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• Articles may not contain any unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, analyses, or ideas.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.

Where is the flag photo?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is the postmortem picture necessary?

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

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

Delete per BLP1E

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is what they do say:

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

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

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

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

I'd feel better if it said something like:

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

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

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

Synonyms for said

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

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

"Reported" should be OK.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The cited source does state it is as fact and does not attribute it to a particular person as you have done in your edit. See "Corrie, a 23-year-old native of Olympia, Washington, was crushed to death on March 16, 2003, by a military armored bulldozer clearing vegetation in a combat zone along the Gaza-Egypt border."Ankh.Morpork 11:13, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agreed, the pro-Israel trolls have also vandalized the article repeatedly.[2] JonFlaune (talk) 22:54, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clearing vegetation

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

See for example:

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

I agree with you that what the bulldozer was doing is under dispute. On the other hand, the sentence you removed didn't actually say that the bulldozer was destroying homes. It said that Corrie was trying to prevent the destruction of homes:

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

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

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

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

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

This way it doesn't say that the bulldozer was in the act of destroying a home but it does capture what the source says about her purpose for being where the bulldozer could harm her. I don't think that the court decision is a reliable source for this kind of thing, and your third source is an op-ed piece and I don't think it counts as reliable here.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:44, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

By the way, this has been discussed about a zillion times already. Can anyone find an actual consensus about it in the talk page archives?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:46, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

And now I see here: Talk:Rachel_Corrie/Archive_2#Demolition_of_homes that my proposal has already been made. Sigh...— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:48, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

It clearly needs to be in the lead section that she was protesting demolition of homes. Here is what The Guardian writes in its recent editorial: "Rachel Corrie died trying to protect a Palestinian home from demolition."[3] The vegetation nonsense/OR is irrelevant and not backed up by any reliable sources. JonFlaune (talk) 01:17, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Do you have a concrete opinion on phrasing? Are you OK with what was there before? I am, but am also OK with my above proposal.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:22, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm ok both with the original wording and your proposal above. JonFlaune (talk) 01:26, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I am not. A neutral terminology should reflect the dispute, something like "in an attempt to halt what the activists believed was an impending home demolition." Mentioning this must also be contextualized with the repeated attacks in the P corridor that led to this decision. Ankh.Morpork 16:05, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

We are talking about the lead here. The context is explored at great length in the article body. You agree that she believed that she was halting an impending home demolition because that's in your proposed sentence. It follows from that that the reason she was there was to protest home demolitions. If she had believed that she was preventing an impending invasion from Mars it would be accurate to say that she was there to protest an invasion from Mars. Even if there were no homes anywhere near where she was it would still be accurate to say that she was there to protest home demolition. It doesn't imply that there were any homes. Regarding contextualization with mention of "repeated attacks;" do you have a source that ties her being there to protest with those attacks?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:38, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Eyewitnesses

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

But it's not just the Israeli gvt that disputes this - to name a few others, the bulldozer driver and the court say this isn't true. The sentence is written in a way that a regular reader thinks it's a fact the bulldozer ran over her, because eyewitnesses from activist organizations don't lie, and it's just the government where the incident occured in that is naturally denying it... --Activism1234 03:41, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

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

What did the court do?

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

Hey Alf. I wrote that they "ruled." Another editor, JonFlaune, violated WP:CLAIM and wrote that they "claimed." I guess courts "claim" when it fits a POV, but "rule" when it fits a different POV, eh? I can't revert it, as I'm under 1RR, sorry, but I didn't put that in (see here for proof). Thanks. --Activism1234 03:24, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake in reading the diffs. JonFlaune, is there a reason to say that the court "claimed"? I've never heard this usage before ever. Either "ruled" or "found" would be appropriate.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:28, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

The reason is that that the Israeli assertion is essentially an extremist fringe POV shared by noone else, and the Israeli local district court's assertions have been condemned by everyone from the competent United Nations Special Rapporteur to a former US President to Amnesty International ("Amnesty International condemns..."). So "asserted", "claimed" or something like that are better than "ruled" (Israeli courts have no jurisdiction in the rest of the world, or Palestine for that sake). As for usage of "claimed", see e.g. [4]. JonFlaune (talk) 04:22, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, you can't just go around labelling the decisions of a democratic court as "fringe" because you disagree with a 62 page report you didn't read, and because it was condemend by "everyone" in your view (again, not true, and that's not a Wikipedia policy). I'm not happy that Casey Anthony was acquitted, but that doesn't make the court's decision "fringe" or a "claim." It makes it a "ruling." It doesn't allow you to violate WP:CLAIM because you disagree with the ruling. Write a blog post that you're upset at the ruling of a court in another country, I won't protest. But not on Wikipedia. --Activism1234 04:28, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Israel, as a country based on the policy of apartheid, is not considered a democratic country in polite society. Courts of countries like Israel or Russia or Belarus cannot be compared to courts of western democratic countries. JonFlaune (talk) 04:38, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

