![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 |
Can someone familiar with Rachel Corrie look at this information about Rachel Corrie at List of The Evergreen State College people. -- JWSchmidt ( talk) 04:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
I removed the See Also section from this article, as it was only a list of other ISM activists killed by the IDF during the Second Intifada. It has since been replaced and removed several more times, so clearly not only is the supposed "long-standing" consensus to keep it not valid, but a new consensus needs to be reached. Therefore, I propose the following statement and RFC to reach a new consensus:
Various claims were made for the relevance of the section citing "patterns of behavior" by the IDF, or relevancy of the timeframe, but I feel it violates NPOV because it purports to show "a pattern of behavior by the IDF" that is not supported by any reliable sources. I would point out, though, that where the section is now is a little better than where it was: previously the names said "killed by the IDF" with no clarifier as to why they were listed (they were in warzones with the ISM), and now there is at least a rationale. However, I don't believe the rationale is correct: a victim list is appropriate for this type of article (as mnetioned in the earlier discussion directly above). So, I think there are two issues to be resolved here. One, is the section NPOV, and if it is, is it still appropriate for the article? MSJapan ( talk) 18:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
The users persistently tried to remove all of the see also entries (which is approved over the years by many other editors) all of a sudden, the current consensus is 3-3, so we advised them to take a RFC.
(Note: Kasaalan did not advise an RFC as he states - article edit history will clearly show I rm'ed and stated in summary that if it was put back, I would go to RFC. The initial statement by Kasaalan (which he has not attributesd to himself) is incorrect - "we" did nothing of the sort. MSJapan ( talk) 17:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC))
- But you may request other user opinions about this, since I do not consider listing other kills of IDF as POV. Kasaalan (talk) 21:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- Try to get a 3rd party review, or any other discussion before removing see also. Removing see also is POV in the first place. Kasaalan (talk) 06:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- Try to get one per any kind of actual discussion before we can step further. Kasaalan (talk) 07:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- Consensus may change, but it doesn't change just because 3 editors say so, for extreme changes like complete removal of all see also entries, you need a consensus by debate. Kasaalan (talk) 08:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- 16:58, 18 June 2009 MSJapan (talk | contribs) (62,482 bytes) (→See also: rm reinserted edit by contentious editor. Next time it goes in, this is going to RFC.)
Kasaalan, it has been a week and the tally is now 4 to 1, with only you expressing an opinion in the RfC that the "See also" list should remain unchanged. Do you think it's appropriate to start discussing how it can be best changed? Jclemens ( talk) 04:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
{{ IraqWarCorr}}
After letting this sit a bit, I still fail to see a direct relevance to the subject of this article via the inclusion of individual people who were killed some months before and after this incident. Therefore, I have rm'ed the individuals and left the link to ISM casualties, because it's at least passable as relevant. MSJapan ( talk) 17:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Where can I find a copy of the documentary "When killing is easy" by the BBC that is mentioned in the article? Coolgamer ( talk) 08:54, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
I have removed the following section from the article;
section starts
The Mike's Place Suicide Bombing was an attack on a bar in Tel Aviv, Israel. At 12:45 AM on April 30, 2003, 45 days after Corrie's death, a suicide bomber approached Mike's Place, a popular pub and live music venue next to the U.S. Embassy on the beach-front promenade in Tel Aviv, and blew himself up at the entrance to the bar, killing Dominique Hass, 29, Ran Baron, 23, and Yanai Weiss, 46, and wounding over 50. The attack was perpetrated by Asif Muhammad Hanif, 22, and Omar Khan Sharif, 27, both British citizens. [1] [2]
On 25 April, on the 40th day after Corrie's death, and 5 days before their suicide attack on Mike's Place, Hanif and Sharif joined ISM activists in Gaza and together conducted a memorial service and flower laying ceremony on the spot where Corrie died to mark the official end of the 40 day mourning period for Corrie according to the Muslim tradition.
"Human rights sources told the Guardian that Sharif and his accomplice Asif Mohammed Hanif, arrived at the offices of the International Solidarity Movement in Rafah and made contact with its members just days before the bombing." “One activist, who asked not to be named, recognized the pair when they were shown on Israeli TV. He spoke to them last Friday at the spot where American human shield Rachel Corrie was killed by an Israeli bulldozer.” [3]
"The suicide attack is thought to be the first by foreign sympathizers since the start of the current uprising in 2000. Israeli police had said they thought the two men arrived from Gaza a short time before the attack.” “Raphael Cohen, an activist for the International Solidarity Movement (ISM), which carries out what it call 'non-violent direct action' against Israeli occupation of Gaza and the West Bank, said he spoke to the pair on 25 April. Mr Cohen confirmed he met the men, who were given a cup of tea at the ISM office.” “On 16 March ISM activist Rachel Corrie, a 23-year-old American, was killed by an Israeli bulldozer. After a 15 minute chat, the three men joined a group of 20 people to lay flowers at a nearby site where the activist was killed” [4]
"...British suicide bombers had attended an ISM memorial on Friday, 25 April, in honour of Rachel Corrie, an activist killed by Israeli forces. ISM last night said activists Hanif and Sharif appeared to be 'typical Brits'. 'They were in our apartment for 15 minutes, then spent 10 minutes at the ceremony,' said 20-year-old American ISM activist Lora Gordon." "We were just happy to have people come to commemorate Rachel.” [5]
section ends
I do not think that the appearance of these suicide bombers at an event relating to the death of Rachel Corrie is of any import either to the subject or to their later attack on Israeli citizens. They likely attended various events and places relating to their sympathies, which are not commented upon, and they were also likely to have carried out their attack whether or not Rachel Corrie had died. Under the circumstances I do not believe there is any direct connection between the two events and individuals, and quite likely some disparity (Rachel Corrie acting in non violent/passive obstruction, and the attackers using terrorism and murder). If, however, it is decided to return the content then it can be copied from the above. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 09:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
I disagree with the removal of the section on the Mike's Place Suicide Bombing. This section documents, with verifiable reliable impartial sources, a flower laying ceremony held on the spot Corrie was killed, by people who personal knew her and personally witnessed her death, on the 40th day after her death to mark the official end of Muslim mourning for Corrie. Can you explain to me how this particular memorial event is so irrelevant that it must be deleted from the article but sections in this article on “memorial events” and “artistic tributes” held years later on the other side of the world by people who did not know her are so much more relevant that they should be included? It is quite obvious that the only reason LessHeard had this particular memorial ceremony and only this memorial ceremony removed from the article is because the suicide bombers attended and laid flowers on her death site and it looks bad for her hagiography. Secondly, LessHeard has determined, without evidence to back up his claim, that there is absolutely no connection what so ever between the fact that in the days following Corrie's death these two British Muslim extremists suddenly left their families, jumped on a plane, flew from England to the middle-east, then traveled all the way to Gaza to attend a memorial and lay flowers on the death site to mark end of the 40 day Muslim mourning period for Corrie, an American who died engaging in suicidally dangerous activity, and then 5 days later they themselves committed suicide by blowing up a pub next door to the US Embassy in Tel-Aviv, killing 3 and wounding 50. Now the average person would certainly assume some kind of connection but no, there is no connection at all according to LessHeard. LessHeard's only support for his claims of there being no connection seems to be a paranormal ability to enter into the minds of Hanif and Sharif, the long dead suicide bombers and determine that “they were also likely to have carried out their attack whether or not Rachel Corrie had died”. So LessHeard has fabricated a justification for deleteing my verified sourced contribution out his own imagination with no evidence at all.
If or if not the suicide bombing, and the murders of Dominique Hass, Ran Baron, and Yanai Weiss, and wounding over 50 others commited by Hanif and Sharif, who laid flowers and prayed at Corrie's “martyrdom” site just days before was intended as an act of revenge for Corrie's death, and is thus very relevent to Corrie, people should be allowed to make their own minds up about. Judo Nimh ( talk) 19:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)Judo Nimh
But, LessHeard did not claim that the bulk of what I posted was original research, which is the very well documented fact that the bombers spent time in the ISAM offices in Gaza, attended the 40th day end of mourning for Corrie and laid flowers for her a few days before committing the massacre in Tel-Aviv next to the American Embassy, murdering 3 civilians sitting in a bar, wounding 50. The only WP:BURDEN I need to meet on this account is the burden of "a reliable, published source using an inline citation." I provided 3 reliable sources, from the the anti-Israeli Guardian, and the BBC, to establish this. All of these sources (and I could add ten more sources if you had the room) specifically mention Corrie by name and mention the bombers attendance at the Corrie memorial just before they went on the attack. All these sources felt this was a significant connected event or else they would not have mentioned it. You are throwing up a smokscreen by claiming these events are not connected, even though the sources I used have connected them. Behind this specious " not connected" objection to having this in the article is LessHeard's real objection which is his applying NPOV values to the article when he claimed “Corrie acting in non violent/passive obstruction, and the attackers using terrorism and murder” shows the events must be disconnected. Now actually the ISM group that sent this young girl to the front lines of a war to die is not a group solely dedicated to non-violence so even on this score LessHeard's argument falls short.“Sharif, 27, was last seen in Derby just over a month ago.” [6]
Judo Nimh ( talk) 16:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Judo Nimh“A closer look reveals that the leadership sees volunteers not as pacifists but as combatants on the Palestinian side. In a 2002 article, the movement's co-founders, Adam Shapiro, a New York Jew, and Huwaida Arraf, a Palestinian Christian, urged: "The Palestinian resistance must take on a variety of characteristics, both non-violent and violent."Mr Shapiro and Miss Arraf predicted that "yes, people will get killed and injured" and suggested that the casualties "would be considered shaheed", using the Arabic term for martyrs applied to suicide bombers.In its mission statement, the movement says that, for Palestinians, "armed struggle" is "their right". Activists have shown their hatred for the Jewish state.” [7]
Judo Nimh ( talk) 17:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Judo Nimh“There are graffiti in Gaza in her honour - one slogan reads: 'Rachel was a US citizen with Palestinian blood' - there is a picture of her on the website of the terrorist group, an honour usually reserved for suicide bombers.” “Her death serves me more than it served her,' said one activist at a Hamas funeral yesterday.” “Her death will bring more attention than the other 2,000 martyrs.” “ In Rafah, Arafat's political party Fatah held a wake for 'Retchell Corie', attended by representatives of Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the Al-Aqsa Martyrs brigade, among others.” “ It is the first time an American has been adopted as a Palestinian martyr. The posters of Corrie that began to appear on buildings and lampposts look incongruous beside pictures of the hundreds of Arab men ..“ [8]
Does this ordering of the referenced facts make the connection clearer ?
