Talk:Confrontation at Concordia

message: The claims "The documentary presents footage of intolerance, hatred, militant censorship and use of violence by the Muslim students at the University campus to intimidate and suffocate any free discourse of opposing views." is not supported by the source cited .Bless sins 13:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have thus made corrections to that paragraph adding the corresponding details presented in the reference.--CltFn 00:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you please give a proper published reference for the Netanyahu quote. Thanks.Bless sins 18:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is nothing "dubious" with quotes from the documentary which is the subject of the article. Bless sins, stop spurious tagging of material that doesn't fit your political agenda. ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  "political agenda"?? Your actions on wikipedia are going from bad to worse. Violating WP:Uncivil will not help anyone. In any case please provided a published and reliable source that actually quotes the documentary. Otherwise, the info is unsourced.Bless sins 18:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nonsense. We even have  for citations like that. ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  So how can the quotes you have posted be verified? Am I expected to watch the entire documentary? What if it is hours long?Bless sins 15:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

text: What if the video is hours long? Asking me to spend hours to verify a sentence (that I may easily miss) is ridiculous!Bless sins 01:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The video is only 45 min long. No one asks you to watch it. BTW, CBSC panel link includes some of the interviews. ←Humus sapiens ну? 01:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "No one asks you to watch it". How else can I verify it?Bless sins 01:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's your problem. ←Humus sapiens ну? 02:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That doesn't cut it on wikipedia. If I source something to a book, I must provide the page number as well. WP says "For that reason, edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge."  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bless sins (talk • contribs) 02:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Are you going to use the same argument to disrupt each of the hundreds of articles using , or only those you dislike? ←Humus sapiens ну? 09:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Claims

message: Solidarity for Palestinian Human Rights claimed that Netanyahu was guilty of war crimes and therefore should not be allowed a forum to vent his views on a publicly-funded campus.  Whether or not you agree with them is besides the point.  That is their claim.  
Furthermore, several students from all parties were injured in the ruckus from batons and tear gas. Despite claims of protestors being "violent," smashed windows and minor property damage would hardly constitute as violence in the normal sense.  All human injuries incurred that day were from police tactics.
The original ad for a protest, which you can still dig up online, called for protesting peacefully and for delivering an "arrest warrant" for his alleged war crimes
As well, Netanyahu had previously been denied the opportunity to speak at other institutions, such as UC Berkeley and Northwestern.
I type as a student of Concordia University and as someone who experienced the aftermath of the riot firsthand, as well as knowing people who attended the protest.
=//Turnquest 02:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is about the documentary. The SPHR's claims, "arrest warrants", "original ads for a protest", grievances, excuses, etc. do not belong here. As for being "someone who experienced the aftermath", please review WP:COI. ←Humus sapiens ну? 09:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  SPHR  

message: The word 'Polemics' has connotations of criticizing something holy or theological, which unfortunately this documentary does not fall under.  I would suggest, if my addition of the word "criticism" does not work well, that "controversy" be used instead.
=//Turnquest 02:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think "controversy" is too strong, but OK. The word you used, "Criticism" is not going to work because the decision of CBSC panel and Michael Grand's suggestions hardly qualify as such. ←Humus sapiens ну? 03:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polemics 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Confrontation at Concordia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120711055139/http://www.cbsc.ca/english/decisions/2004/040511appendixA.pdf to http://www.cbsc.ca/english/decisions/2004/040511appendixA.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928162032/http://www.jewishindependent.ca/archives/Aug03/archives03Aug22-03.html to http://www.jewishindependent.ca/archives/Aug03/archives03Aug22-03.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061004072635/http://www.friends.ca/News/Friends_News/archives/articles06290301.asp to http://friends.ca/News/Friends_News/archives/articles06290301.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050422193005/http://www.cbsc.ca/english/decisions/decisions/2004/040511.htm to http://www.cbsc.ca/english/decisions/decisions/2004/040511.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:32, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified