Talk:Rachel Corrie

Policies

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

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

• Articles may not contain any unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, analyses, or ideas.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

Information missing from the article

Hi all. I made a bold edit and changed the section on "Possible kidnap attempt by Palestinians..." yada yada ydada to "Visits to Rafah by Corrie's Parents". They have visited the region a number of times since their daughter's death, not only to investigate what happened but to continue her life's work (a reason they also opened the case against Caterpillar [1]. Since their parents don't have their own article, and the reason they took activism for a just solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is inextricably tied to their daughter's death, I suggest we use this section to expand on their activist work (as documented in reliable sources).

There was and is, by the way, undue emphasis on the whole Palestinian kidnap episode. I recall watching a documentary on the Corrie's visits to rafah and their fear, as expressed by them, was related more to the Israeli tank fire being directed to the area they were staying in in Rafah. I'll try to remember which film it was and find some kind of text on the matter. But just saying, the section devoted to that (with three full paragraphs) seems a little like overkill. Tiamut^talk 14:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I've played with the subsection title to include both. I caution against, er, overkill on the visits by the parents. It isn't clear to me that the actions of the parents now, five years after Corrie's death, have much to do with her article. Still, let's see what you come up with! Though I caution again, any attempt to imply the Israelis were shooting at the Corries should have really strong sourcing.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

That's a rather strange comment Wehwalt. If the the actions of the parents years after their daughter's death have nothing to do with her, why do we have a whole section devoted to discussing the so-called kidnap attempt of her parents during one of the more recent visits they made there? Her parents have become crusaders on the issue of Israel/Palestine since their daughter's death, taking Caterpillar to court, supporting grassroots projects in the West Bank and Gaza. I don't know why we would not mention this, if it is documented in reliable sources.

And don't worry. I'm familiar enough with how sensitive people are to any information that portrays Israel is a less than perfect light. (Conversely, it's very easy to have a whole section devoted to Palestinian "terror" in an article about a girl who was killed by an Israeli bulldozer.) I wouldn't dare attempt to include information that the Israelis were shooting at the area in the Corrie's were in, without super-solid sourcing. It was in that documentary, but documentaries are not RS's here I don't think. So cheers. Tiamut^talk 15:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not "some people"; this is the only I-P conflict article I am involved with. I'm raising my eyebrows at some of the stuff that you and PR are putting in, but I will wait for you guys to finish before commenting.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't implying you were. But did you notice that you used "caution against" twice above? Once, to discourage adding things on the visits by the parents, and once to remind me of the need for strong sourcing on the allegation that Israeli shot at Corrie's parents. I'm not a newbie Wehwalt. I know about our WP:RS guidelines and I'm very familiar with the sensitivities surrounding articles in the I-P domain. You don't need to caution me against anything.

If you do have a problem with any source I have added so far, please do let me know which and why. I don't want to start incorporating material from them into the article only to find out you don't think they are reliable or relevant. Thanks. Tiamut^talk 16:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I don't have time to prescreen sources and won't be bound by "Well, you didn't challenge them at the time". Sorry if the language offended you, it was not meant in any negative sense. Please don't go overboard in adding external links, a while back we cut them way back (at one time there were about 40). I am trying to get rid of low value ones as you add more. This is not a Rachel Corrie memorial site, you know.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The significance of Rachel's parents and their foundation continuing to visit Rafah and work towards peace in the region is considerable. Unlike the significance of a failed attempt at crime on them, which strikes me as trivial indeed. PR^talk 15:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

If so, you should have no trouble in finding reliable sources. I really don't think the Foundation invokes WP:SELFPUB, it is not the subject of this article. Weren't there news accounts?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Here's one about the national campaign Corrie's parents launched to rebuild the homes that were destroyed in Rafah, spotlighting the work of a netowrk of American NGOs called the Rebuilding Alliance. [2] I'll keep looking for more and posting them here. I think it's totally ridiculous that we should devote so much space to a confused kidnapping attempt and none to the years of work her parents have since logged bringing attention to the the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Tiamut^talk 15:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

No reason not to have both. But the unusual, the crime, does always seem to get more newspaper attention. Human nature I guess.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:44, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Here's another one with more detailed information in the Jewish Journal [3]. Seems the Nasrallah family whose home Rachel was trying to protect before she was killed went with the Corrie's on the tour across america to raise funds for the rebuilding project. Notable and very relevant to this article. Tiamut^talk 15:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The Corries and Nasrallahs were interviewed by Democracy Now during that cross country trip. [4] An article about their visit to Iowa is here [5]; it describes the cross-country campaign a bit too, mentioning it involved visiting 22 cities across America. Tiamut^talk 15:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Well, go ahead and write something if you like and submit it to the harsh light of Wikipedia. I suspect though, that we should limit ourselves to a paragraph or so, and perhaps direct readers to "Main Article:Rebuilding Alliance" since, after all, that is who is doing it.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Again, we have three paragraphs (and we use to have a sub-section header) devoted to a maybe kidnapping attempt of Corrie's parents while they were in Rafah, that did not seem to be undue to anybody. "in the harsh light of Wikipedia." But now when people want to include info on the activism of Corrie's parents, their multiple visits to Rafah, and the 22-city cross-country tour they made with the family whose home Rachel died trying to protect to raise funds to rebuild Palestinian homes destroyed in Gaza - all of this stuff should be limited to a paragraph maybe two? I think you need to think a bit about how your position comes off here. And maybe think about how to cut down the maybe/maybe not kidnapping attempt if you are so concerned with keeping this article free of undue irrelevancies. Tiamut^talk 16:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, you are certainly entitled to your opinions, here and elsewhere, entirely your privilege. However, again, I feel like I'm being asked for commitments before I've seen the actual edits. Edit away, WP is the encyclopedia that can be edited by anyone, and let's see what we have. I'm unclear as to what is the difficulty about the possible kidnapping, certainly this article has been seen by editors taking every perspective and IIRC, the main concern has been about the title of the section (I think "Attempt to kidnap Corrie's parents" was changed to "Possible attempt to kidnap Corrie's parents"). But you want to take a look at things, feel free. Do you think it needs to be shorter? Or somehow balanced? It seems a bit of a contradictory position to me, but it's your view.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there should be a header for the kidnapping attempt at all. It garnered a brief mention for all of two days before it was totally forgotten, until we memorialized in an article on Rachel Corrie at wikipedia. While you on the one hand, said above, that the activities of her parents years after her death may not be relevant, you on the other, see no problem with devoting so much space (and a sub-header) to a one time event during one of their many visits to gaza.

I understand that you may not be familiar with their activist work and may think the kidnapping story more notable, but I think if you reflect a bit, you will see where the contradiction in your argument lies. Tiamut^talk 17:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Bad news trumps good news, I'm afraid. But both have a place in the article. Google search for "corrie rebuilding alliance" seem to get twice as many hits as "corrie kidnapping gaza" but if you play with the wording, you can vary that as you like, neither one of them seems buried and forgotten until Wikipedia came along! Do you want to propose language and we can talk it out here?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Incidently, how is rebuildingalliance.org (present ref 42) a RS under the guidelines we are working with on this talk page (i.e. no selfpub except for Corrie herself)?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't add that source. PalestineRemembered did. It's an NGO reporting on its own activities, so I guess it might fall afoul of Selfpub. I'll try to find a third-party source for that material, or something similar. Tiamut^talk 17:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Wehwalt that the attempt to kidnap the Corries is more notable than their efforts to promote their views about the I-P conflict. (The header barely makes any sense now.) I think an effective argumentum ad Googlem could be made for this, but it's really just common sense. People are generally more fascinated by crime and violence than quiet advocacy, and our newspapers, books, and encyclopdias reflect this. IronDuke 21:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Articles about the kidnapping may be easier to find, but I assure you that there are a lot of people much more interested the Corrie's volunteer work and the issues they have taken up since their daughter's death, than they are in a rumoured, failed kidnapping attempt. I think recentism has a lot to do with why the kidnapping event enjoyed so much prominence in this article until (it happened in 2006). But I think you would agree that since the initial reports were made, the issue has been largely forgotten. It's not essential to this article, and a brief mention here, without a header and section devoted to it, is sufficient. Tiamut^talk 14:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think there's room for both. I'd also say that if the failed kidnap attempt had simply happened and everyone had shrugged and moved on, you'd be right (or righter, anyway). But given that there were accusations and defenses being thrown around, I think it behooves us to treat the matter fairly. And it really isn't all that much text, is it? IronDuke 16:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Concur with IronDuke. Tiamut, how do you know that "there are a lot of people much more interested the Corrie's volunteer work and the issues they have taken up since their daughter's death, than they are in a rumoured, failed kidnapping attempt." Isn't that OR at the very least, and something we would have a hard time verifying?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:29, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Well Wehwalt, I don't know for sure, but in the circles I run in, we discuss their volunteer work (which is ongoing), much more than a rumoured kidnapping attempt from two years ago. But erhaps you should pose the question to IronDuke as well? How does he know that the attempt to kidnap the Corries is more notable thatn their efforts re: the I-P conflict. (Tiamut)

Perhaps you should. But you have the burden of proof, as the editor proposing changes. IronDuke does not. The ball is in your court.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:41, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

There's no consensus for his change, and it is also just odd... the section is clearly about a possible attempt to kidnap RC's parents, but is labeled as something else. Pending a consensus to overturn a long-standing caption, I have restored it. IronDuke 21:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I was planning to expand information on the Corries visits to the region and cut down some of the info on the kidnapping, which seems a bit unnecessary. They were not kidnapped, remember? This non-event on one day should not have more coverage than their work to rebuild hundreds of Palestinian homes over a few years. But to each his own. I'll see what else I can dig up on their volunteer work and visit to the region, add it and then we can discuss how to head the sections. Tiamut^talk 12:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Unnecessary to whom? It got multiple coverage from reliable sources, to wit newspapers.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:41, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't take it that my edits imply consent or support, I'm just doing some cleanup.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

It's the length of the coverage accorded to the kidnapping rumour that I find "unnecessary", not the mention of it. I don't believe in censoring information of any kind. I think you will find, as I continue to add newspaper sources to the section on Corries' parents' activism that your perception that this work is somehow less notable than a rumoured kidnapping is false.

And don't worry, I won't take your little cleanups as some kind of evidence towards your acceptance of the material I have added. I would say however, that if you're going to suggest we delete it anyway, that you probably shouldn't bother wasting your time. Tiamut^talk 13:53, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Rachel's Parents' work is very related to the subject for the memory of Rachel Corrie it should be in the article but not very long. It should contain what they have done since Rachel's death. We should open a different article page for Rachel Corrie Foundation where a more expanded info and discussion we can make on the subject. And put a link to there from Rachel's Page.

For the possibility of kidnapping events well 2 links exist one site is named global security which is full of advertising in everywhere quoted from voice of america which direct link is here [6] and should be replaced at the references section. The article written by Jim Teeple who "enjoys hearing from listeners and if he has time, will try to respond to any questions" with no source and by just a claim. Just as Reuter reports the claim "according to a witness" who, where, how we dont know. Though Craig Corrie made a statement about it "The Jerusalem Post reported Craig Corrie as saying: "there was never a threat made against us and the gun was never pointed at anyone." ... Craig Corrie said that when he entered the room and saw the man with the gun, he feared it might be a kidnapping attempt, but that the situation was never described to him that way by his host. Corrie added that the media accounts over-dramatized the incident." All different point of views should be in the article yet I agree the title of that part is not objective as we dont even know there was any kidnapping incident at all. And this incident should just be a part of Rachel Corrie's parents' actions since they established the Rachel Corrie Foundation. But the title misleads the info. If possible kidnapping attempt fits to the standarts why not corrie: media overdramatized the might-be kidnapping incident where no gun pointed to anyone or Corrie feared they might have been kidnapped at first but it never happened. You know why this wont be a good title and try applying same logic to possible kidnapping attempt to rachel's parents according to a non-clear and unknown-and-an-even-might-not-be-ever-existed-source's claim though they refused it.

Also you do even fine with sites full of advertising and purchasing links like globalsecurity that quotes from other sites while still not sure about if have any self published reports or is a "Reliable Security Information" as they self claimed which noone even didnt bother the check the first hand source of the context, extremely one sided sites like Tom Gross biography who also "worked as a staff writer and editor at the Jerusalem Post for two years.", a short and insulting editorial of national review[7] "... Rachel Corrie, the 23-year-old American radical who was crushed to death when she jumped in front of an Israeli army bulldozer. (The bulldozer was trying to destroy a building suspected of concealing tunnels used for terrorist weapons-smuggling; Corrie was part of a group that declared "armed struggle" a Palestinian "right.")" with boldest outrageous claims without even bothering to provide any source as reference [dont tell me it is an editorial], yet refuse to accept written statement of the eyewitnesses' taken by a member of Palestinian Center for Human Rights' who is a lawyer under oath. I cannot reason your actions of applying wiki policies at all. Kasaalan (talk) 14:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Refutation of photos which are not discussed

I've removed this paragraph:

• The website Israel Behind the News has said that images on the ISM website, and subsequently used by Reuters, give a misleading impression of the incident.

I doubt very much the reliability of a site like Israel Behind the News; however, my main problem with this is that it gives negative commentary about photos that are (as far as I can see) not discussed anywhere else in the article. It's poor form to include information refuting something that is not even discussed to begin with. When people decide they want to add a section on what the content of the photos was, we can consider whether or not to re-include this and how. Tiamut^talk 16:58, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I found a link from Electronic Intifada Rachel Corrie page dated 16 March 2003 Photostory quoting ISM Handout while giving exact times and locations of the photographs taken as requested before for approval. It is clearly stated at the handout first photographs taken between 3-4 pm and last ones taken at 4.45 pm and 4.47 pm respectively. Therefore no controversy available in ISM handout by misleading time info. A quote from the page "Last updated: 21 March 2003 (added detail to captions in images and context to second paragraph)."

Hi there. It seems that Electronic Intifada is not considered a reliable source for this article. I can't imagine why, when a site like Israel Behind the News is. Perhaps Wehwalt might like to explain this further? We do need to discuss the photos in the article, they were key to the whole event and controversy. So what sources which discuss them are appropriate to use here? (This question is addressed to Wehwalt, since I don't understand the guidelines at the top of this page, or the way they are being implemented.) Tiamut^talk 17:33, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Wehwalt said "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." Therefore pointing out incorrectly labelled photographs. I quoted from EI for the exact date and update [16 and 23 march 2003 respectively] which doesnt have wrong labels about date site or time of the photographs. The date and time for the photographs already given by ISM at the first place. Therefore Israeli objections for a possible fraud of the time by ISM proved to be wrong. Electronic Intifada only quotes from ISM yet I will try to get ISM handout as a first hand source instead EI in later time.

Also another important matter I will point out not sure if stated before but photographs taken at the site Photostory also proves one important issue: Rachel was not only wearing a red-orange jacket but that red-orange jacket also has 2 big reflecting stripes on it and the 4 headlights of the D9R were open all the time. Also the blue sky reflecting from the D9R and environment light also proves the times given by ISM. But if anyone still objects I can make a sun study for the area in a later time. Photographs might help even more on the case for professionals. Kasaalan (talk) 17:50, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

ISM links

Resolved

The only ISM link at the article is [8] about rachel corrie's parents. There is a Rachel Corrie archive of ISM which I traced back to find some more info on the matter from their view.

ISM statement on the killing of Rachel Corrie original full text statement of ISM

The closest eye witness account on the murder of Rachel Corrie written by Tom Dale. Some more quotes can be taken from his statements.

"We’d been monitoring and occasionally obstructing the 2 bulldozers for about 2 hours when 1 of them turned toward a house we knew to be threatened with demolition. Rachel knelt down in its way. She was 10-20 metres in front of the bulldozer, clearly visible, the only object for many metres, directly in it’s view. They were in Radio contact with a tank that had a profile view of the situation. There is no way she could not have been seen by them in their elevated cabin. They knew where she was, there is no doubt.

The bulldozer drove toward Rachel slowly, gathering earth in its scoop as it went. She knelt there, she did not move. The bulldozer reached her and she began to stand up, climbing onto the mound of earth. She appeared to be looking into the cockpit. The bulldozer continued to push Rachel, so she slipped down the mound of earth, turning as she went. Her faced showed she was panicking and it was clear she was in danger of being overwhelmed. All the activists were screaming at the bulldozer to stop and gesturing to the crew about Rachel’s presence. We were in clear view as Rachel had been, they continued. They pushed Rachel, first beneath the scoop, then beneath the blade, then continued till her body was beneath the cockpit. They waited over her for a few seconds, before reversing. They reversed with the blade pressed down, so it scraped over her body a second time. Every second I believed they would stop but they never did."

Parents speaking out to keep alive memory of child killed in Gaza quoted from Pittsburgh Post Gazette interview with Rachel's Parents

Rachel Corrie is the new Anne Frank on postponement of the plays with transcripts and sound records

The New York Times Distorts Key Facts About Cancellation of Play on Activist Rachel Corrie answers to Too Hot to Handle, Too Hot to Not Handle article

Counterpunch: “What Rachel Saw”

Haaretz: Until the bulldozers stop

also first link at reference is 24 not working [9] Kasaalan (talk) 19:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The witness statement we have for Tom Dale from an article in Mother Jones article which is already included in our article reads as follows:

The bulldozer built up earth in front of it. Its blade was slightly dug into the earth. She began to stand up. The earth was pushed over her feet. She tried to climb on top of the earth, to avoid being overwhelmed. She climbed to the point where her shoulders were above the top lip of the blade. She was standing on this pile of earth. As the bulldozer continued, she lost her footing, and she turned and fell down this pile of earth. Then it seemed like she got her foot caught under the blade. She was helpless, pushed prostrate, and looked absolutely panicked, with her arms out, and the earth was piling itself over her. The bulldozer continued so that the place where she fell down was directly beneath the cockpit. I think she would have been between the treads. The whole [incident] took place in about six or seven seconds."

I'm not sure, but I think we can link directly to the account of Tom Dale in his own words two days after the event, which you linked to here, for this information instead. I'm not clear if it's okay to use them in this particular case since it is Tom Dale's account that is being referenced itself. Wehwalt, IronDuke, help on this please?

One last thing, I would really prefer if you made edits to the article itself. Begin with small edits, introducing the material you feel is missing. It doesn't have to be perfect. I'll fix references behind you and stuff, but it's very hard to discuss these things in the abstract here without understanding exactly what it is you want to do. So just do it. Be WP:BOLD and if you get reverted, WP:BRD. Okay? Tiamut^talk 22:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

This section was actually link collection more than a discussion. We can discuss later if the links are needed. Kasaalan (talk) 13:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Wrong Image Used As A Reference at Rachel Corrie Article

Replaced [10] with [11]

The image was a D9N [12] not the D9R that was used at the case [13]. Also Wikimedia link for D9R should also be added because it contains better visual info for the D9R's used by IDF.

These images [14] and [15] should have been used instead.

Also 712 clearly shows if one stands up it can be clearly seen by the operator. Side views are better for visibility tracking of the case study.

Also Hebrew Wikipedia D9 Page has a Technical Drawing from Side View for D9 series clearly shows the dimensions of the D9 series. I couldn't manage to add the image under the D9R image because it is uploaded to the Hebrew version of wikipedia. Can anyone help me on this matter.

The model of the machine can be clearly identified on rachel's scene photographs at [16] or [17] Kasaalan (talk) 20:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Kasaalan. We need to slow down just a little bit. Other editors cannot keep up when there are so many issues being raised at the same time. Let's try to focus on how we are writing here is related to article improvement. In this section, what I gather is that you have found a picture that more accurately represents the bulldozer that was used, right? That's good, and it's good that you went and ahead and replaced the other one. Do you think we need more than one (or maximum two) pictures? Because if you add this one too[18], which you link to above, you won't need the Hebrew version one anyway. If you still want that one, let me know, and I'll see what I can do about it. Tiamut^talk 22:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Hebrew One Technical Drawing from Side View for D9 series clearly shows the dimensions of a D9 particularly a D9L but their size is rather close to each other yet I will also check this info for exact size. By the help of D9R dimensions we can actually verify its field of view from operator seat better. If Rachel has risen on the razor blade yes it is very unlikely for the operator to not see her. Because the height of the razor blade is 1.9 meters with its silage extension which has big holes for letting operator to see through. And without the extension the height of razor blade is near 150 cm. So what we need further is the height of Rachel.

I but couldnt decide where to add wikimedia link to D9R actually therefore I asked another view. The page contains various views of D9R with different armors on them.

712 is not actually the exact D9R model used at area because it has additional window protections on it. So I wont put it at the main page anyway. Yet 712 is also good for one particular case on how high the dozer blade can rise up with its see-through silage extension. dozer blade parts Therefore it is an evidence for the case whether the operator can see Rachel or not and might be useful for cross referencing eyewitnesses' comments. And if the operator has risen the blade it just means his chance of seeing her is higher than before. Kasaalan (talk) 01:38, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Another fact is there were at least 2 soldiers in the operator cabin not just one. "After an investigation in 2003, the Israeli military concluded that the two soldiers in the D9R Caterpillar bulldozer that killed Rachel Corrie did not see her, though eyewitnesses indicate that she was clearly visible. The case was closed, no charges were brought, and the Israeli Government declined to release their report to the U.S. Government. On June 11, 2004, in response to inquiries from the Corrie family, Lawrence B. Wilkerson, Chief of Staff to Colin Powell at the U.S. Department of State, wrote of the IDF report, “Your ultimate question, however, is a valid one, i.e., whether or not we view that report to have reflected an investigation that was ‘thorough, credible, and transparent.’ I can answer your question without equivocation. No, we do not consider it so.” On March 17, 2005, in testimony before members of Congress, this position was reiterated by Michael G. Kozak, Acting Assistant Secretary of the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor at the Department of State." Advised by Department of State officials to pursue the matter in Israeli courts, the Corrie family in March 2005 initiated aprivate lawsuit against the Israel Defense Forces and the State of Israel. The Israeli Knesset subsequently passed legislation making it retroactively impossible for most Palestinians and others to take legal action against the IDF for injury that occurred in the Occupied Territories after September 2000." Informational Release from Craig and Cindy Corrie, parents of Rachel Corrie October 15, 2007

Also the highest speed of a D9R is 7.3 MPH (11.9 km/h) Forward and 9.1 MPH (14.7 km/h) Reverse, "The highest human footspeed ever recorded is 48 km/h (29.8 mph), seen during a 100 meter sprint by Asafa Powell. (His average speed over that distance was 36.96 km/h (22.95 mph) owing to the need for acceleration.)" for regular humans this speed is about 5 km/h walking 16 km/h running. So speed is not an issue in not seeing Rachel.

Dozer Blade "The dozer blade usually comes in three variants:

A Straight Blade ("S-Blade") which is short and has no lateral curve, no side wings, and can be used for fine grading.

A Universal Blade ("U-Blade") which is tall and very curved, and has large side wings to carry more material.

A "S-U" combination blade which is shorter, has less curvature, and smaller side wings. This blade is typically used for pushing piles of large rocks, such as at a quarry."

I will try to locate which exact dozer blade was used at the area from photographs which will give us exact dimensions. Kasaalan (talk) 11:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Kasaalan. Your interest in this subject and the details of it are inspiring. But some of what you are suggesting to do may fall afoul of our policy on no original research. While we can include information on the specs of the bulldozers and even how tall Rachel was, we cannot make any conclusions based onn that information, unless it is reported by a reliable source. So I suggest you find sources that discuss this issue in detail if you want to include such information. Your own calculations will not be accepted, since they would constitute original research. I hope you understand. Tiamut^talk 13:51, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning and that is why I pre quote my links here. But as the photographs already proved we may point out Rachel was wearing an orange safety reflector jacket with 2 reflecting stripes while D9R's 4 spotlights [I dont know the exact brand yet a D9T uses 10 Halogen, 11 - 6 Halogen, 5 HID or 6 Halogen as additional equipment] was open all the time and the possible fastest forward speed of a D9R can reach is no more than 11.7 km/h in its largest transmission which is equal to 200 m/m or 3,3 m/s. Also while the field of view of a D9R is resricted there were more than one IDF personel in the operator cabin which lessens the chance of not seeing her and effects of blind spot.

Anyway maybe we cannot add all yet I found some great source for the Rachel Corrie's Court Trials against the company Corrie et al. v. Caterpillar which contains Timeline and legal court proceedings with a factsheet Factsheet: Home Demolitions and Caterpillar[19]. Kasaalan (talk) 16:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Why do we need anything more than the court decisions, which explain the allegations and arguments in neutral and proper language? The so-called factsheet is by the advocacy group which brought the case for the Corries, fails under WP:SELFPUB. The court decisions are much better sources.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:23, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

So is this how you make an article in a disputable case. If legal court decisions is enough why do we need other sources in the first place. Go ahead delete the newspapers, magazines, eyewitnesses' statements. Are you just kidding me or did not checked the page? Anything prominent is needed. The first link contains the original scanned court proceedings to the court as pdf. All human rights organisations self publish their reports, and their reports referred as such in newspapers and books as a source. You dont even accept Human Rights Watch as a source, maybe not accept this one either. The factsheet is another case, it is not such an important source for it is not referencing the facts, so I wont even discuss over it. But why I actually referenced the factsheet is for some good details like "Since 2001, human rights groups have sent over 50,000 letters to Caterpillar, Inc. executives and CEO Jim Owens" and some other details for Rachel's case, which I will try to point out later with better more reliable sources. Kasaalan (talk) 20:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

We are not here to fight Rachel's case. The existing language fairly summarizes the plaintiff's allegations, and makes clear the court's reasoning. "Anything prominent is needed". No, that is not so. We write in what is called summary style here, appropriate for an encyclopedia. We hit the high points. Bogging the reader down in detail and irrelevancies (and yes, that is what the mail count for Catepillar is) encourages the reader to be bored and read something else. Such things may be appropriate for the article on Catepillar, I can't say, go talk with editors over there. For the Corrie article, not needed or desirable.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Latest edits too close to hagiography

So, I’ve taken a look at the last large batch of edits, and have a few thoughts. First, there’s some good work here. Kudos to those who put it in (I don’t know who put in what, so I can’t praise or blame anyone specifically). Having said that, and looking over the article again, I’m thinking about asking a developer if it would be possible to set the article so that when someone clicks on it, soft music starts to play, possibly a plaintive folks song, the pictures go into soft focus, and we have a moving gif image of Rachel Corrie playing with a doll as a young girl. I mean, that’s not really any more prejudicial than what we have here, right? Folks: this is not a Rachel Corrie tribute site. There’s plenty of ways to get those up on the internet, please not here. (Also not an RC hate site either, for those who keep wanting to call her “St. Pancake.”)

I’ve gone ahead and made a pass over it below is what I did and my reasons for doing so:

"had already demolished" is leading.

“This densely populated neighborhood along the Pink Line was a frequent target of Israeli gunfire.” This makes it seem like the Israelis were just shooting randomly into it.

“Corrie would also spend much of her time in an Internet café in downtown Rafah, writing about what she was witnessing from early evening until dawn, while chain-smoking and drinking cup after cup of sweetened tea. In reports for the ISM, and in notes to family and friends, she wrote about the families she lived with, the children she saw shot dead and buried, her attempts to learn Arabic and the Israeli checkpoints that made traveling through Gaza so difficult. Jenny, an Irish activist, says that, "She wrote more than anyone, and she loved doing it. She summed up exactly how I felt, and she'd only been here a couple of weeks." Friends also say that Corrie's sense of humor and playfulness remained intact throughout her trip. Mansour Lawani, a Rafah resident, says that she would stand on his balcony and call out Arabic phrases he taught her to the Egypt ian troops stationed across the border, shouting things like, "Ya, dofa, ihna awzeen nzur il ahramat!" ("Oh, soldiers, I want to visit the pyramids!"), causing the troops to wave back good-naturedly. When Lawani's wife gave her with a 1970s-era powder-pink-and-white-striped jumpsuit with matching head scarf to keep her warm, Corrie, who found it hideous, wore it the next day. Jenny recalls that "We told her, 'If you wear this in front of a tank, they'll be laughing too hard to shoot you' ... She went off dressed in the jumpsuit and played football in a pitch nearby with the local boys." ”

The above works well for a "St. Rachel" article. Not for an encyclopedia.

“Corrie also helped in ISM efforts to protect local Palestinian water wells and workers from the IDF by being present in those locations.”

Source? Her own emails? Not good enough.

The Corries' have worked [typo]

Palestinian family whose home Rachel [believed she] was trying to stop from being destroyed. When she dies, RC was protecting brush, according to the IDF. Two sides to the story.

"after Rachel was killed" "After Rachel died" I think is a little calmer, prose wise.

Towards the end of their first visit to the region in September 2003, they issued a press release explaining the reason for their visit and what they had learned. The press release concluded with an appeal, in the form of an excerpt from Rachel's letters to her mother that read, "This has to stop. I think it is a good idea for us all to drop everything and devote our lives to making this stop. I don't think it's an extremist thing to do anymore. I still really want to dance around to Pat Benetar and have boyfriends and make comics for my coworkers. But I also want this to stop." I think by this point, we know what Corrie thought, and have really a great deal from her emails/journals, etc. This is not a tribute page for RC. “the Palestinian pharmacist whose former home Rachel Corrie had [believed she was protecting] been trying to protect when she was killed” See above.

“Humanitarian groups in Southern California organized a memorial event for Corrie in May 2003. Held at the Hyatt Regency Orange County Hotel, it was an evening of poetry, music and recollections attended by area residents, as well as members of the ISM and Palestinian children, who danced the traditional debke. Rachel Corrie was also given the "Muslim Public Affairs Council Courage Award" by Dr. Maher Hathout, who commented that "courage is not the opposite of cowardice, but rather the principle of standing up to injustice."

Cindy Corrie was invited to deliver a speech at Olympia State College in September 2004, on what would have been Rachel Corrie's graduation day. The anniversary of the first year of her death was commemorated by many memorial events, such as one convened by The Islamic Coalition Seeking Universal Justice and Peace for All People (ICSUJAP) in Washington, DC on March 13.” There, Cindy Corrie relayed her daughter's belief that Palestine could be a "source of hope for people struggling all over the world.” Again, absent some violins, I don’t see this as particularly relevant. The article is too long as it is. I may not have covered all my changes above, please feel free to criticize/question changes I made I neglected to mention. IronDuke 23:53, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

We can try pinpointing some issues one by one

“Corrie also helped in ISM efforts to protect local Palestinian water wells and workers from the IDF by being present in those locations.”

Source? Her own emails? Not good enough.

If you say some words in the sentence might be changed for a more neutral point of view I can only agree. But if you didnt even look at the photographs while she was in the area how can anyone explain you she tried to act as a human shield for those wells. Also this is not related if she has done the right thing or wrong, or whether she has good intentions or not. She tried to do it wether she accomplished her goals or not. There are photographs of her just by the side of wells waiting as a human shield. There is something called common sense. But you can again say. Source? Her own Photos? Not good enough. If you dont believe in photographs or her personal records why do you even read a newspaper. What kind of source you need. If you refer to the IDF report that IDF never published to the public we are not intelligence officiers and we cannot provide it to you. Try asking to IDF directly.

As I said before if you say some sentences need editing and summarizing I can only agree and try to help. But what you do is not editing but butchering, undoing, reversing. Between making the text neutral and erasing complete paragraphs there is a huge difference. You could ask for a source or mark as citation needed before you delete this part. This is one of the activities she had done at the area. Instead acting of an iron duke with an iron fist we all should settle help and edit for the article for everyone's sake.

You even changed "Rachel was trying to stop from being destroyed" to "Rachel believed she was preventing from destruction". She tried to stop them from being destroyed whether she was doing right or wrong, she was not imagining it, dreaming it or believing it, she was simply trying to do it whether she was right or wrong in doing it. Because the homes were destroyed by IDF and she act against it by trying. The language you use is way far from a neutral point of view. IDF would like to use such a twist at words but you shouldnt have had any reason in doing it and for Wikipedia it is out of standarts.

