Talk:Rachel Corrie

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Peer review Rachel Corrie has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Rachel Corrie article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3
Rachel Corrie is part of WikiProject Palestine - a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative, balanced articles related to Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page where you can add your name to the list of members and contribute to the discussion. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Palestine articles.
NB: Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritizing and managing its workload.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the Project's importance scale.
After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.

[edit] Policies

(Please do not archive. New editors are asked to read this section carefully before editing.)

Because this is a contentious article, all edits should conform strictly not only to WP:NPOV, but also to the policies and guidelines regarding sources: WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:RS. Jointly these say:

  • Articles may not contain any unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, analyses, or ideas.
  • The above may be published in Wikipedia only if already published by a reliable source.
  • A "source" refers to the publication Wikipedia obtained the material from (e.g. The New York Times). It does not refer to the original source of the material (i.e. wherever The New York Times obtained the information from).
  • A "reliable source" in the context of Rachel Corrie means:
    • articles in mainstream newspapers, books that are not self-published, scholarly papers, official reports, trial transcripts, congressional reports or transcripts, and similar;
    • no personal websites, blogs, or other self-published material unless the website or blog was Corrie's own, in which case it may be used with caution, so long as the material is notable, is not unduly self-aggrandizing, and is not contradicted by reliable third-party sources;
    • no highly biased political websites unless there is clearly some editorial oversight or fact-checking process.


Contents

[edit] Archives


[edit] See Also

Is *James Miller (filmmaker) relevent? Not related to Corrie or ISM or Caterpiller. Do all non-residents killed by the IDF get included under See Also?

Miller is as relevant as Hurndall, all foreign civilians attacked by the IDF within a space of three months. Arniep 20:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me - I added some more foreign citizens [Americans in this case] who were killed in Gaza in 2003.

PA Chairman Yasser Arafat described their killing as: "The Palestinian leadership condemns in the harshest terms of condemnation the criminal bombing"

Colin Powell said: "The innocent Americans who died -- John Branchizio, Mark Parson and John Linde, Jr. -- were on a mission of peace as part of our Embassy team going to interview Palestinians for Fulbright scholarships to study or teach in the United States.

They were helping the Palestinian people. They were murdered by terrorists, the same terrorists who have killed so many others and who are killing the dreams of the Palestinian people."

Please don't add red links to the see-also section. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
I have removed those additions as those people were not involved in deaths caused by the idf. Arniep 00:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Arnie, you can't determine that the see-also section is only for people who have died in incidents involving the IDF. I don't know what the criteria should be, but there's no need for it to be as narrow or POV as that. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
There is no reason to include deaths caused by Palestinian terrorists, the controversy over Corrie is primarily related to the activities of the idf and the ism. Arniep 01:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
But see-also can include anything we want so long as there's some relevance. It doesn't have to be relevant from only one POV. Anyway, it's a moot point at the moment, because the names he added were red-linked, and we can't have see-alsos where there's nothing to see. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
I'll see about having pages added for them - They were the first non-IDF deaths of Americans since the beginning of the Intifada - so their deaths are notable - their deaths are already referenced on the [1] page. They weren't members of the ISM, but either was James Miller, so ISM membership doesn't seem to be relevent to addition. I suppose that readers of an encyclopedia would be interested in the deaths of only foreigners killed by the IDF and other deaths are irrelevent, but if you go down that road of specificity, eventually you would have to include only links about female Americans killed by the IDF on March 16th by heavy machinery. And that seems unproductive.
I agree that there can't be specificity in one POV direction only. Having see-alsos of foreigners killed in Gaza seems fair enough to me, though they must be blue links or there's no point. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
The see also section should be connected to foreigners whose deaths were caused by the idf, it is not relevant to include deaths caused by others as it is now suspected that there was a deliberate policy to intimidate journalists or peace campaigners entering Israel or the Palestinian territories so deaths caused by Palestinian terrorists are not relevant to that. Arniep 11:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
That's your personal view, Arnie, which isn't relevant to what's included in the see-also section. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Fine, is there a policy or guideline on what should go in the see also section? Arniep 00:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
No policy; guideline at Wikipedia:Guide to layout. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Online Video

In a now-archived talk section there was discussion about adding a link to video. I have posted several videos at ourmedia.org including interviews with Rachel, IDF footage of the incident, and sections from two documentaries. Should/can any/all of these videos be linked:

I have permission for all of these videos. I'll check back to make sure you don't need more information. Mgaines

I have added only the interview video to the "Further Reading" section but would also like to add the portion of the documentary "The Killing Zone" that deals with Rachel's death. Objections? Mgaines 14:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unaddressed Questions

The article fails to address the question of a connection between Rachel Corrie and Osama bin Laden.

The readers have a right to know if Rachel Corrie was a member of al-Qaeda.

The public should be informed if Rachel Corrie was directing terrorist resources to be used against innocent women and children.

Could it be that Rachel Corrie was actively planning another September 11 style attack against the United States of America?

The article should look into whether or not Rachel Corrie was the goto person for rogue states to obtain weapons of mass destruction.

Valid questions all.

69.39.172.72 15:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I've heard she was the head of al-qaeda. - Xed 16:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Here is what I found: http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110004168 Zeq 17:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
The origin of that information is the Jerusalem Post which is not exactly a neutral source is it. Arniep 19:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
The JPost is a reliable source for Wikipedia. If we only used neutral sources, we'd have arguably none to use. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 19:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
No, I think you'll find it violates the question on whether sources have an obvious bias or extremist political views on WP:RS. Arniep 19:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Why are you so afraid that people will find out the truth about Corrie? She was a Terrorist Sympathizer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mi6QBranch (talk • contribs)

          • I think the JPost is fine. WP:RS reads in relevant part: " a source has strong views is not necessarily a reason not to use it, although editors should avoid using political groups with widely acknowledged extremist views, like Stormfront.org or the Socialist Workers Party." I don't see any way to strike the JPost for bias and leave in The National Review, Common Dreams News Center, Mother Jones, The Spectator, The Observer, The Guardian or The Nation, just to name several sources currently on the page.
          • That said, the OpinionJournal and JPost articles don't say that Corrie was affiliated with Bin Laden - they say that the IDF states that it was looking for smuggling tunnels, not wrecking houses. That POV is already well represented in the article. TheronJ 21:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I think all of those sources are obviously more biased than JPost, I think maybe at the most JPost is as bias as the BBC, it is clearly an acceptable source.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 06:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Looking for smuggling tunnels involves wrecking houses. Arniep 21:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
This is one of the most inconsequential articles with the most space on all of the Wiki. It deserves about two paragraphs at the most, and probably should be deleted altogether. Why does it contain 2 long self serving "eye witness" accounts of the accident? Are we now going to list every death in the world with a full listing of possible causes. I don't want to be accused of vandalism, but I am going to slightly reduce the lenght of this piece.Incorrect 02:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
To try and make this a npov edit, I've substantially reduced both the IDF and the ISM statements on the accident - they are all long, tedious and of no interest to anyone, those who really care can find much more info on google.Incorrect 03:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
If someone wants to reverse my edits, ok, but do we really need to know more than the circumstances of her death are disputed?Incorrect 03:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Hey, I have a great idea: let's include a copy of the autopsy report; also RC's 4th grade report card; and can we get a picture of her carved initials in her desk from the 6th grade; why don't we include a family tree; and what about a listing of her boyfriends, their family trees, and their political persuasions; let's make this the biggest article in all of wp!Incorrect 05:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
More RC information this article MUST contain to be valid: her brand of lipstick, her favorate color, where she went on her prom - without the foregoing, this article just won't be complete.Incorrect 06:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Enough, Incorrect, if you don't like the article, don't edit it. Ckessler 06:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

HAVE NO SYMPATHY FOR HER.... Rachel Corrie was a terrorist sympathyser, a human shield and combatant and as such her death was legal however caused. It was clearly an accident on behalf of the driver, where she placed herself in front of a massive bulldozer which had limited visbility. The ISM are an anti-semitic, anti-Zionist organisation which helps terrorists to avoid capture and lethal force. They are naieve puppets of the Islamofascists who have no respect for them. [Fivish UK] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.104.137 (talk) 11:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] question

Hi Slim,

I am trying to understand why you reverted this.[2] Some facts that are not disputed are presented as the "IDF view".

Surly the proximity to the border and existense of smuggling tunnels is not just IDF view .

Please help me understand. Thanks. Zeq 06:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The intro already mentions the tunnels and Egypt. You wanted to mention them twice. You also typed the word "used" twice in a row, and the word weapons/weapon. It's also important to write that the IDF "says" there were tunnels, not state it as a fact. The current intro makes that distinction. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
The intro is divided in two parts:
  • First part is stated as facts
  • Second part is presented as ISM view Vs. IDF view.
The folowing facts are not disputed and as such should be moved from the IDF view to the "facts" part in the 1st sentence:
  • the proximity of te residential area to the border
  • existense of smuggling tunnels under the border [3], [4]

I am sure there is a better way to express this than my edit but the current intro is not NPOV by giving more wight to the issue of the residential area (fact) while only NPOVing it with an "IDF designated". We need a more NPOV intro to such loaded subject. Zeq 08:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to mess around with the intro because achieving balance took a long time. First para is how she died, and that the bulldozer was in what one side called a residential area and the other side called a security zone. Second paragraph explains the death from the ISM POV and then the IDF POV. I'd say it's pretty neutral and to the point. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I understand your reluctence. However, we can try and add these two undisputed points to the first paragraph.
It is not that we are not going to have edit conflicts with or without this change.
I disgree that it is neutral at this point since "residental area" is a strong chatrization and "idf dsignated as security zone" is a bit "weaslwording" ("designated") and also does not tell the whole story. You know I am a big fan of NPOV:-) Zeq 11:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Ho hum... I thought I'd seen it all until I saw that the phrase 'residential area', when it applies to Palestinians, is regarded as a "strong characterization". What should it be called? An animal farm? A shit hole? Is that NPOV enough? By the way, the IDF 'POV' does not dispute that it was a residential area. Ramallite (talk) 13:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Rammalite. The fact that is is a residential area is not disputed.
also this is not disputed either:
  • the proximity of te residential area to the border
  • existense of smuggling tunnels under the border


On the personal level, why is this such a sensitive issue ? Clearly like all the recent history of the middle east (and especialy the palestinian people) innocent people suffer when terrorists used the area were innocent people live to launch attcks (or smuggle weapon) and the IDf respond with too much force. Nothing new here. Zeq 13:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Having the smuggling tunnels claim at the top is not NPOV as it suggests that Corrie was complicit in weapons smuggling when there is no evidence of that. Arniep 16:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
No. It does not suggets that. Howver, no placing it there is POV since we ignore a known fact that was important to understand ther area conditions at the time.Zeq 16:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't see how your edit adds to our understanding of what happened: "The IDF conducted acitivity to discover smuggling tunnels used used by Hamas and other groups for smuggling weapons weapon and explosives from Sinai into Gaza." SlimVirgin (talk) 17:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
OK. I'll try to explain. The current text says this was a residential area. What was the army doing there ? why the army designated it a "security zone" ?. Does the actual mention of the fact that the army designated it a security zone helps in the understanding of what the army was doing there ? no it does not.
Israel and Egypt signed a peace treaty that split rafah in two. Years later that caused the border that crossed Rafah town in the middle to become a hot bad for smuggling and anti smuggling activity. We need to provide the facts to the reader.
Facts that are not disputed should not be presented as "IDF claim".
The issue that is disputed is how she died. All the rest should be presented as fact and not as "IDF designated" or "IDF claim".
Is it more clear (the problem description) ?
Can you propose a solution ? I am sure your english writing is much better than mine. Tnx. Zeq 17:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
You are aware that the word 'designated' in English is definitive, and not wishy washy like the word 'claimed', right? It's like saying the IDF 'clamped a curfew', 'designated an area', 'fired a missile', etc Ramallite (talk) 17:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes. The issue is not how defitive is the word but that fact that it describing it as something the army decided. In this respect it is the same as a claim: something that comes from one side.
The issue here are the facts:
  • The area was close to a int'l border
  • There are in the area smuggling tunnels
  • the army was operating in the area
all these are undisputed facts.

Zeq 18:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal - NPOV

Rachel Corrie (April 10, 1979–March 16, 2003) was a member of the International Solidarity Movement (ISM) who traveled as an activist to the Gaza Strip during the Al-Aqsa Intifada. She was killed when she tried to obstruct an Israel Defense Forces (IDF) Caterpillar D9 bulldozer operating in the security zone seperating the Palestinian residential area of Rafah from the border with Eygpt. The IDF had designated the area near the border a security zone due to an operational need to uncover smuggling tunnels used by Hamas and other groups for smuggling weapons and explosives from Egypt into Gaza.

The circumstances of her death are disputed: ISM eyewitnesses say that the driver of the bulldozer deliberately ran over her twice while she was trying to prevent what they say might have been a house demolition. The IDF say the bulldozer driver did not see her; that the bulldozer was not engaged in a demolition; that Corrie was previously interfering with security operations designed to uncover the smuggling tunnels and that a guide, usually working to direct the D-9 movments in areas of limited visiability was unable to work in the area since snipres would open fire on any IDF person outside the protection of an armed vehicles. According to the IDF investigation the exact cause of death was falling debris pushed over by the bulldozer when the Buldozer driver could not have seen Corrie.


Zeq 18:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Or this one

Rachel Corrie (April 10, 1979–March 16, 2003) was a member of the International Solidarity Movement (ISM) who traveled as an activist to the Gaza Strip during the Al-Aqsa Intifada. She was killed when she tried to obstruct an Israel Defense Forces (IDF) Caterpillar D9 bulldozer operating in a Palestinian residential area of Rafah, an area the IDF had designated a security zone, and which contains a network of smuggling tunnels connecting it to Egypt.

The circumstances of Corrie's death are disputed. ISM eyewitnesses say that the driver of the bulldozer deliberately ran over her twice while she was trying to prevent what they say might have been a house demolition. The IDF say the bulldozer driver did not see her; that the bulldozer was not engaged in a demolition; that Corrie was interfering with security operations designed to uncover the tunnels used by Hamas and other groups for smuggling weapons from Egypt; and that the cause of death was falling debris pushed over by the bulldozer. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Zeq 18:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
No Zeq. There is no evidence that Corrie had anything whatsoever to do with smuggling, and your continual attempts to include it in such a prominent place is a clear attempt by you to "colour" the impression given to readers of Rachel. It is well known that the Israel and pro Israel media presented a distorted impression of Rachel, portraying her as a collabarator with terrorists and that she attempted to prevent the army finding tunnels, when in fact there is no evidence she knew aything about tunnels or smuggling of weapons and much more evidence that her primary motivation was protecting Palestinians from indiscriminate destruction of their homes and lives. Arniep
Arnie, it is not "well known that the Israel and pro-Israel media presented a distorted impression." That is your POV. It needs to be kept away from this page. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
What evidence do you have to say that is not SlimVirgin? It is a fact that much of the Israeli and pro Israeli media portrayed her as a collabarator of terrorists and deliberately distorted the truth to try and imply that she was somehow complicit in the smuggling of weapons when there is no evidence she was. Arniep 10:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Arnie, stop elevating your own POV to the status of knowledge and fact. We're here to report what reliable sources have said, nothing more, and the talk page is for discussing our edits to the article, not to argue about the issues. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I should also point out that it is not our responsibility to disprove your unsourced claims, its calling proving a negative.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 11:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Arnip: Ihave implmneted NPOV based on the discussion here. Your objections were heared but they don't convince anyone. Please restrict your objections to talk and raise any issue you want. if we reach consesnus we will change the article. Zeq 14:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Well it seems this article is another one to go on the list. Arniep 14:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Which list ? Zeq 15:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Articles related to conflict situations that have POV problems. Arniep 15:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Where is this list ? Zeq 15:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Citing the electron intifada is like citing the communist party, neither is exactly reliable and the lack of credibility of each makes them non citable - I have removed them as a source.Incorrect 10:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Zeq 10:43, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Look, all sides may have biases and may be claimed to be unreliable by the other side. We will have all viewpoints represented, anti Israeli, pro Israeli and those inbetween. If you want a website where just one viewpoint is shown or given prominence please go and set up your own elsewhere. Arniep 11:16, 27 May 2006 (UTC
Arnie, no one is eliminating sources because they are one sided: you will note that the Guardian, which proudly exhibits its anti Jewish anti Israeli bias daily, remains; but the EIntifada is a site that revels in its hatred of Israel and gives as its essence the destructin of Israel, that's why I will continue to elimate it as a source. Play this little mind game - would you site a publication of the aryian nation in an article about synagogues?Incorrect 11:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree the issue is only WP:RS and sources that are not according to policy should be removed. Zeq 11:40, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
If you think The Guardian is an anti Jewish or israeli publication you are seriously deluded. Zeq, the sites you removed are clearly relevant to this page so I restored them. Arniep 13:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
The Guardian is well known throughout the world (along with the Independent)to be one of the most vile purveyers of antisemitism this side of Jewwatch and Ken Livingston and George Galloway. Since I am approaching my edit limits I will wait till tomorrow to remove the Electrict Intafada as a source (and ask all other editors to also remove it).Incorrect 15:14, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
The Guardian definitely displays an anti-Israel bias. As for Electronic Intifada, we couldn't use it as a source, but we're allowed more leeway when it comes to further reading. However, I'd still say it might be too extreme even for that. Viriditas, what was your reason for restoring the links? SlimVirgin (talk) 15:46, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
SlimVirgin I would be interested in what exactly made you think that the Guardian "displays an anti-Israel bias". The Guardian gives opinions from all sides of the spectrum. Would you like them to just give opinions from a pro Israeli viewpoint? Would you call Jonathan Freedland anti Israeli? David Aaronovitch? Obviously the Electronic Intifida is left wing but there are many links to publications here I would consider right wing here so there should be a balance. Arniep 16:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
There are so many examples it'd be hard to know where to begin. Suffice to say my view is based on being a long-term regular reader of it. The bias is very clear. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Ah, I see, no specific examples. Arniep 18:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Discussing the guardian bias (on any article other than an article about the Guardian itself) is a total waste of time. I hate the guradian but it sure meet WP:RS - end of story. As for EI - it is surly does not. (even as "further reading") - those guys haqve one goal in mind and the truth is not a prime objective there. Zeq 16:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry Zeq you don't have the right to decree the flow of conversation. And as I said before as there is never going to be agreement about what is and what is not bias- all sides in the Israeli Palestinian conflict have acted inappropriately in some way, all viewpoints should be represented here (within reason, obviously excepting extreme sites that call for the killing of all Jews or Arabs). Arniep 17:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Are you arguing with me or with WP:RS ? To say that by removing EI a view point is no longer represented is a joke. This article is based the ISm "Eye witnesses" like Joe carr Zeq 17:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry Zeq, EI is a respected website amongst liberal and left leaning people concerned with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Perhaps you should read it. Arniep 17:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
EI does not meet WP:RS therefor I am going to remove all ref to the site from this article. There is nothing thast will be missed as this POV is already represented. If there are objections from other editors (not including Arine) Please respond. Arniep - I kno9w I you feel and there is nothing I can do to convince anyone who think EI is "respectfull". Zeq 17:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Did you state why it doesn't meet WP:RS? I must have missed that. Arniep 18:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
EI is an advocay web site not an informational web site. It promotes extrimists views that disqualify it from being on a source on anything except itslef. For the most part it is self published by the Il Muslim society. see[5] 19:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Links in Further reading don't have to meet RS, but we should use some common sense and not link to anything extremist, which I would argue EI is. Arnie, do you have any sources showing it's respected by liberal publications or commentators? SlimVirgin (talk) 19:53, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


The Guardian is well known throughout the world (along with the Independent)to be one of the most vile purveyers of antisemitism this side of Jewwatch and Ken Livingston and George Galloway.

