Talk:Riverbend (blogger)

Untitled

If nothing in this article is verifiable, why does it exist?

I took the liberty of deleting the POV and accuracy tags -- GRider, if you're too lazy to engage, you ought not to be cluttering articles with extraneous tags. --Calton | Talk 00:21, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• This article is unreferenced and is a pure speculation. I'm returning the accuracy tag. Grue 17:54, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

(Copied from User_talk:GRider#Riverbend)

Quotes

I removed the quote asking why Americans don't just go home. This is not an good summary of the blogs' view. Leaving this quote as one of the 4 to 5 summary quotes gives a more thoughtless or angry portrayal then the blog actually is. Here is the edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Riverbend_%28blogger%29&diff=135024820&oldid=135021591 williameis 05:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Riverbend

WHERE is River? Her last post was August 5, 2006. It is now October 12....She has been posting for years and this is the longest length of time WITHOUT any words from her.....I'm worried.--Mosquito at mosquito-blog (blogspot.com)

That's a good question. It's interesting that the last words on her most recent post were "I sometimes wonder if we’ll ever know just how many hundreds of thousands of Iraqis left the country this bleak summer. I wonder how many of them will actually return. Where will they go? What will they do with themselves? Is it time to follow? Is it time to wash our hands of the country and try to find a stable life somewhere else?" Did RiverBend leave the country? --Lee Hunter 15:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I took the liberty of deleting the POV and accuracy tags -- GRider, if you're too lazy to engage, you ought not to be cluttering articles with extraneous tags. --Calton | Talk 00:23, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Was there not a mention left on the talk page? How is any of this information verifiable? Other than a first-person link to a weblog, what references are cited? What is an example of her "elegant, near-perfect, English"? In its current state, how is the entire article not speculative, unreferenced POV? --GRider\^talk 17:48, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Given your recent history of spamming VfD with your rhetorical questions, it's clear to me that you don't care whatsoever about actual answers. --Calton | Talk 14:41, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Do you know the meaning of Wikipedia:Verifiability? How about Wikipedia:No original research? All articles must be based on objective, verifiable information; this is not. How are fellow Wikipedians able to verify what is written in this article is accurate? If you can't give a print source for the information contributed, it should be removed. --GRider\^talk 02:31, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Removed doubts

I've removed the suggestion that Riverbend is not an Iraqi. Frankly, it's just a stupid idea. If someone says they are Iraqi and writes pages and pages of exquisitely detailed and accurate information about their life in Iraq can we not assume that the chances are pretty good that they might actually be an Iraqi. I don't see any reason to even raise any other possibility unless there's evidence to the contrary. And no, having good English skills doesn't count. Everything in the article as it is now, can be verified simply by going to the site and reading what's there. [1]. --Lee Hunter 03:02, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• No, we should not be in the habit of publishing uncited assumptions because Wikipedia is not a rumor mill. However, I do agree with you that this article has been significantly improved and is now a valuable addition to the project. --GRider\^talk 21:34, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Um, do they have Internet in Iraq? Can you name at least one Iraq ISP? This whole article is a joke. Grue 04:55, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Do they have Internet in Iraq? Are you completely out of your mind? What place doesn't have Internet? Why are you asking such a question? Are these new-fangled computer thingies they call "search engines" giving you trouble? --Calton | Talk 05:08, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • FYI, there are many places without Internet, at least in my country. It may seem impossible to you, but yes, more than half of people in the world don't have Internet access. Certainly, Iraqi blogger would've been an interesting thing, if they actually existed. The only Iraq ISP I found hasn't updated the main page since last year, so I think that one doesn't count... See also, Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Iraq ;). That "Riverbend" surely must be informed about Wikipedia. Grue 05:23, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • You found an Iraqi ISP but it doesn't count because they haven't updated the main page for a while? OK how about this article [2] or this one [3] which has this quote Most of the communication between various militant groups, including al-Zarqawi and his supporters, is done through Internet cafes. "Telephone communications in Iraq are difficult," Majid said, "but the Internet is everywhere and it is difficult to track."--Lee Hunter 12:00, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The reference to Riverbend living in a "middle class neighborhood north of Baghdad" SHOULD BE removed until someone can provide a source for this information. --CMAR II 8:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Vfd

