Talk:Rachel Corrie/Archive 12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14

List of The Evergreen State College people

Can someone familiar with Rachel Corrie look at this information about Rachel Corrie at List of The Evergreen State College people. --JWSchmidt (talk) 04:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism. Reverted and warned. Jclemens (talk) 04:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

RFC: Is the See Also section NPOV and appropriate to the article?

I removed the See Also section from this article, as it was only a list of other ISM activists killed by the IDF during the Second Intifada. It has since been replaced and removed several more times, so clearly not only is the supposed "long-standing" consensus to keep it not valid, but a new consensus needs to be reached. Therefore, I propose the following statement and RFC to reach a new consensus:

Various claims were made for the relevance of the section citing "patterns of behavior" by the IDF, or relevancy of the timeframe, but I feel it violates NPOV because it purports to show "a pattern of behavior by the IDF" that is not supported by any reliable sources. I would point out, though, that where the section is now is a little better than where it was: previously the names said "killed by the IDF" with no clarifier as to why they were listed (they were in warzones with the ISM), and now there is at least a rationale. However, I don't believe the rationale is correct: a victim list is appropriate for this type of article (as mnetioned in the earlier discussion directly above). So, I think there are two issues to be resolved here. One, is the section NPOV, and if it is, is it still appropriate for the article? MSJapan (talk) 18:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Delete votes

  • Remove from See Also, integrate into appropriate categories including Category:Second Intifada casualties and/or Category:Deaths by the Israel Defense Forces. Jclemens (talk) 19:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Remove - voting as nom, because of NPOV violation and inappropriateness for article. Kasaalan reformatted this RFC and put the RFC question into the deletion vote section, when it in fact came to no such conclusion.
  • Categorize. I have not edited IP articles much, but in a similar area where I have more experience (Ireland/The Troubles), such See Also and/or casualty lists are usually deprecated and categorised if possible, unless they are clearly linked. In this case, it would be reasonable to link James Miller (filmmaker) and Tom Hurndall, who died in similar circumstances in the same area at around the same time, and who both had similar legal cases heard in the UK, but in general we shouldn't be doing this. Black Kite 20:41, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Remove One compromise might be to link to an article about the relationship between the ISM and Israel -- and if it were NPOV, I think that'd be more useful than this frankly POV roll call. IronDuke 23:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Keep votes

The users persistently tried to remove all of the see also entries (which is approved over the years by many other editors) all of a sudden, the current consensus is 3-3, so we advised them to take a RFC.

  • Keep There is an apparent connection between killings, IDF and ISM, during 2002-2003 (3 ISM Members, 1 film maker and 1 road worker killed), whether it is ISM's, IDF's or both parties' fault. During 1 month (November 2002) (1 ISM member-1 road worker) and during 2 months (April-May 2003) 3 civillians (2 ISM members-1 film maker) have been killed in the same area by IDF. In see also, there a 6 entries of the American and British citizens (civilians) killed by IDF in Palestine-Israel. Except 2 all 4 are ISM members, while 3 of them killed within 2 months period in 2003, and 5 of them killed within 6 months by IDF in the area. The cases, and untransparent investigations are also similar. Kasaalan (talk) 20:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

(Note: Kasaalan did not advise an RFC as he states - article edit history will clearly show I rm'ed and stated in summary that if it was put back, I would go to RFC. The initial statement by Kasaalan (which he has not attributesd to himself) is incorrect - "we" did nothing of the sort. MSJapan (talk) 17:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC))

We advised RFC before completely erasing see also, as talk page clearly indicates, why do you try to mislead a fact. I did not even understand what you mean by second sentence.
But you may request other user opinions about this, since I do not consider listing other kills of IDF as POV. Kasaalan (talk) 21:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Try to get a 3rd party review, or any other discussion before removing see also. Removing see also is POV in the first place. Kasaalan (talk) 06:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Try to get one per any kind of actual discussion before we can step further. Kasaalan (talk) 07:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Consensus may change, but it doesn't change just because 3 editors say so, for extreme changes like complete removal of all see also entries, you need a consensus by debate. Kasaalan (talk) 08:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
16:58, 18 June 2009 MSJapan (talk | contribs) (62,482 bytes) (→See also: rm reinserted edit by contentious editor. Next time it goes in, this is going to RFC.)
Do you even read what I write. Kasaalan (talk) 22:18, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Ask some of these people if they ever carried guns in the Occupied Territories, or could have a Conflict of Interest eg friends who've carried guns there. No way should close friends of Palestinian gunmen be editting in here, even if they could have nothing to do with this precise incident. Or I'll ask them if you prefer. 86.157.128.63 (talk) 16:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Kasaalan, it has been a week and the tally is now 4 to 1, with only you expressing an opinion in the RfC that the "See also" list should remain unchanged. Do you think it's appropriate to start discussing how it can be best changed? Jclemens (talk) 04:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

2 more editors commented per keeping the section in above discussion before RFC, which makes 3-4, you know it but why you try to ignore the fact. Moreover we didn't get any 3rd party comments yet anyway, and 1 user voted for keeping some entries and deleting some others which is not complete removal. Also no one showed any example of a similar comlete see also removal example case or any guideline that advises it yet. Kasaalan (talk) 12:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

{{IraqWarCorr}}

      • Noone advised to hide army kills, if there is similarity you link it, but if you like that much we may also create a template about it, then you can remove see also however you like.
    • Can anyone question the relevancy of the cases as argued, date place suspect and cases are similar
      • Except 2 all 4 are ISM members, while 3 of them killed within 2 months period in 2003, and 5 of them killed within 6 months by IDF in the area.
What is your real arguments other than "this looks bad on IDF (therefore it is POV)". If it is a general policy, I apply the rules, but you didn't provide any example case for removal yet.
I tried to add relevant pages to categories, categories were not in good shape, you people complain about see also, propose links should be added to categories instead, but you don't even move your finger about it, then 1 editor even tries to blame me, I will discuss however show me example cases, guidelines on how to do it. Kasaalan (talk) 12:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
So if I add them to categories in lieu of the see also, would that be acceptable to you? Jclemens (talk) 16:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
No one is ignoring the people who commented before--they are ignoring this RfC. Likewise, there has been plenty of policy argument--NPOV is sufficient policy to remove unbalanced see also's. At this point, there is more support for adding "Saint Pancake" to the criticism section than there is for keeping the "See also" section as-is. Jclemens (talk) 16:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Pancake is no criticism but and insult, also I am already in favor of adding it in fugue section where it is directly related. On the other hand, you make pages and weeks long discussions for just adding "St. Pancake", but make no prior effort on adding categories before I bring the issue, then telling me you will add categories after I already completed the job, very nice of you.
I don't agree it is unbalanced. Within 6 months IDF killed 5 western civilians in the same area (3 in Jenin and 2 Gaza), relevancy is apparent
If third party users ignore RFC, after a while we may go to arbitrary committee for this case.
Also you claim see also is unbalanced, if you feel like adding relevant articles to balance it I may support it, but the first attempt was a complete removal without any replacement. Kasaalan (talk) 19:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
You realize you've admitted that your advocation of this amounts to synthesis, in that you advocate including these See also's to show a pattern that isn't noted in any of the reliable sources already? I wouldn't have offered to help add the files to categories if you'd informed us that you'd already done so. Since they're in the relevant categories, same as Corrie, is there any non-synthesis, non-POV reason to keep them in the See also's? Jclemens (talk) 19:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
What synthesis you refer, same area (Jenin and Gaza), same period (within 6 months), similar cases(killed) by same army (IDF), same organisation (3 ISM members) and 2 more civillian(1 UN worker, 1 filmmaker). What you understand when you read "I tried to add relevant pages to categories, categories were not in good shape" above. Your reason to remove is POV in the first place, and I can't agree any POV issue exists, as I asked can you provide similar cases for removal of see also. Kasaalan (talk) 21:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
You may be right I consider it, but first can you provide me some example cases or some 3rd party comments, we should apply general policies in wikipedia. But if we don't get any different voices in RFC, we may go to arbitrary committee. Kasaalan (talk) 21:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) Synthesis is precisely "I personally see that A and B and C are related, but no source I have states it or makes such a relation." Twice you've indicated a textbook case of synthesis, and it doesn't matter if other things may be relevant - synthesis violates a WP policy and is not permitted, precisely because it leads to making conclusions based on original research. If you want to go to ArbCom, go ahead, but be prepared to lose. The RFC has not supported your position, and WP policies do not support your position. Per a user comment in the RFC, general rules on similar articles do not support your position. For that reason, I think you seriously need to reconsider said position. MSJapan (talk) 04:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
In all fairness, ArbCom has recused themselves from content disputes. They'd only intervene in case of editorial misconduct, which all sides have avoided in this discussion. Having said that, I agree with the rest of MSJapan's reasoning Jclemens (talk)
There has been grave editorial misconduct at this article. Editors who must be suspected of Conflict of Interest or malicious intent have caused constant distress to the victims of a state that kills observers. We cannot be sure that Rachel was murdered, but the accused has admitted doing so in 3 closely linked cases. If we hold Libya to its confession of guilt at Lockerbie, then we sure as hell hold Israel guilty of killing observers. PS a few days later the IDF formalised the policy of killing international observers. Nothing secret about it, a few days after these killings Israel forced all visitors to Gaza to sign a waiver legalising their killing. The shootings, threats and banning of all "peace activist" had the desired effect, stopping these observers going in. And Israeli (or Israel based Western reporters) commented on it. 86.157.128.63 (talk) 16:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Unsigned editor, you may try staying on the discussion title for not distracting it. Also I don't like censorship either so I reverted deletion.
I will reply later on the issue with more detail, but as a summary I will create a template required for the categorization anyway. Similar cases in wikipedia categorised, and you don't need original research to pinpoint the "pattern" for the place, date, way of death, suspect and casualties are the similar. Nothing to lose in Arbitrary committee. It does not matter other 2 parties did not restated their stance in RFC, while their position is clearly stated earlier. RFC is clearly failed to get any 3rd party view, and no consensus is available in RFC currently by 3-4 recent vote and by numerous editor's consensus over the years. So arbitrary committee might be essential for see also review. A few days later we can try if there is no consensus or no other 3rd party comments. Kasaalan (talk) 23:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) Kasaalan, you are making every excuse in the book for why you are right and everyone else is wrong. Consensus changes; that's the way it goes. Also, it matters very much that other parties did not participate in the discussion, because it means that whatever they said doesn't pertain to the RFC, and therefore, your claim of what the consensus is is incorrect. Furthermore, you do indeed need a source to claim a pattern, or it is OR and synthesis, both of which are specifically and expressly prohibited by WP policy. I'm also not sure why you rv'ed my removal of material not pertinent to the discussion, just to tell the person that the material was not pertinent to the discussion. I'm starting to think that there is an OWN issue here if you are unwilling to compromise, and unwilling to see where what you are doing is contrary to policy. MSJapan (talk) 04:42, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
You making every excuse in the book for a removal, without bothering to proof any other removal for a similar case.
You claim consensus changes, but no consensus exists for a complete removal of see also currently. It is 3-3 with 1 partial removal-keep on delete voters side, while RFC failed to get any third party opinion. Also it does not matter if users commented on RFC or not, recent previous statements on talk page is very clear already state other 2 editor's stance. You know it, but you try to ignore the fact.
I reverted the edit for he has some points that might be useful, however I asked him not to distract the talk with broader subjects
The editor referred a title and after some research, in Lockerbie bombing#See also case, where other plane bombings listed, has similarity to see also in RFC.
A complete removal of an editor's questions and talk for RFC is censorship to me, and since you don't OWN the article yourself your complete removal of an unsigned editor's comments' against your position is not neutral.
You claim uncompromising attitudes, however I said may support removal of see also, if you can provide similar complete removal cases, which you didn't provide. Also what is to be compromised when you remove all similar cases of 5 "western civillian casualties in the area" by IDF within 6 months and claim no pattern or similarity exists to the cases while arguing Original research or synthesis. Kasaalan (talk) 05:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Whatever the case, you may even be right on removal of see also, however without any similar case provided, I don't agree with you in current situation. If some 3rd party committee who has expertise in WP decides on the case or share their thoughts I will agree for the removal.
I will try getting more 3rd party opinions, then we can go arbitrary committee if there will be no consensus in similar way. Kasaalan (talk) 06:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
We'd not accept suspested members of the Wehrmacht editing articles on WW2 & this article shouldn't be edited by Palestinians or others who might be suspected of a conflict of interest. 86.157.128.63 (talk) 12:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, getting back on topic, Kasaalan: according to JClemens, we can't go to ArbCom on this, because it is a content dispute. Moreover, in terms of other examples, I would point out that another user stated that above they have removed victim lists from articles on The Troubles. Why is that not good enough as an example? Furthermore, if you think I'm right (Like you keep saying to everybody), don't tell me I'm right and then say "but" and argue against it; concede the position. MSJapan (talk) 15:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Because he say it, but he didn't give when or how it is done. If you can provide exact edit date or discussions about it, I can take it as an example. Without date and edit time, it is not possible to check the edit. Kasaalan (talk) 19:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: I was asked to look over this, that is the subsequent discussion following the !vote, and I am drawing my conclusion from my understanding of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Editors reminded; it is "important to comply with Wikipedia policies such as assuming good faith of all editors including those on the other side of the real-world dispute, writing with a neutral point of view, remaining civil and avoiding personal attacks, utilizing reliable sources for contentious or disputed assertions, and resorting to dispute resolution where necessary." My view is that dispute resolution has been properly applied and an outcome is obvious, and that it should now be applied. This does not stop attempts to re-engage the discussion, but the status quo should be with the consensus reached in the RfC (that the content is removed). I would further comment that because consensus can change it is only the last determination of consensus (the RfC in this matter) that applies, previous discussions and viewpoints being representative of a previous consensus only - it does not apply to the consensus now existing. I trust that parties can now move on and apply the changes to the article per the RfC. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
If you can read discussion page Talk:Rachel_Corrie#.22See_Also.22_removed_as_POV..., and not only RFC you can clearly read 2 other editors expressed their opinion on keep, and in RFC, 1 editor voted for categorizing so no clear consensus is available on RFC currently. Kasaalan (talk) 19:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Is this still going? I note there was a discussion - and it was decided to run a RfC. The subsequent RfC (a process designed to resolve disputes) closed with a consensus that should now be applied. Previous discussions do not count, otherwise there would be an entire history to sift through. That some people opined in earlier discussions and not the RfC is unfortunate but does not alter the fact that the RfC was opened specifically to resolve this issue and thus the findings/conclusions/consensus there derived is the applicable one. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:58, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
I couldn't understand you a bit, however I already merged the various previous entries under International Solidarity Movement#ISM member casualties in Palestine and Israel which categories the ISM casualties in Palestine and Israel by IDF and Palestine organizations. Kasaalan (talk) 11:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Removed material