1)The founders of the ISM, the group that sent Corrie to die, published an article a year before Corrie's death titled Why Nonviolent Resistance is Important for the Palestinian Intifada: A Response to Ramzy Baroud, published Tuesday, January 29 2002, By Huwaida Arraf and Adam Shapiro in The Palestine Chronicle.
"We do not advocate adopting the methods of Gandhi or Martin Luther King, Jr",
"Let us reiterate, we accept that Palestinians have a right to resist with arms”,
"Hamas claims it has many men ready to be suicide bombers – we advocate that these men offer themselves as martyrs by standing on a settler road and blocking it from traffic. This is no less of a jihad. This is no less noble than carrying out a suicide operation. And we are certain that if these men were killed during such an action, they would be considered shaheed Allah",
"The Palestinian resistance must take on a variety of characteristics – both nonviolent and violent. But most importantly it must develop a strategy involving both aspects. No other successful nonviolent movement was able to achieve what it did without a concurrent violent movement – in India militants attacked British outposts and interests while Gandhi conducted his campaign, while the Black Panther Movement and its earlier incarnations existed side-by-side with the Civil Rights Movement in the United States.",
To be sure these quotes were not cherry picked by the Telegraph, here is a link to the original paper in the archives of the Colorado Campaign for Middle East Peace, a pro-palestinian group: http://www.ccmep.org/hotnews/why012902.html
2)Corrie was killed, just exactly as the founders of the ISM had predicted a year earlier, and again, exactly as the founders of the ISM had a year earlier predicted, attained the status of the highest level of “holy martyr” or “shaheed” equal only to the level of a suicide bomber. The groups Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Al Aksa Martyrs Brigade, each one of whom by that time had claimed responsibility for numerous suicide bombings on Israeli civilians, placed her picture on their web site in a place of honor among dead suicide bombers, posters were placed with her picture on street corners among other posters of dead suicide bombers and Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Al Aksa Martyrs Brigade all attended a wake for Corrie in Gaza organized by Fatah.
3)The suicide bomber who attacked Mike's Place suddenly up and abandoned his well-established life and family in Derby, England and headed for the middle east in the weeks following Corrie's death.
4)Hanif and Sharif, the British suicide bombers, made their way to Gaza to attend the memorial service held on the 40th day after Corrie's death, a significant day in Islamic tradition marking official the end of mourning. Hanif and Sharif were seen by numerous witness laying flowers and praying at the site of her death or “martydom”.
5)I have not posted references for this but I have found several showing that revenge attacks by Islamic extremists to revenge the death of a "shaheed" are traditionaly timed to correspond to the period around the 40th day official end of Islamic mourning.
6)Hanif and Sharif, the British suicide bombers, then made their way directly from the Corrie memorial service to Tel Aviv, and there attacked the Mike's Place bar next door to the American Embassy, and murdered Dominique Hass, Ran Baron, and Yanai Weiss, and wounded over 50 other civilians.
These are an obviously connected series of events, starting with Corrie's death and ending with the deaths of Dominique Hass, Ran Baron, and Yanai Weiss. Judo Nimh ( talk) 23:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Judo Nimh
I should have said these are an obviously connected series of events, starting with Huwaida Arraf and Adam Shapiro, founders of the ISM, who sent Corrie to her death, original equating of the "nobility" of “jihad” by "suicide bombing" and suicide by Israeli vehicle blocking and their "advocacy" of "offering" oneself up as a "martyr" by blocking Israeli vehicles, which obviously led to Corrie's actual death in just exactly the manner "advoctated" by the founders of the ISM a year earlier in the Arraf Shapiro article, leading to Corrie's attainment of “shaheed allah”status among the Palestinian suicide bomber groups, again just exactly as the Arraf Shapiro article a year earlier predicted it would, and which finally ended with the murders of Dominique Hass, Ran Baron, and Yanai Weiss by British suicide bombers seen being inspired by Corrie's memory just before the attack.
Since it was suggested by LessHeard that the Telegraph cherry picked this article, I will add more quotes from the article by Huwaida Arraf and Adam Shapiro, founders of the ISM, who sent this young girl to die, to show that the Telegraph actual undersold the damage this article could do to the ISM's reputation as non-violence advocates, also noting this article published a year before Corrie died strangely blueprints latter events and the use of Corrie's death to "present a story".
“First and foremost, there is no guarantee that the use of nonviolence as a strategic element of resistance as part of a larger Intifada would end the occupation, deliver justice or resolve the conflict. It is simply a strategy, one that can be employed to attain specific, pre-determined goals."
“nonviolence ... is something that can be manipulated to present a story, a case or an image” “What can this strategy hope to achieve as its goals? ...the adoption of nonviolent direct action resistance would change the image of the Palestinian struggle around the world. ...in changing the image, more foreigners would be emboldened and empowered to speak out and question their governments' policies vis-à-vis supporting Israel. ...Additionally, more foreign civilians would be encouraged to come to work with Palestinians in their legitimate struggle against occupation and injustice, thereby internationalizing the Intifada and bringing more resources to bear on pressuring Israel and the international community.... ”
Judo Nimh ( talk) 03:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)Judo Nimh
whereas in direct contradiction the paper written a year before her death by Shapiro and Arraf, the founders of the ISM, the group that sent her to die specifically states"she had studied methods of Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King with care.[14] Corrie wrote to her mother, "The vast majority of Palestinians right now, as far as I can tell, are engaged in Gandhian nonviolent resistance."
So in this specific case where the exact subject mater was already raised in the article by quote from Corrie's own writings, showing this was a key motivating factor in this youngsters mind, critical to understanding her thoughts, it makes it relevant to show a verified direct quote from Shapiro and Arraf, the leaders of the ISM that sent her to die, that sits in direct contradiction to her words. Judo Nimh ( talk) 01:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)Judo Nimh"We do not advocate adopting the methods of Gandhi or Martin Luther King, Jr".
If we going to discuss intentions of ISM and IDF we can argue for years, you may try creating a criticism of ISM section to develop your case, yet another user also may argue IDF didn't release its report on killing of Rachel Corrie publicly, therefore they are guilty. Or the driver of a very slow vehicle like D9R was aware of the precence of Rachel, and could easily be stopped against proper safety jacket Rachel was wearing, especially there are other 2 armored cars outside instructing driver with radio talk. Our jobs our not OR SYNTH by trimmed arguments like "We do not advocate adopting the methods of Gandhi or Martin Luther King, Jr" therefore ISM sent Rachel Corrie to die.
Also trimming quotes are highly misleading
- While we do not advocate adopting the methods of Gandhi or Martin Luther King, Jr., we do believe that learning from their experience and informing a Palestinian movement with this knowledge can be quite valuable and of great utility. Contrary to Mr. Baroud's claim, there is no misunderstanding about the nature of Israeli occupation or violence, not by Palestinian intellectuals, not by activists and not by those who advocate nonviolence. Additionally, Mr. Baroud uses faulty logic when he claims that choosing nonviolence implies that use of violence is a choice, never mind a strategic one. ...
- Allow us to interject with an example to explain. Violent resistance is when an armed Palestinian fighter shoots an Israeli who is oppressing him. The Palestinian fighter claims his rights, but in reality does nothing to achieve them. Another dead Israeli does not deliver a single right to a Palestinian. Alternatively, Palestinian Birzeit University students who march through a militarily-occupied area under curfew on their way to school, who confront soldiers and absorb their teargas, sound grenades and rubber bullets, are attempting to exercise their right to education and to move freely. While they may not succeed, their effort is one aimed at directly achieving rights.
- The fighter, on the other hand, has used his means (the gun) to achieve his end (a dead Israeli or instilling greater fear among all Israelis) – neither rights nor justice nor freedom are a factor in this equation. The students, acting together in a disciplined manner, are directly acting in a way to achieve their rights.
- Let us reiterate, we accept that Palestinians have a right to resist with arms, as they are an occupied people upon whom force and violence is being used. The Geneva Conventions accept that armed resistance is legitimate for an occupied people, and there is no doubt that this right cannot be denied. But that does not mean that this right must be utilized. Regardless of what is a right and what is not, the elements that will make any change in the situation are strategy and tactics. To date, the use of violence as part of the resistance has not evinced a strategy. Not in operations against the military or settlers; not in operations inside the Green Line. The choice of using nonviolence would not be effective either if it was not organized strategically.
I didn't read the discussions yet however we may keep some info on suicide bombing in a summary manner without overrating it as UNDUE and COATRACK. After I read discussions I may comment more properly.
Suicide Bombing controversy
On April 30, 2003 at The Mike's Place bar next to the U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv, a suicide bomber approached the bar and blew himself up at the entrance 45 days after Corrie's death, killing 3 people while wounding over 50. After a 15 minute chat at ISM office, perpetrators, Asif Muhammad Hanif, 22, and Omar Khan Sharif, 27, who are both British citizens, [9] [10] with 1 other man, joined the ISM memorial on Friday, 25 April, for 10 minutes, in honour of Rachel Corrie, with a group of 20 people to lay flowers at a nearby site where the activist was killed by Israeli forces. [11] ISM said activists Hanif and Sharif appeared to be 'typical Brits'.