On 21 Mar 2005, this article was nominated for deletion. The result was keep. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Riverbend for a record of the discussion. —Korath (Talk) 00:47, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

Update

At the moment riverbend appears to be an empty document. Anybody know why? Shoka

Seems ok now. --Lee Hunter 12:33, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Indeed it is. Phew.. Shoka

Education

Until sources are cited that obviate the need for ambiguity, I propose that the details concerning Riverbend's education be removed. I have made the change and would be happy to discuss possible rewordings.--RFenno 17:18, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

RFenno why do you insist on deterioration of the work here?

Ba'ath Party

I haven't made a change along these lines, but I'm interested to know why the weasel words "led some to speculate" are still in this article. An editor should provide a reasonable number of citations to support this, even if it is a slew of anti-Riverbend bloggers.

I believe the Ba'ath speculation was from Who is RiverBend? --Lee Hunter 19:55, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

OK. I've seen that site before and even read through that post at one point. It's all speculation. I think the problem here is that the Riverbend article is based solely on the primary source that is Baghdad Burning. Unless Riverbend is willing to comment on this article, the Ba'athist speculation should be removed.--RFenno 14:22, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I wrote that article and, RFenno, since you imply you haven't read it recently, I suggest you go down to the bottom and read the Update sections which includes additional alleged background information about Riverbend written in the days after the January elections. Specifically:

"Riverbend is the eldest daughter of a Saddam-appointed ambassador, and a high ranking Ba'athist, to a western country during the eighties. [She does] not count in this historic day and will instead make it to the dustbin of history. I am a Sunni from the Zayuna district in Baghdad, originally from Mosul, and I personally know [her]."

Furthermore, there is this article from Ali Fadhil (Formerly of "Iraq the Model", now at "A Free Iraqi") accusing her of dishonesty in her descriptions of Baghdadi life. Last year, Salam Pax (the original Baghdad Blogger and whose site was where Riverbend first posted) noted with dismay Riverbend's sympathetic advocacy of the al-Sadr's Mahdi Army when in fact they typify everything she claims to be against (except for not being pro-American). There are Iraqi third-party source regarding Riverbend's worldview but is any of that more authoritative than what she has said about herself? Which brings me to my next point:

RFenno, you knock that the "Who Is Riverbend?" article because it only sources the Riverbend blog. This is particularly frustrating since that blog is the only source for *any* information we have about Riverbend. Furthermore, if I had Riverbend's name and address I wouldn't post it nor my source even if she lived in the US, let alone Baghdad. So anything anyone could say about her ought to either come from her blog (i.e. her own mouth) or be unsourced. And that's what I've done.

In short, I think it is hopeless to expect Riverbend is going to respond to the WIR? piece mainly because it is true, but also because she doesn't respond to anyone but those she thinks agree with her. She didn't respond to Zeyad at "Healing Iraq" although he was a fan and speculated in an email (ironically) that she suspected he wasn't an Iraqi.

I think the WIR? article ought to be linked to in this article as well as the "Iraq the Model" article and the Salam Pax post. I believe these posts are invaluable background information on Riverbend. In fact, I think it totally underplays the significance of Riverbend's influence in the Iraqi-blogosphere to not post the links.

PS She is not one of only a few female Iraqi bloggers. There are a slew of them.

