Talk:Rachel Corrie

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• Articles may not contain any unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, analyses, or ideas.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

• Previous version: "While an Israeli military investigation ruled the death was an accident, Corries' parents and the ISM maintain that Corrie was run over deliberately."
• Changed to: "Both the operational and military police investigations by the Israel Defense Forces asserted that Corrie's death was accidental, and that neither wrongdoing nor negligence occurred. By contrast, a Human Rights Watch investigation asserted that "the bulldozer drivers... could see the activists even when in close proximity" and that the IDF investigations were neither credible nor impartial, but that "the possibility that the bulldozer operator could not see Corrie cannot be ruled out.""
• When I rhetorically proposed rewording the previous version to "The IDF maintained Corrie died by accident, while the Human Rights Watch investigation determined that she was run over deliberately," Wehwalt's response was that "obviously it is inappropriate because it asserts as a fact that Corrie was run over deliberately." If that version would be partisan, then it's no less partisan to flip the wording in favor of the IDF as the previous version does. Look carefully: They're mirrors of each other, with the only change being to add "Corries' parents."
• I believe this change restores NPOV. It is not NPOV to say that one side has an "investigation" while the other has only their claim, not NPOV to say that one side "rules" (synonymous with "determines") while the other "maintains," and not NPOV to make one side sound as credible and official as possible ("the Israeli military") and the other non-credible and partisan ("Corries' parents and the ISM"). arimareiji (talk) 07:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

I don't believe this is an improvement. The lead is not the place to hash out the fight between pro and anti forces (leaving aside that HRW comes out the clear victor in your version). Let's leave the relatively stable version in place until consensus favors some sort of change, please. IronDuke 18:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Could you explain what aspects you believe the HRW is the "clear victor" in, so that they can be mirrored? Blindly reverting to a version that two editors have described as sharply favoring one side (albeit one only by subterfuge) is not the answer, especially when there's no counter-proposal. arimareiji (talk) 19:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

(ec) Sure... the part where you discuss how HRW doesn't find IDF credible... wait! Brainflash: we take your intro, just as it is, but then add "though many consider HRW to be a seething cauldron of anti-Israel propaganda." Better yet, let's not recapitulate the IP conflict in this particular intro at all. The "two editors" in question are quite wrong -- the lead doesn't favor either side, which is why it's superior to your version. I say again: get consensus here (not "two editors"), then changes can be made. IronDuke 19:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

I believe you said all that's needed by asserting that the lead should be phrased with "though many consider HRW to be a seething cauldron of anti-Israel propaganda." The remainder doesn't even attempt to discuss, and WP:IDONTLIKEIT on one editor's part is not consensus. arimareiji (talk) 19:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Is there a point to your last post? I don't mean that in a snarky way, I'm literally not getting what you're driving at. IronDuke 19:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Additionally, I note that you've reverted quite a lot of material that has been thoroughly discussed in your absence, at the same time that you appeal to "consensus." Would you care to explain why your opinion is sufficient to overturn it without discussion? arimareiji (talk) 19:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Not sure what you're referring to specifically, or why you have a problem with it. Happy to hear more, though. IronDuke 19:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

You appear to be reverting anything you don't like that's transpired in your absence, and are ignoring quite a bit of discussion that went into it. You can't appeal to consensus on one hand and then assert that your absence in the discussions means any consensus reached is invalid. arimareiji (talk) 19:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

"You can't appeal to consensus on one hand and then assert that your absence in the discussions means any consensus reached is invalid." But you can? Tell we what you object to, and where consensus was reached that it should stay out (or in). I'll make the changes myself, if you can show it. IronDuke 19:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Ah! I see you have the courage of your convictions, and have jammed your nakedly partisan lead back in (as you slash out info you don't like). Is this, again, done of the basis of your two-editor "consensus"? IronDuke 19:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

You asked me to find the pertinent discussions from archives. Was that a rhetorical claim, or are you willing to wait while I do your research for you? arimareiji (talk) 20:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

It was in no way rhetorical. I thought you could wait until you had actually, you know, proven your point before mass reverting everything I did. But that's fine, I'll leave it on your version until you find it. IronDuke 20:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

(undent)

• Talk:Rachel_Corrie/Archive_7#Lots_of_little_edits_and_one_section_refactor
• Talk:Rachel_Corrie/Archive_8#Munger.27s_inbox
• Talk:Rachel_Corrie/Archive_8#IDF_Operator_Mentioned_in_The_Skies_are_Weeping
• Talk:Rachel_Corrie/Archive_8#Links
• Talk:Rachel_Corrie#Tom_Gross

And that's the bare-minimal version of the discussion and consensus behind the material you mass-reverted - the edit history is clear on who reverted weeks of changes in seven minutes of "separate" edits.

With respect to "most" above, I was not including your previous deletion and my restoration of "Corrie was in an international exchange program." However, the only rationale you provided was "trim". You didn't respond to my restore and explanation of "Restoring exchange-student info; it's a good foundation to her later decision to be an activist abroad"; instead you later deleted again with "very, very minor point". Would you care to elaborate on why participation in an exchange-student program is a "very, very minor point" in the early life section of someone who decided to be an international activist?

Nor was I including the lead you strenuously insist is "nakedly partisan." As far as that goes, my question still stands after your sarcastic non-answer: What specific aspects are prejudiced towards the HRW? You may consider them "a seething cauldron of anti-Israel propaganda," but Wikipedia does not exist to tilt POV debates toward "The Truth." It exists to neutrally characterize disputes within the bounds of WP:RS, not to engage in them.

Find a non-partisan WP:RS that makes those claims about HRW's unreliability, and I'll add it in for you. Find wording in the lead that characterizes the HRW more positively than the IDF, and I'll mirror it inasmuch as possible so that they're characterized in the same light. I.e. since you object to "credible," try "the IDF found that it was not credible that either wrongdoing or negligence had occurred," or some synonym thereof that the IDF actually said. Obviously their wording can't be mirrored exactly since the HRW nonreciprocally concedes that it's possible the IDF is right, which I would think favors your side of it. But this whole dispute grew out of the fact that the wording as it existed did not characterize them neutrally, for the reasons I listed at the top of the section. You haven't answered any of those reasons except by claiming sans evidence "Mine is neutral, yours isn't." arimareiji (talk) 21:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for that... it'll take me a bit to get to this, but I will try ASAP. IronDuke 22:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Okay...

• Talk:Rachel_Corrie/Archive_7#Lots_of_little_edits_and_one_section_refactor

Read it. What does it have to do with our discussion?

• Talk:Rachel_Corrie/Archive_8#Munger.27s_inbox

Read it. The consensus was what there? And how many were involved in this discussion? And how does that mean my edit should be insta-reverted?

• Talk:Rachel_Corrie/Archive_8#IDF_Operator_Mentioned_in_The_Skies_are_Weeping

I might be seeing a pattern here... what is the point of this? It seems largely to do with the 4th movement of Munger's piece... were my edits related to that? What is this thread meant to show?

• Talk:Rachel_Corrie/Archive_8#Links

And?

• Talk:Rachel_Corrie#Tom_Gross

Yes! This thread actually does address the issue (sort of). I see you, Kasalaan and PR who don't like the Gross piece, Wehwalt on the fence, Jayjg in favor (and me). That suggests to you that's okay to remove a section that's been in the article (a heavily-warred over article) for years? You were saying something about chutzpah, yes?

