Talk:Rachel Corrie

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute.
Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles.

[edit] Policies

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

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

Articles may not contain any unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, analyses, or ideas.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

[edit] Archives

[edit] See Also

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please don't add red links to the see-also section. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I have removed those additions as those people were not involved in deaths caused by the idf. Arniep 00:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Arnie, you can't determine that the see-also section is only for people who have died in incidents involving the IDF. I don't know what the criteria should be, but there's no need for it to be as narrow or POV as that. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

There is no reason to include deaths caused by Palestinian terrorists, the controversy over Corrie is primarily related to the activities of the idf and the ism. Arniep 01:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

But see-also can include anything we want so long as there's some relevance. It doesn't have to be relevant from only one POV. Anyway, it's a moot point at the moment, because the names he added were red-linked, and we can't have see-alsos where there's nothing to see. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll see about having pages added for them - They were the first non-IDF deaths of Americans since the beginning of the Intifada - so their deaths are notable - their deaths are already referenced on the [1] page. They weren't members of the ISM, but either was James Miller, so ISM membership doesn't seem to be relevent to addition. I suppose that readers of an encyclopedia would be interested in the deaths of only foreigners killed by the IDF and other deaths are irrelevent, but if you go down that road of specificity, eventually you would have to include only links about female Americans killed by the IDF on March 16th by heavy machinery. And that seems unproductive.

I agree that there can't be specificity in one POV direction only. Having see-alsos of foreigners killed in Gaza seems fair enough to me, though they must be blue links or there's no point. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

The see also section should be connected to foreigners whose deaths were caused by the idf, it is not relevant to include deaths caused by others as it is now suspected that there was a deliberate policy to intimidate journalists or peace campaigners entering Israel or the Palestinian territories so deaths caused by Palestinian terrorists are not relevant to that. Arniep 11:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

That's your personal view, Arnie, which isn't relevant to what's included in the see-also section. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Fine, is there a policy or guideline on what should go in the see also section? Arniep 00:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

No policy; guideline at Wikipedia:Guide to layout. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Online Video

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

Interview - http://www.ourmedia.org/node/181045
"The Killing Zone" - http://www.ourmedia.org/node/164499
IDF Footage - http://www.ourmedia.org/node/158250
Related footage from "Rachel: An American Conscience" - http://www.ourmedia.org/node/158271

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

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

[edit] Unaddressed Questions

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

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

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

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

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

Valid questions all.

69.39.172.72 15:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I've heard she was the head of al-qaeda. - Xed 16:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Here is what I found: http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110004168 Zeq 17:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The origin of that information is the Jerusalem Post which is not exactly a neutral source is it. Arniep 19:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The JPost is a reliable source for Wikipedia. If we only used neutral sources, we'd have arguably none to use. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

No, I think you'll find it violates the question on whether sources have an obvious bias or extremist political views on WP:RS. Arniep 19:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

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

- - - - I think the JPost is fine. WP:RS reads in relevant part: " a source has strong views is not necessarily a reason not to use it, although editors should avoid using political groups with widely acknowledged extremist views, like Stormfront.org or the Socialist Workers Party." I don't see any way to strike the JPost for bias and leave in The National Review, Common Dreams News Center, Mother Jones, The Spectator, The Observer, The Guardian or The Nation, just to name several sources currently on the page.
      - That said, the OpinionJournal and JPost articles don't say that Corrie was affiliated with Bin Laden - they say that the IDF states that it was looking for smuggling tunnels, not wrecking houses. That POV is already well represented in the article. TheronJ 21:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I think all of those sources are obviously more biased than JPost, I think maybe at the most JPost is as bias as the BBC, it is clearly an acceptable source.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 06:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Looking for smuggling tunnels involves wrecking houses. Arniep 21:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

This is one of the most inconsequential articles with the most space on all of the Wiki. It deserves about two paragraphs at the most, and probably should be deleted altogether. Why does it contain 2 long self serving "eye witness" accounts of the accident? Are we now going to list every death in the world with a full listing of possible causes. I don't want to be accused of vandalism, but I am going to slightly reduce the lenght of this piece.Incorrect 02:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

To try and make this a npov edit, I've substantially reduced both the IDF and the ISM statements on the accident - they are all long, tedious and of no interest to anyone, those who really care can find much more info on google.Incorrect 03:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

If someone wants to reverse my edits, ok, but do we really need to know more than the circumstances of her death are disputed?Incorrect 03:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I have a great idea: let's include a copy of the autopsy report; also RC's 4th grade report card; and can we get a picture of her carved initials in her desk from the 6th grade; why don't we include a family tree; and what about a listing of her boyfriends, their family trees, and their political persuasions; let's make this the biggest article in all of wp!Incorrect 05:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

More RC information this article MUST contain to be valid: her brand of lipstick, her favorate color, where she went on her prom - without the foregoing, this article just won't be complete.Incorrect 06:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] question

Hi Slim,

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

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

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

The intro already mentions the tunnels and Egypt. You wanted to mention them twice. You also typed the word "used" twice in a row, and the word weapons/weapon. It's also important to write that the IDF "says" there were tunnels, not state it as a fact. The current intro makes that distinction. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The intro is divided in two parts:

First part is stated as facts
Second part is presented as ISM view Vs. IDF view.

The folowing facts are not disputed and as such should be moved from the IDF view to the "facts" part in the 1st sentence:

the proximity of te residential area to the border
existense of smuggling tunnels under the border [3], [4]

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

I'm reluctant to mess around with the intro because achieving balance took a long time. First para is how she died, and that the bulldozer was in what one side called a residential area and the other side called a security zone. Second paragraph explains the death from the ISM POV and then the IDF POV. I'd say it's pretty neutral and to the point. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I understand your reluctence. However, we can try and add these two undisputed points to the first paragraph.

