Talk:Rachel Corrie/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

ISM Doctored Photos?

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

See here:

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

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

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

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

Fraud

Palestinian propaganda now proven a fraud:

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

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

Youtube links

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

Thank you.

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

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

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

Therefore, we should not link to sites such as youtube unless we have explicit permission from the copyright holder.

--NSH001 (talk) 16:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

That is what I was relying upon, and I took it to mean something like the NY Times, where of course all the material is authorized by the paper, rather than YouTube, where the material very well is not authorized by the creator. I have no objection to the videos otherwise, there seem to be videos from "both" sides of the argument. Can we have this authoritatively settled?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

NHS001 misleads us by over quoting the policy. The key words in the second paragraph are "knowingly and intentionally". Do we know for certain that the material posted is in violation of the copyright? --Uncle Bungle (talk) 19:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, hm. The part about "knowingly and intentionally" seems to refer to what we are doing. I would say that unless there is some assertion of license or permission on the YouTube page, we should assume that there is no permission. Given the well known nature of Youtube, I don't know we can turn a blind eye. What is the approved practice on this on wp?--Wehwalt (talk) 19:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

General references and further reading

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

No we don't need both. If a news article isn't cited as an inline reference, I'd say remove it. It is still easy to google Corrie if someone throws up a fact tag. Further reading ought only to be more in depth sites, not more news articles. Slash and burn! POV wars are generally impossible inside this framework. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 03:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Will do. Machete don't fail me now.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Works for me. "electronic intifada" "israel behind the news" are not objective or encyclopedic despite the POV warriors. Thanks Wehwalt. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 03:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Lawsuits again

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

I'm not trying to push a view, nor purposely be inaccurate at all. I'm offended by that. You didn't "have" to revert me, you "chose" to. That paragraph was unclear and incomplete. Anyway, I only added what the source says. It doesn't say the defendants were "charged", it says the "plaintiffs" "charged" the defendants. It's in the reference source, plus there are numerous pdf files of the case(s) if one wants to dig deeper. That does not mean that the defendants where guilty of anything, nor charged by any court. The paragraph goes on to state why the suit was discharged. But by saying "on merits" is not clear. What were the merits?. What are "merits"? It is better to spell it out, not leave out information. Saying "the plaintiff's claims failed on the "merits" does not help one understand what those merits are, let alone mean. I'm a stickler for being accurate and against bias. I'll change the wording to "alleged" rather than "charged", as I can see where that may confuse the reader, or worse even prejudice them. So, I'm with you there. Okay? --The Smoking Nun (talk) 05:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

If you are a stickler for being accurate, then why not use the Ninth Circuit's characterization of the claims, rather than the web site of the organization that represented the plaintiffs? There's a pdf reference that exactly says what they sued for. "The merits" is an exact legal term. If you prefer, we can say "the merits of the case". What the district court judge said, in other words, is that the plaintiffs failed to prove their case, in addition to losing under the political question doctrine. I don't feel it is appropriate to use as a ref, let alone quote from, the ref you've put in, since it is the organization whose lawyers represented at least some of the plaintiffs (this is confirmed by looking at the counsel list in the Ninth Circuit opinion.) I suggest that you instead quote from the Ninth Circuit's opinion, where the seven causes of action that the plaintiff raised are stated. Your change on the territories is good, thank you.

Your characterization of the District Court's holding is dead wrong, by the way. Federal Law does allow such suits, that is why the Alien Tort Claims Act was brought in, among other things. Had this involved private players, say the Darfur militia (arguably), they could have gone further in the case. However, since the case impacted US foreign relations, the political question doctrine came into play. The judicial branch has no role there, as (if i recall the famous phrase correctly) the president alone has the power to speak or listen on behalf of the United States. They lost on the political question doctrine (and the district court judge found they also lost on the merits of the case, the appeals court did not find it necessary to discuss that.) So right now there's wrong info in the article, as well as POV. Have you improved the article? Really?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

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

Is there a template we can use to tag hate speech? What about a mandate to just delete it (and my remarks) completely. It is distracting to an ongoing discussion. In the article I would have removed it as vandalism but I don't now if the same rules apply to the talk pages. Please advise. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 11:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Well I happen to have a strong bias in favour of free speech (however distasteful). I think the anonymous IP above destroys his own case better than I could, so I would prefer to just leave (and ignore) it. No objection, though, if you just delete it, together with my and your response. NSH001 (talk) 12:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Suggest deleting it as a violation of WP:CIV, which I think overrides the deference we give to people on talk pages. Anyway, I'm planning on reverting the lawsuit section, except I will expand to "the merits of the case".--Wehwalt (talk) 12:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Note about sources from March 2003

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

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

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

A balanced lede

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

I would frankly revert to a version before people started fiddling with it again.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, as you were writing that response, I was completing my edit. I hope that all parties find it acceptable. --Marvin Diode (talk) 21:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

"Clearing brush" - do you really think the army go to war zone to "clear brush" ? There is ample evidence about the smuggling tunnels and that is what was publioshed again and again that they were doing these. Clearling the brush is just one way of perpartions for digging to find the tunnels under the brush. here is "brush clearing" from yesterday: [1] Zeq (talk) 03:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I have no objection myself to state, late in the lede that, generally, IDF operations in the area were to get rid of smuggling tunnels, if it is properly sourced. I say again, generally, rather than the specific operation in which Corrie died.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The source is specific. Zeq (talk) 11:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Dispute over Human Rights Watch citation

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

Corrie was there because she viewed the Israeli policies as wrong. It is not for the article to draw such conclusions, which I think is what your edits do. Whether it is a good policy or a bad one, it is the policy, and Corrie was there to do what she did, and what HRW felt about it just isn't relevant.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Your comments are unclear to me. The HRW states: "Smugglers’ tunnels are the IDF’s main stated reason for incursions into Rafah and house demolitions near the border. As the military has repeatedly argued, it aims to find and destroy the tunnels that Palestinian armed groups use to obtain weapons and ammunition." It goes on to say that the HRW investigated these claims, and "Based on this research, Human Rights Watch believes that the IDF’s pattern of house demolitions is inconsistent with its stated goals." All this is notable and belongs in the article. The new quote that you added, saying that demolitions are done "to remove Palestinian homes built without permits, for security reasons and to punish the families of militants," does not appear anywhere in the cited BBC article. Perhaps you were editing in a hurry and replaced the proper source citation with another. --Marvin Diode (talk) 22:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it seems to have been straightened out. Look, we have the IDF contention, rather than having a third party rebut the IDF (which I believe is a POV way of doing things, suggest we add a source setting forth the Palestinian position in the background, rather than HRW.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how replacing sourced information with the phrase "The demolitions are controversial" better acquaints the reader with the situation. Dlabtot (talk) 20:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps if you put in the Palestinian perspective, it would. As I found the quotation used to justify the Israeli position, I don't feel comfortable finding a quote or a cite expressing the other POV.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Wehwalt, let me suggest to you a change in tactics. Instead of trying to suppress or discredit the HRW report, or edit the way it is presented to "smoothe it over," why not find a persuasive cite that backs up the IDF version of the story? My idea is, provide the reader with as much pertinent, reliable info as is reasonable possible. Let him draw his own conclusions. --Marvin Diode (talk) 21:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

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

Um, no, there is no difference at all, and playing semantic gymnastic games really doesn't make for a sound argument. HRW conducted research into the event and issued its findings. Period. Whether the report said "we believe" vs. "we conclude" is irrelevant. Tarc (talk) 23:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Cool, then you have no objection to characterizing it in the same words HRW used, belief, and letting the reader decide for himself. That is, if we use the HRW thing at all.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I would object to your attempts to add your own POV interpretation to a reliable source, yes. Tarc (talk) 12:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

As I have said, I'm no fan of the HRW report, especially given that it expresses only a "belief" (which is far from a conclusion). I would say though, that there needs to be something in there to balance the Israeli perspective and I would suggest a Palestinian perspective rather than a third party like HRW.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

balance to balance to balance to balance. there is no end to this. We have two parties here: One side is Corrie the other side is Israeli army. We already allow the ISM into this article I don't think we should turn tis article into debate club. Zeq (talk) 08:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

As this is an issue of human rights, and HRW is a notable and relevant rights organization, I have restored this material. Tarc (talk) 12:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

No, this is an article about Rachel Corrie, not "human rights". I've removed that material, and more, as rather obvious violations of WP:SYNTH, since none of them referred to Corrie, or to the specific actions she was protesting that day.

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

The subject of this article is Rachel Corrie, nothing else. In the future, please respect policy, and avoid these kinds of violations. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

One seldom encounters an edit so clearly POV-biased as this one. Jayjg removes the HRW assessment of the IDF claims, while leaving the IDF claims intact, and claims to be doing so because the citation doesn't mention Corrie. First of all, the IDF claims don't mention Corrie either. Secondly, the section in question is entitled "Background." Either you think it inappropriate to have such a section, in which case the IDF claims should be removed as well, or else under NPOV both sides of the story should be heard. In my view, the claim that "this is an article about Rachel Corrie, not 'human rights'" is a transparently false argument. Corrie became notable precisely because of the human rights issues surrounding her death. --Marvin Diode (talk) 12:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Ridiculous hyperbole is quite unnecessary, Marvin Diode. As the link you provided shows, I removed all material attributed to sources which do not mention Rachel Corrie. And, in fact, I removed most of the material outlining the IDF claims; for example, I removed these sentences:

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

Why did I remove them? Because, of course, the sources didn't refer to Rachel Corrie. I did leave the material sourced to this article. Why? Well, because the article is about Rachel Corrie. Again, as a reminder, the article is about Rachel Corrie, not "human rights", or the Rafah tunnels, or anything else but Rachel Corrie. It's great that "both side of the story be heard", but you cannot add original research in your quest to do so. It's not up to you to decide what the "sides" are; rather, reliable sources about Rachel Corrie will make that decision. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Jayjg, the subject of this article is Corrie and the events that led to her death. Since she was there protesting, and attempting to block, bulldozers razing homes, then material regarding the razing is more than relevant. Your argument carries no water. Tarc (talk) 12:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

To begin with, whether or not they were razing homes is disputed, and anyone would respect for the WP:NPOV policy would recognize this. More importantly, you may think it's relevant, but policy only allows you to use material that directly related to the subject - that means sources that refer to Rachel Corrie. Please do not make a mockery of the original research policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The general information on razing is not necessary here. I'm sure there must be a place for it, just not in this article. IronDuke 01:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

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

Well, everyone here probably is more expert than me, but seems that the info being discussed belongs in the articles House_demolition_in_the_Israeli-Palestinian_conflict and Smuggling Tunnels, and I've added "See Also" links to them. (Edit -- never mind, Home demo article already seem prominently featured.) But if I understand [WP:SYNTH]], noted above, isn't "Corrie's death occurred in a zone close to the border with Egypt, where the IDF was operating in an attempt to seal tunnels used for smuggling weapons from Egypt to the Gaza strip. also an example of the same thing? I mean, you wouldn't say "Corrie's death occured near the all-night Gaza Kwikki-Mart", right? You're implying something without saying it. -- Tom Ketchum (talk) 02:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem is, editors of this article are trying to construct all sorts of arguments about what the IDF was doing when Corrie was killed, in order to show that the IDF demolished X hundred homes, or that the tunnels weren't really smuggling tunnels, and that therefore Corrie's actions were legitimate/justified and the IDF's not, or whatever else they want to prove. And it's fine to put those kinds of arguments in an article about Rachel Corrie as long as sources about Rachel Corrie make those arguments. We can cite sources about Corrie that make the arguments, but we can't invent them ourselves in order to provide "balance" for the what the IDF says - which, of course, is exactly what people have been doing here, and have admitted doing. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I should point out that I wasn't referring to Jayg specifically when I said "you", I was just addresseding everyone in the conversatrion. -- Tom Ketchum (talk) 16:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem, then with removing the HRW material, so long as the material cited by Tom Ketchum is also removed. This is a case of what's good for the goose is good for the gander. I think that NOR and SYNTH are being applied here with an interpretation that is highly original, but if it is applied in an even-handed way to this article, I won't object. --Marvin Diode (talk) 06:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Marvin Diode, policy isn't something you can bargain about, saying that you won't include your original research if someone else removes material you object to on non-policy related grounds. The point about WP:SYNTH is not to put together original arguments, even if the sources themselves are reliable. If the sources used in this article aren't about Corrie, then you are synthesizing. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is, I disagree entirely with your application of WP:SYNTH in this instance. But I am willing to compromise. --Marvin Diode (talk) 15:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Marvin, You have to keep in mind that this article is about Rachel Corrie. It is not a web site dedicated to propegate what rachel Corrie belived in. So here we focus on what realiable sources say about corrie. We can not turn this article into a link or to include issues that their only connection is something you think is related to corrie's reasons for what she did. Zeq (talk) 02:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Jay already said that:

