Talk:Rachel Corrie
 | Rachel Corrie received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Rachel Corrie article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14Auto-archiving period: 14 days  |
 | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
 | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
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- Articles may not contain any unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, analyses, or ideas.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.
WP:BRD - not bold, revert, revert, revert
the latest quote doesnt have consensus for inclusion. it was boldly added. then reverted. now its time to discuss, not edit war. untwirl(talk) 03:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- The "REACTION" section includes an HRW report from 2005, artistic tributes from 2007, kidnapping attempts from 2006, etc..., so to remove the Burston quote in the grounds that "it is from 2006 and therefore not a 'reaction' seems a little, shall we say, tenuous. NoCal100 (talk) 03:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- thanks for joining the discussion- do you disagree that this boldly added edit, which was reverted, should be discussed now before it is added, according to WP:BRD? untwirl(talk) 03:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Isn't this what we are doing - discussing? Would you like to discuss how a 2006 Op-Ed which directly discusses the event is not a reaction, but a 2008 remix of a 10 minute fugue comprised of right-wing blogs is a reaction? NoCal100 (talk) 03:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- i am happy to discuss these points, but dont you think we should follow the rules and leave it out until there is consensus to include it? someone added it, i reverted and waited for the discussion. you (and others) reverted it back in without discussion. i admit i am new, but i'm trying to get used to the way things work around here and this seems outside of the usual protocol. untwirl(talk) 04:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Isn't this what we are doing - discussing? Would you like to discuss how a 2006 Op-Ed which directly discusses the event is not a reaction, but a 2008 remix of a 10 minute fugue comprised of right-wing blogs is a reaction? NoCal100 (talk) 03:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- thanks for joining the discussion- do you disagree that this boldly added edit, which was reverted, should be discussed now before it is added, according to WP:BRD? untwirl(talk) 03:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
(undent) The editorial is actually a good addition, if it's kept accurate to the substance of what he's saying. Using only the most inflammatory material, especially when one of his themes is that both sides need to tone down the excessive rhetoric, is ironically both WP:POINTy and missing the point at the same time. NB: "Pro-Palestinian" was his original phrasing, not "anti-Israel," and I've returned it to his actual words. arimareiji (talk) 05:06, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- this is actually a much better representation of what the article actually says. i had a knee jerk reaction to a posting to a 2006 "spin city blog" being added to assert the IDF's position. that was my initial problem with the edit. when i read the entire thing, i realized the same thing arimareiji is saying, that the article was mischaracterized, as well as the fact that in asserting the IDF as correct he sets up an imaginary universe where we "Forget, for the moment," that the ISM has a different story, and to "Consider, instead - accept, for the moment - only the conclusions of the IDF probe." untwirl(talk) 05:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for the kind words. IMO, regardless of whether he meant it as a hypothetical or as an assertion, he seems to be saying he believes it was accidental - but it's a point he's using to work towards a conclusion, it's not per se a conclusion. Personally, I liked his point about the excessive rhetoric and I'll try to keep it in mind. arimareiji (talk) 05:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- now, how am i going to argue with something sweet like that? ;) since its sourced to haaretz and not spin city, and since its attributed, it does seem to meet WP:RS]. i think your paraphrase is good, although i think "(he) assert(s) that Corrie's death was accidental" is too strong when in his comments he seems only to think its likely. untwirl(talk) 21:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for the kind words. IMO, regardless of whether he meant it as a hypothetical or as an assertion, he seems to be saying he believes it was accidental - but it's a point he's using to work towards a conclusion, it's not per se a conclusion. Personally, I liked his point about the excessive rhetoric and I'll try to keep it in mind. arimareiji (talk) 05:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Political Reactions Section
Should we have a separate title as political reactions section, or should we add other political reactions under reactions title since there are much more political reactions than we mention in the article even in the US.
Content
1) FOIA no record found for Rachel Corrie
2) COUNTRY REPORTS ON HUMAN RIGHTS PRACTICES FOR 2004 VOLUME II REPORT SUBMITTED TO THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, U.S. SENATE AND THE COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE.
