Talk:Rachel Corrie

Talk:Rachel Corrie/Archive 1 Talk:Rachel Corrie/Archive 2

NPOV

There is a video footage which shows Rachel Standing, speaking into a loud speaker, asking the bulldozer to stop. If he could not 'see her', he could obviously hear her. Yet he proceeded. She was NOT sitting in the video footage. She was evidently standing, and consequently struck. It is actually laughable that your Zionist contributors do not even question this yet jump to protect the IDF's brutal actions blindly. It is sad too. Please refer to website for details: http://www.rachelcorrie.org/memorials.htm -Z A

I want you to be in the cockpit of one of those gigantic D-9 bulldozers and try to hear somone outside the thick, bullet-proof, glass encasing when you have the noisy motor plus the shovel and earth being moved about. He definitely couldnt see her, I also doubt he could hear her. -user:Eliram

If the operator of a bulldozer cannot see what is directly in front of the blade, correct operation of the bulldozer is impossible. Nobody would ever build a bulldozer that way. Therefore the claim he couldn't see her when she was in front of the blade is false. However, it is plausible that he couldn't see her after she fell down. --Zero 05:05, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

The edit wars seem to have finally settled into a nicely NPOV article. Is it time to remove the NPOV tag?

As a long time lurker on this page, why not take off the NPOV notice? --Mrfixter 01:49, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't have any objection for that. A lot of work invensted here by many, and the result turned out quite well. MathKnight 20:59, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that the page still relies extensively on just one account of the incident. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:21, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, that's simply not a good reason to retain a dispute tag. Most of our articles could benefit from incorporating more sources -- hence the "wiki way" of always encouraging further additions. Are there specific areas where you feel the article is not NPOV? If so, please explain so they can be worked on. If not, the tag should go. RadicalSubversiv E 01:57, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Aside from my SlimVirgin's comments below, please read through the Talk: page here to understand the full range of issues different people have with the current version of this article. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:39, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The last comments before this discussion are almost a month old -- a lot of work has been done on the article in the interim. If you want to preserve a disputed tag for months at a time on an article that's undergoing significant change, I don't think it's unreasonable that you be asked to occassionally state your current objections, as SlimVirgin has done below, rendering this whole discussion somewhat academic. (I'm not sure I agree with them, but that's a separate matter.) RadicalSubversiv E 17:51, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

While the comments were old, none of the work done on the article addressed the issues presented. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:52, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I also think NPOV tag should go. Clearly, both sides have been handled. Really, when will some people stop insisting it is NPOV? Wk muriithi

I feel the article is POV, and I'd like to try a rewrite when I have some time. It's been a couple of weeks since I looked at it, but I've laid out some of the issues above. Basically, parts of the article read like an ISM press release. I don't like the bulleted list of activities she engaged in, because it's irrelevant; because there's no way of verifying any of it; and because the bulleted style looks like a press release. The only things about her that are relevant before her death are (a) she was an ISM activist; (b) she travelled to Gaza to engage in demonstrations/protests; (c) some of those protests involved acting as a human shield to prevent what she thought might be bulldozing of houses; and then (d) what happened that day. I also feel the witness statements should be presented in a more analytic manner, by discussing what each of them says about each issue, because they do contradict each other, rather than relying on Smith for the bulk of the description. That's a big job though, which is part of the reason I've delayed tackling it. I think we go overboard with photographs of her, and that we say too much about memorials. Our job is not to contribute to making her a hero or to denigrating her, but simply to describe the circumstances surrounding her death. SlimVirgin 02:32, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

In line with the above, I slightly reduced the memorial section and reduced the photo to fit the section; removed the photo from the references section as it wasn't serving to illustrate any point; and removed one of the photos in the section about her death, as there were two, both taken at roughly the same time by the looks of it, just from different angles. SlimVirgin 00:52, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

I've also changed that Baird introduced a bill, because it was a resolution, and I've linked to a proper source instead of the article that was there. I also removed: "Commenting on the report, Richard LeBaron, the U.S. deputy chief of mission in Tel Aviv, said that 'there are several inconsistencies worthy of note.' [1]" The article linked to was written by a family member and I wasn't able to find independent evidence of LeBaron having said this. The only non-family sources I could find were Wikipedia mirror sites. If someone can find confirmation that he said this, by all means reinsert it. SlimVirgin 07:33, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