Yet other than that I agree too much personal info not related to an encyclopedia article has been added according to your post if all above has been added yet keeping track of them is hard and couldnt quite pinpoint them. But as the longness part there is no keep it very short part as a wiki guide. Same length as Beethoven page and way much shorter than Hitler page as a biography. As stated in the wiki guide this is not a printed encyclopedia and pages not limited by paper but by context. Yet I suggest again Rachel Corrie Foundation activities and memorial events of them other than lawsuits against IDF and D9R should be kept at minimum though wikipedia needs another page dedicated to them for details so maybe some editors are willing to creat one and adding info there. Yet also this is a biography and a biography page consist of every stage of a persons life that has effect on their lifes. So try not trimming much of her early years with your tiniest violinlike excuses next time, her fifth grade speech is a great indication of her later actions and we already tried to keep it short and as a summary. Kasaalan (talk) 01:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Also you got some parts wrong ""after Rachel was killed" "After Rachel died" I think is a little calmer, prose wise." She is not died she has been killed either by accident or by purpose. Even the IDF report states she has been killed by accident. She didnt suicide or chose death she has been killed at the area. Don't try to push it further.

What violins. The rest of the article might not has a great importance yet "Cindy Corrie relayed her daughter's belief that Palestine could be a "source of hope for people struggling all over the world.”" part is important. This is Rachel's belief and a reason for her actions at the area whether she is right or wrong. This is an important quote. You cannot play your tiniest violins whereever you like.

This is an important for an article if this council is notorious in the area yet didnt check about them. Yet as a general rule the awards given to a person is important enough to be mentioned at her biography. "Rachel Corrie was also given the "Muslim Public Affairs Council Courage Award" by Dr. Maher Hathout, who commented that "courage is not the opposite of cowardice, but rather the principle of standing up to injustice."[3]"

Also important for a biography. "Cindy Corrie was invited to deliver a speech at Olympia State College in September 2004, on what would have been Rachel Corrie's graduation day.[4]"

You butchered a lot. Some has right rest is because your IronDuke attitude yet couldnt track all of them. Think once if you will write, think twice if you will erase.

Also I doubt very much for your neutral point of view. An article by Joshua Hammer, Jerusalem bureau chief for Newsweek same article points she made Israeli soldiers laugh and wave back so what how can she became St. Rachel suddenly. A good indication of Rachel's motives, actions, way of thinking. Possibly should be summarized or phraphrased as according to ... yet should it be deleted for just might make her look good if she has actually behaved like that. Try reviewing your policies again. Kasaalan (talk) 02:15, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there has been a big net gain to this article, and frankly I'm still too distracted from picking up the pieces after Albert Speer's stint on the mainpage to fully absorb everything that has been said and done, especially since Kasaalan makes his arguments, shall we just say, at considerable length! But I think we can safely afford to lose some of the material, yes, including much of the fifth grade stuff. I shudder to think what I wrote in fifth grade, and I really doubt much of what I wrote has much to do with me as an adult, but then I am not a saint, secular or otherwise. I think we can find a sensible compromise between necessary background and overly sweet material. I suggest we discuss here and make a compromise that preserves the excellence added to the article, while ensuring that the reader doesn't need an insulin shot. That means, by the way, avoiding unilateral edits and building consensus.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes I write long yet explaining why a part shouldnt have been deleted takes long space. I quote the part then write reasons. But what IronDuke deleted is also as long as my comments according to his quotes. The sweetness part is in the eye of the beholder. Yet she spend a considerable time of her short life for trying to help others. You cannot change this and you cannot cut this part out from her biography this is how she lived and why she died. I wouldn't know what you were doing or thinking at the same age. Yet at age 10 at fifth grade if a child make a memorable and reasonable speech on world hunger, talk about acting for others, explaining her dreams and in her later life act for her own beliefs that is enough to be mentioned in her own biography page. This is a biography page it should contain several parts of her life not just her last months. It would have also been worth to be mentioned if she would slaughter a bunch of cats at the same age, and anyone couldn't object the matter because it would look bitter on her. Lots of the anti-Rachel links mention she is advocating terror, protecting bomb tunnels, she jumped in front of the D9 herself, she was acting like a fool, she was a radical etc. The rest of the people dont try to erase these links even they insult her blatantly with no source for the sake of balancing the article. Instead of trying to delete anything that would look Rachel good maybe if you try to find some info that would make her look bad will help the article more. Because it will become outrageous after a while. This article is a good research based on a reliable journalist Joshua Hammer, Jerusalem bureau chief for Newsweek trying to stay neutral read it, use it. You have some good points at editing but you gone too far by cencoring and cropping the rest. If you find a paragraph too long it as an editor you should paraphrase it instead deleting. Actually your last edits might need a good undoing for you to reedit them with a better neutral point of view, you simply overrated. Kasaalan (talk) 10:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that if she slaughtered a bunch of cats at age 10, her family would not have mentioned it! Perhaps for that reason, the early bio stuff should be attributed inline to her family. And, I'm sorry, in my view it needs to be cut back considerably, Rachel is notable for the manner in which she met her death, you don't want to hold up the reader too long in getting to that information. And as for the last part of your response, I take it you are referring to IronDuke, not me. I haven't edited this article in some days, being busy with a TFA and other Wikimatters. Besides, I saw you and Tiamut were very active here and it is best to let people finish working on an article before responding. Even if, really, you guys should have discussed it in advance of edits and sought to build consensus. But as I said, from what I have seen, the net is a significant improvement to the article, generally you and Tiamut did well, especially in adding references, but there is room for improvement.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:44, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I already referred to Ironduke in general but my answers to yours also mixed in so I am responsible for the misunderstanding. I am already aware you didnt edit for a while. The fifth grade speech is actually videotaped, already available on youtube though I dont know about its copyright status yet so I didnt put it as a reference. It is important for a biography and verifiable. Nothing is holding up the reader too long actually. The article is clearly sectioned. The reader can choose which info they need and read that part. Check with other biographies, early life part is at a regular length. Try to check Hitler. He has a very detailed early life as an entrance. Of course he is more prominent in history, yet you wouldnt want to miss info about his childhood there which clearly has affect on his later life. If someone mentions Hitler made paintings and drawings which some of them good, will that ever help to forget the crimes he committed. Maybe her family wouldnt put her misdoings but be sure IDF-focused media should have done without waiting a second and we can only point out what we can cite and verify. If anyone like to balance the article may try to find her misdoings or claims against Rachel. Yet deleting what she has done isnt a proper way, As a summary this time Ironduke has totally gone out of control even deleting awards given in name of Rachel, trying to twist words as she is not killed but died etc. All above I tried to point out in detail. Kasaalan (talk) 14:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

There is no hurry; we edit for the long term here. I think the question is more whether the edits in question regarding Corrie's writings at age 10 are encyclopedic, more than whether they are verifiable. And I would respectfully suggest that "totally gone out of control" is probably not the best phrasing to use about a fellow editor who has worked long and hard on this article, though you may if you like disagree with his point of view.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

"A work is biographical if it covers all of a person's life." Wiki Biography Page At first I paraphrased the speech yet another user converted it to a quote I am fine in either way though prefer paraphrasing. Yet if a ten year old girl's dream is to stop hunger by 2000 which she declared to public where she expresses her sorrow to the 40.000 preventable deaths from hunger each day, asks for everyone's help and act the same way she dreamed in her later years as an adult this is a prominent event in her life and truly encyclopedic for her biography article. This is a biography and a biography contains all prominent sides at all stages of a persons' life. Details are important, always. Such a big delete with such disputable reasons which I clearly pointed above I call simply as butchering the article beside from some good points and edits he made. But his lack of respect with tiniest violinist attitude what leads things gone out of control. I already say he has some good points for editing yet he didnt edit, paraphrased, summarized or neutralized the content which I would support and help but erased just the way he liked even replacing Rachel was killed lines by Rachel was dead just like she was strike by lightining or dead by natural reasons, he changed what she tries to do into she believed she was doing by even pushing further the limits of word twisting, this is simply a biased jargon. Deleting complete paragraphs with no prewarn, discussion, or attempt to impove them yet with adding disrespectful comments as a reason is not what I call hard work or what I expect from a wikipedia editor. Deleting is easy, improving is hard, therefore an editor should try to edit and improve to earn its title. Kasaalan (talk) 18:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

We should remember that Wikipedia is not a memorial site, nor a site for hagiographies (see, for those who insist on Wikipolicy links, WP:NOT, WP:NPOV. It is a site for encyclopedic descriptions of noteworthy figures. As Rachel Corrie is essentially a private figure with a single act of prominence, we should confine our biography to items relevant to her significance in history, while avoiding efforts to paint the subject in an excessively sympathetic light, as the current section on her childhood does (see, specifically, WP:UNDUE). Ray (talk) 21:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Ray. Besides, her youthful attention to ending world hunger has nothing to do with the reasons she was there in Gaza. If she had said "world peace", well, you'd have a bit more of a case, but it still wouldn't survive Ray's point.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the poem on World Hunger deserves at least some mention in the article. She read the poem at a press conference at her school. Okay, she was in fifth grade, but it is a part of the theater play "I am Rachel Corrie" and the poem is quoted in full in this book [20] onn the play and Corrie. Perhaps a good compromise would be to include it in the "Artistic Tributes" section?

The book link above leads me to another subject, which is that there are a number of book sources on Corrie, none of which we have utilized so far in this article. I will start perusing them for relevant information, posting links here for those interested in the coming days. I'm a little busy in real life right now, so please excuse me.

One last thing, IronDuke deleted or altered a lot of information in the article (some of which was there long before Kasaalan and I made any changes) without articulating the reasons for those changes, which are largely unrelated to this discussion. I'd appreciate it if he could give a line by line breakdown of his rationale here, so that I know what the problem is with the things he removed or changed so as to move toward finding solutions. I can't read minds. Thanks. Tiamut^talk 22:25, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Not sure if Ray read the emails of Rachel but we can put the case again. Ray's point of course good, and I can agree if someone tries to point out how she likes cats or hats or wearing pink or any other unimportant trivia. A speech like below from a 10 year old student is a good indication of her later actions. Do you only see the hunger in the speech or are there other concepts like: caring for others, children of the world is suffering everywhere, the poverty is all around us, and the 40,000 poor people dying from hunger each day are also humans just like us therefore we should help them because they need our help, a dream of preventing hunger by the year 2000 can be accomplished if simply everyone of us help together yet if we ignore there is no chance for them and nothing will change. This is an act speech not just a blatant speech that world beauties make in their competitions.

"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

Read again then again then again. These are not minor words. These are not igsignificant words. These are not blatant words. Even if she was right or wrong she died while trying to help others. We cannot even argue for this matter. The core of the speech is helping others while we can. She acted as her speech and died in a country far far away from her homeland while trying to help others. Again she might have done the right or wrong thing but that is not our case here. Also there is another issue you dont mention hunger is a great issue for Palestinian children during Isreali blockades. Children are dying from hunger and because the lack of medication. Of course you can say Israel doing the blockades for preventing their citizen from attacks etc. Yet whatever the reason is hunger is also an issue in Palestine. And what is worse than being hungry is being homeless while you are hungry. Hungry in Gaza Again I advise not to push it further than you may reach. I already made my point clear yet we argue over and over and over again. Use your common sense, read the documents, make connections yourselves, go read other biographies, her own speech has a significant indication of her personality. I cannot let you trim important actions in her life because it would look good or bad on her. If she made this speech there it is, if she burned the US Flag there it is. Hating or loving her because her actions is up for others to decide. Simple and easy.

Pointing wiki policies here which we all already read is not helping the case. If anyone has any objection on any particular case than he should quote it here so we can argue more clearly. Because I pointed my objections above in detail yet assuming they have objections still noone bothered to discuss them with me one by one but this speech case. And for the prominance thing how do you suggest we will decide the length of a biography page. If we google Rachel Corrie 358 k, if we google Ariel Sharon 2.1 million, if we google Jackie Chan 8,4 million pages we got so according to this should we keep Ariel Sharon's biography a quarter of Jackie Chan. She is prominent at least for the supporters of Palestine, also known and loved accordingly maybe also hated accordingly for the same reasons. Kasaalan (talk) 23:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

@ Tiamut: if you read my post, I invite people who have concerns about edits I didn't explain in my initial post in this thread to please to tell me what they are, and why. @ Kasaalan. 1) If you could relax a bit, that would help. Shouty, accusatory posts just raise the temperature here. 2) There are many, many facts about RC's life we could put here. And many of them would be quite touching, I'm sure. But are they relevant? RC's life is not notable, only her death is. I'm not saying that to be callous, it's just a fact. Background on how she came to be in front of an Israeli bulldozer is essential, hagiographic text dumps about her 5th grade interests are not. As to the point about the wells, I don't deny that's what Corrie thought she was doing. What I'd need to see is proof that the IDF was actually doing that before we put it as a fact in the narrative voice. Also, I don't see where I used the word "tiniest" in regard to theoretical violins. I meant that the presentation of her life was lachrymose, maudlin, and saccharine. Nothing to do with sympathy. IronDuke 00:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Playing tiniest violin of the world means not caring at all refers to your jokes which I find unnecessary as they lack respect and accusatory in the first place. Yet discussing each other will not going nowhere most possibly so we may try discussing the article. As I stated above her later actions and her fifth grade speech is tightly connected, and that is also the same concerns of her what is made her stand against an armoured D9R. Tong twisting is not going to help to the article. She was trying to do something whatever her reason is, She was not believing she was doing or imagining it. Read my above seperate comments on your edits. Answer if you like and explain your motivation. Kasaalan (talk) 02:41, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand your violin point, though I'm beginning to gather that understanding it is not necessary.; you will correct me if I am wrong. Corrie's 5th grade speech on world hunger is "tightly connected" to her activities in Gaza? Source? IronDuke 03:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Why dont you read my detailed statements above which are already long, instead making me repeat myself everytime? You still dont try to answer any of my objections which I provided above, yet asking questions. What we have in hand? "A biography consists of all parts of a persons' life." So we are talking about prominent details. What she has done she has done we cannot change it. Her burning of US flag is prominent just like her speech. The connection or contracditions between her early and later actions or way of thinking can only be developed by referencing to her actions in a biography. She made a prominent speech in which she adresses her dreams and ambitions for helping others especially the ones in third world countries who are dying from hunger. Why? She claims "I’m here for other children. I’m here because I care. I’m here because children everywhere are suffering". Stating "stopping the world hunger by the year 2000 as a dream that can be accomplished with the help of everyone" is prominant enough to be mentioned in any biography page. But putting it as a whole might be very disputable therefore we tried quoting and summarizing it to a sentence. Later in her life Rachel become an environmentalist and a political activist, died in another country while she was trying to help others who also suffering and dying from hunger and lack of medication during blockades without a shelter.Hungry in Gaza Yet again I state the core of the speech is about helping others who need our help especially in the third world countries, including but not limited to hunger. But if we dramatize events in this format you would be right it wont be suitable in any encyclopedia format which is also why we didnt do it in the first place. And also I can admit I overacted myself, yet jokes as accusations are not making our day in a discussion page of a tragic event and deleting big parts simply making things even more complicated which we already stuck a bit. Also repeating myself is not very good for time wise if you can try quoting and answering my objections above then we argue argue further for details. You have some good reasons for editing which I can agree and support yet your edits outweight the balance to the IDF side instead of neutralizing it. Between after Rachel was killed[sounds like not necessarily but mostly on purpose], after Rachel died[sounds like she died by natural reasons] and after the death of Rachel[more neutral than the others] there are big differences if you will change a phrase try to pick a more neutral one than it was before. Kasaalan (talk) 14:10, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

How about "after Corrie's death"?--Wehwalt (talk) 14:17, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Edit conflict again my long answer is lost therefore only a summary. For this case it is better to use after her death, and repeating the word kill over and over again in the article should be avoided. But also at least should be mentioned once in the timeline because she is killed by an armoured D9RWoman killed accidentally by IDF as terrorist fugitives resist surrender By Israel Insider staff and partners May 1, 2006, that is not disputable, the disputable part is if it is done by purpose or by accident. That is why IDF insists she is killed by accident and ISM insists she is killed on purpose. Concise Oxford English Dictionary desribes kill as "cause the death of". Kill is not a biased word to use yet overusing it might possibly harm the tone of the article. She murdered should be avoided beside the quoted legal claims of the sides just like turning the sentences into she died, as if she died for natural reasons, should be avoided which may also be very misleading. Kasaalan (talk) 15:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I'd also like to see a source on IronDuke's point. The thing is, I think that unconsciously or otherwise, Kasaalan, you're trying to get the article to reflect the following fallacy: "Rachel Corrie was in favor of good causes. She was in favor of the ISM activity. Therefore, the ISM activity is a good cause." As has been pointed out by a neutral editor who came to this page (apparently to view my contributions to evaluate my RfA), her fifth grade press conference and matters of similar ilk have no place in this article. Without a RS saying that they have relevance for what she is notable for, the manner in which she met her death, we can't use them. Kasaalan's suggestion that because he says Palestinian kids are hungry, it is somehow relevant is unconvincing to me, and is a WP:SYNTH concern anyway. We need to make this article, other than the minimum (and I mean that, that is not a blank check) of background regarding Corrie, to concentrate on the incident for which she is notable and matters that are directly, and I say again, directly related to that. Therefore the "hearts and flowers" in the section about her childhood, in the matters concerning her activities in Gaza, and also in the section about the memorials about her need to be dramatically cut back. WP is not a memorial.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:17, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

To respond to your requests for a source that makes the link between her fifth grade statement and her action’s today, see this article in The Independent: "The play does not try to turn her into a secular saint. At times you feel a tangle of admiration and irritation at her naivety, yet you are grateful that someone was prepared to act on their beliefs. Corrie's concern for suffering humanity was precocious. At 10, she spoke at her school Conference on World Hunger and is captured on video, seen at the end of the play. The notion that she was a self-regarding atrocity tourist is outrageous."

I would again suggest that we include this information in the “Artistic Tributes” section for now, perhaps as follows:

The play ends with a home video of Corrie delivering a statement at her school’s fifth grade press conference on world hunger that begins, “I’m here for other children. I’m here because I care.”

The cites for this would be the link above and this book where the statement is quoted in full in the context of a discussion on the play. Ref info:

My Name is Rachel Corrie: The Writings of Rachel Corrie By Rachel Corrie, Alan Rickman, Katharine Viner Contributor Alan Rickman Published by Nick Hern Books, 2005 ISBN 1854599062, 9781854599063 p. 52

As for the other stuff, step by step. Tiamut^talk 15:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I still don't see how the concern for world hunger relates to her actions in Gaza. The concerns of a dramatist are different from the concerns of wikipedia. You'd be right if this was an article on the play. And yes, step by step, we are still trying to see if there is consensus for the matters that you added to the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Her speech includes but not limited to the world hunger, it is about helping others in the third world countries who needs rest of the world's help. She died while she trying to. Kasaalan (talk) 15:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

"The play does not try to turn her into a secular saint. At times you feel a tangle of admiration and irritation at her naivety, yet you are grateful that someone was prepared to act on their beliefs. Corrie's concern for suffering humanity was precocious[means mature for her age]. At 10, she spoke at her school Conference on World Hunger and is captured on video, seen at the end of the play. The notion that she was a self-regarding atrocity tourist is outrageous. She was acutely aware that, unlike her new Palestinian friends, she could leave. She chose not to. Given that she had gone to the Middle East to meet people who were "on the receiving end" of tax dollars and that it was an US-made bulldozer that killed her, it will be a tragic irony if her home country does not allow her a hearing." My Name Is Rachel Corrie by Paul Taylor The Independent The part is not just about the play but also referring to her fifth grade speech which is played during the play with Rachel's own voice. Kasaalan (talk) 16:08, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

A review of a play, with the needs of drama overriding those of history, is not a reliable source, anymore than a review of 1776 would be acceptable as a RS for what happened at the Continental Congress--and yes, many of the words in 1776 are drawn from John and Abigail Adams' letters, so no need to reply that the words in the play were drawn from Corrie's. As I said before, the fact that they play the fifth grade speech during the play has nothing to do with whether we include it in this article. As for the word "kill", however it is defined, it carries such connotations that its use in this article should be confined to quotations.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

She made this speech and he refers to the speech directly. "Corrie's concern for suffering humanity was precocious[means mature for her age]." Unlike you, who is a wiki user, referring the speech as childish , a critic at The Independent clearly adresses the speech as mature. A mature speech from a 10 year old child. Not very frequently we came up with. Later in her lifes she tries to act as she thinks. Also the play based on her diaries and letters which reflects her way of thinking and the way she sees things, therefore cannot be addressed as solid unquestionable truths but the indications of her beliefs, her own reasons behind her acts they are. Kasaalan (talk) 18:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I did not refer to her speech as childish. Please do not say that I did without diffs. It is not relevant, in fact, whether it was a mature speech or not. You do not reply to my points.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:59, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Again refers to IronDuke for "hagiographic text dumps about her 5th grade interests". Long text, hard to address sometimes, I used you in a more plural way because trying to answer you both but again my fault. Yet cant we even settle on that her 5th grade interests are same with her 25 year old interests.Kasaalan (talk) 04:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Will you also object the use of Anne's own diaries in the biography of Anne Frank too as a reliable source because she wroted them herself too, or do you object use of own's own diaries and letters in her biography as a general rule. Or will you try to trim off the indications in her early life which apparently has connection to her later life for the same reasons in Anne's biography, for wiki is not a memorial? "Margot demonstrated ability in arithmetic, and Anne showed aptitude for reading and writing. Her friend Hannah Goslar later recalled that from early childhood, Anne frequently wrote, though she shielded her work with her hands and refused to discuss the content of her writing. Margot and Anne had highly distinct personalities, Margot being well-mannered, reserved, and studious,[7] while Anne was outspoken, energetic, and extroverted.[8]" Rachel is not also notable with her death but also notable with her letters just as the speech she made as a 10 year old girl which are also currently published. Kasaalan (talk) 04:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I guess it was inevitable we'd get down to Godwin's Law. No. Not the same at all. Anne Frank's diaries have been a constant best seller for the past half century. She is notable for her life; Corrie is notable for her death. The context of her diaries (the refusal to let people see what she wrote) is of course relevant. You may argue that everything from fifth grade on is relevant to Corrie's death, but it is at a far greater remove than Anne Frank refusing to let people see her writings, writings for which she is now world famous. I would find a more suitable comparison, were I you.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Rachel is notable for her life, what she did and what she tried to do and what she dreamed to do in a such short lifetime and why, of course after hear death it is widely known, but not only because her death. Lots of people are killed by IDF, including lots of foreigners too, but Rachel is more notable among them. Also this is her biography, the speech is notable in her life as a good indication, might not be the greatest step for humanity, but one of her own greatest steps. Any of the above points are not answering my question. Being a best seller not proofs your reliability at all, only notability it proofs, also not relevant to the case. Why do we care "Margot and Anne had highly distinct personalities, Margot being well-mannered, reserved, and studious, while Anne was outspoken, energetic, and extroverted." Why shouldn't we if it reflects her and quoted by a friend of her family. Can anyone come up with false arguments like "only their family friends' say so" or "her mother says so", will that be reasonable? I cannot distinct your approach clearly with the same attitude I refer. I just picked Anne Frank because a critic mentioned her name in the article, so I couldnt care less for the "inevitable laws" you referred, I mainly compared their wiki biography as the length, detail and info they contained especially the early life section. If "Anne showed aptitude for reading and writing" that is a good indication for her later actions, if Rachel made a prominent speech on helping others at age 10 which calls everyone taking action against this preventable death cause for third world countries, if at such a small age "Corrie's concern for suffering humanity was precocious", and if at age 25 she left her home, her education to for trying to help people living in another third world country, when "she could leave." though "she chose not to", according to her own beliefs and in name of others that is notable and relevant for her biography. Even if we cannot settle on her 5th and 25 year old interests for others are basically the same, and she has acted as she referred at age 10, I suggest we need a group of independent hardworking admins on the page for a neutral conclusion.Kasaalan (talk) 19:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Anne Frank is a poor choice for comparison. Leaving aside the fact that she is orders of magnitude more famous than RC, when she died she was little more than a child; to ignore her childhood would be to ignore her life. And yes, there are descriptions of her personality, just as there are in this article -- in fact, there are already many more references to her personality than are needed. IronDuke 01:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Direct Official Reports Quoted by Human Rights Watch

Resolved

1) Human Rights Watch obtained a copy of the summary of the IDF "operational investigation" ... contains major factual errors.
2) "Expert Opinion (Opinion 3/459/2003)" pathologist Professor Yehuda Hiss, March 24, 2003, National Center of Forensic Medicine. Contradicts IDF claim that bulldozer did not run over her. Says "death was caused by pressure on the chest (mechanical asphyxiation)"
3) Bulldozers had previously seen protestors and stopped in time. "Eyewitnesses interviewed ... stated that the bulldozer crew could and did see Corrie"

No need for secondary sources, while we have a major source which uses quotes from first hand official reports. Kasaalan (talk) 14:39, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Need to be careful - historically, WP was meant to be written from primary sources, only gradually did it become obvious this led to original research. However, we can paraphrase what HRW say. We probably must use an inline citation if we want to say "has major errors". What happened on the affadavit front, has it been decided that testimony can be used? PR^talk 18:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Of course that part is very important, but mostly the ""Expert Opinion (Opinion 3/459/2003)" of physician and pathologist Professor Yehuda Hiss, March 24, 2003, National Center of Forensic Medicine. Translation by U.S. Department of State done at the request of the Corrie family and provided to Human Rights Watch by Craig Corrie." is what I am interested in more. Because this is a direct quote from official report, and the best source available we could find. But we should paraphrase comments from HRW as "HRW claimed or argued ... ". I also suggest you to read it through, because it is a good report with various first hand sources referenced. Kasaalan (talk) 19:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I think I'm still waiting to hear why we need more witness statements, when we quote from three at length. Wikipedia is not a kitchen sink.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree that is why instead newspaper links that uses secondary even tertiary sources we should add more direct sources like The HRW report, which contains direct quotes from official Israel Defense Forces and Israel's National Center of Forensic Medicine's reports.

The eyewitnesses I provided here clearly states in similar situations, other IDF operators could make the D9R stop in time before anyone injured. Also 3 eyewitness statements [of 7 eyewitness in total] quoted doesnt mean, the quoted parts are the best for the article, or the best eyewitnesses they are to be quoted. Also because your objection to the link at electronicintifada which quotes PCHR, we couldn't add the links to the full statements yet. Actually I found another site providing full written statements of the eyewitnesses catdestroyshomes created and maintained by Jewish Voice for Peace. You might object this site too. Affidavits from eyewitnesses by Durie, Carr, Hewitt, Palestinian Center for Human RightsAffidavits from eyewitnesses by Schnabel, Dale, Purssell, Palestinian Centre for Human Right Kasaalan (talk) 19:09, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Catdestroyshomes.org? I wonder if they are npov. Just wondering.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:14, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing in policy to say that sources be NPOV, just that they must be RS. While Palestinian sources are naturally dismissed out of hand, sources such as "Jewish Voice for Peace" (subject to having a reasonable number of sober editors, not spreading lies or racehatred, not being Muslims in disguise) and provided their claims are not too "surprising" will often be acceptable. PR^talk 19:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps so, I couldn't say. But if they have anything useful to say, no doubt it would have been picked up by a high level news source whose impartiality is much less open to question.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:28, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I just made some effort to find a source other than electronic intifada [because you objected it] that publishes the written eyewitnesses full statements taken by a PCHR lawyer. They just e-publishes what PCHR published. Kasaalan (talk) 21:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Here is the direct original source of Palestinian Center for Human Rights. The written eyewitness statements taken under oath by PCHR lawyer. The source is found. PALESTINIAN CENTRE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS PRESS RELEASE 30.06.2003 AFFIDAVITS "Following the taking of these affidavits, PCHR submitted a request to the investigation department of the Israeli occupying forces that they question these eyewitnesses directly for the purposes of their investigation into the death. The questioning by Israeli occupying forces investigators took place in late March in the presence of Israeli lawyers representing PCHR." Reliable, first hand source. Kasaalan (talk) 22:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Article is missing too much info for both reports

Resolved

"The [IDF] report concludes:

"Contrary to allegations, Ms. Corrie was not run over by a bulldozer, but sustained injuries caused by earth and debris which fell on her during bulldozer operation. At the time of the incident Ms Corrie was standing behind an earth mound and therefore obscured from bulldozer crew's view, whose line of sight was inherently limited. The irresponsible and dangerous conduct of ISM activists blatantly refusing IDF warnings to leave the area and purposely putting themselves in harm's way is a major factor leading to the tragic result of this incident.""

Source: cited by HRW from an obtained copy of the summary of Undated IDF document, The Death of Rachel Corrie, with emphasis in original.

"The findings of the final autopsy report, conducted only four days after Corrie's death released on April 24 at Israel's National Center of Forensic Medicine. The author of the autopsy report stated:

"Based on the results of the autopsy which I performed on the body of Rachel Aliene Corrie, age 24, I hereby express my opinion that her death was caused by pressure on the chest (mechanical asphyxiation) with fractures of the ribs and vertebrae of the dorsal spinal column and scapulas, and tear wounds in the right lung with hemorrhaging of the pleural cavities."

Source: quoted by HRW from "Expert Opinion (Opinion 3/459/2003)" of physician and pathologist Professor Yehuda Hiss, March 24, 2003, National Center of Forensic Medicine. Translation by U.S. Department of State done at the request of the Corrie family and provided to Human Rights Watch by Craig Corrie."

HRW reported, the conclusion of IDF report that Corrie was not killed by a bulldozer is directly contradicted by the findings of the Israel's National Center of Forensic Medicine's final autopsy report.