Even The Guardian supports a widespread theory that the International Solidarity Movement and/or its Palestinian handlers went so far as to set Rachel Corrie up to be killed by first encouraging her to stand in front of the bulldozer and then not lifting a finger to pull her out of its path when it became clear that the driver did not see her.
Bill, please stop trying to pass off your pet theories as reportage of real world viewpoints. To describe your theory as 'widespread' is dishonest. To suggest that The Guardian supports it crosses the line into comedy.--Joeboy 17:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Per Making of a Martyr as published in The Guardian, a Hamas terrorist said openly that Rachel was worth more dead than alive. "'Her death serves me more than it served her,' said one activist at a Hamas funeral yesterday. '...Her death will bring more attention than the other 2,000 martyrs.'" [6]
The Guardian doesn't "support" anything it "reports", in this case what someone in Hamas said. Thanks Arniep 00:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
This is obviously POV speculation that is not suitable for insertion into the Wikipedia entries on Corrie and the ISM but the Hamas member's words pretty much speak for themselves, as do those of ISM activist Joseph Smith ("So the life of one international, I feel, is more than worth the spirit of resisting oppression" [7]) and ISM leader George Rishmawi ("if some of these foreign volunteers get shot or even killed, then the international media will sit up and take notice" [8]. I raise these observations only to emphasize the point that if Palestine supporters want to quote Electronic Intifada as a credible source, Israel supporters should be equally free to quote sources that argue that Corrie was set up to be killed by her own side. If the Palestinian advocates are allowed to draw from a well of conspiracy theories, then Israel supporters must be allowed to draw from the same well. The best way to maintain NPOV is to allow neither kind of source to be quoted.
As for journalistic integrity, Electronic Intifada is guilty of libel because it falsely accuses the Israeli bulldozer driver (an identifiable person) of "murdering" Rachel Corrie. To be guilty of murder, he would have had to turn the bulldozer with the express purpose of running her over and flooring the accelerator to make sure she couldn't get away. As it stands, her own actions such as kneeling in front of the bulldozer below the driver's line of sight seem to have been designed to get her killed.
A false and malicious accusation of a crime is automatically libel, at least in the United States. Even when someone is caught red-handed in the midst of a crime, newspapers are always careful to say "alleged killer/thief/rapist" until a jury has brought in a guilty verdict. Electronic Intifada, on the other hand, called someone a murderer with no evidence whatsoever that any kind of crime had been committed. This is because EI is a Palestinian propaganda organ as opposed to a responsible and credible journalistic source, and its content therefore has no place in Wikipedia. Bill Levinson
Other links here claim that Corrie assisted terrorists in smuggling weapons, a claim of which there is no proof and is also malicious libel. We all have our biases and I see we are not going to agree what is and what is not, therefore all links across the political spectrum will be represented. Arniep 00:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

So which sources that publish criticism of Israel without being "anti-Semitic"? Are there are any or do you see critcism of Israel as being synonymous with anti-Semitism? Anyone who says the Guardian is anti-Semitic doesn't know the first thing about anti-Semitism. Homey 18:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I have restored the Electronic Intifada website link. Everything is biased to different people, thus the usage of this link is just as acceptable as the others. Regards, Arniep 00:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Not every site that is against Israel is antisemitic. It is a legitimate POV to be against the policies of Israel. The issue here is WP:RS. (EI is against the exitense of the state of israel - this makes them also antisemitic). Zeq 04:18, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
No, it makes them anti-Zionist (if in fact what you say is true). Huge difference. Anyway, what exactly is wrong with the EI page everybody is arguing about? Is it that fact that it's a Palestinian page? Is it the contents of that particular page (which seem relatively benign to me)? Or is it that it links to yet another range of articles? The IE page seems to be one of the least inflammatory of the listed sources, so I'm just wondering what the problem with it is. Ramallite (talk) 05:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
The issue is not how infalmatory it is but the site as a whole is not a site that fit WP:RS. Zeq 05:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
I keep asking how it does not fit WP:RS- no one answers. Arniep 08:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually people have answered you just decided to dismiss their arguments. It is obvious that the site is not either reputable or reliable, most of their claims are pov conjecture that use inflammatory and overly emotive language.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

PS antizionism (denying the right of the Jewish people to a a state - a right that every peiople (include the palestinian people) desrve - denying such right is antisemitism toward the Jewish people. Zeq 06:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

It is not an ethnic groups "right" to dominate a state set up on other people's land. If a lot of english people went over to Germany and claimed that Schleswig Holstein was their homeland and drove all the current inhabitants away using violence would that be OK? Arniep 08:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
So I guess the muslim population should still give all of Israel back after conquering it in the 6th century. Anyways this is not the place to debate the legitamacy of Israel.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
"anti-Zionist" is a convenient euphemism that may imply anything from political opposition to certain Israel's policy(-ies), politician(s), party(ies), government(s) to all-out wars and calls to throw the Jews into the sea. I don't think el-Intifada would rank as WP:RS. ←Humus sapiens ну? 06:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Please explain how EI doesn't meet WP:RS (I keep asking- no one answers). Thanks Arniep 08:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
I suggest you, Arniep, to carefully read the policy and our other policies and guidelines, because you seem to misunderstand (or intentionally misuse) a number of them. ←Humus sapiens ну? 09:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
It is completely unastonishing that Arniep would assert that Electronic Intifida meets Wikipedia's guidelines for reliable sources, of even external links. However, given that it is little more than a glorified blog/propaganda vehicle, it obviously doesn't qualify. Jayjg (talk) 22:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
"A glorified blog/propaganda vehicle", that is your opinion or the opinion of pro Israeli groups/publications? Arniep 23:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outsider's question

All right, explain to ME why the Electronic Intifada fails WP:RS as an external link. And please, no vigorous handwaving and sputtering, much like used to assert the so-called anti-semitism of The Guardian. --Calton | Talk 13:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I see no one has responded. Arniep 23:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Here is an interview with one of the founders of EI: http://www.leftturn.org/Articles/Viewer.aspx?id=472&type=M
Excerpts: The Electronic Intifada's website receives around one quarter of a million visitors (not "hits") each month. During periods of increased conflict, the number of visitors can dramatically increase. During Israel's invasion of the West Bank in March/April 2002, EI's website saw over 600,000 visits in the period of one month.
EI has received favorable reviews in respected publications that include the Washington Post, Financial Times, The Nation, Utne Reader, and the Jerusalem Post. EI's founders are regularly contacted by the mainstream electronic media, such as the BBC, CBC, CNN and dozens of radio stations around the world, to provide commentary and analysis on events in the Middle East. Mgaines 19:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Guardian

The Guardian is well known throughout the world (along with the Independent)to be one of the most vile purveyers of antisemitism this side of Jewwatch and Ken Livingston and George Galloway.

So which sources that publish criticism of Israel without being "anti-Semitic"? Are there are any or do you see criticism of Israel as being synonymous with anti-Semitism? Anyone who says the Guardian is anti-Semitic doesn't know the first thing about anti-Semitism. Homey 17:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I thought we finished about the guardian long ago. Zeq 17:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

A day ago is not "a long time". In any case, I had made my comment originally a few days ago, Slim Virgin seems to have overwrote it by accident.

Nevertheless, my point is that if the Guardian is anti-Semitic, so is Ha-aretz and a good portion of the Jewish population in Israel and around the world. Homey 21:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

The ISM by its own words supports violence against Israelis, and violence against Israelis means the murder of little Jewish boys and girls, men and women. RC was a member of ISM; she supported the murder of Jews. This article might be expanded into 100 pages, it might include every bit of trivia about RC's death, but bottom line she aided and abetted the murderers of innocent victims of terrorism, and she doesn't deserve a bit of attention. This article should be deleted.Incorrect 02:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
"The ISM by its own words supports violence against Israelis, and violence against Israelis means the murder of little Jewish boys and girls, men and women." Can you provide a source for this statement? Thanks Arniep 23:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


Rewritten - maybe, deleted - no. If you find a reputable, encyclopedic and scholarly analisys of the topic, please present it in accordance with WP:RULES. ←Humus sapiens ну? 04:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite "early life"

I would recommend rewriting "early life." (1) A bunch of it is an unsourced quotation. I won't get into whether it's fair use, but IMHO, you either need to write the section so that it's not a direct copy and paste from the Guardian or <blockquote></blockquote> it and attribute it to the article's author. (2) IMHO, rewriting is the way to go. Whether she had an "artist's ability to see the significance of her own life," was a "compulsive listmaker," or said things "percipiently" is Billington's opinion and doesn't really have a place in the encyclopedia. So at a minimum, I would recommend rewriting the piece to include just the facts. (3) I question whether most of the facts are notable, but I'll leave that up to discussion. Thanks,TheronJ 02:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm guessing the following is what you are referring to. I reverted it twice and am now removing it to the talk page. It is entirely non-notable and its inclusion is completely inexplicable. GabrielF 03:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Rachel started a diary when she was 12, using it to discover who she was. As a compulsive listmaker, she itemises the people she would like to hang out with in eternity; significantly, they are mainly writers, including Rilke, ee cummings, Gertrude Stein and Zelda Fitzgerald. And Corrie herself has the artist's ability to see the significance of her own life. Writing of a boyfriend who ditched her, she says percipiently: "Colin always wanted to walk faster and I wanted to trudge and identify ferns.,00.html


If it is so non-notable (you are not arguing that it is untrue though), then why do you feel so threatened by it? And who are you to decide if it is notable or not. Did you put the notabilty to vote or do you think you have a God given right decide on notabilty? Theron - There is a link to the Guardian at the end of the paragraph which clearly sources it. Author's opinion that she was "compulsive list maker" is backed by quotes from her Diary. In the very next sentence to the one in which he says Rachel had an "artist's ability to see the significance of her own life,", author cites a quote from her diary to prove it, and leaves the reader to agree or disagree with him. --Bramesh 20:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey Bramesh. I see you're new, so please let me first say: welcome to Wikipedia. I hope I can shed some light on notability, as it pertains to Wikipedia. No one here has a God-given right to do anything (except maybe Jimmy Wales). What we have are opinions and generally, when we can, we try to assume that other people are expressing them in good faith (for more, click on WP:AGF). The reason that editors are objecting to what you've put in isn't because it's false, it's simply because it's a tiny part of Corrie's life. Think of it this way: if we included every detail of her life that had an equal or greater importance to what you'd like to include, the article on her would be massive. We're not really trying to write her biography here, just trying to give a sketch of why she's notable. I don’t think it has to do with people being threatened. Again: welcome. IronDuke 21:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
It seems that anything that could be seen as showing Corrie in a positive light is not allowed on this page. Arniep 21:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
The purpose of this page, or any WP page, is not to shed a positive or negative light on anyone per se. The reason that Corrie is notable is not because she was good, nor because she was bad. It was simply the circumstances of her death and the fallout it engendered. IronDuke 21:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
The fallout from her death included a play (which was blocked in the U.S.) which was based on her diaries. Arniep 23:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
True, but that does not make every entry in her rather voluminous paper trail notable. IronDuke 00:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually "banned" implies that the government did not allow it to be played, what really happened is that understandably private companies chose not to play it because they knew it was inflammatory propaganda which would be bad for business.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 12:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
IMHO, if you want to put in a note that a play was produced based on her writings, with some links to reviews at the bottom of the page, that would be fine, but it really is non-notable that she percipiently noted that her highschool boyfriend likes to walk faster than she does.TheronJ 14:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Iron duke, thanks for the welcome. You say "The purpose of this page, or any WP page, is not to shed a positive or negative light on anyone per se. The reason that Corrie is notable is not because she was good, nor because she was bad. It was simply the circumstances of her death and the fallout it engendered." We are trying to address the question of "why" she was in Palestine - away from her home in Olympia. The purpose of including snippets from Rachel's diary is to shed light on "why" she was in Palestine in the first place. That she was a deep thinker and compassionate was the reason she was moved by what she percieved as institutionalized injustice and brutality against occupied Palestinian families. I hope I have been able to explain the importance of the fact that i am trying to include. Another reason why she was there (according to her emails again) was that United states supports Israel with ~ $2 billion of aid every year - which is historically unprecedented between any two nations. She felt, as an American, responsible for her country's weapons and bulldozers that are devastating ordinary Palestinian lives. Rachel Corrie's death raises a lot of other'why's- Why was the israel Defence Force Bulldozer in Palestine? What does United Nations and law say about Israeli occupation and colonization of Palestine? Rachel Corrie lived and breathed these questions everyday of her life after visiting Palestine and this, combined with her moral outrage against injustice is what led to her death in Palestine. I think it's only fair that these why's be answered for the benefit of people reading this article.

Another thing i have observed is the amount of zionist oversight over this page. Gabriel just removed the entries right away saying it's non-notable. There is almost a sense of intimidation. This is what led me conclude that they are threatened by facts leaking out to American taxpayers who are unwittingly financing the occupation and colonization.

Also your i disagree with your comment "if we included every detail of her life that had an equal or greater importance to what you'd like to include, the article on her would be massive" - we are pulling quotes from her diary (which is insignificant in size)and even if we were to include her diaries verbatim (not saying we should) it wouln't make the page noticeably much bigger. --Bramesh 06:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Bramesh, I hear what you're saying. A couple of points: we could pretty easily include RC's entire diary in this article, but WP doesn't really do that. We only put in what's notable. I think it's clear from the article, very clear, that RC felt the Israelis were in the wrong, that she hated US policy, etc. And it's not really the place to get into US aid for Israel. There are other articles for that, we don't want this one metastisizing into an argument about Israel. And stuff about trudging after ferns doesn't really speaks to the main point of why RC is notable. I don't think it's "Zionist oversight" to object to including it. And speaking of - you are certainly entitled to the aformentioned view. I would just urge some caution, as an editor who had to learn some things the hard way, that it's really best if you don't impugn someone's motives for editing. That is: attack the edit, not the editor. And intimidation? Sad to say, WP has it in spades. One thing they don't tell you in the Five Holy Pillars of Wikipedia Wisdom is that you often have to have alligator skin to edit here, especially controversial articles. You will be hassled, abused, and mocked (and that's if you're lucky). There are procedures to raise grievances about stuff like that, but maintaining a friendly disposition and adhering to AGF is usually the best way to avoid needless acrimony. Cheers. IronDuke 06:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi Bramesh,
I don't feel "threatened" at all by your inclusion of this information. My objective is not to keep people from knowing things, or to push a particular opinion, it is simply to create the best article possible. As has been stated above, your edits in this particular case weren't relevant. They don't really add all that much to our knowledge of Corrie (lots of people make lists and walk outdoors) and they distract people from the information they are looking for when they come to this page, namely the circumstances of her death. I'm sorry that you feel intimidated or frustrated by having your edits reverted, this was of course not my intent, but thats the way that wikipedia works. I seem to remember that in one of your edit summaries you described wikipedia as an "exercise in anarchy", this is not the case, our primary job is to create a good encyclopedia. I'd recommend going back in the edit history and looking at your edit from the perspective of someone who saw Corrie's name somewhere and wants to learn why she's notable. You'll see that your edits don't help that person, but rather they just add irrelevant information for him to slog through. GabrielF 15:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey Iron Duke and Gabriel, thanks for your responses. I guess the commom theme in both responses is "And stuff about trudging after ferns doesn't really speaks to the main point of why RC is notable" and "As has been stated above, your edits in this particular case weren't relevant". I have tried my best to explain why they are relevant. Niether of you seem to have paid any attention to the reasons i have given and have made no attempt to address them: "...The purpose of including snippets from Rachel's diary is to shed light on "why" she was in Palestine in the first place.." Her perceptive and compassionate nature, combined with her extraordinary intelligence moved her to what she perceived a systematic brutalization and persecution of Palestinains for which she felt her Country (by unconditional massive aid and support to IDF) was responsible. And this is why the "stuff about trudging the ferns" is relevant -gives reasons for why she was in Palestine, thousands of miles away from her comfortable home, among aliens. And of course, she wouldn't have been crushed by an IDF Caterpillar D9 bulldozer if she weren't in Palestine opposing home demolitions. And Gabriel, your memory doesn't serve you 100% - what i said was "wikipedia is an excercise in anarchism, lets see if it works". What that means is wikipedia is not a home production controlled and owned by a few editors (in which case it should legally carry a disclaimer saying this article represents the editorial opinions of Gabriel , IronDuke & Co.)Hope i have explained the reasons for edits well and deserve some kind of response on them (explaining why they are wrong).

cheers. --Bramesh 21:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay Bram. A couple of things. I believe that Gabriel (whom I do not know and have never communicated with AFAIK) and I both understand your point entirely and have paid quite a bit of attention to it, unless there is an aspect of it you have yet to share. The graf in question may, in some very, very tangential way, have some kind of bearing on RC's motives for going to Israel, but I see none at all. This is not a pro-Palestinian POV on my or Gabriel’s part, nor is it anti-Palestinian. If you could show that some notable person somewhere thought that this graf really spoke to the heart of why RC was standing in front of a bulldozer on that day, it might be necessary to include it. But it must be someone else making that argument, not you. I hope you can see why that is. As it is, it's difficult to imagine a less relevant passage, unless you want to argue that every single thing RC ever wrote down speaks to why she went to Gaza in which case, as I said before, we'd have a mighty long article. No one here is trying to suppress/repress/intimidate you. I think we're all genuinely baffled as to why you want this passage here. Maybe you could try to be a little trusting and think about it from our point of view, as editors who have been here for a little while (as well as the point of view of Wikipedia). IronDuke 23:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Funeral Quote

I think the minor dispute over whether the source of this quote should be called a "militant" or an "activist" misses the problem. If you read the article carefully, you'll see that it isn't clear that the source was a member of Hamas, but is only identified as an "activist at a Hamas funeral". I don't think that its good journalism to repeat a quote when we can't say who the source is or what organization they represented. Is there a way to replace this quote with one from somebody notable? GabrielF 13:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

'Her death serves me more than it served her,' said one activist at a Hamas funeral yesterday. 'Going in front of the tanks was heroic. Her death will bring more attention than the other 2,000 martyrs.'
I was thinking of making that very point myself. Properly speaking, the quote should be attributed to "an attendee at Corrie's funeral who is active on behalf of Palestinian causes." I think, BTW, that the activist in question is most probably right - surely there is someone more notable out there to make his/her claim. IronDuke 15:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flag Burning Picture

Sorry, I new to Wikipedia. Please forgive in advance if I am doing this inncorrectly.

I have tried to change a picture that is included in this post. It shows "Rachel Corrie" in a crowd of people, reportedly buring a paper American Flag. There is no source for this picture. The Corrie family has never verified that the woman in the picture is Rachel. There have also been accusations that the picture was released as part of an anti-Rachel Corrie effort by Israel. Unless someone can provide a verified source, it should not be included. Thanks.

