Talk:Rachel Corrie/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Email to parents

Recently, this section has been removed. I am replacing it again, as I believe it is relevant in that it gives RC's state of mind, but would like input as to whether others agree. IronDuke 18:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Your link to the section doesn't work, but if you're talking about Rachel's emails, a paragraph or two with a link to the rest would indeed contribute to the article. Mgaines 22:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Fixed the diff. IronDuke 22:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Recent Changes

I just reverted two changes by Shamir1. The first defined Corrie as a "Leftist" which is open to interpretation and not a matter of fact, and the second that expanded and repeated the negative reactions to Corrie's story getting media attention. As for the additional paragraph, you say Corrie put herself "in danger's way" as opposed to "non-threatening" people killed by Palestinians. I don't think this should be included in the article for two reasons, first it is original research and second it's untrue. By saying Corrie put herself knowingly "in danger's way" you're implying that she was a combatant, which she was not. You further that view by comparing her actions to "non-threatening people", implying that an unarmed young woman was somehow "threatening". Thoughts? Mgaines 21:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

This is an excerpt from fer document-forger ISM collegue: ""[Between 13:30 and 14:00], I arrived, and one of the three activists at[sic] the house joined me on the ground ... [W]e began to disrupt the work of the bulldozers ... At this point, Rachel and the two other activists joined us ... Rachel and a British activist were wearing jackets that were fluorescent orange and had reflective stripping [sic] ... [Between 14:00 and 15:00], Rachel and two other activists began interfering with the other bulldozer" I would be interested to see how interfering with bulldozer is not putting oneself in danger's way.206.186.8.130 17:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Removal of earlier photograph

I support the removal of the earlier photograph, showing Corrie and a bulldozer, so situated that she is plainly visible. I fear that the photo is irrelevant, and has the ability to mislead readers into thinking that it is obvious that the bulldozer driver involved in the fatal incident (another bulldozer?) must have seen her, even though the caption sets out the true situation. I would say it really doesn't matter what Corrie was doing hours before, and photographs speak louder than words. It was misleading on the ISM web site, it is misleading here. It should be removed.--Wehwalt 12:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The picture should be removed because you are afraid of what people might conclude from seeing one of those bulldozers? Certainly that is an unacceptable reason. --Zero^talk 13:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

That is not what I said, of course. What is your rationale for keeping it? I should note that it is also placed in a section of the article which deals with whether Corrie was visible to the bulldozer involved in the incident that ended her life, which might lead the casual user to think that this photograph is relevant to that section. It isn't.--Wehwalt 14:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

It is a photo taken on site apparently on the same day. It shows the sort of thing Corrie was doing that day and therefore adds information to the article. Your analysis of the visibility issue is personal research. --Zero^talk 07:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

As the article documents, there is plenty of WP:RS documenting the lack of visibility of the actual incident.

So long as the caption and accompanying text is accurate, it's not problematic. The photo is important because it was the one most widely distributed, and it's an example of how Reuters originally misreported the story, which is how the urban legend that Corrie was deliberately killed got spread. -- TedFrank 11:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The photo was taken less than two hours before Rachel was killed. As far as "urban legend" - there is very little doubt that the driver and navigator of the D-9 saw Corrie in their path as they approached from the distance. In fact, an IDF APC filmed the incident (in side view) up to seconds before impact. They were in radio contact, and everyone knew she was there.

The urban legend is that the driver "never" saw her. His visibility was limited when he got within a few feet of Corrie, and there are contradictory claims as to what happened next, with the ISM claiming she climbed the mound and looked the driver in the eye, and the driver claming he lost sight of her. Either way, the driver, navigator, and crew of the APC filming all saw her in the path and knew she was there. They also knew that ISM volunteers weren't moving out of the way at the last moment, intentially being consistent in trying to disrupt the activities of the bulldozers. If I'm driving and see children playing in the road off in the distance and I decide to close my eyes and floor it, did I intentionally kill them? Did I see them when I hit them? Mgaines 14:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

If you see the picture, and the placement of the picture, as a way of advocating for what you believe regarding Corrie, then I think we are going to have a problem here. WP is not about advocating for a position.--Wehwalt 14:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with that statement Wehwalt. Most of what I wrote above does not directly pertain to inclusion or exclusion of the picture from the article but was rather discussion responding to a previous comment. This is the talk page, right? Mgaines 18:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

"Visibility" photo should go

http://up.wiki.x.io/wikipedia/en/0/0d/RachelProtest.jpeg

This photo should be removed from the Rachel Corrie article as it is heavily photoshopped, and therefore a false representation of what transpired. Unless the two people facing the bulldozer were less than five feet tall they would not be so small next to the blade, which at it's highest point is 6 feet,4 inches in height.

See here: http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/vehicles/engineer_vehicles/bulldozers/d9_c.jpg

If you notice the woman's shadow, it is not consistent with the surrounding light, and the male next to her does not cast a shadow similar to hers. This is the mark of a sloppy Photoshopper. Light just does not act that way. Her shadow looks more like Photoshop's "burn tool" than an actual shadow, too.

This image misrepresents the truth and as such does not meet Wikipedia's standards and should be removed or replaced.

Canonista 14:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Canonista, thank you for your thoughts and welcome to Wikipedia (I've left a welcome message on your talk page here, which has a lot of useful links).

As for your point about the photo, a few things come to mind. First, and most importantly, Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. What that means is, we may not inject our personal theories into articles, no matter how right the theories may be. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, we report what others say. If you have sources that meet the criteria for Reliable sources, perhaps there'd be room for it in the article.

Also, FWIW, the couple in the picture are standing in a depression and the blade of the dozer is slightly raised. Their height seems appropriate to me, but then, my opinion doesn't matter, if you follow me.

One last thing: please be careful of WP:3RR. If you click that link and read the policy, it says that you may make no more than three reversions in a 24-hour period. This is to keep articles stable, and to encourage discussion. Thanks again for discussing. Cheers,

IronDuke 20:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

There is a good reason why personal research like these "Photoshop" claims is not allowed on Wikipedia. If you look at a high-res version of the image, you can see very easily that the dark patch is not a shadow at all and that both Corrie and the man have shadows in the right place. --Zero^talk 07:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Zero, thanks for that link, very useful.

