![]() | 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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
I've done a general copy edit; moved the Cause of Death section to the Responsibility for section to improve flow; and quoted from the Guardian article on the IDF report. I removed the sentence at the end that said the Israeli govt. report has not been seen by Corrie's parents and that therefore the Wikipedia article is based on secondary sources, as it didn't seem to make sense. Corrie's parents would be secondary sources too. I also deleted the bullet points in the section describing her activities as they seemed POV, and just listed them in the normal way.
The Joseph Smith statement: Is this a verbatim eye-witness statement? If it is, it shouldn't have an electronic intifada link in it. It should probably be made clear whether this is an eyewitness account or someone else's commentary based on the statement. Slim 03:51, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
Pravda, it's true that Corrie didn't suddenly die of old age. She was killed. But it's not clear that she was "run over" as the sentence originally said. Her fellow activists say she was, the Israeli eyewitnesses say she wasn't, and the medical evidence is inconclusive. I can change "died" to "killed" in the intro if you like, but I feel that "incident" should stay because it's the most neutral word. The article makes the two versions clear. Slim 21:36, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
Pravda, I've removed "incident." How about this: "Rachel Corrie ( April 10, 1979— March 16, 2003) was a member of the International Solidarity Movement (ISM) who was killed when she confronted an Israeli soldier-operated bulldozer while protesting Israeli demolitions of Palestinian homes in Rafah in the Gaza Strip." That leaves it open as to whether the bulldozer ran over her or not, but without using what some might regard as a weasel word like "incident." Slim 23:15, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
I'm not swayed in the least by the discussion above that somehow Corrie was killed by "standing or kneeling" in front of the bulldozer, with the old wording trying hard to not seem to be implying she was partly at fault. This would be humorous if it wasn't so damned shameful. Can the IDF apologists at least recognize that Corrie was a HUMAN BEING and afford her that respect? I would be inclined to believe that it was not the intent of the IDF to run over Corrie with a bulldozer (i.e. it is possible that it was an "accident"), but let's apply Occam's Razor: she was killed as a direct result of the operation of a bulldozer. I'm not inclined to be tolerant of any further manipulation of this wording.
The State Department report does not accept Israeli government government findings or the reports of eyewitnesses, it merely reports both sides. "On March 16, an Israeli bulldozer clearing land in Rafah in the Gaza Strip crushed and killed Rachel Corrie, 23, a US Citizen peace activist. Corrie was standing in front of the bulldozer and was wearing a reflective vest. Eyewitness demonstrators stated that they believe the driver knew Rachel was in front of the bulldozer as he proceeded forward. The IDF conducted two investigations into the case, including a polygraph of the operator, and found no negligence on the part of the operator. The operator knew that there were demonstrators in the area, but claimed he did not see Corrie at the time she was struck. However, the report of the IDF Judge Advocate General recommended several remedial measures including remedying blindspots from the cabs of armored bulldozers, for improved safety during future operations." [3] The State Department lists Corrie's March 13, 2003 cause of death as "Other", indicating that the US does not view it as an accident, the way the Israeli government claims. [4] Do you have explicit evidence to support your contention that the US government accepts the Israeli side of the story? -- Pravda 21:04, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The report quotes the ISM eyewitnesses along with the Israeli government so the Israeli account is not given preference as "truth". Corrie's cause of death is described as "Other" and not as an "Accident" as claimed by Israel. -- Pravda 21:57, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
What published source is disputing the eyewitness testimony provided by Joseph Smith? Why is a discalimer needed if we attribute the account to him (According to Joseph Smith.....)? Why don't we need a similar disclaimer for the statements provided by Israeli authorities? -- Pravda 22:03, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The statement from Joseph Smith that was in the article seemed instead to be a commentary on his statement, so I've replaced it with direct quotes. Slim 03:32, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)
I would add that Smith changed his statement. Joe Smith, an ISM activist and a friend of Rachel Corrie, chose to reveal the truth, which is not stated on ISM’s website. “Smith said that no one was on the spot with a camera before Rachel Corrie was mauled by the bulldozer, and that the picture of Rachel with the megaphone had been taken many hours earlier.” http://www.btnhboard.com/~scrub/corrie.htm ..."[S]he was sitting on a mound of earth in front of the bulldozer. The earth started to move under her when the bulldozer digs in. You have a couple of options you can roll aside-you have to be very quick to get out of the way. You can fall back, but she leaned forward to try to climb up on top. She got pulled down, and the bulldozer lost sight of her. Then, without lifting the blade, he reversed and she was underneath the blade".
Smith, an eyewitness to Rachel’s death, seems to portray it as some sort of accident, while the ISM, officially, calls it a “murder”. Why? Does their hatred of Israel seem to run so deep that they are willing to negate the testimony of an eyewitness for their own purposes? Or is it a misunderstanding? A look into the history of Rachel Corrie and the ISM certainly leaves one to choose the former.
One of the possible reasons she was run over was because a false sense of security. Joseph Smith described it in a Jerusalem Post article:
Smith, originally of Kansas City, Missouri, .... said the fact that the IDF had previously taken pains not to hurt the group made him feel safe. It is precisely because the group has so much experience playing a game of chicken with the bulldozers that it understands this was not an accident.
Many members have stood in front of a bulldozer as Corrie did and then climbed up the mound of dirt, precisely so that the driver could see them. "You look into their eyes and they stop," Smith said.
I deleted from the first sentence that Corrie was killed by the bulldozer "while protesting Israeli demolitions of Palestinian homes", because that makes it sound as though homes were being demolished on the day of her death; or even that she was standing between a bulldozer and a home about to be demolished when she died. But if you read the eyewitness statement of Joseph Smith, it says the bulldozers were "demolishing farmland and other already damaged structures," which is consistent with the Israeli account that they were flattening land looking for explosives dumps. The activists say they were concerned for the safety of nearby homes, but there's no indication any were going to be demolished, so I felt that ought not to be implied by the first sentence. It now reads that she was "killed when she confronted an Israeli soldier-operated bulldozer in Rafah in the Gaza Strip."
I agree that if the home was later demolished that should be in the article. Do you have a reference for that by any chance? Slim 05:26, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)
Pravda, I've added this to the "Responsibility for Corrie's death" section:
"The report also states that the army had not, in fact, intended to demolish a house, but was searching for explosives in the border area designated "no man's land" by Israel. No houses were demolished on the day of Corrie's death, but one of the houses she believed she was protecting — the home of pharmacist Dr. Samid Nasrallah — was damaged six months later when the IDF knocked a hole in one of its walls. The IDF eventually demolished the house in January 2004, according to the charity Rebuilding Alliance, because it stood in "no man's land". [10]
I'd like to read some of the other witness statements before any change is made to the intro, to see whether they specifically mention a belief that homes might be demolished that day. Hope that's okay. Slim 05:58, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)
This line is factually wrong as well as POV: "Her death sparked controversy, in part because she was the first Western protester and U.S. citizen to be killed in the Arab-Israeli conflict, and in part because of the highly politicized nature of the conflict itself. Advocates on both sides scrambled to blame her death on the Israel Defense Force (IDF), the ISM, the Palestinians, and on Corrie herself." Corrie was not the first U.S. citizen killed in the conflict. Many Arab-Americans and American Jews have been killed over the years. Sources are needed for the reasons why her death is controversial, or even claims that it is controversial. -- Pravda 08:39, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
There are conflicting accounts regarding the release of the IDF investigation into Corrie's death. The Gannett News Services says the IDF released its report to several members of the U.S. Congress in April 2003, and that the Corrie family passed copies of the report to the news media in June 2003. However, in an article dated March 2004, Corrie's mother says that only the conclusions of the report have been released, and that only she and her husband, along with two American staffers in Tel Aviv, have been allowed to view the whole thing. I've put both these versions in the article, with links. Slim 18:54, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)
"confronted the bulldozer". If the circumstances of her death are so much in dispute, let's not suggest that she was "confronting" the bulldozer (which implies that her death was her own fault) but simply say she was killed by it. Dr Zen 04:31, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
"scrambling to blame", "both sides"... It's POV that there must be two and only two sides in the conflict. There are also neutrals of all different shades. Many, many opinions. So let's just make it NPOV, yes? Dr Zen 04:31, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
"protester". Come off it. A protester is what she was on the day. It's intended to diminish her to so describe her. We call people who do what she did "peace activists", even on Wikipedia. She was a "peace activist" who was "protesting". Dr Zen 04:31, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
You don't have a POV, Zen? This is what you wrote above: "One side said the bulldozer driver murdered her; the other made up some cock about her committing suicide (!) in their usual fashion. Dr Zen 05:29, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)"
This is what is normally referred to as a POV. Slim 07:11, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
If someone purports this, please source them doing so. I've removed this contentious stuff until it is sourced.
