Talk:Rachel Corrie/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

IP editor statement on hiding weapons

Needs a source, doesn't belong in the lead. It's not worth mentioning the messed up changes to the external images. Discuss?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 06:30, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

There's a lot of flag burners who have got too much freedom,

I want to make it legal for policemen to beat em.

But seriously, why was the Rachel-burning-a-flag picture removed from wikimedia commons? Doesn't it belong here, to make it a complete article. There is a section talking about the controversy. It would be good to illustrate it. The external links that is there now isn't the answer, the picture is. Where'stheanykey (talk) 11:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Repeating "clearing vegetation" as if it is a statement of undisputed fact?

I have removed again the sentence - made as if it is a statement of undisputed fact - which states that the bulldozer was "clearing vegetation" on that day. The problem as I see it is that the article correctly makes clear that this is a point of dispute. Therefore I think it is better to avoid putting this elsehwere in the article other than in the ...death and subsequent controversy section where this point is clarified as a point of dispute. To avoid edit warring can anyone who disagrees please explain why by specifically addressing this point.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 12:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with leaving out this particular mention of the "clearing vegetation" issue. Vegetation-clearing should only be mentioned in this article as one side of a disputed version of events. When I was copyediting earlier I didn't change that particular mention because I hadn't read enough of the surrounding context. That mention was dischordant given the consistent description of vegetation-clearing as a disputed thing. In short, I support your edit there.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:46, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The bulldozers did clear vegetation that day. ISM activists claim that the bulldozers also demolished houses that day, but the facts point out that no house was demolished during that operation. The Israeli verdict confirmed that fact. I know that in a conflict we should present the POVs of both sides, but I think the facts must have a weight too. MathKnight 19:49, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The facts as I understand them are that ISM witnesses claim house demolitions were attempted but they managed to stop them by going inside a building and by standing in front of the bulldozers. If this is correct then the "clearing vegetation" claim is a lie.

The IDF claim is that they were only scheduled to clear "vegetation and rubble" ON THE DAY THAT CORRIE WAS KILLED . I.e. implying that they had been demolishing houses on previous days and they intended to on subsequent ones. If this is correct then the ISM witnesses specific and detailed statements are a lie.

Either way, someone is lying and we wiki editors should NOT decide for the reader who it is.

That house demolitions did not occur ON THAT DAY is a statement of fact, agreed, but I think is irrelevant. All we can know for certain is that house demolitions did not occur on that day after the death of Rachel.

I see TWO alternative understandings for why that is:

1. they may have been attempted but were prevented (ISM claim) and were curtailed after her death OR
2. they have never been planned (IDF claim).

We don't know which is true. Which is why I think this 'fact' of no house demolition on that day does does not support either side of this disputed point. FACT: the house in question was eventualluy demolished (2 years later I think).

CONCLUSION: Making the article present one side of this disputed point - as if there was no dispute - therefore seems a clear WP:NPOV violation.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 07:46, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Counterpunch and HonestReporting

I have removed both of them as WP:UNDUE - we should use mainstream sources. Also, I have removed an opinion piece in The Guardian, because anyhow what was quoted in the article is not a response to the trial but to the military investigation.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 15:36, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. I was about to remove it. It was synthesis seeing as there was little connection between the investigation and the verdict. Also, where does state government officials; I could only see reference to the ambassador? Finally, an op-ed is an unsuitable source to make these assertions. Ankh.Morpork 15:39, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

1. To Shrike & AnkhMorpork: you summarised your recent revert of the lead with: "they were not talking about court decision but about military investigation". And yet the cited sources definitely state that "the Israeli court upheld the results of" precisely that "military investigation". Can you therefore explain why you think informing the reader that government officials of Rachel's country (including the US ambassador to Israel), have stated that they do not believe that the Israeli military investigation upheld by the court was "thorough, credible" or "transparent"? To maintain NPOV, don't you think we need to balance the article so that it is not giving undue preference to the Israeli court verdict as if that were the only correct viewpoint. So... if we have the Israeli court decision in the lead, what is your objection to be balancing that with info concerning the criticism of its verdict from leading figures such as Dan Shapiro (criticising it just a couple of weeks ago)[1], Amnesty Int. [2], and Jimmy Carter who called the Israeli ruling ‘unacceptable’.
2. If reliability of sources is a concern (e.g your removing Counterpunch and Honest-reporting) then shouldn't you also be removing other less "mainstream" sources? My concern is that you might be removing information because of the content, while using the source as a justification to skew the article one way. Otherwise can you exlplain why you are not also removing info sourced from other less mainstream sources such as The Jewish Daily Forward, Israel eNews, (which doesn't even appear to exist anymore and has no functional link), JewishJournal.com, etc. --Mystichumwipe (talk) 11:14, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

You again inserted opinion about military investigation but the paragraph is about court decision not about military investigation.2.Honestreporting and Counterpunch have opposite POV so by removing them both NPOV was upheld. Forward newspaper is mainstream newspaper and reliable source for the facts.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 15:45, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. But I don't see how you have addressed my first question adequately.

1. The Amnesty Int. source referred ONLY to the court verdict, so you are not correct there. PLUS the court's decision relates to the military investigation as its verdict specificially stated that it upheld its findings. Do you see? They are not separate but closely connected. Which is precisely why the US Ambassador to Israel said what he did to the Corrie family two weeks ago. That is why what he said is relevant to the mentioning of the court verdict in the lead of this article. I.e. you haven't addressed the fact that we keep getting reverts so that only the Court's verdict remains in the lead with nothing about the reaction to it and criticism of it. Don't you think we need that to keep the lead NEUTRAL?

2. And regarding my second question, you haven't dealt with the point about other non-mainstream sources still being used in the article (the other examples I gave). The question is not about balancing non-mainstream sources but do we ONLY use mainstream sources or not, as has been suggested by you and/or Ankhmopork?--Mystichumwipe (talk) 16:04, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

1.We should mention responses to the court decision not military investigation per WP:UNDUE and WP:OR.Please read those polices.2.Counterpunch is this case is clearly WP:UNDUE when we compare it to Mother Jones.So any rebuttals by counterpunch is irrelevant.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 16:13, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Shrike, everyone here has read those policies a zillion and two times. Could you be more specific about how you see them applying to the particular issues at hand here? It's especially unclear to me what WP:UNDUE has to do as applied directly to a source.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:36, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok then please explain why opinion of counterpunch author is relevant at all?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 16:48, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say that it was relevant. I don't know if it is or not. I am just trying to understand your argument regarding NPOV and OR in this context. It doesn't seem fair to just drop your rationale and switch the argument to another issue. I'm just trying to understand your previous argument. If you have another argument, maybe make that one too. Since I'm not taking a position on this issue yet, but just trying to understand what the parties to this discussion are saying, it doesn't seem reasonable to ask me to take a position instead of explaining yours.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:58, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

My position is simple that compared to Mother Jones counterpunch position is irrelevant.Mother Jones is well respected journal its not clear why opinion of some Phan Nguyen is relevant at all--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 17:05, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Frontpagemag - is this a 'mainstream' source?

Brewcrewer recently undid an edit I made where I had removed a sentence that had no functional link and for which no 'mainstream' verifiable source could be found. One can be found at Frontpagemag and other blogs and forums. Do other editors here regard Horowitz's online political magazine 'mainstream' enough? If we are deleting quotes by Counterpunch and others, can we allow this as a source? My opinion is not. What do others think? I did a search for this alleged quote elsewhere, but could not find any reliable mainstream source for it, and therefore think we should not include it on grounds of verifiability.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 15:42, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

The RS noticeboard seems to agree with Mystichumwipe that frontpagemag.com is not a reliable source: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_3#Is_FrontPageMag.com_a_reliable_source. There is consensus at that discussion that it is not reliable for factual information. Also Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_3#FrontPage_Magazine_.28again.29 and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_14#RE:FPM. The consensus is that frontpagemag should not be used as a RS for statements of fact. The sentence that was cited to it was a statement of fact. Thus, unless a reliable source can be found for it, the sentence should be removed.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:53, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit was bad - Frontpage, according to RS, should not be taken as a fact necessarily. But removing the edit, rather than changing it to what Frontpage actually says, was bad too. --Activism1234 23:19, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:25, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Read what it said. We shouldn't use it as a fact, correct, but the author of that article specifically said that those words were mentioned in a phone call by Smith, so it'd be proper to simply attribute this in the normal way of "Author X (whatever her name was) said that in a phone call from Smith, Smith said..." That's what the ref actually says. --Activism1234 01:19, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I read what it said. Frontpagemag says that some guy said something on the phone. That is an assertion of fact. By citing the fact that he said it to frontpagemag we are treating them as a reliable source for the fact that he said it. So we don't use the "fact" that the guy said it, because frontpagemag is the one asserting that he said it. We don't even have to worry about whether what the guy said was true, because we don't want to believe frontpagemag when they claim that he said it. If a reliable source said that he said it, we could say something like "the NYT said he said it." With frontpagemag not so much.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:32, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

If other refs said it, I'd get suspicious. Why is Smith talking to so many people and saying the same thing? Now once again, we're not trying to take anything as a fact - even if we used the new york times, we'd have to attribute it as "According to the New York Times..." . --Activism1234 01:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

What are you concluding from this? I don't understand.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:09, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

AsFrontpage is NOT regarded as a suitable or reliable source, then we can not use the alleged 'quote' from Smith by citing Frontpage. Its really that simple isn't it. So... that's really the end of this discussion, isn't it? As Frontpage is the origin of the alleged quote, we cannot include it in the article at all, no matter if we eventually find another source that is less objectionable. That is because it would be still ultimately referencing Frontpage. The question of wiki's core verifiability policy, applies in this case to whether Smith actually said this or not, doesn't it? I.e. Q: Can the reader verify that Smith actually said this? A: No, because the original source for that is regarded by Wikipedia as unreliable.

Therefore, Brewcrewer, can you revert your edit and remove the violating quote from Frontpage please?--Mystichumwipe (talk) 06:43, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Balancing the lead re. Israeli court verdict & including criticism of it.

As this got lost amid a different discussion about Counterpunch, I am repeating these questions. Shrike, Activism & AnkhMorpork want the lead to only include the Israeli court verdict. My concern is that this gives undue weight to ONLY one side of the dispute over responsibility for Rachel's death and is therefore a neutrality violation. Can anyone who disagrees please answer these points:

Point 1. Arguing that the critics "...were not talking about court decision but about military investigation"(this diff) seems clearly incorrect in the case of Amnesty's, the Corrie family's and Jimmy Carter's criticism. So how does that count as a valid argument against having this in the lead?

Point 2. The reputable cited sources definitely state that "the Israeli court upheld the results of the military investigation"[3]. "An Israeli judge has exonerated a military investigation" [4], etc. Can those who oppose having reference to this therefore explain why they do not want us to inform the reader that government officials of Rachel's country (including the US ambassador to Israel), have stated that they do not believe that the Israeli military investigation upheld by the court was "thorough, credible" or "transparent"? To maintain NPOV, don't you think we need to balance the article so that it is not giving undue preference to the Israeli court verdict as if that were the only correct viewpoint. Summary: if we have the Israeli court decision in the lead, what is your objection to be balancing that with info concerning the criticism of its verdict from leading figures such as Dan Shapiro (criticising it just a couple of weeks ago)[5], Amnesty Int. [6], and Jimmy Carter Carter who called the Israeli ruling ‘unacceptable’.

Point 3. I don't see how Activism's argument that we need to have criticisms for and against the verdict to exonerate the military investigation to maintain balance serves the neutrality of the lead(?). We need only to summarise the difference of opinion here. The strongest argument for the military investigation and the court's view of it IS the court's verdict itself. It's only criticism of that which is being deleted by editors here, and thus which violates the neutrality of the lead. If we can't resolve this then we should perhaps remove the court's verdict altogether from the lead. The lead should be "a summary of (the articles) most important aspects." The article is about Rachel Corrie. Not just her death. We know what Rachel's own view was on the fairness of the Israeli courts and so having a lead which summarises the article about Rachel by giving undue prominence to an Israeli district court's finding of who bears responsibilty for her death, seems ironic.