--NSH001 08:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

What needs to be done to put the photo back in the article? In researching this incident, I was able to get the actual film from Joe Carr and have the pictures developed myself. I have permission to use them and I am the one who posted the high resolution version to dispel the myths of photoshopping. This photo was published by dozens of mainstream media outlets including Reuters and AP, so it is not original research. Also, this photo was discussed in archived discussion of this article, at length. Mgaines 13:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, I've been burned myself with the whole licensing thing. You may wish to seek advice from an admin. I suggest that when you restore it, you put it where the photo of the bulldozer is now, and perhaps put the bulldozer shot where the deleted shot formerly was.--Wehwalt 13:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at Wikipedia:Request for copyright assistance and Wikipedia:Requested copyright examinations. One key thing here though is what exactly permission have you been granted? Did he grant you all rights (and this includes the right to sell the pictures commercially.for a profit including the republishing rights and the right to modify the images as you see fit)? If you're not sure, you'd have to clarify with him. It might be best to consult about a suitable license. While we require images be released under a free license which allows commercial use and derivates, the GFDL for example would require anyone using the image to have it under the GFDL including publishing the license (so for example it probably wouldn't be feasible to use it on a tshirt). Note that in any case, conspiracy theorists could use the image to try and show their wacky theories including modifying the image provided they obeyed the license. Nil Einne 00:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I have a couple of comments. Firstly, just because it was published by mainstream sources, that isn't proof that the photo wasn't faked. However, if it was published by a reputable source, then it could be included on the grounds that the standard for wikipedia is verifiability, not truthfulness. This is one of the problems with wikipedia, but that's a discussion for another time. Second, anyone who can look at the photo and come to the conclusion that it hasn't been edited in some way needs to take another look at it. The shadows of the two figures in the picture are obviously inconsistent and, as the other person pointed out above, the quality of the left-hand shadow isn't the same as the one on the right. I'm not going to comment on the copyright issue because I don't know anything about the issue. --Lee Vonce 13:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Home of pharmacist

Why is it not stated in the main text that she was attempting to protect the home of a pharmacist, Samir Nasrallah, from being demolished? Nasrallah, his brother Khaled Nasrallah, and their wives and children, lived in the home and Samir Nasrallah's three young children were in the home at the time. I'm very surprised that the very reason she was killed (i.e. what she was doing when killed) is not even mentioned at all. Badagnani 23:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

He's mentioned elsewhere in the article, I believe, as a pharmacist. And we don't mention the young kids, etc, etc because we are running a neutral article here. We could mention the young children of the victims of the suicide bombers whom the IDF was trying to frustrate, if you like.--Wehwalt 00:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

It isn't a mark of neutrality to willfully leave out the actual activity the person the article was about, and the reasons behind it. It is simply silly to mention the house and owner only in passing, late in the article, when the activity Corrie was engaged in was protecting the home of Corrie's friend Nasrallah and his family (the children of which were inside the home at the time). I don't believe there were suicide bombers in the home at the time, so your last point doesn't make sense. Badagnani 21:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the IDF's activities, there wouldn't be anything wrong to note in the article the reasons behind their activities that day, if they are known (whether it was to frustrate suicide bombers or something else). It all provides important context to an understanding of what happened, why, and how. Badagnani 21:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

You added the name into the second paragraph and I can live with that. If you start getting into the wives and kids thing, we may need to discuss further.--Wehwalt 22:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

HRW

I removed the 'repeatedly criticised Israel' part of HRW because it is impossible to be fair to either side in one sentence. Our readers who are unfamiliar with HRW should check out the article. If they don't this is unfortunate but can't be helped. Can someone point me to one other case where we mention HRW (or for that matter some other organisation or country) repeatedly criticisises something in such a manner. Besides that, if we are going to point out that HRW repeatedly criticised Israel, shouldn't we point out that they criticise other countries a lot more? Nil Einne 01:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I undid the edit. This was a matter that was extensively discussed on this page, what emerged is in the article, and has more or less consensus support. It should not be lightly changed, and if it is going to be changed, it should be discussed here first.--Wehwalt 02:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I should add, emphatically, that it did not have consensus support, although it may have appeared to do so. The reason was that a medical problem kept me away from wikipedia for an extended period at the time of that discussion, and I did leave a brief note to that effect. This phrase is only one of several problems with this article, and I will return here when I have the time and energy to do the job properly.

--NSH001 13:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I did see that, welcome back, and hope you are better. I suggest that any proposed changes, though, still be discussed on this page before any implementation is attempted.--Wehwalt 13:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

What about Israeli children?

"On March 14, 2003 in an interview with the Middle East Broadcasting network, she said: "I feel like I'm witnessing the systematic destruction of a people's ability to survive ... Sometimes I sit down to dinner with people and I realize there is a massive military machine surrounding us, trying to kill the people I'm having dinner with." Actually that is exactly the way I feel when I spend time with Israeli families, and Isreali children...knowing that there is a terrorist network, an axis of nations and an international campaign out there to kill the people (and children) I am spending time with. A network that Corrie (and most leftwing extremists) are part of. Corrie came to Israel to help Arab terrorists murder Israeli civillians. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Herut (talk • contribs) 12:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

People like Corrie don't give a thought for Israeli children. One wonders why she is considered so notable. She chose to go into the middle of a terrorist zone. The innocent victims of Palestinan terrorists (Jewish, Chritsian and muslim don't forget) all around the world didin't have that choice. Perhaps we should do a page for each one of them too?

Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and talk pages are not for trolls. Please only discuss issues with regards to writing an encyclopedia article. Thank you. --Uncle Bungle 01:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Is it allowed under wikipedia policy to remove posts like this, or do we have to leave it? Thanks. --Uncle Bungle 01:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Intro too long, and not concise enough

I'm not taking a side on this issue, but I think the intro paragraph needs to be a lot more concise. It delves way to deep into the different sides of the argument and even goes so far as to have bullet points. All an all it's just kind of rambling and not very well written. If no one has an objection I would suggest that me or somebody else rewrite the intro and some of the content there be moved somewhere else in the article --M4bwav 03:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The intro suffers from violations of WP:UNDUE, in that it is preoccupied with trying to deflect criticism of the IDF. I am re-writing because otherwise its an NPOV problem. --Marvin Diode 14:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

"See also" section

I am waiting for an explanation from those who insist on including a list of people in the "See also" section; none of these people seems to be in any way related to Rachel Corrie. Beit Or 19:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

To get started on the right foot here, first you deleted the see-also section without explaniation in the edit summary. Don't wait for us, just get to specifics. Meggar 19:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

As an interim measure, I deleted Joe Carr from the see also section, since he is referenced and linked in the article and he isn't needed twice. I'm more concerned about the House demolition link. I have been deleting it and explaining my edits, but I can't do that any more without violating 3RR. That article seems to be about destroying houses as retaliation on suicide bombers. This doesn't seem to be that. In addition, there was the factual question on whether the bulldozer was engaged in destroying (for whatever purpose) a house on the day in question. I think it should be left out.--Wehwalt 21:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

There's a debate over at House demolition about to include exactly. In the mean time, there's no reason to link to that article for the reason you gave. Later, if its focus changes, then we can link to it. nadav (talk) 22:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I did see it was protected due to edit war.--Wehwalt 22:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality dispute

I edited the lead, as discussed above, because it was extremely lopsided, consisting mainly of a lengthy and self-contradictory argument that Rachel's death was an accident, but then again, if it wasn't, she probably deserved to die. My edit was quickly reverted [1], with the argument that the lengthy, argumentative version was "more encyclopedic." Would the person wo reverted please explain the logic behind that? I am putting up the dispute tag in the meantime. --Marvin Diode 21:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Marvin, thank you for doing an excellent job of re-working the lead. Your version is fair, balanced and fully compliant with WP policies. Pending a reply from Zeq, I have restored it.

