text:
User:Radiant!/RFA

This is an archive of all talk page discussions related to my RFA.

 * 71 support votes (of which 5 strong, 1 weak, and 7 "I thought he already was one")
 * 9 oppose votes (of which 1 strong and 1 weak)
 * 2 neutral votes
 * 5 votes changed positively after discussion
 * See also User:Zzyzx11/RFA nomination records.

=The beginning=

Sjakalle
Hi Radiant!

I have been impressed with your contributions to forming consensus, most recently on the Schools debate. If I were to nominate you for adminship now, would you accept? Sjakkalle 07:25, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Hi Radiant! A request for adminship will be going up for you in 90 minutes unless you give a "red light" for it. Sjakkalle 06:33, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
 * The RFA has been set up for you. Please accept and answer the questions at Requests for adminship/Radiant!. Good luck! Sjakkalle 08:08, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Congratulations Radiant! A downtime is coming up in two minutes however, so you'll need to wait a few hours before using the block buttons ;-) Sjakkalle (Check!)  06:59, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

=The conclusion=

Cecropia
Congratulations! It's my pleasure to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. You might find the new administrators' how-to guide helpful. Cheers! -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 06:53, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

=The commentary=

Alkivar
Hi there! While I respect your opinion of me, I'd like to say that I've changed since we've first met. I admit to having been somewhat trigger-happy in the past, but I've become convinced that organizing (or adding to) existing content is far more beneficial to the 'pedia than getting rid of sub-par articles that most people wouldn't notice in the first place. Thus I'd consider myself a strong mergist, and please realize that I contributed heavily to WP:FICT (which basically calls for including any and all articles on fiction) and I even wrote a rule of thumb "Do not nominate schools for deletion". Of course that may or may not matter to you, but since we haven't spoken much recently I thought I'd mention it. Oh btw, I presently have about 1700 article edits. Yours, Radiant_* 10:20, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * (changed from oppose to neutral)
 * more research into his recent history has pushed me back to neutral, but i'm still not sure he'd make a good admin.  ALKIVAR ™[[Image:Radioactive.svg|18px|]] 10:30, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Whichever way the nomination turns out, I'll promise to do my best. Radiant_* 11:31, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Android79
After voting on another round of RfAs, I suddenly thought to myself, "Crap, I bet I forgot to support Radiant's administratorship!" and looking back through the archives, indeed I did. Oops. Consider this a retroactive vote of emphatic support. :-) A и D я 01D  TALK  EMAIL  13:38, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks :) that was months ago, wasn't it? Radiant_ >|< 14:53, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, it wasn't quite months ago (early June); a while ago, but I just remembered now that I forgot to vote then. Funny how memory works, eh? A и D я 01D  TALK  EMAIL  16:54, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Aphaia
Okay, the next time I have a meta issue I'll create an account first. Yours, Radiant_* 08:56, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

BaronLarf
Congrats! --BaronLarf 12:17, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

Bluemoose
Hi there! You expressed some concern about my miscategorization of dead end pages. While that is indeed true, I feel obliged to point out that the mistakes you've seen are my 'earlier' work. While I was doing that, some people from WP:WSS pointed me to the list of stub templates, and I've made far less mistakes since I've studied that. Before that it was rather easy to get confused between the plethora of tags. Yours, Radiant_* 15:15, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

CalJW
I'm not impressed. I think it was an attempt to create a means of deleting school articles by the back door after a string of nominations for deletion had failed. CalJW 15:43, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, then maybe you should read it before judging me. Radiant_* 16:41, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

Everyking
Hi there! Could you please explain why you would consider me a source of controversial deletes and blocks? Let me assure you that I don't presently have the intention of doing any, let alone doing controversial ones. I'm rather baffled where you got this opinion; since I don't recall stating anything along those lines, it almost seems as if you're confusing me with someone else. Just wondering if we could clear this up. Yours, Radiant_* 12:10, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * Hello? I would appreciate it if you were to answer the above. Radiant_* 12:22, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * Perhaps in voting my comment was too harsh. Nevertheless I've seen you defend a lot of sysop actions that I consider abusive to our volunteers. If you would agree that a sysop should not be bold when it comes to controversial actions, and should ideally put any such matter forward for other sysops' consideration before acting, then I might change my vote. Everyking 12:25, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * That goes without saying. Note that I already participate in such discussions on AN/I, and that I have no intention to go blocking users or deleting pages any time soon (and that would be the main areas of controversy, afaik). I do expect that my opinion will rarely coincide with yours in such discussions - but I can name several people here that I get along with just fine even if I often disagree with them. Radiant_* 15:00, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

Fawcett5
Radiant!, I was astonished to find out that you were not already an admin, its long overdue. Thanks also for your vote of confidence on my RFA, it was much appreciated. I will work to demonstrate that your trust was well-placed. Fawcett5 19:32, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Filiocht
Well deserved. Actually, it's really good when people recognise the merits of those whose views they do not share. Filiocht | Blarneyman 08:01, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

Grutness
Congratulations! And no probleems with the support (of course, it means you have to agree with me on everything for the next few weeks... ;) Grutness...  wha?  08:01, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Jdforrester
And my congratulations, too. James F. (talk) 10:24, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Jguk
Hi there! You wrote that you oppose my RFA because I haven't helped with a featured article. Well, I can't argue with that; it's a reasonably fair criterion, and while I've written a Signpost story and part of official policy, I haven't done anything related to FAC. However, may I ask you something - I've noticed there are presently about a dozen nominations for adminship, and you've voted on three of them. Does that mean you haven't seen the others yet? Or is there a meta-criterion to when your criterion applies? Or am I missing something? This is not meant as criticism, it's just that I don't understand it, and I'd like to. Yours, Radiant_* 17:03, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * It's a fair question. First, may I say for the avoidance of doubt, that it's nothing personal - when I vote I apply my admin criterion exactly, without any wavering. I believe WP is an encyclopaedia and admins should have solid editing skills together with good liaison on our practices. Second, I don't vote on every candidacy. Sometimes it's because I just don't look on RfA, sometimes it is because it is overwhelmingly clear which way the RfA is going when I come to see it - eg if it is 10-nil or nil-10, I am unlikely to vote. This leaves me voting because: (1) By the time I come to see the RfA it could go either way - in this case whether someone has demonstrated the skills necessary to create a FA is IMO a fair tie-breaker; (2) Because the person up for RfA asks me to (presumably because they meet the criterion); (3) Just because I happen to feel like it. For the currently active RfAs (1) and (2) apply, and (3) doesn't. Please also bear in mind that whilst I am quite public on what my admin criterion is, I am not arguing that everyone should base their RfA votes on the same criterion. If you'd like me to vote for the others I will (as on reflection I can see why you are puzzled and may erroneously think I have something against you, and I suppose I ought to vote for either all active RfAs when I cast one vote, or none). Kind regards and all the best, jguk 17:15, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clearing that up, and it's an opinion I can respect. However, I would appreciate it if you were to vote on all open nominations, out of a general feeling of fairness. Unless that would be a lot of extra work for you, that is. Yours, Radiant_* 18:53, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd like to reiterate what Radiant just said; your admin criterion seems to be rather selectively applied, unless I too am missing something.  I'd also like to state for the record that I deeply disagree with the entire concept of it, as being about as orthogonal as it'd be possible to get from a sensible measure of someone's suitability for adminship (if you were inviting comment on that, too, as opposed to whether it'd been "correctly applied" in each case).  Alai 18:22, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I've now voted in all open RfAs. I'll try to remember to vote in either all or none going forward - just so it's clear that I am applying it rigidly rather than making personal comments. Kind regards, jguk 19:24, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

JYolkowski

 * I'd like to add my congratulations as well. P.S.  Thanks for your support on my RfA, much appreciated.  JYolkowski // talk 23:20, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Kbdank71
Congrats as well! --Kbdank71 19:06, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Kim Bruning
Hi there! Regarding your comment on being bold and potential cardiac arrest, I thought I'd give a few examples of what I'd consider bold. What I usually mean is either start something that some people are already talking about but not doing(such as this); or taking a bunch of stub articles and combining them into a list (Category:SI_derived_units_of_length is next on my list). But I'd be happy to discuss my actions if people disagree. HTH! En groetjes uit Rotterdam :) Radiant_* 15:09, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * ==The Last BOLD Editor==

 * I thought it was REALLY cool to see you BEing BOLD all over the place. Like WOW! An example to follow :-)

 * Just that, in a number of cases your act was to prevent other people from being bold after you, or suggest that boldness was no longer welcome.

 * For instance, you switched out templates "this is a suggested policy" to "this is policy please don't edit it but go to the talk page" (on a policy page with BE BOLD as its first line no less, IIRC ;-) ), removed a perpetual poll and replaced it with one that "closes in 2 weeks", that kind of thing.

 * If you're going to BE BOLD like that, well, then you'd end up as The Last BOLD Editor. Because there'd be nothing left to BE BOLD over! ;-)

 * Instead, how about cleverly thinking up clear ways for others to follow in your footsteps. :-) If you can give me some idea that you're going to do that, I'll switch to support on your RFA. (These RFA's are SO useful sometimes O:-) ) . Oh eh what? *innocent look*.

