Jump to content

Talk:Rachel Corrie

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 24.21.105.252 (talk) at 01:54, 5 January 2009 (→‎Precedent for inclusion of nicknames). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconPalestine B‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related articles
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconBiography B‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
WikiProject iconAnti-war Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Anti-war, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the anti-war movement on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Anti-warWikipedia:WikiProject Anti-warTemplate:WikiProject Anti-warAnti-war articles
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

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.


Munger cantata

I wrote the following to User:IronDuke about his edit of the Artistic Tribute section:

Nice addition and rearrangement of the artistic tribute section. But where did you get "bordered on antisemitism"? I didn't see that anywhere in the article - only that the cantata was virulently anti-Israel.

Regards, --Ravpapa (talk) 17:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. You can see where I got it from the ref I put in: here. IronDuke 17:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Later: My mistake, I found the reference. --Ravpapa (talk) 17:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see an RS describing the work as antisemitic, only "She's been used by some on the far right (anti-Semitic white power groups, for instance), and on the radical left" and one person being quoted that "“The Skies Are Weeping” is outrageous, harmful, bordering on anti-Semitic, and romanticizes terrorism".
The fact that the work of individuals has been picked up by the antisemitic is hardly very persuasive - the diary of Israel's 2nd Prime Minister has been widely used in that way - that doesn't make Moshe Sharet antisemitic and it would be pointlessly offensive to describe him in that way. PRtalk 18:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is the supposed community perspective; the RS would not be saying that it was antisemetic as a fact.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article accurately quotes the sourcing. IronDuke 19:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The RS is not saying it, full stop. I thought you were both experienced editors - how do we come to have an article aimed at slurring a dead person? It's particularly bizarre for us to be doing this to someone many people around the world consider a hero. Well, that's unless this article is being treated as a POV plaything to spite her parents, of course. PRtalk 20:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't looked at the ref; I was just making a generalization. All I know is that the question was raised above and Ravpapa seemed satisfied. Why not bug Iron Duke about it? I made some edits about the cantata, but I haven't done much here since and apparently changes were made.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"unless this article is being treated as a POV plaything to spite her parents, of course." Odd statement... who do you think is doing that? The RS quotes someone prominent in the dispute over the cantata, who does say it. And the part about antisemitism does not refer to RC at all, but rather, the cantata. Please read more carefully. IronDuke 20:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stop soapboxing PR. Jayjg (talk) 00:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Rachel Corrie Link's Constantly Being Deleted

Some users try deleting the links to the 2 important links on Rachel Corrie's Page for the reason they are "unneeded" and "unbalanced"

first one is the Rachel Corrie's letters to her parents which are very important for the Rachel Corrie case and understanding her way of thought and life

second one is the Rachel Corrie Myths and Facts sheet which clearly adresses the answers of Rachel Corrie's parents against the claims of Israeli state with clear evidences

if you keep deleting these links it is most possibly some try to erase important facts from the wikipedia database —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kasaalan (talk • contribs) 10:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could those deleting the links (Wehwalt and IronDuke) [1] please explain their rationale here? Thanks. Tiamuttalk 12:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


According to the fact sheet prepared by rachelswords.org with the help of Rachel's parents and "cleary referenced sources" the incident was not an accident:

"Myth: Rachel Corrie was accidentally killed by falling debris.
Fact: According to seven international eyewitnesses, though she was clearly visible, Rachel Corrie was run over by an Israeli military bulldozer.Seeking answers from Israel The 2005 US State Department human rights report on Israel and the Occupied Territories states that “on March 16, an Israeli bulldozer clearing land in Rafah in the Gaza Strip crushed and killed Rachel Corrie.”[Country Reports on Human Rights Practices- 2005, Israel and the Occupied Territories] Photos of the event show the tracks of the bulldozer tires running on either side, and in front and behind the spot where Rachel lay dying in her friends’ arms.A Tribute to Rachel Corrie"
"Myth: The bulldozer driver could not see Rachel.
Fact: Eyewitnesses testified that the bulldozer blade created a large mound of earth as it advanced, and that Rachel climbed atop that mound to a level high enough to make eye contact with the bulldozer driver.Israel: Failure to Probe Civilian Casualties Fuels Impunity Earlier that same afternoon, bulldozers had driven dangerously close to international activists on the scene but stopped before harming them. Affidavits from eyewitnesses to Rachel Corrie killing (Durie, Carr, Hewitt) This time, the driver continued forward, pulling Rachel under the blade."Rachel Corrie: Myths & Facts


so is this part unrelated or might be anyway against copyright the sites has full permission to distrube the content by Rachel Corrie's parents the case may not be great for wikipedia format may contain overlink tough I tried my best yet instead deleting my additions whith my fixed links if they had good will shouldn't they have edited it instead they simply deleting the view of Rachel Corrie's parents and Rachel Corrie's own letters and thoughts from the content Kasaalan (talk) 15:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot see how those links could be considered reliable sources. Someone want to make that case? Also, the material is already dealt with in a much more even-handed, less tendentious POV-pushing way. There's really no need for it. Especially in controversial articles regarding facts in dispute, we must have good, reliable sources. IronDuke 00:29, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

there are three cases here

first of all no copyright violation is present as your explanation for deleting the sources and quotes the ones I added are public booklets and links by the permission of rachel corrie's parents

second the page title is rachel corrie and rachel corrie's electronic mails before she dies are important to understand her and her motives behind her acts how can anyone claim that one person's own recent writings before her death are not revelant to her biography page or even unreliable

third my quote from myths and facts public booklet it is not needed to be solid undisputable facts to be in this case because this is a disputable case there are 2 different views on the matter rachel corrie's family and friends' claims against israeli military power's claims if israeli defense forces and governments reports are creditable and worthy enough to be quoted [and I support even if they werent they should have been added because it is the official claim of one sides thoughts for the case] and mentioned the same goes for rachel corrie's family and supporters

I don't know did you even bothered to check the links or read rachel's mails before deleting them

yet we can argue each link I added

rachelswords.org has endorsement[support] of The Rachel Corrie Foundation for Peace and Justice, Olympia, WA Endorsements of RachelsWords Site

Rachel's emails Rachel’s Emails

"Rachel’s emails, sent home during her time in Rafah, Gaza Strip, and selected other writings are available to the public and public readings are encouraged. If your group is going to stage a reading, let us know and we will post that information on this site."

Rachel Corrie Foundation About the Foundation

"The Rachel Corrie Foundation for Peace and Justice was established by members of Rachel’s family and community to continue the kind of work that she began and hoped to accomplish."

the boston globe newspaper published the thoughts of rachel's mother cindy corrie on the case Seeking answers from Israel

miftah.org it contains the photograph's of the event in chronological manner with some written explanation under them A Tribute to Rachel Corrie

Human Rights Watch [International Organisation] wiki page with link to 126 page report

"documents how Israel has failed in its legal obligation to investigate civilian deaths and injuries that result from the use of lethal force in policing and law enforcement contexts, such as controlling demonstrations or enforcing curfews, and in combat situations when there is prima facie evidence or credible allegations that soldiers deliberately harmed civilians or failed to take all feasible precautions to protect them from harm.
The report examines in detail more than a dozen cases of civilian deaths and serious injury caused to Palestinians and foreigners by Israel Defense Forces in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, most of which clearly occurred in law enforcement rather than armed conflict situations."

“Promoting Impunity: The Israeli Military’s Failure to Investigate Wrongdoing”

Israel: Failure to Probe Civilian Casualties Fuels Impunity

electronic intifada Affidavits [affidavit is a written statement made under oath], Palestinian Center for Human Rights, 3 July 2003 Affidavits from eyewitnesses to Rachel Corrie killing (Durie, Carr, Hewitt)

if we mention rachel corrie's parents say rachel corrie's has been murdered but wont explain why with their own quotes or dont show the all photographs of her case or even delete rachel corrie's own writings from her biography page can we really say we can call ourselves as "much more even-handed, less tendentious and POV-pushing".

the sources has the links that contains detailed and valuable information and evidence on the event leading a better understanding of the case

can you consider explaining which ones are uncreditable and why before deleting them

here are our guides

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.

Kasaalan (talk) 00:25, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey you two. I think that this source is alright in that it does cite its sources and can lead us to other secondary sources of less contention, if IronDuke or others insist it does not pass the bar of reliability on its own.
This source is perfectly fine to link as an external link, and also to use as a source in the article, since Kasaalan is right to point out that a person's own writings can be quoted in an article on them. These are Rachel Corrie's letters which she wrote while in Palestine. They are relevant to the article I think. Tiamuttalk 00:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well... I don't see either source as being okay for WP:RS. I'm not saying they're lying, just that you'd need a better source for the quotes. NYTimes, BBC, even the Guardian <<shudder>>. I think what Kasaalan writes above shows they don't meet our standards. Also, do they add something we don't already know? IronDuke 05:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with IronDuke, these are not RS, and are not qualified or needed for EL. They don't add anything the article doesn't already have. The article clearly sets out all points of view about Corrie's death. Advocacy articles, which even were they from RS would fall in the editorial/opinion exception, are not needed.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


first of all I already explained why the links are worthy enough one by one above

You first said copyright violation I already proofed no copyright violation exist

Second you say links not worthy enough I explained why they worthy enough and I will quote from wikipedia to explain why they meet standarts

so please explain

does Human Rights Watch's Human Rights Wath Wiki Page 126 page report is not worthy enough

"Human Rights Watch is a United States based, international non-governmental organization that conducts research and advocacy on human rights. Its headquarters are in New York City."
"Human Rights Watch is a founding member of the International Freedom of Expression Exchange, a global network of non-governmental organizations that monitor censorship worldwide."
"Human Rights Watch has more than 230 paid staff, and a budget of over US$30 million a year."
"Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International are the only two western orientated international human rights organizations operating worldwide in most situations of severe oppression or abuse. Though close allies, the two groups play complementary roles, reflecting a division of labour."

"I'm not saying they're lying, just that you'd need a better source for the quotes. NYTimes, BBC, even the Guardian <<shudder>>."

does The Boston Globe The Boston Globe Wiki Page really not meet wiki standarts

"The Boston Globe (and Boston Sunday Globe) is the most widely circulated daily newspaper in Boston and in New England, United States. Owned by The New York Times Company, the broadsheet Globe's local print rival is the Boston Herald. In 2008 the Globe's average weekday circulation fell to 350,605, down from 382,503, or 8.3 percent. Sunday circulation fell 6.5 percent to 525,959."

The Boston Globe is "the most widely circulated newspaper in Boston and in New England" already owned by NY Times Company maybe you didnt know

does full text of the written oath of the eyewitnesses taken by Palestinian Centre for Human Rights Wiki Page not reliable

"The Centre is an independent Palestinian human rights organization (registered as a non-profit Ltd. Company) based in Gaza City. The Centre enjoys Consultative Status with the ECOSOC of the United Nations. It is an affiliate of the International Commission of Jurists-Geneva, the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) – Paris, Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Network - Copenhagen, Arab Organization for Human Rights – Cairo, and International Legal Assistance Consortium (ILAC) Stockholm. It is a recipient of the 1996 French Republic Award on Human Rights and the 2002 Bruno Kreisky Award for Outstanding Achievements in the Area of Human Rights. The Centre was established in 1995 by a group of Palestinian lawyers and human rights activists."about page

"The article clearly sets out all points of view about Corrie's death" the article contains the points of view about Corrie's death true yet not including all evidence or all photographs taken that day or even Rachel's last letters to her family

furthermore this article is about rachel corrie it contains her death yet it is not limited to her death case it is about her including her ideological stance in life her acts her letters and photographs of her with the permission of her family

I have spent some hours to clearly point out my view one by one and instead just telling they are not worthy enough or adds nothing to the case can you at least try reading them or try giving the reasons of your objection for each one seperately try explaining where the links differ and alike with wiki article and why the links which contains further info is not necessary

my questions yet waiting for an answer you didnt answer any of them

howcome one person's own letters before her death is not worthy enough to be mentioned in her own biography page

Kasaalan (talk) 18:04, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kasaalan, I would strongly recommend that you familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies before wading into a controversial article like this one. What you are trying to insert comes from sources that are flagrantly unreliable (eg ifamericansknew). Yes, you have something from the Boston Globe -- an editorial from Rachel's mother. That's really not what this article is about -- emotional appeals from either side. The "Myth" "Fact" stuff is just glaring WP:POV-pushing. Also, See [2]. The issue is dealt with pretty soberly there, and everyone gets to have their say about what they think happened, and why. Finally, if there is any way you can write more clearly, it would be appreciated. I'd like to be able to reply to all you have to say, but your posts are difficult to understand. IronDuke 19:02, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with IronDuke. In addition, much of the "Myths" page seems to be based on "well, the IDF said this, but as seven members of the ISM said something else, it has GOT to be a lie." Can't use it, sorry.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have written a long answer to you yet my browser crashed and here is a short answer

1- first of all I dont guess you have read all of my statements above at all can you simply first answer if you have read all of the text above or checked all links I provided I say this because you even objected the editorial of Cindy Corrie on The Boston Globe for only links from The NY Times and such should be accepted yet The Boston Globe is best selling newspaper in its area and owned by NY Times as I stated above and the link to the editorial is already given as a reference in the Rachel Corrie wikipedia article just as you both objected letters of Rachel Corrie is not relevant to the biography article of Rachel Corrie or has copyright violation though I prooved they are in public domain and already in the given refence list

2- second my above statements proove the worthiness of the links included in the myths and facts sheet with even the wikipedia links

3- what you try to do is taking a single link and saying it is not worthy like ifamericansknew it is credible enough as it openly adresses the sources of its statistics in its main page yet it is not related to the issue much because i used the link because it has rachel corrie letters in pdf format not because other statements in the site

4- though if the site The Case Against Rachel Corrie and RachelCorrieFacts.org Seattle based website critical of Corrie and the ISM by israelnationalnews and another israeli point of view site is worthy enough to be mentioned in external references ifamericansknew site also worthy enough to be mentioned for answering israelnationalnews and rachelcorriefacts sites' misleading facts and claims In my opinion all 3 sites needed to be mention in the article regardless of the info in them simply because 2 sides has the official claims of the either sides not just another 3rd party trying to POV-push or anything

5- did you even read all of the myths and facts sheet before deleting it a simple question please answer because it reflects the point of view of rachel corrie yes but an answer to the claims of idf and 2 sites above and for a disputable case like this there should be mentioned 2 side of views so is it alright for you if 2 sites above clearly say rachel corrie aiding terror or her parents simply lie and when I put links answering this claims it is POV-pushing view

6- also mtyhs and facts sheet has very important links relevant to the case did you read them or tried to check their integrity before deleting them

7- you try to answer just as neither of the links is not worthy enough to be mentioned yet I put them all above and if they are not worthy enough try numbering them and giving the reasons for why they are not worthy enough otherwise what you do is just being not independent

8- you say ifamericansknew not worthy enough yet do not mention the creditibility issue of Human Rights Watch or the written oaths of the eyewitnesses with full text when you deleted my quotes you also deleted them so we have to settle first what links are qualified enough in the article so we can at least progress a bit take your time and check the links organisations reports and provide the reasons if you will delete them again otherwise you are deleting crucial info to the case without even providing rational reasons or taking one side which both are clearly dangerous

so you have all links and evidence above and instead just deleting provide some solid info before deleting them if we dont settle about the links there will be no progress

my short answer is not so short yet it is because you didnt provide any good reason for particular links try doing that Kasaalan (talk) 13:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kasaalan, I did read what you wrote, rest assured. I will say I didn't understand it all, as your prose is hard to decipher, but you should follow the links I gave you, and really make a good faith effort to understand our policies. I know it's very confusing, and a lot to digest, but until you really get it, your edits are likely to be reverted. IronDuke 01:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also have read what was written and I read the articles. I agree with IronDuke, it isn't about the point of view of the article, it is whether it meets Wikipedia policies. It isn't "solid info", I'm afraid, it is argument and editorials. I understand that you feel strongly about this, but it is about WP's policies. I'm very hopeful that you will make constructive edits to the article. I asked for a peer review a while back, I don't think this will ever be stable enough for FA, but it could be a GA, and to get it there, we are going to need solid editors with varying views.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

you still didnt answer link by link as I requested multiple times I put all my links above and you should answer in a format such as this link is good enough and this link is not because ... but you just say "policies" and I already read the policies and I assure you some links totally qualified for the wikipedia guidelines such as Human Rights Watch Report or Eyewitnesses written oaths yet you simply keeping away from evaulating links one by one and giving a different reason for each of them instead you say policies policies policies but you dont refer which policy they are against policies cleary point out a report or eyewitness accounts are fully acceptable that is the reason I put all my links with info provided to proove they are qualified take you time explaining which link is against policies and which link is alright

What I meant from solid info was for example the photographs taken at that day which we can call objective and independent and wont lie or written statements of eyewitnesses or emails of rachel corrie

Also you insistently keep away from answering my numbered questions above you deny my addition of links because they doesnt meet the standarts but you still dont give your opinion on sites like rachelcorriefacts who blatantly accuse rachel as a terror advocate so if we only evaulate your judgement for one side how can we claim or indepence for the case I still expect one by one answer to my numbered statements above

try beginning with Human Rights Watch Report and Affidavits Statements because they meet the standarts a hundred percent I am asking again if these two links meet the standarts or not for your point of view because if we cannot even settle on this we can never settle or progress a bit

if you wont give me reason per each link I cannot answer you Kasaalan (talk) 12:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well ... WP:RS. The Human Rights Watch report has been discussed before on this talk page, though it may have been archived by now. The Cindy Corrie piece is an editorial, and pursuant to WP:RS, "News reporting is distinct from opinion pieces. Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact, and should be attributed in-text." Accordingly, we could mention that Rachel's mom feels that the Israeli's did no good by her daughter, but that's kinda already in the article. The other piece does not qualify as a RS, it is evaluating facts rather than reporting them, and that the organization that published it believes Rachel was murdered is not noteworthy. If we didn't have eyewitness statements in the article, you'd have a bit more of an argument, but we quote three apparent eyewitnesses at considerable length. I paraphrase IronDuke: What isn't in the article that you propose to add? In terms of facts, that is.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't make major edits to your posts [3] once they have been responded to. It makes life hard for the reader following the discussion. Could I respectfully ask you to restate your questions and which sites you are asking for opinions on? It is possible we are arguing at cross purposes.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it would be helpful for Wehwalt to explain why Human Rights Watch is not a reliable source for the purposes of this article? I would, but I don't understand that position myself. Tiamuttalk 13:57, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

wiki guidelines

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.


you didnt respond at all to any of my questions to the current time that is our biggest issue here

1- Israel: Failure to Probe Civilian Casualties Fuels Impunity and “Promoting Impunity: The Israeli Military’s Failure to Investigate Wrongdoing” the 126 page report about rachel corrie and israeli untransparent investigations
Human Rights Watch [International Organisation] wiki page
"documents how Israel has failed in its legal obligation to investigate civilian deaths and injuries that result from the use of lethal force in policing and law enforcement contexts, such as controlling demonstrations or enforcing curfews, and in combat situations when there is prima facie evidence or credible allegations that soldiers deliberately harmed civilians or failed to take all feasible precautions to protect them from harm.
The report examines in detail more than a dozen cases of civilian deaths and serious injury caused to Palestinians and foreigners by Israel Defense Forces in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, most of which clearly occurred in law enforcement rather than armed conflict situations."
these two links are solid reports that need to be added to the page provide me good reason for deleting the links
2- Affidavits from eyewitnesses to Rachel Corrie killing (Durie, Carr, Hewitt) electronic intifada Affidavits [affidavit is a written statement made under oath] taken by Palestinian Center for Human Rights Palestinian Centre for Human Rights Wiki Page, 3 July 2003
"The Centre is an independent Palestinian human rights organization (registered as a non-profit Ltd. Company) based in Gaza City. The Centre enjoys Consultative Status with the ECOSOC of the United Nations. It is an affiliate of the International Commission of Jurists-Geneva, the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) – Paris, Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Network - Copenhagen, Arab Organization for Human Rights – Cairo, and International Legal Assistance Consortium (ILAC) Stockholm. It is a recipient of the 1996 French Republic Award on Human Rights and the 2002 Bruno Kreisky Award for Outstanding Achievements in the Area of Human Rights. The Centre was established in 1995 by a group of Palestinian lawyers and human rights activists."about page
not just some parts or quotes the full text of written statements of the eyewitnesses try providing a good reason to not add the full statements' link to the article
3- Rachel Corrie: Myths and Facts "...to dispel some common myths that have often crept into media coverage regarding Rachel’s death ... with the cooperation of Rachel’s family, we have prepared this fact sheet along with clearly referenced sources" the official answers from rachel's parents against sites like The Case Against Rachel Corrie and RachelCorrieFacts.org Seattle based website critical of Corrie and the ISM which even blatantly claiming rachel was advocating terror like the rest of the israeli point of view sites referenced in the wiki biography page
official strict clear and sourced answers from rachels parents to the harsh claims by israeli sources as the bold claims and questions of israeli sources already exist in the article how cannot we put the answers given by rachel's family to the article
especially these two links contains really harsh misleading and unsourced claims with links on rachel's case even beyond the POV-pushing way I am not against if these 2 links will stay yet I do have to say if these 2 links stay while you delete the answers of rachel's family from the first hand as in myths and facts sheet wikipedia article will lost its indepence and transparency to the case because it is a clear cencorship
4- ifamericansknew.org sourced statistics like Israeli and Palestinian Children Killed, Israelis and Palestinians Killed, Israelis and Palestinians Injured, Demolitions of Israeli and Palestinian Homes, Current Illegal Settlements on the Other’s Land ... against statistics like Number of Israelis Killed in Terror Attacks Number of Suicide Terror Attacks of sites such as [4]
5- Rachel’s Emails rachels emails in public domain
"Rachel’s emails, sent home during her time in Rafah, Gaza Strip, and selected other writings are available to the public and public readings are encouraged."
6- Seeking answers from Israel this link was already given in the references yet needs to be updated with this new link of the page
7- miftah.org it contains the photograph's of the event in chronological manner with some written explanation under them A Tribute to Rachel Corrie very important photographed source
8- Rachel’s Letters this letters also given as an html link in the article yet as this is in a preferable pdf format can we add this near the original reference as a mirror


explain with numbers which links you object and which ones you accept seperately

Kasaalan (talk) 18:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Accept for what purpose? As a potential reliable source to back up information in the article? Or are we talking potential EL's? Those are two different standards.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
what el means electronic link or else —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kasaalan (talk • contribs) 19:03, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
External Link. By the way, I can't get miftah to load, it crashed my browser.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
you can answer like number 1 good enough to be only external reference because ... number 2 good enough to be sourced some of the link needs to be source some may just be external links and miftah.org is opening with no issue in internet explorer if it doesnt work for you you can try firefox or maybe printer friendly page works better for you printer friendly page Kasaalan (talk) 19:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I can give definitive answers without seeing proposed edits. However, in an effort to help you out as a new editor, I'll do what I can, at least if it is not too much work. I don't know how long it will take. The thing is, I'm kinda doing your work for you, it is really your job as proponent of this material to justify it. But since you are new at this, you aren't likely to come up with all the policies and whatnot.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent)I can't. I am sorry, I tried with number 1, and without knowing for what purpose you intend it, I can't intelligently answer you. Too much depends on context. It has gotta come from you initially as proponent.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. To answer your questions Kasaalan,

By my understanding of WP:RS, these two reports constitute reliable sources and the material contained within them can be used in this article. We need to balance our use of this source and the viewpoints its expresses against other source, per WP:NPOV, which means "neutral point of view". NPOV means presenting all significant viewpoints on an issue as presented in reliable sources.
Some editors here will not accept Electronic Intifada as a source for anything. Others will allow its use in specific circumstances. If you feel that the affidavits reported at EI are worth including here and cannot get agreement from other editors, you can ask for an outside opinion at the Reliable Soruces Noticeboard.
Please note that www.rachelswords.org is already linked in the External Links section, though not to the Myths and Facts page you would like to see it linked to. I think you are right to say that if we include sites like "The Case Against Rachel Corrie" and rachelcorriefacts.org, we should also be able to include those of the opposite viewpoint. Do note however, that the main site is already linked.
  • ifamericansknew.org sourced statistics like Israeli and Palestinian Children Killed, Israelis and Palestinians Killed, Israelis and Palestinians Injured, Demolitions of Israeli and Palestinian Homes, Current Illegal Settlements on the Other’s Land ... against statistics like Number of Israelis Killed in Terror Attacks Number of Suicide Terror Attacks of sites such as [5]
I don't see the problem with linking to If Americans Knew, especially when we do currently link to rachelcorriefacts.org. Both are advocacy group sites expressing opposite POVs. It would be good to include both, in my opinion.
The emails are already linked to in the in-line citations in the article. I also added a link to the Guardian which excerpts her earlier diaries too. I think that should be enough.
I also do not see a problem with linking to the editorial by Rachel's mother in the external links section. It is relevant and is published in an RS. But I understand that Wehwalt would like to reduce the number of external liks here, rather than expand them. Perhaps more discussion about who should be included would be a good thing.
  • miftah.org it contains the photograph's of the event in chronological manner with some written explanation under them A Tribute to Rachel Corrie very important photographed source
I also think including an external link to the photo sequence would be good. Perhaps it would be better included in the article, alongside a discussion of the photos.
  • Rachel’s Letters this letters also given as an html link in the article yet as this is in a preferable pdf format can we add this near the original reference as a mirror
We do not need to link to the set of letters, per my comment above them already being linked elsewhere.

