Biography Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Hip-hop Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hip-hop, a collaborative effort to build a useful resource for and improve the coverage of hip-hop on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Hip-hopWikipedia:WikiProject Hip-hopTemplate:WikiProject Hip-hopHip-hop ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

saying the track bin laden features jadakiss and eminem is a bit of a stretch; their vocals were sampled and they didnt actually pen lyrics for the track. mos def did, but they did not.

There is a remix of this song that features DJ Green Lantern, KRS-One, and Chuck D. They aren't sampled either, from what I can tell. That might be worthy of mention if Mos Def, Jadakiss, and Em are... Joe 07:15, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone keeps deleting my addition of him beleiving in a blood line of jesus. The Point of No Return specifically states his beleifs, about Mary Magdalene giving birth to the children of Jesus (TAKEN DIRECTLY FROM THE SONG), and what the Knights Templar found under Solomon's temple (AGAIN, TAKEN DIRECTLY FROM THE SONG). Delete stuff like that just proves what he's trying to say, you'll put what you like, but you'll take away the stuff that goes against your religion. It's effing rediculious. Anyone who deletes that shouldn't be listening to Immortal Technique. I will mercilessly edit that part in constantly, because it is the truth, cited directly from his song. There is no justification for taking that part out.

that is all.

• If its me to who you're reffering, the reason you keep having your lines edited out is bc you write like a lunatic. If you can properly express a legitimate point related to tech, then please do so. Planting a line or too in the middle of an unrelated topic will be regarded as vandalism. If you have so much to say, why don't you sign-in as a user and everyone can see exactly what you're talking about?Cavell 21:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)Cavell[reply]

Lol, it's under the paragraph about conspiracies/other questionable events tech refers to, that is the PERFECT place to put it.

It appears the basis for this article was plagiarized from The Viper Records Biography of Immortal Technique. Was permission given? This doesn't look like public domain material. Tjdw 02:54, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I got permission - ShadowyCaballero

• • Did you forward the email/send the letter per Wikipedia:Confirmation of permission? --Hansnesse 01:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC) (Edited to add: Shouldn't there be a note of attribution as well?)--Hansnesse 01:19, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I have replaced the biography with one I wrote myself (save for the last paragraph which appears to have been subsequently added). It is probably not great, since I wrote it in a few minutes, but I think it is better than the alternative of reverting to the state before the material was added. Thanks, --Hansnesse 22:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

this biography looks like it was cut and pasted from the Viper records web site. Furthermore, a military hospital somewhere in South America - that's too vague for an article. Same with the part about him coming from native Peru. Peru is one hell of a big place and it's as general as saying someone came from the United States. If we just cut and paste articles from promo sites it makes wikipedia look worthless.

Vague is better than nothing (and some details are so specific they aren't notable). Learn to live with vagueness unless you have more specific, and sourced, information. If you have, then why not add it? On the other hand, if the wording here is copied from elsewhere, then it may have to be removed for copyright violation. Tim Ivorson 10:43, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Check it out [1]. The bio here on Wiki is a slimmer version but uses a lot of the same phrases and language. Looks like copy vio but I'm not going to add the copy vio tag until someone else verifies. -->Chemical Halo 18:16, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Some of these phrases are the same, but it looks like it was put through a POV filter. I wanted to get as many facts as possible and the Viper records site is really the only source on the web. If you are talking about sentence structure, please, change away.

"LOOK" I don’t know who wrote this, but you dumbass what better place to get Immortal Techniques biography than one of his own sites. You stupid Bitch stop hating. "HOE"

Still may be a copyvio. User:ShadowyCaballero above claims to have permission, however. --Hansnesse 01:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have permission. The contents are facts. If when you talk about copyvio you are talking about something creative, like sentence structure, maybe you're right. I took the Viper records article and tried to screen out the POV. If it's just facts like, "Immortal technique was born in a military hospital" how else can it be written? You can't copywrite the truth. - ShadowyCabal

