Talk:Rachel Corrie/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Joseph Smith statement

I've done a general copy edit; moved the Cause of Death section to the Responsibility for section to improve flow; and quoted from the Guardian article on the IDF report. I removed the sentence at the end that said the Israeli govt. report has not been seen by Corrie's parents and that therefore the Wikipedia article is based on secondary sources, as it didn't seem to make sense. Corrie's parents would be secondary sources too. I also deleted the bullet points in the section describing her activities as they seemed POV, and just listed them in the normal way.

The Joseph Smith statement: Is this a verbatim eye-witness statement? If it is, it shouldn't have an electronic intifada link in it. It should probably be made clear whether this is an eyewitness account or someone else's commentary based on the statement. Slim 03:51, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)

How can you claim that Corrie was killed in "an incident involving a bulldozer"? Don't you have any shame? --Pravda 18:40, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Because the statement is true. Since the cause of death is itself disputed, the term "incident involving a bulldozer" is NPOVest as possible. MathKnight 20:23, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Corrie was killed by an Israeli soldier driving an armored bulldozer. That is a fact - even if Israelis dispute whether it was the intention of the driver to crush Corrie. To say it was "an incident involving a bulldozer" is very vague and deceptive. Please compare to Laura Bush: "At the age of seventeen, on November 6, 1963, while driving a Chevrolet sedan, Welch ignored or overlooked a stop sign and struck and killed Michael Douglas, aged seventeen, in a Corvair sedan. Douglas had been an acquaintance of Welch. She and her passenger, Judy Dykes (also aged seventeen) were treated for minor injuries at a local hospital. Welch was not charged."
Even though Laura Bush was not charged or convicted of vehicular homicide, it is a fact that she did kill Michael Douglas. Similarly, even though the Israeli authorities never charged their bulldozer operator with murder (or any other offense), it is a fact that he did strike and kill Rachel Corrie. --Pravda 20:39, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
"it is a fact that he did strike and kill Rachel Corrie", it is indeed a fact that Rachel was hurt when she went to close to the bulldozer, but what realy caused her death is disputed. ISM stress the bulldozer ran over her, the IDF say that the bulldozer accidently droped on her slab of concrete when he pushed the mount of dirt and rubbles. This is discussed further in the body of the article. MathKnight 21:12, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
It doesn't matter whether it was an accident or not, Rachel Corrie was killed by a bulldozer driven by an Israeli soldier - just like Michael Douglas was killed by car driven by Laura Bush. Corrie's death by bulldozer was confirmed by autopsy as explained in the article. --Pravda 21:19, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
One autposy report states the Rachel was struck by falling debris. Also, please stop using inflammatory edit summaries. MathKnight 21:30, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Trying to blame the debris for the actions of the bulldozer driver falls into the category of deliberate deception. That's what I mean by True Lies. You may like this book by Victor Ostrovsky if you haven't read it already. [1] --Pravda 21:54, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Why is it a deliberate deception? Futhermore, I don't blame anyone here (except the ISM who sent young and naive people to risk their lives without any need), it was an accident that was bound to happen sooner or later because of ISM's reckless practice of interfere with narrow-sighted working bulldozers against all safety regulations. MathKnight 07:53, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Your POV is interesting. Why is it deception to blame Corrie's death on falling debris rather than on the bulldozer driver pushing the debris? Do I really need to explain this? Many people consider these Israeli home demolition activities to be crimes against humanity that render thousands of Palestinians homeless in violation of international humanitarian law. [2]. ISM activists who peacefully protest against these crimes don't feel that Israeli soldiers are justified in killing them. I am sure you have your reasons for believing that these Israeli activities are not crimes against humanity, that ISM is to blame for protesting, that Corrie's death was just an accident, and that she was killed by falling debris. Nevertheless, try to maintain NPOV. --Pravda 08:22, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  1. I'm not blaming. I'm trying to determine the cause of her death.
  2. House demolitions are a different issue, different than Corrie's issue. I'll summerize that in my opinion they are justified mean of defence, as many Palestinian houses are used by terrorists to attack Israeli civilian and soldiers, and harbour terrorist infrastructure.
  3. ISM have a right to protest, but they don't have the right to enter restricted military area, interefere with military activity; and certainly do not have to right to send young and naive people to risk their live recklessly by playing Russian rollete with a working narrow-sighted armored bulldozer.
  4. In contrast to the impersion you got, I'm not saying that because the ISM engaged in illegal activity, the bulldozer driver or the IDF had the right to kill them. What I'm saying that the ISM engaged in illegal activity that sent young and naive people to risk their life in dangerous activity which was bound to result in fatal accident sooner or later, and unfortunately did ended in such fatal accident. No one ever forced ISM to play Russian rollete with heavy military vehicles or act as human shield in hostile envoirement. You can elaboration of this point of view here.
  5. And to sum up, I believe Rachel Corrie's death was an accident, and that the IDF had no intention of killing her. MathKnight 09:22, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Pravda, it's true that Corrie didn't suddenly die of old age. She was killed. But it's not clear that she was "run over" as the sentence originally said. Her fellow activists say she was, the Israeli eyewitnesses say she wasn't, and the medical evidence is inconclusive. I can change "died" to "killed" in the intro if you like, but I feel that "incident" should stay because it's the most neutral word. The article makes the two versions clear. Slim 21:36, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your attempt to compromise but I think "incident with a bulldozer" is highly disingenuous. As you can see from the US State Department report below, it is a straightforward accepted fact that Corrie was crushed and killed by an Israeli bulldozer, confirmed by autopsy. Even Israelis who claim it was an "accident" due to debris falling on her must accept the fact that the debris fell because a bulldozer was pushing it. Even if someone intentionally and suicidally jumps in front of a car on the highway, while they may be responsible for their death, it remains a fact that they are killed by a car. --Pravda 21:54, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Pravda, I've removed "incident." How about this: "Rachel Corrie (April 10, 1979—March 16, 2003) was a member of the International Solidarity Movement (ISM) who was killed when she confronted an Israeli soldier-operated bulldozer while protesting Israeli demolitions of Palestinian homes in Rafah in the Gaza Strip." That leaves it open as to whether the bulldozer ran over her or not, but without using what some might regard as a weasel word like "incident." Slim 23:15, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)

I think it is very clear from all POVs that she was run over and killed by the bulldozer. Even if she was killed by debris and not the bulldozer blade, the debris was being pushed by the bulldozer. The State department report is pretty matter of fact about the fact that she was run over and killed. --Pravda 05:27, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Being killed by a falling debris is not being ran over. As I explained before, the exact cause of death and what interaction she had with the bulldozer is disputed. MathKnight 07:53, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
What source can you cite that gives a cause of death other than trauma from a bulldozer blade, crushing by bulldozer, or debris pushed by the bulldozer? --Pravda 08:26, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
"debris pushed by the bulldozer?" , as I said before, being hit by a falling debris - eventhough pushed by the bulldozer - is not being run over by it. I don't say there is no conection between the bulldozer and her death, I'm only saying that this connection does not consist a "run over" (i.e. the bulldozer drove over her and crush her). MathKnight 09:22, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm not swayed in the least by the discussion above that somehow Corrie was killed by "standing or kneeling" in front of the bulldozer, with the old wording trying hard to not seem to be implying she was partly at fault. This would be humorous if it wasn't so damned shameful. Can the IDF apologists at least recognize that Corrie was a HUMAN BEING and afford her that respect? I would be inclined to believe that it was not the intent of the IDF to run over Corrie with a bulldozer (i.e. it is possible that it was an "accident"), but let's apply Occam's Razor: she was killed as a direct result of the operation of a bulldozer. I'm not inclined to be tolerant of any further manipulation of this wording.

State Department Report

The State Department report does not accept Israeli government government findings or the reports of eyewitnesses, it merely reports both sides. "On March 16, an Israeli bulldozer clearing land in Rafah in the Gaza Strip crushed and killed Rachel Corrie, 23, a US Citizen peace activist. Corrie was standing in front of the bulldozer and was wearing a reflective vest. Eyewitness demonstrators stated that they believe the driver knew Rachel was in front of the bulldozer as he proceeded forward. The IDF conducted two investigations into the case, including a polygraph of the operator, and found no negligence on the part of the operator. The operator knew that there were demonstrators in the area, but claimed he did not see Corrie at the time she was struck. However, the report of the IDF Judge Advocate General recommended several remedial measures including remedying blindspots from the cabs of armored bulldozers, for improved safety during future operations." [3] The State Department lists Corrie's March 13, 2003 cause of death as "Other", indicating that the US does not view it as an accident, the way the Israeli government claims. [4] Do you have explicit evidence to support your contention that the US government accepts the Israeli side of the story? --Pravda 21:04, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

To judge from the link Pravda provided, it doesn't look as though the U.S. govt has accepted that it was an accident, so that sentence should probably be removed until a supporting reference can be found. Slim 21:37, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
Quoting the Israeli report without reservations indicate that they pretty much accepted it (or more accurate to say: de-facto accepted, since I couldn't find any formal statement regarding Corrie). This is supported by complaints on the US government from left-wing and anti-Israeli activisist for not demanding an "independent" inquiry [5], [6] Also, Corrie's death described as "other" and not as "homocide" or "terrorist action". MathKnight 21:50, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The report quotes the ISM eyewitnesses along with the Israeli government so the Israeli account is not given preference as "truth". Corrie's cause of death is described as "Other" and not as an "Accident" as claimed by Israel. --Pravda 21:57, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree that the U.S. may have accepted Israel's report from the simple fact that the U.S. is not responding to calls for another investigation. On the other hand, the U.S. State Dept. didn't list the death as an "accident." There were a few other deaths in the list Pravda provided, which were listed as "veh. accident" or "other accident," for example. With Corrie, they just say "other," which suggests to me that they're keeping an open mind. Slim 22:03, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)

"The neutrality and reliability of his account are disputed.

What published source is disputing the eyewitness testimony provided by Joseph Smith? Why is a discalimer needed if we attribute the account to him (According to Joseph Smith.....)? Why don't we need a similar disclaimer for the statements provided by Israeli authorities? --Pravda 22:03, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, point taken. Slim 22:08, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
I've removed it. Slim 22:10, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
I given two sources disputing Smith account: [7] , [8]. The reason why the disclaimer is needed, is since the entire description under is based solely on Smith's account - which have some contradicitions, as noted commantators and reporters. MathKnight 22:22, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I agree that there are several published sources disputing Smith's account, so it's correct to say its neutrality and accuracy are disputed. But Pravda has a point, because the Israeli report is also disputed, so if there's a disclaimer regarding Smith's account, there would probably need to be a disclaimer regarding the Israeli account. Perhaps instead of the disclaimer, you could expand the section directly under Smith's account, quoting from published sources who point to the inconsistencies? Slim 22:28, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
There is already a paragraph describing some of the contradicitions, below the end of Smith's account. The orginal intention of the disclaimer was to point out the what written is not the objective facts (which are disputed, as both sides present different versions) but Smith's account. It was added to a rewrite by HistoryBuffEr, failing to point that out. MathKnight 23:17, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
MathKnight, I have no objection to the neutrality and reliability warning being on the witness statement, but Pravda doesn't agree because s/he feels the Israeli account would then also need a disclaimer. I think you both have a point, although I feel the eyewitness account is given more weight simply because it does say it is the account of someone who was there, and therefore a disclaimer is perhaps more important on that statement. But I'll leave it up to you and Pravda, as I have no strong views about this either way. However, I'd like to know to what extent this is a quotation from Smith's statement, and if it is a quotation, why it has an electronic intifada link in it. I'm going to read the Smith statement now and see whether it's a direct quote, which I didn't have time to do yesterday. Slim 23:23, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)

Smith statement

The statement from Joseph Smith that was in the article seemed instead to be a commentary on his statement, so I've replaced it with direct quotes. Slim 03:32, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)

I would add that Smith changed his statement. Joe Smith, an ISM activist and a friend of Rachel Corrie, chose to reveal the truth, which is not stated on ISM’s website. “Smith said that no one was on the spot with a camera before Rachel Corrie was mauled by the bulldozer, and that the picture of Rachel with the megaphone had been taken many hours earlier.” http://www.btnhboard.com/~scrub/corrie.htm ..."[S]he was sitting on a mound of earth in front of the bulldozer. The earth started to move under her when the bulldozer digs in. You have a couple of options you can roll aside-you have to be very quick to get out of the way. You can fall back, but she leaned forward to try to climb up on top. She got pulled down, and the bulldozer lost sight of her. Then, without lifting the blade, he reversed and she was underneath the blade".

Smith, an eyewitness to Rachel’s death, seems to portray it as some sort of accident, while the ISM, officially, calls it a “murder”. Why? Does their hatred of Israel seem to run so deep that they are willing to negate the testimony of an eyewitness for their own purposes? Or is it a misunderstanding? A look into the history of Rachel Corrie and the ISM certainly leaves one to choose the former.

One of the possible reasons she was run over was because a false sense of security. Joseph Smith described it in a Jerusalem Post article:

Smith, originally of Kansas City, Missouri, .... said the fact that the IDF had previously taken pains not to hurt the group made him feel safe. It is precisely because the group has so much experience playing a game of chicken with the bulldozers that it understands this was not an accident.

Many members have stood in front of a bulldozer as Corrie did and then climbed up the mound of dirt, precisely so that the driver could see them. "You look into their eyes and they stop," Smith said.


Demolition of homes

I deleted from the first sentence that Corrie was killed by the bulldozer "while protesting Israeli demolitions of Palestinian homes", because that makes it sound as though homes were being demolished on the day of her death; or even that she was standing between a bulldozer and a home about to be demolished when she died. But if you read the eyewitness statement of Joseph Smith, it says the bulldozers were "demolishing farmland and other already damaged structures," which is consistent with the Israeli account that they were flattening land looking for explosives dumps. The activists say they were concerned for the safety of nearby homes, but there's no indication any were going to be demolished, so I felt that ought not to be implied by the first sentence. It now reads that she was "killed when she confronted an Israeli soldier-operated bulldozer in Rafah in the Gaza Strip."

Anon - the IDF did later demolish the home in question 0 a fact that has been deleted from earlier versions of this article. Whatever their intent on the day Corrie died, Corrie and the ISM apparently believed they were protecting the home from demolition. The article should be worded accordingly. --Pravda 05:24, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree that if the home was later demolished that should be in the article. Do you have a reference for that by any chance? Slim 05:26, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)

See [9]. --Pravda 05:34, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Pravda, I've added this to the "Responsibility for Corrie's death" section:

"The 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 "no man's land" by Israel. No houses were demolished on the day of Corrie's death, but one of the houses she believed she was protecting — the home of pharmacist Dr. 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 "no man's land". [10]

I'd like to read some of the other witness statements before any change is made to the intro, to see whether they specifically mention a belief that homes might be demolished that day. Hope that's okay. Slim 05:58, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)

I removed any mention of house demolition from the intro and rewrote it to parallel the US State dept description. See what you think. I don't see Jayjg discussing anything in Talk although he keeps calling for more talk. --Pravda 06:10, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
You changed an awful lot more than that in the intro. Why don't you discuss all the POV changes you made. Jayjg 06:14, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Oh, and complex reverts are still a revert, as my comment noted. As you know, breaking the 3RR gets you an automatic 24 hour block. Jayjg 06:16, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
SlimVirgin and I have been working on an NPOV description of Corrie's death. In my last re-write, I paralleled the State Department description as closely as possible. It is quite different from the previous re-writes. Perhaps you can explain to me the difference between a "complex revert" and a new edit? --Pravda 06:24, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
You've reverted the NPOV version "Her death sparked controversy because she was the first Western protester killed in the conflict and a U.S. citizen, and because of the highly politicized nature of the Arab-Israeli conflict to HistoryBuffEr's POV version "Corrie's death sparked controversy because she was a U.S. citizen and peace activist killed during a non-violent protest" and "the U.S. did not conduct or request an independent investigation, and Israel has cleared its soldiers of responsibility while refusing to release documents from the investigation" 7 times in 13 hours. [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17]. And a user who knows how to find ancient and controversial POV versions of articles on their fifth edit here, and revert to them in their entirety, while quoting Wikipedia policy, does not need further explanation on these matters. Jayjg 06:51, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I wrote entirely new versions each time. The last one was, "Rachel Corrie (April 10, 1979 - March 16, 2003) was a U.S. citizen peace activist who was crushed and killed by an armored Caterpillar D9 bulldozer operated by an Israeli soldier clearing land in Rafah, Gaza Strip.
Corrie's death sparked controversy because she was a U.S. citizen and pro-Palestinian peace activist killed during a non-violent protest within the context of the al-Aqsa intifada and the Arab-Israeli conflict. Advocates on both sides scrambled to blame her death on the Israel Defense Force (IDF), the International Solidarity Movement (ISM), the Palestinians, and on Corrie herself. The U.S. government did not conduct or request an independent investigation, and Israel has cleared its soldiers of responsibility while refusing to release documents from the investigation." What is objectionable to you about this? --Pravda 07:14, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Her death sparked controversy