--NSH001 22:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Marvin, in general, when in an article is both controversial and relatively stable, as this one was, it is best to proceed with caution when making controversial changes. The lead does not, as you suggest make an "argument," rather, it presents (or ought to present) two sides of the same incident, which boil down to "Rachel Corrie was murdered by the IDF while defending the homes of innocent Palestinians" versus, "Rachel Corrie died while obstructing IDF security forces who were attempting to locate and destroy tunnels used by Palestinian terrorist to murder Israeli civilians." There is no way to present the "true" version of what happened; the facts, and what they mean, will always be in dispute. IronDuke 23:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The lead is the wrong place to provide a detailed account of the argument on either side; it is supposed to be a summary of the essential facts. In the case of the lead that I edited, it presented an unnecessarily long and detailed account of one side of the argument. --Marvin Diode 00:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I hear what you're saying yet, per my post above, it would be virtually impossible to get a good lead with "essential facts." What are the essential facts? "Rachel Corrie died in Rafah on March 16, 2003." Just about everything else is disputed. IronDuke 00:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

What can be done with relative ease is to edit the intro so that roughly equal space is devoted to both sides of the controversy, which is what my edit did. My edit was then reverted to a version which devotes massively more space to the arguments of those who maintain that the IDF did nothing wrong. It is a glaring neutrality problem. --Marvin Diode 00:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I see no need to count words. If it takes more words to give a brief description of one side's position than the other, we use the words. That does not make for a glaring neutrality problem.--Wehwalt 01:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Marvin, I'm not sure your edit did exactly what you think it did. Looking over what we have now, I'd say that there's a repetition of the contention that the IDF was closing down smuggling tunnels. We can certainly live with only one mention in the lead. Other than that, I think the intro is fair to both sides. Do you still not? IronDuke 01:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I see significant improvement. I have taken the liberty of removing the first of the two references to smuggling tunnels, and I also removed the dispute tag. I hope that this solution is acceptable all around. --Marvin Diode 05:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

You can "take the liberty" for many things but you can not trumple NPOV. Zeq 05:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

This was the long time consensus version

File:Rachelcorrie07.jpg

Rachel Corrie

Rachel Corrie (April 10, 1979–March 16, 2003) was a member of the International Solidarity Movement (ISM) who traveled as an activist to the Gaza Strip during the Al-Aqsa Intifada. She was killed when she tried to obstruct an Israel Defense Forces (IDF) Caterpillar D9 bulldozer operating in a Palestinian residential area of Rafah, next to the border with Egypt - an area the IDF had designated a security zone and which contains a network of smuggling tunnels connecting Egypt to the Palestinian side of Rafah.

The circumstances of Corrie's death are disputed. ISM eyewitnesses say that the driver of the bulldozer deliberately ran her over twice while she was trying to prevent what they say might have been a house demolition. The IDF say the bulldozer driver did not see her; that the bulldozer was clearing brush and not engaged in a demolition; that Corrie was interfering with security operations designed to uncover the tunnels used by Hamas and other groups for smuggling weapons from Egypt; and that the cause of death was falling debris pushed over by the bulldozer. Zeq 14:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Zeq, surely we don't need two mentions of the tunnels in the lead, do we? IronDuke 14:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any mention in the current rev. Zeq 17:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

There was NO consensus on the previous version. The new one is much better. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 16:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Zeq, the revision you just pasted in above mentions tunnels twice. In the current version, they are mentioned once, which is how it should be, I think. IronDuke 23:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to have to concur with IronDuke on this point. Tewfik^Talk 03:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Same here. --Marvin Diode 06:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes I agree. Zeq 08:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

University of Maryland cartoon

This reference is inapropriate for a number of reasons:

• It is introduced as echoing the response from the IDF investigation
• The Univeristy of Maryland college news paper is hardly notable or an WP:RS
• Corrie did not attend U of M
• "Stupidly defending a bunch of terrorists" is harly neutral. The remarks are inflamitory and rather inaccurate

There must be other published works which are critical of Corrie and her actions, while still maintaining a more neutral tone. The section covers responses from NGO's, governments, and major publications. A cartoon published in a university news paper is harly of the same cailbre.

The only way that this would be admissible is if it had somehow become a scandal within the scandal, receiving mention in major publications and responses from all parties. If that is the case, it should be expanded into a subsection.

Thank you,

--Uncle Bungle 18:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

It's a controversial criticism. These things happen in articles (see Pat Tillman for another). It doesn't matter what was said, the fact that it provoked a response is what is interesting. I suggest we restore the subsection so people know what we're talking about here pending further discussion. As regards what was said, well, it is plainly opinion.--Wehwalt 19:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The current version is better, I won't argue it on technical grounds. Honestly, I don't see any relevance for this post. It amounts to little more than asking "Laura from Psych class" what she thinks of Rachel Corrie. I have no problem with remarks critical of Corrie, but they need to come from a reliable source with a published author for the reader to consider. I agree whole heartedly that this stuff occurs in other articles, (I've worked on anti-Zionism) but I don't see that as a justification for inclusion. I will not revert the current version, but I think we can do much, much better. Thanks. --Uncle Bungle 20:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Too many external links!

The list of "further reading" is much too long. Read WP:EL for guidance. I suggest that we pare it down to, let us say, ten links at the most, with divergent points of view and attitudes.--Wehwalt 19:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I would say remove any news article not covered under references and limit the list to web pages which focus on Corrie, or mixed content sites with more in depth information. --Uncle Bungle 23:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

smuggling weapons in the lead

I don't even know why this needs to be mentioned at all. Corrie wasn't smuggling weapons, or working for Hamas, or anything of the sort. Mentioning that the area was a "security zone" is worthwhile because it gives some background as to why an armoured bulldozer would be operating there in the first place. Thanks. --Uncle Bungle 00:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I would say it is needed for context. There are security zones all over the world, very few have armored bulldozers. It helps the reader understand the background to why the bulldozer was there.--Wehwalt 04:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Unless that isn't why they were there. What was she trying to defend against the bulldozers at the time? Meggar 05:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Please read up on this case. 100s of homes were being demolished for "security" reasons, Rachel was allegedly standing between the bulldozer and the house of a named doctor/pharmacist which she believed was about to be flattened. (It was apparently demolished later, though not for some months after her death). PalestineRemembered 08:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

"Context" of this kind does not belong in the lead. A check through other articles will quickly persuade you that that is not how the encyclopedia works. The fact that its in this one screams "problem needs urgent fixing". PalestineRemembered 08:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I removed the part about Hamas, etc. nadav (talk) 09:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I put back in the fact that the tunnels were used for smuggling weapons. We are not out to make this article either "Blood mad Israelis run amok killing innocent girl" or "Terrorist colloborator flattened in the act of defending other terrorists." If you feel that the name "Hamas" is unfairly prejudicial, I will yield to that.--Wehwalt 13:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Have a look at other articles (I did a check on "famous battles and sieges", your examples might, perhaps, produce something quite different). As best I can tell, other articles never, ever have the kind of "context" that's been shoe-horned into this article. At the danger of soap-boxing, let me remind you of something that happened something over 100 years ago. British women sailed 8,000 miles to Cape Town, trekked to the middle of the Boer War and blew the lid off the scandal that is sometimes remembered as "British invented concentration camps". Rachel Corrie failed to do anything as sensational, but she went to have a look, her diaries tell us what she believed she was doing. This article should reflect her aspirations. It should not be larded with the excuses of people who have (rather rarely) admitted having unjustifiably shot and killed foreign observers. PalestineRemembered 20:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm more-or-less satisfied with the current version of the lead. nadav (talk) 19:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The article on smuggling tunnels says they're also used for people, tobacco and other such mundane things, should that be mentioned in the lead as well? The IDF report said the bulldozer was clearing brush, so should the tunnels be mentioned at all? I don't see how they have any relevance to Corries death. The interested reader will look into the use of these bulldozers. In my opinion, the second sentence needs only to say that

The circumstances of Corrie's death are disputed. Corrie was interfering with an IDF bulldozer operating in a Palestinian area of Rafah, close to the border with Egypt - an area the IDF had designated a security zone.