 * Kim Bruning 08:24, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * well, how about this?
 * Template:Guideline now reads, "Feel free to update the page as needed". I initially thought that was a bad idea (because new users might misunderstand, and existing users would already do that), but I'm now convinced that it should stand as such so that guidelines can stay updated.
 * Regarding perpetual polls... I thought I was doing the exact opposite. If a poll is limited, then when it's finished we can draw a conclusion and make it actionable. If a poll is perpetual, people will keep debating the issue forever and not actually do anything. Thus I felt that by putting in a time limit, I was encouraging boldness (though in retrospect I admit that calling the vote on WP:POINT was a bad idea)
 * Doei, Radiant_* 09:36, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay. In the case of perpetual polls, the idea is that something can become or unbecome a rule over time. See WP:IAR. I think it's kinda purdy to see such things evolve over time, and it gives a good measure of the wiki. :) I particularly remembered you sticking "Do Not Edit" templates on simplified policy pages, while I was working on those at the time, hence the impression you left :-)
 * It's since been changed, possibly by you too? :-) In that case I'd better support! Kim Bruning 09:46, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * (changed from neutral to support)
 * Thank you for your very inspiring support message ! Radiant_* 11:26, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Klonimus
Hi there! While I respect your opinion of me, I'd like to say that I've changed since we've first met. I admit to having been somewhat trigger-happy in the past, but I've become convinced that organizing (or adding to) existing content is far more beneficial to the 'pedia than getting rid of sub-par articles that most people wouldn't notice in the first place. Thus I'd consider myself a strong mergist, and please realize that I contributed heavily to WP:FICT (which basically calls for including any and all articles on fiction) and I even wrote a rule of thumb "Do not nominate schools for deletion". Of course that may or may not matter to you, but since we haven't spoken much recently I thought I'd mention it.

As a side point, I don't accuse you of being a sockpuppet. I did once asked the question whether you were one, but that's far from the same (my exact words, "This may well be a coincidence, but could someone please check the IP address to see what's going on here?"). And in that case, it was quickly cleared up that you weren't, and I haven't brought up the matter since. We all make mistakes sometimes, don't we? Yours, Radiant_* 08:54, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * I see you're willing to strengthen your argumentation against my RFA, but then why are you unwilling to respond to me? Also, are you aware of the fact that User:GRider in fact is a proven sockpuppet, and that User:G Rider (whose only contributions are nominating schools for deletion) is in fact the same person? Radiant_* 09:51, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * This taking things personally is one of the reasons I don't think you'd be a good admin. I think you are good person, and a good editor, but I think that you lack certain personal qualities needed insomeone who is capable of pulling the trigger. I.e you are too ideological, and tend to take things personally.
 * Well, I'll respect that; your first response at RFA looked like you held a grudge against me because you thought I accued you of sockpuppetry quite a long time ago. I'm glad that's not the case. Radiant_* 10:11, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * User:GRider isn't a sockpuppet of anyone, he's done some foolish things, and suffered a harsh ArbCom injunction. I would really appreiate it if people could clue me to anything GRider has done post ArbCom that is bad, because from my personal communications with him, he's a good person. Klonimus 10:00, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Check Special:ipblocklist, and you will find that GRider is permanently blocked as a disruptive sockpuppet. This was also mentioned on VFD/talk. The main thing he's done wrong after the ArbCom decision is ignoring it. Radiant_* 10:11, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * Do you have a link? I've had some emails with GRider, and he seemed a nice a person. Although to an extent I think he was too ideological, and not willing to work within the system. However, I still think he wasn't that disruptive and some other arrangemnt could have been done. To me he exposed the problem of VfD, which is alot of it depends on who closes the VfD discussion. The Islamofascism VfD showed me just how unrelaiable and subject o manipulation VfD can be so I guess I'm a bit sensitive to concerns of that.  Klonimus 10:22, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, . I'm afraid that being unwilling to work within the system is a serious problem. It is quite possible to change the system (been there, done that :) ) but simply going against it serves little purpose other than to antagonize people (e.g. see Votes for deletion/Policy consensus/Regarding tally boxes). I agree that VFD is far from perfect (in fact, there's an ongoing discussion on revising it), but it is necessary to have a system to get rid of our daily bunch of junk. While GRider has shown the problem to some extent (by which I mean that some people were already aware, and others still don't get it) he has never shown a solution. I'm afraid that Socrates is dead. Radiant_* 11:10, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * (changed from oppose to weak oppose)

Rhymeless
Hi there! You've expressed concern against my admin nomination, so I was wondering what it is. Since I don't recall having a discussion with you earlier, could you please show me what you mean so that I can change this behavior in the future? Thanks, Radiant_* 15:17, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * Although the point is somewhat moot now, I'd still like to hear your answer. Radiant_ >|< 07:42, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

RickK
Congratulations! Wear it wisely. RickK 08:03, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

Sarg
Grats from me too. I'm sure you'll do it great. Sarg 12:01, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

SchmuckyTheCat
Hi there! You expressed concern about how I would react to my critics on RFA. In general, I've contacted them on their talk page to see what they find wrong about my behavior, and see what I can do to change that. In particular, some people fear I might do controversial deletes, so I have decided to stay away from CSD and VFD closure for the forseeable future.

For instance, see User_talk:Everyking, User_talk:Bluemoose, User_talk:Unfocused, User_talk:Alkivar and User_talk:TheCustomOfLife.

Yours, Radiant_* 07:32, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

SebastianHelm
Hi there! I'm not sure if I understood this... you've opposed my adminship because I archived my user page? I wasn't even thinking of Neto when I did that, it was simply a matter of cleaning up the lengthy page. Besides, I'm sure you've read it by now and it isn't evidence of any of Neto's allegations. I should hope Wikipedia is not a court of law. Radiant_* 19:20, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

 * Thank you for asking! I take this as a sign that you're willing to learn, and it's always the best in these situations, which actually alleviates some of my concerns.

 * Of course, Wikipedia is not a court of law, and I am sure nothing you did warrants any punishment or penalty. This is not what VfA is about. Someone who's on VfA has to meet different standards than someone tried at court.

 * "Different" can mean "higher": An admin needs certain qualities. The most neglected admin quality IMHO is conflict resolution skills. The case Neto cites was a case of, let's say, "suboptimal" conflict resolution.

 * Other important qualities are integrity and conscientiousness. I don't know what you thought when you did your "cleanup", but if you were indeed not aware that much of what you deleted pertained to the VfA discussion then it doesn't give a very conscientious impression, either. It doesn't improve the impression that you described the change as "rm old stuff" when in fact it included even the most recent contributions.

 * Anyway, I hope that you will learn to become a fair and levelheaded administrator and that you will have and give others lots of fun with Wikipedia. Sebastian (talk) 08:24, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)

 * As one of the few who opposed Radiant's VfA, I have to say that he has come a long way. He put a lot of time and dedication into the CSD Amendment. Last I checked, we were all asked to assume good faith. While his change of the wording wasn't optimal, there can be no doubt that he was doing it in good faith, notifying everyone who might have been affected. This is further evidenced by the fact that he sought a fair solution in a constructive discussion with Phil and implemented it immediately, although it must have been quite a bunch of work. — Sebastian (talk) July 6, 2005 03:51 (UTC)

Silversmith
Well done, and good luck! -- Silversmith Hewwo 09:54, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Spangineer
Great to see that you made it! Be wise with the new capabilities, but don't stop being bold. We need more go get 'em editors like you! --Spangineer (háblame)  12:21, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

SWAdair
Radiant!, I would like to add my congratulations. As Cecropia said, just about anything can be undone, so don't worry too much about making mistakes. Be bold. Oh, umm... yeah, right. ;-) SWAdair | Talk  02:48, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

TheCustomOfLife
Hi there! I'm sorry if I offended you by being pushy and combative; please be assured that it wasn't intended as such. Since I don't recall having a discussion with you earlier, could you please show me what you mean so that I can change this behavior in the future? Thanks, Radiant_* 09:40, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * It wasn't any one thing; I had noticed your attitude toward others in the past and it didn't seem the nicest. Since you did come to me and were very understanding, I will pull my oppose vote. Mike H 18:32, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * (changed from oppose to neutral)
 * Thank you for your support. I'll also stay away from controversial deletions and blocks for the forseeable future. Yours, Radiant_* 08:40, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Tony Sideway
I'm pleased to see you listed for administrator. I would probably have nominated you myself pretty soon. I've found you a pleasure to work with. If you get a bumpy ride, don't worry, I got a very bumpy ride too but once you make it things cool down somewhat. My RFA was something of an epic as these things go because I'd managed to upset precisely 20% of everybody I'd ever met on Wikipedia, and delighted the other 80%. It so happens that the minimum figure to hit for a promotion to admin is 80%... :)

The bureaucrats had a discussion afterwards. It was all very controversial. Hard to remember what all the fuss was about, now.

Cheers! --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:32, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your remarks! I'm happy to see that we can disagree about a lot and still be productive together. Hm, and I'm presently at exactly 80% :) Yours, Radiant_* 10:24, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Unfocused
Hi there! You expressed some concern regarding my usage (or lack thereof) of edit summaries... so far I've been mainly using them for big changes in articles (re-categorization, merging, stuff like that). However, since people find it useful, I'd be happy to use them universally (although most will probably read something like "add a line about Mr.Burns" or "response to Kappa"). (I've never done RC before, maybe I should do that for a while to get a feeling for edit summs). Hope that helps!