After letting this sit a bit, I still fail to see a direct relevance to the subject of this article via the inclusion of individual people who were killed some months before and after this incident. Therefore, I have rm'ed the individuals and left the link to ISM casualties, because it's at least passable as relevant. MSJapan (talk) 17:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

That was the conclusion of the RfC, as I understand it. The consensus is therefore that lists of persons allegedly killed by the Israeli military have no relevance to the article subject. Re-added information can be removed summarily, as the only way to get it added is to change consensus by discussion. Sorry I haven't kept up on this matter, as I am being diverted by a different matter. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

When killing is easy

Where can I find a copy of the documentary "When killing is easy" by the BBC that is mentioned in the article? Coolgamer (talk) 08:54, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Hard to find
If you have 195 pounds you can buy from BBC http://www.bbcactive.com/BroadCastLearning/asp/catalogue/productdetail.asp?productcode=22010
As presented in http://www.iamthewitness.com/Bollyn/Bollyn-Rachel-Corrie.html if you live in australia http://nla.gov.au/anbd.bib-an000041032466 library or http://webpac.teatreegully.sa.gov.au/ipac20/ipac.jsp?session=1N47917935E95.620438&profile=ttg--1&uri=link=3100006~!141847~!3100001~!3100002&aspect=subtab13&menu=search&ri=2&source=~!horizon&term=When+killing+is+easy+[videorecording]&index=ALLTITL has it
You may request your local library to buy it per BBC link. Kasaalan (talk) 11:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Whoa, hold up there a minute. That's like, $319.42. For a one hour DVD program? That's just extortion. Plus, I don't think the BBC ships all of their goods to the States. Coolgamer (talk) 01:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Well BBC sells all of its documentaries for the same price, not my fault. You may apply your local library and request a buy via your state. Kasaalan (talk) 16:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

removal of following section

I have removed the following section from the article;

section starts

Suicide Bombing Attack on Israeli Civilians

The Mike's Place Suicide Bombing was an attack on a bar in Tel Aviv, Israel. At 12:45 AM on April 30, 2003, 45 days after Corrie's death, a suicide bomber approached Mike's Place, a popular pub and live music venue next to the U.S. Embassy on the beach-front promenade in Tel Aviv, and blew himself up at the entrance to the bar, killing Dominique Hass, 29, Ran Baron, 23, and Yanai Weiss, 46, and wounding over 50. The attack was perpetrated by Asif Muhammad Hanif, 22, and Omar Khan Sharif, 27, both British citizens.[1][2]

On 25 April, on the 40th day after Corrie's death, and 5 days before their suicide attack on Mike's Place, Hanif and Sharif joined ISM activists in Gaza and together conducted a memorial service and flower laying ceremony on the spot where Corrie died to mark the official end of the 40 day mourning period for Corrie according to the Muslim tradition.

"Human rights sources told the Guardian that Sharif and his accomplice Asif Mohammed Hanif, arrived at the offices of the International Solidarity Movement in Rafah and made contact with its members just days before the bombing." “One activist, who asked not to be named, recognized the pair when they were shown on Israeli TV. He spoke to them last Friday at the spot where American human shield Rachel Corrie was killed by an Israeli bulldozer.” [3]

"The suicide attack is thought to be the first by foreign sympathizers since the start of the current uprising in 2000. Israeli police had said they thought the two men arrived from Gaza a short time before the attack.” “Raphael Cohen, an activist for the International Solidarity Movement (ISM), which carries out what it call 'non-violent direct action' against Israeli occupation of Gaza and the West Bank, said he spoke to the pair on 25 April. Mr Cohen confirmed he met the men, who were given a cup of tea at the ISM office.” “On 16 March ISM activist Rachel Corrie, a 23-year-old American, was killed by an Israeli bulldozer. After a 15 minute chat, the three men joined a group of 20 people to lay flowers at a nearby site where the activist was killed” [4]

"...British suicide bombers had attended an ISM memorial on Friday, 25 April, in honour of Rachel Corrie, an activist killed by Israeli forces. ISM last night said activists Hanif and Sharif appeared to be 'typical Brits'. 'They were in our apartment for 15 minutes, then spent 10 minutes at the ceremony,' said 20-year-old American ISM activist Lora Gordon." "We were just happy to have people come to commemorate Rachel.”[5]

section ends

I do not think that the appearance of these suicide bombers at an event relating to the death of Rachel Corrie is of any import either to the subject or to their later attack on Israeli citizens. They likely attended various events and places relating to their sympathies, which are not commented upon, and they were also likely to have carried out their attack whether or not Rachel Corrie had died. Under the circumstances I do not believe there is any direct connection between the two events and individuals, and quite likely some disparity (Rachel Corrie acting in non violent/passive obstruction, and the attackers using terrorism and murder). If, however, it is decided to return the content then it can be copied from the above. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


I disagree with the removal of the section on the Mike's Place Suicide Bombing. This section documents, with verifiable reliable impartial sources, a flower laying ceremony held on the spot Corrie was killed, by people who personal knew her and personally witnessed her death, on the 40th day after her death to mark the official end of Muslim mourning for Corrie. Can you explain to me how this particular memorial event is so irrelevant that it must be deleted from the article but sections in this article on “memorial events” and “artistic tributes” held years later on the other side of the world by people who did not know her are so much more relevant that they should be included? It is quite obvious that the only reason LessHeard had this particular memorial ceremony and only this memorial ceremony removed from the article is because the suicide bombers attended and laid flowers on her death site and it looks bad for her hagiography. Secondly, LessHeard has determined, without evidence to back up his claim, that there is absolutely no connection what so ever between the fact that in the days following Corrie's death these two British Muslim extremists suddenly left their families, jumped on a plane, flew from England to the middle-east, then traveled all the way to Gaza to attend a memorial and lay flowers on the death site to mark end of the 40 day Muslim mourning period for Corrie, an American who died engaging in suicidally dangerous activity, and then 5 days later they themselves committed suicide by blowing up a pub next door to the US Embassy in Tel-Aviv, killing 3 and wounding 50. Now the average person would certainly assume some kind of connection but no, there is no connection at all according to LessHeard. LessHeard's only support for his claims of there being no connection seems to be a paranormal ability to enter into the minds of Hanif and Sharif, the long dead suicide bombers and determine that “they were also likely to have carried out their attack whether or not Rachel Corrie had died”. So LessHeard has fabricated a justification for deleteing my verified sourced contribution out his own imagination with no evidence at all.

If or if not the suicide bombing, and the murders of Dominique Hass, Ran Baron, and Yanai Weiss, and wounding over 50 others commited by Hanif and Sharif, who laid flowers and prayed at Corrie's “martyrdom” site just days before was intended as an act of revenge for Corrie's death, and is thus very relevent to Corrie, people should be allowed to make their own minds up about.Judo Nimh (talk) 19:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)Judo Nimh

Mention of this should definitely appear in the article, though the section was too long. It's enough to give a brief account of the bombing, and the relationship of the bombers to Corrie's memorial and the ISM. IronDuke 20:19, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Is there enough reliable sourcing for an independent article on the event? If so, calling it out there and connecting the two might be an appropriate compromise. Jclemens (talk) 21:16, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Is there reliable third party evidence, or at the very least authoritative commentary, connecting the two events. Per WP:SYNTH the references provided indicate that the suicide bombers attended a commemerative event for Rachal Corrie and that they shortly later murdered Israeli citizens in an attack, however I do not see any cited "cause and effect" references. While insulting me for attempting to apply NPOV values to this article, Judo Nimh expresses the stupid opinion (unless they do believe that some people are capable of reading minds, in which case I apologise and would substitute "the stupid editor Judo Nimh expresses the opinion") that I am able to discern the mindset of the bombers - I am of course unable to do so, and I also believe the same of other correspondents, which is why I have removed the content pending references that draw the conclusions made in the section. I note that, while flailing around in attempting to vilify me personally, that Judo Nimh offers a sequence of events that tie the death of Corrie to the later killings by the two bombers. Without references, that is WP:Original Research and is not permitted. I did not "determine there was no connection" between the two events, but that there were no supporting references.
(response to IronDuke) Of course, providing there is reliable third party sources noting the connection.
(response to Jclemens) I would thought it would be better noted ("reliable source, blah, blah, blah") as part of the article relating to the bombing, since Corrie was already dead and it paid only a small part in her story but perhaps - if it can be evidenced - a larger part in the decision of the two bombers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, there is a source noting the connection already, isn't there? I don't think we need a source that says "The men were inspired by the memorial to commit a terrorist act" in order for the connection to be evident and notable. Or do I misunderstand you? IronDuke 22:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
There are two sources noting that they attended a memorial to Corrie, and that they visited the offices of ISM - but nothing indicates that they were decided upon their actions by the death of Rachel Corrie. In short, yes there needs to be a source that says that they murdered Israeli's in specific reaction to the death of Corrie or it is otherwise WP:OR or at least WP:SYNTH. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:16, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
No, I wouldn't agree. That is to say, yes, we shouldn't say or imply that the events are linked in the sense that the men grew so emotional at the memorial that they decided on this course of action, only a link needs to be established. RS's seem to think the attendance at the Corrie memorial and the men's association withe ISM was significant; is there a reason it isn't? IronDuke 22:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Could LessHeard push the reset button and let me participate in this conversation in a rational polite manner? They traveled to Gaza to lay flowers and pray on the site of Corrie's “martyrdom” on the significant Muslim 40th day anniversary of her death only days before their own “martyrdom” in the mass murder attack on the bar. This solidly connects Corrie's death to the bombers later action. The healthy human mind does not easily decide to kill itself, this being contrary to the innate will-to-live, so the ceremonial flower laying on the site of death of a “holy shaheed” just like they intended in a few short days to become strongly indicates at least some cause and effect in my estimation. The burden of proof should be on you to show it absolutely did not.Judo Nimh (talk) 03:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Judo Nimh
Actually per the original research policy, the WP:BURDEN is on those asserting a connection to find a reliable source that documents the connection. Such sources may not exist. Jclemens (talk) 04:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
This is not an issue of original research. Only a small part of what I said in the talk (not what I posted) LessHeard claimed was original i.e. my claim that the bombers left England in the days after Corrie's death and traveled to Gaza to attend the memorial. Here is a reference on this point to counter the OR claim.

