasaalan (talk) 00:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Irrelevant. Knock those remarks off now or I'm blocking you. Take that as a serious threat. I'm not kidding around. This material is controversial enough without your commentary. You've called on devoted editors for months now, and none have any interest. May I suggest either going start onto their user talk pages or dropping the argument? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't have any business with you, I am not sure why you try threaten me exactly. First of all you are creating accusing remarks on me everywhere, especially in admins pages and my replies only meant to be a reply on your claims of my bad faith. If you don't want to discuss the issue, it is fine by me, if you don't accuse me then I don't have to reply on anywhere. I don't know your edits or I don't know you, I only may answer on your serious and false accusations on me, and that is only thing I try to do. I have no interest in discussing with you further about this issue in your talk page or elsewhere, except the deletion review, if you don't blatantly accuse me anymore . Kasaalan (talk) 10:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
But I may try posting messages on user pages, too. Yet putting a link in main article page is a better idea yet I tried to put a remark on main page about the deletion review, yet another used erased it. Kasaalan (talk) 10:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
About the deletion review looks like canvassing, that's the concern. Asking people to edit isn't a concern, asking particular people to comment on "not-a-vote but somewhat is" AFD and DRV environments are different. I hope that's clear. As to you, I happen to wander through different articles and say your conduct here which I wanted to respond to. There really is no need for the "Israeli-biased users" crack or other types period, and you've been here long enough to know that's not productive. Regardless of what you may think, I've done quite a bit of article creation and work in my time here, and you'll see that I find the talk page extremely productive for discussion. Generally, I try to start a new section on every section I removed (people don't usually argue about additions of text). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
The only concern in the particular people you refer, was being able to interest in the article. The deletion reviews only lasts for a while, and without the judgment of the active main page editors it is not so healthy discuss a deletion review. The messages sent both public and personal talk pages, mainly including page some active editors of the past and the users in project page that seemed active. If you track the messages you can see it is the same, and sent to project page users via talk page and in public, from opposing views, so claiming it was canvas is untrue.
Does objection to the addition of a quote to x page because it belongs to y page, and objecting again to the addition of the same quote to y page because it belongs to x page. sounds logical to you. There are some clear reasons for me to say it loud both publicly and the relevant user's talk page. But I don't want to discuss it further, since it is actually not productive anymore, and not much relevant here.
I have commented you only did 2 edits in Rachel Corrie article, I haven't comment on your other edits of other pages, I don't know of them.
I am in favor of adding opposing views to the articles for balancing them, while some other editors are in favor of removing some other views. Kasaalan (talk) 11:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Reliable Sourcing for "Saint Pancake"

Salon.com

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

I will try reading the source fully, a good reference


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

Bitton approaches Corrie's death from an Israeli point of view, which means she sees it quite differently from the way Americans do. For her, it's partly a forensic puzzle -- an episode of "CSI: Gaza" without a clear resolution -- and as a philosophical challenge to the military and political status quo. It's important to understand that within Israel, Corrie's encounter with a military bulldozer (an enormous armored machine called the Caterpillar D9, built in the United States to Israeli specifications) and the subsequent investigation were a relatively minor news blip, not the full-on media frenzy we enjoyed.
Saint pancake may be somewhat a nick to be included in the article, but since the reliable source refers to non-reliable and hateful speeches, I am not sure anything contains swine should be added into main article. It is a clear and direct insult, and most possibly against crime to call anyone like that in the first place. If we going to add that we should add similar comments in any politician's pages. Kasaalan (talk) 10:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I favor the text as I originally inserted it: succinct, and reporting what the source said briefly. "Saint Pancake" has been discussed many times on this page, and the crux of the argument has always been "When an RS picks up on the usage, then and only then is it time to include that insult in this article" Well, it's hard to call Salon anything but an unbiased, independent RS--they're certainly not a right-wing fringe source. I think the the more full quoting of the article starts to border on WP:UNDUE WP:COATRACKing--maligning the right-wing bloggers and news sites, who Salon clearly does not endorse or agree with. Jclemens (talk) 16:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
My previous reply
I checked for nicknames "st. pancake" and "pancake corrie" in google. The reference for these nicknames are limited to a few hundred pages or even below and over 95 percent of them are personal blogs or comments. If the nicknames were common, it might have worth to mention in the article, even if it contains insult. Yet mentioning an insult might also be against wikiguidelines in the first place for legal reasons. Your example biographies have nicknames, yet these nicks are both common in public and used by press frequently. Also your source is a scholarly student journal for arts which refers to one particular blog. You have a point, but not so strong. Also for memorial Rachel Corrie Foundation sell pancakes to raise money, which might also be a possible root for the nickname. Yet again there isn't an apparent connection available.
Yet this time with a wider coverage around 800-1.200 pages available on google about revelant nicks. Still most of them are blog pages like blogspot.com or wordpress.com but the nick has wider coverage now. And also some reliable sources mention this particular nick.
But there is a huge difference between adding saint pancake and terrorist lover animal name derivatives. I may be in favor of Saint Pancake being included, as my previous reply. So discussing st pancake nick is constructive, yet other direct hatespeech insult is not, which isn't has coverage anyway. Kasaalan (talk) 22:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
If you're suggesting that we remove the more egregious (and frankly less humorous) insults, I am in agreement. We haven't heard from the editor who added them, but if he doesn't contribute to the discussion here, I will remove them tomorrow. Jclemens (talk) 23:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm not wild about adding "St. Pancake". Yes, Salon is a good source, but it's only one, and it's quoting right wing blogs (which, like left wing blogs, aren't usually good sources). If notable people were using it, maybe... but I don't see that. IronDuke 23:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but the source or Salon's info isn't important. As an RS, they're presumed to have done fact checking to validate what they write. The fact that a good RS has mentioned "Saint Pancake" has forever removed it from the list of blog memes and placed it into the Wikipedia mainstream, per WP:V and WP:RS. There's simply no longer any justification for not including it, as it has been commonly acknowledged by Corrie's supporters and detractors to have existed. It's a posthumous insult, and as much as WP:UNDUE required it be kept out if there wasn't a reliable source for it (and in the archives, there's another college newspaper that was debated as possibly reliable but certainly isolated), WP:UNDUE also requires that it be included in relative proportion to the number of RS covering it. One mention, in the section of reactions critical of Corrie's actions, seems to be both the smallest and largest mention under that reading of WP:UNDUE--I neither want it gone, nor am I suggesting all of the insults relayed by the Salon article be included. Jclemens (talk) 23:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
In this case, some other reliable sources that mention this may be found, but even if there wasn't any, there are some couple hundred of blogs exist anyway. If we clearly state they are right wing blogs, boards that contain some hatespeech, it may be good for public opinion somehow. Yet also other editors' should voice their opinion in this case. Why no discussions in talk page recently, but again people chose to edit revert procedures. Kasaalan (talk) 09:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Also we may need more criticizing views for the article, you may be right, I advocate the best way to improve balance is addition of critical sources, while keeping other info. So if you find reliable sources on criticizing actions of Rachel or ISM, and share them in discussion page, I am in favor of adding them to the article if there is any balance issue, as I did before. Kasaalan (talk) 09:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
My opinion is that if it's "good for public opinion somehow" is not only irrelevant, it borders on POV pushing. Your job here it not to make Rachel Corrie look good. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Your opinion doesn't count since you obviously don't bother to read what I write. I am in favor of adding the nick, but other editors opinion also matter. My job not looking her good, looking her bad, or deciding what looks her good or bad unlike your state of mind. Kasaalan (talk) 12:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps I didn't understand what you mean with "good for public opinion somehow". Please explain. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I meant freedom of information. Kasaalan (talk) 16:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • An attempt to shoehorn a pejorative name used by a few right-wing unreliable sources directly into the article? Hmm, that smacks of an end run around consensus after the community roundly rejected the wikilawyering attempts to get "Saint Pancake" into the encyclopedia as a redirect. One does have to wonder at the motives of editors that are spending so much time desperately trying to get this distasteful epithet into the article. Haven't you got anything better to do? Oh, and some alphabet soup? WP:RS (a reliable source quoting an unreliable source is still unreliable), WP:BLP and WP:HARM (which still apply to the recently deceased), and most important, WP:UNDUE. Black Kite 14:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
    1) Please describe how many RS must cover a meme that begins in admittedly unreliable sources for it to be included.
    2) Please describe how long Corrie must be dead before WP:BLP and WP:HARM no longer apply to her.
    3) Please describe how WP:NOTCENSORED applies to a distasteful epithet?
    Please remember to WP:AGF. My only motivation is that coverage of Corrie be complete. Jclemens (talk) 15:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
    • 1) Certainly more than one, especially when that one is a movie review, for goodness' sake.
      2) Given that the epithet amounts to taking pleasure and poking fun at someone's death, how about "until all her close relatives (especially her parents) are dead"?
      3) I didn't invoke WP:NOTCENSORED.
      4) I do try to AGF, but I can still think of no good reason for repeatedly trying to insert revoltingly bad-taste epithets into someone's article on a top ten worldwide website, which could be read by any of her relatives. Black Kite 15:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
      (removed redundant sigs, since you didn't reply inline)
      1) So two would be sufficient? Or is it N+1, where N is the number currently available?
      2) Your position is clear; I differ.
      3) I didn't say you invoked WP:NOTCENSORED; I did. In that "because it might offend someone" isn't a reason to take anything out of Wikipedia, ever. If it meets WP:V, which "Saint Pancake" does, the feelings of those who dislike it cannot, by policy, be used to impair the creation of an encyclopedia--that is, a neutral reference source that mentions the bad parts and well as the good. Jclemens (talk)
      4) I don't find that relevant, per my answer to #3. As I haven't impugned your personal motivation for rejecting what I believe to be a clearly reliably sourced insult, please do not impugn mine for advocating its inclusion. Jclemens (talk) 16:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
      • As I said below, the only reason for including any negative epithet about a person should be that it is used regularly in reliable sources to refer to this person. Let's look at Google News for example - "Saint Pancake" = 1 hit (the Salon article [3]). "Rachel Corrie" - 4,090 hits ([4]). I think that's pretty conclusive. Black Kite 16:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
        How does that square with WP:UNDUE, which says "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each" Are you asserting that the inclusion of a reliably sourced viewpoint can be "rounded down" to be not covered at all? Jclemens (talk) 16:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
        You've just answered your own question - "...all significant viewpoints ... in proportion to the prominence of each...". If you're suggesting that a viewpoint with one solitary Google News reference (and that a movie review) compared to over 4,000 for the subject themselves is significant or prominent, I really don't know what to say. On that basis, you could insert the fact that GW Bush was regularly called "Monkey Boy" into his article (Look - 58 Google News hits). We just don't do that. Black Kite 16:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
        Again, how many reliable sources does it take to prove significance, and how does WP:NOTCENSORED play into that? I don't have a problem with GWB being called "monkey boy", and that is essentially an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. If you'd like to add "monkey boy" to Public image of George W. Bush, be my guest. Jclemens (talk) 17:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
        See my reply to IronDuke below. Clearly I wasn't serious about Bush, I was merely making the point that using your argument would mean that we could probably construct an argument for using any offensive epithet that's ever been mentioned, even in passing, in one reliable source. And that's clearly a recipe for disaster. Black Kite 17:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

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

  • Indeed, which is why I have removed it. "Spurious" is putting it kindly. Black Kite 15:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • "Saint pancakce" is black humor--"terrorist swine" is just crude, much in the same way that the Christa McAuliffe jokes of the late 80's were. While some might find the former amusing (see the DRV on Saint Pancake for a couple), I can't see anyone else finding the latter amusing. Jclemens (talk) 15:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
    • I appreciate it's black humour, but we shouldn't be in the habit of repeating stuff like that unless it's both impeccably sourced and used regularly in reliable sources to describe that person (and even then, I'd hesitate). Black Kite 15:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
(ec) jclemens: you said, "If you're suggesting that we remove the more egregious (and frankly less humorous) insults, I am in agreement. We haven't heard from the editor who added them, but if he doesn't contribute to the discussion here, I will remove them tomorrow." you added both of those statements yourself. see this - [5]. untwirl(talk) 15:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Apologies if I was unclear; I did add both of those statements, but the material to which I was referring was the edit you made here to expand the sentence to include "grotesque sexual fantasies and elaborate conspiracy theories,"--Why DID you expand the quote to include those? Jclemens (talk) 16:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
so the expansion of context is what you are now calling "egregious"? your response, which i quoted above, was agreeing with kasaalan's statement,
"But there is a huge difference between adding saint pancake and terrorist lover animal name derivatives. I may be in favor of Saint Pancake being included, as my previous reply. So discussing st pancake nick is constructive, yet other direct hatespeech insult is not, which isn't has coverage anyway."
was i mistaken in my assessment that you were agreeing that the "terrorist swine" quote was "egregious," and that you were attributing that addition to me? untwirl(talk) 16:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, although the fault on clarity certainly rests in part with me. I didn't see any way to fairly represent what the actual RS had said, without including both insults that Salon had explicitly quoted. "Saint Pancake" is unique in application to Corrie; many people have been called "terrorist-loving swine", yet both are cited. I'm OK with removing the latter and keeping the former for precisely that reason. Jclemens (talk) 16:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
in response to your question of why i added that context, in my opinion that is the only part that belongs. it is an independent evaluation by the author of the review, not a quote from an unreliable source. untwirl(talk) 16:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
You'd prefer an indirect paraphrase of blogs taken from an RS over a direct quote from blogs taken from that same RS? Jclemens (talk) 16:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Actually saint pancake is a distasteful joke, for a girl who have been crushed by a bulldozer, and a couple hundred right-wing pages referring her as such. I don't know exact policy of wikipedia for such issues, therefore more experienced users' opinion matters much, the originating source for the nick is apparently right-wing blogs and boards, there may actually be a couple of more reliable sources referring those right-wing sourced nick. The actual question is whether it is a good or bad nick, should we include it for readers' opinion in context of freedom of information. Is it their right to know that some right-wing users use, or is it disrespectful after a tragic death. But we should discuss this somehow. I am generally in favor of adding info, because if there is something wrong about the nick it is right-wing blogs biased language and actually showing their approach, on the other hand a nick is not an opinion or criticism. But more editors who are familiar with relevant policies, discuss this matter the better. Kasaalan (talk) 16:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
By the way, with this source [6] we may call 2 sources mention that term. Kasaalan (talk) 17:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I think the key issue here isn't "reliability", it is notabilty. The question isn't, "Do right wing blogs use the term?" They do. Nor is it, "Is the term accurate?" That's just a non-sequitur. The question: "Is the term notable?" Presence on blogs is not enough. But if RS's quote those blogs enough, it can be conisdered to have entered the mainstream. I don't think that's happened yet (and may never happen), but Jclemens is justified in asking just how many good sources would be needed for it to happen. IronDuke 17:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it's a good question to ask - though it's something of a "how long is a piece of string" argument (as are many issues of notability - this argument takes place all the time on AfD). However, at the moment, I think it's clear that a single Google News result - and that a movie review - clearly doesn't cut it. Should multiple RSs start to use the term on a regular basis, then it's certainly something we could revisit. Black Kite 17:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Also during my research I found out, Little Green Footballs site [7] claiming the term is originated and popularized by them. "Terms that Originated on Little Green Footballs St. Pancake - Disparaging nickname for Rachel Corrie, a American activist who voluteered to help Palestinian militants in their attacks on Israel; she was killed after being crushed by a Israeli bulldozer while "defending" Palestinian smuggling tunnels. She was subsequently beatified by the extreme left, and in mockery of her new holy status, LGFers dubbed her "St. Pancake," in reference to the manner of her death. (Charles himself is reportedly not fond of the nickname.)" Maybe useful. Kasaalan (talk) 17:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that's its origin. LGF, of course, is not a reliable source. Black Kite 17:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Well the site is extremely POV, yet it is better to mention details like the origin. I didn't know the origin before, at least he claims his site is. Also if his claims are true, it is officially accepted the relation of nick and the cause of Rachel's death. Actually the nick is sickening, but I approached the case in journalism manner, as in freedom of information somehow. If some extremists say that, maybe it is better to know how they call her. Still I have doubts over how this sounds in English, since it is my second language. By the way the site has a Little Green Footballs#Rachel Corrie subtitle if anyone cares. Kasaalan (talk) 01:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