As a side point, I don't intend to do deletion or userblocking any time soon (unless there's a really big backlog); the main adminning thing I'd like to help with is renaming categories (CFD is pretty big these days). Yours, Radiant_* 09:35, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response you left on my talk page regarding your RFA. As you can see, I changed my vote to support.  I spend half of my time on dialup, and half on broadband (dialup at work), so switching back and forth really brings home the value of a simple edit summary.  It saves a lot of time to get an idea if I'm going to be interested in the edit before opening it.  Although we've been opposite each other sometimes, I'm glad to see you getting the admin tools.  -- Un  focused  18:11, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * (changed from oppose to support)
 * Thank you for your support. We may hold different opinions at times, but I'm happy to work with you. Radiant_* 18:14, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Xiong
Regarding "I find it significant he has felt compelled to defend himself here; ideal admins do not seek the office."... FYI, everybody against whom concerns are raised on RFA would address those concerns then and there; it's the polite thing to do. And note that I never sought the office; I state as much at the top of the RFA page, and it was not a self-nom.

(and I realize I am creating a fragmented discussion here which you don't like, but it would be paradoxical if I 'defended' against this on the RFA page). Yours, Radiant_* 08:49, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

 * Neither you nor I should be admins; that is an office for those without agendas. Suggest you recognize that essential truth and recuse yourself. — Xiong 熊 talk * 16:12, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)

 * Your persistent claims that I and other people may have ulterior motives are your POV and not backed by evidence. Also, the suggestion that admins may not have agendas is your POV and not backed by policy, guideline, or existing admins. Radiant_* 08:34, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

 * POV is a local acronym for "point of view" and is very poor use of the language. The noun you want is "opinion" or "bias"; the adjective is "opinionated" or "biased". You have an agenda; that's a fact, not an opinion. It is evident from your edits and from your talk. -- So do I. Admins are tasked to carry out the will of the community; that is a fact, not an opinion. It is stated in many places and broadly understood.

 * That said, insistence that a statement is fact does not make it so -- any more than insistence that it is opinion makes it that. I assert; I am prepared to back my statements with references. You rebut; you are not. — Xiong 熊 talk * 16:36, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)

 * I have moved the comment you added to the Oppose section to the Comments section, since it did not look like a vote and your oppose vote was already there. If I was wrong in doing that, feel free to move your comment back. --cesarb 19:05, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Zzyzx11
Congratulations as well. Looks like I have to include you on this subpage of mine. Good luck with the admin tools. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 20:30, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

title: User:Radiant!/RFA


text:
Earthcore

Earthcore was an Australian outdoor dance music festival and electronic music event. The outdoor events were generally held in forest environments around Victoria, Australia, with some events held in Queensland and overseas in New Caledonia. Earthcore has operated since 1992. After the Earthcore Carnival that ran from the 28th to 30 November 2008, Earthcore took a hiatus before returning for their 20-year anniversary celebration in November 2013.

Earthcore returned to its traditional ground roots festival beginning with the 20 year anniversary in 2013 to celebrate the event that introduced Australia to the outdoor electronic dance music festival. With a new home amongst the rolling hills of Pyalong in country Victoria, Earthcore was again held in November 2014 with one of the largest lineups to date including favourites Hallucinogen and Shpongle as headliners. Earthcore continued to operate in Pyalong until 2016 and moved to Elmore Victoria for the 2017 festival.

History
Over the years, events included large outdoor festivals, one night weekly club events, warehouse parties, one-off large-scale indoor parties, events on boats and a club on a moving train. The peak Earthcore event was the 2000 New Year's Eve party which went for seven days and was attended by up to 15,000 people over the seven days.

Controversies
In 2017, Earthcore events in three states were cancelled abruptly. Earthcore blamed the cancellations on what they alleged was a smear campaign by international artist Coming Soon. However, many of the bands countered that the cancellations were in fact because they hadn't been paid for their performances, and hadn't been given their air tickets, and so wouldn't be attending. The event "lost up to 32 acts" the day before the event, with the Herald Sun reporting "Many artists have posted disgruntled messages on their Facebook pages, many claiming they have not been paid and many saying their flights to Australia had not been booked". This included a number of the headlining acts, such as Juno Reactor, Animato and Electric Universe. Earthcore then alleged that many artists were paid and kept the fees and did not perform. In all, the Western Australia, New South Wales & Queensland events were cancelled, the Victorian event proceeded with a reduced lineup.

A number of companies relating to the management of Earthcore have suffered from financial problems.

Spiro Boursinos, aka Spiro Boursine, founder and main organiser of Earthcore, died on the 24th of October, 2018, leaving the future of the events unknown, including an upcoming large scale event meant to celebrate the 25th anniversary of the event.

Closure of the Event
The final earthcore was held in 2017. The 25th Anniversary Earthcore was planned for November 2018, with artists booked and a venue in place, but the main organiser, Spiro Boursine, passed away only weeks before the event. Other organisers were unable to run the event and it was cancelled.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Earthcore


text:
Darwin's fox

Darwin's fox or Darwin's zorro (Lycalopex fulvipes) is an endangered canid from the genus Lycalopex. It is also known as the zorro chilote or zorro de Darwin in Spanish and lives on Nahuelbuta National Park, the Cordillera de Oncol, Cordillera Pelada in mainland Chile and Chiloé Island. This small, dark canine weighs 1.8 to 3.95 kg, has a head-and-body length of 48 to 59 cm and a tail that is 17.5 to 25.5 cm. Darwin's fox displays no key differences between male and female other than the fact that the male has a broader muzzle. Males display no territorial behavior and are not aggressive towards other males roaming around their territory.

Darwin's fox was first collected from San Pedro Island off the coast of Chile by the naturalist Charles Darwin in 1834. It was long held that Darwin's fox was a subspecies of the South American gray fox (L. griseus); however, the discovery of a small population of Darwin's fox on the mainland in Nahuelbuta National Park in 1990 and subsequent genetic analysis has clarified the fox's status as a unique species. In 2012 and 2013 the presence of the Darwin's fox at Oncol Park, Alerce Costero National Park and the Valdivian Coastal Reserve was confirmed through camera trapping.

Taxonomy and evolution
Lycalopex is a South American genus of canine distantly related to wolves and is technically not a fox. When Charles Darwin collected a specimen from San Pedro Island in Chiloé Archipelago in December 1834 during the Beagle survey expedition, he observed that this "fox (of Chiloe, a rare animal) sat on the point & was so absorbed in watching [survey work], that he allowed me to walk behind him & actually kill him with my geological hammer". In the 1839 publication of his Journal and Remarks, Darwin said "This fox, more curious or more scientific, but less wise, than the generality of his brethren, is now mounted in the museum of the Zoological Society." He said it was "an undescribed species", indicating that it was distinct from the species (L. culpaeus and L. griseus) that occur on the mainland. Later, Darwin's fox was classified as a subspecies (Lycalopex griseus fulvipes) of the latter.

Darwin's fox does not interbreed with the other Lycalopex species, only lives in forests, and is smaller and darker-colored than the other species. In 1990 a small population of Darwin's fox was found on the mainland in the forested Nahuelbuta National Park, indicating that the fox was not endemic to the island. According to Yahnke et al., in their 1996 article published in the Journal of the Society for Conservation Biology, analysis of mitochondrial DNA of Darwin's fox and the gray fox showed two patterns, indicating Darwin's fox was a new species, closely related to the Sechuran fox. Also according to Yahnke (1995; et al.1996) the present restricted range is a relic of a much wider former range. Zoologists noted the distinctiveness in the ecological niche, appearance, and behavior of this species. Darwin's fox is differentiated from the gray fox in being darker; having shorter legs; a broader, shorter skull; smaller auditory bullae; a more robust dentition; and a different jaw shape and style of premolar occlusion.

In the late Pleistocene, Chiloé Island was connected to mainland Chile by a land bridge. The land bridge was severed about 15,000 years ago when the sea level rose following the last glaciation. This created two isolated populations of Darwin's fox.

Diet
Darwin's fox has a vast diet. In dense forests, where it exists, the foxes hunt for mammals, reptiles, beetles, and invertebrates. Sometimes it selects fruits, berries, and seeds. Birds and amphibians to a lesser degree are also consumed. It sometimes eats carrion, but it mostly eats live animals and fruit. This makes it mostly an omnivore, sometimes a scavenger.

Ecology
Darwin's fox is generally believed to be a forest obligate species found only in southern temperate rainforests. They only occur in areas of primary forest on Chiloé and on the mainland. They are most active at twilight and before sunrise. In contrast to other Lycalopex species, Darwin's fox prefers open spaces. The population of Chiloé has about 200 individuals, and Nahuelbuta on the mainland contains about 50 individuals. The total population size is about 250 mature individuals with at least 90% of the population occurring in one subspopulation (Chiloé Island). Although the species is protected in Nahuelbuta National Park, substantial mortality sources exist when foxes move to lower, unprotected private areas in search of milder conditions during the winter. The population was considered as critically endangered because its main population occurred in one island and their habitat was declining due to human impact.

Conservation status
The species was previously classified as Critically Endangered by the IUCN, but in 2016 was downlisted to Endangered, as its area occurrences is apparently substantially larger than originally believed. Current estimates of the total population are still low, with an estimated minimum 227 individuals on the mainland and 412 on Chiloé Island. Fragmentation of forest adjacent to the national park and on the island is a concern for their conservation, and feral dogs may pose the greatest threat to their survival by spreading disease or directly attacking. Persecution by people who think that the foxes attack domestic fowls, though they pose little threat, is also a potential problem.