That's your own view. See WP:SOAP. We're not basing a contentious article off of your view which many editors and people strongly disagree with. --Activism1234 04:43, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Give the policies a rest for a bit, maybe. We're discussing the content of the article and I find his comment relevant to the discussion, even if I disagree with his use of that one word.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:49, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

@JonFlaune; That may all be true about the Israeli courts, but in the English language courts don't "claim," even if that website says they do. Even North Korean courts "rule" or "find" when we're talking about them in English. @Activism; I don't see what WP:CLAIM has to do with it and why you keep bringing it up. It's a style guideline, not a policy. It just says to be careful with the word, it doesn't say not to use the word. Sometimes the word is appropriate.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:33, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

@JonFlaune: I remember you the judicial system in Israel is an independent power (like in any other democracy) and in several cases the Supreme Court ruled against the State and the IDF.--AneCristals (talk) 05:06, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Neither Falk nor Amnesty is relevant in the lead?

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

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

So why only opinion of Falk?I think what should be in the lead is that she was killed and nature of dispute.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 05:00, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I simply don't think a judicial decision has the same importance than some pro-Palestinian dude's opinion.--AneCristals (talk) 05:03, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Shrike. As stated above, we don't need such high levels of detail and POV pushing in the lead of a contentious article. Feel free to put these views in the appropriate section of the article, but not necessary for the lead. --Activism1234 05:04, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

There is widespread international condemnation of the decision, which was mentioned in the lead and also removed in AneCristals's edit. Amnesty International, Jimmy Carter, and "some pro-Palestinian dude." How in the world is it POV pushing? The court said one thing, a UN special rapporteur, a former U.S. president, and AI condemn the decision and you all think it's POV pushing to mention it in the lead? It's being reported world-wide. WP:LEAD even says to include prominent controversies. This is a prominent controversy.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:10, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

It's POV pushing A) Look at the editor who put it in and their comments on Israel and Israeli courts, as well as thinking the opinion is "fringe" and only a "claim." Yes, refs can back up an edit - but the edit itself can be tenditious POV pushing., just like saying the court's ruling was only a "claim." B) Putting it in the lead to highlight as though the 62-page ruling is some anomaly that should be freely discounted, and not an independent ruling (notice how a lot of these comments are also puppeting the same word "impunity"). These same people consistently criticize Israel often, not exactly the most neutral trust-worthy statements for lead, and it's undue to highlight their comments in the lead. C) The article isn't called "Court case of Rachel Corrie" or "Death of Rachel Corrie." Her court case took place after her death and is but one event in this article. It's notable to be mentioned in the lead, but the reactions to this one event and one section of the article aren't. --Activism1234 05:18, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Jimmy Carter: Pro-Palestinian, financed by Saudi money, accused of antisemitism.

Amnesty International: Pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel.

Richard Falk: Anti-Zionist activist.

As far as I know, these people hated Israel before the court's decision. I tell you what... let's add the opinion of Hugo Chavez, Bashar al-Assad, King Abdullah and the President of Iran... so you can talk about "international condemnation" (although I could cite several pro-Israel activists saying exactly the opposite).--AneCristals (talk) 05:20, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

If there are source that court decision meet world wide condemnation we may put it in the lead but we shouldn't put opinion by individuals.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 05:25, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

@Activism; actually, don't look at the editor who put it in, look at the edit. There's a policy and not just a guideline on that, you know. @AneCristals; you can add all those commentators if you'd like, but using them to put "international condemnation" in would be synthesis. I wasn't proposing those words for the article. @Shrike; that seems reasonable to me. @Everyone; none of these responses seem to me to actually address why something about this shouldn't be mentioned in the lead.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:38, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I tried to counterbalanced anti-Israel opinions. If Falk and AI are in the lead, then O'Neill and HR should be included as well.--AneCristals (talk) 05:51, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