It is not that we are not going to have edit conflicts with or without this change.

I disgree that it is neutral at this point since "residental area" is a strong chatrization and "idf dsignated as security zone" is a bit "weaslwording" ("designated") and also does not tell the whole story. You know I am a big fan of NPOV:-) Zeq 11:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Ho hum... I thought I'd seen it all until I saw that the phrase 'residential area', when it applies to Palestinians, is regarded as a "strong characterization". What should it be called? An animal farm? A shit hole? Is that NPOV enough? By the way, the IDF 'POV' does not dispute that it was a residential area. Ramallite ^(talk) 13:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Rammalite. The fact that is is a residential area is not disputed.

also this is not disputed either:

the proximity of te residential area to the border
existense of smuggling tunnels under the border

On the personal level, why is this such a sensitive issue ? Clearly like all the recent history of the middle east (and especialy the palestinian people) innocent people suffer when terrorists used the area were innocent people live to launch attcks (or smuggle weapon) and the IDf respond with too much force. Nothing new here. Zeq 13:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Having the smuggling tunnels claim at the top is not NPOV as it suggests that Corrie was complicit in weapons smuggling when there is no evidence of that. Arniep 16:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

No. It does not suggets that. Howver, no placing it there is POV since we ignore a known fact that was important to understand ther area conditions at the time.Zeq 16:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how your edit adds to our understanding of what happened: "The IDF conducted acitivity to discover smuggling tunnels used used by Hamas and other groups for smuggling weapons weapon and explosives from Sinai into Gaza." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

OK. I'll try to explain. The current text says this was a residential area. What was the army doing there ? why the army designated it a "security zone" ?. Does the actual mention of the fact that the army designated it a security zone helps in the understanding of what the army was doing there ? no it does not.

Israel and Egypt signed a peace treaty that split rafah in two. Years later that caused the border that crossed Rafah town in the middle to become a hot bad for smuggling and anti smuggling activity. We need to provide the facts to the reader.

Facts that are not disputed should not be presented as "IDF claim".

The issue that is disputed is how she died. All the rest should be presented as fact and not as "IDF designated" or "IDF claim".

Is it more clear (the problem description) ?

Can you propose a solution ? I am sure your english writing is much better than mine. Tnx. Zeq 17:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

You are aware that the word 'designated' in English is definitive, and not wishy washy like the word 'claimed', right? It's like saying the IDF 'clamped a curfew', 'designated an area', 'fired a missile', etc Ramallite ^(talk) 17:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes. The issue is not how defitive is the word but that fact that it describing it as something the army decided. In this respect it is the same as a claim: something that comes from one side.

The issue here are the facts:

The area was close to a int'l border
There are in the area smuggling tunnels
the army was operating in the area

all these are undisputed facts.

Zeq 18:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal - NPOV

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

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

Zeq 18:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Or this one

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

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

Yes. Zeq 18:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

No Zeq. There is no evidence that Corrie had anything whatsoever to do with smuggling, and your continual attempts to include it in such a prominent place is a clear attempt by you to "colour" the impression given to readers of Rachel. It is well known that the Israel and pro Israel media presented a distorted impression of Rachel, portraying her as a collabarator with terrorists and that she attempted to prevent the army finding tunnels, when in fact there is no evidence she knew aything about tunnels or smuggling of weapons and much more evidence that her primary motivation was protecting Palestinians from indiscriminate destruction of their homes and lives. Arniep

Arnie, it is not "well known that the Israel and pro-Israel media presented a distorted impression." That is your POV. It needs to be kept away from this page. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

What evidence do you have to say that is not SlimVirgin? It is a fact that much of the Israeli and pro Israeli media portrayed her as a collabarator of terrorists and deliberately distorted the truth to try and imply that she was somehow complicit in the smuggling of weapons when there is no evidence she was. Arniep 10:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Arnie, stop elevating your own POV to the status of knowledge and fact. We're here to report what reliable sources have said, nothing more, and the talk page is for discussing our edits to the article, not to argue about the issues. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I should also point out that it is not our responsibility to disprove your unsourced claims, its calling proving a negative.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 11:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Arnip: Ihave implmneted NPOV based on the discussion here. Your objections were heared but they don't convince anyone. Please restrict your objections to talk and raise any issue you want. if we reach consesnus we will change the article. Zeq 14:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Well it seems this article is another one to go on the list. Arniep 14:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Which list ? Zeq 15:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Articles related to conflict situations that have POV problems. Arniep 15:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Where is this list ? Zeq 15:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Citing the electron intifada is like citing the communist party, neither is exactly reliable and the lack of credibility of each makes them non citable - I have removed them as a source.Incorrect 10:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Zeq 10:43, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Look, all sides may have biases and may be claimed to be unreliable by the other side. We will have all viewpoints represented, anti Israeli, pro Israeli and those inbetween. If you want a website where just one viewpoint is shown or given prominence please go and set up your own elsewhere. Arniep 11:16, 27 May 2006 (UTC

Arnie, no one is eliminating sources because they are one sided: you will note that the Guardian, which proudly exhibits its anti Jewish anti Israeli bias daily, remains; but the EIntifada is a site that revels in its hatred of Israel and gives as its essence the destructin of Israel, that's why I will continue to elimate it as a source. Play this little mind game - would you site a publication of the aryian nation in an article about synagogues?Incorrect 11:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree the issue is only WP:RS and sources that are not according to policy should be removed. Zeq 11:40, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