Diseases
The species is often plagued by Mycoplasma haemocanis. The already endangered fox is prone to this infection because the infection's bacteria attach themselves to surface red blood cells of many mammals, and although the species is believed to be no major threat to human life it can spread to humans, dogs, cats, and other wildlife species. The bacteria also seem to spike when located close to any major habitat inhabited by humans as well as where there is a large population of wild dogs present near the species. Researchers are testing RNA subunits of RNase P gene and out of 10 foxes, nine were infected. Even though they are considered "sick", they have no external symptoms (Cabello, 2013). Studies show that many foxes risk of catching the deadly bacteria inclines as they age leaving many older foxes vulnerable. Although the disease is prevalent in this species, little to nothing is known about this disease.

title: Darwin's fox


text:
Talk:Nueva trova

Untitled
I'm no expert by any means, but the words nova cançao are Portuguese, so the corresponding country is probably Brazil or Portugal. klaus
 * Fixed the error. nova canço is a Spanish genre, and nova canção is Portuguese. thanks. Tuf-Kat 21:15, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * In castillian Spanish there is no letter ç, and a word ending in o would usually be male, going with a male adjective, while nova would be female, and not a castillian adjective anyway. It would be nueva canción in Spanish, so I think there still is an error. Unless it is gallego. Happily ever after 10:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

 * Or Catalan ? The nueva canción page lists "Nova Cançó: Catalunya". -- Beardo 14:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

translation
the literal meaning (new song) should be included some-where early on in the article. Kdammers 10:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Celia Cruz
It's simply nonsense to say she was an example of nueva trova! She sang only with big bands and conjuntos, and was a great opponent of the Castro revolution. Macdonald-ross (talk) 18:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

title: Talk:Nueva trova


text:
User:Kevin Baas/Antimisinformation

The DSM Coordination Center is a center for coordinating all things in support of exposing the truth behind the Administration's handling and presentation of pre-war intelligence, and whether the president was determined to go to war with Iraq prior to assessing and regardless of the facts, intelligence, and legality. The goals of this center are to aggregate information, prepare representatives (fight misinformation and propaganda), coordinate actions, and disseminate news.

Antimisinformation • Information • News • Analysis • Strategy • Action • Coordinate • Counter-narrative

=Representatives to contact and prepare= This is a list of DSM-action supporting people scheduled to be interviewed or otherwise appear on TV or Radio broadcasts. Even if you don't know anything about the appearance, just put a link to were you heard about it. If someone's sent them a link to this page, or otherwise contacted them, please make a note of that under their name.

=Blogs with misinformation=
 * http://www.livejournal.com/community/politicsforum/681905.html?mode=reply
 * http://stealthebandwagon.blogspot.com/2005/06/downing-street-memo.html
 * http://whatattitudeproblem.blogs.com/home/2005/06/dems_miss_the_b.html
 * http://mariestwocents.blogspot.com/2005/06/downing-street-memo-crap.html
 * http://wizbangblog.com/

=Misinformation and responses=

PRIMARY ATTACK
The UN route: as elaborated in the memo, they tried to create the impression of an ultimatum to Saddam regarding weapons inspections, and the impression of Saddam not cooperating, in order to garner public support for the war and create justification (rationale). this was linked to WMDs. It's all in the memo. Notice this press interview with Bush and Blair in Washington: http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page7600.asp

QUESTION: Thank you, sir.

On Iraq, the so-called Downing Street Memo from July, 2002, says, "Intelligence and facts remain fixed around the policy of removing Saddam through military actions." Is this an accurate reflection of what happened? Could both of you respond?

BLAIR: Well, I can respond to that very easily. No, the facts were not being fixed in any shape or form at all. And let me remind you that that memorandum was written before we then went to the United Nations. Now, no one knows more intimately the discussions that we were conducting as two countries at the time than me. And the fact is, we decided to go to the United Nations and went through that process, which resulted in the November, 2002, United Nations resolution to give a final change to Saddam Hussein to comply with international law. He didn't do so. And that was the reason why we had to take military action. But, all the way through that period of time, we were trying to look for a way of managing to resolve this without conflict. As it happened, we weren't able to do that because, as I think was very clear, there was no way that Saddam Hussein was ever going to change the way that he worked or the way that he acted.

BUSH: Well, you know, I read, kind of, the characterizations of the memo, particularly when they dropped it out in the middle of his race. I'm not sure who they dropped it out is, but I'm not suggesting that you all dropped it out there.

(LAUGHTER)

And somebody said, "Well, you know, we had made up our mind to go to use military force to deal with Saddam." There's nothing farther from the truth. My conversations with the prime minister was how could we do this peacefully, what could we do. And this meeting, evidently it took place in London, happened before we even went to the United Nations -- or I went to the United Nations. And so it's -- look, both of us didn't want to use our military. Nobody wants to commit military into combat. That's the last option. The consequences of committing the military are very difficult. You know, one of the hardest things I do as the President is to try to comfort families who've lost a loved one in combat. It's the last option that the President must have, and it's the last option I know my friend had as well. And so we worked hard to see if we could figure how to do this peacefully, to put a united front up to Saddam Hussein, so the world speaks. And he ignored the world. Remember, 1441 passed the Security Council unanimously. He made the decision. And the world is better off without Saddam Hussein in power.

Relevant parts of the memo, for Bush-Blair defense:

 *  The Foreign Secretary (UK Jack Straw) said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.

 * The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.

 *  The Prime Minister (Tony Blair) said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors. Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD. There were different strategies for dealing with Libya and Iran. If the political context were right, people would support regime change. The two key issues were whether the military plan worked and whether we had the political strategy to give the military plan the space to work. On the first, CDS said that we did not know yet if the US battleplan was workable. The military were continuing to ask lots of questions.

 * For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary.

 *  The Foreign Secretary (UK Jack Straw) thought the US would not go ahead with a military plan unless convinced that it was a winning strategy. On this, US and UK interests converged. But on the political strategy, there could be US/UK differences. Despite US resistance, we should explore discreetly the ultimatum. Saddam would continue to play hard-ball with the UN.

 * John Scarlett assessed that Saddam would allow the inspectors back in only when he thought the threat of military action was real.

 *  The Defence Secretary (UK Geoffrey Hoon) said that if the Prime Minister wanted UK military involvement, he would need to decide this early. He cautioned that many in the US did not think it worth going down the ultimatum route. It would be important for the Prime Minister to set out the political context to Bush.

Notice the details that were left out. Most clear line in there: "...the political strategy to give the military plan the space to work." The "detail" that was left out, or rather, lied about, was why they used the "political strategy" that they did: not in pursuance of a peaceful solution, as they contend above, but "to give the military plan the space to work.", in plain and simple terms, to manufacture consent for WAR.

"This has already been investigated" or "This is old information that has already been discredited"
Nope.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/12/AR2005051201857.html http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,564-1649071,00.html

Me and Mr. Robbins from the NRO
Here's my email dialogue with a reporter for the National Review Online:

 * Mr. Robbins,

 * I recently encountered your article in the National Review Online, "Causing a Commotion" In this column, you wrote: "But if Dearlove meant the former, he should be called upon to substantiate his charge. It can be weighed against the exhaustive investigation by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on prewar intelligence assessments in Iraq. The committee examined this very question, whether the White House had pressured the intelligence community to reach predetermined conclusions supporting the case for war."

 * Actually, the committee had, in a comprimise, decided to split the investigation into two parts, the first part was to examine just the intelligence department, whereas the second part was to examine the question you speak of, namely, how policymakers handled and presented intelligence that was given to them by the intelligence department. But the committee never took up the second part of the investigation; they never examined this question, irrespective of what any politican says or has written, they simply did not investigate this issue.

 * I remember it clearly. The investigation was big news, but noone ever heard anything about the second part, it was (predictably) forgotten by the public in the aftermath of the election and the findings of the first part.  But recently, the fact that it never occured was reported in the Washington Post: British Intelligence warned of Iraq War

 * "The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence has dropped its previous plan to review how U.S. policymakers used Iraq intelligence, and the President's commission on intelligence did not look into the subject because it was not authorized to do so by its charter, Laurence H. Silberman, the co-chairman, told reporters last month."

 * -Kevin Baas

 * Kevin, check out the full report:
 * http://intelligence.senate.gov/iraqreport2.pdf esp. pp. 272-284.
 * They did address the question, they had witnesses and everything.

 * Regards, Jim

 * Jim, check out these reports:
 * washington post article, 2003
 * houston chronicle article, 2002
 * american prospect article, 2002

 * They did address the question, they had witnesses and everything.

 * Regards, Kevin

 * Well sure, but my contention was that the Senate looked into this and didn't find anything. I think a Senate investigation trumps news reports. At least we can see the way the investigation was conducted, and not have to rely on the sources a reporter happens to find.