“Sharif, 27, was last seen in Derby just over a month ago.” [6]

But, LessHeard did not claim that the bulk of what I posted was original research, which is the very well documented fact that the bombers spent time in the ISAM offices in Gaza, attended the 40th day end of mourning for Corrie and laid flowers for her a few days before committing the massacre in Tel-Aviv next to the American Embassy, murdering 3 civilians sitting in a bar, wounding 50. The only WP:BURDEN I need to meet on this account is the burden of "a reliable, published source using an inline citation." I provided 3 reliable sources, from the the anti-Israeli Guardian, and the BBC, to establish this. All of these sources (and I could add ten more sources if you had the room) specifically mention Corrie by name and mention the bombers attendance at the Corrie memorial just before they went on the attack. All these sources felt this was a significant connected event or else they would not have mentioned it. You are throwing up a smokscreen by claiming these events are not connected, even though the sources I used have connected them. Behind this specious " not connected" objection to having this in the article is LessHeard's real objection which is his applying NPOV values to the article when he claimed “Corrie acting in non violent/passive obstruction, and the attackers using terrorism and murder” shows the events must be disconnected. Now actually the ISM group that sent this young girl to the front lines of a war to die is not a group solely dedicated to non-violence so even on this score LessHeard's argument falls short.

“A closer look reveals that the leadership sees volunteers not as pacifists but as combatants on the Palestinian side. In a 2002 article, the movement's co-founders, Adam Shapiro, a New York Jew, and Huwaida Arraf, a Palestinian Christian, urged: "The Palestinian resistance must take on a variety of characteristics, both non-violent and violent."Mr Shapiro and Miss Arraf predicted that "yes, people will get killed and injured" and suggested that the casualties "would be considered shaheed", using the Arabic term for martyrs applied to suicide bombers.In its mission statement, the movement says that, for Palestinians, "armed struggle" is "their right". Activists have shown their hatred for the Jewish state.” [7]

Judo Nimh (talk) 16:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Judo Nimh
Reference directly connecting Corrie to the suicide bombings and proving she was definitely considered a martyr and hero by the terrorist group that murdered Dominique Hass, Ran Baron, and Yanai Weiss. Note this reference was published Sunday 23 March 2003, one month before the Mike's Place Massacre in Tel-Aviv on April 25th 2003, and so documents the strong connection between Corrie and the suicide bombers in the period before the mass murder was carried out, and this reference together with the documented appearance of the bombers themselves laying flowers on her “martyrdom” site days before the bombing dramatically improves the likelihood that the Mike's Place massacre was carried out in part in "cause and effect" revenge for her death, and so should be included in this article on Corrie

“There are graffiti in Gaza in her honour - one slogan reads: 'Rachel was a US citizen with Palestinian blood' - there is a picture of her on the website of the terrorist group, an honour usually reserved for suicide bombers.” “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.” “ In Rafah, Arafat's political party Fatah held a wake for 'Retchell Corie', attended by representatives of Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the Al-Aqsa Martyrs brigade, among others.” “ It is the first time an American has been adopted as a Palestinian martyr. The posters of Corrie that began to appear on buildings and lampposts look incongruous beside pictures of the hundreds of Arab men ..“[8]

Judo Nimh (talk)17:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Judo Nimh
I have read the two references provided (it would be best if they were left as raw links, rather than inline citations, for ease of use) and I am still not seeing the "cause and effect" of the two terrorists attending the ceremony for Corrie, and then their own suicide attacks. As I commented earlier, is there claims that they would not have acted had Corrie not been killed? I can see a lot of comment that Corrie has become both a symbol and a focus point since her death, but nothing regarding her motivating people to becoming martyrs before or after her death. I would also comment that the claims that the ISM is not a peaceable methods orientated group appear to be cherry picked - the founders talk of the right of Palestinians to use both peaceful and violent methods in their fight, but it is the Daily Telegraph (a British newspaper regarding as being right wing and establishment as against The Guardian's liberal and left wing tendencies - it would be wrong to regard either as pro or anti Israeli, given their cultural backgrounds and readership) that promotes the idea that violent conduct is inherent within ISM practices.
Let me put it another way - are the airlines who carried the suicide bombers linked to the attack? The hotels they may have stayed at? The establishments in which they may have taken refreshments (other than the IMS offices)? If not, why not? It is because there is no direct relationship between these places or organisations and their decision to become martyrs by killing Israeli citizens, and no reference can be found linking them. Likewise I still cannot see there any reference linking the death of Corrie and their actions. Without an unambivialent reference indicating it was this event, singularly or in part, that decided them upon the time and location of their attack, rather than a ceremony commemorating the person that died that they attended while preparing to kill themselves and others, I cannot see how a case can be made that they are directly linked - and if they are not then I do not think it can be used in this article. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
While it is indeed completely unacceptable to imply that correlation equals causation, we can always document the correlation (as reported in a reliable source) and let the reader decide. Would that be a workable compromise? Jclemens (talk) 22:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
The fact that the suicide bombers attended the Corrie ceremony before their attack might be mentioned, per the references provided, but would it be better in a section other than the one headed "Reaction"? If the sources cannot sustain the idea that one was in direct consequence to the other then it cannot be truly a reaction. However, there does not seem to be another section... If it were to be in the reaction section, then both chronologically and by import it should not be the lead example since there were many protests, claims and counterclaims, etc. made immediately after the death by the various parties to the conflict and also world policital and other leaders; making the suicide bombing the lead example is, I feel, WP:UNDUE. Perhaps if the section were retitled into something less defined ("Reaction and subsequent/related events"?) then the bombing might be more appropriately included later in the sequence of events/responses? Is there an article, or a section of an article, relating to the suicide bombing (or bombers)? It may be that a brief mention within this article should be linked to that? LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Does this ordering of the referenced facts make the connection clearer ?

1)The founders of the ISM, the group that sent Corrie to die, published an article a year before Corrie's death titled Why Nonviolent Resistance is Important for the Palestinian Intifada: A Response to Ramzy Baroud, published Tuesday, January 29 2002, By Huwaida Arraf and Adam Shapiro in The Palestine Chronicle.

"We do not advocate adopting the methods of Gandhi or Martin Luther King, Jr",

"Let us reiterate, we accept that Palestinians have a right to resist with arms”,

"Hamas claims it has many men ready to be suicide bombers – we advocate that these men offer themselves as martyrs by standing on a settler road and blocking it from traffic. This is no less of a jihad. This is no less noble than carrying out a suicide operation. And we are certain that if these men were killed during such an action, they would be considered shaheed Allah",

"The Palestinian resistance must take on a variety of characteristics – both nonviolent and violent. But most importantly it must develop a strategy involving both aspects. No other successful nonviolent movement was able to achieve what it did without a concurrent violent movement – in India militants attacked British outposts and interests while Gandhi conducted his campaign, while the Black Panther Movement and its earlier incarnations existed side-by-side with the Civil Rights Movement in the United States.",

To be sure these quotes were not cherry picked by the Telegraph, here is a link to the original paper in the archives of the Colorado Campaign for Middle East Peace, a pro-palestinian group: http://www.ccmep.org/hotnews/why012902.html

2)Corrie was killed, just exactly as the founders of the ISM had predicted a year earlier, and again, exactly as the founders of the ISM had a year earlier predicted, attained the status of the highest level of “holy martyr” or “shaheed” equal only to the level of a suicide bomber. The groups Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Al Aksa Martyrs Brigade, each one of whom by that time had claimed responsibility for numerous suicide bombings on Israeli civilians, placed her picture on their web site in a place of honor among dead suicide bombers, posters were placed with her picture on street corners among other posters of dead suicide bombers and Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Al Aksa Martyrs Brigade all attended a wake for Corrie in Gaza organized by Fatah.

3)The suicide bomber who attacked Mike's Place suddenly up and abandoned his well-established life and family in Derby, England and headed for the middle east in the weeks following Corrie's death.

4)Hanif and Sharif, the British suicide bombers, made their way to Gaza to attend the memorial service held on the 40th day after Corrie's death, a significant day in Islamic tradition marking official the end of mourning. Hanif and Sharif were seen by numerous witness laying flowers and praying at the site of her death or “martydom”.

5)I have not posted references for this but I have found several showing that revenge attacks by Islamic extremists to revenge the death of a "shaheed" are traditionaly timed to correspond to the period around the 40th day official end of Islamic mourning.

6)Hanif and Sharif, the British suicide bombers, then made their way directly from the Corrie memorial service to Tel Aviv, and there attacked the Mike's Place bar next door to the American Embassy, and murdered Dominique Hass, Ran Baron, and Yanai Weiss, and wounded over 50 other civilians.

These are an obviously connected series of events, starting with Corrie's death and ending with the deaths of Dominique Hass, Ran Baron, and Yanai Weiss.Judo Nimh (talk) 23:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Judo Nimh


I should have said these are an obviously connected series of events, starting with Huwaida Arraf and Adam Shapiro, founders of the ISM, who sent Corrie to her death, original equating of the "nobility" of “jihad” by "suicide bombing" and suicide by Israeli vehicle blocking and their "advocacy" of "offering" oneself up as a "martyr" by blocking Israeli vehicles, which obviously led to Corrie's actual death in just exactly the manner "advoctated" by the founders of the ISM a year earlier in the Arraf Shapiro article, leading to Corrie's attainment of “shaheed allah”status among the Palestinian suicide bomber groups, again just exactly as the Arraf Shapiro article a year earlier predicted it would, and which finally ended with the murders of Dominique Hass, Ran Baron, and Yanai Weiss by British suicide bombers seen being inspired by Corrie's memory just before the attack.

Since it was suggested by LessHeard that the Telegraph cherry picked this article, I will add more quotes from the article by Huwaida Arraf and Adam Shapiro, founders of the ISM, who sent this young girl to die, to show that the Telegraph actual undersold the damage this article could do to the ISM's reputation as non-violence advocates, also noting this article published a year before Corrie died strangely blueprints latter events and the use of Corrie's death to "present a story".

“First and foremost, there is no guarantee that the use of nonviolence as a strategic element of resistance as part of a larger Intifada would end the occupation, deliver justice or resolve the conflict. It is simply a strategy, one that can be employed to attain specific, pre-determined goals."

“nonviolence ... is something that can be manipulated to present a story, a case or an image” “What can this strategy hope to achieve as its goals? ...the adoption of nonviolent direct action resistance would change the image of the Palestinian struggle around the world. ...in changing the image, more foreigners would be emboldened and empowered to speak out and question their governments' policies vis-à-vis supporting Israel. ...Additionally, more foreign civilians would be encouraged to come to work with Palestinians in their legitimate struggle against occupation and injustice, thereby internationalizing the Intifada and bringing more resources to bear on pressuring Israel and the international community.... ”

Judo Nimh (talk) 03:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)Judo Nimh

I feel we are talking past each other; I recognise that there may be an argument that the death of Corrie precipitated the timing of the attack upon Mike's Bar, but there are no reliable sources that make that connection or argument. Per WP:OR and WP:SYNTH the editor cannot make that connection and present it as part of an article - we have no reference we can provide if it is questioned. If you are able to provide the source you speak of that ties in the bombers in acting in accordance to proscribed timetables, etc., and it specifically notes the connection between Corries killing and the suicide bombing then there is a cite we might use (providing it is reliable, of course), but that is what has been required from the start. Again, we can note the attendance of the bombers at the Corrie ceremony and that they later killed Israelis in a suicide bombing but not in a way that connects the two if it remains unsupported by references. Please see my comments to Jclemens above. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for helping me understand the policy. I understand I may briefly note the attendance of the Mike's Place Massacre bombers laying flowers on the site of her "shaheed allah", as well as the earlier attendance at her wake of Fahta, Islamic Jihad, Hamas, and Al Aksa Martyrs Brigade but I must not as per WP:SYNTH tie this directly to the Mike's Place Massacre without providing a reference.
Another question: Can the article make a brief reference to the paper published by the founders of the ISM, Shapiro and Arraf, one year before Corrie's death that calls "suicide bombing" a "noble" act of "jihad" equivilent to "offering oneself as a martyr by" using ones body to block an Israeli vehicle whereupon one will attain status of a "shaheed allah" equal only to “suicide bombing”, and then expounds in great detail the theory that "nonviolence" is only a "tactic" or "strategy" for "image" or to "tell a story" to "manipulate" "foreigners to pressure their own governments" regarding Israel and "must be part of a wider violent intifada" and that successful non-violence movements only succeed when paired with "violence" ? This article by the founders of the movement that sent this young person to die is, I think, relevent to her story.Judo Nimh (talk) 14:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)Judo Nimh
I don't think it relevant to Rachel Corrie, since the comments by the IMS founders do not mention her and are not linked by any source directly to her actions - and of course there is the question of whether Corrie herself believed or understood that she was being volunteered as a martyr rather than an activist in non violent protest (remember, the British killed a lot of non violent protesters during the campaign for Indian independence - being killed by those being protested against does not make one a violent protestor). Again, there is the problem of not having a source that we can quote. If there is an article regarding the IMS then it would be much more applicable. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
It is relevant in that the article as it stands states

"she had studied methods of Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King with care.[14] Corrie wrote to her mother, "The vast majority of Palestinians right now, as far as I can tell, are engaged in Gandhian nonviolent resistance."

whereas in direct contradiction the paper written a year before her death by Shapiro and Arraf, the founders of the ISM, the group that sent her to die specifically states

"We do not advocate adopting the methods of Gandhi or Martin Luther King, Jr".