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

  • The deletion of the redirect was done through WP:CSD#G10 (attack pages), was confirmed at DRV (Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_February_1), and as such would need a new DRV in order to be re-created. Meanwhile, the standard is not verifiability but notability. If the use of the term is in frequent and regular use to describe that person then it should not be difficult to find reliable sources which quote it. In this case, as mentioned above, searching Google News for such reliable sources returns one single hit. If you wish to start a new DRV based on that single movie review, then be my guest. Black Kite 18:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
    So you are acknowledging that the Salon source is sufficient to render "Saint Pancake" verifiable per WP:V? Jclemens (talk) 19:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

  • I believe that the Salon source, as referenced above, is sufficient RS'ing to include "Saint Pancake" as an insulting nickname for Corrie in this article.
  • I believe that any two ("multiple") reliable sources would be sufficient RS'ing to include "Saint Pancake" as an insulting nickname for Corrie in this article.
  • I believe more than two (please specify a number) reliable sources would be necessary to include "Saint Pancake" as an insulting nickname for Corrie in this article.
  • Comments on the poll
  • In what context? I think it's excessive to put it in the lede, but if considering whether to add it in the Criticism section, that could be appropriate. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Agree with above. It would be appropriate in the criticism section, if described as an epithet used by political opponents. It certainly doesn't belong in the lead. WP:NOTCENSORED. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Why not add it to the Salon mention (cite 35) at the top of the criticism section (it is the same article), and merge it with things like Ellis' work? Make it a short paragraph on how nasty the blogs have been in particular, since it doesn't look like the mainstream opposition would go that far. It also helps my concern about the full mention of Ellis. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Funny thing, that's exactly where I put it before Black Kite removed it. I'd hate to be seen as edit warring, but I don't see anything wrong with you or anyone adding it back in. To the above comments--yes, the intention would be to include it once and only once in the criticism section. As much as I believe it is appropriate to include it once, it should clearly neither dominate the article nor appear in the lead. Jclemens (talk) 23:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I've got a far better idea. Why don't you stop forum shopping and take your unpleasant political posturing to a website that might appreciate it more, because Wikipedia has never been, isn't now, and will never be a venue for inserting hurtful epithets into the articles on people. Have some basic human dignity and quit it now. AGF? No, because you've shown your true colours - well, to be honest that happened on the DRV. Those who think it's a good idea to insert this into the article should be ashamed of themselves. How do you think this makes Wikipedia look? Disgraceful. Black Kite 23:17, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
    Thanks for your honest, heartfelt feedback. I'm sorry you find this distressing, but WP:NOTCENSORED. Corrie's death sparked a wide variety of reactions, and per WP:YESPOV, reporting on the mean and hateful things said about her in a dispassionate and encyclopedic manner is the most appropriate thing for Wikipedia to do. Jclemens (talk) 23:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)#
    You're almost believable. But not quite. Feel free to re-insert it. WP:BLP is exempt from WP:3RR. Black Kite 23:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
    If I was gaming the system in an attempt to get you blocked, I would do precisely that, because consensus (3 v 0 at this point) at Wikipedia:BLP/N#Rachel_Corrie--living_person is that Corrie isn't a living person, which agrees strongly with the Coroner's findings in the matter. :-) Again, there's plenty of time to hash through the policy and sourcing issues--I'm not in a rush to include it prematurely. Jclemens (talk) 23:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Absolutely. I'll submit to any community-based, policy-driven resolution process. However, having said that, I'm not sure there's no chance of developing a consensus here. It seems like several people are in favor of including "Saint Pancake" in the criticism section based on the reliable sourcing from Salon. If that's the consensus within the article's editors, is there any real need for an RfC? Jclemens (talk)
Oppose the creation of any such disparaging and rather vicious redirects for this person, or any person, whether dead or alive, whatever their politics and how one might feel about them. There are plenty of blogs to get your mean on, if that's your thing.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
What, exactly are you opposing? No one has proposed creating a redirect. Jclemens (talk) 23:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Actually, User:Ray did, in the above section. Black Kite 23:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Ah, so he did. At any rate, Bali ultimate, are you responding to Ray's comment or to something else entirely? Jclemens (talk) 23:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't think any number of sources are going to make this acceptable. AniMatetalk 23:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
    Mind If I move your comment to the appropriate part of the poll? Jclemens (talk) 23:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
    My apologies, I misread. NO amount of sources? Not even if the NYT and WaPo both ran front page articles? Jclemens (talk) 23:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
    I'm not going to deal in hypotheticals. AniMatetalk 00:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
    And is there a policy or guideline on which you base your statements? Jclemens (talk) 00:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
    Yes, WP:UNDUE and per WP:BLP, If I may quote BLP: ... material we publish about living people can affect their lives and the lives of their families, colleagues, and friends and In the case of deceased individuals, material must still comply with all wikipedia policies and prompt removal of questionable material is proper. BLP doesn't just exist to protect the subject or even the living, it's protection extends to their families. AniMatetalk 00:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
    But your quote of WP:BLP mentions "material we publish about living people". How does WP:BLP apply to Corrie, six years dead? WP:BLP mentions deceased people in one short section, mentioning that all (other) policies and guidelines should apply. WP:BLP doesn't seem to apply in this case, does it? -- Noroton (talk) 00:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
  • It's undue to mention "Saint Pancake" in the article when there is only one reliable source. Use of "Saint Pancake" seems to be from a "tiny minority", which is the kind of opinion or fact that WP:UNDUE says should be ignored. One single ghit at Google News is not enough. Having a redirect page for "Saint Pancake" may be justified. I'm not sure about that. Is it worth the possible pain caused to Corrie's family to help readers trying to find out what "Saint Pancake" refers to? I don't know. -- Noroton (talk) 00:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
    Pretty sure the redirect was deleted a while ago and that it was endorsed at deletion review. That being said, you're correct. One news hit does not notable make. AniMatetalk 00:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
    So how mahy sources will it take? Feel free to throw out a number. Jclemens (talk) 02:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
    Re "Is it worth the possible pain caused to Corrie's family..." Sorry, Noroton, but the amount of pain caused to Corrie's family by the inclusion or lack of inclusion of "Saint Pancake" in this article is pretty minimal. Their only daughter got crushed, and lots of people have been saying very mean things about her every since. To think that reporting on one particularly notable hateful thing that's been said in any meaningful way increases their pain is a bit silly and taking ourselves far too seriously, don't you think? Jclemens (talk) 03:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose with extended explanation any reference to this deceased person, or any other person living or dead, in an encyclopedia article as "Saint Pancake" or a similiar vicious name, no matter their politics, unless the disparaging nickname is demonstrated to be highly notable via it's use multiple times in rock-solid reliable sources with strict editorial controls. Such appearances don't count when they are repeated in an article to tear them down. That is, if someone in a reliable source used "St. Pancake" next to "terrorist-loving swine" as examples of the "torrent of exaggerated and often shocking verbal abuse to which Corrie was subjected, postmortem, on right-wing bulletin boards and Web sites," that would not count as establishing this is a commonly accepted vulgar epithet for someone. After all, the epithet is being repeated to try to say something about the people who coined it -- not to give it weight as an acceptable or appropriate moniker. Another hurdle from the, ah, let's call it the yet to be written Politically-motivated pottymouth nicknaming guideline, would be that the person must be a significant public figure for us to even consider verging into attack territory. For instance, I notice that we have a "slick willie" for Bill Clinton on here. That's Ok. A. It's not that vicious. B. Literally everyone knows who bill clinton is, and probably the vast majority of us have heard him called that -- was and is in wide circulation, and C. He's a huge public figure. In this case, a childish and vicious nickname was made up on a right-wing blog and this coinage was picked up on.... other right-wing blogs. Common decency, a sense of proportion and weight, an understanding that this is not a nickname that has caught on in the general public about this rather fringe person (we have far too much about her on wikipedia, but that's another discussion entirely), all point to not allowing these sorts of childish attacks here. The bias should be against inclusion of such material at all times, except in rare and unusual circumstances, like Slick Willie.Bali ultimate (talk) 00:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
    I agree with everything Bali ultimate just said (at 00:35). Very convincing. Seems like a good argument against resurrecting the redirect page. -- Noroton (talk) 00:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Reply to Bali ultimate I've had a good long think about this, and I applaud Bali ultimate for his appeal to decency. However, Wikipedia is not about decency. Wikipedia is not about conforming to nebulous, necessarily subjective and non-neutral standards of good "taste." Wikipedia is not about not giving offense. Wikipedia is about dissemination of accurate, relevant, properly scoped, reasonably balanced information to all those who might be interested in it, for whatever reason they might have, so that they can make up their minds on their own. We have a limited exception for biographies of living persons, of which I wholeheartedly approve, mainly so that Wikipedia does not run into legal trouble. That exception does not apply here.
Now, Rachel Corrie, whoever she was in life, has become a major public figure in death. Propaganda has been made about her by the truckload. Her parents have made extraordinary releases about information from her childhood, and engaged in grandstanding lawsuits in the courts. Her admirers have written plays about her, and held pancake breakfasts in her honor. We do our readers an enormous disservice by failing to acknowledge the existence of the criticism that such efforts to manufacture a martyr necessarily engender. I remind you that our guideline on reliable sources is not an act of snobbery to ward out the unclean or unrighteous, but a guideline emplaced to prevent original research and lack of verifiability. No reasonable person can seriously doubt that significant criticism, much of it derisive and contemptuous, exists among a significant minority of opinionmakers on foreign policy topics. You don't have to like the rightwing blogosphere to acknowledge that it's a powerful force (Little Green Footballs, the blog that ostensibly originated the nickname, also originated the charge of fraud that ultimately brought down CBS anchor Dan Rather), and in this case, a significant alternative point of view to an article that, for the most part, unskeptically exposits the preferred narrative of Corrie's hagiographers. Hence verifiability. We can verify that there is significant criticism of Rachel Corrie, much of it embodied in a nickname that communicates scathing contempt.
Now the question only remains: is it only a sense of distaste for bad behavior, subject to variability based on personal ethics, aesthetics, or even politics, that shall drive us? Or shall we pursue a genuine commitment to laying out things in an evenhanded way, presenting both criticism and hagiography, so that the reader can judge? I do not think Rachel Corrie will come out entirely badly in the latter, even if she doesn't come across as another coming of the Saviour. RayTalk 02:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Ray, you state (emphases added): "Wikipedia is not about decency. Wikipedia is not about conforming to nebulous, necessarily subjective and non-neutral standards of good "taste." Wikipedia is not about not giving offense." But this is incorrect. Here's what policy states: Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available. Where did I find this? At WP:NOTCENSORED. That's policy. Offensiveness is necessarily going to be a nebulous judgment call. That's what we have consensus for. I agree that WP articles shouldn't be hagiographies, but the way to change that is to get fair criticism that isn't offensive into the article. Getting a nasty name in the article isn't the way to go. -- Noroton (talk) 03:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
... And any article on Corrie that excludes the mere mention of "Saint Pancake" cannot be optimally informative, can it? Are you suggesting that all the images of penises, Mohammed, the original Virgin Killer cover, and whatnot all should be removed from Wikipedia because we can write acceptably complete articles without them? Jclemens (talk) 03:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Noroton, I feel it would be of benefit to us to provide a slightly fuller reading of policy you so kindly selectively quoted.

Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness, but on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal of content. In particular, when a cited quotation contains words that may be offensive, it should not be censored. Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available.

— WP:CENSORED

Now, the reason "Saint Pancake" draws such a nasty reaction from certain editors is precisely because it is highly objectionable, graphic, extremely emotional, and almost entirely encapsulates the contempt of conservative commentators for the stupidity Rachel Corrie's actions, and the blatant cynicism of subsequent attempts to beatify her by one side of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Find me wording that encapsulates all of that, and the vitriol, and the punchiness, without being NPOV, or OR, that is equally informative of the scope of the opposition and I'll step aside. If you simply don't want to hear or see it, then that is, as you have so kindly noticed, indeed censorship. RayTalk 05:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

just because there is a tiny fringe who posts "shocking verbal abuse" does not make it that specific abuse significant for inclusion in this article. there is enough coverage of the blogs' vicious reactions through the quote from the movie review and the fugue. no offense, but a 'punchy encapsulation' does not a mean that it is from a reliable source or notable addition. we can't just say, "hey, that's a good one," and then cherry-pick our favorite disgusting epithet (mentioned in passing in a movie review) into an article. WP:UNDUE applies here. untwirl(talk) 07:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I would only include it if it was really established that it has been widely used. I never heard of it before today. Steve Dufour (talk) 06:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
There have been plenty of previous discussion of the term--check out this talk page's archives for previous debates; what's different about this go-round is that with an RS clearly articulating the term's use and notability, those who favor its exclusion have lost their strongest policy support for their position: It's unquestionably verifiable, which means that WP:UNDUE and WP:YESPOV demand its inclusion. Jclemens (talk) 06:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
salon was not "clearly articulating the term's use and notability" any more than it showed notability for the other 3 or 4 types of comments that it mentions in passing. what, in your mind, does the article say that distinguishes "st pancake" from those as being especially notable? untwirl(talk) 07:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Sure it was. It didn't call it that, because Notability is a Wikipedia concept, but by even referencing it as part of the dialogue and contoversy surrounding post-demise comments on Corrie's life and death, it imputed notability to the term. The one thing that I would say distinguishes Saint Pancake is it's uniqueness. There are plenty of other derogatory insults that were applied to Corrie that have been applied to others. But "Saint Pancake" is a piece of political satire that makes direct reference to the event. Calling someone a terrorist-loving swine or any of the other things alluded to by Salon... just aren't interesting--they're not compelling. If there is one epithet that belongs in an encyclopedia article on Corrie, it is Saint Pancake. Jclemens (talk) 07:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
this is your opinion. you personally find it "unique," "humorous," "interesting," "compelling," etc. your opinion is not a reliable source. salon imputed no more notablility or uniqueness to that term than any of the others - "i like it" is not a valid reason for inclusion. untwirl(talk) 17:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
No, the fact that it's reliably sourced and verifiable is why it's inclusion worthy. My opinions are my opinions; inclusion criteria are far more clearcut. Is there a single policy-based argument (that is, one which doesn't rely on tortured misreadings of WP:UNDUE or WP:BLP) that argues against inclusion? I've yet to hear one. Jclemens (talk) 18:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
you said, "but by even referencing it as part of the dialogue and contoversy surrounding post-demise comments on Corrie's life and death, it imputed notability to the term." by this logic, every one of those statements has equal notability. you also said, "The one thing that I would say distinguishes Saint Pancake is it's uniqueness." (emphasis mine) you said that, salon didn't. salon didn't say the name was "unique," "humorous," "interesting," "compelling," etc. you did. how can you say this isn't a case of "i like it and 'i' think it is a notable piece of 'political satire'?" you were pushing for this repulsive nickname when the redirect was deleted (and salted btw). this seems to be a personal mission for you, with very little support (i haven't counted but an obvious minority so far). i apologize if this is coming off rude, i just think maybe you can't see how insignificant the reporting of this particular name is because you want it in so bad. yes, insulting her in the blogs was popular, and that is mentioned. the rest of us see no need to legitimize this term when there hasn't been widespread reporting about it in RS. untwirl(talk) 20:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
What of anything you've said doesn't apply in reverse to your own position? We all have opinions, but opinions don't affect what has been reliably sourced, do they? I haven't counted noses, but "Wikipedia does not base its decisions on the number of people who show up and vote; we work on a system of good reasons." and I've seen a dearth of policy-driven reasons to exclude the content. Actually, that's not quite true: I've seen a dearth of accurate policy-driven reasons to exclude the content. Lots of people seem to think WP:BLP applies to Corrie, which would truly change the dynamic of the article if it were true. Jclemens (talk) 20:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
we are not required to include an insult just because it appeared in a movie review. i think your problem with the interpretation of undue is that it must be a significant minority, not fringe. the people using that name are fringe, according to their proportion in reliable sources. once again, you think it is deserving of special attention, but that is OR, not something stated or implied by the sources. does every statement in each article now belong here because "the fact that it's reliably sourced and verifiable is why it's inclusion worthy"? no. the proportion of coverage is what undue weight is about. untwirl(talk) 20:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The assertion: The Salon article is a reliable source.

Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications. The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context. Where there is disagreement between sources, their views should be clearly attributed in the text. — WP:SOURCES (my emphasis)

In context, how reliable, notable or appropriate is a non-academic, movie review and interview, i.e., a published opinion by a movie critic?

In many ways, the work of a critic is easy. We risk very little yet enjoy a position over those who offer up their work and their selves to our judgment. We thrive on negative criticism, which is fun to write and to read. But the bitter truth we critics must face, is that in the grand scheme of things, the average piece of junk is probably more meaningful than our criticism designating it so. — Anton Ego, Ratatouille (2007)

Q.E.D. Mtd2006 (talk) 08:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Is there any assertion on the table that a reliable source has claimed that no one ever referred to Corrie as Saint Pancake? If so, then the relative veracity and trustworthiness of sources might come into play. To answer your question: "Sufficiently reliable, notable, and appropriate, given that the writer in question is affiliated with a reliable source which has not seen fit to retract the assertion" Jclemens (talk) 08:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
No, I didn't put that on a table; did I? The full text of the assertion, which I paraphrased, is: "I believe that the Salon source, as referenced above, is sufficient RS'ing to include 'Saint Pancake' as an insulting nickname for Corrie in this article." Stated another way, how reliable, notable or appropriate is a published opinion about a movie? The movie review is non-academic; it asserts nothing other than the reviewer's opinion. Do we expect that Salon will retract an opinion of one of its reviewers. Of course not — a review would have to be beyond outrageous for that to happen. Movie reviews thrive on controversy, positive and negative criticism, and viewpoints that provoke an emotional response in the reader. Critics include material for its entertainment value, not its veracity, verifiability, or correctness. I don't accept the relevance of an movie critic's opinion, offered as entertainment, as reliable source for an encyclopedia (unless the encyclopedia article is about a movie and how the movie is received — depends on the context). Mtd2006 (talk) 08:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Ok, you've made your position clear, but I disagree on two counts 1) Movie reviewers are still under the editorial control of their publication, which can yank things that are poor journalism. That is, even if a movie reviewer is not an expert on a topic, if they said something that wasn't up to the RS standards of the publication in which they were printed, the review would be yanked. 2) This movie review is specifically about a documentary on the aftermath of Corrie's death. That is, it's hard to imagine any more relevant context in which a movie reviewer might bring it up. In that review, he comments on the absence of the political firestorm, meaning that he's conversant with it and considers it significant enough to note its absence. Jclemens (talk) 17:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Ray wrote (05:55, 8 May): it is highly objectionable, graphic, extremely emotional, and almost entirely encapsulates the contempt of conservative commentators for the stupidity Rachel Corrie's actions, and the blatant cynicism of subsequent attempts to beatify her by one side of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Find me wording that encapsulates all of that, and the vitriol, and the punchiness, without being NPOV, or OR, that is equally informative of the scope of the opposition and I'll step aside. Sorry Ray, that won't do: punchiness insults generally are more "punchy" than just about any other wording, but if "punchiness" always overcame objections based on offensiveness, we'd allow offensiveness almost every time; encapsulates the contempt of conservative commentators for the stupidity Rachel Corrie's actions -- it's an insult to conservative commentators to say that, of everything they've written on the subject, "St. Pancake" is the best they've done; Find me wording that encapsulates all of that -- sorry, fella, the onus is on you to find it. The idea that there's nothing out there that is equally informative of the scope of the opposition as "St. Pancake" is just not believable. Maturity is generally a more effective manner for commentators, and there are plenty out there who exhibit it. Among other places, you'll find some mature criticism of Corrie's actions and her beatifiers in Charles Krauthammer's columns, at nationalreview.com and at theweeklystandard.com Comments from those sources can be added without the "offensiveness" debate, if you're seeking to get more criticism into the article rather than just rile up editors. -- Noroton (talk) 16:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

BLP doesn't apply to dead people. The content is well-sourced and clearly relevant. Obnoxious and disgusting behavior isn't a reason not to include something. Concern for the family is not an operative aspect of BLP. If it were, we'd never be able to say anything negative about any dead person. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

On the misquotation of WP:UNDUE and reliable sourcing

There seems to be a repeated assertion on this talk page that WP:UNDUE forbids us from mentioning Saint Pancake, even if it is reliably sourced, because most of the coverage of Corrie's demise does not. In fact, WP:UNDUE demands its inclusion. "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." Note that it doesn't say advocated or endorsed by a reliable source, but published by a reliable source. WP:YESPOV instructs us that "The neutral point of view is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject: it neither endorses nor discourages viewpoints. As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy on the grounds that it is "POV". Article content should clearly describe, represent, and characterize disputes within topics, but without endorsement of any particular point of view. Articles should provide background on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular; detailed articles might also contain evaluations of each viewpoint, but must studiously refrain from taking sides." (emphasis mine) It is not neutral to eliminate political critique, no matter how crude or offensive (see WP:NOTCENSORED) it may be; the only way this article can achieve NPOV is to include adequate coverage of criticisms of Corrie--even the unpleasant or distasteful bits.

And, I confess, I've been holding out on you all. Mostly to try to see if anyone would say "But if there were multiple reliable sources..." but since none of those opposing inclusion of this term seem to be willing to even acknowledge the possibility that there could ever be enough sourcing, I see no point in holding back this secret I found in the talk page archives:

F Newsmagazine published a reference in 2006: "On one popular blog, Rachel is referred to as “St. Pancake.” Such harangues often employ epithets such as ‘”anti-Semite.’’ During an interview with F News, ISM volunteer Paul Larudee noted that being labeled “anti-Semitic” in response to activism for the rights of Palestinians is ironic. “Jews more than most other elements are concerned about the issue of Palestinian human rights. There is a disproportionately high numbers of Jews who defend the rights of Palestinians.”"

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

Thus, multiple reliable sources describe the epithets. Neither of them endorse them, but endorsement is not necessary for coverage--they document the usage. In fact, two reliable sources are almost enough to start a separate article on The use of the term Saint Pancake to describe Rachel Corrie--but that would be silly. The term belongs here, referenced once, in the criticism section, because that's what encyclopedias do: they cover the facts, including all viewpoints. Jclemens (talk) 07:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Can I just ask you why you even care? I'm not trying to be smart, here. I'm just genuinely curious as to what makes you so intent on getting this vicious bit of trivia inserted. And without giving an opinion on whether the info belongs, or what WP:UNDUE has to say about that, just to say that it passes policy tests doesn't actually mean that it actually should be included. <eleland/talkedits> 09:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Saying anything is trivia is not always the case, yet on the other hand a hate-derogatory nick is not point of view or criticism, just a derogatory-black humor approach over a death, so it is not about being POV or neutral much. I provided fnewsmagazine link before j, so you weren't actually holding out anything. Also 2 reliable sources is not enough to create such a page like The use of the term Saint Pancake to describe Rachel Corrie, that would be pushing. What would it contain 2 reliable sources says right wing blogs say this. This still might be included in main page somehow with 1 sentence, as in journalism manner. Yet rest of the editors seems against the inclusion. Kasaalan (talk) 10:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Is "Saint Pancake" purely hate against Corrie? Hardly. It's a critique of the posthumous secular beatification of an otherwise relatively unremarkable young woman. "Pancake" refers to her manner of death, "Saint" refers to the adulation levelled at her life after her death. If it were purely a hateful epithet, like "terrorist-loving swine" it would add little or nothing to the discourse. And yes, I was being a more than a bit hyperbolic on proposing a second article. Even if it would be technically permissable, it would be pointless and serve no encyclopedic purpose. Jclemens (talk) 17:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Why do I care? I believe in the free flow of information. I think WP:NOTCENSORED is as important as any other policy, and the remaining arguments against the inclusion all center around it. "Have some basic human decency" (I have plenty, thanks) is simply a plea to avoid hurting people's feelings--in this case, specifically by avoiding verifiable, reliably sourced criticism of Corrie because it might make someone feel bad. Sorry, but that's a rather poor reason to include or not include one aspect of a political reaction to a tragedy. Jclemens (talk) 17:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

But why would anyone think that their belief in "the free flow of information" should be paramount above causing possible pain to another human being? That's what I don't understand, and that's why that epithet won't be appearing in this article until it's reliably sourced and clearly notable. Black Kite 18:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Do you endorse WP:NOTCENSORED as a policy? Do you understand the concept of a lesser evil, that censorship can legitimately be viewed as an evil? Jclemens (talk) 18:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
That would be a reasonable viewpoint if this was a reliably sourced issue and therefore had anything to do with WP:NOTCENSORED. Which it isn't. Black Kite 18:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Repeating a falsehood doesn't make it true. The term is reliably sourced by two separate sources. Please stop WP:IDIDNTHEARTHATing. Jclemens (talk) 19:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Excellent, calling me a liar now? You're not doing yourself any favours here (not that you have already - I would've thought the list of respected editors telling you that you're wrong would've been enough). Black Kite 19:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I make no value judgements, simply note that your statement is not correct. The use of the term "Saint Pancake" has been documented in both Salon and FNewsmagazine, which are reliable sources. Any assertion that the usage has not been reliably sourced is not accurate. To the extent that you repeat inaccuracies which you have plenty of reason to know are untrue... Well, I'd be interested in hearing your justification for that. Jclemens (talk) 19:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
You have two "reliable sources", which are actually two passing mentions in a movie review and a student magazine. Meanwhile, Corrie herself has over 4,000 GNews hits. Now, I'm assuming you're not stupid, so presumably you can make the logical connection that 2 passing mentions versus 4,000+ GNews hits is the very disparity that WP:UNDUE was built for. If you can't do that, I can't really help you. Also, I'm not going to keep having this pointless argument with you here, so I'll merely point out that until you can either build a serious case that this epithet is notable, or build a serious consensus here that it should, then this epithet isn't going to appear in the article. The community tends to take a dim view of politically motivated POV editors inserting unencylopedic information into articles about people, and since you have made it very clear that this is what you are attempting to do, it would be better if you thought very carefully about your actions here. Black Kite 19:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for acknowledging that the reliable sources mention Saint Pancake as an epithet for Corrie. As far as your misunderstanding of WP:UNDUE... can't really help you with that one; I've explained it in detail above. Jclemens (talk) 19:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
You missed the scare quotes around the words 'reliable sources'. And that's it from me. Black Kite 19:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
There is a difference between censorship and selecting what material to include. If we put everything available into every article there would be no purpose for WP in the first place. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Absolutely, but if you'll peruse the archives and history, you'll see there exists a past concerted effort to excise any mention of the term. The fact that the RSing has increased has not deterred those who prefer it be censored. Jclemens (talk) 19:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I follow news and politics (and am conservative, anti-terrorism, and pro-Israel if you want to know) and have never heard this expression until it came up here and on the BLP board. I don't see where it is established enough to be an important thing to mention in a one page article about this person. As I said just below the article should be even shorter. Steve Dufour (talk) 19:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
If this article were only one page, I might agree. As is, it's not, and includes details of a large number of posthumous pro-Corrie tributes, does it not? Within that context, balance is important. Jclemens (talk) 20:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm on your side. However I think you are wrong about the pancake thing. Some of the tribute material should be taken out. Serious, dignified criticism should be put in. But not a bad-taste joke. That does not balance anything. Steve Dufour (talk) 20:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I am not sure I can follow your arguments fully, mentioning this in the article might be considered as in freedom of information manner as I consider. Also, actually we don't need lots of a reliable source telling us right wing blogs use that term, because a simple google search can easily verify that for us. Yet a derogatory nick by a couple hundred of low-street racist people, is neither a critism nor can be considered as any a point of view, it is just a rude insult. Whether we cover it in main page or not, it contains full of hate, so don't kid anyone, we all can get what the nick refers since hateful people inventing new insults are generally below average intelligence anyway. Kasaalan (talk) 22:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Also there was no such nick when she was alive, so a made up nick referring her tragic death by mocking is really a disputable case. We should discuss whether we should include this or not, maybe even include it. Yet wikipedia need some guidelines on this matters more clearly. Kasaalan (talk) 22:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi. If you were addressing me, my position is that a WP article should be to give the important facts about its subject. An insult given after death by a few people does not rise to that. There is other material in the article that should be taken out as well. Steve Dufour (talk) 22:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Whatever happened to an encyclopedia article that leaves a reader wanting to learn more, rather than wishing they didn't know so much? :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 02:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

WP is not a court of law

Looking at this article it seems to me that too much detail goes into presenting evidence to decide who was at fault in Ms Corrie's death. An encycolpedia should be about giving the basic facts about a subject, not to be a forum for debate. That's my opinion anyway. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Summary of Facts and Disputes

Let's bring the discussion back and centralize discussion of the unresolved points. Here's my summary of the issues as I see them:

Items Not under dispute:

Items under dispute:

  • Does WP:UNDUE prohibit inclusion of such a minority viewpoint, or require it?
  • There may or may not be some pillar or principle that prohibits Wikipedia from including a reliably sourced epithet.
  • Is there a requirement that sources cover the Saint Pancake epithet in a particular way for their coverage to be considered reliable?

