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• Articles may not contain any unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, analyses, or ideas.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

NGO Monitor and Shurat HaDin

MathKnight, please explain why you've restored the following paragraph:

Shurat HaDin, an Israeli group which aims to apply legal pressure to accused terrorist groups, has said that the Corrie Family should sue the Palestinian Authority and ISM over their daughter's death. In addition, NGO Monitor president, Gerald Steinberg said, "Corrie's death was entirely unnecessary, and the leaders of the ISM bear much culpability for her death."

The first part is sourced to a Wordpress blog, the second, while sourced to a reliable source, represents the view of one person and is undue weight here. Also explain why you restored what she believed to be, there is no dispute that the house was being demolished. nableezy - 17:01, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Shurat HaDin is a very notable NGO and if you looked it is entry you see it had notable legal achievements (such as winning hundreds of millions of dollar compensation for terror victims). MathKnight 19:20, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Its a wordpress blog, it doesnt get any more self-published than that. They can be used for information about themselves, not for information about Corrie. See WP:SELFPUB. nableezy - 20:53, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Also, the edits were added by a sock of a banned account, I am re-reverting on that basis. nableezy - 17:01, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

First, you attacking ad hominem and it is not accepted. Second, it is not a sock puppet of banned account, it is my account at the university, since I'm working in a different computer than home in a grad students common office, and I don't want to log in/out every time I switch computer. Since I have officially said it is my account (see user page) and did not tried to pretend I'm someone else it is not a sock puppet. It is more like a user that also operated a maintenance "bot" account. This is not a reason to revert automatically edits by User:MathKnight-at-TAU account. MathKnight 19:18, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Im sorry that you misunderstood what I wrote. The initial restore of that material was from Cønffucius (talk · contribs), a now blocked sock of a banned user. I was not reverting you for being a sock, I reverted you on the merits of the edit. nableezy - 20:53, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

House demolition?

You write "there is no dispute that the house was being demolished" but I quote from the article:

According to the judge "The mission of the IDF force on the day of the incident was solely to clear the ground.... The mission did not include, in any way, the demolition of homes."

The court ruled that no house was demolished in that operation and that was no intention of demolishing one. A court verdict is a reliable source. MathKnight 19:18, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I dont know that a court verdict is a reliable source, but Corrie was in between a bulldozer and a house when she was run over and killed by said bulldozer. I dont know what the mission of the day was, but the actual action of the day should be relatively clear. nableezy - 20:53, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

You may dispute a court's verdict, which I think qualifies as a reliable source, but you can't claim anymore that no one says that the mission that day was not house demolition and that no house was demolished in that operation. The court clearly disputes that the house was being demolished that day, the armored bulldozer just cleared shrubbery and soil near it. MathKnight 05:41, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

We have had this discussion here many times before.

The facts as I understand them remain as follows:

1. 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 "just clearing vegetation" claim is a lie.

2. 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 but on the day Rachel was crushed to death were only clearing vegetation. 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, but I think is irrelevant. All we can know for certain is that house demolitions did not occur on that day after Rachel had been killed.

I see TWO alternative understandings for why that is:

a.) they may have been attempted but were prevented (ISM claim) and were curtailed after her death OR

b.) they had never been planned for that particular day (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 eventually 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) 18:00, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

But the COURT accepted IDF claim that no house demolition was planned that day. So we have ISM's claim, the IDF's claim and the court's verdict. The court accepted IDF's statement and ruled that no house demolition was planned that day (and in fact, no house was demolished in that action). MathKnight 11:41, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

.The court's verdict has been criticised, as the article details. Therefore the article should not favour one side of a disputed subject. That would violate neutrality. This has been discussed previously numerous times and once with your involvement.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 00:09, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with MathKnight. Both claims should certainly be included, but this article seems to be a platform for the ISM position, especially by quoting only the bystanders who blame Israel. --monochrome_monitor 00:44, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Peace activist?