This line is factually wrong as well as POV: "Her death sparked controversy, in part because she was the first Western protester and U.S. citizen to be killed in the Arab-Israeli conflict, and in part because of the highly politicized nature of the conflict itself. Advocates on both sides scrambled to blame her death on the Israel Defense Force (IDF), the ISM, the Palestinians, and on Corrie herself." Corrie was not the first U.S. citizen killed in the conflict. Many Arab-Americans and American Jews have been killed over the years. Sources are needed for the reasons why her death is controversial, or even claims that it is controversial. --Pravda 08:39, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't have much interest in this article, but one point/question: she is indeed not the first US citizen killed, but she may have been the first Western peace protester, so the sentence may have been factually accurate as written. If some other Western peace protestor was killed before her (my knowledge of the fine details of the conflict isn't good enough to say one way or the other), documenting that would automatically make such a claim in this article factually incorrect, and therefore make its removal absolutely necessary. On the other hand, if she was the first Western peace protestor killed, that's probably noteworthy enough to include in the article. Noel (talk) 12:28, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

IDF report

There are conflicting accounts regarding the release of the IDF investigation into Corrie's death. The Gannett News Services says the IDF released its report to several members of the U.S. Congress in April 2003, and that the Corrie family passed copies of the report to the news media in June 2003. However, in an article dated March 2004, Corrie's mother says that only the conclusions of the report have been released, and that only she and her husband, along with two American staffers in Tel Aviv, have been allowed to view the whole thing. I've put both these versions in the article, with links. Slim 18:54, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)

A bit of NPOVing

"confronted the bulldozer". If the circumstances of her death are so much in dispute, let's not suggest that she was "confronting" the bulldozer (which implies that her death was her own fault) but simply say she was killed by it. Dr Zen 04:31, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This from the guy who insisted that the children killed in the Ma'alot massacre weren't "killed", but merely "died"? Try taking out the word "killed" here to, maybe that will NPOV it. As for Corrie, she deliberately confronted the bulldozer a number of times by jumping in front of it, in order to stop it. It didn't sneak up on her unexpectedly in the night. Jayjg | Talk 04:43, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Some say she was lying down, dude. You can't argue that there are conflicting accounts and then insist on wording that suits your side of it.Dr Zen 05:29, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Oh, and there's no dispute that she was killed by a bulldozer. There are no eyewitness accounts of Ma'alot and how the children died is disputed. Perhaps they committed suicide? There's as much evidence for that as there is for Corrie's doing so. Dr Zen 05:31, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
We should be able to find better description than saying she was killed when she confronted a bulldozer. She was killed protesting the destruction caused by the bulldozer. She was killed engaging in passive resistance. Or simply, she was killed by a bulldozer. The description in the article allows readers who are so inclined to conclude that she was confronting the bulldozer if that's their POV. It shouldn't be the article's POV though. --Pravda 05:35, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
That's what I'm saying. Say she was killed by a bulldozer and colour that how you like.Dr Zen 05:51, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"scrambling to blame", "both sides"... It's POV that there must be two and only two sides in the conflict. There are also neutrals of all different shades. Many, many opinions. So let's just make it NPOV, yes? Dr Zen 04:31, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, let's NPOV it by pointing out that activists on all sides scrambled to blame all sorts of people and groups. Oh wait, that's what the NPOV version already said, and has said for months. Jayjg | Talk 04:43, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
No. It said "advocates" (what that?) on "both sides" (with no explanation of what these "sides" are) "scrambled" to attribute blame. Well no, actually. One side said the bulldozer driver murdered her; the other made up some cock about her committing suicide (!) in their usual fashion.Dr Zen 05:29, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Must agree with Jayjg here that all sides did blame each other. I think "scrambled" is a bit POV. It is true that people project their opinions on Corrie's life and death. It is almost like a Rashomon drama, but unfortunately, real. --Pravda 05:36, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I understand your struggle to understand that it's not black and white, us and them, but there have been lots of opinions on Corrie's death from all sorts.Dr Zen 05:54, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"protester". Come off it. A protester is what she was on the day. It's intended to diminish her to so describe her. We call people who do what she did "peace activists", even on Wikipedia. She was a "peace activist" who was "protesting".Dr Zen 04:31, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Peace activist"? Come off it, that's a POV description attempting to imply that people on the Palestinian side are "for peace", but people on the Israeli side are "for war". Jayjg | Talk 04:43, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Bullshit. There is a war and Corrie was doing what she thought was best to try to end it. If you want to put in (sourced) claims that the IDF work for peace, you are more than welcome.Dr Zen 05:29, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
No need for rudeness. She could be described as a peace activist or human rights activist or a pro-Palestinian or anti-Israeli protestor but activist protestor or protesting activist might be most neutral. She was more than just those things that she became labeled with in death and I think the article describes that. --Pravda 05:37, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Zen, you're playing word games. The article states that, "according to ISM activists and e-mails Corrie sent to her family, she participated in a variety of actions, including protesting Israeli army demolitions of Palestinian homes by acting as a human shield . . . " That sentence was inserted by someone who shares your POV. If she was protesting, she was a protester. Slim 05:44, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
Oh look, the gang's all here. I don't have a POV, Slim. I said, if you read what I wrote, that she was protesting (and the editor you note says that this was one of a variety of actions she did) at the time but that doesn't make her a protester, any more than I am a typist because I am typing.Dr Zen 05:51, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You don't have a POV, Zen? This is what you wrote above: "One side said the bulldozer driver murdered her; the other made up some cock about her committing suicide (!) in their usual fashion. Dr Zen 05:29, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)"

This is what is normally referred to as a POV. Slim 07:11, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

Purportedly?

If someone purports this, please source them doing so. I've removed this contentious stuff until it is sourced.

Other statements, such as Smith's claim that they heard the bulldozer driver shouting at them (Smith, section 16:00-16:45), purportedly lack credibility because the engine noise and thick plates of armored bulldozers usually prevent communication.

The above is in the Mother Jones article.

Then source the Mother Jones author saying so.

You can't write that she was killed by the bulldozer, because that is precisely the controversial point. The ISM witnesses say she was. The Israeli witnesses say she was not.

No, they do not. They don't claim some debris just fell on her. Even the Israelis don't claim it had nothing to do with the bulldozer. They couldn't hardly. There are eyewitnesses.

The medical evidence is inconclusive. She was killed as a result of something that happened when the bulldozer moved forward and she was unable to get out of its way. But to say she was killed by it implies that it hit her or ran over her, and that begs the question.

No, that's simply not true. However, if you want to rewrite the intro to say she "died as a result of the action of a ... bulldozer", I wouldn't change that.

There's nothing wrong with using the word "confront". The bulldozer was trying to do something, and she stood or sat in its way in order to stop it. The word "confront" accurately describes that action. It isn't POV. It doesn't assign blame.

I say it does. It very much implies she purposely had herself run over by having a fight with a bulldozer.

As you wanted, I inserted Judy Lash Balint's name; got rid of "even"; and wrote "do not agree" instead of "cannot agree" regarding the witness statements in the Responsibility for . . . section.

Yes, I can see that you made cosmetic changes to cover for your wholesale reversion.

You wrote above that the Israelis made up a cock and bull story about her death, even though you don't actually know that. If you have such strong feelings about this issue, it might be better if you did not edit this page. The article that was here until recently looked like an ISM press release. No one is trying to turn it into an IDF press release. We're trying to find something in between the two. Slim 06:17, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

The suggestion that she committed suicide is what I described as "cock", Slim. You are not trying to "find something in between the two". You are, as is usual on these pages, trying to put as fierce a pro-Israeli spin onto it as you can get away with. I'm working to keep that spin to a minimum.Dr Zen 06:37, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No, I am not trying to put a pro-Israeli spin on it. I am trying to prevent an anti-Israeli spin. I wasn't there, and so I don't know what happened to Rachel Corrie. Nor do you. Everyone who edits this page should admit that they don't know what happened, and should try to word things neutrally, sticking to published sources, mainstream newspapers if possible. There is already a lot of material on this page from ISM. Slim 07:02, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

I agree that we should word it as neutrally as possible. That's what I tried to do. For instance, I don't like weaselly statements like "others disagree" when in fact a Zionist journalist wrote it in her blog. I think you can find a "published source" to back up just about anything. I think the POV thing comes in when an article tries to discredit eyewitnesses instead of simply reporting what they say. I'm astounded that you do not agree with that. Astounded!Dr Zen 07:29, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Zionist POV pushing gang autoreverts again

It is impossible to make good-faith NPOV edits to any article on subjects on Jayjg's list. You simply get reverted by him or one of his cadres.Dr Zen 06:01, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There's no point accusing them because they believe they are doing the right thing. They can be convinced with evidence. In my opinion, the version you are submitting is clearly more NPOV than the version they are protecting. I think that they are not bothering to read your version and are just reverting "on principle". It is frustrating. --Pravda 06:10, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That's what I find upsetting. It's the sheer arrogance of them. They don't believe they have to discuss changes because they outnumber those who want a neutral point of view.

I ask how any editor in good faith can claim this: "Other statements, such as Smith's claim that they heard the bulldozer driver shouting at them (Smith, section 16:00-16:45) (http://www.ccmep.org/2003_articles/Palestine/032003_the_moments_before.htm), purportedly lack credibility because the engine noise and thick plates of armored bulldozers usually prevent communication." is NPOV. What the hell does "purportedly" mean? I find it astonishing that SlimVirgin, who claims to be a champion of sourcing material, thinks that this is not expressive of a POV.Dr Zen 06:14, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Actually, "purportedly" was my edit of a poorly worded description that was unsourced probable original research by MathKnight. --Pravda 06:19, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, I really think that should be sourced or cut. The whole commentary is so POV that I think efforts need to be made to try to cut the editorialising to a bare minimum.Dr Zen 06:21, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Read my comment above. The low visibility, difficult-to-hear claim is, I believe, in the Mother Jones article. I will check it now. And yes, of course I'm reading before I change or revert. I never revert on sight. I've explained why I reverted above. Slim 06:24, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

You can't say or imply that the bulldozer hit her or ran her over. As you don't like "confronted," I have rewritten the intro again. It now reads:
Rachel Corrie' (April 10, 1979—March 16, 2003) was a member of the International Solidarity Movement (ISM) who was killed after kneeling or standing in front of a moving armored Caterpillar D9 bulldozer operated by an Israeli soldier clearing land in Rafah, Gaza Strip. While some eyewitnesses believe the bulldozer ran over Corrie, other eyewitnesses say it did not. The medical evidence is inconclusive."
This is as straightforward and as factual as it gets. I've also reinserted the paragraph about it being hard to hear from the cabin, and have linked it to the driver's interview where he says it's hard to see or hear. Slim 06:56, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
Okay, Slim, I think the description is fair enough, although I don't feel it's POV to say she was killed by the bulldozer, whether it did it directly or knocked some debris down on her. Even the IDF don't claim the bulldozer had nothing to do with it, so you can take a bow for being even more biased than them, which takes some doing. However, there are no eyewitnesses that say she was not crushed by the bulldozer (at least none cited in the text). "Ran over" is the wrong phrase. I don't think anyone claims that. As it happens, Dooby said he had hit someone. I don't believe we mention that in the text. I've had browser problems, but when I get the article back up, I think I'll include that and source it.Dr Zen 07:23, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Thank you for not reverting. Remember that Dooby said he'd hit someone only according to one of the ISM witnesses. I don't feel it's necessary to say the journalist wasn't present. It's pretty clear from the fact that she's not quoted that we're not regarding her as a primary source. Slim 07:32, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

Intro

Zen, please stop changing the intro. The way you wrote it sounded as though all the eyewitnesses believe the bulldozer ran over or crushed her, and it's only the IDF who are saying it didn't. There were a number of ISM witnesses, plus the two bulldozer drivers, and whoever was in the tank, possibly more than one. There may also be other witnesses we don't know about. Even some of the ISM witnesses don't seem to be sure what happened, and at least one indicates she simply stumbled in front of the bulldozer. Therefore, it's safest to say "some eyewitnesses believe the bulldozer ran over her, while others say it did not." Slim 07:54, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

Good article

After some intenstive editing over the last few days, it seems this article has improved no end. A good, balanced read, as it stands. Dan100 09:30, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, Dan. Slim 21:58, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

killed after kneeling or standing in front of a moving armored

Please do not insert to the intro these types of misleading descriptions that are factually accurate but intended to place blame on Corrie for "lying in front of a moving bulldozer." --Pravda 22:16, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Pravda, this intro was agreed with Zen, who didn't like "confronted." The intro as it stands is absolutely factually correct. You can't change it for "was killed by" because that implies she was hit or run over by the bulldozer, and that is not known to be true. Please leave it as it is. The number of changes this intro has seen is verging on the ridiculous. As it stands, it is purely descriptive with no added POV. The bulldozer was moving, and she either knelt or stood in front of it. You may not like it, but that is what all the eyewitness statements say happened. If you change or add to their statements, you are editorializing i.e. adding POV. Slim 22:25, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
No, I am afraid that the NPOV version is to state that she was killed by a bulldozer. The POV versions try to lay blame on Corrie for getting in the way of the bulldozer or on the bulldozer driver for intentionally running her over. Please do not assume that your POV is the correct POV. Try to work towards neutrality without inserting perspectives and descriptions that support the way you perceive the facts. --Pravda 22:50, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Pravda, I'm not sure if you realise but 'NPOV' stands for neutral point of view, not no point of view. So SlimVirgin's version of the Intro is written in correct Wikipedia style. Dan100 22:27, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
All POVs are adequately covered in the body of the article which is why the intro should be very neutral succinct and devoid of slanted descriptions that tend to support the blame game of one side or the other. If describing Corrie as a peace activist is unacceptable then surely describing her actions as "kneeling in front of a moving bulldozer" is also biased. The intro does not have room for all POVs that are described later in the article and so it should just state the very basic facts; she was killed by a bulldozer. --Pravda 22:50, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Summarizing the statements of eyewitnesses is NPOV because it means we are not adding our own opinions, but are just stating the known facts. It is not a known fact that she was killed BY a bulldozer.
Pravda, this is a matter of commonsense. It is true that she would not have died if the bulldozer had not moved toward her. It is also true that she would not have died had she not knelt or stood in front of it. It would be POV if this article were to blame her entirely for her death. But it would also be POV to imply that she played no role in her own death. The NPOV way is to stick to the descriptions of other people, particularly the eyewitnesses. Slim 23:10, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

Do the eyewitnesses say she was "run over" or do they say she was "crushed" by the bulldozer's blade? Run over implies, at least to me, that the bulldozer passed over her (because we are not meaning it in the sense of "knocked down"). Why are you so insistent on removing the word "crushed"? No one suggests she wasn't crushed by something and that something was either the bulldozer or something the bulldozer moved. I have to protest at an editor who is putting in even more biased wording than any of the "other people" who described the event.Dr Zen 23:16, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You agreed to this wording yesterday. It doesn't say crushed or run over. Please read the witness statements for what they say. Slim 23:20, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
I did not agree the wording you insist on reverting to.Dr Zen 23:24, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
"It is not a known fact that she was killed BY a bulldozer." You think the debris just fell on her as she was walking by?Dr Zen 23:24, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)


  • Which* eyewitness says she was not crushed? The bulldozer driver could not see out of his cab. The other soldiers didn't notice that Corrie was about to be killed because they were "handling" other activists. What medical evidence is "inconclusive"? The autopsy said she was crushed by the blade! The *army* disputed it, as you source, but without presenting *any* evidence. So the evidence is actually conclusive and it is POV to say otherwise. The army said she was hit by a slab of concrete but did not present witness reports (no wonder! It claimed there were no soldier witnesses) nor, so far as I know, a fresh autopsy. It just says so. The intro exactly reports the facts. The eyewitnesses say she was crushed. The army says she was not. The medical evidence (her autopsy) says she was crushed by a blade. The army says she was not. Dr Zen 23:32, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Confronting a bulldozer?