 * Regards, Jim

 * There are multiple problems here:

 * 1) First, the first part of the investigation was not even authorized to look into the question at hand.
 * 2) Second, the Senate clearly did not look into this, for if they did, they would at least have found what the news reporters, who have less powers of investigation, found.
 * 3) Third, you are using either appeal to authority logical fallacy or letting semantics trump formal operational thinking. The calling of something an "investigation" by no : means affects the process that was undergone.
 * 4) Fourth, the "investigation into whether the intelligence was just bad" did not even question the CIA agents who went to the reporters with information, so if it did "happen to : find" (stumble outside of its authority) any information regarding this question, it was cursory, at best.
 * 5) Fifth, in any case, by not even examining the specific circumstances of those specific agents, the report on whether intelligence was bad cannot invalidate or in any way : speak to the veracity of those reports.
 * 6) Sixth, members of the commitee have alleged that dissenting opinions in the report were stifled and censored.

 * Now to the specific matter of intelligence, here's something else that the investigation into if the intelligence was bad missed, that it doesn't take a rocket-scientist, or a Senator for that matter, to see:

 * INTEL: In 1997, the U.N.’s International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) released a report saying there was no indication Iraq ever achieved nuclear capability or had any physical capacity for producing weapons-grade nuclear material in the near future. In February 2001, the CIA delivered a report to the White House that said: “We do not have any direct evidence that Iraq has used the period since Desert Fox to reconstitute its weapons of mass destruction programs.” HOW IT WAS USED: In March 2003, Cheney definitively claimed on Meet the Press that Iraq “has reconstituted nuclear weapons.”

 * INTEL: In April 2001, the the Energy Department told the White House the aluminum tubes Iraq bought couldn’t be used for nuclear weapons production. In late 2001, the State Department also sent word they were ill-suited for that use. HOW IT WAS USED: On Sept. 8, 2002, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice told CNN the tubes were “only really suited for nuclear weapons programs.” Bush in his 1/03 State of the Union said the tubes which were “suitable for nuclear weapons production.”

 * INTEL: In the fall of 2002, the CIA told white house officials not to include the uranium-from-Niger assertion in speeches. HOW IT WAS USED: Bush included it in his 2003 State of the Union.

 * INTEL: A September 2002 DOD intel report found “”no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons, or where Iraq has – or will – establish its chemical warfare agent production facilities.” HOW IT WAS USED: In October 2002, Bush claimed, without doubt, that Iraq “possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons.”

 * Average Joe, -Kevin

Those emails were exchanged in the matter of a day. It's been almost a week since my last response, and I have heard nothing back from him. I've learned from experience that, in a debate, silence is the surest sign of victory. I believe that this example demonstrates that one can silence lies by vocalizing truths.

Downingstreetmemo.com
June 5, 2005 Meet the Press, NBC

Ken Mehlman (Republican National Committee chairman) claims that the "findings" of the Downing Street Memo "have been totally discredited by everyone who's looked at it," including the 9-11 Commission and the Senate.

In fact, neither the 9-11 Commission nor the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence addressed the Bush administration's use of pre-war intelligence.

When Russert raised the issue of the Downing Street Memo's contention that, in the Bush administration's push for war in Iraq, "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy," Mehlman replied: "Tim, that report has been discredited by everyone else who's looked at it since then. Whether it's the 9-11 Commission, whether it's the Senate, whoever's looked at this has said there was no effort to change the intelligence at all." When Russert noted "I don't believe that the authenticity of this report has been discredited," Mehlman reiterated: "I believe that the findings of the report, the fact that the intelligence was somehow fixed, have been totally discredited by everyone who's looked at it."

The Senate Intelligence committee's report examined the creation of the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, which was the intelligence community's most comprehensive and authoritative statement about Iraq. But the committee decided at the outset not to investigate the Bush administration's use of intelligence, including public statements by administration officials, in the first phase of its investigation

Though the committee initially planned to conduct the second phase of its investigation following the 2004 election, Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS) indicated in March that the committee's investigation into whether the administration misrepresented intelligence judgments in its public statements would be indefinitely postponed, because of administration officials' insistence that "they believed the intelligence, and the intelligence was wrong." "[W]e sort of came to a crossroads, and that is basically on the back burner," Roberts said.

The 9-11 Commission report said even less about the Bush administration's use of intelligence in the run-up to the Iraq war. The 567-page report focuses entirely on issues surrounding the September 11 terrorist attacks, addresses Iraq only in the context of Al Qaeda and September 11, and does not assess the accuracy or honesty of the Bush's public statements about the Iraqi threat.

Other official reports have similarly avoided the question of whether the Bush administration politicized intelligence. The Robb-Silberman commission's report on intelligence regarding weapons of mass destruction noted: "[W]e were not authorized to investigate how policymakers used the intelligence assessments they received from the Intelligence Community." The Duelfer report presented the results of the Iraq Survey Group's hunt for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq following the invasion but did not compare these findings either with Bush's prewar statements to the public or with the prewar assessments of the intelligence community. http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/news.html#factcheck

Tom Paine's analysis
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/20050606/the_hunting_of_the_president.php

''Robbins treats the Downing Street memo as a series of new accusations. This is wrong. The Downing Street Memo is a new source document that is evidence, not accusation. It is evidence that the Bush administration decided to invade Iraq by April 2002. It is evidence that the Bush administration acted on that decision and was using Operations Northern and Southern Watch to hit Iraqi command and control targets to prepare the battlefield in advance of a declaration of war and Congressional authorzation. It is evidence that the Bush administration had decided to "fix the facts" around the policy they could not otherwise justify to the American people.

''So, when Robbins says, for example, that the "The charge of intelligence fraud (if it is such a charge) has already been investigated and found baseless," his statement relies on an investigation (the Silberman-Robb Commission) that was not only unable to look at the political use of intelligence, it relies on an investigation that did not have in hand the evidence he is attempting to refute.

''What Robbins does not do, however, is provide a refutation that deceiving the American people and Congress is not an impeachable offense. If the evidence in the Downing Street Memo can be further corroborated—which will most likely require more high-level leaks—the Downing Street Memo could be the equivalent of the Watergate break-in.

"Clinton started the policy of regime change"
Iraq Liberation Act of 1998

Clinton's statement on Iraq

"Thrice removed hearsay"
Which would make it a more reliable source than you, wouldn't it? Ya, that's what I thought.

In that it's a written document, that's a level of removal, sure, as is a direct statement from someone about something that happened in the past. But the written record from the past is considered more reliable than the oral statement in the present, in an educated mind and in a court of law. In that it was written by an attendee? Like a typist writes the transcript in a court room? The transcript is considered more reliable than the recollections of those present. That's the whole idea behind records: they don't change.

This document is the official record of what was, on July 23rd, 2002, at 10 Downing Street, being relayed from the US through official channels, to top officers of the UK, including the Prime Minister Tony Blair and the Secretary of Defense Geoffrey Hoon, and what they were relaying back to top officers of the US Administration, including then Secretary of State Collin Powell, through official channels.

Senator Kerry calling for impeachment
This claim is false. On June 1, Senator John Kerry told the the Massachusetts newspaper, the "Standard-Times," that he was amazed at the lack of American media coverage of the Downing Street Memo. By Saturday, Al-Jazeera had reported that Kerry called for Bush's impeachment, the Conservative newssite, Newsmax.com picked up the story, and from there, it traveled through blogs all across the internet. real player

Kerry on impeachment(Windows Media Player) Kerry on impeachment(Realplayer)

Not a smoking gun?

 * http://blue-state-red.blogspot.com/2005/06/update-on-downing-street-memo.html
 * http://pmcarpenter.blogs.com/p_m_carpenters_commentary/2005/06/the_rights_defe.html

Did all foreign intelligence really agree with ours?
(from http://mariestwocents.blogspot.com/2005/06/downing-street-memo-crap.html):
 * ''"all the Intelligence from Great Britain, France, Germany, Russia, Israel, and several other foreign countries ALL concluded the same based on thier intelligence as well as our own, that Saddam had weapons of Mass Destruction."

According The Sunday Herald's and the BBC's interviews with several British intelligence officials :
 *  The British intelligence source said the best Humint on Saddam was held by the French who had agents in Iraq.
 * ' French intelligence was telling us that there was effectively no real evidence of a WMD programme. That's why France wanted a longer extension on the weapons inspections. The French, the Germans and the Russians all knew there were no weapons there -- and so did Blair and Bush as that's what the French told them directly. Blair ignored what the French told us and instead listened to the Americans.'

 *  Another source -- an official involved in preparing the Iraqi dossier for Blair -- told the BBC: 'Most people in intelligence weren't happy with [the dossier] as it didn't reflect the considered view they were putting forward.' Other sources said they accepted there was a 'small WMD programme' in Iraq, but not one that would either threaten the West or even Saddam's neighbours. Another said they were 'very unhappy' with the dossier, others said they were 'pissed off' and one described the claim that WMDs could be ready in 45 minutes as 'complete and utter bollocks'.

 *  The Sunday Herald was told: 'The spooks were being asked to write this stuff. The dossier had been lying around for about six months. When it came time for publication Downing Street said it wasn't exciting or convincing enough. The message was that it didn't cut the mustard in terms of PR as there wasn't much more in it than a discerning newspaper reader would know.

 *  'The intelligence services were asked if there was anything else that could be added into it. Intelligence told Downing Street that the 45-minute claim hadn't been added in as it only came from one source who was thought to be wrong.'

 *  'The intelligence services were asked to go back and do a rewrite even though Downing Street was told the 45 minute claim was unconvincing.'