Correct, facts are not generally copyright protected, but specific wording is. This section has to go. --Hansnesse 21:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article basically reads like a love letter. Not sure if it was written by a promoter or what, but anyway, it puts him in a remarkably positive light. This guy was the main bully in my high school, that is, he was a huge asshole. So it's weird for me to read this article about how great he is in a supposed encyclopedia. --169.231.18.188 02:01, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not gonna tell you to forget that you were bullied in school. I was made fun of and kicked around ever since I was 7 until I stopped putting up with it. As another person writes, you should really read his lyrics. He even confesses having been a bully in one of his songs. People can change. Doc Daneeka 04:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you even heard any of his songs?--Kennyisinvisible 03:29, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a long time since high school dude... let it go... he went to college, he went to prison, he worked as a social worker, he became famous... he might have changed, dontchya think? Besides, public and private life is different... not everyone has your unique access to his private life...

can some admin please block user Cavell from changing the words of the artist's fan website to official website; he (or she) is obviously mixing up immortaltechnique.com (no dash! official site which right now redirects to viper records website) with immortal-technique.com (fan website, WITH dash) i think it is important that it is displayed as what it is and that, unlike viper records website, it doesnt represent Immortal Technique officially.

who-am-i 22:48, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As a response to the user Who-Am-I, I would like to state that Immortal Technique himself posts commentary on that website. So, in the interest of resolving the issue, the article has been changed to say "on the website Immortal-Technique.com", removing any reference of who owns the website. Cavell 01:12, 24 December 2005 (UTC)Cavell[reply]

artists sometimes post on fan message boards, it doesnt make them official. but since you are demanding sources, please look up both domain names on any whois site, e.g. on http://www.networksolutions.com/whois/index.jhtml there you will see the owners of both domains. dash: some fan. no dash: Felipe Coronel, which is IT's real name. also, you removed the note that the message board in question is currently down (since almost 2 months by the way) and you added the wrong url. http://www.immortal-technique.com/home.html is obviously neither the message board url, nor the home page, but the internal (usually framed) news page. the message board url is http://www.immortal-technique.com/forums/ both changes are rather not helpful to first time readers, therefor they should be reverted once again. if you still disagree, please post here. who-am-i 01:44, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I know the message board link, however, like you said, it is down. The link I provided will direct you to the same place (although not accesable from the main page). This seems to be the disagreement we are having. The message board has not been constanly down for 2 months, as it is where I wrote about his diatribe in the first place. The site seems to be having problems, so I posted a link that directs people directly to the atricle which I spoke about. So, please leave the link as it is, then people can click it and read what I am talking about. Thank YouCavell 02:56, 24 December 2005 (UTC)Cavell[reply]

to get a few more facts, does anyone know when IT was born? i remember reading something about 77 or 78 in some online magazine interview. however, i cannot find it in my bookmarks anymore. who-am-i 01:52, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I added the tag after reading the article, and may well end up cleaning the thing up myself. It reads far too much like material copied from somewhere, and it's grotesquely clingy; in short, it sounds like it was written by a groupie.

If it is material copied from elsewhere, then the offending revisions need to be erased for reasons of copyright. 86.133.53.111 04:33, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you are reffering to the paragraph about "The Intellectual", I wrote that. If you have any disputes about it, please contact me before changing anything, Cavell 04:37, 25 December 2005 (UTC)Cavell[reply]

I have removed the NPOV tag and rewritten the article to clean up any references I could find that would violate the NPOV. As such, I would welcome anyone who has any concerns about this to post and discuss further.Cavell 22:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)Cavell[reply]

• Well done! Much more NPOV. I would propose the following changes, however:

(i) change "rhymes deal with the wrongdoings of the government" to "rhymes deal with alledged wrongdoings of the government", since (although I think there are wrongdoings as well), this reads as an endorsement of his politics.

(ii) Remove the "Immortal Technique brings realism and consciousness back to rap music" since it is an opinion.

(iii) Replace "Despite his humble beginnings as an immigrant from Peru, to living in Harlem, New York, Immortal Technique displays amazing intellectual and political insight into sociology, world politics, and American Foreign Policy." with something more neutral or remove it entirely.