Other statements, such as Smith's claim that they heard the bulldozer driver shouting at them (Smith, section 16:00-16:45), purportedly lack credibility because the engine noise and thick plates of armored bulldozers usually prevent communication.
Then source the Mother Jones author saying so.
No, they do not. They don't claim some debris just fell on her. Even the Israelis don't claim it had nothing to do with the bulldozer. They couldn't hardly. There are eyewitnesses.
The medical evidence is inconclusive. She was killed as a result of something that happened when the bulldozer moved forward and she was unable to get out of its way. But to say she was killed by it implies that it hit her or ran over her, and that begs the question.
No, that's simply not true. However, if you want to rewrite the intro to say she "died as a result of the action of a ... bulldozer", I wouldn't change that.
I say it does. It very much implies she purposely had herself run over by having a fight with a bulldozer.
Yes, I can see that you made cosmetic changes to cover for your wholesale reversion.
The suggestion that she committed suicide is what I described as "cock", Slim. You are not trying to "find something in between the two". You are, as is usual on these pages, trying to put as fierce a pro-Israeli spin onto it as you can get away with. I'm working to keep that spin to a minimum. Dr Zen 06:37, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I agree that we should word it as neutrally as possible. That's what I tried to do. For instance, I don't like weaselly statements like "others disagree" when in fact a Zionist journalist wrote it in her blog. I think you can find a "published source" to back up just about anything. I think the POV thing comes in when an article tries to discredit eyewitnesses instead of simply reporting what they say. I'm astounded that you do not agree with that. Astounded! Dr Zen 07:29, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
It is impossible to make good-faith NPOV edits to any article on subjects on Jayjg's list. You simply get reverted by him or one of his cadres. Dr Zen 06:01, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
That's what I find upsetting. It's the sheer arrogance of them. They don't believe they have to discuss changes because they outnumber those who want a neutral point of view.
I ask how any editor in good faith can claim this: "Other statements, such as Smith's claim that they heard the bulldozer driver shouting at them (Smith, section 16:00-16:45) ( http://www.ccmep.org/2003_articles/Palestine/032003_the_moments_before.htm), purportedly lack credibility because the engine noise and thick plates of armored bulldozers usually prevent communication." is NPOV. What the hell does "purportedly" mean? I find it astonishing that SlimVirgin, who claims to be a champion of sourcing material, thinks that this is not expressive of a POV. Dr Zen 06:14, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Well, I really think that should be sourced or cut. The whole commentary is so POV that I think efforts need to be made to try to cut the editorialising to a bare minimum. Dr Zen 06:21, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Read my comment above. The low visibility, difficult-to-hear claim is, I believe, in the Mother Jones article. I will check it now. And yes, of course I'm reading before I change or revert. I never revert on sight. I've explained why I reverted above. Slim 06:24, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
Zen, please stop changing the intro. The way you wrote it sounded as though all the eyewitnesses believe the bulldozer ran over or crushed her, and it's only the IDF who are saying it didn't. There were a number of ISM witnesses, plus the two bulldozer drivers, and whoever was in the tank, possibly more than one. There may also be other witnesses we don't know about. Even some of the ISM witnesses don't seem to be sure what happened, and at least one indicates she simply stumbled in front of the bulldozer. Therefore, it's safest to say "some eyewitnesses believe the bulldozer ran over her, while others say it did not." Slim 07:54, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
After some intenstive editing over the last few days, it seems this article has improved no end. A good, balanced read, as it stands. Dan100 09:30, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
Please do not insert to the intro these types of misleading descriptions that are factually accurate but intended to place blame on Corrie for "lying in front of a moving bulldozer." -- Pravda 22:16, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Do the eyewitnesses say she was "run over" or do they say she was "crushed" by the bulldozer's blade? Run over implies, at least to me, that the bulldozer passed over her (because we are not meaning it in the sense of "knocked down"). Why are you so insistent on removing the word "crushed"? No one suggests she wasn't crushed by something and that something was either the bulldozer or something the bulldozer moved. I have to protest at an editor who is putting in even more biased wording than any of the "other people" who described the event. Dr Zen 23:16, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
That's not really NPOV, now is it? Why is it so hard to just state the fact in the intro that she was killed by a bulldozer without attributing action on Corrie's part that implies she is responsible for being killed? The rest of the article describes the many points of view that the intro has no space to summarize. -- Pravda 22:58, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Jayjg has ignored the ongoing discussion and reverted to an earlier wording that caused the dispute in the first place. I think it's fair enough to say that Corrie knelt or stood in front of the bulldozer. All accounts say she did. Dr Zen 23:19, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The autopsy said she was crushed by the blade, Slim. It did not say she was "run over" by the bulldozer. It says she has injuries consistent with being crushed by the blade. The autopsy, Slim. Not your conjecture or mine. The pathologist's.
Dr Zen 23:34, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
These blind reversions have to stop because, as Jay says, you're reverting undisputed edits too. As we can't agree on the eyewitnesses sentence, and on the medical evidence, I have remove that sentence from the intro, and I am going to look around to try to find a reputable reference for the medical evidence. I'm not comfortable using just one reference (The Olympian) that claims to know what the autopsy said. Slim 23:42, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
Oh I see. When it's your POV, one source will do. When it's the "other side"'s, they must present dozens of sources. *All* the eyewitnesses say she was crushed by the bulldozer. None say otherwise. The army argues, and you have argued, that the driver couldn't see her, and the other soldiers present were too busy to notice that she was in danger. So. You cannot pick and choose to suit your POV. Either we take the eyewitness accounts or we do not. Dr Zen 23:49, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Corrie did confronted the bulldozer. Instead of keeping distance, she tried to block the path of the bulldozer and interfere with its work. She apperntly also tried to climb over the bulldozer, so it is accurate to say she confronted the bulldozer. MathKnight 06:21, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
All eyewitnesses *and* the IDF say Corrie was "crushed". They disagree over what crushed her but not that she died because of crushing. They agree that the crushing was caused by the action of the bulldozer, although they disagree over whether the crushing was done on purpose or accidentally.
However, the extremist POV pushers who are guarding this page will not allow the introduction to say that she was crushed, even though *no one* except them disputes it.
To be even more biased than the IDF, who have good reason to want the incident described as accidental or Corrie's fault, takes some doing. The action of the editors involved actually disgusts me. You are willing to suppress the truth to pursue your agenda, even that small part of what happened that is accepted as true by *everybody*. You cannot begin to claim to be interested in working towards the goals of Wikipedia. You are here to prevent those goals from being attained. I'm absolutely disgusted with you. You do it on every article. You present the views of Israel, the IDF and their supporters as the truth and revert and contest any other insertions. Your view needs one source -- no matter how tainted that source is (even to the extent of having someone "dispute" the eyewitness accounts who was not present, has not investigated it and has no part, official or otherwise, in the events except for idle curiosity -- none of which prevents you from considering her blog a good source!) -- while another, the good-faith reporting in a reputable paper of the parents of the victim, who were given a copy of the autopsy report, just isn't acceptable.
Look at other articles. In Tom Hurndall, we do not say he was shot by a sniper, but many news sources do. If an Israeli was shot by a Palestinian, you would insist that the Times of London was reputable enough for its description of the shooting to be used. In Arafat you insisted that leaders of nations could not be considered representative of the views of their people; however, Benny Morris is representative of the consensus views of historians, despite being an Israeli. (It seems almost churlish to point out that a neutral source would need to be neither Jewish nor Muslim.) I had to force you to quote him as giving his opinion rather than your giving his opinion as a fact, and even then you included material that had absolutely nothing to do with the subject (unless Spain has moved to the Middle East while I wasn't looking) to muddy the water. Dr Zen 00:17, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Looks like we have a repeating paragraph about "Danny" in all the confusion. Furthermore, it is interesting to see how this NPOV paragraph is subtly morphing into a more POV version in just a few hours: "Through February and March, according to ISM activists and e-mails Corrie sent to her family, she participated in a variety of actions, including protesting Israeli army demolitions of Palestinian homes by acting as a human shield; placing herself between Palestinian civilians and Israeli troops; protecting Palestinian wells from the Israeli army; criticizing the Bush administration for alleged complicity in the conflict; and demonstrating against the 2003 invasion of Iraq, where she burned a paper-drawn U.S. flag."