 *  Another intelligence source was quoted as telling the BBC that they had been asked to rewrite the dossier as well to make it 'sexier'. The intelligence source said the dossier had been 'transformed' a week before publication. Blair has rejected each and every one of these claims as 'completely absurd'.

And not to mention, sour grapes.

Resolution 1441
First of all, UN Resolution 1441 did not give the US a "blank check" for war, nor did the resolution make the United States the ultimate arbiter in determining whether or not Iraq was in violation of 1441. In addition, UN Ambassador John Negroponte specifically guaranteed to other member nations that there were no "hidden triggers" or "automaticity" with respect to the use of force. Consequently, the resolution passed.

Remember, the UN Charter specifically prohibits member nations from starting wars, and the US invaded a sovereign nation that never attacked us. They will argue that invasion was justified on the basis of 1441 because Iraq supposedly failed to account for all of its WMDs and was therefore in violation of UN demands. However, the resolution does not give the United States the ultimate say over all other nations in deciding whether or not Iraq was in compliance with the UN. Only the UNSC itself can determine that answer, and only the UNSC can authorize military action, not individual member states!

Contrary to US claims, the UN did not believe Iraq was in noncompliance with 1441, nor did it have sufficient proof that Iraq had failed to disarm. The inspections process was essential to resolving that question, but as we all know, Bush ordered the inspectors out before they could complete their task. The US violated the UN Charter in order to get the war it wanted all along.

The UN route, as the DSM proves, was a gigantic smokescreen. The revisionists citing 1441 can't have it both ways! Bush broke the resolution then, so claiming that same resolution now as justification is an inherent contradiction.

It's not authentic.
Counter-Rebuttal: No one questions its authenticity, anymore. The Blair administration calls it "nothing new."

It was the interpretation of Matthew Rycroft
Counter-Rebuttal: It was a top-secret document, endorsed by the Foreign Policy Advisor, as a summary of their discussions, and written by his aide. And if the aide were making false statements, the Blair administration could've claimed that it was false, and released evidence proving that (such as memos by officials immediately afterwards, claiming that the memo was an incorrect assessment). That has not happened. And it was not an essay, but a summary of their discussions.

Furthermore, if you take a look at the format, it is carefully and concisely organized in the form of a summary or a report, as if it were drafted from notes, rather than just a person writing a political opinion from memory. (Bold added):

 * Chair of the Joint Intelligence Committee, John Scarlett's Assessment:
 * "John Scarlett summarised the intelligence and latest JIC assessment. Saddam's regime was tough and based on extreme fear. The only way to overthrow it was likely to be by massive military action. Saddam was worried and expected an attack, probably by air and land, but he was not convinced that it would be immediate or overwhelming. His regime expected their neighbours to line up with the US. Saddam knew that regular army morale was poor. Real support for Saddam among the public was probably narrowly based."

 * Chief of MI-6's Assessment:
 * "C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."

 * Chief of Defence Staff's Assessment:
 * "CDS said that military planners would brief CENTCOM on 1-2 August, Rumsfeld on 3 August and Bush on 4 August."

 * The two broad US options were:

 * (a) Generated Start. A slow build-up of 250,000 US troops, a short (72 hour) air campaign, then a move up to Baghdad from the south. Lead time of 90 days (30 days preparation plus 60 days deployment to Kuwait).

 * (b) Running Start. Use forces already in theatre (3 x 6,000), continuous air campaign, initiated by an Iraqi casus belli. Total lead time of 60 days with the air campaign beginning even earlier. A hazardous option.

 * The US saw the UK (and Kuwait) as essential, with basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus critical for either option. Turkey and other Gulf states were also important, but less vital. The three main options for UK involvement were:

 * (i) Basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus, plus three SF squadrons.

 * (ii) As above, with maritime and air assets in addition.

 * (iii) As above, plus a land contribution of up to 40,000, perhaps with a discrete role in Northern Iraq entering from Turkey, tying down two Iraqi divisions.

 * The Defence Secretary's Assessment:
 * "The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun 'spikes of activity' to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections."

 * The Foreign Secretary's Assessment:
 * "The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force."

 * The Attorney General's Assessment:
 * "The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change."

 * The Prime Minister's Assessment:
 * "The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors. Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD. There were different strategies for dealing with Libya and Iran. If the political context were right, people would support regime change. The two key issues were whether the military plan worked and whether we had the political strategy to give the military plan the space to work."

 * Various Disputes with the Prime Minister's Assessment:
 * "On the first, CDS said that we did not know yet if the US battleplan was workable. The military were continuing to ask lots of questions.

 * For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary.

 * The Foreign Secretary thought the US would not go ahead with a military plan unless convinced that it was a winning strategy. On this, US and UK interests converged. But on the political strategy, there could be US/UK differences. Despite US resistance, we should explore discreetly the ultimatum. Saddam would continue to play hard-ball with the UN.

 * John Scarlett assessed that Saddam would allow the inspectors back in only when he thought the threat of military action was real.

 * The Defence Secretary said that if the Prime Minister wanted UK military involvement, he would need to decide this early. He cautioned that many in the US did not think it worth going down the ultimatum route. It would be important for the Prime Minister to set out the political context to Bush."

 * Conclusions:

 * Conclusions:

 * (a) We should work on the assumption that the UK would take part in any military action. But we needed a fuller picture of US planning before we could take any firm decisions. CDS should tell the US military that we were considering a range of options.

 * (b) The Prime Minister would revert on the question of whether funds could be spent in preparation for this operation.

 * (c) CDS would send the Prime Minister full details of the proposed military campaign and possible UK contributions by the end of the week.

 * (d) The Foreign Secretary would send the Prime Minister the background on the UN inspectors, and discreetly work up the ultimatum to Saddam.

 * He would also send the Prime Minister advice on the positions of countries in the region especially Turkey, and of the key EU member states.

 * (e) John Scarlett would send the Prime Minister a full intelligence update.

 * (f) We must not ignore the legal issues: the Attorney-General would consider legal advice with FCO/MOD legal advisers."

Furthermore, Rycroft is an aide, not an actual advisor or head of any government agency. The head of MI-6, the Attorney General, the Prime Minister, and the other British heads of State had no need for an extensive, top-secret memo about an aide's opinions of their statements, and it is preposterous to insinuate that the Foreign Policy Advisor would ask his aide to do so.

Iraq HAD WMDs!
Counter-Rebuttal: That is arguable, but even so, the memo itself states that the Chief of MI-6 (British Intelligence, remember James Bond?) said that it's unlikely that Iraq was an "imminent threat", but rather, the U.S. was intentionally generating false intelligence to support an unnecessary war. That pre-war intelligence's failure has been reported in the media many times. And furthermore, before the war,

The 911 Commission and other investigations contradict the memo.
Counter-Rebuttal: Bush refused to allow the 911 Commission to exist for "nearly a year" after it was suggested. Even then, he only agreed to it, provided that he could appoint the head of the comission. So, arguably, the 911 Comission, the only "independent" investigation on intelligence was not independent at all. All other investigations were government-operated and therefore subject to political bias, just as with the pre-war intelligence.

"Fixed", in British English, means "established."
Counter-Rebuttal: It can be either our definition or Britain's "established." However, take a look at the context of the memo saying, "Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." The qualifier 'but' implies a contradictory nature. For example, "I am a Liberal, BUT I am against gun control", or "I am ugly, BUT I have a pretty girlfriend." So, within the context of, "Bush wanted to remove Saddam because of WMDs, 'BUT' the intelligence was being fixed", the definition of intentionally adjusting applies and the intelligence was, indeed, being illegally 'fixed.'

Cherry picking your intelligence is not lying.
Counter-Rebuttal: That is incorrect. Read the law.  Quote: 18 USC Sec. 1001 "whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully-- (1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact; (2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or (3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry; shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both."

To clarify: the intelligence they cherry-picked was known by the CIA to be false, and the CIA told them that.

All politicians lie.
Counter-Rebuttal: But just like with Nixon, Clinton, and Tom DeLay, if they are caught, they should be put on trial, because lying to Congress is a Federal crime, worthy of impeachment. Lying to Congress to support an unnecessary war could also be interpreted as treason, especially when Bush's trust-fund (for retirement) is vested in oil and the Vice-President used to be on the board of directors of the major oil company, Haliburton, which has recieved major government deals and bonuses in Iraq.

No one believes this memo. It's old news.
Counter-Rebuttal: The British newspaper, the Times, did a front-page story on it recently, as did the New York Times. 89 Congressmen have demanded that Bush answer the allegations put forth by the memo, led by Congressman John Conyers. CNN is also running a story on it, on Sunday, June 12th at 11:30 A.M.

It's not solid proof that he lied.
Counter-Rebuttal: But there is enough evidence to support an independent investigation, and that's all we're asking for

The issue of why we went to war is moot
We can all agree that a stable Iraq is the most desirable outcome, and indeed the US should do whatever it can to make this a reality. But this is an entirely separate issue from the question of why we went to war and how the case for war was made.

There is ample evidence—in the DSM and elsewhere—that the administration misrepresented the nature and extent of the threat posed by Saddam’s Iraq, that the case for war was built on this misrepresentation, and as a consequence many tens of thousands of people (Americans, Iraqis and others) have lost their lives. Every time someone is killed or injured as a result of the ongoing violence in Iraq, it becomes more—not less—important that we understand why and how we went to war. If we were misled, as it now seems impossible to deny, then the people who misled us must be held accountable for their deception.