Amendments/Corrections: List errors in or disagreements with the above list here. Please do not reply inline as the statements do not have individual signatures for attribution, nor attempt to continue disputes into this section. This is solely an inventory of what is undisputed and what is disputed. Once we're clear on what the key issues are, we can move forward to consolidate them and take other issues off the table, perhaps in preparation for an RfC or another community input forum. Jclemens (talk) 20:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Another item that should be considered: WP's goal to serious institution and its policy not to hurt people gratuitously apply to all articles, regardless if their subjects are living or dead. Steve Dufour (talk) 20:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Ah, absolutely correct. I meant to include that as part of the second item under dispute. Apologies if the wording was inadequate to convey that properly. Jclemens (talk) 20:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I also have very little respect for Salon, although for a simple statement of fact it is probably as "reliable" as most others. (I've never heard of fnewsmagazine.)Steve Dufour (talk) 20:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Most of the "Not under dispute" list above is either one editors opinion, half truths, or wikiawyering. Meanwhile, Jclemens has taken the opportunity to mention the epithet which was deleted as a G10 attack page by the community no less than four times. Meanwhile, WP:UNDUE. It's one source. It's a passing mention. It's a movie review. The other "source" is a student magazine website. "Rachel Corrie" has 4,000+ Google News hits. The word I think you're looking for is "desperate". You know what, Jclemens? I'd really like you to be face to face with Corrie's parents so you could explain to them why you're scratching round the bowels of the web, wikilawyering and flirting with the truth, in order to perpetuate a revolting joke about the death of their daughter. But I don't think you'd have the guts to do that. Black Kite 20:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
    Apologies for having to revert your inline comments, BlackKite, but it was simply not feasible to untangle them for proper attribution any other way. Please feel free to document, here, which of these statements you believe to be inaccurate. To the extent that I've left a dispute off the list of disputed items, or you believe a dispute should be phrased in another way, be sure to let that be known, too.
    {{fact}} tags do not belong on talk pages, so I've removed them. All you need to do to dispute any of the statements is give a concise statement of objection here.
    Please also consider this a formal warning for civility and failure to assume good faith. Speak to the content dispute, not the editor, please. Jclemens (talk) 21:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
    • You lost any entitlement to good faith when you made it clear that your mission was, at any costs, to insert this epithet into the article regardless of it being encyclopedic or notable. I am not going to refute your latest list again, point by point, because it's all been rehashed multiple times in the conversation above. Merely listing your "facts" again doesn't make them true. And, as seen above, you have very littl support for your position. Black Kite 21:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
      If you'd like to seek formal mediation, be my guest. If you'd like to start a separate section detailing things from your point of view, be my guest. I continue to assume good faith about you--I believe you are sincere, as well as I believe that you are incorrect. Please work for consensus on the outstanding issues. By all means, challenge Fnewsmagazine on WP:RS/N or provide your input on Corrie as a BLP on WP:BLP/N. What you're doing right now smacks of policy shopping. Rather than having to deal with objections from a shotgun approach, I'd prefer to narrow the issues down to a simple, policy based question which can be posed to the community. That's a much better outcome than assuming bad faith and refusing to cede even the most obvious points. If you think there's scant support for my position, then nailing things down for an RfC should only benefit you, should it not? Jclemens (talk) 21:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
      • I'd never even heard of Corrie until the incident where I deleted the redirect, so I clearly don't have an axe to grind. I don't participate in articles about Israeli/Palestinian or American politics. I merely wish to protect Wikipedia from criticism and Corrie's relatives from distress. If you want to raise an RFC then I have no objection, but at the moment, with no policy-based reason for including this material, then I have no reason to raise one myself. Black Kite 21:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
      We're agreed, then. An RfC approach it is. Jclemens (talk) 21:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Fine. I have redacted some of my more intemperate remarks above, but I still have to state that until I see a solid policy-based reason why it is so important to include this epithet in the article, I do struggle to assume good faith here. I did so during the DRV, but now ... it's more difficult to do so. Black Kite 21:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
        My position is essentially unchanged since the DRV--at least to the extent that I haven't consciously changed it. The only thing that's materially changed from my perspective is the sourcing improvement. Jclemens (talk) 21:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Constructing an RfC....

1. Here on this talk page or elsewhere? 2. I'd like to propose that we write up our arguments in RfAR style, where each of us edits only his own section, and includes rebuttals to anyone else's points only in his own section. As in...

  • BlackKite's position
    • Rebuttal of JClemens' position
  • Jclemens' position
    • Rebuttal of BlackKite's position

... and so forth. I think it will keep things cleaner and easier for commentators to read. Jclemens (talk) 21:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Sounds fine to me. A note - I won't be around much this weekend, so may not have the chance to respond quickly. Black Kite 21:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Agreed, then, that we'll both take our time and finalize our positons--with both agreeing that we've each addressed all the issues in the manner and to the extent we want, before we formulate it for community input. Of course, other people can jump in, too, but I think if you and I agree we're both done fully stating our respective positions, then is the right time to present it for wider community input. How's that sound? Jclemens (talk) 21:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Whatever the outcome of the RFC construction will be, I fully support this approach. This should be even a template for main discussions all around wikipedia. Really good attempt, thanks for implementing it to the talk page. Kasaalan (talk) 11:24, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Israeli-Palestinian Conflict Category Addition

Should we add the template for Israeli-Palestinian Conflict under the main page or not.

Any Comments. Kasaalan (talk) 17:13, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see it listed under Brian Avery, Caoimhe Butterly, Death of Iain Hook, Tom Hurndall, or James Miller (filmmaker), which I admit is not a great logical reason, but the point is it seems too far from the overall conflict. Even the International Solidarity Movement page doesn't include the template. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
You have a point only Conflicts / Violence / Terrorism is related to the case directly. I will try a partly template implementation. Kasaalan (talk) 13:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
It seems like a logical addition to the article, unless there is something about it I don't understand.Steve Dufour (talk) 22:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Joshua Hammer article under Further Reading section

Ok, here I removed the link to the Hammer under the Further Reading section, since it was cited above, following Wikipedia:Layout#Further_reading. It was reverted here, so I'll bring it up here. Any other opinions? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:01, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree there should not be overlaps between articles cited for inline references, and further/additional reading sections. Jclemens (talk) 02:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, if we're using it as a source we don't need as further reading. AniMatedraw 06:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
It is one of the best and most comprehensive source for the case, somehow mentioning it separately is better. It is further reading for the case, otherwise it is hidden among 100 references. Kasaalan (talk) 12:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
But that's against the manual of style. Comprehensive sources that are cited belong in references. Further reading is supposed to be for additional information that isn't cited. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
You have a point, it says "Links to external websites used as sources should be listed in the "References" or "Notes" section." The manual of style is somehow weak on this issue. But rules are rules anyway. Kasaalan (talk) 01:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Often, the "best" references can be highlighted by how many times they're used. If I see a reference that's used 5+ times, I know that the article relies heavily on it, and so such a reference "stands out" amongst the others. Jclemens (talk) 04:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Blindingly Obvious Facts

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

If it has enough to meet WP:V, and AussieTheatre.com would seem to be fine on that score, then the inclusion is really up to the consensus of the editors per WP:NNC--each item in an article doesn't have to have multiple, independent RS to establish its own notability. Jclemens (talk) 23:17, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
"The notability guidelines determine whether a topic is notable enough to be a separate article in Wikipedia. They do not give guidance on the content of articles, except for lists of people.[7] Instead, various content policies govern article content, with the amount of coverage given to topics within articles decided by its appropriate weight." Really another interesting guideline that is also against non-notability claimers of each part of an article. Kasaalan (talk) 02:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know in 2007 and 2008 it is produced in Australia. The writer's blog useful because it contains the text. Kasaalan (talk) 02:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The NPR radio report says that more succinctly and I think would be a more independent source than the blog. I'll work on incorporating the sources. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Australian playwright Ben Ellis wrote Blindingly Obvious Facts, a 10-minute fugue composed of "ugly" verbatim excerpts from right-wing blogs discussing Corrie's death.[1] It was performed as part of the 2007 Melbourne season of the Short and Sweet short play competition.[2] Sydney composer Lawrence Williams mixed a recorded version of Ellis' play for the play's Sydney Short and Sweet production in early 2008.[3]

Any proposed suggestions on this part. Kasaalan (talk) 11:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

You can replace the whole think with a reference to "Episode # 1020". 51% the Women's Perspective. 2009-01-29. 10:15 minutes in. WAMC. {{cite episode}}: Unknown parameter |city= ignored (|location= suggested) (help), a more neutral source. And the source does indicate that it was performed in Australia in 2007 and 2008, so it would be like:

Australian playwright Ben Ellis wrote Blindingly Obvious Facts, a 10-minute fugue composed of "ugly" verbatim excerpts from right-wing blogs discussing Corrie's death.[4]. It was performed in Australia in 2007 and 2008,[4], including as part of the 2007 Melbourne season of the Short and Sweet short play competition.[5] Sydney composer Lawrence Williams mixed a recorded version of Ellis' play for the play's Sydney Short and Sweet production in early 2008.[6]

Better? The other sources are blogs, and generally don't fit policy. The Women's Center link is the same info from my link, but I think the direct link is better, since it includes the actual audio. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

What you mean can you state more clearly. The artist's own blog is good for containing the text, so nothing wrong to include it along with other references, according to the guidelines. Instead 1, using 2 reference are better. Kasaalan (talk) 20:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Pictures of Corrie on Commons

After he removed the post-crush picture from the article User:MSJapan has nominated it for deletion at Commons. Following up on this after I noticed it, I also see that four of the six images that appear inCommons Category:Rachel_Corrie don't seem to have adequate author/permission info. I've posted to the original uploader, but does someone else who's been associated with the topic longer have any idea who BBS News is? They don't have an article, nor is there a deleted article I can see in the history. Complicating things, the original uploader seems to be rather inactive and hasn't edited since January, IIRC.

The three other photos that have this issue are The infobox picture, and two from the reaction section. Their loss would seriously impair the article--please help find accurate sourcing and permissions info. Jclemens (talk) 19:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

So why did he not posted here that he nominated the pictures for deletion himself. Kasaalan (talk) 12:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

this is the site where those photos were from. it looks like they gave permission. untwirl(talk) 19:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

They gave permission for Wikipedia--Commons licensing is quite a bit stricter, and I didn't see any documentation that they were released "for any purpose"--the Evergreen one seems to almost say the opposite. Jclemens (talk) 20:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Oh, and I'm facepalming for not finding that--thank you. I was too fixated on the redlink and assuming that they'd had an article and it was now gone. Jclemens (talk) 20:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
i know next to nothing about licensing so i'm no help there. sorry. untwirl(talk) 20:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Actually this copyright issues are widely used for non-inclusion of photographs you don't like. Maybe we should ask permission from the copyright holders directly. One of the original copyright holder posts Rafah Today Photo News Report for Rachel Corrie and Tom Hundall the page contains heavy blood by the way. Kasaalan (talk) 12:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

A Note to All Deleters Who Did not Bothered to Post the Removed Content in Discussion Page

The same article goes on to report what happened the next day at the very spot where Corrie was run over:


"As the memorial service got under way, the Israeli army sent its own representative. A tank pulled up beside the mourners and sprayed them with tear gas. A bizarre game of cat-and-mouse began as the peace activists chased the tank around to throw flowers on it, and the Israeli soldiers inside threatened, in return, to run them down. The game ended when the Israeli bulldozers came out, accompanied by more APCs, firing guns and percussion bombs. The insult was as clear as the danger of the situation and the people went home, the service halted."

This notice especially goes for you animate. If you have an issue with wording change them, you are the one that having the issue after all, removing all the paragraph, then expecting the other editors do all the work, including creating relevant discussion title and posting removed content, furthermore claiming other people have sticked the paragraph to the context hoping it fits is not a good approach. Especially when you are not bothered to read the paragraph, or even if you read but cannot understand why it contains valuable info. There are so many edits going on, when you remove info and not posting what you removed at discussion page, is not helpful. Yes it is not my job to create all the titles, if you like to remove a complete paragraph, at least try posting the info you removed, in discussion page under a proper title, so other editors can work on them in the meanwhile. When you remove info it may be very well left unnoticed, between so long edit traffic. Kasaalan (talk) 13:32, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Kasaalan, I do not think this text goes into this article at all. It seems to be a WP:COATRACK that attempts to make the IDF look even worse. If included, it should be phrased in a neutral way that doesn't include commentary. (e.g., the last sentence). Overall, if this article were The death of Rachel Corrie rather than a pseudo-bio, its inclusion might be more warranted, if balanced appropriately. Jclemens (talk) 15:17, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the removal of this material (removed it myself a day or two ago when inserted by an IP). That direct quote at that length, does not belong.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:09, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Propose an edit if you want better wording or do not remove relevant content by a reliable source, which is not exceptionally wrong anyway. It explains what happened, with a comment on how she feel, it just needs paraphrasing, but you remove info because you don't like it, then expect others to do all the work. If you feel it needs better wording why don't you do it yourself. Or at least create a discussion title here yourself.
So do The Guardian or The Observer is to blame, what the full quote related to the IP except he added it, it is fully quoted from The Observer article Making of a martyr, reading your comments I first assumed IP did the writing himself, yet no, it is a fully published document by a reliable source. A full quote of the impression of a journalist, where a tank appeared in a funeral with tear gas. I don't care if it looks IDF bad, actually you shouldn't care either, I care what happened and how. Kasaalan (talk) 19:45, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Anyway forget it I will do the job, discussing not helps, I will edit myself. Kasaalan (talk) 19:52, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
So far it appears three other editors disagree with you (me, jclemens and one other, I think animate). So don't ignore this consensus and "edit myself" since "discussing not helps." Long quotes of one journalists analysis of the aftermath of an event like this one would seem well past undue in this kind of article.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:07, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Bali and (surprisingly) Jclemens on this one. Throwing in a quote with obviously biased commentary doesn't really help or add much to this article. AniMatedraw 20:15, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Quantity not matters, the quality of the argument matters. I will not blockquote it I will edit it myself as I clearly stated above. So no counter consensus is available on my edit, since I haven't edited yet. Biased is your own argument so try not to represent it as a fact. You are simply wrong on number of journalists being only one. Actually if you read the related articles, you can easily learn 2 different journalists and 1 artist, from 2 different sources, including The Observer which is a highly reliable reference, were describing the exact same process involving tanks and tear gas usage in a memorial ceremony where she died, and the day after she has been crushed. What do you expect, when IDF uses tear gas in a funeral memorial and even sent the exact same bulldozer that crushed Rachel Corrie 1 day ago, a more neutral tone that "doesn't show IDF as bad", sure. Kasaalan (talk) 21:27, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The edit as it stood has been clearly rejected, with simple and clear explanations from those that disagree with you. I can't offer an opinion about edits as yet unmade (and i don't see anyone else has either). But i'd remind you that this is meant to be a bio for Corrie, not a WP:coatrack for ongoing bad behavior by the IDF in gaza or anywhere else (i tend to believe the idf has behaved terribly in many circusmtances, and some mention of teargas at her funeral might be worth a one senctence mention, but that exstensive discussion of events beyond her life do not belong in a bio).Bali ultimate (talk) 23:34, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

(outside comment, I came here from a discussion at ANI about a Rachel Corrie fork) That quote is inadequate because of the personal commentary from a source whose opinion is not notable in this context. Make a summary of what happened at the funeral. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
The edit as it stood has been clearly rejected, with simple, clear and wrong explanations, personal commentary you all refer is only involved in last sentence. Coatrack has nothing to do with the article. Also the "summary" will be same length as the paragraph if you mention all of the actions anyway. But I will do the edit, The Observer is highly reliable source, also it is supported by 1 other magazine reference. So unless anyone came up with an article that claims no tear gas usage or any other actions that referred in the article involved, we will mention all the necessary details. I have other jobs, I read the 2 articles but I will edit when I have free time. Kasaalan (talk) 13:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I have done the edit according to the 2 different parties who was at the memorial, if any other reference exist on the event you may add for better balancing or improvement. Kasaalan (talk) 11:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Songs and Poems Dedicated to Rachel Corrie

Songs and Poems Dedicated to Rachel Corrie Click blue button at right to see Table and Notes. There is another deletion review at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_May_19#Public_reactions_to_death_of_Rachel_Corrie Deletion Review by Public reactions to death of Rachel Corrie