Point 4. Is anyone else in agreement with my viewpoint that we should include the criticism of the verdict to maintain balance and neutrality or delete the inclusion of it in the lead (and which of these two do you prefer)?--Mystichumwipe (talk) 07:12, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

A court ruling, or a verdict, is not a partisan view that should be followed by a long debate of those who support it and those who don't in the lead. For that, there is the body of the article, to discuss the reactions for the verdicts. Take for example, O. J. Simpson: the lead just states the verdicts without the criticism on them (both the famous murder trial and the Las Vegas robbery). For there will always be a criticism on a court by the side who lost the case and its supporter. MathKnight 11:38, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with what you write about court verdicts. But this case is rather different. 1.) When someone starts a court case against another country's military and your own own country's Ambassasor to that that other country and an ex-President criticise the 'credibility' of the verdict and the investigation on which it was based, then it is much more notable than what you are describing. 2.) the article is not about that court case, but is about Rachel Corrie. And 3.) no-one is proposing "a long debate of those who support it and those who don't in the lead". That's a strawmman argument. So forgive me, but I don't think your arguments adequately tackle the proposal. Bottom line: do we include the criticism of the courts verdict by notable officals and organisations, or do we delete all reference to the verdict in the lead. I feel it's got to be one or the other to maintain neutrality. Where do you stand on these two alternatives?--Mystichumwipe (talk) 12:00, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Regarding point three, I see you yourself are now guilty of extending the lead with "The judge also approved the results of four experts, who concluded that the bulldozer driver could not see Corrie." Do you not agree that this gone against your own argument PLUS has also taken the lead yet further away from a more neutral point of view?--Mystichumwipe (talk) 12:09, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree with what you say about court verdicts, MathKnight. It depends on how controversial the verdict is. See Leo Frank, Scottsboro Boys, Joe Hill, Sacco and Vanzetti, for examples. Each case must be argued on the individual merits. OJ Simpson is different because he had a career outside of his trial for murder. In this article, which is really "Death of Rachel Corrie" under another name, if the court case belongs in the lead, and I believe it does, some of the criticism does as well, but ONLY because criticism is such a big part of the body of the article. There may always be criticism, but it's not always important. This criticism is important, which is why it's in the article. It belongs in the lead because it's in the article.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 12:23, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't object some short sentence that the court ruling was criticized per WP:LEAD but talking about military investigation in the context of court ruling is WP:OR and yes the article should be renamed to Death of Rachel Corrie--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 13:00, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how you can say that it's "OR" outside of the context of specific proposed sentences. Are you going to argue that mentioning the military investigation in the context of the court ruling is prima facie OR? I'd like to see the details of that argument.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:04, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand why criticism of military investigation should be mentioned as response to court ruling its two different things hence WP:OR or even WP:SYNTH.We should only mention response to the court decision as it directly connected to the rulling--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 14:12, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Like I said, I don't see how to discuss this abstractly.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:18, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

(outdent) I hate to ruin the party, but OR and SYNTH have nothing to do with this. The lede of an article should not be overly detailed. Ledes offer summaries; they do not present arguments (that's what the article is for). With that in mind, simply say there was a court verdict, and deal with both sides (per NPOV) in a section dedicated to that item. MSJapan (talk) 14:21, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the content in your comment. Of course you're right. The question is what happens when the controversy over the court verdict is equal in coverage in the article to the verdict itself. It's a huge part of the article. What principle then says that it shouldn't be mentioned in the lead?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:23, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not saying it shouldn't be mentioned in the lede. What I'm saying is that the details don't belong there, and that seems to be the sidetrack here. "There was a court verdict on X date that said Y and led to controversy" is quite literally the extent that should be in the lede. MSJapan (talk) 15:51, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 15:58, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Especially if the criticism comes from peripheral figures such as Jimmy Carter. The coverage of the criticism over the court verdict was hardly notable as the verdict itself, and it would be undue to insert insubstantial criticisms to redress supposed POV imbalances. Ankh.Morpork 16:28, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Shrike, MSJapan, and anyone else up there who agrees that MSJapan's proposed sentence is a good model for the lead. Would someone like to put actual words into it and propose it? I think we may be on the verge of some progress here.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:37, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I have had a go. Have a look and see what you think I have attempted to clarify the backround to what the Haifa courts verdict was actually ruling on. This seems crucial as all the disagreements here about whether the military investigation was being criticised or the 2012 Court verdict seem to derive from a confusion about what and why the 2005 case was instigated in the first place (i.e it was about 1. the previous investigations credibilty and 2. whether Israel was responsibe for her death). If editors here are not clear about that, then the reader of the article can hardly be expected to be. I have also attempted to clarify the backround to Rachel's presence in Gaza, without which her death by bulldozer has little meaning. --Mystichumwipe (talk) 07:13, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Where is the flag photo?

There is a paragraph concerning a photo of Corrie waving a paper American flag whic is about to be burned. Comments by her parents state that this is the picture they hope she is remembered by. I think this article should include that photo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.41.57.166 (talk) 00:06, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, as it might help counter some of the bias. Is there a picture that would be free for use on Wikipedia? Sperrfeuer (talk) 10:01, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I have a link to a sites that used it but I am not sure how to add a image that I did not take legally.

http://www.thecommentator.com/article/1571/israel_not_guilty_over_rachel_corrie_but_what_of_those_who_encouraged_her_to_go_to_gaza_ Articseahorse (talk) 19:13, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Not including the flag picture is the most blatant example of bias in an entry that is full of nothing but. The entire entry reads like some sort of submission for Corrie's beatification. Given that the photo is the most famous one of Corrie, there is asbolutely no excuse for its exclusion, and it is pretty obvious it was removed because it makes Corrie look like the anti-American, anti-Israeli zealot she was, rather than the saint that this entry portrays her to be. Whoever is blocking the inclusion of the photo needs to provide a very good reason for doing so.74.141.152.194 (talk) 03:58, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Now, now... we'd actually like to have the flag photo in here. Unfortunately there absolutely is an excuse for its exclusion, and that is that it is copyrighted. Perhaps there's a fair use claim to be made, but I don't see how to do it. Feel free to try to find a version that can be uploaded and I'm sure you'll find broad support here for its inclusion. Meanwhile we've had to make do with external links to the photo. It's not just a good idea, it's the law.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:06, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, this gives me an idea. If we had an article about the photo itself I bet a fair use claim would have a chance, and then we could link from this article to the article about the photo. There must be enough sources about the photo in itself to support an article. I don't have time right now, but if no one else has worked on it I'll give it a shot tomorrow.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:10, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Delete per BLP1E

I move this article be deleted per BLP1E. Failing that, I move that this article be retitled the Death of Rachel Corrie. She is notable for her death, not anything else. 65.96.60.92 (talk) 20:47, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

No, she was an activist, and that motivated the death-defying act which marked the end of her life. Whether we agree or disagree with her attempt to intervene, her motives and previous life history are relevant. --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:57, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Uncle Ed. Furthermore, using BLP1E to try to delete this does not work, as BLP applies for the bios of living persons, and Rachel Corrie is no longer living. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VivaWikipedia (talk • contribs) 19:17, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Just a note, that original IP comment was made 7 months ago. If it hasn't gotten a single comment till today, their idea probably isn't gaining any traction.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:26, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

It is absolutely ridiculous to suggest deletion, that said i too came here to move it to Death of...as that is common practice when notability is established as a result of the death and not prior. Same with the guy who died in gaza last year. (forget his name)Lihaas (talk) 09:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The only thing about Corrie that is notable enough to merit an entry is her death. But to some Corrie is a secular saint whose life needs to be detailed for the benefit of posterity. Moreover, it would be difficult to cram the amount of bias found in this entry into a more abbreviated entry that focused solely on the her death and the events surrounding it.74.141.152.194 (talk) 04:13, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Not sure why we beat around the bush in not just saying she was crushed by a bulldozer

All three of the first three sources cited about the cause of her death (the film Occupation 101, The Guardian, and Time) state that she was killed by a bulldozer, whether you want to call it an accident or not. Trying to reference which aspect of being bulldozed, such as "debris" falling from the bulldozer, as the IDF reworded it, is a way of psychologically distancing the person operating the bulldozer for the IDF from having any direct responsibility for the action. None of the three sources state it was caused by "debris." So the source citations should be moved closer to the statement that the witnesses said she was caught "underneath." Currently the three citations have been placed next to a phrase that none of them reference. Therefore the sentence should be broken into two parts. The part about the IDF referencing "debris" should have whatever citation mentions it next to that sentence, but none of the three sources cited references debris at all.

Here is what they do say:

1. http://occupiedpalestine.wordpress.com/2010/12/26/occupation-101-full-movie-in-11-parts/ Part 6 of 7 after about 7:41, the film Occupation 101 (2006) states "she got caught underneath the bulldozer"; "When Rachel Corrie was killed, she was protecting a doctor's home"; "The U.S. Congress has refused her parents' request for an independent investigation in her murder." This source said nothing about debris accidentally falling on her.

2. "Corrie, 23, was crushed to death by an army bulldozer in Rafah, Gaza, as she protested against house demolitions." -The Guardian. This newspaper simply states she was "crushed to death by the bulldozer."

3. "Rachel Corrie was a 23-year-old American from Olympia, Wash., who was crushed to death by an Israeli Army bulldozer March 16, 2003. Corrie was in the Gaza Strip, working with the International Solidarity Movement, which opposes Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and living among Palestinians whose homes were being demolished. She was kneeling in front of a home, acting as a human shield, when she was bulldozed." - Time. Again, here we are told she was "crushed to death" and "bulldozed." Nothing about debris accidentally falling.

I or someone else should put the citations next to a phrase about the bulldozer killing her. How exactly it killed her (whether dropping stuff on her or rolling over her) is speculative. None of the three sources reference debris. If the IDF "debris" statement must be included it should be a separate sentence. The IDF operated the machine and have a potential self protection conflict of interest in their wording.

I'd feel better if it said something like:

"She was crushed by a bulldozer's operations clearing land in front of a Palestinian doctor's home.[1,2,3] An IDF investigation reported she died after being struck by falling debris.[source??]"

(More accurate for the IDF part of it would be "by debris falling from the bulldozer." I'd probably rather it say the IDF "claimed" rather than "reported" but I'm not going to change that part.) - Emerman (talk) 08:30, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

On the use of "claimed" rather than "said," Wikipedia policy is clear. Look at WP:SAID:

Synonyms for said

Said, stated, described, wrote, and according to are almost always neutral and accurate. Extra care is needed with more loaded terms. For example, to write that a person revealed, pointed out, exposed, explained, or found something can imply that it is true, where a neutral account might preclude such an endorsement. To write that someone noted, observed, insisted, speculated, or surmised can suggest the degree of the speaker's carefulness, resoluteness, or access to evidence when that is unverifiable.

To write that someone claimed or asserted something can call their statement's credibility into question, by emphasizing any potential contradiction or implying a disregard for evidence. Similarly, be judicious in the use of admit, confess, and deny, particularly of living people, because these verbs can convey guilt when that is not a settled matter.

"Reported" should be OK.