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

Zeq (talk) 02:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

In fact, there are sources about Rachel Corrie which cite the HRW report: for example, [2] or [3]. However, this is somewhat beside the point. Jayjg and Zeq are misrepresenting the nature of the WP:SYNTH policy; that policy seeks to prevent sources from being misrepresented in such a way as to arrive at a conclusion not warranted by the sources themselves. The NOR and SYNTH policies do not require that any source used in this article have the words "Rachel Corrie" in the text. It is indisputably the case that Corrie is notable, not because she was killed by a bulldozer, but because she was killed while protesting the policy of house demolitions. Whether or not there was an actual house demolition going on at the time she was killed may be a matter of dispute, but there is no dispute over the fact that her protest of the policy is what makes her notable. It is therefore entirely appropriate to include background information from reliable sources that clarifies the debate over that policy, particularly when the IDF-defense team editors seek to include claims from the IDF that are disputed by reliable sources. --Marvin Diode (talk) 03:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Just because people disagree with you doesn't mean they are part of an "IDF-defense team". Assume good faith. However, the sources you cite are not reliable. Given that palsolidarity.org is the ISM official web site, how can you write with a straight face and tell us it is a reliable source? No disrespect to the ISM, but it's not what we are looking for on this page. And you put it in the article without even labeling it as such, in support of a fact! Come on, Marvin, you've been around long enough to know better. I'm not sure where this "press release" on both pages comes from, but it isn't a reliable source. See the standards at the top of this page. It does not meet the first standard, and given that it presumes to tell us what are facts and what are myths, including dismissing the IDF conclusion as the latter, I think it is a highly biased political source. Even if it is not, it fails the first standard. As for the statement you made about the reason for Corrie's notoriety, I'd dispute your claim. She's notable because she is American. As for your other comments, I gather that if you like the sources, they are "reliable sources", if not, they are "claims from the IDF"?--Wehwalt (talk) 06:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't regard the ISM or other pro-Corrie sources as either more reliable, or more biased, than the various pro-IDF sources used in this article. My concern is that both sides be presented, so that the reader can have a completed picture consistent with the NPOV policy. --Marvin Diode (talk) 14:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

What you regard as reliable is of course up to you. However, we have standards for what sources should be included in the article. They are set forth at the top of this page. It is of course important that neutrality be maintained, but please work within the standards to ensure it. I am glad that we have editors with a wide variety of views on the subject.

Anyway, over the next few weeks, I'm going to try to do some work on improving this article. For example, we don't actually mention Corrie's death. Apparently she did not die at the scene, but either in the ambulance or the ER. We should remedy that omission.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you still trying to defend the indefensible? It's WP:SYNTH, plain and simple, and all the bluster and bad faith in the world won't change that. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. In fact, the whole "background" section adds nothing to the article. I'm going to be bold and delete it. It is just POV bait from all sides. I will put the House Demolitions as a see also.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Initial autopsy

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

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

Use of ISM as a source

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

As it is contentious, after all, it was questioned and someone put a tag on it, I've removed the cites. Can't you find news accounts?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:SELFPUB. I believe that it specifically allows for the use of such sites in this particular instance. Is there anyone who is claiming that Corrie did not undergo nonviolence training? If not, what makes it contentious, and what would be the point of excluding it from the article? --Marvin Diode (talk) 01:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:RS. Zeq (talk) 08:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I do not know if she did or did not. But the ISM site is not appropriate for that. The Corrie incident has been extensively covered, go find a news story. shouldn't be that hard.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The ISM website may well be accurate and a useful source. But if the material is notable, it will have been covered elsewhere as well. Since it is disputed, an independent source would be better. Hgilbert (talk) 16:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Is it actually disputed, or are we talking WP:POINT here? --Marvin Diode (talk) 14:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

A WP:SELFPUB source can't be excluded simply because an editor personally disputes it. If Wehwalt has a problem with the ISM source, then it is incumbent on him to find a WP:RS that indicates that the ISM information regarding Corrie's training is somehow suspect. Otherwise, it is simlpy an editor being contentious. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 14:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that is your view, not WP policy. However, if you don't care to go find an RS on this point yourself, why don't we say "According to the ISM", yada yada.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. Corrie isn't the ISM, and its claims are, of course, contentious. I'll admit, claiming to be upholding WP:SELFPUB while blatantly disregarding it takes chutzpah, so you get points for that, but it still blatantly fails WP:SELFPUB. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment request

• Yes, in line with WP:SELFPUB, official ISM information is acceptable as a source for background information on Corrie. The fact that "Corrie isn't the ISM" is a simple strawman of no relevance; we regularly use material published by organizations as sources on prominent members of that organization. Take Abraham Foxman, for example, which cites his ADL bio. And "contentious" doesn't mean "a Wikipedian disagrees," but "disagreement exists in reliable sources." The usual caveats about self-published sources apply, of course. <eleland/talkedits> 13:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. But as standard 1 for WP:SELFPUB indicates that the material be relevant to the indivitual's notability, wouldn't "background" information be per se unrelated to notability? This leaves aside the whole question of whether it is self serving of the ISM to claim Corrie had this training.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

It's hard for me to believe that you really mean what you posted earlier, that "She's notable because she is American" and not because her death occurred in the context of the protest against house demolitions. Do we have a rough estimate of the number of Americans who have died in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, who did not become the subjects of an international debate? I think that the issue of house demolitions may have had something to do with Corrie's celebrity. And with regard to the question of the nonviolence training claim being "self-serving", what is your actual argument here? That Corrie was launching a violent attack on the D-9, and the driver merely defended himself? --Marvin Diode (talk) 14:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Have the Brits who died under analogous circumstances (see the see alsos) gotten anywhere near so much press? I did not, on purpose, address the issue of self serving, other than to mention it. I merely suggest that is another issue. The principal one is that it doesn't meet the standards for WP:SELFPUB for the reasons I stated. Again, I suggest you go look for a news article which mentions this. If it is true, of course.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Corrie's notability stems from being a peace activist who died while trying to pull a Tank Man. Information on her peace activism is thus relevant to her notability. (Also, removing "according to the ISM, Corrie did X <ref>[http://ism website dot com]</ref> and replacing it with "Corrie did X [CITATION NEEDED]" is really lame and should not be repeated.) And the "unduly self-serving" clause is really meant to exclude vanity spam ("Dave Bloggins is the smartest man in the universe <ref>[http://dave bloggins blog dot com]</ref>; there's nothing exceptional or self-serving that I can see about the claim that an peace activist would attend classes in peace activism which were mandatory for everyone in her group. <eleland/talkedits> 16:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Lame. Now there's a term of art. You date yourself, I think. All of this could be settled if editors would simply use a mainstream news source rather than one which goes on to make a number of statements which are, to say the least, hotly disputed. If there are questions about the truthfulness of those statements, there is a question about the truthfullness of these. Unless, of course, that is why editors what to use the ISM site, in the hope that readers will read those questionable statements in their full vitriol.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Who is "hotly disputing" that she took nonviolence training? Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 22:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Which reliable source notes it? What makes it worth mentioning? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe information from the ISM about her should be reported, but should be attributed to the ISM in the text, because it is a potentially biased source. So therefore, simply say "According to the ISM she attended nonviolence training..." or whatever. Seems a pretty obvious solution to me. - Merzbow (talk) 21:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

To me, also. --Marvin Diode (talk) 07:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

ISM is (was?) a species of Human Rights organisation with an activist agenda that sent (perforce young) observers to places and situations so dangerous that better established groups were not doing. As such, it is not in the same category as the very well known groups (international and Israeli), but we should treat fairly what it's observers report. Its testimony should be carefully qualified if reporting something "surprising", but in this case it is simply fleshing out something we know to be true, that IDF bulldozers are operated with total disregard for human life. See "I am sure people died inside these houses." in Yediot Aharonot less than one year earlier.

In addition, we have ample WP:RS that IDF investigations are considered inadequate by, for instance, the Coroners courts in the UK. Unless we have sound indication from uninvolved outside sources that ISM (or its individual observers) are this untrustworthy, we're bound to rank their reports as the more reliable in every case where there is disagreement.

Lastly, Israel appears to have shot dead three UK observers/relief workers/film-makers alone in a few months around this time. At least two of these incidents are now known, and admitted, to have been culpable actions by IDF personnel. The default position is bound to be that Rachel Corrie was killed either by reckless disregard for her safety, or by deliberate action. ISM is the only source for the incident to whom we should imply reliability. PR^talk 08:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Source reliability has nothing to do with who supposedly shot who, and polemics like the above are completely unnecessary. - Merzbow (talk) 17:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Regardless, it is at least as relevant as her mom being a flautist, so put it in and let's see how it looks, as long as it is clearly labeled.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

No reason to label uncontentious information from a source that, in any case, we have no reason to doubt. PR^talk 19:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

"Visibility" section

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

Unfortunately, there are a lot of substandard references in this article. What focused you on this in particular?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It was the biggest change since the last time I came to the article. -- Tom Ketchum 00:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

And by the way, I don't have a dog in this hunt. I changed the sentence in the first para to follow as closely as possible the New York Times opening sentence, without being a copyright violation. I wish you hadn't swept that citation out with the trash! -- Tom Ketchum 00:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

That is a part of the problem. "Crushed to death" is rather pejorative and dramatic, it doesn't follow what we learned from the autopsy and investigation, and what was said the day after the incident should not be the last word on the subject.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, but it is the phrase used in the lead paragraph of the NYT article. I keep hearing "reliable sources!" here, so I took it from there. It originally said "killed", someone changed it to "died", which is lame (like she fell over of a heart attack), and I was about to change it back to "killed", but decided to look up the source first, and that is what it said. -- Tom Ketchum 00:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I see you changed it back again. "Died" is not correct. "Killed" is not POV, it does not imply intention or anything else, and it is what the most reliable sources say. -- Tom Ketchum 00:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Just because they used that language, doesn't mean we do. We take facts from RS, not language. Unless we put it in quotation marks, which should not be done in this case.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Even people who jump in front of trains are described as having been killed by the train, or killed jumping in front of the train. These deletions of "killed" from this article are ridiculous. And its contrary to every reliable source on the subject. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 00:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Boodlesthecat, why don't you work on cleaning up those autopsy cites? A wire report is useless without a periodical it was printed in, and I googled and found nothing. The book is useless without a page number, and we don't know where that quote is fro--Wehwalt (talk) 00:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)m.

No problem, sure don't want useless bits in there. Added the book page number. The wire report is fine as is--you can find it in lexis nexis. Here's the relevant text:

WASHINGTON -- The initial autopsy performed on Rachel Corrie by an Israeli pathologist at the National Center of Forensic Medicine in Tel Aviv was blunt in its narrative. It noted breaks in the ribs, the spinal cord and the shoulder blades, and tear wounds in the right lung.

It concluded that Corrie's death was caused by pressure on the chest "from a mechanical apparatus."

The report was issued on March 20, four days after Corrie, a 23-year-old pro-Palestinian activist from Olympia, Wash., crouched in the path of an oncoming Israeli military bulldozer.

But subsequent reports filed by the Israeli military have concluded that "Ms. Corrie was not run over by the bulldozer."

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

Now isn't asking for info better than deleting? Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 00:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, especially as there was apparently a misquotation, apparatus vs. device. But in any event, I've added another bit on the cause of death. And I've had a request in for days on the autopsy issue. Thanks for clearing it up!--Wehwalt (talk) 01:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

No proble, I've readded the Gannett ref because it sources the statement that the IDF report did not mention the pathologist's conclusion. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 01:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

You mean the IDF report no one got to see in full, according to the Corries?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

"Israel Resource Review" claims, on its home page, to be a compendium of articles from various press organs. However, the page used as a source here in the "Visibility" section [4] does not reference any such established press as a source. It is unclear to me whether this is just a blog-like commententary by someone at the Israel Resource Review. --Marvin Diode (talk) 22:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't look bloglike to me. It contains interviews with prime participants, the media coordinator for ISM talked to this guy, and it otherwise seems to be a news article subject to editorial review. It is a news article, and I find that it has been reprinted here. It looks and smells like an RS.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

FPM is not a reliable source either. We don't go by "look and smell," but by established reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. And a mission to present "news items and analyses that you often do not see in your standard mainstream electronic or print media," and a front-page advertisement to send pizza and ice cream to Israeli soldiers, do not exactly pass the "look and smell" test, either! <eleland/talkedits> 13:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

So I guess that if a newspaper had an ad to send supplies to US soldiers in Iraq, that would be one strike against it! I'm not sure though how your discussion of its mission statement speaks to whether or not there is or is not an "established reputation for accuracy and fact-checking." And you say that it is not a reliable source "either"? Either what?--Wehwalt (talk) 13:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't really think you would wish to support FPM as an RS. They published (and still do, it's still there) the most atrocious smear on a (now dead) Warsaw Ghetto and Auschwitz survivor, claiming that her son suspects her of having been a collaborator with the Nazis. The evidence is patently false, as can be seen here. The slur is shamelessly picked up and magnified by at least one other source, Free Republic (however, it's black-listed as a link to be added to Talk). None of these actions are really compatible with a scholarly appreciation of the evidence, of which Finkelstein is a personal witness when it comes to matters pertaining to the Holocaust and its effect on people. I'm not aware of any Holocaust Denier ever treating survivors or descendants of survivors in this kind of fashion, and we'd be disgusted if they did. PR^talk 10:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Lobbying

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

Not according to the section of the report identifying the supposedly targeted articles--Wehwalt (talk) 07:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

According to the published IE dossier, an editor identified as "Isra guy (zeqzeq2@yahoo.com)" on 3/21/08 posted to the "isra-pedia@googlegroups.com" group as follows: ... we will not be able to fix everything there and there are real important articles. .... Here is a list of articles I consider highly important Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus, Hamas, Hezbollah ... Arab citizens of Israel, Dhimmi ... Anti-Zionism, Palestine, 1948 Arab-Israeli War, Al Nakba, this will become a VERY important topic in the NEAR future. We will need your help, Mohammad Amin al-Husayni, [5] Rachel Corrie (see issues about photos). The veracity of this dosssier has not, to my knowledge, been seriously challenged.

