Talk:Marla Ruzicka

10 May Revision
Although it concedes that praise for her work is not universal, it (in the same sentence) sings her beatific attributes to high heaven while relegating her critics to the status of American RW nutters (afterall, what normal person could disagree with her aims?). I don't understand why a POV dispute label cannot stay attached.

User:Achilles2000 10 May, 2005

The above material (starting at the email header) was all part of one big edit by Miguel Lanigan. I see no relation to the discussion on this Talk page other than in the most general sense. These eulogies appear to be original source material; by my understanding wouldn't they be better moved to WikiSource?

PhilipR 19:45, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Neutrality
The article fails to mention Ms Ruzicka's involvement with the Code Pink organization, & her traveling to Iraq prior to the war to act as a "human shield", protecting the Saddam Hussein regime. Also the photograph accompanying the article is sardonic, & insulting to US troops, most of whom are even younger than her.

User:Achilles2000 7 May, 2005


 * That is simply not factually true. Although the FrontPageMag article associates her with Code Pink, she was not in Iraq prior to the war and did not act as a human shield.


 * If you're going to engage in hate speech, try to get your facts straight.


 * --AStanhope 15:26, 8 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Given the choice between you & Frontpage, I believe Frontpage.
 * If YOU disagree with someone, they are engaged in "hate speech'?
 * You should try to modify your Goebbels-like mindset.


 * User:Achilles2000 8 May


 * Achilles - can I ask why you find the photograph insulting to US troops? It seems inoffensive to me. Nick Fraser 12:06, 9 May 2005 (UTC)


 * ---Nick-- To Marla (& people like her) US troops are ALWAYS the bad guys. That's why she was in Iraq & Afghanistan, & not Darfur. The photograph was a sardonic attempt to show her standing up to the enemy.


 * User:Achilles2000 10 May


 * If you want to know why FrontPageMag isn't included in a Wikipedia entry, then why don't you look at the purpose of Wikipedia. It is a encyclopedic website that stands proud by the fact that it provides a NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW. Including references either to Code Pink OR FrontPageMag would violate the mission of this website - provide information on a subject that is free from propaganda and/or political bias of any kind.


 * If you want to see how people and organizations interact, stick to http://theyrule.net (Flash Player Req.). BCM 15:08, 10 May 2005


 * As to the human shield remark, Marla/CIVIC's voluntary humanitarian work in Iraq was (and is) to PROTECT INNOCENT CIVILIANS from both Saddam Hussein and from our own soldiers, and does the same in Afghanistan. I find it very odd that you praise and tout the all-knowing keyboard skills of people like David Horowitz and Deb Schlussel, who have a well-known tendency to misinform their readers by stating the same thing you did, while omitting the fact that she was leading an effort to prevent violence and save lives on ALL sides... ::::::- BCM 10 May 2005


 * ---BCM--- If you leave out her involvement with Code Pink, you are creating a false impression of who Marla was-- she wasn't a politically neutral humanitarian.
 * "to PROTECT INNOCENT CIVILIANS from both Saddam Hussein and from our own soldiers"-- that is the exact mindset, US troops are as evil as saddam's thugs. Many disagree.
 * You & Astanhope are attempting to maintain a shrine to St Marla by calling any dissent from the hosannas as "hate speech".
 * THAT is not NEUTRAL, that is a political agenda.


 * User:Achilles2000 10 May


 * Achi... Your lack of insight really makes me shake my head in wonder, and you insult me with your insinuations. Our soldiers are there doing what they are told, because that's their job. If it's to break into a house, they do it. If they have to track and capture someone, they do it. I'm surprised that as a obvious supporter of our military, you fail to understand basic command structure. What doesn't surprise me is that you're ignorant to the fact that the command structure is lacking a LOT (and I mean all the way to Rumsfeld, Gonzales and Bush, not just field generals) AND ignorant to the fact that the intelligence community has subverted even that.


 * That is the main reason Iraqi CIVILIANS need protection from us - because these kids are simply so young, naive, and untrained by people that they are forced to obey that they get suckered into doing things like ignore the scheduled convoy of a foreign journalist, or commit acts that violate basic human decency and international standards for the conduct of war. Iraqis do not see that command structure though - they simply see an American kid with an M-16 standing on the corner where a little over two years earlier there was a Republican Guard with an AK-47. Then they see their neighbors being dragged to Abu Ghareb to be the object of one of Rush Limbaugh's fraternity pranks, while children grovel and cry and form young opinions about America - opinions that we are taking their parents away.


 * That's what Marla had to face, and worked to prevent, every single day in her work. In the meantime all you, Horowitz, and Schlussel can do is tear her down for having the same daily courage that our soldiers have. Shame on you.


 * In any case, I reiterate - Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, not a freeper infonet. This isn't the place to discuss how Marla "...wasn't a politically neutral humanitarian." If you want that, go troll over on Horowitz' own "Goebbels-like" website Discoverthenetworks where you and that kind of witch-hunting belong.


 * Your hypocrisy continues to amaze me. - BCM


 * --- Stan --- According to ABC News (& nearly every other article I can find) Marla WAS in Iraq prior to the war-- "When the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq began in March 2003, Ruzicka was already in Baghdad with Code Pink, said Jodi Evans, co-founder of the women's anti-war group." -- all use that exact quote, so it must have been a press release.


 * http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=679085&page=3 link broken


 * Frontpagemag WAS factually correct, & YOU were wrong. Your justification for deleting the link is gone.


 * User:Achilles2000 10 May


 * --- BCM --- Keeping posting, your making my case for me ;-P
 * User:Achilles2000 10 May

I don't need to make any case.. People like you demonstrate your own mental deficiency, and how you will do and say anything to advance the corporate fascist agenda. It's pretty funny actually, how your pariah Horowitz and the rest of the Republican Party shills dare to insult and witch-hunt a woman who lived and died helping innocent civilians caught in war zones, yet you continue to hold up the very politicians who not only put her life in danger, but who have ORDERED hundreds of thousands of young Americans (who simply NEEDED A JOB) to kill and torture other human beings in the name of FREEDOM and LIBERTY and THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. If that's the kind of America you stand for, and wish to have George Bush and the Republican Party bring into focus, then this country has lost its right to stand for anything. -BCM

--BCM-- Thank you for that outstanding example of the NPOV so evident throughout this article, &, I might add, Wikipedia.