I've merged Early life and Activities in Gaza into a Background section, which covers everything up to the day of her death. I got rid of the bullet points, and shortened that section to give a general idea of what she was doing: the details are not relevant to her death. I deleted the paragraph about watching cartoons and Gummi bears also because it's irrelevant and arguably POV. I also deleted the correspondence with Danny, as it isn't relevant to her death, though I was less sure of this than the Gummi bear part, so if someone wants to argue for its inclusion, fair enough. Finally, I deleted this sentence: "She obstructed IDF demolition operations in Rafah": do we know that she actually obstructed demolitions, or did she obstruct or attempt to obstruct what she believed were demolitions? That might make a difference to how she viewed what she was doing on the day of her death, so we should find a source. SlimVirgin 09:57, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

I still don't like the remorseless focus on her death as the sole subject of the article, and the removal of all content unrelated to that issue. I feel that an encyclopedic biography should provide a broader picture than we are providing here. In particular, the current article is unhelpful to readers seeking a greater understanding of the ISM, and the activities and interests of a typical ISM member, where prior versions were more helpful. To me, the more routine aspects of ISM life are just as interesting as the circumstances of her death. I appreciate that they are unimportant to folks only interested in slagging off the other side, but I think we should consider non-partisan readers in our writing a little more.

But this isn't meant to be a biography really. Sadly, she is notable only for her death. This was also the case with Jeremiah Duggan, and I had to be careful there for the same reasons. I take your point about the details giving information about ISM, though bear in mind there is another article about them. I suppose my main concern is that she is painted as a heroic figure with no faults, perfect family, watching cartoons with children and so on. Then she comes into contact with an evil Israeli and dies. If you feel there's a need for more background, by all means add it, but it would be good if you could keep the tone and content very factual, so that there's no good versus evil implication. SlimVirgin 02:38, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

The article has lost background information on Corrie's early life and activities in Gaza, as this information is deemed not relevant to her death, and might make some readers sympathetic to Corrie. However, it has retained information (and a photo) on her flag burning protest against the Iraq war, which is likewise not relevant to her death, and might make some readers hostile to Corrie. I would prefer to err on the side of including more information - both that which might prejudice some readers towards Corrie, and that which might prejudice them against Corrie.

I wanted to remove the flag burning photograph too, and only didn't because I'd already removed others. I'd be fine with removing it. SlimVirgin 02:38, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

Corrie's parents's jobs indicate something about her social grouping. Her activities in college indicate something about her academic interests. Both should be kept, IMO.

I disagree and don't see why her social grouping matters; and knowing that she studied (as I recall) international studies doesn't tell me anything. And we don't even know what's true, because her death has become a propaganda tool, so clearly we're not going to be told if in fact she flunked all her classes or whatever. I feel bad objecting to all of this, because normally I prefer more information to less. SlimVirgin 02:38, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

Clearly, I have a bias, as do most commentators. However, you have also removed information that helps folks with the opposite bias. In particular, Corrie writing about smuggling tunnels indicates that she was aware that some houses in Rafah were being used for this purpose. Some pro-Corrie advocates have erroneously argued that she was unaware of the smuggling, and we should be clear on this. Martin

Yes, point taken. SlimVirgin 02:38, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

do we know that she actually obstructed demolitions

If I understand you, you're suggesting that all the bulldozers she obstructed may have been bulldozing fields and things, and none of them were clearing houses? That seems pretty unlikely to me, but I suppose I could trawl through her emails to demonstrate conclusively, if you genuinely think it's a possibility. Martin

I don't know how many bulldozers she had confronted, or whether she'd witnessed any demolitions, or even whether any demolitions were going on during the period she was there. Look, I don't want to be obstructive here. If you can find a way to re-add this, keeping it dry, factual, and relevant, then I'll probably be okay with it. I'd very much prefer to leave the bullet points out, and not to add any photos back or memorial information though. Let me know if that would be okay with you. SlimVirgin 02:38, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