Your other points: "Would you care to elaborate on why participation in an exchange-student program is a "very, very minor point" in the early life section of someone who decided to be an international activist?" Would you care to elaborate as to how they are linked? With a reliable source?

"You may consider them "a seething cauldron of anti-Israel propaganda,"" When did I say this? Please be as specific as you can.

"Find a non-partisan WP:RS that makes those claims about HRW's unreliability, and I'll add it in for you." You mean, in order to oppose your use of a partisan source, I must find a non-partisan source to impeach them? Isn't that a bit backwards?

"which I would think favors your side of it." I don't have a "side" of it. I've been struggling to keep this article neutral since long before you got here.

As for the lead, the HRW section looks to be about twice the size of the IDF section. And no, I'm not interested in expanding it. This is a summary of a summary, not a place to hash the battle out again. I'll also note that the way you have it, HRW says "the bulldozer drivers... could see the activists" and also that "the possibility that the bulldozer operator could not see Corrie cannot be ruled out." So the IDF could see her, except maybe they couldn't. Far better to have the actual freaking eyewitnesses, who say that the driver could see her (or variations thereof). I think that actually favors your side. IronDuke 04:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Objections to the Tom Gross article were met with threats. Nevertheless, there was a majority in favor of taking it out, leading to a presumption it has to come out - so where is it? Still at the top of the reading list!

Other blatant problems start with the lead which doesn't even include the "accusations" that are central to this case (instead injecting the well-poisoning claim that there is controversy).

Meanwhile, the international observers, HRW, a source at the very highest level of RS, is being compared with the IDF, the "defendant" in the case. The latter being notoriously sloppy, even if it wasn't specifically indicted over the "investigations" in this Corrie case.

I hesitate to comment on the other glaring POV faults at this article - but have a look at article Pat Tillman. If we can write a fair article about his death, fairly reporting the suspicions that he was murdered by his own US forces, I'm sure we can write this article better, fairly reporting conclusions reached by the RS. In Tillman's case, the US has no record of killing it's own heroes - whereas Israel has sometimes admitted murder of internationals (including another member of ISM, Tom Hurndall), and judicial cases elsewhere have passed verdicts amounting to murder (James Miller, Iain Hook) over which Israel refuses to act. PR^talk 10:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

You weren’t threatened PR, you were just told to stop soap-boxing. I still think that's a good idea. IronDuke 04:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

(Anyone else - this is an explanation of incidences where IronDuke claimed ignorance of prior consensus/discussion before making mass-reversions, and now claims links to the sections where it occurred doesn't prove it or that they're irrelevant.)

• Talk:Rachel_Corrie/Archive_7#Lots_of_little_edits_and_one_section_refactor - Use of HRW, which you seem to vehemently object to and have removed because in your exact words "many consider HRW to be a seething cauldron of anti-Israel propaganda," i.e. WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
• Talk:Rachel_Corrie/Archive_8#Munger.27s_inbox - Two editors hammer out a rework of Munger's cantata at length. You revert with only the edit summary of "balance," i.e. WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
• Talk:Rachel_Corrie/Archive_8#IDF_Operator_Mentioned_in_The_Skies_are_Weeping Further discussion of Munger's cantata; see above.
• Talk:Rachel_Corrie/Archive_8#Links - The material for Bragg's song is brought up as a possible link; no objections. A different editor later includes it. You revert with only the edit summary of "minor," i.e. WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
• Talk:Rachel_Corrie#Tom_Gross - Read more carefully, there were two arguments. 1) Whether he should be in "Artistic Tributes"; 2) whether he should be in the article at all. We have two editors against leaving Gross in the article at all, two who say his accurately-titled Spectator article "Dead Jews Aren't News" (not "The Forgotten Rachels") should be removed from "Artistic Tributes" to EL since it only got in via mischaracterization, one who supports letting Gross stay in the EL, and... well, you. Who reverted "Dead Jews Aren't News" into "Artistic Tributes" with only the edit summary of "restore deleted material," i.e. WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Apparently, it belongs there while a Billy Bragg song about Corrie doesn't - I fail to see the logic.

The rest:

• (ar)Would you care to elaborate on why participation in an exchange-student program is a "very, very minor point" in the early life section of someone who decided to be an international activist? (ID)"Would you care to elaborate as to how they are linked? With a reliable source?" (ar)Would you care to answer the question with something other than a sarcastic insinuation that WP:RS requires that RS's be excluded unless they have their own meta-RS's (to show that they're pertinent)? Or alternately, a quote of where WP:RS says that?
• (ar)Find a non-partisan WP:RS that makes those claims about HRW's unreliability, and I'll add it in for you. (ID)"You mean, in order to oppose your use of a partisan source, I must find a non-partisan source to impeach them? Isn't that a bit backwards?" (ar)You assert they're partisan and therefore unreliable. Until that's backed up with a nonpartisan WP:RS, i.e. something better than a partisan blogger (who have the nasty tendency to confuse "partisan" with IDONTLIKEIT), you're again arguing to exclude based only on your own beliefs.
• (ID)"I don't have a "side" of it. I've been struggling to keep this article neutral since long before you got here." (ar)I'm well-aware of your long-term activity here. Can you name a single instance where you've made an edit positive to Corrie apart from reverting straw-man vandalism?
• Finally, you DONTLIKE the edit to the lead, despite the fact that it's been admitted by someone else who was defending it that if the wording were reversed, they would consider it blatantly POV. But you don't want to be engaged in changing it, because you like it the way it is. You also assert that it's unfair that the HRW sentence is longer even though it's longer to reflect that they concede that it's possible the IDF is right. But somehow that's still POV against the IDF.
• Note to other editors: Please do speak up for or against if you want to, but keep it to these subjects while you're in this section. Bringing up unrelated topics will only muddle the issue. arimareiji (talk) 15:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

“…this is an explanation of incidences where IronDuke claimed ignorance of prior consensus/discussion before making mass-reversions, and now claims links to the sections where it occurred doesn't prove it or that they're irrelevant.)

• Wow. I do seem to do an awful lot of “claiming,” don’t I? If only, like you, I had the stone tablets to hand, I could simply read off them couldn’t I? You have, I think, demonstrated consenus in precisly none of the threads you continually link to.
  

“Talk:Rachel_Corrie/Archive_7#Lots_of_little_edits_and_one_section_refactor - Use of HRW, which you seem to vehemently object to and have removed because in your exact words "many consider HRW to be a seething cauldron of anti-Israel propaganda," i.e. WP:IDONTLIKEIT.”

• It is odd that, in your attempt to discredit me, you actually discredit yourself by failing to read what I wrote above. Um… hyperbole? Did that just sail over your head, or did you literally not read what I wrote? And where, I ask, is the consensus that HRW stay in the lead?

“Talk:Rachel_Corrie/Archive_8#Munger.27s_inbox - Two editors hammer out a rework of Munger's cantata at length. You revert with only the edit summary of "balance," i.e. WP:IDONTLIKEIT.”

• Ah. I had hoped we would return to the sacred, mystical consensus consisting of two editors. And where, if I may ask this, does this quorum say that everything that I put into the Munger section should be reverted? Please look at my edit again and be specific.