I think you will agree that it's better to have the entire article (and all of Wikipedia) use neutral terms. --Nbauman (talk) 12:55, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Mystichumwipe, your revisions http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rachel_Corrie&diff=509601550&oldid=509601510 replacing "said" with "alleged" seem to be a clear violation of WP:SAID. Can you explain why they are not? --Nbauman (talk) 14:19, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Nbauman. Yes you are right. My mistake. Sorry. My revert had the exact opposite result than that which I intended. I thought I was reverting back to use of 'said' and away from 'asserted'. I totally agree that "it's better to have the entire article (and all of Wikipedia) use neutral terms". :-)

Since this section discusses the lead, it is absolutely amazing how the opening paragraphs try to claim that Corrie's action in no way precipitated her death, as if the IDF just decided it was going to randomly bulldoze someone on that particular day. We are told that the Israeli court decision was criticized, but nary a mention is made of the numerous criticisms of the anti-Israeli ISM and of Corrie's actions. This is one of the most blatantly one-sided entries I have seen on Wikipedia, and that is not even considering the fact that it tries to turn an unnotable individual whose life quite simply doesn't merit an entire entry into some sort of hero known throughout the Middle East. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.152.194 (talk) 04:08, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

NPOV issues - avoiding this becoming an edit-war for the Israeli court's view.

1. I have removed the following from the CONTROVERSY section. I'm not sure where else it belongs in the article, or if it actually belongs at all. What do others think? The listings of alleged attacks in the area appears to be an IDF justification for the argued 'accidental' killing of Rachel in that area, though I myself do not see how it has any bearing specifically on her actions to stop the house demolition of Nasrallah and her being crushed by the D9 in that attempt. Here it is: "An infantry major testified that the activists were endangering troops and disregarded numerous warnings to leave the area. In that area, from September 2000 until Corrie’s death, Israeli forces had been attacked in 1,400 shooting attacks, and had been targeted by 150 explosive devices, 200 anti-tank rockets, 6,000 hand grenades and mortar fire." For one thing it appears to be a copyright infringement as it is a word for word repeat of the article but without quote marks. If someone disagrees with its removal, can they explain how it is relevant to Rachel Corrie's death, (the subject of the subsection)? 2. I have also changed the intro that said "...she died while attempting to intervene..." to "...she was killed while attempting to intervene..." to keep the article consistent. She did NOT passively die on that day. She was actively 'killed' by the bulldozer. 3. I also have reverted AnkhMorpork, your slow edit-warring of repeatedly reinserting that the bulldozer that killed Rachel was "clearing vegetation" as if that is a statement of fact. AnkhMorpork, I think you must be aware that the article makes clear that this is a point of dispute. Therefore I think it is better to leave this out except in the controversy section where this point is clarified as a point of dispute. Plus that is not even an accurate reporting of the IDF statemnet. They claimed "vegetation and rubble". Rubble of course would be of demolished or partly demolished houses. 4. Finally, the Corrie family and the US diplomat to Israel both have stated that the Israeli case lacked credibility. In other words consists of lies. I think therefore that we need to be careful that we reflect that somehow in the article and thus avoid the article bcoming an edit-war that tries to present the Israeli court view as objective fact. --Mystichumwipe (talk) 08:35, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

The cited source does state it is as fact and does not attribute it to a particular person as you have done in your edit. See "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."Ankh.Morpork 11:13, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

That is disputed though, isn't it? We can't declare only one side of a disputed point as if it were fact and still be neutral. You appear to be giving to much weight to the Israeli IDF view. The ISM activists view disputes that and is that the bulldozers were involved in house demolitions on that day. That the IDF claims she was not killed by the bulldozer but by a slab of concrete also points to the discrepancy in the IDF view. A slab of concrete large enough to kill can not easily be reconciled with 'vegetation clearing'. That is why the accusation of a "lack of credibility" by US officials (i.e. lies) needs to be carefully considered and reflected somehow in the article to avoid the article becoming to close to just the Israeli court and IDF view as if that alone were the correct view. Do you see my concern?--Mystichumwipe (talk) 11:46, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

The bulldozers were clearing vegetation and earlier debrises, created previously during the fighting there (not in the same day). The day that Corrie protested and killed in an accident the bulldozers were not demolishing houses. There are two evidences for that: 1) the verdict of judge Gershon. 2) No house was demolished in that operation.

The verdict clearly states the Corrie's death was an accident not caused by being run over by the bulldozer (the verdict says that no bloodstains were found on the involved bulldozer) but by falling debris and earth pushed over her while she was concealed under the pile of earth and debrises. Moreover, in the verdict the judge writes that all experts, including the expert on the Corrie family behalf, agreed that the bulldozer operator could not see Corrie. Now these are not just claims by the partisans, but a verdicts by a reliable court, and therefore should get presedence. I attach a link to the full verdict (this is a PDF file in Hebrew). MathKnight 19:19, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

The opinion of the regime of Israel is not a reliable source for anything but the opinion/claims of the regime of Israel. Whether Israel "acquits" itself doesn't matter (it's not like we uncritically accept the claims of North Korea's regime either), and the country's refusal to take responsibility has been widely internationally condemned, including by the UN[7]. The claim that the victim was responsible for her own death is essentially a fringe opinion, only held by Israel and nobody else. Israel is not considered a very credible source for anything, but has been found to violate international law and human rights countless times by competent international bodies. JonFlaune (talk) 22:51, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

The court in Israel is an idependent authority and is considered a reliable justice system throughout the world. The former Supreme Court president Aharon Barak had a worldwide reputation. Just because you hate Israel you can't enforce your extremist views that everything that Israel says or does is illegitimate. If the Corries were thinking that the Israeli court wasn't reliable independent authority of repute, they wouldn't appeal to it at all. But they appealed, and they lost - because the facts were with the Israeli side. Even an expert on behalf of the Corries told court that the bulldozer operator could not see her (I read the verdict, you probablt not). As you can see, most of the people here accept the Israeli court's verdict as a legitimate. MathKnight 16:21, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

they give that much weight to the IDFs statements because this site is filled with pro israel trolls who will claim everyone is antisemetic if they say disagree with them — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.72.9.111 (talk) 20:53, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, the pro-Israel trolls have also vandalized the article repeatedly.[8] JonFlaune (talk) 22:54, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

"Don't go where you don't belong." Bob Dylan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.213.220.227 (talk) 19:01, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

@JonFlaune Please review WP:SOAP. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for you to air your complaints against the decision of an independent court that published its opinion in a 62 page report that you undoubtedly did not read, as evident from calling the decision of this independent court "fringe." It is also not a soapbox to air your grievances that you agree with a statement that Wikipedia is filled with pro-Israel trolls. Thanks. --Activism1234 01:24, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Activism1234, please review WP:SOAP. This is the talk page for the article on Rachel Corrie, so we'll discuss ongoing vandalism on the article by IPs in Israel whether you like it or not. Your unsourced assertion that some Israeli court is some neutral party is laughable and unworthy of a response. JonFlaune (talk) 01:28, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure why it's "laughable." If you want to air your grievances against an independent court just becuase it gave a ruling you don't like (how about that court ruling to evict outposts like Migron? Then it's fine, of course), please do so elsewhere, but do not let your views conflict with editing here. Thanks. --Activism1234 01:35, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Um, it's not an independent court, that's ridiculous. You are the only one soap boxing. JonFlaune (talk) 01:37, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Sigh think as you please... --Activism1234 01:41, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

So let me get this straight. It is not an NPOV violation to give a ridiculously biased amount of weight to the claims of a group that is recognized as an apologist for Palestinian terrorism, the ISM, but it is a violation to give background information that would explain the IDF's presence in the area and why IDF members acted why they did? There is ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE between detailing the IDF claims for why it was in the area doing what is what doing and detailing the ISM claims for why Corrie was in the area. No difference at all. Such a claim is one of many of the comments in this section that reveal why this pathetic entry is so irredeemably biased.

Here is a gem from the comments: "Your unsourced assertion that some Israeli court is some neutral party is laughable and unworthy of a response." So says the person who provides no sources detailing how he knows that the Israeli court in question is not neutral. I guess he is a recognized expert on the Israeli court system. And once again we have another person who seems to believe that the word of the anti-IDF, anti-Israeli ISM is gospel, yet the word of the Israeli court in question is so non-neutral that its ruling shouldn't even be mentioned in an entry on Corrie without a qualification detailing how non-neutral the court supposedly is, lest anyone independently arrive at the conclusion that the Corrie isn't a saint whose stupidity brought about her death and the IDF isn't the greatest evil in the known world.

I will not fully quote it, yet but yet another editor pontificates about how statements about clearing vegetation and rubble shouldn't be included because they aren't known facts, right before implying that everything the ISM states happened should be included. Is anyone detecting a pattern here? According to those who think Corrie is the most heroic martyr since St. Stephen, any view that is not the ISM's is inherently biased and untrustworthy, and thus should be either be excluded from the entry entirely or only included after we are told how various individuals have criticized the non-ISM view. The ISM is being treated as an unimpeachable source whose statements are beyond question. For those who claim that the IDF view shouldn't be given undue weight, why don't you take your own advice and quit acting as if the ISM view is unquestionably true and has been criticized by numerous individuals and organizations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.152.194 (talk) 04:44, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

An editor stated that unnamed "US officials" have called the Israelis liars, and asserts statements from those US officials testifying to the untrustyworthy nature of the court ruling should be included. Who, exactly, are the "officials"(which, as I point out, are not named by the particular commenter) in question? Moreover, such a request is yet another demonstration as to how we are expected to take all of the claims of the ISM at face value while treating the Israelis as inherently untrustworthy and suspicious. If the reservations of these officials are to be included, then it would only be fair to provide some sort of background on the ISM's numerous apologia for mass-murdering terrorists in order to illustrate why the testimony of that organization should not be taken as the gospel truth.

But easily the worst quote I have seen in the comment section is the following, a perfect illustration as to why this entry, and most of the entries on Wikipedia involving Israel, need to be reedited: "The opinion of the regime of Israel is not a reliable source for anything but the opinion/claims of the regime of Israel. Whether Israel "acquits" itself doesn't matter (it's not like we uncritically accept the claims of North Korea's regime either), and the country's refusal to take responsibility has been widely internationally condemned, including by the UN. The claim that the victim was responsible for her own death is essentially a fringe opinion, only held by Israel and nobody else. Israel is not considered a very credible source for anything, but has been found to violate international law and human rights countless times by competent international bodies." Yes, that's right, we have an individual, whose views are evidently being taken seriously in regards to how this entry should be edited, equating Israel, the only democracy in the entire region, to North Korea. Hmm, for the life of me I just can't figure out why this entry is so laughably biased. Israel's refusal to take responsibility? Unexplained is how Israel is supposed to take responsibility for the actions of an anti-semitic nutjob who stood in front of a multi-ton bulldozer. Even witnesses from the terrorist=-sympathizing ISM were forced to concede that the driver of the bulldozer probably didn't see Corrie. As for the notion that only Israel considers Corrie complicit in her own death, anyone making such a statement has clearly confined his "research" on the subject to Wikipedia's ridiculously biased entry on the subject. Even more pathetic is how the pronouncement of one man, the virulently anti-Israeli Richard Falk, is equated with worldwide international condemnation. Israel is not considered a very credible source for anything? According to whom? A clearly anti-semitic commenter who expects his blatantly anti-Israeli ravings to be enshrined in an entry that is supposedly neutral? Israel has been found to have violated countless international laws by international bodies? Why don't you list those bodies for us Jon? Yeah, I would be hesitant to list the supposed "bodies" too, since the bodies in question are really one body, whose Human Rights panel is comprised of some of the worst serial human rights abusers on the planet. But the opinions of regimes headed by tinpot dictators are not really relevant to this article. What is relevant is the fact that we have numerous blatantly anti-Israeli(and in the case of Jon Flaume, clearly anti-semitic) editors attempting to excise any condemnation of Corrie's actions and any mention of Israel's justification for the IDF's actions, on the grounds that Israel is untrustworthy, while demanding that we take anything said by the ISM at face value, regardless of that organizations history or leanings. This entire entry needs to be redone, as it is hopelessly biased in its current state, with the comments in this section of the talk page clearly pointing to why that is the case.74.141.152.194 (talk) 05:24, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Friend, you're getting a little tiresome. You have some great points. Why don't you try editing the article instead of ranting about it here?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

What did Yildirim say about Basayev?