We should fully quote the IDF and NCFM reports as they are. The article is currently missing too much info for both reports. Kasaalan (talk) 00:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Kasaalan, it's called summary style. We give the reader the high points. A wikipedia article should not be an amorphous mass of information, but a well written, tightly organized summary of the information, it is a starting point, not the be all and end all. There is no point to going into great detail on the autopsy.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I rewroted the part with full credits and necessary quotes. Can you check the integrity in the main page. Kasaalan (talk) 00:43, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I gave the credits inline for better integrity because reports quoted or parahrased by HRW not directly, yet you can also move them in reference section if you like. But then we need seperate reference for each quote explaining how HRW cited them. Kasaalan (talk) 00:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, we need the cause of death. We don't need the backup info. To put it in is unneeded and very likely POV. Please hold off on your constant edits and wait for other users to weigh in.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:54, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

The report says the death is caused by [not just] by pressure on the chest [but also] with broken ribs, broken spinal column and heavily internal bleeding in the lungs. You are not a medical expert, so don't try to shorten the conclusion. Also when did I edit the main page constantly? I only add info on discussion page and this one is of my rare edits to the main page. Kasaalan (talk) 01:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

It gives the cause of death WITH the injuries. Between here and the article, your edits ARE constant.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:06, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Wehwalt you don't know anything in the medical area, so why are you still trying to push it? The expert says the death resulted "by [not only] pressure on the chest [but also] with broken ribs, broken spinal column and heavily internal bleeding in the lungs." But you try to summarize it into pressure on the chest with injuries. Don't try to push on what you don't know. Stay strict to the experts' views. Deleting the info there is a thing that you shouldn't do. If you like to shorten that much use my translation of the medical terms into English, but medical terms is way better for reliability. If you like to call some independent admins to the page it is only alright with me, it is not a threat but may only be a relief to me. Kasaalan (talk) 01:13, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Kasaalan, you're new here, so I'm going to stick to giving you advice. It is VERY bad form to say to another editor "you don't know anything", whether generally, or about a specific subject. Civility and the assumption of good faith is very important on Wikipedia. With respect to what you said, no it is not unfair to anyone to summarize in the way I did. The words in the autopsy report as reported by HRW did not come down on stone tablets, and they are not even the complete summary. I suggest we summarize in the way I suggested, and put the full quote in a note. That is, state that the death was caused by "pressure on the chest (mechanical asphyxiation)". Incidently, I don't see how that is inconsistent with debris falling on someone.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Your insistency on erasing the final conclusion of autopsy is exactly why I said you don't know anything on medical area, it may not be very polite but it is also not very impolite either. I don't find my claim uncivil, or having lack of good faith. I didn't claim, there were any bad intension of yours, yet pointed it is caused by lack of knowledge on the field. There is nothing wrong with one's admitting of his lack of expertise in one area. It is normal for us to don't know anything on medical area. Personally, my medical knowledge is only limited to the names of some bones and muscles in human body [in anatomy] along a very weak knowledge on autopsy cases learned from some books and documentaries [in forensic], which is also near nothing, if not considered nothing totally. Maybe because you confused it with the IDF report summary, your claim is not true. HRW got the summary of the IDF report, but HRW did have the full text of the autopsy report translated by US Department of State on request of Corrie family, and fully quoted the conclusion part, so the autopsy report is exact. Actually neither you nor me is not eligible to summarize an autospy report, I with even little knowledge on medical area while taken my time to research the medical terms of the conclusion from a dictionary, can easily say her death result is not caused only by pressure on the chest. Of course it is, but only mentioning mechanical asphyxiation is similar to saying her death cause is a D9R. Because her backbone is also broken along with ribs and soulder blades. Also what leading to her death is the heavily internal bleeding in the lungs caused by the tearing of internal lung membrane. My translation is imcomplete, also, just trying to make things a bit clearer. Summarizing medical text may be very misleading and dangerous, especially for people who don't have medical background. I already stated HRW reported the contradiction, I didnt claim there is a contradiction. I also don't know why HRW claimed there is a contradiction between reports, that is why we should quote these parts intact. You can save 1 line at most for summarizing the autopy report, but miss too much info for the death result of Rachel, that we cannot bear to handle. I cannot learn the integrity of the contradiction HRW referred, if there is any, unless I do more research on the area. But it shouldn't also be come out of nowhere, maybe the mechanical pressure means something further than we know, e.g. pressure of a metal dozer plate. Actually even if we have space, and noone objects, we should also add last sentence of the IDF report summary "The irresponsible and dangerous conduct of ISM activists blatantly refusing IDF warnings to leave the area and purposely putting themselves in harm's way is a major factor leading to the tragic result of this incident." I left it out because of possible objections, but suggest adding it too. Kasaalan (talk) 09:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Already in the article, or was, last time I checked. Then you admit to not knowing enough about medicine to know whether or not my edit kept it a fair summary or not, right?--Wehwalt (talk)

Of course I am not an expert to summarize from an autopsy report, but most possibly you are not, too. Or do you claim you know better than the expert of the Israeal's National Center of Forensic Medicine. You cannot summarize an expert opinion, which is already 1 sentence, into 2 words, it would be very misleading. Expert opinion clearly adresses his foundings. Pressure on the chest is not a proper summarizing for the case, because the conclusion mentions pressure on the chest with fractures of the ribs, spinal cord[back] and shoulder blades, with tear wound in the right lung and heavily bleeding in the membrane that covers the lung. You are trying to trim off critical info out of the conclusion part of an experts opinion. Not a good idea at all, I strongly object to any summarizing of the quote without mentioning damaged internal organs and bones. Kasaalan (talk) 17:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Cordesman Quote for Investigation Section

Resolved

"Shortly after Corrie's death, an Israeli spokesman attributed the death to "falling debris."[19]"

Does Cordesman an Israel citizen or any other spokesman the line refers. Because he lives and teaches in America, and an American citizen he is as far as I know. Tried reading the page but couldnt find any spokesman referred in the book. Page 72

"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".

If this is the orginal quote for the summary, Cordesman only refers Israel alleged Corrie was killed by falling debris, but INCFM found her death caused by pressure on the chest from a mechanical apparatus, he is not stating her death is caused by falling debris. Yet Cordesman also is not a medical expert or the main source for the reports. So we dont need this quote as long as we have HRW quotes. But it might be a good idea to refer "One year after Corrie's death, Yasser Arafat hosted her parents to thank them for their daughter's "sacrifice"." as Wehwalt suggested before. Also why the direct link to the book on reference is removed? Kasaalan (talk) 18:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Official Papers, Legal Court Proceedings and Statements

Resolved

1) FOIA no record found for Rachel Corrie
2) COUNTRY REPORTS ON HUMAN RIGHTS PRACTICES FOR 2004 VOLUME II REPORT SUBMITTED TO THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, U.S. SENATE AND THE COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE.
3) US Congressman and Represantative Statements for the Case

Kasaalan (talk) 15:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Kasaalan: Your point being? We address the legal case and the congressional resolution in the text already. If you think the Washington state bill is useful, I have no objection to it being mentioned along the same lines as the Congressional resolution is, that is, a brief description without quotation, and what happened to it.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

PR collapsed the text for clarity which is a good work, to see the text click show button at right. My point is first trying to gather the legal documents for the case, against D9R company, at US Courts, by US Congress Reports, etc. Publishing earlier for possible objections. I won't edit the main page in any way as in discussion page of course, should be brief yet also publishing here so all of us can reach the content, and made objection or citation better. Congressman Statements would also be good for Reactions heading. And for court cases for example "On September 17, 2007, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal on political question grounds, and did not reach the merits of the suit." says in the wiki article and above I found is the original Ninth Circuit papers pdf which will be the first hand source for its dismissal of Rachel's parents' claims.

As generally the medical and legal sections needs improvement on references, so instead newspapers, I am trying to reach first hand original sources and publishing them here, I possibly wont do any change to the first page over these parts, untill collecting more court papers, reading and analyzing them.

I also added the full name of Rachel, which is another good side of court papers. And PR your hiding of the text helped a lot. Kasaalan (talk) 18:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Kasaalan, we already ref the official text of the opinion on the official 9th Circuit Web site. Something wrong with that? It neutrally states the outcome of the case.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't imply there was something wrong with the neutrality. Just tried to add direct reference to it, yet my fault, I missed the direct reference to the court paper was already given. Kasaalan (talk) 22:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, Kasaalan, this page is very long and difficult to deal with because it is hard to find stuff, and, well, perhaps you could "gather" the quotes in your sandbox? It is easy to set one up, in your userspace.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

There is much of value on this page, eg the discussion on the reliability of the ISM at the top. I'm not entirely sure what Kasaalan's documents add to the discussion. But I noticed that he's found affadavits from witnesses and those, if put in collapsing boxes and summarised properly, and if we can treat them as an RS, are potentially valuable indeed. PR^talk 19:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

That is fine, and I'm not trying to discourage him. But, as Polonius said, brevity is the soul of wit.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:19, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

A sandbox might also be good idea, I may publish there more easily, than publish here more briefly. Yet this text collapsing also great for brevity, and publishing here also shares the info, because other editors may also benefit from the text if they like to read them or object more easily for the text is under their hand, and if they choose not to they don't need to do anything because it is hidden. After long discussions we began to getting closer to a settlement on some issues. And definately we are getting higher quality sources in terms of reliability. Kasaalan (talk) 21:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

This is more than a reference share than a discussion. This contains Official Papers, Legal Court Proceedings and Statements for the Rachel Corrie case and contains some valuable info. You can keep, move or archive this and in case you archive it we can discuss the references when they are needed. Kasaalan (talk) 13:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup

I've taken a shot at getting rid of the worst of IronDuke's concerns, while still leaving enough hagiographic material to, I believe, satisfy anyone who wants some positive details of Corrie's early life. I've also done a lot of cleanup. It may not satisfy everyone, but what we have now, I think is a balanced perspective, not sickly sweet or calling her any names, but balanced. It's a good point for any further discussions that anyone may think is needed.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:30, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I will also ask everyone to avoid overlinking. There is no need to link common words, like "lungs". Anyone who has them knows what they are.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:25, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

You overerased actually only left one, that are not just common words, medical terms, which for every word a doctor need to be trained for years to be an expert. Everyone knows them as words, wikilinks explain them in more detail than they know.

I readded the conclusion of autopsy, all the factors together leads the death not just one. Readded the internal wiki links for medical terms. And Cordesman quote has some integrity issues I pointed at top. Also we dont need that source anymore, if Arafat visit will not be mentioned. And why did you erased the IDF report summary? It was very important, and a direct summary.

Israel Defense Forces report titled "The Death of Rachel Corrie", cited by Human Rights Watch from an obtained copy of the summary with emphasis in original, concluded "Contrary to allegations, Ms. Corrie was not run over by a bulldozer, but sustained injuries caused by earth and debris which fell on her during bulldozer operation. At the time of the incident Ms. Corrie was standing behind an earth mound and therefore obscured from bulldozer crew's view, whose line of sight was inherently limited." Kasaalan (talk) 16:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Lots of changes you made, with some deleting, I couldn't track most of them, just my objections on my latest edits. Kasaalan (talk) 16:51, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

This time I only delinked ribs, lungs, and spinal column. All are common terms, and anyone likely to be on WP will know what they are. Low value links. I suggest you insert the language from the report later in that section. And given the comments by the Palestinian doctor in the Hammer article, I now agree with you on cause of death. I left a clear edit summary for each change I made.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:53, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Try reading the article straight through without worrying about who wrote what. I think you'll find it acceptable.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:00, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I care about the changes, not about who did them, but the hard part is if you add something it is easy to check its integrity, when you delete or paraphrase it is way harder, before I do a complete check I try to focus on some details. I don't know which programme she took at Evergreen so added attended to Arts Faculty, I read she took arts and international relation classes and an Arabic course, but I am not sure what she studied exactly, maybe stage costume design, but she might attended as a graduate so referring her education as taking courses might be misleading. But finding what she studied is important so I am researching it. Leaving out Cordesman quote is a good choice. I still don't know why you erased the IDF report summary, it is needed and important. Also found proceedings of Corrie family in the Israel Courts.[21] or [22]

The Deceased was taken to the Abu Kabir Forensic Institute and a post-mortem was performed that same day. Prof. Yehuda Hiss, Director of the institute, drew up an expert opinion, and in its conclusion he noted the principal anatomical findings, as follows:

“(1) Fractures of the ribs, left [not specified which] bone, scapulae, posterior processes of the thoracic spine.

(a) Several tear wounds in the right lung

(b) Hemothoraces (700 ml total)

(c) Punctate hemorrhages in the sclerae and the pleurae

(d) Hemorrhages in the back muscles.

(2) Tear of the left upper lip

(3) Abrasions and desiccation of the left face

(4) Lingual hemorrhage

(5) Evidence of medical therapy

And at the end of his opinion, he further notes:

“On the basis of the results of the post-mortem that I performed on the body of Ms. Rachel Aliene Corrie, 24 years, I state my opinion that her death was caused as the result of compression of the thorax (mechanical asphyxia) with fractures of the ribs, thoracic vertebrae, scapulae as well as lacerations in the right lung with hemothoraces. Also found was a laceration wound in the upper lip and abrasions of the skin on the left cheek”. Attached a copy of the pathology opinion of Prof. Hiss Appendix A. Kasaalan (talk) 23:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

The IDF summary, if needed, should be put elsewhere in the section. Since you put Arts Department as a proper noun, I was rather concerned. The fact that she did an independent study project in her senior year as she did suggests it had something to do with her major. Umm, is the Abu Kabir institute in Tel Aviv?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:39, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Abu Kabir major pathology institute in Israel says the dictionary. It might be an Institute of Tel Aviv University [23], and possibly be the same as Israel's National Center of Forensic Medicine referred in HRW report, because Hiss was the director of NCFM. "Professor Y. Hiss, M.D. [MD here possibly Medicinae Doctor one who has a degree in medicine] Director, Abu Kabir Forensic Institute, Holon [city in Israel] Israel's Chief Legal Pathologist" [24]. Not sure why you mentioned her independent study in the senior year exactly, but we should state what undergraduate program she took when we learn it. IDF report is critically needed, because it reflects IDF view to the case, and the title of the section is Autopsy and Investigation, so whereelse you suggest putting it and why? Kasaalan (talk) 22:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd put it next to the Guardian report of the autopsy report, since they are basically similar. If you do an independent study in your senior year, in my experience, it is to complete your major because you are probably needing courses to complete your major, else why are you still in school? However, TESC is a bit of an oddball school, and anything might go there.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:34, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes she had 1 more year to complete the graduation, I referred to what profession she studied at Evergreen, I still don't know that. That info is crucial, we still not have exact info on the courses she took in the article.

"That's the reason for the repression. That's why we sweep off the street immediately; clean away the blood; remove the bus. And within an hour we're told on television that life has returned to normal. Within an hour life has returned to normal. Only the victims are transferred to Abu Kabir [the forensic institute in Tel Aviv]. This Abu Kabir thing is interesting. There's something in it. Of all the Arab names that existed in this country, why is it that we have left precisely this one? After all, no one says he's going to Sheikh Munis [the name of the Arab village on the ruins of which Tel Aviv University now stands]. Yet here, here of all places, that name was kept. We don't say the Forensic Institute in Tel Aviv, we say Abu Kabir. We say that he was taken to Abu Kabir. Which is also the meaning of the name: the tremendous father. A kind of semi-hellish meta-entity. Abu Kabir." [25]

Yes Guardian report is similar, I may try to add some parts left out parts in guardian link from HRW report, maybe completely requote if needed or merge. In any case I will double reference the autopsy report of HRW with electronicintifada or hic-mena.org link and IDF report with HRW link. Kasaalan (talk) 22:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, thank you. I would avoid EI if possible, since it may not be accepted.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Other link has the same exact info, so using EI is not crucial. I can use other link. Kasaalan (talk) 01:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I am settled on the text, yet 1 more reference needs to be added. Wehwalt said non-EI link would be fine but asking again. Used for reference for autopsy report and for total amount Corrie family requested from state at Israeli court. For Medical Term Autopsy Conslusion If this reference is fine I am settled. (Preceding unsigned comment was added by Kasaalan (talk) on 05:07, 13 January 2009; autosigned by arimareijibot.)

Kasaalan, I'm not happy with the source, sorry. It seems to be a .doc document representing (I imagine a translation of) what was filed in the case against the IDF. What a party alleges are not facts, they are allegations. I would rather have a third party source reporting what was said.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the nature of the dispute in this one; what's going on? I looked through, and HRW seems to have functionally the same assertions - is it worth fighting to include hic-mena or EI to say the same thing?

I have to agree with Wehwalt about hic-mena. An allegation (even if it's made in court) isn't a reliable source unless the court upholds it, and even then it's not certain. arimareiji (talk) 05:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The paper has 2 things to be used. First, the original autopsy report by Israel goverment institution in medical terms which I offer to be used not in text, but as a double reference. And second the amount of money Corrie sued IDF at Israeli court which is near 300 k. Also this is a valuable source for locating what are the main claims of the Rachel side are. We cannot judge a conclusion by the claims, yet we can locate what their claims are. Kasaalan (talk) 13:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I have no objection to it being used as a ref for the very limited purpose of how much money the Corries were looking for (odd isn't it, that in an Israeli court they were suing in dollars). As for what their claims are there are enough secondary sources that we can use that this is not necessary. The Corries have been shouting their claims all over creation for the past six years, come on.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Using it as a double reference isn't a good idea. Remember, every assertion has to be linked to the source of the assertion - we'd have to rephrase it to match both sources. Even if we did include it, the attribution would have to be rephrased in a way that would be awkward and would weaken the assertions.

With respect to using it as a source for the amount they're suing for, and the main claims of the Rachel side: What changes do you propose to the text? It's hard to know how appropriate it would be without seeing the actual changes you plan to make. If you paste only the sentence(s) you plan to change/insert with the change(s) in boldface to this section, plus a sentence right before it or right after it (to help identify where the change is), I promise I won't complain about cutting/pasting this time. ;-)

I would suggest directly editing the article instead, but I don't want you to be discouraged by a cycle of "K edits, A reverts, K edits, W edits K's edit, K reverts, A edits K's edit, etc." Considering that the source is controversial, that's a strong possibility. If we do all the editing here, that shouldn't happen. arimareiji (talk) 20:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

NPOV doesn't mean neutrally reporting misquotes as accurate

Resolved

(Refers to this edit.)

1. The first "quote" cited is an obvious misquote of the full statement which changes its meaning. We are not required to attribute the respectability of Wikipedia to a source by repeating it as accurate, if it's obvious that the source a) has an ax to grind and b) has turned "John weighs 100 pounds, and a sperm whale weighs 10 tons" to "John weighs 10 tons."
2. If you want to reinstate the "In another interview," it should be as a direct accurate quote so that the reader can judge the degree to which his statements to the writer were paraphrased.
3. The last edit was to correct the statement to what the cite actually says in its present form; it's as close to verbatim as possible without being plagiarism. That was not true of the previous version. arimareiji (talk) 23:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand your first point. How do you know it is inaccurate? Regarding number 2, I have no objection to it being a direct quotation from the source, or a close a paraphrase as possible. Number 3 is fine.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Still think you need to put the other one in. He asserted he interviewed Smith, and was then told by the ISM press person not to do so again.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

You could read the quotation directly above it, though it's semi-tl;dr. Or, if you're a trusting soul you could take my word for it that it can be characterized thus, italicizing only the parts that were selectively quoted:

The bulldozer started forward, with Corrie sitting in front of it. She climbed to the top of the pile of rubble, looking directly into the cab of the bulldozer. Despite this, he continued forward and lost sight of her as she was dragged into the pile of rubble. Despite the obviousness of her position, he reversed and dragged the blade over her. She wasn't run over by the treads.

Incidentally, this wasn't a news article. It was an opinion editorial titled "The Myth of Rachel Corrie."

Last but not least, sorry for venting. It crawls my nerves when someone is misquoted thus, even if I heartily disagree with them. What I should have done was to recognize that you weren't the one that did so, nor were you defending the OpEd writer for doing so - you were defending keeping a cite which on first face is legitimate. My apologies, I was in the wrong. arimareiji (talk) 23:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I think maybe we're looking at two different things... sorry, but could you link me to the guy who says he interviewed Smith then was told not to do so again? arimareiji (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 23:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC).

It is the cite that supported the passage you deleted, it is certainly a biased source and probably should have an inline source, but here it is.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:19, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow. I don't know if I was on drugs yesterday, or somehow mudged the URL and got a later / more "polished" version. If the latter, the writer was guilty of convenient rephrasing in the version I saw. If the former, it's only the person who paraphrased it for the Wiki article whose phrasing changed the meaning. This version of the article faithfully reproduces what Joe Carr/Smith said, and I'll restore a complete paraphrase in the near future in balance to how much of PCHR gets used (if any). Thank you for the help. arimareiji (talk) 00:04, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Direct Eyewitness Accounts Taken by PCHR

Resolved

The direct link to the PCHR report other than EI page. "Following the taking of these affidavits, PCHR submitted a request to the investigation department of the Israeli occupying forces that they question these eyewitnesses directly for the purposes of their investigation into the death. The questioning by Israeli occupying forces investigators took place in late March in the presence of Israeli lawyers representing PCHR." Written Eyewitness Accounts Taken Under Oath by Lawyer Kasaalan (talk) 01:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

As a devil's advocate, this comes dangerously close to being (or flatly is) a primary source. It's not open-court testimony, and the information given on the page doesn't make it independently verifiable - it simply asserts that these are affidavits. But considering that it appears to be corroborated by material in the article, it's possible that it could qualify under this snippet from WP:Reliable_source_examples (emphasis added to qualifiers):

Websites and publications of political parties, religious groups, anti-religious groups, or any other partisan group, may exhibit bias and should be treated with caution. Neither political affiliation nor religious belief stated in these sources are in themselves a reason not to use them, as these websites can be used to present the viewpoints of these groups, if properly attributed. Such sources should be presented alongside references from other sources in order to maintain a neutral point of view.

I believe that with the above qualifiers it can be used, but I'd much rather defer the question to other editors' judgment. arimareiji (talk) 01:58, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The eyewitnesses may be telling the truth or some may even be lying. We cannot judge only by their claims for the case, and oly action PCHR took here is documenting and publishing the statements. The source is as it is. The procedures their lawyer took for documenting the eyewitness statements under oath seems formal and have integrity. This is the most reliable and direct publicly available source for the eyewitness statements I could find. "Following the taking of these affidavits, PCHR submitted a request to the investigation department of the Israeli occupying forces that they question these eyewitnesses directly for the purposes of their investigation into the death. The questioning by Israeli occupying forces investigators took place in late March in the presence of Israeli lawyers representing PCHR." Also PCHR was the HR organisation that took the affidavit statements, and "took the legal action for Israeli Forces to question these eyewitnesses directly, in the late March with the presence of Israeli lawyers representing PCHR", so PCHR involved as a first party to the case. Reliability is another discussion issue, yet it is verifiable and a primary source for the case. PCHR may not be neutral to the Israel-Palestine conflict possibly, yet doesnt seem much of an extremist organisation either. About PCHR Kasaalan (talk) 12:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Kasaalan, putting it in an affidavit doesn't make it any more reliable, as any lawyer will tell you. W.S. Gilbert, a barrister himself, hit the nail on the head when he said in The Mikado, "Why should I kill you when making an affidavit that you've been executed will do just as well?" The best statements are contemporary, excited utterances, when motivation to prevaricate hasn't settled in. Studied, formal statements with lawyers hovering around are not seen as any more reliable in the eyes of the law than any other statement.--Wehwalt (talk)

Kasaalan - while a primary source is considered to have more value in many settings, in Wikipedia being a primary source is nearly disqualifying. Take a look at this link to see what I mean. Whether this is the best approach or not is a moot point; it's a community standard.

Whether PCHR is extremist is open to debate, but they are at the least partisan and thus fall under the strictures I quoted in my first response. There would be no question that this source couldn't be used 1) if the material added from this source isn't corroborated by other cites within the article, or 2) if it's used without careful attribution to the source so that the reader can judge possible bias. I personally believe that if both conditions are met, some of the material for Joe Carr can be used to replace his unsourced account at the beginning of the ISM eyewitness accounts section. But I'd much rather defer to the consensus of other editors on this question; I'm coming in late on it. arimareiji (talk) 13:55, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

What I mean by primary is first hand direct source from a first party to a disputable case, for they took the legal actions in Israeli courts first. In the same manner the IDF or Israeli goverment reports, or IDF personnel interviews are also primary sources. Also, these eyewitness testimonies repeated at IDF and if there were any contradiction they would have easily locate and stated contradictions. I don't know about how partisan PCHR is or may be considered, but as far as I searched they are widely known and accepted in international HR area, they even prized by the President of French Republic in 1996, you may look at the about page for detail at their site. On the other hand IDF or IDF oriented media used in references may also be considered as partisan easily just as PCHR. "PCHR is a legal aid agency providing representation for victims of human rights violations in the Gaza Strip. PCHR has submitted more than 1200 complaints to the Israeli occupying forces regarding human rights violations since the beginning of the current Intifada. In no case in which PCHR has submitted a complaint, has any individual in the Israeli occupying forces, security services or other persons, been prosecuted or otherwise disciplined for any act perpetrated against a Palestinian or foreign national." But according to this we cannot reach a conclusion as "IDF personnel is partisan, therefore their interviews shouldn't be used". What we discuss here is if the report intact or not, in other words if it reflects eyewitnesses' statements as they are or not. These are the eyewitness accounts, eyewitnesses' own written statements and claims given under oath, and I can easily say this report is intact and just reporting what the eyewitnesses say. It contains no interpretation. Therefore this report has a higher value than most of the links we already used in reference section. We are not discussing if eyewitnesses lie or not, we are discussing if the report is intact or not, if it matches to the claims of the eyewitnesses. We cannot take eyewitnesses claims as solid facts, yet also we should mention and reference them for the neutrality of the article. This is the case for the IDF just as it is for the ISM. We are not judges, we are just presenting the sides' claims. Also we already have uncited quotes from eyewitnesses in the article, and when I present the first hand source of them, you still object. Your mikado quote has nothing to do with my referencing because I don't try to reach a conclusion basing eyewitness accounts, I am just quoting what they claim.

"Primary sources are sources very close to an event. For example, an account of a traffic accident written by a witness is a primary source of information about the accident. Other examples include archeological artifacts; photographs; historical documents such as diaries, census results, video or transcripts of surveillance, public hearings, trials, or interviews; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires; written or recorded notes of laboratory and field experiments or observations; and artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos, and television programs. The key point about a primary source is that it offers an insider's guide to an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on.[7]"

"Our policy: Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source." Kasaalan (talk) 21:57, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

(deindent) Per the quote you listed above: "Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them." That's why I previously quoted this:

Websites and publications of political parties, religious groups, anti-religious groups, or any other partisan group, may exhibit bias and should be treated with caution. Neither political affiliation nor religious belief stated in these sources are in themselves a reason not to use them, as these websites can be used to present the viewpoints of these groups, if properly attributed. Such sources should be presented alongside references from other sources in order to maintain a neutral point of view.

PCHR's webpage is not a "reliable source" by the Wikipedia definition, because they're partisan - they are an interested party to this topic. Per the above quote, this does not by itself disqualify it as a source. But any use of it would have to be constrained by the guidelines listed above. arimareiji (talk) 23:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I've felt for a while that whatever eyewitness accounts we do use should be cut back considerably so that they can be incorporated into the text, rather than be lengthy block sections. I just haven't wanted to get into it on this issue.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:20, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

PCHR main page has nothing to do with its report on eyewitness statements, because they are not commenting or paraphrasing the eyewitness accounts, they are publishing it word by word. Source is intact, it is the best source we can find that is publicly available for full eyewitness testimonies. Also, as I stated earlier, this eyewitness testimonies repeated in the investigation of IDF, which is done by PCHR request, therefore they are involved as a first party to the case, and any contradiction would be easily located by IDF in ther interrogation. You may call PCHR "partisan", but eyewitness accounts has nothing to do with their "partisan" ideas or comments in the article, also I am not aware of PCHR activities or their neutratily very much, but the source which is a known and accepted Human Right Organisation internationally, is more reliable than a maintstream newspaper for the full eyewitness accounts, also more reliable than some other "partisan" Israeli based references already sourced in the article for eyewitness accounts. Basically these are eyewitnesses' testimonies, their own claims, repeated at IDF interrogation and it is not my fault that IDF didn't publish their report publicly, PCHR did publish it therefore I use it, if IDF would have published it I would use it too. Eyewitness written testimonies given under oath with signatures taken by a lawyer, repeated at the Israeli investigation and published by Human Rights Organisation which is a first hand party to the case, primary source, source is intact, involves no paraphrasing, therefore a clear reference for eyewitnesses' claims. I will try to read all eyewitness accounts and check if they quoted properly later. But the primary source will be PCHR report, with other newspaper interviews. Kasaalan (talk) 13:38, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Kasaalan, I am not sure you are getting the distinction between primary source, meant to mean a firsthand account, and primary source, meaning a principal source, a source we are getting a lot of material from. The PCHR affidavits are the first, and should not be the second. I would rather work from newspapers, who have sifted and winnowed through fact checking processes and put their credibility and money on the line, then quote from a first hand account. That is why WP doesn't favor first hand accounts.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:56, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Whether PCHR is more or less reliable than any other partisan source is moot. They are a partisan source, and can not be used in isolation. Their material must be accompanied by corroborating material in the article, not just in your review of available material. It also must be clearly attributed so that the reader can judge possible bias. arimareiji (talk) 15:40, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I am referring primary as firsthand source by means of "Primary sources are sources very close to an event. For example, an account of a traffic accident written by a witness is a primary source of information about the accident." which is clearly adressed on wiki guidelines. I am not referring principal source as scientific means. There is no bias involved in the report because the statements are intact with no paraphrasing by PCHR. Neither newspapers nor PCHR can sift or winnow eyewitness statements, they can just publish them intact, and that is why we use them. We are not talking about any comment or paraphrasing here, so your partisan claims fall out of the guides. Also you say newspapers put credibility and money on the line, yet Human Right Organisations fall under same category, I referred you already they have international credibility, if a Human Right Organisation would change the eyewitness statements in any way, it would be easily located by IDF and Israel courts by now, and they would suffer severely for their actions. The procedure they took is clear for taking eyewitness statements, and your claimed standarts has nothing to do with PCHR, because they are not paraphrasing the claims, they publishes it intact with legal binding. Kasaalan (talk) 22:58, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Turn it around; say the Zionist party posted a video clip that they claim shows "what really happened" on their website without any verifiable sourcing other than themselves. You'd be correct in saying that we cannot use that clip without parallel sources corroborating it, and with clear attribution for the reader to judge bias.

1. It doesn't matter that unedited video would be much more probative than an unedited affidavit. We have only their word for it that they didn't edit it.
2. As with a video clip, an affidavit / firsthand account is a primary source by Wikipedia definition.
3. Wikipedia has guidelines established by the community for how to deal with use of a primary source by a partisan group, which I confusingly abbreviated earlier as "partisan source."
4. Those guidelines apply, whether it's to "my side" or "your side" or anyone else's "side".

If you want to take up the question of whether those community guidelines should be changed, this isn't the forum to do it in. It's great that you've provided a source for Joe Carr's original statements, one which I believe can be used to make the article better. But it needs to be used under the guidelines, if other editors agree that it can be used. arimareiji (talk) 23:58, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Zionist or not, if the party posted a video clip interviewing with IDF eyewitnesses, WikiGuidelines would't object for mentioning it, but WikiGuidelines would object stating a conclusion based on that interview. What we do here is same. We are trying to mention 2 opposing sides' eyewitness accounts. If ISM members eyewitnessing the event are partisan the IDF personnel eyewitnessing the event are also partisan. If PCHR that publishes the ISM eyewitness testimonies is partisan, some Israeli newspapers interviewing with IDF personel are also partisan. This is a disputable case. So we should mention both sides arguments, with the highest quality sources we can find. We cannot trim off one or two sides' claims by saying they are partisan, because they are the first hand party here who are involved the case. Actually we cannot progress much on the article because we don't have some admins here, and not much editors around for neutrality, our editors for the page are 6, 3 against 3 pro side, and for a disputable article, even our neutrality might be disputable. Kasaalan (talk) 14:09, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Are you even listening to anything I'm saying, or have you decided you already know what I'm going to say and thus keep repeating variants of the same arguments? I'd be vaguely interested (and possibly amused) to know which "side" you think I'm on.