(iv) Remove "On the message board of Immortal-Technique.com [1], an excellent commentary on current political events, including Hurricane Katrina, the War in Iraq, and American Foreign Policy, may be read." Already in External links, no need to put it in twice.

I would have made the edits WP:BOLD, but since the material seems to have already be the subject of a few reverts, I thought we might try concensus here. Thoughts? --Hansnesse 01:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi, Thank you for your comments regarding my rewite. I have gone through the article once more to correct the issues you have mentioned. I take your points into great consideration and have dealt (I believe) with all of them, with just one exception, which is most likely due to a misunderstanding. In referance to your last point, technically the link is at the bottom, however, the message board link inside that link is - for some reason - down. So readers will not be able to access his diatribe via the link at the bottom, but they can access it through this link. I therefore propose to leave the link there, to further assist readers of his article. Your thoughs (or anyones else's) are welcomed. Thank you Cavell 02:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)Cavell[reply]
  • Fantastic, looks great. Thanks. --Hansnesse 20:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I have both links (in text and at the bottom) as working and going to the same page. Is it time to remove one (whoever removed it earlier today may have been thinking the same thing)? Maybe I am not seeing what material can not be acessed via both links. --Hansnesse 05:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The links appear to go to the same page, but the message forum of his fan site cannot be accesed through the link at the bottom. It is therefore added in the article's body above, where mentioned.Cavell 21:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)Cavell[reply]

• Hmm... I have the link at the bottom of the article going to a framed version of the link in the article. The section in the center of the page from the link at the bottom is the same as the link in the page. Try scrolling down the center section (how to do this is specific to your browser/platform, on most PCs, hold the mouse over the section and roll down the roller on your mouse). I don't see what is different between the pages. Thanks, --Hansnesse 21:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know if we're talking about the same link. The link I am talking about is at the end of the article, talking about his commentary on the war in Iraq, Hurricane Katrina, etc. This page cannot be accessede from the link at the bottom of the page, even though they go to the same main site, so I left the link where people can use it. I think it help add a lot of depth to the article and request that it be left in for the benifit of many people.

• I have that [2] is the middle of a frame page of [3]; sorry for the confusion. Thus any material which is in the first is also displayed in the second. Is this what you are refering to? --Hansnesse 00:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just reverted a removal of the first link. I think that removal is appropriate, but since this discussion is here, I thought I would request comments before going ahead and removing it myself, since it seems to be a contentious issue. --Hansnesse 23:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Hey Hansnesse, thanks for the support. I feel that the link should be left in because it contains a fantastic commentary on some current (well, july 05) events taking place with american politics. The link as it is presented here cannot be accessed through the main menu of the site, so it has been placed in - where I thought - the most appropriate place. I feel the link should be left in and - frankly - can't understand why someone would want to remove this pertainant information. Since transferring the entrie text to the article is not feasible, why not leave it here? Thoughts anyone? Cavell 00:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• i dont know which browser user Cavell is using (maybe lynx?) but as far as i know, all current browsers (Opera, Mozilla derivates and even IE) support iframes, so the home page (/) on immortal-technique.com should work for anyone. who-am-i 01:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I too was thinking it was a technical issue (although I had not gotten around to checking it on other browsers, etc.). If this is the case, the solution seems obvious: put both links together, Like one of the following

Fan Site and Forums^{without frames}

Fan Site and Forums (without frames)

What do ya'll think? --Hansnesse 02:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• http://www.immortal-technique.com/forums/ now points to a whole different forum and it doesnt look like the original one will come back. that is why i removed the url once again who-am-i 22:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the song "cause of death", Tech does not directly say the CIA trained the 9/11 terrorists. He says "..the CIA trained terrorists how to fight, build bombs and sneak box cutters on to a flight..." This blurb has therefore been removed as it is not entirely correct. To make mention of every single event to which he reffers would be redundant. It has already been established that he has disdain for the neo-con American gov. Cavell 13:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)Cavell:[reply]

The blurb was entirely correct. The song makes it explicitly clear that this guy thinks the U.S. federal government conspired with terrrorist who used box cutters to hijack a plane. Interestingly, Immortal Technique also believes that the United States sponsored Hitler's government. There is absolutely no other possible interpretation to these lyrics. Instead of the vague generalizations already posted, it's important to let people know exactly what Immortal Technique says. It's important that people get to see the facts and make their own judgments.