That's not really NPOV, now is it? Why is it so hard to just state the fact in the intro that she was killed by a bulldozer without attributing action on Corrie's part that implies she is responsible for being killed? The rest of the article describes the many points of view that the intro has no space to summarize. --Pravda 22:58, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Because there is disagreement about what actually killed her, as far as I can tell. Jayjg | (Talk) 23:28, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Jayjg has ignored the ongoing discussion and reverted to an earlier wording that caused the dispute in the first place. I think it's fair enough to say that Corrie knelt or stood in front of the bulldozer. All accounts say she did. Dr Zen 23:19, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

She spent the day playing cat and mouse with it; if that's not confronting I don't know what is. And it appears that Dr. Zen is ignoring the actual eyewitness evidence and the article itself, which point out contradictory statements regarding what she was doing, including standing, sitting, kneeling, and lying. Jayjg | (Talk) 23:28, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Jayjg has not reverted or made a recent edit, at least not according to my browser, unless I'm having refresh problems. Slim 23:22, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
I made a small word change, using your word "confronting". Maybe it's been reverted already, who knows. Jayjg | (Talk) 23:28, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
One of us is. I get this as the most recent before mine: [18]Dr Zen 23:26, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Yes I was having refresh problems. I've added that the medical evidence is inconclusive, which is important. Don't you feel that, had she been crushed by the bulldozer, she would have had many more injuries than she did, and the medical evidence would not have been ambiguous? What do these bulldozers weigh? Slim 23:27, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)


The autopsy said she was crushed by the blade, Slim. It did not say she was "run over" by the bulldozer. It says she has injuries consistent with being crushed by the blade. The autopsy, Slim. Not your conjecture or mine. The pathologist's.Dr Zen 23:34, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Meanwhile, your typical blind POV reverts are destroying good and undisputed edits as well. Jayjg | (Talk) 23:35, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

These blind reversions have to stop because, as Jay says, you're reverting undisputed edits too. As we can't agree on the eyewitnesses sentence, and on the medical evidence, I have remove that sentence from the intro, and I am going to look around to try to find a reputable reference for the medical evidence. I'm not comfortable using just one reference (The Olympian) that claims to know what the autopsy said. Slim 23:42, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

Oh I see. When it's your POV, one source will do. When it's the "other side"'s, they must present dozens of sources. *All* the eyewitnesses say she was crushed by the bulldozer. None say otherwise. The army argues, and you have argued, that the driver couldn't see her, and the other soldiers present were too busy to notice that she was in danger. So. You cannot pick and choose to suit your POV. Either we take the eyewitness accounts or we do not.Dr Zen 23:49, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Corrie did confronted the bulldozer. Instead of keeping distance, she tried to block the path of the bulldozer and interfere with its work. She apperntly also tried to climb over the bulldozer, so it is accurate to say she confronted the bulldozer. MathKnight 06:21, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Crushed

All eyewitnesses *and* the IDF say Corrie was "crushed". They disagree over what crushed her but not that she died because of crushing. They agree that the crushing was caused by the action of the bulldozer, although they disagree over whether the crushing was done on purpose or accidentally.

However, the extremist POV pushers who are guarding this page will not allow the introduction to say that she was crushed, even though *no one* except them disputes it.

To be even more biased than the IDF, who have good reason to want the incident described as accidental or Corrie's fault, takes some doing. The action of the editors involved actually disgusts me. You are willing to suppress the truth to pursue your agenda, even that small part of what happened that is accepted as true by *everybody*. You cannot begin to claim to be interested in working towards the goals of Wikipedia. You are here to prevent those goals from being attained. I'm absolutely disgusted with you. You do it on every article. You present the views of Israel, the IDF and their supporters as the truth and revert and contest any other insertions. Your view needs one source -- no matter how tainted that source is (even to the extent of having someone "dispute" the eyewitness accounts who was not present, has not investigated it and has no part, official or otherwise, in the events except for idle curiosity -- none of which prevents you from considering her blog a good source!) -- while another, the good-faith reporting in a reputable paper of the parents of the victim, who were given a copy of the autopsy report, just isn't acceptable.

Look at other articles. In Tom Hurndall, we do not say he was shot by a sniper, but many news sources do. If an Israeli was shot by a Palestinian, you would insist that the Times of London was reputable enough for its description of the shooting to be used. In Arafat you insisted that leaders of nations could not be considered representative of the views of their people; however, Benny Morris is representative of the consensus views of historians, despite being an Israeli. (It seems almost churlish to point out that a neutral source would need to be neither Jewish nor Muslim.) I had to force you to quote him as giving his opinion rather than your giving his opinion as a fact, and even then you included material that had absolutely nothing to do with the subject (unless Spain has moved to the Middle East while I wasn't looking) to muddy the water.Dr Zen 00:17, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

And you express your disgust liberally and at any given opportunity on this and on many other pages, against me and many other editors. I for one am very tired of it. You seem to do very little but cause trouble or get in the middle of trouble that others have started. I told you before that if you were abusive to me once more, I would cease to engage with you. It seems that you're incapable of assuming good faith, or of engaging with people to make constructive compromises. Until you interfered in this page, Pravda and I were making good progress toward NPOV, which I believe would have continued. As I've said before, you can't do here what you do on Usenet. Now please leave me alone. Slim 00:51, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
This page is for discussing the article and issues connected with it, not for you to express your problems with me. Please don't indulge in it again. My comments were entirely to do with this article and the difficulties with editing it. Yours are entirely personal.Dr Zen 01:10, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Actually, SlimVirgin is following official policy, as outlined in Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, Wikipedia:Wikiquette, and Wikipedia:Civility. SlimVirgin is observing your repeated inability to follow these policies. When you repeatedly call editors, extremist POV pushers , and when you repeatedly attack them with comments like, The action of the editors involved actually disgusts me. You are willing to suppress the truth to pursue your agenda...You cannot begin to claim to be interested in working towards the goals of Wikipedia. You are here to prevent those goals from being attained..., you are in no position to hypocritically claim that the page is not for expressing problems with other editors when that is in fact exactly what you have been doing all along. Please follow the policies listed above:Discuss the facts and how to express them, not the attributes of the other party. --Viriditas | Talk 06:36, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
"extremist POV pushers"; "The action of the editors involved actually disgusts me"; "You are willing to suppress the truth to pursue your agenda"; "I'm absolutely disgusted with you". These are only a small selection from this page of your personal attacks against me and several other editors, on many pages involving different subject matter. Perhaps you're so used to doing it that you don't notice it anymore. I'm not going to get into a row about it. I've asked you to stop doing it. Slim 01:19, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)

"During her stay she communicated with Danny ... During her stay she communicated with Danny"

Looks like we have a repeating paragraph about "Danny" in all the confusion. Furthermore, it is interesting to see how this NPOV paragraph is subtly morphing into a more POV version in just a few hours: "Through February and March, according to ISM activists and e-mails Corrie sent to her family, she participated in a variety of actions, including protesting Israeli army demolitions of Palestinian homes by acting as a human shield; placing herself between Palestinian civilians and Israeli troops; protecting Palestinian wells from the Israeli army; criticizing the Bush administration for alleged complicity in the conflict; and demonstrating against the 2003 invasion of Iraq, where she burned a paper-drawn U.S. flag."

"Through February and March, according to ISM activists and e-mails Corrie sent to her family, she participated in a variety of actions, including protesting Israeli army demolitions of Palestinian homes in the militant stronghold of Rafah, by acting as a human shield; placing herself between Palestinians (missing civilians) and Israeli troops; protecting wells from the Israeli army; (missing criticizing the Bush administration for alleged complicity in the conflict; and demonstrating against the 2003 invasion of Iraq, where she burned a paper flag) and burning a paper U.S. flag during a demonstration. " --Pravda 01:24, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

HI Pravda, a lot of the previous version was either unsourced, or irrelevant to her death. That she criticized George Bush is not connected to her death; and also to describe that as "participating in a variety of actions" sounds odd, like she went to Rafah to do that. Maybe we should find a direct quote from ISM regarding what she was doing, and attribute it to them? Slim 01:33, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
If criticizing Bush and the Iraq war is not relevant to her death, why is burning the US flag? Why is describing Rafah as a "militant stronghold" relevant? Why are the Palestinians she was defending not allowed to be described as civilians? It appears that there is an effort by some editors to insert context only if it sheds a negative light on Corrie and her actions while also deleting context that imparts a positively on Corrie. I think this reflects an effort to "push" one POV over another. --Pravda 01:45, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I didn't put in that she burned the U.S. flag. The reason I left it in is that there's a photograph of her doing it (which I also didn't put in), and also because, when I was reading around for sources for these edits, quite a few articles said that her death didn't attract as much coverage in the U.S. as might have been expected because of the flag-burning episode, which apparently lost her some sympathy, so it seemed relevant. The U.S. flag-burning photograph got more coverage than any other, so far as I recall.

On the civilian point, I don't think anyone knows who all the people were she was defending. One editor wrote "Palestinian civilians" and another wrote "Palestinian terrorists," so I changed it to "Palestinians" to make it neutral. The Israeli argument is that these were people who were allowing their homes to be used for weapons-smuggling. We have no way of assessing that claim. We also have no way to assess the claim that these were families who were not involved in the violence. We are editing from a position of ignorance and our article should reflect that.

There's no effort by me to insert material that makes her look bad, but similarly I don't want to keep material just because it makes her look good. I want to try to present a version that is as neutral as we can make it. If you'll work with me on that, I'd be grateful. Slim 02:13, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)


Pravda, I've deleted the repeated Danny paragraph, and I'll look around for a quote from ISM (or a mainstream newspaper) about what she was doing in Rafah, and then I'll quote that instead of the unattributed paragraph, if that's okay with you. Slim 01:37, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
Yes, that's good, but a stronger effort at NPOVing this article would be welcome. --Pravda 01:45, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Why don't you say here what you feel is POV, and we can try to reach a compromise? Slim 01:47, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
That she criticized George Bush is not connected to her death

However, it is connected to her "activities in Gaza", and it is connected to "Rachel Corrie". As this is an article on Rachel Corrie, not on Rachel Corrie's death, it is therefore relevant. Reinstating. Martin 23:56, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Introduction has been horribly POVed

And that's just the beginning of a concerted effort that has badly slanted the entire article. I've been reviewing the history of the introduction and would like you to see how badly it has been degrading. It's really discouraging to see how this honorable woman's memory is being disgraced. I really would rather not be a part of it anymore so please feel free to carry on. --Pravda 02:06, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • The day after she was killed this was the full article:

"Rachel Corrie (? - March 16, 2003), an American college student, was a member of the International Solidarity Movement protesting Israeli action in the Israel-Palestinian conflict. She was killed by an Israeli bulldozer in Rafah, Gaza.

While speaking via a loudspeaker and wearing a red coat, in front of a physician's home which the Israelis intended to bulldoze, Corrie fell down. A bulldozer then ran over her twice. Later, as a group of people gathered, a man was shot and killed by the Israel Defence Forces.

Corrie was a senior at Evergreen State College in Olympia, Washington."

  • A week after she was killed:

"Rachel Corrie (1979 - March 16, 2003) was an American peace activist who was crushed to death while attempting to block an Israel Defense Forces (IDF) bulldozer in a Gaza Strip refugee camp.

Corrie grew up in Olympia, Washington, and graduated from Capital High School. She had been a senior at the Evergreen State College in Olympia, where she studied the arts and international relations. She took a leave of absence to participate in resistance against the IDF as a member of the Palestinian-led International Solidarity Movement (ISM). In her home town, she was known in the local peace movement and an active member of the Olympia Movement for Justice and Peace.

Friends describe Corrie as athletically slender with blond hair and thoughtful, intelligent eyes. She played soccer, gardened and loved the poems of Pablo Neruda. She was the daughter of Craig Corrie, an insurance executive, and Cindy Corrie, a school volunteer and flutist."

  • April 2003:

"Rachel Corrie (1979 - March 16, 2003) was an American peace activist who was crushed to death during the Al-Aqsa Intifada, while attempting to block an Israel Defense Forces (IDF) bulldozer in a Gaza Strip refugee camp.

  • From December, 2003:

"Rachel Corrie (April 10, 1979 - March 16, 2003) was an American activist who was crushed to death when protesting Israeli occupation of the Gaza Strip.

As a member of the International Solidarity Movement (ISM), she traveled to Rafah during the Al-Aqsa Intifada and tried to block an Israel Defense Forces (IDF) Caterpillar D9 bulldozer. She was fatally wounded during this incident."

  • From April 2004:

Rachel Corrie (April 10, 1979 - March 16, 2003) was a member of the International Solidarity Movement (ISM) who traveled to Rafah in the Gaza Strip during the Al-Aqsa Intifada. While protesting the Israeli occupation, she was was fatally wounded when she tried to block an Israel Defense Forces (IDF) Caterpillar D9 bulldozer.

Her death sparked controversy, with various advocates scrambling to blame it on the IDF, the ISM, "Palestinian terror", and on Corrie herself.

  • From October 2004:

"Rachel Corrie (April 10, 1979 - March 16, 2003 was a member of the International Solidarity Movement (ISM) who was run over and killed by an Israeli soldier operated bulldozer while she was protesting Israeli demolitions of Palestinian homes in Rafah in the Gaza Strip.

Her death sparked controversy because she was a peaceful protester and a U.S. citizen, yet the U.S. did not conduct or even demand an official investigation and Israel has not held anyone responsible for her death."

  • Yesterday:

"Rachel Corrie (April 10, 1979—March 16, 2003) was a member of the International Solidarity Movement (ISM) who was killed when she confronted an Israeli soldier-operated bulldozer while protesting Israeli demolitions of Palestinian homes in Rafah in the Gaza Strip.

Her death sparked controversy, in part because she was the first Western protester and U.S. citizen to be killed in the Arab-Israeli conflict, and in part because of the highly politicized nature of the conflict itself. Advocates on both sides scrambled to blame her death on the Israel Defense Force (IDF), the ISM, the Palestinians, and on Corrie herself. "

  • Now:

Rachel Corrie (April 10, 1979—March 16, 2003) was a member of the International Solidarity Movement (ISM) who was killed after kneeling or standing in front of a moving armored Caterpillar D9 bulldozer operated by an Israeli soldier clearing land in Rafah, Gaza Strip.

Her death sparked controversy, in part because she was a U.S. citizen and the first Western activist to be killed in the Arab-Israeli conflict, and in part because of the highly politicized nature of the conflict itself. Her death has been blamed on the Israel Defense Force (IDF), the ISM, the Palestinians, and on Corrie herself.


I would say most neutral people would say there's been a move toward NPOV not away from it. How could any neutral editor judge, ONE day after her death, before any autopsy had taken place, and before anyone had investigated, that:" She was killed by an Israeli bulldozer in Rafah, Gaza. . . . While speaking via a loudspeaker and wearing a red coat, in front of a physician's home which the Israelis intended to bulldoze, Corrie fell down. A bulldozer then ran over her twice."
This make it sound as though the bulldozer was actively chasing her. And "Friends describe Corrie as athletically slender with blond hair and thoughtful, intelligent eyes. She played soccer, gardened and loved the poems of Pablo Neruda." I'd love to see how fast you'd delete a similar description of the Israeli soldiers: "Friends of the bulldozer operators say they are handsome young men, with kind smiles, a great love for their children, and a passion for Shakespeare." Come on. These things may be true, but you can't justify them in an encylopedia article. Slim 02:23, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
  • All* eyewitnesses say she was crushed as a result of the bulldozer's action. *None* suggests she was killed in any other way. The driver said he did not see her. The other soldiers present say they were "handling" other activists. Dr Zen 23:06, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I must say, Alberuni, I found this Pravda sockpuppet much more pleasant to work with than your other sockpuppets, particularly Wiesenthaler. You might note, you actually got a lot more co-operation with it as well. Are you simply abandoning it for RomperRoomReject then? Jayjg | (Talk) 21:00, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

By sheer coincidence the article is protected on Jayjg's version. Ho hum.Dr Zen 03:33, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It's not my version; it was the collaborative effort of at least a dozen editors. And what are you trying to say here? Don't just insinuate, spell it out. Jayjg | (Talk) 03:44, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Anon User:66.120.4.209

Please stop deleting material without discussion. She was not "run over" by the bulldozer. If you read the article, you'll see there is disagreement as to whether the blade hit her, or whether she was hit by a concrete slab. But no one is suggesting the bulldozer actually ran her over. Her injuries would have been much worse had this been the case, and she would likely have died instantly.

Also, the Mother Jones article link that you keep deleting is one of the most comprehensive articles published about this case. It definitely ought to stay. Slim 17:54, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

It seems to have come under criticism for being somewhat innaccurate and/or anti-Palestinian. I'm tempted to include a link to Phan Nuygen's response. Would that be reasonable? Martin 01:02, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Intro change

The current intro has degraded since I last looked. I have restored an earlier version, with some modifications.

  1. Lack of full stops. I split the sentence into two.
  2. Lack of clarity on why she was in Gaza.
  3. Apparently people are blaming "the Palestinians" for Corrie's death. If true, this would be a racist minority, akin to the equally racist minority who blame Corrie's death on "the Jews" or "the Israelis". I would prefer that the intro not pander to such extremists.
  4. Speculation about why the death sparked controversy. I could offer alternate speculations. No such speculation should be in the intro. I have moved it to "Reactions to Corrie's death".
  5. "standing or kneeling" - again, some info on WHY she was in that place, and less focus on her exact posture at the time. Changed to "attempted to block".
  6. "clearing land" - is one of a number of reasons given for the bulldozer's location by various authorities at various times. It's also alleged it was trying to demolish houses, for example. I settled for "conducting military operations". I pondered removing any reference to the reason it was there, but figured that would be as bad as removing any reference to why Corrie was there.