Incidentally, per dictionary.com, partisan = "an adherent or supporter of a person, group, party, or cause." That does include PCHR. And it doesn't include most newspapers. arimareiji (talk) 16:41, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) You see why it is so difficult to reach consensus on this page these days? We get tales told at great length by Kasaalan (and repeatedly), full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:59, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I am reading what you write, but we don't have enough editors to reach a consensus around. I know what partisan means, and partisan word includes most of Israeli based articles used in reference section just as PCHR. Not sure what side you are, I don't know your edits so I cannot comment on you, yet on Wehwalt I can comment, and I can say he doesn't apply same Wiki standarts to the both sides equally. We need a group of admins watching over page, that is easiest way to reach a consensus. For example look at this page Tom Gross and tell me this is not a partisan source. Look at this sourceVoaNews what the news based on "according to a source", and according to an unknown source we use imaginary titles like "possible kidnapping attempt" although Corrie rejects the incident. [By the way the first source to voanews was a really untrustable page, I searched and added the original voanews reference] Isn't this source partisan too israelenews or this human rights activists or aids to terrorists. Yet even when I try to use Human Rights Watch report as a reference, I have to discuss pages long with Wehwalt to add it, why, because he even refuses internationally accepted Human Rights Watch claiming using it would be against WikiGuidelines, than I need to search and proof, how HRW reports already have been used in Wikipedia in dozens of page before I can add it as a reference. Or even when I want to add a page from The Boston Globe, people can refuse for it is not mainstream like New York Times, then I need to research and proof The Boston Globe belongs to The New York Times group. We cannot even reach a consensus on kill word [Concise Oxford English Dictionary kill cause the death of], and trying to replace them into death just like people die from natural reasons. Lots of info was missing in the article, and instead wasting time on baseless objections I could improve the article much more than its current state. I researched and referenced lots of important info missing in the article myself, unlike some editors who [instead researching] taking their time on "neutralitizing" and trimming off the article against "hagiography threats", yet it took much more time for me to discuss on objections caused by double standarts here. Why do we even need to discuss so long on the reliability of HRW, when I it is already widely accepted in the world by governments, press, academic studies and wikipedia. We couldn't reach a consensus on mentioning Rachel's fifth grade speech against hunger, which indicates it is hard to reach a consensus. Because our interpratation of WikiPolicies are different, therefore we need some independent admins' help on the page. Kasaalan (talk) 18:00, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Kasaalan, admins aren't better editors than anyone else, and are not better equipped to judge content on articles like this. They simply have gone through the RfA process to be given certain tools useful in maintaining Wikipedia (that is why the symbol for adminship is a mop). Arimameiji's comments seem neutral and to the point. If there are disagreements, there are many ways to settle the issue, from posting on noticeboards to asking for third opinions, which avoid excessive formality and get the job done.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:08, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

New section for teapot tempests

Resolved

Just wanted to be able to scroll a little less; I'm getting lazy in my old age. Please note that by referring to any individual source as partisan or non-partisan, I am not trying to judge whether it should be included. Impressions:

1. Can't comment on Tom Gross without knowing what he was being used as a source for.
2. I'm not impressed with VoA's sourcing or neutrality, but they're not partisan per se.
3. Israelenews doesn't come across as partisan, though the reporter herself and the fact it's an OpEd (opinion editorial) verges on partisanship. When I get back to re-including it, I'd like to specifically mention that it's an OpEd and not a news article.
4. Without knowing more about The Jewish Journal, I can't be sure, but the fact that they titled a blatant OpEd as a "Community Brief" makes me think they are partisan.
5. I suspect you mean the Human Rights Watch report published under the umbrella of UNHCR (the UN Office of the High Commissioner on Refugees); my impression is of this alone. By one definition, it could be considered 'partisan' - they are promoting a cause, that of human rights. But to me it comes across as non-partisan with respect to politics. I'm also impressed by their almost-religious sourcing of material; it verges on scholarly.

As Wehwalt said, adminship does not confer nobility. It does imply that an editor has remained neutral enough to not piss off a lot of people, otherwise they would fail their RfA. Pissed-off people have long memories. It also implies that an editor knows their way around Wikipedia, is familiar with the rules, and for the most part has "been there done that." Generally, an admin's opinion is trustworthy, though there are always exceptions. Perhaps the biggest testament to an admin's trustworthiness is when they don't use their admin tools to "win" arguments - which means that a group of admins overseeing this article would not solve anything.
The only resolutions we can reach in article editing are either compromise and consensus, or getting admins to banish those who refuse to edit constructively. The former is what we need here, not the latter. arimareiji (talk) 19:49, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Tom Gross when you examine his other articles and his biography in the site is broadly partisan, but I don't object his referenced article because he is clearly partisan on his other articles. Yet when I like to use a verifiable fact from a site, it gets objection by the site is partisan therefore unreliable. I don't like to go in detail much in each of the sources, there are even more examples in the article, "Voice of America (VOA), is the official external radio and television broadcasting service of the United States federal government. Its oversight entity is the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG)." and unofficially related to CIA, and some of the sources in the reference, whether partisan or not, are not eligible for wikiguidelines as reliable sources, or even maintstream. And if anyone objects even Human Rights Watch report, they should also object most of these references, yet they don't and that is why I mention on double standards. Even while I question the reliability of sources like these, I am not trimming them off from the article, because their claims are somewhat common in Israel and gives a different thought to the article. Yet, when I try to add missing information to the article, same wikiguidelines which not applied to these links, came before me as an objection for not adding my sources. If you wonder, HRW has been refused for being unreliable, so we had to quote it from UN website as referenced by a reliable source. Why I have to repeat myself over and over again is because constant objections even on primary sources, and we don't have much editors around for settlement, and whatever you call it, we generally have 2 opposing ideas for applying rules and as 1-1, 2-2 or 3-3 generally, so we cannot progress fast. Actually even I object Wehwalt much, that is mainly because we have conflicting ideas, and mostly we are the only ones around here, we need more editors and independent admins around, because we cannot settle on applying wikiguidelines or choosing reliable sources most of the time, yet sometimes we cannot even settle on very basic things which leads conflicts bigger. Kasaalan (talk) 00:31, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Would anyone like to step forward and explain objections to using the HRW report filed under the UNHCR as source material for this article? I can't see any reason for excluding it, but I may not know the whole story.

(If you're not answering this question, please consider waiting a short while before adding a new edit and changing the edit summary. The current edit summary is meant to get additional input from people who have this watchlisted, and stifling the input of people who could answer this question is not a mark of good faith.) arimareiji (talk) 02:31, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to see it mentioned inline it was from HRW, or else backed up with another source, but otherwise I'm OK with it.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you; I'll restore the question into the edit summary for a little while in case there are outright objections. arimareiji (talk) 02:56, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Tom Hurndall

He is fatally shot in the head by IDF sniper for certain we should mention it in the explanation. Being two words shorter does not make the explanation better. This is the exact reason Tom Hurndall mentioned in the see also section. "British ISM volunteer fatally shot in Gaza" True but we already know who shot him, and he convicted at Israel military courts than we should mention its position. He fatally shot in the head by IDF sniper stayed in coma and died 9 months later. "In the head" is important because it directly shows the intention. You cannot shoot a man in the head by mistake. If we don't mention IDF personnel than it misleads the reader like who shot him is unknown.

"Thomas "Tom" Hurndall (29 November 1981 – 13 January 2004) was a British photography student, a volunteer for the International Solidarity Movement (ISM), and an activist against the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories. On 11 April 2003, he was shot in the head in the Gaza Strip by an Israel Defense Forces (IDF) sniper, Taysir Hayb. Hurndall was left in a coma and died nine months later.

Hayb was convicted of manslaughter and obstruction of justice by an Israeli military court in April 2005 and sentenced to eight years in prison.[1] On 10 April 2006, a British inquest jury returned a verdict of unlawful killing meaning "intentionally killed", or, according to the Hurndall family QC, murdered.[2][3]"

"On 27 June 2005, Sergeant Taysir al-Heib was convicted of manslaughter, obstruction of justice, giving false testimony and inducing comrades in his unit to bear false witness.

On 11 August 2005, al-Heib was sentenced to eight years in prison by a military court.[1]

Tom Hurndall's family and their legal team were denied access to the military police report which led to the trial. After an appeal to the Israeli Supreme Court, the state prosecution offered access to the report to the legal team, but not the Hurndall family, in early August. According to a spokesman for the Tom Hurndall Foundation,[7] this will allow them to decide whether Taysir could be indicted for the more serious charge of murder, and to find out if responsibility for Hurndall's death lies higher up the chain of command.[8]" Kasaalan (talk) 12:26, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Learn about what the purpose of a "see also" is. We could simply list the names with no text at all.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:02, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Completely agreed; the subject of this article is Rachel Corrie. Not the ISM, or ISM members who have been (allegedly) killed/injured by the IDF. Just Rachel Corrie. Also please keep arguments short and to the point, rather than cutting/pasting large sections of text in lieu of a cogent argument. arimareiji (talk) 13:19, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

There are almost no cases we'd not state who killed an international observer, particularly when it was a series of high-profile court cases in two countries that determined what happened and who carried it out. PR^talk 09:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

There's already a Wikipedia article on him that discusses all that, PR; the issue here is why mention him in the article on someone else? Were they friends? Were they together when she was killed? Had they ever even met? I believe the answer to the latter 3 questions is "no", "no", and "no". Also, he wasn't an "international observer", he was a political activist. Jayjg ^(talk) 09:30, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

If you ask the wrong questions then you get nowhere. Both Rachel and Tom were ISM activists. So Yes. They both have been killed within 1 month one after the other. So yes. They both have been killed in the same city. So yes. They both have been killed by same army's personnel whether on purpose or not. So yes. Both case have been subject of Israel Courts. So yes. Similar incidents happening in similar location in Gaza, in similar dates, by IDF soldiers, that is why the cases are related. Kasaalan (talk) 14:48, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Who says they're the wrong questions? Why are yours more relevant? Do you have reliable sources tying them together? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I make the cogent argument, and quoted the reasons for a them. There is a certain conviction present in this case by Israeli courts, so there is no allegation or claim present on who killed Tom Hurndall. "Also provide a brief explanatory sentence when the relevance of the added links is not immediately apparent." Wiki says this as a guideline, we couldn't simply just list the names beause relevance of the links wouldn't be apparent. He is not allegedly killed, he is certainly killed by an IDF sniper with a bullet in the head, this is why I put the quotes from the wiki article. It is not allegedly because the Israel Military Court sentenced him to 8 years. A certain conviction is present on the case by 2 seperate courts. He is killed by an IDF sniper. Is it a better brief when we keep out, he is killed by an IDF sniper, from the brief, or is it more misleading, like it is unknown who shot him like a disputable case. Wehwalt generally suggests "keeping it short", but keeping it short by 3 words, is way misleading than the space it gains. "Keeping it short" approach cutting out necessary details, as stated in the wiki guidelines this is an electronic encyclopedia, and space is not the biggest issue in Wiki. Kasaalan (talk) 21:47, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

If space was the biggest issue on wiki, they'd be sending you bills for your talk page contributions! :) However, I digress. Putting those three see alsos, with their accompanying text, is an attempt to say "Because the IDF shot these people, they therefore must have intentionally done harm to Rachel Corrie." That's not the purpose of a see also.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

It is your comment, yet not objective. I don't claim "IDF shot these people, therefore they intentionally harmed Rachel", what I say is Tom Hurndall has been shot in the head by an IDF sniper, it is the final decision of 2 different courts including Israel Military Court, and your shortening is covering this fact, and it misleads the readers by hiding crucial undisputable info. A sniper means not a regular soldier but a sharpshooter whose specialty is shooting where he aims exactly with his special longrange rifle with a scope, a sniper shot Tom in the head and that is the fact. You try to trim off the crucial parts and calling that neutralizing, yet it results in erasing off IDF's misdoings even the ones accepted by IDF. The killer is known for sure by verdict of Israel Military Court, similar incidents happening in similar location, in similar dates, by IDF soldiers, that is why the cases are related. I am not commenting like you, I am stating the facts and you are erasing the facts. That is not neutral point of view, that is IDF based point of view. Kasaalan (talk) 14:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Come on, Kasaalan, you're defending it because you hope the reader will get that implied point. Why else are you so assiduously defending it? And why else are the dates that these events took place in there? You want the reader to think the IDF went on a little killing spree at the expense of foreigners, come on, you can admit it, we're all friends here.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Simply juxtaposing the dates is fair game, I think - but only if no WP:OR/WP:SYNTHESIS conclusions are asserted. I doubt that anyone whose mind wasn't already made up would see a relationship in the absence of proof. It's not our responsibility, nor would we be able, to anticipate and try to protect a reader from their own POV. That would verge on telling them not to stuff beans up their nose, I think.arimareiji (talk) 15:58, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we should add, say, Adam Shapiro to the list. And I would still delete the text, leaving only the names.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:22, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

ISM and/or a link to IDF demolitions work / rationale (if such an article exists), or... well... any article to balance against "IDF's raison d'etre is to kill everyone in sight", would be pertinent. Adam Shapiro, not so much I think. arimareiji (talk) 17:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Objections to using a Human Rights Watch report as a source?

Resolved

Would anyone like to step forward and explain objections to using the HRW report filed under the UNHCR as source material for this article? Sorry to keep repeating myself, but I want to make sure we have a clear consensus. arimareiji (talk) 13:29, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

It's been a few days, so I'm going ahead with WP:BRD. We can always take the topic up again, of course. arimareiji (talk) 23:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

HRW is exceptionally careful, a top-rate RS. PR^talk 21:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Widely accepted reference, they might also be wrong depends on context, but notable and exact enough to be referenced in general terms. Kasaalan (talk) 16:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Wehwalt re-inserting redundant material

Resolved

I deleted the following passage from the end of the "possible kidnapping attempt" section:

In March 2008, The Observer reported that the gunmen, who carried Kalashnikovs, intended to kidnap the Corries, feeling that they would be valuable bargaining tools. According to the paper, Nasrallah persuaded the gunmen to go on their way. They may have killed two men on the Egyptian border instead.[59]

This adds absolutely nothing of value to the section. The bit about the men killed on the border is hearsay speculation ("it is said that" - unsourced and unattributed in the Observer article) that is irrelevant to this article, and even if it were so, it does not belong in this article on such flimsy evidence. The only other difference is that it says "Kalashnikovs" (plural), a point of only marginal interest. The earlier newspaper reports, which stated that only one of the men carried a gun are much more likely to be true: they are closer to the incident than the Observer article, a long piece which focuses on Rachel's background and the effect of Rachel's killing on the Corrie family, not on the detail of an incident two years ago.

Removing this bit is an easy, non-controversial way of trimming this section. It really needs to be trimmed further (WP:UNDUE), not expanded with worthless repetition.

--NSH001 (talk) 17:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you should be looking elsewhere in the article for things to trim. Like the lengthy witness statements that should be boiled down into the text or at the worst brief blockquotes. However, I'd be fine with deleting the border sentence, but the rest should go back in. Why? Because there is doubt as to the gunmens' intentions, and this dispels that.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Just my opinion, your mileage may vary - but I don't think the Observer really adds much. I don't think it's fair to call its assertions hearsay. But then again, they don't tell us what the source for their assertions is. And the "might have killed Egyptian border guards" comes across as a little weaselly.

Striking through a now-moot section of my own comments.

I think there might be a different angle which would help the kerfluffle make more sense. It's... well, quixotic of the ISM to object because "the Corries weren't the intended kidnap victims, the people next door were." It doesn't cast the situation in a more favorable light. But it shows common ground between the two accounts, which makes more sense than polar disagreement. arimareiji (talk) 17:54, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

If it sounds improbable, here's the quote from cite 57: "In the early morning of January 4, two Palestinian men visited three American members of the Olympia-Rafah Sister City Project (ORSCP) at the home where the Americans were staying in Rafah, a city on Gazas border with Egypt. The two men reportedly wanted to hold the three foreigners in exchange for the release of a family member who was arrested by Palestinian security forces for an earlier kidnapping. The Corries were staying in a nearby home and helped to talk the men out of going through with the plan." arimareiji (talk) 18:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I've WP:BRD'ed out a version I think might be acceptable to everyone; please feel free to redact as much as needed. The media and ISM accounts are almost identical, except for the relative levels of sympathy in wording: Two men with a gun go into a home where Americans are staying in order to kidnap them, and get talked out of it by the Corries.

To me, it previously came across as: "Either they were being kidnapped, or some guys came to visit them for a little spot of tea." The more plausible reconciled version, which I find much more amusing: "Either the media wanted to report a better story than the one that really happened, or the ISM wanted to put a good face on it and said the kidnappers weren't bad guys because they were going to kidnap someone else." arimareiji (talk) 19:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

(Personally, I think the media just wanted a better story and "improved" it; in my experience they do that a lot. But either way, I still think it's more amusing.) arimareiji (talk) 23:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I may play with it a little bit, but it is quite good. Only thing that wasn't clear is if they asked the Corries for autographs, had their pix taken with them (hopefully without the AK47's showing), or gave them their cell phone numbers before they went to the border and blew away a couple of randoms.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The observer link was not working, so I cannot comment on that article without the article link. Current references for the case may help for the discussion. voice of americatelegraphisraeliinsider Kasaalan (talk) 19:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Lots of little edits and one section refactor

Resolved

I've been a busy little bee, as you can see from the edit history. If there's anything you disagree with or don't understand the rationale for, please check the edit summaries - I tried to individuate them as much as possible to make it easier to deal with each on its merits. And of course, I'm always around to answer questions. arimareiji (talk) 01:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I support some key points should be mentioned for her early life. The dove parade and her fifth grade hunger speech is notable for her life. I added two parts, "yet declined to comment on why ACP drivers didn't get the bulldozers to stop" and "wearing an orange flourescent safety jacket with 2 reflector stripes, had positioned herself in the path of a C9R bulldozer with spots on". Kasaalan (talk) 04:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

While I understand your frustration with IDF's unwillingness to explain their conclusions (i.e. issue a full report that's transparent about their reasoning), these quotes aren't the place to speculate about it. The cites being used here don't support them, which means that the additions amount to WP:OR.

I'm not finished with this article yet by any means, and plan to add HRW material that addresses IDF transparency issues the right way - sourced, and in context. arimareiji (talk) 09:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

To further clarify - no one questions that she was wearing a visibility jacket. But your additions go a step farther, and both insinuate and assert that the IDF/spokesman refused to address the issue. Those aren't supported by the sources for the sentences you modified. If you'll give me a chance to do so instead of re-explaining why this is nonproductive, I plan to address that the correct way using HRW. arimareiji (talk) 14:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

"For now, the official Israeli line is that the driver did not see Rachel through the bulldozer's thick bullet-proof glass. However, the spokesman acknowledged that the armoured personnel carriers (APCs) that accompany bulldozers are responsible for directing the drivers towards their targets. So why didn't the APC drivers get the bulldozer to stop? The IDF declined to comment." [26] You said my additions not supported by the references, but they were already in the article. HRW needs to be added and might be better, yet also this is a necessary part when the article quoted because it states both claim and an objection to that claim, the paragraph is a whole splitting it in two misleads the view. Also Rachel was wearing an orange flourescent jacket, yet the photographs also proof the D9R spotlights were also on and the jacket has 2 reflector stripes which shines against light sources, so this part is extremely important to the case against blindspot arguments. Rachel and D9R Where in the article it will be stated we can discuss, however the jacket and spotlights should be stated at least once. Kasaalan (talk) 15:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

In both cases, you're performing dubious WP:SYNTHESIS to say that they're connected. I know the reference; I'm the one who refactored it based on that reference. The "decline to comment" is NOT in reference to her jacket. And "you can see spots in the photo, and spots reflect off of stripes, so the bulldozer driver could see her" is blatant synthesis. We don't insert our own opinions, and we don't insert our own deductions. Please keep those rules in mind.

Every hour I spend re-explaining the rules to you is an hour I'm not trying to neutralize POV that detracts from Rachel's story (something I think you want told), and probably another two or three more hours before I have the mental stamina to come back again and deal with fighting against you to make even the most obviously-needed reforms. At some point, you need to learn that fighting to "win" every little Pyrrhic victory is not helping you. arimareiji (talk) 19:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't claim the declining of comment with her jacket is related, but it was part of the article and it should be mentioned untill you made a better view from HRW article. I am not performing any synthesis because I don't try to to reach a certain point with these claims, but I am stating undisputable facts. IDF mentions about the blindspots, and I state the open spots of D9R by the event photographs. I did not try to reach any synthesis, yet it is a fact she did wear an orange safety jacket with reflector stripes while the spotlights of the D9R is obviously on during whole time. I don't claim basing on this fact as the IDF is certainly wrong or ISM is certainly right, yet again I state this fact because it lessens the probility of not seeing Rachel during the events, because a safety jacket is more than just an orange color while while the spots hit the reflectors, but again I didn't insert any comment in the article, I just described the situation pointing the facts is necessary. I don't insert my opinion, or my conclusions, I state the prominent facts for the case. If your mental stamina is a concern to you, I can sincerely recommend you getting professional help on the matter. The article is not about victory, it is about revealing the truths. Also this is not a minor spot to discuss, it is a major fact for the case. Our job here is stating the facts, the conclusion is not ours to make. I state the facts again and again, and deleting the facts is not a way of neutralizing the article. Kasaalan (talk) 19:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

1. I really don't appreciate your implication that my being frustrated with your constant bickering indicates that I need "professional help on the matter."
2. This essay goes a long way toward explaining how most editors feel about statements like "it is about revealing the truths [sic]." Please keep in mind when reading it that it is satire, and not serious. arimareiji (talk) 19:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I constantly restating the facts without exhausting over page most of which consists of baseless objections to my edits, and if you want to name my actions that much maybe you should read the discussion page over again. I don't feel like caring to your personal statements on my behaviour. There aren't enough editors for being able to mention most in any way. So trying to win any argument by exaggerating the numbers will not help. As I explained earlier, the editors you referred are only limited to 2 and made some really biased effort on the article with their double standarts, so I don't have the impression I have discussed with independent editors that much. That is why I argued we should call some independent admins for the page earlier. Also your frustration, what you aprreciate or how you amuse yourself is out of my concern here, but being unable to stand even a short discussion like this, also might be a good indication on the mental strength of a person. Why I recommend you to consider seeking for help, because you mentioned it yourself just as it is an important matter. If it is a trivial case that only concerns yourself, maybe you shouldn't mention it, where it is unrelated. Kasaalan (talk) 20:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

1. "Short discussion"? This page is 302,000 characters long even after archiving threads significantly more than a month old. The overwhelming majority of it is yours. For comparison, the average English word's length is 5.1 characters. That would make this page longer than two full-length novellas.
2. I'm not talking about editors on this page when I say most editors would agree with this essay's farcical conclusions about "truth warriors." I'm talking about the whole of Wikipedia.
3. Keep up the insinuations that I lack "mental strength" and need "professional help." You'll make the acquaintance of some "independent admins" in very short order. arimareiji (talk) 20:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

1. So if I restate your claim, I have read all of my own writings, I have read all of opposers' claims, I have researched, than read that articles, parashrased or quoted them with clear references for providing answers against constant objections, which is "longer than 2 full-length novellas". Why did I researched for info, while some others mostly trying to shape the article according to their point of view. After I came there is some obvious improvement in the article. I found the middle name of Rachel is Aliene. Might sound trivial at first, but I learned it while I have read the medical reports and legal court documents. I located the exact serie of D9 used in the case was D9R. Might sound trivial, yet it affects the field of view, the sizes, the cabin, the location of operator, the spotlights anything and everything to the case. I found the medical reports of Rachel even the original ones. ... It took a long time, yet answering objections took more time. But if you won't read my discussions for necessary cases, than don't base your argument for they are long, because I have made the research then read them all before I provide them here. And if you read them, you might also understand why I discussed so long on quoting the HRW report or why full text for the eyewitness accounts should be referenced from the first hand sources. It is not my fault 2 editors constantly objected to the primary sources. That is why it took so long. Also some of the text here are for other editors to evaulate, before I make the edits based on quotes. They are prepublished here for future edits, while providing time for others to read and object them.

1. Verifiable facts needs to be stated. Wikipedia:Verifiability You don't argue the facts, yet you argue with me while I provide them in the article. If you can get some independent admins to the page, go ahead, it might help.
2. I have written a longer answer for this case but I don't like to discuss further. If you keep your trivial personal mood statements out of the discussion, no need for us to discuss them over here. Yet if you will rephrase my statements, then try to threaten me by your own false rephareses, you might feel the urge to call admins, however it is not my concern what I haven't said or what you think I have said. My statements are above and as they are just like yours. Kasaalan (talk) 21:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Kasaalan, you say "Rachel was wearing an orange flourescent jacket, yet the photographs also proof the D9R spotlights were also on and the jacket has 2 reflector stripes which shines against light sources, so this part is extremely important to the case against blindspot arguments." Which reliable source says this is "extremely important to the case against blindspot arguments." Why do you think you need to make an argument against the blindspot arguments? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Answers are given in new section. Eyewitness statements and event photographs clearly describes the jacket in detail as I do. Kasaalan (talk) 17:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Safety Jacket in Detail

Resolved

Primary and direct source from a side to the case. ISM eyewitness written testimonies given under oath. Their claims for her safety jacket are backed up by event photographs. The photograph clearly shows that Rachel Corrie was wearing a flourescent orange safety jacket with 2 reflector stripes while the 2 spotlights of D9R is on. Using an apparent photograph to describe an item important for a case is not likely to involved with original research but if it is the eyewitness statements already contains this fact. By the way ISM gave out the permission to the photos for press can we use the event photographs from ICFI in the article?

Here is the direct original source of the written eyewitness statements taken under oath by Palestinian Center for Human Rights lawyer and then repeated at IDF office by request of PCHR. PALESTINIAN CENTRE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS PRESS RELEASE 30.06.2003 AFFIDAVITS

SUMMARY FOR EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS ON SAFETY JACKET

A short summary for the eyewitness statements on flourescent orange safety jacket with 2 reflective strips. Kasaalan (talk) 13:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• • Massive cut/pastes are not persuasive if they don't directly address the actual question being asked. This has been an ongoing issue in the last month. arimareiji (talk) 15:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, your "summary" contains several first-person statements. Either those are also just cut/pastes, but this time being masqueraded as honest discourse, or you're asserting that you have a massive WP:CoI. Neither is good. arimareiji (talk) 15:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't want to jump in here too much, especially since Kasaalan hasn't answered the question posed at the end of the last section. But those photographs are not "event photographs", but were taken earlier in the day. We cannot use them as they are nonfree and do not fall under any fair use criterion.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

What question you refer, because my quotes explains why the jacket should be described in detail. As you call my statements original research it is only clear, either you haven't read the full eyewitness statements I provided, or simply ignored them. You asked the question on sources, claiming it was original research, so I proved you it is not original research, but based on the eyewitness statements and event photographs which are completely verifiable as I clearly referenced earlier. Quotes are big yet interconnected, also I have clearly marked related parts with bold and added as a summary at the end for those who don't like to read in detail. My summary of course contains first person statements, because these people are the eyewitnesses to the case, therefore should be considered as a Primary Source according to wiki guidelines for the case. Moreover the eyewitness statements can be easily proved by the event photographs. Wehwalt your claims are simply wrong. Look at the page with event photograph. You can easily see she was wearing the safety jacket before the incident. And in this collage posted by permission from ISM you can easily see she is wearing same safety jacket after the incident. On contrary to your claims, we have both before and after the incident photographs publicly available. As I already prooved you earlier, which you didn't bother to read or care, all of the photographs' timeline is clearly available. The page is "last updated on 21 March 2003 (added detail to captions in images and context to second paragraph)" on contrary to your claims. Look at the photostory at EI. The photographs clearly marked by timeline. First 2 photographs before the incident [27][28] taken between 3:00-4:00 PM and the other 2 photographs after the incident [29][30] taken at 4:45 PM and 4:47 PM respectively. So the claims of the eyewitnesses can be easily verified when you look at the event photographs. Wehwalt with false claims you can get nowhere. Also you claim they are non-free yet ON THIS PHOTOGRAPH IT IS CLEARLY STATED ICFI USED IT BY PERMISSION OF ISM so we can clearly address ICFI site as a reference. Also the photographs were taken from ISM press handout which gives us no reason to doubt for copyright issues. Uploading an image on wiki has stricter guidelines unlike using it as a proof. Kasaalan (talk) 17:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, fortunately I don't have to answer most of that because it is still a nonfree image. Using it in a press handout does not release the photo into the public domain. And just because we know what site a photo can be found on does not mean we can use it here. I take it that since WSWS used it by permission of ISM, that means we can too. That is not the case. It would have to be releasted into the public domain, have a suitable license, or else fall under a fair use exception. Go read up on copyright issues for images here at WP.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not talking about uploading the picture here, but I am talking about using the WSWS page, which has the permission from ISM to use the photographs, as a reference for the jacket, which has the right to publish picture from ISM. Or any other site like common dreams or Electronic Intifada, showing the source is ISM handout, and even AP used it from ISM handout. Press handouts are for public to view them, as a general rule, unless they stated otherwise. Also you should answer about your false claims on timeline. The sites and eyewitness accounts clearly show the timeline of the photographs. They are not giving false info on event timeline. We have both before and after photographs clearly show the jacket she is wearing with timeline, and eyewitness accounts stressing the jacket in detail because it is important, which can be easily verified by event photographs. You haven't made good arguments for not to describe the safety jacket in detail, which is an extremely important detail for the case. Kasaalan (talk) 17:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Despite adding 7kb, mostly of unattributed copy/paste material, you still have not answered the question "Which reliable source says this is 'extremely important to the case against blindspot arguments[?]'". This is a nigh-canonical example of example 8 under Gaming the system:

Stonewalling - actively filibustering discussion, or repeatedly returning to claims that a reasonable editor might have long since resolved or viewed as discredited (without providing any reasonable counter of the discredital), effectively tying up the debate or preventing a policy-based resolution being obtained.

Feel free to ignore the link to what a "filibuster" is, but by doing so you'll miss why it's the cornerstone of the example. arimareiji (talk) 17:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

You ignore the common sense actively. Eyewitnesses do stress "the orange flourescent jackets used by construction workers with stripes for high visibility" for a reason.

EYEWITNESSES DO STRESS ON SHE WAS WEARING HIGH VISIBILITY SAFETY JACKET

All of which are easily verifiable by event photographs. All of the eyewitnesses stresses the jacket. And most of them go in detail describing it is highly visible flourescent orange color with reflecting stripes. Do they lie, no, we already verified their claims by photographs already. Why do they do stress that Rachel was wearing a safety jacket just as they are told in ISM training? For being "highly visible" against IDF operators. All eyewitnesses stresses the safety jacket in their testimonies even with detail, therefore it is important, while we verified it by photographs, and use common sense. You even try to object to the obvious. Her family stresses on the safety jacket in the editorial published at Herald Tribune just like they do on courts. "On March 16, 2003, an Israeli soldier and his commander ran over Rachel ... clearly visible in her orange fluorescent jacket ..."

OTHER PRESS SOURCES REFERRING TO THE SAFETY JACKET

Safety Jackets are important that is why they have been wearing by ISM members, also why they have been strictly instructed to wear them in their training, and the stripes on them are important, as they flashes against bright light sources just as of D9R's spotlights. Common sense is important, they need to be mentioned, I don't claim it should be added as "extremely important" in the article, yet they should be mentioned in detail for the same reason. Kasaalan (talk) 18:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• • • What you call common sense is what Wikipedia calls WP:SYNTHESIS, and prohibits. And you're not being persuasive by continuing to paste kB after kB of material and expecting everyone else to read it, when you haven't read the repeated (and much smaller) warnings against several different types of counterproductive editing tactics like this. The most recent one is above, but they're scattered throughout the page.

Note to editors posting small comments, i.e. under 10 lines: It may be helpful, for the time being, to use ** rather than :: to marginate your comments. I can't speak for anyone else, but it's getting increasingly difficult for my old eyes (Kasaalan, I'm not inviting you to make more personal comments about me) to find smaller comments in this haystack of a page. arimareiji (talk) 19:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Your approach lead huge vertical spaces between paragraphs. Kasaalan (talk) 20:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually no synthesis I made by describing the safety jacket. I am just pointing out obvious details, ignored by other editors. Why do you wear a safety jacket, easy, for your safety, just as construction workers do, that is also why safety jackets has been manufactured. Safety jackets are made from special material and painted with special paints. That is what makes them different from regular coats. Yet she further wears a safety jacket with stripes on it. Do you object that. Most possibly, no. But there are different types of safety jackets as you may have known. Some safety jackets have reflective stripes on them. They are reflective against light sources. She was wearing one of these. Do you object that. Most possibly no. The eyewitnesses, her family, and some newspapers clearly stresses this fact by describing the jacket in detail, as I posted above. Do you object that. Saying just the color of the safety jacket is misleading by definition of safety jacket. "Fluorescent jacket" is not enough to describe the jacket because "She was wearing a bright orange jacket with reflective strips on it." as multiple eyewitnesses stress in detail. And there is a huge difference between them, when there is bright lightsources like D9R spotlights on this case. The reflective stripes have been used on the safety jackets for a purpose, that is why we should mention them. Otherwise there would be no difference between a safety jacket with reflective stripes and without the reflective stripes. The quote in the article is simply misleading, while better detail quotes are already available from eyewitnesses accounts. Also why do you count mentioning the D9R's spotlights were on, which is a strict verifiable fact, as a synthesis or reaching a conclusion, I am not so sure. The wikiguideline refers another point in that example. I am just describing the case, as it is, without trying to reach a conclusion in the article or make a synthesis. Yet if we don't mention the facts, how can we stand neutral to the case. As I gave the examples above, the jacket is stressed by the first hand sides for the case multiple times in detail. Kasaalan (talk) 19:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know whether you have knowledge on work safety or safety jackets in particular, yet the safety clothing are manufactured and painted specially. And the reflective stripes on them are also specially added. All details are important for the jacket.