However, you may well be right that User:Zeq (now taken to be the editor in question) actually considered this article pleasingly written to his satisfaction already, having made 93 edits to it. His last was this one 21 April 2008 "Not WP:RS source. ISM web sites can only be used in an article about ISM". I leave it to others whether they wish to pick up the baton that he would appear to have dropped. PR^talk 09:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

No doubt. However, it was never targeted, per se. As for Zeq's baton, I march to the beat of my own band, not his. Never doubt it for a second.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Diamondback material

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

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

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

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

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

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

The material was already there, but sourced to unreliable sources. I'm fine with most of your cutting back. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

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

What "other witnesses"?

We're saying: "Other witnesses contend the driver lost sight of Corrie before she was fatally injured, or did not see her at all." I can find the reference, it's here. But what witnesses, other than named members of the ISM who have given statements, were there to this event? PR^talk 21:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Semi-named , or rather pseudonymed, individuals in the case of "Richard", as I recall reading, there were a total of about six, not all of whom we quote. But in any event, you make a fair point, the ones who have also stated otherwise are the same ISM members. I've rephrased.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

"Dubious" tags

I note that in two locations, a reference (Greg Barrett. Autopsy, military investigation differ on how activist died. Gannett News Service. June 11, 2003) has been tagged as "dubious." Is this reference any more or less "dubious" than any other source in the article? In such a controversial case, I think that it may disrupt NPOV to add the tag, unless there is clear evidence that the Gannett source is exceptionally questionable. --Marvin Diode (talk) 12:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

This reference, appearing twice, seems to lack verifiability and it's difficult to understand what it's adding anyway. PR^talk 19:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be linked online to be verifiable. It simply must be sourced to a real publication that is considered reliable. Of course, you may harbor suspicions about whether the editor who added it is referring to real article. In that case it might be appropriate to request a quote. In some cases of extreme disputes, I have seen editors request an image scan of a print source. --Marvin Diode (talk) 01:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The Gannett ref is accurate and has already been discussed (and excerpted) above. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 14:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

In that case, the tags should go. --Marvin Diode (talk) 15:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The latest kerfuffle over the lede

Wehwalt, your edits over the past 24 hours convey the impression that you see yourself as a defense attorney for the IDF. It is unencyclopedic to try to cram as many references as possible into the lede to persons who think that the driver may not have seen Corrie, in an attempt to create "reasonable doubt." Compare the way the matter is treated in The Forward, which appears to be the source upon which you are basing your edits:

• The army called her death a “regrettable accident,” claiming the bulldozer driver had not seen her through his narrow windshield. Her fellow activists rejected the claim, insisting she had been standing on a mound of earth and was clearly visible to the driver, who rolled his massive machine back and forth over her body before halting. Some eyewitness reports indicated she had slipped and fallen at a moment when the driver may have been looking behind him.

So, I think that the lede needs to be far more general, focussing on what makes the subject notable, and save the defense brief for later in the article. --Marvin Diode (talk) 14:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Respectfully, it is not appropriate for you to slant the lede as to leave the casual reader (who may go little further in the article) with the impression that there is an overwhelming view by eyewitnesses that there was a deliberate act. I suggest compromise is in order, or simply state that eyewitness accounts differ, and leave the rest for the main body of the text. Your text leaves out other eyewitness accounts, and the fact that Smith (especially right after the incident) told varying stories. I suggest something along the line of "Three of the ISM eyewitnesses have alleged that Corrie was run over deliberately (though one has taken varying views on the subject), while The Forward reports that other eyewitnesses have suggested the driver was looking behind him when Corrie was fatally injured."--Wehwalt (talk) 14:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:LEAD, the introductory section of the article should be a summary of the rest of the article. The lead should generally not include information or sources unless they are already included further down in the article. --Elonka 18:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

That is true, and the information on the witnesses is already in the article. Do you see something that isn't? This all started when MarvinDiode started deleting info from the lede using such excuses as "undue weight" (which I don't think applies with such small numbers) and then kept deleting and not engaging on talk page until any further reversion would trigger 3RR.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

A summary should state the basics: one side said Corrie died by accident, the other side said she was killed deliberately. That's the long and the short of it. I am asking that you resist the urge to use the lede as a platform to argue one side of the dispute over Corrie's death. The current version (The details of the events surrounding Corrie's death are disputed; an Israeli military investigation ruled the death was an accident, while ISM activists present at the scene have alleged Corrie was run over deliberately.) is simple, complete and appropriate. --Marvin Diode (talk) 21:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, if you were going to make unilateral changes to this lede, you should have gone through talk page. But it is hardly complete if one of the ISM people is speaking both ways on the issue. I'll work on new language that puts the witnesses you don't want heard in the lede into the same clause as the IDF report.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:10, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of the lede to summarize the controversy. There are in fact two basic points of view, both of which are adequately described in the current version. It is not necessary or appropriate to include a report on each individual eyewitness. That can be done in the body of the article. --Marvin Diode (talk) 21:32, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Not unreasonable. Then I suggest that we simply state that the ISM alleges that it was intentional. Of the three witnesses in the article, Richard says it was deliberate, Turndall doesn't say, and Smith says both that it was and that it was not. I hardly think the lede accurately summarizes the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Munger cantata

I wrote the following to User:IronDuke about his edit of the Artistic Tribute section:

Nice addition and rearrangement of the artistic tribute section. But where did you get "bordered on antisemitism"? I didn't see that anywhere in the article - only that the cantata was virulently anti-Israel.

Regards, --Ravpapa (talk) 17:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. You can see where I got it from the ref I put in: here. IronDuke 17:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Later: My mistake, I found the reference. --Ravpapa (talk) 17:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't see an RS describing the work as antisemitic, only "She's been used by some on the far right (anti-Semitic white power groups, for instance), and on the radical left" and one person being quoted that "“The Skies Are Weeping” is outrageous, harmful, bordering on anti-Semitic, and romanticizes terrorism".

The fact that the work of individuals has been picked up by the antisemitic is hardly very persuasive - the diary of Israel's 2nd Prime Minister has been widely used in that way - that doesn't make Moshe Sharet antisemitic and it would be pointlessly offensive to describe him in that way. PR^talk 18:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

It is the supposed community perspective; the RS would not be saying that it was antisemetic as a fact.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The article accurately quotes the sourcing. IronDuke 19:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The RS is not saying it, full stop. I thought you were both experienced editors - how do we come to have an article aimed at slurring a dead person? It's particularly bizarre for us to be doing this to someone many people around the world consider a hero. Well, that's unless this article is being treated as a POV plaything to spite her parents, of course. PR^talk 20:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the ref; I was just making a generalization. All I know is that the question was raised above and Ravpapa seemed satisfied. Why not bug Iron Duke about it? I made some edits about the cantata, but I haven't done much here since and apparently changes were made.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

"unless this article is being treated as a POV plaything to spite her parents, of course." Odd statement... who do you think is doing that? The RS quotes someone prominent in the dispute over the cantata, who does say it. And the part about antisemitism does not refer to RC at all, but rather, the cantata. Please read more carefully. IronDuke 20:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Stop soapboxing PR. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Rachel Corrie Link's Constantly Being Deleted

Some users try deleting the links to the 2 important links on Rachel Corrie's Page for the reason they are "unneeded" and "unbalanced"

first one is the Rachel Corrie's letters to her parents which are very important for the Rachel Corrie case and understanding her way of thought and life

second one is the Rachel Corrie Myths and Facts sheet which clearly adresses the answers of Rachel Corrie's parents against the claims of Israeli state with clear evidences

if you keep deleting these links it is most possibly some try to erase important facts from the wikipedia database —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kasaalan (talk • contribs) 10:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Could those deleting the links (Wehwalt and IronDuke) [6] please explain their rationale here? Thanks. Tiamut^talk 12:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

According to the fact sheet prepared by rachelswords.org with the help of Rachel's parents and "cleary referenced sources" the incident was not an accident:

"Myth: Rachel Corrie was accidentally killed by falling debris.

Fact: According to seven international eyewitnesses, though she was clearly visible, Rachel Corrie was run over by an Israeli military bulldozer.Seeking answers from Israel The 2005 US State Department human rights report on Israel and the Occupied Territories states that “on March 16, an Israeli bulldozer clearing land in Rafah in the Gaza Strip crushed and killed Rachel Corrie.”[Country Reports on Human Rights Practices- 2005, Israel and the Occupied Territories] Photos of the event show the tracks of the bulldozer tires running on either side, and in front and behind the spot where Rachel lay dying in her friends’ arms.A Tribute to Rachel Corrie"

"Myth: The bulldozer driver could not see Rachel.

Fact: Eyewitnesses testified that the bulldozer blade created a large mound of earth as it advanced, and that Rachel climbed atop that mound to a level high enough to make eye contact with the bulldozer driver.Israel: Failure to Probe Civilian Casualties Fuels Impunity Earlier that same afternoon, bulldozers had driven dangerously close to international activists on the scene but stopped before harming them. Affidavits from eyewitnesses to Rachel Corrie killing (Durie, Carr, Hewitt) This time, the driver continued forward, pulling Rachel under the blade."Rachel Corrie: Myths & Facts

• Rachel’s Letters
• Rachel Corrie: Myths and Facts "...to dispel some common myths that have often crept into media coverage regarding Rachel’s death ... with the cooperation of Rachel’s family, we have prepared this fact sheet along with clearly referenced sources"

so is this part unrelated or might be anyway against copyright the sites has full permission to distrube the content by Rachel Corrie's parents the case may not be great for wikipedia format may contain overlink tough I tried my best yet instead deleting my additions whith my fixed links if they had good will shouldn't they have edited it instead they simply deleting the view of Rachel Corrie's parents and Rachel Corrie's own letters and thoughts from the content Kasaalan (talk) 15:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I cannot see how those links could be considered reliable sources. Someone want to make that case? Also, the material is already dealt with in a much more even-handed, less tendentious POV-pushing way. There's really no need for it. Especially in controversial articles regarding facts in dispute, we must have good, reliable sources. IronDuke 00:29, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

there are three cases here

first of all no copyright violation is present as your explanation for deleting the sources and quotes the ones I added are public booklets and links by the permission of rachel corrie's parents

second the page title is rachel corrie and rachel corrie's electronic mails before she dies are important to understand her and her motives behind her acts how can anyone claim that one person's own recent writings before her death are not revelant to her biography page or even unreliable

third my quote from myths and facts public booklet it is not needed to be solid undisputable facts to be in this case because this is a disputable case there are 2 different views on the matter rachel corrie's family and friends' claims against israeli military power's claims if israeli defense forces and governments reports are creditable and worthy enough to be quoted [and I support even if they werent they should have been added because it is the official claim of one sides thoughts for the case] and mentioned the same goes for rachel corrie's family and supporters

I don't know did you even bothered to check the links or read rachel's mails before deleting them

yet we can argue each link I added

rachelswords.org has endorsement[support] of The Rachel Corrie Foundation for Peace and Justice, Olympia, WA Endorsements of RachelsWords Site

Rachel's emails Rachel’s Emails

"Rachel’s emails, sent home during her time in Rafah, Gaza Strip, and selected other writings are available to the public and public readings are encouraged. If your group is going to stage a reading, let us know and we will post that information on this site."