I hope that answers your questions. Perhaps Wehwalt and IronDuke would like to take a look at the point-by-point breakdown and explain their positions as well. Tiamuttalk 13:57, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the thought. Your response, while good generally, obviously cannot get into the specific situations in which the articles might be used, thus my reluctance to get into a point by point. I'm not sure you noticed, but we do already cite to the HRW report in the reactions section, therefore that's kinda moot, though I would consider it only useful for stating HRW's reaction to Corrie's death and the aftermath. I'm a bit concerned by the photo site. There was considerable coverage as to photographs being incorrectly labelled as happening just before Corrie's death; accordingly I'd want discussion and review before including that site. That applies whether it is in article or as an EL. Speaking of EL, I would want to limit the total number to ten, with varying points of view, with at least three representing "pro Corrie" and "anti Corrie" viewpoints, so to speak. Most of the others have been dealt with by IronDuke or myself previously, and are probably not acceptable either as an EL or a RS.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:EL "On articles with multiple points of view, the number of links dedicated to one point of view should not overwhelm the number dedicated to other equal points of view, nor give undue weight to minority views. Add comments to these links informing the reader of their point of view. If one point of view dominates informed opinion, that should be represented first. For more information, see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view—in particular, Wikipedia's guidelines on undue weight." Not quite sure we're doing that right now. We need to be.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

here we are making some progress so thank all

1- human rights watch wiki page report linked as 25 in reference section is not working Page Not Found true link is section 8 updated link yet I want to add page 9 because it has a seperate section for rachel corrie and the transparency of the investigation I will try to check it completely later and try to extract some additional information from this report

2- for affidavits electronic intifada is not actually the source because they quote it from Palestinian Centre for Human Rights Wiki Page also it is the only source I could find on internet by searching google that publishes the full statements of the eyewitnesses so this page uniquely contains the full text of crucial info quoted at rachel corrie article therefore we cannot be so elective for the other content of electronic intifada which belongs to another discussion

that is why I insist on these two links should be added

3- the main page of the site is already given yet this Rachel Corrie: Myths and Facts Sheet "...to dispel some common myths that have often crept into media coverage regarding Rachel’s death ... with the cooperation of Rachel’s family, we have prepared this fact sheet along with clearly referenced sources" is a detailed summary of the main objections and answers of rachels family to the claims quoted in the main page so it has to be pointed out more clearly as an official answer to idf reports and israeli media claims of rachel's family alongside ism

4- at Rachel’s Emails page there is updated and very important info like her Fifth Grade speech which werent published at guardian and I also claim very decisive about her later actions and might be very helpful understanding her childhood and the way she thinks

I’m here for other children.
I’m here because I care.
I’m here because children everywhere are suffering and because forty thousand people die each day from hunger.
I’m here because those people are mostly children.
We have got to understand that the poor are all around us and we are ignoring them.
We have got to understand that these deaths are preventable.
We have got to understand that people in third world countries think and care and smile and cry just like us.
We have got to understand that they dream our dreams and we dream theirs.
We have got to understand that they are us. We are them.
My dream is to stop hunger by the year 2000.
My dream is to give the poor a chance.
My dream is to save the 40,000 people who die each day.
My dream can and will come true if we all look into the future and see the light that shines there.
If we ignore hunger, that light will go out.
If we all help and work together, it will grow and burn free with the potential of tomorrow.
– Rachel Corrie, aged ten, recorded at her school’s Fifth Grade Press Conference on World Hunger

I also found some interviews and even the video of this speech but I dont want to add these youtube links without checking the copyright issues

also press resources the photographs of rachel for press presentation of the a memorial book of rachel

"Book publisher W.W. Norton & Company will be publishing the complete journals of Rachel Corrie with an introduction and annotations by the Corrie family in March 2008."

6- the boston globe link at references 21 and 25 are duplicate they should be merged why I stated that link because one link wasnt working at main page before but cannot find which one now the links 11 and 12 at references section are also duplicate

7- about the A Tribute to Rachel Corrie page some may consider them discussable yet even to be discussed they yet to be present to the public my only consideration on the photos are copyright issues which I will try to check later also the photographs document her other actions in the area and the protests of her death there is critism on the photographs as they were taken before the incident yet it is clearly pointed out in wiki page also the photo chronology is not just about the incident but the whole journey of rachel in the area

and about the weight of the links and the info contained we can count and calculate them later with some good statistics therefore may balance the article better if this is your concern but we should also balance the tone of the links because some links has gone too far beyond the POV-pushing way and the only way to correct this is publishing her parents official objections

Kasaalan (talk) 18:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you see duplicate links in the article, go ahead and fix them.
Kasaalan, you're new here, it seems, but it would really help if you used capital letters and punctuation. Unless your real name is archy, that is! It would make it easier to reply to you, and we'd make better progress. Also, proposing ten links at once is greatly slowing things down and making it likely things will slip through the cracks. It also increases the chance of edit conflicts.
I will attempt to go through and reply to all, but if I miss something, please don't hold it against me.
1. Certainly, go ahead and update the link. However, if we use the report (and we can't break it down by page like that), then WP:EL says we shouldn't use it as an EL.
link for page 8 need to be updated link 9 the special section dedicated to rachel and some other activists should be added
2. EI gets it from Wikipedia? It may seem odd, but Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Also keep in mind that in many cases, WP seems to be quoting from a source, when it is actually the other way around, especially when there are few or no refs. So right now we can't use that because it is not properly sourced.
if you read my previous comments I have already written for the credibility of the organisation requoting full text of eyewitnesses is important cannot understand your statement well on this matter
"The Centre is an independent Palestinian human rights organization (registered as a non-profit Ltd. Company) based in Gaza City. The Centre enjoys Consultative Status with the ECOSOC of the United Nations. It is an affiliate of the International Commission of Jurists-Geneva, the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) – Paris, Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Network - Copenhagen, Arab Organization for Human Rights – Cairo, and International Legal Assistance Consortium (ILAC) Stockholm. It is a recipient of the 1996 French Republic Award on Human Rights and the 2002 Bruno Kreisky Award for Outstanding Achievements in the Area of Human Rights. The Centre was established in 1995 by a group of Palestinian lawyers and human rights activists."about page
3. We're not looking for the best arguments. Probably there are better arguments than those made by the IDF. We need to stick to giving the arguments of the parties involved, and these principally are the ISM and the IDF. Your inclusion of this seems rather pointy.
idf at one side ism and rachel corrie's parents are 2 different sides as first party involved you cannot leave out her parents or call them as a third party
4. Are you seriously proposing to include her fifth grade speech in the article? I hope you just mean as an EL. I have no objection to one or two ELs going to Corrie's poems or emails, but not more than that. We have some already. Propose which ones you want and let's talk about it.
link has her previous letters published my new link should also be added as it is an updated source also her fifth grade speech is a good indication of her political views at age 10 should not be quoted as a whole but may be added as a summary sentence and should be referenced
5. There is no 5.
number 4 is number 5 actually my mistake Rachel’s Emails read above
6. See above.
number 6 is Seeking answers from Israel read above
7. The photograph page looks like trouble. They do not say when the photographs were taken and we are right back to the Reuters scandal, when the photo of Corrie in front of the bulldozer was represented as happening right before she died. No good, I'm afraid. I'd have no problem with a page with the photographs alone and the date and time of each, but not as presented.
photographs during her protest discussable true the photographs after or before this incident are just showing other activities during her visit to the area and the protests after her death with some photographs taken at hospital
actually idf report also discussable much what I try to do right now is to pinpoint what exact bulldozer serie of d9 that idf uses because there are different models like d9r d9l or d9n from there we can calculate the field of view of the operator the photograph at the main wiki page seems a bit misleading we should identify the true one from here Caterpillar D9 Wiki Commons Page and give exact serie of the bulldozer by the photographs taken at the area
according to the photos taken [6] it is a d9r [7] [8] most possibly —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kasaalan (talk • contribs) 19:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. I'm not quite clear what you are driving at. I think what you are saying is add all the links first and then argue about whether to remove one or more, especially the ones you consider extreme. I think we need to do it as part of a single process.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
arguing is important we are progressing right now instead undoing each others edits we should have settle for contributing to the page and that is what we are doing right now because before I asked the reason for deletions I couldnt get proper ones yet you are giving one by one opinions about the links different point of views are better than just one that is why I ask everyone's opinion before the addition of the links the main pages has lots of additions and deletions recently it is better to keep discussions here because I lost the track of edits done recently Kasaalan (talk) 19:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course you could get reasons. You started out, I remind you, by ADDING with no reasons given. Your response on being reverted by three different editors was to go over to the Palestine Project page and ask for help there, rather than to post here. You and Tiamut then posted here on the 4th and IronDuke replied the next day, and I replied the day after that. I am not always sitting before a computer, you know. I was in Jordan and the U.A.E. on the 4th and 5th and it had to wait (I can do very simple editing from my blackberry, but that is about it) until I found an internet cafe at the Carrefour in Deira. Incidently, if you are losing track of edits, imagine what we are. You are adding kilobytes of unformatted, unpunctuated, uncapitalized words with each edit. It is very difficult to go through. As the ISM and the Corrie parents do not have views that differ appreciably, I don't see the need to go through their joint position twice (maybe we should do three times, including once for each parent?) I don't see any reason from what you've written to reconsider anything I wrote about the various resources you propose to use, so suppose we see what others think?--Wehwalt (talk) 19:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
did not lost track of my edits I meant other edits done to the main page recently and for preventing the same situation and complicating main page even further I tried to discuss the issue here. it is clear I asked help from palestinian project page after the issues no wrongdoing in doing that they could also state you were right but most possibly with a clear reason. also you have to understand providing info takes much more time than deleting it or checking it. formatting it also takes much more time addition to the research I made with sources. It took immense time of mine already. The more views the better. As a question again do you object the link 2 because I didnt quite understand your objection there were you referring eyewitnesses statements at electronic intifada or else. I used wiki page links as a helper not as a solid proof and supported the organisations own pages reffering the funders and supporters.Kasaalan (talk) 19:44, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We can't use the organization's own page per WP:SELFPUB. So I guess I object. I don't see the need for it anyway, we have three witness statements as it stands.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
a possible reason is the quotes from the wikipedia page is noted as citation needed and this is the only source on internet that contains the full text. Even in the page eyewitness Joseph Carr referenced as Joe. And I repeat again it contains Durie, Carr, Hewitt's full written oaths taken by a lawyer and quoted from Palestinian Center for Human Rights dated 3 July 2003 which you claim self published. Yet all organisations self publish their reports even IDF self publishes its reports. Self publishing referenced at wiki policies most possibly refers to self published works of individuals. Also being quoted 3 times without a source doesnt mean we shouldnt provide a source for them as a reference. Unless you provide a better source for the statements of eyewitnesses this is the best and only source for eyewitnesses statements. And maybe there are more quotes need to be added or should be checked or different parts should be quoted. Kasaalan (talk) 21:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's a difference between notable self-publishers and not. One way to double check is to see if others repeat the self-published remarks. In this case, it would appear not. IronDuke 21:49, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
found rest of the eyewitnesses statements Affidavits from eyewitnesses to the murder of Rachel Corrie by Schnabel, Dale, Purssell, Palestinian Centre for Human Rights July 3rd, 2003. So basically are you suggesting leaving the quotes with marked as citation needed without providing the link is better than giving the only source we have to the full text of this very important eyewitnesses' statements because you assume Palestinian Human Rights Organization might not be a notable self publisher. Also I provided its memberships in the international area and awards which actually what makes an organization credible. It may or may not yet I have hard time understanding how you reject the written statements of eyewitnesses given under oath and taken by Raji Sourani who is a lawyer working at the organisation. This is the first hand information to the case with a clear format, the source of the uncited quotes in the article and also very helpful for cross reference purposes.
"I the undersigned, Nicholas James Porter Durie gave this statement concerning the death of Rachel Corrie under oath. Nicholas James Porter Durie
This statement was given before me, Lawyer Raji Sourani in my office in the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights, and in my presence on the 19th of March 2003, by Nicholas James Porter Durie. After I had given him legal warning to tell the truth, he signed his statement in the full capacity of his free and independent will. Raji Sourani"
this quote should proof that they are notable in the international area to be mentioned in a wiki article. Because what makes and organisation credible is its membership, acceptance and the awards given in the international area.
"The Centre is an independent Palestinian human rights organization (registered as a non-profit Ltd. Company) based in Gaza City. The Centre enjoys Consultative Status with the ECOSOC UN Economic and Social Council of the United Nations. It is an affiliate of the International Commission of Jurists-Geneva, the International Federation for Human Rights FIDH 155 human organisations throughout the world – Paris, Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Network - Copenhagen, Arab Organization for Human Rights – Cairo, and International Legal Assistance Consortium (ILAC)members Stockholm. It is a recipient of the 1996 French Republic Award given by president of French Republic on Human Rights and the 2002 Bruno Kreisky Award jury for Outstanding Achievements in the Area of Human Rights. The Centre was established in 1995 by a group of Palestinian lawyers and human rights activists." about page Kasaalan (talk) 00:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All those qualifications and ten shekels will buy you a cup of coffee at Starbucks Ramallah, I'm afraid! The thing is, it is still not a reliable source. And no, I don't agree that better an unreliable source than no source, Jimbo Wales has said something along the lines of better not to have info in an article than to have it unverifiable, and a nonRS is unverifiable. Strikes me it is a low value link anyway, that editors, having read the lengthy statements in the articles from the three "witnesses" (I have my doubts about Richard) will not be thirsting to read a bunch of affidavits. Find a better source, please.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I dont live Palestine, I dont use shekels, I dont drink coffee therefore I dont know the price. Yet I dont know if you could buy anything with your double standarts or would be more outrageous if israeli government would hire you for a cup of coffee for objecting main references. The organisation even got peace award by President of the French Republic and taken Bruno Kreisky award, has consultative status at Economic and Social Counsil of United Nations and member of many international human rights organisations as stated above. All you could say is blatant jokes. Provide any good reason for it is a non reliable source if you have any proof on the matter. All the eyewitnesses statements taken by this organisation in presence of a lawyer under written oath anyway. How can you say organisation is not credible if anyway the eyewitnesses stamements are the main first hand and direct source to the case. The written statements taken by the PCHR in the first place within 2 months time after the incident so any source but PCHR's report would be second hand source anyway. It is obvious we need some administrators' help on this matter because keeping a main reference like this from being added to the page is a clear cencorship. You cannot object eyewitnesses written statements under oath taken by a lawyer under oath without good solid objection. You say editors not thirsty reading all of the written statements, I dont say anyone should put all of the text here, but we should provide the text to the full statements so anyone interested could read it through the link. If IDF would have been published the full report I would say the same thing about its report because IDF and PCHR written statements are first hand ISM and HRW reports first or second hand references to the case therefore 4 main sources for the case.
this link is reference 46 also not working. Kasaalan (talk) 12:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not following Wehwalt's argument here. How is the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights, an internationally affiliated legal organization which took affidavits for witnesses to Corrie's death, not a reliable source exactly? Is it because they are Palestinian? Tiamuttalk 12:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent)No, I'd probably say the same for an Israeli nonprofit, or for one from Nauru. Please check out the policies, top of the page. As for my "ten shekels" remark, it is a variation on "that and a dime will buy you a cup of coffee", and old saying meaning what you are saying hasn't proven the point. For another example of my using it, please see here (down near the bottom, I don't have time to go looking for diffs right now).--Wehwalt (talk) 12:49, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but they are an internationally accredited legal organization. If they take affidavits, they are bound to faithfully represent what the witnesses to the event said. It's not a regular advocacy group or non-profit. Tiamuttalk 22:33, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your statement doesnt make any sense according to the terms of wiki policies. The credibility of an organisation is of course not dependent on its location but it is still dependent on its acceptability in international area, reports it published, number of its qualified members and supporters it has with awards the organisation receipt in the international area which I already proved above. PCHR is credible enough as an organisation. But you even take a further step on your claims as you would say the same for any non profit organisation and object their report being added for a reference in a wiki article. Therefore you should first prove whether it is forbidden to publish reports by non profit human rights organisations in wikipedia or not. Stating your objection on PCHR might not be credible to the article for this case as a warning is one thing but not letting a credible Human Rights Organisation's publishing of written statements of eyewitnesses under oath for being referenced is another thing.
For example in PCHR's wiki page an Israeli NGO Monitor "non-governmental organization based in Jerusalem" clearly referenced against PCHR just as publiceye.org in NGO Monitor Wiki Page against ngo-monitor's actions. For claiming a direct statement given by eyewitnesses and published by a credible organisation you have to prove your case first. The written statements are given under oath by eyewitnesses are not a report researched by the PCHR it is just taken and published by them and you didnt provide any proof that the info in the link differs from eyewitnesses "actual" statements. Kasaalan (talk) 15:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Information missing from the article

Hi all. I made a bold edit and changed the section on "Possible kidnap attempt by Palestinians..." yada yada ydada to "Visits to Rafah by Corrie's Parents". They have visited the region a number of times since their daughter's death, not only to investigate what happened but to continue her life's work (a reason they also opened the case against Caterpillar [9]. Since their parents don't have their own article, and the reason they took activism for a just solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is inextricably tied to their daughter's death, I suggest we use this section to expand on their activist work (as documented in reliable sources).

There was and is, by the way, undue emphasis on the whole Palestinian kidnap episode. I recall watching a documentary on the Corrie's visits to rafah and their fear, as expressed by them, was related more to the Israeli tank fire being directed to the area they were staying in in Rafah. I'll try to remember which film it was and find some kind of text on the matter. But just saying, the section devoted to that (with three full paragraphs) seems a little like overkill. Tiamuttalk 14:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've played with the subsection title to include both. I caution against, er, overkill on the visits by the parents. It isn't clear to me that the actions of the parents now, five years after Corrie's death, have much to do with her article. Still, let's see what you come up with! Though I caution again, any attempt to imply the Israelis were shooting at the Corries should have really strong sourcing.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's a rather strange comment Wehwalt. If the the actions of the parents years after their daughter's death have nothing to do with her, why do we have a whole section devoted to discussing the so-called kidnap attempt of her parents during one of the more recent visits they made there? Her parents have become crusaders on the issue of Israel/Palestine since their daughter's death, taking Caterpillar to court, supporting grassroots projects in the West Bank and Gaza. I don't know why we would not mention this, if it is documented in reliable sources.
And don't worry. I'm familiar enough with how sensitive people are to any information that portrays Israel is a less than perfect light. (Conversely, it's very easy to have a whole section devoted to Palestinian "terror" in an article about a girl who was killed by an Israeli bulldozer.) I wouldn't dare attempt to include information that the Israelis were shooting at the area in the Corrie's were in, without super-solid sourcing. It was in that documentary, but documentaries are not RS's here I don't think. So cheers. Tiamuttalk 15:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not "some people"; this is the only I-P conflict article I am involved with. I'm raising my eyebrows at some of the stuff that you and PR are putting in, but I will wait for you guys to finish before commenting.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't implying you were. But did you notice that you used "caution against" twice above? Once, to discourage adding things on the visits by the parents, and once to remind me of the need for strong sourcing on the allegation that Israeli shot at Corrie's parents. I'm not a newbie Wehwalt. I know about our WP:RS guidelines and I'm very familiar with the sensitivities surrounding articles in the I-P domain. You don't need to caution me against anything.
If you do have a problem with any source I have added so far, please do let me know which and why. I don't want to start incorporating material from them into the article only to find out you don't think they are reliable or relevant. Thanks. Tiamuttalk 16:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) I don't have time to prescreen sources and won't be bound by "Well, you didn't challenge them at the time". Sorry if the language offended you, it was not meant in any negative sense. Please don't go overboard in adding external links, a while back we cut them way back (at one time there were about 40). I am trying to get rid of low value ones as you add more. This is not a Rachel Corrie memorial site, you know.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The significance of Rachel's parents and their foundation continuing to visit Rafah and work towards peace in the region is considerable. Unlike the significance of a failed attempt at crime on them, which strikes me as trivial indeed. PRtalk 15:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If so, you should have no trouble in finding reliable sources. I really don't think the Foundation invokes WP:SELFPUB, it is not the subject of this article. Weren't there news accounts?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here's one about the national campaign Corrie's parents launched to rebuild the homes that were destroyed in Rafah, spotlighting the work of a netowrk of American NGOs called the Rebuilding Alliance. [10] I'll keep looking for more and posting them here. I think it's totally ridiculous that we should devote so much space to a confused kidnapping attempt and none to the years of work her parents have since logged bringing attention to the the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Tiamuttalk 15:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No reason not to have both. But the unusual, the crime, does always seem to get more newspaper attention. Human nature I guess.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:44, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another one with more detailed information in the Jewish Journal [11]. Seems the Nasrallah family whose home Rachel was trying to protect before she was killed went with the Corrie's on the tour across america to raise funds for the rebuilding project. Notable and very relevant to this article. Tiamuttalk 15:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Corries and Nasrallahs were interviewed by Democracy Now during that cross country trip. [12] An article about their visit to Iowa is here [13]; it describes the cross-country campaign a bit too, mentioning it involved visiting 22 cities across America. Tiamuttalk 15:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Well, go ahead and write something if you like and submit it to the harsh light of Wikipedia. I suspect though, that we should limit ourselves to a paragraph or so, and perhaps direct readers to "Main Article:Rebuilding Alliance" since, after all, that is who is doing it.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, we have three paragraphs (and we use to have a sub-section header) devoted to a maybe kidnapping attempt of Corrie's parents while they were in Rafah, that did not seem to be undue to anybody. "in the harsh light of Wikipedia." But now when people want to include info on the activism of Corrie's parents, their multiple visits to Rafah, and the 22-city cross-country tour they made with the family whose home Rachel died trying to protect to raise funds to rebuild Palestinian homes destroyed in Gaza - all of this stuff should be limited to a paragraph maybe two? I think you need to think a bit about how your position comes off here. And maybe think about how to cut down the maybe/maybe not kidnapping attempt if you are so concerned with keeping this article free of undue irrelevancies. Tiamuttalk 16:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you are certainly entitled to your opinions, here and elsewhere, entirely your privilege. However, again, I feel like I'm being asked for commitments before I've seen the actual edits. Edit away, WP is the encyclopedia that can be edited by anyone, and let's see what we have. I'm unclear as to what is the difficulty about the possible kidnapping, certainly this article has been seen by editors taking every perspective and IIRC, the main concern has been about the title of the section (I think "Attempt to kidnap Corrie's parents" was changed to "Possible attempt to kidnap Corrie's parents"). But you want to take a look at things, feel free. Do you think it needs to be shorter? Or somehow balanced? It seems a bit of a contradictory position to me, but it's your view.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there should be a header for the kidnapping attempt at all. It garnered a brief mention for all of two days before it was totally forgotten, until we memorialized in an article on Rachel Corrie at wikipedia. While you on the one hand, said above, that the activities of her parents years after her death may not be relevant, you on the other, see no problem with devoting so much space (and a sub-header) to a one time event during one of their many visits to gaza.
I understand that you may not be familiar with their activist work and may think the kidnapping story more notable, but I think if you reflect a bit, you will see where the contradiction in your argument lies. Tiamuttalk 17:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bad news trumps good news, I'm afraid. But both have a place in the article. Google search for "corrie rebuilding alliance" seem to get twice as many hits as "corrie kidnapping gaza" but if you play with the wording, you can vary that as you like, neither one of them seems buried and forgotten until Wikipedia came along! Do you want to propose language and we can talk it out here?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incidently, how is rebuildingalliance.org (present ref 42) a RS under the guidelines we are working with on this talk page (i.e. no selfpub except for Corrie herself)?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't add that source. PalestineRemembered did. It's an NGO reporting on its own activities, so I guess it might fall afoul of Selfpub. I'll try to find a third-party source for that material, or something similar. Tiamuttalk 17:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Wehwalt that the attempt to kidnap the Corries is more notable than their efforts to promote their views about the I-P conflict. (The header barely makes any sense now.) I think an effective argumentum ad Googlem could be made for this, but it's really just common sense. People are generally more fascinated by crime and violence than quiet advocacy, and our newspapers, books, and encyclopdias reflect this. IronDuke 21:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Articles about the kidnapping may be easier to find, but I assure you that there are a lot of people much more interested the Corrie's volunteer work and the issues they have taken up since their daughter's death, than they are in a rumoured, failed kidnapping attempt. I think recentism has a lot to do with why the kidnapping event enjoyed so much prominence in this article until (it happened in 2006). But I think you would agree that since the initial reports were made, the issue has been largely forgotten. It's not essential to this article, and a brief mention here, without a header and section devoted to it, is sufficient. Tiamuttalk 14:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think there's room for both. I'd also say that if the failed kidnap attempt had simply happened and everyone had shrugged and moved on, you'd be right (or righter, anyway). But given that there were accusations and defenses being thrown around, I think it behooves us to treat the matter fairly. And it really isn't all that much text, is it? IronDuke 16:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with IronDuke. Tiamut, how do you know that "there are a lot of people much more interested the Corrie's volunteer work and the issues they have taken up since their daughter's death, than they are in a rumoured, failed kidnapping attempt." Isn't that OR at the very least, and something we would have a hard time verifying?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:29, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well Wehwalt, I don't know for sure, but in the circles I run in, we discuss their volunteer work (which is ongoing), much more than a rumoured kidnapping attempt from two years ago. But erhaps you should pose the question to IronDuke as well? How does he know that the attempt to kidnap the Corries is more notable thatn their efforts re: the I-P conflict. (Tiamut)
Perhaps you should. But you have the burden of proof, as the editor proposing changes. IronDuke does not. The ball is in your court.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:41, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's no consensus for his change, and it is also just odd... the section is clearly about a possible attempt to kidnap RC's parents, but is labeled as something else. Pending a consensus to overturn a long-standing caption, I have restored it. IronDuke 21:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I was planning to expand information on the Corries visits to the region and cut down some of the info on the kidnapping, which seems a bit unnecessary. They were not kidnapped, remember? This non-event on one day should not have more coverage than their work to rebuild hundreds of Palestinian homes over a few years. But to each his own. I'll see what else I can dig up on their volunteer work and visit to the region, add it and then we can discuss how to head the sections. Tiamuttalk 12:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unnecessary to whom? It got multiple coverage from reliable sources, to wit newspapers.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:41, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't take it that my edits imply consent or support, I'm just doing some cleanup.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's the length of the coverage accorded to the kidnapping rumour that I find "unnecessary", not the mention of it. I don't believe in censoring information of any kind. I think you will find, as I continue to add newspaper sources to the section on Corries' parents' activism that your perception that this work is somehow less notable than a rumoured kidnapping is false.
And don't worry, I won't take your little cleanups as some kind of evidence towards your acceptance of the material I have added. I would say however, that if you're going to suggest we delete it anyway, that you probably shouldn't bother wasting your time. Tiamuttalk 13:53, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rachel's Parents' work is very related to the subject for the memory of Rachel Corrie it should be in the article but not very long. It should contain what they have done since Rachel's death. We should open a different article page for Rachel Corrie Foundation where a more expanded info and discussion we can make on the subject. And put a link to there from Rachel's Page.
For the possibility of kidnapping events well 2 links exist one site is named global security which is full of advertising in everywhere quoted from voice of america which direct link is here [14] and should be replaced at the references section. The article written by Jim Teeple who "enjoys hearing from listeners and if he has time, will try to respond to any questions" with no source and by just a claim. Just as Reuter reports the claim "according to a witness" who, where, how we dont know. Though Craig Corrie made a statement about it "The Jerusalem Post reported Craig Corrie as saying: "there was never a threat made against us and the gun was never pointed at anyone." ... Craig Corrie said that when he entered the room and saw the man with the gun, he feared it might be a kidnapping attempt, but that the situation was never described to him that way by his host. Corrie added that the media accounts over-dramatized the incident." All different point of views should be in the article yet I agree the title of that part is not objective as we dont even know there was any kidnapping incident at all. And this incident should just be a part of Rachel Corrie's parents' actions since they established the Rachel Corrie Foundation. But the title misleads the info. If possible kidnapping attempt fits to the standarts why not corrie: media overdramatized the might-be kidnapping incident where no gun pointed to anyone or Corrie feared they might have been kidnapped at first but it never happened. You know why this wont be a good title and try applying same logic to possible kidnapping attempt to rachel's parents according to a non-clear and unknown-and-an-even-might-not-be-ever-existed-source's claim though they refused it.
Also you do even fine with sites full of advertising and purchasing links like globalsecurity that quotes from other sites while still not sure about if have any self published reports or is a "Reliable Security Information" as they self claimed which noone even didnt bother the check the first hand source of the context, extremely one sided sites like Tom Gross biography who also "worked as a staff writer and editor at the Jerusalem Post for two years.", a short and insulting editorial of national review[15] "... Rachel Corrie, the 23-year-old American radical who was crushed to death when she jumped in front of an Israeli army bulldozer. (The bulldozer was trying to destroy a building suspected of concealing tunnels used for terrorist weapons-smuggling; Corrie was part of a group that declared "armed struggle" a Palestinian "right.")" with boldest outrageous claims without even bothering to provide any source as reference [dont tell me it is an editorial], yet refuse to accept written statement of the eyewitnesses' taken by a member of Palestinian Center for Human Rights' who is a lawyer under oath. I cannot reason your actions of applying wiki policies at all. Kasaalan (talk) 14:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Refutation of photos which are not discussed

I've removed this paragraph:

  • The website Israel Behind the News has said that images on the ISM website, and subsequently used by Reuters, give a misleading impression of the incident.[1]

I doubt very much the reliability of a site like Israel Behind the News; however, my main problem with this is that it gives negative commentary about photos that are (as far as I can see) not discussed anywhere else in the article. It's poor form to include information refuting something that is not even discussed to begin with. When people decide they want to add a section on what the content of the photos was, we can consider whether or not to re-include this and how. Tiamuttalk 16:58, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found a link from Electronic Intifada Rachel Corrie page dated 16 March 2003 Photostory quoting ISM Handout while giving exact times and locations of the photographs taken as requested before for approval. It is clearly stated at the handout first photographs taken between 3-4 pm and last ones taken at 4.45 pm and 4.47 pm respectively. Therefore no controversy available in ISM handout by misleading time info. A quote from the page "Last updated: 21 March 2003 (added detail to captions in images and context to second paragraph)."
Hi there. It seems that Electronic Intifada is not considered a reliable source for this article. I can't imagine why, when a site like Israel Behind the News is. Perhaps Wehwalt might like to explain this further? We do need to discuss the photos in the article, they were key to the whole event and controversy. So what sources which discuss them are appropriate to use here? (This question is addressed to Wehwalt, since I don't understand the guidelines at the top of this page, or the way they are being implemented.) Tiamuttalk 17:33, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wehwalt said "There was considerable coverage as to photographs being incorrectly labelled as happening just before Corrie's death; accordingly I'd want discussion and review before including that site." Therefore pointing out incorrectly labelled photographs. I quoted from EI for the exact date and update [16 and 23 march 2003 respectively] which doesnt have wrong labels about date site or time of the photographs. The date and time for the photographs already given by ISM at the first place. Therefore Israeli objections for a possible fraud of the time by ISM proved to be wrong. Electronic Intifada only quotes from ISM yet I will try to get ISM handout as a first hand source instead EI in later time.
Also another important matter I will point out not sure if stated before but photographs taken at the site Photostory also proves one important issue: Rachel was not only wearing a red-orange jacket but that red-orange jacket also has 2 big reflecting stripes on it and the 4 headlights of the D9R were open all the time. Also the blue sky reflecting from the D9R and environment light also proves the times given by ISM. But if anyone still objects I can make a sun study for the area in a later time. Photographs might help even more on the case for professionals. Kasaalan (talk) 17:50, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only ISM link at the article is [16] about rachel corrie's parents. There is a Rachel Corrie archive of ISM which I traced back to find some more info on the matter from their view.