Any longer, unbalanced WP:COATRACK is not required. The text still may be UNDUE, I tried to neutralize the case. Also Mike's Place suicide bombing not much of a good reference like mikesplacebars.com is. Kasaalan ( talk) 11:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
The source does not indicate that the bombers knew Corrie, nor that they were members of ISM, nor that their criminal actions were in any way influenced by the life or death of Corrie. So what is the purpose of this text? I can only think of one purpose: slander by association. We might as well list all the crimes committed by any persons known to have spoken well of Corrie, or to have attended the play written in her honor. That would be just as strong an association. Zero talk 13:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
I also agree that the section is clearly inappropriate. It is clearly OR, non-neutral and undue and I do not see a consensus to include it. John Z ( talk) 22:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
There are reliable sources that seem to believe the connection is notable. The reliable sources are not noting every crime comitted by anyone who ever spoke well of Corrie; if they did, we would as well. IronDuke 02:16, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
comment: i agree that this is undue here. the sources used do mention corrie (this time) but this is relevant to the bombing article, not here. untwirl( talk) 05:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
of the three sources provided in this section: one is a wikipedia article, another is the bar website (which doesn't mention corrie at all) and the third is a bbc article that doesn't name the "activist" that the memorial was for.
the entire section should go for not only undue weight and irrelevance, but also the fact that the sources are either unreliable or dont support the paragraph. untwirl( talk) 02:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I looked at this article yesterday for the first time in awhile, and saw most of the images have gone. We had images of Corrie in front of the bulldozer, and images of her after she was hurt. I've looked through the history but there's too much to be able to see what was removed and why. Does anyone know? SlimVirgin talk| contribs 22:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Is still on comomons at File:Rachel Corrie crushed by bulldozer.jpg.
Jclemens (
talk)
02:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
you must have missed the discussion that has been going on for the last week or so on the talk page regarding the unreliable sources which don't even mention corrie by name. please review it and self-revert. thanks. untwirl( talk) 20:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi. The removed content ("Mikes Place" bombing) is because non of the available references now mention the bombers attending the Rachel Corrie memorial. If other sources can be found - hopefully permanent ones - then the text can be included, but currently there are no cites. I should be grateful if you could self revert. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 20:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
this source] provided by ironduke also ties together tom hurndall's shooting. his name should be returned to the see also section. untwirl( talk) 21:02, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
This article reads like it was written by the Palestinian public relations department. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LisaBenton ( talk • contribs) 00:39, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Rachel_Corrie&oldid=316302644 http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Rachel_Corrie&diff=prev&oldid=316302644
I undid the removal of wikilinks per discussion. You may remove unnecessary wikilinks manually if you feel so. I hid the mike's suicide bombing section, according to the result of debate you may delete or unhide the section. I revised, neutralised and expanded Mike's Place suicide bombing article with additons and details, including ISM response. Kasaalan ( talk) 15:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Ex post facto literally means subsequently ex post facto law is a law term, though wikipedia has a redirect for ex post facto. Kasaalan ( talk) 00:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
There is a discussion of the much-circulated photo of Ms. Corrie, without a reference or link to that photo. http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/pictures/rachel-corrie-flag-01.jpg - I'd suggest it should be added.
Styopa ( talk) 13:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Just found this other picture in an article about Corrie. It mentions it is a picture of Corrie moments before she was killed:
http://www.clarin.com/mundo/Ultima-imagen-corrie-minutos-excavadora_CLAIMA20100605_0019_4.jpg
The article states that a street would be named after Rachael Corrie and it never happened. That is untrue. A street was in fact named after her in Ramallah. Please check this link: http://palsolidarity.org/2010/03/11801/
http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=171156
Mzcastro ( talk) 04:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
By the way the article might be a Good Article as I came by lots of less detailed articles become GA. What is your opinion about it. Kasaalan ( talk) 22:56, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Israel was forced to pay out up $2 million for each of two other observers/film-makers killed by Israeli forces in Gaza around this time, James Miller and Tom Hurndall. Surely worth a mention in the article. Perhaps it has to be kept locked to keep information like this out. 80.40.225.228 ( talk) 14:51, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
--This entire section, beginning with its inflammatory and partisan title, is political opinion suitable for a forum and not a Wikipedia talk page. It should be deleted in its entirety. I would do so myself if I had more status as a Wiki editor. Lacking such credentials, I’d likely be charged with “vandalism.” I hope a highly placed Wikipedian will do so instead. Sell Israeli war bonds or start an anti-Semitic pogrom as you please: just not here! HistoryBuff14 ( talk) 15:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
A 1200-ton cargo ship being used to run the Gaza blockade as been renamed. Geo8rge ( talk) 18:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
I want to add very important information to this article but i can't! FIX IT! ` 22:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.209.204.242 ( talk)
Hey all, I think the picture at the top really ought to be one of Corrie's face. It's odd having the main picture be one of her back. Could someone possibly put a new one in? Thanks, NickCT ( talk) 13:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
I changed it into "Killed while trying to block an Israeli armored bulldozer in disputed circumstences" since there are two sides or descriptions to the events:
Therefore I changed it to "Killed while trying to block an Israeli armored bulldozer in disputed circumstences" while not writing only one side's version. MathKnight 15:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
The current text in the infobox reads "Killed while trying to block an Israeli armored bulldozer". However, Rachel Corrie was not simply killed "while trying to block [the bulldozer]", she was killed by the bulldozer. There is near unanimous agreement on this in reliable sources, including Israeli sources:
Cs32en Talk to me 16:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
The article indicates that no street was ever named for her, but I suspect that info is out of date since several sources indicate that this was done earlier this year. For example: http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/dailyweekly/2010/03/palestinian_streets_new_name_i.php
Anyone able to edit this article that wants to include this information, or at least remove the inaccurate sentence from the article?
143.45.64.72 ( talk) 00:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
This piece badly needs some additional info. Corrie was crushed by a bulldozer. There are two versions one that she was protecting the house of a local pharmacist from demolition. The other was that the Israelis were clearing scrub near a tunnel entrance. It is not clear which is true. The location was near Rafah but how close to the border. Was it less that 100m. Were there any tunnels nearby. Did the Israelis bulldoze houses in the area. The reason why Wikipedia is good is that it answers these type of questions - but not in this case. I cant see shrub but I can't see the house either. I am none the wiser as to what actually happened from this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.28.52.230 ( talk) 03:36, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
The excuse to register a account is invalid, because only accounts who are months old , hundreds of edits AND are confirmed by admins are allowed to edit. So therefore unlock this page now ! -- 93.82.8.84 ( talk) 07:48, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
I don´t have to be a sockpuppet of this user, however I agree with that. -- Ftsw ( talk) 11:40, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
This section appears to be a synthesis of quotes from activists which could support the criticism mentioned in the title but the refs do not at first sight to have been reporting such criticsm, rather reporting what the activists have said. The references provide relevant background for the article but we may need to present them differently, or find a reference which reports this criticism more directly. Comments? -- Mirokado ( talk) 02:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Rachel Corrie is herself not notable. She never received any reliable coverage before her death. She is notable for her death- nothing more. Thus, she is not deserving of a Wikipedia article. I think the name should be changed to Death of Rachel Corrie. 140.247.141.137 ( talk) 23:27, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
The text added to this article on the ship "Spirit of Rachel Corrie" is inappropriate. For an encyclopedia article about Corrie, a blow-by-blow account of the ship's activities is excessive and unnecessary. Second, the account presented here is a primary source - text messages from the ship - with no secondary sources putting the messages in context. As an encyclopedia, we can't use a primary source account without secondary sources that interpret that secondary source. Please see Wikipedia:No original research. GabrielF ( talk) 00:52, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
This could be useful
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jul/11/corries-accuse-israelis-death -- Aa2-2004 ( talk) 07:53, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Throughout the article, there is a constant rehashing of two controversial claims as fact: 1) That the bulldozer's were demolishing houses. 2) That Corrie was killed by the bulldozer rather than by falling debris. The official Israeli investigation (the only thorough investigation carried out) claimed that both of these were false. Therefore these should not be stated as fact but rather as disputed opinion. Wikieditorpro ( talk) 14:50, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
In a French film by the Israeli-French filmmaker Simone Bitton of 2008 an Israeli Army spokeswoman claimed that Rachel Corrie had no direct contact with the bulldozer. She was right, according to all eyewitnesses from both sides. It can also be rightly claimed that Hitler never personally poured any cyclone gas into any of the gas chambers at Auschwitz. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ontologix ( talk • contribs) 22:37, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
I revised the previous version a bit to cater it more to your liking. I fail to see what needs explaining, but I will now dissect each statement in the opening paragraph.
"Rachel Aliene Corrie (April 10, 1979 – March 16, 2003) was an American member of the International Solidarity Movement (ISM)." Explanation: She was a member of the International Solidarity Movement.
"She died while acting as a human shield during the demolition of a Palestinian home in Gaza." Explanation: She died while acting as a human shield during the demolition of a Palestinian home in Gaza. You may watch the multiple award winning documentary Occupation 101 to verify this. Something tells me that you are going to argue whether or not the documentary is a reliable source. So let me preemptively respond. The documentary won 2 awards at the Beverly Hills Film Festival, another award at the Artist Film Festival, another at the East Lansing Film Festival, another at the Deadcenter Film Festival, and yet another at the New Orleans Film Festival. Not only that, but the documentary features numerous interviews with scholars, religious leaders, humanitarian workers, and NGO representatives from your rightful homeland, Israel.
"Witnesses state that she was caught underneath a bulldozer, while the IDF investigation reported that she died after being struck by falling debris." Explanation: Witnesses stated that she got caught underneath a bulldozer. Yet again, you may refer to Occupation 101 to see real-time footage of witnesses testifying to that. And as you know, the IDF investigation reported that she died after being struck by falling debris.
"Furthermore, while the investigation reported that the driver of the bulldozer could not see her, witnesses maintain that there was nothing to obscure the driver's view." Explanation: The investigation reported that the driver of the armored bulldozer could not see her. Witnesses maintained that there was nothing to obscure the driver's view. Obviously, there are disputes on this, and we are never going to know the truth, but it would be an insult to her memory to only include one perspective in the introduction.