The ISM is not a peace movement. It specifically supports "resistance" which is a euphemism for Political violence. Therefore, Corrie abandoned her past peace-activism when she worked actively with ISM. Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 04:56, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Your personal opinions about the topic are irrelevant to the article. Editing the article based on your personal opinions is not consistent with the principles and policies of the encyclopaedia. Your proposed edit introduces a claim that there is a temporal gap between her peace activism and her involvement in ISM ("Rachel Aliene Corrie (April 10, 1979 – March 16, 2003) from Olympia, Washington, was an American peace activist who later became a member of the pro-Palestinian group called International Solidarity Movement (ISM).") To support such an edit you would need a WP:RELIABLE SOURCE that describes a temporal gap between her peace activism and her involvement in ISM. Without a cited source to support your edit it should be reverted on sight. Dlv999 (talk) 05:33, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Interesting that in support of your thesis you refer to the article on Political violence. All of the descriptions of political violence in that article refer to acts of violence by states against dissidents. Perhaps you should go to that article and suggest adding acts like lying down in front of bulldozers to the list of types of political violence. Ravpapa (talk) 09:35, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

ISM is a violent organization that supports terrorism. Unlike their statement, ISM was involved in violent activities against Israel. Therefore ISM is not a peace movement. Sources: there are plenty in International Solidarity Movement. MathKnight 10:00, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Interesting that you say that. I read the article on ISM and did not find a single suggestion that ISM was involved in violent activities. There was the issue of a quote that some interpreted as being a statement of support for armed struggle; but it did not suggest anywhere that ISM itself deviated from its policy of nonviolence. There was also an accusation by the IDF that two Kalashnikov rifles were found on the ISM premises, but the IDF later corrected itself and said there were no rifles.

If you know of documented cases where ISM was involved in violent actions, you should definitely add it to the ISM article. Otherwise, I suggest that it is an error on your part to reference that article as support for the claim that ISM embraces violence. Ravpapa (talk) 12:18, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Here there are: ISM activists gave money to Hamas [1], ISM activists attacked soldiers [2] (the Hebrew source: בישראל אומרים שהקשר בין אנשי ה-ISM לגורמי טרור פלשתיניים אינו מסתכם בלינה בבתי מחבלים. לטענת השב"כ, חלק מאנשי הארגון מקיימים קשרים עם פעילי טרור, ופועלים לשיבוש פעילות צה"ל בשטחים. באחד המקרים חשפו פעילי ISM מארב של צה"ל, לאחר שהאירו עליו בפנסים. בחודש יולי תקפו שני פעילים חיילים של צה"ל במחסום בית-פוריק. קצין צה"ל מספר שבמספר מקרים פעילי ISM "פתחו ציר" בשביל הפלשתינים, כלומר: הלכו ראשונים ובדקו אם יש מחסומי צבא בהמשך הדרך. "Israel says that the connection between ISM activists to Palestinian terrorists is not merely sleeping in terrorists' houses. According to Israel Security Service (Shin-Bet), some of the activists maintain connections with terrorists, and act to distrupt IDF actions in the territories. In one case ISM activists exposed an ambush set by the IDF after lighting on it with flashlights. In July, two ISM activists attacked soldiers in a Beit-Pourik checkpoint. IDF officer tells that in several cases ISM activists opened routes to Palestinians by going first to check if there is a military checkpoint in the way." (use Google translate) [3] And there is court ruling: Israeli judge Oded Gershon ruled about the ISM that "In fact, the organization abuses human rights and morals rhetoric to blur the graveness of its actions which manifested de-facto as violence." He also ruled that ISM activists provided financial, logistic and moral aid to terrorists.

These facts, together with ISM's support in Palestinian violence, disqualifies it as a "peace organization". MathKnight 08:57, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Why don't you add this information to the article on ISM? Seems that is the place to be discussing this, not here. Ravpapa (talk) 12:29, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

What part of the article do you wish to change? The article is about Rachel not the ISM. At present the lead states that Rachel Corrie was a peace activist and provides verifiable sources for that. It also states that she was a member of ISM and provides a source. So the article correctly informs that Rachel Corrie was an American peace activist who was also a member of the International Solidarity Movement. --Mystichumwipe (talk) 12:10, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

So I take it you agree ISM is not a peace organization. MathKnight 12:21, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

What you or I personally think or agree upon is irrelevant. Does the article reflect the consensus of verifiable sources with neutrality? If you think it does not, present your case. I think at present it does. Again, this article is about Rachel not the ISM.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 13:52, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

She's not a peace activist at all. This article fails to mention that the house wasn't occupied, and why Israel was clearing it (to find tunnels smuggling illegal weapons).