Also you should somehow state opinions on how the song or poem implementations will be made into main article. We may somehow implement, political reactions to the main article. Yet, there are more than 30 songs devoted to Rachel Corrie from 30 different professional artists (while half of them highly notable and famous, some others not much famous) all around the world, and we have a good table representing the songs. Yet without creating a separate title, it is not much possible to implement the table, and artist comments into the main article, since we have length and reference number limitations according to the guidelines. Only the song table is based on near 30 references itself. So my question is, is it advisable to create a List of Songs Dedicated to Rachel Corrie or List of Songs (and maybe Poems) Written for Rachel Corrie for dedicated song tables, and artist comments on why they wrote a song on Rachel Corrie. Kasaalan (talk) 13:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

They're already in the article, probably at too much length. Please don't add any more to the 25 odd songs already mentioned in the article as being about corrie. I would be strongly opposed to more detail, mention on that. Just nuke the table now. It's not ever going to be added to a BLP, and why should it? While it's useful to mention that people were touched by and wrote songs about her death, a matrix of dozens of entirely non-notable songs is distracting trivia, at best. Bali ultimate (talk) 14:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't agree with you. First, only the names of the artists-groups mentioned in the article currently. No song name mentioned, no date or album info is included. More importantly no reference for artists' comments on why they wrote a song about Rachel Corrie. Also I am not asking for a full implementation into the main article, it would become too long for main article. So I am asking others' opinions for a separate List of Songs (and maybe Poems) Written for Rachel Corrie article. Also you claim non notability, but half of the artists already have world wide notability. You can easily tell that if you are interested in music. Kasaalan (talk) 20:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Also she is not a living person, and numerous of historical figures has Artistic Depictions Titles under their article. Especially read Cultural depictions of George Washington and Cultural depictions of Elvis Presley. Urbain_Grandier#Artistic_depictions Tommy_Douglas#Artistic_depiction Kisaeng#Literary_and_artistic_depictions. Actually I don't even know a wiki guideline that objects Artistic Tributes to Rachel Corrie and the opposing parties haven't proved any yet. Kasaalan (talk) 20:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Hasn't this already been decided with the Artistic tributes to Rachel Corrie Afd. In fact, weren't there two AfDs and a DRV for articles that were essentially about this exact same topic. AniMatedraw 23:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I didn't nominate for drv this time, but last afd was closed in 3 days, so there was a lack of time to discuss the issues anyway. Yet near none of the main page editors joined the discussion or stated any opinions on the matter yet. There were a majority of consensus on separate public reactions page in first afd so admin verdict deletion of the page yet suggested a public reactions page possible, I tried to create one by moving the page and broadening the topic, removed afd tag, it immediately renominated this time majority of votes were in favor of deletion of the article since it perceived as a work-around action for last afd, so merging the relevant content into main article is in progress, so other main page editors' efforts matter on this issue. We have artistic tributes' content consisting of a detailed table for more than 30 songs written about Rachel Corrie, artists' comments and poems written for Rachel Corrie, along with some politicians comments, that is not available in the main article. So you should somehow state your opinions on which content may be merged or a separate Artistic Depictions of Rachel Corrie page possible according to the guidelines. Kasaalan (talk) 10:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

List of My Name is Rachel Corrie performances Deletion Review

List of My Name is Rachel Corrie performances article getting a deletion review at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of My Name is Rachel Corrie performances by User:Bali_ultimate in a swift way, without bothering to discuss or improve or tag the article at all. So other editors may also be interested in deletion review. List of My Name is Rachel Corrie performances#References Kasaalan (talk) 23:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

It's called AfD but whatever. This article has been on wikipedia since February though, to be fair, i would have nominated from the word go if i had known about it. In my opinion it is a content fork from My Name is Rachel Corrie and that an indiscriminate list of every performance of this play ever (and my opinion would be the same for every play ever written) does not belong here.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
You are claiming indiscriminate performances, yet most of the plays and theaters are notable by solid references. Also most possibly you don't know anything about theatre at all. Kasaalan (talk) 23:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
And conclusively, you don't know anything about encyclopedia's and notability. Who cares?Bali ultimate (talk) 23:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Everyone who reads this page knows of the deletion discussion. There's no need to argue about it here when there's a whole page specifically dedicated for people to argue about it. AniMatedraw 23:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

If someone brings me up, i'll respond. I agree that the AfD is the appropriate location.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

"See Also" removed as POV...

There is no reason to have five other individuals killed by the IDF in the see also section - it creates a bias for the reader that apparently the IDF is in the habit of killing civilians, and that the Palestinians aren't, when in fact there are entire categories and articles devoted to Category:Second Intifada casualties on both sides. If only one viewpoint is to be presented, then that section violates the fundamental NPOV guidelines of Wikipedia. If someone wishes to return those entries, I would suggest that in fairness the contents (30 entries) of List of Israeli civilian casualties in the Second Intifada, the 38 articles in Category:Israeli casualties during the Al-Aqsa Intifada, the four entries in Category:Palestinian casualties during the Second Intifada and the contents of List of Palestinian civilian casualties in the Second Intifada also be added. MSJapan (talk) 04:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

This is an article about Rachel Corrie, not a body count for the whole conflict, and it is entirely relevant to mention similar cases in "see also". I am reverting in accordance with the long-standing consensus. --NSH001 (talk) 05:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
They are not only killed by IDF, the incidents happened in same period during 2002-2003 mostly ISM members, there is an apparent link. It is not only about IDF whether killed them or not, it is also about why IDF didn't protect or care better. It may also be (partly) ISM's fault, but there is a major relevance between cases. Kasaalan (talk) 08:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
How is a reader supposed to know this without following all of the links? Maybe a Category:ISM members killed in action or something similar (which would include Corrie, of course), maybe converting this See Also to narrative, but I agree with MSJapan that it looks somewhat POVish as it was before his removal. Jclemens (talk) 16:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
I'd also point out that I think Tristan Anderson in 2009 is a bit of a stretch for "the same timeframe" when the rest were killed in 2002-3. MSJapan (talk) 19:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
You point out things you don't read fully, Tristan Anderson is another ISM member killed by IDF. 1 entry is not in same same period, but that does not mean you can remove all other entries. A new category related page might be a solution, but until someone creates such a page, I will object removal of the section.
Also wiki editors do not create any POV stance by adding relevant entries together, IDF created that suspicion itself by the killings of civilians, the relevancy is apparent. Within 2 months of 2003, IDF killed 3 ISM members, it is not editors' fault that IDF has a bad record on civillian harm. But you may request other user opinions about this, since I do not consider listing other kills of IDF as POV. Kasaalan (talk) 21:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
re-removed the section after careful review. The assertion that a list of only people killed by the IDF is NPOV is completely not credible. Jclemens (talk)
Re-added links to commons and wikiquote. Surely that was an error. Nothing questionable in either. BusterD (talk) 01:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Whoops. My bad, thanks for fixing that. Jclemens (talk) 01:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Had me worried for second, too. ;-) BusterD (talk) 01:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Try to get a 3rd party review, or any other discussion before removing see also. Removing see also is POV in the first place. Kasaalan (talk) 06:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) Kasaalan, two editors have disagreed with you and none have taken your side on the "See also" topic. You say it is POV to remove it, two other editors say it is POV to include it. How many more editors must agree that it is POV before you will concede the point and stop readding the material? Jclemens (talk) 07:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec):That is false, Jclemens, and you know it is false, since mine was the first response to MSJapan above. --NSH001 (talk) 08:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Actually, no, I just missed you. While I probably should have known better, I did not, in fact, see your sig before. Jclemens (talk) 16:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
If you count raw, 3 editors - 1 inactive editor (for this article) argues see also is POV and completely removes it without discussion or referring any guideline, 1 came out of nowhere (I doubt he has any actual edits before in the article) and approves him along with you, while 2 other page editors votes to keep it in addition to many other previous editors who did not find any POV issue in see also, therefore kept it over the years by consensus. So for removing such info, you need some real consensus. Try to get one per any kind of actual discussion before we can step further. Kasaalan (talk) 07:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Please describe how WP:CCC plays into your reasoning. Jclemens (talk) 08:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
You suggest a complete removal of see also section, that has been approved over the years by many editor's consent, with 2 other editors (not actually contributed to this article) approval but without referring any guideline, or discussion that supports your action.
"Consensus decisions in specific cases do not automatically override consensus on a wider scale – for instance, a local debate on a WikiProject does not override the larger consensus behind a policy or guideline. The WikiProject cannot decide that for the articles within its scope, some policy does not apply, unless they can convince the broader community that doing so is right."
You got consensus of 3(including you), against 2 in addition to many other past editors' consent. Raw number doesn't matter, you need a real consensus of RFC or any other debating process for a complete removal.
Your suggestion is complete removal of apparently relevant info with POV claim, but you didn't prove any POV issue exists in place.
Where on guidelines it refer, you can completely remove any see also section you like, when you got approval of 2 other editors, against 2 other editors objecting (due to years of inclusion before many other past editors), because you claim it is POV (which you didn't prove). Kasaalan (talk) 08:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Consensus may change, but it doesn't change just because 3 editors say so, for extreme changes like complete removal of all see also entries, you need a consensus by debate. Kasaalan (talk) 08:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
The apparent relation between cases may also indicate some issues with ISM or ISM members, just like IDF, or it may indicate issues with both parties. However there is an undeniable connection between the cases, that is the main rationale of keeping see also. Kasaalan (talk) 09:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
That is the very definition of a POV, and a WP:COATRACK to boot. At this point, there simply isn't anything to discuss: you've admitted your motivations for inclusion violates a core Wikipedia policy. Furthermore, asserting that editors who haven't added gobs of text to an article haven't contributed any thing is irrelevant: Wikipedia is improved by removing POV as much as it is by including new material. Jclemens (talk) 16:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I'd also add that Kasaalan "indicates" a lot of things that are in fact his own opinion and are not supported by sources as a rationale of "related" or "connected" IDF or ISM behaviors for the "see also". Therefore, his statements are OR or SYN in addition to the other items pointed out, and veering towards POINT at this juncture. MSJapan (talk) 16:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

i agree that the see also section is the product of long-standing consensus and is relevant here. The proper procedure for this would be WP:BRD in which case the deleted material should now be returned and the a discussion should take place to change the consensus. create an rfc if you wish, but the consensus version stays until a new consensus is reached. untwirl(talk) 17:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't know if it's still a live issue, but I agree, the see also is pretty POV, even more than it used to be. There's gotta be a better way. IronDuke 23:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's what the RfC immediately below this is about. Jclemens (talk)
D'oh!. IronDuke 23:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, we all have days like that sometimes. :-) Jclemens (talk) 00:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
During 2002-2003 within 6 month, 5 western civilians (may be even more, we only count wiki articles) killed by IDF in Jenin and Gaza (3 were ISM members), may be pretty much POV, but trying to remove it sounds more POV to me. Kasaalan (talk) 13:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Request for Comments on the inclusion of Saint Pancake

A request for comment on the Rachel Corrie article. —harej 03:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Issue to be resolved

"Is it appropriate to include a brief reference within the Rachel Corrie article that she has been posthumously referred to as Saint Pancake by some of her detractors?"

Participants presenting viewpoints

Opposed

Supporting

Other interested parties

Statements by User:Jclemens

For reference this is the edit that prompted this discussion.
The polticization of Rachel Corrie's death was inevitable. Some praised her for her actions, and others responded by mocking the first group's affections for Corrie, who they posthumously termed "Saint Pancake". In order for Wikipedia to report on the aftermath of Corrie's death in an encyclopedic manner, that fact should be reported in a neutral manner. However, a number of editors have branded the epithet too insensitive, merely an insult, and repeatedly questioned my motivations for trying to provide balance to the article. As far as pillars and policies go...

Response to Others

  • Saint Pancake is political discourse, admittedly unpleasant, in that it conflates a rather gruesome image of Corrie's death ("pancake") with a critique of the media reaction to her demise ("saint" hood). Offensive though it may be, it's more akin to Feminazi or RINO than other epithets directly attacking Corrie like "terrorist-loving swine" (Which appeared in the same Salon article).
    • Per WP:NOTCENSORED there is no justification for treating offensive political speech specially on Wikipedia. Various editors have expressed concerns that the epithet is in poor taste, or it might cause emotional distress to Corrie's family and friends. Be that as it may, it is our job to report on these controversies, not suppress them or bow to those who would encourage us to do so, a la Virgin Killer.
  • WP:GHITS arguments miss the point: It's clearly a minority viewpoint which can be attributed to a specific group of proponents. Calling it a "tiny fringe" ignores the standard for inclusion: multiple reliable sources, and is itself WP:OR: no RS discussing "Saint Pancake" calls it minority or fringe. WP:UNDUE doesn't envision a reliably sourced viewpoint that's too small to mention.
  • The DRV on the deletion of the Saint Pancake redirect is not relevant, because:
    • The term has received additional reliable sourcing since then.
    • Article content is different than a redirect. In this case, the term can be placed in context and attributed to reliable sources through inline citations.
  • While the scope of this RfC has been narrowed considerably from the discourse above on this page, a perusal of past discussions, DRVs, and the like will show the major (yet mostly unstated) reason this inclusion is opposed: WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I absolutely respect that this content is offensive to many editors, yet I oppose efforts to use such motivations to wikilawyer the exclusion of encyclopedic content.

Statement by User:IronDuke

I've given it a lot of thought and, right now, I don't see a particular need to include this phrase. Or, to put it another way, if it was added, I would not remove it, if it was removed, I would not add it back in. If there were more notable sources that used the term, I might be persuaded to change my mind. But as it stands, not quite there. IronDuke 04:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Statements by BlackKite

I was going to post some Google stats, but I see AniMate has done so below. Even so, they actually overestimate the prevalence of the meme. To give an example, on a Google search for "Saint Pancake" only 15 of the first 20 results are about Corrie, and by the time we've filtered out multiple hits from identical sources and irrelevant hits such as posts on forums from people with that username, few hits are left, and the vast majority of those are passing mentions in blogs (usually either people using the meme to laugh at Corrie's death, or people being equally outraged that someone would do that). The search for "St.Pancake" is even more flawed, given that the phrase is a nickname for St Pancras railway station in London, and the "St." gets a lot of irrelevant hits for "Street".

The Google News stats are even more damning. Over 4,000 for "Rachel Corrie" in the archives, with practically nothing relevant for either of the epithets. We have two or three reliable sources and even those only mention the nickname in passing. This is the very definition of WP:UNDUE - "In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all." Something that has a few GNews hits as opposed to over 4,000 (or a few thousand Google hits, most of which aren't actually about Corrie, as opposed to over 500,000 for Corrie herself) fits perfectly the definition of "tiny minority", and thus shouldn't be included.

But even that's not the issue. Why would we want to include this epithet? It's not notable (we've proved that), and the original redirect Saint Pancake was deleted as a G10 attack page, and that decision was endorsed by the community at DRV. Therefore, to even include in the article looks to me like an attempt to end-run round that consensus. Wikipedia isn't a tabloid or a political blog, and such an epithet would have to be very notable - discussed in multiple very reliable sources as opposed to mentioned in passing - for us even to consider it. That hasn't happened. It isn't even close.

Responses to Jclemens

  • WP:BURDEN is part of WP:V, which also states "Tiny-minority views and fringe theories need not be included, except in articles devoted to them.". This is clearly a tiny minority view.
  • WP:UNDUE does not demand the inclusion of tiny-minority views - "In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all."
  • "Saint Pancake" is not political discourse, but an attack, as agreed by the community at the DRV mentioned above. If it was political discourse, it would be easy to find discussions of it in reliable political sources. There are none.
  • Much of the claims for inclusion above hinge on the issue that the epithet is referenced in "multiple reliable sources". Leaving aside whether a student newspaper is a reliable source, the problem is the level of the coverage. Corrie is discussed in thousands of news stories - this epithet is given a passing mention in a maximum of three sources - one of which is a student newspaper and another a movie review.
  • There's nothing - absolutely nothing - here that would justify a mention of the epithet here. Doing so would be on par with including absolutely every pejorative nickname for every notable person that have ever been given a passing mention in any newspaper, even once. As I said above, we don't do that - this is an encyclopedia, not a political soapbox.