ISM statement on the killing of Rachel Corrie original full text statement of ISM
The closest eye witness account on the murder of Rachel Corrie written by Tom Dale. Some more quotes can be taken from his statements.
"We’d been monitoring and occasionally obstructing the 2 bulldozers for about 2 hours when 1 of them turned toward a house we knew to be threatened with demolition. Rachel knelt down in its way. She was 10-20 metres in front of the bulldozer, clearly visible, the only object for many metres, directly in it’s view. They were in Radio contact with a tank that had a profile view of the situation. There is no way she could not have been seen by them in their elevated cabin. They knew where she was, there is no doubt.
The bulldozer drove toward Rachel slowly, gathering earth in its scoop as it went. She knelt there, she did not move. The bulldozer reached her and she began to stand up, climbing onto the mound of earth. She appeared to be looking into the cockpit. The bulldozer continued to push Rachel, so she slipped down the mound of earth, turning as she went. Her faced showed she was panicking and it was clear she was in danger of being overwhelmed. All the activists were screaming at the bulldozer to stop and gesturing to the crew about Rachel’s presence. We were in clear view as Rachel had been, they continued. They pushed Rachel, first beneath the scoop, then beneath the blade, then continued till her body was beneath the cockpit. They waited over her for a few seconds, before reversing. They reversed with the blade pressed down, so it scraped over her body a second time. Every second I believed they would stop but they never did."
Parents speaking out to keep alive memory of child killed in Gaza quoted from Pittsburgh Post Gazette interview with Rachel's Parents
Rachel Corrie is the new Anne Frank on postponement of the plays with transcripts and sound records
The New York Times Distorts Key Facts About Cancellation of Play on Activist Rachel Corrie answers to Too Hot to Handle, Too Hot to Not Handle article
Counterpunch: “What Rachel Saw”
Haaretz: Until the bulldozers stop

also first link at reference is 24 not working [17] Kasaalan (talk) 19:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The witness statement we have for Tom Dale from an article in Mother Jones article which is already included in our article reads as follows:

The bulldozer built up earth in front of it. Its blade was slightly dug into the earth. She began to stand up. The earth was pushed over her feet. She tried to climb on top of the earth, to avoid being overwhelmed. She climbed to the point where her shoulders were above the top lip of the blade. She was standing on this pile of earth. As the bulldozer continued, she lost her footing, and she turned and fell down this pile of earth. Then it seemed like she got her foot caught under the blade. She was helpless, pushed prostrate, and looked absolutely panicked, with her arms out, and the earth was piling itself over her. The bulldozer continued so that the place where she fell down was directly beneath the cockpit. I think she would have been between the treads. The whole [incident] took place in about six or seven seconds."

I'm not sure, but I think we can link directly to the account of Tom Dale in his own words two days after the event, which you linked to here, for this information instead. I'm not clear if it's okay to use them in this particular case since it is Tom Dale's account that is being referenced itself. Wehwalt, IronDuke, help on this please?
One last thing, I would really prefer if you made edits to the article itself. Begin with small edits, introducing the material you feel is missing. It doesn't have to be perfect. I'll fix references behind you and stuff, but it's very hard to discuss these things in the abstract here without understanding exactly what it is you want to do. So just do it. Be WP:BOLD and if you get reverted, WP:BRD. Okay? Tiamuttalk 22:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong Image Used As A Reference at Rachel Corrie Article

Replaced [18] with [19]

The image was a D9N [20] not the D9R that was used at the case [21]. Also Wikimedia link for D9R should also be added because it contains better visual info for the D9R's used by IDF.

These images [22] and [23] should have been used instead.

Also 712 clearly shows if one stands up it can be clearly seen by the operator. Side views are better for visibility tracking of the case study.

Also Hebrew Wikipedia D9 Page has a Technical Drawing from Side View for D9 series clearly shows the dimensions of the D9 series. I couldn't manage to add the image under the D9R image because it is uploaded to the Hebrew version of wikipedia. Can anyone help me on this matter.

The model of the machine can be clearly identified on rachel's scene photographs at [24] or [25] Kasaalan (talk) 20:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kasaalan. We need to slow down just a little bit. Other editors cannot keep up when there are so many issues being raised at the same time. Let's try to focus on how we are writing here is related to article improvement. In this section, what I gather is that you have found a picture that more accurately represents the bulldozer that was used, right? That's good, and it's good that you went and ahead and replaced the other one. Do you think we need more than one (or maximum two) pictures? Because if you add this one too[26], which you link to above, you won't need the Hebrew version one anyway. If you still want that one, let me know, and I'll see what I can do about it. Tiamuttalk 22:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hebrew One Technical Drawing from Side View for D9 series clearly shows the dimensions of a D9 particularly a D9L but their size is rather close to each other yet I will also check this info for exact size. By the help of D9R dimensions we can actually verify its field of view from operator seat better. If Rachel has risen on the razor blade yes it is very unlikely for the operator to not see her. Because the height of the razor blade is 1.9 meters with its silage extension which has big holes for letting operator to see through. And without the extension the height of razor blade is near 150 cm. So what we need further is the height of Rachel.
I but couldnt decide where to add wikimedia link to D9R actually therefore I asked another view. The page contains various views of D9R with different armors on them.
712 is not actually the exact D9R model used at area because it has additional window protections on it. So I wont put it at the main page anyway. Yet 712 is also good for one particular case on how high the dozer blade can rise up with its see-through silage extension. dozer blade parts Therefore it is an evidence for the case whether the operator can see Rachel or not and might be useful for cross referencing eyewitnesses' comments. And if the operator has risen the blade it just means his chance of seeing her is higher than before. Kasaalan (talk) 01:38, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another fact is there were at least 2 soldiers in the operator cabin not just one. "After an investigation in 2003, the Israeli military concluded that the two soldiers in the D9R Caterpillar bulldozer that killed Rachel Corrie did not see her, though eyewitnesses indicate that she was clearly visible. The case was closed, no charges were brought, and the Israeli Government declined to release their report to the U.S. Government. On June 11, 2004, in response to inquiries from the Corrie family, Lawrence B. Wilkerson, Chief of Staff to Colin Powell at the U.S. Department of State, wrote of the IDF report, “Your ultimate question, however, is a valid one, i.e., whether or not we view that report to have reflected an investigation that was ‘thorough, credible, and transparent.’ I can answer your question without equivocation. No, we do not consider it so.” On March 17, 2005, in testimony before members of Congress, this position was reiterated by Michael G. Kozak, Acting Assistant Secretary of the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor at the Department of State." Advised by Department of State officials to pursue the matter in Israeli courts, the Corrie family in March 2005 initiated aprivate lawsuit against the Israel Defense Forces and the State of Israel. The Israeli Knesset subsequently passed legislation making it retroactively impossible for most Palestinians and others to take legal action against the IDF for injury that occurred in the Occupied Territories after September 2000." Informational Release from Craig and Cindy Corrie, parents of Rachel Corrie October 15, 2007
Also the highest speed of a D9R is 7.3 MPH (11.9 km/h) Forward and 9.1 MPH (14.7 km/h) Reverse, "The highest human footspeed ever recorded is 48 km/h (29.8 mph), seen during a 100 meter sprint by Asafa Powell. (His average speed over that distance was 36.96 km/h (22.95 mph) owing to the need for acceleration.)" for regular humans this speed is about 5 km/h walking 16 km/h running. So speed is not an issue in not seeing Rachel.
Dozer Blade "The dozer blade usually comes in three variants:
A Straight Blade ("S-Blade") which is short and has no lateral curve, no side wings, and can be used for fine grading.
A Universal Blade ("U-Blade") which is tall and very curved, and has large side wings to carry more material.
A "S-U" combination blade which is shorter, has less curvature, and smaller side wings. This blade is typically used for pushing piles of large rocks, such as at a quarry."
I will try to locate which exact dozer blade was used at the area from photographs which will give us exact dimensions. Kasaalan (talk) 11:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kasaalan. Your interest in this subject and the details of it are inspiring. But some of what you are suggesting to do may fall afoul of our policy on no original research. While we can include information on the specs of the bulldozers and even how tall Rachel was, we cannot make any conclusions based onn that information, unless it is reported by a reliable source. So I suggest you find sources that discuss this issue in detail if you want to include such information. Your own calculations will not be accepted, since they would constitute original research. I hope you understand. Tiamuttalk 13:51, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the warning and that is why I pre quote my links here. But as the photographs already proved we may point out Rachel was wearing an orange safety reflector jacket with 2 reflecting stripes while D9R's 4 spotlights [I dont know the exact brand yet a D9T uses 10 Halogen, 11 - 6 Halogen, 5 HID or 6 Halogen as additional equipment] was open all the time and the possible fastest forward speed of a D9R can reach is no more than 11.7 km/h in its largest transmission which is equal to 200 m/m or 3,3 m/s. Also while the field of view of a D9R is resricted there were more than one IDF personel in the operator cabin which lessens the chance of not seeing her and effects of blind spot.
Anyway maybe we cannot add all yet I found some great source for the Rachel Corrie's Court Trials against the company Corrie et al. v. Caterpillar which contains Timeline and legal court proceedings with a factsheet Factsheet: Home Demolitions and Caterpillar[27]. Kasaalan (talk) 16:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why do we need anything more than the court decisions, which explain the allegations and arguments in neutral and proper language? The so-called factsheet is by the advocacy group which brought the case for the Corries, fails under WP:SELFPUB. The court decisions are much better sources.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:23, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So is this how you make an article in a disputable case. If legal court decisions is enough why do we need other sources in the first place. Go ahead delete the newspapers, magazines, eyewitnesses' statements. Are you just kidding me or did not checked the page? Anything prominent is needed. The first link contains the original scanned court proceedings to the court as pdf. All human rights organisations self publish their reports, and their reports referred as such in newspapers and books as a source. You dont even accept Human Rights Watch as a source, maybe not accept this one either. The factsheet is another case, it is not such an important source for it is not referencing the facts, so I wont even discuss over it. But why I actually referenced the factsheet is for some good details like "Since 2001, human rights groups have sent over 50,000 letters to Caterpillar, Inc. executives and CEO Jim Owens" and some other details for Rachel's case, which I will try to point out later with better more reliable sources. Kasaalan (talk) 20:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We are not here to fight Rachel's case. The existing language fairly summarizes the plaintiff's allegations, and makes clear the court's reasoning. "Anything prominent is needed". No, that is not so. We write in what is called summary style here, appropriate for an encyclopedia. We hit the high points. Bogging the reader down in detail and irrelevancies (and yes, that is what the mail count for Catepillar is) encourages the reader to be bored and read something else. Such things may be appropriate for the article on Catepillar, I can't say, go talk with editors over there. For the Corrie article, not needed or desirable.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Latest edits too close to hagiography

So, I’ve taken a look at the last large batch of edits, and have a few thoughts. First, there’s some good work here. Kudos to those who put it in (I don’t know who put in what, so I can’t praise or blame anyone specifically). Having said that, and looking over the article again, I’m thinking about asking a developer if it would be possible to set the article so that when someone clicks on it, soft music starts to play, possibly a plaintive folks song, the pictures go into soft focus, and we have a moving gif image of Rachel Corrie playing with a doll as a young girl. I mean, that’s not really any more prejudicial than what we have here, right? Folks: this is not a Rachel Corrie tribute site. There’s plenty of ways to get those up on the internet, please not here. (Also not an RC hate site either, for those who keep wanting to call her “St. Pancake.”)

I’ve gone ahead and made a pass over it below is what I did and my reasons for doing so:

"had already demolished" is leading.

“This densely populated neighborhood along the Pink Line was a frequent target of Israeli gunfire.” This makes it seem like the Israelis were just shooting randomly into it.

“Corrie would also spend much of her time in an Internet café in downtown Rafah, writing about what she was witnessing from early evening until dawn, while chain-smoking and drinking cup after cup of sweetened tea. In reports for the ISM, and in notes to family and friends, she wrote about the families she lived with, the children she saw shot dead and buried, her attempts to learn Arabic and the Israeli checkpoints that made traveling through Gaza so difficult. Jenny, an Irish activist, says that, "She wrote more than anyone, and she loved doing it. She summed up exactly how I felt, and she'd only been here a couple of weeks." Friends also say that Corrie's sense of humor and playfulness remained intact throughout her trip. Mansour Lawani, a Rafah resident, says that she would stand on his balcony and call out Arabic phrases he taught her to the Egypt ian troops stationed across the border, shouting things like, "Ya, dofa, ihna awzeen nzur il ahramat!" ("Oh, soldiers, I want to visit the pyramids!"), causing the troops to wave back good-naturedly. When Lawani's wife gave her with a 1970s-era powder-pink-and-white-striped jumpsuit with matching head scarf to keep her warm, Corrie, who found it hideous, wore it the next day. Jenny recalls that "We told her, 'If you wear this in front of a tank, they'll be laughing too hard to shoot you' ... She went off dressed in the jumpsuit and played football in a pitch nearby with the local boys." [2]”

The above works well for a "St. Rachel" article. Not for an encyclopedia.

“Corrie also helped in ISM efforts to protect local Palestinian water wells and workers from the IDF by being present in those locations.”

Source? Her own emails? Not good enough.

The Corries' have worked [typo]

Palestinian family whose home Rachel [believed she] was trying to stop from being destroyed. When she dies, RC was protecting brush, according to the IDF. Two sides to the story.

"after Rachel was killed" "After Rachel died" I think is a little calmer, prose wise.

Towards the end of their first visit to the region in September 2003, they issued a press release explaining the reason for their visit and what they had learned. The press release concluded with an appeal, in the form of an excerpt from Rachel's letters to her mother that read, "This has to stop. I think it is a good idea for us all to drop everything and devote our lives to making this stop. I don't think it's an extremist thing to do anymore. I still really want to dance around to Pat Benetar and have boyfriends and make comics for my coworkers. But I also want this to stop."[3] I think by this point, we know what Corrie thought, and have really a great deal from her emails/journals, etc. This is not a tribute page for RC. “the Palestinian pharmacist whose former home Rachel Corrie had [believed she was protecting] been trying to protect when she was killed” See above.

“Humanitarian groups in Southern California organized a memorial event for Corrie in May 2003. Held at the Hyatt Regency Orange County Hotel, it was an evening of poetry, music and recollections attended by area residents, as well as members of the ISM and Palestinian children, who danced the traditional debke. Rachel Corrie was also given the "Muslim Public Affairs Council Courage Award" by Dr. Maher Hathout, who commented that "courage is not the opposite of cowardice, but rather the principle of standing up to injustice."[4]