"At the time of her death, Corrie was a student at the Evergreen State College in Washington." Explanation: She was indeed a student at Evergreen. Once again I am going to assume that you will insist that we include that she was there at the time of the Second Intifada, presumably to make it clear that she knowingly entered a war zone, and by extension, that she was at least in part (or perhaps fully, as some would have it) responsible for her own death. I believe this would fall under POV, no? If you must, include that somewhere in the body of the page, not as part of the opening remarks. Kazemzad ( talk) 10:45, 14 May 2012 (UTC)Kazemzad
The documentary won 2 awards at the Beverly Hills Film Festival, another award at the Artist Film Festival, another at the East Lansing Film Festival, another at the Deadcenter Film Festival, and yet another at the New Orleans Film Festival. Furthermore, Occupation 101 features numerous interviews with scholars (including former U.S. Ambassador to Israel Edward Walker, Phyllis Bennis from the U.S. Institute for Policy Studies, MIT professor Noam Chomsky, U.S. Congressman Paul Findley, Israeli historian Ilan Pappe, and Columbia professor Rashid Khalidi to name a few), religious leaders, humanitarian workers, and NGO representatives (including Israel human rights group B'Tselem) from Israel. The reliability of this documentary is not in question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VivaWikipedia ( talk • contribs) 06:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Information about the filmmakers are readily available online, and it is obvious that you failed to do a quick Google search to find this information before denouncing it as a non-RS. You may also find information about these festivals, and the renowned people this documentary features, online.
Your arbitrary decision that this documentary is not an RS without even checking the source is unacceptable.
VivaWikipedia (
talk)
06:56, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia, please remove that picture. Not only is it disrespectful, but there are children who use this site! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.115.10 ( talk) 13:26, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
What the bulldozer was doing at the time of her death is under dispute.
See for example:
Rachel Aliene Corrie (10 April 1979 – 16 March 2003) was an American pro-Palestinian human rights activist and member of the International Solidarity Movement (ISM) who was crushed to death by an Israel Defense Forces armored bulldozer
while attempting to prevent the demolition of Palestinian homes in Gaza.
Corrie and other pro-Palestinian activists had confronted two bulldozers and a small infantry contingent guarding the vehicles in an attempt to halt what the activists believed was an impending home demolition.
Rachel Aliene Corrie (10 April 1979 – 16 March 2003) was an American pro-Palestinian human rights activist and member of the International Solidarity Movement (ISM) who was crushed to death by an Israel Defense Forces armored bulldozer while protesting the demolition of Palestinian homes in Gaza.
It clearly needs to be in the lead section that she was protesting demolition of homes. Here is what The Guardian writes in its recent editorial: "Rachel Corrie died trying to protect a Palestinian home from demolition." [4] The vegetation nonsense/OR is irrelevant and not backed up by any reliable sources. JonFlaune ( talk) 01:17, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Rachel Corrie, 23, an activist with the International Solidarity Movement, was crushed to death as she tried to stop an Israeli army bulldozer from destroying Palestinian houses in Rafah, on the Egypt-Gaza border.
Activism, you removed this: with eyewitnesses asserting that the Israeli soldier operating the bulldozer deliberately ran over Corrie, and the Israeli government disputing this account. with an edit summary that said (This sentence isn't true - the driver, for one, said he didn't see her. Israeli court said it wasn't Israel's fault either. Also include info on the court - this is major news for a lead. Also, eyewitnesses are ISM members. "Disputed" is better for lea). I don't see the problem. The sentence doesn't say that all the eyewitnesses asserted that. It doesn't even say that it's true. It says simply that eyewitnesses asserted that. The sources it's cited to support the statement that eyewitnesses asserted that. It quotes one of them by name and refers to others. (Side note: I have no problem with mentioning the court's decision in the lead).— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 03:07, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Activism, as I said above, I have no problem with the information about the court decision being in the lead. However, courts don't "claim," they "find." If you wouldn't mind fixing this yourself, it'd be nice.— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 03:10, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Regarding this diff: Everything in the lead is supposed to already be in the article, so your reason for removing that material doesn't make any sense. By your reasoning we should have no lead. Would you care to explain here?— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 04:52, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Not only that but you busted a reference with your deletion; would you consider fixing it?— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 04:54, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
The reaction of Richard A. Falk will stay in the article. He is the competent UN authority for the area, and far more important than some obscure district court somewhere in Israel promoting the usual far-right extreme views held by many Israeli settlers. The only reason the claims of this court are notable in the first place is the strong international condemnation of them, e.g. from the United Nations, Amnesty International, and individuals such as former US Presidents (and Nobel Peace Prize laureates as well). JonFlaune ( talk) 14:08, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Note that these three supporters of the verdict have their support cited to themselves: However, journalist Brendan O'Neill,[98] HonestReporting[99] and Israeli newspapers[100] supported the court's verdict. This is fine in the first two cases, but in the third we really need a secondary source that says that "Israeli newspapers supported". And just finding a bunch of other newspapers that supported and sticking them on there as references won't do, since it would be drawing a conclusion from the evidence. That last clause is not supported by the source it's cited to.— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 06:07, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
This: harsh critic of Israel, is in no way supported by the source it's cited to. They call him a "vocal critic." "Vocal" doesn't equal "harsh."— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 06:46, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Does it really necessary for the lead better include some other details per WP:LEAD.-- Shrike ( talk)/ WP:RX 17:00, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
We had:
The IDF document "The Death of Rachel Corrie" made no mention of the pathologist's conclusion. However, according to Corrie's parents, the IDF has refused thus far to release the entire document.<:ref>Greg Barrett. Autopsy, military investigation differ on how activist died. Gannett News Service. June 11, 2003.</ref> better source needed
and now we have:
The classified IDF report made no mention of the pathologist's conclusion.<:ref>Greg Barrett. Autopsy, military investigation differ on how activist died. Gannett News Service. June 11, 2003.</ref>
As I said in my edit summary, the source cited doesn't actually say that the IDF wouldn't release the report, so I took that out. It does say:
A detailed Israeli Defense Forces document titled "The Death of Rachel Corrie" does not mention the pathologist's belief that a mechanical apparatus caused the death. The IDF presented the classified Israeli document to some members of Congress in April. The Corrie family gave it to Gannett News Service this week.
which I think supports the sentence as it now stands. Hence I took the better source tag off.— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 23:22, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
In the Memorial Events subsection we have this sentence:
To most Palestinians, everyone killed by the Israeli army is considered a shaheed (martyr),[citation needed] and hundreds of local residents came to express their condolences.
The statement is derived from this sentence in the source it's cited to:
Everyone killed by the Israeli occupation is considered a shaheed or martyr to the Palestinian cause and people want to pay their respects to the family.
On the one hand, it's possible to argue that the "most" in our article could be changed to "all" based on the source and that the CN tag could be removed because the source at the end of the sentence supports the statement. On the other hand, the statement seems transparently false to me. Also, the wikilink to shahid seems wrong either way. Not everyone in "the Palestinian cause" is even Muslim, and the link points to an article that discusses a Muslim concept. Personally I think that the whole sentence ought to be deleted as dubious. The paragraph reads fine without it, and worse with it independently of the first clause (like where did local residents come to? It's impossible to tell from the sentence). I'd take it out right now but I'm already at the 1RR. I would also replace the CN tag with a dubious tag, but can't for the same reason. I'm going to tag it, though. Thoughts?— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 04:15, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Well, since no one objected, I took the whole sentence out. It's my last edit on this article for today, though, so if you quietly thought that that sentence ought to be in there, go ahead and revert it.— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 03:27, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
It's a good thing to keep a record of things like this. In a striking example of POV pushing, User:Activism1234 removes the opinion of Amnesty International condemning the local Israeli courts actions, while adding the views of numerous far-right bloggers, fringe groups nowhere near Amnesty's notability and so on. The section is already much longer than other comparable sections and the far-right Israeli POV overrepresented already. He also adds irrelevant POV labelling of the United Nations Special Rapporteur, and disruptively removes the link to peace activist from the lead and sourced material (she is described as a peace activist or in comparable terms in all other Wikipedias, and only the far-right extremist fringe would object to this description). The ongoing harrassment of a victim of Israeli war crimes in her article after her death by Israeli IPs is shocking and disgusting. JonFlaune ( talk) 17:03, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
OK nevermind this drama - JonFlaune has been blocked again for 2 weeks for actions here and other bad behavior... -- Activism 1234 17:20, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Regarding this edit. Do images, in fact, have to come from wiki commons? That doesn't seem to be what the documentation for Template:External media says.— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 02:27, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
I know this is all accurate and stuff, what we have now:
The exact nature of her death and the actions of the bulldozer operator are disputed, with eyewitnesses saying that the Israeli soldier operating the bulldozer deliberately ran over Corrie, and the Israeli government says it was an accident since the bulldozer operator could not see her,[3][4][5] since she was kneeling down.[6][7]
But I think it's a ridiculous sentence purely from a syntactic point of view. I'd be happy to see it just gone from the lead, as it's rehearsing whole battles in the text from below, not summarizing the content of the article. Maybe if we take out the whole sentence with both sides of the dispute gone everyone will be happy and the lead won't be so weird? If not, maybe someone can figure out a way to say this in like three sentences instead of one? And can't we also take all the references out if we leave the information in? Obviously all the stuff is supported below. These lead sentences with a zillion references scream EDIT-WAR and look silly as well. I also think that the lead needs to be expanded, but in breadth rather than in depth, as currently seems to be its fate. But I suppose that that's an issue for another day. The only real question here is can we fix that sentence either by removing it or breaking it up?— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 04:44, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
The exact nature of her death and the actions of the bulldozer operator are disputed. Eyewitnesses assert that the Israeli soldier operating the bulldozer deliberately ran over Corrie. However, the Israeli government asserts that her death was an accident as the bulldozer operator could not see her,[3][4][5] since she was kneeling down at the time of her death.[6][7]
-- Activism 1234 05:03, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 |
Can someone familiar with Rachel Corrie look at this information about Rachel Corrie at List of The Evergreen State College people. -- JWSchmidt ( talk) 04:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
I removed the See Also section from this article, as it was only a list of other ISM activists killed by the IDF during the Second Intifada. It has since been replaced and removed several more times, so clearly not only is the supposed "long-standing" consensus to keep it not valid, but a new consensus needs to be reached. Therefore, I propose the following statement and RFC to reach a new consensus:
Various claims were made for the relevance of the section citing "patterns of behavior" by the IDF, or relevancy of the timeframe, but I feel it violates NPOV because it purports to show "a pattern of behavior by the IDF" that is not supported by any reliable sources. I would point out, though, that where the section is now is a little better than where it was: previously the names said "killed by the IDF" with no clarifier as to why they were listed (they were in warzones with the ISM), and now there is at least a rationale. However, I don't believe the rationale is correct: a victim list is appropriate for this type of article (as mnetioned in the earlier discussion directly above). So, I think there are two issues to be resolved here. One, is the section NPOV, and if it is, is it still appropriate for the article? MSJapan ( talk) 18:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
The users persistently tried to remove all of the see also entries (which is approved over the years by many other editors) all of a sudden, the current consensus is 3-3, so we advised them to take a RFC.