DETAILED INFO ON

1 HOW THEIR MATERIALS DIFFER FROM REGULAR COATS

2 WHY ORANGE COLOR IS IMPORTANT FOR SAFETY JACKETS

3 HOW SAFETY JACKETS WITH REFLECTORS WORKS

4 HOW IT IS OBLIGATORY TO WEAR SAFETY JACKET FOR CONSTRUCTION WORKERS IN US BY FEDERAL LAWS

5 HOW EASILY DISTINGUISHABLE THEY ARE IN DAYLIGHT FROM 1 KM THAN A REGULAR JACKET

6 HOW 3M REFLECTIVE STRIPES PROVIDES 250 M VISIBILITY WITH 180 DEGREE WIDE ANGLE

Detailed info on why a safety jacket is important and leads high visibility including working principles and manufacturing material details. Kasaalan (talk) 20:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Remember the original question, "Which reliable source says this is "extremely important to the case against blindspot arguments[?]"

Per the applicable definition of blind spot: "In driving, the part of the road that cannot be seen in the rear-view mirror." A blind spot is not an area which is overlooked, it is an area whose view is blocked. In driving, the head of the driver blocks vision in the rearview mirror. Here, it would be an object such as an instrument panel or the blade of the dozer. If she cannot be seen because of an interposing object, it doesn't matter whether she's wearing camouflage or a Day-Glo jumpsuit. Per your own quote, the jacket is important because it "can reflect incident light efficiently." Not because it can reflect light around solid objects.

WP:SYNTHESIS is unusable because two people working from the same set of facts can reasonably reach opposite conclusions. Please stop trying to insert it, and please stop pasting vast amounts of text you claim supports you "if only [we] would read it all." It's a grossly-undue burden, and you've been repeatedly asked to keep it pertinent rather than snowballing material to the point of being unreadable. arimareiji (talk) 21:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Eyewitnesses claims the dozer was moving at a low speed like 10 km/h [the maximum speed is already 12 km/h] while they were 20 metres away, and she has changed her place before she stand there, and even she made eye contact with the driver climbing up the dozer blade. Actually what the IDF meant by blindspot is even another discussion. But the dozers has high vibration inside the cabin especially on non smooth ground like the area, which all weakens the blindspot claims. And if there were 2 operators at the cabin it is far less possible for not seeing her. Yet this are synthesis as you claimed. I don't use synthesis, but stating how much the top speed of a D9R, or if their spots were on, is actually not a synthesis, but a state of fact. Kasaalan (talk) 22:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I will ask again do you object or have any doubt, on Rachel was wearing a flourescent orange color safety jacket with reflecting stripes during the event, which is verifiable by event photographs. If the answer is no, why do you insisting on preventing me to mention what type of safety clothing she wear that day. I can go in detail and explain by a synthesis this time, why a reflector stripe is against blindspot arguments in a cabin of D9R, which has maximum speed of 12 km/h or 30 cm/s, on a rough ground which leads vibration in the seat, while more than 1 personnel were inside and the spots of D9R was on. But since I am not trying to conclude a result like that on the main article page, as the safety jacket is totally proves IDF operator was lying, I won't go into detail. Yet, even if the safety jacket is against blindspot arguments or not, it is important to mention she wears a safety jacket with reflector stripes on, as stressed very clearly by every eyewitness to the case, because the spots of D9R were on during the event, which can be clearly seen in the photographs. I strongly object on cutting out the necessary details. This is a main claim of the eyewitnesses, for the operators seen her. Because she wasn't static all the time, and she moved relative to the D9R. Mentioning the jacket she wear as an orange jacket is simply misleading as I explained what a safety jacket is and how it works above, which some don't bother to read. And again I say I am describing the jacket as it is, I am not trying to conclude anything on the main page by this fact. An orange jacket is a misleading and poor description for a safety jacket. She was wearing this type of jacket with no doubt, and I will describe the jacket in detail by the quotes of eyewitnesses. This is an important detail for the case, and claiming the opposite is a highly biased argument. Kasaalan (talk) 21:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

There may be copyright issues with actually putting photographs into the article, but there are no problems with describing what they show. PR^talk 22:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I will try to find a solution for the photographs, but referring to a page that has permission from ISM to use them is reasonable enough for me. She was wearing a flourescent orange safety jacket with reflective stripes while the spots of the D9R was on. This is the fact, yet they object me to mention it. Even though I already proved above, how multiple eyewitnesses stresses this key fact in detail. Kasaalan (talk) 22:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid PR is incorrect, we cannot describe what the photographs supposedly show, because it would inevitably involve characterizations by us. If a secondary source describes it, then it might be usable. Also, I'd agree with Kasaalan about one thing,, we could have a long discussion about blind spots. Suffice it to say, that you are going about trying to prove that the bulldozer driver saw Corrie and proceeded anyway. You're trying to do it in pieces, blind spot of a dozer is, etc etc. The thing is, WP can't do that kinda thing, it is synthesis and pointy as well.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

There must come a point at which inventing policy becomes disruptive. There is no OR or SYNTH involved claiming that Corrie was wearing a hi-vis, nor is it a "characterization". (Assuming that the photos are part of the same incident and reasonably contemporaneous, as I understand them to be). PR^talk 10:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:SYNTHESIS: "Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to come to the conclusion C. This would be a synthesis of published material which advances a new position, which constitutes original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this same argument in relation to the topic of the article."
Short version: You can't write that A fact plus B fact makes C conclusion unless you're quoting a reliable source that says "A fact plus B fact makes C conclusion." arimareiji (talk) 01:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

We are not talking about anything near C. We are trying to state there is something called A and B. And Wehwalt try to object because if we describe A and B because people can result in C in their minds. She was wearing high visibility safety jacket with reflective stripes during that day. Noone can object this, and all the evidence shows it this way. Also he claims we cannot describe the photograph, or reference a page that has the permission for publishing the photograph is clearly a double standart. Yet the reference 7 has the flag of Rachel burning a mock American flag sourced by AP Photo. And I have the Al Ahram link for Event Photographs which I posted earlier, contains sourced photographs from AP and Reuters. Also Al Ahram, stressed in the article by its quote "However, Dale challenges the Israeli account. "The bulldozer driver had plenty of time and a full and clear view of Rachel. It was daylight and, in any case, she was wearing a HIGH VISIBILITY ORANGE VEST WITH REFLECTIVE STRIPES. We [peace activists] had been in the area for [about] three hours and they [the Israeli army] were well aware of our presence and what we were doing there," a distressed Dale told Al-Ahram Weekly in a telephone interview." Al Ahram Weekly Your baseless objections has no real value. Also the ISM photos has editorial licence, that is how press agencies use them anyway. Kasaalan (talk) 13:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Editorial licence? What might that be? If another periodical uses a copyrighted photo, they pay royalties on it, that is how photographers make a living. WP does not pay royalties, thus we can only use free photos or else use nonfree under a very limited claim of "fair use" which does not apply here (read up on the policies before you try to say otherwise). If you do not like the ref which goes to the flag burning photo, there are others which clearly state that Rachel burned the flag, Mother Jones for example. And please, insinuating that Arimareiji needs professional help because your filibustering saps his energy is the kind of statement that will get you blocked. Don't indulge in it, however momentarily satisfying it may seem.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

First of all, the photographs taken at event was not belong to any photographer. As I stated earlier 2 ISM member who are witnessing the event took the photos. And the ISM published photographs in press release. That is why under the license of press agencies, it says AP Photo/ISM because ISM provided the photographs. Yet you still not reading what I write. I say if the flag picture can be used, and I claim it should be used, why do you claim Al Ahram Weekly article which have the event pictures for the case, can't be used by any guideline you refer. I provided my source above yet you simply ignoring it and still insinsting on unbalanced arguments on things I don't claim. Kasaalan (talk) 14:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Photographs are copyright to the people who took them. It is possible the photographers' rights are held by the ISM, but they still are. Under what wiki policy regarding images do you allege we can use the photo?--Wehwalt (talk) 14:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

As I said earlier the copyrights are not belong to any photographer but 2 ISM members who are also eyewitnesses. And they provided the photographs to ISM which provided the photographs to the rest of the world for informational use. "Use in an "editorial" manner means use relating to events that are newsworthy or of public interest." We can give reference to the Al Ahram Weekly article page that contains the photograph, just as you do for cbc article containing the burning flag image, according to the whatever wiki policies you refer while doing so. The newspapers pay fees to use the photographs at their papers to photo agencies, therefore Al-Ahram which is "one of the most widely circulating Egyptian daily newspapers" has the right to publish the photographs, just like any other newspaper or magazine we used in the article as a reference. I am not talking about uploading the photographs to the wikipedia untill I can get the clear copyright status. Kasaalan (talk) 15:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Clear copyright status = explicit permission from the photographer, who is by definition the copyright holder, or verifiable fair-use attribution. Also, please note that an implicit C conclusion does not justify juxtaposing A+B next to an opposite conclusion D. See the example in WP:SYNTHESIS, but what this concretely means is that we cannot beg the question by saying "IDF says they could not see her, but here's a photo of her reflective jacket and here's a photo of the spotlights." arimareiji (talk) 16:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Before discussing further can you give opinion on referencing Al Ahram Weekly for event photographs, and whether we can state the direct eyewitness quotes or al ahram interview with eyewitness stressing she was wearing a highly visible safety jacket or not. Kasaalan (talk) 18:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe I just did. Were you talking to someone else? arimareiji (talk) 18:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

You gave your opinion on A+B like synthesis like for she was wearing a jacket and the spotlights were on. Kasaalan (talk) 20:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

You have every right to refuse to read corrections, explanations, or anything else within other editors' posts that you don't want to see. Likewise, you have every right to ask for the 15th time to have the same subject explained again. However, I have every right to stop giving explanations if I feel it's not a productive use of time. arimareiji (talk) 21:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

You also might think you have every right to ignore common sense or wiki guidelines, but you actually don't. I already proved you what is a safety jacket and how it works, why it is important for high visibility, even how it is obligatory to wear it by construction workers in USA. You already know ISM giving out strict instructions on wearing safety jackets and also provide them for their members, that is why she was wearing them in the first place. Moreover the photographs clearly show the safety jacket was on Rachel all the time, which none of you can object. Even more, I clearly showed, how the safety jacket Rachel was wearing, has been stressed on multiple eyewitness accounts in their written testimonies given under oath, as well as news source like Al Ahram, CBS, and Counter Punch which either interviews with eyewitnesses or quotes from their testimony mentions this detail. I cannot let you cut out this detail from the article. If IDF claims as blindspots in D9R resulted the case which, might or might not be true, should be in the article. Then the primary source claims by eyewitnesses that she wears a high visibility safety jacket at the area, which is a clear fact, should also be stated in the article. You haven't provided any reasonable argument yet for not mentioning what safety clothing she was wearing in a dangerous area. And I will quote from eyewitness statements describing her safety jacket, whether you like it or not, then you can go complain any admin you like, which higly I support because you are simply wrong. Kasaalan (talk) 23:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow you. You're saying that I don't have the right to stop explaining Wikipedia policies you've been pointed to or had explained a dozen times? Pray tell which guideline says you're permanently entitled to explanations, from me personally, of which policy you're currently violating? arimareiji (talk) 23:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

No I just don't agree your use of wikipolicies because, this is the main edit I intend to make for the jacket in the first place, and it is not against wiki policies in any way. Bold parts are my edits.

British ISM activist Richard Purssell gave the following account in an affidavit recorded and published by the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR):

"Some of us including Rachel were wearing orange fluorescent jackets with reflective strips similar to those worn by construction workers for high visibility. ... On more than one occasion the drivers gestured to us, waving, pointing or sounding their horns. They were clearly aware of our presence. ... As the bulldozer reached the place where Rachel was standing, she began as many of us did on the day to climb the pile of earth. She reached the top and at this point she must have been clearly visible to the driver, especially as she was still wearing the high visibility jacket. She turned and faced in my direction and began to come back down the pile. The bulldozer continued to move forward at [5-6 mph]. As her feet hit the ground I saw a panicked expression on her face ... The pile of earth engulfed her and she was hidden from my view."

By the way, could the editor, who cut out the "especially as she was wearing the high visibility jacket" part from the eyewitness quote "she must have been clearly visible to the driver, especially as she was wearing the high visibility jacket", possibly explain us why he find it so crucial to trim off this conclusion part, to save 9 words from the quote which leads a defective meaning for the readers. Kasaalan (talk) 23:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• That's not the edit you were trying to make earlier - this is a trifling concern by comparison.
• "could the editor... explain [sic] us why he find [sic] so crucial to trim... which leads [sic] a defective meaning"

...Are you seriously asserting that by adding Richard Purssell (who wasn't even there beforehand), and adding PCHR material as a named source, I'm acting in bad faith and trying to sway the reader against The Truth of your side of it? Your logic escapes me.

• If you're absolutely fixed on that phrase, reinsert it at that location for God's sake. There's no terrible secret hidden intent, I was simply trying to trim out weak material to focus on the core arguments.
• Adding lots of references to the jacket doesn't strengthen your case, it weakens it because needless repetition bores the reader. Your strongest argument is not the jacket, it's that she was in line-of-sight at the top of the mound, above the blade of the dozer just before she was run over. If she wasn't in line-of-sight at that moment, the jacket is irrelevant. arimareiji (talk) 00:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

If you're not only inserting "especially as she was wearing the high visibility jacket," then I do in fact need to partially revert you. By expanding it that much, you're detracting from the core point he makes. arimareiji (talk) 00:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The spotlight case might involve synthesis, I was already aware and trying to discuss on that. Yet the objections came as a whole therefore I tried to prove why the safety jacket is important and stressed by multiple eyewitnesses so many times first. I cannot find a good reason for trimming out after the especially part in "she must have been clearly visible to the driver, especially as she was wearing the high visibility jacket" quote. But I am not referring to your bad intention with that trim, yet your misjudge on that matter. Because he explains strongly, the high visibility part. You claim it is a stronger case that she was in line of sight. Yet the safety jacket provides to be in line of sight from e.g. 1 km in daylight, or 250 m at night. Also safety jacket helps to be distinguished from ground easily, especially that is exactly why it is obligatory to wear them in places with moving vehicles such as constructions. That is the same reason ISM members wear them in the area. Also eyewitnesses already claim she was in line of sight with the driver and safety jacket would help on being seen from both close and long distance. Read in detail at the How Safety Jacket Works part above if you need further information for safety clothing. That is why safety jacket is important. Yet it is far beyond my opinion on the case. Multiple eyewitness clearly stresses why they wear them. "Some of us including Rachel were wearing orange fluorescent jackets with reflective strips similar to those worn by construction workers for high visibility." Adding this is not detracting from the point he makes, but stresses it. Promiment detail, with a reason, cannot comprimise from that part. Also I will add wikilink to High_visibility_clothing, where how the safety jacket works can be read in detail. For more info you can read Safety Clothing Standards and Reclector Stripe Visibility Over Distance Table. Kasaalan (talk) 12:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The term line of sight means there is no physical barrier between an object and an observer. It doesn't refer to distance or ease of distinction. I know what a safety jacket is, and no safety jacket can make a person visible to someone whose vision is physically blocked. There are already multiple references to the jacket; it's tedious and unpersuasive to keep telling the reader the same fact. arimareiji (talk) 12:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

What about before the argued blindspot. Multiple eyewitness clearly stresses that part, which you try to trim off for being redundant. She was wearing a Class 2 Safety Jacket which is even suitable for 25-50 mph where maximum D9R speed is 7.3 mph = 11.7 km/h = 33 cm/s. Safety Jacket Categories by Vehicle Speed Around the Place Details are important even the color. Knowing what a safety jacket is not the same as knowing how it works. Read High_visibility_clothing or Safety Clothing Standards if you like. Kasaalan (talk) 12:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I know what a safety jacket is, as I just said, and I know how it works. I'm a native speaker of the language, and may understand the language slightly better. For you to argue that a safety jacket puts a person who is not in line of sight into line of sight shows that you don't know what line of sight means. arimareiji (talk) 12:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

That is your own claim only, I said either the operator lost sight of her, she was in clear sight before that moment. You are a native english speaker, and I am professional on graphics, therefore natively know how photography or human eye works, took work ergonomicss and safety class while at college, what any key term means in the area etc. This is the 4th time I added the line, because this is the 4th time you deleted it with needless objections. Your deletion of "Some of us including Rachel were wearing orange fluorescent jackets with reflective strips similar to those worn by construction workers for high visibility" is wrong. If you like to undue the article that much, add more weight or sources against ISM case, which is perfectly fine and needed. Kasaalan (talk) 13:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

"Yet the safety jacket provides to be in line of sight from e.g. 1 km in daylight, or 250 m at night." Those are your own words, and they demonstrate a lack of knowledge (let alone "professional" knowledge) on the subject area of optics (not graphics). It's not "[my] claim only" that line of sight means an uninterrupted line of vision, that's the definition of it - and no, I didn't make up that definition. Check the wiktionary edit history if you like. arimareiji (talk) 13:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The least I can compromise on "She reached the top and at this point she must have been clearly visible to the driver, especially as she was still wearing the high visibility jacket [fluorescent orange with 2 reflective strips]." Kasaalan (talk) 13:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Since Kasaalan has been advocating for more statements, maybe, Arimareiji, it is time to put back that variant statement of Carr's you took out.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Wehwalt I won't let you cut off the conclusion part of an important claim by multiple eyewitnesses. As I stated "She reached the top and at this point she must have been clearly visible to the driver, especially as she was still wearing the high visibility jacket [fluorescent orange with 2 reflective strips]." is the least I can compromise if arimareiji will cut off the first sentence. Call some admins if you like for settling the case. Kasaalan (talk) 14:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Admins are not judges of content, see WP:ADMIN. If the fluorescent orange with 2 reflective strips is not in the quote, we can't use it. Period.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

It is, but with slightly different wording: "orange fluorescent jackets with reflective strips." Might I suggest my wording of [fluorescent/reflective], which was deleted earlier? arimareiji (talk) 14:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

"Some of us including Rachel were wearing orange fluorescent jackets with reflective strips similar to those worn by construction workers for high visibility." quote axactly as clearly stressed in the testimony. And possibly a lot of admins can judge better than you. I only restated in this format because you constantly begged for space and trimmed of the first sentence. Kasaalan (talk) 14:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it probably weighs against your case, Kasaalan because if multiple witnesses stress the same thing, then people start to wonder if there has been collusion in their testimoney (no!). I suggest, if Kasaalan is wedded to the matter, putting it exactly in place and exactly how phrased, using ellipses if needed. Boy, if admins are such judges of content, I guess I can only hope to be worthy of ascending that Mount Olympus someday.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Would "wearing the [[High_visibility_clothing|high visibility jacket]] [fluorescent/[[High_visibility_clothing#Gallery|reflective]]]" be sufficient to demonstrate the point? I believe the added link is much more illustrative; a picture is worth a thousand words. arimareiji (talk) 15:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

"Wearing the high visibility jacket [fluorescent/ retroreflective strips]" is alright as long as it mentions the retroreflective strips because "Part of the surface of the garment may have retroreflective stripes." [32] it is not obligatory to do in every safety clothing. Mentioning 2 strips is actually referencing the jacket belongs to middle safety class 2 and not highest safety class 3 which has 4+ stripes or safety class 1 with lowest visibilty level, therefore more neutral, yet may be left outside. Also the term retroreflective is technically more correct than reflective. Kasaalan (talk) 15:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit break

Resolved

I have no objection to the strips if it is direct quote from the affidavit. Otherwise it is OR.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The term he uses is "reflective," though I agree he's less technically correct than retroreflective. He does say "strips" and not "strip," but I don't think it's a practical concern. "Reflective" is ambiguous in both directions (could mean 1, or 15, or the whole jacket), but if someone is that concerned with the number of strips they can easily check the source. Finally, I think "reflective" does positively indicate that it has the reflective strips, obligatory or not. arimareiji (talk) 15:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually reflective is correct in daily use but misleading on this particular case. I didn't notice it before, too. The orange color safety jacket manufactured from e.g. Polyurethane is also made to be reflective. Yet retroreflective strip concept used in [[High-visibility_clothing] is another thing. [33]] Because "Retroreflectors are devices that operate by returning light back to the light source along the same light direction." They particularly reflects the light right back to the source, unlike other reflective objects which reflects light with an angle. If you read Operation section with diagrams under Retroreflective article, you can better understand how it works to be seen even from long distances, and side angles. The stripes area on the jacket determines which safety category it falls under. The number of stripes are generally multiples of 2 like 2, 4, 6, 8 because evenly distributed to the 2 sides. For example if the jacket were a level 3, it would most possibly have 2 extra vertical stripes over shoulders with 2 or 4 stripes in arms near wrists than the one used by ISM. Also the width of the stripes are 2 inches wide generally as a side note. Therefore it leads the number of stripes is prominent for determining the safety level. Kasaalan (talk) 16:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

So it reflected sunlight right back at the sun. As Arimareiji has pointed out, out of line of sight means out of line of sight.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Not that easy. The sunlight and weather conditions, might help for her visibility, or have no negative effect at visibility depending the case. Only if there were some extreme conditions like very bright sunlight which blocks driver's vision, it could have negatively effect the visibility of ISM members. Safety wear with retroreflecting stripes actually providing high visibility in both day and night conditions especially against moving vehicles, that is why they have been manufactured in the first place. "Part of the surface of the garment may have retroreflective stripes. This way they become much more visible in the dark for observers near a light source, such as the driver of a car with its headlights on. The pattern of the retroreflecting parts also helps to distinguish between objects and people." "In general, people who wear high-visibility clothing are those who need to be be seen during poor lighting or weather conditions, or when working in environments where there is a lot of moving machinery." The reflective stripes would reflect the spotlights of D9R back to the driver, independent from where she stands at side or front, far or near, unless she stands in the common blindspot for the 2 personnels in the D9R cabin. But that is not our discussion, or what we will state on main page by synthesis. We are trying to state the facts in the main page, such as what kind of safety wear she was wearing. Also don't forget, out of sight is just an IDF claim, just as the claims of ISM. If you take an IDF claim as a fact, then try to belie other facts or arguments based on that claim, that would not help much for the article. IDF claims, the D9R has a limited field of view, which we can verify by D9R photographs and therefore should mention in the article. Yet that does not proves the operator didn't see Rachel. ISM claims she was wearing a high visibility safety jacket, which again we can verify by event photographs without a doubt. Yet that does not prove the operator did see Rachel for sure and killed her on purpose, either. Those are the claims of the opposing sides with their own synthesis. Kasaalan (talk) 17:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Problem is, he said reflective - not retroreflective. We have to use his own wording when we quote him, as much as reasonably possible. Besides, an expert's definition of retroreflective means functionally the same thing as an average person's definition of reflective. That's why Purssell phrased it that way, and why we didn't notice it before. An expert might be confused by using the technically-ambiguous term reflective, but they would probably know the subject matter well enough to recognize the intended meaning.

I don't take either side's claims as fact. But in a debate, if the other side makes an assertion (i.e. "she was not in line of sight"), you have to answer the assertion directly (i.e. "she was on the top of the mound, visible over the blade"). Answering it with a non sequitur like "she was wearing a high-vis jacket" makes it look like their assertion must be true because you have no rebuttal. arimareiji (talk) 19:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

We can put [retro]reflective strips, reflective[retroreflective] strips, or reflective strips with a wikilink to retroreflective such as reflective strips, if it will solve the issue for you. Because it is certain what he refers is retroreflective not reflective. Yet even this one missing flourescent orange color in description, therefore the brackets [fluorescent orange with reflective strips] is needed in the article referring to "Some of us including Rachel were wearing orange fluorescent jackets with reflective strips similar to those worn by construction workers for high visibility." sentence, if the first sentence will be trimmed.

Basically ISM eyewitnesses stress on high visibility safety jacket with [retro]reflective stripes, mainly to argue, D9R operators general awareness of their presence, and Rachel's awareness in particular during their collapse. Kasaalan (talk) 20:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikilinking to retroreflection is definitely a good idea. It includes the info but sidesteps using it in the text of his quote, which would be a misquote. But... if you make a wikilink from reflective to retroreflective, that will preclude making a wikilink from reflective to High-visibility_clothing#Gallery. I believe the latter is a much better illustration than the former.

Again, the reason the difference was overlooked is that when most people think about reflection, they only think about retroreflection. I would speculate this is because people think only in terms of their perspective, and thus 1) any reflection of themselves that they don't see or 2) any reflection they see of something else (i.e. any type of reflection other than retroreflection) is unimportant. But the result is that calling it retroreflective in the text would be a moot point as well as being a misquote. arimareiji (talk) 21:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I also agree on wikilink solutions are better than misquote. High Visibility Clothing includes retroreflective stripping generally but not necessarily and they are different concepts, so the retroreflective stripping should be pointed out just as eyewitness stressed. Not sure if I understand you exactly, but we can put High_visibility_clothing wikilink in "especially as she was wearing the high visibility jacket" part and retroreflective wikilink in [flourescent orange with reflective strips] part if it is fine by you. If it is not, I will try working on another solution. Kasaalan (talk) 23:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Inclusion of nickname "St. Pancake" in Reaction Section

Resolved

I sympathize with individuals who are fans of Rachel Corrie in their objection to the use of "St. Pancake." However, the nickname is a reality. Trying to suppress this information, which is relevant, is questionable. I understand that technically, there is an WP:RS issue because many items in popular culture are just there and don't have an RS detailing the phenomenon. Wikipedia rules cover just such instances under WP:Reliable source examples where the source is the best available, and it is noted in the text of the article that a reliable source issue exists. It is also covered, I believe, more than adequately under wp:Common knowledge. Again, the fact that the nickname may be insulting to some, and crass, is not the issue. The simple fact is that the nickname is THERE, is USED a lot, and indeed, the term "St. Pancake" appropriately redirects in Wikipedia to Rachel Corrie. I understand that RS is an issue. Maybe someone more expert than I can resolve the RS issue more eloquently, but to exclude the citation based on a narrow technicality (to which there are clear exceptions allowed) borders on deliberately suppressing relevant information simply because "I don't like it." 24.21.105.252 (talk) 20:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

ETA: I have restored the paragraph in "REaqction." Please remember that Wiki despute resolution defaults to INCLUSION during a discussion. If consensus calls for redaction, then that is done AFTER discussion and dispute resolution. So, please don't revert the edit again while we work out how RS is best addressed in this case. Also, I know that there are RS Purists out there who insist that there are no exceptions to RS. That is simply not reality, and I suggest such purrists re-familiarize themselves with the WP:five pillars where it calls to cite verifiable sources "whenever possible." Obviously, there are circumstances where such IS NOT POSSIBLE, and this is one of those. A clear statement of a RS issue is there in the text and in the references, and thus it conforms to WP:RS24.21.105.252 (talk) 21:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't an encyclopedia of insults. The appropriate place to publish this would be on blogs, Encyclopedia Dramatica, Urban Dictionary, or little green footballs (as you've already linked to). Nor is this a matter of "purism" - this simply doesn't belong by any standard. arimareiji (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC).

That is your opinion, and I disagree. It is very relevant to the subject Rachel Corrie, as it is a popular culture nickname for her, that is derived from the controversy of her actions and death. That is may "sully" her reputation is quite outside of the purview of Wikipedia. She was a controversial public figure, and inclusion of the information about a prominent nickname, derisive or not, is as relevant as any other negative public reaction to her. 24.21.105.252 (talk) 21:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, it isn't a technicality. If you think that an exception is warranted, state your case with similar matters and, if we still won't come around to your POV, ask for a third opinion. I should add this has been considered before and not used. Check the archives.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I did check the archives. And, I should note that the presence of past discussion on a topic of inclusion does not preclude re-opening it. I will be back with precedent, which I assume is what you mean by "similar matters." 24.21.105.252 (talk) 21:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Quite on another subject, I wonder what a checkuser of yourself might show. I note that you've been here a week, and in the warning that was issued to you, you responded by commenting on OrangeMarlin's editing style. Interesting.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

See WP:AGF Attacking a person rather than addressing the content of what they say is a personal attack.24.21.105.252 (talk) 22:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) If you consider what I said an attack, you must really be inexperienced on Wikipedia. Guess you are just precocious in limited areas.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Precedent for inclusion of nicknames

Resolved

The following are precedents of political figures having mention of a nickname included in the article on the person:

• Muhammad Saeed al-Sahhaf – Nickname cited in article: Baghdad Bob
• Jacques Chirac – Nickname cited in article: Le Bulldozer
• Abel Bonnard – Nickname cited in article: La Gestapette
• Arnold Schwarzenegger – Nickname cited in article: The Governator among others cited
• Trịnh Thị Ngọ – Nickname cited in article: Hanoi Hannah
• Jane Fonda – Nickname cited in article: Hanoi Jane
• John McCain – Nickname cited in article: Junior
• Roy Bean – Nickname cited in article: Law West of the Pecos
• Rasputin – Nickname cited in article: The Mad Monk
• Robert Novak – Nickname cited in article: Prince of Darkness
• I. Lewis Libby – Nickname cited in article: Scooter
• Douglas Corrigan – Nickname cited in article: Wrong Way

Is an even dozen OK? I could keep going like the energizer bunny on this one. Nicknames are well used for inclusion in Wiki articles about famous persons. Especially persons famous in the political arena, where such nicknames are more likely to be of a harsh nature.