If you think The Guardian is an anti Jewish or israeli publication you are seriously deluded. Zeq, the sites you removed are clearly relevant to this page so I restored them. Arniep 13:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The Guardian is well known throughout the world (along with the Independent)to be one of the most vile purveyers of antisemitism this side of Jewwatch and Ken Livingston and George Galloway. Since I am approaching my edit limits I will wait till tomorrow to remove the Electrict Intafada as a source (and ask all other editors to also remove it).Incorrect 15:14, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The Guardian definitely displays an anti-Israel bias. As for Electronic Intifada, we couldn't use it as a source, but we're allowed more leeway when it comes to further reading. However, I'd still say it might be too extreme even for that. Viriditas, what was your reason for restoring the links? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:46, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin I would be interested in what exactly made you think that the Guardian "displays an anti-Israel bias". The Guardian gives opinions from all sides of the spectrum. Would you like them to just give opinions from a pro Israeli viewpoint? Would you call Jonathan Freedland anti Israeli? David Aaronovitch? Obviously the Electronic Intifida is left wing but there are many links to publications here I would consider right wing here so there should be a balance. Arniep 16:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

There are so many examples it'd be hard to know where to begin. Suffice to say my view is based on being a long-term regular reader of it. The bias is very clear. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see, no specific examples. Arniep 18:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Discussing the guardian bias (on any article other than an article about the Guardian itself) is a total waste of time. I hate the guradian but it sure meet WP:RS - end of story. As for EI - it is surly does not. (even as "further reading") - those guys haqve one goal in mind and the truth is not a prime objective there. Zeq 16:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Zeq you don't have the right to decree the flow of conversation. And as I said before as there is never going to be agreement about what is and what is not bias- all sides in the Israeli Palestinian conflict have acted inappropriately in some way, all viewpoints should be represented here (within reason, obviously excepting extreme sites that call for the killing of all Jews or Arabs). Arniep 17:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you arguing with me or with WP:RS ? To say that by removing EI a view point is no longer represented is a joke. This article is based the ISm "Eye witnesses" like Joe carr Zeq 17:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Zeq, EI is a respected website amongst liberal and left leaning people concerned with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Perhaps you should read it. Arniep 17:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

EI does not meet WP:RS therefor I am going to remove all ref to the site from this article. There is nothing thast will be missed as this POV is already represented. If there are objections from other editors (not including Arine) Please respond. Arniep - I kno9w I you feel and there is nothing I can do to convince anyone who think EI is "respectfull". Zeq 17:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Did you state why it doesn't meet WP:RS? I must have missed that. Arniep 18:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

EI is an advocay web site not an informational web site. It promotes extrimists views that disqualify it from being on a source on anything except itslef. For the most part it is self published by the Il Muslim society. see[5] 19:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Links in Further reading don't have to meet RS, but we should use some common sense and not link to anything extremist, which I would argue EI is. Arnie, do you have any sources showing it's respected by liberal publications or commentators? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:53, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

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

Even The Guardian supports a widespread theory that the International Solidarity Movement and/or its Palestinian handlers went so far as to set Rachel Corrie up to be killed by first encouraging her to stand in front of the bulldozer and then not lifting a finger to pull her out of its path when it became clear that the driver did not see her.

Bill, please stop trying to pass off your pet theories as reportage of real world viewpoints. To describe your theory as 'widespread' is dishonest. To suggest that The Guardian supports it crosses the line into comedy.--Joeboy 17:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Per Making of a Martyr as published in The Guardian, a Hamas terrorist said openly that Rachel was worth more dead than alive. "'Her death serves me more than it served her,' said one activist at a Hamas funeral yesterday. '...Her death will bring more attention than the other 2,000 martyrs.'" [6]

The Guardian doesn't "support" anything it "reports", in this case what someone in Hamas said. Thanks Arniep 00:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

This is obviously POV speculation that is not suitable for insertion into the Wikipedia entries on Corrie and the ISM but the Hamas member's words pretty much speak for themselves, as do those of ISM activist Joseph Smith ("So the life of one international, I feel, is more than worth the spirit of resisting oppression" [7]) and ISM leader George Rishmawi ("if some of these foreign volunteers get shot or even killed, then the international media will sit up and take notice" [8]. I raise these observations only to emphasize the point that if Palestine supporters want to quote Electronic Intifada as a credible source, Israel supporters should be equally free to quote sources that argue that Corrie was set up to be killed by her own side. If the Palestinian advocates are allowed to draw from a well of conspiracy theories, then Israel supporters must be allowed to draw from the same well. The best way to maintain NPOV is to allow neither kind of source to be quoted.

As for journalistic integrity, Electronic Intifada is guilty of libel because it falsely accuses the Israeli bulldozer driver (an identifiable person) of "murdering" Rachel Corrie. To be guilty of murder, he would have had to turn the bulldozer with the express purpose of running her over and flooring the accelerator to make sure she couldn't get away. As it stands, her own actions such as kneeling in front of the bulldozer below the driver's line of sight seem to have been designed to get her killed.

A false and malicious accusation of a crime is automatically libel, at least in the United States. Even when someone is caught red-handed in the midst of a crime, newspapers are always careful to say "alleged killer/thief/rapist" until a jury has brought in a guilty verdict. Electronic Intifada, on the other hand, called someone a murderer with no evidence whatsoever that any kind of crime had been committed. This is because EI is a Palestinian propaganda organ as opposed to a responsible and credible journalistic source, and its content therefore has no place in Wikipedia. Bill Levinson

Other links here claim that Corrie assisted terrorists in smuggling weapons, a claim of which there is no proof and is also malicious libel. We all have our biases and I see we are not going to agree what is and what is not, therefore all links across the political spectrum will be represented. Arniep 00:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

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

I have restored the Electronic Intifada website link. Everything is biased to different people, thus the usage of this link is just as acceptable as the others. Regards, Arniep 00:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Not every site that is against Israel is antisemitic. It is a legitimate POV to be against the policies of Israel. The issue here is WP:RS. (EI is against the exitense of the state of israel - this makes them also antisemitic). Zeq 04:18, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