"Through February and March, according to ISM activists and e-mails Corrie sent to her family, she participated in a variety of actions, including protesting Israeli army demolitions of Palestinian homes in the militant stronghold of Rafah, by acting as a human shield; placing herself between Palestinians (missing civilians) and Israeli troops; protecting wells from the Israeli army; (missing criticizing the Bush administration for alleged complicity in the conflict; and demonstrating against the 2003 invasion of Iraq, where she burned a paper flag) and burning a paper U.S. flag during a demonstration. " -- Pravda 01:24, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I didn't put in that she burned the U.S. flag. The reason I left it in is that there's a photograph of her doing it (which I also didn't put in), and also because, when I was reading around for sources for these edits, quite a few articles said that her death didn't attract as much coverage in the U.S. as might have been expected because of the flag-burning episode, which apparently lost her some sympathy, so it seemed relevant. The U.S. flag-burning photograph got more coverage than any other, so far as I recall.
On the civilian point, I don't think anyone knows who all the people were she was defending. One editor wrote "Palestinian civilians" and another wrote "Palestinian terrorists," so I changed it to "Palestinians" to make it neutral. The Israeli argument is that these were people who were allowing their homes to be used for weapons-smuggling. We have no way of assessing that claim. We also have no way to assess the claim that these were families who were not involved in the violence. We are editing from a position of ignorance and our article should reflect that.
There's no effort by me to insert material that makes her look bad, but similarly I don't want to keep material just because it makes her look good. I want to try to present a version that is as neutral as we can make it. If you'll work with me on that, I'd be grateful. Slim 02:13, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
However, it is connected to her "activities in Gaza", and it is connected to "Rachel Corrie". As this is an article on Rachel Corrie, not on Rachel Corrie's death, it is therefore relevant. Reinstating. Martin 23:56, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
And that's just the beginning of a concerted effort that has badly slanted the entire article. I've been reviewing the history of the introduction and would like you to see how badly it has been degrading. It's really discouraging to see how this honorable woman's memory is being disgraced. I really would rather not be a part of it anymore so please feel free to carry on. -- Pravda 02:06, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
"Rachel Corrie (? - March 16, 2003), an American college student, was a member of the International Solidarity Movement protesting Israeli action in the Israel-Palestinian conflict. She was killed by an Israeli bulldozer in Rafah, Gaza.
While speaking via a loudspeaker and wearing a red coat, in front of a physician's home which the Israelis intended to bulldoze, Corrie fell down. A bulldozer then ran over her twice. Later, as a group of people gathered, a man was shot and killed by the Israel Defence Forces.
Corrie was a senior at Evergreen State College in Olympia, Washington."
"Rachel Corrie (1979 - March 16, 2003) was an American peace activist who was crushed to death while attempting to block an Israel Defense Forces (IDF) bulldozer in a Gaza Strip refugee camp.
Corrie grew up in Olympia, Washington, and graduated from Capital High School. She had been a senior at the Evergreen State College in Olympia, where she studied the arts and international relations. She took a leave of absence to participate in resistance against the IDF as a member of the Palestinian-led International Solidarity Movement (ISM). In her home town, she was known in the local peace movement and an active member of the Olympia Movement for Justice and Peace.
Friends describe Corrie as athletically slender with blond hair and thoughtful, intelligent eyes. She played soccer, gardened and loved the poems of Pablo Neruda. She was the daughter of Craig Corrie, an insurance executive, and Cindy Corrie, a school volunteer and flutist."
"Rachel Corrie ( 1979 - March 16, 2003) was an American peace activist who was crushed to death during the Al-Aqsa Intifada, while attempting to block an Israel Defense Forces (IDF) bulldozer in a Gaza Strip refugee camp.
"Rachel Corrie ( April 10, 1979 - March 16, 2003) was an American activist who was crushed to death when protesting Israeli occupation of the Gaza Strip.
As a member of the International Solidarity Movement (ISM), she traveled to Rafah during the Al-Aqsa Intifada and tried to block an Israel Defense Forces (IDF) Caterpillar D9 bulldozer. She was fatally wounded during this incident."
Rachel Corrie ( April 10, 1979 - March 16, 2003) was a member of the International Solidarity Movement (ISM) who traveled to Rafah in the Gaza Strip during the Al-Aqsa Intifada. While protesting the Israeli occupation, she was was fatally wounded when she tried to block an Israel Defense Forces (IDF) Caterpillar D9 bulldozer.
Her death sparked controversy, with various advocates scrambling to blame it on the IDF, the ISM, "Palestinian terror", and on Corrie herself.
"Rachel Corrie ( April 10, 1979 - March 16, 2003 was a member of the International Solidarity Movement (ISM) who was run over and killed by an Israeli soldier operated bulldozer while she was protesting Israeli demolitions of Palestinian homes in Rafah in the Gaza Strip.
Her death sparked controversy because she was a peaceful protester and a U.S. citizen, yet the U.S. did not conduct or even demand an official investigation and Israel has not held anyone responsible for her death."
"Rachel Corrie ( April 10, 1979— March 16, 2003) was a member of the International Solidarity Movement (ISM) who was killed when she confronted an Israeli soldier-operated bulldozer while protesting Israeli demolitions of Palestinian homes in Rafah in the Gaza Strip.
Her death sparked controversy, in part because she was the first Western protester and U.S. citizen to be killed in the Arab-Israeli conflict, and in part because of the highly politicized nature of the conflict itself. Advocates on both sides scrambled to blame her death on the Israel Defense Force (IDF), the ISM, the Palestinians, and on Corrie herself. "
Rachel Corrie ( April 10, 1979— March 16, 2003) was a member of the International Solidarity Movement (ISM) who was killed after kneeling or standing in front of a moving armored Caterpillar D9 bulldozer operated by an Israeli soldier clearing land in Rafah, Gaza Strip.
Her death sparked controversy, in part because she was a U.S. citizen and the first Western activist to be killed in the Arab-Israeli conflict, and in part because of the highly politicized nature of the conflict itself. Her death has been blamed on the Israel Defense Force (IDF), the ISM, the Palestinians, and on Corrie herself.
By sheer coincidence the article is protected on Jayjg's version. Ho hum. Dr Zen 03:33, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Please stop deleting material without discussion. She was not "run over" by the bulldozer. If you read the article, you'll see there is disagreement as to whether the blade hit her, or whether she was hit by a concrete slab. But no one is suggesting the bulldozer actually ran her over. Her injuries would have been much worse had this been the case, and she would likely have died instantly.
Also, the Mother Jones article link that you keep deleting is one of the most comprehensive articles published about this case. It definitely ought to stay. Slim 17:54, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
The current intro has degraded since I last looked. I have restored an earlier version, with some modifications.
I hope this explains my change. Martin 23:47, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Again, hope that explains the changes. Martin 00:11, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I think there's something of a structural problem in the article. We have: Reactions to Corrie's death and Responsibility for Corrie's death, but many of the reactions are trying to apportion responsibility. My current thought, therefore, is to instead have the breakdown "responsibility" and "memorials". Martin 01:22, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I've had a tentative first split, which has thrown into sharp contrast that we appear to have nothing on her proper funeral, or the Olympia peace vigil - only on stuff in Gaza. Dang. Martin 01:30, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Hi Martin, here are my thoughts on your changes:
Anyway, these are just my rough thoughts. SlimVirgin 05:23, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
Martin, I'd like to make some changes to the article based on the issues I raised above. Let me know if you have any objection. SlimVirgin 10:36, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
I don’t see why the article must not contain any information about her life. She was a student, and the names of her courses seem reasonable and harmless data. They are verbatim from an address by an Evergreen professor, near the end of this link [19]. Meggar 06:42, 2005 Jan 15 (UTC)
I disagree. I believe that the section entitled "Corrie's death", and later sections, are about Corrie's death. The other sections are about her life.
There are photographs, which are hard to fake. There are contemperaneous emails and reports from Corrie, and from the ISM. There are the recollections of Palestinians on the ground. On a more general note, we know that she was an ISM member. We know that the things she reported doing (and the ISM reported her doing) are precisely the sort of things that ISM members do. For example, various journalists have accompanied the ISM during their activities, including some who met Corrie in person. Meanwhile, IDF sources indicate that they regularly got/get interference in their military operations from the ISM, which is why ISM members are arrested and deported where possible.
Does that answer your question? Martin 14:19, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Many authors have articles only because they have written books, but it seems reasonable to me to include a potted biography of an author's life in their article, not just information on their books. Similarly, Corrie is notable for her death, but I think it's appropriate to include information from her earlier life. I also think such information is interesting. Reading about an author, I wonder what in his life influenced his cynical approach to politics. Reading about an activist, I wonder what in her life influenced her to put her life at risk.