User:Achilles2000 10 May

---DEL--- In the Rolling Stone article, it state that Ruzicka was in Baghdad with Global Exchange on some sort of fact-finding mission just before the war, then came home and returned to Iraq after Saddam was ousted. She wasn't there during the first days of the war at all.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/7371965/the_girl_who_tried_to_save_the_world/

FrontPageMag.com article
While we are all sworn to uphold NPOV here, we must also maintain some standard of decency and taste. The FrontPageMag.com article is so offensive that it simply doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. --AStanhope 21:12, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Er, why was it offensive? I guess I can see your point, but the other articles are so hagiographic that this page is simply not representative of multiple viewpoints. The position that Ruzicka was ultimately working against American forces (and American interests) is a defensible one, but is not represented in those other articles. Therefore if you delete the FrontPageMag.com article, I think it should be replaced with something similar, since as it stands, this Wiki article is not balanced. -- Gnossie


 * Gnossie: After you read this article -- http://slate.msn.com/id/2117056/ Marla Ruzicka -- perhaps your heart and mind can move a bit beyond ideological filtration. -- stan


 * 1. I have marked this page as disputed owing to the revert war. Please note that Astanhope is no longer removing the link to the first article from frontpagemag, but ANY link to that website without explanation.
 * 2. I have removed the "vigils are held for her every year" as being overly-adulatory and normative. How long has this been going on? Has she been canonized? How many places in the world were they held? Are they scheduled for next year? Is this date an official holiday now?
 * 3. The external links contain no pieces taking a critical view of Ruzicka's efforts: if NO article from frontpagemag is acceptable, then something ele should be found and substituted.
 * 4. I have also requested assistance from Wikipedia administration to resolve this dispute.
 * -Gnossie


 * If you believe that there must be a critical article listed in the External Links section, by all means find one that is reasonable and balanced and doesn't resort to ad hominem attacks and name calling. Both FrontPageMag articles are exemplify extreme fringe bias and hate.


 * If anyone cares to verify that these articles are unacceptable, here are the links:
 * Meet the Real Marla Ruzicka
 * Who Killed Marla Ruzicka?


 * We don't make a Wiki article about Judaism balanced by linking to a copy of Mein Kampf. We don't make the article about The United States of America balanced by linking to a site carrying a bin Laden fatweh. We don't link to the KKK's website from an article about Catholicism.


 * Linking to these FrontPageMag.com articles are exactly the same thing. Why not set up a website called MARLARUZICKASUCKS.COM and link to it? Asinine.


 * I'm certain you can find an article critical of her that doesn't celebrate her death.


 * --AStanhope 12:50, 6 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, that's where you're wrong. This article is completely unbalanced and over-adulatory. Not a critical word is breathed of the Holy Ms. Ruzicka, whom we are apparently supposed to worship with candlelight vigils every May 3rd.


 * USING YOUR OWN EVIDENCE, the Wikipedia article on "America" indeed contains a link to the "Islam in the United States" article, which itself contains links to the sites of organizations such as CAIR, where they are loudly critical of America's lifestyle and policies.


 * The article on the "Ku Klux Klan" contains links unfavorable to and critical of the organization from the Southern Poverty Law Center, the ACLU, and the Anti-Defamation League.


 * The article on "Judaism" contains links to "anti-semitism" and even contains a section called "critical historical view of the development of Judaism."


 * But this Marla Ruzicka article contains no such sections or links and, as you would have it, never can.


 * I see. She's a saint. Pure and simple. There aren't two views possible on her life and activities, because any contrasting view is automatically "offensive" since, regardless of the evidence marshaled to support it, its mere contrariness is enough to blasphemously suggest that Ruzicka may be anything less than a saint.


 * Thus, I feel your changes have harmed the article and I shall continue to undo them until an administrator or moderator can step in. :::::Dixi.


 * -Gnossie May 6th.


 * Have you actually read either of those articles?


 * Why do you hate Marla Ruzicka?


 * --AStanhope 15:07, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm the one who keeps posting the 'Who killed Marla?' link. The authors merely point out that she was a naive kid who was indoctrinated by people she didn't fully understand. Some of these "friends" were very critical of her when she failed to uphold their 'progressive' ideals. Now that she is dead, they are using her to an even greater extent- these "friends" one regret is probably that she was killed by terrorists, & not US troops. I view the article as a cautionary tale- don't let your child become involved with political nutters.

User:Achilles2000 15:52 6 May

Both of the FrontPageMag articles offend me and others very, very deeply. Do you feel deeply offended at having them absent? Serious question.

--AStanhope 21:16, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes. There should be another point of view available. The child was murdered while being used by people she didn't fully understand, those people are still using her. I'm sorry you are offended, but that's the price of freedom of expression.

User:Achilles2000 16:33 6 May

Dear Astanhope-- There is no constitutional right to 'not being offended'. Leave my link & I'll leave your plethora of links. I'm prepared to fight it out on this line if it takes all summer.

User:Achilles2000 7 May

It's clear you don't believe in the free expression of ideas when you disagree with them. Your fascist mindset is HIGHLY offensive to all who believe in freedom & liberty. If you persist in deleting my external link, I shall edit/delete the body of the article.

User:Achilles2000 7 May

I've just started following this, after reading a Guardian Weekly article. Can we try and draw a line under this somewhat poisonous debate? It seems to have become rather unprofitable in terms of generating a balanced article.

In my opinion the Frontpage article should be included - although it's an overtly partisan piece of journalism, it nevertheless represents certain people's viewpoints and ultimately that should be reflected in the Wikipedia record. The intelligent reader interested in Marla's story ought be able to pick through all the articles listed, positive and negative, and come to their own conclusion about the real facts of the matter. As for the body of the article itself, it surely has to explicitly state that to some extent Marla was a divisive figure, a hero to some, not so to others. I think we can all agree that is an objective statement. Nick Fraser 07:11, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Your proposed change to the body of the article is fine, Nick Fraser. Go for it.

Nobody has intellectually acknowledged my point that balance doesn't mean including opposition hate speech from a lunatic. Achilles counter-examples about the USA article, Catholics, etc. are simply wrong.

Neither FrontPageMag article will ever be acceptable. If somebody wants to find an article from a legitimate news publication that is critical of Marla that doesn't celebrate her death or lie about her then by all means we can link to it. I have searched high and low for an article critical of Marla and aside from the FrontPageMag article and some equally hateful blog posts from right-wing blogs, there are none. This should tell us something.

Achilles: How about including the Wall Street Journal editorial about Marla? You can't get any more right-wing than the WSJ - and it was CIVIL, besides! You should embrace that.

Hate != NPOV.

--AStanhope 18:14, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

---Stan-- You included external links to the Guardian & Independent. They are 2 of the most left wing papers in Britain- nothing neutral there. I find it unacceptable that you have positioned yourself as judge of what is legitimate dissent, & what is not. You are clearly too committed to be an honest judge. Labeling what you disagree with as "hate speech" is a clear political act, not in keeping with the alledged NPOV policy of Wikipedia.