I hope this explains my change. Martin 23:47, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hi Martin, I like your new intro. The problem with this article is that it was changed by a user called HistoryBuffEr and I don't know how extensively because I haven't checked the entire edit history but enough, it seems, to have made a POV difference. When I saw it a couple of weeks ago it was horribly POV, and so I did a slight rewrite of the existing page, when really I should have gone into the history and reverted to a much earlier one, or used an earlier one as a base. I was intending to do that once I've finished a couple of other things I have to do, and in fact last night I went through a lot of the edit history and saw your previous versions, which are much more straightforward and factual. What I was trying to avoid in the intro is "was run over by" because it's not clear that anything ran her over. At one point I had "an incident with a bulldozer," which didn't work, and after many changes, we ended up with "standing or kneeling in front of a moving bulldozer," which is accurate but sounds fake. SlimVirgin 00:06, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the review, Slim.
I'm just looking through changes between the last version I edited, and the current version. I think there's been a fair few good changes, but also a few which I'm not so keen on. I also need to check through the Talk page a little. :) Martin 00:16, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I think your changes are reasonable Martin, and perhaps they can defuse the argument about the exact wording of the opening paragraph. Slim, I think the article could still use a good NPOVing, particularly around the sections which describe her death; as you know, HistoryBuffEr's version relied on only one of the many eyewitness accounts. Jayjg | (Talk) 00:19, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"activities in Gaza" change

  • I reinstated a list. The paragraph with no bullet points was unnecessarily hard to read.
  • I reinstated that she did a couple of thing to protest the war in Iraq. Not relevant to her death, perhaps, but certainly relevant to the person Rachel Corrie, which is the article title.
  • "protecting a well" -> "at a well". We don't know whether there was a threat at the time of that photo, AFAICT. Playing safe for NPOV.
  • Reinstating explanation of why she was documenting stuff - "observer". Her own words were "human rights observer", but that might be biased, even in scare quotes, so just "observer"
  • Clarified that the smuggling tunnels report was part of her "observer" role, not part of her emails to Danny.
  • I removed an "according to" attribution for her activities, because they're undisputed. Also, there's evidence other than ISM witnesses and emails for most of them (eg, the Associated Press photo).

Again, hope that explains the changes. Martin 00:11, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

structural problem

I think there's something of a structural problem in the article. We have: Reactions to Corrie's death and Responsibility for Corrie's death, but many of the reactions are trying to apportion responsibility. My current thought, therefore, is to instead have the breakdown "responsibility" and "memorials". Martin 01:22, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've had a tentative first split, which has thrown into sharp contrast that we appear to have nothing on her proper funeral, or the Olympia peace vigil - only on stuff in Gaza. Dang. Martin 01:30, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Response to changes

Hi Martin, here are my thoughts on your changes:

  • I prefer your intro.
  • I like the way you've restructured it.
  • I don't like the bullet points regarding her activities in Gaza. That was the first thing I got rid of, and I intended to go back into the article and rewrite that section. This is about the death of Rachel Corrie, not her life, so we should probably stick to issues directly related to her death. With this list of activities, particularly if it's bulleted, she sounds as though she was almost on an official mission; and there's no third-party source to confirm that she did these things.
  • I don't like the description of her mother as a school volunteer and flutist. School volunteer means she doesn't work for a living, but flutist/flautist suggests she's a professional, so it shouldn't come second; and if she's not a professional, it shouldn't be mentioned. She's not the subject of the story; talking about her hobbies or interests starts to look POV.
  • I don't like including what Corrie had studied the year before her death; that has no relevance that I can see, and there's no reference given.
  • I was going to rewrite the Joseph Smith statement to include some quotes from him, but not his entire description. I looked recently at the edit history and found some good descriptions of what happened based on his and the other eyewitness statements, but written in the third person. I agree with Jayjg that some of the other eyewitness statements need to be brought in. I only worked on the Joseph Smith one because I inherited it from the HistoryBuffEr version, except he had made it even more POV by interspersing it with links from electonric intifada and others, so I cut the extra stuff out and pared it down to the Smith statement, but I didn't intend it to stay that way.

Anyway, these are just my rough thoughts. SlimVirgin 05:23, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)

Martin, I'd like to make some changes to the article based on the issues I raised above. Let me know if you have any objection. SlimVirgin 10:36, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

I don’t see why the article must not contain any information about her life. She was a student, and the names of her courses seem reasonable and harmless data. They are verbatim from an address by an Evergreen professor, near the end of this link [19]. Meggar 06:42, 2005 Jan 15 (UTC)

This is about the death of Rachel Corrie, not her life

I disagree. I believe that the section entitled "Corrie's death", and later sections, are about Corrie's death. The other sections are about her life.

there's no third-party source to confirm that she did these things.

There are photographs, which are hard to fake. There are contemperaneous emails and reports from Corrie, and from the ISM. There are the recollections of Palestinians on the ground. On a more general note, we know that she was an ISM member. We know that the things she reported doing (and the ISM reported her doing) are precisely the sort of things that ISM members do. For example, various journalists have accompanied the ISM during their activities, including some who met Corrie in person. Meanwhile, IDF sources indicate that they regularly got/get interference in their military operations from the ISM, which is why ISM members are arrested and deported where possible.

Does that answer your question? Martin 14:19, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I would like to get rid of the bullet points because this is not a press release; describe the statements of Joseph and the other eyewitnesses, not just pick out one then recount it verbatim; and I don't agree that this article is about her life, because had she not died, no one would have written about her. I had the same problem when I wrote Jeremiah Duggan, another young person who died in controversial circumstances, and I had to be careful not to "personalize" him too much: it's POV without meaning to be, because unfair to the other "side" in the controversy. SlimVirgin 16:58, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)

Many authors have articles only because they have written books, but it seems reasonable to me to include a potted biography of an author's life in their article, not just information on their books. Similarly, Corrie is notable for her death, but I think it's appropriate to include information from her earlier life. I also think such information is interesting. Reading about an author, I wonder what in his life influenced his cynical approach to politics. Reading about an activist, I wonder what in her life influenced her to put her life at risk.

I can agree there is a danger in including personal information that is uninteresting, simply because we have it. I can also agree there is a danger of sentimentalisation, which would be expressing a Point Of View. If we steer clear of those dangers, I don't think personal information should cause a problem. Martin 13:07, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree, but this article includes irrelevant and uninteresting info, like her mother playing the flute in her spare time. It's silly to include information like that, and it makes the article read like a press release. SlimVirgin 23:53, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
describe the statements of Joseph and the other eyewitnesses, not just pick out one then recount it verbatim

I absolutely agree with that sentiment. Are you referring to the current section entitled "Corrie's death"? Martin 13:07, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes. It relies very heavily on a re-write by the user HistoryBuffEr, who was banned, among other things, for POV editing. He preferred one particular eyewitness version of the events because it was the one which was most negative about Israel. Regarding what influence Corrie to put her life at risk, I doubt she thought her life was at risk; activists in Israel are quite bold, but you don't find them going to Sudan or similar places, where their lives would truly be at risk. Jayjg (talk) 15:30, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I'm not interested in your opinion about Corrie's risk assessment. This is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox. Martin 00:40, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Mother Jones Article

Since the Mother Jones article is relied on so heavily by some, in the interests of NPOV the ISM response to that article should also be included:

http://tron.phpwebhosting.com/~ism/pressreleases/PR_16Sep03_12_08_24BethlehemISMMediaOffice.php

Laughing!

"She was killed after she attempted to block an Israel Defense Forces (IDF) Caterpillar D9 bulldozer conducting military operations in Rafah."

This is NPOV? You don't even say what killed her. Perhaps she had a stroke? A heart attack? Was killed by bees?

At least, though, you've managed to convey that it was wholly her own fault.

A proud height for Wikipedia!

Hi Dr Zen. ;-) SlimVirgin 05:31, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
Kind of reminds me of the time Dr Zen insisted the children in the Ma'alot massacre weren't "killed", but rather just "died" [20]. He couldn't even bring himself to say they died on the Talk: page, instead just referred to their "mode of deceasing." [21] We should probably follow his lead here and insist that the article say "She died after she attempted to block etc." After all, as he points out, Saying that they "were killed" implies strongly that someone did it on purpose. Saying that they "died" does not make any judgment. Still, I wonder what Zen thought those poor children died (err "deceased") of; perhaps they all had strokes? Heart attacks? Killed by bees? Well, at least he managed to convey that it wasn't the terrorists fault. Jayjg (talk) 05:53, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It's unclear (from the article) whether the arabs planned or were prepared to kill the children or if they were killed in the crossfire of the botched operation. It's likely that some people belive that they did not, but that they intended just to use them as a bargaining chip. (One could discuss the morality of that, but it's a different issue.) Using the term "died" is a poor way to represent this, though I think you could take it in better faith and be less scornful.

Similarly with Corrie, except that the evidence suggests that the bulldozer killed her; the situation is less ambiguous. Whilst we should present that evidence without comment, it does not address the content of the introduction. The introduction should say that evidence has been presented and by whom, and what claims have been made, and by whom, e.g. the Israeli army has denied X and said Y, but has yet to present any evidence, if that is the case. Mr. Jones 08:46, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

There is a video footage which shows Rachel Standing, speaking into a loud speaker, asking the bulldozer to stop. If he could not 'see her', he could obviously hear her. Yet he proceeded. She was NOT sitting in the video footage. She was evidently standing, and consequently struck. It is actually laughable that your Zionist contributors do not even question this yet jump to protect the IDF's brutal actions blindly. It is sad too. Please refer to website for details: http://www.rachelcorrie.org/memorials.htm -Z A

I want you to be in the cockpit of one of those gigantic D-9 bulldozers and try to hear somone outside the thick, bullet-proof, glass encasing when you have the noisy motor plus the shovel and earth being moved about. He definitely couldnt see her, I also doubt he could hear her. -user:Eliram

If the operator of a bulldozer cannot see what is directly in front of the blade, correct operation of the bulldozer is impossible. Nobody would ever build a bulldozer that way. Therefore the claim he couldn't see her when she was in front of the blade is false. However, it is plausible that he couldn't see her after she fell down. --Zero 05:05, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

The edit wars seem to have finally settled into a nicely NPOV article. Is it time to remove the NPOV tag?

As a long time lurker on this page, why not take off the NPOV notice? --Mrfixter 01:49, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I don't have any objection for that. A lot of work invensted here by many, and the result turned out quite well. MathKnight 20:59, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The problem is that the page still relies extensively on just one account of the incident. Jayjg (talk) 21:21, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, that's simply not a good reason to retain a dispute tag. Most of our articles could benefit from incorporating more sources -- hence the "wiki way" of always encouraging further additions. Are there specific areas where you feel the article is not NPOV? If so, please explain so they can be worked on. If not, the tag should go. RadicalSubversiv E 01:57, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Aside from my SlimVirgin's comments below, please read through the Talk: page here to understand the full range of issues different people have with the current version of this article. Jayjg (talk) 15:39, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The last comments before this discussion are almost a month old -- a lot of work has been done on the article in the interim. If you want to preserve a disputed tag for months at a time on an article that's undergoing significant change, I don't think it's unreasonable that you be asked to occassionally state your current objections, as SlimVirgin has done below, rendering this whole discussion somewhat academic. (I'm not sure I agree with them, but that's a separate matter.) RadicalSubversiv E 17:51, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
While the comments were old, none of the work done on the article addressed the issues presented. Jayjg (talk) 18:52, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I also think NPOV tag should go. Clearly, both sides have been handled. Really, when will some people stop insisting it is NPOV? Wk muriithi

I feel the article is POV, and I'd like to try a rewrite when I have some time. It's been a couple of weeks since I looked at it, but I've laid out some of the issues above. Basically, parts of the article read like an ISM press release. I don't like the bulleted list of activities she engaged in, because it's irrelevant; because there's no way of verifying any of it; and because the bulleted style looks like a press release. The only things about her that are relevant before her death are (a) she was an ISM activist; (b) she travelled to Gaza to engage in demonstrations/protests; (c) some of those protests involved acting as a human shield to prevent what she thought might be bulldozing of houses; and then (d) what happened that day. I also feel the witness statements should be presented in a more analytic manner, by discussing what each of them says about each issue, because they do contradict each other, rather than relying on Smith for the bulk of the description. That's a big job though, which is part of the reason I've delayed tackling it. I think we go overboard with photographs of her, and that we say too much about memorials. Our job is not to contribute to making her a hero or to denigrating her, but simply to describe the circumstances surrounding her death. SlimVirgin 02:32, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

In line with the above, I slightly reduced the memorial section and reduced the photo to fit the section; removed the photo from the references section as it wasn't serving to illustrate any point; and removed one of the photos in the section about her death, as there were two, both taken at roughly the same time by the looks of it, just from different angles. SlimVirgin 00:52, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
I've also changed that Baird introduced a bill, because it was a resolution, and I've linked to a proper source instead of the article that was there. I also removed: "Commenting on the report, Richard LeBaron, the U.S. deputy chief of mission in Tel Aviv, said that 'there are several inconsistencies worthy of note.' [22]" The article linked to was written by a family member and I wasn't able to find independent evidence of LeBaron having said this. The only non-family sources I could find were Wikipedia mirror sites. If someone can find confirmation that he said this, by all means reinsert it. SlimVirgin 07:33, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
I've merged Early life and Activities in Gaza into a Background section, which covers everything up to the day of her death. I got rid of the bullet points, and shortened that section to give a general idea of what she was doing: the details are not relevant to her death. I deleted the paragraph about watching cartoons and Gummi bears also because it's irrelevant and arguably POV. I also deleted the correspondence with Danny, as it isn't relevant to her death, though I was less sure of this than the Gummi bear part, so if someone wants to argue for its inclusion, fair enough. Finally, I deleted this sentence: "She obstructed IDF demolition operations in Rafah": do we know that she actually obstructed demolitions, or did she obstruct or attempt to obstruct what she believed were demolitions? That might make a difference to how she viewed what she was doing on the day of her death, so we should find a source. SlimVirgin 09:57, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

I still don't like the remorseless focus on her death as the sole subject of the article, and the removal of all content unrelated to that issue. I feel that an encyclopedic biography should provide a broader picture than we are providing here. In particular, the current article is unhelpful to readers seeking a greater understanding of the ISM, and the activities and interests of a typical ISM member, where prior versions were more helpful. To me, the more routine aspects of ISM life are just as interesting as the circumstances of her death. I appreciate that they are unimportant to folks only interested in slagging off the other side, but I think we should consider non-partisan readers in our writing a little more.

But this isn't meant to be a biography really. Sadly, she is notable only for her death. This was also the case with Jeremiah Duggan, and I had to be careful there for the same reasons. I take your point about the details giving information about ISM, though bear in mind there is another article about them. I suppose my main concern is that she is painted as a heroic figure with no faults, perfect family, watching cartoons with children and so on. Then she comes into contact with an evil Israeli and dies. If you feel there's a need for more background, by all means add it, but it would be good if you could keep the tone and content very factual, so that there's no good versus evil implication. SlimVirgin 02:38, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

The article has lost background information on Corrie's early life and activities in Gaza, as this information is deemed not relevant to her death, and might make some readers sympathetic to Corrie. However, it has retained information (and a photo) on her flag burning protest against the Iraq war, which is likewise not relevant to her death, and might make some readers hostile to Corrie. I would prefer to err on the side of including more information - both that which might prejudice some readers towards Corrie, and that which might prejudice them against Corrie.

I wanted to remove the flag burning photograph too, and only didn't because I'd already removed others. I'd be fine with removing it. SlimVirgin 02:38, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

Corrie's parents's jobs indicate something about her social grouping. Her activities in college indicate something about her academic interests. Both should be kept, IMO.

I disagree and don't see why her social grouping matters; and knowing that she studied (as I recall) international studies doesn't tell me anything. And we don't even know what's true, because her death has become a propaganda tool, so clearly we're not going to be told if in fact she flunked all her classes or whatever. I feel bad objecting to all of this, because normally I prefer more information to less. SlimVirgin 02:38, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

Clearly, I have a bias, as do most commentators. However, you have also removed information that helps folks with the opposite bias. In particular, Corrie writing about smuggling tunnels indicates that she was aware that some houses in Rafah were being used for this purpose. Some pro-Corrie advocates have erroneously argued that she was unaware of the smuggling, and we should be clear on this. Martin

Yes, point taken. SlimVirgin 02:38, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
do we know that she actually obstructed demolitions

If I understand you, you're suggesting that all the bulldozers she obstructed may have been bulldozing fields and things, and none of them were clearing houses? That seems pretty unlikely to me, but I suppose I could trawl through her emails to demonstrate conclusively, if you genuinely think it's a possibility. Martin

I don't know how many bulldozers she had confronted, or whether she'd witnessed any demolitions, or even whether any demolitions were going on during the period she was there. Look, I don't want to be obstructive here. If you can find a way to re-add this, keeping it dry, factual, and relevant, then I'll probably be okay with it. I'd very much prefer to leave the bullet points out, and not to add any photos back or memorial information though. Let me know if that would be okay with you. SlimVirgin 02:38, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
I did find a reference in a previous page version to a house demolition she wrote about in one of her e-mails: "Corrie's death was foreshadowed by an e-mail she had sent a month earlier where she wrote "[We] stood in the path of the bulldozer and were physically pushed with the shovel backwards, taking shelter in a house. The bulldozer then proceeded on its course, demolishing one side of the house with [us] inside." That was all I was wondering about: whether she'd actually witnessed one. I hope I'm not being too difficult here, and I apologize if I am; it's just that this article has been a bit fraught. Best, SlimVirgin 05:13, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

Lawsuit

Corrie's family is suing Israel [23]. Someone might summarise. --Zero 00:13, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I suspect someone might. Jayjg (talk) 00:32, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I am surprised the family is even suing Catipiller. I suppect they will not get far on that one. Zscout370 (talk) 01:44, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Explanation of revert (March 23)

I reverted the addition from the following reason:

  1. The rewording about "potential house demolition" - the ISM claimed the IDF operation was house demolitions, and it is likely that Rachel believed that this is indeed was the operation aim. However, the IDF explicitly stated that this operation was not intended to demolish house but to clear "no man's land" against IEDs and smuggling tunnels, moreover - no house was demolished in that incident. So, the current wording "what she believe was house demolition" is NPOV and best describing the situation.
  2. The following addition

    Although protests like this are certain to work in her home country, it appears Corrie was naïvely generous and bravely unwilling to protect herself. She refused to adhere to the social convention of a region which does not commonly permit nonviolent demonstrations to be heard, especially from outsiders that have been warned away from potentially fatal interference within armed conflict. This being the general atmosphere of the area, none who were involved on any side of this dispute have publicly shown remorse in relation to how their presence in the matter had contributed to her death, yet insist on pointing the finger at others including the person who died. This is no show of respect to the dead, for many parts of the world. There have been no admissions of guilt by parties in how they allowed it to happen, whilst there is excessively insensitive and irresponsible sensationalism.

    is highly POV.

MathKnight 07:48, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Not to mention original research. Jayjg (talk) 16:22, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

IndyMedia link has good photos

I didn't see them at any other site. --Powergrid 03:48, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It has a half dozen photos with POV commentary; doesn't add much to the article. The link you keep deleting, on the other hand, has links to dozens of articles on the subject. Jayjg (talk) 03:51, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Like I said the Indymedia photos you keep deleting are quite unique and deserve to be seen. The commentary is no more POV than the commentary on the site landofisrael.info that you keep returning. Is there an editing rule that says POV links are not allowed? By the way, you are violating the 3 revert rule by making the same revision repeatedly in a 24 hour period. --Powergrid 03:58, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Define "quite unique" and "deserve to be seen". 6 low quality photos with rabidly POV commentary does not make for an encyclopedic link. Your other comments are incorrect as well. Jayjg (talk) 04:06, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
"Quite unique" means that I have not seen them elsewhere. If you can find them elsewhere, let's use them. "Deserve to be seen" means that they contribute to the overall understanding of how Rachel Corrie was killed. Now you should define what you mean by "rabidly POV commentary" and what specific criteria you use to determine what you consider to be an "encyclopedic link." Your edits reflect an unhealthy subjective assessment where the rabidly POV commentary of landofisrael.info is acceptably encyclopedic but that of Indymedia.org is not. --Powergrid 04:16, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
If we're going to use those photos, how about using this link instead http://www.peacewithrealism.org/corrie.htm], which has the "undoctored" version of the photos and the newspaper retractions about the misuse of the photos that gave deceptive timeline, and the false impression that the pictures were all of the same bulldozer for propaganda purposes. --MPerel( talk | contrib) 04:20, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
The Indymedia site [24] has 9 photos, with at least 4 showing Rachel on the day she was killed. Your suggested site has only a couple of those photos and the text is rabidly POV in the other extreme, calling the peace protestors "enablers of terrorism", etc. --Powergrid 04:42, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the value is of a site with doctored photos and demonstrably false captions which have been retracted by more credible news sources, unless one wants to present a certain spin. Also, can you explain what additional information is conveyed by the "at least 4 [pictures] showing Rachel on the day she was killed" that is not already conveyed by this article? Finally, the link you keep trying to delete actually links to over 40 different articles on the subject. Jayjg (talk) 17:26, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
(edit conflict; typed this before I saw MPerel's edit): Powergrid, I reverted your edit because you're deleting a useful link, and also because the collection of photographs (and I think all these photos are contained in the other links) contains some very POV commentary, so it's a bit borderline as to whether we should link to it: this article should neither lionize nor demonize her. If these photographs don't already exist in the external links (I'm pretty sure they do, or used to), then I wonder whether there's a source for them somewhere minus the commentary? SlimVirgin (talk) 04:22, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
(two edit conflicts!) By your criterion almost every photograph in the world is "quite unique". What exactly do you think the contribute to the overall understanding of how Rachel Corrie died that is not found in the article? Captions like "there can be no doubt that the Israeli bulldozer driver could clearly see Rachel and that this was no accident" and "Rachel's skull and rib cage were totally crushed by the US made and Israeli manned bulldozer (which is a US taxpayer's gift to Israel)" are rabidly POV commentary. Jayjg (talk) 04:24, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I don't think there is a rule that the links have to meet some NPOV standard. The Wikipedia article is supposed to be NPOV but the links should reflect all POVs. You and Jayjg and MPerel object to the POV text in the links so you are censoring it and the pictures that are not available elsewhere. You prefer a pro-Israeli landofisrael that is rabidly POV or captions on the pictures calling them misleading hoaxes. Spin! --Powergrid 04:42, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
MPerel also makes a good point; the site uses photographs of two-different bulldozers at two different times and distorted perspective to prove its claim. The POV commentary should have been a clue that the site not reliable. Jayjg (talk) 04:27, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
And compare side to side the photos in Powergrid's link to the link I gave. The one's in his are purposely doctored to make it appear the bulldozers in the two picture are the same bulldozer. --MPerel( talk | contrib) 04:29, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
You're right! A dishonest propaganda site. Jayjg (talk) 04:40, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The photographs are not doctored and they do not claim to be anything that they are not. They show Rachel at various times before and after she was killed. The graphic and bloody ones are not shown on pro-Israel sites. The truth is ugly and there is an attempt here to sanitize and censor it with a pro-Israel spin. That much is clear. --Powergrid 04:42, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The real ugly truth is that this poor girl who died so tragically is being used as a propaganda pawn. Look at how your link misrepresents the before picture (4th pic down): "From this photo, there can be no doubt that the Israeli bulldozer driver could clearly see Rachel and that this was no accident", even though major newspapers like CNN and the New York Times printed retractions about these same misleading Reuters photos: (NY Times retraction: "A picture caption on March 17 with an article about an American protester who was crushed by an Israeli Army bulldozer in Gaza referred incorrectly to the bulldozer shown. It was one that the protester, Rachel Corrie, had earlier tried to stop from destroying a Palestinian home. It was not the one that killed her.")[25] Also note how the after picture (5th pic down) in your link has been squeezed and doctored to change the bulldozer to look more like the one in the first picture. Yet the same set of before/after pictures here clearly show different bulldozers. Your proposed link is simply not credible due to its obvious intent to mislead. And let’s not pretend that bloody pictures and this myth are being propagated out of any compassion for Rachel. Rather, misrepresenting the chain of events that led to her death so that it appears she was intentionally murdered by an Israeli bulldozer driver conveniently serves the useful purpose of fomenting anti-Israel hatred. There is spin alright, and it's certainly anti-Israel. --MPerel( talk | contrib) 09:28, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Powergrid, was it the photos of the bulldozers or the photos of Rachel Corrie after she was hit that you particularly wanted to link to? If the latter, they can almost certainly be found elsewhere, and I'm pretty sure we did used to link to them because I've definitely seen them before. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:46, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
Here are the same pics without the commentary. [26] SlimVirgin (talk) 18:01, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
Hmm, yes. The fact that the "before" and "after" bulldozers are different is more visible in the undoctored photos, though the commentary (though not a blatantly POV), implies they are. Jayjg (talk) 21:05, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As far as I concern, keep this link. However, This link should be put in context, which explains the (mis)caption issue. There is no doubt that the link contain false information (as was proved when news agencies issued a correction about the captions) and this should be noted right next to the link. MathKnight 22:08, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Gaza activist's life becomes play

Apparently, someone has a play with her being the main character. This is what someone summarized the play as "But what the play does give is a uniquely personal account of the short life of someone who felt driven to help the oppressed - a quest that took her to a land far from home, into a dispute she knew little about." [27] Wk muriithi

The information about the play is already in the article, Wk. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:20, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

Picture On Top

I'm not responsible for removing the Rachelcorrie07.jpg (I had put in my own Rachelcorriefb.jpg), but I have put in a TRULY NPOV picture now which simply combines the two. KaintheScion

Now that Slimvirgin's abuse of admin powers has been resolved: the Rachel Corrie image as it starts the article needs to be either (a) removed, (b) moved lower into the article ("below the fold"), or (c) replaced with a montage of itself and her flag-burning photograph.

Otherwise, the article is slanted from the beginning. If the flag-burning image can be claimed (and you'll get no argument here) to cast her in a negative light, then the "innocent schoolgirl" photo attempts to portray her in a positive light, and that TOO is POV-pushing. KaintheScion

It is standard practice in Wikipedia biographies to have the primary photo be a portrait. Photos involving action or photos with other people - those are secondary. Kingturtle 03:26, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
Then a far better portrait of her would be one with a headscarf. KaintheScion
Sadly, all photos are by their very nature POV. Kingturtle 03:56, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Missing entry in Commentaries and Other Resources section

If "No Cameras" weblog and Rachelcorrie.org deserve places in that section, so does this one. KaintheScion

  • I've been lobbying to have LESS external links on this article. Kingturtle 03:59, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
While that's good in theory, the fact remains that there is a lot of good commentary out there. No other linked article presents this perspective on her, therefore the link is not redundant. If it were redundant, I wouldn't have bothered putting it in. KaintheScion
We can probably use the WSJ article in a section that deals with her "lasting impact," which (IMHO) is not much. Zscout370 (talk) 01:48, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
I don't see the need for a "lasting impact" section at all, but I think the WSJ article should definitely be mentioned as long as there's a "commentaries and other resources" section.KaintheScion
The reason I suggested the lasting impact segment is that what issues has Rachel brought up that is taking a more serious look, or just prove to the American people to not enter Israel or the West Bank, or she became a lasting "mytar" for the Palestinian people. Zscout370 (talk) 02:20, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

I haven't seen any mention of the relatively new "Rachel: An American Conscience" documentary. The documentary features actual radio transmissions from when Rachel was murdered, and that includes the bulldozer driver stating that he "hit an object", did see him (her), and she's very hurt. It also includes military video of Rachel standing in front of a bulldozer shortly before she was murdered.

Intro again

I forgot to explain my edit. I restored "Other commentators speculated that the driver failed to see her or expected her to jump out of the way," because I don't see any problem with it. I changed "various advocates blamimg it on ... Palestinian terror" — which was being changed to "Palestinian violence" — to "the Palestinians." If anyone disagrees, feel free to change it. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:00, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

The problem I have with other commentators' "speculation" is that it is not based in any more information than you or I have. It's just what they feel must have happened. We don't include speculation in other historical events -- or if we do, we do not give it the same prominence as eyewitness accounts or accounts from at least partly reputable sources. I've deleted it accordingly.

I've been bothered for a while by the inclusion of the speculations of a rabidly partisan Israeli journalist on her blog. I don't think we should source comments to blogs -- to do so would open the floodgates for all sorts of ill-informed comment to be presented as fact. No one wants that, I hope. However, it should be pointed out that she is an Israeli and not a neutral commentator and it should be pointed out at the very least that she made the comments in question on her blog. I appeal to the pro-Zionist editors here to remove the comment by her altogether. It does not meet the standards we set for inclusion: it is speculation on the part of someone who is biased, was not present and has no special knowledge of the events. She is just putting the mockers on others' accounts, not actually adding anything of her own account. I haven't removed it myself because frankly I know it would be reverted and it's about time we tried to find another way to edit articles in this area without the acrimony and revert wars. I figure one way is to present here an argument that I believe no neutral editor could dispute in good faith and leave it to the other side to take the requisite action, or to dispute it, or ignore it, as they choose. -- Grace Note

If you want to remove biased/non-neutral sources, you'd have to remove everything based on ISM testimony as well, which would leave you with very little. Are you prepared to do that? Jayjg (talk) 03:26, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I also agree on the lack of judgement that led to a right-wing Israeli blog being used as a source for comments on an already-disputed article. Those of you claiming the article here isn't POV might want to try removing the copious references to a partisan blog that pervade the article as it currently stands. Jeus 02:59, 15 July 2005 (UTC)


I'm not sure where you learned to cite sources, but testimony from a witness (as in, a witness actually at the scene of the incident in question) is known to the civilized world as a 1st Person Source. A blog post, written by an Olympian resident about an event She Did Not See in Israel, is a 3rd Person Source. Before you go about threatening the removal of substantive parts of an article, you should probably take a deep breath, and go back to expanding the Palestinian terrorism article. Because you do not have the authority to demolish an article, simply because your ideology prevents you from accepting any negative commentary about the Israeli "Defense" Force. Jeus 03:35, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually, you should take a deep breath and read Wikipedia:No personal attacks. I haven't "threatened" to do anything at all. Commentary is commentary, it's certainly cited as that, but the complaint wasn't about commentary, but rather about someone who was biased. We have commentary from biased sources about all sorts of things all over the place; its very common in Wikipedia articles. For example, look at how many places Noam Chomsky is cited, particularly in anti-U.S. and anti-Israel contexts; you could hardly find a more biased source. Should all references to him be removed as well? He's rather "Olympian" fellow who "Did Not See" any of the things he comments about either. Oh, and what on earth are you talking about when you suggest I "go back to expanding the Palestinian terrorism article"? I've never expanded it. Jayjg (talk) 03:48, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Mustafaa, what was wrong with the following sentence? "Her death sparked intense controversy, with various advocates blaming it on the IDF, the ISM, Palestinian violence, and on Corrie herself." That seems to me to sum up the various positions. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:04, July 19, 2005 (UTC) Hey all, excuse me if I'm out of order here, this is my first time commenting on a wikipedia page and I'm not sure I'm doing the right thing here. I'd like to see something added to the bulldozer driver's account of not seeing Rachel. The IDF has produced and aired on Israeli TV footage which is also included in the new documentary "Rachel: An American Conscience" from the actual radio transmission from the bulldozer driver at the time he ran over Rachel. "Dooby" acknoledges "hitting" Rachel with the bulldozer, acknolodges seeing her, and saying he thinks she is in "severe condition". That's a pretty big fact that is left out of this page. I could put that section of video online for anyone who would like to see it. -mattG

First western activist killed?

Is there a source for this claim?

Corrie's death sparked controversy, in part because she was a U.S. citizen and the first Western activist to be killed in the Arab-Israeli conflict, and in part because of the highly politicized nature of the conflict itself.

Given the lengthy history of the conflict I doubt she was the first western activist to be killed. Certainly Westerners have been killed fighting for Israel in its wars and Westerners working for the US government and NGOs have been killed as well. I suspect whoever wrote this meant first westerner killed protesting against the Israeli occupation - can someone please help me determine if this is true? GabrielF 01:39, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

oops

Always wished I could edit my edit summaries. "not stupid" should have been "but stupid". --Zero 10:46, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

"The Forgotten Rachels"

I've rewritten this piece because there's been some reverting because of it, so it now reads:

The widespread media coverage of Corrie's death, and the London play in particular, sparked criticism of what British journalist Tom Gross called "the cult of Rachel Corrie." In an article called "The Forgotten Rachels," published in The Spectator on October 22, 2005, Gross tells the stories of six other women called Rachel, Jewish victims of the Arab-Israeli conflict whose deaths received little, if any, coverage outside Israel. [28] The article prompted a National Review editorial arguing that "Corrie’s death was unfortunate, but more unfortunate is a Western media and cultural establishment that lionizes 'martyrs' for illiberal causes while ignoring the victims those causes create." [29]

I've also created references and further reading sections, and I've tidied some of the links, deleted some dead ones, and a couple of blogs. SlimVirgin (talk) 12:59, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

--A friend recently pointed me to this page and since I consider myself somewhat of an "expert" on Rachel Corrie I have decided to offer input and suggestions for this page. That being said, I have major issues with this "The Forgotten Rachels" section. The whole "forgotten Rachels" idea was created purely for propaganda purposes, in an attempt to dishearten those who memorialize Rachel and are still demanding transparency and accountability for the events leading to her death. I think the arguments presented in the "forgotten Rachels" can be easily countered, and I would be happy to do that, but that is not really the point of why I think this section should be removed or at least modified. Any fringe group can come up with any such comparison for almost anyone in the news or of historical significance, does that mean they merit an entry on the wiki page for that person? Of course I think not, and I'm wondering if any other editors have an opinion about this.

This entire paragraph is POV save the arguably noteable fact that detractors call anyone remembering Rachel a "cultist". I would argue that fact is not even worth mentioning, but cede that it is debatable given the amount of coverage Rachel's death has recieved and that the larger section is about "memorials". Further, the editorial linked to is all of one paragraph.