Cindy Corrie was invited to deliver a speech at Olympia State College in September 2004, on what would have been Rachel Corrie's graduation day.[5] The anniversary of the first year of her death was commemorated by many memorial events, such as one convened by The Islamic Coalition Seeking Universal Justice and Peace for All People (ICSUJAP) in Washington, DC on March 13.[6]” There, Cindy Corrie relayed her daughter's belief that Palestine could be a "source of hope for people struggling all over the world.” Again, absent some violins, I don’t see this as particularly relevant. The article is too long as it is. I may not have covered all my changes above, please feel free to criticize/question changes I made I neglected to mention. IronDuke 23:53, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We can try pinpointing some issues one by one
“Corrie also helped in ISM efforts to protect local Palestinian water wells and workers from the IDF by being present in those locations.”
Source? Her own emails? Not good enough.
If you say some words in the sentence might be changed for a more neutral point of view I can only agree. But if you didnt even look at the photographs while she was in the area how can anyone explain you she tried to act as a human shield for those wells. Also this is not related if she has done the right thing or wrong, or whether she has good intentions or not. She tried to do it wether she accomplished her goals or not. There are photographs of her just by the side of wells waiting as a human shield. There is something called common sense. But you can again say. Source? Her own Photos? Not good enough. If you dont believe in photographs or her personal records why do you even read a newspaper. What kind of source you need. If you refer to the IDF report that IDF never published to the public we are not intelligence officiers and we cannot provide it to you. Try asking to IDF directly.
As I said before if you say some sentences need editing and summarizing I can only agree and try to help. But what you do is not editing but butchering, undoing, reversing. Between making the text neutral and erasing complete paragraphs there is a huge difference. You could ask for a source or mark as citation needed before you delete this part. This is one of the activities she had done at the area. Instead acting of an iron duke with an iron fist we all should settle help and edit for the article for everyone's sake.
You even changed "Rachel was trying to stop from being destroyed" to "Rachel believed she was preventing from destruction". She tried to stop them from being destroyed whether she was doing right or wrong, she was not imagining it, dreaming it or believing it, she was simply trying to do it whether she was right or wrong in doing it. Because the homes were destroyed by IDF and she act against it by trying. The language you use is way far from a neutral point of view. IDF would like to use such a twist at words but you shouldnt have had any reason in doing it and for Wikipedia it is out of standarts.
Yet other than that I agree too much personal info not related to an encyclopedia article has been added according to your post if all above has been added yet keeping track of them is hard and couldnt quite pinpoint them. But as the longness part there is no keep it very short part as a wiki guide. Same length as Beethoven page and way much shorter than Hitler page as a biography. As stated in the wiki guide this is not a printed encyclopedia and pages not limited by paper but by context. Yet I suggest again Rachel Corrie Foundation activities and memorial events of them other than lawsuits against IDF and D9R should be kept at minimum though wikipedia needs another page dedicated to them for details so maybe some editors are willing to creat one and adding info there. Yet also this is a biography and a biography page consist of every stage of a persons life that has effect on their lifes. So try not trimming much of her early years with your tiniest violinlike excuses next time, her fifth grade speech is a great indication of her later actions and we already tried to keep it short and as a summary. Kasaalan (talk) 01:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also you got some parts wrong ""after Rachel was killed" "After Rachel died" I think is a little calmer, prose wise." She is not died she has been killed either by accident or by purpose. Even the IDF report states she has been killed by accident. She didnt suicide or chose death she has been killed at the area. Don't try to push it further.
What violins. The rest of the article might not has a great importance yet "Cindy Corrie relayed her daughter's belief that Palestine could be a "source of hope for people struggling all over the world.”" part is important. This is Rachel's belief and a reason for her actions at the area whether she is right or wrong. This is an important quote. You cannot play your tiniest violins whereever you like.
This is an important for an article if this council is notorious in the area yet didnt check about them. Yet as a general rule the awards given to a person is important enough to be mentioned at her biography. "Rachel Corrie was also given the "Muslim Public Affairs Council Courage Award" by Dr. Maher Hathout, who commented that "courage is not the opposite of cowardice, but rather the principle of standing up to injustice."[3]"
Also important for a biography. "Cindy Corrie was invited to deliver a speech at Olympia State College in September 2004, on what would have been Rachel Corrie's graduation day.[4]"
You butchered a lot. Some has right rest is because your IronDuke attitude yet couldnt track all of them. Think once if you will write, think twice if you will erase.
Also I doubt very much for your neutral point of view. An article by Joshua Hammer, Jerusalem bureau chief for Newsweek same article points she made Israeli soldiers laugh and wave back so what how can she became St. Rachel suddenly. A good indication of Rachel's motives, actions, way of thinking. Possibly should be summarized or phraphrased as according to ... yet should it be deleted for just might make her look good if she has actually behaved like that. Try reviewing your policies again. Kasaalan (talk) 02:15, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there has been a big net gain to this article, and frankly I'm still too distracted from picking up the pieces after Albert Speer's stint on the mainpage to fully absorb everything that has been said and done, especially since Kasaalan makes his arguments, shall we just say, at considerable length! But I think we can safely afford to lose some of the material, yes, including much of the fifth grade stuff. I shudder to think what I wrote in fifth grade, and I really doubt much of what I wrote has much to do with me as an adult, but then I am not a saint, secular or otherwise. I think we can find a sensible compromise between necessary background and overly sweet material. I suggest we discuss here and make a compromise that preserves the excellence added to the article, while ensuring that the reader doesn't need an insulin shot. That means, by the way, avoiding unilateral edits and building consensus.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I write long yet explaining why a part shouldnt have been deleted takes long space. I quote the part then write reasons. But what IronDuke deleted is also as long as my comments according to his quotes. The sweetness part is in the eye of the beholder. Yet she spend a considerable time of her short life for trying to help others. You cannot change this and you cannot cut this part out from her biography this is how she lived and why she died. I wouldn't know what you were doing or thinking at the same age. Yet at age 10 at fifth grade if a child make a memorable and reasonable speech on world hunger, talk about acting for others, explaining her dreams and in her later life act for her own beliefs that is enough to be mentioned in her own biography page. This is a biography page it should contain several parts of her life not just her last months. It would have also been worth to be mentioned if she would slaughter a bunch of cats at the same age, and anyone couldn't object the matter because it would look bitter on her. Lots of the anti-Rachel links mention she is advocating terror, protecting bomb tunnels, she jumped in front of the D9 herself, she was acting like a fool, she was a radical etc. The rest of the people dont try to erase these links even they insult her blatantly with no source for the sake of balancing the article. Instead of trying to delete anything that would look Rachel good maybe if you try to find some info that would make her look bad will help the article more. Because it will become outrageous after a while. This article is a good research based on a reliable journalist Joshua Hammer, Jerusalem bureau chief for Newsweek trying to stay neutral read it, use it. You have some good points at editing but you gone too far by cencoring and cropping the rest. If you find a paragraph too long it as an editor you should paraphrase it instead deleting. Actually your last edits might need a good undoing for you to reedit them with a better neutral point of view, you simply overrated. Kasaalan (talk) 10:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that if she slaughtered a bunch of cats at age 10, her family would not have mentioned it! Perhaps for that reason, the early bio stuff should be attributed inline to her family. And, I'm sorry, in my view it needs to be cut back considerably, Rachel is notable for the manner in which she met her death, you don't want to hold up the reader too long in getting to that information. And as for the last part of your response, I take it you are referring to IronDuke, not me. I haven't edited this article in some days, being busy with a TFA and other Wikimatters. Besides, I saw you and Tiamut were very active here and it is best to let people finish working on an article before responding. Even if, really, you guys should have discussed it in advance of edits and sought to build consensus. But as I said, from what I have seen, the net is a significant improvement to the article, generally you and Tiamut did well, especially in adding references, but there is room for improvement.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:44, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I already referred to Ironduke in general but my answers to yours also mixed in so I am responsible for the misunderstanding. I am already aware you didnt edit for a while. The fifth grade speech is actually videotaped, already available on youtube though I dont know about its copyright status yet so I didnt put it as a reference. It is important for a biography and verifiable. Nothing is holding up the reader too long actually. The article is clearly sectioned. The reader can choose which info they need and read that part. Check with other biographies, early life part is at a regular length. Try to check Hitler. He has a very detailed early life as an entrance. Of course he is more prominent in history, yet you wouldnt want to miss info about his childhood there which clearly has affect on his later life. If someone mentions Hitler made paintings and drawings which some of them good, will that ever help to forget the crimes he committed. Maybe her family wouldnt put her misdoings but be sure IDF-focused media should have done without waiting a second and we can only point out what we can cite and verify. If anyone like to balance the article may try to find her misdoings or claims against Rachel. Yet deleting what she has done isnt a proper way, As a summary this time Ironduke has totally gone out of control even deleting awards given in name of Rachel, trying to twist words as she is not killed but died etc. All above I tried to point out in detail. Kasaalan (talk) 14:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no hurry; we edit for the long term here. I think the question is more whether the edits in question regarding Corrie's writings at age 10 are encyclopedic, more than whether they are verifiable. And I would respectfully suggest that "totally gone out of control" is probably not the best phrasing to use about a fellow editor who has worked long and hard on this article, though you may if you like disagree with his point of view.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"A work is biographical if it covers all of a person's life." Wiki Biography Page At first I paraphrased the speech yet another user converted it to a quote I am fine in either way though prefer paraphrasing. Yet if a ten year old girl's dream is to stop hunger by 2000 which she declared to public where she expresses her sorrow to the 40.000 preventable deaths from hunger each day, asks for everyone's help and act the same way she dreamed in her later years as an adult this is a prominent event in her life and truly encyclopedic for her biography article. This is a biography and a biography contains all prominent sides at all stages of a persons' life. Details are important, always. Such a big delete with such disputable reasons which I clearly pointed above I call simply as butchering the article beside from some good points and edits he made. But his lack of respect with tiniest violinist attitude what leads things gone out of control. I already say he has some good points for editing yet he didnt edit, paraphrased, summarized or neutralized the content which I would support and help but erased just the way he liked even replacing Rachel was killed lines by Rachel was dead just like she was strike by lightining or dead by natural reasons, he changed what she tries to do into she believed she was doing by even pushing further the limits of word twisting, this is simply a biased jargon. Deleting complete paragraphs with no prewarn, discussion, or attempt to impove them yet with adding disrespectful comments as a reason is not what I call hard work or what I expect from a wikipedia editor. Deleting is easy, improving is hard, therefore an editor should try to edit and improve to earn its title. Kasaalan (talk) 18:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We should remember that Wikipedia is not a memorial site, nor a site for hagiographies (see, for those who insist on Wikipolicy links, WP:NOT, WP:NPOV. It is a site for encyclopedic descriptions of noteworthy figures. As Rachel Corrie is essentially a private figure with a single act of prominence, we should confine our biography to items relevant to her significance in history, while avoiding efforts to paint the subject in an excessively sympathetic light, as the current section on her childhood does (see, specifically, WP:UNDUE). Ray (talk) 21:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Ray. Besides, her youthful attention to ending world hunger has nothing to do with the reasons she was there in Gaza. If she had said "world peace", well, you'd have a bit more of a case, but it still wouldn't survive Ray's point.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the poem on World Hunger deserves at least some mention in the article. She read the poem at a press conference at her school. Okay, she was in fifth grade, but it is a part of the theater play "I am Rachel Corrie" and the poem is quoted in full in this book [28] onn the play and Corrie. Perhaps a good compromise would be to include it in the "Artistic Tributes" section?
The book link above leads me to another subject, which is that there are a number of book sources on Corrie, none of which we have utilized so far in this article. I will start perusing them for relevant information, posting links here for those interested in the coming days. I'm a little busy in real life right now, so please excuse me.
One last thing, IronDuke deleted or altered a lot of information in the article (some of which was there long before Kasaalan and I made any changes) without articulating the reasons for those changes, which are largely unrelated to this discussion. I'd appreciate it if he could give a line by line breakdown of his rationale here, so that I know what the problem is with the things he removed or changed so as to move toward finding solutions. I can't read minds. Thanks. Tiamuttalk 22:25, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if Ray read the emails of Rachel but we can put the case again. Ray's point of course good, and I can agree if someone tries to point out how she likes cats or hats or wearing pink or any other unimportant trivia. A speech like below from a 10 year old student is a good indication of her later actions. Do you only see the hunger in the speech or are there other concepts like: caring for others, children of the world is suffering everywhere, the poverty is all around us, and the 40,000 poor people dying from hunger each day are also humans just like us therefore we should help them because they need our help, a dream of preventing hunger by the year 2000 can be accomplished if simply everyone of us help together yet if we ignore there is no chance for them and nothing will change. This is an act speech not just a blatant speech that world beauties make in their competitions.
"I’m here for other children. I’m here because I care. I’m here because children everywhere are suffering and because forty thousand people die each day from hunger. I’m here because those people are mostly children. We have got to understand that the poor are all around us and we are ignoring them. We have got to understand that these deaths are preventable. We have got to understand that people in third world countries think and care and smile and cry just like us. We have got to understand that they dream our dreams and we dream theirs. We have got to understand that they are us. We are them. My dream is to stop hunger by the year 2000. My dream is to give the poor a chance. My dream is to save the 40,000 people who die each day. My dream can and will come true if we all look into the future and see the light that shines there. If we ignore hunger, that light will go out. If we all help and work together, it will grow and burn free with the potential of tomorrow." Rachel Corrie, aged ten, recorded at her school’s Fifth Grade Press Conference on World Hunger
Read again then again then again. These are not minor words. These are not igsignificant words. These are not blatant words. Even if she was right or wrong she died while trying to help others. We cannot even argue for this matter. The core of the speech is helping others while we can. She acted as her speech and died in a country far far away from her homeland while trying to help others. Again she might have done the right or wrong thing but that is not our case here. Also there is another issue you dont mention hunger is a great issue for Palestinian children during Isreali blockades. Children are dying from hunger and because the lack of medication. Of course you can say Israel doing the blockades for preventing their citizen from attacks etc. Yet whatever the reason is hunger is also an issue in Palestine. And what is worse than being hungry is being homeless while you are hungry. Hungry in Gaza Again I advise not to push it further than you may reach. I already made my point clear yet we argue over and over and over again. Use your common sense, read the documents, make connections yourselves, go read other biographies, her own speech has a significant indication of her personality. I cannot let you trim important actions in her life because it would look good or bad on her. If she made this speech there it is, if she burned the US Flag there it is. Hating or loving her because her actions is up for others to decide. Simple and easy.
Pointing wiki policies here which we all already read is not helping the case. If anyone has any objection on any particular case than he should quote it here so we can argue more clearly. Because I pointed my objections above in detail yet assuming they have objections still noone bothered to discuss them with me one by one but this speech case. And for the prominance thing how do you suggest we will decide the length of a biography page. If we google Rachel Corrie 358 k, if we google Ariel Sharon 2.1 million, if we google Jackie Chan 8,4 million pages we got so according to this should we keep Ariel Sharon's biography a quarter of Jackie Chan. She is prominent at least for the supporters of Palestine, also known and loved accordingly maybe also hated accordingly for the same reasons. Kasaalan (talk) 23:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
@ Tiamut: if you read my post, I invite people who have concerns about edits I didn't explain in my initial post in this thread to please to tell me what they are, and why. @ Kasaalan. 1) If you could relax a bit, that would help. Shouty, accusatory posts just raise the temperature here. 2) There are many, many facts about RC's life we could put here. And many of them would be quite touching, I'm sure. But are they relevant? RC's life is not notable, only her death is. I'm not saying that to be callous, it's just a fact. Background on how she came to be in front of an Israeli bulldozer is essential, hagiographic text dumps about her 5th grade interests are not. As to the point about the wells, I don't deny that's what Corrie thought she was doing. What I'd need to see is proof that the IDF was actually doing that before we put it as a fact in the narrative voice. Also, I don't see where I used the word "tiniest" in regard to theoretical violins. I meant that the presentation of her life was lachrymose, maudlin, and saccharine. Nothing to do with sympathy. IronDuke 00:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Playing tiniest violin of the world means not caring at all refers to your jokes which I find unnecessary as they lack respect and accusatory in the first place. Yet discussing each other will not going nowhere most possibly so we may try discussing the article. As I stated above her later actions and her fifth grade speech is tightly connected, and that is also the same concerns of her what is made her stand against an armoured D9R. Tong twisting is not going to help to the article. She was trying to do something whatever her reason is, She was not believing she was doing or imagining it. Read my above seperate comments on your edits. Answer if you like and explain your motivation. Kasaalan (talk) 02:41, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your violin point, though I'm beginning to gather that understanding it is not necessary.; you will correct me if I am wrong. Corrie's 5th grade speech on world hunger is "tightly connected" to her activities in Gaza? Source? IronDuke 03:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why dont you read my detailed statements above which are already long, instead making me repeat myself everytime? You still dont try to answer any of my objections which I provided above, yet asking questions. What we have in hand? "A biography consists of all parts of a persons' life." So we are talking about prominent details. What she has done she has done we cannot change it. Her burning of US flag is prominent just like her speech. The connection or contracditions between her early and later actions or way of thinking can only be developed by referencing to her actions in a biography. She made a prominent speech in which she adresses her dreams and ambitions for helping others especially the ones in third world countries who are dying from hunger. Why? She claims "I’m here for other children. I’m here because I care. I’m here because children everywhere are suffering". Stating "stopping the world hunger by the year 2000 as a dream that can be accomplished with the help of everyone" is prominant enough to be mentioned in any biography page. But putting it as a whole might be very disputable therefore we tried quoting and summarizing it to a sentence. Later in her life Rachel become an environmentalist and a political activist, died in another country while she was trying to help others who also suffering and dying from hunger and lack of medication during blockades without a shelter.Hungry in Gaza Yet again I state the core of the speech is about helping others who need our help especially in the third world countries, including but not limited to hunger. But if we dramatize events in this format you would be right it wont be suitable in any encyclopedia format which is also why we didnt do it in the first place. And also I can admit I overacted myself, yet jokes as accusations are not making our day in a discussion page of a tragic event and deleting big parts simply making things even more complicated which we already stuck a bit. Also repeating myself is not very good for time wise if you can try quoting and answering my objections above then we argue argue further for details. You have some good reasons for editing which I can agree and support yet your edits outweight the balance to the IDF side instead of neutralizing it. Between after Rachel was killed[sounds like not necessarily but mostly on purpose], after Rachel died[sounds like she died by natural reasons] and after the death of Rachel[more neutral than the others] there are big differences if you will change a phrase try to pick a more neutral one than it was before. Kasaalan (talk) 14:10, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How about "after Corrie's death"?--Wehwalt (talk) 14:17, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Edit conflict again my long answer is lost therefore only a summary. For this case it is better to use after her death, and repeating the word kill over and over again in the article should be avoided. But also at least should be mentioned once in the timeline because she is killed by an armoured D9RWoman killed accidentally by IDF as terrorist fugitives resist surrender By Israel Insider staff and partners May 1, 2006, that is not disputable, the disputable part is if it is done by purpose or by accident. That is why IDF insists she is killed by accident and ISM insists she is killed on purpose. Concise Oxford English Dictionary desribes kill as "cause the death of". Kill is not a biased word to use yet overusing it might possibly harm the tone of the article. She murdered should be avoided beside the quoted legal claims of the sides just like turning the sentences into she died, as if she died for natural reasons, should be avoided which may also be very misleading. Kasaalan (talk) 15:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) I'd also like to see a source on IronDuke's point. The thing is, I think that unconsciously or otherwise, Kasaalan, you're trying to get the article to reflect the following fallacy: "Rachel Corrie was in favor of good causes. She was in favor of the ISM activity. Therefore, the ISM activity is a good cause." As has been pointed out by a neutral editor who came to this page (apparently to view my contributions to evaluate my RfA), her fifth grade press conference and matters of similar ilk have no place in this article. Without a RS saying that they have relevance for what she is notable for, the manner in which she met her death, we can't use them. Kasaalan's suggestion that because he says Palestinian kids are hungry, it is somehow relevant is unconvincing to me, and is a WP:SYNTH concern anyway. We need to make this article, other than the minimum (and I mean that, that is not a blank check) of background regarding Corrie, to concentrate on the incident for which she is notable and matters that are directly, and I say again, directly related to that. Therefore the "hearts and flowers" in the section about her childhood, in the matters concerning her activities in Gaza, and also in the section about the memorials about her need to be dramatically cut back. WP is not a memorial.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:17, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To respond to your requests for a source that makes the link between her fifth grade statement and her action’s today, see this article in The Independent: "The play does not try to turn her into a secular saint. At times you feel a tangle of admiration and irritation at her naivety, yet you are grateful that someone was prepared to act on their beliefs. Corrie's concern for suffering humanity was precocious. At 10, she spoke at her school Conference on World Hunger and is captured on video, seen at the end of the play. The notion that she was a self-regarding atrocity tourist is outrageous."
I would again suggest that we include this information in the “Artistic Tributes” section for now, perhaps as follows:

The play ends with a home video of Corrie delivering a statement at her school’s fifth grade press conference on world hunger that begins, “I’m here for other children. I’m here because I care.”

The cites for this would be the link above and this book where the statement is quoted in full in the context of a discussion on the play. Ref info:

My Name is Rachel Corrie: The Writings of Rachel Corrie By Rachel Corrie, Alan Rickman, Katharine Viner Contributor Alan Rickman Published by Nick Hern Books, 2005 ISBN 1854599062, 9781854599063 p. 52

As for the other stuff, step by step. Tiamuttalk 15:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't see how the concern for world hunger relates to her actions in Gaza. The concerns of a dramatist are different from the concerns of wikipedia. You'd be right if this was an article on the play. And yes, step by step, we are still trying to see if there is consensus for the matters that you added to the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Her speech includes but not limited to the world hunger, it is about helping others in the third world countries who needs rest of the world's help. She died while she trying to. Kasaalan (talk) 15:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"The play does not try to turn her into a secular saint. At times you feel a tangle of admiration and irritation at her naivety, yet you are grateful that someone was prepared to act on their beliefs. Corrie's concern for suffering humanity was precocious[means mature for her age]. At 10, she spoke at her school Conference on World Hunger and is captured on video, seen at the end of the play. The notion that she was a self-regarding atrocity tourist is outrageous. She was acutely aware that, unlike her new Palestinian friends, she could leave. She chose not to. Given that she had gone to the Middle East to meet people who were "on the receiving end" of tax dollars and that it was an US-made bulldozer that killed her, it will be a tragic irony if her home country does not allow her a hearing." My Name Is Rachel Corrie by Paul Taylor The Independent The part is not just about the play but also referring to her fifth grade speech which is played during the play with Rachel's own voice. Kasaalan (talk) 16:08, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A review of a play, with the needs of drama overriding those of history, is not a reliable source, anymore than a review of 1776 would be acceptable as a RS for what happened at the Continental Congress--and yes, many of the words in 1776 are drawn from John and Abigail Adams' letters, so no need to reply that the words in the play were drawn from Corrie's. As I said before, the fact that they play the fifth grade speech during the play has nothing to do with whether we include it in this article. As for the word "kill", however it is defined, it carries such connotations that its use in this article should be confined to quotations.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
She made this speech and he refers to the speech directly. "Corrie's concern for suffering humanity was precocious[means mature for her age]." Unlike you, who is a wiki user, referring the speech as childish , a critic at The Independent clearly adresses the speech as mature. A mature speech from a 10 year old child. Not very frequently we came up with. Later in her lifes she tries to act as she thinks. Also the play based on her diaries and letters which reflects her way of thinking and the way she sees things, therefore cannot be addressed as solid unquestionable truths but the indications of her beliefs, her own reasons behind her acts they are. Kasaalan (talk) 18:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did not refer to her speech as childish. Please do not say that I did without diffs. It is not relevant, in fact, whether it was a mature speech or not. You do not reply to my points.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:59, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again refers to IronDuke for "hagiographic text dumps about her 5th grade interests". Long text, hard to address sometimes, I used you in a more plural way because trying to answer you both but again my fault. Yet cant we even settle on that her 5th grade interests are same with her 25 year old interests.Kasaalan (talk) 04:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will you also object the use of Anne's own diaries in the biography of Anne Frank too as a reliable source because she wroted them herself too, or do you object use of own's own diaries and letters in her biography as a general rule. Or will you try to trim off the indications in her early life which apparently has connection to her later life for the same reasons in Anne's biography, for wiki is not a memorial? "Margot demonstrated ability in arithmetic, and Anne showed aptitude for reading and writing. Her friend Hannah Goslar later recalled that from early childhood, Anne frequently wrote, though she shielded her work with her hands and refused to discuss the content of her writing. Margot and Anne had highly distinct personalities, Margot being well-mannered, reserved, and studious,[7] while Anne was outspoken, energetic, and extroverted.[8]" Rachel is not also notable with her death but also notable with her letters just as the speech she made as a 10 year old girl which are also currently published. Kasaalan (talk) 04:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it was inevitable we'd get down to Godwin's Law. No. Not the same at all. Anne Frank's diaries have been a constant best seller for the past half century. She is notable for her life; Corrie is notable for her death. The context of her diaries (the refusal to let people see what she wrote) is of course relevant. You may argue that everything from fifth grade on is relevant to Corrie's death, but it is at a far greater remove than Anne Frank refusing to let people see her writings, writings for which she is now world famous. I would find a more suitable comparison, were I you.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rachel is notable for her life, what she did and what she tried to do and what she dreamed to do in a such short lifetime and why, of course after hear death it is widely known, but not only because her death. Lots of people are killed by IDF, including lots of foreigners too, but Rachel is more notable among them. Also this is her biography, the speech is notable in her life as a good indication, might not be the greatest step for humanity, but one of her own greatest steps. Any of the above points are not answering my question. Being a best seller not proofs your reliability at all, only notability it proofs, also not relevant to the case. Why do we care "Margot and Anne had highly distinct personalities, Margot being well-mannered, reserved, and studious, while Anne was outspoken, energetic, and extroverted." Why shouldn't we if it reflects her and quoted by a friend of her family. Can anyone come up with false arguments like "only their family friends' say so" or "her mother says so", will that be reasonable? I cannot distinct your approach clearly with the same attitude I refer. I just picked Anne Frank because a critic mentioned her name in the article, so I couldnt care less for the "inevitable laws" you referred, I mainly compared their wiki biography as the length, detail and info they contained especially the early life section. If "Anne showed aptitude for reading and writing" that is a good indication for her later actions, if Rachel made a prominent speech on helping others at age 10 which calls everyone taking action against this preventable death cause for third world countries, if at such a small age "Corrie's concern for suffering humanity was precocious", and if at age 25 she left her home, her education to for trying to help people living in another third world country, when "she could leave." though "she chose not to", according to her own beliefs and in name of others that is notable and relevant for her biography. Even if we cannot settle on her 5th and 25 year old interests for others are basically the same, and she has acted as she referred at age 10, I suggest we need a group of independent hardworking admins on the page for a neutral conclusion.Kasaalan (talk) 19:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Anne Frank is a poor choice for comparison. Leaving aside the fact that she is orders of magnitude more famous than RC, when she died she was little more than a child; to ignore her childhood would be to ignore her life. And yes, there are descriptions of her personality, just as there are in this article -- in fact, there are already many more references to her personality than are needed. IronDuke 01:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cordesmann book

Tiamut has replaced an online magazine, as she puts it, with a more reliable, as he puts it, book by one Anthony Cordesmann, sourced to page 72 of said book. That page is available here (that's for firefox, it may work a little differently for IE). A glance at the front and back covers of that book show the CSIS (Center for Strategic and International Studies) logo. A look at this site shows that Cordesmann works for CSIS, and it all seems intertwined with Greenwood Press and Praeger Security. This is clearly a self published book, and in combination with the opinions and lack of sourcing in the book (just below the mechanical apparatus comment, he says there was no credible investigation. That is not sourced), it is clearly under WP:SELFPUB and has serious WP:V problems. We should not use it for any purpose whatsoever.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didnt check the info in the book yet I am not sure if this is what adressed at the self publishing criteria of wiki. Self publishing adressed there most possibly referred to works of individuals. He is in advisory board of CSIS, this book has CSIS logo and published by Greenwood Publishing Group which also owns PSI Praeger Security International. Sounds at least serious. Why do you even object this source.
"The Greenwood Publishing Group is one of the world's leading publishers of reference titles, academic and general interest books, texts, books for librarians and other professionals, and electronic resources. With over 18,000 titles in print, GPG publishes some 1,000 books each year, many of which are recognized with annual awards from Choice, Library Journal, the American Library Association, and other scholarly and professional organizations. Greenwood was founded as an academic and educational publisher in 1967, and over the years the success of our publishing efforts has been reflected in many distinct imprints (including Quorum, Bergin & Garvey, Auburn House, Ablex, and Oryx). In light of this extraordinary growth, we recently decided that we could serve our authors and readers better by combining the editorial and marketing activities of these imprints into two major book publishing programs, Greenwood Press for reference, Praeger Publishers for academic and general-interest nonfiction. The Greenwood Publishing Group also comprises Heinemann USA and Libraries Unlimited. Greenwood Press provides high-quality, authoritative reference books in all subject areas taught in middle schools, high schools, and colleges, as well as on topics of general interest. Our many award-winning titles in the social sciences and humanities range from in-depth multi-volume encyclopedias to more concise handbooks, guides, and even biographies. Praeger Publishers has a distinguished history since 1949 of producing scholarly and professional books in the social sciences and humanities, with special strengths in modern history, military studies, psychology, business, current events and social issues, international affairs, politics, visual and performing arts, and literature. These books serve the needs of scholars and general readers alike by providing the best of contemporary scholarship to the widest possible audience. Greenwood Publishing Group is part of the Houghton Mifflin Harcourt family of companies." about Kasaalan (talk) 18:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Say, by the way, Tiamut, it's interesting to learn, just there, that Corrie's parents stayed with Arafat. I notice you added a whole section on the Corries' visit to the region. Might be a good idea to make sure the reader knows about this! I'm sure there are other sources you can use ...--Wehwalt (talk) 17:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If they have stayed as Arafat's guests, it should be referred in the article, why dont you do it since you know where. Notable enough to be mention if clearly adressed in a book since we know no claim objecting for this fact and even if we had any we should have adressed both claims to be neutral, so we dont need any exclamation to do it. Kasaalan (talk) 18:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another quote for killing discussion we have had page 72 from the same book.
"While Isreal initially alleged that Corrie was killed by falling debris, the Israeli National Center of Forensic Medicine performed an autopsy and found that her "death was caused by pressure on the chest from a mechanical apparatus". 26 " Kasaalan (talk) 18:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No need to soften out the article according to the IDF in Wikipedia. Is there a hidden ban for the kill word that I am not aware of? Tiamut we dont need to push that far to be neutral.
"Israel initially alleged the cause of death was due to "falling debris."[19] An autopsy conducted four days after her death at the National Center of Forensic Medicine in Tel Aviv concluded that Corrie's death was caused by pressure on the chest from a mechanical apparatus.[19] [20]" Kasaalan (talk) 18:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Tiamut, you replaced the existing source with this, it is reasonable that it be tested. As for Arafat, I imagined you were trying to write a comprehensive and neutral article, with all facts of interest to the reader. And bunking with Arafat is at least as interesting as the chain smoking bit. Regarding the book:

1. The organization he belongs to published it with a publisher that is, at the least, affiliated with it. 2. SELFPUB applies to organizations as well as individuals. 3. It is the sole source for this quote. Note the part in WP:SELFPUB where it talks about if a fact is truly significant, it would be included in another, more reliable source. 4. Corrie is only peripherally the subject of the book, and many of the statements in there are opinionated and unsourced. In fact, we don't even know what the source, footnote 26 is, it doesn't seem to be included in the Google Books version. Do you have a hard copy? 5. The quotation is at variance with the language quoted in the HRW report. While HRW is not a RS either, it is a bit odd that there is this variance. Do we even know what language the autopsy was in? They might be saying the same thing. After all, rocks falling on you is mechanical pressure. We need to find a better source.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:08, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[Replied below Kasaalan (talk) 06:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)][reply]

First, please try to recognize that I am human. I can't do everything at once. I'm not sure what you mean by hectoring me as to why I didn't add something about Corrie's parents' visit with Arafat. I was only trying to correct poorly sourced and misleadingly phrased terminology in the "Autopsy" section by finding better sources and changing the phrasing accordingly.
I think i'ts strange that you would try to argue that Anthony Cordesman is not a WP:RS here. He's authored some 50 books, dealing with US, Middle East, and energy policies. His wording is supported by that of HRW which I added here. Not the HRW watch report is here published by UNHCR website, meaning it does not fall afoul of SELFPUB guidelines. Neither does Cordesman. He's an expert on events in the region. Note too that the diff I linked to above, has a copy of the text of the autopsy report. You can see how the wording fully supports that used by Cordesman.
Finally, I don't really understand the antagonistic tone and posture being adopted here. The article was in rather poor shape. I'd be nice if people could be more mutually welcoming and adopt a more collaborative tone and spirit here. Thanks. Tiamuttalk 21:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the antagonistic tone and posture, I'd ask you not to bite the newbie, presumably Kasaalan doesn't realize how such comments as "completely out of control" come across to others. He'll improve with time.
This being a contentious article, I would have suggested prior discussion on talk page, rather than writing the article pleasingly to your POV. At some point, I, like IronDuke, will go through it and take out the most egregious portions.
Regarding Cordesman, I'd remind you of the language from WP:SELFPUB: Self-published work is acceptable to use in some circumstances, with limitations. For example, material may sometimes be cited which is self-published by an established expert on the topic of the article, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so. For example, a reliable self-published source on a given subject is likely to have been cited on that subject as authoritative by a reliable source.
HRW, even if reproduced or linked from another website, has multiple issues explored elsewhere. Again, I suggest we look elsewhere.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:06, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where do you suggest we look? Tiamuttalk 22:23, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The web is wide. I'm very concerned about the varying language from the HRW report to the book, and the other matters I mentioned. I'm wondering why you think there is a contradiction between the initial Israeli allegation (falling debris) and the mechanical apparatus/mechanical asphyxiation.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because Cordesman says there is and so do HRW. Do you have any sources that state otherwise? Tiamuttalk 22:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Contradicted" doesn't appear in either, nor does "debunked", which is how you described it in an edit summary earlier today. So which is it, mechanical asphyxiation or mechanical apparatus? It seems to me we certainly could report both, attributing inline to HRW. "Human Rights Watch has stated that the autopsy reported that . . . "--Wehwalt (talk) 22:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fine with me. The HRW material is already prefaced with an attribution, per the diff I gave you above (It's also in a footnote, but feel free to place it in the article text). All that's left is to restor the quotes against "caused by...." and attribute that to Cordesman. Tiamuttalk 22:59, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll hold off and give IronDuke a chance to weigh in.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Boston-based Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company is a global education company with approximately $2.5 billion in revenue." The book published by PSI and written by a member of CSIS who is also a member of advisory board of PSI. Their Advisory Board "Loch K. Johnson, Co-Chair: University of Georgia, Intelligence and Foreign Affairs Expert, Paul Wilkinson, Co-Chair: University of St. Andrews, Terrorism and Political Violence Expert, Anthony Cordesman, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Strategy and Middle Eastern Security Expert, Thérèse Delpech, Atomic Energy Commission and CERI (Foundation Nationale des Sciences Politiques), Political-Military Affairs, NGOs, and Energy Issues Expert, Sir Michael Howard, International Institute for Strategic Studies, Military History and International Security Expert, Lieutenant General Claudia J. Kennedy, U.S. Army (Ret.), Intelligence and Military Affairs Expert, Paul M. Kennedy, Yale University, Global Political, Economic, and Strategic Issues Expert, Robert J. O'Neill, International Institute for Strategic Studies, Strategic Studies and East Asian Security Expert, Shibley Telhami, Brookings Institution, Conflict Resolution, Middle Eastern Affairs, and Public Diplomacy Expert, Fareed Zakaria, Newsweek International, International Politics and Economics Expert". Their Institutional Partners: "American Military University (www.amu.apus.edu), Australian Strategic Policy Institute (www.aspi.org.au), Center for the Study of War and Society (University of Tennessee) (my.tennessee.edu), Geneva Center for Security Policy (www.gcsp.ch), International Security Studies Program in the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University (fletcher.tufts.edu), ISC Education Online, Lowy Institute for International Policy (Australia) (www.lowyinstitute.org), Nonproliferation Policy Education Center (www.npec-web.org), Oxford Analytica (www.oxan.com), Philip Merrill Center for Strategic Studies (Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University) (www.sais-jhu.edu/merrillcenter), The Pluscarden Programme for the Study of Global Terrorism and Intelligence (http://www.sant.ox.ac.uk/centres/pluscarden.html), Royal United Services Institute for Defence and Security Studies (RUSI) (http://www.rusi.org/), Strategic Studies Center, U.S. Army War College (http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil)" At least notable.
Also as a general rule Organisations publish their own members' works especially the security reletad ones. "Cordesman is "also a national security analyst for ABC News, and his television commentary has been featured prominently during the Gulf War, Desert Fox, the conflict in Kosovo, and the fighting in Afghanistan", "Professor Cordesman has previously served as national security assistant to Senator John McCain of the Senate Armed Services Committee, as director of intelligence assessment in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, as civilian assistant to the deputy secretary of defense, and as director of policy and planning for resource applications in the Department of Energy. He has also served in numerous other government positions, including in the State Department and on NATO International Staff, and he has had numerous foreign assignments, including posts in Lebanon, Egypt, and Iran, with extensive work in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf.", "He has been awarded the Department of Defense Distinguished Service Medal. A former adjunct professor of national security studies at Georgetown University, he has twice been a Wilson Fellow at the Woodrow Wilson Center for Scholars at the Smithsonian Institution." Nobody can claim whatever he say is truth but this sounds notable enough to be called an expert somehow for regular standarts. For claiming he is or he is not further, I should read his books, which I wont do, so a milder claim is better. CSIS member pageKasaalan (talk) 04:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way I published above comments for he is notable, also the publisher is. Other parts of the book, if cited from a good source, or if the writer expresses his opinion, can very well be quoted. Checked the direct link, also concluded, no link means we cannot quote from a quote. We can quote from the book but we cannot quote from what he quoted while we dont have the source. Therefore, on this particular case, I strongly object the use of the book as a reference to the Israeli National Center for Forensic Medicine report. No link, we cannot verify, as a summary. Though I greatly appreciate Tiamut's work for finding a printed source, also object using of the link. "An initial autopsy was performed at the National Center of Forensic Medicine in Tel Aviv. The Olympian reported that the autopsy report of March 20 concluded that Corrie's death was "caused by pressure on the chest from a mechanical apparatus." I assure you this quote from the article history is better. Kasaalan (talk) 04:54, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also I already admitted sometimes I have gone too far myself too. I admitted where I was wrong, but same is not true just as what happened on The Boston Globe link. Still you not trying your best to be skeptical or neutral while checking anti-Rachel sources[clearly stated to blatant insult links] just as you do, in the rest of the article. Your actions mostly base on trimming off Rachel-side views [completely time to time] instead editing properly. You should be adding more and more qualified against-ISM argument links for balancing the article. No info we add can be considered as truth, nothing but the truth itself. So the article should contain opposing views of various sides. Trimming off her actions because it will look good on her based on "this is not a memorial" claims, or "her parents say so", "her own letters are not a good source" attitude is not helping. Kasaalan (talk) 05:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