. The circumstances can be expanded in the body. --Uncle Bungle 19:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I can live with current compromise version of the lead. Zeq 21:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I suggest we let it go at what we have now. Look, some explanation is needed up front, because the lede is what people read, and many don't go too much further. We can tell them what the bulldozer was doing there. As for her aspirations, no, that is not the purpose of this article. There are Rachel Corrie memorial pages for that purpose. The point of this page is to present the information and varying viewpoints and accounts with neutrality. As for the article being larded with excuses, etc, etc, I'd personally not have the article larded with one-sided "eyewitness" accounts. But they are needed.--Wehwalt 01:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm still not convinced, but I think the consensus is obvious. Thanks all. --Uncle Bungle 06:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there is still a problem with the phrase "used for smuggling weapons from Egypt to the Gaza strip" None of those three sources say anything about Rachel Corrie, and they are dated from much later (May 2004, Sept. 2006). There is no source provided yet that connects the events to smuggling tunnels. nadav (talk) 07:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

If the sources state what the purpose of the tunnels is, surely that is sufficient?--Wehwalt 12:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Here is one such source: [2] the use of the tunnels to smuggle weapon is well documented - even by BBC and the like. Zeq 14:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

here is another: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/04/gazas_tunnels/html/7.stm Zeq 14:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

We're not disputing the existance of the tunnels, just their relevance to Rachel Corrie. Are there reliable sources which indicate the operation she was interfering with was related to a specific tunnel? Any tunnels? The IDF report says the dozer was clearing brush. --Uncle Bungle 22:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The area was designated a security zone due to the tunnels. Zeq 13:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I am wary of efforts to turn this article into an apology for the IDF, but on the other hand, I do think that the present version of the lead is acceptably NPOV. --Marvin Diode 14:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what articles are directly comparable with this one. But when I did a comparison test on Battle of Jenin, I found that (almost) none of the equivalent articles had this kind of "context" in the lead. Please point us to equivalent articles that have "equivalent" context, because I don't think you'll find any. PalestineRemembered 18:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Why is that an equivalent article? I think the lede as it stands satisfies all WP policies and guidelines, and there is not consensus for changing it. Changing it, I think, would be to Corrie's discredit because it would make her look like she got in the way while trying to play Bob the Builder or something, that the bulldozer was there for no reason and she got in front of it for no reason. Leave it as it is and go fight bigger battles.--Wehwalt 22:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The bulldozer is part of the wider issue of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and to get a context the reader would literally have to spend hours on Wikipedia. Unless it is demonstratable that the bulldozer was in the process of an anti-tunnel operation when Corrie interfered, mentioning the smuggling tunnels has no more relevance than any of the other operations they've been used for in Rafah. I agree that some background on IDF operations in Rafah is important, but it belongs in its own section, where it can be expanded as necessary to provide a NPOV. --Uncle Bungle 06:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Everyone has made their argument. There is no consensus for change. Accordingly, we keep it as is.--Wehwalt 12:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The official Israeli Government Report and the IDF deny that, and state that she was killed by falling debris pushed over by a bulldozer whose driver did not see her, and that the bulldozer was clearing brush and not engaged in a demolition when Corrie impeded on its path.

• shrugs* whatever then --Uncle Bungle 17:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I've just removed this. It has no place there and comes over as really rather odd - perhaps it should be included later in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.107.0.73 (talk) 20:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

an article about the play

a link i found (regarding the play) and thought i'd link here:

http://www.take-a-pen.org/english/Articles/Art25041005.htm

-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me "“My Name is Rachel Corrie” is a new play that has opened at the prestigious London theatre recently described by the New York Times as “the most important theatre in Europe.” According to UK press reports, the play is now sold out, has become one of the fastest-selling plays in 50 years, and it is probably on its way to the US. It is co-directed by “Harry Potter” and “Die Hard” star Alan Rickman." I wonder why it was censored in the US: "the play had two successful runs in London last year ... postpone its American premiere indefinitely"[3] Couldn't get the book either - what can they be so afraid of? PR^talk 18:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Where is the famous photo with the american flag ?

http://images.google.com/images?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=RNWE,RNWE:2005-06,RNWE:en&q=corrie%20flag&oe=UTF-8&um=1&sa=N&tab=wi

Zeq (talk) 19:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Lead

Over time the lead became less NPOV as it was carefully done by slimvirgin and others few month back. In an effort to make it NPOV again I reinterduced material that was deleted. Since that time I have accomodated every concern:

1. not to mention the smuggling tunnels more than once
2. give room for the ISM version
3. make the IDF version shorter
4. and short it yet again

I suggest that any further changes to the lead will be discussed here prior to anyone wishing to evert them. NPOV is every paragarph of this loaded article is highly critical. Zeq (talk) 04:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I've seen some of the edits, but I'm away on a tour so I haven't checked WP as often as usual.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The lede has two paragraphs: the first lists the facts that are not in dispute. The second begins, "the circumstances of Corries death are disputed." The two opposing POVs regarding the death should both be represented in this second paragraph. The edits of Zeq and Wehwalt position the IDF rebuttal before the "disputed" paragraph, giving it undue weight. I have retained every word that these two editors wish to include, but moved them to the second paragraph. --Marvin Diode (talk) 15:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Marvin, I disagree with your edit. What is the dispute about: 1. Was the house under demolition threat ? Yes/No 2. Was she delibertly run over or hit by debree.

There is more but I'll stop here.

There is no disagreement that she was killed. There is no disagreement that There are tunnels in the area across that border and that the IDF was conducting work in that area. So I am moving the undisputed facts back into the 1st paragraph. Zeq (talk) 15:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking of moving the disputed part out of the lead altogether ? what do you think ? Zeq (talk) 15:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Marvin on this. An uncontroversial first paragraph and a second with brief but balanced discussion of the controversy. If what you are saying, Zeq, is that it seems like the the bit about tunnels and Hamas activity is made to sound as if it is only the Israeli POV, then perhaps we can find a rewording that maintains balance while clarifying that point. Tewfik^Talk 21:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, there is no dispute about whether smuggling tunnels exist. The dispute is about whether they are relevant to the subject of the article. Obviously, Rachel Corrie's colleagues insist that her death was about trying to prevent the demolition of the home of innocent Palestinians. If this is true, the tunnels are completely irrelevant. So, the actual dispute is about the relevancy of the tunnels, and placing the tunnels in the first sentence implies that they are the central issue. --Marvin Diode (talk) 07:08, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I hear you, however the proximity of the house to the border line and the amount of yunnels under that border, tunnels who's entrnces are inaside buildings and the activity between the buildings and the border line to expose tunnels are all part of the facts. Let's not forget that the group that Corrie belong too is an extreme minority POV and according to WP:NPOV may not even be represnted in this article. Since they are given so much room I think it manade us to put facts (which are clearly relevant) in the 1st paragraph. The POV of the ISM - that the existance of tunnels is not relevant to the security operations - should be mentioned in the article as well - but not in the lead.