--CMAR II

I found the WIR very interesting and the analysis quite shrewd but I have a few reservations. Your main source for identifying her father as a high-ranking Baathist is an anonymous poster on someone else's blog who claimed to know her personally. This seems like a very weak source (although it's certainly plausible). You also claim that she was sympathetic to al-Sadr's Mahdi Army. Where do you see that? It's certainly not in the excerpt on Salaam's blog. --Lee Hunter 15:29, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually, my main source is Riverbend's blog. The other is merely a confirmation, as it comes (as you pointed out) from another blog and from one claiming to know her. I pointed out the Update since RFenno had a problem with Riverbend being my "only source". The high likelihood that her parents were part Saddam's diplomatic corp makes it unlikely they were not Ba'athist Party members, and trusted ones at that. You couldn't have a job at a *university* under Saddam without being a party member. But if Riverbend were to say "My family were not Ba'athists. My family connections were not how I got my 'engineer' job. They had nothing to do with why I was fired" would that prove it was not so? (She hasn't said that) How can anyone prove anything without identifying her personally and specifically? (Which I wouldn't do, not intentionally anyway) All we know is what she writes, and I've yet to have anyone counter my reasoning beyond saying "this doesn't prove anything" (which is fatuously untrue) and "what does it matter if it *were* true" (which strikes me as bizarre.)

I think that any careful honest analysis of an anonymous blogger belongs on a wikipedia of that blogger. It certainly would make Riverbend look more interesting (which is how she *would* look in any informed person's opinion), and it would encourage others to carefully examine her writings to refute me (which, despite her 60K hits a day, no one has done...no one).

If you don't consider the quoted and linked post to be sympathetic to the Mahdi Army as victims of the Coalition Forces, fine. Salam certainly saw them that way and so did I.

--CMAR II

She didn't express any sympathy whatsoever for the Mahdi army, she didn't mention them at all - she was simply raging about coalition bombs falling on the city. Salam said nothing about her having sympathy with the Mahdi Army, in fact in the last paragraph he acknowledges Riverbend's distaste for that crew. I think you've totally misread his post. --Lee Hunter 18:16, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

"She didn't express any sympathy whatsoever for the Mahdi army, she didn't mention them at all - she was simply raging about coalition bombs falling on the city."

You have got to be kidding me. Um...who were those bombs intended for again? Because the Coalition and the Mahdi Army seemed to be in agreement about that. Whatever, I don't care. Uncle. Calf-rope. Mercy. You're right. The Salam reference was totally off the beaten track. My point is that *serious* analysis of Riverbend's blog - not just fluff praise pieces - are important parts of an encyclopedia article about a blogger. Especially an anonymous one. I can't imagine an article on the Iraq The Model blog (not anonymous) without discussion of their tour of the US sponsored by The Spirit of America or Juan Cole's and Martini Republic's speculation that they were CIA fronts.

--CMAR II

I do agree WIR shouldn't have been removed and I've put it back. It's an interesting take on her story. --Lee Hunter 18:47, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

CMAR: "The high likelihood that her parents were part Saddam's diplomatic corp makes it unlikely they were not Ba'athist Party members, and trusted ones at that."

My own sources contradict this assessment. I don't know for sure what relationship she or her family had with the Ba'ath Party. I have no problem with the links being present, but since we are limited by the claims on her blog, we cannot take the word of anonymous commenters. By the way, my references to "the article" were directed at the Wikipedia article, not the "WIR?" post.--RFenno 05:26, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

RFenno: If you have examples of people traveling overseas as part of the diplomatic corp who did not join the Ba'ath Party, I would certainly find that pertinent. If you could identify such people who did not consider themselves invested in Saddam's regime, I'd have to re-edit my *article*.