These precedents in addition to the plainly stated WP:RS exceptions noted above, WP:Five Pillarsand WP:common knowledge all argue for inclusion of her nickname in the context of "Reaction." Please note that I am not agitating for it to be cited in the lead, or in a position to be a "defining"element of her as a person. The nickname simply exists in the context of public criticism of her actions, and should be included. Denial of this informational, good faith edit is a denial of reality, and that is not what Wikipedia is all about. 24.21.105.252 (talk) 22:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

So which ones of those use littlegreenfootballs and Urban Dictionary as their sole sources? arimareiji (talk) 22:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I have already cited exceptions to WP:RS that apply in exactly this circumstance. When I addressed RS, you required precedent. Now that I cite precedent, you are back on RS. Please see WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. There clearly are BOTH precedent AND WP:RS exceptions to cover exactly this circumstance. 24.21.105.252 (talk) 22:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

With all respect, that isn't true. For each of those, I could probably find a RS that lists a "common knowledge" nickname for them. Not true for Corrie. I looked. Just a collection of blogs and sites which aren't RS but have a strong view on the I-P conflict. For each of the above, as well, that was their nickname in life. We won't give credibility to an attempt to label her after her death which has not gained wide currency.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Really, Wehwalkt? You checked all of over 22,000 google results for "pancake corrie?" I'm very impressed. Here is one that you might have missed: It is a straight up scholarly article from an established, editorially-controlled collegiate publication which references the nickname. Looks like a legitimate secondary source to me. Do you object to this as a RS?24.21.105.252 (talk) 23:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

It says, "On one popular blog, Rachel is referred to as “St. Pancake.” ". Your point being what?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Point being that it is a WP:RS that references the existence of the nickname. That was your objection, was it not? That the precedents that I cited for famous people referenced RS as to the existence of the nickname? Or are you moving the goalposts again.... 24.21.105.252 (talk) 00:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

That it is common knowledge, which was the exception you are trying to shoehorn this in under, is what I asked for. You've given me an article that merely says that one popular blog has called it so. Next?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Wrong. I listed common knowledge as ONE OF SEVERAL justifications for inclusion of the nickname. I one again refer yo to WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. There is a RS citing the nickname, and ample precedent for inclusion of nicknames for famous people. It is going back in.24.21.105.252 (talk) 00:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Obviously if you put in material that does not meet WP standards, it will be reverted in due course.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I checked for nicknames "st. pancake" and "pancake corrie" in google. The reference for these nicknames are limited to a few hundred pages or even below and over 95 percent of them are personal blogs or comments. If the nicknames were common, it might have worth to mention in the article, even if it contains insult. Yet mentioning an insult might also be against wikiguidelines in the first place for legal reasons. Your example biographies have nicknames, yet these nicks are both common in public and used by press frequently. Also your source is a scholarly student journal for arts which refers to one particular blog. You have a point, but not so strong. Also for memorial Rachel Corrie Foundation sell pancakes to raise money, which might also be a possible root for the nickname. Yet again there isn't an apparent connection available. Kasaalan (talk) 00:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I (gasp) agree with Kasaalan. The only thing that the article in question showed, even if a RS, is that one popular blog called her St. Pancake. And, um, Kasaalan, I really, really, REALLY doubt the origin of the nickname is her supporters' penchant for selling pancakes to benefit the cause. There's really something unappetizing about the whole thing there. I can't help thinking transubstantiation.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Inclusion most certainly and without serious question DOES meet WP standards. I would caution you to familiarize yourself with WP:GAMING and consider that the inclusion adds information relevant to "Reaction," is properly cited, and meets ample precedent. In short, your objections are noted and fall far short of a reasonable objection.24.21.105.252 (talk) 00:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, that is not the case. You conflate a questionable RS's statement that "a popular blog" has called Corrie that into a belief that this is a widely known nickname, deserving of encyclopedic coverage. The rest of your argument is that, well, that's the best you could find, it should be good enough. Unhappily it isn't. You have no sourcing with RS for what you want beyond what i have stated above, and no consensus for your proposed edits.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The nicknames do certainly refers to Rachel Corrie's crushing by a D9R. I just mentioned the pancake sale might also be a root for a double referencing nickname. Anyway I even checked the reliable sources like newspapers or magazines on google, yet they again mainly consists of user comments under articles. Maybe in Hebrew there might be more reference for these nicknames. Kasaalan (talk) 00:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure about Rachel Corrie in this matter, but it should be noted that if a person is commonly referred to by a nickname (such as Dick Cheney and Scooter Libby, among others), then there is precedent to use the name, or at least include it, in the article. It would require multiple reliable sources referring to the person as such, however. Happyme22 (talk) 00:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• There don't appear to be many, if any, reliable sources referring to Corrie in that way. The nickname does not appear to be notable, or have wide currency, so it should not be included in the article. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record, I see that 24.21.105.252 left messages on the talk pages of four users, asking for their opinion on this thread. Certainly, that is not forbidden. It is not something I indulge in, there are better ways to get a third opinion.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

And your point is what, besides ONCE AGAIN attacking the editor and ignoring the content of my statements? I selected at random several people who have commented on Israeli-Palestinian topics, and asked for their opinion. That is a more accurate barometer for me than the opinions of editors who "squat" on a topic with a history of dogmatically contesting anything which isn't glowing praise of the subject.24.21.105.252 (talk) 01:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I think that simply requesting a third opinion is a better way to go. It is a lot more public, and you can't be accused of hand picking the respondents. JMO. Anyhoo, you stated that "Inclusion most certainly and without serious question DOES meet WP standards." Seem to be some serious questions raised by some respectable editors.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I've logged your opinion, and sorted it appropriately by it's importance to me. Thanks for sharing.24.21.105.252 (talk) 02:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment: It probably depends on the volume and quality of the sources. In general, I would oppose nicknames in biographies unless they have clear widespread notability. What sources have been brought in regards to the nickname? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 02:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Only the one you see in this thread at the IP's comment of 23:39 yesterday, as far as I am aware.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Point mooted. "St. Pancake" deleted as an "attack page" as there are absolutely no RS and V that makes this a notable nickname. "Common Knowledge" doesn't apply, because it never applies to individuals, its about "the sky is blue" or "shit stink" not "so-and-so is this-and-that". Just because you have heard about it, does it mean it is CK applies. Gotta granted you, that was some heavy wiki-lawyering you did there, my hats off! --Cerejota (talk) 15:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

"Common knowledge" is about as common as "common sense" in my view. Well, the no reasonable editor could disagree with the IP user thing has kinda fallen flat. Anyone for IHOP?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

A Non-"St. Pancake" edit

Resolved

I've created a new short blurb from the Human Rights Watch report, per earlier discussion. I snipped off what I believe to have been a prejudicial characterization of HRW, and inserted material from the report to explain the basis for their claimed conclusion. arimareiji (talk) 02:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks generally OK, I may play with the wording at a later time, but right now is not the best time, with pancakes and fluorescent jackets flying through the air.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

If I have nightmares about being attacked by fluorescent pancakes flying through the air, it's your fault. ^_^

(wait a minute, wasn't that a Star Trek episode?) arimareiji (talk) 02:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Either that or a screen saver.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

You can read the detailed information I posted above on safety jackets to overcome your fears. Kasaalan (talk) 12:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Copyediting

IMO, "ISM accounts" is prejudicial - even if "Some eyewitnesses" is moved, the ISM people quoted are eyewitnesses, whatever POV they may have. It's intended as a reminder of both the strengths and weaknesses of eyewitness testimony, and some of those weaknesses are apparent here. Technically, "recorded and published by the PCHR" is more accurate than "to PCHR." The affidavits were "to" the IDF investigation, whether or not the IDF considered them useful. arimareiji (talk) 14:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I'd prefer leaving and/or amplifying the "other" section to balance the heavy weight of ISM accounts, possibly even to the extent of being able to strike "ISM and other." I'll see if I can find more contrasting examples such as the one provided by "Some eyewitnesses," though I could certainly use help. I don't think the IDF is particularly fond of letting soldiers relate their accounts publicly, or even outside the military. arimareiji (talk) 14:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd avoid using the same phrasing twice, then. Or we could move the bulldozer guy's account into the section and just call it "Eyewitness accounts".--Wehwalt (talk) 14:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't see the bulldozer guy's account when I looked, but it would be invaluable if I overlooked it or if it can be found elsewhere. For it to be an "eyewitness" account, though, I'd think it has to be a quotable first-person rendition. So far the only thing I've seen has been "I hit someone," which is hardly probative. arimareiji (talk) 14:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Um, second paragraph of Autopsy and investigation section?--Wehwalt (talk) 14:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Aiyaaa, I looked right past it in my sleepiness. Excellent idea. But IMO, the section needs a lot more balance to the IDF side before it can be aught but "ISM and other." arimareiji (talk) 14:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

True. Since the IDF did not release its report, we may be rather stuck for it, though. Also, I suggest we put in the dates of the affidavits, at least once.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Giving details are important especially the dates. Also lawyer Raji Sourani who took the PCHR eyewitness accounts is the director of PCHRif you like to point out. "Joint Laureate, Robert F. Kennedy Memorial Award for Human Rights; Amnesty International Prisoner of Conscience, 1985, 1988, International Commission of Jurists EXCO Member, IDAL EXCO Member." Kasaalan (talk) 15:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

That makes his clients more truthful?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually no. Notability and credibility are different issues. But the lawyer who takes the eyewitness statements is also an important detail. And he seems to be notable at the Human Rights area somehow and worked more than 20 years, since he prized an award in 1985. Again I just give the quote for info, not suggested to put his backlife in Rachel Corrie Article. Raji Sourani has a Wikipedia page, so it is better to point out his name. Kasaalan (talk) 15:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Given that he was serving in a notarial capacity, I don't see that it is necessary. As you say yourself, it doesn't imporve their credibility. For what other reason should we include it in the article?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

It might even make the testimonies more untruthful. Yet the lawyer's name who took the eyewitness is a useful detail for referencing purposes. Raji Sourani might even be the biggest liar on earth, but without stating his name noone can search on that name. Kasaalan (talk) 16:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Having read his article, I'm giving considerable thought to nominating it for deletion. As for the name, it is trivia, and interested people can peruse the statements directly and if sufficiently motivated, look up the name of the lawyer on WP or google.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

After I read it in more detail, I can tell it contains very one sided arguments. Yet instead deletion we should try neutralizing or improving it first, the article is already a stub and still will be useful if neutralized. And at least you can put a link to the page where you suggested it for deletion. Kasaalan (talk) 16:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

By the way he is not just a lawyer, he is also the founder and director of PCHR which documented the eyewitness statements and active in the Israel Courts for Human Right issues. There is a concept in journalism especially for investigating cases called 5_Ws. "In journalism, the Five Ws (also known as the Five Ws (and one H)) is a concept in news style, research, and in police investigations that are regarded as basics in information-gathering. It is a formula for getting the "full" story on something. The maxim of the Five Ws (and one H) is that in order for a report to be considered complete it must answer a checklist of six questions ... Who, What, Where, When, Why, How." Mentioning the names can be considered better than not mentioning them in general. Kasaalan (talk) 19:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not settled if Raji Sourani name will not be mentioned. Kasaalan (talk) 12:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Links

Artistic Tributes

Rachel Corrie Song The lonesome death of Rachel Corrie Billy Bragg The Guardian

rachelcorrie.org Memorial "The Death of Rachel, Corrie - song by David Rovics, Rachel Corrie - by Ten Foot Pole, The Passing of Rachel Corrie - Poem by Ed Mast, "On the brink of..." - a poem by Suheir Hammad"

Reaction Against ISM

Israeli Embassy Press Release against ISM by Shuli Davidovich Press secretary, Embassy of Israel Kasaalan (talk) 10:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps these will serve as useful references for uncited material in the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Philip Munger Hatemail Case

I replaced the previous version "but was cancelled following what Munger alleged were threats to him and some of the student musicians." with "but was cancelled by Munger's definite request, arguing the hatemails and threats sent to him and especially some of the student musicians."

Which parts you object, the show cancelled by Munger's insisted request he claims, he showed the reason as the hatemail and threats especially the students' get. Is there a strong reason that we shouldn't believe him than use allegedly as an adjective. Claim is already doing the work.

Allegedly is a biased word. Merriam Wesbter definition alleged: of questionable truth or genuineness. "had doubts of the alleged miracle" Claimed is much more neutral. Merriam Webster claim "claim synonyms: argue, assert, contend, defend ..."

Hatemails

"Almost immediately, Munger says, he was inundated with unsolicited e-mail from outside Alaska, a lot of it hateful -- "just threatening, harassing, bizarre ... short of the stuff you'd take to the troopers."

But some of his student musicians received threatening messages too, Munger says -- and that was a different story. It was one thing to invite problems on himself; it was quite another to inflict them on his students.

Munger claims he requested the performance to be cancelled

He says he talked the situation over with Department of Music chairwoman Karen Strid two days before the public forum. She felt the cantata's debut performance scheduled for April 27 should go ahead as planned, Munger says. He alone argued that it ought to be canceled. Finally she concurred."

Anchorage Daily News Flashpoint cantata

Hatemails

"Even before a forum was held to discuss his work, he says, hate email was showing up on his computer."

"Bishko himself is taking heat. He says he's been receiving threatening emails."

The Anchorage Press Sound of Silence

Also found a link for The Skies are Weeping cantata. This site is possibly official for the performance. Kasaalan (talk) 20:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, first, I'm not wild about the term "hatemail", which strikes me as a neolog. This being a formal encyclopedia, I'd prefer to use more familiar terms like "threatening email" or the like. Note that Munger himself admits that it was "short of the stuff you'd take to the troopers", leading me to believe it couldn't have been that threatening, since even implied threats transmitted over wire are punishable under federal law. Since even the articles attribute these allegations to Munger and do not state them as facts, I think it best we do the same.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Hatemail is for expressing hate, threat is more serious I suppose, yet not greatly sure.

Philip Munger's Statement

"People were shouting, leaving, arguing and interrupting me, as I tried to deliver this prepared statement:

Over the past five days local artists preparing for the premiere of "The Skies are Weeping" have been subjected to a growing crescendo of internet virus attacks, hate mail and bizarre religious-political polemics. It appears to be orchestrated. Some of the incoming venom is quite threatening.

After consulting with staff here at the University of Alaska Anchorage Department of Music, I have decided that I cannot subject sixteen students, whose names, fortunately, have not been released to anyone, to any possibility of physical harm or to the type of character assassination some of us are already undergoing.

Performance of "The Skies are Weeping" at this time and place is withdrawn for the safety of the student performers.

This decision has been mine alone, with no pressure whatsoever from the school or university.”

Cantata In The CrossHearts The Persecution of an American Musician by Laura Dawn Lewis or HTML

Hate mail is his own written statement.

The Cantata In The CrossHearts The Persecution of an American Musician by Laura Dawn Lewis article, also mentions the IDF operator mentioned in the text in detail. Kasaalan (talk) 21:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

What about changing "alleged" to "stated"? I don't want to use "hatemail" because I think that is a neologism.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Stated is perfectly fine. I am no great fan of neologism either, threath is enough as you say, I used hatemail for lessening the strength of threath also he used the phrase himself, but most possibly noone cancels his own performance just for some hatemail anyway. Some example emails can be read from User Page yet I am not sure if the mails limited to these or not. He especially stresses the threats made on the students rather than his own and the cancellation was his own decision. If we mention these in short, it is fine by me. Kasaalan (talk) 21:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I have read emails a little further, and as you suggested they already have tracked the sender and possibly took some legal actions against him.

Fake Email Threath by an Imposer

From: Jeff Pezzati Subject: for Philip Munger Date: April 6, 2004 3:52:05 AM AD To: Phillip Munger

Hello Philip,

My name is Jeff Pezzati, I am a professor of composition at the University of Southern California. My pieces have won ACSAP, BMI prizes and the Prix di Rome. I have been informed of your anti-Semitic cantata that is to be performed. This will not be tolerated by the American composer community. The suicide victim "Rachel Corrie," who you are apparently trying to honor in this piece, killed herself for the cause of promoting Arab terrorism and murder against Jews. I have discussed this with such colleagues as John Corigliano, John Harrison, John Adams, etc. We have all agreed that your music is to be banned from performance in the continental United States. Consider yourself blacklisted.

Dr. Pezzati

Suspicious over the hotmail e-mail address "Dr. Pezzati" used, the overly simplistic sentence structure and a blatant threat attached to a well-known institution, we investigated. No doubt the University of Southern California would want to know of anyone using the school's good name to levy threats. A simple call to USC, a couple of e-mails and Mr. Pezzati is exposed for what he is, a fraud.

Tracking the hotmail account used, further investigation showed this "Dr. Pezzati" is a musician with a punk rock band, hardly a doctor and not award winning, at least with the awards mentioned, with no ability to "Blacklist" anyone. The comedy in all this is the e-mail terrorist Pezzati obviously does not realize that by using a the name of a public institution in threatening an individual and misrepresenting himself as its employee, he's opened himself up to all kinds of grief from lawsuits to criminal charges beginning with the State of California on down.

Student Threath Case and Cancellation

For the composer, the onslaught of threats by Pezzati and others proved effective. By Tuesday, April 6, the threats against student performer increasingly specific prompted notification of UAA security and appropriate administrators.

By Thursday, Munger became convinced that professional educators, no matter how firm their belief in freedom of expression could not risk students to the growing level of insecurity many were enduring.

Performance of "The Skies are Weeping" at this time and place is withdrawn for the safety of the student performers. This decision has been mine alone, with no pressure whatsoever from the school or university.”

Anybody who went into that meeting thinking my concerns for student safety to be exaggerated or unwarranted, and who also left the meeting feeling the same way, should not be making such safety decisions.

Hard to decide case for wording, threath is available yet its content unsure. There are some certain threaths to the composer via email somehow, yet by an imitator, also which refers "character assasination" as composer stated more than an actual assasination. We don't have the claimed threats students received. Yet the performance cancelled by composer's own request, for some might be [but not so evident because we don't know the content of the mail students received] physical threaths targetting the student performers as a precaution. Kasaalan (talk) 22:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

What the prase "just short of the stuff you'd take to the troopers." means. Kasaalan (talk) 09:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I took out the sentence on the fourth movement because it was felt that we were overemphasizing, and I felt it bogged down the paragraph. If you want it, put it back.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

This title is not resolved by any means, after the recent changes all we talk is after debates and threats instead mentioning "The Skies are Weeping" Cantata's Artistic Tributes. We don't mention lyrics of the cantata, contained from 3 poems written for Corrie by 3 different poets, Corrie's own letters edited by Munger, Moshe Nissim excerpts, devoted part to Tom Hurndall, excerpt from Bible. But we talk on and on over unartistic details. We can talk about them but if we don't mention what is inside the cantata how this section is artistic tributes.

Alaskan composer Philip Munger wrote a cantata about Corrie called The Skies are Weeping. It was scheduled to premiere on April 27, 2004 at the University of Alaska-Anchorage, where Munger teaches. Many objected to the upcoming performance, including members of the Jewish community, and a forum co-chaired by Munger and a local rabbi was held. After the forum "disintegrate[d]", Munger announced, "I cannot subject 16 students... to any possibility of physical harm or to the type of character assassination some of us are already undergoing. Performance of The Skies are Weeping at this time and place is withdrawn for the safety of the student performers.”[36] Munger later related that he had received threatening emails "[just] short of what you'd take to the troopers", and that some of his students had received similar communications.[37] The cantata was eventually performed at the Hackney Empire theatre in London, premiering on November 1, 2005.[38]

Either add some info, or change the context. Kasaalan (talk) 12:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

IDF Operator Mentioned in The Skies are Weeping

4. Recitative

"What is documented in this portion, though shocking, is on record in the [Note: "most widely circulated"] Israeli Newspaper Yediot Aharonot's, May 31, 2002 articleJenin, A Soldiers Story by Tsadok Yeheskeli. The link will take you to the English translation of the original Hebrew article. We also cleaned it up to make it easier to read. That version can be accessed HERE. The sentiments are not made up. They were expressed by D-9 bulldozer operator Moshe (Kurdi Bear) Nissim elaborating on his participation in the Jenin Massacre earlier that year)."

In The CrossHearts The Persecution of an American Musician by Laura Dawn Lewis

"It is the first absolutely sincere Israeli eyewitness testimony on what actually happened in the Jenin Refugee Camp, by one of the soldiers who did it. He is quite proud of his mission. Apart from the shocking revelations, this is also a startling human document. After publication - and in spite of it - the unit to which the man belongs received from the army command an official citation for outstanding service."

Jenin: A Soldier's Triumph in his own Words and I made them a stadium in the middle of the camp The original translation By Yediot Aharnonot into English is available with Gush Shalom Comments

Found the source for related articles and quoted direct translation by the newspaper printed the interview. Kasaalan (talk) 21:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Just my opinion - the original wording (before 5 Jan) comes across as being meant to mock Munger: "the fifth movement of which, taking the perspective of a bulldozer driver, was entitled "I Had No Mercy"." "Taking the perspective" was (and still is) WP:OR, and selectively snipping the last two words of the title made it sound histrionic.

Giving the actual reasoning full voice is more neutral, but isn't a particularly good characterization of the whole cantata. For that matter, it comes across as borderline soapboxing, though now in the opposite direction from before.

My suggestion: Use a quote which characterizes the whole cantata instead. Possibly two quotes - one being Bishko's (per Munger) "dreadful, beautiful music" and the other being one that more broadly characterizes it. arimareiji (talk) 03:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I played with the text a bit. I think I answer your OR concern, because I'm stealing the language from ref 39, and we can put it in quotes if you like, though I think it isn't needed. The thing is, that ref is unclear as to whether the "dreadful, beautiful music" refers to movement four or to the whole thing. I think it is fairly neutral now. We're giving more space to this in a bloated article than to the play, which certainly got more attention. I think it is NPOV enough.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Misunderstanding, I think - what I was proposing was to ax it and replace it with something to more broadly characterize the entire cantata (not just the fourth movement). I don't think it's good to devote so much attention to a quote, that gave rise to the fourth movement, of a cantata, created to characterize the death, of our subject. It's a bit too far meta-Corrie instead of directly about Corrie. The interview it was based on is interesting wrt IDF bulldozer drivers' POV, arguably enough to use in external links instead, but I think the current state contributes to the bloat. arimareiji (talk) 04:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Play with it. This is wiki. But I think we do need to phrase it in such a way so that the reader is aware that our source for the emails is Munger. And yes, there is room to doubt him. He could have cold feet and want to blame someone else. Not saying that is so, but we should not state the emails as a fact; we should let the reader decide.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I think that: At most he had given a pro forma "I should cancel this for the students' safety" to the dean before the forum. The ugly atmosphere of the forum pushed him to the edge, and the nasty confrontation with his friend near the end was the last straw. The (mostly) emails spooked him, don't get me wrong - but they weren't the final cause. That's just my hunch, though.

I'm not sure on the timing of my last change versus your response; is the current state satisfactory? And I will play with the fourth movement (I keep thinking bowel every time I type that) later, but I need to go to work in short order. arimareiji (talk) 06:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Er, no, by reverting my edit, you turn it into a fact. Artists are tempermental, as I gather you'd agree. We don't know his exact reasons. The "just short of what you'd take to the troopers" quote seems to be designed to head off the obvious next question, "Why didn't you call the cops?" I'd rather not dignify Munger's allegations with the cloak of facthood (so to speak), but attribute it to him and let the reader decide.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

They tracked one mail account down, learned he is an imposer and his threaths are false, and might opened lawsuits against him, yet it is not very apparent in the article if he took the legal actions or how they resulted.

"Tracking the hotmail account used, further investigation showed this "Dr. Pezzati" is a musician with a punk rock band, hardly a doctor and not award winning, at least with the awards mentioned, with no ability to "Blacklist" anyone. The comedy in all this is the e-mail terrorist Pezzati obviously does not realize that by using a the name of a public institution in threatening an individual and misrepresenting himself as its employee, he's opened himself up to all kinds of grief from lawsuits to criminal charges beginning with the State of California on down."

Philip Munger's Statement

"People were shouting, leaving, arguing and interrupting me, as I tried to deliver this prepared statement: Over the past five days local artists preparing for the premiere of "The Skies are Weeping" have been subjected to a growing crescendo of internet virus attacks, hate mail and bizarre religious-political polemics. It appears to be orchestrated. Some of the incoming venom is quite threatening. After consulting with staff here at the University of Alaska Anchorage Department of Music, I have decided that I cannot subject sixteen students, whose names, fortunately, have not been released to anyone, to any possibility of physical harm or to the type of character assassination some of us are already undergoing. Performance of "The Skies are Weeping" at this time and place is withdrawn for the safety of the student performers. This decision has been mine alone, with no pressure whatsoever from the school or university.”

In The CrossHearts The Persecution of an American Musician by Laura Dawn Lewis

"Almost immediately, Munger says, he was inundated with unsolicited e-mail from outside Alaska, a lot of it hateful - "just threatening, harassing, bizarre ... short of the stuff you'd take to the troopers."

"But some of his student musicians received threatening messages too, Munger says -- and that was a different story. It was one thing to invite problems on himself; it was quite another to inflict them on his students."

Yet I still don't know what "just short of what you'd take to the troopers" phrase means. Kasaalan (talk) 14:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

It means that it in Munger's opinion, it wasn't criminal, it didn't go so far as to break the law. But don't worry, I took that out. I've tried to shorten the text. In view of the fact that depending on which article you look at, Munger is all over the map on whether threats were made to the students, I've felt it better to avoid the point.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

1. In the sources Kasaalan has provided, and in almost every source I've seen that gives him a lot of "airtime" rather than soundbites, he says pretty explicitly that the last straw was when the students started being threatened. Exception: In his statement at the end of the forum, he makes a point of saying he's glad the students' names haven't been released and says only "some of us are" (not "I am") getting threats. Considering how the forum went, I'd guess he was trying to follow WP:BEANS and not give anyone ideas.
2. I don't think it's completely accurate to characterize "just short of what you'd take to the troopers" that way. He's primarily implying the inverse - that he considers it to be such a serious threat that it almost warrants going to the police. Keep in mind that stalking and threatening are usually ignored by police unless you can explicitly prove that the person plans to harm you (with the possible exception of domestic violence cases), so that can be a high standard.
3. The following is from the article now. I think it's fine the way it is, because there's plenty of inference for the reader to know the source for the entire thing is the IDF spokesman. If it's TLDR, just read the last sentences of each:

   A spokesman for the IDF told the Guardian that, while it did not accept responsibility for Corrie's death, it intended to change its operational procedures to avoid similar incidents in the future. The level of command of similar operations would be raised, said the spokesman, and civilians in the area would be dispersed or arrested before operations began. Observers will be deployed and CCTV cameras will be installed on the bulldozers to compensate for blind spots, which may have contributed to Corrie's death.

This is how it would look if we apply the standard you're applying to Munger, that every conceivably-disputable concept has to be attributed:

A spokesman for the IDF told the Guardian that the IDF did not accept responsibility for Corrie's death, but he said that they intended to change operational procedures to avoid similar incidents in the future. The IDF spokesman also asserted that the level of command of similar operations would be raised, and promised that in the future civilians in the area would be dispersed or arrested before operations began. In addition, the spokesman said that observers will be deployed and CCTV cameras will be installed on the bulldozers to compensate for alleged blind spots, which he implied may have contributed to Corrie's death.

While literally true and fair by the book, this construction 1) is extremely awkward to read and 2) unduly implies that the person you keep making a point of saying "claims" all of these things is an untrustworthy source and shouldn't be taken seriously. arimareiji (talk) 10:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I read the hatemail article in wikipedia and it contains threaten concept just like insult "Hate mail (as electronic, posted, or otherwise) is a form of harassment, usually consisting of invective and potentially intimidating or threatening comments towards the recipient. Hate mail often contains exceptionally abusive, foul or otherwise hurtful language. The recipient may receive disparaging remarks concerning the subject's ethnicity, sexuality, religion, intelligence, political ideology, or sense of ethics. The text of hate mail often contains profanity, or it may simply contain a negative, disappropriating message.", since we don't know too much detail on email students receive we can wikilink to hatemail hateful emails for not exaggerating or underrating the situtation unless we have the content of threats to the students, also "character assasination" is a stress, rather than actual assasination, so the physical threats may fall under might be or precaution category in this situation we should stress that too somehow. "Munger stated[claimed] after the student performers received the same kind of hateful emails just like him, the made the decision for cancelling the play." Kasaalan (talk) 11:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I added a wikilink to hatemail over the last edit. Kasaalan (talk) 11:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm OK with Kasaalan's changes. I'd noe, Arimareiji, that there was the one source in which he said that the students' names were not public. Thus, it would be unlikely that they would receive hatemail. Given Munger's varied statements on this point, I think some attribution is needed. --Wehwalt (talk) 14.00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Your objection is logical, yet there might have been some inside sources, because Bishko even got emails before the discussion, and Munger states the emails are orchastrated. Actually this might have been the very fact why Murger get intimidated for students safety. Because if they can get the students names before they released to the public, they might have been serious. Yet this are just possibilities, unless we get some clear sources pointing the contents of the threats students receive we should be careful about the wording. I cannot decide which one of you is more right on the subject exactly because I didn't understand your suggestions in detail very well for my English not that great. Actually the case is interesting, and intertwined, yet you should adress how much detail we need more on this particular subject, if we should add more info for the subject. Personally I prefer long detailed articles, with clear sectioning, but you might prefer more summarized articles. So if you can address your suggestion on the info and detail needed, we can discuss in more detail. Yet the article is not bad at all in this current shape, if we should mention it as a summary, if you need more detailed info I read the articles on the subject and we can add some more key points. Kasaalan (talk) 17:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

If we're speculating on reasons to believe or disbelieve Munger, he said they haven't been released. That doesn't mean some fruitloop couldn't have Googlesearched UAA webpages and blogs until he found a few, which would be sufficient for "some" of the students.

I believe I could manufacture a much-stronger case for claiming that my illustrative WP:POINT about the IDF spokesman should be used to make sure the reader knows who said it, starting with "alleged blind spots." I haven't made that edit, and I won't make that edit, because I believe it's inappropriate to repeatedly use "stated/said/claimed/asserted/etc" if the functional result is to cast doubt on credibility. If the attribution is already reasonably clear from nearby context, repeated addition of "So they say" is POV. arimareiji (talk) 19:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the two are parallel, but I'll play with the language some more. We need to shorten that whole paragraph anyway.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Could you explain why the two aren't parallel? arimareiji (talk) 21:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The last version was not bad or too long actually and your last edit made the context drastically weaker, also IDF operator is important to be mention, if you want to shorten the paragraph there are other ways.

"Alaskan composer Philip Munger wrote a cantata about Corrie called The Skies are Weeping. The fourth movement, "I Had No Mercy for Anybody", entirely based on excerpts from an interview with a D9 operator, Moshe Nissim."

"Following the forum, Munger announced that the performance had been "withdrawn for the safety of the student performers," on his request, stating [arguing] the "orchastrated" hatemails, he and especially his students had received. It was eventually performed at the Hackney Empire theatre in London, premiering on November 1, 2005."

Constantly repeating, arguing saying is not good. But in The Skies are Weeping case stating or arguing is not all bad, because he is the only source. Use Kasaalan (talk) 21:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I tried reedit.

Alaskan composer Philip Munger wrote a cantata about Corrie called The Skies are Weeping. The fourth movement, "I Had No Mercy for Anybody", entirely based on an interview with D9 operator Moshe Nissim. The work was scheduled to premiere on April 27, 2004 at the University of Alaska-Anchorage, where Munger teaches. Many objected to the upcoming performance, including members of the Jewish community, and a forum co-chaired by Munger and a local rabbi was held to solve issues, yet resulted even more quarrels. Following the forum, Munger announced that the performance had been "withdrawn for the safety of the student performers," on his request, stating the "orchestrated" hatemails, he and especially the student performers had received. It was eventually performed at the Hackney Empire theatre in London, premiering on November 1, 2005.

Edits are in bold. Official Weblog is Reliable Source, why did you remove it as unreliable. "This is the web site of "The Skies are Weeping", a new cantata by Philip Munger, in memory of Rachel Corrie. Its world premiere will be at the Hackney Empire, London, 1st. November 2005. This site is updated as information about the production becomes available." Kasaalan (talk) 21:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Because this article is about Rachel Corrie, not about the cantata.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I did a search, trying to find a reliable source for the Moshe Nissim (the rampaging bulldozer driver) translation so that it could be added as an external link. I couldn't find one. Everything I found was blatantly partisan (i.e. had POV commentary included), except a couple of listservs - which aren't WP:RS. Without a reliable source for the inspiration for the fourth movement, it should be removed. It's barely tangentially-related to Rachel Corrie - it's a quote, that gave rise to the fourth movement, of a cantata, created to characterize the death, of Rachel Corrie. arimareiji (talk) 23:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

You misjudge on the matter. First of all the interview is not only a source of inspiration for the fourth movement. The entire fourth movement is entirely based on the excerpts taken from the Yediot Aharonot interview with Moshe Nissim, I can prove that. Yediot Aharonot, is "the most widely circulated newspaper of Israel" and English translation is belong to Yediot Aharonot or by Gush Shalom not so sure, but Gush Shalom is just quoting the context. The comments are made by a leftist "hardcore" Humanitarian Israeli-Jewish Peace Organisation Gush-Shalom [Aims]. They even clearly link to the original newspaper article with date [on May 31, 2002] for the interview, it is not my fault the interview is old and link now not working. Also I found a hard time to locate the comments what you labeled as partisan. They are just comments against Moshe Nissim's statements. I strongly object taking out the interview. Yet I will try finding an even better source. Kasaalan (talk) 09:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Found 1 academic source entirely quoting from gush-shalom Harry F. Clark Professor of Labor Studies and Industrial Relations at Michigan University

Found another source in The Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions (ICAHD) Study Obstacles to Peace

Also it is clear that Munger used this source, because even wording is the same. If you like you add wording as Gush Shalom claims quoting it or any precaution word, but the source is this as it is, and erasing it is a big mistake after several long hours of research and discussion. I will research further on who made the translation and try to locate original Hebrew version. Gush Shalom Archive with Comments And if you like Non Commented Non Copyedited Bulletin Board Version Kasaalan (talk) 09:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

As I have said before, WP is written in summary style, thus this is overdetail. In addition, it is being offered for pointy reasons, to show that this is the attitude of Israeli bulldozer drivers who therefore were at least wildly reckless if not murderous in the Corrie case. After all, that is no doubt why Munger put it in there. If you want to write an article about the Cantata, it might well do well in there. It is not appropriate for the Corrie article.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

D9R

Do we have anything that actually says the bulldozer was a D9R? We say it in the lede; it is nowhere in the article. I'm not talking about Kasaalan's detective work, I'm talking about what it says in sources. I've already taken it out of the Munger section because it was not supported by the sources.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The model used in Corrie's case was a D9R for sure, and we can verify it by event photographs clearly. I don't consider certain cases like this as Original Research while it doesn't contain any conclusion or snythesis, if you refer the article in general. I located the exact model over reference photographs. Yet then I also found the sources stressing it was a D9R. Here are some possible references for later use along with D9R stress.