There seems to be changes back and forth between saying he went to Hunter College High School and Regis High School. I have found sources online which indicate the former, and have not been able to locate sources which indicate the latter. Perhaps someone can clarify where this is coming from. Thanks, --TeaDrinker 16:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He went to Hunter - I was there when he was. I don't know about Regis. -Hunter kid

What sources, TeaDrinker? I am a Hunter student - I checked my school records and I can't find any Felipe Coronel in the given year. "Hunter kid" - any specifics?

Howdy, an article about him here from the New York Daily news indicates that he went to Hunter. --TeaDrinker 22:37, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - that settles it. Nice find.

I noticed the few sentences about his high school time seem contradictory. On one hand, it states he helped clean up graffti, on the other it says he was almost expelled. And I think in one of his songs he mentions that he was a bully.

Does anyone have any sources pointing to Immortal Technique being a Five Percenter? If not then i suggest you take him of the category.

A few issues: (1) 2nd paragraph says "After some more run ins with the law" even though there is no antecedent "run ins with the law." Also "run ins" is probably supposed to be "run-ins." (2) The first paragraps says he is Executive VP at Viper while third paragraph says he is now "President of Operations." http://www.viperrecords.com/imtech/about.shtml <--that page which appears to be from early 2006 lists him as "President of Viper Records" (3) "politics," "world politics" and "American foreign policy" in paragraph 6 seem redundant.. there should be a way to reduce those to just two or maybe even one item.

I've attempted to fix the first problem. Feel free to edit the article yourself. Tim Ivorson 2006-06-13

I read through the beginning part of the article and did my best to try to edit it to a more formal standard. I didn't get to the last section. --Gar2chan 11:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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 page (scroll down to the bottom). --80.134.160.178 18:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

In his songs, Immortal Technique talks about he will "expose George Bush and Bin Laden/ as two seperate pawns of the same seven-headed dragon"* and that the media claims some Iraqis "still fight for Saddam/ But that's bullshit, I'll show you why it's totally wrong"* but never seems to present any proof whatsoever. Dude hasn't brought one single motherfucking shred of evidence to the table. Never! If you wanna be taken seriously, make it clear that the whole FBI investigation thingie nothing but a rumor started by Technique himself, unless you can prove it. He has proven to the world that he's nothing but an embarrasingly paranoid, highly overated bullshitter. But appearently, you didn't care and let his promotor write the article, or something. It amazes me how he's gained such an enormous fanbase that never questions what the fuck he raps about. If he'll ever truly prove any of his claims I'll take back my every word and even let him punch me in the balls a few times. Until then, change your shitty article. More preferbly, throw the whole thing away. But if you must keep it, note out that he's a compulsive liar and painfully hypocritical. A guy who whole-heartedly supports ethnonationalism and talks about how "his people where here first"** criticizes nationalism and American patriots. What the fuck is that about? Oh well, we can only hope that by the time his next album drops, his whole fanbase of retarded teenages who think it's all cool and sexy to talk about conspiracy theories have grown up and/or moved on to another artist.

* The two quotes derives from his songs "Cause of Death" and "Bin Laden (ft. Mos Def)" respectivly. Now, I ain't saying the media doesn't claim there are Saddam supporters fighting American troops in Iraq. I don't watch the news enough to know, my point was he never showed us why it's totally wrong.

**"they say the rebels in Iraq still fight for Saddam, that's bullshit. I'll show you why it's totally wrong. Cuz if another country invaded the hood tonight, it'd be warfare through harlem and Washington Heights. I wouldn't be fighting for Bush or White America's dream, I'd be fighting for my people's survival and self esteem. I wouldn't be fighting for racist churches from the south, my nigga. I'd be fighting to keep the occupation out, my nigga."