First of all, I think that the line that the IP is trying to put in on this subject is too far out of scope for this article. Do we next put in a quote about who Basayev admires, and so on? Second of all I don't think that the IHH is a reliable source. Finally, and probably most importantly, the source cited to support the statement that Yildirim is an admirer of Basayev quotes Yildirim as follows:

“Sinister Putin called Turkey after the death of Basayev and asked what they could do for Palestine. We know that his real intention is to suppress the reaction of Muslims against Russia over the death of Basayev. The whole world united and helped Russia to kill Basayev as they did to exterminate Dudayev in the past. Israel is advising Russia to build a fence in Chechnya to eliminate Chechen threat as it did in Palestine. Russia has applied to become a member of the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC). Chechens, however, are asking Muslims countries how they could accept a country that has so far killed over 300,000 people, 46,000 of them children, to the OIC. Basayev had previously sent letters to heads of Muslims states saying what was happening in Chechnya and calling on them to stop Russia. If Muslim leaders had opposed Russia then, so many civilians would have not been killed in Chechnya.”

Now, I agree that the tone of this statement about Basayev is generally positive, but he does not say that he admires Basayev. It is easy enough to accept the truth of his words regarding the consequences of hypothetical relations between Muslim leaders and Russia without inferring any opinion of Basayev at all from them. Thus, even if this statement belongs in this article it is not supported by this source. I think, therefore, that it ought to be removed, despite the IP's edit summary based arguments for its inclusion.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:33, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

The answer the question in the heading is: who cares? This is not a chat room. It is way out of line in this article. Zero^talk 00:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Moreover, the attempt to smear Corrie's parents by association with some third party who may had said something about some fourth party is an extremely clear violation of WP:BLP. Zero^talk 01:24, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Its WP:SYNTH as it doesn't mention corrie in any way.If someone will find a source that connect between them then we might include it.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 16:07, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

ISM peace prize nomination

Regarding this:

Former New Democratic Party Member of the Parliament of Canada Svend Robinson nominated the ISM for a Nobel Peace Prize, praising Brian Avery, Tom Hurndall and Rachel Corrie for their efforts.<:ref>"Full Letter". Archived from the original on July 6, 2011.</ref>

Can we take it out? Almost anyone can nominate anyone for a Nobel prize. Being nominated means absolutely nothing to anyone. E.g. any politician or even any faculty member at a university can nominate someone. It is almost always an empty political statement and it has very little to do with Rachel Corrie. Also, it looks like it's sourced to a primary source, which means that even the nomination wasn't newsworthy. Thoughts?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:05, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

It may belong to the article about ISM if it was published by notable WP:RS here its WP:UNDUE--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 16:09, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

This should be removed from the article; Nobel prize nominations by one individual are not particularly notable. —Anomalocaris (talk) 16:50, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Agree with above. --Activism1234 16:57, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:24, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Corrie family spokesman told a news agency?

This seems more than irrelevant, and it's not a media reaction anyway, it's a family reaction:

And a spokeswoman for the Corrie family told a news agency that the military's investigation into the activist's death had been "careless and shoddy ... and emotionally taxing for the family".<:ref name="Shmulovich">Shmulovich, Michal (August 23, 2012). "Israel's inquiry into Rachel Corrie's death wasn't credible, charges US ambassador". Observer. Retrieved August 28, 2012.</ref>

Can we take it out? It's ridiculous. "emotionally taxing"? Of course it was.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:21, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Technically, you can take out whatever you want! What you mean is whether we should take it out - I seem to agree with that line of reasoning. --Activism1234 16:59, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

It's worth checking a dictionary before you tell people what they mean. From the OED: 6b. To be allowed to, to be given permission to.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:11, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Come on dude don't get into this, you'll just waste everyone's time. I agreed with you, leave it alone. I made a comment in jest. Ridiculous.... --Activism1234 19:07, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Take it out, as it doesn't add useful information about Rachel Corrie. —Anomalocaris (talk) 17:04, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:25, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Boston Globe and review of the documentary

I would like to remove both of these sentences. The first one because it's devoid of content and the second because it's extraordinarily tangential. In a review of a movie someone mentions that Corrie was abused on websites? What does that have to do with criticism of Corrie?

According to The Boston Globe, "Corrie ... has been praised as a heroic martyr and denounced as a misguided, ill-informed naïf." In a review of Simone Bitton's documentary Rachel, Salon noted that Corrie was subjected to "shocking verbal abuse" on right-wing bulletin boards and websites, including "grotesque sexual fantasies and elaborate conspiracy theories".

Thoughts?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:24, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

−

Take them out, as they don't add useful information about Rachel Corrie. —Anomalocaris (talk) 17:04, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

The Salon review does link to the only ever RS'ed use of "Saint Pancake", which was still seen as insufficient evidence by the consensus at the time to include the reference. I doubt there's an interest in reviewing that issue, which has been dormant for years but the discussions are extant in the archives of this talk page. Jclemens (talk) 04:57, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the institutional memory. There still don't seem to be RS's discussing the issue, although amazingly enough they're still fighting about it in the blogosphere.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:25, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

If memory serves, in addition to the Salon reference, there were a couple of college papers that discussed it, which may no longer be web searchable, but yes, the dichotomy between blogosphere and RS use seems most consistent with an intentional avoidance of the term by the latter. Jclemens (talk) 16:13, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, I took them out. The salon ref is still in there supporting something else in case someone wants to try to work "St. Pancake" back in somehow.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Palestine Media Watch

The article already says, "The group Palestine Media Watch published the e-mail addresses and phone number of Diamondback editors, urging readers to contact the newspaper to secure an apology," with the ref supplied as [9], (without the spurious hyphen in pm-watch) which is a dead link. I cleaned this link up with {{cite web}} including the archiveurl and archivedate parameters. When I tried to save it, Wikipedia responded with a Spam filter notice saying, "Your edit was not saved because it contains a new external link to a site registered on Wikipedia's blacklist ... The following link has triggered a protection filter: http://www.pm-watch.org" (without the spurious hyphen).

(The same problem occurred when I tried to save this talk page, so I solved it here by inserting the spurious hyphen in pm-watch.)

This is unfortunate because it is not a new external link, it is the same external link as before, but nested in a {{cite web}} instead of as a bare URL, and with an achiveurl supplied. If this link is not acceptable for Wikipedia, then we also need to remove the preceding sentence about Palestine Media Watch. I solved the problem for now by nesting the full {{cite web}} in an HTML comment, so it's there for anyone to work with.

The complete fix to ask for this URL to be unblocked on the spam whitelist talk page. Since I have no particular affection for this sentence and the reference anyway, I'm going to leave it for others to decide whether to take out the sentence or request the whitelist. —Anomalocaris (talk) 05:56, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I think that the whole paragraph is inappropriate. By this point, almost ten years later, I don't see why we need that much material on a minor kerfuffle about a student newspaper. I'd support removing the whole thing, which would solve the problem of the link. On the other hand, by now there must be some more substantial criticism of Corrie's actions which would be more appropriate. The paragraph strikes me as long expired recentism.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:20, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

This could be used instead PMW [10]--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 15:35, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

That's the kind of thing I had in mind, yes. Thanks for the good source, as always!— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:41, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, I took the whole paragraph out. I may have time later to write some substitute material for it, but of course feel free to dive in.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:28, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

National review quote

The quote is this:

You may remember Rachel Corrie, the 23-year-old American radical who was crushed to death when she jumped in front of an Israeli army bulldozer. (The bulldozer was trying to destroy a building suspected of concealing tunnels used for terrorist weapons-smuggling; Corrie was part of a group that declared "armed struggle" a Palestinian "right.") Corrie has since become a hero of the international Left, inspiring ongoing protests against the bulldozer-making company Caterpillar and, now, a play about her life, based on her diary, at one of London's most prestigious theaters. The British press, predictably, has gushed about the play, and about Corrie's passion and apparent self-sacrifice. But as our friend Tom Gross points out, forgotten are several other Rachels who have lost their lives in the Arab-Israeli conflict--all killed by Palestinian terrorists: Rachel Charhi, Rachel Gavish, Rachel Levi, Rachel Levy, Rachel Shabo, and Rachel Thaler. Corrie's death was unfortunate, but more unfortunate is a Western media and cultural establishment that lionizes "martyrs" for illiberal causes while ignoring the victims those causes create.

And the MLA style citation is this:

"You may remember Rachel Corrie, the 23-year-old American radical who was crushed to death when she jumped in front of an Israeli army bulldozer." National Review 23 May 2005: 10. Academic OneFile. Web. 10 Sep. 2012.

And the gale group ID is: GALE|A133983284 There may be other sources. Hope this helps.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:55, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The lead needs to explain why she was in Rafah

The lead used to explain what Rachel's motives were for being in front of a bulldozer in that area of Gaza in March 2003, which seems to me an extremely relevant and necessary piece of information. That explanation keeps getting taken out by certain editors with what appears to be a Pro-Israeli viewpoint. I understand that editors do not want to give preference to a disputed point of view (viz. that she was there to peacefully protect homes from demolition). But my concern is that removing that explanation makes it harder for an uninformed reader of this article to understand the background to her death. Also, I do not understand that as a valid wiki reason for removal as, whether we agree with her actions or not, it is beyond doubt that that WAS her motivation and RS's do state that she did actively carry out her motives peacefully and non-violently. The reason last given for removing the explanation of her prescence and actions in Rafah was that the Rachel Corrie tribute page was not considered an RS. This has now been remedied with the BBC provided as a source. If this does not satisfy the edit-warring editors (Shrike, Activism, Ankhmorpork, etc.) who have so far failed to give a valid reason for this, then we will perhaps need to go to arbitration over it.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 11:32, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Keeping the lead about Rachel Corrie and not about the 2012 civil court case.

I have expanded the lead to include more details from the article of why Rachel was in Gaza, how long she had been there and what she was doing when she met her death. Previously the lead had an emphasis that was only about the 2012 Haifa court verdict and the resulting controversy. As the article is about Rachel Corrie and not the media coverage of the recent court case, that seemed a misleading and unecessary emphasis. Plus, most RS's now seem to describe her only as an American activist. So after all the unresolved edit-warring without reaching a consensus, and as no-one has engaged with the specific questions regarding weasel words, I have also taken out the pro-Palestinian description from the lead to maintain neutrality. Readers can find that later in the article, as also details of her 'peace activism'. If editors insist on including that, then I vote we also include it with Pro-Palestinian peace activist description. If that is denied on grounds of weasel words (which I don't accept) then I argue that Pro-palestinian also needs to be removed to maintain neutrality. Thoughts anyone?--Mystichumwipe (talk) 13:28, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Lead

Hi Ankhmorpork. Can we not be in discussion about the lead. You have recently again editwarred and reverted an edit while refusing all attempts to discuss or reach consensus. Let me explain why I feel it is accurate to say "she was killed while attempting to act as a human shield to prevent the demolition of the home of local pharmacist Samir Nasralla". As i see it that is NOT and has not been a matter of any dispute. That was HER intention and motivation for being there on that day. And that was what she and the other ISM activists had been doing on a previos day and were attempting to continue to do on that day. Whether or not that was necessary or not on that day would be a different question. Whether the bulldozer was "clearing vegetation and rubble" or not likewise is a separate point. And I of course know that that point is in dispute, as I have had to repeatedly correct your edits which tried to repeatedly spin that in favour of one side of that dispute. What is being discussed here is what she thought she was doing by being in front of that bulldozer when she died. The house of Nasrullah with whom she had eaten meals and whose family she had befrended is an important part of her story in gaza and of her death. That is therefore important to be mentioned in the lead. My concern is that you and others keep deleting clarification of the background to her death. My own opinion is that the sentence sourced from the Rachel Corrie memorial page was a better explanation and more concise sentence. It was a shame that was deleted. Please can't we discuss this and each try to be more accomodating to arrive at a neutral but informative article?--Mystichumwipe (talk) 19:48, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

"to prevent the demolition" makes it into a fact, regardless of what her intentions were, when in reality this is contested. --Activism1234 22:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

she had been in gaza protesting the removal of various structures by the IDF, but (and i think this is the real issue here), on the day of her being killed, no structure was being removed/demolished. rather it was the dirt, rubble, concrete, etc. from the day before. so, it wasn't like she was standing in front of a house with a bright orange jacket waving bright orange sticklights saying 'no no no'. and since it is in dispute, best to leave it as neutral as possible. Soosim (talk) 08:51, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

This perhaps gets to the root of the problem. As I see it, you have just described almost precisely what I understood all reliable sources say she was doing: viz as you put it, "standing in front of a house with a bright orange jacket waving [and] saying 'no no no'. From the NY Times: "She was standing in front of the home of a young family which was under threat of demolition by a bulldozer. Many homes were demolished in such a way at that time, and Rachel was seeking to protect her friends, with whom she had lived." [11] I understood that the only point of dispute was whether demolitions of houses was planned for that day. So can you show me an RS that disputes that she was stood in front of the Nasrallah house at the time she was killed? I understood that was NOT disputed.