(Note: Kasaalan did not advise an RFC as he states - article edit history will clearly show I rm'ed and stated in summary that if it was put back, I would go to RFC. The initial statement by Kasaalan (which he has not attributesd to himself) is incorrect - "we" did nothing of the sort. MSJapan ( talk) 17:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC))
- But you may request other user opinions about this, since I do not consider listing other kills of IDF as POV. Kasaalan (talk) 21:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- Try to get a 3rd party review, or any other discussion before removing see also. Removing see also is POV in the first place. Kasaalan (talk) 06:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- Try to get one per any kind of actual discussion before we can step further. Kasaalan (talk) 07:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- Consensus may change, but it doesn't change just because 3 editors say so, for extreme changes like complete removal of all see also entries, you need a consensus by debate. Kasaalan (talk) 08:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- 16:58, 18 June 2009 MSJapan (talk | contribs) (62,482 bytes) (→See also: rm reinserted edit by contentious editor. Next time it goes in, this is going to RFC.)
Kasaalan, it has been a week and the tally is now 4 to 1, with only you expressing an opinion in the RfC that the "See also" list should remain unchanged. Do you think it's appropriate to start discussing how it can be best changed? Jclemens ( talk) 04:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
{{ IraqWarCorr}}
After letting this sit a bit, I still fail to see a direct relevance to the subject of this article via the inclusion of individual people who were killed some months before and after this incident. Therefore, I have rm'ed the individuals and left the link to ISM casualties, because it's at least passable as relevant. MSJapan ( talk) 17:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Where can I find a copy of the documentary "When killing is easy" by the BBC that is mentioned in the article? Coolgamer ( talk) 08:54, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
I have removed the following section from the article;
section starts
The Mike's Place Suicide Bombing was an attack on a bar in Tel Aviv, Israel. At 12:45 AM on April 30, 2003, 45 days after Corrie's death, a suicide bomber approached Mike's Place, a popular pub and live music venue next to the U.S. Embassy on the beach-front promenade in Tel Aviv, and blew himself up at the entrance to the bar, killing Dominique Hass, 29, Ran Baron, 23, and Yanai Weiss, 46, and wounding over 50. The attack was perpetrated by Asif Muhammad Hanif, 22, and Omar Khan Sharif, 27, both British citizens. [1] [2]
On 25 April, on the 40th day after Corrie's death, and 5 days before their suicide attack on Mike's Place, Hanif and Sharif joined ISM activists in Gaza and together conducted a memorial service and flower laying ceremony on the spot where Corrie died to mark the official end of the 40 day mourning period for Corrie according to the Muslim tradition.
"Human rights sources told the Guardian that Sharif and his accomplice Asif Mohammed Hanif, arrived at the offices of the International Solidarity Movement in Rafah and made contact with its members just days before the bombing." “One activist, who asked not to be named, recognized the pair when they were shown on Israeli TV. He spoke to them last Friday at the spot where American human shield Rachel Corrie was killed by an Israeli bulldozer.” [3]
"The suicide attack is thought to be the first by foreign sympathizers since the start of the current uprising in 2000. Israeli police had said they thought the two men arrived from Gaza a short time before the attack.” “Raphael Cohen, an activist for the International Solidarity Movement (ISM), which carries out what it call 'non-violent direct action' against Israeli occupation of Gaza and the West Bank, said he spoke to the pair on 25 April. Mr Cohen confirmed he met the men, who were given a cup of tea at the ISM office.” “On 16 March ISM activist Rachel Corrie, a 23-year-old American, was killed by an Israeli bulldozer. After a 15 minute chat, the three men joined a group of 20 people to lay flowers at a nearby site where the activist was killed” [4]
"...British suicide bombers had attended an ISM memorial on Friday, 25 April, in honour of Rachel Corrie, an activist killed by Israeli forces. ISM last night said activists Hanif and Sharif appeared to be 'typical Brits'. 'They were in our apartment for 15 minutes, then spent 10 minutes at the ceremony,' said 20-year-old American ISM activist Lora Gordon." "We were just happy to have people come to commemorate Rachel.” [5]
section ends
I do not think that the appearance of these suicide bombers at an event relating to the death of Rachel Corrie is of any import either to the subject or to their later attack on Israeli citizens. They likely attended various events and places relating to their sympathies, which are not commented upon, and they were also likely to have carried out their attack whether or not Rachel Corrie had died. Under the circumstances I do not believe there is any direct connection between the two events and individuals, and quite likely some disparity (Rachel Corrie acting in non violent/passive obstruction, and the attackers using terrorism and murder). If, however, it is decided to return the content then it can be copied from the above. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 09:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
I disagree with the removal of the section on the Mike's Place Suicide Bombing. This section documents, with verifiable reliable impartial sources, a flower laying ceremony held on the spot Corrie was killed, by people who personal knew her and personally witnessed her death, on the 40th day after her death to mark the official end of Muslim mourning for Corrie. Can you explain to me how this particular memorial event is so irrelevant that it must be deleted from the article but sections in this article on “memorial events” and “artistic tributes” held years later on the other side of the world by people who did not know her are so much more relevant that they should be included? It is quite obvious that the only reason LessHeard had this particular memorial ceremony and only this memorial ceremony removed from the article is because the suicide bombers attended and laid flowers on her death site and it looks bad for her hagiography. Secondly, LessHeard has determined, without evidence to back up his claim, that there is absolutely no connection what so ever between the fact that in the days following Corrie's death these two British Muslim extremists suddenly left their families, jumped on a plane, flew from England to the middle-east, then traveled all the way to Gaza to attend a memorial and lay flowers on the death site to mark end of the 40 day Muslim mourning period for Corrie, an American who died engaging in suicidally dangerous activity, and then 5 days later they themselves committed suicide by blowing up a pub next door to the US Embassy in Tel-Aviv, killing 3 and wounding 50. Now the average person would certainly assume some kind of connection but no, there is no connection at all according to LessHeard. LessHeard's only support for his claims of there being no connection seems to be a paranormal ability to enter into the minds of Hanif and Sharif, the long dead suicide bombers and determine that “they were also likely to have carried out their attack whether or not Rachel Corrie had died”. So LessHeard has fabricated a justification for deleteing my verified sourced contribution out his own imagination with no evidence at all.
If or if not the suicide bombing, and the murders of Dominique Hass, Ran Baron, and Yanai Weiss, and wounding over 50 others commited by Hanif and Sharif, who laid flowers and prayed at Corrie's “martyrdom” site just days before was intended as an act of revenge for Corrie's death, and is thus very relevent to Corrie, people should be allowed to make their own minds up about. Judo Nimh ( talk) 19:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)Judo Nimh
But, LessHeard did not claim that the bulk of what I posted was original research, which is the very well documented fact that the bombers spent time in the ISAM offices in Gaza, attended the 40th day end of mourning for Corrie and laid flowers for her a few days before committing the massacre in Tel-Aviv next to the American Embassy, murdering 3 civilians sitting in a bar, wounding 50. The only WP:BURDEN I need to meet on this account is the burden of "a reliable, published source using an inline citation." I provided 3 reliable sources, from the the anti-Israeli Guardian, and the BBC, to establish this. All of these sources (and I could add ten more sources if you had the room) specifically mention Corrie by name and mention the bombers attendance at the Corrie memorial just before they went on the attack. All these sources felt this was a significant connected event or else they would not have mentioned it. You are throwing up a smokscreen by claiming these events are not connected, even though the sources I used have connected them. Behind this specious " not connected" objection to having this in the article is LessHeard's real objection which is his applying NPOV values to the article when he claimed “Corrie acting in non violent/passive obstruction, and the attackers using terrorism and murder” shows the events must be disconnected. Now actually the ISM group that sent this young girl to the front lines of a war to die is not a group solely dedicated to non-violence so even on this score LessHeard's argument falls short.“Sharif, 27, was last seen in Derby just over a month ago.” [6]
Judo Nimh ( talk) 16:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Judo Nimh“A closer look reveals that the leadership sees volunteers not as pacifists but as combatants on the Palestinian side. In a 2002 article, the movement's co-founders, Adam Shapiro, a New York Jew, and Huwaida Arraf, a Palestinian Christian, urged: "The Palestinian resistance must take on a variety of characteristics, both non-violent and violent."Mr Shapiro and Miss Arraf predicted that "yes, people will get killed and injured" and suggested that the casualties "would be considered shaheed", using the Arabic term for martyrs applied to suicide bombers.In its mission statement, the movement says that, for Palestinians, "armed struggle" is "their right". Activists have shown their hatred for the Jewish state.” [7]
Judo Nimh ( talk) 17:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Judo Nimh“There are graffiti in Gaza in her honour - one slogan reads: 'Rachel was a US citizen with Palestinian blood' - there is a picture of her on the website of the terrorist group, an honour usually reserved for suicide bombers.” “Her death serves me more than it served her,' said one activist at a Hamas funeral yesterday.” “Her death will bring more attention than the other 2,000 martyrs.” “ In Rafah, Arafat's political party Fatah held a wake for 'Retchell Corie', attended by representatives of Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the Al-Aqsa Martyrs brigade, among others.” “ It is the first time an American has been adopted as a Palestinian martyr. The posters of Corrie that began to appear on buildings and lampposts look incongruous beside pictures of the hundreds of Arab men ..“ [8]
Does this ordering of the referenced facts make the connection clearer ?