Hi. The problem with your assertion is that the picture is widely attributed to Corrie, and has been reported as being Corrie in many sources. If you click on the info for the picture, they cite the ISM as the source of the photograph and the attribution. For example, here is one source, from the CBC attributing the photograph to Corrie. [9] Bibigon 22:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
The ISM is not cited as the source of the photo; the information given by clicking on the photo is "Presumed to come from the International Solidarity Movement". I think this is false. I have searched the ISM site [10] and cannot find this photo. I did, however, find their official statement on the death of Rachel, which states: "A picture has been circulated that shows Rachel burning a drawing of the American flag. Trying to use this picture to somehow indicate that Rachel deserved to be run over by a bulldozer is an appalling act of demonization that infers that forms of protest which include flag burning are capital offences"[11]. This suggests to me that the ISM is almost certainly not the source, but rather one of the anti-ISM sites. I agree that this falsely-attributed picture should be removed. RolandR 12:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
It is true that no one desrve to be run by a bolduzer for burnning flags. As for the source it was circulated on the web by many sources. No one doubts the autheticity of the photo (not even the ISM) and the photo has been so widely circulated that it is now in the public domain. Zeq 13:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
No one doubts the autheticity[sic] of the photo - not true, it certainly looks fake to me (and to others, see quote below). The light on her face is all wrong compared to the rest of the photo, and the face itself bears little relation to the other photos of Rachel Corrie. On a quick search I haven't found any statements by her family on the authenticity (or not) of the photo, but if anyone has found such a statement, that would be very valuable and should be incorporated into the article. ISTR articles attributing it to Associated Press, but this article dated 31/3/2003 [12] says:
Two days later a contrary photograph of Rachel appeared, first in the Seattle Times (the article accompanying it has since been removed). It depicts her snarling, shawled and in a Palestinian street demonstration, tearing up a paper US flag. The provenance given for the photograph (a mysterious snapper called "Khalil Hamra") led nowhere. Where, then, had it come from? Paranoia suggested the Israeli secret service, which monitors such events. This picture also looked, to some expert eyes, doctored.
--NSH001 14:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • "Khalil Hamra" is not a "a mysterious snapper" he later worked for AP in Gaza. Zeq 16:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
There are at least two photos of her burning a flag -- both doctored? Also, regarding the ISM statement above, they do not seem to be saying that the photo is fake. Indeed, they are all but admitting it. What they are saying is basically, "Yes, she burned a drawing of an American flag, but that doesn't mean she deserved to die." Which is fair enough, but I see little evidence that would allow us to even suggest the event didn't happen. IronDuke 15:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Okay, here's the full quote from above at the ISM website.
“ A picture has been circulated that shows Rachel burning a drawing of the American flag. Trying to use this picture to somehow indicate that Rachel deserved to be run over by a bulldozer is an appalling act of demonization that infers that forms of protest which include flag burning are capital offences. In the words of Rachel’s parents: “The act, while we may disagree with it, must be put into context. Rachel was partaking in a demonstration in Gaza opposing the war on Iraq. She was working with children who drew two pictures, one of the American flag, and one of the Israeli flag, for burning. Rachel said that she could not bring herself to burn the picture of the Israeli flag with the Star of David on it, but under such circumstances, in protest over a drive towards war and her government’s foreign policy that was responsible for much of the devastation that she was witness to in Gaza, she felt it OK to burn the picture of her own flag. We have seen photographs of memorials held in Gaza after Rachel’s death in which Palestinian children and adults honor our daughter by carrying a mock coffin draped with the American flag. We have been told that our flag has never been treated so respectfully in Gaza in recent years. We believe Rachel brought a different face of the United States to the Palestinian people, a face of compassion. It is this image of Rachel with the American flag that we hope will be remembered most.” ”

[13]

Corrie's parents acknowledge the event occurred, the ISM do so as well. I hope that brings this matter to a close. IronDuke 17:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, of course I have seen that statement. That still doesn't answer the question of whether or not the photo is fake (and one that seems a particularly crude fake to me). The event could still have happened, but the photo faked to make Rachel look worse. --NSH001 18:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Why should we assume that the picture is fake? We know that the event took place, we know that the ISM doesn't say that the picture is fake, merely that they don't think it should be used to demonize Corrie. In fact, by not denying the photo's authenticity when they have the opportunity to do so they seem to be implicitly acknowledging its authenticity. I"d say that we need considerably more than idle speculation to remove the photo. GabrielF 18:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
For the avoidance of doubt, I am NOT suggesting that the photo should be removed, quite the opposite. I am saying that it has not been established whether or not this particular photo is fake (although my opinion so far is that it is fake). Either way it is worth keeping the photo.
--NSH001 20:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
What happened to the context of that mock flag burning that used to be in the article? I did a brief search of the edit history and couldn't find it mentioned. Part of the statement above used to be included in the article, the context that Rachel was handed two mock flags, refused to burn the Israeli one but agreed to burn the US one. I think this is important context, especially for a photo so prominently displayed on the page and so heavily used to promote one POV of her activities in Palestine. Anyone? Mgaines 14:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
You raise an interesting point, Mgaines. I think the question to ask is whether Corrie's non-burning of an Israeli flag is notable, that is, has it been discussed by experts in peer-reviewed journals, for example. IronDuke 15:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

This isn't an article I'm going to get involved with editing, but from where I'm sitting, it does have a slant -- subtle but definite. I think removing the flag-burning photo would go a long way toward neutralizing that slant. The photo itself may be factual (and I've seen no evidence that it isn't) but flag-burning is such a contentious issue that its depiction has the visual equivalent of a negative connotation. Even people such as myself who believe that flag-burning is and should be protected free speech can still have a negative visceral reaction to seeing it. It's not always possible to avoid any words or images that have connotations (we'd have to cut out half the dictionary), but I don't see that her participation in an anti-Iraq war protest is relevant enough to her death to justify this photo's inclusion, especially since the structure of the article requires that the photo be fairly high on the page and hence highly visible. The placement of the pic and caption on the left also draws the (Western) reader's eye first, so that she is portrayed as a "flagburner" (equivalent in many people's minds to "scum") before the reader is given the context of her activities in the text on the right. It's also the only photo placed to the left of the text. It's not only the choice of words that can lend itself to non-neutral POV.--Bedawyn 19:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

This photo is copyrighted and I believe soon to be deleted. Mgaines 14:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

On the topic of photos, why is the only photo allowed of the actual death one least informative? Corrie's crushed body is mostly blocked from view by fellow activists. There are plenty of images showing her condition after the manslaughter, and also showing tread tracks up to and after her body. On the matter of reliable sources, the Joshua Hammer Mother Jones piece has been effectively discredited by Phan Nguyen in his Counterpunch article. Shouldn't that make the Hammer piece unusable? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.150.11.141 (talk • contribs) 11:38 2 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Relevancy - House Corrie protecting later demolished

Someone (Wehwalt) has recently deleted a paragraph from the article with no discussion, claiming lack of relevancy. The paragraph deleted is:

"but one of the houses she believed she was protecting — the home of pharmacist or physician Samid Nasrallah — was damaged six months later when the IDF knocked a hole in one of its walls. The IDF eventually demolished the house in January 2004, according to the charity Rebuilding Alliance, because it stood in the security zone."

I think this is very relevant because it shows that the house was slated for demolition, as was every other house in the neighborhood, which are now gone. Knowing what happened to the house that Rachel Corrie was willing to die to protect is important and relevant. Mgaines 14:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely with Mgaines here. Indeed this little note ought to be expanded and referenced.
--NSH001 14:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I strongly disagree. If this were an article about Samid Nasrallah, it would matter. But the fate of his house occurs after Corrie's death and is not part of what makes the aftermath of her death relevant; what is relevant is the worldwide outrage at her/Israel's actions and, to a lesser extent (sadly) the deaths of Israeli children resulting from it. IronDuke 15:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
IronDuke, that is nonsense. It is part of the essential background to understanding what Rachel was doing. The IDF were indeed demolishing houses, destroying livelihoods, bulldozing orchards, destroying water supplies, and worse. A brutal, vicious, illegal occupying military force in flagrant violation of UN resolutions. These horrendous actions were and are a vital contributory factor in motivating the killers responsible for Israeli deaths. Violence begets violence, and Rachel is to be commended for trying to put a stop to it. Her actions helped to reduce both Palestinian and Israeli deaths. She is to be admired for saving Isaeli lives, and for sacrificing her own life while trying to protect Nasrallah's house.
--NSH001 17:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
NSH001, your comments are not only uncivil, they also betray a strong desire to push POV. "Brutal, vicious, illegal?" In any case, there appears to be a lack of reputable sources for this claim, as per the comments below. Am reverting until there are better sources, then perhaps we can continue the discussion. IronDuke 23:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm surprised that you might regard by comments as "uncivil"; that certainly wasn't the intention. I consider myself a friend of Israel and the Jewish people (as an aside, I was brought up on large chunks of the "Old Testament" and have great admiration for the Jewish people, their acheivements, history and traditions; I am appalled by the long history of suffering of the Jews, and by the Holocaust; my (late) father fought against Nazism in World War II, and I loathe anti-semitism in all its forms. Sorry for the digression, but it seems to be necessary to explain where I'm coming from). It shouldn't be necessary to say that I am also appalled by the terrorist killings of Jews in Israel (and anywhere else for that matter), and I want to see them stopped. I'm sorry if you feel that it is "uncivil", but sometimes a good friend has to say things that might be difficult to accept.
--NSH001 22:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I am sure Israel will prefer to pick its own friends. With friends like this . . . but I digress. In any event, your comments are subject to reasonable dispute and should not be asserted as fact in WP.--Wehwalt 22:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Some thoughts on the "house demolished" story:

  1. I tend to think it's an interesting detail, and should be included for that reason. We can't say that the IDF was lieing when they said they weren't demolishing the house in May 04 - that would be OR. However, I think just stating that the house was eventually bulldozed adds some interesting context.
  2. On the other hand, I'm not convinced that the source cited matches reliable source criteria. Any thoughts?

Thanks, TheronJ 18:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with TheronJ, the incident is notable but another source needs to be found. I know that the Corries were almost kidnapped at Nasrallah's house two years later but it is likely that it was a different house. GabrielF 18:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Of course, if it is the same house, that raises another issue! I don't so much object to including the incident; my concern was that there was an implication (as TheronJ says) that the IDF was lying because, after all, they went after the house twice afterwards and eventually got it (as some might say). I would suggest we find a reputable source, clear up the timeline on which house the parents were almost kidnapped at, and include it with very careful phrasing. Perhaps as a separate paragraph. Say, "In later IDF operations, the house was damaged (a hole was knocked in a wall) and was later destroyed. By that time, Nasrallah had moved into a different house."--Wehwalt 21:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Thisshould meet WP:RS concerns, although the JPost appears just to be restating the "Rebuilding Alliance" press release.

During their first visit to the Nasrallahs' in September 2003, an IDF bulldozer pulled up to the home looking to destroy it. That house, which Rachel tried to protect, was later destroyed. It is being rebuilt with funds raised by the grassroots US group, The Rebuilding Alliance.

[14] TheronJ 15:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's an interesting link about the rebuilding effort on the Nasrallah house. I doubt it's reliable, but it's interesting. TheronJ 15:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Slightly nutty if you ask me! Anyway, I am going to put the info back in along the lines I suggested.--Wehwalt 11:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
There's a much better article in The Jewish Journal (GLA). Long and thorough, it is careful to be fair to both sides. Among other things, it makes clear that ALL houses in the area were targeted for demolition, and that the Nasrallahs' house was finally demolished on 17th Oct 2003, some seven months after Rachel's death.
--NSH001 14:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for finding the relevant article. It is no doubt a fact that the Nasrallah home, along with all others in that neighborhood of southern Rafah were demolished, just finding the "credible" source can be tough. I looked and looked but could only find advocacy sites or official Palestine Authority sources, again not because it didn't happen, but because many "mainstream" news sources didn't report it. Mgaines 01:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Human Rights Watch page

I deleted the paragraph from the Human Rights Watch page. According to the rules at the top of this talk page, we are to avoid "highly biased political websites unless there is clearly some editorial oversight or fact-checking process". Human Rights Watch has issued repeated condemnations of Israel, and has never supported it in any way. Just google it to check me on this. While there are footnotes on the cited page, it is not the facts that are cited which are referenced here, but Human Rights Watch's claims concerning Israel and whether it investigates well or not. Indeed, one of the quotations doesn't even refer to Corrie, but is part of the overall header. I would suggest that we either leave it out, or, if we put it in, avoid direct quotation, since the quotations are not supported.--Wehwalt 11:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

HRW is a respected, independent human-rights organisation that reports equally on abuses by Palestinian groups. It is NOT a "highly biased political website" in the meaning of the guidance at the top of this article. See this Jerusalem Post article [The Truth Hurts].
--NSH001 16:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I and a lot of other people have zero respect for HRW. Accept it.
What is that article meant to demonstrate? IronDuke 17:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
You say "Human Rights Watch has issued repeated condemnations of Israel, and has never supported it in any way." The IDF has also "issued repeated condemnations of Palestinians, and has never supported them in any way." Now this is not a tit for tat, but it's true that HRW is a respected organization that has reported on all hot spots around the world, and has condemned some Palestinian actions too as violations of basic Israeli human rights. If an organization that has the phrase "human rights" in its very name is deemed biased, does that offend people because Palestinians aren't supposed to be 'human'? What's the matter? Ramallite (talk) 17:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't believe that is an accurate or helpful recapitulation of Wehwalt's position. IronDuke 17:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I actually wasn't referring to Wehwalt per se, but to regular accusations on WP talk pages about HRW's bias, (or accusations of bias against any group that has anything helpful to say about Palestinians), and was wondering why that is, that's all. No personal insults were implied or meant, sorry. It's frustrating that almost any site that has anything non-negative to say about Palestinians (doesn't even have to be positive, just not negative) is deemed "biased". Ramallite (talk) 17:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I am sorry if misinterpreted your remarks. I don't believe Wehwalt was commenting on HRW's position on Palestinains, but rather suggesting bias in their criticism of Israel. IronDuke 23:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, declaring that HRW is highly biassed and on that basis deleting information about its report is just stupid. Excessive tolerance of stupidity is one of the reasons for Wikipedia's quality issues. Palmiro | Talk 23:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't think much is gained by calling another editor's arguments stupid, other than ill-feeling. If there is a good argument to be made against Wehwalt's position, I would urge you to make it. IronDuke 23:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
There's no good argument to be made for his position, so I don't see why I or anyone else should bother making one against it. On the other hand, it is certainly worth pointing out the danger posed by excessive tolerance of such nonsense. Palmiro | Talk 23:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Here's a quote from our article: "Human Rights Watch has been criticized as having an anti-Israel bias. Prominent critics include the Anti-Defamation League, Gerald Steinberg and the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs' NGO Monitor, Anne Bayefsky, and Abraham Cooper." Are those people biased? Maybe. Stupid? You'd be hard-pressed to make that case. IronDuke 00:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
The fact that you come up with a set of clearly biased groups to make the case that HRW is biased allows me, I think, to rest my case. Palmiro | Talk 00:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure what "case" you are referring to. You've not responded to any of the points I have made. That's fine by me. I'd just respectfully ask you not to refer to other editors as "stupid." I don't think you help build a better encyclopedia by doing that. IronDuke 01:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I think it's obvious that Wehwalt came to this page not to improve it, but to interject his own pro-Israel bias. HRW is respected around the world and surely meets Wiki guidelines for realiable sources. Mgaines 01:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Your remarks do not address my points. IronDuke 01:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Also, I would once again ask all editors to use this discussion page BEFORE making changes, not make the change then discuss it. Mgaines 01:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Wehwalt's recent edits are completely unacceptable (a pity, as I thought his earlier contributions were mostly helpful). His insertion "a group which has repeatedly critcized Israeli actions in the West Bank and Gaza," is blatant POV, and doesn't belong in this article. Such observations belong on the main Human Rights Watch page, where they can be placed in context. If you follow the history, you will see he has been repeatedly deleting my report of HRW's findings, and even, on one occasion, inserted an untrue statement. The fact that plenty of people criticise HRW does NOT prove that HRW is a "highly biased political website"; it merely shows (1) that Israel is alleged to have committed human-rights violations in the Occupied Territoies (rather a lot, in fact) and (2) the apologists for IDF violence are vociferous, well-organised and well-funded, and with strong support at the highest levels of the US government.
In fact, the HRW report is probably the closest thing we're going to get to an independent investigation. My summary of it was careful, accurate (though I will concede the style is clumsy, and could be improved) and definitely belongs here. We present the IDF view here at some length (quite properly) and it is totally unacceptable to suppress relevant evidence, such as that from HRW's investigation.
--NSH001 11:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for damning me with faint praise. The problem with the HRW statement (I hesitate to call it a report, it is one page of print, tops) is that a)it is from a group which has made a practice of criticizing Israel and NOT criticizing Palestinian terrorists; b) it is NOT evenhanded--they interviewed ISM and Palestinian individuals, but there is no indication they asked for any official Israeli contribution, c) it is presented to advance a point of view from a pressure group. HRW may be widely praised, but it is also widely condemned. The statement was inserted into a volatile article which had achieved consensus at a critical point--to rebut the point of view of one of the parties. HRW is presented as a neutral third party that is evaluating both sides in a neutral and dispassionate manner and presenting well-balanced conclusions, when in fact that is very much open to dispute. That addition was done without any attempt to gain consensus on the Talk page. Frankly, what we should do is move the paragraph to the "Reactions" section, under the comments about Amnesty International. I propose we do so.--Wehwalt 11:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
No comments in over a day. Unless someone objects, I propose to move the HRW matter to the reactions section.--Wehwalt 16:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
A medical problem has kept me away since my last contribution. I will return when I am able, but in the meantime I just want to note that my absence does not imply consensus or agreement (certainly not in this case).
--NSH001 19:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I too believe the Human Rights Watch is a reliable source. I see this is an old discussion, but I was just reverted from adding it and told to see the archives here. Well, I see some, more than a few who agree with me. The Smoking Nun (talk) 03:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Go read WP:RS.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Two minor issues

(1) "In later IDF operations, the house was damaged (a hole was knocked in a wall) and was later destroyed. By that time, Nasrallah had moved into a different house. The house is being rebuilt in part with funds from The Rebuilding Alliance, an ISM affiliate.[1]" - The Rebuilding Alliance is not an ISM affiliate. I would like to delete "an ISM affiliate". (2) "The Israeli report also states that the army had not, in fact, intended to demolish a house, but was searching for explosives in the border area designated a security zone by Israel. No houses were demolished on the day of Corrie's death." - In fact three other houses in the neighborhood (two less that 50m away from Nasrallah's home) were demolished just hours before Corrie's death. Some had been previously damaged, one severely, but two were still fully standing before their demolition. I would like to either expand and explain these facts in the article, or just delete the sentence about no houses being demolished the day Corrie was killed. [15] I have more sources if needed. Mgaines 16:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm OK with deleting the ISM affiliate thing. While there was a source which so stated, the guy sppears to be somewhat nuts, so let it go. As for the other thing, this is reporting from the day after Corrie died, and Ha'aretz is relying mostly on ISM reporting. I would be more comfortable with something from later on in the mess.--Wehwalt 19:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Many of the articles I have saved are either no longer available online or charge a fee to access archives. I was able to find a Haaretz article with the same information from late June of 2003, when the IDF "closed the file", which also mentions "The troops had destroyed three buildings that were already partially demolished and a number of walls." [16] Mgaines 16:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
It is still reporting of ISM statements, it is unclear who the "eyewitnesses" are. I would tend to agree, delete the sentence about no houses being demolished, as it is a matter of dispute.--Wehwalt 17:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reaction - Detractors, LGF, and St. Pancake

I've noticed that someone without an account keeps adding the fact that the Little Green Footballs blog refers to Corrie as "St. Pancake". This change is always reverted back, but I'm wondering if this merits discussion. I think that there is a significant group of politically active bloggers and commentators that refer to Corrie as "St. Pancake" and that this should be mentioned in the reactions section. Of course I find this to be completely distasteful and immature, but it is also a potentially significant reaction. What do others think? Mgaines 20:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure that a blog meets the policies at the top of this page. If the term was picked up by a media source with editorial oversight, then use it. Otherwise, do not.--Wehwalt 21:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Blogs are not considered reliable sources. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 21:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
If we are reporting that a blog says such and such, then the blog is the best source as to whether or not they are actually saying it. They're not a reliable source on other subjects, but they certainly can be sourced if we're reporting what they are saying. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
The question really is at what point it becomes notable. I'd say that usages on an extremist political blog such as Little Green Footballs are not notable in and of themselves in relation to articles such as this. If something is notable in terms of the usages, views or reactions of the radical right, it will be observable on more reliable sources e.g. newspapers. Palmiro | Talk 22:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Right, I'm not disagreeing with that, at all, just reminding that there are some times when blogs are acceptable sources. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why not just present all facts?!

I'm amazed that this article is so contreversial. Why not simply present all relevant facts...?! And let the readers decide.