“Talk:Rachel_Corrie/Archive_8#IDF_Operator_Mentioned_in_The_Skies_are_Weeping Further discussion of Munger's cantata; see above. Talk:Rachel_Corrie/Archive_8#Links - The material for Bragg's song is brought up as a possible link; no objections. A different editor later includes it. You revert with only the edit summary of "minor," i.e. WP:IDONTLIKEIT.”

• Minor doesn’t actually mean “I don’t like it,” hard as that may be to digest. It means… wait for it… that it’s minor. Feel free to show notability, though, I am flexible on this point.

“Talk:Rachel_Corrie#Tom_Gross - Read more carefully, there were two arguments. 1) Whether he should be in "Artistic Tributes"; 2) whether he should be in the article at all. We have two editors against leaving Gross in the article at all, two who say his accurately-titled Spectator article "Dead Jews Aren't News" (not "The Forgotten Rachels") should be removed from "Artistic Tributes" to EL since it only got in via mischaracterization, one who supports letting Gross stay in the EL, and... well, you. Who reverted "Dead Jews Aren't News" into "Artistic Tributes" with only the edit summary of "restore deleted material," i.e. WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Apparently, it belongs there while a Billy Bragg song about Corrie doesn't - I fail to see the logic.”

• I well understand that failure. Tom Gross is notable, even though he didn’t pen a minor, aching tribute to RC. Why would we reduce him to footnote without even mentioning what he said? I mean, it works sort of nicely as you have it, too, don’t get me wrong. The footnote comes after his sentence “They also visited Ramallah in the West Bank, where Arafat met them and presented them with a plaque in memory of their daughter.” Which is 1) A loving yet pithy precis of what Gross was writing about or 2) So very much beside the point of his piece that it is worse than useless. And the National Review was excised, by you, by consensus, right? It had at least the fabled two editors, yes? Just because I don’t see it doesn’t mean it isn’t there.

“(ar)Would you care to elaborate on why participation in an exchange-student program is a "very, very minor point" in the early life section of someone who decided to be an international activist? (ID)"Would you care to elaborate as to how they are linked? With a reliable source?" (ar)Would you care to answer the question with something other than a sarcastic insinuation that WP:RS requires that RS's be excluded unless they have their own meta-RS's (to show that they're pertinent)? Or alternately, a quote of where WP:RS says that?

• It’s nothing to do with a meta-RS. It would merely be something like (from a RS) “We knew from her early interest in exchange student programs that RC would be interested in a place like Gaza,” or words to that effect. If you can make that link, I’m happy to have it. If not, it’s just OR.

“(ar)Find a non-partisan WP:RS that makes those claims about HRW's unreliability, and I'll add it in for you. (ID)"You mean, in order to oppose your use of a partisan source, I must find a non-partisan source to impeach them? Isn't that a bit backwards?" (ar)You assert they're partisan and therefore unreliable. Until that's backed up with a nonpartisan WP:RS, i.e. something better than a partisan blogger (who have the nasty tendency to confuse "partisan" with IDONTLIKEIT), you're again arguing to exclude based only on your own beliefs.”

• So if I can finding something other than a partisan blogger to support that point you’ll concede it?

“(ID)"I don't have a "side" of it. I've been struggling to keep this article neutral since long before you got here." (ar)I'm well-aware of your long-term activity here. Can you name a single instance where you've made an edit positive to Corrie apart from reverting straw-man vandalism?”

• I can absolutely do this. How will it alter your behavior if I do?

“Finally, you DONTLIKE the edit to the lead, despite the fact that it's been admitted by someone else who was defending it that if the wording were reversed, they would consider it blatantly POV. But you don't want to be engaged in changing it, because you like it the way it is. You also assert that it's unfair that the HRW sentence is longer even though it's longer to reflect that they concede that it's possible the IDF is right. But somehow that's still POV against the IDF.” arimareiji (talk)

• Yes, that’s right, I do like it the way it is. If someone can suggest an improvement, I’m all ears. And where was the response to the actual points I brought up? And where is the consensus for your version that you keep so loudly claiming? IronDuke 04:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

• • They're your claims, whether you now want to disown them or not. If by "consensus" you mean "IronDuke didn't agree," I would have to concede the point. But "consensus" doesn't mean "let another editor WP:OWN the page as if it were "stone tablets" and revert any changes they don't like unless you can first demonstrate massive agreement that they're wrong." It means that if, for example, two opposed editors hammer out and agree upon a compromise and no one opposes, a later "I object!" by one editor is not grounds for reverting out of hand with no discussion other than edit summaries such as "minor" and "balance."

• • I didn't say it represented consensus that it stay in the lead, I meant exactly what I said - that it's a viable RS to use. I do find it sadly ironic that in the same breath, you accuse me of not reading your words. And I agree, your statement of "many consider HRW to be a seething cauldron of anti-Israel propaganda" is hyperbole - but I don't see why you're asserting that as if I had argued that it's not hyperbole.

• • I've already referred you to the discussion section itself. If you prefer to have it pureed and spooned into you for easier digestion:

(final conclusion; if you want the whole discussion of it then refer to the whole discussion)

"I've rephrased it, breaking it down into two sentences this time, one for each source, and relying as far as possible on quotes from Munger.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thank you; I didn't anticipate how much your second edit would complement the first. I'm making two minor modifications; one is changing it back to "[just] short." "Just short" was indeed a misquote, but "just... short" is awkward and "short" erroneously excludes the "just" that I believe was meant to modify the phrases following it. arimareiji (talk) 02:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Well, what do you expect of a weekly free newspaper? I took out the stray t that was in there, too. It all looks good.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)"Reply

• • Minor means "I don't like it" when it's the only reasoning provided. Try reading WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which refers to calling something "cruft" or "trivia" without explanation as being examples of DONTLIKEIT. I believe most people would agree those terms are functionally synonymous with "minor."

• • Minor =/= irrelevant to topic at hand, as was demonstrated to be true at length in the discussion where four editors overtly disagreed with its inclusion on that basis. To reiterate what you snidely recharacterized as a failure, I fail to see the logic in excluding a song about her death as an artistic tribute while including the article "Dead Jews Aren't News" as an artistic tribute.

• • If you can find a WP:RS which asserts their unreliability directly rather than as OR or SYNTHESIS (which is really just a specialized case of OR), then yes - I'll certainly concede that it should be added into the article body next to their usage. If you find one or several which are strong enough to overcome the implicit UN endorsement and demonstrate that they're not the most credible source on the Corrie side, I'll add on a concession that they shouldn't be used in the lead.

• • I'll concede that you've made at least that much effort, possibly more, to make the article neutral as opposed to only pushing the POV of one side. If not, I stand by my previous rewording to "activity."

• • It's OR to include an RS? Unless you can first quote a second RS that "proves" through OR that the first RS is relevant? Amazing logic.

• • I'm comfortable with letting my statements to this point stand on their own merit in refuting the above. arimareiji (talk) 07:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

"They're your claims, whether you now want to disown them or not... "consensus"... means that if, for example, two opposed editors hammer out and agree upon a compromise and no one opposes, a later "I object!" by one editor is not grounds for reverting out of hand with no discussion other than edit summaries such as "minor" and "balance."

I'm disowning nothing… what an odd thing to write. Your strawman is immaterial. Two editors "hammering out" a compromise does not consensus make. You link, as I said, to discussions that either have nothing to do with what is being discussed – or fail, usually utterly – to achieve consensus.