--monochrome_monitor 20:30, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Due process?: Monochrome Monitor added a POV tag +es, and after I reverted [4] did so again [5]. I started a talk here. I won't go xRR. I restate that the POV-tag, as applied & not followed-up, does not help anything. -DePiep (talk) 21:40, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Are any of the warring editors actually going to respond to the issued raised or just continue disruptively reverting? --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:09, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

What are you talking about, who are you talking to? -DePiep (talk) 10:14, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Also, I don't see her referred to as a "peace activist" in the cited source. Can anyone pinpoint the exact area in the article making this statement? --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:22, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

BBC profile, the source cited in the lead, first sentence "Rachel Corrie...was a committed peace activist". Sean.hoyland - talk 04:37, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Text is consistent with the cited WP:RS but not the editors personal views on the topic. This is not an WP:NPOV issue. The issue is that the editors views are not consistent with the sort of sources that we base articles on. Dlv999 (talk) 07:05, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Where can I read the case for the POV tag? I read what is on this page so far and didn't find it. Zero^talk 13:46, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

It is about 10 lines above your post. A case has been made that it is POV to describe her as a peace activist when that is disputed, and that the article violates NPOV by not mentioning the house she was supposedly protecting was unoccupied or providing details on the nature of the IDF operation Here come the Suns (talk) 17:33, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I see no case for the POV tag as the dispute is over personal opinions but that dispute will continue until we state she died in a suicide attack against a bulldozer which was trying to bring peace to the world. The account directly above my post and the OP are very likely the same. Sepsis II (talk) 18:00, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I also support the POV tag. --monochrome_monitor 00:46, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Unexplained removal of content, removal of sourced content

In the first of a series of edits, user:Monochrome monitor removed about 2Kbytes of content with the edit summary: "categorized testimonies into ISM, israeli, other (some testimonies weren't labelled as ISM), added controversy on richard falk".

• The added content mentioned in the edit summary is:

  Richard Falk, a controversial former UN Special Rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territories (condemned repeatedly during his term by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, the U.S., Britain and Canada for promoting 9/11 conspiracy theories and endorsing an anti-Semitic book) (ref) http://blog.unwatch.org/index.php/category/richard-falk/ (/ref)

  for which the reference has not been formatted consistently with the others. "Condemned repeatedly" is a quote of the language used in the reference, probably needs to be quoted here. Is the referenced blog a reliable source?
• I have been mostly unable to identify what has been removed or why. but I do notice that the word "peace" has been removed from the lead, despite there clearly being no consensus for such a change in the preceding section Talk:Rachel Corrie#Peace activist?. A change like this which is bound not to be accepted must not be buried in a mass of other changes, must be explained in the edit summary and must be supported by reliable sources. The reference callout for that sentence very clearly supports the content before the change.
• It looks as if there are a lot of other controversial changes hidden away in this edit, but it is impossible to be sure we have seen and evaluated them all because content changes are mixed up with the moving of blocks of text. The has already been reverted once by user:Irondome and, unless someone else has already done so while I am typing this, I will revert it again, not using rollback which would be inappropriate but restoring the previous version by normal editing. Just to be clear, I have looked at the diffs for all the affected edits and satisfied myself that
  • it is impracticable to revert the first edit and retain any of the others
  • it is impossible to evaluate the first edit in detail with a reasonable amount of effort but it very clearly contains changes for which there is demonstrably no consensus

MM, please plan and structure these substantial changes more carefully. You need to separate content changes completely from content reorganisation, and avoid tangling up unrelated potentially controversial changes in the same edit. --Mirokado (talk) 00:44, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Whilst I think that a lot of user:Monochrome monitor's edits were solid, I would also counsel to take things slowly. This is a contentious article with a lot of editors interested in providing their input. It is best to make/propose changes piecemeal. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:05, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I have given my original rationale for using rollback on my talkpage. It was best, in my opinion, to have done the editing process in incremental steps, and to sought consensus on the relevant talk page. I have also sought dialogue with MM. I do believe his edits could balance the article far better after a good debate, but I do believe it should have been discussed first. Irondome (talk) 01:11, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about that. If I removed any content, feel free to add it back. I mostly meant to add content and reoorganize the article so that ISM activists were clearly labelled as such and visa versa. It was very hard fixing the refs for me as I'm a new editor. I'm just trying to add both sides so it's more clear. --monochrome_monitor 04:33, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