regarding Book

For Tiamuts cases 1, 2, 3, 4 generally agree. For 2 and 5 I have objections.
All organisations, including human right organisations self-publish their work and reports themselves. In the same manner all newspapers publish, their own work like all the magazines, book companies and government organisations. If your argument is SELFPUB refers to any organisation report[which all self published in means of printing or editing], than it is not so strong. Depends on the case. Yet if we take your suggestion, therefore we should accept HRW reports are not acceptable at all. So you need to prove about HRW is not acceptable first for forbidding the HRW report.
Human Rights Watch reports you object has been broadly used against the human rights issues in the world, accepted internationally, and referenced in other countries' human rights issues including Wikipedia, and used as a source broadly in newspapers and books around the world. HRW is one of the most widely accepted and referenced international organisations around the world. Can you provide exact links that forbid HRW reports from being referenced, or states HRW is not reliable on Wikipedia. Also can you provide the discussion on integrity of HRW as general, or particularly for this report, yet we cannot take only discussions for not to reference a widely accepted HR organisation's report which has a wide section on Rachel's case. Kasaalan (talk) 06:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you pinpoint the variance. In the original source long ago used in wikipedia reports pressure from a mechanical apparatus, "An initial autopsy was performed at the National Center of Forensic Medicine in Tel Aviv. The Olympian reported that the autopsy report of March 20 concluded that Corrie's death was "caused by pressure on the chest from a mechanical apparatus." [29] Kasaalan (talk) 06:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kasaalan: You've been editing this page for two solid hours, as far as I can see. You just posted, I figure that if I'm quick, you won't get an edit conflict, which apparently you don't know how to deal with yet but it is not difficult. Let me know when you're done and I'll reply.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can reply later, you go on ahead, for that particular case I couldn't manage to do it, generally not an issue. Kasaalan (talk) 06:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kasaalan: If it is selfpub, it is selfpub. The policy does not distinguish between individuals and organizations. SELFPUB does not mean that they, like Ben Franklin, run their own printing press, it means they just make private arrangements for publication. Regarding HRW, there is some discussion uppage about them. It isn't my burden of evidence under Wikipolicies. You cannot pick and choose policies, you are fond of a quote from WP:BIO, but WP:SELFPUB and WP:V are as important, if not more. I will now proceed to address your Anne Frank point under the last paragraph you did.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:02, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you will object HRW which is one of the world's most prominent human rights organisation internationally you have to prove your case yourself. I dont pick or choose policies, I just want you to state one. Point me a decisive discussion in WikiGuidelines on HRW which concluded its unreliable. You refer to WP but WP refers to something else. First of all SelfPublish clearly points out its intention by "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published. For this reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, knols, patents, patent applications, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable to cite in Wikipedia.[5]" Though reliable "articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.[4]" On the other hand, there are two exceptions for self publishing. Either the work written by a notable expert, or been cited by notable experts. "For example, a reliable self-published source on a given subject is likely to have been cited on that subject as authoritative by a reliable source." HRW is world's one of the most cited source by newspapers, magazines, books on the subject. This is because HRW is at least as credible as a mainstream newspaper in the international area. If you claim HRW is not reliable, why dont you prove it to me by referring to a clear conclusion against HRW as a statement on wiki. A reliable source is defined by "Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications." Newspapers, too are selfpublished[not just referring to printing] and credible by the sources they use just as any Human Rights Organisation. Can you explain why reliable sources all around the world cites from HRW reports, if its not reliable? At least can you possibly show any human rights organisation in this world that does not selfpublish its content, or any human rights organisation that passes your criterias, then explain me why "Human Rights Watch" which is one of the most prominent HR organisations in the entire world, mentioned in over 5.100 different wiki pages, which also referred over a thousand of wiki article pages, and directly linked as reference in dozens of wiki pages, is not among them. Is it alright when HRW report referred in hundreds of article pages in wiki, but not alright when used against IDF. Again unless you provide us some reliable and directly adressed info on wikiguidelines against using Human Rights Organisations in general or Human Rights Watch in particular, HRW is notable and reliable enough to be quoted in a wiki article as a source. Kasaalan (talk) 21:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For being clear stating again. I suggested the original "An initial autopsy was performed at the National Center of Forensic Medicine in Tel Aviv. The Olympian reported that the autopsy report of March 20 concluded that Corrie's death was "caused by pressure on the chest from a mechanical apparatus." quote is more reliable than the latest version. So does anyone agree on this. I strongly object the latest source with an unknown quote for this particular case. Kasaalan (talk) 21:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Wehwalt, I've gotta abandon you on this one. Cordesman meets WP's criteria as a reliable source, even if he self-publishes (which I'm still not sure about from the above). IronDuke 01:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Book and writer is at least notable enough as an expert to be referenced so for other parts of the book it is alright, yet it has an unverifiable source for this particular case, so we should quote from the original newspaper as a reference, and the book might also be referenced as a secondary source. But the quotes are so similar that the source of the book might already be the newspaper article itself. So I place my objection for placing it as the only source for the quote, also alright if both source referenced. Kasaalan (talk) 10:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Citation is covered in the manual of style - in a nutshell, you put in details from the newspaper and say "Cited by Cordesmann at ... etc".
A quick search here either suggests or proves that the CSIS qualifies as an RS - it claims to have: * Board of Trustees and Counselors, * Corporate Officers, * Program Directors, Chairs and Resident Senior Advisers, * Fellows, * Associate Staff, * Affiliated Advisers and Experts, * International Councillors and Advisory Groups.
Cordesmann himself pedals a strongly and deceptively denialist line eg on p.72 of his book (the same page we're using) he refers to "[building] permits", failing to note that all outside (and many Israeli) observers consider them a tool of "demographic balancing", otherwise known as ethnic cleansing. Cordesmann is clearly not at the level of David Irving because he's not falsified anything, but I'd be interested to hear other people's opinions about his writing. I'm puzzled anyone would query (let alone start a new section to query) this trivial and non-contentious quote from him "caused by pressure on the chest from a mechanical apparatus", unless there's some benefit to the article in reminding editors of what an unpleasant death we're discussing.
There are other things puzzling about this article and case, because when British volunteers have died as a result of Israeli actions, the judicial system there has regularly found it to be "unlawful killing" (green-flagging a prosecution for either murder or manslaughter) or even "unlawful shooting with the intention to kill", usually paraphrased as "murder". I see no mention of a court case here. PRtalk 13:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hard trouble finding your point, PR, physically I mean so if I ec you, sorry. The court case in the US is covered. I don't think the actions in Israel had court hearings, but were paper claims which were rejected. Since Corrie wasn't British, there would have been no British inquest.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You may have strong distaste for Cordesman's denialist views, but IronDuke is right, he and the web-site of CSIS are RS.
Also, Muslims in Gaza apparently don't operate a coroner's court system, meaning that those liable for violent deaths needn't face justice (the Bedouin killer of Tom Hurndall was eventually sentenced to 7 years, but this was the only one of its kind up to the present time). The Bedouin killer of James Miller is known to us but is not facing justice, the killers of Rachel Corrie and Iain Hook (West Bank) are not known to us. PRtalk 19:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HRW reliability

HRW have been 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. PRtalk 21:44, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As with any other link, HRW also shouldn't be accepted as referring to only truth, nothing but the truth. Yet what I claim is, HRW as a human rights organisation is reliable, notable and widely accepted enough to be mentioned and cited inside and outside wikipedia, as it clearly referenced and mentioned in various Wikipedia articles, and widely referred in mainstream world publishings. Also it is one of the main sources on human rights issues, accepted and sourced by many various international experts on the field. Objecting the source with contradictory claims and referring these objections in the article is one thing, but claiming it is not even worth to be mentioned in a wiki article is another. If Wehwalt is right, and HRW is not worthy enough for wikipedia, than over a thousand article pages in wikipedia needs serious editing with dozens of direct references to hrw.org for its reports. But for believing this we need some solid proof published in wiki guidelines which refers particularly against HRW or against HR organisations in general. Kasaalan (talk) 22:54, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
HRW is not a horrible source, but with caveats. They are pretty agressively anti-Israel, for example, so on those issues, I would only cite them when they are one of several RS's who agree. I would not use them all by themselves as a source critical of Israel. IronDuke 01:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
@IronDuke - people may better understand your attitude to policy on RS and consensus by going here where they will find "IronDuke, I can see clear consensus here. 6+ editors have told you that the nation article is a reliable source. It is time that you respect consensus". Editors will be very puzzled if they examine that "discussion" because there was nothing the smallest bit "surprising" or even "contentious" (let alone BLP) about the sentence you were battling and the references used: "Pipes has anti-Arab views.[7] He said that the customs of Muslims immigrants are "more troublesome than most,"[8][7] and has referred to fundamentalist Muslims as "barbarians" and "potential killers."[9][7]
1. ^ a b c McNeil, Kristine. "The War on Academic Freedom". The Nation (11 November 2002). Retrieved on 21 October 2007.
2. ^ Pipes, Daniel. "The Muslims are Coming! The Muslims are Coming!". National Review (19 November 1990). Retrieved on 13 March 2008.
3. ^ Pipes, Daniel. "Bin Laden Is a Fundamentalist". National Review (22 October 2001). Retrieved on 12 March 2008.
And for that, you wasted hours of the time of productive editors, in a "discussion" of 16,000 words - then made AGF-trashing comments because you eventually had to stop, threatened with a block for disruption?
The only serious claim that I know of ever made against HRW comes from a British/Israeli, Jonathan Cook, that the HRW spokesman allowed himself to be be bullied by Israeli pressure to condemn Hezbollah for things they'd not done, and were not in the report prepared by the investigators that they were supposedly discussing. There are links to that case here. (Actually, I know of a second case of this happening, one of their spokesmen backing away from what the investigators said "strongly suggests" but I don't have an RS secondary source to quote).
And this business has also been examined in detail at the the Wikipedia Reliable Sources Noticeboard/community, see here. That discussion was closed with "I suggest this thread be closed and archived; it verges on frivolous" and "I was about to say much the same thing - that HRW and AI are second in reputation for accuracy only to the very circumspect ICRC (Red Cross)". PRtalk 11:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PR, I'm not at all sure why you're inserting an off-topic diatribe against me here. You could merely have sufficed by saying "The only serious claim that I know of ever made against HRW comes from a British/Israeli, Jonathan Cook." That would give us a good indication as to the limit of your knowledge on this topic, which appears to be considerable. As to the Nation discussion, yes indeed I was threatened with a block by an admin who had interacted in a negative manner with me on previous occasions and was actively involved in content disputes in the I-P area. It was conveyed to him how wrong taking such an action against me would have been, and he has not repeated the error. There is more that you are wrong about regarding the Nation discussion , but I won't bore everyone with it, as this subject you introduced is already grossly off-topic, other than to wonder, as I point to your jaw-droppingly severe block log, how you could even begin to discuss other editors disrupting Wikipedia, whether fraudulent (as in this case) or no. IronDuke 23:45, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As stated above some others might also refer HRW as pretty agressively anti-China, or anti-Hamas, or anti-anycountry, as these are the leading countries for reported human rights violation issues, we cannot convict any country by a HRW report yet we should mention it in the article as "according to the HRW report". HRW reports are known and accepted internationally. You can place an objection stating HRW being anti-Israeli in the article referencing from a good source, I won't object but even support that for neutrality. But HRW reports are the leading ones in HR area, so we should include it. For not including it, we need a strict statement against HRW reports on Israel from WikiGuidelines, since HRW is more reliable than lots of links already referenced in the Rachel Corrie article, like the rest of the biographies in wiki. We cannot accept HRW report as the highest quality reference, yet in importance scale after the official reports, academic papers or legal actions taken by Corrie's, there are HRW report, ISM eyewitness accounts and mainstream newspaper articles, and book quotes pro or against-Rachel side, to be used. Kasaalan (talk) 13:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would point you to this, where HRW was examined in detail and found to be at the very upper level of reliability. There have been other such discussions all of them (as far as I know?!) coming to near identical results. PRtalk 12:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to mentioning the autopsy finding according to HRW, so long as it is attributed to HRW inline, since we have no access to the original, that is, mechanical asphyxiation--Wehwalt (talk) 17:35, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That seems to me clumsy and pointy. It can and will and does confuse the reader with "controversy" when none exists at that point. It implies that there is a problem with HRW when there is nothing of the kind (well, except when they're bullied by defenders of the undefendable). PRtalk 17:48, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Given that we can't link or give the reader access to the original autopsy, it is not unreasonable to mention inline who is saying so.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's unreasonable because it implies that we don't wholly trust the source. (Well, unless there is some good reason for not trusting it generally or specifically, and I'm not aware of any). We cite sources inline where we need their "opinions" eg that the original IDF had "major flaws". PRtalk 18:52, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't imply we dont trust the source, we are just referencing our source, because we dont have the full text of the report and quoting from HRW which has the report. We should quote the conclusions of medical reports as they are because we are not qualified to paraphrase a medical text, yet also mention it is fully quoted, or summarized from source ... by HRW in its ... report. But the contradiction HRW refer should also be mentioned as HRW stated there was a contradiction between ... and ... in its ... report. Kasaalan (talk) 21:43, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Direct Official Reports Quoted by Human Rights Watch

1) Human Rights Watch obtained a copy of the summary of the IDF "operational investigation" ... contains major factual errors.
2) "Expert Opinion (Opinion 3/459/2003)" pathologist Professor Yehuda Hiss, March 24, 2003, National Center of Forensic Medicine. Contradicts IDF claim that bulldozer did not run over her. Says "death was caused by pressure on the chest (mechanical asphyxiation)"
3) Bulldozers had previously seen protestors and stopped in time. "Eyewitnesses interviewed ... stated that the bulldozer crew could and did see Corrie"

No need for secondary sources, while we have a major source which uses quotes from first hand official reports. Kasaalan (talk) 14:39, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Need to be careful - historically, WP was meant to be written from primary sources, only gradually did it become obvious this led to original research. However, we can paraphrase what HRW say. We probably must use an inline citation if we want to say "has major errors". What happened on the affadavit front, has it been decided that testimony can be used? PRtalk 18:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course that part is very important, but mostly the ""Expert Opinion (Opinion 3/459/2003)" of physician and pathologist Professor Yehuda Hiss, March 24, 2003, National Center of Forensic Medicine. Translation by U.S. Department of State done at the request of the Corrie family and provided to Human Rights Watch by Craig Corrie." is what I am interested in more. Because this is a direct quote from official report, and the best source available we could find. But we should paraphrase comments from HRW as "HRW claimed or argued ... ". I also suggest you to read it through, because it is a good report with various first hand sources referenced. Kasaalan (talk) 19:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'm still waiting to hear why we need more witness statements, when we quote from three at length. Wikipedia is not a kitchen sink.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that is why instead newspaper links that uses secondary even tertiary sources we should add more direct sources like The HRW report, which contains direct quotes from official Israel Defense Forces and Israel's National Center of Forensic Medicine's reports.
The eyewitnesses I provided here clearly states in similar situations, other IDF operators could make the D9R stop in time before anyone injured. Also 3 eyewitness statements [of 7 eyewitness in total] quoted doesnt mean, the quoted parts are the best for the article, or the best eyewitnesses they are to be quoted. Also because your objection to the link at electronicintifada which quotes PCHR, we couldn't add the links to the full statements yet. Actually I found another site providing full written statements of the eyewitnesses catdestroyshomes created and maintained by Jewish Voice for Peace. You might object this site too. Affidavits from eyewitnesses by Durie, Carr, Hewitt, Palestinian Center for Human RightsAffidavits from eyewitnesses by Schnabel, Dale, Purssell, Palestinian Centre for Human Right Kasaalan (talk) 19:09, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Catdestroyshomes.org? I wonder if they are npov. Just wondering.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:14, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing in policy to say that sources be NPOV, just that they must be RS. While Palestinian sources are naturally dismissed out of hand, sources such as "Jewish Voice for Peace" (subject to having a reasonable number of sober editors, not spreading lies or racehatred, not being Muslims in disguise) and provided their claims are not too "surprising" will often be acceptable. PRtalk 19:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps so, I couldn't say. But if they have anything useful to say, no doubt it would have been picked up by a high level news source whose impartiality is much less open to question.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:28, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just made some effort to find a source other than electronic intifada [because you objected it] that publishes the written eyewitnesses full statements taken by a PCHR lawyer. They just e-publishes what PCHR published. Kasaalan (talk) 21:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the direct original source of Palestinian Center for Human Rights. The written eyewitness statements taken under oath by PCHR lawyer. The source is found. PALESTINIAN CENTRE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS PRESS RELEASE 30.06.2003 AFFIDAVITS "Following the taking of these affidavits, PCHR submitted a request to the investigation department of the Israeli occupying forces that they question these eyewitnesses directly for the purposes of their investigation into the death. The questioning by Israeli occupying forces investigators took place in late March in the presence of Israeli lawyers representing PCHR." Reliable, first hand source. Kasaalan (talk) 22:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article is missing too much info for both reports

"The [IDF] report concludes:

"Contrary to allegations, Ms. Corrie was not run over by a bulldozer, but sustained injuries caused by earth and debris which fell on her during bulldozer operation. At the time of the incident Ms Corrie was standing behind an earth mound and therefore obscured from bulldozer crew's view, whose line of sight was inherently limited. The irresponsible and dangerous conduct of ISM activists blatantly refusing IDF warnings to leave the area and purposely putting themselves in harm's way is a major factor leading to the tragic result of this incident.""

Source: cited by HRW from an obtained copy of the summary of Undated IDF document, The Death of Rachel Corrie, with emphasis in original.

"The findings of the final autopsy report, conducted only four days after Corrie's death released on April 24 at Israel's National Center of Forensic Medicine. The author of the autopsy report stated:

"Based on the results of the autopsy which I performed on the body of Rachel Aliene Corrie, age 24, I hereby express my opinion that her death was caused by pressure on the chest (mechanical asphyxiation) with fractures of the ribs and vertebrae of the dorsal spinal column and scapulas, and tear wounds in the right lung with hemorrhaging of the pleural cavities."

Source: quoted by HRW from "Expert Opinion (Opinion 3/459/2003)" of physician and pathologist Professor Yehuda Hiss, March 24, 2003, National Center of Forensic Medicine. Translation by U.S. Department of State done at the request of the Corrie family and provided to Human Rights Watch by Craig Corrie."

HRW reported, the conclusion of IDF report that Corrie was not killed by a bulldozer is directly contradicted by the findings of the Israel's National Center of Forensic Medicine's final autopsy report.

We should fully quote the IDF and NCFM reports as they are. The article is currently missing too much info for both reports. Kasaalan (talk) 00:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kasaalan, it's called summary style. We give the reader the high points. A wikipedia article should not be an amorphous mass of information, but a well written, tightly organized summary of the information, it is a starting point, not the be all and end all. There is no point to going into great detail on the autopsy.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I rewroted the part with full credits and necessary quotes. Can you check the integrity in the main page. Kasaalan (talk) 00:43, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I gave the credits inline for better integrity because reports quoted or parahrased by HRW not directly, yet you can also move them in reference section if you like. But then we need seperate reference for each quote explaining how HRW cited them. Kasaalan (talk) 00:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, we need the cause of death. We don't need the backup info. To put it in is unneeded and very likely POV. Please hold off on your constant edits and wait for other users to weigh in.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:54, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The report says the death is caused by [not just] by pressure on the chest [but also] with broken ribs, broken spinal column and heavily internal bleeding in the lungs. You are not a medical expert, so don't try to shorten the conclusion. Also when did I edit the main page constantly? I only add info on discussion page and this one is of my rare edits to the main page. Kasaalan (talk) 01:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It gives the cause of death WITH the injuries. Between here and the article, your edits ARE constant.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:06, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wehwalt you don't know anything in the medical area, so why are you still trying to push it? The expert says the death resulted "by [not only] pressure on the chest [but also] with broken ribs, broken spinal column and heavily internal bleeding in the lungs." But you try to summarize it into pressure on the chest with injuries. Don't try to push on what you don't know. Stay strict to the experts' views. Deleting the info there is a thing that you shouldn't do. If you like to shorten that much use my translation of the medical terms into English, but medical terms is way better for reliability. If you like to call some independent admins to the page it is only alright with me, it is not a threat but may only be a relief to me. Kasaalan (talk) 01:13, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kasaalan, you're new here, so I'm going to stick to giving you advice. It is VERY bad form to say to another editor "you don't know anything", whether generally, or about a specific subject. Civility and the assumption of good faith is very important on Wikipedia. With respect to what you said, no it is not unfair to anyone to summarize in the way I did. The words in the autopsy report as reported by HRW did not come down on stone tablets, and they are not even the complete summary. I suggest we summarize in the way I suggested, and put the full quote in a note. That is, state that the death was caused by "pressure on the chest (mechanical asphyxiation)". Incidently, I don't see how that is inconsistent with debris falling on someone.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your insistency on erasing the final conclusion of autopsy is exactly why I said you don't know anything on medical area, it may not be very polite but it is also not very impolite either. I don't find my claim uncivil, or having lack of good faith. I didn't claim, there were any bad intension of yours, yet pointed it is caused by lack of knowledge on the field. There is nothing wrong with one's admitting of his lack of expertise in one area. It is normal for us to don't know anything on medical area. Personally, my medical knowledge is only limited to the names of some bones and muscles in human body [in anatomy] along a very weak knowledge on autopsy cases learned from some books and documentaries [in forensic], which is also near nothing, if not considered nothing totally. Maybe because you confused it with the IDF report summary, your claim is not true. HRW got the summary of the IDF report, but HRW did have the full text of the autopsy report translated by US Department of State on request of Corrie family, and fully quoted the conclusion part, so the autopsy report is exact. Actually neither you nor me is not eligible to summarize an autospy report, I with even little knowledge on medical area while taken my time to research the medical terms of the conclusion from a dictionary, can easily say her death result is not caused only by pressure on the chest. Of course it is, but only mentioning mechanical asphyxiation is similar to saying her death cause is a D9R. Because her backbone is also broken along with ribs and soulder blades. Also what leading to her death is the heavily internal bleeding in the lungs caused by the tearing of internal lung membrane. My translation is imcomplete, also, just trying to make things a bit clearer. Summarizing medical text may be very misleading and dangerous, especially for people who don't have medical background. I already stated HRW reported the contradiction, I didnt claim there is a contradiction. I also don't know why HRW claimed there is a contradiction between reports, that is why we should quote these parts intact. You can save 1 line at most for summarizing the autopy report, but miss too much info for the death result of Rachel, that we cannot bear to handle. I cannot learn the integrity of the contradiction HRW referred, if there is any, unless I do more research on the area. But it shouldn't also be come out of nowhere, maybe the mechanical pressure means something further than we know, e.g. pressure of a metal dozer plate. Actually even if we have space, and noone objects, we should also add last sentence of the IDF report summary "The irresponsible and dangerous conduct of ISM activists blatantly refusing IDF warnings to leave the area and purposely putting themselves in harm's way is a major factor leading to the tragic result of this incident." I left it out because of possible objections, but suggest adding it too. Kasaalan (talk) 09:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Already in the article, or was, last time I checked. Then you admit to not knowing enough about medicine to know whether or not my edit kept it a fair summary or not, right?--Wehwalt (talk)
Of course I am not an expert to summarize from an autopsy report, but most possibly you are not, too. Or do you claim you know better than the expert of the Israeal's National Center of Forensic Medicine. You cannot summarize an expert opinion, which is already 1 sentence, into 2 words, it would be very misleading. Expert opinion clearly adresses his foundings. Pressure on the chest is not a proper summarizing for the case, because the conclusion mentions pressure on the chest with fractures of the ribs, spinal cord[back] and shoulder blades, with tear wound in the right lung and heavily bleeding in the membrane that covers the lung. You are trying to trim off critical info out of the conclusion part of an experts opinion. Not a good idea at all, I strongly object to any summarizing of the quote without mentioning damaged internal organs and bones. Kasaalan (talk) 17:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cordesman Quote for Investigation Section

"Shortly after Corrie's death, an Israeli spokesman attributed the death to "falling debris."[19]"

Does Cordesman an Israel citizen or any other spokesman the line refers. Because he lives and teaches in America, and an American citizen he is as far as I know. Tried reading the page but couldnt find any spokesman referred in the book. Page 72

"While Isreal initially alleged that Corrie was killed by falling debris, the Israeli National Center of Forensic Medicine performed an autopsy and found that her "death was caused by pressure on the chest from a mechanical apparatus".