"I didn't say it represented consensus that it stay in the lead, I meant exactly what I said - that it's a viable RS to use. I do find it sadly ironic that in the same breath, you accuse me of not reading your words. And I agree, your statement of "many consider HRW to be a seething cauldron of anti-Israel propaganda" is hyperbole - but I don't see why you're asserting that as if I had argued that it's not hyperbole."

You said in earlier posts, in a general way, that my edits did not meet consensus. Later, you backed away from that and suggested that only some of the edits you reverted were against consensus. Even if HRW is an RS in this article (and I think that's debatable) we don't need a long disquisition from them in the WP:LEAD it's bad style, and it's also very partisan. And you haven't got consensus for this change, yet keep making it (and insisting that we should all abide by consensus). I find that… ironically sad.

And you were indeed arguing that what I wrote is not hyperbole. Perhaps you lack an understanding of what hyperbole means. I will do you the same courtesy you did me, and "spoon feed" it to you. "Hyperbole comes from ancient Greek "ὑπερβολή" (meaning excess or exaggeration) and is a figure of speech in which statements are exaggerated. It may be used to evoke strong feelings or to create a strong impression, but is rarely meant to be taken literally." You suggested to me that "I believe you said all that's needed by asserting that the lead should be phrased with 'though many consider HRW to be a seething cauldron of anti-Israel propaganda.'" And also "You may consider [HRW] 'a seething cauldron of anti-Israel propaganda.' No, obviously not – this is where the hyperbole comes in. I understand, I think, what you're up to here. You take a hyperbolic statement I'm making in the service of a larger point and pretend that I am making that statement in earnest in order to discredit my remarks. I think I'll save us both some time if I tell you that while that's sure to work on some editors, it absolutely won't work on me, and you'll be forced to endure my patient explanation to you (and all those reading) about just how wrong you are. You can keep up the disingenuous denials, but I don't think you're doing yourself any favors.

"I've already referred you to the discussion section itself. If you prefer to have it pureed and spooned into you for easier digestion...

You have indeed referred me to the discussion itself. And I keep asking you not to, as the discussions you are referring to do not serve your point. Where is the objection to the part of the Munger section I restored? Never mind consensus, where is the argument against it? I quote my own unanswered post above: "... what is the point of this? It seems largely to do with the 4th movement of Munger's piece... were my edits related to that? What is this thread meant to show?" Do you consider that thread to show consensus that the edits I made to the Munger section were not good?

"Minor means "I don't like it" when it's the only reasoning provided."

No, it doesn't. It self-evidently doesn't.

"Minor =/= irrelevant to topic at hand, as was demonstrated to be true at length in the discussion where four editors overtly disagreed with its inclusion on that basis. To reiterate what you snidely recharacterized as a failure, I fail to see the logic in excluding a song about her death as an artistic tribute while including the article "Dead Jews Aren't News" as an artistic tribute."

Who said it was? Of course it's relevant. But the song is non-notable, is it not? Can you establish its notability, other than by assertion? And the Gross article is in because it complains about this very subject. Is that something you continue to "fail" to see? Nor did you respond to my point about how "moving" it to EL destroyed the piece's entire point. And I take it by your silence that you concede that you were wrong to remove the National Review segment. But tell you what I'll do: I'll move it to another section. Would that satisfy you?

"It's OR to include an RS? Unless you can first quote a second RS that "proves" through OR that the first RS is relevant? Amazing logic."

Indeed… so you're saying that anything that's ever been written about RC can and should be included in the article, as long as it comes from an RS? No? On what basis do we exclude things? Can they be excluded because they are trivial? Or is that never a good enough reason to exclude something? For example, "Rachel loved to wear a Guatemalan poncho in high school," coming from an RS, should be in the article because it could be argued that it shows she was interested in foreign/exotic things?

"If you can find a WP:RS which asserts their unreliability directly rather than as OR or SYNTHESIS (which is really just a specialized case of OR), then yes - I'll certainly concede that it should be added into the article body next to their usage. If you find one or several which are strong enough to overcome the implicit UN endorsement and demonstrate that they're not the most credible source on the Corrie side, I'll add on a concession that they shouldn't be used in the lead."

Editorial in the Jerusalem Post (yes, editorials in JPost are RS's, even when written by people one disagree with) [[1]].

Note that in the following they even include a denunciation of the UN (which anyone who follows this issue understand is an organization which is rabidly anti-Israel).

"A number of leading NGOs had been slow to adapt to a post-cold-war world in which some of the greatest challenges it human rights have come not from governments, but from terrorists, war lords, criminal organizations, and other nongovernmental actors. Such respected human rights organizations as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch never fully grasped that the anti-Israel forces in Durban did not want to change the policies of Israel but to eliminate Israel as a Jewish state, and in that sense advocated the suppression of the human rights of Jews. Making the task of the Israel haters easier was their already established tradition of using the UN's human-rights apparatus against Israel . The UN Commission on Human Rights annually adopted five anti-Israel resolutions." (American Jewish Year Book 2002 By David Singer, American Jewish Committee pp 889-89)

See also: [2] "American Jewish Committee, a major Jewish civil and human rights group..."

The Jewish Divide Over Israel By Edward Alexander, Paul Bogdanor, Vernon Bogdanor, p. 129 ddiscusses "the prosecutorial inquisition of such venomously anti-Israel NGOs as Human Rights Watch!"User talk:IronDuke - Bogdanor is a totally non-RS source - see this from his web-site - re-publishing a 1962 pamphlet (?) seeking to deny what everyone accepts, that Kastner defended a known Jew-killing Nazi from trial at Nuremberg with an affadavit - and to deny what almost everyone thinks, late in the war, Kastner collaborated with the Nazis and tricked some 450,000 of his fellows to go quietly to the ovens. Bogdanor's attempt to white-wash this case is contemptible. PR^talk 12:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Off the subject of Israel , we have:

"In an open letter to the Board of Directors of Human Rights Watch, over 100 experts on Latin America criticized the organization's recent report on Venezuela, A Decade Under Chávez: Political Intolerance and Lost Opportunities for Advancing Human Rights in Venezuela, saying that it "does not meet even the most minimal standards of scholarship, impartiality, accuracy, or credibility." User talk:IronDuke - this comment from you is seriously misleading - HRW slammed Chavez's Venezuela. But the "experts" defending his regime admit the truth of the report "For example, the report's most important and prominent allegation is that "discrimination on political grounds has been a defining feature of the Chávez presidency." (p. 1) Yet the report does not show, or even attempt to show, that political discrimination either increased under the current government (as compared to past governments), or is more of a problem in Venezuela than in any other country in the world." So defenders of abusive governments hate the exposure - the rest of the world is enormously grateful and respectful to HRW for the work it does. PR^talk 12:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

And also

"We find it troubling that a report on Human Rights depends heavily on unreliable sources." [3]

"I'll concede that you've made at least that much effort, possibly more, to make the article neutral as opposed to only pushing the POV of one side. If not, I stand by my previous rewording to "activity."

I don't know what to say,. I obviously wasn't expecting that kind of generosity. So… if I show what I've done, you'll concede that I've done what I've shown I've done. Hmmm… tempting… just seized on a much better idea, though: why don't you go back and see for yourself? The subject seems to interest you, and you may well find it illuminating.

"I'm comfortable with letting my statements to this point stand on their own merit in refuting the above. arimareiji (talk) 07:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)"

You haven't responded to my point that the HRW stuff contradicts itself, or whether the National Review stuff should be in.