And as for the "blog" it's an accredited NGO and it links to American and UN statements on Falk. He was sacked for being so controversial. He said that the Boston Bomber was do to "America" and "Tel Aviv" or something like that. Crazy dude. --monochrome_monitor 04:36, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Here's the statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monochrome monitor (talk • contribs) 04:40, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

As I have said, I support your edits MM. My only concern was article stability, and I may have been over-cautious. Have you reverted my perhaps unwise rollback? I haven't checked. I certainly will not revert anything. If you have not, then revisit the incremental approach in some of the eds, or at least their sequence. There was some good advice given upthread on this. I totally agree with your view on Falk. Irondome (talk) 19:08, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I think Monochrome Monitor's changes were substantial NPOV improvements and removed many weasel words. For example describing ISM activists accounts as objective "witnesses", while all the accounts of all the Israeli soldiers, government investigation, the driver, and even video evidence are all lumped together as the opinion of the Israeli government. Wikieditorpro (talk) 20:40, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

So should we rollback the rollback, if you like? I'm certainly in favor.--monochrome_monitor 21:25, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh great someone already did that. Thanks for your contributions, guys!--monochrome_monitor 21:29, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Well I'm obviously not satisfied with the way these changes have been added wholesale to the article. but it looks from other contributions above as if we will have to work from the current version. In order to enable us to see what has been changed, I will update the article with versions which generate a clean difference display. In order to do this, I will place {{In use}} on the intermediate versions and finish this editing session by restoring the current version (as I write this, a bot edit restoring a missing ref). Some of the intermediates will look like wholesale reversions, please do not panic they will be short-lived. I have prepared the two versions we will need for the comparison using an offline diff tool, but I must also check the diffs as I apply the updates here, so the In use flag may be around for 20-30 mins. I will update further here when I have finished. --Mirokado (talk) 23:39, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

The heads-up is appreciated Irondome (talk) 00:09, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I have now restored the current (bot-edited) version. Here are the cleaned-up differences. These are the net content changes from June 26 to now, corresponding to this much less clean diff.

After the first sentence, the third paragraph seems to be NPOV and unsourced. The sources don't mention a photographer saying that she was killed while wearing a fluoro jacket waving her arms, or that she was run over twice. Furthermore, the sources mentioned are ISM sources only which are POV and their views are best place in the fourth paragraph, as a ISM POV to the Israeli government's POV.. Wikieditorpro (talk) 01:55, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

The ISM accounts seem to be repeated and given too much weight as per WP:WEIGHT. For example Richard Purssell's account is listed twice. Wikieditorpro (talk) 02:12, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I've moved "Richard"'s account to the ISM section as the ref identifies him as ISM, and removed the speculation that this was Perssell since no source for that. The preceding para and blockquote are each adding independent information so there is no actual duplication. --Mirokado (talk) 20:50, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Is NPOV good, or bad? --monochrome_monitor 23:16, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, a neutral point of view has to be beautiful, of course. And your point is, what? --Mirokado (talk) 23:25, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I just didn't know what the initialism stood for. Sorry! --monochrome_monitor 23:36, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Laughing now, no problem! --Mirokado (talk) 23:43, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Corrie Memorial and Unreliable Sources

I personally think the NPOV in this article is much better, but there should probably be more references to the negative critical reception about her death. For example, it cites one BBC movie which lionizes her but doesn't mention the specifics of the movie from the "Israeli point of view" in Morocco.

My biggest concern is the publishing of the ISM's account of the anniversary of her death. It seems very unlikely that the exact same bulldozer that killed Corrie "showed up suddenly" and started chasing them around while they were mourning and throwing flowers on it. Since it only provides the ISM's account and the account itself is so ridiculous it doesn't make sense for the article to act as a platform that gives it credibility. I propose we just summarize the alleged incident as "According to the ISM, mourners classes with the Israeli police.

The memorializations and books and foundations receive undue weight in this article, especially since she was only known for her death, not her life, and it's just as NPOV to call her a "terrorist supporter" as to call her a "peace activist". Including the "forgotten Rachel's" was certainly a good start.

I also think the external links should be categorized by bias. --monochrome_monitor 22:05, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Given that she is famous only for her death, that she be the focus.

