Talk:Immortal Technique/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

The Silenced Revolution

The Silenced Revolution article exists, so this article really ought to link to it. I've put it back. Tim Ivorson 2006-06-30

Please stop removing it. If the The Silenced Revolution article should not exist, propose it for deletion. If it should not be listed under albums, move it elsewhere. Otherwise, it must remain where it is. Tim Ivorson 2006-07-03

In the absence of comments other than mine, I'll view wholesale removal of the bootlegs section as vandalism, unless The Silenced Revolution link is placed elsewhere in this article or until that article is deleted. Tim Ivorson 2006-07-07

yo that so-called bootleg is mp3 only available from peer to peer networks. since when is stuff like that part of an artists discography? i mean if it was a proper pressed cd boolteg sold on the street, ok... but thats a different story. --80.134.169.135 15:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with Tim Ivorson. The bootleg is of fairly good quality, and is full of new material. It is listed in the discography as a bootleg, so why don't we leave it there...? Anyone else have any thoughts? Cavell 16:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • It sounds worth a listen. Tim Ivorson 2006-07-10
    • It is some of his best stuff, IMHO Cavell 02:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
      • i agree theres some of his best tracks on that, but still, its no pressed cd/vinyl bootleg and therefor should be removed. --80.134.142.13 18:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

thats like adding any and all mp3s found on p2p... makes no sense --80.134.169.135 23:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I haven't heard it and I'm not saying it ought to be listed on Wikipedia, let alone in IT's discography. I'm just saying that as long as it has a page on Wikipedia, Immortal Technique has to link to it. I don't object to putting it in the see also section or proposing the article about The Silenced Revolution for deletion. Nobody who opposes its inclusion in his discography here has yet addressed my point. Tim Ivorson 2006-07-10

yes of course that article should be deleted. --80.134.178.48 18:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of it being a bootleg it should be included because it is his work, the definition of Discography is "A comprehensive list of the recordings made by a particular performer or of a particular composer's works." as said by answers.com So what makes this different?Rubbergovernment 03:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• I agree Cavell 05:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Bootlegs removal

ill request the removal of that infamous "Silenced Revolution" so-called bootleg per IT's statement on that matter on his official myspace page. i will also remove the entry here in the main article. --80.134.142.13 18:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

update: i meant ill request the romval of the Silenced Revolution ARTICLE. --80.134.142.13 18:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I feel like the discussion/vote on the Silenced Revolution article is being carried out in secret. The article proposed for deletion does not yet link to its own vote and the user proposing it for deletion has already removed all links to it (except those on this talk page). I'd like to reinstate the link in this article. Tim Ivorson 2006-07-21

Tim Ivorson do you actually read what i write?! if not, once again, and only for you the link to the artists statement regarding tthe "bootleg" on his official myspace. --80.134.160.178 18:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I read it the first time you posted it. The last time I reinstated the bootlegs section, I didn't put it in the albums section. Tim Ivorson 2006-07-24

80.134.etc, I don't know why you keep reverting my edits and I think you should try to explain. I'll try to explain why I keep reverting your edits. I think that if the Silenced Revolution is to be removed from this page, its article should be deleted first. In a bulletted list, there should not be a line break in mid-entry. If you I don't feel that The Silenced Revolution should be listed in the discography, then please move it to the see also section. Tim Ivorson 2006-07-25

Answered here. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me}Who's the boss? 11:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Tim Ivorson why dont you know? the article is gonna be deleted later today or tomorrow anyway. --80.134.182.178 13:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

year of birth?

text says 1978 but the box says 1979? --80.134.182.178 20:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

4 non-arabs

"And they thought nobody noticed the news report that they did, about the bombs planted on the george washington bridge. 4 non arabs arrested during the emergency. And then it dissapeared from the news permanently"

I think he made this up. Is there any proof that there was such a news report? -ShadowyCabal

If there is no evidence, then we should not say that there was such a report, but rather that IT claims that there was. If we say that there was no such report, then we should provide evidence for that, which would be difficult. Tim Ivorson 2006-08-05

ShadowyCaballero, regarding you last edit summary, I think that the burden of proof in on what Wikipedia claims. If there is no evidence that it was broadcast, we don't have to say it was broadcast. Tim Ivorson 2006-08-07