I can agree there is a danger in including personal information that is uninteresting, simply because we have it. I can also agree there is a danger of sentimentalisation, which would be expressing a Point Of View. If we steer clear of those dangers, I don't think personal information should cause a problem. Martin 13:07, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I absolutely agree with that sentiment. Are you referring to the current section entitled "Corrie's death"? Martin 13:07, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Since the Mother Jones article is relied on so heavily by some, in the interests of NPOV the ISM response to that article should also be included:
http://tron.phpwebhosting.com/~ism/pressreleases/PR_16Sep03_12_08_24BethlehemISMMediaOffice.php
"She was killed after she attempted to block an Israel Defense Forces (IDF) Caterpillar D9 bulldozer conducting military operations in Rafah."
This is NPOV? You don't even say what killed her. Perhaps she had a stroke? A heart attack? Was killed by bees?
At least, though, you've managed to convey that it was wholly her own fault.
A proud height for Wikipedia!
It's unclear (from the article) whether the arabs planned or were prepared to kill the children or if they were killed in the crossfire of the botched operation. It's likely that some people belive that they did not, but that they intended just to use them as a bargaining chip. (One could discuss the morality of that, but it's a different issue.) Using the term "died" is a poor way to represent this, though I think you could take it in better faith and be less scornful.
Similarly with Corrie, except that the evidence suggests that the bulldozer killed her; the situation is less ambiguous. Whilst we should present that evidence without comment, it does not address the content of the introduction. The introduction should say that evidence has been presented and by whom, and what claims have been made, and by whom, e.g. the Israeli army has denied X and said Y, but has yet to present any evidence, if that is the case. Mr. Jones 08:46, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
There is a video footage which shows Rachel Standing, speaking into a loud speaker, asking the bulldozer to stop. If he could not 'see her', he could obviously hear her. Yet he proceeded. She was NOT sitting in the video footage. She was evidently standing, and consequently struck. It is actually laughable that your Zionist contributors do not even question this yet jump to protect the IDF's brutal actions blindly. It is sad too. Please refer to website for details: http://www.rachelcorrie.org/memorials.htm -Z A
I want you to be in the cockpit of one of those gigantic D-9 bulldozers and try to hear somone outside the thick, bullet-proof, glass encasing when you have the noisy motor plus the shovel and earth being moved about. He definitely couldnt see her, I also doubt he could hear her. - user:Eliram
The edit wars seem to have finally settled into a nicely NPOV article. Is it time to remove the NPOV tag?
I feel the article is POV, and I'd like to try a rewrite when I have some time. It's been a couple of weeks since I looked at it, but I've laid out some of the issues above. Basically, parts of the article read like an ISM press release. I don't like the bulleted list of activities she engaged in, because it's irrelevant; because there's no way of verifying any of it; and because the bulleted style looks like a press release. The only things about her that are relevant before her death are (a) she was an ISM activist; (b) she travelled to Gaza to engage in demonstrations/protests; (c) some of those protests involved acting as a human shield to prevent what she thought might be bulldozing of houses; and then (d) what happened that day. I also feel the witness statements should be presented in a more analytic manner, by discussing what each of them says about each issue, because they do contradict each other, rather than relying on Smith for the bulk of the description. That's a big job though, which is part of the reason I've delayed tackling it. I think we go overboard with photographs of her, and that we say too much about memorials. Our job is not to contribute to making her a hero or to denigrating her, but simply to describe the circumstances surrounding her death. SlimVirgin 02:32, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
I still don't like the remorseless focus on her death as the sole subject of the article, and the removal of all content unrelated to that issue. I feel that an encyclopedic biography should provide a broader picture than we are providing here. In particular, the current article is unhelpful to readers seeking a greater understanding of the ISM, and the activities and interests of a typical ISM member, where prior versions were more helpful. To me, the more routine aspects of ISM life are just as interesting as the circumstances of her death. I appreciate that they are unimportant to folks only interested in slagging off the other side, but I think we should consider non-partisan readers in our writing a little more.
The article has lost background information on Corrie's early life and activities in Gaza, as this information is deemed not relevant to her death, and might make some readers sympathetic to Corrie. However, it has retained information (and a photo) on her flag burning protest against the Iraq war, which is likewise not relevant to her death, and might make some readers hostile to Corrie. I would prefer to err on the side of including more information - both that which might prejudice some readers towards Corrie, and that which might prejudice them against Corrie.
Corrie's parents's jobs indicate something about her social grouping. Her activities in college indicate something about her academic interests. Both should be kept, IMO.
Clearly, I have a bias, as do most commentators. However, you have also removed information that helps folks with the opposite bias. In particular, Corrie writing about smuggling tunnels indicates that she was aware that some houses in Rafah were being used for this purpose. Some pro-Corrie advocates have erroneously argued that she was unaware of the smuggling, and we should be clear on this. Martin
If I understand you, you're suggesting that all the bulldozers she obstructed may have been bulldozing fields and things, and none of them were clearing houses? That seems pretty unlikely to me, but I suppose I could trawl through her emails to demonstrate conclusively, if you genuinely think it's a possibility. Martin
Corrie's family is suing Israel [23]. Someone might summarise. -- Zero 00:13, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I reverted the addition from the following reason:
is highly POV.Although protests like this are certain to work in her home country, it appears Corrie was naïvely generous and bravely unwilling to protect herself. She refused to adhere to the social convention of a region which does not commonly permit nonviolent demonstrations to be heard, especially from outsiders that have been warned away from potentially fatal interference within armed conflict. This being the general atmosphere of the area, none who were involved on any side of this dispute have publicly shown remorse in relation to how their presence in the matter had contributed to her death, yet insist on pointing the finger at others including the person who died. This is no show of respect to the dead, for many parts of the world. There have been no admissions of guilt by parties in how they allowed it to happen, whilst there is excessively insensitive and irresponsible sensationalism.
MathKnight 07:48, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I didn't see them at any other site. -- Powergrid 03:48, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The real ugly truth is that this poor girl who died so tragically is being used as a propaganda pawn. Look at how your link misrepresents the before picture (4th pic down): "From this photo, there can be no doubt that the Israeli bulldozer driver could clearly see Rachel and that this was no accident", even though major newspapers like CNN and the New York Times printed retractions about these same misleading Reuters photos: (NY Times retraction: "A picture caption on March 17 with an article about an American protester who was crushed by an Israeli Army bulldozer in Gaza referred incorrectly to the bulldozer shown. It was one that the protester, Rachel Corrie, had earlier tried to stop from destroying a Palestinian home. It was not the one that killed her.") [25] Also note how the after picture (5th pic down) in your link has been squeezed and doctored to change the bulldozer to look more like the one in the first picture. Yet the same set of before/after pictures here clearly show different bulldozers. Your proposed link is simply not credible due to its obvious intent to mislead. And let’s not pretend that bloody pictures and this myth are being propagated out of any compassion for Rachel. Rather, misrepresenting the chain of events that led to her death so that it appears she was intentionally murdered by an Israeli bulldozer driver conveniently serves the useful purpose of fomenting anti-Israel hatred. There is spin alright, and it's certainly anti-Israel. -- MPerel( talk | contrib) 09:28, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
As far as I concern, keep this link. However, This link should be put in context, which explains the (mis)caption issue. There is no doubt that the link contain false information (as was proved when news agencies issued a correction about the captions) and this should be noted right next to the link. MathKnight 22:08, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Apparently, someone has a play with her being the main character. This is what someone summarized the play as "But what the play does give is a uniquely personal account of the short life of someone who felt driven to help the oppressed - a quest that took her to a land far from home, into a dispute she knew little about." [27] Wk muriithi
I'm not responsible for removing the Rachelcorrie07.jpg (I had put in my own Rachelcorriefb.jpg), but I have put in a TRULY NPOV picture now which simply combines the two. KaintheScion
Now that Slimvirgin's abuse of admin powers has been resolved: the Rachel Corrie image as it starts the article needs to be either (a) removed, (b) moved lower into the article ("below the fold"), or (c) replaced with a montage of itself and her flag-burning photograph.
Otherwise, the article is slanted from the beginning. If the flag-burning image can be claimed (and you'll get no argument here) to cast her in a negative light, then the "innocent schoolgirl" photo attempts to portray her in a positive light, and that TOO is POV-pushing. KaintheScion
If "No Cameras" weblog and Rachelcorrie.org deserve places in that section, so does this one. KaintheScion
I haven't seen any mention of the relatively new "Rachel: An American Conscience" documentary. The documentary features actual radio transmissions from when Rachel was murdered, and that includes the bulldozer driver stating that he "hit an object", did see him (her), and she's very hurt. It also includes military video of Rachel standing in front of a bulldozer shortly before she was murdered.