3) US Congressman and Represantative Statements for the Case
| (click blue button at right to see text) |
|---|
|
Official Papers "Rachel Alaine Corrie (Deceased) ... 2005-0132 9/1/2005 9/2/2005 No Record" FOIA "The U.N. Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) and other groups reported continued delays in transporting goods to Palestinian refugees in the occupied territories. During Operation Days of Penitence in September and October, the IDF restricted entrance into the Gaza Strip, preventing humanitarian agencies such as UNRWA from delivering food and providing assistance. In October, UNRWA claimed that 24 of its staffers were detained by the IDF and that it was not notified. An Israeli official stated the number detained was not 24, but said that other UNRWA staff members were under indictment. Physicians for Human Rights, which offered weekly ‘‘mobile clinics’’ in Palestinian villages, has been denied access to Gaza for 3 years and has only limited access to the West Bank. On March 16, 2003, an Israeli bulldozer clearing land in Rafah in the Gaza Strip crushed and killed Rachel Corrie, 23, a U.S. citizen peace activist. Corrie was standing in front of the bulldozer and was wearing a reflective vest. Eyewitness demonstrators stated that they believe the driver knew Corrie was in front of the bulldozer as he proceeded forward. IDF investigations concluded that the operator was not negligent. U.S. officials who have seen the IDF report found inconsistencies among the statements of the people involved in the accident and other witnesses. The Corrie family believes that the investigation was not thorough, credible, and transparent and continued to pursue the case. In conjunction with the report of the IDF Judge Advocate General, the IDF implemented two remedial procedures for improved safety: The presence of more senior officers to oversee such operations and the designation of closed military zones with orders forbidding the presence of civilians in areas when IDF military operations are concluded. On April 7, 2003, gunfire from an undetermined source struck 24-year-old U.S. citizen Brian Avery in Jenin. The IDF denied responsibility for the incident. Avery, an activist with the International Solidarity Movement, was walking outside during curfew in the city when an IDF armored personnel carrier approached him. Avery was shot in the face and required considerable surgery and extended hospitalization. In December, a lawyer petitioned the Supreme Court to require Israel military authorities to investigate his shooting. According to B’tselem, the IDF had reportedly conducted an internal investigation and concluded that it was impossible to determine whether Avery was hit by IDF or Palestinian gunfire. At year’s end, the Israeli High Court had not delivered its decision in the case." COUNTRY REPORTS ON HUMAN RIGHTS PRACTICES FOR 2004 VOLUME II R E P O R T SUBMITTED TO THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, U.S. SENATE AND THE COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE. Court Papers "FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CYNTHIA CORRIE, on their own behalf and as Personal Representatives of Rachel Corrie and her next of kin, including her siblings; CRAIG CORRIE, on their own behalf and as Personal Representatives of Rachel Corrie and her next of kin, including her No. 05-36210 siblings; MAHMOUD OMAR AL D.C. No. SHO’BI; FATHIYA MUHAMMAD CV-05-05192-FDB SULAYMAN FAYED; FAYEZ ALI MOHAMMED ABU HUSSEIN; MAJEDA OPINION RADWAN ABU HUSSEIN; EIDA IBRAHIM SULEIMAN KHALAFALLAH, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CATERPILLAR, INC., Defendant-Appellee." uscourts.gov US Congressman and Represantative Statements "Statement on the Death of Rachel Corrie For Immediate Release - March 18, 2003 I am saddened and horrified by the death of Rachel Corrie on March 16. The U.S. must require -- and the Israeli government must provide -- all of the facts about what happened on Sunday. What we know is terrible: a young, unarmed woman was run over and killed by a D-9 armored bulldozer driven by a member of the Israeli security forces. What we must find out is important: How could the bulldozer driver fail to see a brightly dressed woman with a bullhorn? What orders are the drivers given? How are they trained? What are their "rules of engagement" with protestors?" Congressman Jim McDermott - News - Statement on the Death of Rachel Corrie "Expressing sympathy for the loss of Rachel Corrie in the Palestinian village of Rafah in the Gaza Strip on March 16, 2003. Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That Congress-- (1) expresses its sympathy to Craig and Cynthia Corrie and to their extended families, friends, and co-workers for the loss of Rachel Corrie in the Palestinian village of Rafah in the Gaza Strip on March 16, 2003; (2) calls on the United States Government to undertake a full, fair, and expeditious investigation into the death of Rachel Corrie; and (3) encourages the Government of the United States and the Government of Israel to work together to determine all the circumstances that led to this incident and to ensure that an incident of this kind never occurs again."Mr. BAIRD (for himself, Mr. MCDERMOTT, Mr. INSLEE, Mr. SMITH of Washington, Mr. DICKS, Mr. LARSEN of Washington, Mr. LEWIS of Georgia, Mr. WU, Mr. HONDA, Ms. ESHOO, and Mrs. CAPPS) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on International Relations "Expressing sympathy for the loss of Rachel Corrie in the Palestinian village of Rafah in the Gaza Strip on March 16, 2003. Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That Congress-- (1) expresses its sympathy to Craig and Cynthia Corrie and to their extended families, friends, and co-workers for the loss of Rachel Corrie in the Palestinian village of Rafah in the Gaza Strip on March 16, 2003; (2) calls on the United States Government to undertake a full, fair, and expeditious investigation into the death of Rachel Corrie; and (3) encourages the Government of the United States and the Government of Israel to work together to determine all the circumstances that led to this incident and to ensure that an incident of this kind never occurs again."Mr. BAIRD (for himself, Mr. MCDERMOTT, Mr. INSLEE, Mr. SMITH of Washington, Mr. DICKS, Mr. LARSEN of Washington, Mr. LEWIS of Georgia, Mr. WU, Mr. HONDA, Ms. ESHOO, and Mrs. CAPPS) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on International Relations
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Washington State Legislature uphold the principles of free speech and the rights of all citizens to peaceable protest for whatever cause they choose; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Washington State House of Representatives request the President of the United States or Congress to conduct an investigation into the circumstances of Rachel's death and share the results of that investigation with the people of the United States." HOUSE RESOLUTION NO.2003-4647, by Representatives Romero and Hunt |
Click the text at right side to See the context. Kasaalan (talk) 19:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- wow - you've done alot of work here! i think the legislative resolutions are notable enough to be included and the court case should have a mention (if its not the same as the one thats already in there). as far as the report, i'm not sure. does it contain info not already in the article? untwirl(talk) 22:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- Maybe we should open a Political Reactions to Rachel Corrie Case and Legal Papers to Rachel Corrie Case like Artistic Tributes to Rachel Corrie page. Actually I may use some help on subpages like these, still more editing is needed. Kasaalan (talk) 07:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
The house Corrie believed she was protecting?
Ironduke, what is in dispute with the wording that has been reverted? That she was protecting a house or which house she was protecting. Adding the part about "she believed" should be avoided it seems. Maybe just remove mention of Corrie and say something like..It was reported in 2006 that the Nasrallah family house was rebuilt with funds raised by The Rebuilding Alliance....Anyways, Tom 04:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- She was trying to do something, that also includes believing she was doing something, but adding an extra believe really makes the push. Like I try to answer you, but if you say, you believe you were answering me, it points you don't believe I am actually answering you, so that sentence not neutral at all. I didn't say she was protecting or she believe she was protecting since they both is not neutral, she was trying to protect is a neutral sentence though. Kasaalan (talk) 00:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
I've started an AFD about the Artistic Tributes to Rachel Corrie, so if anyone wants to comment, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artistic Tributes to Rachel Corrie. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- I voted not to delete or merge the Artistic Tributes to Rachel Corrie page with Rachel Corrie main article. I added a keep vote to the page since the page created after an agreement in here because the main article needs to be separated or will be too long for article and reference parts. Kasaalan (talk) 16:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- Old requests for peer review
- WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
- B-Class Palestine-related articles
- Low-importance Palestine-related articles
- WikiProject Palestine articles
- B-Class biography articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- Unassessed Anti-war articles
- Unknown-importance Anti-war articles
- Wikipedia controversial topics