I restated it. I say there is no evidence it was broadcast. I don't think this is extraneous information. This is one of Technique's few disprovable claims. I want to see how it holds up to wikipedia. ShadowyCabal 07:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, ShadowyCaballero. I find that much better. Tim Ivorson 2006-08-08

Did you bother to make a google search? See this: [1]. --Striver 15:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

That article couldn't be more bare bones. Does it even mention the date of 9/11? - ShadowyCabal 17:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

At the top it says September 12/2001. -- but i agree, it is quite ify -- the site is www.whatreallyhappened.com -- bias possible?

i believe he is referring to the five Israeli's arrested on 9/11, allegedely Mossad, and allegedly plotting to blow up George Washington bridge. http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2006/09/1732357.php is the best source i have been able to find so far. 82.21.150.24 18:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, What was with the Israeli occupation of Palestine? That is a completely biased statement. Palestine does not exist anymore. it's called Israel and they are called Israelis for a reason. It's their state. Amend your statement please.

Actually, since Palestinians never authorized Great Britian's decision to hand over their homeland to create a Jewish-only state, Israel does occupy them to this day. Palestinians have a terrible quality of life as a result of their refusal to accept the European decision to make a Middle Eastern home for European Jews to migrate to. The very water under their ground is syphoned off and sold back to them by Israel at inflated prices. Arab homes within Israel are bulldozed to make homes where only Jews are allowed to live. Israel's citizens are made to carry documentation that reveals their ethnicity and this documentation is used to deny non-Jews benefits, medical care, and excludes them from the universal military service that all Jewish citizens must perform. This military service is rewarded with many benefits that are denied to non-Jews. Amnesty International has reported extensively on this issue, and there are hundreds of UN resolutions condemning Israel's oppression of her non-Jewish citizens. If America treated their non-Christian population this way, the world would be outraged. Also, the creation of Israel did not come after the holocaust. The plans were laid down by British Zionists in the late 19th century, and the British nobility furthered these plans, declaring that the Palestinian people inhabiting the land were not to be consulted or considered. The Palestinian people were treated as the Native Americans were, and no one can have a complete understanding of this issue, or the middle east "peace" process, without REALLY studying the creation of Israel, as well as understanding the manifold human rights violations perpetrated by Israel, which has led to a Palestinian resistance. What would you do if you were Palestinian? Hand your house over willingly? The world will never have peace until those in power can learn to have empathy for those whose backs they are standing on.

Also, my Israel supporting friend, if you truly listen to Technique you might be able to develop the understanding that your statement "Palestine does not exist" is a promotion of the Colonialist media brainwashing ideology. If the colonialist European system can convince you that "Palestine does not exist" simply because non-Palestinians SAY so, then you will not hear the children of Palestine screaming for help and justice. Just as the racist leader of Iran declares that Jews never suffered a holocaust, your statement that "Palestine does not exist" is an attempt to white wash a period of history that shines a poor light on Western governments. While Israelis have a right to occupy some of their historical land, they have no right to oppress the people who lived there since the days of the Pharaohs. Please amend your whitewashing, because that's so against peace and human unity.

2007?

whoever changed the year: can you please cite your sources? until then, i changed it back to "late 2006", as IT said in a recent radio interview. --80.134.130.199 20:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Birthday

Who's sure his birthday is February 19? On IMDB it says March 31, and it previously said the same here.--Tainted Drifter 04:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

yeah, but also, who's sure the year is '78 not '77 or '79? thats all the years i saw so far --80.134 16:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Poor Quality and vandalism

can someone rv the last 15 or so edits to a previous version?? I don't know how to Cavell 03:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I just reverted a bunch of cruft and warned the editors responsible. I also suspect there's more vandalism and/or creative writing in there, and have tagged the article appropriately. The article also doesn't cite sources, and definitely needs some of that, hopefully reliable sources. William Pietri 04:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup Tag

After reading through the article, I noticed that it had quite a few spelling, grammatical, and formatting errors in addition to the neutrality disputes and unsourced statements already noted. The introduction is also far too long and most of it should be deleted or moved elsewhere in the article. I thus added a general cleanup tag to the article. I may work on it myself if I have time, but it would be great if someone else could try and help as well. Rg998 16:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Revert appears to have fixed the problem, tag removed. Rg998 20:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Interview link

Hi. I see that 80.134 has removed a link to an interview with the article subject. It seemed like a good link to me. 80.134, could you tell me more about your reasoning? Thanks, William Pietri 00:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Prison Charges

Can we get some verifications on the prison charges? Was he really convicted of rape? Where can I get some information about that? Seems like something as big as that should be cited. Admiralakbar 04:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

VERIFY PLEASE Can someone verify that he attended Penn State? It's a very good school, and if he barely made it through highschool, it is highly unlikely that really went to school there.