And can you provide a RS that shows that she was NOT attempting to act as a human shield to prevent the demolition of Nasralla's home on that day? I understood that her intentions were also NOT in dispute. The Mother Jones article which is already used as a source quite frequently, specifically wrote: "This much has never been contested: placing herself in the path of an Israeli bulldozer that she believed was about to flatten Nasrallah's house, Rachel Corrie was crushed to death -- her skull fractured, her ribs shattered, her lungs punctured."[12] If we can sort this out we can then hopefully improve the article so that readers can accurately understand what she was attempting to do when she was crushed by the bulldozer.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 09:40, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

This has already been repeatedly done. See * 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. Or have a look at the Israeli position expressed in the recent court case, 2 that the mission that day ‘‘was not, in any way, to destroy homes,’’ but to clear brush and explosives ‘‘to prevent acts of hatred and terror.’’ I have no objection to your detailing of the intention of the protesters but do not present that as n actual occurrence. Ankh.Morpork 10:38, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

we even have eyewitness accounts of ISM people which differ and are not clear. yes, she was in front of a house. but then, she walked away, towards the bulldozer. (meaning no longer at the house). etc. i do not know if these are true, accurate or anything else, but it does show that some of the 'facts' are the same, and some are different. http://electronicintifada.net/content/affidavits-eyewitnesses-rachel-corrie-killing-schnabel-dale-purssell/1248 Soosim (talk) 11:07, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

To Ankhkmorpork. What do you think I am presenting as an actual occurrence? I do not understand how you think I am doing that. Do you agree she was killed while standing in front the Nasrallah home? Do you agree she stood there in an attempt to be a human shield protecting that house from demolition? If we are in agreement on that then all that remains is the fine tuning of the wording to not give any impression about the disputed intentions of the D9 operator.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 12:46, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Selective presentation of the facts suggests that that is what actually occurred and this is under dispute. Other relevant facts are that she was in a closed militarised zone, riddled with weapons smuggling tunnels, at the time of her death and a site of a number of terror attacks including a grenade attack hours before. Also of note is that according to the IDF, the bulldozer was destroying rocket launchers in the overgrown brush near this home. It is not relevant whether I agree to this version of events, it is the sources that must do so, and this is not the case. Ankh.Morpork 12:52, 14 September 2012 (UTC

I don't feel you are answering my point. Sure, the IDF has a version that differs from the ISM witnesses version, but it differs only in certain particulars. So, no reliable source disputes that she was there that day to protect the home of Samir Nasrallah and other nearbye houses by acting as a human shield. And no RS disputes that she was run over by the D9 while she was standing in front of Nasrallah's house. These points explain the background to her death without which the lead does not explain and summarise the article. Finally, I think it necessary to repeat that the article is about Rachel Corrie, not the IDF investigation into her death, nor the 20012 Haifa court verdict about responsibility for her death. Therefore the undisputed reasons for Rachel Corrie's prescence there that day and her intentions are needed in the lead. With that in mind I have filled out the lead to inlude undisputed info on why and what she was doing there that day. Hopefully you will agree that the new wording and cited sources does not imply anything about the disputed 'only clearing vegetation' IDF claim --Mystichumwipe (talk) 14:08, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Please show where these are disputed: that she was in a closed militarised zone riddled with weapons smuggling tunnels. It was a site of a number of terror attacks including a grenade attack hours before. I presume you agree that all aspects of the location of Corrie are relevant?Ankh.Morpork 14:32, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

But what does this have to do with a lead about Rachel Corrie and her motives?

What if anything was disputed in the wording you have just reverted/edit-warred from the lead?

But to humour you, whatever you are I or anyone thinks about it 1. it is disputed that the Nasrallah family home had tunnels or weapons. It is instead claimed that their home was demolished as collective punishment. The Mother Jones article is just one source that details this. [13]

2. "Terror attacks" is disputed as none of the ISM witnesses mention attacks against the bulldozer or accompanying tank, and the very term terror attack is also of course a point of dispute as Palestinians believe they are engaged in a defensive operation against an unwelcome occupation that is destroying their houses without compensation and stealing their land.

3. the legality of an imposed "closed militarised zone" in that area is also disputed.The Corrie family's lawyer, argued in court that Israel "had failed to produce a written military decree, published by a commanding general, which would prove that the area had indeed been a closed military zone. Without a written decree...the area cannot be considered illegal. ...If ...the area was a closed military zone...why didn’t the soldiers simply arrest Corrie. "[14]

I think perhaps we need to go to arbitration. What do you think?--Mystichumwipe (talk) 14:57, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Nobody stated that Nasrallah home contained tunnels or weapons, it the immediate vicinity that the sources describe. Please respond to my points without resorting to strawmen (Nasrallah home containing weapons), attempting to disprove by a a negative, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence ("none of the ISM witnesses mention attacks"), red herrings ("the very term terror attack is also of course a point of dispute") and original research ("...thus the legality of an imposed "closed militarised zone" in that area is also disputed").

You have deleted the necessary info that Rachel was standing in front of the Nasrallah home with the intention of protecting it from demolition. So if tunnels and weapons does not apply in this case then why are you using that as a reason for reverting this information? I have responded to your points answering that I do not see them as relevant to Rachel's intentions that day or to what lead to her death, I explained that I only answered out of a courtesy to humour you. Now please could you respond to my other topics, the one about weasel words, and the two others (prior to this topic) about specific aspects of the lead.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 07:28, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Answer to : "what the hell is a confrontation with the bulldozers?"

To Ankhmorpork. Rachel and seven other acticivists had been in a stand-off with the bulldozers for three hours. This information is from a cited source already used in the article. ("A member of the solidarity group, ...Alice from London, said she and Corrie had sat for about three hours in front of houses belonging to their friends."[15] "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. "[16] That Rachel had been involved in a confrontation that had had gone on for 3 hours is what I would like the lead to make clear. I see that as useful clarifying background-info that explains what Rachel had been engaged in doing, provides crucial context to her actions and resulting death, plus helps in giving an understanding of the points of dispute. I therefore see that as a useful and helpful summary for a lead in an encyclopedia page that intends to inform impartially and accurately. So please will you answer the following three specific questions.

Q1. What wording would you prefer if you don't like the word "confrontation"?

Q2. Can you explain why you keep deleting wording which tries to accomodate your concerns and which do not include any disputed information?

Q3. The lead is supposed to be a summary of the article on Rachel Corrie. Not a summary of the 2012 Haifa court verdict or the resulting media reporting of that (which I feel it is at present summarising due to your reverts). An overview of the Rachel Corrie article I feel should include the summary of details of what she was doing in Rafah, should summarise her actions and intentions on the day of her death, and should include what precisely caused her death & briefly the injuries she sustained. What exactly is your objection to including these undisputed facts?--Mystichumwipe (talk) 08:51, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

1 - Not particular. It was the phrase "confrontation with bulldozers" that I found strange.

2- See above threads. It is the selective presentation of material, often disputed, that I am objecting to.

3- Ditto. Ankh.Morpork 22:13, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

1. Do you then agree that this not a valid objection or reason for a revert? Your opinion over an RS?

2. What in the info I added (which you deleted) is disputed? You haven't answered the specific question again. You need to do that otherwise...

3. ...if the lead is merely repeating in summary info from the article that is not in dispute, then how eaxctly can you have any objection to it? So please explain what is disputed about the info you have deleted.

I have reinserted the material, in seperate edits so that you can easier draw attention to which specific details you object to, and I request you leave them there until you can provide a valid reason for us not having this info in the lead. Plus I have brought this up at the dispute resolution board--Mystichumwipe (talk) 07:42, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

flag burning photos

Why are the photos of Corrie burning mock flags external link? Are they they only externally linked photos on the page? Unless someone has a good reason for this, I propose they be included as normal photos. -Adam7z — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam7z (talk • contribs) 13:57, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

'peace activist' and 'weasel words'?

It has recently been said that the term "peace activist" represents "weasel words" and with that as a justification these two words as a description of Rachel have again been expunged from the lead. As wikipedia has an article with exactly this as a topic heading, that seems a strange, inappropriate and possibly partisan justfication for this editwar-revert. Plus she is actually listed there under that heading. And this information about her listing in that article has been posted here before. Q1. I wonder what other editors think. And Q2. if anyone else agrees with me, what do they consider a suitable solution to this constant deleting of the term in relation to Rachel Corrie. Q3. This also seems an appropriate time to take up the larger problem with this page - of which this seems a small part - which appears to be that there exist a contingent of editors who seem motivated by an intention to slant the article to present the least positive framing of Rachel Corrie as possible. What to do?--Mystichumwipe (talk) 14:10, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

mystichumwipe - a) are you saying that you are editing the article to present the most positive framing of rachel corrie? not clear to me. b) i think are some issues with phrases like 'peace activist' or 'humans rights activist'. not sure what to do about it exactly, but it is something to discuss. using various RS will be helpful, but remember, RS works in many directions at the same time. for example, corrie could be a 'peace activist' in one RS and a 'fanatical anti-american' in another. so.....we should talk about it. Soosim (talk) 14:18, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

To Soosim. No. I'm NOT saying that. I'm asking for opinions on whether 1.) 'peace activist' can be regarded as a bona fide description or not, and for clarification as to why the term fits the category "weasel words". And I'm asking for 2.) a discussion on how to maintain the neutral POV of the article. Because I am suggesting that the bigger picture of neutrality of which point 1 is perhaps an example, is how to deal with the constant traffic of different editors who appear to wish to frame this article in a way that gives as negative appraisal as possible to Rachel and her actions. This ranges from the negative vandalism [17], [18], to the including of false information with non-existent links[19], to including unreliable quotes which spin the article using biased and non-neutral sources, (e.g. Alan Dershowitz's unverifiable alleged quote from 'Frontpage') [20], etc.,to more subtle but non-neutral negative slanting.