"Nobody questions that tunnels exist in Rafah or shooting from militants takes place. But whether that has anything to do with the scale and size of the demolitions is a burning question," says Miranda Sissons of Human Rights Watch.

Zeq (talk) This is how we should describe the controversy. If we want to keep the lead with facts the tunnels should be mentioned (they are facts) and ISM claims removed (they are one sided POV) 07:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

"Let's not forget that the group that Corrie belong too is an extreme minority POV and according to WP:NPOV may not even be represnted in this article."

Can you expand on that a bit? Broadly speaking the ISM's position is that Israel should comply with International Law and UN resolutions. I don't think it's correct to characterise that as an "extreme minority POV". I also don't think WP:NPOV means what you think it does. --Joeboy (talk) 18:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Joeboy - we are not going to open up here a discussion on ISM views. This is no difference than argument about religion: You think you represent "int'l law" in much the same way a rabbi or Imam think he represent God. Well , that is the whole point about POV: You think you are right and it is so clear to you that your view is the sole possible truth. You know what : Guess again.

ISM is a fringe group of mostly anarchists. Thei POV can be reprsented in an article on ISM but in all other article there must a more mainstream POV that should be placed to abalance the Israeli POV. This is much the same way we don't use the Khane movment POV (they too are fringe group) Zeq (talk) 18:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

we are not going to open up here a discussion on ISM views.

Can I take that as a retraction of your statements about the ISM having "an extreme minority POV"? Please either withdraw your statements about the ISM views being somehow too wacky to be represented (and refrain from making more) or accept that's it's OK for people to challenge you on that. You can't have it both ways :-) --Joeboy (talk) 20:35, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

No. You can not. You can take it as a statement that we are not going to open up here a discussion on ISM views. This is no difference than argument about religion: You think you represent "int'l law" in much the same way a rabbi or Imam think he represent God. ISM is a fringe group of mostly anarchists. Their POV can be reprsented in an article on ISM but in all other article there must a more mainstream POV that should be placed to abalance the Israeli POV. This is much the same way we don't use the Khane movment POV (they too are fringe group) Zeq (talk) 21:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I hope you can understand my reluctance to let you make statements about ISM's views, then say "we are not going to open up here a discussion on ISM views" when somebody disagrees with them. You are wrong. We are not going to open up a discussion about whether or not you're wrong. So that's settled, OK?

My point about international law was that whatever any of us think about international law, an organisation whose views primarily support international law shouldn't be characterised as "an extreme minority POV". --Joeboy (talk) 03:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

JoeBoy, it is time you read WP:NPOV and realize that what you call "ISM's position is that Israel should comply with International Law and UN resolutions" is actually your own and ISM own interpretation of such laws. It is also one sided in the sense that ISM never bothered to look at how such law is implemented in Darfur, Saudi Arabia or by Hamas in Gaza. Nothing that you write here willchange the fact that ISM is a fringe organization of several hundred of people no more. Zeq (talk) 05:52, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

These are sophistical arguments. Violations of international law in the Arab world do not exempt Israel from criticism if Israel also violates international law. And the assertion that Israel "should comply with International Law and UN resolutions" does not involve an "interpretation" of the law and resolutions. You may wish to argue that Israel is innocent of any violations, but after so many years, that's a bit hard to swallow. --Marvin Diode (talk) 00:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

We are not going into discussion on the ISM views of Int'l law. Everyone should obey the Law: Israel, palestinians, Sudan and even the ISM - this is something that has nothing to do with this wikipedia article. Zeq (talk) 08:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I acknowledge that ISM probably has no more than a couple of thousand people involved in it. I think you're trying to imply things about the organisation beyond its size though. Nothing that you write here will change the fact that ISM's stated positions are actually fairly mainstream. --Joeboy (talk) 15:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

We are all getting rather off topic. Some information is needed on the ISM in this article, because Corrie died because (there were other reasons she died as well) she was an ISM member and participated in an ISM activity. Especially since the organization is not well known. However, there is currently sufficient information in the article regarding the ISM. Their opinions re Corrie's death are germane and we give them a lot of room even though it may well be a technical violation of WP:UNDUE WEIGHT because of these circumstances. Their opinions on international law, though, should be reserved for their own article. If there.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm cool with all of that. Thanks :-) --Joeboy (talk) 17:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Calling spade a spade

1. This is a very sensitive article. Almost every word here is POV. This is where NPOV comes from - we peresent the view point of each side. One side claim there is no smuggling only "home demoliation".

1. In any case, the smuggling tunnels is not a POV term (if you think it is - see point #1 above)
2. We agreed to mention the smuggling tunnels once (but not twice) in the lead. This was agreed by many and we shall stick to it.
3. If all else fail we call spade a spade. (if you have any dobts see: Smuggling_tunnels#Smuggling_tunnels_in_Rafah.2C_Gaza_Strip the tunnels are smuggling tunnels - as clear from hundreds of news reports about them. They are no longer the secret they were when the Israeli army controlled the border. It is now known that every house in Rafah which is close to the border has a smuggling tunnel from Egypt - they smuggle everything from explosive to Ciggartes to Viagra..... Zeq (talk) 07:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I recommend leaving the lede alone at this point. The version as of this moment is relatively neutral. I also would like to disagree with some of your assertions above, such as "One side claim there is no smuggling only 'home demoliation'". The fact is that one side considers smuggling to be a separate, unrelated issue. The Corrie case got worldwide attention because many, many people, not just the ISM, believe that the case was about home demolition. --Marvin Diode (talk) 15:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

If so it means a very succefull PR had worked very well but it should not change what an encyclopdia article should wrire. We present the facts not just what one side thinks is relavent to his PR campaign. It is typical that a good PR person would want to present just the facts that supporthis POV and ignore the facts that support the other POV. This is why we strive for NPOV. Zeq (talk) 15:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I am certain that the POV which you are promoting is also viewed by its critics as a PR job, or maybe, damage control. --Marvin Diode (talk) 15:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I would like to see the inline cites in the lead as proper references, but only if the lead will remain as it is. I ask rather than do it myself as I'm unsure if it will help or hinders. Apart from the evident POV problems (the tunnels sentence just looks out of place there but I leave that to far better editors to resolve), the string of inline cites jars when there is a footnotes and references section. One other thing I would do is Fact tag the "according to the ISM" paragraph in Rachel Corrie#Activities in Gaza. -Wikianon (talk) 23:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

NPOV and the photo

The famous photo of Corrie has been removed again. You can find it on the web in many places EXCEPT wikipedia.