So in this specific case where the exact subject mater was already raised in the article by quote from Corrie's own writings, showing this was a key motivating factor in this youngsters mind, critical to understanding her thoughts, it makes it relevant to show a verified direct quote from Shapiro and Arraf, the leaders of the ISM that sent her to die, that sits in direct contradiction to her words.Judo Nimh (talk) 01:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)Judo Nimh
That they sent Rachel Corrie to die is not supported by the references; they speak of the need for both non violent and violent opposition, and how internationalising the protest was of a benefit, and that Israeli aggression under those circumstances would benefit the Palestinians. As I have said before, if there was an intention that a (foreign) volunteer for non violent confrontation was intended to die then it needs to be sourced, and in those terms. Specifically, if it is intended to show that Corrie was chosen to made into a martyr then the reference needs to say exactly that. No sources means the comments cannot be included. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


If we going to discuss intentions of ISM and IDF we can argue for years, you may try creating a criticism of ISM section to develop your case, yet another user also may argue IDF didn't release its report on killing of Rachel Corrie publicly, therefore they are guilty. Or the driver of a very slow vehicle like D9R was aware of the precence of Rachel, and could easily be stopped against proper safety jacket Rachel was wearing, especially there are other 2 armored cars outside instructing driver with radio talk. Our jobs our not OR SYNTH by trimmed arguments like "We do not advocate adopting the methods of Gandhi or Martin Luther King, Jr" therefore ISM sent Rachel Corrie to die.

Also trimming quotes are highly misleading

  • While we do not advocate adopting the methods of Gandhi or Martin Luther King, Jr., we do believe that learning from their experience and informing a Palestinian movement with this knowledge can be quite valuable and of great utility. Contrary to Mr. Baroud's claim, there is no misunderstanding about the nature of Israeli occupation or violence, not by Palestinian intellectuals, not by activists and not by those who advocate nonviolence. Additionally, Mr. Baroud uses faulty logic when he claims that choosing nonviolence implies that use of violence is a choice, never mind a strategic one. ...
  • Allow us to interject with an example to explain. Violent resistance is when an armed Palestinian fighter shoots an Israeli who is oppressing him. The Palestinian fighter claims his rights, but in reality does nothing to achieve them. Another dead Israeli does not deliver a single right to a Palestinian. Alternatively, Palestinian Birzeit University students who march through a militarily-occupied area under curfew on their way to school, who confront soldiers and absorb their teargas, sound grenades and rubber bullets, are attempting to exercise their right to education and to move freely. While they may not succeed, their effort is one aimed at directly achieving rights.
  • The fighter, on the other hand, has used his means (the gun) to achieve his end (a dead Israeli or instilling greater fear among all Israelis) – neither rights nor justice nor freedom are a factor in this equation. The students, acting together in a disciplined manner, are directly acting in a way to achieve their rights.
  • Let us reiterate, we accept that Palestinians have a right to resist with arms, as they are an occupied people upon whom force and violence is being used. The Geneva Conventions accept that armed resistance is legitimate for an occupied people, and there is no doubt that this right cannot be denied. But that does not mean that this right must be utilized. Regardless of what is a right and what is not, the elements that will make any change in the situation are strategy and tactics. To date, the use of violence as part of the resistance has not evinced a strategy. Not in operations against the military or settlers; not in operations inside the Green Line. The choice of using nonviolence would not be effective either if it was not organized strategically.

http://netwmd.com/anti-ism/ISM%20by%20any%20means.htm

I didn't read the discussions yet however we may keep some info on suicide bombing in a summary manner without overrating it as UNDUE and COATRACK. After I read discussions I may comment more properly.

Suicide Bombing controversy


On April 30, 2003 at The Mike's Place bar next to the U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv, a suicide bomber approached the bar and blew himself up at the entrance 45 days after Corrie's death, killing 3 people while wounding over 50. After a 15 minute chat at ISM office, perpetrators, Asif Muhammad Hanif, 22, and Omar Khan Sharif, 27, who are both British citizens,[9][10] with 1 other man, joined the ISM memorial on Friday, 25 April, for 10 minutes, in honour of Rachel Corrie, with a group of 20 people to lay flowers at a nearby site where the activist was killed by Israeli forces. [11] ISM said activists Hanif and Sharif appeared to be 'typical Brits'.

Any longer, unbalanced WP:COATRACK is not required. The text still may be UNDUE, I tried to neutralize the case. Also Mike's Place suicide bombing not much of a good reference like mikesplacebars.com is. Kasaalan (talk) 11:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I added a summary for the controversy with a neutral title if all agrees to keep the info and removing unbalanced COATRACK, you may move to under a better title. Kasaalan (talk) 12:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I did not alter the content, but moved it into the following section which header I expanded to include all the post death events as well as initial reactions. I trust this meets with consensus. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The source does not indicate that the bombers knew Corrie, nor that they were members of ISM, nor that their criminal actions were in any way influenced by the life or death of Corrie. So what is the purpose of this text? I can only think of one purpose: slander by association. We might as well list all the crimes committed by any persons known to have spoken well of Corrie, or to have attended the play written in her honor. That would be just as strong an association. Zerotalk 13:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

That may be your opinion - and it is close to mine, also - but this project works to consensus and the consensus is that it should be included as an example of how her death and memory form part of the continuing Palestinian cause. It also against WP:BRD to re-instate the text - we are now discussing the matter and should only act once consensus is changed/re-affirmed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:26, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I also agree that the section is clearly inappropriate. It is clearly OR, non-neutral and undue and I do not see a consensus to include it.John Z (talk) 22:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

It lasted for 14 days - which is a lifetime as far as this article goes - so there obviously was consensus because it was stable for that time following the big debate above. Providing there are references available that note the bombers attended the RC memorial then it is simply noted in the article. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't see any consensus above, I only see the discussion dying down. And I disagree with your statement "Providing there are references available that note the bombers attended the RC memorial then it is simply noted in the article". That would make it fair to mention in the article on the bombers, but a significant direct relevance to Corrie has to be established before it is reasonable to mention it here. It is something the bombers actually did, but Corrie didn't do anything. It's like if the bombers took a taxi to their target; it would be fine to mention it in the article on the bombing but not fine at all to mention it in taxi. Zerotalk 23:45, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes. Headcounting, as defective as it can be, and which doesn't seem to show consensus to me, can be better than time stable. At Israel, Palestine, and the United Nations, one editor's abandoned drive-by position held the field for years against several attempts to change it. I think LessHeard vanU is being unjust to his own position with the best of motives.John Z (talk) 00:08, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

There are reliable sources that seem to believe the connection is notable. The reliable sources are not noting every crime comitted by anyone who ever spoke well of Corrie; if they did, we would as well. IronDuke 02:16, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

No we wouldn't. There is no rule we have to include everything a reliable source includes. We also have to abide by WP:WEIGHT, for example. At WP:NOT you can find a whole lot of different things commonly found in reliable sources that we are not supposed to include. Zerotalk 06:10, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

comment: i agree that this is undue here. the sources used do mention corrie (this time) but this is relevant to the bombing article, not here. untwirl(talk) 05:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

mike's place is not relevant to this article

of the three sources provided in this section: one is a wikipedia article, another is the bar website (which doesn't mention corrie at all) and the third is a bbc article that doesn't name the "activist" that the memorial was for.

the entire section should go for not only undue weight and irrelevance, but also the fact that the sources are either unreliable or dont support the paragraph. untwirl(talk) 02:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I will check the links for your concerns. Kasaalan (talk) 05:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
It's down to one source now (BBC), which does not mention Corrie, and the section as it stands now does not indicate its relevance at all within the scope of this article (meaning the relation to Corrie). Unless that changes, it should be removed. MSJapan (talk) 15:49, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
On that basis, per the sources, then the section can be removed - if whoever does it will note that there are no supporting cites. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Images

I looked at this article yesterday for the first time in awhile, and saw most of the images have gone. We had images of Corrie in front of the bulldozer, and images of her after she was hurt. I've looked through the history but there's too much to be able to see what was removed and why. Does anyone know? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 22:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know them all -- I know that people felt the Corrie flag-burning image fell afoul of wiki image rights policies. I confess, I find that policy confusing, so can't say if that was justified. There was also some thought that the image of her standing in front of a bulldozer was faked, though I perosonally give that view little credence. IronDuke 23:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
The licensing was wrong (which someone else noticed; the impetus was my nomming of the post-accident Corrie photo as paparazzi-ish and not encyclopedically appropriate). The resultant discussion indicated licensing issues with all the photos, and I would imagine they were removed from Commons as a result. MSJapan (talk) 00:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
We could easily have found proper licences for them. I can't imagine the people who took them would want them not to be shown, and I can't agree that they're "paparazzi-like": they're direct evidence regarding the incident much of the article is about, so it's odd that they exist, yet aren't used. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 02:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I can't speak to the licensing issue, but I would agree with SV that RC's post-incident picture is not particularly paparazzi-like, and worthy of inclusion, distressing as it may be to look at. I think the flag burning picture is worthwhile, too -- SV, do you have thoughts in terms of licensing there? I admit again I'm at sea on this WP issue. IronDuke 02:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Is still on comomons at File:Rachel Corrie crushed by bulldozer.jpg. Jclemens (talk) 02:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I replied for 1 of delete request at Commons http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Rachel_Corrie_crushed_by_bulldozer.jpg
I also agree flag burning picture should stay, if not uploaded at least as a reference, since whether we liked it or not, that is what she has done publicly against a camera, however her action received by public
I researched photograph cases before. The images of Rachel Corrie crushed taken by an ISM activist, Corrie at hospital belongs to an independent Palestinian Photographer in Gaza, he has a web site. Not sure who holds copyright for flag burning image. The images released by ISM as a press kit as far as I know, and possibly fair use would apply. I have high resolution versions of the images of Rachel Corrie where the incidents occurred I found images via internet. For the image rights best place to contact is ISM. Also if the images not released under GNU, there is a new feature called Special Permission in Wikipedia maybe that helps. Kasaalan (talk) 14:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Now I remember! It wasn't just the nature of the photo, but the picture caption also drew a conclusion that I felt was inappropriate given that a) there is definite controversy over exactly how she died, and b) that the picture doesn't actually show that purported part of the incident. MSJapan (talk) 18:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
That particular image of her after the incident will be deleted at some point because used "with permission," which isn't allowed. It was actually another one of her that I was thinking of, which seems to have been deleted already. The ones of her standing in front of the bulldozer have gone too.
We need to track down the people who took the images and ask them to release them. I've e-mailed ISM and was referred to the Rachel Corrie Foundation. I e-mailed them yesterday. No reply so far. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 19:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
No they won't be deleted, if they give permission to use for wikipedia. That would be better than fair use policy anyway. People shouldn't grant their full copyrights just so wikipedia may use them. Giving special permission to Wikipedia is enough.
Rachel Corrie foundation has nothing to do with the images. The ISM member you talk to possibly don't know that case at all. ISM members took them. For flag burning picture it has either belong to Associated Press, or one Palestine solidarity groups.
For hospital photographs you should contact with http://www.rafah.vze.com/
http://www.rachelcorrie.org/rachel-dove.jpg for dove costume you may contact with rachel corrie foundation. Also they have some high quality childhood pictures of Rachel Corrie at foundation site as a press kit which you may ask for permission. Kasaalan (talk) 11:27, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Re: the flag burning photo This WP:RS identifies as "photo/ap/khalil hamra." I doubt he has put it in the public domain and it should be removed shortly.
I just put File:Mynameisrachelcorriecover.jpg‎ up for the article about the play. Feel free to put it in here. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, someone removed it as not being fair use. I put up another one of mine I found, which at least includes a well known photo of her, though probably not useable here. File:RachelCorrieMemorialDC-03-21-03.JPG. Evidently a couple of us now have contacted the Rachel Corrie Foundation and others who might have photos, about a photo that complies with policies. So it's just a matter of time before we have a nice one to help humanize her death. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:02, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I removed it. Fair Use is tricky, so it is best to vigorously use such images for the immediate article (which is the play). That is not to say the original photo couldn't be used under fair use - or even a crop from your file above, but best take advice on that - depending on the copyright on the photo used, but with the titles and such it was not suitable. That said, SlimVirgin is quite an expert on Fair Use (as is others here) so hopefully a solution can be found... Unless the new image meets the requirements anyway, of course. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I recall seeing some of the images here in the article previously maybe I'm wrong? Seems most appropriate to have an image of the event that this article is about. This one, for example. RomaC (talk) 01:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

recent revert on Rachel Corrie

you must have missed the discussion that has been going on for the last week or so on the talk page regarding the unreliable sources which don't even mention corrie by name. please review it and self-revert. thanks. untwirl(talk) 20:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi. The removed content ("Mikes Place" bombing) is because non of the available references now mention the bombers attending the Rachel Corrie memorial. If other sources can be found - hopefully permanent ones - then the text can be included, but currently there are no cites. I should be grateful if you could self revert. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