Regarding your example of 'peace activist' vs 'fanatical anti-american', that perhaps isn't a good example as the two are not necessarily mutually exclsive. ;-) Whatever,...Rachel Corrie did enagage in peaceful non-violent activism. She did study the non-violent activist policies of Martin Luther King and Gandhi. All the foreign 'activists' in Gaza that day with Rachel had been educuated in ways to avoid deliberately antagonising or frightening Israeli soldiers. Because of all the EVIDENCE for that with verifiable sources, coupled with the lack of any evidence of violent behaviour by her, the removal of the wording 'Peace activist' as a fair and acccurate description of her seems to me to be a WP:NPOV violation.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 10:59, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

fyi, My, i have seen the EVIDENCE which says that she put herself in harm's way, and that the ISM knowingly put people in harm's way. so..... Soosim (talk) 12:23, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

How does your avowal of something affect the article? And what evidence could that possibly be? Unless its film evidence then all we have is witness statements of observers against witness statements of the ones who were accused of her death, isn't it? And how does that affect the subject of this talk topic?

So can you answer the questions 1.) Is peace activist an appropriate description for wiki? 2.) Can Rachel fairly be described as such? 3.) What about the misinformation and pov-pushing such as in the examples given.

The article still has misinformation. Take the quote from Smith from the source 'Dispatches' documentary. Of all the quotes in that film that is probably the only one that could be used to imply there was any doubt that the driver saw Rachel Corrie and knowingly drove into her with his blade. That seems to me to be cherry-picking for quotes negative to Rachel and supportive of the Bulldozer driver and the Israeli court finding. Then we have the self-contradictory quote of the Army Major: "To my regret, after the eighth time, she hid behind an earth embankment. The D9 operator didn't see her. She thought he saw her." Well, which is it? Did she "hide" from the driver or did she think she was seen? It can't really be both. Then there is the subsection titled Kidnapping attempt which Craig Corrie is later qouted as saying was never that and the media "over-dramatized the incident". Well, then why are we still calling it that?. Etc., etc., etc.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 14:21, 11 September 2012 (UTC)--Mystichumwipe (talk) 14:21, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

my oh my - there is evidence that she put herself in harm's way; see the haifa court's statements, for example. ok, as for your questions: i personally think that 'activist' might be useful, but other adjectives are going to be hard to agree on (peace activist, human rights activist, pro-palestinian activist, anti-american activist, etc.) as for quotes from RS, if they are RS, they can be presented. there will be many sides to this, and to be NPOV, you need to present them, no? Soosim (talk) 14:30, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

And yet there are RS's calling her a 'peace activist'. That is not in any doubt. And yet still it regularly gets reverted if anyone cites them. So what is that reverting if not a neutrality violation?--Mystichumwipe (talk) 15:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

ok - let's make a list of all the adjectives from RS that describe corrie and then we can decide what to do with them. are there only 3-4 or are there 12-15? are half of them 'positive' and half 'negative'? let's see. Soosim (talk) 15:08, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

An RS can call her that, sure. But would you be making the same argument if we stuck in the lead that she was a fanatic, or an anti-American, or deliberately placed herself in harm? Of course not. An RS can be an RS, but an RS isn't God (if you're atheist, you get the idea). On most articles, it'd be fine. On contentious articles, like this, weasel wording should be avoided. --Activism1234 23:14, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Can you please try to answer simple questions without going off on unrelated and undisputed strawmen arguments. I'll number the questions for ease of adressing them specifically:

1. HOW exactly have you decided that 'peace activist' fits the category weasel wording? Please explain.

2. If it is weasel wording, then how come wikipedia has an article with that as a topic? Please explain.

3. How come Rachel Corrie is listed under that article as a 'peace activist'? Please explain.

4. In what way was her 'activisism' in Gaza NOT 'peaceful'? Please explain.

read purssel's testimony as an eyewitness - [21] - seems that they were playing a dangerous, life-threatening game of 'cat and mouse'. "peaceful" conjures up the image of sitting on a sidewalk singing anti-war songs, or standing outside of the area with protest signs, but certainly not running into a field in a war zone with military equipment being operated.... Soosim (talk) 08:55, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Are there any of the editors who keep deleting this description of Rachel as a peace activist willing and able to actually answer this simple series of questions in terms that apply to wiki policy (i.e. and not their own personal opinion)?--Mystichumwipe (talk) 13:32, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Did you know we have articles calling terrorist or terrorism, yet try not to stick those words to describe people? Gee why, after all we have an article on them! Maybe because the fact that you have an article on that doesn't make that person that... We have an article on peace activist. Prove that makes someone else a peace activist. Simple answer - it doesn't. And that applies even more so to extremely contentious topics where this type of wording is in fact weasel wording. --Activism1234 00:43, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok. Thats two of the 'reverting' editors who regretably can't - or are unwilling - to discuss this only in terms of wiki policy. Ankhmorpork, do you want to have a go? --Mystichumwipe (talk) 06:26, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't see "peace activist" as weasel wording at all. "Activist" is rather a broad term and is very often qualified ("civil rights activist", "gay rights activist" and so on). In the context of the IP conflict where violence is so much part of the agenda this wording becomes important to inform the reader of essential background, provided it is properly sourced, as it is with the BBC reference:

Rachel Corrie, an American who was killed while trying to stop an Israeli army bulldozer demolish a Palestinian home in the Gaza Strip in 2003, was a committed peace activist.

-- Mirokado (talk) 15:16, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

"non violent"

Can the proponent of tying to include the wording "in an effort to non-violently prevent the Israeli...", which not only is horrific wording, please explain how exactly this is sourced.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:43, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

The original wording deleted was "peacefully". I prefer this, but after that was removed I inserted another wording from the cited source giving this as an explanation: "The BBC source states she was a "committed peace activist" involved in "non-violent" protection of homes. If editors prefer "non-violently" to "peacefully" I have no objection."

You deleted the word "non-violently" giving this as a reason: "the organisation may have been non-violent, doesnt mean she wasn't." And yet I know of no reliable source that has ever described her activism as violent. Do you know of any? If not, opining "doesnt mean she wasn't" reverts with a fallacious argument.

To answer your question about the source: the cited BBC profile details how her activism was peaceful. It states she was part of a group "that uses non-violent means to challenge Israeli army tactics". It says she was a "commited peace activist". It details how she "arranged peace events", joined a "local group Olympians for Peace and Solidarity". It relates how she "spent nights sleeping at wells to protect them from bulldozers." How she and the others she was with were acting "as human shields in an effort to stop the demolition" and had "stood for three hours trying to protect a house." Nowhere does the BBC profile make ANY reference to any violent activity and instead details her peaceful and non-violent activism. If there were any reliable sources with any contrary evidence showing that she acted violently then I agree we could delete this. The Israeli court defence would most definitely have detailed any such activism but as far as I know it didn't provide any evidence for that. If you can provide a reliable source which does, please show it here. Otherwise I feel we as editors who summarise the contents of reliable secondary sources have a choice of summarising the BBC profile regarding her activism on that day with the wording "peacefully" or "non-violently". Therefore, unless you have a source that demonstrates how she sought to protect the homes violently, can you say which of the words you prefer: peacefully or non-violently??--Mystichumwipe (talk) 07:25, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

so, mystitch, it seems that you have done some OR and SYNTH to come up with this? better to leave it out. Soosim (talk) 08:03, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how? Can you explain. I think I have summarised the BBC profile. I understand that is what we as editors do. And there are of course other sources if you object to using the BBC one. It rather appears to me that certain editors are intent on keeping out any source-material evaluation that she was a peace activist who believed in and practised non-violent protest.

"Rachel ...presented a ...model of non-violent activism". Haaretz, 2nd Sept. [22]

"...while peacefully trying to stop the army from demolishing a Palestinian home" [23]

"...Corrie was a peaceful American protester who was killed while attempting to protect a Palestinian home. ...She and other non-violent activists had been peacefully demonstrating against the demolitions..." Amnesty USA, August 28, 2012 [24]--Mystichumwipe (talk) 07:36, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

and there are just as many sources saying that ISM sends their people to the frontlines, in war zones, protesting, knowing that they will get hurt or killed. so? Soosim (talk) 11:34, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the relevance? How does that contradict these sources saying her activism was 'peaceful' and 'non-violent'? Are there any reliable sources disputing this or not?--Mystichumwipe (talk) 07:36, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Can we get the actual links instead of footnote like cites that lead nowhere? Thanks. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:31, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. But you are still not addressing the question. Are there any reliable sources disputing this or not?--Mystichumwipe (talk) 07:39, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Telegraph article

Can those opposing the inclusion of this article in the Telegraph explain why this should be removed while plenty of other opeds are allowed to stay? Thanks.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:48, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

For starters: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and what from the es'es did yo not understand or read? -DePiep (talk) 16:04, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

For starters, the essay you link to concerns notability for individual articles and is not germane situations like these where certain editors are cherry-picking op-eds that comply with their POV. The rest of your comment was - as usual - incomprehensible. You may want to consider limiting your editing to the wiki of your native language. Best, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:00, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree that we should include it, to document at least one opinion which supported the court's ruling amongst a slew of opinions that was added by certain editors designed to criticize this court's ruling. The author himself is a notable and famous journalist, and the source is an RS. No one is saying a paragraph should be devoted... --Activism1234 22:33, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

It should not be included - it's not a RS, it's a blog. See the top paragraph of this page for what should and shouldn't be included. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:45, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

It isn't by any means a blog, it's a piece in an RS known as The Telegraph. Often, newspapers use the URL "blog" as a URL for op-eds or editorials, in the print version no such thing would exist. --Activism1234 23:12, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I think this opinion-piece by one journalist should not be included. It doesn't add information about the subject of this wiki article. And it is actually not even about Rachel Corrrie, but about pigeon-holing a vague group which the journalist named "Corrie's supporters".--Mystichumwipe (talk) 06:35, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

not a blog, but clearly not a news article either. so, it is good for the author's opinion, and probably for most of the 'facts' stated as accepted by the telegraph's editorial board. Soosim (talk) 08:07, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

1. (edit conflict)re brewcrewer. You are mixing up two reverts without mentioning one of them here or in the es (either the "non-violent" text or the Telegraph link) [25] [26]. But you had to edit manually, i.e. knowingly.
2. Also, you did not relate to the es's in the reverts: [27], [28] [29]. Not one time did you respond to the arguments in the es, and now you come here playing the why? card. This looks like an IDIDNOTHEARTHAT attitude. Both these actions may be looked upon at as editwarring-below-the-radar.
3. My 1st reply here wp:otherstuffexists is a valid answer to your question here: why not the others.... I think you are experienced enough here to know and accept that argument, no need to act a newby.

From here, I'll just repeat my arguments from the es's:

1. es when added was: including other opinions [30]. So it says explicitly the page is used as a forum. That is not what WP is for.
2. The text was added by a confirmed sock. Socks edit is not building trust in argumentation (nor can an discussion follow). Socks are not for AGF.
3. The writer in the Telegraph writes a personal opinion, not a journalistic researched fact. For that, the paper is not a RS, just a opinion place (as blogging is).
4. The writer is not professionaly specialised in or related to the topic.
5. The addition is between references to three organisations/persons, who are directly related to the topic. They are quotes with well based arguments, and are an RS in this. The blogger's arguments or opinion has not this base.
6. The content of the source (the bloggers post) is not related to the section or paragraph at all.
7. The text here now says: On the other hand, journalist Brendan O'Neill supported the court's verdict. That is: not a description of the content, no connection with the paragraph topic (law and justice), intruducing but as an opposite is synthesis (OR). As a whole, it does not add any quality to the article.