User:Achilles2000 10 May

I would like to make two points, and they are linked:

I think it's problematic to exclude the Frontpage article on the basis that you personally think the writer is a lunatic. The article certainly contains strong opinions and perhaps a number of assertions and accusations that can't be backed up good evidence. Perhaps, in the view of many, it's a polemic against Marla. However, if I were to go down the road of removing the external links that I find offensive or distasteful, I could spend a lot of time on Wikipedia doing just this. My point is really that some people will find the Frontpage article offensive, others will not, some might even consider it a reasonable and balanced piece of journalism. What I'm really arguing for is Voltaire's dictum (in fact it was coined by his biographer according to Wikipedia) - "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it ".

My second point relates to the fact that the link to Frontpage is an external link - merely a link from Wikipedia to the external world beyond the project. In my view it's unproblematic to include external links to articles that don't comply strictly with the relatively high editorial standards of Wikpedia providing they meet certain technical or authorial criteria (I think the criteria for including or not including such links should be technical or authorial ones - Are they relevant to the topic? Are they written by reasonably serious organisation or expert or otherwise qualified person? Are they spellchecked? Are they easy to read and well structured? Is the line of argument easy to follow?, etc. etc.) In terms of actual content or opinion proffered, where external links deviate from what Wikipedia understands NPOV to be, we shouldn't necessarily exclude them from being referenced as an external link on that basis alone, provided their potential to shock or offend is acknowledged with a simple bracketed caveat to the link, something as simple as '(Considered NPOV, presents controversial and partisan opinion on. . . . ) ought to be sufficient. In the final reckoning, we ultimately have to rely on the intelligence of the Wikipedia reader to sift truth and falsehood, the deficiencies of the Frontpage article should be glaringly apparent to the informed and interested reader (the kind of person who will explore an article fully and check out the external links), providing the Marla article is well written and robustly researched and sufficient 'quality' external links are included in the article. Nick Fraser 05:47, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Nick: NPOV doesn't mean bringing in the most outrageous viewpoint possible. The article you linked to explicitly celebrates this young woman's death. It is also factually wrong on many counts - simply compare it's salient points with those in any of the other properly researched articles about it. The FrontPageMag article has no place whatsoever in this or any other encyclopedia.

There is a sort of madness that seems to grip a lot of people in pursuit of NPOV on the Wikipedia. The madness seems to dictate to some that if an article says something GOOD it must have a BAD counter - as bad as one can possibly find to counter all the other goodness. This doesn't provide NPOV or "balance." It simply serves as hateful shouting from the sidelines.

Nobody has addressed my earlier examples: I am sure that the Ku Klux Klan has scores of screeds available condemning the Catholic Church. In the interest of NPOV do we have to link to one of these articles from the Wikipedia article about Catholicism? Does the article about the United States need a link to a bin Laden's fatwehs against the US or Ward Churchill's "Little Eichmanns" article to set the reader straight about the US? Mein Kampf was a bestseller in Germany! Does an article about Judaism need to be properly balanced by a link to the text of Mein Kampf?

Come on, guys - you're playing silly games here. Your concepts of "balance" and NPOV are off kilter. Please think about it.

--AStanhope 11:06, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Stan - I wouldn't object to Ku Klux Klan criticism being cited in an article about Catholicism, or Bin Laden's tirades being included on the main US page if I thought those the proper articles to place them in on Wikipedia - the point is they clearly aren't the right places to put them. They should properly go in articles such as 'Criticisms of the Catholic Church' and 'Criticism of US Foreign Policy' (or whatever those articles happen to be called). I don't think we can seriously advocate setting up a separate page 'Criticism of Marla Ruzicka' so I would suggest that the proper place for these critical external links is on the Marla Ruzicka page. Simply, put - where else can this link go?

I think the Frontpage article meets the technical and authorial standards sufficient for inclusion as an external link, we may not like Frontpage but we can't deny it has influence. It is, I assume, widely read by conservative minded folks and has an effect on the mindset of those who have formed views on Marla Ruzicka's life and work. As the article stands the reader doesn't have a true picture of the deep hostility that evidently exists towards Marla in some quarters of US society - surely this 'hatred' is, in itself, significant and must be recognised in the article. If the views expressed in external links are felt by some to be offensive then inclusion in Wikipedia offers a means for these views to scrutinised and challenged. I strongly believe that burying this stuff, gives it strength. I really think this particular external link has direct relevance to the article and should be included.

I'm not sure to what extent my opinion are out of step with the other Wikipedians who've debated this point - would others care to comment? Nick Fraser 12:02, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

---Stan-- Frontpagemag has no place, but The Independent does? You are making politically-based judgements.

User:Achilles2000 10 May

I hear you, Nick, and I recognize that you and Achilles and Gnossie believe that you are doing the correct thing here. I appreciate that. I really do.

Where our opinions diverge is whether or not the FrontPageMag article(s) meet the "technical and authorial standards sufficient for inclusion." I emphatically believe that they do not. Horowitz and Schlussel clearly have a larger agenda in those articles and it has nothing to do with illuminating Ruzicka's life story and everything to do with taking down the Greater Leftist Conspiracy that they believe to exist. We needn't be a vehicle for that silliness and hate.

Horowitz is not mainstream conservatism. The Wall Street Journal represents mainstream conservatism and its editorial on Ruzicka didn't resemble the FrontPageMag screeds in the least.

I don't perceive the difference between linking to the FrontPageMag pieces and linking to a website written by a lunatic called MARLARUZICKASUCKS.COM or MARLARUZICKAWASACOMMUNISTAGENT.COM.

--AStanhope 13:25, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Just to be clear on the motivations for the demonization of Marla -- or at least, the feigned calls for a more "balanced" view of her life and times -- Bush proponents are attacking her merely because her life and activities have highlighted facts that are inconvenient to the effective marketing of the Iraq War.

She was an adult woman, not a brainwashed child, and her work was on behalf of innocent Iraqi civilians, not for the purpose of hurting U.S. troops.

Three points:

1) I don't think the editorial role even with regard to external links should be reduced to the mere determination of whether or not the article in question is "on topic" or not.

2) It makes no sense to exclude articles on the basis of the qualifications of the author as Nick Fraser has suggested and ignore the factual inaccuracy of the articles themselves -- there are many excellent articles on the internet written by extremely well-versed people with no credentials or official qualifications whatsoever, and there is much dreck that is demonstrably inaccurate and published by "reasonably serious organizations."

To paraphrase the rules on Wikipedia entries:

"[Link to] stuff that is true; check your facts. Don't [link to] stuff that is false. This might require that you check your alleged facts."