Sincerely /Fredrik (User:Illiteracy)

In that song, he is saying it's totally wrong that the resistance's goal is to reinstate Saddam. He then uses America as an example. If America were invaded, there would be a resistance, but the resistance wouldn't neccesarilly be fighting to reinstate Bush. He's implying that all native Iraqi's want is control of Iraq, they don't necessarily want the old dictatorship back.

Alright. I'll buy that. Thanks for clearing that one up. 1 down, 4999 outrageous claims to go.

I think the 4 non arabs claim below is his most outrageous. It has absolutly no backing. ShadowyCabal 07:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • In an interview for dubcnn from last year, Technique talked about how he never said "fuck America" because this is his home, and his people where here first. Instead he wants to make it better.

kid, stick to 50. and dont post here. --80.134.159.37 01:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? Are you retarded?! What the fuck does 50 have to do with any of this?! I don't even like 50. I admit tho, if we talk about how he spits, Technique is alright. What I don't like is the amount of bullshit he spits out. And if you can't prove any of that nonsense, then, kid, stick to swalloing tablets of cyanid or something equally lethal, fuckboy.

Tehnique is alright? No nigger, your mom's pussy is alright. Your people gettin shot dead in the street. That's alright!

Once again, what the fuck does this have to do with anything? If you're so fucking hard for Immortal Technique, then prove his claims. Or do you just assume he never lies, makes shit up or gets alot of his bullshit from questionable sources? Go watch out for the CIA trying to assassinate you or something. And yes, seeing my people getting shot dead in the streets is amusing indeed.

Prove what claims? the one about Iraqi Resistance is explained above. and the seven headed dragon thing... Power corrupts. We've had propaganda for over 60 years. Wars are invented, I can feel it in my gut. Can't you? No one can prove that Bush and Bin Ladin are conspiring, but intelligent critical people know there's more to it than what is staged on TV. So yes, it's an unfounded claim, but my heart tells me its right. -ShadowyCabal 18:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, ok. So your fucking gut instinct is your ultimate source of truth? Come on now. I need something abit more solid than that to become a believer. I know the world is truly messed up and alot of people are sitting on too much power, but claiming stuff like Bush and Bin Laden are conspiring is just gay. The claims alone are worth jackshit when backed by 0 proof. I don't wanna rob you of your right to trust your inner organs to tell you what's true, but this bullshit article shouldn't have been written by some braindead groupie. Mere rumors and retarded claims are phrased as facts. That's wrong.

Also, saying they're part of the same seven-headed dragon doesn't mean they are conspiring. It just means they're both evil. Evil and powerful. You could jump to the conclusion that the evil powerful people on top are conspiring, but it doesn't really matter. The point is you can't trust the information you're being fed. Bush and Bin Laden in it together is as arbitrary a theory as Nick Berg being alive, but it carries with it a sentiment that everything should be looked at with a critical eye. The music has a philosophy to it; Act like you are totally responsible for what's going on in the world, and never mind those greedy douchebags in suits, give em hell for me. The whole ultra-left "Rage Against the Machine" philosophy is a cliche among know-it-all white college kids with lots of idle time, but that doesn't mean that it's not good. ShadowyCabal 07:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For what it is worth, if Immortal Technique tomorrow claimed that the moon were made of green cheese and rocks are an invention of the Regan adminstration, it would probably be included in the article. The distinction is that this page should not advocate for his point of view, only report it. Advocacy for a cause has no place on Wikipedia (see WP:NPOV). However Immortal Technique's politics are notable (whether they are based in fact or not), so what he believes should be discussed. If you think this distinction is not made clearly enough in the article, feel free to change it or suggest how it should be changed. --TeaDrinker 17:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, a very very senseful person!

"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)[reply]

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

Did you bother to make a google search? See this: [4]. --Striver 15:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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