Certainly, that is what we are doing, Mr. (I'm sorry, what was your name again?) We simply need to decide what are facts, and if we find them to be facts, which are relevant.--Wehwalt 19:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

should someone not point out how incredibly STUPID it is to try to stop a bulldozer when the person inside cant even see you?

Actually the evidence was that they could indeed see her. Arniep 15:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Really, are there any sources to back that up? --TotesBoats 07:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually the evidence proves beyond any doubt, apart from by very biased people, that the driver could not see her. I think this is an important point, she was supposedly so clever, but then sits infront of a bulldozer where she cant be seen.

[edit] excluding Electronic Intifada as ref: consensus?

I haven't read all of the old debate about this, but I've read a lot of it. It looks like opinion is divided on using the Electronic Intifada as an external link, but most editors seem to agree that the Electronic Intifada is not appropriate as a reference, which is how it is used right now. I don't want to re-open the debate itself, as it looks like the important points were made at least once. But I do want to ask whether others consider that debate to have reached consensus. It looks to me like a rough consensus exists to exclude EI as a reference, with only Arniep and Ramallite dissenting. --Allen 06:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

It is pointless to disagree with right wing zionist editors here as they are all working together to bias these articles. If I brought in a few more people to disagree, they would bring more or make sockpuppets. As long as people know that Wikipedia is biased and that the Mr.Wales does not one thing about that due to his own political biases that is fine. Arniep 15:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
October 2006 (UTC)

So if someone agrees with you they are correct, but if they agree with the other point of view they are "sockpuppets"! Who is being biased, insulting and intimidating here? Please face the fact that your incorrect points of view are wrong and in the minority, indeed anyone who agrees with you is incapable of seeing the full picture and assesing it correctly.

[edit] Second Paragraph Rewrite

The second paragraph currently reads

"The circumstances of Corrie's death are disputed. The ISM say that the driver of the bulldozer deliberately ran her over twice while she was trying to prevent what they say might have been a house demolition. The IDF say that the cause of death was falling debris pushed over by the bulldozer, that the bulldozer driver did not see her; that the bulldozer was clearing brush and not engaged in a demolition; that Corrie was interfering with security operations designed to uncover the tunnels used by Hamas and other groups for smuggling weapons from Egypt."
I think this is highly imbalanced especially since these claims are disputed. ISM's claims are only two, (1. deliberate 2. home demolition) and wishy-washy "what they say might have been" while IDF claims are four (1. debris not run over 2. didn't see her 3. brush not demolitions 4. interfering with security operations) and concrete. I suggest either limiting the IDF claims to two or expanding on ISM claims.
Proposal 1 (limiting IDF claims):
"The circumstances of Corrie's death are disputed. The ISM say that the driver of the bulldozer deliberately ran her over twice while she was trying to prevent a house demolition. The IDF say that the cause of death was falling debris pushed over by the bulldozer, that the bulldozer driver did not see her and that the bulldozer was not engaged in a house demolition."
Proposal 2 (expanding ISM claims)
"The circumstances of Corrie's death are disputed. The ISM say that the driver of the bulldozer deliberately ran her over twice while she was trying to prevent the demolition of a family home she had stayed in; that the bulldozer started towards her from a sufficient distance to clearly see her and her orange jacket; and that just prior to being run over Rachel climbed the bulldozer mound to reach eye-level with bulldozer operators. The IDF say that the cause of death was falling debris pushed over by the bulldozer, that the bulldozer driver did not see her; that the bulldozer was clearing brush and not engaged in a demolition; that Corrie was interfering with security operations designed to uncover the tunnels used by Hamas and other groups for smuggling weapons from Egypt."

I'm not the best writer so suggestions are welcome, but I think this paragraph should be rewritten. Thoughts? Mgaines 15:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the paragraph as it stands dos the job nicely. Your first suggested graf merely removes information, while the second could bebroken down as the ISM claiming that 1) the driver saw her, 2) the driver saw her and 3) the driver saw her. You see what I'm saying? IronDuke 18:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I understand and somewhat agree with your point about Proposal 2, but what about proposal 1? I could also try or be open to others trying a proposal 3, but my point still stands that this introductory paragraph contains the most disputed aspects of the incident and is highly imbalanced with regards to competing claims. Mgaines 15:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I say leave it as is. No one has complained in 2 1/2 months. The article as a whole is well balanced. I don't think we need to count facts in individual paragraphs--Wehwalt 15:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I disagree that the article as a whole is balanced, but do agree that counting facts in every paragraph would be a waste of time and not very productive. We're talking however about the main paragraph, the introduction that most people will read without going any further. Some effort should be made at balance since there are claims and counter-claims that each merit some legitamacy. It doesn't need to be fact for fact, but to explain one side nearly completely (the IDF side) while allowing only one sentence for the other, skews the entire article. Mgaines 15:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Crushing picture

Do we really need to see a picture of Corrie after having been crushed by a bulldozer? What's the point? TMott 17:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I also hate the picture, but think it should stay. It helps explain the hysteria surrounding her death. And Wikipedia, as they say, is not censored. IronDuke 00:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

It explains the "hysteria surrounding her death"? The woman was crushed by a bulldozer driven by a soldier who knew she was there at very least minutes if not seconds before he drove over her. What is notably missing here is a photo showing her body crushed in its entirety with bulldozer tread marks clearly visible surrounding her. That would address the LENGTHY explanations included in this entry from Israeli apologists that she was not really driven over by an Israeli bulldozer! Actually more photos of her crushed are needed to help the reader decipher the truth about the circumstances of her death, which is hotly denied by Israel and her advocates. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.150.11.141 (talk • contribs) 11:38 2 April 2007 (UTC).

"What is notably missing here is a photo showing her body crushed in its entirety with bulldozer tread marks clearly visible surrounding her."
Maybe that picture isn't here because it doesn't exist?
"The woman was crushed by a bulldozer driven by a soldier who knew she was there at very least minutes if not seconds before he drove over her."
The other incident noted on the page (with the male pressed up against a wall, I believe) seems to clearly illustrate that the soldiers did not, in fact, have any good visibility - he almost crushed the kid, and didn't know it until afterwards.KrytenKoro 07:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
All that picture will do is promote anti-Semetism on Wikipedia and stop this article from being NPOV. --TotesBoats 07:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me? The picture simply illustrates what makes Corries notable. She died protesting a controversial policy, which BTW has nothing whatsoever to do with Judaism, so the concerns about "anti-Semetism" are bogus. --Marvin Diode 14:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Email to parents

Recently, this section has been removed. I am replacing it again, as I believe it is relevant in that it gives RC's state of mind, but would like input as to whether others agree. IronDuke 18:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Your link to the section doesn't work, but if you're talking about Rachel's emails, a paragraph or two with a link to the rest would indeed contribute to the article. Mgaines 22:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Fixed the diff. IronDuke 22:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent Changes

I just reverted two changes by Shamir1. The first defined Corrie as a "Leftist" which is open to interpretation and not a matter of fact, and the second that expanded and repeated the negative reactions to Corrie's story getting media attention. As for the additional paragraph, you say Corrie put herself "in danger's way" as opposed to "non-threatening" people killed by Palestinians. I don't think this should be included in the article for two reasons, first it is original research and second it's untrue. By saying Corrie put herself knowingly "in danger's way" you're implying that she was a combatant, which she was not. You further that view by comparing her actions to "non-threatening people", implying that an unarmed young woman was somehow "threatening". Thoughts? Mgaines 21:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

This is an excerpt from fer document-forger ISM collegue: ""[Between 13:30 and 14:00], I arrived, and one of the three activists at[sic] the house joined me on the ground ... [W]e began to disrupt the work of the bulldozers ... At this point, Rachel and the two other activists joined us ... Rachel and a British activist were wearing jackets that were fluorescent orange and had reflective stripping [sic] ... [Between 14:00 and 15:00], Rachel and two other activists began interfering with the other bulldozer" I would be interested to see how interfering with bulldozer is not putting oneself in danger's way.206.186.8.130 17:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of earlier photograph

I support the removal of the earlier photograph, showing Corrie and a bulldozer, so situated that she is plainly visible. I fear that the photo is irrelevant, and has the ability to mislead readers into thinking that it is obvious that the bulldozer driver involved in the fatal incident (another bulldozer?) must have seen her, even though the caption sets out the true situation. I would say it really doesn't matter what Corrie was doing hours before, and photographs speak louder than words. It was misleading on the ISM web site, it is misleading here. It should be removed.--Wehwalt 12:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The picture should be removed because you are afraid of what people might conclude from seeing one of those bulldozers? Certainly that is an unacceptable reason. --Zerotalk 13:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
That is not what I said, of course. What is your rationale for keeping it? I should note that it is also placed in a section of the article which deals with whether Corrie was visible to the bulldozer involved in the incident that ended her life, which might lead the casual user to think that this photograph is relevant to that section. It isn't.--Wehwalt 14:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
It is a photo taken on site apparently on the same day. It shows the sort of thing Corrie was doing that day and therefore adds information to the article. Your analysis of the visibility issue is personal research. --Zerotalk 07:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

As the article documents, there is plenty of WP:RS documenting the lack of visibility of the actual incident.

So long as the caption and accompanying text is accurate, it's not problematic. The photo is important because it was the one most widely distributed, and it's an example of how Reuters originally misreported the story, which is how the urban legend that Corrie was deliberately killed got spread. -- TedFrank 11:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The photo was taken less than two hours before Rachel was killed. As far as "urban legend" - there is very little doubt that the driver and navigator of the D-9 saw Corrie in their path as they approached from the distance. In fact, an IDF APC filmed the incident (in side view) up to seconds before impact. They were in radio contact, and everyone knew she was there.

The urban legend is that the driver "never" saw her. His visibility was limited when he got within a few feet of Corrie, and there are contradictory claims as to what happened next, with the ISM claiming she climbed the mound and looked the driver in the eye, and the driver claming he lost sight of her. Either way, the driver, navigator, and crew of the APC filming all saw her in the path and knew she was there. They also knew that ISM volunteers weren't moving out of the way at the last moment, intentially being consistent in trying to disrupt the activities of the bulldozers. If I'm driving and see children playing in the road off in the distance and I decide to close my eyes and floor it, did I intentionally kill them? Did I see them when I hit them? Mgaines 14:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

If you see the picture, and the placement of the picture, as a way of advocating for what you believe regarding Corrie, then I think we are going to have a problem here. WP is not about advocating for a position.--Wehwalt 14:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with that statement Wehwalt. Most of what I wrote above does not directly pertain to inclusion or exclusion of the picture from the article but was rather discussion responding to a previous comment. This is the talk page, right? Mgaines 18:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Visibility" photo should go

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/0d/RachelProtest.jpeg

This photo should be removed from the Rachel Corrie article as it is heavily photoshopped, and therefore a false representation of what transpired. Unless the two people facing the bulldozer were less than five feet tall they would not be so small next to the blade, which at it's highest point is 6 feet,4 inches in height.

See here: http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/vehicles/engineer_vehicles/bulldozers/d9_c.jpg

If you notice the woman's shadow, it is not consistent with the surrounding light, and the male next to her does not cast a shadow similar to hers. This is the mark of a sloppy Photoshopper. Light just does not act that way. Her shadow looks more like Photoshop's "burn tool" than an actual shadow, too.

This image misrepresents the truth and as such does not meet Wikipedia's standards and should be removed or replaced.

Canonista 14:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


Canonista, thank you for your thoughts and welcome to Wikipedia (I've left a welcome message on your talk page here, which has a lot of useful links).
As for your point about the photo, a few things come to mind. First, and most importantly, Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. What that means is, we may not inject our personal theories into articles, no matter how right the theories may be. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, we report what others say. If you have sources that meet the criteria for Reliable sources, perhaps there'd be room for it in the article.
Also, FWIW, the couple in the picture are standing in a depression and the blade of the dozer is slightly raised. Their height seems appropriate to me, but then, my opinion doesn't matter, if you follow me.
One last thing: please be careful of WP:3RR. If you click that link and read the policy, it says that you may make no more than three reversions in a 24-hour period. This is to keep articles stable, and to encourage discussion. Thanks again for discussing. Cheers,
IronDuke 20:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

There is a good reason why personal research like these "Photoshop" claims is not allowed on Wikipedia. If you look at a high-res version of the image, you can see very easily that the dark patch is not a shadow at all and that both Corrie and the man have shadows in the right place. --Zerotalk 07:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Zero, thanks for that link, very useful.
--NSH001 08:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
What needs to be done to put the photo back in the article? In researching this incident, I was able to get the actual film from Joe Carr and have the pictures developed myself. I have permission to use them and I am the one who posted the high resolution version to dispel the myths of photoshopping. This photo was published by dozens of mainstream media outlets including Reuters and AP, so it is not original research. Also, this photo was discussed in archived discussion of this article, at length. Mgaines 13:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't know, I've been burned myself with the whole licensing thing. You may wish to seek advice from an admin. I suggest that when you restore it, you put it where the photo of the bulldozer is now, and perhaps put the bulldozer shot where the deleted shot formerly was.--Wehwalt 13:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Take a look at Wikipedia:Request for copyright assistance and Wikipedia:Requested copyright examinations. One key thing here though is what exactly permission have you been granted? Did he grant you all rights (and this includes the right to sell the pictures commercially.for a profit including the republishing rights and the right to modify the images as you see fit)? If you're not sure, you'd have to clarify with him. It might be best to consult about a suitable license. While we require images be released under a free license which allows commercial use and derivates, the GFDL for example would require anyone using the image to have it under the GFDL including publishing the license (so for example it probably wouldn't be feasible to use it on a tshirt). Note that in any case, conspiracy theorists could use the image to try and show their wacky theories including modifying the image provided they obeyed the license. Nil Einne 00:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I have a couple of comments. Firstly, just because it was published by mainstream sources, that isn't proof that the photo wasn't faked. However, if it was published by a reputable source, then it could be included on the grounds that the standard for wikipedia is verifiability, not truthfulness. This is one of the problems with wikipedia, but that's a discussion for another time. Second, anyone who can look at the photo and come to the conclusion that it hasn't been edited in some way needs to take another look at it. The shadows of the two figures in the picture are obviously inconsistent and, as the other person pointed out above, the quality of the left-hand shadow isn't the same as the one on the right. I'm not going to comment on the copyright issue because I don't know anything about the issue. --Lee Vonce 13:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Home of pharmacist

Why is it not stated in the main text that she was attempting to protect the home of a pharmacist, Samir Nasrallah, from being demolished? Nasrallah, his brother Khaled Nasrallah, and their wives and children, lived in the home and Samir Nasrallah's three young children were in the home at the time. I'm very surprised that the very reason she was killed (i.e. what she was doing when killed) is not even mentioned at all. Badagnani 23:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

He's mentioned elsewhere in the article, I believe, as a pharmacist. And we don't mention the young kids, etc, etc because we are running a neutral article here. We could mention the young children of the victims of the suicide bombers whom the IDF was trying to frustrate, if you like.--Wehwalt 00:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

It isn't a mark of neutrality to willfully leave out the actual activity the person the article was about, and the reasons behind it. It is simply silly to mention the house and owner only in passing, late in the article, when the activity Corrie was engaged in was protecting the home of Corrie's friend Nasrallah and his family (the children of which were inside the home at the time). I don't believe there were suicide bombers in the home at the time, so your last point doesn't make sense. Badagnani 21:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the IDF's activities, there wouldn't be anything wrong to note in the article the reasons behind their activities that day, if they are known (whether it was to frustrate suicide bombers or something else). It all provides important context to an understanding of what happened, why, and how. Badagnani 21:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

You added the name into the second paragraph and I can live with that. If you start getting into the wives and kids thing, we may need to discuss further.--Wehwalt 22:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] HRW

I removed the 'repeatedly criticised Israel' part of HRW because it is impossible to be fair to either side in one sentence. Our readers who are unfamiliar with HRW should check out the article. If they don't this is unfortunate but can't be helped. Can someone point me to one other case where we mention HRW (or for that matter some other organisation or country) repeatedly criticisises something in such a manner. Besides that, if we are going to point out that HRW repeatedly criticised Israel, shouldn't we point out that they criticise other countries a lot more? Nil Einne 01:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I undid the edit. This was a matter that was extensively discussed on this page, what emerged is in the article, and has more or less consensus support. It should not be lightly changed, and if it is going to be changed, it should be discussed here first.--Wehwalt 02:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I should add, emphatically, that it did not have consensus support, although it may have appeared to do so. The reason was that a medical problem kept me away from wikipedia for an extended period at the time of that discussion, and I did leave a brief note to that effect. This phrase is only one of several problems with this article, and I will return here when I have the time and energy to do the job properly.
--NSH001 13:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I did see that, welcome back, and hope you are better. I suggest that any proposed changes, though, still be discussed on this page before any implementation is attempted.--Wehwalt 13:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What about Israeli children?

"On March 14, 2003 in an interview with the Middle East Broadcasting network, she said: "I feel like I'm witnessing the systematic destruction of a people's ability to survive ... Sometimes I sit down to dinner with people and I realize there is a massive military machine surrounding us, trying to kill the people I'm having dinner with." Actually that is exactly the way I feel when I spend time with Israeli families, and Isreali children...knowing that there is a terrorist network, an axis of nations and an international campaign out there to kill the people (and children) I am spending time with. A network that Corrie (and most leftwing extremists) are part of. Corrie came to Israel to help Arab terrorists murder Israeli civillians. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Herut (talk • contribs) 12:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

People like Corrie don't give a thought for Israeli children. One wonders why she is considered so notable. She chose to go into the middle of a terrorist zone. The innocent victims of Palestinan terrorists (Jewish, Chritsian and muslim don't forget) all around the world didin't have that choice. Perhaps we should do a page for each one of them too?

Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and talk pages are not for trolls. Please only discuss issues with regards to writing an encyclopedia article. Thank you. --Uncle Bungle 01:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Is it allowed under wikipedia policy to remove posts like this, or do we have to leave it? Thanks. --Uncle Bungle 01:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Intro too long, and not concise enough

I'm not taking a side on this issue, but I think the intro paragraph needs to be a lot more concise. It delves way to deep into the different sides of the argument and even goes so far as to have bullet points. All an all it's just kind of rambling and not very well written. If no one has an objection I would suggest that me or somebody else rewrite the intro and some of the content there be moved somewhere else in the article --M4bwav 03:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The intro suffers from violations of WP:UNDUE, in that it is preoccupied with trying to deflect criticism of the IDF. I am re-writing because otherwise its an NPOV problem. --Marvin Diode 14:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


[edit] "See also" section

I am waiting for an explanation from those who insist on including a list of people in the "See also" section; none of these people seems to be in any way related to Rachel Corrie. Beit Or 19:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

To get started on the right foot here, first you deleted the see-also section without explaniation in the edit summary. Don't wait for us, just get to specifics. Meggar 19:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

As an interim measure, I deleted Joe Carr from the see also section, since he is referenced and linked in the article and he isn't needed twice. I'm more concerned about the House demolition link. I have been deleting it and explaining my edits, but I can't do that any more without violating 3RR. That article seems to be about destroying houses as retaliation on suicide bombers. This doesn't seem to be that. In addition, there was the factual question on whether the bulldozer was engaged in destroying (for whatever purpose) a house on the day in question. I think it should be left out.--Wehwalt 21:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

There's a debate over at House demolition about to include exactly. In the mean time, there's no reason to link to that article for the reason you gave. Later, if its focus changes, then we can link to it. nadav (talk) 22:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I did see it was protected due to edit war.--Wehwalt 22:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality dispute

I edited the lead, as discussed above, because it was extremely lopsided, consisting mainly of a lengthy and self-contradictory argument that Rachel's death was an accident, but then again, if it wasn't, she probably deserved to die. My edit was quickly reverted [17], with the argument that the lengthy, argumentative version was "more encyclopedic." Would the person wo reverted please explain the logic behind that? I am putting up the dispute tag in the meantime. --Marvin Diode 21:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Marvin, thank you for doing an excellent job of re-working the lead. Your version is fair, balanced and fully compliant with WP policies. Pending a reply from Zeq, I have restored it.
--NSH001 22:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Marvin, in general, when in an article is both controversial and relatively stable, as this one was, it is best to proceed with caution when making controversial changes. The lead does not, as you suggest make an "argument," rather, it presents (or ought to present) two sides of the same incident, which boil down to "Rachel Corrie was murdered by the IDF while defending the homes of innocent Palestinians" versus, "Rachel Corrie died while obstructing IDF security forces who were attempting to locate and destroy tunnels used by Palestinian terrorist to murder Israeli civilians." There is no way to present the "true" version of what happened; the facts, and what they mean, will always be in dispute. IronDuke 23:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
The lead is the wrong place to provide a detailed account of the argument on either side; it is supposed to be a summary of the essential facts. In the case of the lead that I edited, it presented an unnecessarily long and detailed account of one side of the argument. --Marvin Diode 00:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I hear what you're saying yet, per my post above, it would be virtually impossible to get a good lead with "essential facts." What are the essential facts? "Rachel Corrie died in Rafah on March 16, 2003." Just about everything else is disputed. IronDuke 00:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
What can be done with relative ease is to edit the intro so that roughly equal space is devoted to both sides of the controversy, which is what my edit did. My edit was then reverted to a version which devotes massively more space to the arguments of those who maintain that the IDF did nothing wrong. It is a glaring neutrality problem. --Marvin Diode 00:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I see no need to count words. If it takes more words to give a brief description of one side's position than the other, we use the words. That does not make for a glaring neutrality problem.--Wehwalt 01:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Marvin, I'm not sure your edit did exactly what you think it did. Looking over what we have now, I'd say that there's a repetition of the contention that the IDF was closing down smuggling tunnels. We can certainly live with only one mention in the lead. Other than that, I think the intro is fair to both sides. Do you still not? IronDuke 01:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I see significant improvement. I have taken the liberty of removing the first of the two references to smuggling tunnels, and I also removed the dispute tag. I hope that this solution is acceptable all around. --Marvin Diode 05:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
You can "take the liberty" for many things but you can not trumple NPOV. Zeq 05:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This was the long time consensus version

Rachel Corrie
Rachel Corrie

Rachel Corrie (April 10, 1979–March 16, 2003) was a member of the International Solidarity Movement (ISM) who traveled as an activist to the Gaza Strip during the Al-Aqsa Intifada. She was killed when she tried to obstruct an Israel Defense Forces (IDF) Caterpillar D9 bulldozer operating in a Palestinian residential area of Rafah, next to the border with Egypt - an area the IDF had designated a security zone and which contains a network of smuggling tunnels connecting Egypt to the Palestinian side of Rafah.

The circumstances of Corrie's death are disputed. ISM eyewitnesses say that the driver of the bulldozer deliberately ran her over twice while she was trying to prevent what they say might have been a house demolition. The IDF say the bulldozer driver did not see her; that the bulldozer was clearing brush and not engaged in a demolition; that Corrie was interfering with security operations designed to uncover the tunnels used by Hamas and other groups for smuggling weapons from Egypt; and that the cause of death was falling debris pushed over by the bulldozer. Zeq 14:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Zeq, surely we don't need two mentions of the tunnels in the lead, do we? IronDuke 14:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't see any mention in the current rev. Zeq 17:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
There was NO consensus on the previous version. The new one is much better. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 16:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Zeq, the revision you just pasted in above mentions tunnels twice. In the current version, they are mentioned once, which is how it should be, I think. IronDuke 23:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to have to concur with IronDuke on this point. TewfikTalk 03:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Same here. --Marvin Diode 06:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes I agree. Zeq 08:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] University of Maryland cartoon

This reference is inapropriate for a number of reasons:

  • It is introduced as echoing the response from the IDF investigation
  • The Univeristy of Maryland college news paper is hardly notable or an WP:RS
  • Corrie did not attend U of M
  • "Stupidly defending a bunch of terrorists" is harly neutral. The remarks are inflamitory and rather inaccurate

There must be other published works which are critical of Corrie and her actions, while still maintaining a more neutral tone. The section covers responses from NGO's, governments, and major publications. A cartoon published in a university news paper is harly of the same cailbre.

The only way that this would be admissible is if it had somehow become a scandal within the scandal, receiving mention in major publications and responses from all parties. If that is the case, it should be expanded into a subsection.

Thank you,

--Uncle Bungle 18:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

It's a controversial criticism. These things happen in articles (see Pat Tillman for another). It doesn't matter what was said, the fact that it provoked a response is what is interesting. I suggest we restore the subsection so people know what we're talking about here pending further discussion. As regards what was said, well, it is plainly opinion.--Wehwalt 19:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
The current version is better, I won't argue it on technical grounds. Honestly, I don't see any relevance for this post. It amounts to little more than asking "Laura from Psych class" what she thinks of Rachel Corrie. I have no problem with remarks critical of Corrie, but they need to come from a reliable source with a published author for the reader to consider. I agree whole heartedly that this stuff occurs in other articles, (I've worked on anti-Zionism) but I don't see that as a justification for inclusion. I will not revert the current version, but I think we can do much, much better. Thanks. --Uncle Bungle 20:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Too many external links!

The list of "further reading" is much too long. Read WP:EL for guidance. I suggest that we pare it down to, let us say, ten links at the most, with divergent points of view and attitudes.--Wehwalt 19:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I would say remove any news article not covered under references and limit the list to web pages which focus on Corrie, or mixed content sites with more in depth information. --Uncle Bungle 23:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] smuggling weapons in the lead

I don't even know why this needs to be mentioned at all. Corrie wasn't smuggling weapons, or working for Hamas, or anything of the sort. Mentioning that the area was a "security zone" is worthwhile because it gives some background as to why an armoured bulldozer would be operating there in the first place. Thanks. --Uncle Bungle 00:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I would say it is needed for context. There are security zones all over the world, very few have armored bulldozers. It helps the reader understand the background to why the bulldozer was there.--Wehwalt 04:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Unless that isn't why they were there. What was she trying to defend against the bulldozers at the time? Meggar 05:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Please read up on this case. 100s of homes were being demolished for "security" reasons, Rachel was allegedly standing between the bulldozer and the house of a named doctor/pharmacist which she believed was about to be flattened. (It was apparently demolished later, though not for some months after her death). PalestineRemembered 08:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
"Context" of this kind does not belong in the lead. A check through other articles will quickly persuade you that that is not how the encyclopedia works. The fact that its in this one screams "problem needs urgent fixing". PalestineRemembered 08:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree. I removed the part about Hamas, etc. nadav (talk) 09:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
I put back in the fact that the tunnels were used for smuggling weapons. We are not out to make this article either "Blood mad Israelis run amok killing innocent girl" or "Terrorist colloborator flattened in the act of defending other terrorists." If you feel that the name "Hamas" is unfairly prejudicial, I will yield to that.--Wehwalt 13:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Have a look at other articles (I did a check on "famous battles and sieges", your examples might, perhaps, produce something quite different). As best I can tell, other articles never, ever have the kind of "context" that's been shoe-horned into this article. At the danger of soap-boxing, let me remind you of something that happened something over 100 years ago. British women sailed 8,000 miles to Cape Town, trekked to the middle of the Boer War and blew the lid off the scandal that is sometimes remembered as "British invented concentration camps". Rachel Corrie failed to do anything as sensational, but she went to have a look, her diaries tell us what she believed she was doing. This article should reflect her aspirations. It should not be larded with the excuses of people who have (rather rarely) admitted having unjustifiably shot and killed foreign observers. PalestineRemembered 20:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm more-or-less satisfied with the current version of the lead. nadav (talk) 19:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
The article on smuggling tunnels says they're also used for people, tobacco and other such mundane things, should that be mentioned in the lead as well? The IDF report said the bulldozer was clearing brush, so should the tunnels be mentioned at all? I don't see how they have any relevance to Corries death. The interested reader will look into the use of these bulldozers. In my opinion, the second sentence needs only to say that

The circumstances of Corrie's death are disputed. Corrie was interfering with an IDF bulldozer operating in a Palestinian area of Rafah, close to the border with Egypt - an area the IDF had designated a security zone.

. The circumstances can be expanded in the body. --Uncle Bungle 19:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
I can live with current compromise version of the lead. Zeq 21:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
I suggest we let it go at what we have now. Look, some explanation is needed up front, because the lede is what people read, and many don't go too much further. We can tell them what the bulldozer was doing there. As for her aspirations, no, that is not the purpose of this article. There are Rachel Corrie memorial pages for that purpose. The point of this page is to present the information and varying viewpoints and accounts with neutrality. As for the article being larded with excuses, etc, etc, I'd personally not have the article larded with one-sided "eyewitness" accounts. But they are needed.--Wehwalt 01:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm still not convinced, but I think the consensus is obvious. Thanks all. --Uncle Bungle 06:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, there is still a problem with the phrase "used for smuggling weapons from Egypt to the Gaza strip" None of those three sources say anything about Rachel Corrie, and they are dated from much later (May 2004, Sept. 2006). There is no source provided yet that connects the events to smuggling tunnels. nadav (talk) 07:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
If the sources state what the purpose of the tunnels is, surely that is sufficient?--Wehwalt 12:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


Here is one such source: [18] the use of the tunnels to smuggle weapon is well documented - even by BBC and the like. Zeq 14:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

here is another: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/04/gazas_tunnels/html/7.stm Zeq 14:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

We're not disputing the existance of the tunnels, just their relevance to Rachel Corrie. Are there reliable sources which indicate the operation she was interfering with was related to a specific tunnel? Any tunnels? The IDF report says the dozer was clearing brush. --Uncle Bungle 22:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The area was designated a security zone due to the tunnels. Zeq 13:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I am wary of efforts to turn this article into an apology for the IDF, but on the other hand, I do think that the present version of the lead is acceptably NPOV. --Marvin Diode 14:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure what articles are directly comparable with this one. But when I did a comparison test on Battle of Jenin, I found that (almost) none of the equivalent articles had this kind of "context" in the lead. Please point us to equivalent articles that have "equivalent" context, because I don't think you'll find any. PalestineRemembered 18:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Why is that an equivalent article? I think the lede as it stands satisfies all WP policies and guidelines, and there is not consensus for changing it. Changing it, I think, would be to Corrie's discredit because it would make her look like she got in the way while trying to play Bob the Builder or something, that the bulldozer was there for no reason and she got in front of it for no reason. Leave it as it is and go fight bigger battles.--Wehwalt 22:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
The bulldozer is part of the wider issue of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and to get a context the reader would literally have to spend hours on Wikipedia. Unless it is demonstratable that the bulldozer was in the process of an anti-tunnel operation when Corrie interfered, mentioning the smuggling tunnels has no more relevance than any of the other operations they've been used for in Rafah. I agree that some background on IDF operations in Rafah is important, but it belongs in its own section, where it can be expanded as necessary to provide a NPOV. --Uncle Bungle 06:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Everyone has made their argument. There is no consensus for change. Accordingly, we keep it as is.--Wehwalt 12:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The official Israeli Government Report and the IDF deny that, and state that she was killed by falling debris pushed over by a bulldozer whose driver did not see her, and that the bulldozer was clearing brush and not engaged in a demolition when Corrie impeded on its path.

  • shrugs* whatever then --Uncle Bungle 17:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I've just removed this. It has no place there and comes over as really rather odd - perhaps it should be included later in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.107.0.73 (talk) 20:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] an article about the play

a link i found (regarding the play) and thought i'd link here:

http://www.take-a-pen.org/english/Articles/Art25041005.htm

-- JaakobouChalk Talk 19:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me "“My Name is Rachel Corrie” is a new play that has opened at the prestigious London theatre recently described by the New York Times as “the most important theatre in Europe.” According to UK press reports, the play is now sold out, has become one of the fastest-selling plays in 50 years, and it is probably on its way to the US. It is co-directed by “Harry Potter” and “Die Hard” star Alan Rickman." I wonder why it was censored in the US: "the play had two successful runs in London last year ... postpone its American premiere indefinitely"[19] Couldn't get the book either - what can they be so afraid of? PRtalk 18:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Where is the famous photo with the american flag ?

http://images.google.com/images?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=RNWE,RNWE:2005-06,RNWE:en&q=corrie%20flag&oe=UTF-8&um=1&sa=N&tab=wi


Zeq (talk) 19:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lead

Over time the lead became less NPOV as it was carefully done by slimvirgin and others few month back. In an effort to make it NPOV again I reinterduced material that was deleted. Since that time I have accomodated every concern:

  1. not to mention the smuggling tunnels more than once
  2. give room for the ISM version
  3. make the IDF version shorter
  4. and short it yet again

I suggest that any further changes to the lead will be discussed here prior to anyone wishing to evert them. NPOV is every paragarph of this loaded article is highly critical. Zeq (talk) 04:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I've seen some of the edits, but I'm away on a tour so I haven't checked WP as often as usual.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
The lede has two paragraphs: the first lists the facts that are not in dispute. The second begins, "the circumstances of Corries death are disputed." The two opposing POVs regarding the death should both be represented in this second paragraph. The edits of Zeq and Wehwalt position the IDF rebuttal before the "disputed" paragraph, giving it undue weight. I have retained every word that these two editors wish to include, but moved them to the second paragraph. --Marvin Diode (talk) 15:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Marvin, I disagree with your edit. What is the dispute about: 1. Was the house under demolition threat ? Yes/No 2. Was she delibertly run over or hit by debree.

There is more but I'll stop here.

There is no disagreement that she was killed. There is no disagreement that There are tunnels in the area across that border and that the IDF was conducting work in that area. So I am moving the undisputed facts back into the 1st paragraph. Zeq (talk) 15:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking of moving the disputed part out of the lead altogether ? what do you think ? Zeq (talk) 15:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Marvin on this. An uncontroversial first paragraph and a second with brief but balanced discussion of the controversy. If what you are saying, Zeq, is that it seems like the the bit about tunnels and Hamas activity is made to sound as if it is only the Israeli POV, then perhaps we can find a rewording that maintains balance while clarifying that point. TewfikTalk 21:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Just to clarify, there is no dispute about whether smuggling tunnels exist. The dispute is about whether they are relevant to the subject of the article. Obviously, Rachel Corrie's colleagues insist that her death was about trying to prevent the demolition of the home of innocent Palestinians. If this is true, the tunnels are completely irrelevant. So, the actual dispute is about the relevancy of the tunnels, and placing the tunnels in the first sentence implies that they are the central issue. --Marvin Diode (talk) 07:08, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I hear you, however the proximity of the house to the border line and the amount of yunnels under that border, tunnels who's entrnces are inaside buildings and the activity between the buildings and the border line to expose tunnels are all part of the facts. Let's not forget that the group that Corrie belong too is an extreme minority POV and according to WP:NPOV may not even be represnted in this article. Since they are given so much room I think it manade us to put facts (which are clearly relevant) in the 1st paragraph. The POV of the ISM - that the existance of tunnels is not relevant to the security operations - should be mentioned in the article as well - but not in the lead.

"Nobody questions that tunnels exist in Rafah or shooting from militants takes place. But whether that has anything to do with the scale and size of the demolitions is a burning question," says Miranda Sissons of Human Rights Watch.

Zeq (talk) This is how we should describe the controversy. If we want to keep the lead with facts the tunnels should be mentioned (they are facts) and ISM claims removed (they are one sided POV) 07:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

"Let's not forget that the group that Corrie belong too is an extreme minority POV and according to WP:NPOV may not even be represnted in this article."

Can you expand on that a bit? Broadly speaking the ISM's position is that Israel should comply with International Law and UN resolutions. I don't think it's correct to characterise that as an "extreme minority POV". I also don't think WP:NPOV means what you think it does. --Joeboy (talk) 18:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Joeboy - we are not going to open up here a discussion on ISM views. This is no difference than argument about religion: You think you represent "int'l law" in much the same way a rabbi or Imam think he represent God. Well , that is the whole point about POV: You think you are right and it is so clear to you that your view is the sole possible truth. You know what : Guess again.
ISM is a fringe group of mostly anarchists. Thei POV can be reprsented in an article on ISM but in all other article there must a more mainstream POV that should be placed to abalance the Israeli POV. This is much the same way we don't use the Khane movment POV (they too are fringe group) Zeq (talk) 18:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
we are not going to open up here a discussion on ISM views.
Can I take that as a retraction of your statements about the ISM having "an extreme minority POV"? Please either withdraw your statements about the ISM views being somehow too wacky to be represented (and refrain from making more) or accept that's it's OK for people to challenge you on that. You can't have it both ways :-) --Joeboy (talk) 20:35, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
No. You can not. You can take it as a statement that we are not going to open up here a discussion on ISM views. This is no difference than argument about religion: You think you represent "int'l law" in much the same way a rabbi or Imam think he represent God. ISM is a fringe group of mostly anarchists. Their POV can be reprsented in an article on ISM but in all other article there must a more mainstream POV that should be placed to abalance the Israeli POV. This is much the same way we don't use the Khane movment POV (they too are fringe group) Zeq (talk) 21:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I hope you can understand my reluctance to let you make statements about ISM's views, then say "we are not going to open up here a discussion on ISM views" when somebody disagrees with them. You are wrong. We are not going to open up a discussion about whether or not you're wrong. So that's settled, OK?
My point about international law was that whatever any of us think about international law, an organisation whose views primarily support international law shouldn't be characterised as "an extreme minority POV". --Joeboy (talk) 03:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
JoeBoy, it is time you read WP:NPOV and realize that what you call "ISM's position is that Israel should comply with International Law and UN resolutions" is actually your own and ISM own interpretation of such laws. It is also one sided in the sense that ISM never bothered to look at how such law is implemented in Darfur, Saudi Arabia or by Hamas in Gaza. Nothing that you write here willchange the fact that ISM is a fringe organization of several hundred of people no more. Zeq (talk) 05:52, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
These are sophistical arguments. Violations of international law in the Arab world do not exempt Israel from criticism if Israel also violates international law. And the assertion that Israel "should comply with International Law and UN resolutions" does not involve an "interpretation" of the law and resolutions. You may wish to argue that Israel is innocent of any violations, but after so many years, that's a bit hard to swallow. --Marvin Diode (talk) 00:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
We are not going into discussion on the ISM views of Int'l law. Everyone should obey the Law: Israel, palestinians, Sudan and even the ISM - this is something that has nothing to do with this wikipedia article. Zeq (talk) 08:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I acknowledge that ISM probably has no more than a couple of thousand people involved in it. I think you're trying to imply things about the organisation beyond its size though. Nothing that you write here will change the fact that ISM's stated positions are actually fairly mainstream. --Joeboy (talk) 15:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

We are all getting rather off topic. Some information is needed on the ISM in this article, because Corrie died because (there were other reasons she died as well) she was an ISM member and participated in an ISM activity. Especially since the organization is not well known. However, there is currently sufficient information in the article regarding the ISM. Their opinions re Corrie's death are germane and we give them a lot of room even though it may well be a technical violation of WP:UNDUE WEIGHT because of these circumstances. Their opinions on international law, though, should be reserved for their own article. If there.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm cool with all of that. Thanks :-) --Joeboy (talk) 17:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Calling spade a spade

  1. This is a very sensitive article. Almost every word here is POV. This is where NPOV comes from - we peresent the view point of each side. One side claim there is no smuggling only "home demoliation".
  1. In any case, the smuggling tunnels is not a POV term (if you think it is - see point #1 above)
  2. We agreed to mention the smuggling tunnels once (but not twice) in the lead. This was agreed by many and we shall stick to it.
  3. If all else fail we call spade a spade. (if you have any dobts see: Smuggling_tunnels#Smuggling_tunnels_in_Rafah.2C_Gaza_Strip the tunnels are smuggling tunnels - as clear from hundreds of news reports about them. They are no longer the secret they were when the Israeli army controlled the border. It is now known that every house in Rafah which is close to the border has a smuggling tunnel from Egypt - they smuggle everything from explosive to Ciggartes to Viagra..... Zeq (talk) 07:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I recommend leaving the lede alone at this point. The version as of this moment is relatively neutral. I also would like to disagree with some of your assertions above, such as "One side claim there is no smuggling only 'home demoliation'". The fact is that one side considers smuggling to be a separate, unrelated issue. The Corrie case got worldwide attention because many, many people, not just the ISM, believe that the case was about home demolition. --Marvin Diode (talk) 15:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

If so it means a very succefull PR had worked very well but it should not change what an encyclopdia article should wrire. We present the facts not just what one side thinks is relavent to his PR campaign. It is typical that a good PR person would want to present just the facts that supporthis POV and ignore the facts that support the other POV. This is why we strive for NPOV. Zeq (talk) 15:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I am certain that the POV which you are promoting is also viewed by its critics as a PR job, or maybe, damage control. --Marvin Diode (talk) 15:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I would like to see the inline cites in the lead as proper references, but only if the lead will remain as it is. I ask rather than do it myself as I'm unsure if it will help or hinders. Apart from the evident POV problems (the tunnels sentence just looks out of place there but I leave that to far better editors to resolve), the string of inline cites jars when there is a footnotes and references section. One other thing I would do is Fact tag the "according to the ISM" paragraph in Rachel Corrie#Activities in Gaza. -Wikianon (talk) 23:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV and the photo

The famous photo of Corrie has been removed again. You can find it on the web in many places EXCEPT wikipedia.