3) I don't see any problem with including the fact that Ruzicka initially went to Iraq as a member of Code Pink. I don't believe that fact is in dispute. Put it in the body of the article. And link Code Pink: Women for Peace to an entry on that organization (which does not yet exist: ) while you're at it. And within the Code Pink article, by all means link to SERIOUS, FACTUAL articles opposing Code Pink's policies. Code Pink is an existing organization, not a deceased individual, and as such has the ability to answer criticism.

Having said that: in my personal opinion, the FrontPage articles fail to meet any reasonable criteria for accuracy and should be excluded on that basis. Even beyond their factual inaccuracies (and almost constant editorializing regarding the organizations that they associate with Ruzicka), they each claim a degree of intimate knowledge of Ruzicka's activities and motivations (far more than many articles by people who knew Ruzicka personally) that they almost entirely fail to provide sources for.

--Jjf 16:50, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi Jif - responding to point 2 you made. I think you've slightly misinterpreted what I said. I didn't mean that we should exclude people on the basis of lack of qualifications or not being an acknowledged expert. I suspect half of the articles in Wikipedia would disappear if we had to rely solely on expert opinion to build the project. I simply meant that it was a supporting criteria for inclusion of articles, that's all. Nick Fraser 17:49, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Stan - I understand that you feel very strongly that the article shouldn't be included - I won't press the point for including the Frontpage article any further. To constructively move on - let's focus on developing an acceptable piece of text to acknowledge that Marla Ruzicka remains a controversial figure in American political culture. Nick Fraser 17:50, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

--- Stan --- According to ABC News (& nearly every other article I can find) Marla WAS in Iraq prior to the war-- "When the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq began in March 2003, Ruzicka was already in Baghdad with Code Pink, said Jodi Evans, co-founder of the women's anti-war group." -- all use that exact quote, so it must have been a press release.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=679085&page=3

Frontpagemag WAS factually correct, & YOU were wrong. Your justification for deleting the link is gone.

User:Achilles2000 10 May

Alternative Critical Pieces
Here is an alternative slightly critical piece. It is from the WSJ but I don't think it is the main WSJ editorial on Ruzicka:

--AStanhope 13:34, 10 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Stan-- And perhaps Howard Dean & the DNC can choose the acceptable Rep. presidential nominee in 2008?


 * User:Achilles2000 10 May


 * It's becoming increasingly clear that the biggest red flag with respect to these articles is the inability of even their supporter(s?) to find corroborating pieces that might contain similar content and less factual inaccuracy.


 * If you won't accept an alternative proposed by AStanhope, how about proposing one yourself? I've been looking, too, and there just isn't much out there that supports the factual claims of FrontPageMag. That's pretty much the definition of "fringe."


 * The dictates of NPOV do not require inclusion of every fringe view out there.


 * --Jjf 18:34, 10 May 2005 (UTC)


 * --- Jjf--The mainstream media has taken an astonishingly uniform view on her (They all include the same statement from the woman at code pink)-- just look at this story from ABC News & check out the links at the end--


 * http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=679085&page=3


 * From ABC News!!
 * Since she's dead, I don't think they are going to print much critical of her.


 * User:Achilles2000 10 May


 * The word "astonishing" in this context is strange to me. Not sure what is astonishing about it. She was a peace activist. She tried to stop the war. When it was clear she could not stop the war, she set about doing what else she could to lessen its impacts on ordinary Iraqis (breaking with Code Pink which concentrated on opposition to the war in favor of more direct -- and constructive -- involvement).


 * You can disagree with her position entirely. You can question her motives (though I would be curious on what basis). You can question her means (though I'm not sure there is no way to do what she was trying to do -- force the US to acknowledge and compensate for the "collateral damage" of the war -- that wouldn't at least at times run afoul of some US interests). You can argue that she was indiscriminate in who she championed (though how you would know better than she who was a combatant and who was not, I don't know). My problem with the FrontPage pieces is that they make her out to be some dupe of the left wing like her positions were so unfathomable that there is no way she could have held them without being brainwashed... and maybe that is what the authors believe... but they cite no good sources for their positions, and I do not find that argument credible. Note: that's CREDIBLE, not ACCURATE. I have no real way of knowing if it's accurate, but it is so over-the-top it is not believable on its face.


 * I actually have issue with your depicting her as a polarizing figure -- with very few exceptions (and you've found the two articles that form the biggest exception) I have not found that to be the case in reading about her. For the most part even the people who criticize her politics and methods have had very little bad to say about her goals or her good intentions. She could, and probably should, be a unifying figure... a sterling example of how people within our democracy are allowed to oppose its policies, and can do so in ways that are (or at least strive to be) incredibly positive (not to mention incredibly selfless and brave).


 * --Jjf 20:38, 10 May 2005 (UTC)


 * ---Jjf-- I take issue with your characterization of Frontpage as the "fringe". Their site gets over 2million hits per day. Other external links sited --Salon, Guardian, Independent-- don't post their stats where they are readily available (daily circ Guardian 380k, Independent 190k). I consider Global Exchange, Code Pink, ANSWER, to be the true fringe groups. Marla was a disciple of Medea Benjamin -- few can deny she is a longtime political radical.
 * All the stories I've seen say Marla was in Iraq (with code pink) prior to the war-- Frontpage was correct. As for 'good intentions'... ,well, you know what they say.


 * User:Achilles2000 10 May


 * Regardless whether FrontPage itself is "fringe" or not, their take on Ruzicka certainly seems to be. And I don't think anyone is arguing that Marla Ruzicka herself wasn't "radical" -- she was clearly someone far more extreme at least in her willingness to fight for her views than the average person (though I don't think even an extreme anti-war position is particularly extreme in itself... lots of people hold it, few have her convictions to fight for it). Nor is anyone trying to deny that she belonged to, espoused and allied herself with left wing organizations. Again, my biggest problem with the FrontPage articles is their depiction of Ruzicka as some sort of pawn of the left wing, when she seems pretty plainly to have strongly held the beliefs that allied her with those groups.


 * So I'll expand on what I wrote earlier and suggest that what we do is identify the groups to which Ruzicka belonged (Code Pink among them... though it must have been for a very short time), and then focus the political debates on the entries for the groups themselves. "Member of Global Exchange, Code Pink, and founder of CIVIC" probably says it all (for good or ill) to anyone who knows those groups anyway.


 * I would also question whether David Horowitz and Deb Schlussel would have taken the same stance if Ruzicka was a nun whose "radical" anti-war stance was more plainly religious-based, and not a California liberal. It shouldn't make a difference if her approach was the same, but I bet it would have.


 * --Jjf 22:08, 10 May 2005 (UTC)


 * --Jjf--OK, I'll concede the distinct probabilty that she, herself, was a committed radical. Where is this stated in the article? Even with the new revisions, all I see is the statement that evil, conservative Americans have the opinion she was a "leftist", in quotation marks. If Your suggestion is accepted, the description of those orgs will probably be as a bland & misleading as this article.