Also, this page is littered with claims from the ISM which is certainly not an RS. Mother Jones points out that the ISM lied about photographs claiming that they were taken seconds before she died when in fact they were taken hours before she died. Wikieditorpro (talk) 02:01, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Zero0000 edits

Some things about this edit. First, Gross explicitly mentions Palestinian 'terrorism' several times. Second, if Electronic Intifada is here, also Aish. Besides, judge Oded Gershon is a major authority on this and the appearance of his testimony on Aish does not invalidate it. Third, the controversial case surrounding Tom Hurndall's death needs proper attribution.--AmirSurfLera (talk) 04:08, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree, aish should be included, considering some sources that are given weight in this (ISM accounts, Al-Jazeera opinion pieces). --monochrome_monitor 23:20, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Apparently Wikipedia considers that viciously anti-Semitic rag Ma'an to a reliable source as I discovered in this article where it is used as a source over 40 times (together with other dubious pro-Palestinian publications).

That being the case, Aish can certainly be considered a reliable source. Wikieditorpro (talk) 02:52, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Take it to the WP:RSN. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:55, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Some people here think that Wikipedia rules can be broken provided an "argument" is made that the "other side" broke them. They are wrong; the rules cannot be broken any time. Even if the "argument" was correct (which I am not conceding), a pile of poo isn't made to smell sweet by adding a load of poo of a different color. Zero^talk 04:03, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

It's about consistency and standards. There seems to be a trend that when Jewish/Israeli sources are brought they are assumed to be unreliable until proven otherwise. Whereas Islamic/Arab sources no matter how extreme are acceptable until they are taken through WP:RSN.

I personally believe that Aish is a reliable source and I have no evidence to the contrary. If you don't think it is then perhaps you should do as Malik suggested above and take to RSN instead of just deleting it without explanation.

And just to clarify, do you think that using Ma'an as a source is breaking Wikipedia's rules? And do you think that Ma'an is an RS? Wikieditorpro (talk) 04:14, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

In order to clarify your position, can you give an example or two of Palestinian sources that you would consider reliable? Zero^talk 04:59, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Obvious cop-out. I rest my case. Wikieditorpro (talk) 05:31, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

As I thought. Regarding your claims, they are complete poppycock. Actually the number of "Jewish/Israeli sources" (your phrase) used in Wikipedia articles vastly exceeds the number of Arab/Palestinian sources. By orders of magnitude. As for resting your case, you haven't made one. Zero^talk 05:51, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Another person who fails to understand basic Israeli/Palestinian politics. The Israel media runs the gamete from vehemently Pro-Israel to vehemently Pro-Palestinian. While the Palestinian media ranges from being virulently anti-Israeli to being virulently anti-Semitic too, usually both. Wikieditorpro (talk) 01:56, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikieditorpro, I recommend you read WP:BURDEN. If you wish to include Aish, the onus is on you to establish that it is a reliable source. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:06, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

That's quite interesting being that in your last comment you stated that if I am opposed to a source that is virulently anti-Israel (and anti-Semitic), the burden is on me to take it to WP:RSN.

So to summarize:

Pro-Israel source: Burden of proof to prove source is reliable WP:BURDEN

Pro-Palestinian source: Burden of proof to prove that source is not reliable. WP:RSN

There is no clearer proof of the hypocrisy here than your own words. Wikieditorpro (talk) 23:40, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, sure. Whatever. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:51, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't see anyone provided rationale for EI.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 17:25, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

-Shrike: with this edit-line you write: "Partialy revert huldra. Why do you deleted court desicion?It has nothing to do with ISM.Please refrain to do misleading edit summaries." This is a mis-leading edit summary. I deleted aish.com, as we cannot use such a partisan source. Think about it the other way around; If anyone used ISM as a source for Aish HaTorah..they would probably be blocked in no time. You have now re-introduced aish.com as a source in this article, and that is simply not acceptable. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 21:04, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

It's completely absurd and ridiculous to use a kiruv organisation, that teaches rubbish like the bible codes, as a source for a court ruling unrelated to themselves. That ruling was reported by countless professional news agencies, kindly keep the dross out. Zero^talk 01:23, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

But you believe that sources that preach the protocols of the elders of zion as fact (e.g. Ma'an as well as most if not all of the Palestinian media), are perfectly fine. Wikieditorpro (talk) 01:57, 7 July 2014 (UTC)