No, it makes them anti-Zionist (if in fact what you say is true). Huge difference. Anyway, what exactly is wrong with the EI page everybody is arguing about? Is it that fact that it's a Palestinian page? Is it the contents of that particular page (which seem relatively benign to me)? Or is it that it links to yet another range of articles? The IE page seems to be one of the least inflammatory of the listed sources, so I'm just wondering what the problem with it is. Ramallite ^(talk) 05:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

The issue is not how infalmatory it is but the site as a whole is not a site that fit WP:RS. Zeq 05:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I keep asking how it does not fit WP:RS- no one answers. Arniep 08:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually people have answered you just decided to dismiss their arguments. It is obvious that the site is not either reputable or reliable, most of their claims are pov conjecture that use inflammatory and overly emotive language.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

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

It is not an ethnic groups "right" to dominate a state set up on other people's land. If a lot of english people went over to Germany and claimed that Schleswig Holstein was their homeland and drove all the current inhabitants away using violence would that be OK? Arniep 08:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

So I guess the muslim population should still give all of Israel back after conquering it in the 6th century. Anyways this is not the place to debate the legitamacy of Israel.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

"anti-Zionist" is a convenient euphemism that may imply anything from political opposition to certain Israel's policy(-ies), politician(s), party(ies), government(s) to all-out wars and calls to throw the Jews into the sea. I don't think el-Intifada would rank as WP:RS. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 06:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Please explain how EI doesn't meet WP:RS (I keep asking- no one answers). Thanks Arniep 08:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you, Arniep, to carefully read the policy and our other policies and guidelines, because you seem to misunderstand (or intentionally misuse) a number of them. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

It is completely unastonishing that Arniep would assert that Electronic Intifida meets Wikipedia's guidelines for reliable sources, of even external links. However, given that it is little more than a glorified blog/propaganda vehicle, it obviously doesn't qualify. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

"A glorified blog/propaganda vehicle", that is your opinion or the opinion of pro Israeli groups/publications? Arniep 23:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outsider's question

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

I see no one has responded. Arniep 23:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Here is an interview with one of the founders of EI: http://www.leftturn.org/Articles/Viewer.aspx?id=472&type=M

Excerpts: The Electronic Intifada's website receives around one quarter of a million visitors (not "hits") each month. During periods of increased conflict, the number of visitors can dramatically increase. During Israel's invasion of the West Bank in March/April 2002, EI's website saw over 600,000 visits in the period of one month.

EI has received favorable reviews in respected publications that include the Washington Post, Financial Times, The Nation, Utne Reader, and the Jerusalem Post. EI's founders are regularly contacted by the mainstream electronic media, such as the BBC, CBC, CNN and dozens of radio stations around the world, to provide commentary and analysis on events in the Middle East. Mgaines 19:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Guardian

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

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

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

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

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

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

"The ISM by its own words supports violence against Israelis, and violence against Israelis means the murder of little Jewish boys and girls, men and women." Can you provide a source for this statement? Thanks Arniep 23:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Rewrite "early life"

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

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

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

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

Hey Bramesh. I see you're new, so please let me first say: welcome to Wikipedia. I hope I can shed some light on notability, as it pertains to Wikipedia. No one here has a God-given right to do anything (except maybe Jimmy Wales). What we have are opinions and generally, when we can, we try to assume that other people are expressing them in good faith (for more, click on WP:AGF). The reason that editors are objecting to what you've put in isn't because it's false, it's simply because it's a tiny part of Corrie's life. Think of it this way: if we included every detail of her life that had an equal or greater importance to what you'd like to include, the article on her would be massive. We're not really trying to write her biography here, just trying to give a sketch of why she's notable. I don’t think it has to do with people being threatened. Again: welcome. IronDuke 21:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems that anything that could be seen as showing Corrie in a positive light is not allowed on this page. Arniep 21:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The purpose of this page, or any WP page, is not to shed a positive or negative light on anyone per se. The reason that Corrie is notable is not because she was good, nor because she was bad. It was simply the circumstances of her death and the fallout it engendered. IronDuke 21:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The fallout from her death included a play (which was blocked in the U.S.) which was based on her diaries. Arniep 23:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

True, but that does not make every entry in her rather voluminous paper trail notable. IronDuke 00:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually "banned" implies that the government did not allow it to be played, what really happened is that understandably private companies chose not to play it because they knew it was inflammatory propaganda which would be bad for business.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 12:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

IMHO, if you want to put in a note that a play was produced based on her writings, with some links to reviews at the bottom of the page, that would be fine, but it really is non-notable that she percipiently noted that her highschool boyfriend likes to walk faster than she does.TheronJ 14:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

Bramesh, I hear what you're saying. A couple of points: we could pretty easily include RC's entire diary in this article, but WP doesn't really do that. We only put in what's notable. I think it's clear from the article, very clear, that RC felt the Israelis were in the wrong, that she hated US policy, etc. And it's not really the place to get into US aid for Israel. There are other articles for that, we don't want this one metastisizing into an argument about Israel. And stuff about trudging after ferns doesn't really speaks to the main point of why RC is notable. I don't think it's "Zionist oversight" to object to including it. And speaking of - you are certainly entitled to the aformentioned view. I would just urge some caution, as an editor who had to learn some things the hard way, that it's really best if you don't impugn someone's motives for editing. That is: attack the edit, not the editor. And intimidation? Sad to say, WP has it in spades. One thing they don't tell you in the Five Holy Pillars of Wikipedia Wisdom is that you often have to have alligator skin to edit here, especially controversial articles. You will be hassled, abused, and mocked (and that's if you're lucky). There are procedures to raise grievances about stuff like that, but maintaining a friendly disposition and adhering to AGF is usually the best way to avoid needless acrimony. Cheers. IronDuke 06:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Bramesh,