Rachel Corrie Foundation About the Foundation

"The Rachel Corrie Foundation for Peace and Justice was established by members of Rachel’s family and community to continue the kind of work that she began and hoped to accomplish."

the boston globe newspaper published the thoughts of rachel's mother cindy corrie on the case Seeking answers from Israel

miftah.org it contains the photograph's of the event in chronological manner with some written explanation under them A Tribute to Rachel Corrie

Human Rights Watch [International Organisation] wiki page with link to 126 page report

"documents how Israel has failed in its legal obligation to investigate civilian deaths and injuries that result from the use of lethal force in policing and law enforcement contexts, such as controlling demonstrations or enforcing curfews, and in combat situations when there is prima facie evidence or credible allegations that soldiers deliberately harmed civilians or failed to take all feasible precautions to protect them from harm.

The report examines in detail more than a dozen cases of civilian deaths and serious injury caused to Palestinians and foreigners by Israel Defense Forces in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, most of which clearly occurred in law enforcement rather than armed conflict situations."

“Promoting Impunity: The Israeli Military’s Failure to Investigate Wrongdoing”

Israel: Failure to Probe Civilian Casualties Fuels Impunity

electronic intifada Affidavits [affidavit is a written statement made under oath], Palestinian Center for Human Rights, 3 July 2003 Affidavits from eyewitnesses to Rachel Corrie killing (Durie, Carr, Hewitt)

if we mention rachel corrie's parents say rachel corrie's has been murdered but wont explain why with their own quotes or dont show the all photographs of her case or even delete rachel corrie's own writings from her biography page can we really say we can call ourselves as "much more even-handed, less tendentious and POV-pushing".

the sources has the links that contains detailed and valuable information and evidence on the event leading a better understanding of the case

can you consider explaining which ones are uncreditable and why before deleting them

here are our guides

A "reliable source" in the context of Rachel Corrie means:

articles in mainstream newspapers, books that are not self-published, scholarly papers, official reports, trial transcripts, congressional reports or transcripts, and similar;

no personal websites, blogs, or other self-published material unless the website or blog was Corrie's own, in which case it may be used with caution, so long as the material is notable, is not unduly self-aggrandizing, and is not contradicted by reliable third-party sources;

no highly biased political websites unless there is clearly some editorial oversight or fact-checking process.

Kasaalan (talk) 00:25, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey you two. I think that this source is alright in that it does cite its sources and can lead us to other secondary sources of less contention, if IronDuke or others insist it does not pass the bar of reliability on its own.

This source is perfectly fine to link as an external link, and also to use as a source in the article, since Kasaalan is right to point out that a person's own writings can be quoted in an article on them. These are Rachel Corrie's letters which she wrote while in Palestine. They are relevant to the article I think. Tiamut^talk 00:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Well... I don't see either source as being okay for WP:RS. I'm not saying they're lying, just that you'd need a better source for the quotes. NYTimes, BBC, even the Guardian <<shudder>>. I think what Kasaalan writes above shows they don't meet our standards. Also, do they add something we don't already know? IronDuke 05:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree with IronDuke, these are not RS, and are not qualified or needed for EL. They don't add anything the article doesn't already have. The article clearly sets out all points of view about Corrie's death. Advocacy articles, which even were they from RS would fall in the editorial/opinion exception, are not needed.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

first of all I already explained why the links are worthy enough one by one above

You first said copyright violation I already proofed no copyright violation exist

Second you say links not worthy enough I explained why they worthy enough and I will quote from wikipedia to explain why they meet standarts

so please explain

does Human Rights Watch's Human Rights Wath Wiki Page 126 page report is not worthy enough

"Human Rights Watch is a United States based, international non-governmental organization that conducts research and advocacy on human rights. Its headquarters are in New York City."

"Human Rights Watch is a founding member of the International Freedom of Expression Exchange, a global network of non-governmental organizations that monitor censorship worldwide."

"Human Rights Watch has more than 230 paid staff, and a budget of over US$30 million a year."

"Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International are the only two western orientated international human rights organizations operating worldwide in most situations of severe oppression or abuse. Though close allies, the two groups play complementary roles, reflecting a division of labour."

"I'm not saying they're lying, just that you'd need a better source for the quotes. NYTimes, BBC, even the Guardian <<shudder>>."

does The Boston Globe The Boston Globe Wiki Page really not meet wiki standarts

"The Boston Globe (and Boston Sunday Globe) is the most widely circulated daily newspaper in Boston and in New England, United States. Owned by The New York Times Company, the broadsheet Globe's local print rival is the Boston Herald. In 2008 the Globe's average weekday circulation fell to 350,605, down from 382,503, or 8.3 percent. Sunday circulation fell 6.5 percent to 525,959."

The Boston Globe is "the most widely circulated newspaper in Boston and in New England" already owned by NY Times Company maybe you didnt know

does full text of the written oath of the eyewitnesses taken by Palestinian Centre for Human Rights Wiki Page not reliable

"The Centre is an independent Palestinian human rights organization (registered as a non-profit Ltd. Company) based in Gaza City. The Centre enjoys Consultative Status with the ECOSOC of the United Nations. It is an affiliate of the International Commission of Jurists-Geneva, the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) – Paris, Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Network - Copenhagen, Arab Organization for Human Rights – Cairo, and International Legal Assistance Consortium (ILAC) Stockholm. It is a recipient of the 1996 French Republic Award on Human Rights and the 2002 Bruno Kreisky Award for Outstanding Achievements in the Area of Human Rights. The Centre was established in 1995 by a group of Palestinian lawyers and human rights activists."about page

"The article clearly sets out all points of view about Corrie's death" the article contains the points of view about Corrie's death true yet not including all evidence or all photographs taken that day or even Rachel's last letters to her family

furthermore this article is about rachel corrie it contains her death yet it is not limited to her death case it is about her including her ideological stance in life her acts her letters and photographs of her with the permission of her family

I have spent some hours to clearly point out my view one by one and instead just telling they are not worthy enough or adds nothing to the case can you at least try reading them or try giving the reasons of your objection for each one seperately try explaining where the links differ and alike with wiki article and why the links which contains further info is not necessary

my questions yet waiting for an answer you didnt answer any of them

howcome one person's own letters before her death is not worthy enough to be mentioned in her own biography page

Kasaalan (talk) 18:04, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Kasaalan, I would strongly recommend that you familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies before wading into a controversial article like this one. What you are trying to insert comes from sources that are flagrantly unreliable (eg ifamericansknew). Yes, you have something from the Boston Globe -- an editorial from Rachel's mother. That's really not what this article is about -- emotional appeals from either side. The "Myth" "Fact" stuff is just glaring WP:POV-pushing. Also, See [7]. The issue is dealt with pretty soberly there, and everyone gets to have their say about what they think happened, and why. Finally, if there is any way you can write more clearly, it would be appreciated. I'd like to be able to reply to all you have to say, but your posts are difficult to understand. IronDuke 19:02, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Concur with IronDuke. In addition, much of the "Myths" page seems to be based on "well, the IDF said this, but as seven members of the ISM said something else, it has GOT to be a lie." Can't use it, sorry.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I have written a long answer to you yet my browser crashed and here is a short answer

1- first of all I dont guess you have read all of my statements above at all can you simply first answer if you have read all of the text above or checked all links I provided I say this because you even objected the editorial of Cindy Corrie on The Boston Globe for only links from The NY Times and such should be accepted yet The Boston Globe is best selling newspaper in its area and owned by NY Times as I stated above and the link to the editorial is already given as a reference in the Rachel Corrie wikipedia article just as you both objected letters of Rachel Corrie is not relevant to the biography article of Rachel Corrie or has copyright violation though I prooved they are in public domain and already in the given refence list

2- second my above statements proove the worthiness of the links included in the myths and facts sheet with even the wikipedia links

3- what you try to do is taking a single link and saying it is not worthy like ifamericansknew it is credible enough as it openly adresses the sources of its statistics in its main page yet it is not related to the issue much because i used the link because it has rachel corrie letters in pdf format not because other statements in the site

4- though if the site The Case Against Rachel Corrie and RachelCorrieFacts.org Seattle based website critical of Corrie and the ISM by israelnationalnews and another israeli point of view site is worthy enough to be mentioned in external references ifamericansknew site also worthy enough to be mentioned for answering israelnationalnews and rachelcorriefacts sites' misleading facts and claims In my opinion all 3 sites needed to be mention in the article regardless of the info in them simply because 2 sides has the official claims of the either sides not just another 3rd party trying to POV-push or anything

5- did you even read all of the myths and facts sheet before deleting it a simple question please answer because it reflects the point of view of rachel corrie yes but an answer to the claims of idf and 2 sites above and for a disputable case like this there should be mentioned 2 side of views so is it alright for you if 2 sites above clearly say rachel corrie aiding terror or her parents simply lie and when I put links answering this claims it is POV-pushing view

6- also mtyhs and facts sheet has very important links relevant to the case did you read them or tried to check their integrity before deleting them

7- you try to answer just as neither of the links is not worthy enough to be mentioned yet I put them all above and if they are not worthy enough try numbering them and giving the reasons for why they are not worthy enough otherwise what you do is just being not independent

8- you say ifamericansknew not worthy enough yet do not mention the creditibility issue of Human Rights Watch or the written oaths of the eyewitnesses with full text when you deleted my quotes you also deleted them so we have to settle first what links are qualified enough in the article so we can at least progress a bit take your time and check the links organisations reports and provide the reasons if you will delete them again otherwise you are deleting crucial info to the case without even providing rational reasons or taking one side which both are clearly dangerous

so you have all links and evidence above and instead just deleting provide some solid info before deleting them if we dont settle about the links there will be no progress

my short answer is not so short yet it is because you didnt provide any good reason for particular links try doing that Kasaalan (talk) 13:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Kasaalan, I did read what you wrote, rest assured. I will say I didn't understand it all, as your prose is hard to decipher, but you should follow the links I gave you, and really make a good faith effort to understand our policies. I know it's very confusing, and a lot to digest, but until you really get it, your edits are likely to be reverted. IronDuke 01:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I also have read what was written and I read the articles. I agree with IronDuke, it isn't about the point of view of the article, it is whether it meets Wikipedia policies. It isn't "solid info", I'm afraid, it is argument and editorials. I understand that you feel strongly about this, but it is about WP's policies. I'm very hopeful that you will make constructive edits to the article. I asked for a peer review a while back, I don't think this will ever be stable enough for FA, but it could be a GA, and to get it there, we are going to need solid editors with varying views.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

you still didnt answer link by link as I requested multiple times I put all my links above and you should answer in a format such as this link is good enough and this link is not because ... but you just say "policies" and I already read the policies and I assure you some links totally qualified for the wikipedia guidelines such as Human Rights Watch Report or Eyewitnesses written oaths yet you simply keeping away from evaulating links one by one and giving a different reason for each of them instead you say policies policies policies but you dont refer which policy they are against policies cleary point out a report or eyewitness accounts are fully acceptable that is the reason I put all my links with info provided to proove they are qualified take you time explaining which link is against policies and which link is alright

What I meant from solid info was for example the photographs taken at that day which we can call objective and independent and wont lie or written statements of eyewitnesses or emails of rachel corrie

Also you insistently keep away from answering my numbered questions above you deny my addition of links because they doesnt meet the standarts but you still dont give your opinion on sites like rachelcorriefacts who blatantly accuse rachel as a terror advocate so if we only evaulate your judgement for one side how can we claim or indepence for the case I still expect one by one answer to my numbered statements above

try beginning with Human Rights Watch Report and Affidavits Statements because they meet the standarts a hundred percent I am asking again if these two links meet the standarts or not for your point of view because if we cannot even settle on this we can never settle or progress a bit

if you wont give me reason per each link I cannot answer you Kasaalan (talk) 12:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Well ... WP:RS. The Human Rights Watch report has been discussed before on this talk page, though it may have been archived by now. The Cindy Corrie piece is an editorial, and pursuant to WP:RS, "News reporting is distinct from opinion pieces. Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact, and should be attributed in-text." Accordingly, we could mention that Rachel's mom feels that the Israeli's did no good by her daughter, but that's kinda already in the article. The other piece does not qualify as a RS, it is evaluating facts rather than reporting them, and that the organization that published it believes Rachel was murdered is not noteworthy. If we didn't have eyewitness statements in the article, you'd have a bit more of an argument, but we quote three apparent eyewitnesses at considerable length. I paraphrase IronDuke: What isn't in the article that you propose to add? In terms of facts, that is.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Please don't make major edits to your posts [8] once they have been responded to. It makes life hard for the reader following the discussion. Could I respectfully ask you to restate your questions and which sites you are asking for opinions on? It is possible we are arguing at cross purposes.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be helpful for Wehwalt to explain why Human Rights Watch is not a reliable source for the purposes of this article? I would, but I don't understand that position myself. Tiamut^talk 13:57, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

wiki guidelines

A "reliable source" in the context of Rachel Corrie means:

articles in mainstream newspapers, books that are not self-published, scholarly papers, official reports, trial transcripts, congressional reports or transcripts, and similar;

no personal websites, blogs, or other self-published material unless the website or blog was Corrie's own, in which case it may be used with caution, so long as the material is notable, is not unduly self-aggrandizing, and is not contradicted by reliable third-party sources;

no highly biased political websites unless there is clearly some editorial oversight or fact-checking process.

you didnt respond at all to any of my questions to the current time that is our biggest issue here

1- Israel: Failure to Probe Civilian Casualties Fuels Impunity and “Promoting Impunity: The Israeli Military’s Failure to Investigate Wrongdoing” the 126 page report about rachel corrie and israeli untransparent investigations

Human Rights Watch [International Organisation] wiki page

"documents how Israel has failed in its legal obligation to investigate civilian deaths and injuries that result from the use of lethal force in policing and law enforcement contexts, such as controlling demonstrations or enforcing curfews, and in combat situations when there is prima facie evidence or credible allegations that soldiers deliberately harmed civilians or failed to take all feasible precautions to protect them from harm.