Statement by Steve Dufour

Statements by Bali ultimate

  • I see no evidence that this disparaging meme from the blogosphere should be mentioned in any fashion here. To do so would be to give a fringe coinage undue weight since the only time it has appeared in a reliable source (and the only so-called reliable source we have at the moment is a film review in salon) was to use it to attack those who coined it as highly-motivated partisans without any respect or decency. Our basic standards for sourcing and weight should apply in all cases -- but special care should be taken with disparaging nicknames, whether for the living or the dead, that they are rock-solid notable and widely known so that wikipedia is not turned into a publicity-machine for such disparaging memes, rather than what it should be: A reflector of the most notable, neutral and reliable facts about people and things.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:33, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Animate

Analysis of Google hits

St. Pancake

Saint Pancake

  • Searching for "Saint Pancake" in google = 751 hits Most of these are discussing Corrie
  • Searching for "Saint Pancake" in google news = 1 hit. This is a piece from Salon.com and it is in reference to Corrie
  • Searching for "Saint Pancake" in google news archives = 1 hit 1 result discussing Corrie from Moldova.org

Rachel Corrie

  • Searching for "Rachel Corrie" in google = 524,000 hits
  • Searching for "Rachel Corrie" in google news = 52 hits
  • Searching for "Rachel Corrie in google news archives = 4100 hits

Looking at the raw numbers, this isn't a commonly used epithet. There are roughly 530,000 results for Rachel Corrie, and about 3,100 results for variations on Saint Pancake. Using my math, which is likely wrong, it looks like of all the pages discussing Corrie only .6% use this term. It is a disparaging, uncommon internet meme and has no place in this article. AniMatetalk 16:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

  • I'd also like to state that a consensus seems to have been reached amongst the editors on this page. One user disagrees. Is an RfC really necessary to tell one editor that a fringe epithet isn't appropriate? AniMatedraw 12:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Protonk (talk)

I have no involvement with this dispute (I may have voted at the DRV or commented at the AN/I post), very little IPA editing, very little editing on articles relating to US or Israeli politics. I found this RFC because I have Black Kite's talk page watchlisted. I think that we should distance this debate from the debate over the redirect. I hope that we can all understand the difference between deleting a redirect as a blatant slur against a person and removing a mention of the slur from an article. A redirect is binary, in a sense. There is no way for us to have a redirect to this subject and comment that the redirect itself represents the view of a small fraction of commentary. A redirect is also free from context--this is why we delete unpleasant or defamatory redirects to people regularly. I haven't yet decided whether or not the "nickname" (I am struggling to fit it into the loosest definition of the word) should play a small part in the article, but the decision should involve more than extending the rationale from the DRV unmodified. Protonk (talk) 22:37, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by User:untwirl

contrary to the tireless attempts by one highly motivated editor, we are not required to include an insult just because it appeared in a movie review. i think what jclemens doesn't understand about WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV is that there must be a significant minority to justify its inclusion. the people using that name are fringe, according to their proportion in reliable sources. once again, jclemens thinks it is deserving of special attention, but that is OR, not something stated or implied by the sources.

jclemens comparison to the virgin killer cover is disingenuous. we show the cover because that album is what the article is about. cover art is intrinsically a part of an album. it would be less informative to leave it out, and the controversy was covered by multiple reliable sources. grotesque blog smack-talk is not intrinsic to the story of rachel corrie. more importantly, the source he has brought gives this epithet no special status but mentions it only briefly along with other examples of "shocking verbal abuse." the fact that this tiny, vile minority exists is already in the article, WP:UNDUE explicitly prohibits listing specific examples of profane fringe ramblings. untwirl(talk) 22:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved User:Ngchen

Support. Pejorative terms of people are typically not placed in the lead. Otherwise we would have terms like "Billo the Clown," "Dumbya," "Fox Noise," "Robert (sheets) Byrd," etc. as parts of the leads of their articles. I don't see why this case would be any different. If reliable sources point to her being referred to in such a pejorative manner, a one to two sentence mention in the body of the article would suffice. Ngchen (talk) 18:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I now support including this fact as a short blurb in the body of the text, based on the fact that Wikipedia is not censored. For good or ill, the fact that she is referred to in such terms might actually have the effect of making her detractors look bad. Anyway, it's not for us to decide what to include or exclude. Ngchen (talk) 22:40, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Statements by User:Kasaalan

We may include the naming, or we may not, cannot really decide which is better right now, but discussing this is surely helpful in terms of wiki policies and journalism.

First of all wiki policies on this matter is not very clear, wiki lacks some clear guidelines but has so many general ones, which is why people get some many conflicts.

The naming mentioned by a couple of reliable sources, which is originated by a hundred - a couple of hundred blogs and forums. The reliable source coverage, neither none nor extensive. Same applies for originating sources, mainly personal blogs and forums of politically POV people.

It might be good mentioning the nick in freedom of information for people's right to know, and if we do we can place it under fugue part where it is relevant somehow. So if policies allows or advise, we should all consider including it seriously, whatever the outcome is.

On the other hand try not to forget, the name is a kind of hateful speech expressed by racists, also cannot be considered as a point of view or criticism. Also since this is no criticism or any point of view, including it or not including it not changes the balance of the article or neutrality. It is a technical matter and even if it is not included this time, it may be included later.

By the way, Rachel supporters sell pancakes for fund raising purposes for Palestine, while the other POV parties call her defamatory because how she died even though she stand up for how she thinks, which shows the clears difference between some racists groups and democratic ones. Kasaalan (talk) 19:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Animate your google search is based on somehow wrong approach

  • Searching for "St. Pancake" Rachel in google = 975 and when you leave omitted results 183
  • Searching for "Saint Pancake" Rachel in google Most of these are discussing Corrie no only 320 page discusses it and when you leave omitted results it is 108

Somehow your searching approach is wrong, you should not include all search, but narrow your research by Rachel's name. There may be a couple more, yet not as much as your search results. Kasaalan (talk) 19:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by User:Exxolon

I'm opposing. If you look at the two reliable sources there are two main problems. One, they are really trivial mentions in passing. Two - one of the sources is only talking about blog commentators, not even the blog itself and the other doesn't identify the blog in question where the epithet was used. Is it possible to argue this fact should be included based on those sources? Sure, but then we come up against the "do no harm" aspects of our policies. Multiply the triviality of the mentions times the offensiveness of the epithet the result is clearly not to include in my view. Unless/until multiple reliable sources document this in a major way I don't see how we can justify it's inclusion. Exxolon (talk) 12:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Coordination discussion collapsed within

If you'd like to add content to the RfC as an interested party, please do not add it here: create a section for yourself above this section. This section will be emptied when the RfC is opened for community (vs. page contributor) inputs. Jclemens (talk) 03:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Cannot understand clearly what you meant by that. Kasaalan (talk) 17:00, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
We're constructing the RfC here, among editors who have been involved in the recent discussion. Once we're all agreed that the points have been finalized to everyone's satisfaction, then it's time to ask for broader community involvement. This is a place for others to discuss our viewpoints, so there's no need to use it yet. If you want to respond to someone else, start a section of your own, above, and place your comments there, not here. Jclemens (talk) 20:21, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and collapsed my analysis of google hits for the sake of readability. Mostly out of concern that users may shy away from this as "tl;dr". We want participation, and we don't want to overwhelm anybody. Anyone who disagrees has my express permission to take away the box. AniMatedraw 21:23, 10 May 2009 (UTC) Ready?

I propose that I post this in 24 hours. If anyone objects between now and then, I won't. This gives everyone besides the two principal disputors a chance to hone and finalize their arguments, without unduly delaying process. If no objections are posted between now and tomorrow, I'll proceed with this. Jclemens (talk) 18:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Obsrevation by Short Brigade Harvester Boris

The best candidate so far this year for WP:LAME. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Heh. The problem with this discussion being included in WP:LAME is that's an edit-war centric page, and none of us have been edit warring over it. :-) Jclemens (talk) 02:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
No edit war? Really? C'mon, get it together folks. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment from Goodmorningworld

Jclemens asked me to comment here. In a recent AN/I discussion I opposed the inclusion of the St. Pancake appellation; then the discussion turned on a redirect. The present discussion, however, is different; it is about inclusion in the article. In my opinion, BLP articles on Wikipedia are generally too long on the wrong kind of information, namely fourth-grade information that the reader does not want to know about. This being a prime example, I would oppose inclusion. However, I am not sufficiently interested to stay around for discussion, during which I might change my mind, and so I am not putting my name down in the Oppose column.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 16:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by BusterD

Why are we here? For the record my usual beat is 19th century US biography; I have few (if any) edits in the IPA set of subjects. I came to this discussion by accident. I was looking at User talk:Will Beback for possible comments on a suspected spammer this morning when I saw a notice on his talk referring to the term under discussion, reading more this afternoon. Much like User:DGG below, I went through some phases of thought before I chose to post. The diff User:Jclemens puts forth doesn't look that bad at first. While I am impressed with the effort User:Jclemens has made to make a case, I am less impressed with the quality of the arguments presented to make the case.

I fail to appreciate the benefit to this discussion of initially tarring many inclusion opponents as motivated by Wikipedia:IDONTLIKEIT. Given the enormous amount of thought clearly given this subject by User:Jclemens, such sand tossing might tend to have the effect of inhibiting the very free discussion the user requested. User:Jclemens puts forth a case that three separate independent mentions of the abuse culture-based slang contained inside comments from a partisan online organ somehow bestows notability on the slang. I disagree with this; the comments on a political website are not themselves notable; User:AniMate has made a fair statistical argument this is fringe slang, and three mentions doesn't pass my personal bar. User:Jclemens further asserts: "Proportionate representation cannot be met by zero representation." Like User:DGG says below, "...people will reasonably encounter the phrase and look here for information about how it came to be used, and we can supply it." I couldn't agree with both statements more.

I ask again: Why are we here? I assert: to create a first-rate encyclopedia. As an experienced Wikipedia reader, I would expect to find such trivial mentions, but on the talk pages (and archives) of such pagespaces, the editors rejecting the epithets as unencyclopedic. If like most pages I work with daily, the subject died a hundred years ago, I suspect the derogatory "Saint Pancake" might get a redirect, but such fringe and poorly sourced epithets would linger only in talk page archives and RfCs like this one. Not zero representation, but zero in pagespace. Discussions like DRV and this RfC suffice, IMHO. BusterD (talk) 04:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by BlueSquadronRaven

Although the term is quite obviously (and nastily) derogatory, the fact remains that much of the notability ascribed to Corrie actually stems from the political uproar that followed her death. As such, in the interests of neutrality, all points of view concerning her actions leading up to her death should be considered and included, even including the term that to some of one view has come very much to describe their feelings of Corrie. --BlueSquadronRaven 15:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


Statement by Paranormal Skeptic

This is obviously a derogatory term, and lends nothing the the encyclopedic content of the article. The reference is WP:UNDUE, and violates WP:NPOV. If at such a time it becomes a popular term that has inherent notability, it would then lend itself well in the article. However, at this time, WP:FRINGE would apply. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 17:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Please add discussion under this heading, rather than replying to any of the participants' statements in their own areas