I don't feel "threatened" at all by your inclusion of this information. My objective is not to keep people from knowing things, or to push a particular opinion, it is simply to create the best article possible. As has been stated above, your edits in this particular case weren't relevant. They don't really add all that much to our knowledge of Corrie (lots of people make lists and walk outdoors) and they distract people from the information they are looking for when they come to this page, namely the circumstances of her death. I'm sorry that you feel intimidated or frustrated by having your edits reverted, this was of course not my intent, but thats the way that wikipedia works. I seem to remember that in one of your edit summaries you described wikipedia as an "exercise in anarchy", this is not the case, our primary job is to create a good encyclopedia. I'd recommend going back in the edit history and looking at your edit from the perspective of someone who saw Corrie's name somewhere and wants to learn why she's notable. You'll see that your edits don't help that person, but rather they just add irrelevant information for him to slog through. GabrielF 15:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

[edit] Funeral Quote

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

'Her death serves me more than it served her,' said one activist at a Hamas funeral yesterday. 'Going in front of the tanks was heroic. Her death will bring more attention than the other 2,000 martyrs.'

I was thinking of making that very point myself. Properly speaking, the quote should be attributed to "an attendee at Corrie's funeral who is active on behalf of Palestinian causes." I think, BTW, that the activist in question is most probably right - surely there is someone more notable out there to make his/her claim. IronDuke 15:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flag Burning Picture

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

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

Hi. The problem with your assertion is that the picture is widely attributed to Corrie, and has been reported as being Corrie in many sources. If you click on the info for the picture, they cite the ISM as the source of the photograph and the attribution. For example, here is one source, from the CBC attributing the photograph to Corrie. [9] Bibigon 22:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The ISM is not cited as the source of the photo; the information given by clicking on the photo is "Presumed to come from the International Solidarity Movement". I think this is false. I have searched the ISM site [10] and cannot find this photo. I did, however, find their official statement on the death of Rachel, which states: "A picture has been circulated that shows Rachel burning a drawing of the American flag. Trying to use this picture to somehow indicate that Rachel deserved to be run over by a bulldozer is an appalling act of demonization that infers that forms of protest which include flag burning are capital offences"[11]. This suggests to me that the ISM is almost certainly not the source, but rather one of the anti-ISM sites. I agree that this falsely-attributed picture should be removed. RolandR 12:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

It is true that no one desrve to be run by a bolduzer for burnning flags. As for the source it was circulated on the web by many sources. No one doubts the autheticity of the photo (not even the ISM) and the photo has been so widely circulated that it is now in the public domain. Zeq 13:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

No one doubts the autheticity[sic] of the photo - not true, it certainly looks fake to me (and to others, see quote below). The light on her face is all wrong compared to the rest of the photo, and the face itself bears little relation to the other photos of Rachel Corrie. On a quick search I haven't found any statements by her family on the authenticity (or not) of the photo, but if anyone has found such a statement, that would be very valuable and should be incorporated into the article. ISTR articles attributing it to Associated Press, but this article dated 31/3/2003 [12] says:

Two days later a contrary photograph of Rachel appeared, first in the Seattle Times (the article accompanying it has since been removed). It depicts her snarling, shawled and in a Palestinian street demonstration, tearing up a paper US flag. The provenance given for the photograph (a mysterious snapper called "Khalil Hamra") led nowhere. Where, then, had it come from? Paranoia suggested the Israeli secret service, which monitors such events. This picture also looked, to some expert eyes, doctored.

--NSH001 14:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

"Khalil Hamra" is not a "a mysterious snapper" he later worked for AP in Gaza. Zeq 16:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

There are at least two photos of her burning a flag -- both doctored? Also, regarding the ISM statement above, they do not seem to be saying that the photo is fake. Indeed, they are all but admitting it. What they are saying is basically, "Yes, she burned a drawing of an American flag, but that doesn't mean she deserved to die." Which is fair enough, but I see little evidence that would allow us to even suggest the event didn't happen. IronDuke 15:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, here's the full quote from above at the ISM website.

“

A picture has been circulated that shows Rachel burning a drawing of the American flag. Trying to use this picture to somehow indicate that Rachel deserved to be run over by a bulldozer is an appalling act of demonization that infers that forms of protest which include flag burning are capital offences. In the words of Rachel’s parents: “The act, while we may disagree with it, must be put into context. Rachel was partaking in a demonstration in Gaza opposing the war on Iraq. She was working with children who drew two pictures, one of the American flag, and one of the Israeli flag, for burning. Rachel said that she could not bring herself to burn the picture of the Israeli flag with the Star of David on it, but under such circumstances, in protest over a drive towards war and her government’s foreign policy that was responsible for much of the devastation that she was witness to in Gaza, she felt it OK to burn the picture of her own flag. We have seen photographs of memorials held in Gaza after Rachel’s death in which Palestinian children and adults honor our daughter by carrying a mock coffin draped with the American flag. We have been told that our flag has never been treated so respectfully in Gaza in recent years. We believe Rachel brought a different face of the United States to the Palestinian people, a face of compassion. It is this image of Rachel with the American flag that we hope will be remembered most.”