He went to one of the best public HS's in the country. And he did go to Penn State.

How come no one talks about how there is an annoying gasping for air sound in between every single line he spits? Once you hear it, you probably won't be able to listen to him spit anymore.

• No one talks about it because it is not relevant. Your opinion is not a NPOV and therefore irrelevant here. Try a group chat online where you can voice your opinion and suggestions Cavell 06:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

You would disagree with the fact that he has been criticized for breath control issues on VOL 2?

Views of Gender Issues

Something seems wrong with this section. Is it really relevant?? Most rapper's lyrics are clearly misogynistic, and can be used for macho/bravado puposes without having any actual truth behind those statements. Thoughts everyone??? Cavell 04:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I deleted it on the ground of violating WP:OR. People can interpret the lyrics as they wish but to put an interpretation on Wiki requires a citation. Gdo01 07:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The existence of the lyrics themselves is relevant. --Apeloverage 11:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Lyrics themselves are not relevant since they can be interpreted differently by different people. Please read WP:OR and WP:3RR before reverting again. Also please read the first topic on this talk page. This has been discussed before. Gdo01 11:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Utter nonsense. However, I've put it back with a reference as requested. --Apeloverage 12:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Your reference were the lyrics themselves which I have explained already cannot be used since they can be interpreted differently by different people. The only way a certain interpretation can be accepted is if it was made by a reputable source commenting on the content. Gdo01 12:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

There you go. Thanks for the extra effort. I'm glad that got settled. Gdo01 12:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, no worries, thanks. --Apeloverage 12:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

These meaning of these lyrics are taken out of context. The "Gender Issues" section should be removed.

That right, I'm sure when this convicted rapist talks about raping people he actually means "sisterhood is powerful", and bitches just be tripping and so on. Nonetheless, I've put it back. --Apeloverage 18:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Lyrics from an artist can be interpreted any way one wants, and in the case of "Billy Jacobs" - might be entirely fictional. Unless you can add a reference beyond a small phrase used he in a song, or the word "bitch", section should stay ommitted. Who is with me?? Cavell 22:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

What would be an acceptable way, in your opinion, to make the point that his lyrics include references to rape and that he's been criticised for this? My previous entry had six references. --Apeloverage 07:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• I would answer you that you are incorrect. The song "Dance with the Devil" is meant to be hardcore and raw, and it's lyrics reflect that. Weather it is actually true or reflects his personal opinion is debatable. Further, you are quoting freestyle battle lyrics, which are notoriously disrespectful without any actual malice or ill-will behind them. The third point I would like to adress probably makes the others redundant. To put a section in a biography (a rap artist's biograhy at that) called "gender issues", then just quote freestyle lyrics and reference to one line in a song - which may or may not be true - is not acceptable for Wikipedia's standards. Finally, You state "he has been critized for this". This is a very vague statement and does not warrant mention. I'm sure he has been criticized for many, many other things, actions, lyrics, etc. Should we give all these people's voices a forum here too?

I hope this clears the air a bit. I will request a mediation if the gender issues section is re-added. Thanks Cavell 23:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Ape if you add anything like that to ITs page, have fun adding it to each and every rapper's page on wikipedia that ever used "bitch" or "fag" in any freestyle or song in the past 20 years. you'll be pretty busy as it should take a couple of years to come. but as long as you do not add crap like that to other pages, someone will keep deleting it here. by the way scroll up to "Homophobia/Misogyny" and read the paragraph about hiphop vocab. maybe you'll get it. or maybe not. --87.186.10.147 12:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Given that

• no one's debating that he actually said it
• no one's debating that relatively largely numbers of people have criticised him for it, and
• that you've implicitly said that you will remove this fact from the page, regardless of how it's phrased or referenced,

mediation is fine with me. --Apeloverage 14:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Before we process to resort to the mediation, let's get these ideas straight, Let's begin with the five links you provided:

[2]: This is not even a book audio excerpt—it's an archived review and interview written and performed by a rather controversial organization named "Maoist Internationalist Movement". I am concerned about whether it's reliable and not an original research itself; maybe it's not even publicly recognized and republished by another reputable source (not until you could provide one).