 * If Ruzicka was a nun who had taken this stance, I doubt the people would have written such extravagant praise of her, because of the church's stand on abortion. The late pope was anti-war too, but there was still plenty of snide comments in the Guardian, Independent, etc.


 * User:Achilles2000 10 May


 * Achilles: Your entire interaction with the Wikipedia to date has been to force these FrontPageMag articles into this article. Why don't you spend some time getting to know the Wikipedia, it's rules, it's guidelines, it's mores... I think you'd find yourself a much happier Wikipedia editor if you got to know how things work around here first before jumping completely into such a misguided and controversial issue. --AStanhope 00:57, 11 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Achilles: One last response, then I think we've done this to death...


 * The article does not use the loaded term "radical" but rather allows the reader to come to their own conclusions. I cetrtainly don't think it hides the nature of her activism (which, I assume, is what would lead you to use the term). As to characterizations of Code Pink or Global Exchange or CIVIC... they will be what we make them... I would hope that they would not consist of arguably pejorative labels but of descriptions of the organizations stated goals and observed activities... with links to articles decrying same IF (and ONLY if) those articles are factually based.


 * Likewise there is no characterization of the conservatives who have objected to her activities as "evil" (it does mention that they are "mostly American" which as near as I can tell is true). I would actually delete the entire last sentence of the Marla Ruzicka entry. I don't think it is the place of a Wikipedia entry to make that assessment -- certainly not before the fact.


 * As to Pope John Paul II, TONS of laudatory pieces have been written about his efforts at encouraging peace and decrying poverty and opression around the world. Some of those pieces also made note of the fact that some of the other policies he espoused -- more often birth control than abortion -- had real world effects entirely contrary to his otherwise stated policies. It certainly would not have been a balanced picture without noting that. Similarly there are MANY groups and individuals who you would no doubt label leftist and radical who held Mother Theresa in high esteem... even if they did not agree with every precept of the Roman Catholic Church.


 * --Jjf 03:20, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

--Stan-- You started it with your completely one-sided article, & your refusal to tolerate a dissenting opinion. You characterized Frontpage as 'fringe' & 'hate speech', when they are just as nonpartisan as half the ext links you approved of, & when they receive 2million hits per day (as far as I can tell more than most of your external links) & have a roster of national columnists. You also accused them of 'factual inaccuracy' regarding Marla's presence in Iraq before the war, when every article I find includes the same quote from the cofounder of Code Pink. All available evidence proves you were wrong on that point. If this article is grounds for judgement, then Wikipedia's policy of NPOV is just spin. I guess the only way to get along is to agree with you & likeminded editors. So much for freedom of thought & expression. Are you a member of a college faculty?

User:Achilles2000 11 May


 * --Jjf--"As to characterizations of Code Pink or Global Exchange or CIVIC... they will be what we make them... I would hope that they would not consist of arguably pejorative labels but of descriptions of the organizations stated goals and observed activities..."


 * The descriptions of these orgs will be "what we make them"-- regardless of what they actually are? I guess only rightwingers can be 'fringe'?


 * "there is no characterization of the conservatives who have objected to her activities as "evil"


 * The clear implication is that Marla's activites were so Altruistic, Humanitarian, & Nonpartisan, that only mean, evil people could possibly find fault with them.


 * User:Achilles2000 11 May


 * Curious, Achilles... When you said, "Also the photograph accompanying the article is sardonic, & insulting to US troops, most of whom are even younger than her..." what did you mean? Please elaborate.


 * --AStanhope 17:10, 11 May 2005 (UTC)


 * -- Stan-- To people who join the orgs that Marla belonged to, US troops are ALWAYS the bad guys (see BCM's posts above). That's why she was in Iraq & Afghanistan, & not Darfur. The photograph was a sardonic attempt to show her 'standing up to the enemy'.

I'm curious, nearly every news story I find on Marla includes the quote from the Code Pink cofounder that Marla WAS in Iraq, with Code Pink, prior to the war. FrontPage WAS factually correct, your justification for exclusion is gone.


 * User:Achilles2000 12 May


 * I don't know where you got the idea that Marla felt US troops were her enemy. I have been under the impression that she was well-liked by the troops in Iraq who knew her personally.


 * I think that your issues are with the anti-war movement in general and that you're projecting your anger on Marla Ruzicka as a convenient target. This is inappropriate.


 * The Wikipedia has an article about Anger management that contains a lot of helpful information about working through anger issues. You might find it to be helpful.


 * --AStanhope 19:21, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

-- Stan -- Very cute. The people at Global Exchange, Code Pink, etc, are not the type to attend 'support the troops' rallies. She quite probably asked the troops to pose in the photo, while she stood defiantly smirking with her hands on her hips. She (like you apparently) seemed to be adept at deceiving people into believing her motives were more benevolent than they were.

If you want to see anger, then scroll up to read BCM's anti-war diatribes.

I can't help but notice that you have failed to respond to my pointing out that FrontPagemag was right, & you were wrong, about Marla's prewar trip to Iraq with Code Pink. So much for your justification for excluding the link. Can I expect to see it restored?

User:Achilles2000 12 May

Video
VIDEO: American Woman Counts Iraqi Casualties Moscowamerican (talk) 12:52, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

"Factual Inaccuracy"
The reason given for excluding the Frontpagemag link was that it was "factually inaccurate". It said Marla had been in Iraq, prior to the war, with the Code Pink organization.

Here is a link to confirm the piece WAS correct--

http://www.codepink4peace.org/index.php

"NEWS (section on right margin)

Marla Ruzicka, who went on CODEPINK's first trip to Iraq and decided to stay to help the Iraqi people, was killed in a car bombing in Baghdad on Saturday, April 16, 2005. We are in deep grief and deep respect for the work of her life."

Here is another--

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=679085&page=3

"When the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq began in March 2003, Ruzicka was already in Baghdad with Code Pink, said Jodi Evans, co-founder of the women's anti-war group."

The justification for exclusion is gone. The link should be restored. -- User:Achilles2000 17:23 13 May

Indeed, that appears to be one of the many reasons that the FrontPageMag link is disallowed. The spirit of your accusations against Marla because she was involved with CodePink are still factually incorrect.

As has been made crystal clear, the CodePink issue was one of many reasons that the consensus here is to NOT include the FrontPageMag link.

The link has been reverted, but the POV tag remains.

Thanks for your interest.

--AStanhope 20:23, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

To clarify, membership in CodePink does not mean she acted as a human shield. This, however, is irrelevant. You know the issues that the rest of us have with the FrontPageMag article. It's time to move on to other battles.

--AStanhope 20:38, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

What do you mean the "rest of us" & "consensus"? Who are the others? I remember at least 2 other posters argued for inclusion, but, faced with your adamant refusal, backed down.