Human Rights Watch "Razing Rafah, Mass Home Demolitions in the Gaza Strip" Report

In a late 2004 report, “Razing Rafah, Mass Home Demolitions in the Gaza Strip,” Human Rights Watch stated that since September 2000, over 1700 homes in Rafah were demolished as Israeli occupation forces cleared a wide buffer strip and constructed a large steel wall along Rafah’s border with Egypt. “The pattern of destruction strongly suggests that Israeli forces demolished homes wholesale, regardless of whether they posed a specific threat, in violation of international law. In most of the cases, Human Rights Watch found the destruction was carried out in the absence of military necessity.”

Israeli Investigations "There were 2 operators were in the cabin of the D9R"

According to the U.S. Department of State, on March 17, 2003, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon promised President Bush a “thorough, credible, and transparent” investigation into Rachel Corrie’s killing. After an investigation in 2003, the Israeli military concluded that the two soldiers in the D9R Caterpillar bulldozer that killed Rachel Corrie did not see her, though eyewitnesses indicate that she was clearly visible. The case was closed, no charges were brought, and the Israeli Government declined to release their report to the U.S. Government. On June 11, 2004, in response to inquiries from the Corrie family, Lawrence B. Wilkerson, Chief of Staff to Colin Powell at the U.S. Department of State, wrote of the IDF report, “Your ultimate question, however, is a valid one, i.e., whether or not we view that report to have reflected an investigation that was ‘thorough, credible, and transparent.’ I can answer your question without equivocation. No, we do not consider it so.” On March 17, 2005, in testimony before members of Congress, this position was reiterated by Michael G. Kozak, Acting Assistant Secretary of the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor at the Department of State.

Reactions

On March 18, 2003, Congressman Brian Baird (WA-D) introduced House Concurrent Resolution 111 calling on the U.S. Government to conduct a full, fair, and expeditious investigation into Rachel Corrie’s death. At the close of the 108th Congress in 2004, the resolution died in committee without hearing, though seventy-seven members of the House of Representatives had signed on in support.

Informational Release from Craig and Cindy Corrie, parents of Rachel Corrie October 15, 2007

Dear Friends,

In the afternoon of March 16, 2003, in Rafah, at the southern tip of the Gaza Strip, my twenty-three-year-old daughter, Rachel, was crushed by an Israeli military D9R Caterpillar bulldozer as she stood between that bulldozer and the home of the Nasrallah family, attempting to prevent that home’s demolition. Rachel traveled from the U.S. to Rafah in January 2003. In her journal, she wrote “I’ve had this underlying need to go to a place and meet people who are on the other end of the portion of my tax money that goes to fund the U.S. and other militaries.” ...

Cindy Corrie January 15, 2004

But if you only refer to Moshe Nissim case, my mistake reporting it as a D9R, no source mentions it is a D9R, they say D9 in general term and don't mention the exact model, since he break in Jenin Camp in 2002 it is possible he might have used a D9R, they were even manufactured back in 1995, yet reporting it as D9 is essential. Kasaalan (talk) 09:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Archive

Resolved

I took the liberty to move some long and mostly closed cases to the archive. Kasaalan (talk) 14:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Munger's inbox

Resolved

I'm still not sure why "just short of what you'd take to the troopers" was removed, considering that it's an excellent nutshell characterization of the messages he says that he and students received. It obviates a great deal of arguably-includable material about meeting with the dean, and meeting with campus security, and a detailed explanation of the fine differences between hatemail and threats, and orchestration, and the alleged Dr. Pezzatti (sp?), and the USC response, etc. Finally, it turns bland back-and-forth into something the reader can pay attention to whether they believe it or not - see Wikipedia:I_wouldn't_know_him_from_a_hole_in_the_ground#An_example. Could you please explain? arimareiji (talk) 22:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec x 2) I felt that if Kasaalan didn't understand it, he's probably a good guinea pig for Joe the Reader, and so we're probably off base. As for your other concern, I don't think the two are parallel because, as you yourself point out, there's plenty of inference to show it is coming from the IDF. The cantata paragraph is not all coming from Munger. While I appreciate your rephrasing the IDF paragraph that way to prove your point, it doesn't quite fly because of the respective contexts.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

If Kasaalan doesn't understand idiomatic English, that doesn't mean Joe Reader will. Wrt the IDF paragraph, you have one standalone phrase, one standalone sentence, and one centrally controversial term (blind spots) which are all "stated as facts" that are neither embedded between or participial to "The IDF spokesman said." In a couple of the phrasings that you've replaced, you're adding "Munger says" to a phrase that's both embedded between and participial to "Munger says" statements. arimareiji (talk) 22:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you can propose compromise language, do so. I've tried and it hasn't been satisfactory--Wehwalt (talk) 23:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

My original version: "but was cancelled following threats to Munger and some of the students."

Your original version: "but was cancelled following what Munger alleged were threats to him and some of the student musicians."

My most recent version: "At the end of the forum Munger announced that the performance had been "withdrawn for the safety of the student performers," following messages to himself and some of the student musicians that he said were "[just] short of the stuff you'd take to the troopers.""

Your most recent version: "At the end of the forum, Munger announced that the performance had been "withdrawn for the safety of the student performers," at his request, citing hatemail he said he had received."

Your original objection was sound, so I made a couple of different changes in the phrasing structure that did make it clearer. For the most part, since then you've mainly been inserting increasing amounts of "he claims" into my phrasing. That's not really a compromise, it's an amplification of the same position that you held in the beginning.

My current compromise version: "At the end of the forum Munger announced that the performance would be "withdrawn for the safety of the student performers," following messages to himself and some of the student musicians that he said were "[just] short of the stuff you'd take to the troopers."" There's no doubt about who said everything in that sentence. It also obviates a lot of argument over how to characterize his characterization of the messages, given that he states his POV pretty clearly himself. arimareiji (talk) 23:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC).

That's basically what you inserted before. If you move the "he said" up in the sentence so it is "following what he said were messages 'just short of the stuff you'd take to the troopers.'" that would be OK I see no need to mention the student musician/performers twice, esp when there is some doubt due to Munger's variant stories.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is basically what I said before, and it's still a compromise between our original positions. It makes it clear that he said everything in the sentence, so why does it need an awkward rephrase that serves to cast doubt on Munger? Can you provide a reliable source that articulates doubt about "Munger's variant stories"? Adding it would be much more productive than trying to get the phrasing to do so.

Wrt changing "himself and students" to just "himself": Your proposed change alters the meaning to make him sound histrionic, i.e. "I'm scared for the students because I got threats." Would it suffice to change "student musicians" to "students," since "musicians" really is a noncontributory repetition that can be removed without changing the meaning? arimareiji (talk) 00:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

More a question of editorial judgment, in my view on your first point. If someone tells various stories, you can't be bothered to tell them all, so you just say what you can and make sure it is attributable to him. Your second point really goes to the first, because in one of the articles he omits the students except to say they were had remained anonymous to the hatemailers.

Would it be fair to say that for all the talk about grammar and awkward sentences and all that, that this boils down to you think the hatemail should be included without inline attribution and I think there should be inline attribution?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't. With respect to IDF, you (correctly) don't object to a sentence which contains zero attributions for three separate phrases which would need it by the standard you're applying to Munger. Here, you're objecting to a sentence which contains three phrases, two directly attributed and one of which is enclosed by two attributions and referred to participially by one of them. In your previous version, the sentence needed four attributions for three phrases - does that not speak of excess?

Again, can you provide a reliable source to articulate the doubts about Munger that you think this sentence should express? Two sides are always more interesting than one, and it would be good to include. arimareiji (talk) 00:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I've explained my reasoning. When there are varying accounts, you have to exercise editorial judgment. If you think it is overattributed, restructure the paragraph, but it is my editorial judgment that due to the various stories Munger has told on that point, I want him to stand behind that as a fact, not us.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC) Incidently, that IS a little bit of a strawman argument you're making with the IDF quote, neh?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

He is, and clearly so. And again, I'm not going to go vandal on a perfectly-acceptable paragraph just to illustrate that one subject gets lenient treatment and another gets questioned at every turn. If you have a source that justifies treating Munger this way, that's one thing - but otherwise it's meta-WP:SYNTHESIS. arimareiji (talk) 00:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, got distracted by a page protection request. Anyway, I've played with the language and made it the sort of gray area phrasing I like in case of doubt.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a compromise, this is simply pre-emptively putting your version up. Without a source that backs up your assertions about Munger being untruthful, using the phrasing to cast aspersions on his credibility is unjustified. Especially by contrast, as noted above. arimareiji (talk) 01:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

"In these types of disputes, it is important to note that verifiability lives alongside neutrality, it does not override it. A matter that is both verifiable and supported by reliable sources might nonetheless be proposed to make a point or cited selectively; painted by words more favorably or negatively than is appropriate; made to look more important or more dubious than a neutral view would present; marginalized or given undue standing; described in slanted terms which favor or weaken it; or subject to other factors suggestive of bias." Please stop trying to make Munger look as stupid as possible. The ongoing pattern isn't cute, and this is getting close to jumping the shark. arimareiji (talk) 01:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I've rephrased it, breaking it down into two sentences this time, one for each source, and relying as far as possible on quotes from Munger.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you; I didn't anticipate how much your second edit would complement the first. I'm making two minor modifications; one is changing it back to "[just] short." "Just short" was indeed a misquote, but "just... short" is awkward and "short" erroneously excludes the "just" that I believe was meant to modify the phrases following it. arimareiji (talk) 02:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, what do you expect of a weekly free newspaper? I took out the stray t that was in there, too. It all looks good.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The Skies are Weeping Artistic Tributes

Almost immediately, Munger says, he was inundated [overflow-spam] with unsolicited [uninvited] e-mail from outside Alaska, a lot of it hateful -- "just threatening, harassing, bizarre ... short of the stuff you'd take to the troopers." But some of his student musicians received threatening messages too, Munger says -- and that was a different story. It was one thing to invite problems on himself; it was quite another to inflict them on his students.

'Over the past five days local artists preparing for the premiere of "The Skies are Weeping" have been subjected to a growing crescendo of internet virus attacks, hate mail and bizarre religious-political polemics. It appears to be orchestrated. Some of the incoming venom is quite threatening. ... After consulting with staff here at the University of Alaska Anchorage Department of Music, I have decided that I cannot subject sixteen students, whose names, fortunately, have not been released to anyone, to any possibility of physical harm or to the type of character assassination some of us are already undergoing.

Revision Difference

The edits lost too much details, and turned into not shorter but a lot weaker by context.

I also located the Anchorage Daily News article 'The Skies Are Weeping,' a cantata by Philip Munger lyrics and where he clearly addresses the 4th movement is based on Gush-Shalom translation which is mirrored in another page. "4. Recitative: I had no mercy for anybody ... from: [34]"

"Munger has set two poems written as memorials to Corrie, one by San Francisco poet Phil Goldvarg and another by Sri Lanka poet Thushara Wijeratna. The other vocal settings are of a new poem by Alaska poet Linda McCarriston, a musical setting of the testimony of Moshe Nissim, an Israeli bulldozer driver who ran amok in the 2002 Jenin incursion, a rare complete setting of Psalm 137, and excerpts from Rachel Corrie's last e-mails to her mother.

Texts, full score and additional information for or about the new work are available by calling (907) 746-... or e-mailing niklake@... Other information may be obtained by calling the UAA music office at 786-..."

Moshe Nissim is clearly named in public emails. Kasaalan (talk) 00:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Checked the whole speech word by word. The original source is interview with Moshe Nissim, made by Tsadok Yeheskeli, published in Israeli Newspaper Yediot Aharonot on 31 May 2002 and translated by Gush-Shalom word by word. So whether the Gush Shalom translation is exact or not, which clearly addresses to the original Hebrew newspaper interview with date, this is the source Munger used with no doubt.

"I had no mercy for anybody. I would erase anyone with the D-9, ... and I have demolished plenty."

"I wanted to destroy everything. I begged the officers, over the radio, to let me knock it all down; from top to bottom. To level everything. ... When I was told to bring down a house, I took the opportunity to bring down some more houses."

"For three days, I just destroyed and destroyed. The whole area. ... I wanted to get to the other houses. To get as many as possible."

"I didn't see, with my own eyes, people dying under the blade of the D-9. ... But if there were any, I wouldn't care at all. ... If you knocked down a house, you buried 40 or 50 people ... If I am sorry for anything, it is for not tearing the whole camp down."

"I had lots of satisfaction in Jenin, lots of satisfaction."

"No one expressed any reservations against doing it. ... Who would dare speak? If anyone would as much as open his mouth, I would have buried him under the D-9."

An entire movement quoted word by word from this interview with a D9 operator translated by Gush-Shalom, I haven't came across any partisan comment by peace organisation Gush-Shalom so far, for a reason to delete the reference as unreliable. Kasaalan (talk) 23:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Found original link as a reliable source for the lyrics of the Play Critical Concern [35] published on 25 April 2004. This proves the source is Gush-Shalom translation mirrored by another website.[36] Since other movements also contains poems devoted to Rachel which should be mentioned in artistic tributes, we should mention all sectins inspiration.

"Munger has set two poems written as memorials to Corrie, one by San Francisco poet Phil Goldvarg and another by Sri Lanka poet Thushara Wijeratna. The other vocal settings are of a new poem by Alaska poet Linda McCarriston, a musical setting of the testimony of Moshe Nissim, an Israeli bulldozer driver who ran amok in the 2002 Jenin incursion, a rare complete setting of Psalm 137, and excerpts from Rachel Corrie's last e-mails to her mother.

In this source it says fifth recitative for Moshe Nissim excerpts. Kasaalan (talk) 15:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Kasaalan, we give the cantata ample space. WP is written in what is called summary style. It means we don't need every detail. In this case, your proposed edit would be for the sole purpose of bolstering what you see as the proper side of the story, and is therefore rather pointy. You are not trying to give us the basis of the cantata (best put in an article on the Cantata, or one on Munger), but are trying to say "this is how Israeli bulldozer drivers act". Even if what you are proposing was an RS (which it is not, by the way), it has no place in this article.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Instead facts you focus more on your claimed might-be perceptions of imaginary readers. Well I can even try to find the Hebrew original of the interview, if you will try to hide behind translation is not reliable claim, but that is no concern of you. I am not trying to say anything, just stating a fact, but you try to trim off the Moshe Nissim interview in the first place, because it would look on IDF negatively. You intimidated very much even by IDF personnel's own words, despite the fact they have been excerpted fully by Munger, you try to erase this fact from the article. The section title is artistic tributes. Poems devoted to Rachel Corrie are artistic tributes, and instead mentioning them seperately it would be shorter to mention them within Munger Cantata. Above is not my proposed edit, but a quote from press emails, clearly referencing the sources he used. He used Gush-Shalom translation of Moshe Nissim interview, devoted a full section with word by word excerpts from the interview. Kasaalan (talk) 15:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I am asking, do you have any sound argument that Philip Munger didn't entirely excerpted from Gush-Shalom translation of Moshe Nissim interview, word by word, because it is addressed clearly in the Critical Concern article. Kasaalan (talk) 15:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

So you are saying the supposed Nissim interview is an artistic tribute to Corrie?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Before the word play why don't you answer the question first. Do you have any sound argument that Philip Munger didn't entirely excerpted from Gush-Shalom translation of Moshe Nissim interview, word by word. Source is Text to 'The Skies Are Weeping,' a cantata by Philip Munger Anchorage Daily News.

• 1. Choral Prelude: Psalm 137 (King James Version)
• 2. Dance for Tom Hurndall (no lyrics)
• 3. Aria-Lament: Rachel Poem For Rachel Corrie by Phil Goldvarg March 18, 2003
• 4. Song: God the Synecdoche in His Holy Land Poem in memoriam Rachel Corrie by Linda McCarriston
• 5. Recitative: I had no mercy for anybody All sentences excerpted from Gush Shalom translation of D9 operator Moshe Nissim interview by Philip Munger
• 6. Song: The Skies Are Weeping poem for Rachel Corrie by Thushara Wijeratna
• 7. Chorale with soprano solo; Rachel's Words (edited by Philip Munger)

The cantata is devoted to both Rachel Corrie and Tom Hurndall. Section 1 based on King James Bible Psalm 137, Section 2 is Dance for Tom Hurndall, Section 3, 4, and 6 are 3 poems written for Corrie, Section 5 is entrily Moshe Nissim excerpts, Section 7 Rachel Corrie's own writing edited by Philip Munger. Not that hard to understand if you bother to read. Moshe Nissim interview is not an atistic tribute, but Philip Munger excerpt of the interview translation is. Kasaalan (talk) 18:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Also you say the play has been given ample space, yet you changed all of its context by the revisions you made. Revision Difference Kasaalan (talk) 18:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

By trying to be tactful in an earlier point, I think I may have been too vague. I'll abandon tact and explain as simply as possible: The original insertion of "The fourth movement" (as it was worded then) was probably meant to mock Munger by making him sound histrionic. Please trust me on this. It's the same type of mockery as claiming (falsely) that there was a Rachel Corrie Memorial Pancake Breakfast, a rhetorical device / play on words. ("Pancake" can literally mean breakfast food, but can also mean "something as flat as a pancake." It's meant to evoke supposedly-funny images of Rachel being crushed under the bulldozer.)

The desire to insert such mockery could explain why someone made an edit of dubious value. The fourth movement is not a particularly significant part of the cantata. A more broad characterization of it, such as Bishko's "dreadful, beautiful music" may be appropriate. But a detailed argument about the fourth movement is not, because the purpose of the section is not to talk about Moshe Nissim or to mock Munger. The purpose of the section is to describe artistic tributes related to Rachel Corrie.

The lack of an RS was the final straw that made me decide to delete it. But my primary reason to delete it was to remove a subsection that should have never been added, because it bogs down the narrative with extraneous detail. arimareiji (talk) 23:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

More archiving

Are there any unresolved threads before this point in the talk page, or is it safe to archive everything above that point? If there's anything up there which still needs to be debated, please speak up so it doesn't get filed away. If there are no objections before then, I'll archive it on Sunday. arimareiji (talk) 02:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

No, and given the short attention span of everyone here, I have no objection to getting a bot to archive automatically after 2 weeks. By the way, there is a red link for an archive under the table of contents.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Some arguments still not settled, yet archiving them is better, we can bring them back from archive when needed. Archive them totally, and I may bring back some useful info when needed, if it is fine by you. Kasaalan (talk) 20:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Object - I think it would be a bad mistake to archive much of this page. I count 300kb - many pages are bigger than this and don't create a problem for people's browsers. I can see a number of discussions above that need to instantly accessible - eg do we accept HRW as reliable? (Yes, it's considered very good indeed). Do we choose sources because they're NPOV, or because they comply with Wikipedia policy on RS? (Some editors we'd have expected to be experienced seem not to understand how we do things). And there have been cases of foot-dragging that new editors to this page would find interesting, if not startling. PR^talk 21:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Kasaalan and PR, please list everything that is unresolved and it will be left in place. PR, please make your list current - HRW is being used on the page. Leaving resolved debates in a grossly-overswollen talk page serves no purpose except to make a point. arimareiji (talk) 22:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

My apologies, I didn't appreciate these were your TalkPages, to do with as you wish, extending us the gracious courtesy of maybe keeping parts we're particularly attached to. PR^talk 08:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I could say exactly the same in reverse - what gives you the prerogative to say we must keep resolved debates up indefinitely when the talk page is 3x the normal threshold for archiving? Your stated rationale was to show new editors that "some editors... seem not to understand how we do things.") That's making a point rather than serving a useful purpose, and showing that it's a tldr battlefield is not conducive to encouraging new editors to jump in. arimareiji (talk) 13:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

ps: Kasaalan, that's absolutely appropriate. Archives aren't meant to be graveyards - any time that an argument that was resolved pops up again, please do link people to the resolved debate as a first step in getting it re-resolved. Hopefully by doing so, such debates can be shortened. arimareiji (talk) 23:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Kasaalan - as one simple example, I think we resolved our difference about the current wording in Purssell's quote about jackets. But if you think it's an ongoing, current debate, please say that you want to keep the section "Safety jacket in detail" on the page. Or if there's any other section you spoke in that you think is a current debate, please say so.

It's mostly been you and me and Wehwalt debating. If only the three of us spoke in a section, and if all three of us agree that a section is resolved, then I think it's fair to move that section to archive. arimareiji (talk) 13:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

PR you have a good point actually, but lately we discuss often and a long discussion page is not good for timewise and bandwidthwise. The discussion page need to be fresh and short somehow. It maybe a good point to let new editors know how to read archives, so we can put a text explaining it at top in bold. And actually if you help more actively on current discussions it would be better for the article. Since only 5 editors seems to help recently including you and for tiamut is off for a while which leads the number to 4. So if you can help the discussions more actively we can have a more neutral and a higher quality article overall. And it may be better to archive entirely than regather them here if needed. Kasaalan (talk) 14:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC) 1 Official Papers, Legal Court Proceedings and Statements 2 Direct Official Reports Quoted by Human Rights Watch Leave this sections because they contain links and quotes needed later. Archive the rest including archive discussions, and the sections can be reversed back here when needed. Some of the cases still unclosed yet takes too much space and makes the page hard to edit. Kasaalan (talk) 14:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

If you believe PR has a good point, then we don't have consensus and I spoke too soon. You've spoken up in almost every section, so if you agree with PR that these cases are unclosed/unresolved, we can't archive them until we do get a resolution or until at least a month has passed without comment - that's the minimum standard for article talkspaces. My apologies, I had the mistaken impression that we had reached agreement on some points. arimareiji (talk) 15:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course, PR has a good point, why shouldn't he. We can put a text info on how to read archives for new editors on top of the page. Yet, the long archive page is not making the page any better. We should archive them but we can dearchive needed parts during edit. They will be needed in long term again, because I am not settled on some cases like deletion of tenth grade speech, or dove parade for her early life, yet I cannot discuss all the page at one time. Other than 1 Official Papers, Legal Court Proceedings and Statements 2 Direct Official Reports Quoted by Human Rights Watch Leave other sections, you can archive them since they will be needed only in long term. Kasaalan (talk) 23:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Archiving is only for material that has been resolved - pulling material back and forth defeats the purpose, which is to save temporarily resolved debates as unchanged reference material and keep only active debates on the discussion page. (Not vice versa.) Linking to it is perfectly acceptable, if the question comes up again for debate.

Routinely cutting/pasting from archive is not acceptable, because it makes it impossible to know whether someone is editing out material they don't like. That's why there are warnings on archive pages that say "Don't edit here, reopen the debate on the main discussion page." Until there's consensus among all discussing parties that an issue has been temporarily resolved, putting it in archive is completely inappropriate. I wouldn't have brought it up if I had known that you feel this all needs to be rehashed.

Moving on, Wehwalt - am I correct in saying that you have no unresolved objections in sections where you and I were debating? If so, that means we'll be able to start archiving that material once 30 days passes on everything that precedes it. arimareiji (talk) 00:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

(wakes up). Yes, that's fine. (goes back to sleep)--Wehwalt (talk) 00:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

In that part of the archive in Hagiography section I still have objections as it lead a big trim instead neutralizing for some parts, yet that section is too long and I don't have any intention to discuss over them untill we have agreement on more important matters. For other sections like safety jacket we are settled. We settled on HRW report, and Eyewitness Accounts to be used as a reference so actually we settled for some really important references. For example I still object on wording for Tom Hurndall, since he has been shot by an IDF sniper for sure, he convicted for it by English court and more importantly in Israeli courts for manslaughther, along with false testimony, so there is no reason for me to not mention he shot by an IDF sniper which is an important detail. Some sections already out of discussion like Cordesman quote. Also while you archive include archive discussion too since it is too long. Kasaalan (talk) 10:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I would like to adopt a system of checkmarking sections "Resolved" when all who participated are in agreement that the issue is temporarily closed. It would make it easier to move material to archive - we would be able to move material to archive every time a large continuous group (starting from the top) of sections are all marked "Resolved" (or have passed 30 days with no new comments). I'm going to start marking the ones I think we agree on; if anyone disagrees please unmark them and/or discuss here. arimareiji (talk) 19:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Please note that the first archive will be on 18 January, and will include everything from the first discussion section to Official Papers. This would reduce it by 127k (30%) if the page stayed its current size of 422k (14 Jan). If Cleanup can be resolved before then, it would include everything down to this section, leaving Tom Hurndall as the new first discussion section. This would reduce it by 171k (40%). The more we can agree to close out, the better.

If all goes well, I'd like to include this in the Policies section: "Material will not be archived until all discussing parties agree it is resolved, or until 30 days pass without further comment, whichever comes first. To keep sequential order, no section will be archived until all the sections before it have been archived." arimareiji (talk) 22:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

If threads are inactive for a period, of time, they should be archived. If anyone still wants to refer to the information in archive, it's a simple enough matter to say "Please see previous discussions at (link)." If there's a particular thread that anyone wants to stay on the "live" page, just add a bonafide comment to that thread, and the datestamp will keep it from being archived. But archiving must proceed, and soon. --Elonka 03:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)I suggest we start by archiving the first 11 topics and all other resolved ones. There is no great need to keep specific squential order. This page is huge. We need to get it under control.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Since there do not appear to be any further objections, I have added an archivebot. It will automatically archive any threads which have had no activity for 2 weeks or more. --Elonka 04:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, I objected at your talk page before you made the nonspecific suggestion here which has now been translated into adding a bot. I'm still waiting for your response. arimareiji (talk) 04:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Arimareiji, all of the threads will still be available in archive, nothing is going to disappear. All we're doing is making the live talkpage easier to manage. In fact, I'll go one better. If you'd like to keep a snapshot of how this talkpage appears right now, just check this permalink.[37] That will provide the whole page in its 430K glory, if you would ever like to look at it for reference. --Elonka 04:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

(suboutdent) I asked that you give me until the end of the month to make sure this settled down in a peaceable manner, and said you had my blessing to do whatever you wanted if the situation wasn't resolved in that timeframe. Your nonspecific response (at which time you would have seen that archiving was supposed to start two days from now anyway) was "we need to do something soon," which I took as concurrence. Until and unless the two editors I mentioned below concur, which I was trying to achieve by gradual consensus rather than by fiat as you have, I'm removing the bot. arimareiji (talk) 04:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Just let it go, Arimajeiri, we have bigger fish to fly. We can always adjust the bot later. I sincerely believe that we won't miss any of it.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Without K and PR's specific concurrence, I would disagree. This page is finally starting to settle down to a more peaceable routine and the massive tl;drs have dwindled to a trickle. I don't want to see that flame up because they wanted threads left in place, and start cut/pasting material back and forth. They have made objections along those lines. arimareiji (talk) 04:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

IP deletion

For the first time in a while, I'm inclined to agree with an IP editor. Is there an RS for that? If it's unsourced or sourced to someone with an ax to grind, I think it needs to go per Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Criticism_and_praise, which overlaps into any bio. arimareiji (talk) 15:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Almost a direct quote from the Mother Jones article.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

It needs attribution to Hammer, then. It's RS, which surprises me, but I don't think it can be argued to be a "fact" per se. IMO it would be good to merge those juxtaposed parentheses, and add the missing one at the end of the quote.

But to be honest, it still bothers me for the reason that it's not directly related to her relationship to them. It's about them, which is a different subject. arimareiji (talk) 15:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

It's sourced at the end of the sentence. But really, I don't care if you take it out. I put it in when Tiamut and Kasaalan were making this, as IronDuke put it, hagiography. I think things are a little more balanced now.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for this, I was that (not masked!) IP editor. While the attribution improves the para, I still agree with Arimareiji that views on the exact nature of the ISM are a separate issue. -- (Jim Weldon) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.240.76.2 (talk) 09:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Time Wasting Undo Attitude

How the Rachel Corrie Foundation Page is not a reliable source for international plays. They clearly link to the international play webpages giving dates. Links are old and not working, great deal, yet do you have any sound argument to doubt a foundation falsely claims there were plays that doesnt performed. Do wikipedia gain anything by your deletes, is there any good reason to doubt the play performed in 7 countries worldwide. Seriously I am asking this, if you need a better source why don't you help searching for it instead deleting it, this way I am doing all the research work and you play with them as you like. Difference Rachel Corrie Foundation International Plays Page Kasaalan (talk) 15:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Because per WP:RS, they aren't a RS. Perhaps less time would be lost, Kasaalan, if you read the policy and stuck strictly to it, rather than trying to massage nonRS into RS in order to prove points.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

They list the plays with date and location, it is your own comment that it is not a RS for the international plays, but you cannot explain if they have any motive to publicly lie about the international plays. For suspecting a lie there should be a reason to lie in the first place. Also even if Rachel Corrie Foundation isn't reliable source for where My Name is Rachel Corrie play have been performed, you could contribute the article by searching and checking if the plays has been held or not before you claim they aren't reliable. But you take the easy way, undoing them, self-claiming RCF is not reliable. Then I have to make all the reasearch for proving even tiny details like obviously stated performances with dates and location in the foundation page one by one, then you object the sources again, then I find even better sources, then the discussion page gets longer and longer. Kasaalan (talk) 15:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Kasaalan, you are the one that thinks the international performances need to be in the article. If only because of exhaustion, I'm inclined to let you have that one, but I insist it be reliably sourced. You want it in the article, you go get your own RS, please. Don't look to others to do the work for you. The place for the international performances is in an article about the play. And there is one. With a section called "Forthcoming Performances". Send it over there.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

If I go place a seperate reference in the article for every single stage, will that make you happy. You claim RCF is no reliable source for the play with no good reason, just like the info provided might be deliberately untrue, but My_Name_is_Rachel_Corrie article clearly references all stages mentioned at RFC page, one by one. You are not in charge here or boss in any way, so talking like letting me have something is utter nonsense. Main objective in wikipedia is providing reliable info. You just trying to object everytime with your favourite reliability card, yet you don't bother to research before you object. If you would search you could easily find all the stages has been referenced and replace the unreliable link you refer with the reliable one. But instead you try deleting information. Are you even object that, when talking about a play it is important how many countries or different stages the play performed. Statistics are neutral by themselves, but you try so hard to find statistics somehow unneutral. Kasaalan (talk) 18:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Kasaalan on this one, Wehwalt - it's a short blurb, has enough importance to the tangent to justify inclusion, and isn't unduly self-serving. It wavers on the border of it, but there's no direct connection between RCFPJ and the play. And a quick glance through Google shows that there are indisputable RS'es for individual countries. It would be a waste of time and space to list several references when one (albeit less than a perfect RS) corroborates a relatively-neutral assertion. arimareiji (talk) 19:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

PS Kasaalan - please note that accusations such as PR made ("you're not boss so your opinion doesn't count") are a Really Bad Idea for an ongoing relationship between editors. For an editor who disappears for long periods of time, like PR, it's not as self-evident. For an editor who stays with a page, like you or myself or Wehwalt, it quickly leads to irreparable mistrust. I believe you mean well, even when we don't agree, and I take your arguments seriously even when I get frustrated with them. I would have trouble believing that if you adopted PR's style of attack. arimareiji (talk) 19:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

You have done some good job on editing and discussion. I take you seriously even when I object you for misjudge, like the most of the editors including Wehwalt, and also his scepticism is very useful sometimes, but "I might let you have this one" is not the attitude I can stand. And time to time his baseless objections solely founded on his alleged "you put this because you think this way and want the readers to think that way therefore I delete unreliable material" argument. I said he is not the boss, neither of us is, but I didn't say "your opinion doesn't count" in any way. As I claimed earlier I cannot refer him as neutral in some of the cases, since before you came we couldn't even settle on the very basics. Our only communication is through Wikipedia, I am not expecting any friendly manner, so I may only refer to a professional connection if there is any. I have spent several dozens of hours researching including some very hard to find details and references, yet undoing and deleting with no clear reason is just wasting my time. He may use some common sense or seriously search for a better reference himself, for whether the plays has been held or not, instead deleting them, if our objection is trying to improve the article. Otherwise trying to keep the article as it is is not a good objection in the first place. Kasaalan (talk) 20:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) May I make a suggestion, moving forward? If you think that a source should be counted as reliable, stand up and say so. If your argument has merit, it will be re-inserted. Or if it does need a more reliable source, it usually doesn't take long to find one. Finding an undisputable reliable source is the easiest way to win arguments - trying to win them on the talk page is usually more trouble than it's worth. It takes a lot more time that way.
Wikipedia relies on reliable-source material, and it is necessary to delete material that's not reliably sourced. But please note that per WP:BRD it's also completely appropriate to re-insert material that is reliably sourced. Please don't think that just because someone says your source is unreliable, that's the end of it.
Wehwalt is right in saying that he's under no obligation to go out and find more reliable sources. That may be frustrating, but it also means he's not trying to find sources to contradict you. That's a good thing, trust me. I would be much more worried if he was trying to find sources to contradict me. And Wehwalt - sometimes you do need to loosen up a little. Not that I have much room to talk; I probably need to loosen up even more than you do. arimareiji (talk) 20:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd loosen up, but it's hard to do so while typing with one's nose while wearing a straitjacket. But I digress. I'm OK with the foundation web site being used, so long as we all know it doesn't establish a precedent. That means, Kasaalan, that it's not to be used for claims that those SOBing Israelis murdered St. Rachel, or for any other fact about which reasonable minds could differ. Just because a fact (loosely speaking) is not in the article, regardless of whether you spent hours ferreting it out, that does not mean we have to jump on board with you and help to add it. As I have told you several times, WP works in what is told summary style. It means we don't include any random fact. And we are all equal as editors, but think well, Kasaalan, about the reputation that you are building as an editor. I'd suggest, as an editor of some experience, that five kilobyte talk page entries and pointy edits to the article aren't, quite possibly, the best way to go. Just my opinion.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

And oh yeah, Kasaalan, just so you know, a wikipedia article is NOT a reliable source. May seem odd to you, but that is how it is.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Got caught by an edit conflict; my reply is to Kasaalan.