Oh, and while I have your attention, when you write, "I'm well-aware of your long-term activity here." What does that mean… I've been on this article for a lot longer than you've been editing. Is this your first account? If not, what other accounts have you used? IronDuke 03:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

HRW is on the front lines of fighting human rights abuses in despotic Arab countries, such as Iran and Saudi Arabia, where religious minorities, homosexuals, and women often find themselves subject to the worst kinds of abuses. That they treat Israel and the United States exactly the same in this regard is a testament to their reliability. HRW started out monitoring the Soviet Union for various abuses and it's reputation for accuracy and care rose progressively until it is second only to the International Red Cross (we tend to forget the latter because it's only meant to report to government, not publish anything). In the I-P conflict, HRW has been very critical of Israel, of the Palestinian Authority, and of Hamas. Each rankles at the criticism of itself and praises the criticism of the others.

When I last checked, there were objections from most editors to Tom Gross's article in there - and yet, there's more of it now than there was before. What's going on at this article? PR^talk 10:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Very long discussion, didn't read every part but some users cannot get the idea on what reliability is in real terms.

If you have reliable source on HRW is not neutral against Israel you can state that in the article, yet that is not a reason to delete and silencing, erasing, shortening or not using their claims as a reference, they are notable enough worldwide according to the wikipedia, journalism and generally academic standards and should be mentioned as they are. Also they are much more credible than Israel on army investigation about their own personnel. Israel covers their wrongdoings partisanly, that is why international opinions matters much on the case. Yet United Nations not only accept HRW but also use their reports on its official pages, that is enough by any standard to mention their claims in the article.

Actually we should also add some more info on house demolishions with statistics since that is the reason Rachel Corrie went to Gaza. There are statistics on the case in HRW and UN reports.

Let alone in artistic tributes, Tom Gross is not even neutral and eligible to be mentioned anywhere in the article as being extremely partisan, by the way since he worked mainly for Israeli newspapers and doing consultancy for untransparent organisations, he has a great conflict of interest for the matter, yet for being neutral and multi voiced we don't try to delete his opinion to the case, since what he say in the article might have some notability, yet if you like to mention his claims in the article, that results providing Palestinian side answers to his claims become necessary. Tom Gross argues there are forgotten Rachels that is true 6 of them, yet he doesnt provide the statistics on Palestinian loss of children, women, civillians during same period. I will add that info along with demolished houses, and agriculture lands by IDF to explain the current situation by reliable sources. By the way I still didn't get answers on why do we mention Tom Gross' same POV article in references, externals links and additional readings 3 times seperately. Isn't double linking once is enough in references.

I added Palestinian side claims to the smuggling tunnels on they used for bringing food against Israeli claims on they used for bringing weapons. That is what the neutrality mean, giving enough info on both side's claims. You cannot just say Israel says tunnels are for weapons, but not mention Israeli blockade on the area or lack of food, medication or gasolin in the area. They may only cook their meals once a day under wood fire to feed their children a bread is 7 dollars under siege.

Israeli side users should try to research and find better sources to add the article against Rachel, if they seek more neutrality somehow, yet they try to erase info from ISM sided views, or unbalancing the current sources, and that doesn't help. Actually the more editors the better, because some partisan users really try to shape the article as however they like. Kasaalan (talk) 15:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Once this present dispute is over, let's discuss the contrasting food/weapons claims in a new section - you have a point, although it needs examining from an WP:RS standpoint. I only re-included the weapons claims because the way it was written made no sense with both sides' claims removed. You're right that the other side should be added back in. But how we add it back in will result in many long debates. And right now, in this section, we're talking about these reverts and whether there's consensus for or against them. arimareiji (talk) 16:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

i changed it back from investigation ruled/parents maintain to the more npov descriptions. Untwirl (talk) 05:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

English please.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

if you were following this discussion instead of doing blind reverts you would know exactly what i mean. i'm not going to dumb it down for you every time. Untwirl (talk) 05:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'm happy to see you were following the discussion. I thought for a second you just followed me here. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

i'm disappointed to see that you feel free to revert without following the discussion. don't flatter yourself by accusing me of stalking you; this page is on my watchlist. maybe you should take some time to read up on the discussions here and then comment. Untwirl (talk) 05:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

this site is not in compliance with the rules for this page.

at the top of this discussion page are 2 policies that are broken by this website:

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.

it needs to stay removed, not be reverted back in like this diff by brewcrewer http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rachel_Corrie&diff=268176341&oldid=268085228 Untwirl (talk) 04:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Actually that site is not compliant with any standards at all. Extremely one-sided views from extremely one-sided sources. But it may be used partially whenever the site contains notable information or critics, yet all of its worthable content are belong to the external articles anyway, so using them might be more proper. Lots of critical links exist in the site. Kasaalan (talk) 00:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

IronDuke - you appear to object to directly sequenced / threaded debate as evidenced by this refactor, and I definitely object to being selectively misquoted. Therefore, I'll hereafter refer only to the topic number, rather than quoting you at length.
Please do not continue to quote me out of context - i.e. by quoting me as saying only the italicized portion of "Minor means "I don't like it" when it's the only reasoning provided. Try reading WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which refers to calling something "cruft" or "trivia" without explanation as being examples of DONTLIKEIT. I believe most people would agree those terms are functionally synonymous with "minor."
The result, as I'm sure you're aware, was to make your response of "No, it doesn't. It self-evidently doesn't" appear to be a simple childish back-and-forth rather than a refusal to address the example I gave from policy.

Italics indicate your comments (i.e. comments by IronDuke).
I'm disowning nothing… what an odd thing to write. Your strawman is immaterial. Two editors "hammering out" a compromise does not consensus make. You link, as I said, to discussions that either have nothing to do with what is being discussed – or fail, usually utterly – to achieve consensus.

1) WP:CONSENSUS - "Consensus develops from agreement of the parties involved. This can happen through discussion, editing, or more often, a combination of the two." No minimum number is required. If two editors are the only parties involved, and others who are present don't object, then this is "consensus". If an editor who was not present objects at a later time and does not demonstrate why the previous consensus was against policy, it remains "consensus".

You said in earlier posts, in a general way, that my edits did not meet consensus. Later, you backed away from that and suggested that only some of the edits you reverted were against consensus. Even if HRW is an RS in this article (and I think that's debatable) we don't need a long disquisition from them in the WP:LEAD it's bad style, and it's also very partisan. And you haven't got consensus for this change, yet keep making it (and insisting that we should all abide by consensus). I find that… ironically sad.
And you were indeed arguing that what I wrote is not hyperbole. Perhaps you lack an understanding of what hyperbole means. I will do you the same courtesy you did me, and "spoon feed" it to you. "Hyperbole comes from ancient Greek "ὑπερβολή" (meaning excess or exaggeration) and is a figure of speech in which statements are exaggerated. It may be used to evoke strong feelings or to create a strong impression, but is rarely meant to be taken literally." You suggested to me that "I believe you said all that's needed by asserting that the lead should be phrased with 'though many consider HRW to be a seething cauldron of anti-Israel propaganda.'" And also "You may consider [HRW] 'a seething cauldron of anti-Israel propaganda.' No, obviously not – this is where the hyperbole comes in. I understand, I think, what you're up to here. You take a hyperbolic statement I'm making in the service of a larger point and pretend that I am making that statement in earnest in order to discredit my remarks. I think I'll save us both some time if I tell you that while that's sure to work on some editors, it absolutely won't work on me, and you'll be forced to endure my patient explanation to you (and all those reading) about just how wrong you are. You can keep up the disingenuous denials, but I don't think you're doing yourself any favors.