The "spirit" of my accusations? What of the "spirit" of your defense? You have a problem with people who disagree with Marla's "anti-war" stance. Your intention is to prevent the inclusion of any indication that reasonable people could find fault with Marla's activism. That is NOT a NPOV.

The "Code Pink issue" was that you disputed the accuracy of the article's stating that Marla was in Iraq, with that org, prior to the war. As numerous news sources prove, she was. Code Pink's stated intention in going there was to act as "human shields". Whether they followed through is irrelevent. Your charge of "factual inaccuracy" is false.

As for Frontpage being "fringe", they are as NPOV as your approved links to The Guardian, The Independent, Salon, etc. And, as far as I can find, their website has more traffic. Is it the "consensus" that only RWers can be "fringe"?

How large was the "consensus" that agreed to the inclusion of all the other External Links? I'm guessing a consensus of one.

User:Achilles2000 23:47 13 May

I think somebody needs a hug.

--AStanhope 01:19, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

You could try to respond to the points, if you CAN make a plausible case for your actions. Seeing that you made no attempt to answer, I assume you are acknowledging your error.

User:Achilles2000 03:45 14 May

Yes - she was apparently involved with CodePink and yes she was apparently in Iraq with CodePink before the war (this runs counter to something I had read about her earlier but appears to be the case).

No - she was not a human shield. That is fabrication.

No - this doesn't change the appropriateness of the FrontPageMag articles. There has been a litany of complaints about the FrontPageMag articles. Again, the consensus is to not include them.

Apparently the POV tag makes you feel better. By all means keep it there.

As for the photo, I think you're way off base. It is simply a photo of her that happens to have two servicemen in the background. Again, there have been messages of support from dozens of servicemen in Iraq about her. She was not fighting against the US military - she was fighting FOR the Iraqi civilians who were victims of the war. There is a HUGE difference. It surprises me that you won't allow yourself to accept that.

--AStanhope 04:03, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

A "litany of complaints" from YOU, that's all. You are a consensus of one, stop trying to pretend you speak for everyone else.

So nice of you to tolerate the POV tag.

The photo doesn't just "happen" to have 2 soldiers in the background-- it's posed, with her defiantly smirking in the foreground, 'standing up to the enemy".

User:Achilles2000 08:42 14 May

You're kidding, aren't you?

You can't possibly be serious.

--AStanhope 11:12, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

About what? The photo? She probably walked up to the soldiers & asked them to pose for a photo. I'll bet Medea Benjamin, & all her buddies at Global Exchange & Code Pink, got a big kick out of it. I STILL say it is a insult to every soldier in Iraq.

As for the article, Gnossie & Nick both thought the link could be included. You refused to yield an inch in your campaign to maintain a shrine to St Marla, regardless of the facts.

With whom did you reach this "consensus"?

User:Achilles2000 05:21 15 May


 * And how do you know the soldiers didn't walk up and ask to pose with HER ?


 * Perhaps you should have read what David Horowitz had to say in the article you speak so highly :::of:


 * ". . . Marla Ruzicka was respected and mourned not only by the left but by supporters of :::the war who knew her, and even by members of the Bush administration and military whom she :::first harrangued and then petitioned and who ended up in a partially voluntary cooperation with :::her endeavors. "


 * http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=17933


 * This is what a soldier stationed in Baghdad had to say about her:


 * "She came here, lived here, and attached a human face to those casualties. Then she worked to :::relieve their suffering. She learned the systems, first agitating in Washington, DC, and :::eventually here. She did so even to the degree of working with the military to help :::distribute funds for the victims which the military has for that purpose, all of this in order to :::help innocent people. In the end, it seems, she left politics aside in favor of practical :::reality and set her shoulder to work for humans, not just ideals. Nobody I know opposes an :::objective such as that.


 * In the past several weeks, in your gifts of creamer and magazines and the like, and by e-mails :::and letters, many of you have asked me, “What else can we do?” For the most part I’ve :::side-stepped your generosity. Today I have an answer.


 * '''Go to CIVICWorldwide.org. Go there and donate ‘til it hurts.

'''
 * There will be time enough for soldiers later on."


 * http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7545644/


 * Her memorial service at the US Senate was attended by the ambassadors from Afghanistan and Iraq, :::hardly anti-American zealots:


 * "[Afghan] Ambassador Jawad condoled with Ruzicka’s parents and appreciated Ruzicka’s :::courageous support for civilian victims of war in Afghanistan. Ruzicka’s mother recalled how much :::her daughter loved the people of Afghanistan and wanted to be in the country to support them. :::Masuda Sultan, a member of Women for Afghan Women, spoke of her personal experiences working with :::Ruzicka and the impact of her inspiring work in Afghanistan. Other speakers included . . . :::Iraqi Ambassador Sumaidaie. "


 * http://www.embassyofafghanistan.org/embassy/home.nsf/newsletter5-22-2005?OpenPage


 * --EECEE 07:45, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * So you wouldn't object to including the 'Who Killed Marla?' link?--Achilles 17:52 8 June 2005

--Stan-- Just noticed the article on Rachael Corrie. Along with the nonsense about her activities, they included a link to a National Review article, & a photo of her burning a paper American flag. The editor of THAT article is apparently trying to give the appearance of balance & NPOV.

User:Achilles2000 19:31 16 May

We're not talking about Rachel Corrie. We're talking about a woman named MARLA RUZICKA. They are two different people.

--AStanhope 20:21, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

And 2 different editors-- one fair, & one not. Corrie was a controversial political activist, same as Marla. The Corrie editors have permitted a wider variety of info, which provides for a more honest overview of her life.

You've yet to clarify just who, other than yourself, was involved in selecting the External Links, & in the refusal to allow the FrontPage link. I believe it was you, & you alone.

User:Achilles2000 23:13 17 May

I hope you'll tolerate a new voice in this debate from someone who's not only new and ill-informed about MR, but about wiki culture as a whole!

To the uninitiated this looks like a dialogue in which one side is discussing the merits of the issue and the other is making consdescending comments like "You can't possibly be serious," and, "I think somebody needs a hug." Certainly I have much to learn about the issue at hand before I could even think about proffering an informed opinion. But this dialogue is a good example of different ways to approach a debate -- some more convincing than others.

The question, "How large was the "consensus" that agreed to the inclusion of all the other External Links?" hasn't been directly answered in this section; perhaps the rest of the talk page makes that clearer....

(And BTW, I surfed here from DKosopedia even though my politics are really off the map, so I'm not really predisposed to Achilles' side. Just calling it like I see it.)

PhilipR 14:25, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

BTW, the monotype quoted text above on this page is a bit messy in MSIE, rendered in such a way as to require a horizontal scroll. Anyone mind if I edit all that for format without changing content?