I forgot to explain my edit. I restored "Other commentators speculated that the driver failed to see her or expected her to jump out of the way," because I don't see any problem with it. I changed "various advocates blamimg it on ... Palestinian terror" — which was being changed to "Palestinian violence" — to "the Palestinians." If anyone disagrees, feel free to change it. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:00, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
The problem I have with other commentators' "speculation" is that it is not based in any more information than you or I have. It's just what they feel must have happened. We don't include speculation in other historical events -- or if we do, we do not give it the same prominence as eyewitness accounts or accounts from at least partly reputable sources. I've deleted it accordingly.
I've been bothered for a while by the inclusion of the speculations of a rabidly partisan Israeli journalist on her blog. I don't think we should source comments to blogs -- to do so would open the floodgates for all sorts of ill-informed comment to be presented as fact. No one wants that, I hope. However, it should be pointed out that she is an Israeli and not a neutral commentator and it should be pointed out at the very least that she made the comments in question on her blog. I appeal to the pro-Zionist editors here to remove the comment by her altogether. It does not meet the standards we set for inclusion: it is speculation on the part of someone who is biased, was not present and has no special knowledge of the events. She is just putting the mockers on others' accounts, not actually adding anything of her own account. I haven't removed it myself because frankly I know it would be reverted and it's about time we tried to find another way to edit articles in this area without the acrimony and revert wars. I figure one way is to present here an argument that I believe no neutral editor could dispute in good faith and leave it to the other side to take the requisite action, or to dispute it, or ignore it, as they choose. -- Grace Note
I also agree on the lack of judgement that led to a right-wing Israeli blog being used as a source for comments on an already-disputed article. Those of you claiming the article here isn't POV might want to try removing the copious references to a partisan blog that pervade the article as it currently stands. Jeus 02:59, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure where you learned to cite sources, but testimony from a witness (as in, a witness actually at the scene of the incident in question) is known to the civilized world as a 1st Person Source. A blog post, written by an Olympian resident about an event She Did Not See in Israel, is a 3rd Person Source. Before you go about threatening the removal of substantive parts of an article, you should probably take a deep breath, and go back to expanding the Palestinian terrorism article. Because you do not have the authority to demolish an article, simply because your ideology prevents you from accepting any negative commentary about the Israeli "Defense" Force.
Jeus
03:35, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Mustafaa, what was wrong with the following sentence? "Her death sparked intense controversy, with various advocates blaming it on the IDF, the ISM, Palestinian violence, and on Corrie herself." That seems to me to sum up the various positions. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:04, July 19, 2005 (UTC) Hey all, excuse me if I'm out of order here, this is my first time commenting on a wikipedia page and I'm not sure I'm doing the right thing here. I'd like to see something added to the bulldozer driver's account of not seeing Rachel. The IDF has produced and aired on Israeli TV footage which is also included in the new documentary "Rachel: An American Conscience" from the actual radio transmission from the bulldozer driver at the time he ran over Rachel. "Dooby" acknoledges "hitting" Rachel with the bulldozer, acknolodges seeing her, and saying he thinks she is in "severe condition". That's a pretty big fact that is left out of this page. I could put that section of video online for anyone who would like to see it. -mattG
Is there a source for this claim?
Given the lengthy history of the conflict I doubt she was the first western activist to be killed. Certainly Westerners have been killed fighting for Israel in its wars and Westerners working for the US government and NGOs have been killed as well. I suspect whoever wrote this meant first westerner killed protesting against the Israeli occupation - can someone please help me determine if this is true? GabrielF 01:39, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Always wished I could edit my edit summaries. "not stupid" should have been "but stupid". -- Zero 10:46, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
I've rewritten this piece because there's been some reverting because of it, so it now reads:
The widespread media coverage of Corrie's death, and the London play in particular, sparked criticism of what British journalist Tom Gross called "the cult of Rachel Corrie." In an article called "The Forgotten Rachels," published in The Spectator on October 22, 2005, Gross tells the stories of six other women called Rachel, Jewish victims of the Arab-Israeli conflict whose deaths received little, if any, coverage outside Israel. [28] The article prompted a National Review editorial arguing that "Corrie’s death was unfortunate, but more unfortunate is a Western media and cultural establishment that lionizes 'martyrs' for illiberal causes while ignoring the victims those causes create." [29]
I've also created references and further reading sections, and I've tidied some of the links, deleted some dead ones, and a couple of blogs. SlimVirgin (talk) 12:59, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
--A friend recently pointed me to this page and since I consider myself somewhat of an "expert" on Rachel Corrie I have decided to offer input and suggestions for this page. That being said, I have major issues with this "The Forgotten Rachels" section. The whole "forgotten Rachels" idea was created purely for propaganda purposes, in an attempt to dishearten those who memorialize Rachel and are still demanding transparency and accountability for the events leading to her death. I think the arguments presented in the "forgotten Rachels" can be easily countered, and I would be happy to do that, but that is not really the point of why I think this section should be removed or at least modified. Any fringe group can come up with any such comparison for almost anyone in the news or of historical significance, does that mean they merit an entry on the wiki page for that person? Of course I think not, and I'm wondering if any other editors have an opinion about this.
This entire paragraph is POV save the arguably noteable fact that detractors call anyone remembering Rachel a "cultist". I would argue that fact is not even worth mentioning, but cede that it is debatable given the amount of coverage Rachel's death has recieved and that the larger section is about "memorials". Further, the editorial linked to is all of one paragraph.
To sum up, I think this paragraph should be deleted because it does not contribute to any knowledge or facts about the life, death, or activities of Rachel Corrie, nor does it contribute any knowledge or facts about memorials of Rachel Corrie. -mgaines-- Mgaines 05:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
The picture sizes on this article are too small. In the case of the Cat D9 bulldozer, it is helpful to increase the pic size to see the relative size of the bulldozer compared to human scale. 69.209.209.251 10:11, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
No, I disagree, it shows the true scale of the Cat D9. Why is this a problem? Please explain. 69.209.209.251 10:14, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Scale as per the size of the bulldozer to human beings. You misunderstood. It helps to make the picture more useful to readers. 69.209.209.251 10:23, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
The picture is better in larger size, and you are wrong about 3RR, the passive voice was kept, even though it's bad form. 69.209.209.251 10:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
It's called trying to make the picture visible, and it's called compromise. Where did your fellow editor come in from? Calling in reinforcements for help in an edit war is gameing the system. Please stop it. Why is this a big issue? 69.209.209.251 10:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
If there is one picture relevant to this article for the reader to see, it's the size and scale of the D9, that Rachel encountered and died under. 69.209.209.251 10:34, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
THE CAT D9 is a large bulldozer, most people don't really know that, the picture is relevant. 69.209.209.251 10:59, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Humma, humma, humma!!! 69.209.209.251 11:11, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
No comprendo......let's make the pic more visible, is that a problem? 69.209.209.251 11:14, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, that's too bad. It's a revealing picture about the size of the CAT D9. I thought it was really incredible to see that photo. A HUGE bulldozer, no doubt. Most people have no idea how large it truly is. 69.209.209.251 11:26, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
To those who are suggesting large pictures slow down to those with slower connections, why many articles on Wikipedia are accompanied by large pictures without a problem, but these ones cause such a fuss? What is the deal? Small pictures should accompany the article, and if clicken it would take to another page, with the large pictures on that page. Let the public decide. Is there something ominious about the pictures? Why fear, folks. Soomaali Feb. 01, '06
Why the narration by ISM is considered to be "what they thought" or "what they said," and Israeli military's version is considered as official, without no question or no insertion of "what they say"? Isn't this hypocritical? Either both versions should be written "what both sides say," instead of justifying one side. Soomaali Feb. 01, 2006
Zero has reverted my edit that George Rishmawi, an ISM founder, was at the time he founded ISM a member of the Palestinian People's Party, calling it well poisoning. Is it though? It's directly relevant to the foundation of ISM. If I had said "Rishmawi, who is Palestinian," that would be simple well poisoning, but the PPP is a Palestinian communist party, and a faction of the PLO, [30] so that speaks directly to the issue of how partisan ISM is, which is clearly relevant here. Disputed passage below. Any thoughts? SlimVirgin (talk) 00:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
One of the founders of the ISM, George Rishmawi, formerly a member of the Palestinian People's Party, was quoted in the San Francisco Chronicle as having said early in 2003: "When Palestinians get shot by Israeli soldiers, no one is interested anymore. But if some of these foreign volunteers get shot or even killed, then the international media will sit up and take notice."