So I haven't been following this, but who removed the dead links? Per WP:DEADLINK, we don't presume that links that have ceased being live never existed. Jclemens (talk) 20:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Sources added. IronDuke 20:53, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

hurndall

this source] provided by ironduke also ties together tom hurndall's shooting. his name should be returned to the see also section. untwirl(talk) 21:02, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Whether the name belonged in see also would not be related to its appearance in this article. Gordon Brown is mentioned in passing as well, after all. IronDuke 21:22, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
i wasn't available for that rfc, but i see that one of the delete voters also supported the inclusion of hurndall. original synthesis unsupported by sources was the problem there, if i read it correctly. if the subjects of the articles are linked (and not "in passing," but directly) by RS then they belong in the see also section. the "ideal article" would note the fact that RS linked and made notice of the several activists/journalists killed and injured by the idf during that time period, rachel corrie being among them. untwirl(talk) 21:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

This article is not neutral

This article reads like it was written by the Palestinian public relations department. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LisaBenton (talk • contribs) 00:39, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

unless you have specific issues to discuss the tag will be removed. untwirl(talk) 02:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Removal of wikilinks

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rachel_Corrie&oldid=316302644 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rachel_Corrie&diff=prev&oldid=316302644

Did you actually click on blindspot? Please do. This illustrates the point: according to WP:LINKING, wikilinks are supposed to be used when the linked-to articles can "aid navigation and understanding", plus "it is generally inappropriate to link terms whose meaning can be understood by most readers of the English Wikipedia, including plain English words, the names of major geographic features and locations, religions, languages, common professions, ...". Items to be wikilinked should be checked individually. I agree with you on armoured personnel carrier and especially armoured bulldozer, but mental disorder, writer, artist, flautist, and some others don't make it. Zerotalk 12:39, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
blindspot is wrong correct one is Blind spot (vision) Kasaalan (talk) 17:57, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
I made a list of necessary wikilinks, anybody may "know" what sniper is more or less, on the other hand they don't know what a sniper is unless they read about it. They might know what "sit-in" is yet they don't know Sit-in demonstrations' importance in civil rights movements if they don't read about it. Wikilink removal should be reverted, and some overlinked ones may be deleted, yet I won't bother to rewikilink all entries one by one. Kasaalan (talk) 14:23, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Also "articles about geographic places that are likely to be unfamiliar to readers or that in the context may be confused with places that have a similar or identical name." so Jerusalem should be linked or any other city in Palestine Israel. Kasaalan (talk) 14:58, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm no fan of overlinking, but I would recommend keeping about 80% of the listed Wikilinks. Jclemens (talk) 20:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
As for Mike's Place, why do we need to discuss it again? Archive #12 has a long discussion and there is more above. Does anyone have anything new to add? Did anyone find a reliable source which argues that the bombing tells us something about Rachel Corrie, so that we have a basis for discussing relevance and notability? Actually Allenby Bridge played a greater role in the bombing than Corrie did; should that article mention it? Zerotalk 12:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
All I am saying mike's place is another discussion than wikilinks, yet since edit both contains section removal and wikilink removal we should discuss both separately. Kasaalan (talk) 14:23, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
The only link between the two British suicide bombers and Corrie appears to be that they visited her memorial before carrying out their attack. This seems to be a clumsy attempt at - posthumous - guilt by association. Unless someone can provide a referenced quote showing they were motivated by her killing, asserting such a claim is OR and cannot be inserted.Haldraper (talk) 17:01, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes connection is distant, and addition was a WP:COATRACK at first. I neutralized it the best way I can now it may be used or not. I leave for other editors to decide it. On the other hand, presenting controversial cases in neutral way is useful for information purposes. If others argue it isn't I respect their opinion. Kasaalan (talk) 17:53, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I undid the removal of wikilinks per discussion. You may remove unnecessary wikilinks manually if you feel so. I hid the mike's suicide bombing section, according to the result of debate you may delete or unhide the section. I revised, neutralised and expanded Mike's Place suicide bombing article with additons and details, including ISM response. Kasaalan (talk) 15:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Ex post facto

Ex post facto literally means subsequently ex post facto law is a law term, though wikipedia has a redirect for ex post facto. Kasaalan (talk) 00:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Not disagreeing, just making an explanatory comment: Considering that ex post facto is Latin and not used connotatively in English, its meaning is tied to the denotative law term.
If you're a Latin speaker, it means "from (something which occurred) after the action", but to English speakers it refers to a law which is meant to retroactively apply to an action that occurred before the law was passed. For example: 1) I want to punish JohnDoe because he called me an IDF POV pusher last week; 2) I write a law that says it's illegal to have ever called someone an IDF POV pusher; 3) I then use this law to put JohnDoe in jail. This would be an ex post facto law. 76.22.25.102 (talk) 14:18, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't know that ex post facto adds anything to the article in this context. Can it be rephrased in English? Jclemens (talk) 19:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
What is the problem? The article currently states "The details of the events surrounding Corrie's death are still disputed." Doesn't that give all the information we need in the lead? Ucucha 19:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Nevermind, I thought someone was arguing that it be readded. Jclemens (talk) 19:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Well just made an explanation, since deleting it with wrong argument is not nice. I don't advise using it in lead unless we have a separate ex post facto page. Even if we have an article, I possibly won't support adding it. Kasaalan (talk) 22:53, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Rachel Corrie picture

There is a discussion of the much-circulated photo of Ms. Corrie, without a reference or link to that photo. http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/pictures/rachel-corrie-flag-01.jpg - I'd suggest it should be added.

Styopa (talk) 13:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


Not a reliable website, can't be used. Zerotalk 13:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


Just found this other picture in an article about Corrie. It mentions it is a picture of Corrie moments before she was killed:

http://www.clarin.com/mundo/Ultima-imagen-corrie-minutos-excavadora_CLAIMA20100605_0019_4.jpg

Street Named After Rachael Corrie

The article states that a street would be named after Rachael Corrie and it never happened. That is untrue. A street was in fact named after her in Ramallah. Please check this link: http://palsolidarity.org/2010/03/11801/

http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=171156

Mzcastro (talk) 04:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Good Article?

By the way the article might be a Good Article as I came by lots of less detailed articles become GA. What is your opinion about it. Kasaalan (talk) 22:56, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Made this into its own section. I think that nominating politically-sensitive articles for GA can be a contentious and frustrating undertaking. That doesn't mean "don't do it" but rather to be prepared for people with an agenda to "contribute" to the process. Jclemens (talk) 01:59, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Pay-outs for people murdered by Israel

Israel was forced to pay out up $2 million for each of two other observers/film-makers killed by Israeli forces in Gaza around this time, James Miller and Tom Hurndall. Surely worth a mention in the article. Perhaps it has to be kept locked to keep information like this out. 80.40.225.228 (talk) 14:51, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Uhm, you've certainly confirmed the wisdom of locking out ips here, ip. The simple reason that isn't mentioned here, assuming it's all true and verifiable (not saying it isn't, just don't know) is that it's not about Rachel Corrie. Only stuff about Corrie goes in the Corrie article. Those other people, the circumstances of their death and its aftermath, may deserve coverage elsewhere, but not here. Hope that helps. Bali ultimate (talk) 14:56, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
They might be mentioned here briefly if source is reliable. The cases and time period are very similar, western civillians killed by Israel army, one way or another. BBC documentary depicting the same issue. "2005, BBC produced a 60 minute documentary entitled When Killing is Easy aka Shooting the Messenger, Why are foreigners suddenly under fire in Israel?, described as "a meticulous examination of" shooting to death of James Miller, ... by Israeli soldiers in May 2003, shooting of British photography student Tom Hurndall, ... in April 2003 and death of Rachel Corrie ... in March 2003, while trying to find an answer to the question: "Were the attacks random acts of violence, or do they represent a culture of killing with impunity which is sanctioned by the higher echelons of the Israeli army?" Kasaalan (talk) 22:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
or do they represent what happens to people who actively interfere with legitimate military anti-terrorist operations during a prolonged armed conflict, regardless of whether they are "westerners" or not. Akulkis (talk) 22:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Per Bali ultimate, this page is for discussing the Rachel Corrie article - not airing personal opinion (of any viewpoint). Only discussion of the merits of reliably sourced independent content should occur here. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Even "legal operations" became illegal when you hurt civilians, whether they are westerner or not. For example one of the westerners, Tom Hurndall, killed while trying to protect children from heavy gunfire of Israel army. Read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Hurndall#Killing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Miller_(filmmaker)#Death http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Avery#Shooting_incident http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iain_Hook#Killing_of_Iain_Hook http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caoimhe_Butterly#Jenin_incident Kasaalan (talk) 19:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Israel had a proven record of killing foreign observers around this time, admitting and forced to compensate 3 out of 3 for the British, if you count Iain Hook on the West Bank. Israel made subsequent visitors sign an indemnity in case it murdered them. Rachel Corrie is only different because her nation doesn't investigate deaths of its citizens. Not mentioning it is like an article on Anne Frank that doesn't mention that the Nazis murdered a lot of Jews around that time. Check it out - the Holocaust is mentioned 11 times in her article (and that's before you get to the references) - which of course is just as it should be. 80.40.225.228 (talk) 13:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
If you will check the statistics you'll find the Palestinian terrorists killed more foreigners than the IDF. When foreign activists put themself in a warzone in a middle of a battle, it is very likely they can get hurt. Accidents and misidentifactions do occur, and since these are not deliberate killing, they are not war crimes. MathKnight 19:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

--This entire section, beginning with its inflammatory and partisan title, is political opinion suitable for a forum and not a Wikipedia talk page. It should be deleted in its entirety. I would do so myself if I had more status as a Wiki editor. Lacking such credentials, I’d likely be charged with “vandalism.” I hope a highly placed Wikipedian will do so instead. Sell Israeli war bonds or start an anti-Semitic pogrom as you please: just not here!HistoryBuff14 (talk) 15:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

MV Rachel Corrie

A 1200-ton cargo ship being used to run the Gaza blockade as been renamed.Geo8rge (talk) 18:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

MV Rachel Corrie is one of the ships that constitute the Gaza Freedom Flotilla which is scheduled to attempt a breach of the Israeli blockade on either Sunday 30 May 2010 or Monday 31 May. Many high resolution photographs of the ship being loaded with tons of cement and other building materials in the Irish harbour are available at http://www.flickr.com/photos/freegaza/. I am not familiar enough with the Wikipedia policies regarding copyright issues to tackle the task of installing at least one such photograph on this page but I do believe that it should be done. I will attempt to contact the photographer to ask him/her to do the upload him/herself but if someone has a better idea, please go ahead. In a case like this, Time is of the essence. If I could only choose one, I think it would be this one: http://www.flickr.com/photos/freegaza/4601114419/sizes/o/. Oclupak (talk) 01:20, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
The ship got it's own page after the dudes got iced, so not necessary. --Lurkmolsner (talk) 16:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I want to edit this article but they won't let me why fix it!