2a) Actually, what I said was that they were -against- consensus. If you don't want links to the discussions that establish point-by-point why you're reverting against consensus, don't ask for them. HRW's utility as a link is part of their case for inclusion; it's disingenuous to speak of this as if it were the only reasoning.

2b) I'm not going to reiterate the points demonstrating why the previous lead was skewed strongly in favor of the "official" IDF version ad infinitum. At some point it becomes your responsibility to listen and respond to them (or not).

2c) For the record: Yes, I believe your statement of "though many consider HRW to be a seething cauldron of anti-Israel propaganda" is hyperbolic. No, I don't believe that hyperbolic statements are always rhetorical (as you claim above). And yes, I still believe that your statement makes the issue clear.

You have indeed referred me to the discussion itself. And I keep asking you not to, as the discussions you are referring to do not serve your point. Where is the objection to the part of the Munger section I restored? Never mind consensus, where is the argument against it? I quote my own unanswered post above: "... what is the point of this? It seems largely to do with the 4th movement of Munger's piece... were my edits related to that? What is this thread meant to show?" Do you consider that thread to show consensus that the edits I made to the Munger section were not good?

3) Link to the discussion, for those who came in late. Your revert removed several edits discussed in that section. It hardly bolsters your claim to pretend that they're unrelated, when even a cursory glance disproves this.

No, it doesn't. It self-evidently doesn't.

4) See top of section; this doesn't address the points that I brought up and you clipped out.

Who said it was? Of course it's relevant. But the song is non-notable, is it not? Can you establish its notability, other than by assertion? And the Gross article is in because it complains about this very subject. Is that something you continue to "fail" to see? Nor did you respond to my point about how "moving" it to EL destroyed the piece's entire point. And I take it by your silence that you concede that you were wrong to remove the National Review segment. But tell you what I'll do: I'll move it to another section. Would that satisfy you?

5a) Editor A proposes inclusion of song. Editor B says it would be acceptable for later inclusion. Editor C includes it. Editor ID, much after the fact, removes it. I believe this is what most people would call "against consensus."

5b) Four editors agree that Gross's "Dead Jews Aren't News" article doesn't belong in Artistic Tributes because it's WP:POINTy and tangential. Editor ID, much after the fact, reverts it back in. I believe this is also what most people would call "against consensus."

5c) Gross's article was used to justify including the National Review piece "in response to" it. Said National Review piece was even more WP:POINTy and tangential than Gross's article.

5d) If you can find a section where Gross's article is related to the topic at hand and is not WP:UNDUE, be my guest.

Indeed… so you're saying that anything that's ever been written about RC can and should be included in the article, as long as it comes from an RS? No? On what basis do we exclude things? Can they be excluded because they are trivial? Or is that never a good enough reason to exclude something? For example, "Rachel loved to wear a Guatemalan poncho in high school," coming from an RS, should be in the article because it could be argued that it shows she was interested in foreign/exotic things?

6) If you think you can make a case that under the subject "Early Life" Corrie's high-school poncho is non-trivial by comparison to her participation in a student foreign-exchange program, go for it. But I believe such an addition would appear extremely WP:POINTy to outside and/or neutral editors.

Editorial in the Jerusalem Post (yes, editorials in JPost are RS's, even when written by people one disagree with) [[4]].

Note that in the following they even include a denunciation of the UN (which anyone who follows this issue understand is an organization which is rabidly anti-Israel).

"A number of leading NGOs had been slow to adapt to a post-cold-war world in which some of the greatest challenges it human rights have come not from governments, but from terrorists, war lords, criminal organizations, and other nongovernmental actors. Such respected human rights organizations as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch never fully grasped that the anti-Israel forces in Durban did not want to change the policies of Israel but to eliminate Israel as a Jewish state, and in that sense advocated the suppression of the human rights of Jews. Making the task of the Israel haters easier was their already established tradition of using the UN's human-rights apparatus against Israel . The UN Commission on Human Rights annually adopted five anti-Israel resolutions." (American Jewish Year Book 2002 By David Singer, American Jewish Committee pp 889-89)'

'See also: [5] "American Jewish Committee, a major Jewish civil and human rights group..."

The Jewish Divide Over Israel By Edward Alexander, Paul Bogdanor, Vernon Bogdanor, p. 129 ddiscusses "the prosecutorial inquisition of such venomously anti-Israel NGOs as Human Rights Watch!"

Off the subject of Israel , we have:

"In an open letter to the Board of Directors of Human Rights Watch, over 100 experts on Latin America criticized the organization's recent report on Venezuela, A Decade Under Chávez: Political Intolerance and Lost Opportunities for Advancing Human Rights in Venezuela, saying that it "does not meet even the most minimal standards of scholarship, impartiality, accuracy, or credibility."

And also

"We find it troubling that a report on Human Rights depends heavily on unreliable sources." [6]

7a) If you wish to include in a pertinent section that an opinion editorial says HRW and the UN are both horribly biased against Israel, go for it - as long as it's properly attributed as their opinion, isn't phrased in such a way as to make it appear factual, and its length isn't WP:UNDUE. One RS (an OpEd), duly noted.

7b) The American Jewish Committee (and its Yearbook) are no more of an RS than Palestinian Centre for Human Rights - they're both partisan organizations, albeit on opposite sides. If you wish to claim neutrality, it's not a good idea to argue for the former when in the past you've repeatedly argued against the latter. And "American Jewish Committee, a major Jewish civil and human rights group" is not a compelling example of their neutrality in I-P issues.

7c) It's hard to accept Bogdanor as a neutral RS when his website juxtaposes the cover of the book you reference with a large bold graphic of "The Top 200 Chomsky Lies" and a heavily-artifacted JPG of someone's face (presumably Bogdanor). Likewise, when his own "About" section for the book lists as its second endorsement "Superb... mandatory reading for anyone wishing to understand the madness of Jewish self-hatred... Paul Bogdanor manages to shed fascinating new light on Chomsky... In hundreds of documented facts and citations, Bogdanor traces Chomsky's candid devotion to seeking Israel's annihilation and the second Holocaust that would result from it. Nativ"

7d) To my knowledge, letters (open or not) are still considered primary sources. For anyone who cares, this was HRW's response to said letter.

I don't know what to say,. I obviously wasn't expecting that kind of generosity. So… if I show what I've done, you'll concede that I've done what I've shown I've done. Hmmm… tempting… just seized on a much better idea, though: why don't you go back and see for yourself? The subject seems to interest you, and you may well find it illuminating.

8) When you asserted that you've "been struggling to keep this article neutral since long before you got here," I challenged you to name a single edit you've made aside from rvv which was beneficial to Corrie's side. Your response was "I can absolutely do this. How will it alter your behavior if I do?" I said that I would withdraw my challenge to your claim to neutrality, and this is your response. I therefore again assert that your "neutrality" is better characterized as "activity." I have no particular desire to engage in a long and fruitless search to support your assertion of neutrality.

You haven't responded to my point that the HRW stuff contradicts itself, or whether the National Review stuff should be in.