See this for example: http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_current_rachel_corrie.php

The link above is from a source that, like ISM, has an agenda. If we have the ISM view all over this article we should have the view point of such an organization as well. that is NPOV. Zeq (talk) 04:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Is there any particular reason you've created this new section rather than add to the existing "Flag Burning Picture" section above? If you wanted to use this picture on wikipedia I think you'd need a Fair use rationale. --Joeboy (talk) 11:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

It turns out this is also discussed at length here. --Joeboy (talk) 11:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The lede again

The recent changes made to the lede by Zeq, IronDuke and Wehwalt produce a non sequitur:

The circumstances of Corrie's death are disputed. The area she was killed contains a network of Smuggling tunnels used by Hamas and other groups for smuggling weapons and explosives from Egypt to the Gaza Strip side of Rafah. The ISM says that the driver of the bulldozer deliberately ran her over twice.

Putting the sentence about smuggling tunnels in that position is confusing to the reader, who has no way of knowing why smuggling tunnels are relevant. The revision that I made, which was reverted by Wehwalt and now restored by myself, places the "smuggling tunnels" sentence after the description of the IDF point of view, so that the relevance is clear.

Yesterday I had restored this earlier version of the lede, which was the culmination of considerable discussion back in November, but this was reverted by IronDuke. That version was arguably a "consensus" version, and was stable for some time. I see that while I was on Wikibreak for the holidays, someone removed the "smuggling tunnels," and it was restored by Zeq yesterday. I have no objection to putting it in the lede, but it should be placed in such a way that the lede is intelligible. I hope no more reversions will be made using a claim of "consensus," or lack thereof, until this matter has been re-discussed. --Marvin Diode (talk) 01:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I've played with the language some, trying to keep the sense of the version you reverted while correcting glaring errors and reordering the sentences. I definitely didn't like some of the language you put in, like saying "'official' Israeli position", which to my mind has POV problems, since it implies doubt. But see what you think of what I've done. Thoughts?--Wehwalt (talk) 02:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I prefer some of the previous versions but in an effort for a comporomise to NPOV this tough article I think your version is fair enough . Thanks for your efforts. Zeq (talk) 16:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

It looks to me like some editors want to revisit all the POV struggles that were settled in November. For example, the issue of what Rachel Corrie thought she was doing was resolved at that time. I reverted to the version Wehwalt did this morning, before the pro-IDF team went a bit overboard. Please bear in mind that at present, the second paragraph is primarily devoted to Israeli denials of wrongdoing. Please don't overdo it -- the NPOVness of this article is rather fragile. --Marvin Diode (talk) 01:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. However, the fact that it takes more words to set for the Israeli position than the ISM doesn't make it unbalanced. I think it is fair to mention in the lede that this was a security zone with smuggler tunnels, It isn't POV, it simply establishes why both the bulldozer and Corrie were there.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems very clear to me that there are multiple editors "helicopter editing" this article in an effort to maintain the bizarre smuggling tunnel references in the article lead. This clearly violates wikipedia's NPOV policies and also serves to illustrate the Multiple Editors issue deliniated under the "article ownership" guidelines listed in the linked article. Specifically, Zeq and Marvin Diode. I understand that some people have an axe to grind regarding this issue, but so far this article has only served to confuse and distract many well-meaning students who have attempted to use this website as a starting point for their understanding of this horrible event. The smuggling tunnels are covered in depth in other wikipedia articles as well as being mentioned elsewhere in the Corrie article. As it stands, this article reads like a FOX news teleprompt. Please refrain from reverting the article to ineligibility. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.247.241.157 (talk) 04:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

* What is the RfC question? If you want comments, you need to post a succinct, coherent question. Dlabtot (talk) 21:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

This is what is in the RFC template:

The 2 basic POVs are 1) that Corrie was deliberately killed while trying to prevent a house demolition in the Palestinian territories; and 2) that she was killed entirely by accident while the bulldozer operator was fighting terrorism, not demolishing homes. We need help establishing NPOV balance in the lede.

WP:NPOV leaves no question: Both views must be included in the article. In contentious issues such as this, it is best to quote a couple leaders or organizations' representative on each side of the issue, stating exactly what they believe about the event in question, and, if you can get such quotes, why they believe it.

Because the lede can not go into such detail, it is best to leave motivations completely out of the introduction. The lede should be silent on whether is was an accident or intentional. I will attempt to edit it that way. MilesAgain (talk) 09:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I have done so by removing the third paragraph. The existing statement that, "The circumstances of Corrie's death are disputed," is certainly enough for the introduction. MilesAgain (talk) 09:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I tried to approach this from a completely fresh perspective, without reading any of the above, but after having responded to the RFC, I did read the recent entries here on the talk page. I have to agree that mentioning the smuggling tunnels in the lede makes no sense whatsoever. What do they have to do with Corrie's death? They are described in the "Background" section, because that is what they are: background information with apparently no relevance. Are people trying to insinuate that Corrie was assisting the smugglers? It can't be that the bulldozer was destroying the tunnels, because Israel says it wasn't destroying anything at the time. Incidental background information does not belong in the lede. MilesAgain (talk) 10:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess I must be slow on the uptake, because I still don't understand what the question is that I am being asked to respond to. WP:NPOV and WP:LEAD are both pretty clear. If a controversy exists, all significant viewpoints concerning that controversy that have been published by reliable sources should be presented in the article, and the lead should briefly summarize that controversy. Dlabtot (talk) 18:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[Note: I'm responding to the RfC. I know nothing about this case beyond having read this version of the lead section.] As far as I can see (correct me if I'm wrong), Corrie is notable for going to the Palestinian territories in order to be an activist, and for dying in disputed circumstances. Therefore, it seems obvious that the lead section should contain a summary of both these things, in addition to the basic info about her birth date/place, etc. Having established this, it appears that there are two general points of view regarding her death:

• 1) The IMS says she was acting as a human shield to prevent a bulldozer from demolishing a home when the driver of the bulldozer deliberately ran her over, killing her.
• 2) The IDF says that the driver was not demolishing a house but was clearing debris while searching for explosives. They say that the driver did not see Corrie and that she was killed by the falling debris.

With the above in mind, I rewrote the lead section (see this edit) but it was summarily reverted. However, the explanation for the reversion ("first facts later the POV of each side") doesn't make sense given that I did state the facts first! Could someone perhaps elaborate on why my edit was problematic? -- Hux (talk) 22:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, on reflection it's not essential that the leader contain a summary of the dispute over her cause of death. It could just as easily say simply that the dispute exists and then leave the details for the main part of the article to explain. Frankly, given the contention that's probably the most sensible thing to do here. -- Hux (talk) 22:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Completely agree with this last comment, Hux. Dlabtot (talk) 23:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, what are editors' views of the lede as it now stands?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Seems fine to me, fwiw. Dlabtot (talk) 23:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

It was okay in tone, imo, but from a copy editing perspective it was messy (needless repetition of "close to the border with Egypt") so I cleaned it up (see here). Thoughts? -- Hux (talk) 07:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Legal standard

I've reverted PalestineRemembered's edit, here is the diff [4] as well as an edit by another editor deleting part of the lede. Focusing on PR's edits, I'm not really clear what offends the editor. He seems to want the statement he put in at one time saying that the appellate court accepted as true the plaintiff's pleadings. That doesn't mean the court believed it, it is simply the standard of review when you lose on a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted) motion (see this case [5], and look at the indented paragraph). He also seems to object to mentioning that Corrie's family had co plaintiffs who were Palestinian as "poisoning the well". He also objects to stating that the trial court, as an alternative reason for dismissing the case, said that the case failed on the merits. All that is contained in the appellate opinion, which is cited in the article and is, for convenience, here[6]. I really don't see what the problem is, except a likely misunderstanding of legalese.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not that familiar with the legalese, but then neither are the readers. If one source mentions of the first case "the plaintiffs' claims failed on the merits." and another source mentions of the second case "accept all facts alleged as true", then by NPOV we either include both phrases or neither.