To sum up, I think this paragraph should be deleted because it does not contribute to any knowledge or facts about the life, death, or activities of Rachel Corrie, nor does it contribute any knowledge or facts about memorials of Rachel Corrie. -mgaines-- Mgaines 05:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Picture sizes

The picture sizes on this article are too small. In the case of the Cat D9 bulldozer, it is helpful to increase the pic size to see the relative size of the bulldozer compared to human scale.69.209.209.251 10:11, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

It was a bit overwhelming at 500px. Perhaps something in between? SlimVirgin (talk) 10:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

No, I disagree, it shows the true scale of the Cat D9. Why is this a problem? Please explain.69.209.209.251 10:14, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Some people with slow connections have difficulty viewing pages with large images on them. You're also adding POV wording. The wording on this page is the result of careful compromise and discussion over many months. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:18, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Also, increasing the size of the image doesn't change the scale. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Scale as per the size of the bulldozer to human beings. You misunderstood. It helps to make the picture more useful to readers.69.209.209.251 10:23, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Not if they can't view the page because of it, it doesn't. Take a look around on other pages. It's unusual to find images as large as you want to make this one. Also, you've violated 3RR. See your talk page. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

The picture is better in larger size, and you are wrong about 3RR, the passive voice was kept, even though it's bad form.69.209.209.251 10:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

You changed the picture size again. It counts as a revert. Please read your talk page and the policy page and stop trying to game the system. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

It's called trying to make the picture visible, and it's called compromise. Where did your fellow editor come in from? Calling in reinforcements for help in an edit war is gameing the system. Please stop it. Why is this a big issue? 69.209.209.251 10:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

If there is one picture relevant to this article for the reader to see, it's the size and scale of the D9, that Rachel encountered and died under. 69.209.209.251 10:34, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

You mean, her dead grimace is not important? ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

THE CAT D9 is a large bulldozer, most people don't really know that, the picture is relevant.69.209.209.251 10:59, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

But we need to accomodate readers who have largebulldozerphobia. ←Humus sapiens ну? 11:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
I just realized that it's the Disruptive Apartheid Editor. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:54, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Humma, humma, humma!!! 69.209.209.251 11:11, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

You've just dated yourself. —Viriditas | Talk 11:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

No comprendo......let's make the pic more visible, is that a problem?69.209.209.251 11:14, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

There's a tag on the image page saying it should be deleted because there's permission to use it only for non-commercial purposes. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's too bad. It's a revealing picture about the size of the CAT D9. I thought it was really incredible to see that photo. A HUGE bulldozer, no doubt. Most people have no idea how large it truly is.69.209.209.251 11:26, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Disruptive Apartheid editor is a banned editor. Jayjg (talk) 15:11, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

To those who are suggesting large pictures slow down to those with slower connections, why many articles on Wikipedia are accompanied by large pictures without a problem, but these ones cause such a fuss? What is the deal? Small pictures should accompany the article, and if clicken it would take to another page, with the large pictures on that page. Let the public decide. Is there something ominious about the pictures? Why fear, folks. Soomaali Feb. 01, '06

"What they thought...what they said"

Why the narration by ISM is considered to be "what they thought" or "what they said," and Israeli military's version is considered as official, without no question or no insertion of "what they say"? Isn't this hypocritical? Either both versions should be written "what both sides say," instead of justifying one side. Soomaali Feb. 01, 2006

Not clear what you're saying here; can you provide specific examples? Jayjg (talk) 18:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I see. The IDF produced a film about Corrie's death; the article does not assert it was accurate. Jayjg (talk) 18:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Well poisoning

Zero has reverted my edit that George Rishmawi, an ISM founder, was at the time he founded ISM a member of the Palestinian People's Party, calling it well poisoning. Is it though? It's directly relevant to the foundation of ISM. If I had said "Rishmawi, who is Palestinian," that would be simple well poisoning, but the PPP is a Palestinian communist party, and a faction of the PLO, [30] so that speaks directly to the issue of how partisan ISM is, which is clearly relevant here. Disputed passage below. Any thoughts? SlimVirgin (talk) 00:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

One of the founders of the ISM, George Rishmawi, formerly a member of the Palestinian People's Party, was quoted in the San Francisco Chronicle as having said early in 2003: "When Palestinians get shot by Israeli soldiers, no one is interested anymore. But if some of these foreign volunteers get shot or even killed, then the international media will sit up and take notice."

The factoid about his former affiliation would be relevant in an article on him, and also in the article on ISM. This article is about neither of these things. The fact is that we have no context at all for this quotation. We have no idea what he was talking about when he said these words. Bringing up his former affiliation is just adding an artificial context that we do not know to be at all related to what he said and why he said it. --Zero 01:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, Zero, I didn't see your response until now. It's more than a factoid. That ISM was founded by a member of the Palestinian People's Party speaks to the issue of what kind of organization it is i.e. what kind of organization Corrie was a member of. Regardless of the lack of context for the quotation (which I didn't add), we don't need a context for his membership of the PPP. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Ok, so suppose that everything we quote from Yitzhak Shamir in his capacity as Prime Minister of Israel is presented as "Prime Minister of Israel Yitzhak Shamir, formerly a leader of a terrorist organization which offered to fight for Nazi Germany, said ' ... '". Is it ok? --Zero 20:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Newly available video - what and how to add additional information

Ugh! I had written up four paragraphs and went to sign it with the tildes and accidentaly hit "escape" and lost everything. Here goes another try...

I'm new to Wikipedia editing/contributing, and more specifically to doing so on the Rachel Corrie page, so I'm looking for advice on what and how to add additional information to the page.

Video and audio are now available which show Israel Defense Forces (IDF) footage of the bulldozer approaching Rachel seconds before she was struck, as well as communications between the bulldozer operator and his commander just after Rachel was struck. The bulldozer operator says that he "hit an object" and "I think that the object got hit by the dobby (D-9) and he is in a severe condition." He is asked "Did you see him?" and responds "Yes I saw him, I think he is dead."

This video and audio has been aired on Israeli public television and appears in a documentary called "Rachel: An American Conscience"

The IDF video of the bulldozer approaching Rachel just before she was struck is available here: http://www.ourmedia.org/node/158250

The same footage, along with the IDF communications, taken from the documentary is available here: http://www.ourmedia.org/node/158271

How should the contents, conclusions, etc., from these videos be added to the page? Should they be linked? What does everyone think? Mgaines 06:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Note that these are edited videoes, which mix various videos, footages and cutting off some of the IDF video with the communications. MathKnight 16:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Links to the movies can be added in the external links section. If there is a place where an official response can be found, that should be linked to also. --Zero 16:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Video link

  • This was added to external links, but I can't see how to get the video to run. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi, what kind of problem are you having? The link goes to archive.org, where there are three mpeg files for download in the "File downloads" section, all of which seem to work fine. —Viriditas | Talk 10:09, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Viriditas, found them. How legit are they, do you think? They seem to be a mixture of film and photographs taken by activists. There's no actual film of anything relevant that I could see. Or am I missing something? SlimVirgin (talk) 10:16, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
The film footage is very clearly and purposefully edited out of sequence (such as editing a close-up of the tractor before Corrie is hit and adding footage of a happy bulldozer driver celebrating before and after). In other words, the footage is not shot in a continuous, linear fashion and is manipulated by the editor using different cameras and/or film/video sources. It's not even clear if the bulldozer driver is the same person who ran over Corrie or when that footage was taken. To me, it looked like the driver was merely waving "hello" to the camera, but the editor makes it look like he purposefully killed Corrie and celebrated her death. If, however, the film was shot from the same continuous footage (it's not, you can tell by the change of light and other factors) it might have some legitimacy (like the Zapruder film for example), but this is not the case. In other words, the sequence of events as portrayed is highly suspect. Due to these factors and unanswered questions, the video cannot be considered a documentary film , but a propaganda film. —Viriditas | Talk 10:54, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Best to leave it out then. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:27, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Anyone looking at it can see these features. This is an excuse and not an argument. As for the driver, do you think Israeli TV is going to show a clearly identifiable wrong person as the driver? Israeli libel laws are very tough. If you want to question the veracity of the film, you can´t do so on the basis of your own analysis. Both of you have been around long enough to know that this is ´´original research´´. Find an analysis someone else did and link to it. --Zero 21:50, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Of course we can judge the quality of sources and links ourselves. How else are we to do it? It's a silly film, interspersed with photographs taken by the activists. I can't see what the value of it is, plus it's got the driver smiling and waving as though pleased he has hurt someone, with no indication that it's even the same man, and if it is, no indication of when the film was taken. Also, what do you mean exactly by saying this is an excuse and not an argument? SlimVirgin (talk) 23:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi. Slim asked me about the legitimacy of the film, and I discussed a few aspects that caught me eye. As it stands, the link to the Internet Archive lacks the most basic production information (creator: Unkown) and is admittedly edited together from various sources (video_type: Mash-up (remix)) so there is no way to know if this is an official, authorized release from a notable film, or if this release is original research. Perhaps you could find out. I have no problem linking to an authorized, notable production, and it is common practice to do so, but the archive.org link lacks data. It's also common to link to films that are included on the IMDb. Perhaps you could check that as well. —Viriditas | Talk 23:03, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Hey all, I'm the one who posted the video and wrote in the section above about it. I was thinking a link to ourmedia.org not archive.org where I hadn't entered any information about the video. I think the arguments that have been made about things being taken out of sequence and not knowing when or why the bulldozer driver was smiling are valid, and those parts of the video should not be presented as evidence of malicious behavior on the part of the bulldozer driver. That being said, the reason I posted the video and wanted it linked to the Rachel Corrie article is because it shows footage released by the IDF and broadcast on Israeli public television. If I had access to the entire Israeli program, I would post it and link to it, but I do not. The best I have is what is shown in that section, and it is important because nobody disputes the communications between the bulldozer operator and his fellow soldiers and commander. Many people have heard of this footage but never seen it, as I believe my link is the only place on the internet to watch it. Whether the short clip is considered documentary or something else, I think it should still be linked. After all, 60% of the links in the "references" and "further reading" sections are biased opinions of paid advocacy groups, many of which are downright outrageous. If a one-paragraph opinion piece in a fringe publication deserves a link, this video does too. Mgaines 15:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi Mgaines, we can link to biased websites, so long as we know the organization that maintains them, but we can't link to distorted images or videos. We don't even know who played around with it, so it has no provenance. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:42, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree. In such cases we can use only scholarly sources. That is the new word from ArbCom. Zeq 21:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)border:
To the contrary, we know created the video - the IDF, we know where the video first aired - Israel Channel 2, and we know the director who put the video together - Yahya Barakat, a professor at al-Quds University. Do you need the name of the camera operator? Mgaines 03:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
So, you've confirmed that this is an outake from the self-described collage video, Rachel: An American Conscience? Is this an authorized link? Also, the video is apparently a homemade DVD which Barakat sells to recoup his losses from editing down 80 hours of video footage. It's not even a film. —Viriditas | Talk 11:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Obviously you've never seen the film or you wouldn't call it a collage. It took forever to get, but I do have written permission to use any and all of the film. Mgaines

Accuracy and POV

There's been too much activity going on recently and I have no idea who added what, but I'd like to make a few changes for accuracy and context. Changes I propose are in bold:

Introduction:
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 in Rafah in the Palestinian territories when she tried to obstruct an [[Israel Defense Forces]] (IDF) Caterpillar D9 bulldozer that she and her colleagues presumed, and the IDF denied, was about to demolish a Palestinian home. Her death occurred in a residential area of Rafah that the IDF had designated a security zone, adjacent to the Egyptian border. The circumstances of her death are disputed: the ISM and other eyewitnesses claim that the bulldozer driver deliberately ran over her twice, while the IDF claims that the bulldozer driver didn't see her and that the cause of death was falling debris pushed over by the bulldozer.

The way it reads in the article would make a reader think she randomly jumped in front of a bulldozer in a no-mans-land border minefield, when she was actually in a residential area and had a reason (in her mind at least) to want to stop the Caterpillar. Any objections, complaints, concerns, grievances, or outrage? Thanks Ramallite (talk) 19:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd be reluctant to see the intro change, because it was developed over a long period of argument and counter-argument. Any tweaking of it in the direction of one POV may encourage more tweaking in the other direction, and we'll be off again. We definitely can't say what she presumed, and we also shouldn't state as fact what the people who were with her say they presumed. All we know for sure is that, as the intro says, she "was killed ... when she tried to obstruct an Israel Defense Forces (IDF) Caterpillar D9 bulldozer ..." SlimVirgin (talk) 22:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Slim. Not because the "long time of arguments and counter arguments" but simply because it is an NPOV description which include both undisputed facts and describe the controversial aspects of her death. This is a model of how a Wikipedia introduction should be. Clearly, in this article the process did worked. I wish it would work elsewhere as well. Zeq 10:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I think Ramallite's proposed change, or something of the sort, is absolutely necessary. As it is the introduction is quite unbalanced, leaving the uninformed reader with the impression that Corrie and her fellow-activists were wantonly interfering with security operations rather than attempting to prevent demolitions in an area where these have left thousands of people homeless - a fact that is well-documented. I don't see how providing essential background information in the intro. pushes the article towards one POV. We may all be aware of the history of home demolitions in Rafah, but we cannot assume that that is the case for all readers. Without this information, the random reader will surely form a very distorted view of what was happening. Palmiro | Talk 12:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Palmiro, the problem is that from the stated Israeli POV, the activists were simply interfering with security operations, and from the stated ISM POV, they were trying to prevent demolitions. We therefore have to represent both POVs in the intro, or neither. My preference is to represent neither, and to stick to a completely factual account of what happened (i.e. she was killed while attempting to obstruct a bulldozer), rather than trying to second-guess why she was obstructing it or what the bulldozer was doing. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
But that's where I am confused: Isn't the statement "when she tried to obstruct an Israel Defense Forces (IDF) Caterpillar D9 bulldozer operating in an area designated by Israel as a security zone" exactly representing the Israeli POV? If you want to represent neither, then "She was killed in Rafah in the Palestinian territories when she tried to obstruct an Israel Defense Forces (IDF) Caterpillar D9 bulldozer operating in an area designated by Israel as a security zone, adjacent to the Egyptian border" ought to become "She was killed in Rafah by an Israel Defense Forces (IDF) Caterpillar D9 bulldozer". Period. If "security zone" is mentioned, then that it is a "residential area" (also a fact) also ought to be mentioned. If she was "obstructing" is mentioned, then she was "protesting", as the caption of a photo in the article states, also ought to be mentioned. I agree that neither POV should be mentioned, but I don't think that is the case right now. Ramallite (talk) 14:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I see Ramallite's point. The challenge, of course, is to word it NPOV. Since the facts themselves are disputed, I'm not sure it's possible to present them neutrally (i.e. give a "factual" account that presents *neither* POV). I think the only answer is to push more of the details into the respective POV presentations. Here is an attempt, tell me what you think:
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 while protesting in a residential area of Rafah in the Palestinian territories that the Israel Defense Forces had designated a security zone, adjacent to the Egyptian border. The circumstances of her death are disputed: the ISM and other eyewitnesses claim that the driver of an IDF Caterpillar D9 bulldozer deliberately ran over her twice while she was trying to prevent demolitons; the IDF claims that she was interfering with security operations, that the bulldozer driver didn't see her and that the cause of death was falling debris pushed over by the bulldozer. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 06:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
It's pretty good. Maybe a slight rewording would flow better: "in a residential area of Rafah, close to the Egyptian border in the Palestinian territories, that the Israel Defense Forces had designated a security zone." --Zero 12:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Or "in an area designated by Israel as a security zone, but which the Palestinians says remains a residential area ..." Or better still, leave it as it is. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
There must be a misunderstanding. There is absolutely no dispute on any side that it was in front of a residential building. Residential areas are frequently declared 'security zones', in Rafah, the two are not mutually exclusive. Ramallite (talk) 17:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
The problem with calling it a "residential area" without qualification is that it gives no hint that, at the time of Corrie's death and perhaps still, it was an area allegedly containing safehouses used by Hamas and the other groups, or that some of the houses were allegedly hiding tunnels for the smuggling of weapons from Egypt. Those are not images that the expression "residential area" usually conjures up. To call it a residential area simpliciter implies that an Israeli bulldozer appeared out of the blue in a quiet residential street and tried to knock someone's house down for no reason whatsoever. But to add any detail will require claim and counter-claim, which is why I think the intro is best left as it is. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:30, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Some of the houses maybe, but we have no idea about the physician's house she was protesting in front of. The current version clearly pushes the Israeli POV alone. By your reasoning, (and I agree that the less, the better), why not stick with my proposal above: "She was killed in Rafah by an Israel Defense Forces (IDF) Caterpillar D9 bulldozer". Period. Heck, "...who was killed in Gaza" alone would be better than what it is now. Would you agree to either?Ramallite (talk) 18:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Slim presents some valid concerns, yet I think the current intro is problematic based on what Ramallite has outlined. Let me try again, this may still be unsatisfactory to everyone, but how about this (incorporating what Zero mentioned also):
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 while protesting in a residential area of Rafah, adjacent to the Egyptian border in the Palestinian territories, that the Israel Defense Forces had designated a security zone. The circumstances of her death are disputed: the ISM and other eyewitnesses claim that the driver of an IDF Caterpillar D9 bulldozer deliberately ran over her twice while she was trying to prevent demolitions; the IDF claims that she was interfering with security operations designed to dismantle safehouses and tunnels used by Hamas and other groups for smuggling weapons from Egypt, that the bulldozer driver didn't see her and that the cause of death was falling debris pushed over by the bulldozer. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 18:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Mperel, that would be fine with me. Ramallite, I think we need to say something about security zone and what she was doing there. To say only that she was killed by a bulldozer in Rafah is NPOV but uninformative. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
That looks like a reasonable, informative, and NPOV summary of the facts as we know them. Jayjg (talk) 19:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, hmmmm, so Slim and Jayjg agree, and Ramallite agrees and puts the version in, but then Slim adds back in the part that was the problem we were trying to address, after agreeing to the above. Ug! That doesn't seem quite fair, does it? Under the IDF POV, it already presented the perspective that she was interfering (which would be equivalent to "obstructing"). Describing an activist as protesting sounds reasonably neutral, no? I'm going to revert it, but please let's discuss further, I'm sure we can work this out and come to something mutually agreeable for everyone. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 22:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