PhilipR 15:56, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Philip - Yes go ahead and edit the monotype section - it looks messy on Safari and Firefox for OS X too.

Agree that the question of consensus hasn't been addressed yet - I'm personally in favour of including the Frontpage link. Others have an opinion on that? Nick Fraser 19:07, 18 May 2005 (UTC)


 * It is my interpretation that the consensus here has been to NOT include the FrontPageMag link. I feel very strongly that the link should not be included. --AStanhope 22:20, 23 May 2005 (UTC)


 * My inference is that you've invented your own consensus to back up what you want to believe. I see a few comments way above that might be loosely interpreted as "a consenus", but those people seem to be long gone from this discussion. That said, I haven't yet read the article in question so I don't have an opinion on it per se. But it seems like you're convinced you have the Silent Majority on your side, that the article is just so manifestly over-the-top that legions of Wikipedians simply must be agreeing with you. I don't see evidence for that, but then I haven't read the article -- maybe it's really as bad as you make out. - PhilipR 01:24, 24 May 2005 (UTC)


 * One thing this page doesn't reflect are all the reverts and comments associated with them by other people. I am by no means the only editor to revert the addition of that link... Have you read the article yet? I am interested in hearing what you think of it. --AStanhope 14:54, 24 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Just read the first one and found it in really poor taste, and more of an aggressive op-ed than a news article anyway. Haven't yet read the second. I'm sure Achilles can come up with something more factual.


 * Incidentally, you'd probably do yourself a favor by adding the correct link above instead of "frontpagerag.com"; it just makes it look like you're namecalling IMO. - PhilipR 20:35, 25 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Ha! I wasn't responsible for that... When I added the links they were the correct ones. Now that you've pointed it out, however, I will repair them. Thanks. --AStanhope 23:19, 25 May 2005 (UTC)


 * It was User:Scoopster! Edit Changing FrontPageMag to FrontPageRag --AStanhope 23:41, 25 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm asking for the 'Who Killed Marla?' link. If anything, I think THAT article downplays Marla's commitment as a radical, & emphasizes what they perceive as a transformation in Marla. It DOES point out her role as a disciple of M Benjamin & that woman's radical life. My problem with the Wikipedia article is that, to one who doesn't know better, it gives the impression that Marla was a Florence Nightingale-type, solely interested in helping the suffering, rather than as someone advancing a political agenda. In fact, in the only mention (Wikipedia) that she was a "leftist", the word is in quotation marks, as if it is the opinion of RW goofballs, & not obvious from her previous decade & a half of political activism. The woman's activities were controversial to say the least, & the article does nothing to explain why. -- User:Achilles2000 00:49 26 May


 * What part of NO don't you understand? Neither of those FrontPageMag articles will be linked from this article. Go piss on the Medea Benjamin article if you need to spew your hate somewhere. --AStanhope 02:28, 26 May 2005 (UTC)


 * LOL! I'd rather "piss" on you & Marla! I see you're still referring to statements you disagree with as "hate". That fits in well with your "proprietary" tone. It's sad you are so burdened by that totalitarian mindset. Is that something you learned in the seances when you were channeling Marla's spirit? Or, did you accompany Marla to Cuba & learn it there? Never fear, I will continue to dispute the NPOV of your deceptive, deceitful portrait of St Marla. -- User:Achilles2000 18:47 26 May 2005


 * Firstly, I believe he was replying to my comments on the first article. And secondly, I really don't understand the proprietary tone, but I guess it goes back to the history between you two or something....


 * Nick-- I was talking to you. The only "history" Astan & I have is on this discussion thread. -- User:Achilles2000 18:54 26 May 2005


 * Perhaps. --AStanhope 10:18, 26 May 2005 (UTC)


 * PS: Sorry to jump to conclusions about the links above, I guess someone thought they were helping us by "correcting" the links.... -- PhilipR 03:22, 26 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Not a problem. I'm glad you pointed it out. I think that the articles speak for themselves. --AStanhope 10:18, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

It does say on your user page that you will be studying the subject first. It is not our function here to jump into other editor’s conflicts, but to contribute to the article with some verifiable facts. This article could use some balance; if you can add some criticism please do so. The links in question are not helpful in that regard. Rather than dealing with issues they go straight to the ad hominum with asides to Castro and Jane Fonda. It is understandable that no one here wants to be seen supporting that spit-on-grave technique. Meggar 04:56, 2005 May 24 (UTC)
 * I'm all for adding balance to the article if one deems it necessary. I am also all for adding links to other articles that are critical of her, but I stand fast in my opposition to the FrontPageMag pieces. --AStanhope 14:54, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Meggar-- The FrontPage article 'Who Killed Marla?' includes an internal link to the CIVIC website which tells of Marla's 4 trips to Cuba. Her mentor, Medea Benjamin, lived in Cuba for years, & is Castro's loyal acolyte. IMHO, that info IS relevent to provide prospective as to Marla's political aims & agenda. One can get the impression from the article that Marla's motives were completely altruistic & nonpartisan-- that is false. -- User:Achilles2000 22:35 24 May

Given that HRH Astanhope seldom deigns to respond, I suppose we will never know. The shrine remains intact. More than can be said for the NPOV principle.

User:Achilles2000 17:02 23 May


 * Marla's ghost forgives you for your ham-handed attempt at smearing her. Sander Gjonaj --AStanhope 22:20, 23 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Your belief that you are the medium through which Marla's spirit communicates with this world, explains your rather irrational defense of the purity of the article, but it also indicates a mental instability which tends to discredit your goals. Below is a link to the CIVIC website which tells of her numerous trips to Cuba-- User:Achilles2000 22:44 24 May

http://www.civicworldwide.org/press/press_082304-post.htm


 * She's been to Cuba... And?... --AStanhope 03:58, 25 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I think she's hot. Proto 12:00, 25 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't find it altruistic, or noble, to go around spouting Che Guevara quotes. The fact that she did things like that doesn't fit in well with the false picture, of Marla, you are trying to create. -- User:Achilles2000 00:57 26 May

Please clarify.
"In Afghanistan, she conducted a survey on the military campaign effects on Afghan civilians to apply for compensation and aid." to use as evidence to get grants for her organization from the us military? to identify victims for the US government? --Gbleem 17:24, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

washington post article
washington post article seems to indicate that she became less radical and more pragmatic. I think that is a good balanced story. She was a radical protester who changed her tactics. --Gbleem 17:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


 * "She was a radical protester who changed her tactics." And as such she became the enemy of Madea Benjamin. Though that isn't mentioned in the wikipedia article. Hmmmm. Chops79 (talk) 02:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Earlier work
As a youth she traveled often to Cuba. She once exposed a sign hidden under a dress. She changed her tactics at a Rumsfeld speach. Was criticized for working with the government. --Gbleem 17:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

untitled comments (relocated from top of page
I would like to continue the discussion of why this Achilles 2000 continually disputes the neutrality of this article. I am in all honestly thinking of completely overhauling the article as it appears the language in the article has been repeatedly edited and simply sounds like a set of political bullet points. This article should contain simply the facts of the life that Marla Ruzicka lived and not the political opinions of a few people.