See this for example: http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_current_rachel_corrie.php

The link above is from a source that, like ISM, has an agenda. If we have the ISM view all over this article we should have the view point of such an organization as well. that is NPOV. Zeq (talk) 04:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Is there any particular reason you've created this new section rather than add to the existing "Flag Burning Picture" section above? If you wanted to use this picture on wikipedia I think you'd need a Fair use rationale. --Joeboy (talk) 11:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
It turns out this is also discussed at length here. --Joeboy (talk) 11:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The lede again

The recent changes made to the lede by Zeq, IronDuke and Wehwalt produce a non sequitur:

The circumstances of Corrie's death are disputed. The area she was killed contains a network of Smuggling tunnels used by Hamas and other groups for smuggling weapons and explosives from Egypt to the Gaza Strip side of Rafah. The ISM says that the driver of the bulldozer deliberately ran her over twice.

Putting the sentence about smuggling tunnels in that position is confusing to the reader, who has no way of knowing why smuggling tunnels are relevant. The revision that I made, which was reverted by Wehwalt and now restored by myself, places the "smuggling tunnels" sentence after the description of the IDF point of view, so that the relevance is clear.

Yesterday I had restored this earlier version of the lede, which was the culmination of considerable discussion back in November, but this was reverted by IronDuke. That version was arguably a "consensus" version, and was stable for some time. I see that while I was on Wikibreak for the holidays, someone removed the "smuggling tunnels," and it was restored by Zeq yesterday. I have no objection to putting it in the lede, but it should be placed in such a way that the lede is intelligible. I hope no more reversions will be made using a claim of "consensus," or lack thereof, until this matter has been re-discussed. --Marvin Diode (talk) 01:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I've played with the language some, trying to keep the sense of the version you reverted while correcting glaring errors and reordering the sentences. I definitely didn't like some of the language you put in, like saying "'official' Israeli position", which to my mind has POV problems, since it implies doubt. But see what you think of what I've done. Thoughts?--Wehwalt (talk) 02:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I prefer some of the previous versions but in an effort for a comporomise to NPOV this tough article I think your version is fair enough . Thanks for your efforts. Zeq (talk) 16:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
It looks to me like some editors want to revisit all the POV struggles that were settled in November. For example, the issue of what Rachel Corrie thought she was doing was resolved at that time. I reverted to the version Wehwalt did this morning, before the pro-IDF team went a bit overboard. Please bear in mind that at present, the second paragraph is primarily devoted to Israeli denials of wrongdoing. Please don't overdo it -- the NPOVness of this article is rather fragile. --Marvin Diode (talk) 01:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


That's fine. However, the fact that it takes more words to set for the Israeli position than the ISM doesn't make it unbalanced. I think it is fair to mention in the lede that this was a security zone with smuggler tunnels, It isn't POV, it simply establishes why both the bulldozer and Corrie were there.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems very clear to me that there are multiple editors "helicopter editing" this article in an effort to maintain the bizarre smuggling tunnel references in the article lead. This clearly violates wikipedia's NPOV policies and also serves to illustrate the Multiple Editors issue deliniated under the "article ownership" guidelines listed in the linked article. Specifically, Zeq and Marvin Diode. I understand that some people have an axe to grind regarding this issue, but so far this article has only served to confuse and distract many well-meaning students who have attempted to use this website as a starting point for their understanding of this horrible event. The smuggling tunnels are covered in depth in other wikipedia articles as well as being mentioned elsewhere in the Corrie article. As it stands, this article reads like a FOX news teleprompt. Please refrain from reverting the article to ineligibility. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.247.241.157 (talk) 04:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

* What is the RfC question? If you want comments, you need to post a succinct, coherent question. Dlabtot (talk) 21:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

This is what is in the RFC template:

The 2 basic POVs are 1) that Corrie was deliberately killed while trying to prevent a house demolition in the Palestinian territories; and 2) that she was killed entirely by accident while the bulldozer operator was fighting terrorism, not demolishing homes. We need help establishing NPOV balance in the lede.

WP:NPOV leaves no question: Both views must be included in the article. In contentious issues such as this, it is best to quote a couple leaders or organizations' representative on each side of the issue, stating exactly what they believe about the event in question, and, if you can get such quotes, why they believe it.

Because the lede can not go into such detail, it is best to leave motivations completely out of the introduction. The lede should be silent on whether is was an accident or intentional. I will attempt to edit it that way. MilesAgain (talk) 09:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I have done so by removing the third paragraph. The existing statement that, "The circumstances of Corrie's death are disputed," is certainly enough for the introduction. MilesAgain (talk) 09:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I tried to approach this from a completely fresh perspective, without reading any of the above, but after having responded to the RFC, I did read the recent entries here on the talk page. I have to agree that mentioning the smuggling tunnels in the lede makes no sense whatsoever. What do they have to do with Corrie's death? They are described in the "Background" section, because that is what they are: background information with apparently no relevance. Are people trying to insinuate that Corrie was assisting the smugglers? It can't be that the bulldozer was destroying the tunnels, because Israel says it wasn't destroying anything at the time. Incidental background information does not belong in the lede. MilesAgain (talk) 10:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess I must be slow on the uptake, because I still don't understand what the question is that I am being asked to respond to. WP:NPOV and WP:LEAD are both pretty clear. If a controversy exists, all significant viewpoints concerning that controversy that have been published by reliable sources should be presented in the article, and the lead should briefly summarize that controversy. Dlabtot (talk) 18:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[Note: I'm responding to the RfC. I know nothing about this case beyond having read this version of the lead section.] As far as I can see (correct me if I'm wrong), Corrie is notable for going to the Palestinian territories in order to be an activist, and for dying in disputed circumstances. Therefore, it seems obvious that the lead section should contain a summary of both these things, in addition to the basic info about her birth date/place, etc. Having established this, it appears that there are two general points of view regarding her death:

  • 1) The IMS says she was acting as a human shield to prevent a bulldozer from demolishing a home when the driver of the bulldozer deliberately ran her over, killing her.
  • 2) The IDF says that the driver was not demolishing a house but was clearing debris while searching for explosives. They say that the driver did not see Corrie and that she was killed by the falling debris.

With the above in mind, I rewrote the lead section (see this edit) but it was summarily reverted. However, the explanation for the reversion ("first facts later the POV of each side") doesn't make sense given that I did state the facts first! Could someone perhaps elaborate on why my edit was problematic? -- Hux (talk) 22:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, on reflection it's not essential that the leader contain a summary of the dispute over her cause of death. It could just as easily say simply that the dispute exists and then leave the details for the main part of the article to explain. Frankly, given the contention that's probably the most sensible thing to do here. -- Hux (talk) 22:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Completely agree with this last comment, Hux. Dlabtot (talk) 23:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, what are editors' views of the lede as it now stands?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Seems fine to me, fwiw. Dlabtot (talk) 23:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
It was okay in tone, imo, but from a copy editing perspective it was messy (needless repetition of "close to the border with Egypt") so I cleaned it up (see here). Thoughts? -- Hux (talk) 07:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Legal standard

I've reverted PalestineRemembered's edit, here is the diff [20] as well as an edit by another editor deleting part of the lede. Focusing on PR's edits, I'm not really clear what offends the editor. He seems to want the statement he put in at one time saying that the appellate court accepted as true the plaintiff's pleadings. That doesn't mean the court believed it, it is simply the standard of review when you lose on a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted) motion (see this case [21], and look at the indented paragraph). He also seems to object to mentioning that Corrie's family had co plaintiffs who were Palestinian as "poisoning the well". He also objects to stating that the trial court, as an alternative reason for dismissing the case, said that the case failed on the merits. All that is contained in the appellate opinion, which is cited in the article and is, for convenience, here[22]. I really don't see what the problem is, except a likely misunderstanding of legalese.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not that familiar with the legalese, but then neither are the readers. If one source mentions of the first case "the plaintiffs' claims failed on the merits." and another source mentions of the second case "accept all facts alleged as true", then by NPOV we either include both phrases or neither.
I removed "and several Palestinians" because it is WP:UNDUE, as well as being well-poisoning. Palestinians die in their thousands including (quite likely) 100s of them under Caterpillar blades. They've never sued the US like this (that I'm aware of), and have only been added to the Corrie case as filler. I doubt if including them belongs anywhere in this section, but certainly not in the first words. On well-poisoning, at the current time, Wikipedia articles are written as if Palestinians are totally unreliable as regards any of their testimony. Linkage to them reduces your credibility. We damage consideration of the Corrie's case by mentioning them here, this is propaganda as does not belong in our articles.
There is a great deal more highly relevant material missing from this article, such as the fact that ISM observers are now barred from Gaza by Israel (which has total control of entry to Gaza, and is killing alleged militants there regularily). Many people hate Rachel Corrie for the spot-light she shone on house-demolitions - many others consider her a hero, someone of whom the US should be very proud. Wikipedia doesn't need to have a POV, it can fairly explain what happened and the significance of it. That's what I'm trying to do. PRtalk 08:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Probably the Palestinians were added to the Corrie case to try to make sure that legal standing to sue wasn't an issue, in addition, claims under certain of the causes of action could only be brought by non-citizens (see Alien Tort Statute, giving the district court jurisdiction over claims brought by aliens for violations of, among other things, the law of nations). However, if you want to conceal the fact, I don't think it is important to the article. The District Court found the claim failed on the merits. That is what the court concluded. That is very different from the appellate standard of review on a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal, to assume all facts are true in order to see if the plaintiffs stated a claim upon which relief could be granted, which is only a legal means to an end. It is like saying 'Assuming that what you say is true, even then, you wouldn't win'. What you are doing is trying to take that phrase and put in a quotation 'what you say is true'. That has nothing to do with POV, it is just misleading the reader.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] that is called OR

[23] "what do smuggling tunnels have to do with Corrie, especially if the dozer wasn't demolishing at the time?"

Maybe for you those are not related but that is your POV. Theere are enough sources that describe the situation in the area. You have deleted most of them in your edit....Zeq (talk) 10:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I was responding to the RFC; see above. I should mention that I have never previously edited this article, and my only knowledge of this event is a vague memory of a news report from years ago Why do you think the mention of the tunnels belongs in the introduction summary? MilesAgain (talk) 10:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
You have responded to RFC that requested help in NPOV the lead by making it 100% POV. I will let you think about it and research the issue yourself. The tunnels in the area are well known and much have been written on them. To argue that those tunnels had nothing to do with the israeli army was doing there is exactly the ISM POV. Zeq (talk) 10:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
All I did was delete the third paragraph from the lede about the reason for the death, which is so hotly disputed that it can not be treated fairly in any summary, and then deleted the sentence about the tunnels. I am sure that the tunnels had a lot to do with why the Israeli army was there. But this article is about Rachel Corrie. What did the tunnels have to do with her? MilesAgain (talk) 10:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I fail to see what the Lenon exmaple added to thr discussion. Zeq (talk) 16:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Additional fact: none of the four sources which had been cited for the tunnel factoid make any mention of Corrie. I am accused of "OR" for doing nothing more than deleting one paragraph and one sentence. I am accused of making the lede "100% POV" by removing all of the contentious information about the reason for the death on both sides of the issue. I don't think so. MilesAgain (talk) 10:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

"Corrie was trying to block an army bulldozer that was knocking down homes of terrorists and buildings hiding tunnels through which weapons and explosives were being smuggled"

[24] - Is this enough or you need more ? Zeq (talk) 16:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

As I have pointed out above, it is necessary, and NPOV, to explain what to the reader what the equipment was doing there. They were not building a road or playing Bob the Builder. I do not think there is any dispute that the smuggling tunnels were there. The ISM simply viewed destroying houses (in which the tunnels came out) as wrong. We don't touch on the rights or wrongs of it, other than a brief summary in the article. So I am afraid I don't see MilesAgain's position as justified.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Why is it necessary to explain why the equipment was there? The reason the equipment was there has nothing to do with Corrie, apart from setting the stage for her encounter with a piece of it. Do we need to explain why Mark David Chapman was in New York in the article about John Lennon? No, of course not, and we do not. Your statement that the tunnels came out of the house being destroyed is not supported by sources. None of the articles about the tunnels mention Corrie or the house she was standing near. There is no need for the two sides to fight it out in the intro. All the intro should say is that the reason for the death was controversial. MilesAgain (talk) 12:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
No, because if Corrie was killed while playing Bob the Builder, no one would care about her. Her reason for notability is in the manner she met her death, and the reasons therefor. An uninformed reader (if any) might not understand the reason for her death in reading the lede, and might pass by the article entirely. As for the statement that the articles don't mention Corrie, it is not necessary that they do. It is the same security area. And as for your Lennon thing, the Lennon article does mention that Lennon had earlier in the day signed a book for Chapman. And if you are so neutral, why don't you wait for discussion before constantly reverting Zeq's and my own edits?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The tunnesl have been mentioned here for a long long time. It was consensus to include them once but not twice in the lead. read the archives. Zeq (talk) 16:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Depending on the itteration the mentions of the tunnels have bordered on POV pushing, and in general I think they don't belong there and should be placed elsewhere. That said, some verions of the lede that feature the tunnels are worse than others.

Also why do we need 4 near identical cites? Is this a point of especial importance that needs underling like that? I think we should trim those back a little - no one is actually questioning the existance of the tunnels and overciting them like that seems like a subtle form of POV pushing. Artw (talk) 00:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

As I said above, I'm another editor with no prior history on this article (or any Israeli/Palestinian article, if I remember correctly), who came here as a result of the RfC. In my opinion, the purpose of the lead section of a Wikipedia article is to present a basic summary of the topic at hand: the idea is to trim down the whole story to its most basic parts in order to let the reader know roughly what it's about. The purpose of the lead section is not to present a complete and balanced view of a contentious point. Therefore, I don't think that it is a valid criticism to say that this one fails to present such a view. As it currently stands, I think the lead for this article is perfectly adequate.
Secondly, regarding the discussion about smuggling tunnels, I see two areas of contention: 1) whether or not they should be mentioned in the lead section, and 2) whether or not they should be mentioned at all and, if so, how the article should discuss them. Answering #1 is fairly simple, in my opinion: based on what I wrote in the previous paragraph, it's clear to me that they don't belong in the lead section simply because they are at best tangential to the article and at worst their appearance would make the lead section either confusing or misleading (by implying a connection between Corrie and weapons smuggling which, as far as I'm aware, is not supported by any reliable source). All these are sound reasons to avoid mentioning the tunnels in the lead section, in my view.
To address #2, I am not going to directly comment on whether or not the tunnels should or should not be mentioned in the article as a whole, as I would prefer to remain as neutral as possible on this point. (In fact, I haven't read the article beyond the lead section specifically in order to avoid developing a non-neutral opinion.) Instead, I will outline what I think is a reasonable framework for making that decision:
  • If the existence of the tunnels is supported by reputable sources, AND
  • If the bulldozers were there at least in part because of the existence of the tunnels,
  • Then it would be reasonable to mention them in order to provide background for the story.
However:
  • If there is no evidence from reputable sources that Corrie's actions had anything to do with the tunnels,
  • Then it would be unreasonable to discuss them in any way that might imply such a connection as that would insert POV into the article and would also constitute original research.
The bottom line in all of this is, I think, pretty straightforward: contentious points should not appear in articles unless it can be shown, through reputable sources, that the point is relevant to the story as a whole. They should also not appear unless the way in which they appear accurately conveys their connection with the story and does not imply anything that is not supported by such sources.
I hope this helps. -- Hux (talk) 23:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Not that much, because you use the bulldozer in logic chain A, and Corrie in the other. However, the Mother Jones article, among others, as well as the IDF report, make it clear that the bulldozers were there because of the tunnels, that was one of the two main points to the clearance, the other being to give snipers and other terrorists the minimum of cover in attacks on Israeli troops while patrolling the border.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not seeing a problem with my reasoning. If, as you say, the tunnels were indeed part of the reason why the bulldozers were there then it's fine to mention them in the article. At the same time, if the tunnels had nothing to do with why Corrie was there then it's still okay to mention them as long as their mention does not imply that Corrie and the tunnels are connected in some way. That's something we'd need to be very careful about. Do you see what I mean? -- Hux (talk) 18:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, though your explanation conveys more than the original. Anyway, the MJ article should satisfy you.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Reading through this, I feel that the contentious points should be removed until further discussion about it has taken place.

That way it means we get consensus on this issue, and it makes for a better article that way. Thanks, --Solumeiras talk 13:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

No one has proposed deleting the tunnels from the entire article, which would be most questionable. In addition, as I understand WP, burden on proof is on the editor proposing changes. The tunnels are why the bulldozers were there, it is in the Mother Jones article, the IDF report. The material is relevant and supported by appropriate cites. We should not delete pending discussion.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Protection of page

As is, I believe full protection is the only option. But, before I do, could the users involved please seek consensus on what not/what should be included in the article? From dicussion, progression can be made. Regards, Rudget. 17:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

All due respect, but what are you smoking? There hasn't been an edit to the article in a day and a half and you want to full protect? We're getting into a discussion here, trying to see if there's a dispute, and if so, trying to frame the debate.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I am also baffled by this. There have been few reverts, most of the changes have been constructive on both sides since I got here, even if they were later changed by people with differing opinions. I can point to some articles with actual revert wars going on, but this isn't one. MilesAgain (talk) 04:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] POV in "Reaction" section?