O'Neill is a blogger. He shouldn't be anywhere. His Wikipedia article should probably go to AFD. HP HR is fine with me for the body of the article, but I don't see how they compare to Jimmy Carter and Amnesty International. In any case, obviously we're not going to figure this out today.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:59, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

O'Neill maybe OK becouse WP:NEWSBLOG.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 17:09, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Primary sourcing in Israeli trial section

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

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

Harsh doesn't equal vocal

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

Ok I tried to use proper synonym--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 06:56, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

NP. Thanks for changing it, AneCristals.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 06:59, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

The second paragraphs of the lead(memorial)

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

I agree with you that this: , opening "a window on the maturation of a young woman seeking to make the world a better place."[6] doesn't belong in the lead. I think that the paragraph itself is appropriate for the lead, though. Tangentially, I think that the lead could stand to be expanded a little.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:11, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

We can mention the play and the tribute in one sentence of course --Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 17:13, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Sure. I also think that the book and the foundation are worth mentioning in the lead, though. I see your point, but I think that that paragraph mostly looks out of place because it's almost as long as the first paragraph. If there were a couple more paragraphs in the lead summarizing some other material from the article it might not seem so weird.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:16, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Better source needed tag in military investigation section

We had:

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

and now we have:

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

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

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

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

Everyone killed by the Israelis is considered a martyr

In the Memorial Events subsection we have this sentence:

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

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

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

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

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

POV pushing by Activism1234

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

I didn't remove or add anything. I reverted an edit you made which removed referenced content from articles reliable media outlets like The Telegraph, to push your POV, since those referened content didn't put her in the victim light. --Activism1234 17:11, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

You removed Amnesty International's sourced reaction because it didn't suit your POV pushing agenda as anyone can tell from your edit, you also removed peace activist (she is listed in the peace activist article), you also added, while deleting Amnesty's reaction, the reactions of vast amounts of obscure bloggers and far-right fringe groups. JonFlaune (talk) 17:14, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Just to check - we can put opinions of people who criticized the ruling, but not the opinions of those who supported the ruling from reliable media outlets like The Telegraph with attribution? Great! --Activism1234 17:19, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Images have to come from wiki commons?

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

My understanding is that there's no requirement for images to come from commons. Commons is designed to host images that are in the public domain or are licensed so that anyone can modify and distribute them. Wikipedia encourages such images but we also allow images that are available under "fair use", which cannot be uploaded to Commons. If its an article about a thing, such as a building, where its easy to get a free image, fair use images are discouraged. In an article like this, about a current event, where free images are very difficult to find, fair use images are acceptable. See: Wikipedia:Image use policy and Wikipedia:Non-free content. GabrielF (talk) 02:53, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Of course they don't. I can even see someone making a case for embedding one of those images directly in the article, ratehr than as an external link, but it's certainly legitimate to include such a box titled external links. See articles like Nabeel Rajab, where such boxes are common due to copyright claims. The edit did not have any merit. --Activism1234 03:17, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

That's what I thought too. I put them back in, then. Thanks!— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:27, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Horrible sentence in the lead

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also, I wouldn't worry about edit warring. I live in a democratic country. Wikipedia is available to anyone. If anyone wants to edit war, go ahead. Of course, should that be the decision made, there will be repercussions, as is always the case. So I wouldn't get too concerned over that. --Activism1234 05:04, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't follow. But OK.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Essentially, if someone wants to edit war, let them. An admin will take care of it and sanction them. It's not a good reason to remove stuff from the lead, if that's the only reason. Most readers aren't going to be edit warring. --Activism1234 05:32, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

No, I meant that having all those references in the lead, which doesn't actually need references, makes it look as if the sentence is the result of an edit war rather than of normal editing. Part of my objection to the sentence is that it looks like the aftermath of an edit war, not that it might attract an edit war. If *that* were a reason for taking anything out we might as well send the whole encyclopedia to AFD.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:36, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

if all the content stays, i have no problem without too many RS's (or any) in the lede, but then, we must be sure that all of those statements, "facts" and RS's get put further down as well (some are not, at the moment). Soosim (talk) 05:57, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

If they're not further down then why are they in the lead?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 06:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

IP editor statement on hiding weapons

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I see TWO alternative understandings for why that is:

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

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

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

Counterpunch and HonestReporting

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

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

1. To Shrike & AnkhMorpork: you summarised your recent revert of the lead with: "they were not talking about court decision but about military investigation". And yet the cited sources definitely state that "the Israeli court upheld the results of" precisely that "military investigation". Can you therefore explain why you think informing the reader that government officials of Rachel's country (including the US ambassador to Israel), have stated that they do not believe that the Israeli military investigation upheld by the court was "thorough, credible" or "transparent"? To maintain NPOV, don't you think we need to balance the article so that it is not giving undue preference to the Israeli court verdict as if that were the only correct viewpoint. So... if we have the Israeli court decision in the lead, what is your objection to be balancing that with info concerning the criticism of its verdict from leading figures such as Dan Shapiro (criticising it just a couple of weeks ago)[5], Amnesty Int. [6], and Jimmy Carter who called the Israeli ruling ‘unacceptable’.
2. If reliability of sources is a concern (e.g your removing Counterpunch and Honest-reporting) then shouldn't you also be removing other less "mainstream" sources? My concern is that you might be removing information because of the content, while using the source as a justification to skew the article one way. Otherwise can you exlplain why you are not also removing info sourced from other less mainstream sources such as The Jewish Daily Forward, Israel eNews, (which doesn't even appear to exist anymore and has no functional link), JewishJournal.com, etc. --Mystichumwipe (talk) 11:14, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Frontpagemag - is this a 'mainstream' source?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Point 2. The reputable cited sources definitely state that "the Israeli court upheld the results of the military investigation"[7]. "An Israeli judge has exonerated a military investigation" [8], etc. Can those who oppose having reference to this therefore explain why they do not want us to inform the reader that government officials of Rachel's country (including the US ambassador to Israel), have stated that they do not believe that the Israeli military investigation upheld by the court was "thorough, credible" or "transparent"? To maintain NPOV, don't you think we need to balance the article so that it is not giving undue preference to the Israeli court verdict as if that were the only correct viewpoint. Summary: if we have the Israeli court decision in the lead, what is your objection to be balancing that with info concerning the criticism of its verdict from leading figures such as Dan Shapiro (criticising it just a couple of weeks ago)[9], Amnesty Int. [10], and Jimmy Carter Carter who called the Israeli ruling ‘unacceptable’.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What did Yildirim say about Basayev?

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

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

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

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

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

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

ISM peace prize nomination

Regarding this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Corrie family spokesman told a news agency?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Boston Globe and review of the documentary

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

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

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

−

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

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

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

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

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

Palestine Media Watch

The article already says, "The group Palestine Media Watch published the e-mail addresses and phone number of Diamondback editors, urging readers to contact the newspaper to secure an apology," with the ref supplied as http://www.pm-watch.org/pmw/mediocrity/displayCall.asp?essayID=108, (without the spurious hyphen in pm-watch) which is a dead link. I cleaned this link up with {{cite web}} including the archiveurl and archivedate parameters. When I tried to save it, Wikipedia responded with a Spam filter notice saying, "Your edit was not saved because it contains a new external link to a site registered on Wikipedia's blacklist ... The following link has triggered a protection filter: http://www.pm-watch.org" (without the spurious hyphen).

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

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

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

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

This could be used instead PMW [11]--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 15:35, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

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

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

'peace activist' and 'weasel words'?

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

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

To Soosim. No. I'm NOT saying that. I'm asking for opinions on whether 1.) 'peace activist' can be regarded as a bona fide description or not, and for clarification as to why the term fits the category "weasel words". And I'm asking for 2.) a discussion on how to maintain the neutral POV of the article. Because I am suggesting that the bigger picture of neutrality of which point 1 is perhaps an example, is how to deal with the constant traffic of different editors who appear to wish to frame this article in a way that gives as negative appraisal as possible to Rachel and her actions. This ranges from the negative vandalism [12], [13], to the including of false information with non-existent links[14], to including unreliable quotes which spin the article using biased and non-neutral sources, (e.g. Alan Dershowitz's unverifiable alleged quote from 'Frontpage') [15], etc.,to more subtle but non-neutral negative slanting.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

read purssel's testimony as an eyewitness - http://electronicintifada.net/content/four-eyewitnesses-describe-murder-rachel-corrie/4460 - seems that they were playing a dangerous, life-threatening game of 'cat and mouse'. "peaceful" conjures up the image of sitting on a sidewalk singing anti-war songs, or standing outside of the area with protest signs, but certainly not running into a field in a war zone with military equipment being operated.... Soosim (talk) 08:55, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

National review quote

The quote is this:

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

And the MLA style citation is this:

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

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

The lead needs to explain why she was in Rafah

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

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

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