1)The founders of the ISM, the group that sent Corrie to die, published an article a year before Corrie's death titled Why Nonviolent Resistance is Important for the Palestinian Intifada: A Response to Ramzy Baroud, published Tuesday, January 29 2002, By Huwaida Arraf and Adam Shapiro in The Palestine Chronicle.
"We do not advocate adopting the methods of Gandhi or Martin Luther King, Jr",
"Let us reiterate, we accept that Palestinians have a right to resist with arms”,
"Hamas claims it has many men ready to be suicide bombers – we advocate that these men offer themselves as martyrs by standing on a settler road and blocking it from traffic. This is no less of a jihad. This is no less noble than carrying out a suicide operation. And we are certain that if these men were killed during such an action, they would be considered shaheed Allah",
"The Palestinian resistance must take on a variety of characteristics – both nonviolent and violent. But most importantly it must develop a strategy involving both aspects. No other successful nonviolent movement was able to achieve what it did without a concurrent violent movement – in India militants attacked British outposts and interests while Gandhi conducted his campaign, while the Black Panther Movement and its earlier incarnations existed side-by-side with the Civil Rights Movement in the United States.",
To be sure these quotes were not cherry picked by the Telegraph, here is a link to the original paper in the archives of the Colorado Campaign for Middle East Peace, a pro-palestinian group: http://www.ccmep.org/hotnews/why012902.html
2)Corrie was killed, just exactly as the founders of the ISM had predicted a year earlier, and again, exactly as the founders of the ISM had a year earlier predicted, attained the status of the highest level of “holy martyr” or “shaheed” equal only to the level of a suicide bomber. The groups Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Al Aksa Martyrs Brigade, each one of whom by that time had claimed responsibility for numerous suicide bombings on Israeli civilians, placed her picture on their web site in a place of honor among dead suicide bombers, posters were placed with her picture on street corners among other posters of dead suicide bombers and Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Al Aksa Martyrs Brigade all attended a wake for Corrie in Gaza organized by Fatah.
3)The suicide bomber who attacked Mike's Place suddenly up and abandoned his well-established life and family in Derby, England and headed for the middle east in the weeks following Corrie's death.
4)Hanif and Sharif, the British suicide bombers, made their way to Gaza to attend the memorial service held on the 40th day after Corrie's death, a significant day in Islamic tradition marking official the end of mourning. Hanif and Sharif were seen by numerous witness laying flowers and praying at the site of her death or “martydom”.
5)I have not posted references for this but I have found several showing that revenge attacks by Islamic extremists to revenge the death of a "shaheed" are traditionaly timed to correspond to the period around the 40th day official end of Islamic mourning.
6)Hanif and Sharif, the British suicide bombers, then made their way directly from the Corrie memorial service to Tel Aviv, and there attacked the Mike's Place bar next door to the American Embassy, and murdered Dominique Hass, Ran Baron, and Yanai Weiss, and wounded over 50 other civilians.
These are an obviously connected series of events, starting with Corrie's death and ending with the deaths of Dominique Hass, Ran Baron, and Yanai Weiss. Judo Nimh ( talk) 23:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Judo Nimh
I should have said these are an obviously connected series of events, starting with Huwaida Arraf and Adam Shapiro, founders of the ISM, who sent Corrie to her death, original equating of the "nobility" of “jihad” by "suicide bombing" and suicide by Israeli vehicle blocking and their "advocacy" of "offering" oneself up as a "martyr" by blocking Israeli vehicles, which obviously led to Corrie's actual death in just exactly the manner "advoctated" by the founders of the ISM a year earlier in the Arraf Shapiro article, leading to Corrie's attainment of “shaheed allah”status among the Palestinian suicide bomber groups, again just exactly as the Arraf Shapiro article a year earlier predicted it would, and which finally ended with the murders of Dominique Hass, Ran Baron, and Yanai Weiss by British suicide bombers seen being inspired by Corrie's memory just before the attack.
Since it was suggested by LessHeard that the Telegraph cherry picked this article, I will add more quotes from the article by Huwaida Arraf and Adam Shapiro, founders of the ISM, who sent this young girl to die, to show that the Telegraph actual undersold the damage this article could do to the ISM's reputation as non-violence advocates, also noting this article published a year before Corrie died strangely blueprints latter events and the use of Corrie's death to "present a story".
“First and foremost, there is no guarantee that the use of nonviolence as a strategic element of resistance as part of a larger Intifada would end the occupation, deliver justice or resolve the conflict. It is simply a strategy, one that can be employed to attain specific, pre-determined goals."
“nonviolence ... is something that can be manipulated to present a story, a case or an image” “What can this strategy hope to achieve as its goals? ...the adoption of nonviolent direct action resistance would change the image of the Palestinian struggle around the world. ...in changing the image, more foreigners would be emboldened and empowered to speak out and question their governments' policies vis-à-vis supporting Israel. ...Additionally, more foreign civilians would be encouraged to come to work with Palestinians in their legitimate struggle against occupation and injustice, thereby internationalizing the Intifada and bringing more resources to bear on pressuring Israel and the international community.... ”
Judo Nimh ( talk) 03:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)Judo Nimh
whereas in direct contradiction the paper written a year before her death by Shapiro and Arraf, the founders of the ISM, the group that sent her to die specifically states"she had studied methods of Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King with care.[14] Corrie wrote to her mother, "The vast majority of Palestinians right now, as far as I can tell, are engaged in Gandhian nonviolent resistance."
So in this specific case where the exact subject mater was already raised in the article by quote from Corrie's own writings, showing this was a key motivating factor in this youngsters mind, critical to understanding her thoughts, it makes it relevant to show a verified direct quote from Shapiro and Arraf, the leaders of the ISM that sent her to die, that sits in direct contradiction to her words. Judo Nimh ( talk) 01:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)Judo Nimh"We do not advocate adopting the methods of Gandhi or Martin Luther King, Jr".
If we going to discuss intentions of ISM and IDF we can argue for years, you may try creating a criticism of ISM section to develop your case, yet another user also may argue IDF didn't release its report on killing of Rachel Corrie publicly, therefore they are guilty. Or the driver of a very slow vehicle like D9R was aware of the precence of Rachel, and could easily be stopped against proper safety jacket Rachel was wearing, especially there are other 2 armored cars outside instructing driver with radio talk. Our jobs our not OR SYNTH by trimmed arguments like "We do not advocate adopting the methods of Gandhi or Martin Luther King, Jr" therefore ISM sent Rachel Corrie to die.
Also trimming quotes are highly misleading
- While we do not advocate adopting the methods of Gandhi or Martin Luther King, Jr., we do believe that learning from their experience and informing a Palestinian movement with this knowledge can be quite valuable and of great utility. Contrary to Mr. Baroud's claim, there is no misunderstanding about the nature of Israeli occupation or violence, not by Palestinian intellectuals, not by activists and not by those who advocate nonviolence. Additionally, Mr. Baroud uses faulty logic when he claims that choosing nonviolence implies that use of violence is a choice, never mind a strategic one. ...
- Allow us to interject with an example to explain. Violent resistance is when an armed Palestinian fighter shoots an Israeli who is oppressing him. The Palestinian fighter claims his rights, but in reality does nothing to achieve them. Another dead Israeli does not deliver a single right to a Palestinian. Alternatively, Palestinian Birzeit University students who march through a militarily-occupied area under curfew on their way to school, who confront soldiers and absorb their teargas, sound grenades and rubber bullets, are attempting to exercise their right to education and to move freely. While they may not succeed, their effort is one aimed at directly achieving rights.
- The fighter, on the other hand, has used his means (the gun) to achieve his end (a dead Israeli or instilling greater fear among all Israelis) – neither rights nor justice nor freedom are a factor in this equation. The students, acting together in a disciplined manner, are directly acting in a way to achieve their rights.
- Let us reiterate, we accept that Palestinians have a right to resist with arms, as they are an occupied people upon whom force and violence is being used. The Geneva Conventions accept that armed resistance is legitimate for an occupied people, and there is no doubt that this right cannot be denied. But that does not mean that this right must be utilized. Regardless of what is a right and what is not, the elements that will make any change in the situation are strategy and tactics. To date, the use of violence as part of the resistance has not evinced a strategy. Not in operations against the military or settlers; not in operations inside the Green Line. The choice of using nonviolence would not be effective either if it was not organized strategically.
I didn't read the discussions yet however we may keep some info on suicide bombing in a summary manner without overrating it as UNDUE and COATRACK. After I read discussions I may comment more properly.
Suicide Bombing controversy
On April 30, 2003 at The Mike's Place bar next to the U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv, a suicide bomber approached the bar and blew himself up at the entrance 45 days after Corrie's death, killing 3 people while wounding over 50. After a 15 minute chat at ISM office, perpetrators, Asif Muhammad Hanif, 22, and Omar Khan Sharif, 27, who are both British citizens, [9] [10] with 1 other man, joined the ISM memorial on Friday, 25 April, for 10 minutes, in honour of Rachel Corrie, with a group of 20 people to lay flowers at a nearby site where the activist was killed by Israeli forces. [11] ISM said activists Hanif and Sharif appeared to be 'typical Brits'.