I did find a reference in a previous page version to a house demolition she wrote about in one of her e-mails: "Corrie's death was foreshadowed by an e-mail she had sent a month earlier where she wrote "[We] stood in the path of the bulldozer and were physically pushed with the shovel backwards, taking shelter in a house. The bulldozer then proceeded on its course, demolishing one side of the house with [us] inside." That was all I was wondering about: whether she'd actually witnessed one. I hope I'm not being too difficult here, and I apologize if I am; it's just that this article has been a bit fraught. Best, SlimVirgin 05:13, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

Lawsuit

Corrie's family is suing Israel [2]. Someone might summarise. --Zero 00:13, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I suspect someone might. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:32, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am surprised the family is even suing Catipiller. I suppect they will not get far on that one. Zscout370 (talk) 01:44, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Explanation of revert (March 23)

I reverted the addition from the following reason:

1. The rewording about "potential house demolition" - the ISM claimed the IDF operation was house demolitions, and it is likely that Rachel believed that this is indeed was the operation aim. However, the IDF explicitly stated that this operation was not intended to demolish house but to clear "no man's land" against IEDs and smuggling tunnels, moreover - no house was demolished in that incident. So, the current wording "what she believe was house demolition" is NPOV and best describing the situation.
2. The following addition

   Although protests like this are certain to work in her home country, it appears Corrie was naïvely generous and bravely unwilling to protect herself. She refused to adhere to the social convention of a region which does not commonly permit nonviolent demonstrations to be heard, especially from outsiders that have been warned away from potentially fatal interference within armed conflict. This being the general atmosphere of the area, none who were involved on any side of this dispute have publicly shown remorse in relation to how their presence in the matter had contributed to her death, yet insist on pointing the finger at others including the person who died. This is no show of respect to the dead, for many parts of the world. There have been no admissions of guilt by parties in how they allowed it to happen, whilst there is excessively insensitive and irresponsible sensationalism.

   is highly POV.

MathKnight 07:48, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Not to mention original research. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:22, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

IndyMedia link has good photos

I didn't see them at any other site. --Powergrid 03:48, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It has a half dozen photos with POV commentary; doesn't add much to the article. The link you keep deleting, on the other hand, has links to dozens of articles on the subject. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:51, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Like I said the Indymedia photos you keep deleting are quite unique and deserve to be seen. The commentary is no more POV than the commentary on the site landofisrael.info that you keep returning. Is there an editing rule that says POV links are not allowed? By the way, you are violating the 3 revert rule by making the same revision repeatedly in a 24 hour period. --Powergrid 03:58, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Define "quite unique" and "deserve to be seen". 6 low quality photos with rabidly POV commentary does not make for an encyclopedic link. Your other comments are incorrect as well. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:06, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Quite unique" means that I have not seen them elsewhere. If you can find them elsewhere, let's use them. "Deserve to be seen" means that they contribute to the overall understanding of how Rachel Corrie was killed. Now you should define what you mean by "rabidly POV commentary" and what specific criteria you use to determine what you consider to be an "encyclopedic link." Your edits reflect an unhealthy subjective assessment where the rabidly POV commentary of landofisrael.info is acceptably encyclopedic but that of Indymedia.org is not. --Powergrid 04:16, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If we're going to use those photos, how about using this link instead http://www.peacewithrealism.org/corrie.htm], which has the "undoctored" version of the photos and the newspaper retractions about the misuse of the photos that gave deceptive timeline, and the false impression that the pictures were all of the same bulldozer for propaganda purposes. --MPerel^{( talk | contrib)} 04:20, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

The Indymedia site [3] has 9 photos, with at least 4 showing Rachel on the day she was killed. Your suggested site has only a couple of those photos and the text is rabidly POV in the other extreme, calling the peace protestors "enablers of terrorism", etc. --Powergrid 04:42, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the value is of a site with doctored photos and demonstrably false captions which have been retracted by more credible news sources, unless one wants to present a certain spin. Also, can you explain what additional information is conveyed by the "at least 4 [pictures] showing Rachel on the day she was killed" that is not already conveyed by this article? Finally, the link you keep trying to delete actually links to over 40 different articles on the subject. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:26, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(edit conflict; typed this before I saw MPerel's edit): Powergrid, I reverted your edit because you're deleting a useful link, and also because the collection of photographs (and I think all these photos are contained in the other links) contains some very POV commentary, so it's a bit borderline as to whether we should link to it: this article should neither lionize nor demonize her. If these photographs don't already exist in the external links (I'm pretty sure they do, or used to), then I wonder whether there's a source for them somewhere minus the commentary? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:22, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