”

[13]

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

Yes, of course I have seen that statement. That still doesn't answer the question of whether or not the photo is fake (and one that seems a particularly crude fake to me). The event could still have happened, but the photo faked to make Rachel look worse. --NSH001 18:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Why should we assume that the picture is fake? We know that the event took place, we know that the ISM doesn't say that the picture is fake, merely that they don't think it should be used to demonize Corrie. In fact, by not denying the photo's authenticity when they have the opportunity to do so they seem to be implicitly acknowledging its authenticity. I"d say that we need considerably more than idle speculation to remove the photo. GabrielF 18:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

For the avoidance of doubt, I am NOT suggesting that the photo should be removed, quite the opposite. I am saying that it has not been established whether or not this particular photo is fake (although my opinion so far is that it is fake). Either way it is worth keeping the photo.

--NSH001 20:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

What happened to the context of that mock flag burning that used to be in the article? I did a brief search of the edit history and couldn't find it mentioned. Part of the statement above used to be included in the article, the context that Rachel was handed two mock flags, refused to burn the Israeli one but agreed to burn the US one. I think this is important context, especially for a photo so prominently displayed on the page and so heavily used to promote one POV of her activities in Palestine. Anyone? Mgaines 14:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

You raise an interesting point, Mgaines. I think the question to ask is whether Corrie's non-burning of an Israeli flag is notable, that is, has it been discussed by experts in peer-reviewed journals, for example. IronDuke 15:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] Relevancy - House Corrie protecting later demolished

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

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

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

I agree completely with Mgaines here. Indeed this little note ought to be expanded and referenced.

--NSH001 14:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. If this were an article about Samid Nasrallah, it would matter. But the fate of his house occurs after Corrie's death and is not part of what makes the aftermath of her death relevant; what is relevant is the worldwide outrage at her/Israel's actions and, to a lesser extent (sadly) the deaths of Israeli children resulting from it. IronDuke 15:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

IronDuke, that is nonsense. It is part of the essential background to understanding what Rachel was doing. The IDF were indeed demolishing houses, destroying livelihoods, bulldozing orchards, destroying water supplies, and worse. A brutal, vicious, illegal occupying military force in flagrant violation of UN resolutions. These horrendous actions were and are a vital contributory factor in motivating the killers responsible for Israeli deaths. Violence begets violence, and Rachel is to be commended for trying to put a stop to it. Her actions helped to reduce both Palestinian and Israeli deaths. She is to be admired for saving Isaeli lives, and for sacrificing her own life while trying to protect Nasrallah's house.

--NSH001 17:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

NSH001, your comments are not only uncivil, they also betray a strong desire to push POV. "Brutal, vicious, illegal?" In any case, there appears to be a lack of reputable sources for this claim, as per the comments below. Am reverting until there are better sources, then perhaps we can continue the discussion. IronDuke 23:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm surprised that you might regard by comments as "uncivil"; that certainly wasn't the intention. I consider myself a friend of Israel and the Jewish people (as an aside, I was brought up on large chunks of the "Old Testament" and have great admiration for the Jewish people, their acheivements, history and traditions; I am appalled by the long history of suffering of the Jews, and by the Holocaust; my (late) father fought against Nazism in World War II, and I loathe anti-semitism in all its forms. Sorry for the digression, but it seems to be necessary to explain where I'm coming from). It shouldn't be necessary to say that I am also appalled by the terrorist killings of Jews in Israel (and anywhere else for that matter), and I want to see them stopped. I'm sorry if you feel that it is "uncivil", but sometimes a good friend has to say things that might be difficult to accept.

--NSH001 22:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I am sure Israel will prefer to pick its own friends. With friends like this . . . but I digress. In any event, your comments are subject to reasonable dispute and should not be asserted as fact in WP.--Wehwalt 22:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Some thoughts on the "house demolished" story:

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

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

I agree with TheronJ, the incident is notable but another source needs to be found. I know that the Corries were almost kidnapped at Nasrallah's house two years later but it is likely that it was a different house. GabrielF 18:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Here's an interesting link about the rebuilding effort on the Nasrallah house. I doubt it's reliable, but it's interesting. TheronJ 15:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Slightly nutty if you ask me! Anyway, I am going to put the info back in along the lines I suggested.--Wehwalt 11:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

There's a much better article in The Jewish Journal (GLA). Long and thorough, it is careful to be fair to both sides. Among other things, it makes clear that ALL houses in the area were targeted for demolition, and that the Nasrallahs' house was finally demolished on 17th Oct 2003, some seven months after Rachel's death.

--NSH001 14:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for finding the relevant article. It is no doubt a fact that the Nasrallah home, along with all others in that neighborhood of southern Rafah were demolished, just finding the "credible" source can be tough. I looked and looked but could only find advocacy sites or official Palestine Authority sources, again not because it didn't happen, but because many "mainstream" news sources didn't report it. Mgaines 01:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Human Rights Watch page

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

HRW is a respected, independent human-rights organisation that reports equally on abuses by Palestinian groups. It is NOT a "highly biased political website" in the meaning of the guidance at the top of this article. See this Jerusalem Post article [The Truth Hurts].

--NSH001 16:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I and a lot of other people have zero respect for HRW. Accept it.

What is that article meant to demonstrate? IronDuke 17:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

You say "Human Rights Watch has issued repeated condemnations of Israel, and has never supported it in any way." The IDF has also "issued repeated condemnations of Palestinians, and has never supported them in any way." Now this is not a tit for tat, but it's true that HRW is a respected organization that has reported on all hot spots around the world, and has condemned some Palestinian actions too as violations of basic Israeli human rights. If an organization that has the phrase "human rights" in its very name is deemed biased, does that offend people because Palestinians aren't supposed to be 'human'? What's the matter? Ramallite ^(talk) 17:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe that is an accurate or helpful recapitulation of Wehwalt's position. IronDuke 17:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I actually wasn't referring to Wehwalt per se, but to regular accusations on WP talk pages about HRW's bias, (or accusations of bias against any group that has anything helpful to say about Palestinians), and was wondering why that is, that's all. No personal insults were implied or meant, sorry. It's frustrating that almost any site that has anything non-negative to say about Palestinians (doesn't even have to be positive, just not negative) is deemed "biased". Ramallite ^(talk) 17:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry if misinterpreted your remarks. I don't believe Wehwalt was commenting on HRW's position on Palestinains, but rather suggesting bias in their criticism of Israel. IronDuke 23:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, declaring that HRW is highly biassed and on that basis deleting information about its report is just stupid. Excessive tolerance of stupidity is one of the reasons for Wikipedia's quality issues. Palmiro | Talk 23:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think much is gained by calling another editor's arguments stupid, other than ill-feeling. If there is a good argument to be made against Wehwalt's position, I would urge you to make it. IronDuke 23:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