CMAR: You don't even have any evidence that Riverbend, or anyone in her family, was part of the Ba'athist "diplomatic corp". You can't even be certain that the anonymous commenter who claimed to know Riverbend was writing from Iraq.--RFenno 17:06, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

RFenno: Of course I have evidence. You might (inexplicably) not find it compelling, but it is evidence. The evidence is her statements in her blog. As it is, we have no "evidence" - as you define it - that anything Riverbend reports in her blog is true. You seem to expect me to deliver incontrovertable evidence such as a name, photographs, and a Ba'athist Party card. I wouldn't provide that evidence in a blog EVEN IF I HAD IT. So what are my choices? A lot of stuff...particularly in her early posts...don't add up unless one add the one piece of color I assert is there. I'm not the only person who saw it, I'm just the only person I know of who has attempted to order the clues in one place. If you still say you don't see it, that's okay with me. Write a detailed analytical post that shows another way the parts of the blog I've referenced could be *reasonably* read. But to continue to gripe that I haven't "proven" anything is fatuous. --User:CMAR II

CMAR: There's no reason to get so defensive about this. You seem to confuse a couple points. I'm saying that you have absolutely no reason to believe that Riverbend's family were Iraqi diplomats. This isn't to say that they were not Ba'athists. When I get a chance, I'll fisk your post and provide an external link on the Riverbend article. My hope is that this will lead to the "WIR?" link being removed from the article as it is nothing more than mean spirited conclusion jumping.RFenno 17:56, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

RFenno: Yeah, I can't imagine why I would be defensive when you are only claiming (without any evidence, I'll point out) to know my motives in writing "WIR?". Lets see what you can do. And lets see if you can do better than others who have simply whined "That doesn't prove anything". Just remember that I will apply the same scruntiny on evidence to your fisking, that you apply to "WIR?". Good Luck! Better yet, rather than fisking, write your own "WIR?" post. I'd love to see that. I recommend you see if Riverbend can help you out with some evidence. CMAR II

Let's be realistic here. Riverbend has maintained her anonymity very well, so anyone claiming to be in possession of evidence of her identity and location is suspect. I should clarify my position on the "evidence" available, which I don't believe contradicts anything I've written here. We are all limited to the primary source of the blog "Baghdad Burning" and the vairous published interviews the author has done. Anything beyond that, especially the connecting of dots that is indicative in "WIR?", is speculation. That may seem like a nasty word, but it isn't. As per your suggestion, CMAR, I will offer an alternative narrative. To put it another way, the picture that will crystalize from my own connection of the dots will be drastically different from yours.

That isn't to say that what I write isn't speculation that suffers from the same lack of evidence that yours does. At that point, the debate will turn to whether the Wikipedia article is a forum for such speculation or not. I'll try to have the link available within two weeks. Your patience will be much appreciated. RFenno 00:54, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

RFenno: Please, don't rush on my account. Make it good. I have all the time in the world. As for whether a Wikopedia entry on a controversial, anonymous blogger should include anything but gushing reviews, I've already stated my case. If your connecting-of-the-dots is critical (which does not mean "condemning", I note for any who might think it does) and analytical, I'll be the first to call for it to be linked here. CMAR II

"To put it another way, the picture that will crystalize from my own connection of the dots will be drastically different from yours." --RFenno

That is correct, so maybe the available dots should be presented and the conclusions inferred by the readers. The interpretation of evidence will be different from person to person, but an article about an anonymous writer is definately appropriate.

Cry Me a River Bend

The link to this site smells very strongly of racism. American Racism to be exact, and it should not be linked by wikipedia. As such I have removed it, for as long as that will hold. If Ive made any faux pax as far as wikipedia's regulations please let me know.

I know that statement is strong, but CMAR2's entire argument is based on the fact shes not happy Saddam was removed and her country 'liberated', she wont tell him who she is, and that fundamentalist comment by some anonymous blogger. To have such speculations presented as facts is against the spirit of wikipedia.