(two edit conflicts!) By your criterion almost every photograph in the world is "quite unique". What exactly do you think the contribute to the overall understanding of how Rachel Corrie died that is not found in the article? Captions like "there can be no doubt that the Israeli bulldozer driver could clearly see Rachel and that this was no accident" and "Rachel's skull and rib cage were totally crushed by the US made and Israeli manned bulldozer (which is a US taxpayer's gift to Israel)" are rabidly POV commentary. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:24, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't think there is a rule that the links have to meet some NPOV standard. The Wikipedia article is supposed to be NPOV but the links should reflect all POVs. You and Jayjg and MPerel object to the POV text in the links so you are censoring it and the pictures that are not available elsewhere. You prefer a pro-Israeli landofisrael that is rabidly POV or captions on the pictures calling them misleading hoaxes. Spin! --Powergrid 04:42, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

MPerel also makes a good point; the site uses photographs of two-different bulldozers at two different times and distorted perspective to prove its claim. The POV commentary should have been a clue that the site not reliable. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:27, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And compare side to side the photos in Powergrid's link to the link I gave. The one's in his are purposely doctored to make it appear the bulldozers in the two picture are the same bulldozer. --MPerel^{( talk | contrib)} 04:29, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

You're right! A dishonest propaganda site. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:40, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The photographs are not doctored and they do not claim to be anything that they are not. They show Rachel at various times before and after she was killed. The graphic and bloody ones are not shown on pro-Israel sites. The truth is ugly and there is an attempt here to sanitize and censor it with a pro-Israel spin. That much is clear. --Powergrid 04:42, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The real ugly truth is that this poor girl who died so tragically is being used as a propaganda pawn. Look at how your link misrepresents the before picture (4th pic down): "From this photo, there can be no doubt that the Israeli bulldozer driver could clearly see Rachel and that this was no accident", even though major newspapers like CNN and the New York Times printed retractions about these same misleading Reuters photos: (NY Times retraction: "A picture caption on March 17 with an article about an American protester who was crushed by an Israeli Army bulldozer in Gaza referred incorrectly to the bulldozer shown. It was one that the protester, Rachel Corrie, had earlier tried to stop from destroying a Palestinian home. It was not the one that killed her.")[4] Also note how the after picture (5th pic down) in your link has been squeezed and doctored to change the bulldozer to look more like the one in the first picture. Yet the same set of before/after pictures here clearly show different bulldozers. Your proposed link is simply not credible due to its obvious intent to mislead. And let’s not pretend that bloody pictures and this myth are being propagated out of any compassion for Rachel. Rather, misrepresenting the chain of events that led to her death so that it appears she was intentionally murdered by an Israeli bulldozer driver conveniently serves the useful purpose of fomenting anti-Israel hatred. There is spin alright, and it's certainly anti-Israel. --MPerel^{( talk | contrib)} 09:28, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Powergrid, was it the photos of the bulldozers or the photos of Rachel Corrie after she was hit that you particularly wanted to link to? If the latter, they can almost certainly be found elsewhere, and I'm pretty sure we did used to link to them because I've definitely seen them before. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:46, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Here are the same pics without the commentary. [5] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:01, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, yes. The fact that the "before" and "after" bulldozers are different is more visible in the undoctored photos, though the commentary (though not a blatantly POV), implies they are. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:05, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As far as I concern, keep this link. However, This link should be put in context, which explains the (mis)caption issue. There is no doubt that the link contain false information (as was proved when news agencies issued a correction about the captions) and this should be noted right next to the link. MathKnight 22:08, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Gaza activist's life becomes play

Apparently, someone has a play with her being the main character. This is what someone summarized the play as "But what the play does give is a uniquely personal account of the short life of someone who felt driven to help the oppressed - a quest that took her to a land far from home, into a dispute she knew little about." [6] Wk muriithi

The information about the play is already in the article, Wk. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:20, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

Picture On Top

I'm not responsible for removing the Rachelcorrie07.jpg (I had put in my own Rachelcorriefb.jpg), but I have put in a TRULY NPOV picture now which simply combines the two. KaintheScion

Now that Slimvirgin's abuse of admin powers has been resolved: the Rachel Corrie image as it starts the article needs to be either (a) removed, (b) moved lower into the article ("below the fold"), or (c) replaced with a montage of itself and her flag-burning photograph.