Any longer, unbalanced WP:COATRACK is not required. The text still may be UNDUE, I tried to neutralize the case. Also Mike's Place suicide bombing not much of a good reference like mikesplacebars.com is. Kasaalan ( talk) 11:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
The source does not indicate that the bombers knew Corrie, nor that they were members of ISM, nor that their criminal actions were in any way influenced by the life or death of Corrie. So what is the purpose of this text? I can only think of one purpose: slander by association. We might as well list all the crimes committed by any persons known to have spoken well of Corrie, or to have attended the play written in her honor. That would be just as strong an association. Zero talk 13:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
I also agree that the section is clearly inappropriate. It is clearly OR, non-neutral and undue and I do not see a consensus to include it. John Z ( talk) 22:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
There are reliable sources that seem to believe the connection is notable. The reliable sources are not noting every crime comitted by anyone who ever spoke well of Corrie; if they did, we would as well. IronDuke 02:16, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
comment: i agree that this is undue here. the sources used do mention corrie (this time) but this is relevant to the bombing article, not here. untwirl( talk) 05:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
of the three sources provided in this section: one is a wikipedia article, another is the bar website (which doesn't mention corrie at all) and the third is a bbc article that doesn't name the "activist" that the memorial was for.
the entire section should go for not only undue weight and irrelevance, but also the fact that the sources are either unreliable or dont support the paragraph. untwirl( talk) 02:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I looked at this article yesterday for the first time in awhile, and saw most of the images have gone. We had images of Corrie in front of the bulldozer, and images of her after she was hurt. I've looked through the history but there's too much to be able to see what was removed and why. Does anyone know? SlimVirgin talk| contribs 22:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Is still on comomons at File:Rachel Corrie crushed by bulldozer.jpg.
Jclemens (
talk)
02:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
you must have missed the discussion that has been going on for the last week or so on the talk page regarding the unreliable sources which don't even mention corrie by name. please review it and self-revert. thanks. untwirl( talk) 20:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi. The removed content ("Mikes Place" bombing) is because non of the available references now mention the bombers attending the Rachel Corrie memorial. If other sources can be found - hopefully permanent ones - then the text can be included, but currently there are no cites. I should be grateful if you could self revert. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 20:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
this source] provided by ironduke also ties together tom hurndall's shooting. his name should be returned to the see also section. untwirl( talk) 21:02, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
This article reads like it was written by the Palestinian public relations department. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LisaBenton ( talk • contribs) 00:39, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Rachel_Corrie&oldid=316302644 http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Rachel_Corrie&diff=prev&oldid=316302644
I undid the removal of wikilinks per discussion. You may remove unnecessary wikilinks manually if you feel so. I hid the mike's suicide bombing section, according to the result of debate you may delete or unhide the section. I revised, neutralised and expanded Mike's Place suicide bombing article with additons and details, including ISM response. Kasaalan ( talk) 15:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Ex post facto literally means subsequently ex post facto law is a law term, though wikipedia has a redirect for ex post facto. Kasaalan ( talk) 00:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
There is a discussion of the much-circulated photo of Ms. Corrie, without a reference or link to that photo. http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/pictures/rachel-corrie-flag-01.jpg - I'd suggest it should be added.
Styopa ( talk) 13:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Just found this other picture in an article about Corrie. It mentions it is a picture of Corrie moments before she was killed:
http://www.clarin.com/mundo/Ultima-imagen-corrie-minutos-excavadora_CLAIMA20100605_0019_4.jpg
The article states that a street would be named after Rachael Corrie and it never happened. That is untrue. A street was in fact named after her in Ramallah. Please check this link: http://palsolidarity.org/2010/03/11801/
http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=171156
Mzcastro ( talk) 04:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
By the way the article might be a Good Article as I came by lots of less detailed articles become GA. What is your opinion about it. Kasaalan ( talk) 22:56, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Israel was forced to pay out up $2 million for each of two other observers/film-makers killed by Israeli forces in Gaza around this time, James Miller and Tom Hurndall. Surely worth a mention in the article. Perhaps it has to be kept locked to keep information like this out. 80.40.225.228 ( talk) 14:51, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
--This entire section, beginning with its inflammatory and partisan title, is political opinion suitable for a forum and not a Wikipedia talk page. It should be deleted in its entirety. I would do so myself if I had more status as a Wiki editor. Lacking such credentials, I’d likely be charged with “vandalism.” I hope a highly placed Wikipedian will do so instead. Sell Israeli war bonds or start an anti-Semitic pogrom as you please: just not here! HistoryBuff14 ( talk) 15:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
A 1200-ton cargo ship being used to run the Gaza blockade as been renamed. Geo8rge ( talk) 18:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
I want to add very important information to this article but i can't! FIX IT! ` 22:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.209.204.242 ( talk)
Hey all, I think the picture at the top really ought to be one of Corrie's face. It's odd having the main picture be one of her back. Could someone possibly put a new one in? Thanks, NickCT ( talk) 13:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
I changed it into "Killed while trying to block an Israeli armored bulldozer in disputed circumstences" since there are two sides or descriptions to the events:
Therefore I changed it to "Killed while trying to block an Israeli armored bulldozer in disputed circumstences" while not writing only one side's version. MathKnight 15:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
The current text in the infobox reads "Killed while trying to block an Israeli armored bulldozer". However, Rachel Corrie was not simply killed "while trying to block [the bulldozer]", she was killed by the bulldozer. There is near unanimous agreement on this in reliable sources, including Israeli sources:
Cs32en Talk to me 16:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
The article indicates that no street was ever named for her, but I suspect that info is out of date since several sources indicate that this was done earlier this year. For example: http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/dailyweekly/2010/03/palestinian_streets_new_name_i.php
Anyone able to edit this article that wants to include this information, or at least remove the inaccurate sentence from the article?
143.45.64.72 ( talk) 00:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
This piece badly needs some additional info. Corrie was crushed by a bulldozer. There are two versions one that she was protecting the house of a local pharmacist from demolition. The other was that the Israelis were clearing scrub near a tunnel entrance. It is not clear which is true. The location was near Rafah but how close to the border. Was it less that 100m. Were there any tunnels nearby. Did the Israelis bulldoze houses in the area. The reason why Wikipedia is good is that it answers these type of questions - but not in this case. I cant see shrub but I can't see the house either. I am none the wiser as to what actually happened from this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.28.52.230 ( talk) 03:36, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
The excuse to register a account is invalid, because only accounts who are months old , hundreds of edits AND are confirmed by admins are allowed to edit. So therefore unlock this page now ! -- 93.82.8.84 ( talk) 07:48, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
I don´t have to be a sockpuppet of this user, however I agree with that. -- Ftsw ( talk) 11:40, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
This section appears to be a synthesis of quotes from activists which could support the criticism mentioned in the title but the refs do not at first sight to have been reporting such criticsm, rather reporting what the activists have said. The references provide relevant background for the article but we may need to present them differently, or find a reference which reports this criticism more directly. Comments? -- Mirokado ( talk) 02:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Rachel Corrie is herself not notable. She never received any reliable coverage before her death. She is notable for her death- nothing more. Thus, she is not deserving of a Wikipedia article. I think the name should be changed to Death of Rachel Corrie. 140.247.141.137 ( talk) 23:27, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
The text added to this article on the ship "Spirit of Rachel Corrie" is inappropriate. For an encyclopedia article about Corrie, a blow-by-blow account of the ship's activities is excessive and unnecessary. Second, the account presented here is a primary source - text messages from the ship - with no secondary sources putting the messages in context. As an encyclopedia, we can't use a primary source account without secondary sources that interpret that secondary source. Please see Wikipedia:No original research. GabrielF ( talk) 00:52, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
This could be useful
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jul/11/corries-accuse-israelis-death -- Aa2-2004 ( talk) 07:53, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Throughout the article, there is a constant rehashing of two controversial claims as fact: 1) That the bulldozer's were demolishing houses. 2) That Corrie was killed by the bulldozer rather than by falling debris. The official Israeli investigation (the only thorough investigation carried out) claimed that both of these were false. Therefore these should not be stated as fact but rather as disputed opinion. Wikieditorpro ( talk) 14:50, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
In a French film by the Israeli-French filmmaker Simone Bitton of 2008 an Israeli Army spokeswoman claimed that Rachel Corrie had no direct contact with the bulldozer. She was right, according to all eyewitnesses from both sides. It can also be rightly claimed that Hitler never personally poured any cyclone gas into any of the gas chambers at Auschwitz. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ontologix ( talk • contribs) 22:37, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
I revised the previous version a bit to cater it more to your liking. I fail to see what needs explaining, but I will now dissect each statement in the opening paragraph.
"Rachel Aliene Corrie (April 10, 1979 – March 16, 2003) was an American member of the International Solidarity Movement (ISM)." Explanation: She was a member of the International Solidarity Movement.
"She died while acting as a human shield during the demolition of a Palestinian home in Gaza." Explanation: She died while acting as a human shield during the demolition of a Palestinian home in Gaza. You may watch the multiple award winning documentary Occupation 101 to verify this. Something tells me that you are going to argue whether or not the documentary is a reliable source. So let me preemptively respond. The documentary won 2 awards at the Beverly Hills Film Festival, another award at the Artist Film Festival, another at the East Lansing Film Festival, another at the Deadcenter Film Festival, and yet another at the New Orleans Film Festival. Not only that, but the documentary features numerous interviews with scholars, religious leaders, humanitarian workers, and NGO representatives from your rightful homeland, Israel.
"Witnesses state that she was caught underneath a bulldozer, while the IDF investigation reported that she died after being struck by falling debris." Explanation: Witnesses stated that she got caught underneath a bulldozer. Yet again, you may refer to Occupation 101 to see real-time footage of witnesses testifying to that. And as you know, the IDF investigation reported that she died after being struck by falling debris.
"Furthermore, while the investigation reported that the driver of the bulldozer could not see her, witnesses maintain that there was nothing to obscure the driver's view." Explanation: The investigation reported that the driver of the armored bulldozer could not see her. Witnesses maintained that there was nothing to obscure the driver's view. Obviously, there are disputes on this, and we are never going to know the truth, but it would be an insult to her memory to only include one perspective in the introduction.