I removed "and several Palestinians" because it is WP:UNDUE, as well as being well-poisoning. Palestinians die in their thousands including (quite likely) 100s of them under Caterpillar blades. They've never sued the US like this (that I'm aware of), and have only been added to the Corrie case as filler. I doubt if including them belongs anywhere in this section, but certainly not in the first words. On well-poisoning, at the current time, Wikipedia articles are written as if Palestinians are totally unreliable as regards any of their testimony. Linkage to them reduces your credibility. We damage consideration of the Corrie's case by mentioning them here, this is propaganda as does not belong in our articles.

There is a great deal more highly relevant material missing from this article, such as the fact that ISM observers are now barred from Gaza by Israel (which has total control of entry to Gaza, and is killing alleged militants there regularily). Many people hate Rachel Corrie for the spot-light she shone on house-demolitions - many others consider her a hero, someone of whom the US should be very proud. Wikipedia doesn't need to have a POV, it can fairly explain what happened and the significance of it. That's what I'm trying to do. PR^talk 08:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Probably the Palestinians were added to the Corrie case to try to make sure that legal standing to sue wasn't an issue, in addition, claims under certain of the causes of action could only be brought by non-citizens (see Alien Tort Statute, giving the district court jurisdiction over claims brought by aliens for violations of, among other things, the law of nations). However, if you want to conceal the fact, I don't think it is important to the article. The District Court found the claim failed on the merits. That is what the court concluded. That is very different from the appellate standard of review on a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal, to assume all facts are true in order to see if the plaintiffs stated a claim upon which relief could be granted, which is only a legal means to an end. It is like saying 'Assuming that what you say is true, even then, you wouldn't win'. What you are doing is trying to take that phrase and put in a quotation 'what you say is true'. That has nothing to do with POV, it is just misleading the reader.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

that is called OR

[7] "what do smuggling tunnels have to do with Corrie, especially if the dozer wasn't demolishing at the time?"

Maybe for you those are not related but that is your POV. Theere are enough sources that describe the situation in the area. You have deleted most of them in your edit....Zeq (talk) 10:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I was responding to the RFC; see above. I should mention that I have never previously edited this article, and my only knowledge of this event is a vague memory of a news report from years ago Why do you think the mention of the tunnels belongs in the introduction summary? MilesAgain (talk) 10:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

You have responded to RFC that requested help in NPOV the lead by making it 100% POV. I will let you think about it and research the issue yourself. The tunnels in the area are well known and much have been written on them. To argue that those tunnels had nothing to do with the israeli army was doing there is exactly the ISM POV. Zeq (talk) 10:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

All I did was delete the third paragraph from the lede about the reason for the death, which is so hotly disputed that it can not be treated fairly in any summary, and then deleted the sentence about the tunnels. I am sure that the tunnels had a lot to do with why the Israeli army was there. But this article is about Rachel Corrie. What did the tunnels have to do with her? MilesAgain (talk) 10:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• I fail to see what the Lenon exmaple added to thr discussion. Zeq (talk) 16:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Additional fact: none of the four sources which had been cited for the tunnel factoid make any mention of Corrie. I am accused of "OR" for doing nothing more than deleting one paragraph and one sentence. I am accused of making the lede "100% POV" by removing all of the contentious information about the reason for the death on both sides of the issue. I don't think so. MilesAgain (talk) 10:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

"Corrie was trying to block an army bulldozer that was knocking down homes of terrorists and buildings hiding tunnels through which weapons and explosives were being smuggled"

[8] - Is this enough or you need more ? Zeq (talk) 16:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

As I have pointed out above, it is necessary, and NPOV, to explain what to the reader what the equipment was doing there. They were not building a road or playing Bob the Builder. I do not think there is any dispute that the smuggling tunnels were there. The ISM simply viewed destroying houses (in which the tunnels came out) as wrong. We don't touch on the rights or wrongs of it, other than a brief summary in the article. So I am afraid I don't see MilesAgain's position as justified.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Why is it necessary to explain why the equipment was there? The reason the equipment was there has nothing to do with Corrie, apart from setting the stage for her encounter with a piece of it. Do we need to explain why Mark David Chapman was in New York in the article about John Lennon? No, of course not, and we do not. Your statement that the tunnels came out of the house being destroyed is not supported by sources. None of the articles about the tunnels mention Corrie or the house she was standing near. There is no need for the two sides to fight it out in the intro. All the intro should say is that the reason for the death was controversial. MilesAgain (talk) 12:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

No, because if Corrie was killed while playing Bob the Builder, no one would care about her. Her reason for notability is in the manner she met her death, and the reasons therefor. An uninformed reader (if any) might not understand the reason for her death in reading the lede, and might pass by the article entirely. As for the statement that the articles don't mention Corrie, it is not necessary that they do. It is the same security area. And as for your Lennon thing, the Lennon article does mention that Lennon had earlier in the day signed a book for Chapman. And if you are so neutral, why don't you wait for discussion before constantly reverting Zeq's and my own edits?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• The tunnesl have been mentioned here for a long long time. It was consensus to include them once but not twice in the lead. read the archives. Zeq (talk) 16:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Depending on the itteration the mentions of the tunnels have bordered on POV pushing, and in general I think they don't belong there and should be placed elsewhere. That said, some verions of the lede that feature the tunnels are worse than others.

Also why do we need 4 near identical cites? Is this a point of especial importance that needs underling like that? I think we should trim those back a little - no one is actually questioning the existance of the tunnels and overciting them like that seems like a subtle form of POV pushing. Artw (talk) 00:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

As I said above, I'm another editor with no prior history on this article (or any Israeli/Palestinian article, if I remember correctly), who came here as a result of the RfC. In my opinion, the purpose of the lead section of a Wikipedia article is to present a basic summary of the topic at hand: the idea is to trim down the whole story to its most basic parts in order to let the reader know roughly what it's about. The purpose of the lead section is not to present a complete and balanced view of a contentious point. Therefore, I don't think that it is a valid criticism to say that this one fails to present such a view. As it currently stands, I think the lead for this article is perfectly adequate.

Secondly, regarding the discussion about smuggling tunnels, I see two areas of contention: 1) whether or not they should be mentioned in the lead section, and 2) whether or not they should be mentioned at all and, if so, how the article should discuss them. Answering #1 is fairly simple, in my opinion: based on what I wrote in the previous paragraph, it's clear to me that they don't belong in the lead section simply because they are at best tangential to the article and at worst their appearance would make the lead section either confusing or misleading (by implying a connection between Corrie and weapons smuggling which, as far as I'm aware, is not supported by any reliable source). All these are sound reasons to avoid mentioning the tunnels in the lead section, in my view.