There's no good argument to be made for his position, so I don't see why I or anyone else should bother making one against it. On the other hand, it is certainly worth pointing out the danger posed by excessive tolerance of such nonsense. Palmiro | Talk 23:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's a quote from our article: "Human Rights Watch has been criticized as having an anti-Israel bias. Prominent critics include the Anti-Defamation League, Gerald Steinberg and the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs' NGO Monitor, Anne Bayefsky, and Abraham Cooper." Are those people biased? Maybe. Stupid? You'd be hard-pressed to make that case. IronDuke 00:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The fact that you come up with a set of clearly biased groups to make the case that HRW is biased allows me, I think, to rest my case. Palmiro | Talk 00:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what "case" you are referring to. You've not responded to any of the points I have made. That's fine by me. I'd just respectfully ask you not to refer to other editors as "stupid." I don't think you help build a better encyclopedia by doing that. IronDuke 01:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it's obvious that Wehwalt came to this page not to improve it, but to interject his own pro-Israel bias. HRW is respected around the world and surely meets Wiki guidelines for realiable sources. Mgaines 01:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Your remarks do not address my points. IronDuke 01:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, I would once again ask all editors to use this discussion page BEFORE making changes, not make the change then discuss it. Mgaines 01:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Wehwalt's recent edits are completely unacceptable (a pity, as I thought his earlier contributions were mostly helpful). His insertion "a group which has repeatedly critcized Israeli actions in the West Bank and Gaza," is blatant POV, and doesn't belong in this article. Such observations belong on the main Human Rights Watch page, where they can be placed in context. If you follow the history, you will see he has been repeatedly deleting my report of HRW's findings, and even, on one occasion, inserted an untrue statement. The fact that plenty of people criticise HRW does NOT prove that HRW is a "highly biased political website"; it merely shows (1) that Israel is alleged to have committed human-rights violations in the Occupied Territoies (rather a lot, in fact) and (2) the apologists for IDF violence are vociferous, well-organised and well-funded, and with strong support at the highest levels of the US government.

In fact, the HRW report is probably the closest thing we're going to get to an independent investigation. My summary of it was careful, accurate (though I will concede the style is clumsy, and could be improved) and definitely belongs here. We present the IDF view here at some length (quite properly) and it is totally unacceptable to suppress relevant evidence, such as that from HRW's investigation.

--NSH001 11:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for damning me with faint praise. The problem with the HRW statement (I hesitate to call it a report, it is one page of print, tops) is that a)it is from a group which has made a practice of criticizing Israel and NOT criticizing Palestinian terrorists; b) it is NOT evenhanded--they interviewed ISM and Palestinian individuals, but there is no indication they asked for any official Israeli contribution, c) it is presented to advance a point of view from a pressure group. HRW may be widely praised, but it is also widely condemned. The statement was inserted into a volatile article which had achieved consensus at a critical point--to rebut the point of view of one of the parties. HRW is presented as a neutral third party that is evaluating both sides in a neutral and dispassionate manner and presenting well-balanced conclusions, when in fact that is very much open to dispute. That addition was done without any attempt to gain consensus on the Talk page. Frankly, what we should do is move the paragraph to the "Reactions" section, under the comments about Amnesty International. I propose we do so.--Wehwalt 11:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

No comments in over a day. Unless someone objects, I propose to move the HRW matter to the reactions section.--Wehwalt 16:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

A medical problem has kept me away since my last contribution. I will return when I am able, but in the meantime I just want to note that my absence does not imply consensus or agreement (certainly not in this case).

--NSH001 19:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Two minor issues

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

I'm OK with deleting the ISM affiliate thing. While there was a source which so stated, the guy sppears to be somewhat nuts, so let it go. As for the other thing, this is reporting from the day after Corrie died, and Ha'aretz is relying mostly on ISM reporting. I would be more comfortable with something from later on in the mess.--Wehwalt 19:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Many of the articles I have saved are either no longer available online or charge a fee to access archives. I was able to find a Haaretz article with the same information from late June of 2003, when the IDF "closed the file", which also mentions "The troops had destroyed three buildings that were already partially demolished and a number of walls." [16] Mgaines 16:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

It is still reporting of ISM statements, it is unclear who the "eyewitnesses" are. I would tend to agree, delete the sentence about no houses being demolished, as it is a matter of dispute.--Wehwalt 17:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

I am not sure that a blog meets the policies at the top of this page. If the term was picked up by a media source with editorial oversight, then use it. Otherwise, do not.--Wehwalt 21:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Blogs are not considered reliable sources. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 21:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

If we are reporting that a blog says such and such, then the blog is the best source as to whether or not they are actually saying it. They're not a reliable source on other subjects, but they certainly can be sourced if we're reporting what they are saying. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The question really is at what point it becomes notable. I'd say that usages on an extremist political blog such as Little Green Footballs are not notable in and of themselves in relation to articles such as this. If something is notable in terms of the usages, views or reactions of the radical right, it will be observable on more reliable sources e.g. newspapers. Palmiro | Talk 22:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Right, I'm not disagreeing with that, at all, just reminding that there are some times when blogs are acceptable sources. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why not just present all facts?!