The report examines in detail more than a dozen cases of civilian deaths and serious injury caused to Palestinians and foreigners by Israel Defense Forces in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, most of which clearly occurred in law enforcement rather than armed conflict situations."

these two links are solid reports that need to be added to the page provide me good reason for deleting the links

2- Affidavits from eyewitnesses to Rachel Corrie killing (Durie, Carr, Hewitt) electronic intifada Affidavits [affidavit is a written statement made under oath] taken by Palestinian Center for Human Rights Palestinian Centre for Human Rights Wiki Page, 3 July 2003

"The Centre is an independent Palestinian human rights organization (registered as a non-profit Ltd. Company) based in Gaza City. The Centre enjoys Consultative Status with the ECOSOC of the United Nations. It is an affiliate of the International Commission of Jurists-Geneva, the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) – Paris, Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Network - Copenhagen, Arab Organization for Human Rights – Cairo, and International Legal Assistance Consortium (ILAC) Stockholm. It is a recipient of the 1996 French Republic Award on Human Rights and the 2002 Bruno Kreisky Award for Outstanding Achievements in the Area of Human Rights. The Centre was established in 1995 by a group of Palestinian lawyers and human rights activists."about page

not just some parts or quotes the full text of written statements of the eyewitnesses try providing a good reason to not add the full statements' link to the article

3- Rachel Corrie: Myths and Facts "...to dispel some common myths that have often crept into media coverage regarding Rachel’s death ... with the cooperation of Rachel’s family, we have prepared this fact sheet along with clearly referenced sources" the official answers from rachel's parents against sites like The Case Against Rachel Corrie and RachelCorrieFacts.org Seattle based website critical of Corrie and the ISM which even blatantly claiming rachel was advocating terror like the rest of the israeli point of view sites referenced in the wiki biography page

official strict clear and sourced answers from rachels parents to the harsh claims by israeli sources as the bold claims and questions of israeli sources already exist in the article how cannot we put the answers given by rachel's family to the article

especially these two links contains really harsh misleading and unsourced claims with links on rachel's case even beyond the POV-pushing way I am not against if these 2 links will stay yet I do have to say if these 2 links stay while you delete the answers of rachel's family from the first hand as in myths and facts sheet wikipedia article will lost its indepence and transparency to the case because it is a clear cencorship

4- ifamericansknew.org sourced statistics like Israeli and Palestinian Children Killed, Israelis and Palestinians Killed, Israelis and Palestinians Injured, Demolitions of Israeli and Palestinian Homes, Current Illegal Settlements on the Other’s Land ... against statistics like Number of Israelis Killed in Terror Attacks Number of Suicide Terror Attacks of sites such as [9]

5- Rachel’s Emails rachels emails in public domain

"Rachel’s emails, sent home during her time in Rafah, Gaza Strip, and selected other writings are available to the public and public readings are encouraged."

6- Seeking answers from Israel this link was already given in the references yet needs to be updated with this new link of the page

7- miftah.org it contains the photograph's of the event in chronological manner with some written explanation under them A Tribute to Rachel Corrie very important photographed source

8- Rachel’s Letters this letters also given as an html link in the article yet as this is in a preferable pdf format can we add this near the original reference as a mirror

explain with numbers which links you object and which ones you accept seperately

Kasaalan (talk) 18:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Accept for what purpose? As a potential reliable source to back up information in the article? Or are we talking potential EL's? Those are two different standards.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

what el means electronic link or else —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kasaalan (talk • contribs) 19:03, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

External Link. By the way, I can't get miftah to load, it crashed my browser.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

you can answer like number 1 good enough to be only external reference because ... number 2 good enough to be sourced some of the link needs to be source some may just be external links and miftah.org is opening with no issue in internet explorer if it doesnt work for you you can try firefox or maybe printer friendly page works better for you printer friendly page Kasaalan (talk) 19:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I can give definitive answers without seeing proposed edits. However, in an effort to help you out as a new editor, I'll do what I can, at least if it is not too much work. I don't know how long it will take. The thing is, I'm kinda doing your work for you, it is really your job as proponent of this material to justify it. But since you are new at this, you aren't likely to come up with all the policies and whatnot.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)I can't. I am sorry, I tried with number 1, and without knowing for what purpose you intend it, I can't intelligently answer you. Too much depends on context. It has gotta come from you initially as proponent.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. To answer your questions Kasaalan,

• Israel: Failure to Probe Civilian Casualties Fuels Impunity and “Promoting Impunity: The Israeli Military’s Failure to Investigate Wrongdoing” the 126 page report about rachel corrie and israeli untransparent investigations

By my understanding of WP:RS, these two reports constitute reliable sources and the material contained within them can be used in this article. We need to balance our use of this source and the viewpoints its expresses against other source, per WP:NPOV, which means "neutral point of view". NPOV means presenting all significant viewpoints on an issue as presented in reliable sources.

• Affidavits from eyewitnesses to Rachel Corrie killing (Durie, Carr, Hewitt) electronic intifada Affidavits [affidavit is a written statement made under oath] taken by Palestinian Center for Human Rights Palestinian Centre for Human Rights Wiki Page, 3 July 2003

Some editors here will not accept Electronic Intifada as a source for anything. Others will allow its use in specific circumstances. If you feel that the affidavits reported at EI are worth including here and cannot get agreement from other editors, you can ask for an outside opinion at the Reliable Soruces Noticeboard.

• Rachel Corrie: Myths and Facts "...to dispel some common myths that have often crept into media coverage regarding Rachel’s death ... with the cooperation of Rachel’s family, we have prepared this fact sheet along with clearly referenced sources" the official answers from rachel's parents against sites like The Case Against Rachel Corrie and RachelCorrieFacts.org Seattle based website critical of Corrie and the ISM which even blatantly claiming rachel was advocating terror like the rest of the israeli point of view sites referenced in the wiki biography page

Please note that www.rachelswords.org is already linked in the External Links section, though not to the Myths and Facts page you would like to see it linked to. I think you are right to say that if we include sites like "The Case Against Rachel Corrie" and rachelcorriefacts.org, we should also be able to include those of the opposite viewpoint. Do note however, that the main site is already linked.

• ifamericansknew.org sourced statistics like Israeli and Palestinian Children Killed, Israelis and Palestinians Killed, Israelis and Palestinians Injured, Demolitions of Israeli and Palestinian Homes, Current Illegal Settlements on the Other’s Land ... against statistics like Number of Israelis Killed in Terror Attacks Number of Suicide Terror Attacks of sites such as [10]

I don't see the problem with linking to If Americans Knew, especially when we do currently link to rachelcorriefacts.org. Both are advocacy group sites expressing opposite POVs. It would be good to include both, in my opinion.

• Rachel’s Emails rachels emails in public domain

The emails are already linked to in the in-line citations in the article. I also added a link to the Guardian which excerpts her earlier diaries too. I think that should be enough.

• http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/03/18/seeking_answers_from_israel/ Seeking answers from Israel] this link was already given in the references yet needs to be updated with this new link of the page

I also do not see a problem with linking to the editorial by Rachel's mother in the external links section. It is relevant and is published in an RS. But I understand that Wehwalt would like to reduce the number of external liks here, rather than expand them. Perhaps more discussion about who should be included would be a good thing.

• miftah.org it contains the photograph's of the event in chronological manner with some written explanation under them A Tribute to Rachel Corrie very important photographed source

I also think including an external link to the photo sequence would be good. Perhaps it would be better included in the article, alongside a discussion of the photos.

• Rachel’s Letters this letters also given as an html link in the article yet as this is in a preferable pdf format can we add this near the original reference as a mirror

We do not need to link to the set of letters, per my comment above them already being linked elsewhere.

I hope that answers your questions. Perhaps Wehwalt and IronDuke would like to take a look at the point-by-point breakdown and explain their positions as well. Tiamut^talk 13:57, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the thought. Your response, while good generally, obviously cannot get into the specific situations in which the articles might be used, thus my reluctance to get into a point by point. I'm not sure you noticed, but we do already cite to the HRW report in the reactions section, therefore that's kinda moot, though I would consider it only useful for stating HRW's reaction to Corrie's death and the aftermath. I'm a bit concerned by the photo site. There was considerable coverage as to photographs being incorrectly labelled as happening just before Corrie's death; accordingly I'd want discussion and review before including that site. That applies whether it is in article or as an EL. Speaking of EL, I would want to limit the total number to ten, with varying points of view, with at least three representing "pro Corrie" and "anti Corrie" viewpoints, so to speak. Most of the others have been dealt with by IronDuke or myself previously, and are probably not acceptable either as an EL or a RS.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

From WP:EL "On articles with multiple points of view, the number of links dedicated to one point of view should not overwhelm the number dedicated to other equal points of view, nor give undue weight to minority views. Add comments to these links informing the reader of their point of view. If one point of view dominates informed opinion, that should be represented first. For more information, see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view—in particular, Wikipedia's guidelines on undue weight." Not quite sure we're doing that right now. We need to be.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

here we are making some progress so thank all

1- human rights watch wiki page report linked as 25 in reference section is not working Page Not Found true link is section 8 updated link yet I want to add page 9 because it has a seperate section for rachel corrie and the transparency of the investigation I will try to check it completely later and try to extract some additional information from this report

2- for affidavits electronic intifada is not actually the source because they quote it from Palestinian Centre for Human Rights Wiki Page also it is the only source I could find on internet by searching google that publishes the full statements of the eyewitnesses so this page uniquely contains the full text of crucial info quoted at rachel corrie article therefore we cannot be so elective for the other content of electronic intifada which belongs to another discussion

that is why I insist on these two links should be added

3- the main page of the site is already given yet this Rachel Corrie: Myths and Facts Sheet "...to dispel some common myths that have often crept into media coverage regarding Rachel’s death ... with the cooperation of Rachel’s family, we have prepared this fact sheet along with clearly referenced sources" is a detailed summary of the main objections and answers of rachels family to the claims quoted in the main page so it has to be pointed out more clearly as an official answer to idf reports and israeli media claims of rachel's family alongside ism

4- at Rachel’s Emails page there is updated and very important info like her Fifth Grade speech which werent published at guardian and I also claim very decisive about her later actions and might be very helpful understanding her childhood and the way she thinks

I’m here for other children.

I’m here because I care.

I’m here because children everywhere are suffering and because forty thousand people die each day from hunger.

I’m here because those people are mostly children.

We have got to understand that the poor are all around us and we are ignoring them.

We have got to understand that these deaths are preventable.

We have got to understand that people in third world countries think and care and smile and cry just like us.

We have got to understand that they dream our dreams and we dream theirs.

We have got to understand that they are us. We are them.

My dream is to stop hunger by the year 2000.

My dream is to give the poor a chance.

My dream is to save the 40,000 people who die each day.

My dream can and will come true if we all look into the future and see the light that shines there.

If we ignore hunger, that light will go out.

If we all help and work together, it will grow and burn free with the potential of tomorrow.

– Rachel Corrie, aged ten, recorded at her school’s Fifth Grade Press Conference on World Hunger

I also found some interviews and even the video of this speech but I dont want to add these youtube links without checking the copyright issues

also press resources the photographs of rachel for press presentation of the a memorial book of rachel

"Book publisher W.W. Norton & Company will be publishing the complete journals of Rachel Corrie with an introduction and annotations by the Corrie family in March 2008."

6- the boston globe link at references 21 and 25 are duplicate they should be merged why I stated that link because one link wasnt working at main page before but cannot find which one now the links 11 and 12 at references section are also duplicate

7- about the A Tribute to Rachel Corrie page some may consider them discussable yet even to be discussed they yet to be present to the public my only consideration on the photos are copyright issues which I will try to check later also the photographs document her other actions in the area and the protests of her death there is critism on the photographs as they were taken before the incident yet it is clearly pointed out in wiki page also the photo chronology is not just about the incident but the whole journey of rachel in the area

and about the weight of the links and the info contained we can count and calculate them later with some good statistics therefore may balance the article better if this is your concern but we should also balance the tone of the links because some links has gone too far beyond the POV-pushing way and the only way to correct this is publishing her parents official objections

Kasaalan (talk) 18:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

If you see duplicate links in the article, go ahead and fix them.