I want to add very important information to this article but i can't! FIX IT! ` 22:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.209.204.242 (talk)

get confirmed dude —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lurkmolsner (talk • contribs) 17:47, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Agree w/ Lurk (who forgot to sign his comment). Sign up for an account 69.209.204.242. NickCT (talk) 20:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Better picture

Hey all, I think the picture at the top really ought to be one of Corrie's face. It's odd having the main picture be one of her back. Could someone possibly put a new one in? Thanks, NickCT (talk) 13:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

It's the best one of her and the buldozer though, which is really what she is notable for. --Lurkmolsner (talk) 16:11, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Definately agree that the bulldozer picture is important and notable, and should be in the article. But the standard is that most biopages uses pictures of a person's face as the primary picture, even when that person may be known only for one event (see O. J. Simpson, Anat Kamm, Lee Harvey Oswald).
I would suggest something like [1] or [2] NickCT (talk) 17:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps. --Lurkmolsner (talk) 17:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree that we need both types of images in the article. Someone (her family, friends, ISM, etc.) needs to upload a photo of her face under a free image license. Currently, there is no photo of her face in the Wikimedia Commons: commons:Category:Rachel Corrie. --Timeshifter (talk) 12:29, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I added the image at the top because it was the only one available on Wikimedia Commons of her while she was still alive. I support having a more conventional bio photo for the lede. Would it be possible to make use of one of the images NickCT mentions under a fair use rationale? Gobonobo T C 14:56, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I believe so. See Death of Neda Agha-Soltan. There were long discussions on several talk pages including Talk:Jimbo Wales that concluded that it was improper not to include a photo of someone while they were alive. Even if it meant using a fair-use image. See: User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 48#Neda. Especially now that Rachel Corrie is in the news again, has had a notable play made about her, and so on. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:45, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I've added a fair use image for the lede. Gobonobo T C 16:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
There is no rule that specifies that the picture at the top should show a person's face. I agree with the comments that she is mostly notable for standing in front of the bulldozer and we should therefore have that as the main picture. Also, the alternative image you have used is not free and does not have an adequate free use rationale, and therefore is likely to be deleted. --386-DX (talk) 23:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
The image now has an adequate rationale for free use. Regardless of whether the lead image has a bulldozer, this article does not contain a representation of the subject while she is living apart from a picture of her back. While I agree that free images are preferred, no free alternative illustrates the subject as she lived. Since the reasons given for removing the image address whether or not the picture is in the lead, I am restoring the image. Feel free to rearrange as you would like. Gobonobo T C 00:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Just want to register my support for Gobonobo's statements above. NickCT (talk) 18:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Cause of death in header infobox

I changed it into "Killed while trying to block an Israeli armored bulldozer in disputed circumstences" since there are two sides or descriptions to the events:

  • ISM: Corrie was crushed by the dozer while preventing house demolition.
  • IDF: Corrie was killed by debris pushed by the dozer, which was engaging in debris and bush clearing to uncover tunnels or booby traps and not engaged in house demolition that day.

Therefore I changed it to "Killed while trying to block an Israeli armored bulldozer in disputed circumstences" while not writing only one side's version. MathKnight 15:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

We present facts according to how reliable sources report on them. If reliable sources predominantly follow the description given by one side in a dispute, we use that description, not a compromise between the descriptions of both sides. (Of course, we should also report on the IDF's position, but not in the infobox.)  Cs32en Talk to me  17:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Infobox: Circumstances of Rachel Corrie's death

The current text in the infobox reads "Killed while trying to block an Israeli armored bulldozer". However, Rachel Corrie was not simply killed "while trying to block [the bulldozer]", she was killed by the bulldozer. There is near unanimous agreement on this in reliable sources, including Israeli sources:

  • "Rachel Corrie, a young American who was crushed to death by an Israeli bulldozer while she protested the destruction of Palestinian housing in Gaza in 2003" New York Times
  • "The ship was named after an American college student crushed to death by an Israeli Army bulldozer while protesting house demolitions in Gaza." Washington Post
  • "The Irish vessel was named after an American college student crushed to death by an Israeli army bulldozer while protesting house demolitions in Gaza." Associated Press
  • "The Cambodian-flagged Rachel Corrie – named for an American college student who was crushed to death by a bulldozer in 2003 while protesting Israeli house demolitions in Gaza - was carrying hundreds of tons of aid, including wheelchairs, medical supplies and cement." Ynet news
  • "One of the ships, a private Irish 1,200-ton freighter, is named for Rachel Corrie, an American college student crushed to death in 2003 by an IDF bulldozer while protesting house demolitions in the Gaza Strip." Jerusalem Post
  • "The Rachel Corrie is named after a US college student who was crushed to death by an Israeli army bulldozer as she protested about house demolitions in Gaza." BBC

  Cs32en Talk to me  16:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Concur with Cs32en. Support use of "crushed to death by an Israeli army bulldozer" in caption. NickCT (talk) 17:04, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
I also concur, as the examples are a solid cross-section of nearly identical terminology, from unquestionably good WP:RS sources. Jusdafax 17:46, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Rachel Corrie Street

The article indicates that no street was ever named for her, but I suspect that info is out of date since several sources indicate that this was done earlier this year. For example: http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/dailyweekly/2010/03/palestinian_streets_new_name_i.php

Anyone able to edit this article that wants to include this information, or at least remove the inaccurate sentence from the article?

143.45.64.72 (talk) 00:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Requirement fot additional information

This piece badly needs some additional info. Corrie was crushed by a bulldozer. There are two versions one that she was protecting the house of a local pharmacist from demolition. The other was that the Israelis were clearing scrub near a tunnel entrance. It is not clear which is true. The location was near Rafah but how close to the border. Was it less that 100m. Were there any tunnels nearby. Did the Israelis bulldoze houses in the area. The reason why Wikipedia is good is that it answers these type of questions - but not in this case. I cant see shrub but I can't see the house either. I am none the wiser as to what actually happened from this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.28.52.230 (talk) 03:36, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Unlock the page

The excuse to register a account is invalid, because only accounts who are months old , hundreds of edits AND are confirmed by admins are allowed to edit. So therefore unlock this page now ! --93.82.8.84 (talk) 07:48, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I don´t have to be a sockpuppet of this user, however I agree with that. --Ftsw (talk) 11:40, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

There is an ongoing court case and a large amount of new information to be added - particularly what's now being admitted about the original investigation eg "Michaeli said he knew, prior to opening the investigation, there was a video camera recording the area around the clock. But he failed to obtain the tape until March 23, a week after the incident, because it had been previously taken by senior commanders. When questioned about his failure to interrogate the camera operator, who panned away from the scene only minutes before Rachel was killed, he said he did not think it was relevant."[3] 86.177.34.22 (talk) 08:23, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Criticism of the International Solidarity Movement's Role

This section appears to be a synthesis of quotes from activists which could support the criticism mentioned in the title but the refs do not at first sight to have been reporting such criticsm, rather reporting what the activists have said. The references provide relevant background for the article but we may need to present them differently, or find a reference which reports this criticism more directly. Comments? --Mirokado (talk) 02:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Death of Rachel Corrie

Rachel Corrie is herself not notable. She never received any reliable coverage before her death. She is notable for her death- nothing more. Thus, she is not deserving of a Wikipedia article. I think the name should be changed to Death of Rachel Corrie. 140.247.141.137 (talk) 23:27, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

While you're correct on her lacking notability while living, I think the odds of your proposed change being adopted by the community approach zero. Jclemens (talk) 23:33, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
The proposed change makes sense. This should be done, and I don't see the logic of Clemens' rebuke.MuratOnWiki (talk) 01:29, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
I think she has, as a person, achieved enough notability on her own right for an article. For example, the details of her life outside of the I-P debate have been noted in numerous places. IronDuke 02:17, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

spirit of rachel corrie

The text added to this article on the ship "Spirit of Rachel Corrie" is inappropriate. For an encyclopedia article about Corrie, a blow-by-blow account of the ship's activities is excessive and unnecessary. Second, the account presented here is a primary source - text messages from the ship - with no secondary sources putting the messages in context. As an encyclopedia, we can't use a primary source account without secondary sources that interpret that secondary source. Please see Wikipedia:No original research. GabrielF (talk) 00:52, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Seconded. IronDuke 02:18, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
I had already previously removed that content as it has nothing to do with the article subject, except the tenuous one of the vessel being named Rachel Corrie. At most there may be a reference to a vessel bearing her name being apprehended by Israeli and Egyptian naval ships while attempting to deliver aid, but only when there are sufficient RS. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:15, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

New story

This could be useful

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jul/11/corries-accuse-israelis-death --Aa2-2004 (talk) 07:53, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

POV throughout.

Throughout the article, there is a constant rehashing of two controversial claims as fact: 1) That the bulldozer's were demolishing houses. 2) That Corrie was killed by the bulldozer rather than by falling debris. The official Israeli investigation (the only thorough investigation carried out) claimed that both of these were false. Therefore these should not be stated as fact but rather as disputed opinion. Wikieditorpro (talk) 14:50, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I've rewritten the opening paragraph to more accurately reflect the differing opinions. Wikieditorpro (talk) 15:20, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Israeli Army Spokeswoman

In a French film by the Israeli-French filmmaker Simone Bitton of 2008 an Israeli Army spokeswoman claimed that Rachel Corrie had no direct contact with the bulldozer. She was right, according to all eyewitnesses from both sides. It can also be rightly claimed that Hitler never personally poured any cyclone gas into any of the gas chambers at Auschwitz. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ontologix (talk • contribs) 22:37, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Your explanation, as requested

I revised the previous version a bit to cater it more to your liking. I fail to see what needs explaining, but I will now dissect each statement in the opening paragraph.

"Rachel Aliene Corrie (April 10, 1979 – March 16, 2003) was an American member of the International Solidarity Movement (ISM)." Explanation: She was a member of the International Solidarity Movement.

"She died while acting as a human shield during the demolition of a Palestinian home in Gaza." Explanation: She died while acting as a human shield during the demolition of a Palestinian home in Gaza. You may watch the multiple award winning documentary Occupation 101 to verify this. Something tells me that you are going to argue whether or not the documentary is a reliable source. So let me preemptively respond. The documentary won 2 awards at the Beverly Hills Film Festival, another award at the Artist Film Festival, another at the East Lansing Film Festival, another at the Deadcenter Film Festival, and yet another at the New Orleans Film Festival. Not only that, but the documentary features numerous interviews with scholars, religious leaders, humanitarian workers, and NGO representatives from your rightful homeland, Israel.

"Witnesses state that she was caught underneath a bulldozer, while the IDF investigation reported that she died after being struck by falling debris." Explanation: Witnesses stated that she got caught underneath a bulldozer. Yet again, you may refer to Occupation 101 to see real-time footage of witnesses testifying to that. And as you know, the IDF investigation reported that she died after being struck by falling debris.

"Furthermore, while the investigation reported that the driver of the bulldozer could not see her, witnesses maintain that there was nothing to obscure the driver's view." Explanation: The investigation reported that the driver of the armored bulldozer could not see her. Witnesses maintained that there was nothing to obscure the driver's view. Obviously, there are disputes on this, and we are never going to know the truth, but it would be an insult to her memory to only include one perspective in the introduction.