-DePiep (talk) 09:05, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

• It sounds like WP:NEWSBLOG is the appropriate policy/guideline reference. Jclemens (talk) 02:40, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality of deletion of 'Peace activist' description

I have initiated a discussion on the Neutrality discussion board [31]. I did this as JethroB has just reverted [32] a reliable sourcing (BBC News [33]) of a description of Rachel without any engagement here at Talk, nor participation on recent discussions concerning this. He claims that including that description of her goes against consensus. Therefore I took it there rather than the Dispute resolution board as the ignoring of discussion and using that as a reason appears to me to be a breach of neutrality. I have previously asked for any reliable source that shows Rachel was not a peace activist. No-one came forward with any. In the absence of that, can anyone give adequate wiki reasons why we should not include this as a description of her using the BBC, or The Guardian, or The Daily Telegraph, etc., as reliable sources for this description. I have already provided some sources that describe Rachel Corrie as a 'Peace activist' and here are some more:

• WA Today: " ... the killing of the American peace activist, Rachel Corrie, who was crushed to death by an Israeli military bulldozer." [34]

• The Guardian. Title. " Israeli army bulldozer crushes US peace protester in Gaza Strip." Lead/intro: " Peace campaigner killed as Israeli army destroys homes in Palestinian refugee camp. First sentence: " An Israeli army bulldozer crushed an American peace activist to death in the Gaza Strip..." [35]

• The Daily Telegraph: (photo caption) "American peace activist Rachel Corrie stands infront of an Israeli bulldozer in the Rafah refugee camp in the Gaza strip in 2003"

• Al Jazeera: "Corrie was a committed peace activist even before her arrival in the Gaza Strip in 2002. She arranged peace events in her home town in Washington state and became a volunteer for the ISM."

• NSNBC: "An Israeli court ruled, Tuesday, that the army “was not at fault” in the murder of American peace activist, Rachel Corrie..." [36]

• Russia Today (photo caption): [37] "Several hundred left-wingers demonstrate with a picture of slain peace activist Rachel Corrie ..."

• Mondoweiss quoting Sydney Levy, Director of Advocacy at Jewish Voice for Peace: "...the killing of nonviolent human rights activist Rachel Corrie." [38]

• Morning Star: " An Israeli court found today that US peace activist Rachel Corrie was "accidentally" crushed to death by a bulldozer..."

• Berrett-Koehler Publishers: "RACHEL CORRIE was a 23-year-old American peace activist from Olympia, Washington, who was crushed to death by an Israeli bulldozer on 16 March 2003, while undertaking nonviolent direct action..."[39]

• NME: "...the award will be presented posthumously to peace activist Rachel Corrie..." [40]

Etc., etc.

It looks to me as though a few editors are editing this page from a point of view that is not neutral, are refusing to discuss their reasons in regard to specific questions and now this claim for consensus seems to be arguing for a non-neutral editing of this article based on numbers. Despite the fact that can be contested (e.g. I myself, Mirokado, Bastun and JonFlaune are in agreement on this inclusion), can a few editors do that: overule reliable sourcing and non-neutrality by claiming consensus?--Mystichumwipe (talk) 09:24, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Here are some more RS using this description (provided by Dlv999)

• Roy, S Journal of Palestine Studies (Vol. 39, No. 2, Winter 2010, University of California Press) - "focusing on Rachel Corrie, the twenty- three-year-old US peace activist who was run over and killed by an Israeli bulldozer in March 2003"[41]
• Richardson, J & Barkho L Journalism Studies (Volume 10, Issue 5, 2009, Routledge) - "Two landmark events have characterised the recent violent years of Israeli–Palestinian conflict: the killing of a US peace activist by an Israeli bulldozer as she tried to prevent it from demolishing the home of a Palestinian resident in Gaza" [42]
• CNN - "From behind a wood and plastic partition, the Israeli soldier who drove a bulldozer that crushed an American peace activist to death testified publicly for the first time Thursday." [43]
• CBS News- peace activist Rachel Corrie[44]
• The Age - "The Israeli Defence Force has been absolved of responsibility in the death of an American peace activist, who was crushed to death by a military bulldozer in 2003."
• Sky News - "This year's winners of the prize also included peace activist Rachel Corrie, killed on the Gaza strip in 2003" [45]
• the Washington Post - "An Israeli court has ruled that the death of U.S. peace activist Rachel Corrie in 2003 was not Israel's fault and was an accident."[46]
• Al Arabiya - "A U.N. official Thursday condemned an Israeli court finding that cleared the army of any blame for the death of U.S. peace activist Rachel Corrie as “a defeat for justice and accountability.”"[47]
• UN News Centre - "Rachel Corrie, an American peace activist, was killed in March 2003 while protesting against the demolition of Palestinian homes in Rafah, a city located in southern Gaza." [48]
• Palestine Chronicle - "On behalf of peace activist Rachel Corrie, her parents Craig and Cindy Corrie today accepted the 2012 LennonOno Grant for Peace presented by Yoko Ono in Reykjavik, Iceland." [49]
• Reuters - "peace activist Rachel Corrie" [50]
• Time (magazine) - "American peace activist Rachel Corrie speaks during an interview with MBC Saudi Arabia television on March 14, 2003 in the Rafah refugee camp on the Gaza Strip" [51]--Mystichumwipe (talk) 14:01, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

A few more sources to add to the list:

• Haaretz - "American peace activist killed by army bulldozer in Rafah" [52]
• The Independent - "The final moments of Rachel Corrie, the American peace activist crushed to death beneath a pile of earth and rubble in the path of an advancing Israeli army bulldozer, were described to an Israeli court by an eyewitness yesterday. [53]

The sources quoted so far are just the ones skimmed off the top of a general google search. I haven't even started looking at the google book hits yet, of which there are over 500 hits for the search term: "Rachel corrie" AND "peace activist" [54] Dlv999 (talk) 18:41, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I have undone Jethro B's undo of what I regard as his clear 'neutrality-violation' revert of the reliably sourced description of Rachel as a 'Peace activist'. I have done so as despite his claim, the consensus seems quite even here. At present the Neutrality Disputation Board has a majority of editors voting 'for' its use. Revealingly, those 'for' its usage cited wiki policy as reasons. Whereas all those 'against' gave reasons purely based upon their own personal opinions. Interesting that. Anyway, the consensus at present is 'for' using the reliably sourced and uncontradicted 'Peace Activist' description. I hope the more troubling aspect of this dispute, (namely the claim for consensus by a possible tag-team of editors apparently sharing a Pro-Israeli partsisan viewpoint, who appear intent on skewing articles and hounding editors to have that viewpoint predominate) will also be addressed by concerned editors who value Wikipedia as a non-biased information resource.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 14:39, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

bbc source of what israeli authorities said about bulldozer clearing the area

"The Israeli authorities said at the time that demolitions were necessary because Palestinian gunmen used the structures as cover to shoot at their troops patrolling in the area, or to conceal arms-smuggling tunnels under the Gaza-Egypt border." - why is this not accurate when i include it in the article? Soosim (talk) 09:25, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

The "quote" added to the article was: "removing shrubbery covering a structure that could be used as an arms smuggling tunnel or to cover terrorists shooting at the IDF."

As you can see the "quote" added to the wiki-article does not match what appears in the RS. Dlv999 (talk) 09:49, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Concur with Dlv999. Where did the "removing shubbery" thing come from Soosim? Is it from some other source, or was it complete fabrication? NickCT (talk) 12:50, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

from the article "The officer said Corrie and the other pro-Palestinian activists had spent hours trying to block the two military D9 bulldozers under his command from clearing vegetation and rubble near the border, ignoring repeated warnings to leave. Though the military did at times demolish houses used by gunmen or arms smugglers, he said, no houses were slated to be demolished that day." with this source: http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/idf-officer-u-s-activist-ignored-warnings-before-crushed-by-bulldozer-1.353891 -- if you don't like 'shrubbery' we can call it vegetation. Soosim (talk) 13:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Ummmmm.... Ok. So the source has changed from BBC to Haaretz... You recognize that right?

Your source, and the info you're trying to add, already appears to be in the article. See line reading "IDF officer testified in court that on that day they were only clearing "vegetation and rubble". Are you duplicating information?

You know, rereading this section, I'm actually concerned about a number of issues. For instance, the part reading "demolition of the home of local pharmacist Samir Nasrallah". The source for home being Samir Nasrallah's is Mother Jones, which is, quite frankly, a lower quality, partisan source.

I really think this article needs a POV check. Someone needs to strip out stuff linked to dubious sources like ynet and Mother Jones. I'd give it a go if I didn't think I was going to get hated on by members of both sides of the IP debate...... NickCT (talk) 13:58, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

nick, i agree it needs to be gone through. but, anyone too connected to the topic area will get blasted byu the others. fyi, ynet is a major news source for israel for decades. fully respectable and legitimate. i am not changing my source vis a vis my addition. it was in addition to my addition.... - an idea: why not go through and do, say, three changes at a time, on the talk page. then we can all hate each other there, and not in the article.... Soosim (talk) 17:43, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I think the best source is the court's verdict in Corrie's case which states that the operation that day was clearing debris, shrubbery and earths mounds and not demolishing houses. See pages 13-14 in here. MathKnight 19:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

@Soosim - re "fyi, ynet is a major news source for israel for decades." - Fox News is a major news source for the US for decades. Doesn't mean it's either respectable or legitimate. Ynet is as much a conservative nationalist rag as Mother Goose is a bleeding heart liberal rag. If you're not capable of seeing that, you probably shouldn't be editing potentially contentious articles like this one. NickCT (talk) 01:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

nick - if you have a problem with ynet, then you should bring it up at a different wiki place, not hear. ynet is 100% acceptable as a reliable source. and i see lots of things, fyi. Soosim (talk) 06:08, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Soosim - I'm sure you understand that a lot of stuff qualifies as RS that doesn't exactly provide fair & balanced reporting. If we really want to try an keep POV to a minimum as possible, we should try to stick to mainstream sources as much as possible. You're right, this isn't the forum to discuss how legitimate Ynet is, but it bugs me that me when folks make the "technically it counts as a reliable source" argument. Technically schmaltz herring counts as a food. We all know it reeks though. NickCT (talk) 14:52, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

nick - ynet is mainstream. and if something bugs you, no need to call me out on it. be nice. Soosim (talk) 15:35, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

And what about the court's verdict? This surely qualifies as a RS. MathKnight-at-TAU (talk) 15:45, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

It qualifies as a reliable primary source for the court's verdict. Anything from the document should be attributed to the source. It shouldn't be used for statements of fact in the encyclopedia's voice about what happened. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:21, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

@Soosim - Hey, don't feel bad. I like calling out the Fox News people too. I'm not singling you out.... NickCT (talk) 00:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 March 2013

Please change the sentence that reads "Rachel Corrie's life has been memorialized in several tributes, including the play My Name Is Rachel Corrie and the cantata The Skies are Weeping." to "Rachel Corrie's life has been memorialized in several tributes, including the play My Name Is Rachel Corrie, the cantata The Skies are Weeping, and the poem On The Brink Of ... For Rachel Corrie by Suheir Hammad." Rmjohnstone (talk) 19:02, 17 March 2013 (UTC) Rmjohnstone (talk) 19:02, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Not done: We don't need to list every tribute to Corrie that exists here, especially since this one is sourced to YouTube. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:15, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

In August 2012, an Israeli court rejected their suit

I've never registered a wikipedia account, so I can't edit the page. But, shouldn't this quote, "In August 2012, an Israeli court rejected their suit" at minimum be "In August 2012, an Israeli court dismissed their suit," considering that's the actual wording of the cited news article? "Court dismisses damages claim in Rachel Corrie case."

Really, this statement should be "In August 2012, an Israeli court dismissed their claim for damages," since that's far more NPOV? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:3:300:6F7:988A:D8CD:39BA:F616 (talk) 16:31, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Corrie Memorial and Unreliable Sources

I personally think the NPOV in this article is much better, but there should probably be more references to the negative critical reception about her death. For example, it cites one BBC movie which lionizes her but doesn't mention the specifics of the movie from the "Israeli point of view" in Morocco.

My biggest concern is the publishing of the ISM's account of the anniversary of her death. It seems very unlikely that the exact same bulldozer that killed Corrie "showed up suddenly" and started chasing them around while they were mourning and throwing flowers on it. Since it only provides the ISM's account and the account itself is so ridiculous it doesn't make sense for the article to act as a platform that gives it credibility. I propose we just summarize the alleged incident as "According to the ISM, mourners classes with the Israeli police.