Kasaalan, you're new here, it seems, but it would really help if you used capital letters and punctuation. Unless your real name is archy, that is! It would make it easier to reply to you, and we'd make better progress. Also, proposing ten links at once is greatly slowing things down and making it likely things will slip through the cracks. It also increases the chance of edit conflicts.

I will attempt to go through and reply to all, but if I miss something, please don't hold it against me.

1. Certainly, go ahead and update the link. However, if we use the report (and we can't break it down by page like that), then WP:EL says we shouldn't use it as an EL.

link for page 8 need to be updated link 9 the special section dedicated to rachel and some other activists should be added

2. EI gets it from Wikipedia? It may seem odd, but Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Also keep in mind that in many cases, WP seems to be quoting from a source, when it is actually the other way around, especially when there are few or no refs. So right now we can't use that because it is not properly sourced.

if you read my previous comments I have already written for the credibility of the organisation requoting full text of eyewitnesses is important cannot understand your statement well on this matter

"The Centre is an independent Palestinian human rights organization (registered as a non-profit Ltd. Company) based in Gaza City. The Centre enjoys Consultative Status with the ECOSOC of the United Nations. It is an affiliate of the International Commission of Jurists-Geneva, the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) – Paris, Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Network - Copenhagen, Arab Organization for Human Rights – Cairo, and International Legal Assistance Consortium (ILAC) Stockholm. It is a recipient of the 1996 French Republic Award on Human Rights and the 2002 Bruno Kreisky Award for Outstanding Achievements in the Area of Human Rights. The Centre was established in 1995 by a group of Palestinian lawyers and human rights activists."about page

3. We're not looking for the best arguments. Probably there are better arguments than those made by the IDF. We need to stick to giving the arguments of the parties involved, and these principally are the ISM and the IDF. Your inclusion of this seems rather pointy.

idf at one side ism and rachel corrie's parents are 2 different sides as first party involved you cannot leave out her parents or call them as a third party

4. Are you seriously proposing to include her fifth grade speech in the article? I hope you just mean as an EL. I have no objection to one or two ELs going to Corrie's poems or emails, but not more than that. We have some already. Propose which ones you want and let's talk about it.

link has her previous letters published my new link should also be added as it is an updated source also her fifth grade speech is a good indication of her political views at age 10 should not be quoted as a whole but may be added as a summary sentence and should be referenced

5. There is no 5.

number 4 is number 5 actually my mistake Rachel’s Emails read above

6. See above.

number 6 is Seeking answers from Israel read above

7. The photograph page looks like trouble. They do not say when the photographs were taken and we are right back to the Reuters scandal, when the photo of Corrie in front of the bulldozer was represented as happening right before she died. No good, I'm afraid. I'd have no problem with a page with the photographs alone and the date and time of each, but not as presented.

photographs during her protest discussable true the photographs after or before this incident are just showing other activities during her visit to the area and the protests after her death with some photographs taken at hospital

actually idf report also discussable much what I try to do right now is to pinpoint what exact bulldozer serie of d9 that idf uses because there are different models like d9r d9l or d9n from there we can calculate the field of view of the operator the photograph at the main wiki page seems a bit misleading we should identify the true one from here Caterpillar D9 Wiki Commons Page and give exact serie of the bulldozer by the photographs taken at the area

according to the photos taken [11] it is a d9r [12] [13] most possibly —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kasaalan (talk • contribs) 19:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

8. I'm not quite clear what you are driving at. I think what you are saying is add all the links first and then argue about whether to remove one or more, especially the ones you consider extreme. I think we need to do it as part of a single process.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

arguing is important we are progressing right now instead undoing each others edits we should have settle for contributing to the page and that is what we are doing right now because before I asked the reason for deletions I couldnt get proper ones yet you are giving one by one opinions about the links different point of views are better than just one that is why I ask everyone's opinion before the addition of the links the main pages has lots of additions and deletions recently it is better to keep discussions here because I lost the track of edits done recently Kasaalan (talk) 19:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Of course you could get reasons. You started out, I remind you, by ADDING with no reasons given. Your response on being reverted by three different editors was to go over to the Palestine Project page and ask for help there, rather than to post here. You and Tiamut then posted here on the 4th and IronDuke replied the next day, and I replied the day after that. I am not always sitting before a computer, you know. I was in Jordan and the U.A.E. on the 4th and 5th and it had to wait (I can do very simple editing from my blackberry, but that is about it) until I found an internet cafe at the Carrefour in Deira. Incidently, if you are losing track of edits, imagine what we are. You are adding kilobytes of unformatted, unpunctuated, uncapitalized words with each edit. It is very difficult to go through. As the ISM and the Corrie parents do not have views that differ appreciably, I don't see the need to go through their joint position twice (maybe we should do three times, including once for each parent?) I don't see any reason from what you've written to reconsider anything I wrote about the various resources you propose to use, so suppose we see what others think?--Wehwalt (talk) 19:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

did not lost track of my edits I meant other edits done to the main page recently and for preventing the same situation and complicating main page even further I tried to discuss the issue here. it is clear I asked help from palestinian project page after the issues no wrongdoing in doing that they could also state you were right but most possibly with a clear reason. also you have to understand providing info takes much more time than deleting it or checking it. formatting it also takes much more time addition to the research I made with sources. It took immense time of mine already. The more views the better. As a question again do you object the link 2 because I didnt quite understand your objection there were you referring eyewitnesses statements at electronic intifada or else. I used wiki page links as a helper not as a solid proof and supported the organisations own pages reffering the funders and supporters.Kasaalan (talk) 19:44, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

We can't use the organization's own page per WP:SELFPUB. So I guess I object. I don't see the need for it anyway, we have three witness statements as it stands.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

a possible reason is the quotes from the wikipedia page is noted as citation needed and this is the only source on internet that contains the full text. Even in the page eyewitness Joseph Carr referenced as Joe. And I repeat again it contains Durie, Carr, Hewitt's full written oaths taken by a lawyer and quoted from Palestinian Center for Human Rights dated 3 July 2003 which you claim self published. Yet all organisations self publish their reports even IDF self publishes its reports. Self publishing referenced at wiki policies most possibly refers to self published works of individuals. Also being quoted 3 times without a source doesnt mean we shouldnt provide a source for them as a reference. Unless you provide a better source for the statements of eyewitnesses this is the best and only source for eyewitnesses statements. And maybe there are more quotes need to be added or should be checked or different parts should be quoted. Kasaalan (talk) 21:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

There's a difference between notable self-publishers and not. One way to double check is to see if others repeat the self-published remarks. In this case, it would appear not. IronDuke 21:49, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

found rest of the eyewitnesses statements Affidavits from eyewitnesses to the murder of Rachel Corrie by Schnabel, Dale, Purssell, Palestinian Centre for Human Rights July 3rd, 2003. So basically are you suggesting leaving the quotes with marked as citation needed without providing the link is better than giving the only source we have to the full text of this very important eyewitnesses' statements because you assume Palestinian Human Rights Organization might not be a notable self publisher. Also I provided its memberships in the international area and awards which actually what makes an organization credible. It may or may not yet I have hard time understanding how you reject the written statements of eyewitnesses given under oath and taken by Raji Sourani who is a lawyer working at the organisation. This is the first hand information to the case with a clear format, the source of the uncited quotes in the article and also very helpful for cross reference purposes.

"I the undersigned, Nicholas James Porter Durie gave this statement concerning the death of Rachel Corrie under oath. Nicholas James Porter Durie

This statement was given before me, Lawyer Raji Sourani in my office in the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights, and in my presence on the 19th of March 2003, by Nicholas James Porter Durie. After I had given him legal warning to tell the truth, he signed his statement in the full capacity of his free and independent will. Raji Sourani"

this quote should proof that they are notable in the international area to be mentioned in a wiki article. Because what makes and organisation credible is its membership, acceptance and the awards given in the international area.

"The Centre is an independent Palestinian human rights organization (registered as a non-profit Ltd. Company) based in Gaza City. The Centre enjoys Consultative Status with the ECOSOC UN Economic and Social Council of the United Nations. It is an affiliate of the International Commission of Jurists-Geneva, the International Federation for Human Rights FIDH 155 human organisations throughout the world – Paris, Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Network - Copenhagen, Arab Organization for Human Rights – Cairo, and International Legal Assistance Consortium (ILAC)members Stockholm. It is a recipient of the 1996 French Republic Award given by president of French Republic on Human Rights and the 2002 Bruno Kreisky Award jury for Outstanding Achievements in the Area of Human Rights. The Centre was established in 1995 by a group of Palestinian lawyers and human rights activists." about page Kasaalan (talk) 00:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

All those qualifications and ten shekels will buy you a cup of coffee at Starbucks Ramallah, I'm afraid! The thing is, it is still not a reliable source. And no, I don't agree that better an unreliable source than no source, Jimbo Wales has said something along the lines of better not to have info in an article than to have it unverifiable, and a nonRS is unverifiable. Strikes me it is a low value link anyway, that editors, having read the lengthy statements in the articles from the three "witnesses" (I have my doubts about Richard) will not be thirsting to read a bunch of affidavits. Find a better source, please.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I dont live Palestine, I dont use shekels, I dont drink coffee therefore I dont know the price. Yet I dont know if you could buy anything with your double standarts or would be more outrageous if israeli government would hire you for a cup of coffee for objecting main references. The organisation even got peace award by President of the French Republic and taken Bruno Kreisky award, has consultative status at Economic and Social Counsil of United Nations and member of many international human rights organisations as stated above. All you could say is blatant jokes. Provide any good reason for it is a non reliable source if you have any proof on the matter. All the eyewitnesses statements taken by this organisation in presence of a lawyer under written oath anyway. How can you say organisation is not credible if anyway the eyewitnesses stamements are the main first hand and direct source to the case. The written statements taken by the PCHR in the first place within 2 months time after the incident so any source but PCHR's report would be second hand source anyway. It is obvious we need some administrators' help on this matter because keeping a main reference like this from being added to the page is a clear cencorship. You cannot object eyewitnesses written statements under oath taken by a lawyer under oath without good solid objection. You say editors not thirsty reading all of the written statements, I dont say anyone should put all of the text here, but we should provide the text to the full statements so anyone interested could read it through the link. If IDF would have been published the full report I would say the same thing about its report because IDF and PCHR written statements are first hand ISM and HRW reports first or second hand references to the case therefore 4 main sources for the case.

this link is reference 46 also not working. Kasaalan (talk) 12:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not following Wehwalt's argument here. How is the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights, an internationally affiliated legal organization which took affidavits for witnesses to Corrie's death, not a reliable source exactly? Is it because they are Palestinian? Tiamut^talk 12:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)No, I'd probably say the same for an Israeli nonprofit, or for one from Nauru. Please check out the policies, top of the page. As for my "ten shekels" remark, it is a variation on "that and a dime will buy you a cup of coffee", and old saying meaning what you are saying hasn't proven the point. For another example of my using it, please see here (down near the bottom, I don't have time to go looking for diffs right now).--Wehwalt (talk) 12:49, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, but they are an internationally accredited legal organization. If they take affidavits, they are bound to faithfully represent what the witnesses to the event said. It's not a regular advocacy group or non-profit. Tiamut^talk 22:33, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Your statement doesnt make any sense according to the terms of wiki policies. The credibility of an organisation is of course not dependent on its location but it is still dependent on its acceptability in international area, reports it published, number of its qualified members and supporters it has with awards the organisation receipt in the international area which I already proved above. PCHR is credible enough as an organisation. But you even take a further step on your claims as you would say the same for any non profit organisation and object their report being added for a reference in a wiki article. Therefore you should first prove whether it is forbidden to publish reports by non profit human rights organisations in wikipedia or not. Stating your objection on PCHR might not be credible to the article for this case as a warning is one thing but not letting a credible Human Rights Organisation's publishing of written statements of eyewitnesses under oath for being referenced is another thing.

For example in PCHR's wiki page an Israeli NGO Monitor "non-governmental organization based in Jerusalem" clearly referenced against PCHR just as publiceye.org in NGO Monitor Wiki Page against ngo-monitor's actions. For claiming a direct statement given by eyewitnesses and published by a credible organisation you have to prove your case first. The written statements are given under oath by eyewitnesses are not a report researched by the PCHR it is just taken and published by them and you didnt provide any proof that the info in the link differs from eyewitnesses "actual" statements. Kasaalan (talk) 15:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Cordesmann book

Tiamut has replaced an online magazine, as she puts it, with a more reliable, as he puts it, book by one Anthony Cordesmann, sourced to page 72 of said book. That page is available here (that's for firefox, it may work a little differently for IE). A glance at the front and back covers of that book show the CSIS (Center for Strategic and International Studies) logo. A look at this site shows that Cordesmann works for CSIS, and it all seems intertwined with Greenwood Press and Praeger Security. This is clearly a self published book, and in combination with the opinions and lack of sourcing in the book (just below the mechanical apparatus comment, he says there was no credible investigation. That is not sourced), it is clearly under WP:SELFPUB and has serious WP:V problems. We should not use it for any purpose whatsoever.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I didnt check the info in the book yet I am not sure if this is what adressed at the self publishing criteria of wiki. Self publishing adressed there most possibly referred to works of individuals. He is in advisory board of CSIS, this book has CSIS logo and published by Greenwood Publishing Group which also owns PSI Praeger Security International. Sounds at least serious. Why do you even object this source.