"At the time of her death, Corrie was a student at the Evergreen State College in Washington." Explanation: She was indeed a student at Evergreen. Once again I am going to assume that you will insist that we include that she was there at the time of the Second Intifada, presumably to make it clear that she knowingly entered a war zone, and by extension, that she was at least in part (or perhaps fully, as some would have it) responsible for her own death. I believe this would fall under POV, no? If you must, include that somewhere in the body of the page, not as part of the opening remarks. Kazemzad (talk) 10:45, 14 May 2012 (UTC)Kazemzad

Occupation 101 RS

The documentary won 2 awards at the Beverly Hills Film Festival, another award at the Artist Film Festival, another at the East Lansing Film Festival, another at the Deadcenter Film Festival, and yet another at the New Orleans Film Festival. Furthermore, Occupation 101 features numerous interviews with scholars (including former U.S. Ambassador to Israel Edward Walker, Phyllis Bennis from the U.S. Institute for Policy Studies, MIT professor Noam Chomsky, U.S. Congressman Paul Findley, Israeli historian Ilan Pappe, and Columbia professor Rashid Khalidi to name a few), religious leaders, humanitarian workers, and NGO representatives (including Israel human rights group B'Tselem) from Israel. The reliability of this documentary is not in question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VivaWikipedia (talk • contribs) 06:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I never heard about those festivals.Who made this film?Who its editors?Without knowing those facts we can not say its reliably source and its seems like non-rs more like propaganda source.--Shrike (talk) 06:48, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


Information about the filmmakers are readily available online, and it is obvious that you failed to do a quick Google search to find this information before denouncing it as a non-RS. You may also find information about these festivals, and the renowned people this documentary features, online. Your arbitrary decision that this documentary is not an RS without even checking the source is unacceptable. VivaWikipedia (talk) 06:56, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think it is either. First of all, it is designed to show "human rights abuses" by the Israeli government as per its foreign policy, so it's certainly not a neutral source. Winning an award says nothing about the factual accuracy of the piece, and no outside review deals with the facts of the documentary, only that it was well-done and explores some things. MSJapan (talk) 07:24, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Better yet, let me quote from the WP article on the documentary: 'Occupation 101 includes interviews with mostly American and Israeli scholars, religious leaders, humanitarian workers, and NGO representatives — more than half of whom are Jewish — who are critical of the injustices and human rights abuses stemming from Israeli policy in the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza" (emphasis mine). Hardly unbiased, and therefore not a reliable source. MSJapan (talk) 07:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Just a general comment: Being biased doesn't necessarily imply being unreliable. If some NGO has done some (notable) interview with some well known person having a notable opinion on the subject at hand, that of course it could be used as a source for that well known person's notable opinion. The source however would become unreliable, if it gives a (clear) misrepresentation of the interview (for instance through ommitting, cutting, providing false context) or even misquoted/doctors the interview lines them selves directly. However the fact that bias as such doesn't automatically make a source unreliable, doesn't make the particular source in question reliable either. It might be simply unreliable for other reasons, in this case probably simply due to not being particularly well known and not having a known reputation for accurate reporting.--Kmhkmh (talk) 17:17, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Is the postmortem picture necessary?

Wikipedia, please remove that picture. Not only is it disrespectful, but there are children who use this site! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.115.10 (talk) 13:26, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:NOTCENSORED. JonFlaune (talk) 22:58, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Clearing vegetation

What the bulldozer was doing at the time of her death is under dispute.

See for example:

  • 1 - Corrie, a 23-year-old native of Olympia, Washington, was crushed to death on March 16, 2003, by a military armored bulldozer clearing vegetation in a combat zone along the Gaza-Egypt border. Corrie and other pro-Palestinian activists had confronted two bulldozers and a small infantry contingent guarding the vehicles in an attempt to halt what the activists believed was an impending home demolition.
  • 2In his ruling, Gershon said the military’s mission that day ‘‘was not, in any way, to destroy homes,’’ but to clear brush and explosives ‘‘to prevent acts of hatred and terror.’’
  • 3 - At the time, the bulldozer was clearing brush near the Rafah border crossing to prevent illegal weapons smuggling by terrorists from Egypt. Ankh.Morpork 00:26, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
I agree with you that what the bulldozer was doing is under dispute. On the other hand, the sentence you removed didn't actually say that the bulldozer was destroying homes. It said that Corrie was trying to prevent the destruction of homes:

Rachel Aliene Corrie (10 April 1979 – 16 March 2003) was an American pro-Palestinian human rights activist and member of the International Solidarity Movement (ISM) who was crushed to death by an Israel Defense Forces armored bulldozer while attempting to prevent the demolition of Palestinian homes in Gaza.

It's not actually under dispute that she was in Gaza attempting to prevent the demolition of homes, is it? Now, I do agree with you that the sentence gives the impression that she was attempting to prevent the destruction of homes when she was killed, and there may be some way to fix this. The problem is that the first source you cite there says:

Corrie and other pro-Palestinian activists had confronted two bulldozers and a small infantry contingent guarding the vehicles in an attempt to halt what the activists believed was an impending home demolition.

and I think that that sentence can support what was previously cited to it. How does it sound to say:

Rachel Aliene Corrie (10 April 1979 – 16 March 2003) was an American pro-Palestinian human rights activist and member of the International Solidarity Movement (ISM) who was crushed to death by an Israel Defense Forces armored bulldozer while protesting the demolition of Palestinian homes in Gaza.

This way it doesn't say that the bulldozer was in the act of destroying a home but it does capture what the source says about her purpose for being where the bulldozer could harm her. I don't think that the court decision is a reliable source for this kind of thing, and your third source is an op-ed piece and I don't think it counts as reliable here.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:44, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
By the way, this has been discussed about a zillion times already. Can anyone find an actual consensus about it in the talk page archives?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:46, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
And now I see here: Talk:Rachel_Corrie/Archive_2#Demolition_of_homes that my proposal has already been made. Sigh...— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:48, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

It clearly needs to be in the lead section that she was protesting demolition of homes. Here is what The Guardian writes in its recent editorial: "Rachel Corrie died trying to protect a Palestinian home from demolition."[4] The vegetation nonsense/OR is irrelevant and not backed up by any reliable sources. JonFlaune (talk) 01:17, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Possibly this is a better source than the Guardian editorial, since it's an actual news piece? It says:

Rachel Corrie, 23, an activist with the International Solidarity Movement, was crushed to death as she tried to stop an Israeli army bulldozer from destroying Palestinian houses in Rafah, on the Egypt-Gaza border.

Do you have a concrete opinion on phrasing? Are you OK with what was there before? I am, but am also OK with my above proposal.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:22, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm ok both with the original wording and your proposal above. JonFlaune (talk) 01:26, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
I am not. A neutral terminology should reflect the dispute, something like "in an attempt to halt what the activists believed was an impending home demolition." Mentioning this must also be contextualized with the repeated attacks in the P corridor that led to this decision. Ankh.Morpork 16:05, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
We are talking about the lead here. The context is explored at great length in the article body. You agree that she believed that she was halting an impending home demolition because that's in your proposed sentence. It follows from that that the reason she was there was to protest home demolitions. If she had believed that she was preventing an impending invasion from Mars it would be accurate to say that she was there to protest an invasion from Mars. Even if there were no homes anywhere near where she was it would still be accurate to say that she was there to protest home demolition. It doesn't imply that there were any homes. Regarding contextualization with mention of "repeated attacks;" do you have a source that ties her being there to protest with those attacks?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:38, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Eyewitnesses

Activism, you removed this: with eyewitnesses asserting that the Israeli soldier operating the bulldozer deliberately ran over Corrie, and the Israeli government disputing this account. with an edit summary that said (This sentence isn't true - the driver, for one, said he didn't see her. Israeli court said it wasn't Israel's fault either. Also include info on the court - this is major news for a lead. Also, eyewitnesses are ISM members. "Disputed" is better for lea). I don't see the problem. The sentence doesn't say that all the eyewitnesses asserted that. It doesn't even say that it's true. It says simply that eyewitnesses asserted that. The sources it's cited to support the statement that eyewitnesses asserted that. It quotes one of them by name and refers to others. (Side note: I have no problem with mentioning the court's decision in the lead).— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:07, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

But it's not just the Israeli gvt that disputes this - to name a few others, the bulldozer driver and the court say this isn't true. The sentence is written in a way that a regular reader thinks it's a fact the bulldozer ran over her, because eyewitnesses from activist organizations don't lie, and it's just the government where the incident occured in that is naturally denying it... --Activism1234 03:41, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
"with eyewitnesses asserting" means that some eyewitnesses assert this, not all of them. I can't imagine "a regular reader" seeing that this is anything other than a reasonable summary of what's in the relevant section below. The court's finding is explained neutrally in the next sentence, which also summarizes a section down below. Sure, others dispute it besides the Israeli government, that's explained in painstaking detail in the article. Also, whether or not the eyewitnesses on either side are lying isn't even part of the discussion. Everybody's seen Rashomon by now. If the sentence says that eyewitnesses asserted it, it's already calling its factuality into question. What we have now seems like enough information for the lead; it summarizes concisely the material to be explained in detail below. The salient parties to the dispute are some eyewitnesses who think it was deliberate and the Israeli government. Obviously since the government won the court case there was testimony to the effect that it wasn't deliberate. That level of detail seems to me to be too much for the lead.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:53, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

What did the court do?

Activism, as I said above, I have no problem with the information about the court decision being in the lead. However, courts don't "claim," they "find." If you wouldn't mind fixing this yourself, it'd be nice.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:10, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Hey Alf. I wrote that they "ruled." Another editor, JonFlaune, violated WP:CLAIM and wrote that they "claimed." I guess courts "claim" when it fits a POV, but "rule" when it fits a different POV, eh? I can't revert it, as I'm under 1RR, sorry, but I didn't put that in (see here for proof). Thanks. --Activism1234 03:24, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, my mistake in reading the diffs. JonFlaune, is there a reason to say that the court "claimed"? I've never heard this usage before ever. Either "ruled" or "found" would be appropriate.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:28, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
The reason is that that the Israeli assertion is essentially an extremist fringe POV shared by noone else, and the Israeli local district court's assertions have been condemned by everyone from the competent United Nations Special Rapporteur to a former US President to Amnesty International ("Amnesty International condemns..."). So "asserted", "claimed" or something like that are better than "ruled" (Israeli courts have no jurisdiction in the rest of the world, or Palestine for that sake). As for usage of "claimed", see e.g. [5]. JonFlaune (talk) 04:22, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, you can't just go around labelling the decisions of a democratic court as "fringe" because you disagree with a 62 page report you didn't read, and because it was condemend by "everyone" in your view (again, not true, and that's not a Wikipedia policy). I'm not happy that Casey Anthony was acquitted, but that doesn't make the court's decision "fringe" or a "claim." It makes it a "ruling." It doesn't allow you to violate WP:CLAIM because you disagree with the ruling. Write a blog post that you're upset at the ruling of a court in another country, I won't protest. But not on Wikipedia. --Activism1234 04:28, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Israel, as a country based on the policy of apartheid, is not considered a democratic country in polite society. Courts of countries like Israel or Russia or Belarus cannot be compared to courts of western democratic countries. JonFlaune (talk) 04:38, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
That's your own view. See WP:SOAP. We're not basing a contentious article off of your view which many editors and people strongly disagree with. --Activism1234 04:43, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Give the policies a rest for a bit, maybe. We're discussing the content of the article and I find his comment relevant to the discussion, even if I disagree with his use of that one word.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:49, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
@JonFlaune; That may all be true about the Israeli courts, but in the English language courts don't "claim," even if that website says they do. Even North Korean courts "rule" or "find" when we're talking about them in English. @Activism; I don't see what WP:CLAIM has to do with it and why you keep bringing it up. It's a style guideline, not a policy. It just says to be careful with the word, it doesn't say not to use the word. Sometimes the word is appropriate.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:33, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
@JonFlaune: I remember you the judicial system in Israel is an independent power (like in any other democracy) and in several cases the Supreme Court ruled against the State and the IDF.--AneCristals (talk) 05:06, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Neither Falk nor Amnesty is relevant in the lead?