Ugh! I had written up four paragraphs and went to sign it with the tildes and accidentaly hit "escape" and lost everything. Here goes another try...
I'm new to Wikipedia editing/contributing, and more specifically to doing so on the Rachel Corrie page, so I'm looking for advice on what and how to add additional information to the page.
Video and audio are now available which show Israel Defense Forces (IDF) footage of the bulldozer approaching Rachel seconds before she was struck, as well as communications between the bulldozer operator and his commander just after Rachel was struck. The bulldozer operator says that he "hit an object" and "I think that the object got hit by the dobby (D-9) and he is in a severe condition." He is asked "Did you see him?" and responds "Yes I saw him, I think he is dead."
This video and audio has been aired on Israeli public television and appears in a documentary called "Rachel: An American Conscience"
The IDF video of the bulldozer approaching Rachel just before she was struck is available here: http://www.ourmedia.org/node/158250
The same footage, along with the IDF communications, taken from the documentary is available here: http://www.ourmedia.org/node/158271
How should the contents, conclusions, etc., from these videos be added to the page? Should they be linked? What does everyone think? Mgaines 06:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
There's been too much activity going on recently and I have no idea who added what, but I'd like to make a few changes for accuracy and context. Changes I propose are in bold:
The way it reads in the article would make a reader think she randomly jumped in front of a bulldozer in a no-mans-land border minefield, when she was actually in a residential area and had a reason (in her mind at least) to want to stop the Caterpillar. Any objections, complaints, concerns, grievances, or outrage? Thanks Ramallite (talk) 19:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Ok, hmmmm, so Slim and Jayjg agree, and Ramallite agrees and puts the version in, but then Slim adds back in the part that was the problem we were trying to address, after agreeing to the above. Ug! That doesn't seem quite fair, does it? Under the IDF POV, it already presented the perspective that she was interfering (which would be equivalent to "obstructing"). Describing an activist as protesting sounds reasonably neutral, no? I'm going to revert it, but please let's discuss further, I'm sure we can work this out and come to something mutually agreeable for everyone. -- MPerel ( talk | contrib) 22:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
My objections:
I'm a slow writer and there were edit conflicts trying to post this, so if it doesn't address anything anyone says, keep that in mind : ) Consider this, that just like we explain in the paragraph, it's the circumstances of her death that is the very thing that's disputed. That's why I attempted to move as many details as possible about those circumstances of her death out of the "neutral" part, because in this terrible story, there is no neutral way to relate the events. So she was protesting (both sides would agree to that), one side says she obstructed or was responsible for jumping in the way of the bulldozer. The other side says the bulldozer mowed her down. My solution was to remove the bulldozer out from the neutral part of the paragraph and instead let each POV present the events from their perspectives about how the death occured from the bulldozer. In your revert edit summary, you said we have to add "that she was trying to obstruct the bulldozer; otherwise the death is left entirely unexplained". Well that's just it. The circumstances of the death is what is disputed. It wasn't left unexplained. It's explained from each POV in the POV part of the paragraph. If we add back in the bulldozer to the neutral part, and then relate the events there as they occured from the IDF perspective, it's no longer the neutral part. In my view, there's no way to mention the bulldozer at all in the neutral part of the paragraph and remain neutral. That part needs to be described from each side's POV. What do you think? -- MPerel ( talk | contrib) 23:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
First, thanks for taking up my suggestion re the revert.
I can't see what the issue is here. One should describe the location of an event in order to give readers this information. Was it on a beach, in a forest, on a farm, in a city? How can we argue about such a basic thing? -- Zero 02:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Ramallite, I reverted your edit to the kidnapping section, [31] that said Corrie's parents deny they were the gunmen's original targets, because I couldn't see where the article said that, [32] and in any event, how could they possibly know? SlimVirgin (talk) 18:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't see why we need this section at all. In my opinion it describes a minor non-event that has hardly anything to do with the topic of the article. If it has to stay, I agree with Ramallite on the contents. We have to follow the source unless we have a better source, and the opinion (the only one we have from eyewitnesses) that the Corries were not the target can't be ignored. Actually it is a fine reason for believing that this story is irrelevant to the page. -- Zero 03:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Comparison to source: On 3 January 2006 [source says 4th], five gunmen [source says two men, of whom one was a gunman] burst [image of entry mode not supported by source] into a house Corrie's parents were visiting in Rafah, and allegedly tried to kidnap them. The gunmen are reported to have abandoned their plans when told who their intended victims were [no mention of that in the source at all], although the Corries disagree with that interpretation of events [so whose interprettation is it, and why is the key point of disagreement missing?]. -- Zero 11:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I happen to know Mr. Nassrallah, that's how I know he speaks poor English. If you want to verify for yourself that he speaks poor English, I suggest you find a copy of the UK television special "The Killing Fields" in which he appears.
As for this article not specifically stating that the incident spoken about was not the same misreported incident that this whole section is perportedly about, then fine. Since there is a section about how Rachel's parents were supposedly the targets of an kidnapping -- which they themselves have said is not the case ... How about there be a new section, about how two of Rachel's friends were ALSO the targets of a kidnapping attempt. They are quoted in this news story as saying that is indeed true. Why are Rachel's parents important enough to have their own section, but not Rachel's friends?
(But really -- there are no reports of any other Americans from Olympia experiencing an attempted kidnapping during this time. I think it is obvious that this is the same incident being talked about.) As for the fact that they say "Palestinian friends" -- I suppose it is less than ideal that it is not spelled out in specific detail, but as I happen to know what actually happen, let me spell it out for you and anyone else who happens to be reading this:
Rachel's parents were staying with Palestinians. Rachel's friends were staying with other Palestinians. Armed gunmen came to try to kidnap Rachel's friends. Before they could do so, the Palestinians that Rachel's parents were staying with were called, and then they came over, along with Rachel's parents, to talk to the gunmen. Rachel's parents do not speak Arabic -- their hosts, and Dr. Nasrilah, talked to the gunmen, and when the gunmen realized who Rachel's parents were, they agreed to leave, without kidnapping anyone. Up above, you complained about ISM not being a reputable source, so I supplied the press release from ORSCP, which is a non-profit organization (registered in the US) and respected enough that the Israelis will let people into Gaza traveling with ORSCP. That, along with the Olympian article are both legitimate sources, and at least one of them ought to be included in this section, if it is not entirely removed. - Jonathan
Excuse me if I sound repetitious, but I have read all the argument above on how this episode should be presented and I still don't see an argument why it is significant enough to mention at all. It was just a little dramatic moment; nobody was kidnapped, nobody was hurt, big deal. I propose we delete it. -- Zero 13:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
It isn't significant enough for so much discussion on the talk page, but it's significant enough for a brief inclusion in the article. The parents of the subject might have been take hostage from the home of the person the subject stayed with and became friends with, but when the gunmen found out who they were, they decided otherwise. That speaks to the idea of Corrie's notability in that area, which is something the article repeats at some length, yet it's only this part of it that some people want to see deleted. The material is relevant to the subject and is sourced to reliable, third-party sources. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
I rewrote this section to get the date right, to link to a copy of the JP article which quotes Nasrallah directly, to link to the Corrie parents' statement that agrees almost exactly with Nasrallah ("Though one of the men who entered our host’s apartment was armed, we were never threatened physically or verbally. The men were polite, though it was clear that they were interested in taking, at least, two Americans with them. We declined to leave. It was through very quick thinking and action by the Palestinian couple who were hosting us that our safety was ensured."), and to continue linking to the ISM statement that disagrees with them (though I'm not sure we need to). -- Zero 06:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I removed a contradiction in this section, as it said the "gunmen left when told who the corries parents where" than a sentence later "the gunmen wanted to use the corries as bargaining chips".- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
I reread the source again that attributes ISM as having released the press release. It says, "according the ISM Media Group in the name of the Olympia-Rafah Sister City Project, "news reports stating that the parents of slain American human rights activist Rachel Corrie were the intended targets of an attempted kidnapping Wednesday in Gaza are incorrect." The source is misleading. ISM posted ORSCPs press release on their website, archived here: http://www.palsolidarity.org/main/2006/01/04/no-attempt-to-kidnap-rachel-corries-parents/ "The ISM Media Group" and the ORSCP are not the same entities, and the way this article is written, it makes it seem that they are. (The press release on the ISM cite has a link to ORSCP at the top ... just because they reprint somebody else's press release does not mean the information is "according to them". This source needs to not be cited, because the work ORSCP does is very different from the work ISM does, and ORSCP works very hard to make it clear to the Israeli and US government that they are not in any way affiliated with ISM. Having this source on this page could potentially endanger the lives of US citizens who travel to Gaza to work with ORSCP, who have no interest in doing the work that people who choose to work themselves with ISM do. It could also lead to the legal status of ORSCP being endangered. - Jonathan 22:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
I have removed the part about Balint's weblog entry because, as the Policies section on this page states, this article is to include "no personal websites, blogs, or other self-published material unless the website or blog was Corrie's own, in which case it may be used with caution...". I have also removed the section about Richard Purssel's comments, because both links are broken. Follow them and you get a message that the "article does not exist". I trust it once did, but it does not now. Someone needs to find good links if that's going to be in here. TroiS6 09:52, 21 March 2006 (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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
I've done a general copy edit; moved the Cause of Death section to the Responsibility for section to improve flow; and quoted from the Guardian article on the IDF report. I removed the sentence at the end that said the Israeli govt. report has not been seen by Corrie's parents and that therefore the Wikipedia article is based on secondary sources, as it didn't seem to make sense. Corrie's parents would be secondary sources too. I also deleted the bullet points in the section describing her activities as they seemed POV, and just listed them in the normal way.