Charles Melton
 * "I decided not to take a position on the war but to try to do the right humanitarian thing," -Marla Ruzicka
 * After long debate, the editor of this article agreed to the inclusion of the POV label-- it will stay. The entire article is BS, IMHO. Ruzicka was not a nonpolitical humanitarian like Florence Nightingale. She was a committed radical like her longtime associate Medea Benjamin. User:Achilles2000 12:36 8 Oct 2005


 * Being as this is a Wiki one person does not get to decide a specific issue regarding this article. This should be a collective. In the Editorial guidelines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia#Policies) about Neutral Point of View the wikipedia states


 * "The policy states that views should be given weight equal to their popularity".


 * This is obviously not occuring in the article. Gripe about Google page rank all you want but at this moment only one negative article (the frontpagemag.com article) appears in the first 20 listings. Achilles is the only person expressing these views in this discussion and the only person adding the NPOV tag to the article. I propose that the frontpagemag.com article be included and the NPOV tag removed. People are intelligent enough to read through the evidence and see what is true about Marla Ruzicka and what is mearly the opinion of the majority.


 * That's not true. This article does not have a single editor who is authorized to "agree" to something. Moreover, wiki articles are not supposed to remain in a state of perpetual POV. Rather, the POV tag is intended to flag possible problems that may need fixing, after which POV tag gets removed. In the case of this article, the POV pushing is coming from Achilles, who clearly has a strong and very hostile point of view toward Marla Ruzicka, whom he refers to habitually using terms like "pinko." It is moreover POV for Achilles to insist that someone with committed political views (radical or otherwise) cannot be a "humanitarian."


 * If POV labels were attached to every article in Wikipedia about a figure with committed political views, we'd have to apply the tag to the articles on George W. Bush, Mohatma Gandhi, and thousands of other people. The real reason that Achilles wants to apply this label to the Marla Ruzicka article is because he's trying to push his own hateful, FrontPageMag point of view about her. --Sheldon Rampton 15:18, 8 October 2005 (UTC)


 * If there is an honest account of her life, I will agree to the removal. This article is a false portrait of her life, a shrine to St Marla. The article made no mention at all of her political views, & attempts to include them were labelled "hate speech". A true account would mention her long association with Medea Benjamin, her trips to Cuba, her involvement with every trendy radical cause from anti-globalization to her prewar trip to Iraq with Code Pink--any cause as long as it was anti-American. User:Achilles2000 16:32 8 Oct 2005

- Careful! FrontPageMag and the writers here are apoligosts for US war crimes!!!

They are PAID PROPAGANDISTS for the corporate apparatus, and are short on facts and rich in hateful accusations.

Marla was a great human being with a strong sense of justice, and not a crazy leftist.

--


 * I see more evidence of the "NPOV" that permeates this paen to a young pinko who got herself killed in Iraq by people she supported. Achilles 30 Sept

section on death?
Good day, can someone add a section on her death? It's not clear to me how/why/where/when it happened from the article. In one para she's doing work in Iraq and in the next para. she's dead w/ no explanation. Thanks, Hu Gadarn 21:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

NPOV tag
After having got here from the Medea Benjamin page, I think it is definitely wierd that her Code Pink involvement was not mentioned. Also, there were very significant conflict between Marla and Medea, for example at http://commongroundmag.com/2005/09/activeparents0509.html. I personally find Front Page Mag rather distatestful and not exactly what one would call a "reliable" source, but Common Ground isn't exactly a right wing advocate. She also went back to Baghdad against the advise of many of her friends, which should be included in a section on her death. Wikipedia is not a memorial (and, as Achilles so indelicately put it, paens are to be discouraged), we deal in facts... -66.92.218.130 20:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Killed by USA
I think that she was killed by the USA. History proves that USA has made such things more times before. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.136.83.185 (talk) 00:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The above post is so extreme and out there, I don't even think it deserves a reply. Just do us a favor and don't edit pages because accuracy is supposed to be key to Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WYATTKOPP (talk • contribs) 22:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * As you can see from the war above, accuracy is in the eye of the beholder... -206.173.244.52 (talk) 23:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008
Removed Military History tag as article is out of scope. The subject of this article didn't serve in any military force nor is her notability directly related to the military. The subject was an activist for victims of military campaigns and a victim but I do not think this qualifies as Military History notability. --dashiellx (talk) 11:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Marla Ruzicka. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060913082908/http://www.veteransforpeace.org/American_woman_052803.htm to http://www.veteransforpeace.org/American_woman_052803.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091110050135/http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/04/18/marla/index.html to http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/04/18/marla/index.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050613233708/http://www.record-bee.com/Stories/0%2C1413%2C255~34731~2825258%2C00.html to http://www.record-bee.com/Stories/0%2C1413%2C255~34731~2825258%2C00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:09, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Added Marla Ruzicka Iraqi War Victims Fund information and other sites deleted before
At Senator Leahy’s urging, President George W. Bush signed legislation on May 11, 2005, which renamed the civilian war victims the “Marla Ruzicka Iraqi War Victims Fund.” At of 2006, the combined sum that Congress had allocated to assist Afghan and Iraqi civilians who were victims of U.S. warfare is thirty-eight million dollars.

'''Websites that originally in the article 12 years ago:


 * Salon, Marla Ruzicka, RIP
 * FrontPage.Mag Who Killed Marla Ruzicka?
 * CounterPunch.org: Marla Ruzicka, Rachel Corrie and "Credibility"; Censored: How an NRA man found the Long Lost Ivory Billed Woodpecker; Fatal Connexion: Roy Orbison and Laura Bush; Pickett's Failed Charge, (April 30 / May 1, 2005).
 * CIVIC website
 * Independent, The senseless death of the woman who fought George Bush
 * Washington Post, U.S. Activist Mends Lives Torn by War Compensation Sought For Victims' Families
 * Guardian, Marla Ruzicka (Obituary)
 * Our Heart and Conscience, Appreciation by Iraq-based journalist Christopher Allbritton
 * uruknet.info, Remembering Marla Ruzicka
 * Lake County Record-Bee, Statement in honor of Marla Ruzicka - Senator Barbara Boxer transcript 04.18.05

Moscowamerican (talk) 13:28, 25 June 2017 (UTC)