If this is the orginal quote for the summary, Cordesman only refers Israel alleged Corrie was killed by falling debris, but INCFM found her death caused by pressure on the chest from a mechanical apparatus, he is not stating her death is caused by falling debris. Yet Cordesman also is not a medical expert or the main source for the reports. So we dont need this quote as long as we have HRW quotes. But it might be a good idea to refer "One year after Corrie's death, Yasser Arafat hosted her parents to thank them for their daughter's "sacrifice"." as Wehwalt suggested before. Also why the direct link to the book on reference is removed? Kasaalan (talk) 18:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1) FOIA no record found for Rachel Corrie
2) COUNTRY REPORTS ON HUMAN RIGHTS PRACTICES FOR 2004 VOLUME II REPORT SUBMITTED TO THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, U.S. SENATE AND THE COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE.
3) US Congressman and Represantative Statements for the Case

Kasaalan (talk) 15:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kasaalan: Your point being? We address the legal case and the congressional resolution in the text already. If you think the Washington state bill is useful, I have no objection to it being mentioned along the same lines as the Congressional resolution is, that is, a brief description without quotation, and what happened to it.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PR collapsed the text for clarity which is a good work, to see the text click show button at right. My point is first trying to gather the legal documents for the case, against D9R company, at US Courts, by US Congress Reports, etc. Publishing earlier for possible objections. I won't edit the main page in any way as in discussion page of course, should be brief yet also publishing here so all of us can reach the content, and made objection or citation better. Congressman Statements would also be good for Reactions heading. And for court cases for example "On September 17, 2007, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal on political question grounds, and did not reach the merits of the suit." says in the wiki article and above I found is the original Ninth Circuit papers pdf which will be the first hand source for its dismissal of Rachel's parents' claims.
As generally the medical and legal sections needs improvement on references, so instead newspapers, I am trying to reach first hand original sources and publishing them here, I possibly wont do any change to the first page over these parts, untill collecting more court papers, reading and analyzing them.
I also added the full name of Rachel, which is another good side of court papers. And PR your hiding of the text helped a lot. Kasaalan (talk) 18:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kasaalan, we already ref the official text of the opinion on the official 9th Circuit Web site. Something wrong with that? It neutrally states the outcome of the case.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't imply there was something wrong with the neutrality. Just tried to add direct reference to it, yet my fault, I missed the direct reference to the court paper was already given. Kasaalan (talk) 22:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Kasaalan, this page is very long and difficult to deal with because it is hard to find stuff, and, well, perhaps you could "gather" the quotes in your sandbox? It is easy to set one up, in your userspace.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is much of value on this page, eg the discussion on the reliability of the ISM at the top. I'm not entirely sure what Kasaalan's documents add to the discussion. But I noticed that he's found affadavits from witnesses and those, if put in collapsing boxes and summarised properly, and if we can treat them as an RS, are potentially valuable indeed. PRtalk 19:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is fine, and I'm not trying to discourage him. But, as Polonius said, brevity is the soul of wit.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:19, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A sandbox might also be good idea, I may publish there more easily, than publish here more briefly. Yet this text collapsing also great for brevity, and publishing here also shares the info, because other editors may also benefit from the text if they like to read them or object more easily for the text is under their hand, and if they choose not to they don't need to do anything because it is hidden. After long discussions we began to getting closer to a settlement on some issues. And definately we are getting higher quality sources in terms of reliability. Kasaalan (talk) 21:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup

I've taken a shot at getting rid of the worst of IronDuke's concerns, while still leaving enough hagiographic material to, I believe, satisfy anyone who wants some positive details of Corrie's early life. I've also done a lot of cleanup. It may not satisfy everyone, but what we have now, I think is a balanced perspective, not sickly sweet or calling her any names, but balanced. It's a good point for any further discussions that anyone may think is needed.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:30, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will also ask everyone to avoid overlinking. There is no need to link common words, like "lungs". Anyone who has them knows what they are.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:25, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You overerased actually only left one, that are not just common words, medical terms, which for every word a doctor need to be trained for years to be an expert. Everyone knows them as words, wikilinks explain them in more detail than they know.
I readded the conclusion of autopsy, all the factors together leads the death not just one. Readded the internal wiki links for medical terms. And Cordesman quote has some integrity issues I pointed at top. Also we dont need that source anymore, if Arafat visit will not be mentioned. And why did you erased the IDF report summary? It was very important, and a direct summary.
Israel Defense Forces report titled "The Death of Rachel Corrie", cited by Human Rights Watch from an obtained copy of the summary with emphasis in original, concluded "Contrary to allegations, Ms. Corrie was not run over by a bulldozer, but sustained injuries caused by earth and debris which fell on her during bulldozer operation. At the time of the incident Ms. Corrie was standing behind an earth mound and therefore obscured from bulldozer crew's view, whose line of sight was inherently limited." Kasaalan (talk) 16:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of changes you made, with some deleting, I couldn't track most of them, just my objections on my latest edits. Kasaalan (talk) 16:51, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This time I only delinked ribs, lungs, and spinal column. All are common terms, and anyone likely to be on WP will know what they are. Low value links. I suggest you insert the language from the report later in that section. And given the comments by the Palestinian doctor in the Hammer article, I now agree with you on cause of death. I left a clear edit summary for each change I made.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:53, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try reading the article straight through without worrying about who wrote what. I think you'll find it acceptable.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:00, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I care about the changes, not about who did them, but the hard part is if you add something it is easy to check its integrity, when you delete or paraphrase it is way harder, before I do a complete check I try to focus on some details. I don't know which programme she took at Evergreen so added attended to Arts Faculty, I read she took arts and international relation classes and an Arabic course, but I am not sure what she studied exactly, maybe stage costume design, but she might attended as a graduate so referring her education as taking courses might be misleading. But finding what she studied is important so I am researching it. Leaving out Cordesman quote is a good choice. I still don't know why you erased the IDF report summary, it is needed and important. Also found proceedings of Corrie family in the Israel Courts.[30] or [31]

The Deceased was taken to the Abu Kabir Forensic Institute and a post-mortem was performed that same day. Prof. Yehuda Hiss, Director of the institute, drew up an expert opinion, and in its conclusion he noted the principal anatomical findings, as follows:
“(1) Fractures of the ribs, left [not specified which] bone, scapulae, posterior processes of the thoracic spine.
(a) Several tear wounds in the right lung
(b) Hemothoraces (700 ml total)
(c) Punctate hemorrhages in the sclerae and the pleurae
(d) Hemorrhages in the back muscles.
(2) Tear of the left upper lip
(3) Abrasions and desiccation of the left face
(4) Lingual hemorrhage
(5) Evidence of medical therapy
And at the end of his opinion, he further notes:
“On the basis of the results of the post-mortem that I performed on the body of Ms. Rachel Aliene Corrie, 24 years, I state my opinion that her death was caused as the result of compression of the thorax (mechanical asphyxia) with fractures of the ribs, thoracic vertebrae, scapulae as well as lacerations in the right lung with hemothoraces. Also found was a laceration wound in the upper lip and abrasions of the skin on the left cheek”. Attached a copy of the pathology opinion of Prof. Hiss Appendix A. Kasaalan (talk) 23:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The IDF summary, if needed, should be put elsewhere in the section. Since you put Arts Department as a proper noun, I was rather concerned. The fact that she did an independent study project in her senior year as she did suggests it had something to do with her major. Umm, is the Abu Kabir institute in Tel Aviv?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:39, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Abu Kabir major pathology institute in Israel says the dictionary. It might be an Institute of Tel Aviv University [32], and possibly be the same as Israel's National Center of Forensic Medicine referred in HRW report, because Hiss was the director of NCFM. "Professor Y. Hiss, M.D. [MD here possibly Medicinae Doctor one who has a degree in medicine] Director, Abu Kabir Forensic Institute, Holon [city in Israel] Israel's Chief Legal Pathologist" [33]. Not sure why you mentioned her independent study in the senior year exactly, but we should state what undergraduate program she took when we learn it. IDF report is critically needed, because it reflects IDF view to the case, and the title of the section is Autopsy and Investigation, so whereelse you suggest putting it and why? Kasaalan (talk) 22:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd put it next to the Guardian report of the autopsy report, since they are basically similar. If you do an independent study in your senior year, in my experience, it is to complete your major because you are probably needing courses to complete your major, else why are you still in school? However, TESC is a bit of an oddball school, and anything might go there.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:34, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes she had 1 more year to complete the graduation, I referred to what profession she studied at Evergreen, I still don't know that. That info is crucial, we still not have exact info on the courses she took in the article.
"That's the reason for the repression. That's why we sweep off the street immediately; clean away the blood; remove the bus. And within an hour we're told on television that life has returned to normal. Within an hour life has returned to normal. Only the victims are transferred to Abu Kabir [the forensic institute in Tel Aviv]. This Abu Kabir thing is interesting. There's something in it. Of all the Arab names that existed in this country, why is it that we have left precisely this one? After all, no one says he's going to Sheikh Munis [the name of the Arab village on the ruins of which Tel Aviv University now stands]. Yet here, here of all places, that name was kept. We don't say the Forensic Institute in Tel Aviv, we say Abu Kabir. We say that he was taken to Abu Kabir. Which is also the meaning of the name: the tremendous father. A kind of semi-hellish meta-entity. Abu Kabir." [34]
Yes Guardian report is similar, I may try to add some parts left out parts in guardian link from HRW report, maybe completely requote if needed or merge. In any case I will double reference the autopsy report of HRW with electronicintifada or hic-mena.org link and IDF report with HRW link. Kasaalan (talk) 22:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, thank you. I would avoid EI if possible, since it may not be accepted.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Other link has the same exact info, so using EI is not crucial. I can use other link. Kasaalan (talk) 01:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV doesn't mean neutrally reporting misquotes as accurate

(Refers to this edit.)

  1. The first "quote" cited is an obvious misquote of the full statement which changes its meaning. We are not required to attribute the respectability of Wikipedia to a source by repeating it as accurate, if it's obvious that the source a) has an ax to grind and b) has turned "John weighs 100 pounds, and a sperm whale weighs 10 tons" to "John weighs 10 tons."
  2. If you want to reinstate the "In another interview," it should be as a direct accurate quote so that the reader can judge the degree to which his statements to the writer were paraphrased.
  3. The last edit was to correct the statement to what the cite actually says in its present form; it's as close to verbatim as possible without being plagiarism. That was not true of the previous version. arimareiji (talk) 23:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your first point. How do you know it is inaccurate? Regarding number 2, I have no objection to it being a direct quotation from the source, or a close a paraphrase as possible. Number 3 is fine.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Still think you need to put the other one in. He asserted he interviewed Smith, and was then told by the ISM press person not to do so again.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You could read the quotation directly above it, though it's semi-tl;dr. Or, if you're a trusting soul you could take my word for it that it can be characterized thus, italicizing only the parts that were selectively quoted:
The bulldozer started forward, with Corrie sitting in front of it. She climbed to the top of the pile of rubble, looking directly into the cab of the bulldozer. Despite this, he continued forward and lost sight of her as she was dragged into the pile of rubble. Despite the obviousness of her position, he reversed and dragged the blade over her. She wasn't run over by the treads.
Incidentally, this wasn't a news article. It was an opinion editorial titled "The Myth of Rachel Corrie."
Last but not least, sorry for venting. It crawls my nerves when someone is misquoted thus, even if I heartily disagree with them. What I should have done was to recognize that you weren't the one that did so, nor were you defending the OpEd writer for doing so - you were defending keeping a cite which on first face is legitimate. My apologies, I was in the wrong. arimareiji (talk) 23:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think maybe we're looking at two different things... sorry, but could you link me to the guy who says he interviewed Smith then was told not to do so again? arimareiji (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 23:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]
It is the cite that supported the passage you deleted, it is certainly a biased source and probably should have an inline source, but here it is.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:19, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. I don't know if I was on drugs yesterday, or somehow mudged the URL and got a later / more "polished" version. If the latter, the writer was guilty of convenient rephrasing in the version I saw. If the former, it's only the person who paraphrased it for the Wiki article whose phrasing changed the meaning. This version of the article faithfully reproduces what Joe Carr/Smith said, and I'll restore a complete paraphrase in the near future in balance to how much of PCHR gets used (if any). Thank you for the help. arimareiji (talk) 00:04, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Direct Eyewitness Accounts Taken by PCHR

The direct link to the PCHR report other than EI page. "Following the taking of these affidavits, PCHR submitted a request to the investigation department of the Israeli occupying forces that they question these eyewitnesses directly for the purposes of their investigation into the death. The questioning by Israeli occupying forces investigators took place in late March in the presence of Israeli lawyers representing PCHR." Written Eyewitness Accounts Taken Under Oath by Lawyer Kasaalan (talk) 01:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a devil's advocate, this comes dangerously close to being (or flatly is) a primary source. It's not open-court testimony, and the information given on the page doesn't make it independently verifiable - it simply asserts that these are affidavits. But considering that it appears to be corroborated by material in the article, it's possible that it could qualify under this snippet from WP:Reliable_source_examples (emphasis added to qualifiers):
Websites and publications of political parties, religious groups, anti-religious groups, or any other partisan group, may exhibit bias and should be treated with caution. Neither political affiliation nor religious belief stated in these sources are in themselves a reason not to use them, as these websites can be used to present the viewpoints of these groups, if properly attributed. Such sources should be presented alongside references from other sources in order to maintain a neutral point of view.
I believe that with the above qualifiers it can be used, but I'd much rather defer the question to other editors' judgment. arimareiji (talk) 01:58, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The eyewitnesses may be telling the truth or some may even be lying. We cannot judge only by their claims for the case, and oly action PCHR took here is documenting and publishing the statements. The source is as it is. The procedures their lawyer took for documenting the eyewitness statements under oath seems formal and have integrity. This is the most reliable and direct publicly available source for the eyewitness statements I could find. "Following the taking of these affidavits, PCHR submitted a request to the investigation department of the Israeli occupying forces that they question these eyewitnesses directly for the purposes of their investigation into the death. The questioning by Israeli occupying forces investigators took place in late March in the presence of Israeli lawyers representing PCHR." Also PCHR was the HR organisation that took the affidavit statements, and "took the legal action for Israeli Forces to question these eyewitnesses directly, in the late March with the presence of Israeli lawyers representing PCHR", so PCHR involved as a first party to the case. Reliability is another discussion issue, yet it is verifiable and a primary source for the case. PCHR may not be neutral to the Israel-Palestine conflict possibly, yet doesnt seem much of an extremist organisation either. About PCHR Kasaalan (talk) 12:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kasaalan, putting it in an affidavit doesn't make it any more reliable, as any lawyer will tell you. W.S. Gilbert, a barrister himself, hit the nail on the head when he said in The Mikado, "Why should I kill you when making an affidavit that you've been executed will do just as well?" The best statements are contemporary, excited utterances, when motivation to prevaricate hasn't settled in. Studied, formal statements with lawyers hovering around are not seen as any more reliable in the eyes of the law than any other statement.--Wehwalt (talk)
Kasaalan - while a primary source is considered to have more value in many settings, in Wikipedia being a primary source is nearly disqualifying. Take a look at this link to see what I mean. Whether this is the best approach or not is a moot point; it's a community standard.
Whether PCHR is extremist is open to debate, but they are at the least partisan and thus fall under the strictures I quoted in my first response. There would be no question that this source couldn't be used 1) if the material added from this source isn't corroborated by other cites within the article, or 2) if it's used without careful attribution to the source so that the reader can judge possible bias. I personally believe that if both conditions are met, some of the material for Joe Carr can be used to replace his unsourced account at the beginning of the ISM eyewitness accounts section. But I'd much rather defer to the consensus of other editors on this question; I'm coming in late on it. arimareiji (talk) 13:55, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What I mean by primary is first hand direct source from a first party to a disputable case, for they took the legal actions in Israeli courts first. In the same manner the IDF or Israeli goverment reports, or IDF personnel interviews are also primary sources. Also, these eyewitness testimonies repeated at IDF and if there were any contradiction they would have easily locate and stated contradictions. I don't know about how partisan PCHR is or may be considered, but as far as I searched they are widely known and accepted in international HR area, they even prized by the President of French Republic in 1996, you may look at the about page for detail at their site. On the other hand IDF or IDF oriented media used in references may also be considered as partisan easily just as PCHR. "PCHR is a legal aid agency providing representation for victims of human rights violations in the Gaza Strip. PCHR has submitted more than 1200 complaints to the Israeli occupying forces regarding human rights violations since the beginning of the current Intifada. In no case in which PCHR has submitted a complaint, has any individual in the Israeli occupying forces, security services or other persons, been prosecuted or otherwise disciplined for any act perpetrated against a Palestinian or foreign national." But according to this we cannot reach a conclusion as "IDF personnel is partisan, therefore their interviews shouldn't be used". What we discuss here is if the report intact or not, in other words if it reflects eyewitnesses' statements as they are or not. These are the eyewitness accounts, eyewitnesses' own written statements and claims given under oath, and I can easily say this report is intact and just reporting what the eyewitnesses say. It contains no interpretation. Therefore this report has a higher value than most of the links we already used in reference section. We are not discussing if eyewitnesses lie or not, we are discussing if the report is intact or not, if it matches to the claims of the eyewitnesses. We cannot take eyewitnesses claims as solid facts, yet also we should mention and reference them for the neutrality of the article. This is the case for the IDF just as it is for the ISM. We are not judges, we are just presenting the sides' claims. Also we already have uncited quotes from eyewitnesses in the article, and when I present the first hand source of them, you still object. Your mikado quote has nothing to do with my referencing because I don't try to reach a conclusion basing eyewitness accounts, I am just quoting what they claim.
"Primary sources are sources very close to an event. For example, an account of a traffic accident written by a witness is a primary source of information about the accident. Other examples include archeological artifacts; photographs; historical documents such as diaries, census results, video or transcripts of surveillance, public hearings, trials, or interviews; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires; written or recorded notes of laboratory and field experiments or observations; and artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos, and television programs. The key point about a primary source is that it offers an insider's guide to an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on.[7]"
"Our policy: Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source." Kasaalan (talk) 21:57, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(deindent) Per the quote you listed above: "Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them." That's why I previously quoted this:

Websites and publications of political parties, religious groups, anti-religious groups, or any other partisan group, may exhibit bias and should be treated with caution. Neither political affiliation nor religious belief stated in these sources are in themselves a reason not to use them, as these websites can be used to present the viewpoints of these groups, if properly attributed. Such sources should be presented alongside references from other sources in order to maintain a neutral point of view.

PCHR's webpage is not a "reliable source" by the Wikipedia definition, because they're partisan - they are an interested party to this topic. Per the above quote, this does not by itself disqualify it as a source. But any use of it would have to be constrained by the guidelines listed above. arimareiji (talk) 23:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've felt for a while that whatever eyewitness accounts we do use should be cut back considerably so that they can be incorporated into the text, rather than be lengthy block sections. I just haven't wanted to get into it on this issue.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:20, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PCHR main page has nothing to do with its report on eyewitness statements, because they are not commenting or paraphrasing the eyewitness accounts, they are publishing it word by word. Source is intact, it is the best source we can find that is publicly available for full eyewitness testimonies. Also, as I stated earlier, this eyewitness testimonies repeated in the investigation of IDF, which is done by PCHR request, therefore they are involved as a first party to the case, and any contradiction would be easily located by IDF in ther interrogation. You may call PCHR "partisan", but eyewitness accounts has nothing to do with their "partisan" ideas or comments in the article, also I am not aware of PCHR activities or their neutratily very much, but the source which is a known and accepted Human Right Organisation internationally, is more reliable than a maintstream newspaper for the full eyewitness accounts, also more reliable than some other "partisan" Israeli based references already sourced in the article for eyewitness accounts. Basically these are eyewitnesses' testimonies, their own claims, repeated at IDF interrogation and it is not my fault that IDF didn't publish their report publicly, PCHR did publish it therefore I use it, if IDF would have published it I would use it too. Eyewitness written testimonies given under oath with signatures taken by a lawyer, repeated at the Israeli investigation and published by Human Rights Organisation which is a first hand party to the case, primary source, source is intact, involves no paraphrasing, therefore a clear reference for eyewitnesses' claims. I will try to read all eyewitness accounts and check if they quoted properly later. But the primary source will be PCHR report, with other newspaper interviews. Kasaalan (talk) 13:38, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kasaalan, I am not sure you are getting the distinction between primary source, meant to mean a firsthand account, and primary source, meaning a principal source, a source we are getting a lot of material from. The PCHR affidavits are the first, and should not be the second. I would rather work from newspapers, who have sifted and winnowed through fact checking processes and put their credibility and money on the line, then quote from a first hand account. That is why WP doesn't favor first hand accounts.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:56, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whether PCHR is more or less reliable than any other partisan source is moot. They are a partisan source, and can not be used in isolation. Their material must be accompanied by corroborating material in the article, not just in your review of available material. It also must be clearly attributed so that the reader can judge possible bias. arimareiji (talk) 15:40, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am referring primary as firsthand source by means of "Primary sources are sources very close to an event. For example, an account of a traffic accident written by a witness is a primary source of information about the accident." which is clearly adressed on wiki guidelines. I am not referring principal source as scientific means. There is no bias involved in the report because the statements are intact with no paraphrasing by PCHR. Neither newspapers nor PCHR can sift or winnow eyewitness statements, they can just publish them intact, and that is why we use them. We are not talking about any comment or paraphrasing here, so your partisan claims fall out of the guides. Also you say newspapers put credibility and money on the line, yet Human Right Organisations fall under same category, I referred you already they have international credibility, if a Human Right Organisation would change the eyewitness statements in any way, it would be easily located by IDF and Israel courts by now, and they would suffer severely for their actions. The procedure they took is clear for taking eyewitness statements, and your claimed standarts has nothing to do with PCHR, because they are not paraphrasing the claims, they publishes it intact with legal binding. Kasaalan (talk) 22:58, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Turn it around; say the Zionist party posted a video clip that they claim shows "what really happened" on their website without any verifiable sourcing other than themselves. You'd be correct in saying that we cannot use that clip without parallel sources corroborating it, and with clear attribution for the reader to judge bias.
  1. It doesn't matter that unedited video would be much more probative than an unedited affidavit. We have only their word for it that they didn't edit it.
  2. As with a video clip, an affidavit / firsthand account is a primary source by Wikipedia definition.
  3. Wikipedia has guidelines established by the community for how to deal with use of a primary source by a partisan group, which I confusingly abbreviated earlier as "partisan source."
  4. Those guidelines apply, whether it's to "my side" or "your side" or anyone else's "side".
If you want to take up the question of whether those community guidelines should be changed, this isn't the forum to do it in. It's great that you've provided a source for Joe Carr's original statements, one which I believe can be used to make the article better. But it needs to be used under the guidelines, if other editors agree that it can be used. arimareiji (talk) 23:58, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Zionist or not, if the party posted a video clip interviewing with IDF eyewitnesses, WikiGuidelines would't object for mentioning it, but WikiGuidelines would object stating a conclusion based on that interview. What we do here is same. We are trying to mention 2 opposing sides' eyewitness accounts. If ISM members eyewitnessing the event are partisan the IDF personnel eyewitnessing the event are also partisan. If PCHR that publishes the ISM eyewitness testimonies is partisan, some Israeli newspapers interviewing with IDF personel are also partisan. This is a disputable case. So we should mention both sides arguments, with the highest quality sources we can find. We cannot trim off one or two sides' claims by saying they are partisan, because they are the first hand party here who are involved the case. Actually we cannot progress much on the article because we don't have some admins here, and not much editors around for neutrality, our editors for the page are 6, 3 against 3 pro side, and for a disputable article, even our neutrality might be disputable. Kasaalan (talk) 14:09, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you even listening to anything I'm saying, or have you decided you already know what I'm going to say and thus keep repeating variants of the same arguments? I'd be vaguely interested (and possibly amused) to know which "side" you think I'm on.
Incidentally, per dictionary.com, partisan = "an adherent or supporter of a person, group, party, or cause." That does include PCHR. And it doesn't include most newspapers. arimareiji (talk) 16:41, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) You see why it is so difficult to reach consensus on this page these days? We get tales told at great length by Kasaalan (and repeatedly), full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:59, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am reading what you write, but we don't have enough editors to reach a consensus around. I know what partisan means, and partisan word includes most of Israeli based articles used in reference section just as PCHR. Not sure what side you are, I don't know your edits so I cannot comment on you, yet on Wehwalt I can comment, and I can say he doesn't apply same Wiki standarts to the both sides equally. We need a group of admins watching over page, that is easiest way to reach a consensus. For example look at this page Tom Gross and tell me this is not a partisan source. Look at this sourceVoaNews what the news based on "according to a source", and according to an unknown source we use imaginary titles like "possible kidnapping attempt" although Corrie rejects the incident. [By the way the first source to voanews was a really untrustable page, I searched and added the original voanews reference] Isn't this source partisan too israelenews or this human rights activists or aids to terrorists. Yet even when I try to use Human Rights Watch report as a reference, I have to discuss pages long with Wehwalt to add it, why, because he even refuses internationally accepted Human Rights Watch claiming using it would be against WikiGuidelines, than I need to search and proof, how HRW reports already have been used in Wikipedia in dozens of page before I can add it as a reference. Or even when I want to add a page from The Boston Globe, people can refuse for it is not mainstream like New York Times, then I need to research and proof The Boston Globe belongs to The New York Times group. We cannot even reach a consensus on kill word [Concise Oxford English Dictionary kill cause the death of], and trying to replace them into death just like people die from natural reasons. Lots of info was missing in the article, and instead wasting time on baseless objections I could improve the article much more than its current state. I researched and referenced lots of important info missing in the article myself, unlike some editors who [instead researching] taking their time on "neutralitizing" and trimming off the article against "hagiography threats", yet it took much more time for me to discuss on objections caused by double standarts here. Why do we even need to discuss so long on the reliability of HRW, when I it is already widely accepted in the world by governments, press, academic studies and wikipedia. We couldn't reach a consensus on mentioning Rachel's fifth grade speech against hunger, which indicates it is hard to reach a consensus. Because our interpratation of WikiPolicies are different, therefore we need some independent admins' help on the page. Kasaalan (talk) 18:00, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kasaalan, admins aren't better editors than anyone else, and are not better equipped to judge content on articles like this. They simply have gone through the RfA process to be given certain tools useful in maintaining Wikipedia (that is why the symbol for adminship is a mop). Arimameiji's comments seem neutral and to the point. If there are disagreements, there are many ways to settle the issue, from posting on noticeboards to asking for third opinions, which avoid excessive formality and get the job done.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:08, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New section for teapot tempests

Just wanted to be able to scroll a little less; I'm getting lazy in my old age. Please note that by referring to any individual source as partisan or non-partisan, I am not trying to judge whether it should be included. Impressions:

  1. Can't comment on Tom Gross without knowing what he was being used as a source for.
  2. I'm not impressed with VoA's sourcing or neutrality, but they're not partisan per se.
  3. Israelenews doesn't come across as partisan, though the reporter herself and the fact it's an OpEd (opinion editorial) verges on partisanship. When I get back to re-including it, I'd like to specifically mention that it's an OpEd and not a news article.
  4. Without knowing more about The Jewish Journal, I can't be sure, but the fact that they titled a blatant OpEd as a "Community Brief" makes me think they are partisan.
  5. I suspect you mean the Human Rights Watch report published under the umbrella of UNHCR (the UN Office of the High Commissioner on Refugees); my impression is of this alone. By one definition, it could be considered 'partisan' - they are promoting a cause, that of human rights. But to me it comes across as non-partisan with respect to politics. I'm also impressed by their almost-religious sourcing of material; it verges on scholarly.