The Joseph Smith statement: Is this a verbatim eye-witness statement? If it is, it shouldn't have an electronic intifada link in it. It should probably be made clear whether this is an eyewitness account or someone else's commentary based on the statement. Slim 03:51, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
Pravda, it's true that Corrie didn't suddenly die of old age. She was killed. But it's not clear that she was "run over" as the sentence originally said. Her fellow activists say she was, the Israeli eyewitnesses say she wasn't, and the medical evidence is inconclusive. I can change "died" to "killed" in the intro if you like, but I feel that "incident" should stay because it's the most neutral word. The article makes the two versions clear. Slim 21:36, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
Pravda, I've removed "incident." How about this: "Rachel Corrie ( April 10, 1979— March 16, 2003) was a member of the International Solidarity Movement (ISM) who was killed when she confronted an Israeli soldier-operated bulldozer while protesting Israeli demolitions of Palestinian homes in Rafah in the Gaza Strip." That leaves it open as to whether the bulldozer ran over her or not, but without using what some might regard as a weasel word like "incident." Slim 23:15, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
I'm not swayed in the least by the discussion above that somehow Corrie was killed by "standing or kneeling" in front of the bulldozer, with the old wording trying hard to not seem to be implying she was partly at fault. This would be humorous if it wasn't so damned shameful. Can the IDF apologists at least recognize that Corrie was a HUMAN BEING and afford her that respect? I would be inclined to believe that it was not the intent of the IDF to run over Corrie with a bulldozer (i.e. it is possible that it was an "accident"), but let's apply Occam's Razor: she was killed as a direct result of the operation of a bulldozer. I'm not inclined to be tolerant of any further manipulation of this wording.
The State Department report does not accept Israeli government government findings or the reports of eyewitnesses, it merely reports both sides. "On March 16, an Israeli bulldozer clearing land in Rafah in the Gaza Strip crushed and killed Rachel Corrie, 23, a US Citizen peace activist. Corrie was standing in front of the bulldozer and was wearing a reflective vest. Eyewitness demonstrators stated that they believe the driver knew Rachel was in front of the bulldozer as he proceeded forward. The IDF conducted two investigations into the case, including a polygraph of the operator, and found no negligence on the part of the operator. The operator knew that there were demonstrators in the area, but claimed he did not see Corrie at the time she was struck. However, the report of the IDF Judge Advocate General recommended several remedial measures including remedying blindspots from the cabs of armored bulldozers, for improved safety during future operations." [3] The State Department lists Corrie's March 13, 2003 cause of death as "Other", indicating that the US does not view it as an accident, the way the Israeli government claims. [4] Do you have explicit evidence to support your contention that the US government accepts the Israeli side of the story? -- Pravda 21:04, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The report quotes the ISM eyewitnesses along with the Israeli government so the Israeli account is not given preference as "truth". Corrie's cause of death is described as "Other" and not as an "Accident" as claimed by Israel. -- Pravda 21:57, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
What published source is disputing the eyewitness testimony provided by Joseph Smith? Why is a discalimer needed if we attribute the account to him (According to Joseph Smith.....)? Why don't we need a similar disclaimer for the statements provided by Israeli authorities? -- Pravda 22:03, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The statement from Joseph Smith that was in the article seemed instead to be a commentary on his statement, so I've replaced it with direct quotes. Slim 03:32, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)
I would add that Smith changed his statement. Joe Smith, an ISM activist and a friend of Rachel Corrie, chose to reveal the truth, which is not stated on ISM’s website. “Smith said that no one was on the spot with a camera before Rachel Corrie was mauled by the bulldozer, and that the picture of Rachel with the megaphone had been taken many hours earlier.” http://www.btnhboard.com/~scrub/corrie.htm ..."[S]he was sitting on a mound of earth in front of the bulldozer. The earth started to move under her when the bulldozer digs in. You have a couple of options you can roll aside-you have to be very quick to get out of the way. You can fall back, but she leaned forward to try to climb up on top. She got pulled down, and the bulldozer lost sight of her. Then, without lifting the blade, he reversed and she was underneath the blade".
Smith, an eyewitness to Rachel’s death, seems to portray it as some sort of accident, while the ISM, officially, calls it a “murder”. Why? Does their hatred of Israel seem to run so deep that they are willing to negate the testimony of an eyewitness for their own purposes? Or is it a misunderstanding? A look into the history of Rachel Corrie and the ISM certainly leaves one to choose the former.
One of the possible reasons she was run over was because a false sense of security. Joseph Smith described it in a Jerusalem Post article:
Smith, originally of Kansas City, Missouri, .... said the fact that the IDF had previously taken pains not to hurt the group made him feel safe. It is precisely because the group has so much experience playing a game of chicken with the bulldozers that it understands this was not an accident.
Many members have stood in front of a bulldozer as Corrie did and then climbed up the mound of dirt, precisely so that the driver could see them. "You look into their eyes and they stop," Smith said.
I deleted from the first sentence that Corrie was killed by the bulldozer "while protesting Israeli demolitions of Palestinian homes", because that makes it sound as though homes were being demolished on the day of her death; or even that she was standing between a bulldozer and a home about to be demolished when she died. But if you read the eyewitness statement of Joseph Smith, it says the bulldozers were "demolishing farmland and other already damaged structures," which is consistent with the Israeli account that they were flattening land looking for explosives dumps. The activists say they were concerned for the safety of nearby homes, but there's no indication any were going to be demolished, so I felt that ought not to be implied by the first sentence. It now reads that she was "killed when she confronted an Israeli soldier-operated bulldozer in Rafah in the Gaza Strip."
I agree that if the home was later demolished that should be in the article. Do you have a reference for that by any chance? Slim 05:26, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)
Pravda, I've added this to the "Responsibility for Corrie's death" section:
"The report also states that the army had not, in fact, intended to demolish a house, but was searching for explosives in the border area designated "no man's land" by Israel. No houses were demolished on the day of Corrie's death, but one of the houses she believed she was protecting — the home of pharmacist Dr. Samid Nasrallah — was damaged six months later when the IDF knocked a hole in one of its walls. The IDF eventually demolished the house in January 2004, according to the charity Rebuilding Alliance, because it stood in "no man's land". [10]
I'd like to read some of the other witness statements before any change is made to the intro, to see whether they specifically mention a belief that homes might be demolished that day. Hope that's okay. Slim 05:58, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)
This line is factually wrong as well as POV: "Her death sparked controversy, in part because she was the first Western protester and U.S. citizen to be killed in the Arab-Israeli conflict, and in part because of the highly politicized nature of the conflict itself. Advocates on both sides scrambled to blame her death on the Israel Defense Force (IDF), the ISM, the Palestinians, and on Corrie herself." Corrie was not the first U.S. citizen killed in the conflict. Many Arab-Americans and American Jews have been killed over the years. Sources are needed for the reasons why her death is controversial, or even claims that it is controversial. -- Pravda 08:39, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
There are conflicting accounts regarding the release of the IDF investigation into Corrie's death. The Gannett News Services says the IDF released its report to several members of the U.S. Congress in April 2003, and that the Corrie family passed copies of the report to the news media in June 2003. However, in an article dated March 2004, Corrie's mother says that only the conclusions of the report have been released, and that only she and her husband, along with two American staffers in Tel Aviv, have been allowed to view the whole thing. I've put both these versions in the article, with links. Slim 18:54, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)
"confronted the bulldozer". If the circumstances of her death are so much in dispute, let's not suggest that she was "confronting" the bulldozer (which implies that her death was her own fault) but simply say she was killed by it. Dr Zen 04:31, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
"scrambling to blame", "both sides"... It's POV that there must be two and only two sides in the conflict. There are also neutrals of all different shades. Many, many opinions. So let's just make it NPOV, yes? Dr Zen 04:31, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
"protester". Come off it. A protester is what she was on the day. It's intended to diminish her to so describe her. We call people who do what she did "peace activists", even on Wikipedia. She was a "peace activist" who was "protesting". Dr Zen 04:31, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
You don't have a POV, Zen? This is what you wrote above: "One side said the bulldozer driver murdered her; the other made up some cock about her committing suicide (!) in their usual fashion. Dr Zen 05:29, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)"
This is what is normally referred to as a POV. Slim 07:11, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
If someone purports this, please source them doing so. I've removed this contentious stuff until it is sourced.