  • Presumably this question is resolved? If not, I'm happy to add my name to "Opposing" and describe my rationale. Nathan T (formerly Avruch) 13:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
    • It's not. Only two people have commented post-RfC posting, with neither taking an exceptionally strong side in the discussion. The RfC was opened with a preponderance of opposing input. Jclemens (talk) 14:21, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, I've added myself as opposing. Given the structure of this RfC, I'm not sure if I'm expected to make a full statement? My reasoning is pretty similar to BlackKite's, although I'm not sure the DRV applies ('tho it is instructive that it was deleted as an attack page...). It's a crass nickname with a tiny constituency, not sufficient in my mind that it needs to be included in a biography. I followed this issue here from BLP/N, where a number of similar opinions were expressed. I've had a similar discussion in the past with Jclemens, I think; my view is that not all available details that can be found about a person belong in his or her biography, we are expected to use our editorial judgment to determine what is and what is not appropriate for inclusion. This isn't censorship, necessarily. It's simply being responsible about how all of our articles are written - we shouldn't give undue prominence to extremely minor (and in some respects objectionable) content. Nathan T 14:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
As a sidenote, the lopsided nature of the RfC so far will probably limit the number of editors willing to get involved. Nathan T 14:51, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
The consensus here is fairly strongly against. Not sure what the point of this RFC was -- you have 5 or so editors opposed, one editor vociferously pushing in favor, and that's about it. I actually ended up "involved" because the pushing on the disgusting pancake non-meme made it to some noticeboard or other.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Please read WP:CONSENSUS; consensus is not about counting noses. If we were going to try and count noses, the actual policy-based consensus is 1 to 0: no opposed editor has yet cited a reason why a reliably-sourced critique should be excluded aside from WP:IDONTLIKEIT, unless you count the WP:OR done by a number of editors which suggests it's not notable enough despite RS'ing. I'm still waiting for anyone to present evidence of similar past outcomes, ArbCom findings, or the like that support the idea that a reliably sourced viewpoint can be entirely excluded by WP:UNDUE. The RfC is me demonstrating my willingness to improve the encyclopedia in the long term, and neither to edit war nor be shouted down by editors who do not value WP:NOTCENSORED sufficiently. If you'll look at what Ngchen actually said, he in fact supported the edit as I made it, since I have never tried to put unsourced information into the article at all, nor have I tried to put the epithet anywhere other than in the reactions section. The editors who've joined this RfC after posting are split 50/50 between the viewpoints, but the one supporting the exclusion of content has made no new arguments. Jclemens (talk) 17:35, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
well, there are several problems with your argument. first, the sources that mention vile things that have been said about her make no special distinction of this one than any of the others. second, st. pancake is not a viewpoint. it is a slur. The viewpoint of right-wing bloggers is already mentioned in the article. and finally, many policy based arguments have been cited. your mission to insert this particular epithet could rightly be seen as WP:ILIKEIT. yes, she has been called many names by them; we say that in the article. you liking this particlar one does not justify its inclusion. untwirl(talk) 18:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, counting BLP/N there have been so far ten editors opposing including "Saint Pancake" and only one (Jclemens) arguing that it should be included. Are you suggesting that these other opinions are irrelevant because they conflict with your reading of policy? Nathan T 18:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
If you look at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive535#Rachel_Corrie, there are two more who've explicitly supported an inclusion or redirect; In BLP/N, the question of inclusion wasn't raise--just whether BLP supported the exclusion which was roundly rejected: All the "Keep it out!" comments in that thread were off-topic, as can be seen by the comments of IronDuke, Will Beback, and others. Would anyone object if every editor, regardless of their position on the topic, who's commented on a recent (last 30 days) Rachel Corrie thread on AN/I, BLP/N, or RS/N be invited to participate in this RfC? I read WP:CANVASS as specifically allowing this sort of invitation, but won't do it if anyone objects. Jclemens (talk) 20:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Since no one has objected over the last several days, I will be doing this over the weekend. Jclemens (talk) 16:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I object. We have an RFC, we have input from a number of editors. Anyone whose page watching will have seen this. Anyone interested in RFcs will have seen this, and we've had pretty wide participation with over 10 editors opining in one way or another. There seems a fairly clear consnesus to reject your proposal at the moment.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Do you have an alternate proposal to move discussion forward? RfCs are open for 30 days, how do you propose to include other interested editors during that time period? Jclemens (talk) 16:53, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
i object to your attempt to canvass for this rfc and refusal to accept the consensus of editors who comment here. and as i said below (coming...) black kite has made his position and arguments clear. untwirl(talk) 18:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
WP:CANVASS supports transparently notifying interested editors in a neutral manner; thanks for pointing that out. Jclemens (talk) 19:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Jclemens has violated neither the letter nor the spirit of WP:CANVASS, unless he has done something I am not aware of. IronDuke 20:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
to jclemens -- I have made a number of what i feel are policy-based arguments on this page, both in the "rfc" section and one at greater length up above a bit. I understand that you feel such arguments are about ignoring policy and "censorship." However, the vast majority of other editors here all seem to believe that there are strong policy-based reasons not to do this (again, i understand you reject the opinion of the overwhelming majority). But at a certain point, when most good-faithed editors say policy argues against it, that looks like an emerging consensus to me. (And the opinions of those who posted after the rfc request was made don't intrinsically have greater weight than those whose opinions were expressed before however we count them up. I applaud you for not edit warring, seeking outside views, etc... But behaving appropriately and generally collegially, as you are now, does not mean you therefore should carry the day in a content disagreement.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
To Bali ultimate -- I agree that you and others have expressed opinions that cite policy, although many of those arguing against inclusion fail to address the key points, like whether WP:UNDUE can exclude minority viewpoints. I don't place special emphasis on numbers, because I hold out hope (perhaps irrationally) that there will be sufficient support for a single mention in the criticism section. The RfC is a great place to get all the opinions and interpretations on the table in a good form that doesn't cluttler the arguments with back-and-forth. Since I see it as a censorship issue, I'm not inclined to drop it--ever--no matter how many people oppose. Much like the DRV, a setback provides a roadmap for what is required for inclusion, should this come to that. Jclemens (talk) 20:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
How is undue being used to "exclude minority viewpoints?" What's being excluded is a disparaging, non-notable nickname that is as immature as it is vile and has no currency outside the rather discursive world of right wing blogs. The viewpoint that lies beneath the childish and vile nickname -- that some see her as a "misguided, ill-informed naïf" that some criticized a "cultural establishment that lionizes 'martyrs' for illiberal causes while ignoring the victims those causes create" and that others defined "stupidity... as sitting in front of a bulldozer to protect a gang of terrorists" -- is well represented in the article (those are all quotes from the "criticism" section.)Bali ultimate (talk) 17:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
You've defined "viewpoint" such that it excludes "Saint Pancake", and I disagree. Reganomics is a great example of an insult that became a cultural phenomenon and has its own Wikipedia article. Arguing that "Saint Pancake" can't ever achieve the relative cultural status of Reganomics is one thing; arguing that an insulting epithet can't be or express a viewpoint is something entirely different. The former is an interesting argument worth discussing, while the second is mere definitional artistry that I find uncompelling. Jclemens (talk) 20:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
"I'm not inclined to drop it--ever--no matter how many people oppose." wow. that sounds like you intend to disrupt against consensus. please tell me i've interpreted this incorrectly. untwirl(talk) 20:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Way to assume bad faith. I intend to disrupt precisely as much as I did between when the DRV was closed and I came across the Salon reference. That is, not at all. If "consensus" goes against inclusion, it can change in the future, and no topic is ever forbidden to those of us who engage politely and present policy-based arguments cogently through the proper channels. Jclemens (talk) 20:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I've never been involved in this page before, and came here because I noticed the RfC. I've looked through the edit history, and seen an earlier version of the page, in which the epithet was included in the criticisms of actions section. Comparing that version with the present version of that section, I do not think that the epithet added anything of value to understanding the subject. The present wording conveys very clearly the nature and tone of such criticisms. Some of the talk above seems to mention putting the epithet in the lead. I think that would be very WP:UNDUE and very inappropriate. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:49, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
You may be the only one who is right or you may be the only one who is wrong. It is not matter if you are the only person claiming something, numbers doesn't change the case. Also I already stated we may include it under some conditions, just like we may not include it, so not only 1 person claims this may be included in the article. We may include the nick in fugue that is composed of "ugly excerpts" of right wing blogs, where it is most related. Yet mentioning in the lead is out of question. Because a mocking nick, which is a kind of hatespeech in this case, cannot be considered as a viewpoint, or criticism even it is a pun. Kasaalan (talk) 21:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) For clarity's sake neither I nor anyone else I've seen comment in this discussion has proposed including "Saint Pancake" in the lead of the article. All I have proposed, all I have edited, is a single reference into the criticism section. I have never tried to put it in the lead. I have never advocated that it be put in the lead. I would not support putting it in the lead. The entire issue of "Saint Pancakce" going into the lead of the article is a red herring as far as this discussion and this Rfc is concerned. Sorry if that is too forceful or redundant, but the issue keeps being mentioned and is entirely without merit. Jclemens (talk) 21:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

If noone argues it should be mentioned in the lead, then no discussion necessary for the lead. I don't support much, it should be under criticism section because the nick is not a criticism itself, in the first place. Also it is a derogatory pun over her death, which is highly disrespectful. Still we may include it, under the fugue part where it is most related, might be better if it will be included. Kasaalan (talk) 21:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

It appears that User:Black Kite has declared that he has left the project. As all of you aware, such departures may be temporary or permanent. Until such time as he sees fit to return, it might help if other opponents of including "Saint Pancake" were more vocal/active in this RfC. Jclemens (talk) 16:55, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't see the relevance here. He made his views known, as have a bunch of others. In my case, i've made my case, and see nothing more to be added from my side. Black Kite made his -- and is de facto not making additions at the moment. Other editors who have made their views known, may also feel that they've sufficiently said their bit. It's not clear to me how black kite's departure, for however long or short, is relevant at the moment.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
If one were counting noses, his would be absent. More relevant, if everyone else opposed is expecting him to take the lead (since his is the first and longest of the opposed positions), it would be unfair for me to notice and not bring that to your attention--consensus is not to be arrived at by apathy, but by good faith engagement. Jclemens (talk) 18:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
his "nose" isnt absent. he humored you for far too long imo. he was actively engaged in discussion prior to this rfc and made a statement in it. no one needs to take the lead in a circular discussion with you for this rfc to proceed properly. a "request for comment" does not require the editor to check back here and argue with you during an active rfc. really, just accept the consensus that is here now, or the when the rfc closes if you prefer, but don't try to discount black kite's arguments retroactively because he isn't here to argue with you ad infinitum. i also feel i have stated my case succintly and dont see the point of continuing to engage with one user on a mission. untwirl(talk) 18:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

(out) I have strong opinions about biographies of people (one of them is that "living" should not be the line that is drawn), and tend to dislike placing information in which is specifically defamtory. That said, if her supporters use pancakes for fundraising, it would appear that this particular reference is less defamatory than I originally thought. I suggest that any reference to "Saint Pancake" also include a contiguous reference that the term is accepted by supporters, and is not considered specifically defamatory. This is, indeed, a change from my original position. Collect (talk) 23:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Not sure I agree with the argument that if supporters use it, it must not be defamatory - but can you point me to where her supporters use the nickname for fundraising? Nathan T 23:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
If anyone referring Rachel Corrie pancake fundraising, they do not use "Saint Rachel" name in any way, they just sell pancakes and collect money that way. Kasaalan (talk) 20:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Nathan--I'm not sure that anyone really used it in that manner. I think you may be referring to Onion-esque satire that someone took too seriously, but I'm willing to be convinced I'm wrong. Jclemens (talk) 23:54, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I was referring to an earlier comment which appreared to make such a claim. Hence my "if." My tendency overall is not to include defamatory material without cause in any biography. WP has a substantial and real problem with articles which include such stuff because an editor insists that if a "source" can be found, that it is "censorship" not to include it. I record one such historical example at User:Collect/BLP where I continue my statement about where I feel the lines ought to be drawn. Collect (talk) 02:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Just tasteless. Adds nothing of value to an encyclopedia article. A basically unused phrase. Hipocrite (talk) 23:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Three different reliable sources currently document its use. What threshold of reliable sourcing would you propose as sufficient grounds for inclusion? Jclemens (talk) 00:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Jclemens asked me to comment, but he cannot have been sure what I would say. I was not sure myself until I read through all the discussion above: I've gone through 4 phases on this. The first, naturally, was utter and total disgust. Jclemens argues above that this is less abusive than the direct attacks, but I disagree--nastiness of this sort can be much more damaging. The prominence of using the epithet as a redirect was wrong, but I said at the Deletion Review that it should nonetheless have been discussed at Rfd, not done via speedy. In essence, though, it was discussed enough at the Del Rev to show clear consensus for rejecting it. The second was support of the general argument of noncensored--I have sometimes advised discretion in how something is used, but otherwise upheld the principle that anything legal can be used if necessary except for true privacy violations of private indfividuals. And I've certainly said that BLP is irrelevant to the dead, in conformity with US though possibly not UK law. But then I looked at the stats above for the web search, and I agreed with them, that the use was so scarce that the main use might be in fact Wikipedia & derivatives. But finally, I looked at the Salon article--it should not have been written as " Salon noted..."; Salon does not itself say anything. it should have been worded as "O'Hehir said in Salon ...". (O'Hehir, a notable film critic, was discussing the film made about her and used it incidentally to set the background.). Similarly, the use in the Independent is as background for a profile by a good correspondent of a notable conservative blogger--who he characterizes by saying, among other things, that he did not use that phrase; the Independent is a reasonably responsible publication. I consider both uses by good writers as indicating that the phrase will be widely recognizable. This leads me the the conclusion that we must include it: people will reasonably encounter the phrase and look here for information about how it came to be used, and we can supply it. And I can even justify this to my own ethical views outside of WP by saying that to any reasonable person the use of this term will say a great deal about the person who uses it. I therefore support inclusion, though not in the lede. DGG (talk) 02:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Strongly support inclusion For reasons outlined earlier. People interested can take a look at Talk:Rachel Corrie/Archive 11. RayTalk 20:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
and the rebuttal to your argument was policy: WP:NOTCENSORED: Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available. the "equally suitable alternative" is the description of the criticism that is already in the article. untwirl(talk) 02:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
So... Wikipedia should cover racism by talking about "the N word"? Blood libel by talking about "certain anti-semitic allegations"? Fact is, naming an offensive word or phrase once in the most pertinent place is an encyclopedic function that cannot be substituted by euphemisms designed to protect the sensibilities. Using either of the examples I've just given or "Saint Pancake" indiscriminately would be as wrong as not using them at all. Jclemens (talk) 05:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
you are inflating that "nickname" to the same level of coverage as nigger or blood libel? huh? not even comparable. maybe where you're from it is a popular meme, but most of the rest of the world has never heard "st pancake". if we wanted to dig up every foul name that public figures were called on right-wing blogs and try to include them in their article, well, that wouldn't be very encyclopedic or appropriate. WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE still stands. untwirl(talk) 14:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
WP:UNDUE demands representation in proportion to presence in reliable sources. Three are currently known and generally accepted for the use of Saint Pancake. Things originating in inherently non-notable areas (YouTube, etc.) become inclusion-worthy when they are mentioned in reliable sources, and their origin is only relevant if that is the only place where they appear.
Personally, I'm not too offended that you used "the N word" when we already knew what we were talking about, but if the expectations applied to me by opponents of the inclusion of describing Corrie's being called "Saint Pancake" were applied to you, you would be accused of being a racist. Jclemens (talk) 00:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Jclemens, since you want to discuss this in terms of "the N word", (but act shocked when Untwirl uses the word) lets stick with your reasoning and consider a real analogy. There were many, MANY racists who referred to Martin Luther King by "the N word". And this wasn't in publications like student publications of the School of the Art Institute of Chicago. Here's a Time magazine article quoting his killer as using it in 1976: Time Magazine. And yet strangely enough we don't seem to see him named this way in the WP Martin Luther King article, do we? Even though it was a VERY COMMON epithet used for him and was used in RS publications such as Time. So I'll make you a deal - when you introduce "the N word" (as used by Untwirl) into the Martin Luther King article, and when you spend as much time defending its use there as you have spent here, then I will believe that you are sincere in your desire to get "balance" into this article and I will support your including "St. Pancake" here. Fair enough? But until then, Opposed. Jgui (talk) 02:34, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec - but, hear, hear to jgui) to jclemens - oh please. for someone who has delighted in "st pancake" calling it, "unique," "humorous," "interesting," "compelling," etc, and made a point to type it as often as humanly possibly, you have some cojones to take offense at that. if i were to demand that an article be edited to include the fact that some racists have called a certain black person that name, now that would be comparable to your action here; in my view, reprehensible. untwirl(talk) 05:39, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