Also, finally, she has explicitly stated she is not a Baathist, despite CMAR2's claim to the exact opposite. Check this:

"Strangely enough, I wasn't a Ba'athist and I got accepted into one of the best colleges in the country based solely on my grades in my final year of high school. None of my friends were Ba'athists and they ended up pharmacists, doctors, dentists, translators and lawyers… I must have been living somewhere else." -Girl Power and Post-War Iraq by Riverbend, Tuesday, September 16, 2003

So, please, Im waiting for your rant about how Im missing the facts and ignorant and all iraqi's are happy save those who slept with Saddam, and haditha and the other massacres are just isolated incidents. Go for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Havoc8844 (talk • contribs)

Please if you leave comments on Talk pages, sign them using four tildes: ~~~~. This way other users can see the author and the time posted. ~ trialsanderrors 21:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, it's ok to remove the blog entry as blogs are usually not considered reliable sources. ~ trialsanderrors 21:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, cheers. Im still new :) --Havoc8844 21:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I've restored this link. The facts (as best we can determine them) are what is written in the body of the article itself. The following links simply provide further reading on the subject. Linked articles might be factual, they might be commentary, they might be conjecture. This particular article is pure speculation, but it is nevertheless interesting and thoughtful. His conclusions may or may not be correct (I have no opinion on this myself) but I don't see a reason to remove the link. We're not using this blog as a source for the article itself, it's just a pointer to further reading. --GiraffeNecktie 19:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see anything in WP:RS that restricts the criteria to sources summarized in the text, rather than sources offered for further study. I don't have any problems with the POV or the speculativeness of the blog entry, I have problems with the unnotability and the anonymity of the author (who seems to have posted in the prior thread on the topic). If the same comments were vetted by a reputable agency I would agree with leaving it in. As it is, it fails WP:RS by a wide margin. At the least, the link should be qualified as Who is Riverbend? Speculations by an anonymous blogger ~ trialsanderrors 20:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I made your amendment. However my issue is the Cry me a riverbend site is heavily biased towards the american occupation. This becomes a problem because anyone who reads the article without knowing this will give more credence to his claims than they should. It would be like reading an article on the holocaust and only finding out at the end it was written by a white supremast. Perhaps Who is Riverbend? Speculations by an anonymous, pro-american blogger?--Havoc8844 04:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that anyone who doesn't like a subject of a WP entry can create a blog, post a criticism and link to it from the WP entry. It's a pretty clear circumvention of WP:V. ~ trialsanderrors 04:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

(sigh) I'll ask this one more time: Should a Wikopedia entry on a controversial, anonymous blogger include anything but gushing reviews? If I had Riverbend's name, address, and photo and included at Cry Me A Riverbend II, proof that she got her IT job and everything in her life until 2003 based on your family contacts, I wouldn't post it. If I did, I would rightly be castigate by the same (anonymous btw) people complaining that I "haven't proved anything". Wht gives? So how does one critique her testimony? For that matter, what authority does any of the other linked articles have for PRAISING her???

Are the grumblers any less biased? Yes, I'm biased regarding Riverbend. I've read her since she first guest-wrote for Salam Pax, the original Baghdad Blogger. Physicists are biased regarding the Thermonuclear Laws. What does that prove? What is proved by Riverbend's claims about not having gotten ahead in Iraq via her familiar connections? Does it prove anymore than analysis of her posts? She's actually offered less proof than I have. Nothing but gratuitous assertions. She has been accused of LYING about circumstances in Baghdad by other Iraqi bloggers. She has been accused even more often by other Iraqis of deliberately distorting the truth. I haven't gotten involved beyond discussion of the 'Who Is Riverbend' post, but perhaps those posts should be linked to as well.