Kasaalan - Wikipedia can't be used as a source in Wikipedia articles, per this policy. And rachelswords.org falls afoul of conflict of interest, per the cited page: "The play, whose cancellation in New York launched our own initiative, is now being produced in theaters all over the U.S. and internationally." RCFPJ is usable with respect to the play, because it's not "unduly self-serving," but rachelswords.org isn't. Your previous revision (the "ten" one) is fine. arimareiji (talk) 21:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I already know Wikipedia might not be a reliable source, yet in wikipedia article it is clearly referenced how and when the performances taken with sources. I also found the best source for the plays happen to be rachelswords.org with very detailed info on stage performances. Replaced Rachel Corrie Foundation link with this one. My Name is Rachel Corrie wiki article is also weak in context missing lots of stages, so I created a section on this matter in its discussion page. Kasaalan (talk) 01:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether the source has detailed info, it can't be used if it's "unduly self-serving." By their own words, they have a conflict of interest in this specific matter. Why would you want to replace a usable source with one that's not usable? arimareiji (talk) 01:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Correct. It is not an RS. Other sources can be used in its place, though less convenient. --Wehwalt (talk) 02:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Thirded. IronDuke 03:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

How you reach the conclusion the rachelswords.org is "unduly self-serving" or "unduly self serving" means they will blatantly lie in front of public. Isn't it obvious why I used the source, rachelswords.org has every single stage performed on earth with dates and names of the stages with clear linking to their webpages. This source just states the facts, no interpretation involved, unless anyone can claim they lie, this is the best source we have. Can anyone show me, any of the info provided is false, or any site pointing the page is lying for "self serving" reasons. No other source is as complete as this one, because this one is updated, this primary source is the best and most reliable source we have from first party. Moreover the page is verifiable since it links to the every single theather webpage except 2. Why don't you take your time asking the theathers if they performed the play before you claim the source is unreliable. But then why you claim, without spending a little time for proving the site is unreliable for staging info, which means they clearly lie in front of public. Kasaalan (talk) 12:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Kasaalan, we follow policies here at WP. You know of them, you have thrown them in our faces on occasion. Those policies say this is not a reliable source. That's how it is. Your remedy is not in throwing a few more kilobytes of special pleading at us, it is in either finding another source, doing without, or having the policies changed. I leave you to your decision.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Policies doesn't say rachelswords.org is unreliable for staging info. "Self-published sources may be used only in limited circumstances, with caution." I take the caution and searched the plays mentioned. There is no dicussion involved for the matter, or any source objecting the stages didn't have been held. There is no reason to doubt the staging info, but even if you do you can always verify the info provided. Kasaalan (talk) 13:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

You can't read only the first line of the policy ("Self-published sources may be used") and then ignore the rest of it ("so long as... 2. it is not unduly self-serving"). You're also ignoring the fact that "so long as... 5. there is no reason to doubt its authenticity" is a completely separate point. You're defending it on the basis of point 5, but no one except you is saying point 5 is the issue. Point 2 is the issue.

"Unduly self-serving" does not mean "they will blatantly lie in front of the public". It means they have a serious conflict of interest. Example: I own a company that sells XYZ product. Someone edits an article to say "XYZ product is the best on the market," and uses my website as a source. It may actually be true that XYZ product is the best on the market, but that doesn't matter - they can't use my website as a source because it's "unduly self-serving." In the same way, rachelswords.org is an unduly self-serving source for how many venues the play is performed in, because their express stated purpose is to get it performed in as many venues as possible. arimareiji (talk) 16:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Did I use the reference to say the play is the best play ever. No. No comment involved, I just stated a fact. In the same manner you can object a theatre's own page as there is conflict of interest, they might not actually performed the stage, but it would be pointless. They have enough proof on the site for the stages has been held, they are clearly dated, linked and given location. I also proved every single stage is true by research. Foundation link is only containing 7 of the stages, which is also an old non-updated page. This source is better, and fully trustable for staging info. The link contains verifiable info and I verified it. Rachels Words is not a commercial site, just a pro-Rachel organisation with full endorsement of Rachel Corrie Foundation. As a first party they are reliable enough to mention verifiable details. Kasaalan (talk) 18:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

An example is only an example. And an example is only as good as the listener's willingness to understand. You refuse to understand, so this is what it comes down to: "In the same way, rachelswords.org is an unduly self-serving source for how many venues the play is performed in, because their express stated purpose is to get it performed in as many venues as possible."

Combined with "Self-published sources may be used... so long as... 2. it is not unduly self-serving," that means rachelswords.org can not be used. "Unduly self-serving" is completely separate from any questions about "truth" or "honesty." "Unduly self-serving" only means they have a serious conflict of interest. arimareiji (talk) 23:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Verified My Name is Rachel Corrie Staging Performances

I will put a link for each verified staging listed under rachelswords.org.

THEATER PRODUCTIONS TO DATE

• Royal Court Theatre, London, England Premiered April 4, 2005 through April 30, 2005 Ran again October 11-29, 2005[38]

• Playhouse Theatre, London, England March 29 - May 7, 2006 thisistheatre.comTheathre Journal[39][40]

• Minetta Lane Theatre, New York, New York October 15 - December 17, 2006

• Orpheum Theatre, Madison, Wisconsin March 7, 8, 14, 15, 2007

• Seattle Repertory Theatre, Seattle, Washington March 15, 2007 - May 6, 2007New Repertory Theatre (With a weekend of performances at Evergreen State College in Olympia, Washington)

• Contemporary American Theater Festival, Shepherdstown, Virginia July 6 - July 29, 2007Play Photographs Washington PostThe Montserrat Review[41]

• The Kitchen & Roundhouse Theatre, Silver Spring, Maryland July 21, 2007 Personal Blog of The Actress

• Synchronicity Performance Group, Atlanta, Georgia September 7 - October 7, 2007 [42]guardian

• Countdown to Zero, Denver, Colorado Denver: September 28 - November 17, 2007, Lincoln, Nebraska: January 25, 2008 Omaha, Nebraska: January 26, 2008 Des Moines, IA: January 27, 2008 (2 shows) Albuquerque, New Mexico: February 16 & 17, 2008 Saturday, April 12 : Estherville, IA Sunday, April 13 : Lincoln, NE Monday, April 14 : AM - Lincoln High School, NE Monday, April 14 : PM - Omaha, NE Tuesday, April 15 : Cedar Falls, IA Thursday, April 17 : Columbia, MO Sunday, April 20 : Bridgeiew, IL Tuesday, April 22 : Fort Wayne, IN Thursday, April 24 : Goshen, IN Friday, April 25 : Tiffin, OH Sunday, April 27 : Columbus, OH Saturday, May 3 : Las Vegas, NV

• Teatro La Plaza, Lima, Peru Ran until 31st October 2007; plans to tour until summer ‘08 [43]

• Van Duzer Theatre, Humboldt State University, Arcata, California October 18-27, 2007

• Fournos Theatre, Athens, Greece Production opened on 12th October 2007

• Nord Nederlands Toneel, Netherlands Production opened 11th October 2007

• Organic Theater Company, Atlanta, Georgia October 4 - November 4, 2007[44]

• Gothenberg City Theatre, Sweden Production opened on 9th November 2007Photographs

• Sage Theatre, Calgary, Canada November 15-24, 2007

• Stockholm City Theatre, Sweden Production opened on 8th December 2007 Interview with Actress

• Teesri Duniya Theatre, Montreal, Canada December 2-22, 2007

• Neworld Theatre, Vancouver, Canada January 23 - February 9, 2008

• Viterbo University Theatre Department, Lacrosse, Wisconsin Jan 31- Feb 2, 2008

• Theatre Yes, Edmonton, Alabama March 28 - April 12, 2008

• Belvoir St Theatre, Sydney, Australia Production opened 14th May 2008

• Theatre Panik, Toronto, Canada May 29 - June 22, 2008

• Radio broadcast by Deutschlandradio, Germany August 4, 2008

• New Repertory Theatre, Watertown, Massachusetts March 8-30, 2008

• Subversive Theatre, Buffalo, New York March 7-29, 2008

General Links

The Boston Globe Who's afraid of 'Rachel Corrie'

About the play based on Rachel’s writing

List of Some Stages Performed

• Production History:

• Royal Court Theatre London April 2005*
• New York Theatre Workshop NYC Mar 2006 - CANCELLED
• West End’s Playhouse Theatre London Mar - May 2006
• Galway Arts Festival/Edinburgh Fringe Ireland Jul - Aug 2006
• Minetta Lane Theatre/Royal Court NYC Oct 2006
• CanStage Theatre Toronto 2007/08 Season
• Seattle Repertory Theatre Seattle Mar - May 2007
• Kitchen & Roundhouse Theatre Silverspring, MD Jul 21, 2007 – 1 night production
• Contemporary American Theater Festival West Virginia Jul 6 - Jul 29, 2007
• Oregon Stage Works Ashland, OR Aug 2007
• Cyranos Theatre Anchorage, AK August 22, 2007 – staged reading
• Mosaic Theatre Plantation, FL Aug 2007 - CANCELLED
• Synchronicity Performance Group Atlanta, GA Sep 2007
• Watertown New Rep Watertown, MA Mar 2008

Will be edited in detail. With absolutely no reason to doubt staging info has been objected by reliability card. So we can try verifying one by one. Kasaalan (talk) 13:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

You've yet even to explain, Kasaalan, that this rather trivial detail needs to be in this bloated article. Shouldn't it be included at the article on the play? If the reader is interested in the play, he can easily click across. Please consider that Arimareiji and I are both experienced editors, with some knowledge of what should and should not be in an article.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

If you are an experienced editor try acting like one and don't object reliable info as unreliable. The source is reliable and verifiable, if you object the source you should first come with a sound argument or proof. Yet I will take my time proving each stage one by one. I will also post this proof on My Name is Rachel Corrie article, since it lacks the necessary info. After the research, we may clearly say in how many countries, in how many languages and on how many different stages the play has been performed. Which is a good and universal indication on notability, either you are aware or not, for a play. Kasaalan (talk) 14:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and it may do well in the article on the play though it is still (as has been pointed out by two editors) not a reliable source under WP policies. Some non reliable sources contain truthful information. However, that does not mean we can use them. However, the number and places of performance have little to do with Rachel Corrie herself, it is like saying how many times A Man for All Seasons has been performed and where in the article on Thomas More.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

You say so but when we read Tomas More article we even read more detail under the artistic tributes section.

"In 1966, the play was made into the successful film A Man for All Seasons directed by Fred Zinnemann, adapted for the screen by the playwright himself, and starring Paul Scofield in an Oscar-winning performance. The film won the Academy Award for Best Picture for that year. In 1988, Charlton Heston starred and directed in a made-for-television remake of the film."

"He is also the focus of the Al Stewart song A Man For All Seasons from the 1978 album Time Passages, and of the Far song Sir, featured on the limited editions and 2008 re-release of their 1994 album Quick."

So he won an Oscar, a notability indication, why do you think it mentioned in the article. And there exist a pretty much detailed info, even for a single song. In all novel titles it is better to mention how much the book sell, or how many different languages it is translated. Kasaalan (talk) 15:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Great, if someone involved in MNiRC wins an Oscar for it, I will have absolutely no objection to it being included. But where does it say how many countries the AMFAS has been produced in in the article? Musta missed it.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Added all necessary links. If you will object to any of them you can check the references, most of the links are theaters own pages, some theatres don't have history of the plays performed so I used outside links. Kasaalan (talk) 16:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I admire your hard work, but the point is not germane. Just because there is a truthful fact on the website does not mean it is a reliable source.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The source is reliable for staging info. I am not trying to add rachelsword as a reference for any argument. Site lists facts. I proved the facts by link checking. Now if anyone will object the integrity of the staging info, he should check the links and tell me what doubts he still has. First party sources can be used for details about their involvement, if they are not belied by other sources. If someone says he is 45 year old, you don't object unless you have some reason to not believe him. Still some international staging is missing I will try adding them too. Kasaalan (talk) 16:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Please see the bottom of "Time Wasting Undo Attitude" section; respond here if you'd prefer. That might be a good idea, to keep the thread all in one place. I'll look for your response in both places. arimareiji (talk) 17:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Tom Gross

Wehwalt, congratulations - you get to be the official spokesperson for Tom Gross. I know you're thrilled. (Not.)
But seriously, I'm hoping you can help me with regard to his paragraph in "Artistic tributes."

1. I can't find a RS for an article of that name in The Spectator. "Dead Jews Aren't News", however, was published on the same day he says "The Forgotten Rachels" was published. He may (understandably) wish he had named it "The Forgotten Rachels," but that's not the name it was published under.
2. When I first started looking into this, I believed that "tell[ing] the stories" of the other Rachels made a good argument for its tangential inclusion in "Artistic tributes." But after reading the article, I don't believe that's a fair characterization. It's a political diatribe that barely mentions the six Rachels other than to use them for example. It would belong under My Name is Rachel Corrie as criticism, but I don't believe it belongs here.
   

Kasaalan - I know you have very strong feelings about Tom Gross, but can you hold off until Wehwalt has a chance to respond? You don't need to convince me for its removal, I'm already leaning that way. If he wants to bring up evidence for its inclusion, he should be allowed to. (struck as moot) arimareiji (talk) 02:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Might be better utilized as an EL. I must admit I never read it, and I am reasonably certain I never added it to the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

If you read it, you might change your mind about it even being usable for an EL. The link's above if you want to do so, or you could be a trusting soul and take my characterization that it's naught but a rant - I don't mind either way. Thank you for the help, and if you decide on the latter could you mark this one resolved? If you decide on the former and think it should be included as an EL, let me know here. arimareiji (talk) 03:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Then why are the first, second, and fourth ELs NOT just "rants", the difference being they take a pro Corrie perspective?--Wehwalt (talk) 03:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

My mistake, I was thinking of the See Also's when I said that. Fair enough. arimareiji (talk) 03:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

It's added. arimareiji (talk) 03:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Please keep descriptions neutral - otherwise, we might as well say it "contrasts Rachel Corrie's brutal murder at the hands of the vicious Israeli military to the terrorist murders of six Jewish Rachels by bloodthirsty Palestinians." You know, to keep it "in balance." (/sarcasm) arimareiji (talk) 04:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Frankly, Arimareiji, I'd be cooler with your arrangement on the ELs if you hadn't brought it in AFTER I objected to all the ones on one side of the matter being put at the bottom, to which you gathered the Gross article. I'm not totally happy with what you've put in there which seems to stack the deck in favor of pro-Corrie websites, since naturally a website "rachelcorrie" will inevitably come first. I also wasn't a big fan of the way you recharacterized the articles. I'm sure we can tell the readers a bit more about the other six Rachels other than the fact they are dead. This article is not improving in balance.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

My edit was only after your rearrange because I hit an edit conflict. Which, incidentally, cost me some time to re-do. XP

As far as websites going first, it was based on a website having more material than an article. No hidden agenda. arimareiji (talk) 04:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

When you describe pieces as "criticizing" Corrie or her parents, that is rather questionable. As is taking out (not even rephrasing) the other Rachels thing. For all the reader knows, the other six Rachels lived in Monsey or Brooklyn and died peacefully in 1959.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

"Killed in the same conflict" is more neutral, though it borders on ambiguity. I had thought the title spoke for itself in this context. I didn't use "The Forgotten Rachels" because that's not how it was titled when it ran. arimareiji (talk) 05:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm referring to the characterization, not the title. Though I suspect, trolling through the net, that the piece had different titles depending on where it was used.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The Tom Gross piece is an unpleasant polemic, adding little to the case and nothing to the article. Whatever he suspects about the facts, it is deliberately offensive to claim that the death "was almost certainly an accident". And the link he's set out to create is well-poisoning, even if he had been making a significant point. PR^talk 16:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

(reply to Wehwalt) I did the same trolling when I was trying to locate it, and I'd dare say the Spectator is the authoritative source on what the title was when they published it. Tom Gross isn't republishing it himself under a different title, he's claiming that it had that title when it was published in the Spectator. There are multiple references to his site on the web, but those are derivative claims and not unique publications.

As far as the characterization, can you be more specific? I believe it's accurate to say that he's contrasting how their deaths were treated by the media, though it would be more accurate to say that he mentions them in passing while characterizing and criticizing "the cult of Rachel Corrie." It's not accurate to say that he's "telling their stories" - if you read the article (you've said that you haven't), you'll see what I mean. arimareiji (talk) 16:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I read it last night after you brought it to my attention. No, he is not telling their stories, he is drawing the contrast between the megareported Rachel and the six Rachels whose trees fell (or, more accurately, were cut down) in the forest. It is well worth keeping.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, if the ELs themselves are worth keeping at all. I'm beginning to doubt that; see below. What confuses me is: What aspect of "the other Rachels" was erroneously taken out? arimareiji (talk) 17:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

My concern was with your characterization of the article, see my other posts on the subject.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I have, and I'm confused. Are you talking about your previous concern that the phrasing should be "killed by Palestinians"? arimareiji (talk) 18:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Did someone else kill them and I didn't get the memo?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't aware Gross asserted that; I'll have to go back and reread. arimareiji (talk) 03:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Still don't see that assertion except for one Rachel, but "Jewish victims of the Intifada" is sourceable. That is, if we don't scrap the descriptions altogether, which needs more sleeping on. arimareiji (talk) 03:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

(modified outdent)Let's play Jeopardy! Who killed them for 200? Six Israeli Rachels died in the Intifada. Anyone want to buzz in and say who kills Israelis in the Intifada? One guess.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

What you're saying is logical, but it's not asserted. The trouble with reasonable conclusions rather than sourced ones is that they're generally correct but not necessarily specifically correct. For example, "This woman was killed by an IDF bulldozer in the Gaza strip and named a shaheed/martyr, what is her nationality?" (Incidentally, we both fail at composing Jeopardy "answers.") I trust your logic more than I do many allegedly-reliable sources, but them's the rules. arimareiji (talk) 04:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Tom Gross is obviously an extremely partisan source, worked notably for pro-Israeli-partisan sources like NGO_Monitor[45], yet the article points out Israeli victims of the conflict, therefore might be keep. Yet since he is a partisan source he doesn't mention civillian Palestine casualties which is ten times bigger than Israeli civillian casualties after 2002. The UN report on Civillian Casualties for both sides are very clear, as well as demolished houses. For the link you can double link to both the spectator and Tom Gross site, leave each link in its own title since he obviously changed the title later and added some additional pictures etc. Yet it should also be noted that he added an introductory note which is not published on Observer under References Section. Kasaalan (talk) 17:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Partisanship is not a problem - the problem is falsification ("almost certainly an accident") and hatred ("cult of Rachel Corrie"). We know there are many victims of crime - that doesn't (or shouldn't) impact our concern (or lack thereof) for this case. PR^talk 18:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Well about partisanship is not an issue if I can verify the info, but Gush-Shalom mentioned as unreliable for being partisan for the translation of Moshe Nissim interview. By the way found a source for the The forgotten Rachels titlefull text, which belongs to Jerusalem Post abstract and not to the Spectator. Kasaalan (talk) 18:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

There is no reason I know of to think that Gush-Shalom is unreliable (certainly not for a translation that is widely circulated!). If material for them is a significant part of any memorial to Rachel, then we should have a flavour of it (and we'd do that even if there were question marks hanging over it). PR^talk 18:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

(reply to Kasaalan) Nice work. The first link actually sources to the IFCJ, which is a less reliable source than the Jerusalem Post, but your JP link is enough to establish that it was published. And it corroborates the fact that Gross changed the title after (2005) the Spectator article (2004), then misattributed it to the Spectator. arimareiji (talk) 23:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

(reply to PR) "There is no reason" to think that a blatantly partisan source has a conflict of interest in providing an accurate translation? When no one "widely circulate[s]" it and corroborates its validity except partisan sources on the same side? When that translation is a scathing indictment of the other side? You have very nonselective (or perhaps very selective) criteria for what a reliable source is. arimareiji (talk) 23:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The original Hebrew is here - we'd instantly know if there'd been falsification. There is no reason to doubt the good-faith of Gush Shalom (unlike, say, CAMERA or the MFA). Lengthy excerpts of the Gush Shalom translation appeared (so I'm told) in Tanya Reinhart's book, Israel/Palestine: How to End the War of 1948 (Seven Stories Press, 2002). Reinhart was a columnist for Yediot Aharonot as well as a professional linguist - it's ludicrous to suggest that she'd publish an erroneous translation. Let me repeat what I said, partisanship is not an issue since most sources suffer from it to one degree or another. What's at issue is the faults identified in eg the works of David Irving - falsification and hatred. Gush-Shalom doesn't suffer from either (at least, I've never seen any indication of it). Editors of the project should stick to sources like that and run a mile from sources such as Tom Gross, who, from just one glance, appears to suffer from both. I tend to agree with what you were struggling towards at the beginning of this section, editors who think Tom Gross is suitable should not be editing this article. Fortunately, Wehwalt is not in fact one of these editors. PR^talk 20:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Please don't put words in my mouth that are a mile away from what I actually said. It's not good faith by any stretch. What I was "struggling towards at the beginning of this section" was finding out if there was any rationale for keeping Gross in "Artistic Tributes"; I believed there wasn't. Wehwalt averred that (at the time) he hadn't read it, and suggested it as an EL instead. I agree. That's a far cry from sarcastically insinuating that Wehwalt should not be allowed to edit this article. Playing word games, such as not-quite-calling those who disagree with you racist liars, is not a protective mask for gross incivility.

"The original Hebrew is here - we'd instantly know if there has been falsification." Perhaps true for those who can read Hebrew; I am not among them. However, the cautions against POV sources for controversial assertions do not require proof of falsification before excluding them. arimareiji (talk) 21:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry to misunderstand what you were saying, but the point I'm making is of the utmost importance. Gush-Shalom comes across as a good-faith organisation. It's not linked (that I'm aware of) to falsification or hatred. Whereas Tom Gross is linked (judging by this article) to both. We should not encourage anyone to think his opinions provide anything useful. I don't know what you mean about POV sources in this case (or indeed, any case) since Kurdi Bear's actions were not "controversial". As Btselem tells us: Among the units that received citations was "the Central Command’s engineering division, whose soldiers include the operators of the D-9 bulldozers in the Jenin refugee camp, for performing under fire with dedication and tenacity." Y-net, June 4, 2002 PR^talk 17:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Good work for finding original Hebrew one PR. So Gush-Shalom provided original Hebrew text as well as their translation, an important indication for good faith of Gush Shalom. So we found both Hebrew original and English translation of Gush-Shalom, proved Munger used Gush-Shalom translation, if we can find an online version over Yediot Aharonot and check the integrity of the translation the source will completely be verified. Kasaalan (talk) 15:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Well if you include Gush-Shalom an Isareli HR organisation into POV, you might include most of Israeli newspapers into same category.

Another translation by btselem.org again an Israeli peace organisation. Operation Defensive Shield

• Moshe Nissim, driver of a D-9 bulldozer, who served on reserve duty in the Jenin refugee camp:

• Difficult? What do you mean, difficult? You must be kidding. I wanted to obliterate everything. I begged the officers to let me demolish it all from top to bottom. That we should level everything … For three days all I did was destroy. The whole area.I would knock down every house they fired from. To do that, I would demolish several other houses. They called out on a bullhorn to warn the residents before I came. But I didn’t give anybody a chance. I didn’t wait. I didn’t strike once and wait for them to leave. I would smash the house really hard so that it would collapse as quickly as possible. I wanted to work as fast as possible so that I could get to the other houses. To get a lot done. Maybe others were restrained. Or they say they were restrained. Nonsense. Anybody who was there and saw our soldiers in the houses would understand that they were in a death trap. I was thinking how to save them. I knocked down everything, but I didn’t demolish just for the sake of it. Everything was according to the orders I received. Lots of people were inside the houses when we began the demolition. They would leave their houses when we came in. I did not see anybody die under the shovel of the D-9, and I didn’t see any house crash down on a living person. If there were, though, that wouldn’t have bothered me one bit. I am sure that people died in these houses, but it was hard to see. There was lots of dust and we worked a lot at night. I got a real kick out of every house that was demolished, because I knew that dying means nothing to them, while the loss of their house means more to them. You demolish a house and you destroy forty or fifty people for generations. If one thing does bother me about all this, it is that we didn’t wipe out the whole camp.

• Zadok Yehezkeli, “I Made a Soccer Field in the Middle of the Camp,”Yediot Aharonot, May 31, 2002

• “Among the units that received citations was… the Central Command’s engineering division, whose soldiers include the operators of the D-9 bulldozers in the Jenin refugee camp, for performing under fire with dedication and tenacity.”Y-net, June 4, 2002

Also quoted in Steven B. Kramer's Thesis as a source. Kasaalan (talk) 16:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Article by Tamir Sorek, assistant professor of sociology and Israel studies at the Universily of Florida Middle East Report Winter 2007

It is not a coincidence thatMoshe Nissim, the D-9 operator who bulldozed hundreds ofhouses in the Jenin refugee camp in April 2002, planted a largeflag of Beitar Jerusalem atop his bulldozer before beginning his"work." In a newspaper interview, this devout Beitar fan said:"There were many people in the houses we started to destroy....I did not see a house fall on a live person. But if there was sucha case, I don't give a damn. I'm sure that people died in thesehouses, but it was hard to see.... I made them a stadium in themiddle of the camp."4

Yediot Aharonot May 31, 2002

Trying to locate sources referenced Moshe Nissim interview. Kasaalan (talk) 16:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

ELs

Wehwalt, which option do you prefer in listing External Links?

1. No characterization at all, just the link
2. Link, plus characterization if the name of the link doesn't make it obvious
3. Link, plus characterization regardless

My belief was that the second option was the best choice. Would you prefer the first option? The third option seems a recipe for disaster, and from the results of this brief attempt I'd say the second seems ill-starred as well. For that matter, I'm about ready to chuck the section down a well rather than deal with the POV "balance" war that I sense on the horizon. arimareiji (talk) 17:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd rather go to 1. Let the articles speak for themselves. The problem was, that as of last night, of the nine visible EL's, seven took similar points of view. You excluded one from the article and added it as the tenth EL, at the bottom; the first seven all had the same POV. I rearranged them so the minority point of view had spots 2,3, and 5, you then saw fit to do your own rearranging, in a way I felt was unhelpful, since it guaranteed that Corrie's POV would be presented first, and it had the effect of relegating two of the minority points of view further down the stack. I made my concerns known to you. I would be OK with leaving rachelcorrie.org first, suggest having two from the minority point of view as 2 and 3, and then as 6 and 7 (if needed), and if we ever get that far, as 10 and 11.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Incidently, if you did chuck it down a well, you'd have me slamming the cover home and padlocking it. For the record, about a year ago I got rid of about forty ELs and Further Reading links. There wasn't any opposition worth mentioning.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I've said this twice already, but I didn't "see fit to do my own re-arranging" for some nefarious purpose of denying you top spots or to "guarantee that Corrie's POV would be presented first" - you keep insinuating it, and it's not appreciated. In response to your legitimate concern about order, I set about re-ordering them alphabetically and by weight rather than the "first come first serve" structure. I ran into your edit conflict, and had to re-do it. By the time I was finished, you had made a nonsystematic rearrangement. I thought it was better to avoid future fights over "Who's On First" by using a systematic arrangement. I mistakenly thought that the result, #2 in the first group (of 4) and #2/3 of the second group (of 6), would be acceptable to you and that you would similarly prefer to avoid future fights. I had no idea you would be so violently opposed, especially since the result did in fact front-weight your POV although less drastically (#2, #5, #6 of 10). arimareiji (talk) 18:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Sleep calls. arimareiji (talk) 18:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Sleep well. But if I've gone to the trouble of rearranging, some sort of heads up or discussion would have been nice. And let's lose the "violently", OK? I think we've done quite well to bang out most of this on talk page, though things have obviously gotten heated, which I regret.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Let Me Stand Alone

The Book should be mentioned in brief, but where it should be referenced, under Artistic Tributes or elsewhere.

• Let Me Stand Alone Now available in the US and UK. Book Website: www.letmestandalone.com

• Book publisher W.W. Norton & Company has published the complete journals of Rachel Corrie with an introduction and annotations by the Corrie family.

• Let Me Stand Alone reveals Corrie’s striking gifts as a poet and writer while telling her story in her own words, from her earliest reflections to her final e-mails. ... Her writing reverberates with conviction and echoes her long-held belief in the oneness of humanity: “We have got to understand that they dream our dreams, and we dream theirs.”

• January 2008 | hardcover | ISBN 978-0-393-06571-8 | 5 1/2″ x 8 1/4″ | 256 pages | Memoir[46]

The News and Reviews[47] about the book and play. Kasaalan (talk) 16:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The book seems to be published by a reputable publisher and in fact is scheduled for a paperback release shortly. I suggest, that since the family did the introduction, that we include it in the parents' activities section. I'm not sure it is worth a subsection to itself, perhaps add to the lead paragraph in the section. "In addition, the Corries and other family members have edited and released excerpts from Rachel Corrie's writings in book form, entitled Let Me Stand Alone, which was released in 2008."--Wehwalt (talk) 17:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)