Jump to content

Talk:Rachel Corrie

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 69.209.204.242 (talk) at 22:56, 7 June 2010 (→I want to edit this article but they won't let me why fix it!: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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  • Articles may not contain any unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, analyses, or ideas.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


http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rachel_Corrie&oldid=316302644 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rachel_Corrie&diff=prev&oldid=316302644

Did you actually click on blindspot? Please do. This illustrates the point: according to WP:LINKING, wikilinks are supposed to be used when the linked-to articles can "aid navigation and understanding", plus "it is generally inappropriate to link terms whose meaning can be understood by most readers of the English Wikipedia, including plain English words, the names of major geographic features and locations, religions, languages, common professions, ...". Items to be wikilinked should be checked individually. I agree with you on armoured personnel carrier and especially armoured bulldozer, but mental disorder, writer, artist, flautist, and some others don't make it. Zerotalk 12:39, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
blindspot is wrong correct one is Blind spot (vision) Kasaalan (talk) 17:57, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I made a list of necessary wikilinks, anybody may "know" what sniper is more or less, on the other hand they don't know what a sniper is unless they read about it. They might know what "sit-in" is yet they don't know Sit-in demonstrations' importance in civil rights movements if they don't read about it. Wikilink removal should be reverted, and some overlinked ones may be deleted, yet I won't bother to rewikilink all entries one by one. Kasaalan (talk) 14:23, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also "articles about geographic places that are likely to be unfamiliar to readers or that in the context may be confused with places that have a similar or identical name." so Jerusalem should be linked or any other city in Palestine Israel. Kasaalan (talk) 14:58, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm no fan of overlinking, but I would recommend keeping about 80% of the listed Wikilinks. Jclemens (talk) 20:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As for Mike's Place, why do we need to discuss it again? Archive #12 has a long discussion and there is more above. Does anyone have anything new to add? Did anyone find a reliable source which argues that the bombing tells us something about Rachel Corrie, so that we have a basis for discussing relevance and notability? Actually Allenby Bridge played a greater role in the bombing than Corrie did; should that article mention it? Zerotalk 12:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All I am saying mike's place is another discussion than wikilinks, yet since edit both contains section removal and wikilink removal we should discuss both separately. Kasaalan (talk) 14:23, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only link between the two British suicide bombers and Corrie appears to be that they visited her memorial before carrying out their attack. This seems to be a clumsy attempt at - posthumous - guilt by association. Unless someone can provide a referenced quote showing they were motivated by her killing, asserting such a claim is OR and cannot be inserted.Haldraper (talk) 17:01, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes connection is distant, and addition was a WP:COATRACK at first. I neutralized it the best way I can now it may be used or not. I leave for other editors to decide it. On the other hand, presenting controversial cases in neutral way is useful for information purposes. If others argue it isn't I respect their opinion. Kasaalan (talk) 17:53, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I undid the removal of wikilinks per discussion. You may remove unnecessary wikilinks manually if you feel so. I hid the mike's suicide bombing section, according to the result of debate you may delete or unhide the section. I revised, neutralised and expanded Mike's Place suicide bombing article with additons and details, including ISM response. Kasaalan (talk) 15:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ex post facto

Ex post facto literally means subsequently ex post facto law is a law term, though wikipedia has a redirect for ex post facto. Kasaalan (talk) 00:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not disagreeing, just making an explanatory comment: Considering that ex post facto is Latin and not used connotatively in English, its meaning is tied to the denotative law term.
If you're a Latin speaker, it means "from (something which occurred) after the action", but to English speakers it refers to a law which is meant to retroactively apply to an action that occurred before the law was passed. For example: 1) I want to punish JohnDoe because he called me an IDF POV pusher last week; 2) I write a law that says it's illegal to have ever called someone an IDF POV pusher; 3) I then use this law to put JohnDoe in jail. This would be an ex post facto law. 76.22.25.102 (talk) 14:18, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I don't know that ex post facto adds anything to the article in this context. Can it be rephrased in English? Jclemens (talk) 19:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What is the problem? The article currently states "The details of the events surrounding Corrie's death are still disputed." Doesn't that give all the information we need in the lead? Ucucha 19:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind, I thought someone was arguing that it be readded. Jclemens (talk) 19:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well just made an explanation, since deleting it with wrong argument is not nice. I don't advise using it in lead unless we have a separate ex post facto page. Even if we have an article, I possibly won't support adding it. Kasaalan (talk) 22:53, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article?

By the way the article might be a Good Article as I came by lots of less detailed articles become GA. What is your opinion about it. Kasaalan (talk) 22:56, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Made this into its own section. I think that nominating politically-sensitive articles for GA can be a contentious and frustrating undertaking. That doesn't mean "don't do it" but rather to be prepared for people with an agenda to "contribute" to the process. Jclemens (talk) 01:59, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pay-outs for people murdered by Israel