So what happened, Slim, I thought you were ok with the above version? --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 22:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I didn't even noticed that she was obstructing the bulldozer had been removed, sorry. Clearly, that has to stay in, because the bulldozer wasn't chasing her down the street. She stood in front of it. And saying this was a "residential area" without qualification is awkward too for the reasons already outlined.
All this has been discussed before, for many months, and the result was the intro that's now on the page. My vote is that we leave it. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
We are saying that the area was a security zone, so we can also say that it was a residential area. We don't explain in the intro what security zones are either or how they result in the turning of residential areas into wasteland and free-fire zones, so I think it's OK that we also don't explain in this sentence (it is covered later in the very next sentence of MPerel's version) that the IDF claimed smuggling was going on in this residential area. Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander. I really don't like the "obstructing the bulldozer" bit without an immediate explanation of why she was obstructing it, but that version before MPerel's revert was still far better than the introduction that was there before this discussion started, which in my view was... very bad indeed. SV, would you consider going back to your previous edit instead of the pre-discussion version, and then we can continue discussion around MPerel's version/your edited version thereof? I think it would be a much better starting point for dialogue. Palmiro | Talk 22:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I've done that. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

My objections:

  1. The new version says that it was a residential area, but was merely designated as a security zone.
  2. The addition of "Palestinian territories" is somewhat gratuitous (in both versions). If you want to say where Rafah is, say it's in the Gaza Strip.
  3. The new version wants to remove the reason she is dead viz. that she tried to obstruct a bulldozer. It didn't suddenly turn and head in her direction and chase her down the street. Saying "interfered with" is to use a less descriptive phrase when "obstruct" is completely accurate. Why the desire to obfuscate?
  4. We don't know why she was obstructing it. The activists were there to obstruct the bulldozers, perhaps from dismantling houses, perhaps from dismantling anything, perhaps from digging up the soil. There had been no house demolitions that day even though it was already late afternoon, and the house of the physician (sometimes pharmacist) continued to be lived in for the next seven months, though that could have been because of what happened. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
For ease of comparison, I've posted the three intros to Talk:Rachel Corrie/intro. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  1. "was" versus "designated" - what's the problem? They are both factual, and the 'residential' is permanent, 'designations' by the IDF are usually temporary in this context anyway. It certainly isn't designated now!
  2. I wouldn't mind using Gaza Strip instead of "Palestinian territories".
  3. The other POV is that she had a bullhorn (which is fact) and was protesting - we have no way of knowing what she was thinking (as you mentioned above), and thus no way of knowing if she was trying to obstruct it or was protesting in front of it and couldn't get out of the way in time.
  4. see #3. Ramallite (talk) 23:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm a slow writer and there were edit conflicts trying to post this, so if it doesn't address anything anyone says, keep that in mind : ) Consider this, that just like we explain in the paragraph, it's the circumstances of her death that is the very thing that's disputed. That's why I attempted to move as many details as possible about those circumstances of her death out of the "neutral" part, because in this terrible story, there is no neutral way to relate the events. So she was protesting (both sides would agree to that), one side says she obstructed or was responsible for jumping in the way of the bulldozer. The other side says the bulldozer mowed her down. My solution was to remove the bulldozer out from the neutral part of the paragraph and instead let each POV present the events from their perspectives about how the death occured from the bulldozer. In your revert edit summary, you said we have to add "that she was trying to obstruct the bulldozer; otherwise the death is left entirely unexplained". Well that's just it. The circumstances of the death is what is disputed. It wasn't left unexplained. It's explained from each POV in the POV part of the paragraph. If we add back in the bulldozer to the neutral part, and then relate the events there as they occured from the IDF perspective, it's no longer the neutral part. In my view, there's no way to mention the bulldozer at all in the neutral part of the paragraph and remain neutral. That part needs to be described from each side's POV. What do you think? --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 23:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

No, both sides say she was obstructing the bulldozer. The circumstances of her death are only unexplained in terms of whether the driver acted intentionally, and whether the fatal blow was caused by the bulldozer or by a slab that it was moving. There is no dispute otherwise that I'm aware of. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

First, thanks for taking up my suggestion re the revert.

  1. It was a residential area. A residential area is a residential area because people live there. An IDF-designated security zone is a security zone because the IDF designated it as such. It has no other existence; its only meaning is that it was designated a security zone by the IDF. I don't understand this objection at all. Could we say "that was also an IDF-designated security zone" - would that address your problem? It would be rather clunky in my view.
  2. I don't see that the addition of "Palestinian territories" is gratuitous. It's normal to state the country or equivalent territory where events took place when introducing them.
  3. I don't really have a problem with saying she was trying to obstruct the bulldozer, as long as we say why. I don't see a big difference between "obstruct" and "interfere" here myself, but I don't think MPerel or Ramallite (or me ;)) are motivated by a desire to obfuscate.
  4. All the activists' statements, as far as I recall, indicate that they were there to prevent house demolitions. Of course they might be lying, but we can at leat report why they say they were there. We report why the IDF says it was there, after all. That it was seven months before the IDF got around to destroying the house in question afterwards hardly proves they didn't mean to destroy it that day. Palmiro | Talk 23:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
1. I disagree. If I invite heavily armed men into my home and allow them to build a weapons-smuggling tunnel, I can't scratch my head in bewilderment and cry "this is just someone's home," when the police turn up in force and smash the door down. If militant or terrorist groups build paramilitary bases inside what appear to be homes, the area arguably ceases to be a residential one. To insist otherwise is to buy into one side's POV. But as it's hard to find a neutral and succinct way to express this, it would be better to leave the phrase out entirely. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
2. The name of what you're calling the country in this case is highly politicized, and there's no need for it. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
4. There's no indication whatsoever that they were going to demolish that house that day, and if you read the eye-witness statements, you'll find they're unclear on that point themselves. In fact, I'm not aware of a statement, e-mail, letter, or anything that indicates that group of activists prevented a single demolition. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
1. What nonsense. If heavily armed men do this five doors down from you I think you would expect the police not to turn up and demoish the entire street. Palestinians are people, they live in houses (mostly), the areas where they are uppity enough to do so are therefore residential areas. Really. Even though they're Palestinians.
2. Please read my comment more carefully. I said "country or equivalent territory". The name is one commonly used and is in fact the one used as the title for Wikipedia's article on that territory.Palmiro | Talk 00:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Residential area

Ramallite, I've already said what I see as the problem with "residential area" i.e. that it gives a false impression. As for not knowing whether she intended to obstruct, she could have stood to the side of the bulldozer with her bullhorn had she merely wanted to "protest". In fact, the driver might have been able to see and hear her had she done that. But she stood in front of it. If you stand in front of something that is moving in your direction, you constitute an obstruction, regardless of your intention. But it was clear from everything the activists said and did that their aim was obstruction. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
There is no way that saying it was a residential area gives a fakse impression. It simply was a residential area. Unfortunately residential areas in Gaza are not quite the same as suburbs of Amsterdam. Nevertheless they are inhabited by Palestinians, who are therefore sometimes referred to as the residents. I don't think we need to assume that our readers are too dim to realise this. The second paragraph of the new version makes it quite clear what the Israeli forces claimed to have been doing there, and I think this should address your remarks concerning the activities that may have been going on there and that may not go on in the suburbs of Amsterdam.
On "interfering" or "obstructing", the account of the Kansas activist talks about "interfering" with the bulldozers, does it not? Palmiro | Talk 23:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC
Well then screw "residential area" - would "in front of a Palestinian home" be okay? Actually there is this Palestinian traditional dance that we taught Rachel, it involves cowbells (although bullhorns are sometimes used as substitutes) and a lot of twirling and stomping around dangerous machinery. In fact, the more experienced you are, the more dangerous the machine you have to perform next to. My grandmother actually won the national championship by performing cartwheels and Debka next to a crane being operated by a drunken chimpanzee, but lost her life minutes after receiving the award after tossing her cigarette butt into the pool of fuel that was leaking from her own Chevy and... ok I'll shut up now... Ramallite (talk) 23:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
My understanding is that it wasn't in front of a Palestinian home. It was in front of a wall, and the wall was near what ISM said was the home of a Palestinian physician or pharmacist, depending on the version. It's important not to buy into the propaganda here, from either side. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
But then isn't this stuff about tunnels and bombs and weapons smuggling and all that buying into the Israeli propaganda? That's not to say it's not factual, but probably grossly exaggerated. The army demolished many more homes than ones that actually had tunnels. If you had a sewage pipe, that sometimes counted as a tunnel. Ramallite (talk) 23:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
We don't say there were in fact tunnels. We say the IDF says there were. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:02, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
The point is that there's a lot of BS talked about this, and deliberately so. A relative of Corrie's gave an interview about how Corrie bravely stood in front of "that wall," and how she knew "those children" were sitting just behind it, giving the impression that only Rachel Corrie stood between the evil Israelis and the deaths of the physician/pharmacist's children. But the wall was not attached to the house. As I understand it, there was a freestanding wall (maybe part of a house already demolished) that the bulldozer may have been heading toward. So yes, the physician's children were in the house, and yes, the house was behind a wall, but the wall was not attached to the house, and therefore the children weren't in any immediate danger, and the relative who gave the interview almost certainly knew that. With those closest to the event exaggerating in this way, it's harder than usual for us to get it right, which is why I'm trying to steer as neutral a course as possible. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:12, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I can't see what the issue is here. One should describe the location of an event in order to give readers this information. Was it on a beach, in a forest, on a farm, in a city? How can we argue about such a basic thing? --Zero 02:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


Kidnapping

Ramallite, I reverted your edit to the kidnapping section, [31] that said Corrie's parents deny they were the gunmen's original targets, because I couldn't see where the article said that, [32] and in any event, how could they possibly know? SlimVirgin (talk) 18:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

She writes "Two men, one armed, entered the buildings where we were staying, apparently with the intention of kidnapping the Olympia-Rafah Sister City Project delegates. We were not their original targets. We became involved when the ORSCP delegates, sought help from our host." That is what is reflected in my edit. Saying "disagree with that interpretation of events" could mean "they didn't plan to kidnap us, they were actually interested in recruiting clowns for their new circus". There is absolutely nothing wrong in stating that Mrs. Corrie said that she and her husband were "not the original targets" given her own words: "we were not their original targets". Ramallite (talk) 18:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why we need this section at all. In my opinion it describes a minor non-event that has hardly anything to do with the topic of the article. If it has to stay, I agree with Ramallite on the contents. We have to follow the source unless we have a better source, and the opinion (the only one we have from eyewitnesses) that the Corries were not the target can't be ignored. Actually it is a fine reason for believing that this story is irrelevant to the page. --Zero 03:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Comparison to source: On 3 January 2006 [source says 4th], five gunmen [source says two men, of whom one was a gunman] burst [image of entry mode not supported by source] into a house Corrie's parents were visiting in Rafah, and allegedly tried to kidnap them. The gunmen are reported to have abandoned their plans when told who their intended victims were [no mention of that in the source at all], although the Corries disagree with that interpretation of events [so whose interprettation is it, and why is the key point of disagreement missing?]. --Zero 11:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I've fixed the kidnap section and added news sources. The problem with this article is that we rely too heavily on ISM and Corrie-related websites and they sometimes change their version of events. I suggest we stick to WP:V and WP:RS from now on. These say we're allowed to use primary-source websites in articles about themselves, but only with caution, and not where they're contradicted by a reliable third-party source.
The source for the kidnap claim (that there were five gunmen, the Corries were the intended targets, and that they backed off when told who the Corries were) was Samir Nasrallah, the pharmacist/physician and the Corrie's host, speaking to the Associated Press. After his story went out over the wires, ISM released a statement contradicting him and saying that in fact there were only two men who "visited" a house where three Americans were staying, intending to take them hostage. The Corries got involved only to go over there and have tea with them, according to the ISM. If we have to choose between the ISM and Associated Press as a reliable source, then clearly AP wins hands down, so that's the version I've emphasized, though I've included that the ISM disagrees. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I still can't see how this incident is relevant to the article at all. It isn't "Rachel Corrie and the adventures of her parents". --Zero 14:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree that there's too much fluff around the parents and what Corrie did before her death, but if we're going to include that the mother is an amateur flautist, it would seem obtuse not to include a kidnap attempt. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I actually didn't see the point to this alleged kidnapping section either (not that I was surprised that the story immediately made its way to this page) but I know how many are sensitive to removing sourced material. What matters most is that the Corries themselves (not ISM, not Israel, not Nasrallah, and not Nasrallah's mother-in-law Ruthie) deny that there was a kidnapping attempt against them. So this really seems too minor an event to warrant inclusion here. We must be careful that this article is about Rachel, and not about discrediting the ISM. If the mention that her mother is a flutist is the reason why this kidnapping section is here, then the flutist part can go too. Ramallite (talk) 15:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I'd delete both items if it was up to me. --Zero 14:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Ramallite, you wrote that "what matters most is that the Corries themselves ... deny that there was a kidnapping attempt against them." Why would that be what matters most? Samir Nasrallah presumably speaks better Arabic than the Corries do; and the incident took place (he said) in his home. The Corries are interested parties in this article, who post information about the topic on their personal website, and who keep changing what's written there. As I wrote above, according to WP:V and WP:RS, we may only use personal websites as sources if the article is about them, and so long as it's not contradicted by third-party sources. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
If the Corrie parents are featured in the article, then it is about them so their web page becomes citable (at least on matters involving them). --Zero 15:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
This article isn't about them. But regardless, personal websites are citable only if not contradicted by third-party sources. See WP:V: personal websites may be used in articles about themselves "so long as the information is notable, not unduly self-aggrandizing, and not contradicted by other published sources." The Corries' version of events is contradicted by other published sources. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
This section needs to be deleted. I am a personal friend of both the Cindy and Craige Corrie, as well as the two individuals who were the intended targets of the kidnapping that did not happen, because Craige and Cindy talked the kidnappers out of it. News wires initially ran with the story of Craige and Cindy being kidnapped, but the strory was incorrect. A press release from the Olympia Rafah Sister City Project was issued, and the story was retracted. It only lives on because staunch supporters of Israel love to latch on to anything that makes any Palestininan look bad. There really is no reason this should be here -- it didn't happen, and it only remains noteworthy because sites like this one continue to repeat the story. See: http://www.orscp.org/comments.php?id=146_0_1_0_C 17 March 2006 - Jonathan User:192.211.25.9
Hi Jonathan, we publish what reliable third-party sources publish, regardless of who thinks the material is true or false. There's a great deal in this article that is only notable because one side or another has kept it in the public eye, so if that were grounds for deletion, there'd be little of the page left. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I understand that, but here, Wikapedia is one of the primary sources keeping this in the public eye. The section at least needs to give reference to the press release that the Olympia-Rafah Sister City Project issued, within about 12 hours of the initially false story hitting the wire. Perhaps it should also mention that Rachel's friends Rochelle and Serena were actually the intended kidnapping targets, and that Rachel's parents managed to talk the kidnappers out of going through with it. The initially false story was corrected and removed from most news organizations websites as soon as ORSCP's press release was issued -- the fact that there are a few 'third party' sources, like the CTV site cited, that have not posted a correction to their website, does not make this any more important or relavent. - Jonathan
You're saying the story is false, but you don't know that, because you weren't there. The source who was there, Samir Nasrallah, gave a statement to the Associated Press, and they haven't run a correction so far as I know, which they're normally very good at doing. If you believe they have, can you find a link? SlimVirgin (talk) 06:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't know how to get into APs archives from January. Even if AP issues a clarification for this non story, in response to the ORSCP press release, why would newspapers pick it up? No one was kidnapped. The story was over. In the brief time that it hit the wire, and was on a number of websites, numerous bloggers read about it and wrote about it. A few columninsts since then have also written about it. And Wikapedia has kept this section up, which leads to more bloggers blogging about it, and helps disinform more journalists, making it more likely that the story (that the Corries were the intended targets of a kidnapping) will eventually find its way into a news story written by a reporter who doesn't bother to find out the facts: that two women, who are friends of mine, and who were friends of Rachel, who were in Rafah as part of a delegation with ORSCP, a sister city organization started shortly after Rachel's death, were the intended targets, not Rachel's parents. Just because Mr. Nasrallah, who speaks poor English, mispoke or was misunderstood by that initial reporter, and the story went out wrong for a few hours, and was then written about in a number of blogs, does not change the fact that the two women, Serena and Rochelle, both have stated publicly that they were indeed actually the intended targets, and also Rachel's parents, Cindy and Craig, have also stated this publicly, and you can go look at the ORSCP web page and read the same thing. Neither Rochel or Serena were working with ISM at the time, they were in Gaza with ORSCP. (This is actually kind of important). If this section is to remain up, it should say ORSCP issued the press release, not ISM. But the whole section really should come off... More than anywhere else on this page, this section is creating news by repeating a false report that never should have gone out to the wires in the first place. If the policy is that I or someone else has to call a reporter with some news organization and beg them to print something about this non-event, just so the Wikapedia administrators will agree that this non-event actually didn't happen the way a false media report initially reported, then it is a stupid policy. I think I have made myself clear. -- Jonathan
The news source we linked to says it was ISM that issued the statement. You don't say how you could possibly know who the intended targets were. Nasrallah apparently spoke to the gunmen and he told AP what they said, and you have no reason to believe that he spoke in poor English, or any other kind of English, to the reporter. The policy says that if you want to get material into WP, you have to find someone else to publish it first, and it's far from being a "stupid policy." News organizations have the resources to fact-check that we don't have. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
In an article published by the Olympian, Rochelle and Serena are quoted on this subject. Please consider adding this article to this section, or, better still, taking the whole section off. The important quote: "Gause and Becker nearly were kidnapped in January, just before the Palestinian elections, but their Palestinian friends interceded on their behalf, Becker said." Read the whole Olympian aticle here: http://159.54.227.3/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060227/NEWS01/60227007/1006 - Jonathan
There's no indication that it's the same incident, and ISM has claimed that it was the Corries who interceded, but this article says "Palestinian friends." SlimVirgin (talk) 08:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I happen to know Mr. Nassrallah, that's how I know he speaks poor English. If you want to verify for yourself that he speaks poor English, I suggest you find a copy of the UK television special "The Killing Fields" in which he appears.