Oh, and while I have your attention, when you write, "I'm well-aware of your long-term activity here." What does that mean… I've been on this article for a lot longer than you've been editing. Is this your first account? If not, what other accounts have you used? IronDuke 03:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

9a) I'm not sure why you think that admitting that in this specific case the IDF could be right is self-contradiction. Nor do I understand why you would think that if "Dead Jews Aren't News" isn't related to "Artistic Tributes," that a second article that was brought in on grounds of being related to "Dead Jews Aren't News" can be kept despite being even more tangential.

9b) Nice insinuation, but being aware of the fact that you've been engaging long-term in edits to remove positive characterizations of Corrie's side doesn't mean that I'm a sock. It means I'm (sometimes) observant. Feel free to bring it up at WP:SPI; it's your time to waste. arimareiji (talk) 16:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

This material seems to violate WP:NPOV; and, because it seems particularly problematic in the lead, I am moving it here, the talk page, until the issues involved are settled.

The Human Rights Watch investigation asserted that "the bulldozer drivers ... could see the activists even when in close proximity" and that the IDF investigations were neither credible nor impartial, although "the possibility that the bulldozer operator could not see Corrie cannot be ruled out."^[1]

My own view is that this material makes the lead one sided (POV), and that it would be better to place it elsewhere in the article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Making the edit and then asserting we should start discussing it is hardly different from your earlier reversion sans discussion - especially since it already was being discussed before your arrival.

In addition, you don't appear to be paying attention to what you're reverting - your edit leaves in place the correct assertion that the IDF conducted two investigations, then follows it with the earlier incorrect version which makes it appear there was only one. You're saying almost the same thing twice in a row, and this is completely apart from the concerns already expressed about making the IDF sound as official as possible while marginalizing those who disagree. WP:UNDUE explicitly forbids trying to use the most-credible sources on one side and the least-credible sources on the other. arimareiji (talk) 20:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

I agree with Malcolm. It's probably best that the contentious and less NPOV-ish version stay out until there's a consensus for it's insertion. I've resolved the redundancy. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

(edit conflict) WP does not "forbid" NPOV. Quite the contrary. (If I made a mistake when moving the material, I am sorry.) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Please don't put words in my mouth. As I said, WP:UNDUE explicitly forbids trying to use the most-credible sources on one side and the least-credible sources on the other. arimareiji (talk) 20:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

In addition, please note that using terms (such as NPOV) doesn't bolster your argument when you can't point to -where- the policy you claim supports you says such a thing. That could be viewed as simple gamesmanship. arimareiji (talk) 20:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

(response to Brewcrewer) The change to the present version, which happened several days ago, strengthened both to equal positions, by comparison with them both being weaker before but much moreso the Corrie side. Mix-and-matching to the strengthened version of the IDF side and the earlier, much weaker version of the Corrie side is even more undue than the earlier version alone. arimareiji (talk) 20:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

i agree with the change made by arimareiji. it is important not to cherry-pick the sources to find the least credible ones to present a viewpoint. Untwirl (talk) 20:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

also, the material needs to stay in until there is consensus to remove it, not the other way around. Untwirl (talk) 20:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

To me it seems that arimareiji's last two edits to this page amount to WP:Wikilawyering, particularly: 3. Asserting that the technical interpretation of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines should override the principles they express. The important WP principle is WP:NPOV. If there is a NPOV article, I will be happy. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Interesting. You feel that it's Wikilawyering to demonstrate that a policy applies, or conversely to demonstrate that a policy claimed as applying does not? Policy seems to disagree with you on that. No matter how many times you repeat NPOV, it doesn't support you if you don't demonstrate any vestige of an argument for why it applies. It's not a magic charm. arimareiji (talk) 21:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

You keep pointing at WP:IDONTLIKEIT as though it were policy -- you have even referred to it as such. Not only is it not policy, it ain't even close. It's an essay. Read what it says at the top: "Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. Heed them or not at your own discretion." Will you stop quoting it now? IronDuke 02:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Belated, but - point conceded and thank you for the correction. I still think it's a valuable framework for constructing standards, but you're right that it is indeed not policy. arimareiji (talk) 03:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

IronDuke, suggestion: Rather than continuing to war over which characterization to use of the two sides, would you concur with (at least for now) removing both versions by ending it at "The details of the events surrounding Corrie's death are disputed."? Malcom's errant claim to have done so actually gave me the idea, I admit. arimareiji (talk) 02:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Works for me. IronDuke 02:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Once this present teapot cyclone is over, I'll definitely do so. Or (feel free to laugh) if you make that deletion, I'll support it fully both here and elsewhere. I just don't think it would be good for me to do so while Malcolm has an AN/I up. arimareiji (talk) 02:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

i am good with that, for now. lets end it at "disputed" and discuss the best way to balance the lead and concisely present the findings of both investigations. Untwirl (talk) 03:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thank you both. ^_^ arimareiji (talk) 03:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Good solution. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Arimareiji, I moved the disputed material to the talk page avoid continuing an edit war that was in progress. You're returning the material (slightly altered) [7] is not helpful. If you do not remove your recent edit to the article, I may take the argument to AN/I. Please remove that material until the dispute is resolved. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

I've commented on my talk p., and on Gwen's, so I really should say it here: I do not think the material has any place in the lede. It should go elsewhere in the article. The details of controversy go in the article, not the lede. The lede is a reasonably neutral summary without it. DGG (talk) 00:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Malcolm Schosha, you didn't "move the disputed material," you repeatedly reverted back to one of two disputed versions. True "removal," which may be the best course of action if that's the final consensus, would be to put in neither and end it at the word "disputed". In addition, I note that your "warning" of an edit war is not in particularly good faith considering that your reverts began this latest iteration and that you yourself became involved by chasing an editor here whom you've been repeatedly warned to leave alone (and blocked, and blocked again).arimareiji (talk) 00:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

DGG, I'm surprised that you're again taking Malcolm's side of it. When you overturned Gwen Gale's week-block of him two weeks ago, you warned him thus (my bolds): "And the only practical way you will be able to avoid violating 3rr again is to avoid reverting altogether. Discuss the matter on the talk page instead. I suggest further, that you not concentrate of the exact wording of specific points in controversial articles--such disputes are rarely productive. The best thing to do with a difficult article, is usually to find some additional indisputably good sources.

"You now have a choice: if you do mean to stop editing, you can stop. If you want to contribute peacefully, you can. Or, if you contribute in the manner you have been doing, you will receiver longer blocks, soon quite likely indefinite. IO won;t hesitate to do it myself."

You're supporting him in having twice reverted without discussing, and reverted again three hours later, over specific wording. His reverts were, in fact, to remove reliably-sourced wording and replace it with unsourced wording. And they were quite arguably wikistalking, since he had no involvement with the page until the very user he was getting blocked for edit-warring against came here. arimareiji (talk) 00:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Just what do you think I should be blocked for? Disagreeing with you?

As for discussing on the talk page, I moved the disputed content to the talk page exactly so it could be discussed without the edit warring. That edit war was not my doing, and I was only the most marginal participant in it. It was you who ignored my try at ending the edit war by returning the same disputed content to the lead.