Otherwise, the article is slanted from the beginning. If the flag-burning image can be claimed (and you'll get no argument here) to cast her in a negative light, then the "innocent schoolgirl" photo attempts to portray her in a positive light, and that TOO is POV-pushing. KaintheScion

It is standard practice in Wikipedia biographies to have the primary photo be a portrait. Photos involving action or photos with other people - those are secondary. Kingturtle 03:26, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Then a far better portrait of her would be one with a headscarf. KaintheScion

Sadly, all photos are by their very nature POV. Kingturtle 03:56, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Missing entry in Commentaries and Other Resources section

• A Tribute to Rachel Corrie, Thanks for showing us what "peace" really means. An anniversary remembrance of the effects of Ms. Corrie's activism by Ruhama Shattan.

If "No Cameras" weblog and Rachelcorrie.org deserve places in that section, so does this one. KaintheScion

• I've been lobbying to have LESS external links on this article. Kingturtle 03:59, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

While that's good in theory, the fact remains that there is a lot of good commentary out there. No other linked article presents this perspective on her, therefore the link is not redundant. If it were redundant, I wouldn't have bothered putting it in. KaintheScion

We can probably use the WSJ article in a section that deals with her "lasting impact," which (IMHO) is not much. Zscout370 (talk) 01:48, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't see the need for a "lasting impact" section at all, but I think the WSJ article should definitely be mentioned as long as there's a "commentaries and other resources" section.KaintheScion

The reason I suggested the lasting impact segment is that what issues has Rachel brought up that is taking a more serious look, or just prove to the American people to not enter Israel or the West Bank, or she became a lasting "mytar" for the Palestinian people. Zscout370 (talk) 02:20, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

I haven't seen any mention of the relatively new "Rachel: An American Conscience" documentary. The documentary features actual radio transmissions from when Rachel was murdered, and that includes the bulldozer driver stating that he "hit an object", did see him (her), and she's very hurt. It also includes military video of Rachel standing in front of a bulldozer shortly before she was murdered.

Intro again

I forgot to explain my edit. I restored "Other commentators speculated that the driver failed to see her or expected her to jump out of the way," because I don't see any problem with it. I changed "various advocates blamimg it on ... Palestinian terror" — which was being changed to "Palestinian violence" — to "the Palestinians." If anyone disagrees, feel free to change it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:00, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

The problem I have with other commentators' "speculation" is that it is not based in any more information than you or I have. It's just what they feel must have happened. We don't include speculation in other historical events -- or if we do, we do not give it the same prominence as eyewitness accounts or accounts from at least partly reputable sources. I've deleted it accordingly.

I've been bothered for a while by the inclusion of the speculations of a rabidly partisan Israeli journalist on her blog. I don't think we should source comments to blogs -- to do so would open the floodgates for all sorts of ill-informed comment to be presented as fact. No one wants that, I hope. However, it should be pointed out that she is an Israeli and not a neutral commentator and it should be pointed out at the very least that she made the comments in question on her blog. I appeal to the pro-Zionist editors here to remove the comment by her altogether. It does not meet the standards we set for inclusion: it is speculation on the part of someone who is biased, was not present and has no special knowledge of the events. She is just putting the mockers on others' accounts, not actually adding anything of her own account. I haven't removed it myself because frankly I know it would be reverted and it's about time we tried to find another way to edit articles in this area without the acrimony and revert wars. I figure one way is to present here an argument that I believe no neutral editor could dispute in good faith and leave it to the other side to take the requisite action, or to dispute it, or ignore it, as they choose. -- Grace Note