The memorializations and books and foundations receive undue weight in this article, especially since she was only known for her death, not her life, and it's just as NPOV to call her a "terrorist supporter" as to call her a "peace activist". Including the "forgotten Rachel's" was certainly a good start.

I also think the external links should be categorized by bias. --monochrome_monitor 22:05, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Given that she is famous only for her death, that she be the focus.

Also, this page is littered with claims from the ISM which is certainly not an RS. Mother Jones points out that the ISM lied about photographs claiming that they were taken seconds before she died when in fact they were taken hours before she died. Wikieditorpro (talk) 02:01, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Unexplained removal of content, removal of sourced content

In the first of a series of edits, user:Monochrome monitor removed about 2Kbytes of content with the edit summary: "categorized testimonies into ISM, israeli, other (some testimonies weren't labelled as ISM), added controversy on richard falk".

• The added content mentioned in the edit summary is:

  Richard Falk, a controversial former UN Special Rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territories (condemned repeatedly during his term by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, the U.S., Britain and Canada for promoting 9/11 conspiracy theories and endorsing an anti-Semitic book) (ref) http://blog.unwatch.org/index.php/category/richard-falk/ (/ref)

  for which the reference has not been formatted consistently with the others. "Condemned repeatedly" is a quote of the language used in the reference, probably needs to be quoted here. Is the referenced blog a reliable source?
• I have been mostly unable to identify what has been removed or why. but I do notice that the word "peace" has been removed from the lead, despite there clearly being no consensus for such a change in the preceding section Talk:Rachel Corrie#Peace activist?. A change like this which is bound not to be accepted must not be buried in a mass of other changes, must be explained in the edit summary and must be supported by reliable sources. The reference callout for that sentence very clearly supports the content before the change.
• It looks as if there are a lot of other controversial changes hidden away in this edit, but it is impossible to be sure we have seen and evaluated them all because content changes are mixed up with the moving of blocks of text. The has already been reverted once by user:Irondome and, unless someone else has already done so while I am typing this, I will revert it again, not using rollback which would be inappropriate but restoring the previous version by normal editing. Just to be clear, I have looked at the diffs for all the affected edits and satisfied myself that
  • it is impracticable to revert the first edit and retain any of the others
  • it is impossible to evaluate the first edit in detail with a reasonable amount of effort but it very clearly contains changes for which there is demonstrably no consensus

MM, please plan and structure these substantial changes more carefully. You need to separate content changes completely from content reorganisation, and avoid tangling up unrelated potentially controversial changes in the same edit. --Mirokado (talk) 00:44, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Whilst I think that a lot of user:Monochrome monitor's edits were solid, I would also counsel to take things slowly. This is a contentious article with a lot of editors interested in providing their input. It is best to make/propose changes piecemeal. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:05, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I have given my original rationale for using rollback on my talkpage. It was best, in my opinion, to have done the editing process in incremental steps, and to sought consensus on the relevant talk page. I have also sought dialogue with MM. I do believe his edits could balance the article far better after a good debate, but I do believe it should have been discussed first. Irondome (talk) 01:11, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about that. If I removed any content, feel free to add it back. I mostly meant to add content and reoorganize the article so that ISM activists were clearly labelled as such and visa versa. It was very hard fixing the refs for me as I'm a new editor. I'm just trying to add both sides so it's more clear. --monochrome_monitor 04:33, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

And as for the "blog" it's an accredited NGO and it links to American and UN statements on Falk. He was sacked for being so controversial. He said that the Boston Bomber was do to "America" and "Tel Aviv" or something like that. Crazy dude. --monochrome_monitor 04:36, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Here's the statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monochrome monitor (talk • contribs) 04:40, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

As I have said, I support your edits MM. My only concern was article stability, and I may have been over-cautious. Have you reverted my perhaps unwise rollback? I haven't checked. I certainly will not revert anything. If you have not, then revisit the incremental approach in some of the eds, or at least their sequence. There was some good advice given upthread on this. I totally agree with your view on Falk. Irondome (talk) 19:08, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I think Monochrome Monitor's changes were substantial NPOV improvements and removed many weasel words. For example describing ISM activists accounts as objective "witnesses", while all the accounts of all the Israeli soldiers, government investigation, the driver, and even video evidence are all lumped together as the opinion of the Israeli government. Wikieditorpro (talk) 20:40, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

So should we rollback the rollback, if you like? I'm certainly in favor.--monochrome_monitor 21:25, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh great someone already did that. Thanks for your contributions, guys!--monochrome_monitor 21:29, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Well I'm obviously not satisfied with the way these changes have been added wholesale to the article. but it looks from other contributions above as if we will have to work from the current version. In order to enable us to see what has been changed, I will update the article with versions which generate a clean difference display. In order to do this, I will place {{In use}} on the intermediate versions and finish this editing session by restoring the current version (as I write this, a bot edit restoring a missing ref). Some of the intermediates will look like wholesale reversions, please do not panic they will be short-lived. I have prepared the two versions we will need for the comparison using an offline diff tool, but I must also check the diffs as I apply the updates here, so the In use flag may be around for 20-30 mins. I will update further here when I have finished. --Mirokado (talk) 23:39, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

The heads-up is appreciated Irondome (talk) 00:09, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I have now restored the current (bot-edited) version. Here are the cleaned-up differences. These are the net content changes from June 26 to now, corresponding to this much less clean diff.

After the first sentence, the third paragraph seems to be NPOV and unsourced. The sources don't mention a photographer saying that she was killed while wearing a fluoro jacket waving her arms, or that she was run over twice. Furthermore, the sources mentioned are ISM sources only which are POV and their views are best place in the fourth paragraph, as a ISM POV to the Israeli government's POV.. Wikieditorpro (talk) 01:55, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

The ISM accounts seem to be repeated and given too much weight as per WP:WEIGHT. For example Richard Purssell's account is listed twice. Wikieditorpro (talk) 02:12, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I've moved "Richard"'s account to the ISM section as the ref identifies him as ISM, and removed the speculation that this was Perssell since no source for that. The preceding para and blockquote are each adding independent information so there is no actual duplication. --Mirokado (talk) 20:50, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Is NPOV good, or bad? --monochrome_monitor 23:16, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, a neutral point of view has to be beautiful, of course. And your point is, what? --Mirokado (talk) 23:25, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I just didn't know what the initialism stood for. Sorry! --monochrome_monitor 23:36, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Laughing now, no problem! --Mirokado (talk) 23:43, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Zero0000 edits

Some things about this edit. First, Gross explicitly mentions Palestinian 'terrorism' several times. Second, if Electronic Intifada is here, also Aish. Besides, judge Oded Gershon is a major authority on this and the appearance of his testimony on Aish does not invalidate it. Third, the controversial case surrounding Tom Hurndall's death needs proper attribution.--AmirSurfLera (talk) 04:08, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree, aish should be included, considering some sources that are given weight in this (ISM accounts, Al-Jazeera opinion pieces). --monochrome_monitor 23:20, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Apparently Wikipedia considers that viciously anti-Semitic rag Ma'an to a reliable source as I discovered in this article where it is used as a source over 40 times (together with other dubious pro-Palestinian publications).

That being the case, Aish can certainly be considered a reliable source. Wikieditorpro (talk) 02:52, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Take it to the WP:RSN. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:55, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Some people here think that Wikipedia rules can be broken provided an "argument" is made that the "other side" broke them. They are wrong; the rules cannot be broken any time. Even if the "argument" was correct (which I am not conceding), a pile of poo isn't made to smell sweet by adding a load of poo of a different color. Zero^talk 04:03, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

It's about consistency and standards. There seems to be a trend that when Jewish/Israeli sources are brought they are assumed to be unreliable until proven otherwise. Whereas Islamic/Arab sources no matter how extreme are acceptable until they are taken through WP:RSN.

I personally believe that Aish is a reliable source and I have no evidence to the contrary. If you don't think it is then perhaps you should do as Malik suggested above and take to RSN instead of just deleting it without explanation.

And just to clarify, do you think that using Ma'an as a source is breaking Wikipedia's rules? And do you think that Ma'an is an RS? Wikieditorpro (talk) 04:14, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

In order to clarify your position, can you give an example or two of Palestinian sources that you would consider reliable? Zero^talk 04:59, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Obvious cop-out. I rest my case. Wikieditorpro (talk) 05:31, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

As I thought. Regarding your claims, they are complete poppycock. Actually the number of "Jewish/Israeli sources" (your phrase) used in Wikipedia articles vastly exceeds the number of Arab/Palestinian sources. By orders of magnitude. As for resting your case, you haven't made one. Zero^talk 05:51, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Another person who fails to understand basic Israeli/Palestinian politics. The Israel media runs the gamete from vehemently Pro-Israel to vehemently Pro-Palestinian. While the Palestinian media ranges from being virulently anti-Israeli to being virulently anti-Semitic too, usually both. Wikieditorpro (talk) 01:56, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikieditorpro, I recommend you read WP:BURDEN. If you wish to include Aish, the onus is on you to establish that it is a reliable source. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:06, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

That's quite interesting being that in your last comment you stated that if I am opposed to a source that is virulently anti-Israel (and anti-Semitic), the burden is on me to take it to WP:RSN.

So to summarize:

Pro-Israel source: Burden of proof to prove source is reliable WP:BURDEN

Pro-Palestinian source: Burden of proof to prove that source is not reliable. WP:RSN

There is no clearer proof of the hypocrisy here than your own words. Wikieditorpro (talk) 23:40, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, sure. Whatever. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:51, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't see anyone provided rationale for EI.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 17:25, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

-Shrike: with this edit-line you write: "Partialy revert huldra. Why do you deleted court desicion?It has nothing to do with ISM.Please refrain to do misleading edit summaries." This is a mis-leading edit summary. I deleted aish.com, as we cannot use such a partisan source. Think about it the other way around; If anyone used ISM as a source for Aish HaTorah..they would probably be blocked in no time. You have now re-introduced aish.com as a source in this article, and that is simply not acceptable. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 21:04, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

It's completely absurd and ridiculous to use a kiruv organisation, that teaches rubbish like the bible codes, as a source for a court ruling unrelated to themselves. That ruling was reported by countless professional news agencies, kindly keep the dross out. Zero^talk 01:23, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

But you believe that sources that preach the protocols of the elders of zion as fact (e.g. Ma'an as well as most if not all of the Palestinian media), are perfectly fine. Wikieditorpro (talk) 01:57, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I haven't even looked at what Ma'an is cited for here, so how do you know what I believe? However you can believe that I will support the inevitable request for a topic-ban for you. Your editing performance is not even close to the requirements and your days here are numbered. Zero^talk 02:17, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Well then I take that part back concerning you, however it still applies as far as Wikipedia standards are concerned. As far as the threats go, you've already made several threats against me in the past. There appears to be a pattern of intimidation here (see Monochrome_Monitor's talk page for example.) It would be much more helpful if one side started respecting the other side as equals. Wikieditorpro (talk) 02:29, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree that there is an imbalance of BURDEN here. As the ed who rolled back mm's mass edit in the first place. I feel I am speaking from a solid NPOV perspective here. I am determindly not letting my POV be reflected in my edits here, (Liberal Zionist), and I wish I were seeing more true self-awareness blended with WP self-discipline in a considerable number of colleagues on both sides.

Zero, I think your language is out of order. We are ALL hanging by a thread on this topic. I often am impressed with your work but I think you are going a bit far there. It sounds like a threat to a new/NPOV observer. Irondome (talk) 01:13, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikieditorpro is not a new editor (started 2007) and was just topic-banned for 6 months. But thanks for your comments. Zero^talk 12:01, 8 July 2014 (UTC)