All that is disputed is the adding that content to the lead. No one has questioned its presence it the article in its proper place. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 00:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Again, you didn't try to end the edit war, or try to remove disputed content to the talk page. You continued to emplace one of two disputed versions. Despite being repeatedly blocked for edit-warring against Untwirl among others, you followed him here and "used up" your three reverts against him both directly and by proxy. 3RR is not an entitlement, nor is it license to follow an editor around and revert them. arimareiji (talk) 01:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

(outdent)Arimareiji, you need to work on your mind reading skills, because your surmise that I "followed" Untwirl here is quite incorrect. I did not even know, at first, that he/she was editing this article, and I regard Untwirl as a single purpose account. If I intended to bother user:Untwirl, I would have gone to the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict article which that user edits almost exclusively. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 01:24, 7 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Then why is it that you only made edits to the page after he did, and your edits were to revert him by proxy through PR and myself? arimareiji (talk) 01:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

I had not noticed Untwirl's edits. There is no reason I would have followed Untwirl, and it is not my practice not to go out of my way to be in company I do not enjoy. The issue that got me involved in editing this article is the problem I saw in the lead.

Why are you making a big deal over my few edits? I did not start the edit war, it was going on before I first looked at this article. I made an effort to stop the edit war, an effort you chose to disregard. The real issue is your on-going edit warring. That is why I took it to AN/I. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 01:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

A genuine effort would have been to remove both. Not to repeatedly revert to one of the disputed versions. As for your claim that it was innocent coincidence that you came here and began reverting Untwirl, I've already spoken to it. arimareiji (talk) 01:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

It was Untwirl who reverted my edit. Was that his/her first edit to this article? I have not looked. That revert of my edit was certainly the first I saw of Untwirl today. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 01:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Clarification: As for your claim that it was innocent coincidence that you came here and began reverting Untwirl (who did arrive before you) by proxy through myself and PR, I've already spoken to it. arimareiji (talk) 02:24, 7 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

• Now on AN/I: [8]. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 00:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Now do some people try to trim off HRW reports or what. As one of the most reliable human rights organisation in the world I cannot even reason why the HRW report is so limitedly mentioned in the article. Yet some users even try to remove what is left. Kasaalan (talk) 00:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

HRW is at the highest level of reliability. Malcolm Schosha has a history of tendentious TalkPage conduct, including this, which was counted as something like 12-1 against, defended only by notorious Jayjg. PR^talk 22:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

I don't see the issue here.

All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing significant views fairly, proportionately, and without bias.

There is a military view in the lead, so why is it a violation of NPOV to have a sourced view of another significant organization? 212.200.240.232 (talk) 11:15, 7 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

i agree that the findings of both investigations should be stated briefly and impartially in the lead. Untwirl (talk) 16:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

All parties findings including Corrie family, IDF, Israel Goverment, US officials, HRW, ISM should be mentioned in the lead in summary, saying disputed is not enough. Kasaalan (talk) 01:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

While an Israeli military investigation ruled the death was an accident, Corries' parents and the ISM maintain that Corrie was run over deliberately.

Since 1975, the Corries had hosted a number of international students from exchange programs, and during her sophomore year in high school, Rachel took part in an exchange herself, travelling to Russia to stay for six weeks with a family in Sakhalin

After the forum "disintegrate[d]", Munger announced, "I cannot subject 16 students... to any possibility of physical harm or to the type of character assassination some of us are already undergoing. Performance of The Skies are Weeping at this time and place is withdrawn for the safety of the student performers.”^[2] Munger later related that he had received threatening emails "[just] short of what you'd take to the troopers", and that some of his students had received similar communications.^[3] The cantata was eventually performed at the Hackney Empire theatre in London, premiering on November 1, 2005.^[4]

In 2006, songwriter Billy Bragg used the melody from Bob Dylan's The Lonesome Death of Hattie Carroll to compose a commemorative song called 'The Lonesome Death of Rachel Corrie', in which the lyrics from the original have been changed to reflect the circumstances of Rachel's death.^[5]

Who is removing info again in whatever way he likes. Removing info is another thing than adding info, the cencorship efforts will not result in the way you plan in long term. You can add different views to the article, that is always welcome, yet if you try to cut out other people's hard work like high school teenagers just because you dont like them, that is something else. If you will try to remove info adressing them is not enough. Either provide solid reasons to remove info or prepare to get reverted the same way. Kasaalan (talk) 00:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Not sure whoever or why but some user deleted her 10 year old speech on world hunger is missing again. Her early life should be mentioned more or less.

"The material revealed a woman who was both ordinary and extraordinary: writing poems about her cat, her friends, her grand mother, the wind; but also, from a strikingly young age, engaging passionately with the world, trying to find her place in it. The earliest material we have is political; aged 10, Rachel wrote a poem about how "children everywhere are suffering" and how she wished to "stop hunger by the year 2000". Her juvenilia shows, as Rickman says, that she "already knew what language was. She was witty, a storyteller, she had flights of fancy". It also shows a rather sweet seriousness, and an insight into the wider world and her place in it. Aged 12, she writes, "I guess I've grown up a little. It's all relative anyway; nine years is as long as 40 years depending on how long you've lived".

In her teens, Rachel started to write about the "fire in my belly" that was to become a recurring theme. She visited Russia, a trip that opened her eyes to the rest of the world - she found it "flawed, dirty, broken and gorgeous". And she engaged in a striking way with her parents, with writing that beautifully expresses ordinary anxieties about safety and freedom, which become particularly poignant in light of Rachel's violent death. Aged 19 she wrote to her mother, "I know I scare you... But I want to write and I want to see. And what would I write about if I only stayed within the doll's house, the flower-world I grew up in?... I love you but I'm growing out of what you gave me... Let me fight my monsters. I love you. You made me. You made me."
...
Rachel's political evolution gathered pace in her early 20s. She went to Evergreen state college, a famously liberal university in Olympia, itself a famously liberal town. She began railing against how "the highest level of humanity is expressed through what we choose to buy at the mall". After September 11, she became involved in community activism, organising a peace march, but questioned the wider relevance of what she was doing: "People [are] offering themselves as human shields in Palestine and I [am] spending all of my time making dove costumes and giant puppets." When she finally decided that she wanted to go to the Middle East, she explained her reason quite specifically: "I've had this underlying need to go to a place and meet people who are on the other end of the portion of my tax money that goes to fund the US and other militaries."" 'Let me fight my monsters' Stage The Guardian

You may read the rest from the link. Kasaalan (talk) 11:36, 11 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Regarding this "artistic tribute" by Dawud Wharnsby Ali. I think it should be removed until a reliable 3rd party source is added as a citation, which shows the notability of it. Otherwise, you enable any musician, to post a link to to their web site, to promote themselves. Again, I'm perfectly fine with this being added *if* you can find some reliable third party source(s) that felt it worth mentioning. --Rob (talk) 18:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Does anybody seriously care that it is "Caterpillar D9R armored bulldozer" as opposed to just a "bulldozer" or "armored bulldozer"? Really? How many people are familiar with what a "D9" is? I don't mind the detail in the article. I just objected to it in the lead, so I moved it down. It's not important enough to be in the lead. The lead is a concise summary of what's important about the subject. By moving it out of the lead, into the appropriate section, with a picture, there should be no problem for those seeking such detail. --Rob (talk) 19:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Agree. "Armored bulldozer" is enough for the lead. The manufacturer and model number are not necessary in the lead. Otherwise, why not also the engine displacement, and the manufacturer of the bullet proof glass too? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)Reply