I meant that you've given no indication as to why you think Nasrallah spoke English to the reporter. Or are all reporters American, in your view? :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 09:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

As for this article not specifically stating that the incident spoken about was not the same misreported incident that this whole section is perportedly about, then fine. Since there is a section about how Rachel's parents were supposedly the targets of an kidnapping -- which they themselves have said is not the case ... How about there be a new section, about how two of Rachel's friends were ALSO the targets of a kidnapping attempt. They are quoted in this news story as saying that is indeed true. Why are Rachel's parents important enough to have their own section, but not Rachel's friends?

I'd say what makes this notable enough for inclusion here is that the parents were in the house that Corrie died near and had stayed in, and that the gunmen allegedly changed their minds when they found out who the Corries were. Neither of these things would apply to her friends. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

(But really -- there are no reports of any other Americans from Olympia experiencing an attempted kidnapping during this time. I think it is obvious that this is the same incident being talked about.) As for the fact that they say "Palestinian friends" -- I suppose it is less than ideal that it is not spelled out in specific detail, but as I happen to know what actually happen, let me spell it out for you and anyone else who happens to be reading this:

The problem is twofold: first, you don't know what happened, no matter how much you think you do, because you weren't there. Secondly, even if you were there, even if you were in fact one of the gunmen, it would make no difference, because we don't publish original research. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Rachel's parents were staying with Palestinians. Rachel's friends were staying with other Palestinians. Armed gunmen came to try to kidnap Rachel's friends. Before they could do so, the Palestinians that Rachel's parents were staying with were called, and then they came over, along with Rachel's parents, to talk to the gunmen. Rachel's parents do not speak Arabic -- their hosts, and Dr. Nasrilah, talked to the gunmen, and when the gunmen realized who Rachel's parents were, they agreed to leave, without kidnapping anyone. Up above, you complained about ISM not being a reputable source, so I supplied the press release from ORSCP, which is a non-profit organization (registered in the US) and respected enough that the Israelis will let people into Gaza traveling with ORSCP. That, along with the Olympian article are both legitimate sources, and at least one of them ought to be included in this section, if it is not entirely removed. - Jonathan

The ORSCP would also not count as a reliable source for Wikipedia. The section includes two links, one of which gives the ISM version of events. We also make clear that the Corries dispute the published account and say they were not the intended targets. What you want to do is completely delete one version in favor of the version you say is true, or delete the section entirely because you don't like it, but that's not how Wikipedia works. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
A third option is to say that in adition to Rachel's parents disputing the current Wikapedia version of the event, Rachel's friends, who were in Gaza at the time, also dispute this version. They have said that they were the targets of this kidnapping event. - Jonathan
No need. We give one published version. We say it's disputed and give the alternative. There's no need to labor the point. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Please forgive me if the answer to this should be obvious, but why is Judy Lash Balint's weblog a reliable source, and ISM, but not ORSCP? - Jonathan 09:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
She is a professional journalist with no personal involvement, and the articles on her website are published in book form as Jerusalem Diaries. ORSCP is an unknown organization with a personal connection to the situation and no editorial oversight. For the same reasons, ISM is also not regarded as a reliable source except in limited circumstances. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Just when we were thinking that whether there were 2 or 5 gunmen and whether the targets were the Corries or not were a matter of Nasrilah's account versus the Corrie's account, along comes the Jerusalem Post of Jan 5: Two Palestinians opted not to kidnap the US couple Craig and Cindy Corrie from the Rafah refugee camp Wednesday, upon learning that their daughter Rachel was killed in 2003 as she tried to stop an IDF bulldozer from razing the home of pharmacist Samir Nasrallah. Nasrallah, who was hosting the Corries in his home, told The Jerusalem Post by telephone that the two men, one of whom had a gun, knocked on his door Wednesday morning and asked if he had internationals in his home. "I said, 'yes,' but that this is the father and mother of Rachel Corrie," he said. At no time during the exchange was he frightened, nor was he even sure that the gun was loaded, Nasrallah said. This is a more explicit report of Nasrilah's account than AP gave, and it agrees both that there were 2 men with 1 gun and that they weren't specifically after the Corries (though this latter point is not so explicitly clear). Incidentally Wednesday (also given by AP and Reuters) was Jan 4. The AP report is dated the 4th due to the time difference between Israel and the US. --Zero 14:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
No one has said they were explicitly after the Corries. Quite the reverse. Nasrallah told the AP that there was a kidnap attempt and that, when the would-be kidnappers found out who the Corries were, they backed off, which is exactly what the Jerusalem Post says too. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me if I sound repetitious, but I have read all the argument above on how this episode should be presented and I still don't see an argument why it is significant enough to mention at all. It was just a little dramatic moment; nobody was kidnapped, nobody was hurt, big deal. I propose we delete it. --Zero 13:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

It isn't significant enough for so much discussion on the talk page, but it's significant enough for a brief inclusion in the article. The parents of the subject might have been take hostage from the home of the person the subject stayed with and became friends with, but when the gunmen found out who they were, they decided otherwise. That speaks to the idea of Corrie's notability in that area, which is something the article repeats at some length, yet it's only this part of it that some people want to see deleted. The material is relevant to the subject and is sourced to reliable, third-party sources. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, but now we have all witnesses saying 2 not 5 gunmen so we should drop the 5 claim (unless both versions are mentioned, but that seems too much for such a minor issue). AP clearly got that point wrong. Also "the Corries were not the intended targets" is sort of ambiguous. The gunmen could have been intent on kidnapping the Corries knowing who they were, on kidnapping two specific foreigners who they didn't yet know were the Corries, on kidnapping some specific foreigners other than the Corries, or on kidnapping whatever foreigners they could find. The phrase "the Corries were not the intended targets" could apply to all possibilities except the first. --Zero 01:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC) Btw, The Independent reported the number of gunmen as 6. --Zero 06:04, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
I understand. ISM is not being cited, the source citing them is. Groovy (and by the way, I don't mean to be a pain, for the sake of it.) But ... Now that I have been so enlightened about policy, I have a somewhat different suggestion, which still address's mine and many other people's concern: How about rewriting the section, to say "The ISM realeased a statement from the Olympia-Rafah Sister City Project ..." or, alternatively, "ISM released a statement in the name of the Olympia-Rafah Sister City Project ..." -- and then, cite the same source as is cited presenty. That way, people will be less likely to get the impression the Corries were in Gaza as part of some ISM co-ordinated action. They weren't, and no reliable source has claimed that they were, so it does not need to be proven that they weren't. The problem with the way the section reads now, is people are likely to get the impression that they were. If WP readers link to the source and read it very carefully, they will read that ISM did issue the statement, in the name of ORSCP. Again, this is important, because Israel is not allowing individuals working with ISM into Gaza now, and the parents of Rachel Corrie do not work with ISM (and the Americans who were the targets of the kidnapping were not working with ISM either). Many readers of this article, after quickly reading this section, would likely get the impression that ISM actually had someone working in Gaza in January, 2006, which they didn't. (Why, they might ask, would ISM make the statement? Probably because the Corries or whoever it was who was the target of this kidnapping that didn't even happen, are somehow connected to ISM.???) Only to the most thorough WP reader who goes to the cited article and reads carefully, would it become clear that ISM issued the statement on behalf of ORSCP. Per the rules, don't cite ORSCP or ISM. Go ahead and cite Israeli what's her name's blog, above, and here continue to cite this Israeli newspaper: Just be more thorough in the citation. - Jonathan 00:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
You seem to be trying to use Wikipedia to get a political point across on behalf of ISM, but we're not here for that. The section gives both POVs, and links to two reliable sources each reporting one of the versions. That's enough, and it's not going to be changed so that we can help or hinder ISM. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
It's not about trying to help or hinder ISM. Personally, I don't really care about ISM. The main reason I care about it at all is I think it is possible that some misinformed Israeli soldiers, who don't like ISM, might do something because they are misinformed. I'll leave it at that. - Jonathan 00:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I rewrote this section to get the date right, to link to a copy of the JP article which quotes Nasrallah directly, to link to the Corrie parents' statement that agrees almost exactly with Nasrallah ("Though one of the men who entered our host’s apartment was armed, we were never threatened physically or verbally. The men were polite, though it was clear that they were interested in taking, at least, two Americans with them. We declined to leave. It was through very quick thinking and action by the Palestinian couple who were hosting us that our safety was ensured."), and to continue linking to the ISM statement that disagrees with them (though I'm not sure we need to). --Zero 06:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

The JP link leads to a Telegraph article. If we're going to use the JP, we should link directly to them and not to an intermediary site. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
The JP site only has this article behind a login barrier as far as I can tell. I obtained the article using a newspaper archive (Factiva) that my institution has a subscription to. I provided a link to another site that copies the article after checking it was a valid copy. The alternative would be to cite JP without a link but that would only be an inconvenience to readers. --Zerotalk 22:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I removed a contradiction in this section, as it said the "gunmen left when told who the corries parents where" than a sentence later "the gunmen wanted to use the corries as bargaining chips".- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that's a good edit. Also, just of out curiousity, how much time needs to go by before this story can be considered so old that this whole section can be deleted? TroiS6 09:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Press release

I reread the source again that attributes ISM as having released the press release. It says, "according the ISM Media Group in the name of the Olympia-Rafah Sister City Project, "news reports stating that the parents of slain American human rights activist Rachel Corrie were the intended targets of an attempted kidnapping Wednesday in Gaza are incorrect." The source is misleading. ISM posted ORSCPs press release on their website, archived here: http://www.palsolidarity.org/main/2006/01/04/no-attempt-to-kidnap-rachel-corries-parents/ "The ISM Media Group" and the ORSCP are not the same entities, and the way this article is written, it makes it seem that they are. (The press release on the ISM cite has a link to ORSCP at the top ... just because they reprint somebody else's press release does not mean the information is "according to them". This source needs to not be cited, because the work ORSCP does is very different from the work ISM does, and ORSCP works very hard to make it clear to the Israeli and US government that they are not in any way affiliated with ISM. Having this source on this page could potentially endanger the lives of US citizens who travel to Gaza to work with ORSCP, who have no interest in doing the work that people who choose to work themselves with ISM do. It could also lead to the legal status of ORSCP being endangered. - Jonathan 22:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Jonathan, I can't stress enough that we don't publish original research. We only publish what reputable sources publish, which in this case means largely what journalists have written. We only have your word for it that the source is wrong. I mean no disrespect by this; it is simply that we do not publish the opinions of individual editors. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:50, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Fine, then there should a notation in the article that the source is contested. However -- I do not see why it makes a difference that the article state that ISM refutes the claim rather than ORSCP. ISM is the subject of much more controversy -- I have read the rules: why are they considered reliable enough to cite, but not ORSCP? - Jonathan 23:11, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
They're not! We're not citing them; we're citing the newspaper. I'm afraid I can't keep on answering these points. Please read our editing policies carefully: WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:RS. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Alleged contradictions

I have removed the part about Balint's weblog entry because, as the Policies section on this page states, this article is to include "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...". I have also removed the section about Richard Purssel's comments, because both links are broken. Follow them and you get a message that the "article does not exist". I trust it once did, but it does not now. Someone needs to find good links if that's going to be in here. TroiS6 09:52, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Balint's material is published as a book, Jerusalem Diaries. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:52, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Blaint's book is put out by Gefen Publishing House. They put out books about Judaism, Jewish thought, and Israel, including history, the Holocaust, and related subject matter. They seem to have a lot of interesting books, and I thank-you SlimVirgin for calling that book to my attention. And as I stated in another section, I am busy reading WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:RS, so perhaps this is off mark - but perhaps it would be better if a source from a book that is peer reviewed were used instead of this one. The fact that Blaint is a journalist is mentioned, as if that's supposed to make her book (which I admit I have not read) more reliable. WP:V and WP:RS seem to be a little ambiguous to me, about whether this source is reliable just because it is published in a book put out by a publishing house somewhere. Here, it is cited as appearing in a blog, and as the Policies section at the top of this page states, the page is to include "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...".TroiS6 18:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Please read the policies carefully. Blogs may be used if they're maintained by known professional journalists, or professional researchers in a relevant field. Also, it would be absurd if we could only use peer-reviewed sources. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
As so many of us seem unable or unwilling to actually go read the policies unless commanded to do so, I feel led to quote from WP:V: "..self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. Exceptions may be when a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information on the professional researcher's blog is really worth reporting, someone else will have done so." Now, this gets to my point in the entry immediately above this one. I understand it says an exception can be made if.... However, any nut-job can get a job as a journalist these days, and while their work is subject to a certain level of standard when it is to appear in the paper or whatever publication they write for, especially if they are journalists and not merely editorialists, the same standard does not apply for personal blogs. Or books published by publishing houses that don't use the sort of stringent peer-review standards like, say, SF State University Press, which recently put out N. Finkelsteins rage generating publication. That book, I beileve, is extremely reliable not because I agree with what Mr. Finkelstein has to say, but because it has undergone a thourough review by scholars prior to being published. As far as I know, Ms. Blain't book has not. I am not pointing this out because I disagree with her, but rather because I agree with the policy as stated in WP:V, that "if the information on the professional researcher's blog is really worth reporting, someone else will have done so." So how about we remove it? TroiS6 19:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
TroiS6, if you want to change the policies, please do that on those talk pages, not here. Also, perhaps you could wait until you've made more than 62 edits to the encyclopedia. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm not proposing a change in policy: I recognize my own inability to understand just what the policies are, at this juncture. Nor am I saying I disagree with the analysis put forth in Ms. Blaint's book: I haven't read it. I am saying that the section looks kind of... sucky. (Is that an okay word to use?) i believe many readers will read it as: "Blah blah blah, who wasn't even freakin' there (she just happens to live in Israel, where, as everyone knows, the populous is SO informed about what happens in the territories) says in her freakin' blog, blah blah blah." No, I'm not disagreeing with the pollcy. I just said it seems a little ambiguous to me. Perhaps its just me. To help, I will try to find a similar source that doesn't look (to me) like just another conspiracy theory. I do mean to offendl; I do appreciate your (and everyone elses) work. TroiS6 20:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
The policy does say that blogs of "well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field, or a well-known professional journalist" are acceptable; Balint seems to qualify. While Wikipedia does require that only reliable sources be used, that doesn't restrict it to using peer-reviewed material, which would be an unreasonably high standard of inclusion. Jayjg (talk) 22:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/a/c/Talk%7ERachel_Corrie_Archive_2_4310.html"