Is labeling me "anonymous" supposed to be a slur? Riverbend herself is anonymous, so go ahead. But why not feature Riverbend's anyonymity just as prominently?? ~ CMARII 10:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Read WP:RS#Personal_websites_as_secondary_sources. On Rb's anonymity, it's the fourth word of the article. ~ trialsanderrors 16:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, then clearly there should not be any links for "further reading", because nobody who can speak authoritatively on Riverbend's identity and her authority on anything she discusses ought to say anything. Do you then know that Six0Six is not a personal blog? How many people were involved in that defunct "magazine"? I'm a pretty good reader and can confidently declare that the word "anonymous" is not anywhere in this wiki article. Either you need your prescription updated, or you play as fast and loose with facts as Riverbend. Look, I don't care whether "Who Is Riverbend" is listed or not. Go ahead. Perform a Stalinist purge. Pretend that no one has written anything but praise about this "articulate, even poetic" blogger. It just means that people will necessarily go elsewhere to actually to get information about Riverbend. I'm pretty certain "Who Is Riverbend" gets *at least* as many hits as this sparse article. It certainly has more links to it. The harm is only done to the article. ~ CMAR II 16:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Familiarize yourself with the policies. We as editors don't write authoritatively. We replicate and summarize information provided by reliable sources. BBC News, The London Times and The Guardian are reliable sources. If you believe this article is unbalanced (as do I btw), take it on yourself to find reliable sources which take a position you like to see presented, and paraphrase or quote it in the article. If you believe Six0Six is not a reliable source, take it out and see if it is contested. The word anonymous does not appear in the article because Riverbend posts under a pseudonym. ~ trialsanderrors 21:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, now I am also familiar with wikipedia's policies my statements on this page were a little emotive and I apologise. However the problem with CMAR is that initially it was on this page in the form of a reference, or an analysis. It is an opinion, and one that backs up its opinions with conjecture. Thats fine, you can say what you want, but in its original form it seemed like an actual genuine source. A casual user browsing for information might have mistaken CMAR for a factual investigation rather than a rant, and that would have, I believe, hurt what wikipedia is all about. --Havoc8844 22:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

She's Back

The first new post in almost two months has been put up on her site. It's depressing as hell, but she's still alive. Darkmind1970 11:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

And she's just updated today. Safely out of Iraq, thank Zod. --Gmuir 02:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

It looks like you guys addressed this a while ago, but I think there should be some mention in the article about the possibility that Riverbend isn't really Iraqi at all. Having just read three works on Iraq by non-native English speakers (Ali A. Allawi, Chibli Mallat, and Hanna Batatu), and having spent this evening perusing Riverbend's writings, I'm inclined to agree that her use of English idioms, alliteration, and contractions (among other things) is just too perfect. Have any reputable authors (other than the guys at CryMeARiver) critically examined her work? Mgy401 1912 (talk) 05:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Perfect or idiomatic English doesn't mean that the writer is a native English speaker or has studied in an English speaking country. As an example I'm sure that some of the people contributing to this talk page are non-native English speakers, but it's impossible to spot them. 83.227.38.67 (talk) 14:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps so. I just think it odd that, for example, Allawi--who spent decades in England, and whose book went through a slough of native-English-speaking editors, still couldn't attain the level of English that seems to come so easily to Riverbend. Mgy401 1912 (talk) 19:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Has Riverbend made any sort of communication to anyone since her last blog post? In three months or so it will have been a year, do we know she's still alive? Lexington1 (talk) 03:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Theres been no update in three years. why does this article exist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.59.241.1 (talk) 05:38, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a phone book. Articles don't disappear just because the subject does. Riverbend was part of a subculture, and that makes her part of history. It doesn't matter that her one-time supporters may now want to go hiding under their beds.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 12:49, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Bloggers who linked to Riverbend

Riverbend has been gone for over a year. We should list the notable bloggers who linked to her while we still can. (69.244.242.11 (talk) 03:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC))

Start the list here:

• Juan Cole

Bloggers who Riverbend linked to

• Moja, US Army "signal puke" on second tour in Iraq; last post on leaving for the States was 8.24.2003 16:02 turningtables. --14:35, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Riverbend

Posted in April 2009 - check Google — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.197.82.203 (talk) 19:55, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Riberbend

Posted after 2009, in 2013 - sorry - check Google. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.197.82.203 (talk) 19:58, 13 May 2013 (UTC)