I'm fairly new to Wikipedia, so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. However, as I read through this article, one sentence in the "Reaction" section jumped out at me as fairly biased. The sentence states "As the memorial service got under way, the Israeli army sent its own representative. A tank pulled up beside the mourners and sprayed them with tear gas." Calling the IDF a "representative" to the funeral seems very POV...they were not sent to "represent" the IDF at the memorial, instead they were dispersing the crowd. Whether you agree with their actions or not, I think it is clear that they were not sent by the IDF to be a representative. I would suggest rephrasing it to say "As the memorial service got under way, an Israeli army tank pulled up beside the mourners and sprayed them with tear gas." Does anyone else agree, or is this not an issue? Thanks! Amssports06 (talk) 17:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Before questions of bias come into play regarding that section, there is another issue: an anonymous user has recently removed the part where it says, "the Israeli army sent its own representative". To be clear to that user: you cannot do this with a direct quote! Either you quote the whole thing, use elipses when you remove something from it, or you don't use the quote at all. Anything else is a major no-no. I'm restoring the whole quote for now. After that we can discuss whether it should be in the article and in what form. -- Hux (talk) 19:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
It wasn't me, if that is what you're wondering...I wouldn't have bothered to post a question on the talk page about it if I was just going to delete it anyway. I also don't advocate anyone else removing it until it has been discussed. Amssports06 (talk) 15:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
There are huge problems of POV in this article, but that particular line is a quote from one party, as it says. Have a look at the "Lawsuits" section, which currently seems calculated to insult parents trying to get justice for their daughter. Ditto a section entitled "Possible attempt by Palestinians to kidnap Corrie's parents". Compare this article with that of Pat Tillman, where the word murder appears twice. In Rachel Corrie's case, the word only appears when the perpetrators deny what they've done and blame a Reuters mis-caption for "turning an accident into murder". Read this from an Israeli newspaper, nobody really doubts how these machines are used. Maybe it's OK to accuse Americans of murdering other Americans. PRtalk 09:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I think that if anything, this article is biased AGAINST Israel. However, that is beside the point, since we're discussing this particular section. I didn't realize at first that this was a quote, so I don't think that we can modify it, right? I would advocate either removing it completely, or somehow making it more obvious that the diction there is the opinion of the Guardian Unlimited. Their article is unquestionably pro-Palestinian, and anything they say should be understood in that context. Amssports06 (talk) 14:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
It is an account of what happened. I'm not wild about including it, I'd rather have a less colorful account. But it is what we have. As for PR's comment, PR has had every opportunity to spell out what he thinks is wrong with with the lawsuit section, but PR has chosen not to. Apparently it is insulting to mention that the Corries' co plaintiffs were Palestinian. As for the kidnap attempt section, I think we are bending over backward to be fair.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
No offense, but I have a hard time believing that anyone who's username is "Palestine Remembered" is going to be objective in a case like this. That was just an aside, though. Again, I'm fairly new here, so please educate me...why do we need a direct quote to describe the situation? Can we just rewrite it to say "at the memorial service, an Israeli military tank approached and sprayed the mourners with tear gas." or something like that? I think that states what happened in an unbiased way, and it is supported by evidence from other sources. Amssports06 (talk) 02:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
How about "The ISM attempted to have a memorial service near the site of Corrie's death in the security zone near the border. The IDF responded, and after scenes (as reported in the media) during which the IDF threatened to shoot, and the ISM threw flowers on the tanks, the gathering was broken up by tear gas."--Wehwalt (talk) 13:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Sure, I think that is a great way to put it...its NPOV, and gives an accurate account of what happened. Amssports06 (talk) 15:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm a little bothered by "responded" -- it was certainly not the usual way one might "respond" to a funeral. What verbs do the sources use? How about "arrived at the scene"? MilesAgain (talk) 18:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess I was using "responded" in the law enforcement sort of sense I have no problem with the change. I suspect the points of view on this will be "Oh, another publicity stunt. If they wanted a memorial service, they should have rented a room at the King David." and "How dare they tread their treads on sacred ground where the mourners were seeking solace." I think the proposed paragraph as amended avoids both traps nicely, while excluding neither possibility--Wehwalt (talk) 18:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

My mistake, it does not say threatened to shoot. The best article I can find is here [25].--Wehwalt (talk) 18:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ISM Doctored Photos?

Allegations have emerged that the ISM doctored photos they claimed showed Rachel Corrie protecting a house. There is new video out that appears to demonstrate that Corrie was not in the location suggested by those ISM photographs. Finally, there are new allegations that she had protected weapons smuggling tunnels previously. The probable fabrication of the ISM photos and ISM testimony when contrasted against what recently released IDF video footage shows should probably be added to this article.

See here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rY2ohOsxQIU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54AvAZkbLgk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_vlJo3g0Ys

24.113.82.222 (talk) 21:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fraud

Palestinian propaganda now proven a fraud:

http://www.omdurman.org/ISM/

"photos" showing Corrie "protecting a house" were photoshop frauds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.7.75.222 (talk) 22:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Youtube links

WP:COPY specifically says it is not required to get authorization from the author. The videos are relevant material, please do not remove them again.

Thank you.

--Uncle Bungle (talk) 14:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Uncle Bungle misleads us by selective quotation from WP:COPY. The immediately following paragraph states:

However, if you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry [1]). Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors.

Therefore, we should not link to sites such as youtube unless we have explicit permission from the copyright holder.
--NSH001 (talk) 16:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
That is what I was relying upon, and I took it to mean something like the NY Times, where of course all the material is authorized by the paper, rather than YouTube, where the material very well is not authorized by the creator. I have no objection to the videos otherwise, there seem to be videos from "both" sides of the argument. Can we have this authoritatively settled?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
NHS001 misleads us by over quoting the policy. The key words in the second paragraph are "knowingly and intentionally". Do we know for certain that the material posted is in violation of the copyright? --Uncle Bungle (talk) 19:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, hm. The part about "knowingly and intentionally" seems to refer to what we are doing. I would say that unless there is some assertion of license or permission on the YouTube page, we should assume that there is no permission. Given the well known nature of Youtube, I don't know we can turn a blind eye. What is the approved practice on this on wp?--Wehwalt (talk) 19:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] General references and further reading

What's the difference? Do we need both? When I remember, I try to cut back on the sheer number of items in there, but is there any reason the two categories can't be combined? They seem to grow faster than kudzu, though.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

No we don't need both. If a news article isn't cited as an inline reference, I'd say remove it. It is still easy to google Corrie if someone throws up a fact tag. Further reading ought only to be more in depth sites, not more news articles. Slash and burn! POV wars are generally impossible inside this framework. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 03:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Will do. Machete don't fail me now.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Works for me. "electronic intifada" "israel behind the news" are not objective or encyclopedic despite the POV warriors. Thanks Wehwalt. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 03:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lawsuits again

I've had to revert a couple of times on The Smoking Nun on the grounds that the editor's edits on the lawsuits question is pov and inaccurate. I'm not in the mood to approach 3RR, but she's deleting part of the court's ruling (that the plaintiff's claims failed on the merits), putting in that the defendants were "charged" with aiding and abetting war crimes (that doesn't happen in civil cases), using an unreliable source, mischaracterizing the court's ruling, and referring to the area under discussion as the "Occupied Palestian Territories (OPT). The editor doesn't even say how the district court ruled! Really, it just isn't a constructive edit.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not trying to push a view, nor purposely be inaccurate at all. I'm offended by that. You didn't "have" to revert me, you "chose" to. That paragraph was unclear and incomplete. Anyway, I only added what the source says. It doesn't say the defendants were "charged", it says the "plaintiffs" "charged" the defendants. It's in the reference source, plus there are numerous pdf files of the case(s) if one wants to dig deeper. That does not mean that the defendants where guilty of anything, nor charged by any court. The paragraph goes on to state why the suit was discharged. But by saying "on merits" is not clear. What were the merits?. What are "merits"? It is better to spell it out, not leave out information. Saying "the plaintiff's claims failed on the "merits" does not help one understand what those merits are, let alone mean. I'm a stickler for being accurate and against bias. I'll change the wording to "alleged" rather than "charged", as I can see where that may confuse the reader, or worse even prejudice them. So, I'm with you there. Okay? --The Smoking Nun (talk) 05:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
If you are a stickler for being accurate, then why not use the Ninth Circuit's characterization of the claims, rather than the web site of the organization that represented the plaintiffs? There's a pdf reference that exactly says what they sued for. "The merits" is an exact legal term. If you prefer, we can say "the merits of the case". What the district court judge said, in other words, is that the plaintiffs failed to prove their case, in addition to losing under the political question doctrine. I don't feel it is appropriate to use as a ref, let alone quote from, the ref you've put in, since it is the organization whose lawyers represented at least some of the plaintiffs (this is confirmed by looking at the counsel list in the Ninth Circuit opinion.) I suggest that you instead quote from the Ninth Circuit's opinion, where the seven causes of action that the plaintiff raised are stated. Your change on the territories is good, thank you.
Your characterization of the District Court's holding is dead wrong, by the way. Federal Law does allow such suits, that is why the Alien Tort Claims Act was brought in, among other things. Had this involved private players, say the Darfur militia (arguably), they could have gone further in the case. However, since the case impacted US foreign relations, the political question doctrine came into play. The judicial branch has no role there, as (if i recall the famous phrase correctly) the president alone has the power to speak or listen on behalf of the United States. They lost on the political question doctrine (and the district court judge found they also lost on the merits of the case, the appeals court did not find it necessary to discuss that.) So right now there's wrong info in the article, as well as POV. Have you improved the article? Really?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Rachel Corrie was a terrorist sympathyser, a human shield and combatant and as such her death was legal however caused. It was clearly an accident on behalf of the driver, where she placed herself in front of a massive bulldozer which had limited visbility. The ISM are an anti-semitic, anti-Zionist organisation which helps terrorists to avoid capture and lethal force. They are naieve puppets of the Islamofascists who have no respect for them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.104.137 (talk) 11:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Is there a template we can use to tag hate speech? What about a mandate to just delete it (and my remarks) completely. It is distracting to an ongoing discussion. In the article I would have removed it as vandalism but I don't now if the same rules apply to the talk pages. Please advise. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 11:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Well I happen to have a strong bias in favour of free speech (however distasteful). I think the anonymous IP above destroys his own case better than I could, so I would prefer to just leave (and ignore) it. No objection, though, if you just delete it, together with my and your response. NSH001 (talk) 12:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Suggest deleting it as a violation of WP:CIV, which I think overrides the deference we give to people on talk pages. Anyway, I'm planning on reverting the lawsuit section, except I will expand to "the merits of the case".--Wehwalt (talk) 12:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Note about sources from March 2003

During the first days of the incident the only information available to news wires, BBC and otheers was the ISM so-called "eye witnesses".

We now have the time on our side as encyclopedia authors. many more has been investigated and written about the subject and there for we should minimize (or remove all together) news reports which are based only on ISM.

To be clear: we need to keep the ISM account but make sure it is mentioned as their POV on the subject - they obviously have a conflict of interst here and can not be fully trusted. Zeq (talk) 12:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A balanced lede

We've had battles over the lede, what, four times in recent months? They always resolve to the same basic formulation, and then the next time I turn around, the war has started again. I'm going to re-work it to be what I remember from the last time. One note to Zeq: as I recall, there is no conclusive evidence that the D-9 was specifically engaged in tunnel-hunting at the time it crushed Corrie. It is fair to say that the security zone was established because of tunnels, but not to ascribe Corrie's death to tunnel-hunting, because there is no conclusive evidence. The offical response, noted in the lede, is that the D-9 was "clearing brush." Also, I thought that you had agreed that we only need to mention "tunnels" once in the lede. --Marvin Diode (talk) 20:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I would frankly revert to a version before people started fiddling with it again.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, as you were writing that response, I was completing my edit. I hope that all parties find it acceptable. --Marvin Diode (talk) 21:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
"Clearing brush" - do you really think the army go to war zone to "clear brush" ? There is ample evidence about the smuggling tunnels and that is what was publioshed again and again that they were doing these. Clearling the brush is just one way of perpartions for digging to find the tunnels under the brush. here is "brush clearing" from yesterday: [26] Zeq (talk) 03:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I have no objection myself to state, late in the lede that, generally, IDF operations in the area were to get rid of smuggling tunnels, if it is properly sourced. I say again, generally, rather than the specific operation in which Corrie died.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
The source is specific. Zeq (talk) 11:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute over Human Rights Watch citation

This edit is the latest in a minor fracas over this cite, which fracas began here when Wehwalt removed the cite from the lede, describing HRW as a "pressure group." Actually, in this controversial topic, probably the majority of sources could be described as "pressure groups," but that doesn't make them unreliable sources when properly cited. I restored the cite in a less prominent position here, at which point Wehwalt added a rebuttal sentence, with edit summary "added explanation of why the IDF knocked down these structures, consolidated into the Background section." I found this problematic, because the article doesn't actually say what Wehwalt added; it says that the group analyzed the claims by the IDF, and found them to be largely bogus. So, to leave Wehwalt's edit in place creates a false impression of what the HRW reports. I modified the section according, which edit was then reverted by Wehwalt. I'm going to leave it alone for a day or so to give Wehwalt the opportunity to clean it up. Incidentally, in Wehwalt's latest edit summary, he says that "This is the article on Corrie, not on home demolitions. We are to give the reader a modicum of info on this, not draw conclusions." First of all, it seems to me that Corrie is only notable because of the controversy over home demolitions. Secondly, giving the reader "a modicum of info" would be best served by an accurate summary of the HRW cite, whereas altering it for POV reasons would be an example of "drawing conclusions." --Marvin Diode (talk) 14:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Corrie was there because she viewed the Israeli policies as wrong. It is not for the article to draw such conclusions, which I think is what your edits do. Whether it is a good policy or a bad one, it is the policy, and Corrie was there to do what she did, and what HRW felt about it just isn't relevant.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Your comments are unclear to me. The HRW states: "Smugglers’ tunnels are the IDF’s main stated reason for incursions into Rafah and house demolitions near the border. As the military has repeatedly argued, it aims to find and destroy the tunnels that Palestinian armed groups use to obtain weapons and ammunition." It goes on to say that the HRW investigated these claims, and "Based on this research, Human Rights Watch believes that the IDF’s pattern of house demolitions is inconsistent with its stated goals." All this is notable and belongs in the article. The new quote that you added, saying that demolitions are done "to remove Palestinian homes built without permits, for security reasons and to punish the families of militants," does not appear anywhere in the cited BBC article. Perhaps you were editing in a hurry and replaced the proper source citation with another. --Marvin Diode (talk) 22:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it seems to have been straightened out. Look, we have the IDF contention, rather than having a third party rebut the IDF (which I believe is a POV way of doing things, suggest we add a source setting forth the Palestinian position in the background, rather than HRW.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't see how replacing sourced information with the phrase "The demolitions are controversial" better acquaints the reader with the situation. Dlabtot (talk) 20:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps if you put in the Palestinian perspective, it would. As I found the quotation used to justify the Israeli position, I don't feel comfortable finding a quote or a cite expressing the other POV.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Wehwalt, let me suggest to you a change in tactics. Instead of trying to suppress or discredit the HRW report, or edit the way it is presented to "smoothe it over," why not find a persuasive cite that backs up the IDF version of the story? My idea is, provide the reader with as much pertinent, reliable info as is reasonable possible. Let him draw his own conclusions. --Marvin Diode (talk) 21:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid your pov seems to be your way or the highway, even to the point of violating 3RR. As for your edit reversing mine, you are making a judgment that the "HRW did carry out a comprehensive study of the matter. They describe their methodology. This the reader should also know." While I appreciate your judgment of HRW's work, since it does not to be generally accepted as authoritative, we should not use words like "concluded", nor should we denigrate the opposing position by following their position with "However". That's POV. In any event, the report says that they "believe" the matter stated in the quotation. They did not "conclude" it. Big difference there.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Um, no, there is no difference at all, and playing semantic gymnastic games really doesn't make for a sound argument. HRW conducted research into the event and issued its findings. Period. Whether the report said "we believe" vs. "we conclude" is irrelevant. Tarc (talk) 23:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Cool, then you have no objection to characterizing it in the same words HRW used, belief, and letting the reader decide for himself. That is, if we use the HRW thing at all.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I would object to your attempts to add your own POV interpretation to a reliable source, yes. Tarc (talk) 12:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a rather obvious violation of WP:SYNTH. The HRW report does not mention Corrie. Find sources about Corrie, not simply sources that happen to support a particular argument you wish to make on her behalf. Jayjg (talk) 03:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why is this part of this article? it should be moved to a relevent article

Human Rights Watch issued a report, in which they say that they "researched the tunnel situation on the border by speaking with Rafah residents, IDF officers, PNA officials, foreign diplomats in Israel, Israeli and foreign journalists, Egyptian security officials, and experts familiar with the nature of Rafah’s subsurface soil." Based on this research, HRW believes "that the IDF’s pattern of house demolitions is inconsistent with its stated goals," and that "in some cases, the destruction was disproportionate and arbitrary."[1] Zeq (talk) 04:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

As I have said, I'm no fan of the HRW report, especially given that it expresses only a "belief" (which is far from a conclusion). I would say though, that there needs to be something in there to balance the Israeli perspective and I would suggest a Palestinian perspective rather than a third party like HRW.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
balance to balance to balance to balance. there is no end to this. We have two parties here: One side is Corrie the other side is Israeli army. We already allow the ISM into this article I don't think we should turn tis article into debate club. Zeq (talk) 08:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
As this is an issue of human rights, and HRW is a notable and relevant rights organization, I have restored this material. Tarc (talk) 12:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
No, this is an article about Rachel Corrie, not "human rights". I've removed that material, and more, as rather obvious violations of WP:SYNTH, since none of them referred to Corrie, or to the specific actions she was protesting that day.

If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research.

The subject of this article is Rachel Corrie, nothing else. In the future, please respect policy, and avoid these kinds of violations. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 03:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
One seldom encounters an edit so clearly POV-biased as this one. Jayjg removes the HRW assessment of the IDF claims, while leaving the IDF claims intact, and claims to be doing so because the citation doesn't mention Corrie. First of all, the IDF claims don't mention Corrie either. Secondly, the section in question is entitled "Background." Either you think it inappropriate to have such a section, in which case the IDF claims should be removed as well, or else under NPOV both sides of the story should be heard. In my view, the claim that "this is an article about Rachel Corrie, not 'human rights'" is a transparently false argument. Corrie became notable precisely because of the human rights issues surrounding her death. --Marvin Diode (talk) 12:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Ridiculous hyperbole is quite unnecessary, Marvin Diode. As the link you provided shows, I removed all material attributed to sources which do not mention Rachel Corrie. And, in fact, I removed most of the material outlining the IDF claims; for example, I removed these sentences:

The IDF maintains that this was done in order to prevent smuggling tunnels and other threats (i.e. from snipers) to its soldiers who are patrolling the border. For example, following a rocket attack that killed five Israeli soldiers, that apparently came from a row of buildings in Rafah, Israel demolished those buildings.[2] An IDF spokeswoman has stated that the IDF, in destroying tunnels, exercises "the utmost care to pinpoint the tunnels and do as little damage as possible".