As Wehwalt said, adminship does not confer nobility. It does imply that an editor has remained neutral enough to not piss off a lot of people, otherwise they would fail their RfA. Pissed-off people have long memories. It also implies that an editor knows their way around Wikipedia, is familiar with the rules, and for the most part has "been there done that." Generally, an admin's opinion is trustworthy, though there are always exceptions. Perhaps the biggest testament to an admin's trustworthiness is when they don't use their admin tools to "win" arguments - which means that a group of admins overseeing this article would not solve anything.
The only resolutions we can reach in article editing are either compromise and consensus, or getting admins to banish those who refuse to edit constructively. The former is what we need here, not the latter. arimareiji (talk) 19:49, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Tom Gross when you examine his other articles and his biography in the site is broadly partisan, but I don't object his referenced article because he is clearly partisan on his other articles. Yet when I like to use a verifiable fact from a site, it gets objection by the site is partisan therefore unreliable. I don't like to go in detail much in each of the sources, there are even more examples in the article, "Voice of America (VOA), is the official external radio and television broadcasting service of the United States federal government. Its oversight entity is the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG)." and unofficially related to CIA, and some of the sources in the reference, whether partisan or not, are not eligible for wikiguidelines as reliable sources, or even maintstream. And if anyone objects even Human Rights Watch report, they should also object most of these references, yet they don't and that is why I mention on double standards. Even while I question the reliability of sources like these, I am not trimming them off from the article, because their claims are somewhat common in Israel and gives a different thought to the article. Yet, when I try to add missing information to the article, same wikiguidelines which not applied to these links, came before me as an objection for not adding my sources. If you wonder, HRW has been refused for being unreliable, so we had to quote it from UN website as referenced by a reliable source. Why I have to repeat myself over and over again is because constant objections even on primary sources, and we don't have much editors around for settlement, and whatever you call it, we generally have 2 opposing ideas for applying rules and as 1-1, 2-2 or 3-3 generally, so we cannot progress fast. Actually even I object Wehwalt much, that is mainly because we have conflicting ideas, and mostly we are the only ones around here, we need more editors and independent admins around, because we cannot settle on applying wikiguidelines or choosing reliable sources most of the time, yet sometimes we cannot even settle on very basic things which leads conflicts bigger. Kasaalan (talk) 00:31, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would anyone like to step forward and explain objections to using the HRW report filed under the UNHCR as source material for this article? I can't see any reason for excluding it, but I may not know the whole story.
(If you're not answering this question, please consider waiting a short while before adding a new edit and changing the edit summary. The current edit summary is meant to get additional input from people who have this watchlisted, and stifling the input of people who could answer this question is not a mark of good faith.) arimareiji (talk) 02:31, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to see it mentioned inline it was from HRW, or else backed up with another source, but otherwise I'm OK with it.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you; I'll restore the question into the edit summary for a little while in case there are outright objections. arimareiji (talk) 02:56, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Hurndall

He is fatally shot in the head by IDF sniper for certain we should mention it in the explanation. Being two words shorter does not make the explanation better. This is the exact reason Tom Hurndall mentioned in the see also section. "British ISM volunteer fatally shot in Gaza" True but we already know who shot him, and he convicted at Israel military courts than we should mention its position. He fatally shot in the head by IDF sniper stayed in coma and died 9 months later. "In the head" is important because it directly shows the intention. You cannot shoot a man in the head by mistake. If we don't mention IDF personnel than it misleads the reader like who shot him is unknown.

"Thomas "Tom" Hurndall (29 November 1981 – 13 January 2004) was a British photography student, a volunteer for the International Solidarity Movement (ISM), and an activist against the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories. On 11 April 2003, he was shot in the head in the Gaza Strip by an Israel Defense Forces (IDF) sniper, Taysir Hayb. Hurndall was left in a coma and died nine months later.
Hayb was convicted of manslaughter and obstruction of justice by an Israeli military court in April 2005 and sentenced to eight years in prison.[1] On 10 April 2006, a British inquest jury returned a verdict of unlawful killing meaning "intentionally killed", or, according to the Hurndall family QC, murdered.[2][3]"
"On 27 June 2005, Sergeant Taysir al-Heib was convicted of manslaughter, obstruction of justice, giving false testimony and inducing comrades in his unit to bear false witness.
On 11 August 2005, al-Heib was sentenced to eight years in prison by a military court.[1]
Tom Hurndall's family and their legal team were denied access to the military police report which led to the trial. After an appeal to the Israeli Supreme Court, the state prosecution offered access to the report to the legal team, but not the Hurndall family, in early August. According to a spokesman for the Tom Hurndall Foundation,[7] this will allow them to decide whether Taysir could be indicted for the more serious charge of murder, and to find out if responsibility for Hurndall's death lies higher up the chain of command.[8]" Kasaalan (talk) 12:26, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Learn about what the purpose of a "see also" is. We could simply list the names with no text at all.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:02, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Completely agreed; the subject of this article is Rachel Corrie. Not the ISM, or ISM members who have been (allegedly) killed/injured by the IDF. Just Rachel Corrie. Also please keep arguments short and to the point, rather than cutting/pasting large sections of text in lieu of a cogent argument. arimareiji (talk) 13:19, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are almost no cases we'd not state who killed an international observer, particularly when it was a series of high-profile court cases in two countries that determined what happened and who carried it out. PRtalk 09:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's already a Wikipedia article on him that discusses all that, PR; the issue here is why mention him in the article on someone else? Were they friends? Were they together when she was killed? Had they ever even met? I believe the answer to the latter 3 questions is "no", "no", and "no". Also, he wasn't an "international observer", he was a political activist. Jayjg (talk) 09:30, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you ask the wrong questions then you get nowhere. Both Rachel and Tom were ISM activists. So Yes. They both have been killed within 1 month one after the other. So yes. They both have been killed in the same city. So yes. They both have been killed by same army's personnel whether on purpose or not. So yes. Both case have been subject of Israel Courts. So yes. Similar incidents happening in similar location in Gaza, in similar dates, by IDF soldiers, that is why the cases are related. Kasaalan (talk) 14:48, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Who says they're the wrong questions? Why are yours more relevant? Do you have reliable sources tying them together? Jayjg (talk) 00:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I make the cogent argument, and quoted the reasons for a them. There is a certain conviction present in this case by Israeli courts, so there is no allegation or claim present on who killed Tom Hurndall. "Also provide a brief explanatory sentence when the relevance of the added links is not immediately apparent." Wiki says this as a guideline, we couldn't simply just list the names beause relevance of the links wouldn't be apparent. He is not allegedly killed, he is certainly killed by an IDF sniper with a bullet in the head, this is why I put the quotes from the wiki article. It is not allegedly because the Israel Military Court sentenced him to 8 years. A certain conviction is present on the case by 2 seperate courts. He is killed by an IDF sniper. Is it a better brief when we keep out, he is killed by an IDF sniper, from the brief, or is it more misleading, like it is unknown who shot him like a disputable case. Wehwalt generally suggests "keeping it short", but keeping it short by 3 words, is way misleading than the space it gains. "Keeping it short" approach cutting out necessary details, as stated in the wiki guidelines this is an electronic encyclopedia, and space is not the biggest issue in Wiki. Kasaalan (talk) 21:47, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If space was the biggest issue on wiki, they'd be sending you bills for your talk page contributions! :) However, I digress. Putting those three see alsos, with their accompanying text, is an attempt to say "Because the IDF shot these people, they therefore must have intentionally done harm to Rachel Corrie." That's not the purpose of a see also.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is your comment, yet not objective. I don't claim "IDF shot these people, therefore they intentionally harmed Rachel", what I say is Tom Hurndall has been shot in the head by an IDF sniper, it is the final decision of 2 different courts including Israel Military Court, and your shortening is covering this fact, and it misleads the readers by hiding crucial undisputable info. A sniper means not a regular soldier but a sharpshooter whose specialty is shooting where he aims exactly with his special longrange rifle with a scope, a sniper shot Tom in the head and that is the fact. You try to trim off the crucial parts and calling that neutralizing, yet it results in erasing off IDF's misdoings even the ones accepted by IDF. The killer is known for sure by verdict of Israel Military Court, similar incidents happening in similar location, in similar dates, by IDF soldiers, that is why the cases are related. I am not commenting like you, I am stating the facts and you are erasing the facts. That is not neutral point of view, that is IDF based point of view. Kasaalan (talk) 14:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Come on, Kasaalan, you're defending it because you hope the reader will get that implied point. Why else are you so assiduously defending it? And why else are the dates that these events took place in there? You want the reader to think the IDF went on a little killing spree at the expense of foreigners, come on, you can admit it, we're all friends here.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simply juxtaposing the dates is fair game, I think - but only if no WP:OR/WP:SYNTHESIS conclusions are asserted. I doubt that anyone whose mind wasn't already made up would see a relationship in the absence of proof. It's not our responsibility, nor would we be able, to anticipate and try to protect a reader from their own POV. That would verge on telling them not to stuff beans up their nose, I think.arimareiji (talk) 15:58, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we should add, say, Adam Shapiro to the list. And I would still delete the text, leaving only the names.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:22, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ISM and/or a link to IDF demolitions work / rationale (if such an article exists), or... well... any article to balance against "IDF's raison d'etre is to kill everyone in sight", would be pertinent. Adam Shapiro, not so much I think. arimareiji (talk) 17:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Objections to using a Human Rights Watch report as a source?

Would anyone like to step forward and explain objections to using the HRW report filed under the UNHCR as source material for this article? Sorry to keep repeating myself, but I want to make sure we have a clear consensus. arimareiji (talk) 13:29, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a few days, so I'm going ahead with WP:BRD. We can always take the topic up again, of course. arimareiji (talk) 23:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
HRW is exceptionally careful, a top-rate RS. PRtalk 21:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wehwalt re-inserting redundant material

I deleted the following passage from the end of the "possible kidnapping attempt" section:

In March 2008, The Observer reported that the gunmen, who carried Kalashnikovs, intended to kidnap the Corries, feeling that they would be valuable bargaining tools. According to the paper, Nasrallah persuaded the gunmen to go on their way. They may have killed two men on the Egyptian border instead.[59]

This adds absolutely nothing of value to the section. The bit about the men killed on the border is hearsay speculation ("it is said that" - unsourced and unattributed in the Observer article) that is irrelevant to this article, and even if it were so, it does not belong in this article on such flimsy evidence. The only other difference is that it says "Kalashnikovs" (plural), a point of only marginal interest. The earlier newspaper reports, which stated that only one of the men carried a gun are much more likely to be true: they are closer to the incident than the Observer article, a long piece which focuses on Rachel's background and the effect of Rachel's killing on the Corrie family, not on the detail of an incident two years ago.

Removing this bit is an easy, non-controversial way of trimming this section. It really needs to be trimmed further (WP:UNDUE), not expanded with worthless repetition.

--NSH001 (talk) 17:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should be looking elsewhere in the article for things to trim. Like the lengthy witness statements that should be boiled down into the text or at the worst brief blockquotes. However, I'd be fine with deleting the border sentence, but the rest should go back in. Why? Because there is doubt as to the gunmens' intentions, and this dispels that.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just my opinion, your mileage may vary - but I don't think the Observer really adds much. I don't think it's fair to call its assertions hearsay. But then again, they don't tell us what the source for their assertions is. And the "might have killed Egyptian border guards" comes across as a little weaselly.
Striking through a now-moot section of my own comments.
I think there might be a different angle which would help the kerfluffle make more sense. It's... well, quixotic of the ISM to object because "the Corries weren't the intended kidnap victims, the people next door were." It doesn't cast the situation in a more favorable light. But it shows common ground between the two accounts, which makes more sense than polar disagreement. arimareiji (talk) 17:54, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it sounds improbable, here's the quote from cite 57: "In the early morning of January 4, two Palestinian men visited three American members of the Olympia-Rafah Sister City Project (ORSCP) at the home where the Americans were staying in Rafah, a city on Gazas border with Egypt. The two men reportedly wanted to hold the three foreigners in exchange for the release of a family member who was arrested by Palestinian security forces for an earlier kidnapping. The Corries were staying in a nearby home and helped to talk the men out of going through with the plan." arimareiji (talk) 18:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've WP:BRD'ed out a version I think might be acceptable to everyone; please feel free to redact as much as needed. The media and ISM accounts are almost identical, except for the relative levels of sympathy in wording: Two men with a gun go into a home where Americans are staying in order to kidnap them, and get talked out of it by the Corries.
To me, it previously came across as: "Either they were being kidnapped, or some guys came to visit them for a little spot of tea." The more plausible reconciled version, which I find much more amusing: "Either the media wanted to report a better story than the one that really happened, or the ISM wanted to put a good face on it and said the kidnappers weren't bad guys because they were going to kidnap someone else." arimareiji (talk) 19:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Personally, I think the media just wanted a better story and "improved" it; in my experience they do that a lot. But either way, I still think it's more amusing.) arimareiji (talk) 23:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I may play with it a little bit, but it is quite good. Only thing that wasn't clear is if they asked the Corries for autographs, had their pix taken with them (hopefully without the AK47's showing), or gave them their cell phone numbers before they went to the border and blew away a couple of randoms.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The observer link was not working, so I cannot comment on that article without the article link. Current references for the case may help for the discussion. voice of americatelegraphisraeliinsider Kasaalan (talk) 19:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of little edits and one section refactor

I've been a busy little bee, as you can see from the edit history. If there's anything you disagree with or don't understand the rationale for, please check the edit summaries - I tried to individuate them as much as possible to make it easier to deal with each on its merits. And of course, I'm always around to answer questions. arimareiji (talk) 01:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I support some key points should be mentioned for her early life. The dove parade and her fifth grade hunger speech is notable for her life. I added two parts, "yet declined to comment on why ACP drivers didn't get the bulldozers to stop" and "wearing an orange flourescent safety jacket with 2 reflector stripes, had positioned herself in the path of a C9R bulldozer with spots on". Kasaalan (talk) 04:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While I understand your frustration with IDF's unwillingness to explain their conclusions (i.e. issue a full report that's transparent about their reasoning), these quotes aren't the place to speculate about it. The cites being used here don't support them, which means that the additions amount to WP:OR.
I'm not finished with this article yet by any means, and plan to add HRW material that addresses IDF transparency issues the right way - sourced, and in context. arimareiji (talk) 09:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To further clarify - no one questions that she was wearing a visibility jacket. But your additions go a step farther, and both insinuate and assert that the IDF/spokesman refused to address the issue. Those aren't supported by the sources for the sentences you modified. If you'll give me a chance to do so instead of re-explaining why this is nonproductive, I plan to address that the correct way using HRW. arimareiji (talk) 14:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"For now, the official Israeli line is that the driver did not see Rachel through the bulldozer's thick bullet-proof glass. However, the spokesman acknowledged that the armoured personnel carriers (APCs) that accompany bulldozers are responsible for directing the drivers towards their targets. So why didn't the APC drivers get the bulldozer to stop? The IDF declined to comment." [35] You said my additions not supported by the references, but they were already in the article. HRW needs to be added and might be better, yet also this is a necessary part when the article quoted because it states both claim and an objection to that claim, the paragraph is a whole splitting it in two misleads the view. Also Rachel was wearing an orange flourescent jacket, yet the photographs also proof the D9R spotlights were also on and the jacket has 2 reflector stripes which shines against light sources, so this part is extremely important to the case against blindspot arguments. Rachel and D9R Where in the article it will be stated we can discuss, however the jacket and spotlights should be stated at least once. Kasaalan (talk) 15:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In both cases, you're performing dubious WP:SYNTHESIS to say that they're connected. I know the reference; I'm the one who refactored it based on that reference. The "decline to comment" is NOT in reference to her jacket. And "you can see spots in the photo, and spots reflect off of stripes, so the bulldozer driver could see her" is blatant synthesis. We don't insert our own opinions, and we don't insert our own deductions. Please keep those rules in mind.
Every hour I spend re-explaining the rules to you is an hour I'm not trying to neutralize POV that detracts from Rachel's story (something I think you want told), and probably another two or three more hours before I have the mental stamina to come back again and deal with fighting against you to make even the most obviously-needed reforms. At some point, you need to learn that fighting to "win" every little Pyrrhic victory is not helping you. arimareiji (talk) 19:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't claim the declining of comment with her jacket is related, but it was part of the article and it should be mentioned untill you made a better view from HRW article. I am not performing any synthesis because I don't try to to reach a certain point with these claims, but I am stating undisputable facts. IDF mentions about the blindspots, and I state the open spots of D9R by the event photographs. I did not try to reach any synthesis, yet it is a fact she did wear an orange safety jacket with reflector stripes while the spotlights of the D9R is obviously on during whole time. I don't claim basing on this fact as the IDF is certainly wrong or ISM is certainly right, yet again I state this fact because it lessens the probility of not seeing Rachel during the events, because a safety jacket is more than just an orange color while while the spots hit the reflectors, but again I didn't insert any comment in the article, I just described the situation pointing the facts is necessary. I don't insert my opinion, or my conclusions, I state the prominent facts for the case. If your mental stamina is a concern to you, I can sincerely recommend you getting professional help on the matter. The article is not about victory, it is about revealing the truths. Also this is not a minor spot to discuss, it is a major fact for the case. Our job here is stating the facts, the conclusion is not ours to make. I state the facts again and again, and deleting the facts is not a way of neutralizing the article. Kasaalan (talk) 19:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  1. I really don't appreciate your implication that my being frustrated with your constant bickering indicates that I need "professional help on the matter."
  2. This essay goes a long way toward explaining how most editors feel about statements like "it is about revealing the truths [sic]." Please keep in mind when reading it that it is satire, and not serious. arimareiji (talk) 19:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I constantly restating the facts without exhausting over page most of which consists of baseless objections to my edits, and if you want to name my actions that much maybe you should read the discussion page over again. I don't feel like caring to your personal statements on my behaviour. There aren't enough editors for being able to mention most in any way. So trying to win any argument by exaggerating the numbers will not help. As I explained earlier, the editors you referred are only limited to 2 and made some really biased effort on the article with their double standarts, so I don't have the impression I have discussed with independent editors that much. That is why I argued we should call some independent admins for the page earlier. Also your frustration, what you aprreciate or how you amuse yourself is out of my concern here, but being unable to stand even a short discussion like this, also might be a good indication on the mental strength of a person. Why I recommend you to consider seeking for help, because you mentioned it yourself just as it is an important matter. If it is a trivial case that only concerns yourself, maybe you shouldn't mention it, where it is unrelated. Kasaalan (talk) 20:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. "Short discussion"? This page is 302,000 characters long even after archiving threads significantly more than a month old. The overwhelming majority of it is yours. For comparison, the average English word's length is 5.1 characters. That would make this page longer than two full-length novellas.
  2. I'm not talking about editors on this page when I say most editors would agree with this essay's farcical conclusions about "truth warriors." I'm talking about the whole of Wikipedia.
  3. Keep up the insinuations that I lack "mental strength" and need "professional help." You'll make the acquaintance of some "independent admins" in very short order. arimareiji (talk) 20:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. So if I restate your claim, I have read all of my own writings, I have read all of opposers' claims, I have researched, than read that articles, parashrased or quoted them with clear references for providing answers against constant objections, which is "longer than 2 full-length novellas". Why did I researched for info, while some others mostly trying to shape the article according to their point of view. After I came there is some obvious improvement in the article. I found the middle name of Rachel is Aliene. Might sound trivial at first, but I learned it while I have read the medical reports and legal court documents. I located the exact serie of D9 used in the case was D9R. Might sound trivial, yet it affects the field of view, the sizes, the cabin, the location of operator, the spotlights anything and everything to the case. I found the medical reports of Rachel even the original ones. ... It took a long time, yet answering objections took more time. But if you won't read my discussions for necessary cases, than don't base your argument for they are long, because I have made the research then read them all before I provide them here. And if you read them, you might also understand why I discussed so long on quoting the HRW report or why full text for the eyewitness accounts should be referenced from the first hand sources. It is not my fault 2 editors constantly objected to the primary sources. That is why it took so long. Also some of the text here are for other editors to evaulate, before I make the edits based on quotes. They are prepublished here for future edits, while providing time for others to read and object them.
  1. Verifiable facts needs to be stated. Wikipedia:Verifiability You don't argue the facts, yet you argue with me while I provide them in the article. If you can get some independent admins to the page, go ahead, it might help.
  2. I have written a longer answer for this case but I don't like to discuss further. If you keep your trivial personal mood statements out of the discussion, no need for us to discuss them over here. Yet if you will rephrase my statements, then try to threaten me by your own false rephareses, you might feel the urge to call admins, however it is not my concern what I haven't said or what you think I have said. My statements are above and as they are just like yours. Kasaalan (talk) 21:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kasaalan, you say "Rachel was wearing an orange flourescent jacket, yet the photographs also proof the D9R spotlights were also on and the jacket has 2 reflector stripes which shines against light sources, so this part is extremely important to the case against blindspot arguments." Which reliable source says this is "extremely important to the case against blindspot arguments." Why do you think you need to make an argument against the blindspot arguments? Jayjg (talk) 00:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Answers are given in new section. Eyewitness statements and event photographs clearly describes the jacket in detail as I do. Kasaalan (talk) 17:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Safety Jacket in Detail

Primary and direct source from a side to the case. ISM eyewitness written testimonies given under oath. Their claims for her safety jacket are backed up by event photographs. The photograph clearly shows that Rachel Corrie was wearing a flourescent orange safety jacket with 2 reflector stripes while the 2 spotlights of D9R is on. Using an apparent photograph to describe an item important for a case is not likely to involved with original research but if it is the eyewitness statements already contains this fact. By the way ISM gave out the permission to the photos for press can we use the event photographs from ICFI in the article?

Here is the direct original source of the written eyewitness statements taken under oath by Palestinian Center for Human Rights lawyer and then repeated at IDF office by request of PCHR. PALESTINIAN CENTRE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS PRESS RELEASE 30.06.2003 AFFIDAVITS

SUMMARY FOR EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS ON SAFETY JACKET

A short summary for the eyewitness statements on flourescent orange safety jacket with 2 reflective strips. Kasaalan (talk) 13:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, your "summary" contains several first-person statements. Either those are also just cut/pastes, but this time being masqueraded as honest discourse, or you're asserting that you have a massive WP:CoI. Neither is good. arimareiji (talk) 15:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't want to jump in here too much, especially since Kasaalan hasn't answered the question posed at the end of the last section. But those photographs are not "event photographs", but were taken earlier in the day. We cannot use them as they are nonfree and do not fall under any fair use criterion.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What question you refer, because my quotes explains why the jacket should be described in detail. As you call my statements original research it is only clear, either you haven't read the full eyewitness statements I provided, or simply ignored them. You asked the question on sources, claiming it was original research, so I proved you it is not original research, but based on the eyewitness statements and event photographs which are completely verifiable as I clearly referenced earlier. Quotes are big yet interconnected, also I have clearly marked related parts with bold and added as a summary at the end for those who don't like to read in detail. My summary of course contains first person statements, because these people are the eyewitnesses to the case, therefore should be considered as a Primary Source according to wiki guidelines for the case. Moreover the eyewitness statements can be easily proved by the event photographs. Wehwalt your claims are simply wrong. Look at the page with event photograph. You can easily see she was wearing the safety jacket before the incident. And in this collage posted by permission from ISM you can easily see she is wearing same safety jacket after the incident. On contrary to your claims, we have both before and after the incident photographs publicly available. As I already prooved you earlier, which you didn't bother to read or care, all of the photographs' timeline is clearly available. The page is "last updated on 21 March 2003 (added detail to captions in images and context to second paragraph)" on contrary to your claims. Look at the photostory at EI. The photographs clearly marked by timeline. First 2 photographs before the incident [36][37] taken between 3:00-4:00 PM and the other 2 photographs after the incident [38][39] taken at 4:45 PM and 4:47 PM respectively. So the claims of the eyewitnesses can be easily verified when you look at the event photographs. Wehwalt with false claims you can get nowhere. Also you claim they are non-free yet ON THIS PHOTOGRAPH IT IS CLEARLY STATED ICFI USED IT BY PERMISSION OF ISM so we can clearly address ICFI site as a reference. Also the photographs were taken from ISM press handout which gives us no reason to doubt for copyright issues. Uploading an image on wiki has stricter guidelines unlike using it as a proof. Kasaalan (talk) 17:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, fortunately I don't have to answer most of that because it is still a nonfree image. Using it in a press handout does not release the photo into the public domain. And just because we know what site a photo can be found on does not mean we can use it here. I take it that since WSWS used it by permission of ISM, that means we can too. That is not the case. It would have to be releasted into the public domain, have a suitable license, or else fall under a fair use exception. Go read up on copyright issues for images here at WP.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not talking about uploading the picture here, but I am talking about using the WSWS page, which has the permission from ISM to use the photographs, as a reference for the jacket, which has the right to publish picture from ISM. Or any other site like common dreams or Electronic Intifada, showing the source is ISM handout, and even AP used it from ISM handout. Press handouts are for public to view them, as a general rule, unless they stated otherwise. Also you should answer about your false claims on timeline. The sites and eyewitness accounts clearly show the timeline of the photographs. They are not giving false info on event timeline. We have both before and after photographs clearly show the jacket she is wearing with timeline, and eyewitness accounts stressing the jacket in detail because it is important, which can be easily verified by event photographs. You haven't made good arguments for not to describe the safety jacket in detail, which is an extremely important detail for the case. Kasaalan (talk) 17:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Despite adding 7kb, mostly of unattributed copy/paste material, you still have not answered the question "Which reliable source says this is 'extremely important to the case against blindspot arguments[?]'". This is a nigh-canonical example of example 8 under Gaming the system:
Stonewalling - actively filibustering discussion, or repeatedly returning to claims that a reasonable editor might have long since resolved or viewed as discredited (without providing any reasonable counter of the discredital), effectively tying up the debate or preventing a policy-based resolution being obtained.
Feel free to ignore the link to what a "filibuster" is, but by doing so you'll miss why it's the cornerstone of the example. arimareiji (talk) 17:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You ignore the common sense actively. Eyewitnesses do stress "the orange flourescent jackets used by construction workers with stripes for high visibility" for a reason.