Information that is now publicly available, such as the DSM, makes it at least possible that a crime may have been committed by the Bush administration. To say that the issue of why we invaded Iraq is irrelevant because it’s in the past is akin to saying that the specifics of Watergate became irrelevant when Richard Nixon resigned.

The information in the DSM is not “news”
True, much of the information contained in the DSM has been reported elsewhere, so in that sense it is perhaps not a “smoking gun.” This, however, does not diminish the importance of what the memo reveals. When viewed in context—as we have attempted to do with DowningStreetMemo.com—the DSM paints a damning portrait of an administration artificially pumping up its case for war while at the same time disingenuously asserting its desire to avoid it.

What makes the DSM so vital from a news perspective is:

 * The source – short of a similar document on the US side, there isn’t a much more credible source than the British Prime Minister and his senior staff.
 * The timing – the fact that the meeting in question took place in July 2002 illustrates just how early on Bush had made up his mind to “remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of WMD and terrorism.”
 * The “nutshell” – in a few sentences, the memo summarizes all of the key components of Bush’s deception: that Iraq posed an imminent threat to the United States, that the US was willing to work with the UN on a diplomatic solution, that war was a last resort, but if undertaken that the legal basis for it was sound, and that the aftermath of an invasion, if necessary, would be managed responsibly.

The content of the DSM is undeniably newsworthy. As to why it isn’t being covered adequately here in the US, well that’s a subject for another web site.

Americans knew the case for war was thin from the outset
Let us assume for the moment that Americans had the benefit of a truly fair and balanced news media from which to gather information and form an opinion on the necessity of war. The DSM makes it clear that there were some things that the public did not know and could not have known (e.g., the National Security Council’s unwillingness to work with the UN). There were other things too that were presented by the administration in such a distorted way as to render them useless to even the most engaged American citizen in forming an opinion on the necessity of war.

The non-existent connection between Saddam and al Qaida, for example, was cited so many times by the administration that at the height of prewar hysteria, well over half of Americans polled believed Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks when in fact Iraq had nothing to do with them. (Sadly, many people still believe this.) Similarly, claims about Iraq’s WMD capability featured regular invocations of “mushroom clouds” when there was in fact no evidence on which to base such claims.

What we now know is that the conflation of Saddam, WMD and terrorism was in essence a marketing strategy, a preconceived justification for a preconceived war. As early as July of 2002, the President and his administration had not only decided to invade Iraq in order to depose Saddam, they had also determined how to enlist the support of the American people by playing on their worst fears.

Bush’s reelection came well before the release of the DSM, so it is impossible to know what it’s impact might have been on what was a very close election.

The DSM doesn’t tell us anything we didn’t already know
For those of us who saw through the Bush administration’s house of cards before the invasion, the DSM doesn’t really offer anything we “didn’t already know.” However, its provenance and its comprehensive yet straightforward representation of the administration’s Iraq policy present the facts in a much more compelling light. It also represents hard evidence of the administration’s willful misrepresentation of its own policies.

The DSM’s importance lies not so much in what it says but who said it. This is not “sour grapes” coming from ousted White House officials with a bone to pick—it is the official record of a meeting held by the US’ staunchest ally. The DSM may not tell us anything we didn’t already know, but it does offer hard evidence that the Bush administration misled the country into war.

The DSM is just one aide’s impressions
This argument seeks to discredit the document’s accuracy by suggesting that it represents one person’s—presumably erroneous—impression of the meeting. Wrong–these are minutes, and they were circulated after the meeting to all who took part. However, given numerous opportunities to refute or clarify any of the memo’s contents, none of the players has done so. Not the British government, the Prime Minister, or any members of his cabinet. In fact, at a joint appearance, neither British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw nor US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice refuted any aspect of the memo’s legitimacy or accuracy.

Interestingly, White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan has moved from refusing to comment on the memo at all, to calling the memo “flat out wrong” to, most recently, avoiding any direct commentary on its veracity.

The issue of manipulation of intelligence has been settled
This is, quite simply, false. The President’s commission on intelligence did not address the issue because it was not authorized to do so under its charter. The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence was originally going to investigate how intelligence was used but, under White House pressure, scaled back its inquiry to deal only with “intelligence failures” in terms of how the information was collected, not how it was used as a basis for war.

What the DSM clearly states is that the head of British Intelligence believed that the Bush Administration was using its intelligence to support a course of action rather than determining a course of action based on the intelligence.

Many other nations, France included, believed Saddam had WMD
While it’s true that many governments believed Saddam had WMD, there was obviously no agreement about what to do about it. Further, simply believing something to be true does not make it so, and certainly does not form a basis for war.

The administration never had a “smoking gun” to prove Saddam had WMD, and in fact the intelligence supporting the administration’s view was alarmingly thin. As we now know from various reports, US intelligence affirming WMD frequently came from paid informants who, in some cases, were later proven to be fabricators. There was virtually no intelligence coming out of Iraq itself—the country was impenetrable, leaving the US and others with little in the way of credible sources.

That President Bush believed Saddam had WMD is not in dispute. The issue is whether he was justified in taking the nation to war on the basis of his beliefs, absent any hard evidence (like pictures of missiles in Cuba, to take a historical example).

It is also worth noting that while there was widespread agreement (and widespread error) as to Saddam’s chemical weapons capability, the issue of nuclear weapons is a different story. On that score, the US and UK stood nearly alone in their assessment of Iraq’s nuclear capabilities. It was also on this issue that the administration demonstrated its carelessness with intelligence by claiming that Iraq had sought nuclear material from Niger. The fact that the President made this claim in a State of the Union address is all the more troubling, especially given that the same statement was pulled from a speech he gave just a few months earlier.

Regime change was already US policy before we invaded Iraq
The Iraq Liberation Act expressed the Clinton administration’s support for democratic opposition groups inside Iraq and authorized a variety of mechanisms by which to provide that support. These included military assistance in the form of supplies and training. However, the final section of the act expressly limits the administration to just these forms of military support. From this we can safely assert that the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 provided no policy precedent for invasion, air strikes or any use of American military force.

title: User:Kevin Baas/Antimisinformation


text:
User:Kevin Baas/News

The DSM Coordination Center is a center for coordinating all things in support of exposing the truth behind the Administration's handling and presentation of pre-war intelligence, and whether the president was determined to go to war with Iraq prior to assessing and regardless of the facts, intelligence, and legality. The goals of this center are to aggregate information, prepare representatives (fight misinformation and propaganda), coordinate actions, and disseminate news.

Antimisinformation • Information • News • Analysis • Strategy • Action • Coordinate

This Center

 * June 7: recruiting participants
 * June 7: strategy page was created
 * June 6: this center started

Search

 * Technorati Blog search for "downing street memo"
 * Google news search for "downing street memo"

Media
Chronological

'''June 07/08 - The Bush / Blair defense
 * http://dawnofnewamerica.blogspot.com/2005/06/bush-and-blair-press-conference.html

 * http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/nation/3215932
 * ''David Swanson, a Washington Democratic activist working to persuade Congress to pursue an inquiry into the memo, said the document's timing and the U.N. resolution calling for Saddam to disarm do not disprove the memo's contents.

 * "I am not sure what point they thought they were making," said Swanson, the co-founder of www.afterdowningstreet.org. "These minutes mesh perfectly with a building pile of evidence, including testimony from former administration officials, and if that's going to be a matter of sheer coincidence, we need an explanation of why."
 * http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2005/06/08/excerpts_of_the_downing_street_memo/?rss_id=Boston+Globe+--+World+News
 * ''It was the most attention paid by the media in the USA so far to the "Downing Street memo," first reported on May 1 by The Sunday Times of London. The memo is said by some of the president's sharpest critics, such as Democratic Rep. John Conyers (news, bio, voting record) of Michigan, to be strong evidence that Bush decided to go to war and then looked for evidence to support his decision.
 * http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/usatoday/20050608/pl_usatoday/downingstreetmemogetsfreshattention

 * http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2005/06/02/DI2005060201359.html?nav=rss_nation/special
 * http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1175/is_3_36/ai_n6015196
 * ''"Behavioral scientists have identified many powerful factors that drive us to war -- factors so numerous and so compelling that it's hard to imagine how we'll ever overcome them. Evolution seems to have equipped us -- men, especially -- with strong tendencies to organize and kill. As General John J. Pershing stated, "Men go to war because they enjoy it." Like many mammals, we also possess the natural tendency to protect our territory. Society is capable of suppressing genetically based tendencies, but when it comes to war, most cultures actually fuel the flames. We deliberately instill nationalistic pride in our children, and we teach them to assume roles and follow orders -- all characteristics of the good soldier. In addition, we "deindividuate" people by giving them uniforms; we diffuse responsibility by having them use weapons in teams; we dehumanize enemies by labeling them heathens, animals and so on. Throw in financial incentives, some propaganda and a charismatic leader or two, and we become more antlike than ever."
 * A Partner in Shaping an Assertive Foreign Policy
 * Elisabeth Bumiller. New York Times. (Late Edition (East Coast)). New York, N.Y.: Jan 7, 2004. *:pg. A.1
 * Ms. Rice was in similar lock step with Mr. Bush, and Mr. Cheney, on going to war with Iraq, senior advisers to the president said, and served as an implementer of the president's wishes. Richard Haass, the former director of policy planning at the State Department who is now the president of the Council on Foreign Relations, recalls going to see Ms. Rice in July 2002, well before the president began making a public case for ousting Mr. Hussein, to discuss with Ms. Rice the pros and cons'' of making Iraq a priority.
 * Basically she cut me off and said, 'Save your breath -- the president has already decided what he's going to do on this,'  Mr. Haass said.
 * http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/08/international/08prexy.html?pagewanted=print
 * http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20050608/a_memo08.art.htm

title: User:Kevin Baas/News


text:
Gideon Bok

Gideon Bok (born 1966) is an American painter who lives and works in Maine. He earned his B.A. from Hampshire College and his M.F.A. from Yale University. He has gone on to teach painting and drawing at Hampshire, but is on leave from his position.