Israel was forced to pay out up $2 million for each of two other observers/film-makers killed by Israeli forces in Gaza around this time, James Miller and Tom Hurndall. Surely worth a mention in the article. Perhaps it has to be kept locked to keep information like this out. 80.40.225.228 (talk) 14:51, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uhm, you've certainly confirmed the wisdom of locking out ips here, ip. The simple reason that isn't mentioned here, assuming it's all true and verifiable (not saying it isn't, just don't know) is that it's not about Rachel Corrie. Only stuff about Corrie goes in the Corrie article. Those other people, the circumstances of their death and its aftermath, may deserve coverage elsewhere, but not here. Hope that helps. Bali ultimate (talk) 14:56, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They might be mentioned here briefly if source is reliable. The cases and time period are very similar, western civillians killed by Israel army, one way or another. BBC documentary depicting the same issue. "2005, BBC produced a 60 minute documentary entitled When Killing is Easy aka Shooting the Messenger, Why are foreigners suddenly under fire in Israel?, described as "a meticulous examination of" shooting to death of James Miller, ... by Israeli soldiers in May 2003, shooting of British photography student Tom Hurndall, ... in April 2003 and death of Rachel Corrie ... in March 2003, while trying to find an answer to the question: "Were the attacks random acts of violence, or do they represent a culture of killing with impunity which is sanctioned by the higher echelons of the Israeli army?" Kasaalan (talk) 22:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
or do they represent what happens to people who actively interfere with legitimate military anti-terrorist operations during a prolonged armed conflict, regardless of whether they are "westerners" or not. Akulkis (talk) 22:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per Bali ultimate, this page is for discussing the Rachel Corrie article - not airing personal opinion (of any viewpoint). Only discussion of the merits of reliably sourced independent content should occur here. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even "legal operations" became illegal when you hurt civilians, whether they are westerner or not. For example one of the westerners, Tom Hurndall, killed while trying to protect children from heavy gunfire of Israel army. Read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Hurndall#Killing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Miller_(filmmaker)#Death http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Avery#Shooting_incident http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iain_Hook#Killing_of_Iain_Hook http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caoimhe_Butterly#Jenin_incident Kasaalan (talk) 19:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Israel had a proven record of killing foreign observers around this time, admitting and forced to compensate 3 out of 3 for the British, if you count Iain Hook on the West Bank. Israel made subsequent visitors sign an indemnity in case it murdered them. Rachel Corrie is only different because her nation doesn't investigate deaths of its citizens. Not mentioning it is like an article on Anne Frank that doesn't mention that the Nazis murdered a lot of Jews around that time. Check it out - the Holocaust is mentioned 11 times in her article (and that's before you get to the references) - which of course is just as it should be. 80.40.225.228 (talk) 13:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you will check the statistics you'll find the Palestinian terrorists killed more foreigners than the IDF. When foreign activists put themself in a warzone in a middle of a battle, it is very likely they can get hurt. Accidents and misidentifactions do occur, and since these are not deliberate killing, they are not war crimes. MathKnight 19:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--This entire section, beginning with its inflammatory and partisan title, is political opinion suitable for a forum and not a Wikipedia talk page. It should be deleted in its entirety. I would do so myself if I had more status as a Wiki editor. Lacking such credentials, I’d likely be charged with “vandalism.” I hope a highly placed Wikipedian will do so instead. Sell Israeli war bonds or start an anti-Semitic pogrom as you please: just not here!HistoryBuff14 (talk) 15:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MV Rachel Corrie

A 1200-ton cargo ship being used to run the Gaza blockade as been renamed.Geo8rge (talk) 18:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MV Rachel Corrie is one of the ships that constitute the Gaza Freedom Flotilla which is scheduled to attempt a breach of the Israeli blockade on either Sunday 30 May 2010 or Monday 31 May. Many high resolution photographs of the ship being loaded with tons of cement and other building materials in the Irish harbour are available at http://www.flickr.com/photos/freegaza/. I am not familiar enough with the Wikipedia policies regarding copyright issues to tackle the task of installing at least one such photograph on this page but I do believe that it should be done. I will attempt to contact the photographer to ask him/her to do the upload him/herself but if someone has a better idea, please go ahead. In a case like this, Time is of the essence. If I could only choose one, I think it would be this one: http://www.flickr.com/photos/freegaza/4601114419/sizes/o/. Oclupak (talk) 01:20, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Corrie picture

There is a discussion of the much-circulated photo of Ms. Corrie, without a reference or link to that photo. http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/pictures/rachel-corrie-flag-01.jpg - I'd suggest it should be added.

Styopa (talk) 13:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Not a reliable website, can't be used. Zerotalk 13:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Just found this other picture in an article about Corrie. It mentions it is a picture of Corrie moments before she was killed:

http://www.clarin.com/mundo/Ultima-imagen-corrie-minutos-excavadora_CLAIMA20100605_0019_4.jpg

Street Named After Rachael Corrie

The article states that a street would be named after Rachael Corrie and it never happened. That is untrue. A street was in fact named after her in Ramallah. Please check this link: http://palsolidarity.org/2010/03/11801/

http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=171156

Mzcastro (talk) 04:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Forgotten Rachels

http://www.tomgrossmedia.com/TheForgottenRachels.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.21.105.26 (talk) 21:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC) This is about RACHAEL CORRIE. If you would like to list others killed in Occupied Palestine, you would need to set aside a few months of your time to tally up all the Palestinian Rachaels israel killed, tortured, imprisioned, raped and humiliated. I think it would be an excellent project and would be willing to work with you on that. We can make a wiki page of all the people killed : Israelis and Palestinians. You would need a short paragraph and I would need about 20 reams of paper but we can make it happen with work! Let me know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mzcastro (talk • contribs) 05:29, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ASSUMEGOODFAITHBEPOLITE —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lurkmolsner (talk • contribs) 14:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--This is another diatribe per my above comments regarding another section. Please delete to retain some semblance of integrity for Wikipedia. This would go just as well if its author were rabidly pro-Israel.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 15:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I want to edit this article but they won't let me why fix it!

I want to add very important information to this article but i can't! FIX IT! ` 22:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rachel_Corrie&oldid=366667328"