If you want to remove biased/non-neutral sources, you'd have to remove everything based on ISM testimony as well, which would leave you with very little. Are you prepared to do that? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:26, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I also agree on the lack of judgement that led to a right-wing Israeli blog being used as a source for comments on an already-disputed article. Those of you claiming the article here isn't POV might want to try removing the copious references to a partisan blog that pervade the article as it currently stands. Jeus 02:59, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you learned to cite sources, but testimony from a witness (as in, a witness actually at the scene of the incident in question) is known to the civilized world as a 1st Person Source. A blog post, written by an Olympian resident about an event She Did Not See in Israel, is a 3rd Person Source. Before you go about threatening the removal of substantive parts of an article, you should probably take a deep breath, and go back to expanding the Palestinian terrorism article. Because you do not have the authority to demolish an article, simply because your ideology prevents you from accepting any negative commentary about the Israeli "Defense" Force. Jeus 03:35, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually, you should take a deep breath and read Wikipedia:No personal attacks. I haven't "threatened" to do anything at all. Commentary is commentary, it's certainly cited as that, but the complaint wasn't about commentary, but rather about someone who was biased. We have commentary from biased sources about all sorts of things all over the place; its very common in Wikipedia articles. For example, look at how many places Noam Chomsky is cited, particularly in anti-U.S. and anti-Israel contexts; you could hardly find a more biased source. Should all references to him be removed as well? He's rather "Olympian" fellow who "Did Not See" any of the things he comments about either. Oh, and what on earth are you talking about when you suggest I "go back to expanding the Palestinian terrorism article"? I've never expanded it. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:48, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Mustafaa, what was wrong with the following sentence? "Her death sparked intense controversy, with various advocates blaming it on the IDF, the ISM, Palestinian violence, and on Corrie herself." That seems to me to sum up the various positions. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:04, July 19, 2005 (UTC) Hey all, excuse me if I'm out of order here, this is my first time commenting on a wikipedia page and I'm not sure I'm doing the right thing here. I'd like to see something added to the bulldozer driver's account of not seeing Rachel. The IDF has produced and aired on Israeli TV footage which is also included in the new documentary "Rachel: An American Conscience" from the actual radio transmission from the bulldozer driver at the time he ran over Rachel. "Dooby" acknoledges "hitting" Rachel with the bulldozer, acknolodges seeing her, and saying he thinks she is in "severe condition". That's a pretty big fact that is left out of this page. I could put that section of video online for anyone who would like to see it. -mattG

First western activist killed?

Is there a source for this claim?

Corrie's death sparked controversy, in part because she was a U.S. citizen and the first Western activist to be killed in the Arab-Israeli conflict, and in part because of the highly politicized nature of the conflict itself.

Given the lengthy history of the conflict I doubt she was the first western activist to be killed. Certainly Westerners have been killed fighting for Israel in its wars and Westerners working for the US government and NGOs have been killed as well. I suspect whoever wrote this meant first westerner killed protesting against the Israeli occupation - can someone please help me determine if this is true? GabrielF 01:39, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

oops

Always wished I could edit my edit summaries. "not stupid" should have been "but stupid". --Zero 10:46, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

"The Forgotten Rachels"

I've rewritten this piece because there's been some reverting because of it, so it now reads:

The widespread media coverage of Corrie's death, and the London play in particular, sparked criticism of what British journalist Tom Gross called "the cult of Rachel Corrie." In an article called "The Forgotten Rachels," published in The Spectator on October 22, 2005, Gross tells the stories of six other women called Rachel, Jewish victims of the Arab-Israeli conflict whose deaths received little, if any, coverage outside Israel. [7] The article prompted a National Review editorial arguing that "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." [8]

I've also created references and further reading sections, and I've tidied some of the links, deleted some dead ones, and a couple of blogs. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:59, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Picture sizes

The picture sizes on this article are too small. In the case of the Cat D9 bulldozer, it is helpful to increase the pic size to see the relative size of the bulldozer compared to human scale.69.209.209.251 10:11, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

It was a bit overwhelming at 500px. Perhaps something in between? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

No, I disagree, it shows the true scale of the Cat D9. Why is this a problem? Please explain.69.209.209.251 10:14, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Some people with slow connections have difficulty viewing pages with large images on them. You're also adding POV wording. The wording on this page is the result of careful compromise and discussion over many months. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:18, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, increasing the size of the image doesn't change the scale. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Scale as per the size of the bulldozer to human beings. You misunderstood. It helps to make the picture more useful to readers.69.209.209.251 10:23, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

If there is one picture relevant to this article for the reader to see, it's the size and scale of the D9, that Rachel encountered and died under.69.209.209.251 10:34, 26 January 2006 (UTC)