Regarding this diff: Everything in the lead is supposed to already be in the article, so your reason for removing that material doesn't make any sense. By your reasoning we should have no lead. Would you care to explain here?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:52, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Not only that but you busted a reference with your deletion; would you consider fixing it?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:54, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

So why only opinion of Falk?I think what should be in the lead is that she was killed and nature of dispute.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 05:00, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
I simply don't think a judicial decision has the same importance than some pro-Palestinian dude's opinion.--AneCristals (talk) 05:03, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Shrike. As stated above, we don't need such high levels of detail and POV pushing in the lead of a contentious article. Feel free to put these views in the appropriate section of the article, but not necessary for the lead. --Activism1234 05:04, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
There is widespread international condemnation of the decision, which was mentioned in the lead and also removed in AneCristals's edit. Amnesty International, Jimmy Carter, and "some pro-Palestinian dude." How in the world is it POV pushing? The court said one thing, a UN special rapporteur, a former U.S. president, and AI condemn the decision and you all think it's POV pushing to mention it in the lead? It's being reported world-wide. WP:LEAD even says to include prominent controversies. This is a prominent controversy.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:10, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
It's POV pushing A) Look at the editor who put it in and their comments on Israel and Israeli courts, as well as thinking the opinion is "fringe" and only a "claim." Yes, refs can back up an edit - but the edit itself can be tenditious POV pushing., just like saying the court's ruling was only a "claim." B) Putting it in the lead to highlight as though the 62-page ruling is some anomaly that should be freely discounted, and not an independent ruling (notice how a lot of these comments are also puppeting the same word "impunity"). These same people consistently criticize Israel often, not exactly the most neutral trust-worthy statements for lead, and it's undue to highlight their comments in the lead. C) The article isn't called "Court case of Rachel Corrie" or "Death of Rachel Corrie." Her court case took place after her death and is but one event in this article. It's notable to be mentioned in the lead, but the reactions to this one event and one section of the article aren't. --Activism1234 05:18, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Jimmy Carter: Pro-Palestinian, financed by Saudi money, accused of antisemitism.
Amnesty International: Pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel.
Richard Falk: Anti-Zionist activist.
As far as I know, these people hated Israel before the court's decision. I tell you what... let's add the opinion of Hugo Chavez, Bashar al-Assad, King Abdullah and the President of Iran... so you can talk about "international condemnation" (although I could cite several pro-Israel activists saying exactly the opposite).--AneCristals (talk) 05:20, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
If there are source that court decision meet world wide condemnation we may put it in the lead but we shouldn't put opinion by individuals.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 05:25, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
@Activism; actually, don't look at the editor who put it in, look at the edit. There's a policy and not just a guideline on that, you know. @AneCristals; you can add all those commentators if you'd like, but using them to put "international condemnation" in would be synthesis. I wasn't proposing those words for the article. @Shrike; that seems reasonable to me. @Everyone; none of these responses seem to me to actually address why something about this shouldn't be mentioned in the lead.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:38, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
I tried to counterbalanced anti-Israel opinions. If Falk and AI are in the lead, then O'Neill and HR should be included as well.--AneCristals (talk) 05:51, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
O'Neill is a blogger. He shouldn't be anywhere. His Wikipedia article should probably go to AFD. HP HR is fine with me for the body of the article, but I don't see how they compare to Jimmy Carter and Amnesty International. In any case, obviously we're not going to figure this out today.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:59, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
O'Neill maybe OK becouse WP:NEWSBLOG.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 17:09, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

The reaction of Richard A. Falk will stay in the article. He is the competent UN authority for the area, and far more important than some obscure district court somewhere in Israel promoting the usual far-right extreme views held by many Israeli settlers. The only reason the claims of this court are notable in the first place is the strong international condemnation of them, e.g. from the United Nations, Amnesty International, and individuals such as former US Presidents (and Nobel Peace Prize laureates as well). JonFlaune (talk) 14:08, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Obviously Falk is not a moral authority but he should appear here. He is a good representative for those who reject the verdict and denounce Israel. MathKnight 16:11, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Primary sourcing in Israeli trial section

Note that these three supporters of the verdict have their support cited to themselves: However, journalist Brendan O'Neill,[98] HonestReporting[99] and Israeli newspapers[100] supported the court's verdict. This is fine in the first two cases, but in the third we really need a secondary source that says that "Israeli newspapers supported". And just finding a bunch of other newspapers that supported and sticking them on there as references won't do, since it would be drawing a conclusion from the evidence. That last clause is not supported by the source it's cited to.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 06:07, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I mostly agree with you as it WP:OR. However, the problem is that it is done on many Wikipedia articles.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 06:15, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Harsh doesn't equal vocal

This: harsh critic of Israel, is in no way supported by the source it's cited to. They call him a "vocal critic." "Vocal" doesn't equal "harsh."— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 06:46, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok I tried to use proper synonym--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 06:56, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
NP. Thanks for changing it, AneCristals.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 06:59, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

The second paragraphs of the lead(memorial)

Does it really necessary for the lead better include some other details per WP:LEAD.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 17:00, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you that this: , opening "a window on the maturation of a young woman seeking to make the world a better place."[6] doesn't belong in the lead. I think that the paragraph itself is appropriate for the lead, though. Tangentially, I think that the lead could stand to be expanded a little.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:11, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
We can mention the play and the tribute in one sentence of course --Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 17:13, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Sure. I also think that the book and the foundation are worth mentioning in the lead, though. I see your point, but I think that that paragraph mostly looks out of place because it's almost as long as the first paragraph. If there were a couple more paragraphs in the lead summarizing some other material from the article it might not seem so weird.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:16, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Better source needed tag in military investigation section

We had:

The IDF document "The Death of Rachel Corrie" made no mention of the pathologist's conclusion. However, according to Corrie's parents, the IDF has refused thus far to release the entire document.<:ref>Greg Barrett. Autopsy, military investigation differ on how activist died. Gannett News Service. June 11, 2003.</ref>[better source needed]

and now we have:

The classified IDF report made no mention of the pathologist's conclusion.<:ref>Greg Barrett. Autopsy, military investigation differ on how activist died. Gannett News Service. June 11, 2003.</ref>

As I said in my edit summary, the source cited doesn't actually say that the IDF wouldn't release the report, so I took that out. It does say:

A detailed Israeli Defense Forces document titled "The Death of Rachel Corrie" does not mention the pathologist's belief that a mechanical apparatus caused the death. The IDF presented the classified Israeli document to some members of Congress in April. The Corrie family gave it to Gannett News Service this week.

which I think supports the sentence as it now stands. Hence I took the better source tag off.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:22, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Everyone killed by the Israelis is considered a martyr

In the Memorial Events subsection we have this sentence:

To most Palestinians, everyone killed by the Israeli army is considered a shaheed (martyr),[citation needed] and hundreds of local residents came to express their condolences.

The statement is derived from this sentence in the source it's cited to:

Everyone killed by the Israeli occupation is considered a shaheed or martyr to the Palestinian cause and people want to pay their respects to the family.

On the one hand, it's possible to argue that the "most" in our article could be changed to "all" based on the source and that the CN tag could be removed because the source at the end of the sentence supports the statement. On the other hand, the statement seems transparently false to me. Also, the wikilink to shahid seems wrong either way. Not everyone in "the Palestinian cause" is even Muslim, and the link points to an article that discusses a Muslim concept. Personally I think that the whole sentence ought to be deleted as dubious. The paragraph reads fine without it, and worse with it independently of the first clause (like where did local residents come to? It's impossible to tell from the sentence). I'd take it out right now but I'm already at the 1RR. I would also replace the CN tag with a dubious tag, but can't for the same reason. I'm going to tag it, though. Thoughts?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:15, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, since no one objected, I took the whole sentence out. It's my last edit on this article for today, though, so if you quietly thought that that sentence ought to be in there, go ahead and revert it.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:27, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

POV pushing by Activism1234

It's a good thing to keep a record of things like this. In a striking example of POV pushing, User:Activism1234 removes the opinion of Amnesty International condemning the local Israeli courts actions, while adding the views of numerous far-right bloggers, fringe groups nowhere near Amnesty's notability and so on. The section is already much longer than other comparable sections and the far-right Israeli POV overrepresented already. He also adds irrelevant POV labelling of the United Nations Special Rapporteur, and disruptively removes the link to peace activist from the lead and sourced material (she is described as a peace activist or in comparable terms in all other Wikipedias, and only the far-right extremist fringe would object to this description). The ongoing harrassment of a victim of Israeli war crimes in her article after her death by Israeli IPs is shocking and disgusting. JonFlaune (talk) 17:03, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I didn't remove or add anything. I reverted an edit you made which removed referenced content from articles reliable media outlets like The Telegraph, to push your POV, since those referened content didn't put her in the victim light. --Activism1234 17:11, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
You removed Amnesty International's sourced reaction because it didn't suit your POV pushing agenda as anyone can tell from your edit, you also removed peace activist (she is listed in the peace activist article), you also added, while deleting Amnesty's reaction, the reactions of vast amounts of obscure bloggers and far-right fringe groups. JonFlaune (talk) 17:14, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Just to check - we can put opinions of people who criticized the ruling, but not the opinions of those who supported the ruling from reliable media outlets like The Telegraph with attribution? Great! --Activism1234 17:19, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

OK nevermind this drama - JonFlaune has been blocked again for 2 weeks for actions here and other bad behavior... --Activism1234 17:20, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Images have to come from wiki commons?

Regarding this edit. Do images, in fact, have to come from wiki commons? That doesn't seem to be what the documentation for Template:External media says.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:27, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

My understanding is that there's no requirement for images to come from commons. Commons is designed to host images that are in the public domain or are licensed so that anyone can modify and distribute them. Wikipedia encourages such images but we also allow images that are available under "fair use", which cannot be uploaded to Commons. If its an article about a thing, such as a building, where its easy to get a free image, fair use images are discouraged. In an article like this, about a current event, where free images are very difficult to find, fair use images are acceptable. See: Wikipedia:Image use policy and Wikipedia:Non-free content. GabrielF (talk) 02:53, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Of course they don't. I can even see someone making a case for embedding one of those images directly in the article, ratehr than as an external link, but it's certainly legitimate to include such a box titled external links. See articles like Nabeel Rajab, where such boxes are common due to copyright claims. The edit did not have any merit. --Activism1234 03:17, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
That's what I thought too. I put them back in, then. Thanks!— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:27, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Horrible sentence in the lead

I know this is all accurate and stuff, what we have now:

The exact nature of her death and the actions of the bulldozer operator are disputed, with eyewitnesses saying that the Israeli soldier operating the bulldozer deliberately ran over Corrie, and the Israeli government says it was an accident since the bulldozer operator could not see her,[3][4][5] since she was kneeling down.[6][7]

But I think it's a ridiculous sentence purely from a syntactic point of view. I'd be happy to see it just gone from the lead, as it's rehearsing whole battles in the text from below, not summarizing the content of the article. Maybe if we take out the whole sentence with both sides of the dispute gone everyone will be happy and the lead won't be so weird? If not, maybe someone can figure out a way to say this in like three sentences instead of one? And can't we also take all the references out if we leave the information in? Obviously all the stuff is supported below. These lead sentences with a zillion references scream EDIT-WAR and look silly as well. I also think that the lead needs to be expanded, but in breadth rather than in depth, as currently seems to be its fate. But I suppose that that's an issue for another day. The only real question here is can we fix that sentence either by removing it or breaking it up?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:44, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

If you're talking about semantics or 3 sentences, this should suffice.

The exact nature of her death and the actions of the bulldozer operator are disputed. Eyewitnesses assert that the Israeli soldier operating the bulldozer deliberately ran over Corrie. However, the Israeli government asserts that her death was an accident as the bulldozer operator could not see her,[3][4][5] since she was kneeling down at the time of her death.[6][7]

--Activism1234 05:03, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Also, I wouldn't worry about edit warring. I live in a democratic country. Wikipedia is available to anyone. If anyone wants to edit war, go ahead. Of course, should that be the decision made, there will be repercussions, as is always the case. So I wouldn't get too concerned over that. --Activism1234 05:04, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't follow. But OK.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Essentially, if someone wants to edit war, let them. An admin will take care of it and sanction them. It's not a good reason to remove stuff from the lead, if that's the only reason. Most readers aren't going to be edit warring. --Activism1234 05:32, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
No, I meant that having all those references in the lead, which doesn't actually need references, makes it look as if the sentence is the result of an edit war rather than of normal editing. Part of my objection to the sentence is that it looks like the aftermath of an edit war, not that it might attract an edit war. If *that* were a reason for taking anything out we might as well send the whole encyclopedia to AFD.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:36, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
if all the content stays, i have no problem without too many RS's (or any) in the lede, but then, we must be sure that all of those statements, "facts" and RS's get put further down as well (some are not, at the moment). Soosim (talk) 05:57, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
If they're not further down then why are they in the lead?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 06:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
  1. ^ [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike%27s_Place_suicide_bombing Wikipedia article on the Mike's Place Bombing
  2. ^ [http://www.mikesplacebars.com/history.html Mike's Place History
  3. ^ [http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/may/02/terrorism.israel The Guardian: Bombers posed as peace activists ]
  4. ^ British Broadcasting Corp: Bomb Britons visited Gaza
  5. ^ The Guardian: Suicide bombing leaflets' UK link
  6. ^ The Independent: The trail of death that led from Britain to Israel
  7. ^ [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/1451730/The-peace-group-that-embraces-violence.html The Telegraph:The 'peace' group that embraces violence ]
  8. ^ The Gaurdian: Making of a martyr
  9. ^ [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike%27s_Place_suicide_bombing Wikipedia article on the Mike's Place Bombing
  10. ^ [http://www.mikesplacebars.com/history.html Mike's Place History
  11. ^ British Broadcasting Corp: Bomb Britons visited Gaza
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rachel_Corrie/Archive_12&oldid=1140125270"