"The Greenwood Publishing Group is one of the world's leading publishers of reference titles, academic and general interest books, texts, books for librarians and other professionals, and electronic resources. With over 18,000 titles in print, GPG publishes some 1,000 books each year, many of which are recognized with annual awards from Choice, Library Journal, the American Library Association, and other scholarly and professional organizations. Greenwood was founded as an academic and educational publisher in 1967, and over the years the success of our publishing efforts has been reflected in many distinct imprints (including Quorum, Bergin & Garvey, Auburn House, Ablex, and Oryx). In light of this extraordinary growth, we recently decided that we could serve our authors and readers better by combining the editorial and marketing activities of these imprints into two major book publishing programs, Greenwood Press for reference, Praeger Publishers for academic and general-interest nonfiction. The Greenwood Publishing Group also comprises Heinemann USA and Libraries Unlimited. Greenwood Press provides high-quality, authoritative reference books in all subject areas taught in middle schools, high schools, and colleges, as well as on topics of general interest. Our many award-winning titles in the social sciences and humanities range from in-depth multi-volume encyclopedias to more concise handbooks, guides, and even biographies. Praeger Publishers has a distinguished history since 1949 of producing scholarly and professional books in the social sciences and humanities, with special strengths in modern history, military studies, psychology, business, current events and social issues, international affairs, politics, visual and performing arts, and literature. These books serve the needs of scholars and general readers alike by providing the best of contemporary scholarship to the widest possible audience. Greenwood Publishing Group is part of the Houghton Mifflin Harcourt family of companies." about Kasaalan (talk) 18:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Say, by the way, Tiamut, it's interesting to learn, just there, that Corrie's parents stayed with Arafat. I notice you added a whole section on the Corries' visit to the region. Might be a good idea to make sure the reader knows about this! I'm sure there are other sources you can use ...--Wehwalt (talk) 17:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

If they have stayed as Arafat's guests, it should be referred in the article, why dont you do it since you know where. Notable enough to be mention if clearly adressed in a book since we know no claim objecting for this fact and even if we had any we should have adressed both claims to be neutral, so we dont need any exclamation to do it. Kasaalan (talk) 18:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Another quote for killing discussion we have had page 72 from the same book.

"While Isreal initially alleged that Corrie was killed by falling debris, the Israeli National Center of Forensic Medicine performed an autopsy and found that her "death was caused by pressure on the chest from a mechanical apparatus". ²⁶ " Kasaalan (talk) 18:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

No need to soften out the article according to the IDF in Wikipedia. Is there a hidden ban for the kill word that I am not aware of? Tiamut we dont need to push that far to be neutral.

"Israel initially alleged the cause of death was due to "falling debris."[19] An autopsy conducted four days after her death at the National Center of Forensic Medicine in Tel Aviv concluded that Corrie's death was caused by pressure on the chest from a mechanical apparatus.[19] [20]" Kasaalan (talk) 18:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, Tiamut, you replaced the existing source with this, it is reasonable that it be tested. As for Arafat, I imagined you were trying to write a comprehensive and neutral article, with all facts of interest to the reader. And bunking with Arafat is at least as interesting as the chain smoking bit. Regarding the book:

1. The organization he belongs to published it with a publisher that is, at the least, affiliated with it. 2. SELFPUB applies to organizations as well as individuals. 3. It is the sole source for this quote. Note the part in WP:SELFPUB where it talks about if a fact is truly significant, it would be included in another, more reliable source. 4. Corrie is only peripherally the subject of the book, and many of the statements in there are opinionated and unsourced. In fact, we don't even know what the source, footnote 26 is, it doesn't seem to be included in the Google Books version. Do you have a hard copy? 5. The quotation is at variance with the language quoted in the HRW report. While HRW is not a RS either, it is a bit odd that there is this variance. Do we even know what language the autopsy was in? They might be saying the same thing. After all, rocks falling on you is mechanical pressure. We need to find a better source.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:08, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

[Replied below Kasaalan (talk) 06:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)]

First, please try to recognize that I am human. I can't do everything at once. I'm not sure what you mean by hectoring me as to why I didn't add something about Corrie's parents' visit with Arafat. I was only trying to correct poorly sourced and misleadingly phrased terminology in the "Autopsy" section by finding better sources and changing the phrasing accordingly.

I think i'ts strange that you would try to argue that Anthony Cordesman is not a WP:RS here. He's authored some 50 books, dealing with US, Middle East, and energy policies. His wording is supported by that of HRW which I added here. Not the HRW watch report is here published by UNHCR website, meaning it does not fall afoul of SELFPUB guidelines. Neither does Cordesman. He's an expert on events in the region. Note too that the diff I linked to above, has a copy of the text of the autopsy report. You can see how the wording fully supports that used by Cordesman.

Finally, I don't really understand the antagonistic tone and posture being adopted here. The article was in rather poor shape. I'd be nice if people could be more mutually welcoming and adopt a more collaborative tone and spirit here. Thanks. Tiamut^talk 21:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the antagonistic tone and posture, I'd ask you not to bite the newbie, presumably Kasaalan doesn't realize how such comments as "completely out of control" come across to others. He'll improve with time.

This being a contentious article, I would have suggested prior discussion on talk page, rather than writing the article pleasingly to your POV. At some point, I, like IronDuke, will go through it and take out the most egregious portions.

Regarding Cordesman, I'd remind you of the language from WP:SELFPUB: Self-published work is acceptable to use in some circumstances, with limitations. For example, material may sometimes be cited which is self-published by an established expert on the topic of the article, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so. For example, a reliable self-published source on a given subject is likely to have been cited on that subject as authoritative by a reliable source.

HRW, even if reproduced or linked from another website, has multiple issues explored elsewhere. Again, I suggest we look elsewhere.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:06, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Where do you suggest we look? Tiamut^talk 22:23, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The web is wide. I'm very concerned about the varying language from the HRW report to the book, and the other matters I mentioned. I'm wondering why you think there is a contradiction between the initial Israeli allegation (falling debris) and the mechanical apparatus/mechanical asphyxiation.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Because Cordesman says there is and so do HRW. Do you have any sources that state otherwise? Tiamut^talk 22:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

"Contradicted" doesn't appear in either, nor does "debunked", which is how you described it in an edit summary earlier today. So which is it, mechanical asphyxiation or mechanical apparatus? It seems to me we certainly could report both, attributing inline to HRW. "Human Rights Watch has stated that the autopsy reported that . . . "--Wehwalt (talk) 22:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Fine with me. The HRW material is already prefaced with an attribution, per the diff I gave you above (It's also in a footnote, but feel free to place it in the article text). All that's left is to restor the quotes against "caused by...." and attribute that to Cordesman. Tiamut^talk 22:59, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll hold off and give IronDuke a chance to weigh in.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

"Boston-based Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company is a global education company with approximately $2.5 billion in revenue." The book published by PSI and written by a member of CSIS who is also a member of advisory board of PSI. Their Advisory Board "Loch K. Johnson, Co-Chair: University of Georgia, Intelligence and Foreign Affairs Expert, Paul Wilkinson, Co-Chair: University of St. Andrews, Terrorism and Political Violence Expert, Anthony Cordesman, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Strategy and Middle Eastern Security Expert, Thérèse Delpech, Atomic Energy Commission and CERI (Foundation Nationale des Sciences Politiques), Political-Military Affairs, NGOs, and Energy Issues Expert, Sir Michael Howard, International Institute for Strategic Studies, Military History and International Security Expert, Lieutenant General Claudia J. Kennedy, U.S. Army (Ret.), Intelligence and Military Affairs Expert, Paul M. Kennedy, Yale University, Global Political, Economic, and Strategic Issues Expert, Robert J. O'Neill, International Institute for Strategic Studies, Strategic Studies and East Asian Security Expert, Shibley Telhami, Brookings Institution, Conflict Resolution, Middle Eastern Affairs, and Public Diplomacy Expert, Fareed Zakaria, Newsweek International, International Politics and Economics Expert". Their Institutional Partners: "American Military University (www.amu.apus.edu), Australian Strategic Policy Institute (www.aspi.org.au), Center for the Study of War and Society (University of Tennessee) (my.tennessee.edu), Geneva Center for Security Policy (www.gcsp.ch), International Security Studies Program in the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University (fletcher.tufts.edu), ISC Education Online, Lowy Institute for International Policy (Australia) (www.lowyinstitute.org), Nonproliferation Policy Education Center (www.npec-web.org), Oxford Analytica (www.oxan.com), Philip Merrill Center for Strategic Studies (Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University) (www.sais-jhu.edu/merrillcenter), The Pluscarden Programme for the Study of Global Terrorism and Intelligence (http://www.sant.ox.ac.uk/centres/pluscarden.html), Royal United Services Institute for Defence and Security Studies (RUSI) (http://www.rusi.org/), Strategic Studies Center, U.S. Army War College (http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil)" At least notable.

Also as a general rule Organisations publish their own members' works especially the security reletad ones. "Cordesman is "also a national security analyst for ABC News, and his television commentary has been featured prominently during the Gulf War, Desert Fox, the conflict in Kosovo, and the fighting in Afghanistan", "Professor Cordesman has previously served as national security assistant to Senator John McCain of the Senate Armed Services Committee, as director of intelligence assessment in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, as civilian assistant to the deputy secretary of defense, and as director of policy and planning for resource applications in the Department of Energy. He has also served in numerous other government positions, including in the State Department and on NATO International Staff, and he has had numerous foreign assignments, including posts in Lebanon, Egypt, and Iran, with extensive work in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf.", "He has been awarded the Department of Defense Distinguished Service Medal. A former adjunct professor of national security studies at Georgetown University, he has twice been a Wilson Fellow at the Woodrow Wilson Center for Scholars at the Smithsonian Institution." Nobody can claim whatever he say is truth but this sounds notable enough to be called an expert somehow for regular standarts. For claiming he is or he is not further, I should read his books, which I wont do, so a milder claim is better. CSIS member pageKasaalan (talk) 04:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

By the way I published above comments for he is notable, also the publisher is. Other parts of the book, if cited from a good source, or if the writer expresses his opinion, can very well be quoted. Checked the direct link, also concluded, no link means we cannot quote from a quote. We can quote from the book but we cannot quote from what he quoted while we dont have the source. Therefore, on this particular case, I strongly object the use of the book as a reference to the Israeli National Center for Forensic Medicine report. No link, we cannot verify, as a summary. Though I greatly appreciate Tiamut's work for finding a printed source, also object using of the link. "An initial autopsy was performed at the National Center of Forensic Medicine in Tel Aviv. The Olympian reported that the autopsy report of March 20 concluded that Corrie's death was "caused by pressure on the chest from a mechanical apparatus." I assure you this quote from the article history is better. Kasaalan (talk) 04:54, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Also I already admitted sometimes I have gone too far myself too. I admitted where I was wrong, but same is not true just as what happened on The Boston Globe link. Still you not trying your best to be skeptical or neutral while checking anti-Rachel sources[clearly stated to blatant insult links] just as you do, in the rest of the article. Your actions mostly base on trimming off Rachel-side views [completely time to time] instead editing properly. You should be adding more and more qualified against-ISM argument links for balancing the article. No info we add can be considered as truth, nothing but the truth itself. So the article should contain opposing views of various sides. Trimming off her actions because it will look good on her based on "this is not a memorial" claims, or "her parents say so", "her own letters are not a good source" attitude is not helping. Kasaalan (talk) 05:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

regarding Book

For Tiamuts cases 1, 2, 3, 4 generally agree. For 2 and 5 I have objections.

All organisations, including human right organisations self-publish their work and reports themselves. In the same manner all newspapers publish, their own work like all the magazines, book companies and government organisations. If your argument is SELFPUB refers to any organisation report[which all self published in means of printing or editing], than it is not so strong. Depends on the case. Yet if we take your suggestion, therefore we should accept HRW reports are not acceptable at all. So you need to prove about HRW is not acceptable first for forbidding the HRW report.