EYEWITNESSES DO STRESS ON SHE WAS WEARING HIGH VISIBILITY SAFETY JACKET

All of which are easily verifiable by event photographs. All of the eyewitnesses stresses the jacket. And most of them go in detail describing it is highly visible flourescent orange color with reflecting stripes. Do they lie, no, we already verified their claims by photographs already. Why do they do stress that Rachel was wearing a safety jacket just as they are told in ISM training? For being "highly visible" against IDF operators. All eyewitnesses stresses the safety jacket in their testimonies even with detail, therefore it is important, while we verified it by photographs, and use common sense. You even try to object to the obvious. Her family stresses on the safety jacket in the editorial published at Herald Tribune just like they do on courts. "On March 16, 2003, an Israeli soldier and his commander ran over Rachel ... clearly visible in her orange fluorescent jacket ..."

OTHER PRESS SOURCES REFERRING TO THE SAFETY JACKET

Safety Jackets are important that is why they have been wearing by ISM members, also why they have been strictly instructed to wear them in their training, and the stripes on them are important, as they flashes against bright light sources just as of D9R's spotlights. Common sense is important, they need to be mentioned, I don't claim it should be added as "extremely important" in the article, yet they should be mentioned in detail for the same reason. Kasaalan (talk) 18:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      • What you call common sense is what Wikipedia calls WP:SYNTHESIS, and prohibits. And you're not being persuasive by continuing to paste kB after kB of material and expecting everyone else to read it, when you haven't read the repeated (and much smaller) warnings against several different types of counterproductive editing tactics like this. The most recent one is above, but they're scattered throughout the page.
Note to editors posting small comments, i.e. under 10 lines: It may be helpful, for the time being, to use ** rather than :: to marginate your comments. I can't speak for anyone else, but it's getting increasingly difficult for my old eyes (Kasaalan, I'm not inviting you to make more personal comments about me) to find smaller comments in this haystack of a page. arimareiji (talk) 19:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your approach lead huge vertical spaces between paragraphs. Kasaalan (talk) 20:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually no synthesis I made by describing the safety jacket. I am just pointing out obvious details, ignored by other editors. Why do you wear a safety jacket, easy, for your safety, just as construction workers do, that is also why safety jackets has been manufactured. Safety jackets are made from special material and painted with special paints. That is what makes them different from regular coats. Yet she further wears a safety jacket with stripes on it. Do you object that. Most possibly, no. But there are different types of safety jackets as you may have known. Some safety jackets have reflective stripes on them. They are reflective against light sources. She was wearing one of these. Do you object that. Most possibly no. The eyewitnesses, her family, and some newspapers clearly stresses this fact by describing the jacket in detail, as I posted above. Do you object that. Saying just the color of the safety jacket is misleading by definition of safety jacket. "Fluorescent jacket" is not enough to describe the jacket because "She was wearing a bright orange jacket with reflective strips on it." as multiple eyewitnesses stress in detail. And there is a huge difference between them, when there is bright lightsources like D9R spotlights on this case. The reflective stripes have been used on the safety jackets for a purpose, that is why we should mention them. Otherwise there would be no difference between a safety jacket with reflective stripes and without the reflective stripes. The quote in the article is simply misleading, while better detail quotes are already available from eyewitnesses accounts. Also why do you count mentioning the D9R's spotlights were on, which is a strict verifiable fact, as a synthesis or reaching a conclusion, I am not so sure. The wikiguideline refers another point in that example. I am just describing the case, as it is, without trying to reach a conclusion in the article or make a synthesis. Yet if we don't mention the facts, how can we stand neutral to the case. As I gave the examples above, the jacket is stressed by the first hand sides for the case multiple times in detail. Kasaalan (talk) 19:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether you have knowledge on work safety or safety jackets in particular, yet the safety clothing are manufactured and painted specially. And the reflective stripes on them are also specially added. All details are important for the jacket.

DETAILED INFO ON
1 HOW THEIR MATERIALS DIFFER FROM REGULAR COATS
2 WHY ORANGE COLOR IS IMPORTANT FOR SAFETY JACKETS
3 HOW SAFETY JACKETS WITH REFLECTORS WORKS
4 HOW IT IS OBLIGATORY TO WEAR SAFETY JACKET FOR CONSTRUCTION WORKERS IN US BY FEDERAL LAWS
5 HOW EASILY DISTINGUISHABLE THEY ARE IN DAYLIGHT FROM 1 KM THAN A REGULAR JACKET
6 HOW 3M REFLECTIVE STRIPES PROVIDES 250 M VISIBILITY WITH 180 DEGREE WIDE ANGLE

Detailed info on why a safety jacket is important and leads high visibility including working principles and manufacturing material details. Kasaalan (talk) 20:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remember the original question, "Which reliable source says this is "extremely important to the case against blindspot arguments[?]"
Per the applicable definition of blind spot: "In driving, the part of the road that cannot be seen in the rear-view mirror." A blind spot is not an area which is overlooked, it is an area whose view is blocked. In driving, the head of the driver blocks vision in the rearview mirror. Here, it would be an object such as an instrument panel or the blade of the dozer. If she cannot be seen because of an interposing object, it doesn't matter whether she's wearing camouflage or a Day-Glo jumpsuit. Per your own quote, the jacket is important because it "can reflect incident light efficiently." Not because it can reflect light around solid objects.
WP:SYNTHESIS is unusable because two people working from the same set of facts can reasonably reach opposite conclusions. Please stop trying to insert it, and please stop pasting vast amounts of text you claim supports you "if only [we] would read it all." It's a grossly-undue burden, and you've been repeatedly asked to keep it pertinent rather than snowballing material to the point of being unreadable. arimareiji (talk) 21:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Eyewitnesses claims the dozer was moving at a low speed like 10 km/h [the maximum speed is already 12 km/h] while they were 20 metres away, and she has changed her place before she stand there, and even she made eye contact with the driver climbing up the dozer blade. Actually what the IDF meant by blindspot is even another discussion. But the dozers has high vibration inside the cabin especially on non smooth ground like the area, which all weakens the blindspot claims. And if there were 2 operators at the cabin it is far less possible for not seeing her. Yet this are synthesis as you claimed. I don't use synthesis, but stating how much the top speed of a D9R, or if their spots were on, is actually not a synthesis, but a state of fact. Kasaalan (talk) 22:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will ask again do you object or have any doubt, on Rachel was wearing a flourescent orange color safety jacket with reflecting stripes during the event, which is verifiable by event photographs. If the answer is no, why do you insisting on preventing me to mention what type of safety clothing she wear that day. I can go in detail and explain by a synthesis this time, why a reflector stripe is against blindspot arguments in a cabin of D9R, which has maximum speed of 12 km/h or 30 cm/s, on a rough ground which leads vibration in the seat, while more than 1 personnel were inside and the spots of D9R was on. But since I am not trying to conclude a result like that on the main article page, as the safety jacket is totally proves IDF operator was lying, I won't go into detail. Yet, even if the safety jacket is against blindspot arguments or not, it is important to mention she wears a safety jacket with reflector stripes on, as stressed very clearly by every eyewitness to the case, because the spots of D9R were on during the event, which can be clearly seen in the photographs. I strongly object on cutting out the necessary details. This is a main claim of the eyewitnesses, for the operators seen her. Because she wasn't static all the time, and she moved relative to the D9R. Mentioning the jacket she wear as an orange jacket is simply misleading as I explained what a safety jacket is and how it works above, which some don't bother to read. And again I say I am describing the jacket as it is, I am not trying to conclude anything on the main page by this fact. An orange jacket is a misleading and poor description for a safety jacket. She was wearing this type of jacket with no doubt, and I will describe the jacket in detail by the quotes of eyewitnesses. This is an important detail for the case, and claiming the opposite is a highly biased argument. Kasaalan (talk) 21:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There may be copyright issues with actually putting photographs into the article, but there are no problems with describing what they show. PRtalk 22:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will try to find a solution for the photographs, but referring to a page that has permission from ISM to use them is reasonable enough for me. She was wearing a flourescent orange safety jacket with reflective stripes while the spots of the D9R was on. This is the fact, yet they object me to mention it. Even though I already proved above, how multiple eyewitnesses stresses this key fact in detail. Kasaalan (talk) 22:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid PR is incorrect, we cannot describe what the photographs supposedly show, because it would inevitably involve characterizations by us. If a secondary source describes it, then it might be usable. Also, I'd agree with Kasaalan about one thing,, we could have a long discussion about blind spots. Suffice it to say, that you are going about trying to prove that the bulldozer driver saw Corrie and proceeded anyway. You're trying to do it in pieces, blind spot of a dozer is, etc etc. The thing is, WP can't do that kinda thing, it is synthesis and pointy as well.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There must come a point at which inventing policy becomes disruptive. There is no OR or SYNTH involved claiming that Corrie was wearing a hi-vis, nor is it a "characterization". (Assuming that the photos are part of the same incident and reasonably contemporaneous, as I understand them to be). PRtalk 10:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SYNTHESIS: "Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to come to the conclusion C. This would be a synthesis of published material which advances a new position, which constitutes original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this same argument in relation to the topic of the article."
Short version: You can't write that A fact plus B fact makes C conclusion unless you're quoting a reliable source that says "A fact plus B fact makes C conclusion." arimareiji (talk) 01:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We are not talking about anything near C. We are trying to state there is something called A and B. And Wehwalt try to object because if we describe A and B because people can result in C in their minds. She was wearing high visibility safety jacket with reflective stripes during that day. Noone can object this, and all the evidence shows it this way. Also he claims we cannot describe the photograph, or reference a page that has the permission for publishing the photograph is clearly a double standart. Yet the reference 7 has the flag of Rachel burning a mock American flag sourced by AP Photo. And I have the Al Ahram link for Event Photographs which I posted earlier, contains sourced photographs from AP and Reuters. Also Al Ahram, stressed in the article by its quote "However, Dale challenges the Israeli account. "The bulldozer driver had plenty of time and a full and clear view of Rachel. It was daylight and, in any case, she was wearing a HIGH VISIBILITY ORANGE VEST WITH REFLECTIVE STRIPES. We [peace activists] had been in the area for [about] three hours and they [the Israeli army] were well aware of our presence and what we were doing there," a distressed Dale told Al-Ahram Weekly in a telephone interview." Al Ahram Weekly Your baseless objections has no real value. Also the ISM photos has editorial licence, that is how press agencies use them anyway. Kasaalan (talk) 13:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Editorial licence? What might that be? If another periodical uses a copyrighted photo, they pay royalties on it, that is how photographers make a living. WP does not pay royalties, thus we can only use free photos or else use nonfree under a very limited claim of "fair use" which does not apply here (read up on the policies before you try to say otherwise). If you do not like the ref which goes to the flag burning photo, there are others which clearly state that Rachel burned the flag, Mother Jones for example. And please, insinuating that Arimareiji needs professional help because your filibustering saps his energy is the kind of statement that will get you blocked. Don't indulge in it, however momentarily satisfying it may seem.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, the photographs taken at event was not belong to any photographer. As I stated earlier 2 ISM member who are witnessing the event took the photos. And the ISM published photographs in press release. That is why under the license of press agencies, it says AP Photo/ISM because ISM provided the photographs. Yet you still not reading what I write. I say if the flag picture can be used, and I claim it should be used, why do you claim Al Ahram Weekly article which have the event pictures for the case, can't be used by any guideline you refer. I provided my source above yet you simply ignoring it and still insinsting on unbalanced arguments on things I don't claim. Kasaalan (talk) 14:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Photographs are copyright to the people who took them. It is possible the photographers' rights are held by the ISM, but they still are. Under what wiki policy regarding images do you allege we can use the photo?--Wehwalt (talk) 14:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I said earlier the copyrights are not belong to any photographer but 2 ISM members who are also eyewitnesses. And they provided the photographs to ISM which provided the photographs to the rest of the world for informational use. "Use in an "editorial" manner means use relating to events that are newsworthy or of public interest." We can give reference to the Al Ahram Weekly article page that contains the photograph, just as you do for cbc article containing the burning flag image, according to the whatever wiki policies you refer while doing so. The newspapers pay fees to use the photographs at their papers to photo agencies, therefore Al-Ahram which is "one of the most widely circulating Egyptian daily newspapers" has the right to publish the photographs, just like any other newspaper or magazine we used in the article as a reference. I am not talking about uploading the photographs to the wikipedia untill I can get the clear copyright status. Kasaalan (talk) 15:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clear copyright status = explicit permission from the photographer, who is by definition the copyright holder, or verifiable fair-use attribution. Also, please note that an implicit C conclusion does not justify juxtaposing A+B next to an opposite conclusion D. See the example in WP:SYNTHESIS, but what this concretely means is that we cannot beg the question by saying "IDF says they could not see her, but here's a photo of her reflective jacket and here's a photo of the spotlights." arimareiji (talk) 16:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Before discussing further can you give opinion on referencing Al Ahram Weekly for event photographs, and whether we can state the direct eyewitness quotes or al ahram interview with eyewitness stressing she was wearing a highly visible safety jacket or not. Kasaalan (talk) 18:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I just did. Were you talking to someone else? arimareiji (talk) 18:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You gave your opinion on A+B like synthesis like for she was wearing a jacket and the spotlights were on. Kasaalan (talk) 20:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have every right to refuse to read corrections, explanations, or anything else within other editors' posts that you don't want to see. Likewise, you have every right to ask for the 15th time to have the same subject explained again. However, I have every right to stop giving explanations if I feel it's not a productive use of time. arimareiji (talk) 21:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You also might think you have every right to ignore common sense or wiki guidelines, but you actually don't. I already proved you what is a safety jacket and how it works, why it is important for high visibility, even how it is obligatory to wear it by construction workers in USA. You already know ISM giving out strict instructions on wearing safety jackets and also provide them for their members, that is why she was wearing them in the first place. Moreover the photographs clearly show the safety jacket was on Rachel all the time, which none of you can object. Even more, I clearly showed, how the safety jacket Rachel was wearing, has been stressed on multiple eyewitness accounts in their written testimonies given under oath, as well as news source like Al Ahram, CBS, and Counter Punch which either interviews with eyewitnesses or quotes from their testimony mentions this detail. I cannot let you cut out this detail from the article. If IDF claims as blindspots in D9R resulted the case which, might or might not be true, should be in the article. Then the primary source claims by eyewitnesses that she wears a high visibility safety jacket at the area, which is a clear fact, should also be stated in the article. You haven't provided any reasonable argument yet for not mentioning what safety clothing she was wearing in a dangerous area. And I will quote from eyewitness statements describing her safety jacket, whether you like it or not, then you can go complain any admin you like, which higly I support because you are simply wrong. Kasaalan (talk) 23:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I follow you. You're saying that I don't have the right to stop explaining Wikipedia policies you've been pointed to or had explained a dozen times? Pray tell which guideline says you're permanently entitled to explanations, from me personally, of which policy you're currently violating? arimareiji (talk) 23:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No I just don't agree your use of wikipolicies because, this is the main edit I intend to make for the jacket in the first place, and it is not against wiki policies in any way. Bold parts are my edits.
British ISM activist Richard Purssell gave the following account in an affidavit recorded and published by the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR):
"Some of us including Rachel were wearing orange fluorescent jackets with reflective strips similar to those worn by construction workers for high visibility. ... On more than one occasion the drivers gestured to us, waving, pointing or sounding their horns. They were clearly aware of our presence. ... As the bulldozer reached the place where Rachel was standing, she began as many of us did on the day to climb the pile of earth. She reached the top and at this point she must have been clearly visible to the driver, especially as she was still wearing the high visibility jacket. She turned and faced in my direction and began to come back down the pile. The bulldozer continued to move forward at [5-6 mph]. As her feet hit the ground I saw a panicked expression on her face ... The pile of earth engulfed her and she was hidden from my view."
By the way, could the editor, who cut out the "especially as she was wearing the high visibility jacket" part from the eyewitness quote "she must have been clearly visible to the driver, especially as she was wearing the high visibility jacket", possibly explain us why he find it so crucial to trim off this conclusion part, to save 9 words from the quote which leads a defective meaning for the readers. Kasaalan (talk) 23:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not the edit you were trying to make earlier - this is a trifling concern by comparison.
  • "could the editor... explain [sic] us why he find [sic] so crucial to trim... which leads [sic] a defective meaning"
...Are you seriously asserting that by adding Richard Purssell (who wasn't even there beforehand), and adding PCHR material as a named source, I'm acting in bad faith and trying to sway the reader against The Truth of your side of it? Your logic escapes me.
  • If you're absolutely fixed on that phrase, reinsert it at that location for God's sake. There's no terrible secret hidden intent, I was simply trying to trim out weak material to focus on the core arguments.
  • Adding lots of references to the jacket doesn't strengthen your case, it weakens it because needless repetition bores the reader. Your strongest argument is not the jacket, it's that she was in line-of-sight at the top of the mound, above the blade of the dozer just before she was run over. If she wasn't in line-of-sight at that moment, the jacket is irrelevant. arimareiji (talk) 00:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you're not only inserting "especially as she was wearing the high visibility jacket," then I do in fact need to partially revert you. By expanding it that much, you're detracting from the core point he makes. arimareiji (talk) 00:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of nickname "St. Pancake" in Reaction Section

I sympathize with individuals who are fans of Rachel Corrie in their objection to the use of "St. Pancake." However, the nickname is a reality. Trying to suppress this information, which is relevant, is questionable. I understand that technically, there is an WP:RS issue because many items in popular culture are just there and don't have an RS detailing the phenomenon. Wikipedia rules cover just such instances under WP:Reliable source examples where the source is the best available, and it is noted in the text of the article that a reliable source issue exists. It is also covered, I believe, more than adequately under wp:Common knowledge. Again, the fact that the nickname may be insulting to some, and crass, is not the issue. The simple fact is that the nickname is THERE, is USED a lot, and indeed, the term "St. Pancake" appropriately redirects in Wikipedia to Rachel Corrie. I understand that RS is an issue. Maybe someone more expert than I can resolve the RS issue more eloquently, but to exclude the citation based on a narrow technicality (to which there are clear exceptions allowed) borders on deliberately suppressing relevant information simply because "I don't like it." 24.21.105.252 (talk) 20:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ETA: I have restored the paragraph in "REaqction." Please remember that Wiki despute resolution defaults to INCLUSION during a discussion. If consensus calls for redaction, then that is done AFTER discussion and dispute resolution. So, please don't revert the edit again while we work out how RS is best addressed in this case. Also, I know that there are RS Purists out there who insist that there are no exceptions to RS. That is simply not reality, and I suggest such purrists re-familiarize themselves with the WP:five pillars where it calls to cite verifiable sources "whenever possible." Obviously, there are circumstances where such IS NOT POSSIBLE, and this is one of those. A clear statement of a RS issue is there in the text and in the references, and thus it conforms to WP:RS24.21.105.252 (talk) 21:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia isn't an encyclopedia of insults. The appropriate place to publish this would be on blogs, Encyclopedia Dramatica, Urban Dictionary, or little green footballs (as you've already linked to). Nor is this a matter of "purism" - this simply doesn't belong by any standard. arimareiji (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]
That is your opinion, and I disagree. It is very relevant to the subject Rachel Corrie, as it is a popular culture nickname for her, that is derived from the controversy of her actions and death. That is may "sully" her reputation is quite outside of the purview of Wikipedia. She was a controversial public figure, and inclusion of the information about a prominent nickname, derisive or not, is as relevant as any other negative public reaction to her. 24.21.105.252 (talk) 21:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, it isn't a technicality. If you think that an exception is warranted, state your case with similar matters and, if we still won't come around to your POV, ask for a third opinion. I should add this has been considered before and not used. Check the archives.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I did check the archives. And, I should note that the presence of past discussion on a topic of inclusion does not preclude re-opening it. I will be back with precedent, which I assume is what you mean by "similar matters." 24.21.105.252 (talk) 21:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quite on another subject, I wonder what a checkuser of yourself might show. I note that you've been here a week, and in the warning that was issued to you, you responded by commenting on OrangeMarlin's editing style. Interesting.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:AGF Attacking a person rather than addressing the content of what they say is a personal attack.24.21.105.252 (talk) 22:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) If you consider what I said an attack, you must really be inexperienced on Wikipedia. Guess you are just precocious in limited areas.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Precedent for inclusion of nicknames

The following are precedents of political figures having mention of a nickname included in the article on the person:

Is an even dozen OK? I could keep going like the energizer bunny on this one. Nicknames are well used for inclusion in Wiki articles about famous persons. Especially persons famous in the political arena, where such nicknames are more likely to be of a harsh nature.

These precedents in addition to the plainly stated WP:RS exceptions noted above, WP:Five Pillarsand WP:common knowledge all argue for inclusion of her nickname in the context of "Reaction." Please note that I am not agitating for it to be cited in the lead, or in a position to be a "defining"element of her as a person. The nickname simply exists in the context of public criticism of her actions, and should be included. Denial of this informational, good faith edit is a denial of reality, and that is not what Wikipedia is all about. 24.21.105.252 (talk) 22:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So which ones of those use littlegreenfootballs and Urban Dictionary as their sole sources? arimareiji (talk) 22:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have already cited exceptions to WP:RS that apply in exactly this circumstance. When I addressed RS, you required precedent. Now that I cite precedent, you are back on RS. Please see WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. There clearly are BOTH precedent AND WP:RS exceptions to cover exactly this circumstance. 24.21.105.252 (talk) 22:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With all respect, that isn't true. For each of those, I could probably find a RS that lists a "common knowledge" nickname for them. Not true for Corrie. I looked. Just a collection of blogs and sites which aren't RS but have a strong view on the I-P conflict. For each of the above, as well, that was their nickname in life. We won't give credibility to an attempt to label her after her death which has not gained wide currency.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Really, Wehwalkt? You checked all of over 22,000 google results for "pancake corrie?" I'm very impressed. Here is one that you might have missed: It is a straight up scholarly article from an established, editorially-controlled collegiate publication which references the nickname. Looks like a legitimate secondary source to me. Do you object to this as a RS?24.21.105.252 (talk) 23:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It says, "On one popular blog, Rachel is referred to as “St. Pancake.” ". Your point being what?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Point being that it is a WP:RS that references the existence of the nickname. That was your objection, was it not? That the precedents that I cited for famous people referenced RS as to the existence of the nickname? Or are you moving the goalposts again.... 24.21.105.252 (talk) 00:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That it is common knowledge, which was the exception you are trying to shoehorn this in under, is what I asked for. You've given me an article that merely says that one popular blog has called it so. Next?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. I listed common knowledge as ONE OF SEVERAL justifications for inclusion of the nickname. I one again refer yo to WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. There is a RS citing the nickname, and ample precedent for inclusion of nicknames for famous people. It is going back in.24.21.105.252 (talk) 00:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Obviously if you put in material that does not meet WP standards, it will be reverted in due course.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I checked for nicknames "st. pancake" and "pancake corrie" in google. The reference for these nicknames are limited to a few hundred pages or even below and over 95 percent of them are personal blogs or comments. If the nicknames were common, it might have worth to mention in the article, even if it contains insult. Yet mentioning an insult might also be against wikiguidelines in the first place for legal reasons. Your example biographies have nicknames, yet these nicks are both common in public and used by press frequently. Also your source is a scholarly student journal for arts which refers to one particular blog. You have a point, but not so strong. Also for memorial Rachel Corrie Foundation sell pancakes to raise money, which might also be a possible root for the nickname. Yet again there isn't an apparent connection available. Kasaalan (talk) 00:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I (gasp) agree with Kasaalan. The only thing that the article in question showed, even if a RS, is that one popular blog called her St. Pancake. And, um, Kasaalan, I really, really, REALLY doubt the origin of the nickname is her supporters' penchant for selling pancakes to benefit the cause. There's really something unappetizing about the whole thing there. I can't help thinking transubstantiation.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Inclusion most certainly and without serious question DOES meet WP standards. I would caution you to familiarize yourself with WP:GAMING and consider that the inclusion adds information relevant to "Reaction," is properly cited, and meets ample precedent. In short, your objections are noted and fall far short of a reasonable objection.24.21.105.252 (talk) 00:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that is not the case. You conflate a questionable RS's statement that "a popular blog" has called Corrie that into a belief that this is a widely known nickname, deserving of encyclopedic coverage. The rest of your argument is that, well, that's the best you could find, it should be good enough. Unhappily it isn't. You have no sourcing with RS for what you want beyond what i have stated above, and no consensus for your proposed edits.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The nicknames do certainly refers to Rachel Corrie's crushing by a D9R. I just mentioned the pancake sale might also be a root for a double referencing nickname. Anyway I even checked the reliable sources like newspapers or magazines on google, yet they again mainly consists of user comments under articles. Maybe in Hebrew there might be more reference for these nicknames. Kasaalan (talk) 00:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about Rachel Corrie in this matter, but it should be noted that if a person is commonly referred to by a nickname (such as Dick Cheney and Scooter Libby, among others), then there is precedent to use the name, or at least include it, in the article. It would require multiple reliable sources referring to the person as such, however. Happyme22 (talk) 00:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, I see that 24.21.105.252 left messages on the talk pages of four users, asking for their opinion on this thread. Certainly, that is not forbidden. It is not something I indulge in, there are better ways to get a third opinion.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And your point is what, besides ONCE AGAIN attacking the editor and ignoring the content of my statements? I selected at random several people who have commented on Israeli-Palestinian topics, and asked for their opinion. That is a more accurate barometer for me than the opinions of editors who "squat" on a topic with a history of dogmatically contesting anything which isn't glowing praise of the subject.24.21.105.252 (talk) 01:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Israel Resource Review - 21st March, 2003
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference Hammer was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ "PARENTS OF RACHEL CORRIE IN PALESTINE / ISRAEL : Press Statement by Craig & Cindy Corrie in Jerusalem". The Olympian. September 30, 2003. Retrieved 2008-12-12.
  4. ^ Cite error: The named reference Twair was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  5. ^ "Radio" (PDF). Third Coast Press. September 2004. Retrieved 2008-12-12.
  6. ^ Sara Powell (May 2004). "Muslim-American Activism: Muslim Memorial for Rachel Corrie". Washington Report on Middle East Affairs (WRMEA): pp. 74-75. {{cite journal}}: |page= has extra text (help)
  7. ^ a b c McNeil, Kristine. "The War on Academic Freedom". The Nation (2002-11-11). Retrieved on 2007-10-21.
  8. ^ Pipes, Daniel. "The Muslims are Coming! The Muslims are Coming!". National Review (1990-11-19). Retrieved on 2008-03-13.
  9. ^ Pipes, Daniel. "Bin Laden Is a Fundamentalist". National Review (2001-10-22). Retrieved on 2008-03-12.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rachel_Corrie&oldid=262009923"