He received a 2004 John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Fellowship and the Hassam, Speicher, Betts, and Symons Fund Purchase Award through The American Academy of Arts and Letters in 2005. Bok's work has been written up in The New York Times, Time Out New York, ARTnews, Art New England, and The Boston Globe.

He is represented by Alpha Gallery in Boston.

Prominent Maine folklorist Gordon Bok is his uncle.

title: Gideon Bok


text:
User:Kevin Baas/Action

The DSM Coordination Center is a center for coordinating all things in support of exposing the truth behind the Administration's handling and presentation of pre-war intelligence, and whether the president was determined to go to war with Iraq prior to assessing and regardless of the facts, intelligence, and legality. The goals of this center are to aggregate information, prepare representatives (fight misinformation and propaganda), coordinate actions, and disseminate news.

Antimisinformation • Information • News • Analysis • Strategy • Action • Coordinate

Actions

 * Sign conyer's petition: http://www.johnconyers.com

title: User:Kevin Baas/Action


text:
Stellingwarfs dialect

Stellingwarfs (Stellingwerfs) is a Westphalian and Friso-Saxon dialect spoken in Ooststellingwerf and Weststellingwerf in the Dutch province of Friesland, and also in Steenwijkerland and Westerveld in the Dutch province of Overijssel and Drenthe.

Like Het Bildt and Leeuwarden, Weststellingwerf and Ooststellingwerf are among the municipalities of Friesland where West Frisian is not spoken.

The language was identified by the government of the Netherlands in 1996 within Low Saxon.

title: Stellingwarfs dialect


text:
User talk:Daniel Spencer

Image:Lindsay.jpg
This picture has been listed for deletion. Please see Images_and_media_for_deletion and comment. If you can supply copyright information this will help. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:40, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Blair Baynes
You've got to quit posting nonsense article about unimportant people. RickK 08:51, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * I warned you. When you come back in 24 hours, please learn what an encyclopedia article is.  RickK 09:57, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Daniel Spencer


text:
User:Kevin Baas/Coordinate

The DSM Coordination Center is a center for coordinating all things in support of exposing the truth behind the Administration's handling and presentation of pre-war intelligence, and whether the president was determined to go to war with Iraq prior to assessing and regardless of the facts, intelligence, and legality. The goals of this center are to aggregate information, prepare representatives (fight misinformation and propaganda), coordinate actions, and disseminate news.

Antimisinformation • Information • News • Analysis • Strategy • Action • Coordinate

Synergy

 * Forum at Big Brass Alliance

Welcome
Hi all! leave a note here to let everyone know you've arrived. Kevin Baastalk: new 04:30, 2005 Jun 9 (UTC)

''( A pointer: when a page is submitting or loading, i find that hitting stop and resubmitting/loading, often results in a quick success. )

title: User:Kevin Baas/Coordinate


text: User:GDH

title: User:GDH


text:
Talk:Bus plunge story

Untitled
Bizarre. According to Google News, there have been "bus plunges" in the last month in Recife, Georgia, Uttaranchal, Khabarovsk, Peru, Malaysia, Serbia, Vietnam...these things are death traps! sjorford →•← 08:44, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, of course there have been recent bus plunges.
I did say they were in the news *every day*. That being said, they hit the news about once a week, or every other week on average, but the stories play out over the week about the "brave victims", how "faith in (insert deity)" saved a victim, rescue effort spotlights, body recovery, stories about victims in the hospital, etc., to keep a steady stream of stories coming in daily.

This is why generic motor vehicle accident statistics are mentioned: 130 people are killed every day over 8,000 are injured every day in cars and such (in the U.S. alone - the statistics are truly frightful on a global scale, where bus plunge stories come from). Buses wreck much less often than that. On the flip side, it's also worth noting that when the big 'To-Do' about Columbine hit, that a bus plunge happened the very same day that killed more people. Nobody went off on a multi-month media rampage about banning buses and other motor verhicles, but schools across the nation have curtailing free speech and other rights in response to that incident, while general driving safety is still given little attention. -Unsigned comment

I wonder if the bus plunge was caused by one of those temblors that rocked the area. -Rolypolyman 23:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Merge somewhere?
I attempted to clean up this article to conform to a more encyclopedic standard, but in the end I have to say I am dissatisfied with the article as a whole. It does seem to be a valid sort of phenomenon, and as such I think it should stay (I was tempted to nominate it for deletion at first). However it seems to have little content of its own and should probably be merged into another, broader topic - but I cannot find a good topic to merge it into. Arkyan 00:09, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Perfectly Valid
Its a perfectly valid article, content wise. The content needs to have a container, regardless of whether the term 'bus plunge' exists or not. Its like 'gunned down'. Best one I ever saw was a huge mass of bushfires being termed an 'Arc Of Devastation', anybody want to write that article?

Restore deletion
This article explains just about everything in the article. I think much of it should be reverted. zafiroblue05 | Talk 15:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism
This article was vandalized by dtcdthingy. I restored it to the previous version. --Lembut 22:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

 * The whole article was unverifiable claims and ex cathedra statements from start to finish, far beyond the point of being able to change a few words and add a few cites to make it suitable for Wikipedia. It needs to be rewritten from scratch. --Dtcdthingy 04:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Is This a Little Better?
There needs to be an article stating the unique significance of the phrase "bus plunge". Since dtcdthingy feels previous versions lacked cites, I've tried to use only that which can be found in the links area (National Lampoon cannot be cited because it is copyrighted and not on the web, but Google shows that they did indeed have "Bus Plunge" columns.. there are many web references to their "bus plunge" articles, but it would be pointless to cite those unless someone finds a better one than I could.)

I hope we can work out a commonly acceptable article here, because I feel that the "bus plunge" phrase is worthy of inclusion. Perhaps the article should be about the fixation on the phrase, instead of trying to explain the phrase itself more than is needed. (That would be more appropriate in bus transport or motor vehicle accident). Bus Plunge is only about the obtiquiousness of that phrase itself.

There's no need to go into technical detail, it's just a journalism cliche that humor sites sometimes pick up on, and that's what really needs to be explained. Syd 19:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Clash
I wonder if the same could be said about protestors "clashing" with police? Communisthamster 01:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

headline
I have added the point, which is at least as important as the content of the story, that for headlines "bus / plunges" fit one-column headlines in the old, narrow format of newspapers - and fillers were always one column. As a man who's written a bus plunge hed or two in his day, it needs to be noted. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 14:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Not a stub
I don't think this article (as of 11/2018) meets the WP standards of being a stub: "A stub is an article that, although providing some useful information, is too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject, and that is capable of expansion. The last point is key - there isn't much else to say about it. This article is quite short, but it's sufficient and complete. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 21:31, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Deletion Nomination
I have taken this article to the WP:AfD forum. With all respect to the above authors, I can't see how an article about an obscure print media cliche meets WP:GNG, considering that of the three sources cited, only one is RS (the first is an example and does not discuss the subject of the article, and the second is a self-published webpage). This does not rise to the level of "significant coverage in multiple independent reliable secondary sources" (only one source), in my opinion. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 17:19, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Move to Bus plunge story
The recent AfD left us at a consensus to keep and rename, but didn't quite find consensus on the target. The proposed options were for Bus plunge story or Bus plunge (journalistic practice). There was a slight preference for the former, and it's also my preference, so I'm proposing it. I'll give this discussion a few days to run and then do a WP:BOLD move if there's no objections and nobody's done it first. —siroχo 07:34, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support your idea to move to the first option. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 23:56, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support first option, seems more natural without parenthetical. 93 (talk) 04:11, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

There was no opposition so I did the move. Still need to decide what to do with the original Bus plunge location in the below discussion. —siroχo 12:46, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Post-move result
After this page moves, assuming it does, what should Bus plunge become? It could Now, given @93's analysis in the AfD, I don't prefer either of: Any preferences? Am I missing an option? —siroχo 07:41, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) disambiguate between Roadway departure and the eventual target of the move, or
 * 2) redirect to Roadway departure.
 * 1) leaving it a redirect to Bus plunge story or
 * 2) as a red link would not be the correct outcome.
 * Prefer option 3 (see my comment above). I'm the one who filed the AfD and I think being a little more specific with the title, and allowing for a redirect, might make the article better. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 23:57, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Option 2 seems most natural given the popularity of inbound links I talked about, with a hatlink to Bus plunge story or whichever new title, at the article/section target for those interested in the journalistic practice. 93 (talk) 04:11, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Bus plunge story