"At the time of her death, Corrie was a student at the Evergreen State College in Washington." Explanation: She was indeed a student at Evergreen. Once again I am going to assume that you will insist that we include that she was there at the time of the Second Intifada, presumably to make it clear that she knowingly entered a war zone, and by extension, that she was at least in part (or perhaps fully, as some would have it) responsible for her own death. I believe this would fall under POV, no? If you must, include that somewhere in the body of the page, not as part of the opening remarks. Kazemzad ( talk) 10:45, 14 May 2012 (UTC)Kazemzad
The documentary won 2 awards at the Beverly Hills Film Festival, another award at the Artist Film Festival, another at the East Lansing Film Festival, another at the Deadcenter Film Festival, and yet another at the New Orleans Film Festival. Furthermore, Occupation 101 features numerous interviews with scholars (including former U.S. Ambassador to Israel Edward Walker, Phyllis Bennis from the U.S. Institute for Policy Studies, MIT professor Noam Chomsky, U.S. Congressman Paul Findley, Israeli historian Ilan Pappe, and Columbia professor Rashid Khalidi to name a few), religious leaders, humanitarian workers, and NGO representatives (including Israel human rights group B'Tselem) from Israel. The reliability of this documentary is not in question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VivaWikipedia ( talk • contribs) 06:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Information about the filmmakers are readily available online, and it is obvious that you failed to do a quick Google search to find this information before denouncing it as a non-RS. You may also find information about these festivals, and the renowned people this documentary features, online.
Your arbitrary decision that this documentary is not an RS without even checking the source is unacceptable.
VivaWikipedia (
talk)
06:56, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia, please remove that picture. Not only is it disrespectful, but there are children who use this site! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.115.10 ( talk) 13:26, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
What the bulldozer was doing at the time of her death is under dispute.
See for example:
Rachel Aliene Corrie (10 April 1979 – 16 March 2003) was an American pro-Palestinian human rights activist and member of the International Solidarity Movement (ISM) who was crushed to death by an Israel Defense Forces armored bulldozer
while attempting to prevent the demolition of Palestinian homes in Gaza.
Corrie and other pro-Palestinian activists had confronted two bulldozers and a small infantry contingent guarding the vehicles in an attempt to halt what the activists believed was an impending home demolition.
Rachel Aliene Corrie (10 April 1979 – 16 March 2003) was an American pro-Palestinian human rights activist and member of the International Solidarity Movement (ISM) who was crushed to death by an Israel Defense Forces armored bulldozer while protesting the demolition of Palestinian homes in Gaza.
It clearly needs to be in the lead section that she was protesting demolition of homes. Here is what The Guardian writes in its recent editorial: "Rachel Corrie died trying to protect a Palestinian home from demolition." [4] The vegetation nonsense/OR is irrelevant and not backed up by any reliable sources. JonFlaune ( talk) 01:17, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Rachel Corrie, 23, an activist with the International Solidarity Movement, was crushed to death as she tried to stop an Israeli army bulldozer from destroying Palestinian houses in Rafah, on the Egypt-Gaza border.
Activism, you removed this: with eyewitnesses asserting that the Israeli soldier operating the bulldozer deliberately ran over Corrie, and the Israeli government disputing this account. with an edit summary that said (This sentence isn't true - the driver, for one, said he didn't see her. Israeli court said it wasn't Israel's fault either. Also include info on the court - this is major news for a lead. Also, eyewitnesses are ISM members. "Disputed" is better for lea). I don't see the problem. The sentence doesn't say that all the eyewitnesses asserted that. It doesn't even say that it's true. It says simply that eyewitnesses asserted that. The sources it's cited to support the statement that eyewitnesses asserted that. It quotes one of them by name and refers to others. (Side note: I have no problem with mentioning the court's decision in the lead).— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 03:07, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Activism, as I said above, I have no problem with the information about the court decision being in the lead. However, courts don't "claim," they "find." If you wouldn't mind fixing this yourself, it'd be nice.— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 03:10, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Regarding this diff: Everything in the lead is supposed to already be in the article, so your reason for removing that material doesn't make any sense. By your reasoning we should have no lead. Would you care to explain here?— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 04:52, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Not only that but you busted a reference with your deletion; would you consider fixing it?— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 04:54, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
The reaction of Richard A. Falk will stay in the article. He is the competent UN authority for the area, and far more important than some obscure district court somewhere in Israel promoting the usual far-right extreme views held by many Israeli settlers. The only reason the claims of this court are notable in the first place is the strong international condemnation of them, e.g. from the United Nations, Amnesty International, and individuals such as former US Presidents (and Nobel Peace Prize laureates as well). JonFlaune ( talk) 14:08, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Note that these three supporters of the verdict have their support cited to themselves: However, journalist Brendan O'Neill,[98] HonestReporting[99] and Israeli newspapers[100] supported the court's verdict. This is fine in the first two cases, but in the third we really need a secondary source that says that "Israeli newspapers supported". And just finding a bunch of other newspapers that supported and sticking them on there as references won't do, since it would be drawing a conclusion from the evidence. That last clause is not supported by the source it's cited to.— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 06:07, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
This: harsh critic of Israel, is in no way supported by the source it's cited to. They call him a "vocal critic." "Vocal" doesn't equal "harsh."— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 06:46, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Does it really necessary for the lead better include some other details per WP:LEAD.-- Shrike ( talk)/ WP:RX 17:00, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
We had:
The IDF document "The Death of Rachel Corrie" made no mention of the pathologist's conclusion. However, according to Corrie's parents, the IDF has refused thus far to release the entire document.<:ref>Greg Barrett. Autopsy, military investigation differ on how activist died. Gannett News Service. June 11, 2003.</ref> better source needed
and now we have:
The classified IDF report made no mention of the pathologist's conclusion.<:ref>Greg Barrett. Autopsy, military investigation differ on how activist died. Gannett News Service. June 11, 2003.</ref>
As I said in my edit summary, the source cited doesn't actually say that the IDF wouldn't release the report, so I took that out. It does say:
A detailed Israeli Defense Forces document titled "The Death of Rachel Corrie" does not mention the pathologist's belief that a mechanical apparatus caused the death. The IDF presented the classified Israeli document to some members of Congress in April. The Corrie family gave it to Gannett News Service this week.
which I think supports the sentence as it now stands. Hence I took the better source tag off.— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 23:22, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
In the Memorial Events subsection we have this sentence:
To most Palestinians, everyone killed by the Israeli army is considered a shaheed (martyr),[citation needed] and hundreds of local residents came to express their condolences.
The statement is derived from this sentence in the source it's cited to:
Everyone killed by the Israeli occupation is considered a shaheed or martyr to the Palestinian cause and people want to pay their respects to the family.
On the one hand, it's possible to argue that the "most" in our article could be changed to "all" based on the source and that the CN tag could be removed because the source at the end of the sentence supports the statement. On the other hand, the statement seems transparently false to me. Also, the wikilink to shahid seems wrong either way. Not everyone in "the Palestinian cause" is even Muslim, and the link points to an article that discusses a Muslim concept. Personally I think that the whole sentence ought to be deleted as dubious. The paragraph reads fine without it, and worse with it independently of the first clause (like where did local residents come to? It's impossible to tell from the sentence). I'd take it out right now but I'm already at the 1RR. I would also replace the CN tag with a dubious tag, but can't for the same reason. I'm going to tag it, though. Thoughts?— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 04:15, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Well, since no one objected, I took the whole sentence out. It's my last edit on this article for today, though, so if you quietly thought that that sentence ought to be in there, go ahead and revert it.— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 03:27, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
It's a good thing to keep a record of things like this. In a striking example of POV pushing, User:Activism1234 removes the opinion of Amnesty International condemning the local Israeli courts actions, while adding the views of numerous far-right bloggers, fringe groups nowhere near Amnesty's notability and so on. The section is already much longer than other comparable sections and the far-right Israeli POV overrepresented already. He also adds irrelevant POV labelling of the United Nations Special Rapporteur, and disruptively removes the link to peace activist from the lead and sourced material (she is described as a peace activist or in comparable terms in all other Wikipedias, and only the far-right extremist fringe would object to this description). The ongoing harrassment of a victim of Israeli war crimes in her article after her death by Israeli IPs is shocking and disgusting. JonFlaune ( talk) 17:03, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
OK nevermind this drama - JonFlaune has been blocked again for 2 weeks for actions here and other bad behavior... -- Activism 1234 17:20, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Regarding this edit. Do images, in fact, have to come from wiki commons? That doesn't seem to be what the documentation for Template:External media says.— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 02:27, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
I know this is all accurate and stuff, what we have now:
The exact nature of her death and the actions of the bulldozer operator are disputed, with eyewitnesses saying that the Israeli soldier operating the bulldozer deliberately ran over Corrie, and the Israeli government says it was an accident since the bulldozer operator could not see her,[3][4][5] since she was kneeling down.[6][7]
But I think it's a ridiculous sentence purely from a syntactic point of view. I'd be happy to see it just gone from the lead, as it's rehearsing whole battles in the text from below, not summarizing the content of the article. Maybe if we take out the whole sentence with both sides of the dispute gone everyone will be happy and the lead won't be so weird? If not, maybe someone can figure out a way to say this in like three sentences instead of one? And can't we also take all the references out if we leave the information in? Obviously all the stuff is supported below. These lead sentences with a zillion references scream EDIT-WAR and look silly as well. I also think that the lead needs to be expanded, but in breadth rather than in depth, as currently seems to be its fate. But I suppose that that's an issue for another day. The only real question here is can we fix that sentence either by removing it or breaking it up?— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 04:44, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
The exact nature of her death and the actions of the bulldozer operator are disputed. Eyewitnesses assert that the Israeli soldier operating the bulldozer deliberately ran over Corrie. However, the Israeli government asserts that her death was an accident as the bulldozer operator could not see her,[3][4][5] since she was kneeling down at the time of her death.[6][7]
-- Activism 1234 05:03, 4 September 2012 (UTC)