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

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

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

Actually the evidence was that they could indeed see her. Arniep 15:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] excluding Electronic Intifada as ref: consensus?

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

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

October 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Second Paragraph Rewrite

The second paragraph currently reads

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

I think this is highly imbalanced especially since these claims are disputed. ISM's claims are only two, (1. deliberate 2. home demolition) and wishy-washy "what they say might have been" while IDF claims are four (1. debris not run over 2. didn't see her 3. brush not demolitions 4. interfering with security operations) and concrete. I suggest either limiting the IDF claims to two or expanding on ISM claims.

Proposal 1 (limiting IDF claims):

"The circumstances of Corrie's death are disputed. The ISM say that the driver of the bulldozer deliberately ran her over twice while she was trying to prevent a house demolition. The IDF say that the cause of death was falling debris pushed over by the bulldozer, that the bulldozer driver did not see her and that the bulldozer was not engaged in a house demolition."

Proposal 2 (expanding ISM claims)

"The circumstances of Corrie's death are disputed. The ISM say that the driver of the bulldozer deliberately ran her over twice while she was trying to prevent the demolition of a family home she had stayed in; that the bulldozer started towards her from a sufficient distance to clearly see her and her orange jacket; and that just prior to being run over Rachel climbed the bulldozer mound to reach eye-level with bulldozer operators. The IDF say that the cause of death was falling debris pushed over by the bulldozer, that the bulldozer driver did not see her; that the bulldozer was clearing brush and not engaged in a demolition; that Corrie was interfering with security operations designed to uncover the tunnels used by Hamas and other groups for smuggling weapons from Egypt."

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

I think the paragraph as it stands dos the job nicely. Your first suggested graf merely removes information, while the second could bebroken down as the ISM claiming that 1) the driver saw her, 2) the driver saw her and 3) the driver saw her. You see what I'm saying? IronDuke 18:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I understand and somewhat agree with your point about Proposal 2, but what about proposal 1? I could also try or be open to others trying a proposal 3, but my point still stands that this introductory paragraph contains the most disputed aspects of the incident and is highly imbalanced with regards to competing claims. Mgaines 15:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I say leave it as is. No one has complained in 2 1/2 months. The article as a whole is well balanced. I don't think we need to count facts in individual paragraphs--Wehwalt 15:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that the article as a whole is balanced, but do agree that counting facts in every paragraph would be a waste of time and not very productive. We're talking however about the main paragraph, the introduction that most people will read without going any further. Some effort should be made at balance since there are claims and counter-claims that each merit some legitamacy. It doesn't need to be fact for fact, but to explain one side nearly completely (the IDF side) while allowing only one sentence for the other, skews the entire article. Mgaines 15:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Crushing picture

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

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

[edit] Email to parents

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

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

Thanks. Fixed the diff. IronDuke 22:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent Changes

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

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

[edit] Removal of earlier photograph

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

The picture should be removed because you are afraid of what people might conclude from seeing one of those bulldozers? Certainly that is an unacceptable reason. --Zero^talk 13:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

That is not what I said, of course. What is your rationale for keeping it? I should note that it is also placed in a section of the article which deals with whether Corrie was visible to the bulldozer involved in the incident that ended her life, which might lead the casual user to think that this photograph is relevant to that section. It isn't.--Wehwalt 14:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

It is a photo taken on site apparently on the same day. It shows the sort of thing Corrie was doing that day and therefore adds information to the article. Your analysis of the visibility issue is personal research. --Zero^talk 07:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

If you see the picture, and the placement of the picture, as a way of advocating for what you believe regarding Corrie, then I think we are going to have a problem here. WP is not about advocating for a position.--Wehwalt 14:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with that statement Wehwalt. Most of what I wrote above does not directly pertain to inclusion or exclusion of the picture from the article but was rather discussion responding to a previous comment. This is the talk page, right? Mgaines 18:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Visibility" photo should go

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

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

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

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

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

Canonista 14:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Canonista, thank you for your thoughts and welcome to Wikipedia (I've left a welcome message on your talk page here, which has a lot of useful links).

As for your point about the photo, a few things come to mind. First, and most importantly, Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. What that means is, we may not inject our personal theories into articles, no matter how right the theories may be. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, we report what others say. If you have sources that meet the criteria for Reliable sources, perhaps there'd be room for it in the article.

Also, FWIW, the couple in the picture are standing in a depression and the blade of the dozer is slightly raised. Their height seems appropriate to me, but then, my opinion doesn't matter, if you follow me.

One last thing: please be careful of WP:3RR. If you click that link and read the policy, it says that you may make no more than three reversions in a 24-hour period. This is to keep articles stable, and to encourage discussion. Thanks again for discussing. Cheers,

IronDuke 20:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

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

Zero, thanks for that link, very useful.

--NSH001 08:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

What needs to be done to put the photo back in the article? In researching this incident, I was able to get the actual film from Joe Carr and have the pictures developed myself. I have permission to use them and I am the one who posted the high resolution version to dispel the myths of photoshopping. This photo was published by dozens of mainstream media outlets including Reuters and AP, so it is not original research. Also, this photo was discussed in archived discussion of this article, at length. Mgaines 13:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, I've been burned myself with the whole licensing thing. You may wish to seek advice from an admin. I suggest that when you restore it, you put it where the photo of the bulldozer is now, and perhaps put the bulldozer shot where the deleted shot formerly was.--Wehwalt 13:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Home of pharmacist

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

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

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

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

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

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/a/c/Talk%7ERachel_Corrie_0e0a.html"

Category: Wikipedia controversial topics