Human Rights Watch reports you object has been broadly used against the human rights issues in the world, accepted internationally, and referenced in other countries' human rights issues including Wikipedia, and used as a source broadly in newspapers and books around the world. HRW is one of the most widely accepted and referenced international organisations around the world. Can you provide exact links that forbid HRW reports from being referenced, or states HRW is not reliable on Wikipedia. Also can you provide the discussion on integrity of HRW as general, or particularly for this report, yet we cannot take only discussions for not to reference a widely accepted HR organisation's report which has a wide section on Rachel's case. Kasaalan (talk) 06:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Can you pinpoint the variance. In the original source long ago used in wikipedia reports pressure from a mechanical apparatus, "An initial autopsy was performed at the National Center of Forensic Medicine in Tel Aviv. The Olympian reported that the autopsy report of March 20 concluded that Corrie's death was "caused by pressure on the chest from a mechanical apparatus." [14] Kasaalan (talk) 06:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Kasaalan: You've been editing this page for two solid hours, as far as I can see. You just posted, I figure that if I'm quick, you won't get an edit conflict, which apparently you don't know how to deal with yet but it is not difficult. Let me know when you're done and I'll reply.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I can reply later, you go on ahead, for that particular case I couldn't manage to do it, generally not an issue. Kasaalan (talk) 06:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Kasaalan: If it is selfpub, it is selfpub. The policy does not distinguish between individuals and organizations. SELFPUB does not mean that they, like Ben Franklin, run their own printing press, it means they just make private arrangements for publication. Regarding HRW, there is some discussion uppage about them. It isn't my burden of evidence under Wikipolicies. You cannot pick and choose policies, you are fond of a quote from WP:BIO, but WP:SELFPUB and WP:V are as important, if not more. I will now proceed to address your Anne Frank point under the last paragraph you did.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:02, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

If you will object HRW which is one of the world's most prominent human rights organisation internationally you have to prove your case yourself. I dont pick or choose policies, I just want you to state one. Point me a decisive discussion in WikiGuidelines on HRW which concluded its unreliable. You refer to WP but WP refers to something else. First of all SelfPublish clearly points out its intention by "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published. For this reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, knols, patents, patent applications, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable to cite in Wikipedia.[5]" Though reliable "articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.[4]" On the other hand, there are two exceptions for self publishing. Either the work written by a notable expert, or been cited by notable experts. "For example, a reliable self-published source on a given subject is likely to have been cited on that subject as authoritative by a reliable source." HRW is world's one of the most cited source by newspapers, magazines, books on the subject. This is because HRW is at least as credible as a mainstream newspaper in the international area. If you claim HRW is not reliable, why dont you prove it to me by referring to a clear conclusion against HRW as a statement on wiki. A reliable source is defined by "Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications." Newspapers, too are selfpublished[not just referring to printing] and credible by the sources they use just as any Human Rights Organisation. Can you explain why reliable sources all around the world cites from HRW reports, if its not reliable? At least can you possibly show any human rights organisation in this world that does not selfpublish its content, or any human rights organisation that passes your criterias, then explain me why "Human Rights Watch" which is one of the most prominent HR organisations in the entire world, mentioned in over 5.100 different wiki pages, which also referred over a thousand of wiki article pages, and directly linked as reference in dozens of wiki pages, is not among them. Is it alright when HRW report referred in hundreds of article pages in wiki, but not alright when used against IDF. Again unless you provide us some reliable and directly adressed info on wikiguidelines against using Human Rights Organisations in general or Human Rights Watch in particular, HRW is notable and reliable enough to be quoted in a wiki article as a source. Kasaalan (talk) 21:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

For being clear stating again. I suggested the original "An initial autopsy was performed at the National Center of Forensic Medicine in Tel Aviv. The Olympian reported that the autopsy report of March 20 concluded that Corrie's death was "caused by pressure on the chest from a mechanical apparatus." quote is more reliable than the latest version. So does anyone agree on this. I strongly object the latest source with an unknown quote for this particular case. Kasaalan (talk) 21:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Wehwalt, I've gotta abandon you on this one. Cordesman meets WP's criteria as a reliable source, even if he self-publishes (which I'm still not sure about from the above). IronDuke 01:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Book and writer is at least notable enough as an expert to be referenced so for other parts of the book it is alright, yet it has an unverifiable source for this particular case, so we should quote from the original newspaper as a reference, and the book might also be referenced as a secondary source. But the quotes are so similar that the source of the book might already be the newspaper article itself. So I place my objection for placing it as the only source for the quote, also alright if both source referenced. Kasaalan (talk) 10:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Citation is covered in the manual of style - in a nutshell, you put in details from the newspaper and say "Cited by Cordesmann at ... etc".

A quick search here either suggests or proves that the CSIS qualifies as an RS - it claims to have: * Board of Trustees and Counselors, * Corporate Officers, * Program Directors, Chairs and Resident Senior Advisers, * Fellows, * Associate Staff, * Affiliated Advisers and Experts, * International Councillors and Advisory Groups.

Cordesmann himself pedals a strongly and deceptively denialist line eg on p.72 of his book (the same page we're using) he refers to "[building] permits", failing to note that all outside (and many Israeli) observers consider them a tool of "demographic balancing", otherwise known as ethnic cleansing. Cordesmann is clearly not at the level of David Irving because he's not falsified anything, but I'd be interested to hear other people's opinions about his writing. I'm puzzled anyone would query (let alone start a new section to query) this trivial and non-contentious quote from him "caused by pressure on the chest from a mechanical apparatus", unless there's some benefit to the article in reminding editors of what an unpleasant death we're discussing.

There are other things puzzling about this article and case, because when British volunteers have died as a result of Israeli actions, the judicial system there has regularly found it to be "unlawful killing" (green-flagging a prosecution for either murder or manslaughter) or even "unlawful shooting with the intention to kill", usually paraphrased as "murder". I see no mention of a court case here. PR^talk 13:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Hard trouble finding your point, PR, physically I mean so if I ec you, sorry. The court case in the US is covered. I don't think the actions in Israel had court hearings, but were paper claims which were rejected. Since Corrie wasn't British, there would have been no British inquest.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

You may have strong distaste for Cordesman's denialist views, but IronDuke is right, he and the web-site of CSIS are RS.

Also, Muslims in Gaza apparently don't operate a coroner's court system, meaning that those liable for violent deaths needn't face justice (the Bedouin killer of Tom Hurndall was eventually sentenced to 7 years, but this was the only one of its kind up to the present time). The Bedouin killer of James Miller is known to us but is not facing justice, the killers of Rachel Corrie and Iain Hook (West Bank) are not known to us. PR^talk 19:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

HRW reliability

HRW have been on the front lines of fighting human rights abuses in despotic Arab countries, such as Iran and Saudi Arabia, where religious minorities, homosexuals, and women often find themselves subject to the worst kinds of abuses. That they treat Israel and the United States exactly the same in this regard is a testament to their reliability. HRW started out monitoring the Soviet Union for various abuses and it's reputation for accuracy and care rose progressively until it is second only to the International Red Cross (we tend to forget the latter because it's only meant to report to government, not publish anything). In the I-P conflict, HRW has been very critical of Israel, of the Palestinian Authority, and of Hamas. Each rankles at the criticism of itself and praises the criticism of the others. PR^talk 21:44, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

As with any other link, HRW also shouldn't be accepted as referring to only truth, nothing but the truth. Yet what I claim is, HRW as a human rights organisation is reliable, notable and widely accepted enough to be mentioned and cited inside and outside wikipedia, as it clearly referenced and mentioned in various Wikipedia articles, and widely referred in mainstream world publishings. Also it is one of the main sources on human rights issues, accepted and sourced by many various international experts on the field. Objecting the source with contradictory claims and referring these objections in the article is one thing, but claiming it is not even worth to be mentioned in a wiki article is another. If Wehwalt is right, and HRW is not worthy enough for wikipedia, than over a thousand article pages in wikipedia needs serious editing with dozens of direct references to hrw.org for its reports. But for believing this we need some solid proof published in wiki guidelines which refers particularly against HRW or against HR organisations in general. Kasaalan (talk) 22:54, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

HRW is not a horrible source, but with caveats. They are pretty agressively anti-Israel, for example, so on those issues, I would only cite them when they are one of several RS's who agree. I would not use them all by themselves as a source critical of Israel. IronDuke 01:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

@IronDuke - people may better understand your attitude to policy on RS and consensus by going here where they will find "IronDuke, I can see clear consensus here. 6+ editors have told you that the nation article is a reliable source. It is time that you respect consensus". Editors will be very puzzled if they examine that "discussion" because there was nothing the smallest bit "surprising" or even "contentious" (let alone BLP) about the sentence you were battling and the references used: "Pipes has anti-Arab views. He said that the customs of Muslims immigrants are "more troublesome than most," and has referred to fundamentalist Muslims as "barbarians" and "potential killers."

1. ^ a b c McNeil, Kristine. "The War on Academic Freedom". The Nation (11 November 2002). Retrieved on 21 October 2007.

2. ^ Pipes, Daniel. "The Muslims are Coming! The Muslims are Coming!". National Review (19 November 1990). Retrieved on 13 March 2008.

3. ^ Pipes, Daniel. "Bin Laden Is a Fundamentalist". National Review (22 October 2001). Retrieved on 12 March 2008.

And for that, you wasted hours of the time of productive editors, in a "discussion" of 16,000 words - then made AGF-trashing comments because you eventually had to stop, threatened with a block for disruption?

The only serious claim that I know of ever made against HRW comes from a British/Israeli, Jonathan Cook, that the HRW spokesman allowed himself to be be bullied by Israeli pressure to condemn Hezbollah for things they'd not done, and were not in the report prepared by the investigators that they were supposedly discussing. There are links to that case here. (Actually, I know of a second case of this happening, one of their spokesmen backing away from what the investigators said "strongly suggests" but I don't have an RS secondary source to quote).

And this business has also been examined in detail at the the Wikipedia Reliable Sources Noticeboard/community, see here. That discussion was closed with "I suggest this thread be closed and archived; it verges on frivolous" and "I was about to say much the same thing - that HRW and AI are second in reputation for accuracy only to the very circumspect ICRC (Red Cross)". PR^talk 11:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

PR, I'm not at all sure why you're inserting an off-topic diatribe against me here. You could merely have sufficed by saying "The only serious claim that I know of ever made against HRW comes from a British/Israeli, Jonathan Cook." That would give us a good indication as to the limit of your knowledge on this topic, which appears to be considerable. As to the Nation discussion, yes indeed I was threatened with a block by an admin who had interacted in a negative manner with me on previous occasions and was actively involved in content disputes in the I-P area. It was conveyed to him how wrong taking such an action against me would have been, and he has not repeated the error. There is more that you are wrong about regarding the Nation discussion , but I won't bore everyone with it, as this subject you introduced is already grossly off-topic, other than to wonder, as I point to your jaw-droppingly severe block log, how you could even begin to discuss other editors disrupting Wikipedia, whether fraudulent (as in this case) or no. IronDuke 23:45, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

As stated above some others might also refer HRW as pretty agressively anti-China, or anti-Hamas, or anti-anycountry, as these are the leading countries for reported human rights violation issues, we cannot convict any country by a HRW report yet we should mention it in the article as "according to the HRW report". HRW reports are known and accepted internationally. You can place an objection stating HRW being anti-Israeli in the article referencing from a good source, I won't object but even support that for neutrality. But HRW reports are the leading ones in HR area, so we should include it. For not including it, we need a strict statement against HRW reports on Israel from WikiGuidelines, since HRW is more reliable than lots of links already referenced in the Rachel Corrie article, like the rest of the biographies in wiki. We cannot accept HRW report as the highest quality reference, yet in importance scale after the official reports, academic papers or legal actions taken by Corrie's, there are HRW report, ISM eyewitness accounts and mainstream newspaper articles, and book quotes pro or against-Rachel side, to be used. Kasaalan (talk) 13:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I would point you to this, where HRW was examined in detail and found to be at the very upper level of reliability. There have been other such discussions all of them (as far as I know?!) coming to near identical results. PR^talk 12:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I have no objection to mentioning the autopsy finding according to HRW, so long as it is attributed to HRW inline, since we have no access to the original, that is, mechanical asphyxiation--Wehwalt (talk) 17:35, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

That seems to me clumsy and pointy. It can and will and does confuse the reader with "controversy" when none exists at that point. It implies that there is a problem with HRW when there is nothing of the kind (well, except when they're bullied by defenders of the undefendable). PR^talk 17:48, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Given that we can't link or give the reader access to the original autopsy, it is not unreasonable to mention inline who is saying so.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

It's unreasonable because it implies that we don't wholly trust the source. (Well, unless there is some good reason for not trusting it generally or specifically, and I'm not aware of any). We cite sources inline where we need their "opinions" eg that the original IDF had "major flaws". PR^talk 18:52, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't imply we dont trust the source, we are just referencing our source, because we dont have the full text of the report and quoting from HRW which has the report. We should quote the conclusions of medical reports as they are because we are not qualified to paraphrase a medical text, yet also mention it is fully quoted, or summarized from source ... by HRW in its ... report. But the contradiction HRW refer should also be mentioned as HRW stated there was a contradiction between ... and ... in its ... report. Kasaalan (talk) 21:43, 18 December 2008 (UTC)