[3]: Blogsite. Out of the question. Violates original research and "Links normally to be avoided" in external links.

[4]: Yet another review (original research). Let's randomly pull out a quotation from it:

There’s too much good shit on this album to name it all in the space of this review, but let’s have a quick run down of the absolute bangers you can’t ignore.

Maybe you should give it a good review before consider it as reliable.

[5]: as stated by themselves, "The Wesleyan Argus is published by the undergraduates of Wesleyan University. The University does not publish the Argus or influence its content, nor is it responsible for any opinions expressed in the Argus."[6] Per their own statement, their publishing could not be 100% neutral point of view.

[7]: Again, another site that has POV content:

In these days of growing media concentration, Green Left Weekly is a proudly independent voice committed to human and civil rights, global peace and environmental sustainability, democracy and equality. By printing the news and ideas the mainstream media won't, Green Left Weekly exposes the lies and distortions of the power brokers and helps us to better understand the world around us.

When citing sources, please review their history and/or summary about their own site and consider seriously about their reliability before tossing all of them into Wikipedia. Just because "no one's debating that he actually said it" and/or "no one's debating that relatively largely numbers of people have criticised him for it" doesn't mean we can depend solely on the viewpoints of the sources provided by you. Also, no matter "how it's phrased or referenced", it will not affect whether a statement is a "fact" or not. Regards, Vic226 16:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Why are the gender issues there again? They can be taken differently depending on the reader. Whoever keeps putting it just cannot accept others opinions. Please remove it for good. -Anonymus —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.115.160.173 (talk • contribs) 16:38, 25 November 2006

Vandalism

HF, can some one please put the page back to the way it used to be?? I dont have Vandalbot. PPL please, this is an ENCYCLOPEDIA, not a coffee shop hen fest. Let's try to make this atricle sound like one.. Cavell 20:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey Cavell, didn't Tech say "I'm just a man, don't follow me nigga" I'm sure he wouldn't appreciate you slobbering all over his nuts, being Canadian you don't have any right supporting his issues anyway, go drink a Molson and watch a John Candy movie.

• HAHAHA. You got a lot of balls for someone who wont leave his name. BITCH ASS. LMAO. I'm trying to better this atricle, which is bieng constantly vandalised. I am proud to be a Canadian, which, untill of late, did not support your US "war OF terror". Why don't you save you stooopid comments for your fat-ass beatch, who I'm sure appreciates your humour. I'm assuming you have nothing positive to contribute to Wikipedia, so why are you wasting your time?? Go get some knowledge on something - anything, and try to contribute something here insead of trying to be a fucking comedian.

P.S- You read my page but didn't notice anything else other than I'm from Canada???? You not ready SALLY Cavell 23:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Rape

In the Prison section of the article it used to say that he went to jail due to several cases of assault and rape and now it just says its assualt. Why did someone take it off? did he not go to jail for rape and someone just made it up or did some fan of his take it off because it made him look very, very bad?. OR did he go back in time and not rape anyone anymore?

• Unless someone can provide a reliable source according to WP:RS, information like that is heresay. If a reference cannot be found to back up such a claim, then it will be removed. Cavell 05:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

His homepage says "aggravated assault".

9/11 Views Mainstream?

The CNN poll used as evidence that Immortal Technique's views on is specifically labelled "non-scientific" and is not the same as a professionally designed and supervised survey. This is the disclaimer below the poll results when you click on the link:

This QuickVote is not scientific and reflects the opinions of only those Internet users who have chosen to participate. The results cannot be assumed to represent the opinions of Internet users in general, nor the public as a whole.

Unless someone has a more credible source, we need to remove the "mainstream" modifier from the sentence. --Tjss(Talk) 03:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Islam

who ever wrote that he converted to islam must put a citation because in "Beef & Broccoli" from his first album he states that he is NOT a muslim