And you've both made my point for me--it would be pointless to include that insult with respect to the Rev. Dr. King, because it was not uniquely levelled at him, much like "terrorist loving swine" is uncompelling with respect to Corrie--both insults have been levelled at broad classes of people, rendering their inclusion in any specific article pointless and redundant. Saint Pancake, however, is uniquely applied to Coarrie--does anyone assert that anyone else has been so labeled? Jclemens (talk) 18:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
"unique" does not trump WP:UNDUE WP:NOTCENSORED or WP:FRINGE. still. untwirl(talk) 18:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Which is fine with me, since all three directly support the inclusion of "Saint Pancake", since the term is covered in reliable sources. Jclemens (talk) 22:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
wrong again, and the majority of people commenting seem to disagree with you.. untwirl(talk) 03:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Jclemens, if I made your argument for you, it is only because you changed the argument you were trying to make. If you now want to put aside the "N-word" and argue based on epitets "uniquely levelled at him", then let me refer you to the same Time Magazine article here. Because not only does King's killer refer to him by the N-word, he also repeatedly called him Martin Luther "Coon". And this name was reported not only in Time Magazine but prominent newspapers (NY Times, etc) of the day. So I'll make you the same deal - when you introduce Martin Luther "Coon" into the Martin Luther King article, and when you spend as much time defending its use there as you have spent here, then you will win my support for including "St. Pancake" here. Okay? Jgui (talk) 20:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Be my guest, since the issue isn't relevant to this discussion. Jclemens (talk) 22:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
FYI, I found two references to the slur you desire to have inserted; one of them was A9 material, so I deleted it, but the other appears to have a reliable source. You should have no problem adding it to the article in question. Jclemens (talk) 22:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
your comments must be tongue in cheek since you know we are opposed to these undue, fringe epithets being included in the biographies of these people. you are the one with the mission to include them. that is the point. i agree with jgui to a certain extent here, however, your trying to include pejorative "nicknames" on other pages wouldn't change my mind about inclusion. it would make you appear to have a consistent standard and not just pushing this for personal reasons, though. untwirl(talk) 03:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
They are nothing of the sort; UNDUE is a double edged sword--as it kept out "Saint Pancake" in the absence of RS'ing, it now demands its inclusion, for example. Jclemens (talk) 03:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Jclemens, you do not seem to understand irony. May I suggest you read some Mark Twain. And in the meantime let me spell this out as clearly as I can. You have spent hours - no days - of your and other editors time trying to insert a gratuitous and meaningless insult into this article. It will not improve the article, and that is clear from the discussion above. You have come up with many weak arguments for its inclusion, and all of them have been strongly countered. And you are left clutching to your final argument - that this slur *MUST* be included because you have found it fleetingly referred to in sources you consider to be RS.
Jclemens, to test the accuracy of your premise I have found a similarly repellant slur against another human being killed by meaningless violence. And you know as well as I do that this slur would *NEVER* be allowed to stand in the Martin Luther King article. It doesn't matter that the "Martin Luther Coon" slur is found in WP:RS as august as Time magazine and the New York Times. It is a gratuitous and meaningless slur that adds nothing to the article. And as such it simply does not belong in the WP article on the life of Martin Luther King. And clearly that is just as true for "Saint Pancake" as it is for "Martin Luther Coon".
Jclemens, have I made myself clear this time? Thank you, Jgui (talk) 05:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
The fact that you have an opinion is clear, the opinion is equally clear, and the error of that opinion is again, equally clear. Allow me to turn some of your words around:
"You have spent hours - no days - of your and other editors time trying to censor political content from this article. You have come up with many weak arguments for its exclusion, and all of them have been strongly countered. And you are left clutching to your original (and really, sole) argument - WP:IDONTLIKEIT."
If you want to refute anything I've said from policy, go right ahead. You won't, because you cannot. No policy anywhere says "Unpopular political discourse can be dismissed as an insult". No policy anywhere says "Insults, even if RS'ed, don't belong". No policy says "WP:FRINGE allows exclusion of opinions with multiple reliable sources". Fact is, if you want to look at which side has dropped refuted arguments, start with Black Kite's ludicrous assertion that WP:BLP prevented Wikipedia from reporting Corrie was called Saint Pancake years after her death. Jclemens (talk) 22:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I stand by that. Even if Corrie herself is dead, we don't need to cause possible harm to her relatives by insisting on inserting revolting epithets from right-wing nut job blogs. Talking of which, repeating that "this has multiple reliable sources" over and over again doesn't actually make it fact, you know. Most people in this RfC disagree that this is the case, in which case WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE are perfectly good pages to use. In fact, this RfC pretty much proves that WP:UNDUE applies to this page, because it points out that tiny-minority views shouldn't be included at all, and the fact that it's taken you two months since the DRV to find a couple of sources that are only passing mentions proves exactly how tiny-minority those views are. If it wasn't, there'd be plenty of sources, wouldn't there? Now, isn't it time to close this RfC, since it's clearly stalled. I don't have any objection in it running until the 16th, but it seems a bit pointless. Black Kite 09:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Allow me to count the unfounded assertions in this one post:
1) Putting Saint Pancake in the article can cause harm to Corrie's friends or relatives.
2) Assuming 1, that it is Wikipedia's obligation to prevent such harm at the expense of accurately reporting on her critics' words and actions.
3) WP:FRINGE applies to political, not just scientific, opinions.
4) WP:UNDUE supports the suppression of reliably sourced facts and opinions.
5) The use of Saint Pancake lacks multiple reliable sources--when, in fact, no one has challenged any of the three put forth.
6) Elapsed time somehow works against inclusion--that if something didn't have adequate RSing at one point, future sourcing is somehow inadequate.
7) "Tiny minority" can be defined as including minorities thsat have reliable sourcing for their viewpoints.
Actually, this RfC has served a purpose. It has conclusively demonstrated that there has not yet been a policy-based argument for exclusion presented. To be sure, there have been a lot of assumptions that, if true, would support exclusion, as I've listed above. But absent any concrete support for at least one of the items I listed above, there's simply no argument entirely based on policy for exclusion. The RfC has further demonstrated that aside from the partisan editors who had already weighed in when the RfC started, opinion has been running much more favorable to inclusion--5 against 1 has become 10 against 4, and has mostly calmed the "one editor on a crusade" as hominem attacks against me. I have no doubt that as more editors who are less passionate about the topic and more attached to the core mission of NPOV are attracted, that ratio will continue to improve. I'm open to proceeding to MedCab next, but there's no particular reason to hurry things, when other editors still have an opportunity to weigh in. Jclemens (talk) 22:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
And I'll say it again, because it's obviously wasn't clear - no-one is saying that the sources aren't reliable, only that a couple of passing mentions doesn't clear the bar for inclusion per WP:UNDUE, as many contributors have pointed out. Repeating "it's reliably sourced" over and over again is irrelevant to this. Also, to point out the glaringly obvious, 5-1 becoming 10-4 is actually less favourable to inclusion, because it means that five more editors have weighed in against it, as opposed to three in favour. I'll just assume that was a typo. Black Kite 22:30, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
That's a little bit more on topic, but still goes back to what I listed in #4 and #7. Please demonstrate a policy that a reliably sourced view can be a "tiny minority", or that UNDUE in any way envisions excluding reliably sourced content. The fact that the mentions are in passing is irrelevent, unless we're talking about creating Saint Pancake as a standalone article where WP:N applies, which is not a proposal I have made. WP:N demands non-trivial coverage; I am not aware of any other relevant policy which does.
To your second point, consensus is not numbers. The fact that 5 more editors have expressed opinions is less important than the content of their contributions. Of those opposed, only one added something completely new to the argument: the assertion that Saint Pancake should be covered on the talk page but not in the article. Jclemens (talk) 23:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
The policy you requested, WP:NPOV:

"A common type of dispute occurs when an editor asserts that a fact is both verifiable and cited, and should therefore be included.(emphasis added)
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 used in a way that is not neutral. For example, it might be:
* 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
* subject to other factors suggestive of bias

untwirl(talk) 05:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC) also, i don't see how you can cite the number of editors weighing in as benefiting your position in one post and then say numbers don't matter in the very next response. that position doesn't seem tenable. untwirl(talk) 05:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Which of those cases do you believe would apply in the specific wording in the proposed edit which this RfC concerns? It's certainly possible to make a non-neutral Saint Pancake reference, and I'm completely open to any appropriately neutral way of phrasing the fact. Nothing in the bit of NPOV argues for exclusion, merely for balanced presentation. YESPOV, part of that same policy, clearly argues for inclusion. In terms of numbers, that's a fair question, but those are two separate points--apologies if I've conflated them or confused anyone: 1) the RfC has demonstrated that there are other editors who see things the way I do, that I'm not alone in my interpretation of policy despite the vocal local consensus, and 2) At the same time, the widening gap means little, because few to none of the opposed brought in by the RfC have contributed anything substantially new in terms of policy arguments supporting exclusion. The point of an RfC isn't to vote, but to bring in voices, ideas, and people who might propose something radical and break the logjam. Jclemens (talk) 05:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
the problem is that "st pancake" is not a viewpoint. it is simply a slur. and, in representing the viewpoint of those who deride corrie's actions, quoting that particular slur is undue. it is "cited selectively", "painted by words more favorably or negatively than is appropriate", and "made to look more important or more dubious than a neutral view would present." specifically, you should re-read the part where it says that, when an editor asserts that something should be included simply because it is verifiable, "it is important to note that verifiability lives alongside neutrality: it does not override it." that section explicitly contradicts your assertion that if its sourced it must be included. once again, the viewpoint of the tiny minority that makes disgusting remarks on blogs is already represented in the article. a "nickname" is not a viewpoint. untwirl(talk) 06:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) Jclemens, your response to me completely ignored the essential point that I was making. Instead of responding to my argument, you have instead unfairly accused me of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The policy I am citing is one of precedent - namely if a more widely used and better-RSed slur against a similarly butchered human being is not acceptable for WP, then neither is this slur you are so anxious to include from fringe actors and questionable RS. I will repeat my argument, in the hopes that you will address it this time.
Jclemens, to test the accuracy of your premise I have found a similarly repellent slur against another human being killed by meaningless violence. And you know as well as I do that this slur would *NEVER* be allowed to stand in the Martin Luther King article. It doesn't matter that the "Martin Luther Coon" slur is found in WP:RS as august as Time magazine and the New York Times. It is a gratuitous and meaningless slur that adds nothing to the article. And as such it simply does not belong in the WP article on the life of Martin Luther King. And clearly that is just as true for "Saint Pancake" as it is for "Martin Luther Coon".
Jclemens, could you please respond to this argument? Thank you, Jgui (talk) 14:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I did. But, for the sake of clarity, here it is again: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, WP:SOFIXIT. Until and unless you try to include that and policy is cited in an hypothetical community rejection of that addition that's more compelling than what's been cited here, a lack of inclusion of something unrelated in an unrelated article, absent any evidence any of these arguments were used in a parallel insertion argument, means nothing here. If you want to do that in hopes of getting more eyes here... do be mindful of WP:POINT if you actually modify the article. Jclemens (talk) 15:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
So I take it from your response that you are confirming that you believe the "Martin Luther Coon" slur, with relevant citations, *does* belong in the Martin Luther King article? And that you are confirming that you will support and argue for its inclusion in that article? Thank you, Jgui (talk) 17:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Again, you brought it up, you go insert it if you believe it's the right thing to do. I have expressed no opinion on the matter one way or the other, nor am I expected to. Please stay on topic. Jclemens (talk) 17:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Jclemens, the "topic" is whether it is appropriate to include slurs against individuals in their WP articles, thus my question is completely on-topic. And I'm not asking you for your opinion of a "hypothetical community rejection of ... a lack of inclusion of something unrelated in an unrelated article" - I'm asking you directly whether you think the "Martin Luther Coon" slur should be included in the Martin Luther King article. Could you please give your response? Thank you, Jgui (talk) 21:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Get used to disappointment. Jclemens (talk) 23:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Jclemens is not obligated to discuss MLK, or what should and should not go in that article. That's a very weak argument, to suggest in essence that because one article does not contain X, this article may not contain Y. IronDuke 23:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
IronDuke, well in fact no WP editor is "obligated" to discuss anything. We do it here at WP because it is considered the best way to develop opinions and arguments, and because it is the best way to work together to resolve our differences. Perhaps it would be good for both of you to review the WP:Etiquette page with this advice: "Do not ignore questions" ... "Concede a point when you have no response to it".
IronDuke, in fact my argument is a very strong one when the analogies are so close that X ==> Y. I will therefore hope for an answer. Perhaps you could answer for me if Jclemens is unwilling to do so. Thank you, Jgui (talk) 14:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Right, your’e sorta begging the question there, Jgui. The premise (which you take as read) is that discussing MLK here is helpful; it isn’t. His life was nothing like Corrie’s, nor was his death. And the etymological history of the word “coon” is far, far different than the history of ”St. Pancake.” Also, there are many more important things that can go into an MLK bio than that, and unlike this article, there’s a premium for space there, since he is vastly more famous and did much more than RC. But even if it were somehow a good idea to put that phrase into MLK’s bio, Jclemens isn’t obliged to go and do it. If I introduced a typo into the RC article and when you went to fix it, I challenged you that many, many articles have typos, why aren’t you fixing all of them, you would be nonplussed, I imagine. There’s no need to quote etiquette: you are being listened to, you are being responded to, you’re just being told you’re wrong. IronDuke 15:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
IronDuke, thank you for the response. The life arc and etymological history are irrelevant because clearly *no* two people or phrases have these in common. And I am not claiming you or Jclemens are obliged to edit *any* WP article - I am simply asking for your and his opinion of whether the slur belongs in the article. But the only remaining reasons you gave for why the MLK page should not include "Martin Luther Coon" is enlightening - that "there are many more important things" for the MLK article and "there's a premium for space there". Just to be clear, can I conclude from this answer of yours that if all the more important things were covered in the MLK article, and if space were not at a premium there, then you would support putting the "Martin Luther Coon" slur into the MLK article? Thank you, Jgui (talk) 16:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Are you more interested in answering questions with respect to this epithet's inclusion in this article, or attempting to force people to take a position on the hypothetical inclusion of a particular racist slur in one specific article? Really, this is getting annoying. Stick to this article, please--multiple other editors have declined to follow this red herring. Jclemens (talk) 18:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I would neither insist on it's being in the MLK article nor, if it were properly source and fit into the article, on its being taken out. Context is everything. IronDuke 18:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Another way to count the relative strengh of policy arguments

1. Count up all the people who say "Wow, I'd really love to include this, but policy supports its omission" 2. Count up all the people who say "This is something I'd really rather exclude, but the policy supports its inclusion" The side that has the most "reluctant" members has the strongest claim to policy support.

Therein, gentlemen, you have a particularly strong barometer of policy strength. Right now, the reluctant supporters seem to outnumber the reluctant opposers. Jclemens (talk) 03:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

lol. untwirl(talk) 04:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Now that this RfC has expired, what's changed?

I'm not sure how much was really resolved: those who oppose inclusion seem to be pretty much unchanged in their views, and I know I haven't seen much to convince me that my position is incorrect, but I don't want to put words into people's mouths. Would anyone else like to comment on what they've learned or any insight they've gained in the process? Jclemens (talk) 21:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

It appears that after a thirty day formal request for comment process, no demonstrated consensus exists for insertion. This isn't a glass half-full situation at all. Based on my reading of the discussion above, the glass is virtually full. No affirmative consensus exists as an answer to the posed query. Rough consensus characterizes this fringe information as unessential. BusterD (talk) 00:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
The problem with such a matter is that there's been no substantial policy input to bolster those favoring exclusion. Consensus isn't simply voting, but rather an opportunity for those with the best policy-based arguments to prevail. I think consensus is stymied in this case by a bunch of editors who have unilaterally added "Wikipedia is not a place to say hurtful things about dead people, no matter how notable the insult might be" to WP:NOT and have spoken as if it were a global consensus, when in fact nothing, anywhere, has demonstrated that it is. Jclemens (talk) 04:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
You asked for comment, the discussion didn't go your way, so you've chosen to ignore the good faith input of several experienced editors. You continue to explain consensus as though nobody else understands it correctly. That's what I read out of the above RfC. BusterD (talk) 11:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I have this funny way of thinking than NPOV means something, and that people claiming RS'ed viewpoints don't deserve a place in an article simply because they find them offensive is an unencyclopedic outcome. Funny thing, that. Jclemens (talk) 05:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I too value NPOV, though we seem to differ in its application in this case. And my reading of the above conversation, now stale since mid-June, is that RS'ed statements largely agreed upon to be fringe, tiny-minority views have no place in an encyclopedia page. I saw no reference until just now that "people claiming RS'ed viewpoints don't deserve a place in an article simply because they find them offensive". People aren't an issue here, statements are. We're talking about assertion and how to back it up, not who we like or not. Repectfully, dude, you've made some enormous contributions here in this pagespace. You appear to be blurring lines. Now, please, step back a bit. Trust the work you've done. I stand ready to revert such insertion as vandalism, quoting the outcome of this RfC, and in particular your somewhat vociferous attachment to the fringe view, and reluctance to back down, still asserting your correctness. An uninvolved administrator would read this exact thread, where I encouraged you to take a break and work elsewhere for a while to cool off. What they read after this post is up to you. BusterD (talk) 13:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://parachuteofaplaywright.blogspot.com/2006/04/ideas-and-text-body-and-rachel-corrie.html
  2. ^ http://www.shortandsweet.org/shortsweet/sydney/program-2008/seymour-week-2
  3. ^ http://www.aussietheatre.com/revshortsweet08wk4a.htm
  4. ^ a b "Episode # 1020". 51% the Women's Perspective. 2009-01-29. 10:15 minutes in. WAMC. {{cite episode}}: Unknown parameter |city= ignored (|location= suggested) (help)
  5. ^ http://www.shortandsweet.org/shortsweet/sydney/program-2008/seymour-week-2
  6. ^ http://www.aussietheatre.com/revshortsweet08wk4a.htm
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rachel_Corrie/Archive_11&oldid=1140167970"