Why did I remove them? Because, of course, the sources didn't refer to Rachel Corrie. I did leave the material sourced to this article. Why? Well, because the article is about Rachel Corrie. Again, as a reminder, the article is about Rachel Corrie, not "human rights", or the Rafah tunnels, or anything else but Rachel Corrie. It's great that "both side of the story be heard", but you cannot add original research in your quest to do so. It's not up to you to decide what the "sides" are; rather, reliable sources about Rachel Corrie will make that decision. Jayjg (talk) 00:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Jayjg, the subject of this article is Corrie and the events that led to her death. Since she was there protesting, and attempting to block, bulldozers razing homes, then material regarding the razing is more than relevant. Your argument carries no water. Tarc (talk) 12:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
To begin with, whether or not they were razing homes is disputed, and anyone would respect for the WP:NPOV policy would recognize this. More importantly, you may think it's relevant, but policy only allows you to use material that directly related to the subject - that means sources that refer to Rachel Corrie. Please do not make a mockery of the original research policy. Jayjg (talk) 00:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
The general information on razing is not necessary here. I'm sure there must be a place for it, just not in this article. IronDuke 01:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, if some source discussing Rachel Corrie talks about it, then that source can be used in this article. However, we can't just throw any sources we want that when put together serve to advance the editor's position.. Jayjg (talk) 01:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, everyone here probably is more expert than me, but seems that the info being discussed belongs in the articles House_demolition_in_the_Israeli-Palestinian_conflict and Smuggling Tunnels, and I've added "See Also" links to them. (Edit -- never mind, Home demo article already seem prominently featured.) But if I understand [WP:SYNTH]], noted above, isn't "Corrie's death occurred in a zone close to the border with Egypt, where the IDF was operating in an attempt to seal tunnels used for smuggling weapons from Egypt to the Gaza strip. also an example of the same thing? I mean, you wouldn't say "Corrie's death occured near the all-night Gaza Kwikki-Mart", right? You're implying something without saying it. -- Tom Ketchum (talk) 02:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
The problem is, editors of this article are trying to construct all sorts of arguments about what the IDF was doing when Corrie was killed, in order to show that the IDF demolished X hundred homes, or that the tunnels weren't really smuggling tunnels, and that therefore Corrie's actions were legitimate/justified and the IDF's not, or whatever else they want to prove. And it's fine to put those kinds of arguments in an article about Rachel Corrie as long as sources about Rachel Corrie make those arguments. We can cite sources about Corrie that make the arguments, but we can't invent them ourselves in order to provide "balance" for the what the IDF says - which, of course, is exactly what people have been doing here, and have admitted doing. Jayjg (talk) 02:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I should point out that I wasn't referring to Jayg specifically when I said "you", I was just addresseding everyone in the conversatrion. -- Tom Ketchum (talk) 16:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I have no problem, then with removing the HRW material, so long as the material cited by Tom Ketchum is also removed. This is a case of what's good for the goose is good for the gander. I think that NOR and SYNTH are being applied here with an interpretation that is highly original, but if it is applied in an even-handed way to this article, I won't object. --Marvin Diode (talk) 06:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Marvin Diode, policy isn't something you can bargain about, saying that you won't include your original research if someone else removes material you object to on non-policy related grounds. The point about WP:SYNTH is not to put together original arguments, even if the sources themselves are reliable. If the sources used in this article aren't about Corrie, then you are synthesizing. Jayjg (talk) 02:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
The fact of the matter is, I disagree entirely with your application of WP:SYNTH in this instance. But I am willing to compromise. --Marvin Diode (talk) 15:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Marvin, You have to keep in mind that this article is about Rachel Corrie. It is not a web site dedicated to propegate what rachel Corrie belived in. So here we focus on what realiable sources say about corrie. We can not turn this article into a link or to include issues that their only connection is something you think is related to corrie's reasons for what she did. Zeq (talk) 02:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Jay already said that:

Well, if some source discussing Rachel Corrie talks about it, then that source can be used in this article. However, we can't just throw any sources we want that when put together serve to advance the editor's position.. Jayjg (talk) 01:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Zeq (talk) 02:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
In fact, there are sources about Rachel Corrie which cite the HRW report: for example, [27] or [28]. However, this is somewhat beside the point. Jayjg and Zeq are misrepresenting the nature of the WP:SYNTH policy; that policy seeks to prevent sources from being misrepresented in such a way as to arrive at a conclusion not warranted by the sources themselves. The NOR and SYNTH policies do not require that any source used in this article have the words "Rachel Corrie" in the text. It is indisputably the case that Corrie is notable, not because she was killed by a bulldozer, but because she was killed while protesting the policy of house demolitions. Whether or not there was an actual house demolition going on at the time she was killed may be a matter of dispute, but there is no dispute over the fact that her protest of the policy is what makes her notable. It is therefore entirely appropriate to include background information from reliable sources that clarifies the debate over that policy, particularly when the IDF-defense team editors seek to include claims from the IDF that are disputed by reliable sources. --Marvin Diode (talk) 03:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Just because people disagree with you doesn't mean they are part of an "IDF-defense team". Assume good faith. However, the sources you cite are not reliable. Given that palsolidarity.org is the ISM official web site, how can you write with a straight face and tell us it is a reliable source? No disrespect to the ISM, but it's not what we are looking for on this page. And you put it in the article without even labeling it as such, in support of a fact! Come on, Marvin, you've been around long enough to know better. I'm not sure where this "press release" on both pages comes from, but it isn't a reliable source. See the standards at the top of this page. It does not meet the first standard, and given that it presumes to tell us what are facts and what are myths, including dismissing the IDF conclusion as the latter, I think it is a highly biased political source. Even if it is not, it fails the first standard. As for the statement you made about the reason for Corrie's notoriety, I'd dispute your claim. She's notable because she is American. As for your other comments, I gather that if you like the sources, they are "reliable sources", if not, they are "claims from the IDF"?--Wehwalt (talk) 06:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't regard the ISM or other pro-Corrie sources as either more reliable, or more biased, than the various pro-IDF sources used in this article. My concern is that both sides be presented, so that the reader can have a completed picture consistent with the NPOV policy. --Marvin Diode (talk) 14:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
What you regard as reliable is of course up to you. However, we have standards for what sources should be included in the article. They are set forth at the top of this page. It is of course important that neutrality be maintained, but please work within the standards to ensure it. I am glad that we have editors with a wide variety of views on the subject.
Anyway, over the next few weeks, I'm going to try to do some work on improving this article. For example, we don't actually mention Corrie's death. Apparently she did not die at the scene, but either in the ambulance or the ER. We should remedy that omission.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Are you still trying to defend the indefensible? It's WP:SYNTH, plain and simple, and all the bluster and bad faith in the world won't change that. Jayjg (talk) 05:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. In fact, the whole "background" section adds nothing to the article. I'm going to be bold and delete it. It is just POV bait from all sides. I will put the House Demolitions as a see also.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Initial autopsy

I'm a bit concerned by the initial autopsy subsection. It is supported by a cite to a book without a page number, and a news report without any newspaper cite. I'd like to see this given more checkable cites. Given such a prominent case, this should be possible. The cites need to be brought up to standard (a hasty Google revealed nothing) or it's gotta go. In addition, "initial" implies others,yet sources say that Corrie's body was sent home within a week. Would it be better to label this "preliminary autopsy report" anyway, and merge it with the IDF material?--Wehwalt (talk) 07:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Boodlesthecat seems to object to the material being deleted. Until it is properly cited and made clear whether that quote is from a source or from the underlying report, it is uncited material and is going to keep being deleted.

[edit] Use of ISM as a source

I have used ISM websites as a source for the material on Corrie's nonviolence training and protest against home demolitions, in accordance with WP:SELFPUB. --Marvin Diode (talk) 16:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

As it is contentious, after all, it was questioned and someone put a tag on it, I've removed the cites. Can't you find news accounts?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Please read WP:SELFPUB. I believe that it specifically allows for the use of such sites in this particular instance. Is there anyone who is claiming that Corrie did not undergo nonviolence training? If not, what makes it contentious, and what would be the point of excluding it from the article? --Marvin Diode (talk) 01:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Please see WP:RS. Zeq (talk) 08:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I do not know if she did or did not. But the ISM site is not appropriate for that. The Corrie incident has been extensively covered, go find a news story. shouldn't be that hard.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
The ISM website may well be accurate and a useful source. But if the material is notable, it will have been covered elsewhere as well. Since it is disputed, an independent source would be better. Hgilbert (talk) 16:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Is it actually disputed, or are we talking WP:POINT here? --Marvin Diode (talk) 14:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
A WP:SELFPUB source can't be excluded simply because an editor personally disputes it. If Wehwalt has a problem with the ISM source, then it is incumbent on him to find a WP:RS that indicates that the ISM information regarding Corrie's training is somehow suspect. Otherwise, it is simlpy an editor being contentious. Boodlesthecat Meow? 14:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I think that is your view, not WP policy. However, if you don't care to go find an RS on this point yourself, why don't we say "According to the ISM", yada yada.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Sigh. Corrie isn't the ISM, and its claims are, of course, contentious. I'll admit, claiming to be upholding WP:SELFPUB while blatantly disregarding it takes chutzpah, so you get points for that, but it still blatantly fails WP:SELFPUB. Jayjg (talk) 05:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comment request

  • Yes, in line with WP:SELFPUB, official ISM information is acceptable as a source for background information on Corrie. The fact that "Corrie isn't the ISM" is a simple strawman of no relevance; we regularly use material published by organizations as sources on prominent members of that organization. Take Abraham Foxman, for example, which cites his ADL bio. And "contentious" doesn't mean "a Wikipedian disagrees," but "disagreement exists in reliable sources." The usual caveats about self-published sources apply, of course. <eleland/talkedits> 13:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the input. But as standard 1 for WP:SELFPUB indicates that the material be relevant to the indivitual's notability, wouldn't "background" information be per se unrelated to notability? This leaves aside the whole question of whether it is self serving of the ISM to claim Corrie had this training.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
It's hard for me to believe that you really mean what you posted earlier, that "She's notable because she is American" and not because her death occurred in the context of the protest against house demolitions. Do we have a rough estimate of the number of Americans who have died in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, who did not become the subjects of an international debate? I think that the issue of house demolitions may have had something to do with Corrie's celebrity. And with regard to the question of the nonviolence training claim being "self-serving", what is your actual argument here? That Corrie was launching a violent attack on the D-9, and the driver merely defended himself? --Marvin Diode (talk) 14:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Have the Brits who died under analogous circumstances (see the see alsos) gotten anywhere near so much press? I did not, on purpose, address the issue of self serving, other than to mention it. I merely suggest that is another issue. The principal one is that it doesn't meet the standards for WP:SELFPUB for the reasons I stated. Again, I suggest you go look for a news article which mentions this. If it is true, of course.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Corrie's notability stems from being a peace activist who died while trying to pull a Tank Man. Information on her peace activism is thus relevant to her notability. (Also, removing "according to the ISM, Corrie did X <ref>[http://ism website dot com]</ref> and replacing it with "Corrie did X [CITATION NEEDED]" is really lame and should not be repeated.) And the "unduly self-serving" clause is really meant to exclude vanity spam ("Dave Bloggins is the smartest man in the universe <ref>[http://dave bloggins blog dot com]</ref>; there's nothing exceptional or self-serving that I can see about the claim that an peace activist would attend classes in peace activism which were mandatory for everyone in her group. <eleland/talkedits> 16:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Lame. Now there's a term of art. You date yourself, I think. All of this could be settled if editors would simply use a mainstream news source rather than one which goes on to make a number of statements which are, to say the least, hotly disputed. If there are questions about the truthfulness of those statements, there is a question about the truthfullness of these. Unless, of course, that is why editors what to use the ISM site, in the hope that readers will read those questionable statements in their full vitriol.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Who is "hotly disputing" that she took nonviolence training? Boodlesthecat Meow? 22:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Which reliable source notes it? What makes it worth mentioning? Jayjg (talk) 02:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I believe information from the ISM about her should be reported, but should be attributed to the ISM in the text, because it is a potentially biased source. So therefore, simply say "According to the ISM she attended nonviolence training..." or whatever. Seems a pretty obvious solution to me. - Merzbow (talk) 21:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
To me, also. --Marvin Diode (talk) 07:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
ISM is (was?) a species of Human Rights organisation with an activist agenda that sent (perforce young) observers to places and situations so dangerous that better established groups were not doing. As such, it is not in the same category as the very well known groups (international and Israeli), but we should treat fairly what it's observers report. Its testimony should be carefully qualified if reporting something "surprising", but in this case it is simply fleshing out something we know to be true, that IDF bulldozers are operated with total disregard for human life. See "I am sure people died inside these houses." in Yediot Aharonot less than one year earlier.
In addition, we have ample WP:RS that IDF investigations are considered inadequate by, for instance, the Coroners courts in the UK. Unless we have sound indication from uninvolved outside sources that ISM (or its individual observers) are this untrustworthy, we're bound to rank their reports as the more reliable in every case where there is disagreement.
Lastly, Israel appears to have shot dead three UK observers/relief workers/film-makers alone in a few months around this time. At least two of these incidents are now known, and admitted, to have been culpable actions by IDF personnel. The default position is bound to be that Rachel Corrie was killed either by reckless disregard for her safety, or by deliberate action. ISM is the only source for the incident to whom we should imply reliability. PRtalk 08:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Source reliability has nothing to do with who supposedly shot who, and polemics like the above are completely unnecessary. - Merzbow (talk) 17:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Regardless, it is at least as relevant as her mom being a flautist, so put it in and let's see how it looks, as long as it is clearly labeled.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
No reason to label uncontentious information from a source that, in any case, we have no reason to doubt. PRtalk 19:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Visibility" section

Much of this section seems out of place, especially the whole bit about the Reuters photos -- it's all sourced by a website called "Israel Sources Review" or something -- it seems like a biased source, and the whole section doesn't sound like an encyclopedia should. There seems to be lots of strong feelings about this, and a lot of questionable edits since I was last year. Can't we just stick to what the New York Times and other mainstream papers say? -- Tom Ketchum 23:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there are a lot of substandard references in this article. What focused you on this in particular?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
It was the biggest change since the last time I came to the article. -- Tom Ketchum 00:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
And by the way, I don't have a dog in this hunt. I changed the sentence in the first para to follow as closely as possible the New York Times opening sentence, without being a copyright violation. I wish you hadn't swept that citation out with the trash! -- Tom Ketchum 00:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
That is a part of the problem. "Crushed to death" is rather pejorative and dramatic, it doesn't follow what we learned from the autopsy and investigation, and what was said the day after the incident should not be the last word on the subject.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps, but it is the phrase used in the lead paragraph of the NYT article. I keep hearing "reliable sources!" here, so I took it from there. It originally said "killed", someone changed it to "died", which is lame (like she fell over of a heart attack), and I was about to change it back to "killed", but decided to look up the source first, and that is what it said. -- Tom Ketchum 00:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I see you changed it back again. "Died" is not correct. "Killed" is not POV, it does not imply intention or anything else, and it is what the most reliable sources say. -- Tom Ketchum 00:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Just because they used that language, doesn't mean we do. We take facts from RS, not language. Unless we put it in quotation marks, which should not be done in this case.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Even people who jump in front of trains are described as having been killed by the train, or killed jumping in front of the train. These deletions of "killed" from this article are ridiculous. And its contrary to every reliable source on the subject. Boodlesthecat Meow? 00:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Boodlesthecat, why don't you work on cleaning up those autopsy cites? A wire report is useless without a periodical it was printed in, and I googled and found nothing. The book is useless without a page number, and we don't know where that quote is fro--Wehwalt (talk) 00:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)m.
No problem, sure don't want useless bits in there. Added the book page number. The wire report is fine as is--you can find it in lexis nexis. Here's the relevant text:
WASHINGTON -- The initial autopsy performed on Rachel Corrie by an Israeli pathologist at the National Center of Forensic Medicine in Tel Aviv was blunt in its narrative. It noted breaks in the ribs, the spinal cord and the shoulder blades, and tear wounds in the right lung.
It concluded that Corrie's death was caused by pressure on the chest "from a mechanical apparatus."
The report was issued on March 20, four days after Corrie, a 23-year-old pro-Palestinian activist from Olympia, Wash., crouched in the path of an oncoming Israeli military bulldozer.
But subsequent reports filed by the Israeli military have concluded that "Ms. Corrie was not run over by the bulldozer."
A detailed Israeli Defense Forces document titled "The Death of Rachel Corrie" does not mention the pathologist's belief that a mechanical apparatus caused the death. The IDF presented the classified Israeli document to some members of Congress in April. The Corrie family gave it to Gannett News Service this week.
Now isn't asking for info better than deleting? Boodlesthecat Meow? 00:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, especially as there was apparently a misquotation, apparatus vs. device. But in any event, I've added another bit on the cause of death. And I've had a request in for days on the autopsy issue. Thanks for clearing it up!--Wehwalt (talk) 01:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
No proble, I've readded the Gannett ref because it sources the statement that the IDF report did not mention the pathologist's conclusion. Boodlesthecat Meow? 01:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
You mean the IDF report no one got to see in full, according to the Corries?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

"Israel Resource Review" claims, on its home page, to be a compendium of articles from various press organs. However, the page used as a source here in the "Visibility" section [29] does not reference any such established press as a source. It is unclear to me whether this is just a blog-like commententary by someone at the Israel Resource Review. --Marvin Diode (talk) 22:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't look bloglike to me. It contains interviews with prime participants, the media coordinator for ISM talked to this guy, and it otherwise seems to be a news article subject to editorial review. It is a news article, and I find that it has been reprinted here. It looks and smells like an RS.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
FPM is not a reliable source either. We don't go by "look and smell," but by established reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. And a mission to present "news items and analyses that you often do not see in your standard mainstream electronic or print media," and a front-page advertisement to send pizza and ice cream to Israeli soldiers, do not exactly pass the "look and smell" test, either! <eleland/talkedits> 13:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
So I guess that if a newspaper had an ad to send supplies to US soldiers in Iraq, that would be one strike against it! I'm not sure though how your discussion of its mission statement speaks to whether or not there is or is not an "established reputation for accuracy and fact-checking." And you say that it is not a reliable source "either"? Either what?--Wehwalt (talk) 13:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't really think you would wish to support FPM as an RS. They published (and still do, it's still there) the most atrocious smear on a (now dead) Warsaw Ghetto and Auschwitz survivor, claiming that her son suspects her of having been a collaborator with the Nazis. The evidence is patently false, as can be seen here. The slur is shamelessly picked up and magnified by at least one other source, Free Republic (however, it's black-listed as a link to be added to Talk). None of these actions are really compatible with a scholarly appreciation of the evidence, of which Finkelstein is a personal witness when it comes to matters pertaining to the Holocaust and its effect on people. I'm not aware of any Holocaust Denier ever treating survivors or descendants of survivors in this kind of fashion, and we'd be disgusted if they did. PRtalk 10:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Lobbying

This Wikipedia administrative report: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Statement re Wikilobby campaign is relevant to this page, as this was one of the pages targeted by CAMERA for lobbying. I make no indictment of individual editors here in posting this. -- Tom Ketchum 18:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Not according to the section of the report identifying the supposedly targeted articles--Wehwalt (talk) 07:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
According to the published IE dossier, an editor identified as "Isra guy (zeqzeq2@yahoo.com)" on 3/21/08 posted to the "isra-pedia@googlegroups.com" group as follows: ... we will not be able to fix everything there and there are real important articles. .... Here is a list of articles I consider highly important Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus, Hamas, Hezbollah ... Arab citizens of Israel, Dhimmi ... Anti-Zionism, Palestine, 1948 Arab-Israeli War, Al Nakba, this will become a VERY important topic in the NEAR future. We will need your help, Mohammad Amin al-Husayni, [30] Rachel Corrie (see issues about photos). The veracity of this dosssier has not, to my knowledge, been seriously challenged.
However, you may well be right that User:Zeq (now taken to be the editor in question) actually considered this article pleasingly written to his satisfaction already, having made 93 edits to it. His last was this one 21 April 2008 "Not WP:RS source. ISM web sites can only be used in an article about ISM". I leave it to others whether they wish to pick up the baton that he would appear to have dropped. PRtalk 09:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
No doubt. However, it was never targeted, per se. As for Zeq's baton, I march to the beat of my own band, not his. Never doubt it for a second.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Diamondback material

Unfortunately, there's been a blind reversion of the material about the cartoon in The Diamondback. Wehwalt and Tom Ketchum, I must remind you of two things:

  1. Material must be sourced to reliable sources. Erin O'Connor's personal blog doesn't count as that.
  2. Material must match what the reliable sources say. Merely adding back reliable sources is not good enough when the reliable sources in question don't say what is attributed to them.

Now, rather than all this blind policy violating reverting, please

  1. Avoid restoring non-reliable sources like personal blogs
  2. Read what the reliable sources actually say, and
  3. Propose re-wordings, if any, here first.

Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 02:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you should have proffered the material first here before adding it then, if to your own self you intend to be true. I find the way you added it to have a rather slanted tone, I'll work about making the statements in a more neutral tone. And it is a large amount of detailed info about a relatively minor item in the Corrie saga. I question the need at all for that level of detail.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
The material was already there, but sourced to unreliable sources. I'm fine with most of your cutting back. Jayjg (talk) 03:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't really appreciate taking a scolding when my intention was to retain the improved sources that were located. The byzantine rules regarding which things can and cannot be included take a little getting used to, and as I was bending over backwards to avoid the appearance of partisanship, a little slack would have been nice. -- Tom Ketchum 17:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)