To address #2, I am not going to directly comment on whether or not the tunnels should or should not be mentioned in the article as a whole, as I would prefer to remain as neutral as possible on this point. (In fact, I haven't read the article beyond the lead section specifically in order to avoid developing a non-neutral opinion.) Instead, I will outline what I think is a reasonable framework for making that decision:

• If the existence of the tunnels is supported by reputable sources, AND
• If the bulldozers were there at least in part because of the existence of the tunnels,
• Then it would be reasonable to mention them in order to provide background for the story.

However:

• If there is no evidence from reputable sources that Corrie's actions had anything to do with the tunnels,
• Then it would be unreasonable to discuss them in any way that might imply such a connection as that would insert POV into the article and would also constitute original research.

The bottom line in all of this is, I think, pretty straightforward: contentious points should not appear in articles unless it can be shown, through reputable sources, that the point is relevant to the story as a whole. They should also not appear unless the way in which they appear accurately conveys their connection with the story and does not imply anything that is not supported by such sources.

I hope this helps. -- Hux (talk) 23:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Not that much, because you use the bulldozer in logic chain A, and Corrie in the other. However, the Mother Jones article, among others, as well as the IDF report, make it clear that the bulldozers were there because of the tunnels, that was one of the two main points to the clearance, the other being to give snipers and other terrorists the minimum of cover in attacks on Israeli troops while patrolling the border.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not seeing a problem with my reasoning. If, as you say, the tunnels were indeed part of the reason why the bulldozers were there then it's fine to mention them in the article. At the same time, if the tunnels had nothing to do with why Corrie was there then it's still okay to mention them as long as their mention does not imply that Corrie and the tunnels are connected in some way. That's something we'd need to be very careful about. Do you see what I mean? -- Hux (talk) 18:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, though your explanation conveys more than the original. Anyway, the MJ article should satisfy you.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• Reading through this, I feel that the contentious points should be removed until further discussion about it has taken place.

That way it means we get consensus on this issue, and it makes for a better article that way. Thanks, --Solumeiras ^talk 13:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

No one has proposed deleting the tunnels from the entire article, which would be most questionable. In addition, as I understand WP, burden on proof is on the editor proposing changes. The tunnels are why the bulldozers were there, it is in the Mother Jones article, the IDF report. The material is relevant and supported by appropriate cites. We should not delete pending discussion.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Protection of page

As is, I believe full protection is the only option. But, before I do, could the users involved please seek consensus on what not/what should be included in the article? From dicussion, progression can be made. Regards, Rudget. 17:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

All due respect, but what are you smoking? There hasn't been an edit to the article in a day and a half and you want to full protect? We're getting into a discussion here, trying to see if there's a dispute, and if so, trying to frame the debate.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I am also baffled by this. There have been few reverts, most of the changes have been constructive on both sides since I got here, even if they were later changed by people with differing opinions. I can point to some articles with actual revert wars going on, but this isn't one. MilesAgain (talk) 04:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

POV in "Reaction" section?

I'm fairly new to Wikipedia, so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. However, as I read through this article, one sentence in the "Reaction" section jumped out at me as fairly biased. The sentence states "As the memorial service got under way, the Israeli army sent its own representative. A tank pulled up beside the mourners and sprayed them with tear gas." Calling the IDF a "representative" to the funeral seems very POV...they were not sent to "represent" the IDF at the memorial, instead they were dispersing the crowd. Whether you agree with their actions or not, I think it is clear that they were not sent by the IDF to be a representative. I would suggest rephrasing it to say "As the memorial service got under way, an Israeli army tank pulled up beside the mourners and sprayed them with tear gas." Does anyone else agree, or is this not an issue? Thanks! Amssports06 (talk) 17:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Before questions of bias come into play regarding that section, there is another issue: an anonymous user has recently removed the part where it says, "the Israeli army sent its own representative". To be clear to that user: you cannot do this with a direct quote! Either you quote the whole thing, use elipses when you remove something from it, or you don't use the quote at all. Anything else is a major no-no. I'm restoring the whole quote for now. After that we can discuss whether it should be in the article and in what form. -- Hux (talk) 19:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't me, if that is what you're wondering...I wouldn't have bothered to post a question on the talk page about it if I was just going to delete it anyway. I also don't advocate anyone else removing it until it has been discussed. Amssports06 (talk) 15:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

There are huge problems of POV in this article, but that particular line is a quote from one party, as it says. Have a look at the "Lawsuits" section, which currently seems calculated to insult parents trying to get justice for their daughter. Ditto a section entitled "Possible attempt by Palestinians to kidnap Corrie's parents". Compare this article with that of Pat Tillman, where the word murder appears twice. In Rachel Corrie's case, the word only appears when the perpetrators deny what they've done and blame a Reuters mis-caption for "turning an accident into murder". Read this from an Israeli newspaper, nobody really doubts how these machines are used. Maybe it's OK to accuse Americans of murdering other Americans. PR^talk 09:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that if anything, this article is biased AGAINST Israel. However, that is beside the point, since we're discussing this particular section. I didn't realize at first that this was a quote, so I don't think that we can modify it, right? I would advocate either removing it completely, or somehow making it more obvious that the diction there is the opinion of the Guardian Unlimited. Their article is unquestionably pro-Palestinian, and anything they say should be understood in that context. Amssports06 (talk) 14:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

It is an account of what happened. I'm not wild about including it, I'd rather have a less colorful account. But it is what we have. As for PR's comment, PR has had every opportunity to spell out what he thinks is wrong with with the lawsuit section, but PR has chosen not to. Apparently it is insulting to mention that the Corries' co plaintiffs were Palestinian. As for the kidnap attempt section, I think we are bending over backward to be fair.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

No offense, but I have a hard time believing that anyone who's username is "Palestine Remembered" is going to be objective in a case like this. That was just an aside, though. Again, I'm fairly new here, so please educate me...why do we need a direct quote to describe the situation? Can we just rewrite it to say "at the memorial service, an Israeli military tank approached and sprayed the mourners with tear gas." or something like that? I think that states what happened in an unbiased way, and it is supported by evidence from other sources. Amssports06 (talk) 02:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

How about "The ISM attempted to have a memorial service near the site of Corrie's death in the security zone near the border. The IDF responded, and after scenes (as reported in the media) during which the IDF threatened to shoot, and the ISM threw flowers on the tanks, the gathering was broken up by tear gas."--Wehwalt (talk) 13:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I think that is a great way to put it...its NPOV, and gives an accurate account of what happened. Amssports06 (talk) 15:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm a little bothered by "responded" -- it was certainly not the usual way one might "respond" to a funeral. What verbs do the sources use? How about "arrived at the scene"? MilesAgain (talk) 18:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess I was using "responded" in the law enforcement sort of sense I have no problem with the change. I suspect the points of view on this will be "Oh, another publicity stunt. If they wanted a memorial service, they should have rented a room at the King David." and "How dare they tread their treads on sacred ground where the mourners were seeking solace." I think the proposed paragraph as amended avoids both traps nicely, while excluding neither possibility--Wehwalt (talk) 18:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

My mistake, it does not say threatened to shoot. The best article I can find is here [9].--Wehwalt (talk) 18:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)