Other statements, such as Smith's claim that they heard the bulldozer driver shouting at them (Smith, section 16:00-16:45), purportedly lack credibility because the engine noise and thick plates of armored bulldozers usually prevent communication.
Then source the Mother Jones author saying so.
No, they do not. They don't claim some debris just fell on her. Even the Israelis don't claim it had nothing to do with the bulldozer. They couldn't hardly. There are eyewitnesses.
The medical evidence is inconclusive. She was killed as a result of something that happened when the bulldozer moved forward and she was unable to get out of its way. But to say she was killed by it implies that it hit her or ran over her, and that begs the question.
No, that's simply not true. However, if you want to rewrite the intro to say she "died as a result of the action of a ... bulldozer", I wouldn't change that.
I say it does. It very much implies she purposely had herself run over by having a fight with a bulldozer.
Yes, I can see that you made cosmetic changes to cover for your wholesale reversion.
The suggestion that she committed suicide is what I described as "cock", Slim. You are not trying to "find something in between the two". You are, as is usual on these pages, trying to put as fierce a pro-Israeli spin onto it as you can get away with. I'm working to keep that spin to a minimum. Dr Zen 06:37, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I agree that we should word it as neutrally as possible. That's what I tried to do. For instance, I don't like weaselly statements like "others disagree" when in fact a Zionist journalist wrote it in her blog. I think you can find a "published source" to back up just about anything. I think the POV thing comes in when an article tries to discredit eyewitnesses instead of simply reporting what they say. I'm astounded that you do not agree with that. Astounded! Dr Zen 07:29, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
It is impossible to make good-faith NPOV edits to any article on subjects on Jayjg's list. You simply get reverted by him or one of his cadres. Dr Zen 06:01, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
That's what I find upsetting. It's the sheer arrogance of them. They don't believe they have to discuss changes because they outnumber those who want a neutral point of view.
I ask how any editor in good faith can claim this: "Other statements, such as Smith's claim that they heard the bulldozer driver shouting at them (Smith, section 16:00-16:45) ( http://www.ccmep.org/2003_articles/Palestine/032003_the_moments_before.htm), purportedly lack credibility because the engine noise and thick plates of armored bulldozers usually prevent communication." is NPOV. What the hell does "purportedly" mean? I find it astonishing that SlimVirgin, who claims to be a champion of sourcing material, thinks that this is not expressive of a POV. Dr Zen 06:14, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Well, I really think that should be sourced or cut. The whole commentary is so POV that I think efforts need to be made to try to cut the editorialising to a bare minimum. Dr Zen 06:21, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Read my comment above. The low visibility, difficult-to-hear claim is, I believe, in the Mother Jones article. I will check it now. And yes, of course I'm reading before I change or revert. I never revert on sight. I've explained why I reverted above. Slim 06:24, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
Zen, please stop changing the intro. The way you wrote it sounded as though all the eyewitnesses believe the bulldozer ran over or crushed her, and it's only the IDF who are saying it didn't. There were a number of ISM witnesses, plus the two bulldozer drivers, and whoever was in the tank, possibly more than one. There may also be other witnesses we don't know about. Even some of the ISM witnesses don't seem to be sure what happened, and at least one indicates she simply stumbled in front of the bulldozer. Therefore, it's safest to say "some eyewitnesses believe the bulldozer ran over her, while others say it did not." Slim 07:54, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
After some intenstive editing over the last few days, it seems this article has improved no end. A good, balanced read, as it stands. Dan100 09:30, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
Please do not insert to the intro these types of misleading descriptions that are factually accurate but intended to place blame on Corrie for "lying in front of a moving bulldozer." -- Pravda 22:16, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Do the eyewitnesses say she was "run over" or do they say she was "crushed" by the bulldozer's blade? Run over implies, at least to me, that the bulldozer passed over her (because we are not meaning it in the sense of "knocked down"). Why are you so insistent on removing the word "crushed"? No one suggests she wasn't crushed by something and that something was either the bulldozer or something the bulldozer moved. I have to protest at an editor who is putting in even more biased wording than any of the "other people" who described the event. Dr Zen 23:16, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
That's not really NPOV, now is it? Why is it so hard to just state the fact in the intro that she was killed by a bulldozer without attributing action on Corrie's part that implies she is responsible for being killed? The rest of the article describes the many points of view that the intro has no space to summarize. -- Pravda 22:58, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Jayjg has ignored the ongoing discussion and reverted to an earlier wording that caused the dispute in the first place. I think it's fair enough to say that Corrie knelt or stood in front of the bulldozer. All accounts say she did. Dr Zen 23:19, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The autopsy said she was crushed by the blade, Slim. It did not say she was "run over" by the bulldozer. It says she has injuries consistent with being crushed by the blade. The autopsy, Slim. Not your conjecture or mine. The pathologist's.
Dr Zen 23:34, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
These blind reversions have to stop because, as Jay says, you're reverting undisputed edits too. As we can't agree on the eyewitnesses sentence, and on the medical evidence, I have remove that sentence from the intro, and I am going to look around to try to find a reputable reference for the medical evidence. I'm not comfortable using just one reference (The Olympian) that claims to know what the autopsy said. Slim 23:42, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
Oh I see. When it's your POV, one source will do. When it's the "other side"'s, they must present dozens of sources. *All* the eyewitnesses say she was crushed by the bulldozer. None say otherwise. The army argues, and you have argued, that the driver couldn't see her, and the other soldiers present were too busy to notice that she was in danger. So. You cannot pick and choose to suit your POV. Either we take the eyewitness accounts or we do not. Dr Zen 23:49, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Corrie did confronted the bulldozer. Instead of keeping distance, she tried to block the path of the bulldozer and interfere with its work. She apperntly also tried to climb over the bulldozer, so it is accurate to say she confronted the bulldozer. MathKnight 06:21, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
All eyewitnesses *and* the IDF say Corrie was "crushed". They disagree over what crushed her but not that she died because of crushing. They agree that the crushing was caused by the action of the bulldozer, although they disagree over whether the crushing was done on purpose or accidentally.
However, the extremist POV pushers who are guarding this page will not allow the introduction to say that she was crushed, even though *no one* except them disputes it.
To be even more biased than the IDF, who have good reason to want the incident described as accidental or Corrie's fault, takes some doing. The action of the editors involved actually disgusts me. You are willing to suppress the truth to pursue your agenda, even that small part of what happened that is accepted as true by *everybody*. You cannot begin to claim to be interested in working towards the goals of Wikipedia. You are here to prevent those goals from being attained. I'm absolutely disgusted with you. You do it on every article. You present the views of Israel, the IDF and their supporters as the truth and revert and contest any other insertions. Your view needs one source -- no matter how tainted that source is (even to the extent of having someone "dispute" the eyewitness accounts who was not present, has not investigated it and has no part, official or otherwise, in the events except for idle curiosity -- none of which prevents you from considering her blog a good source!) -- while another, the good-faith reporting in a reputable paper of the parents of the victim, who were given a copy of the autopsy report, just isn't acceptable.
Look at other articles. In Tom Hurndall, we do not say he was shot by a sniper, but many news sources do. If an Israeli was shot by a Palestinian, you would insist that the Times of London was reputable enough for its description of the shooting to be used. In Arafat you insisted that leaders of nations could not be considered representative of the views of their people; however, Benny Morris is representative of the consensus views of historians, despite being an Israeli. (It seems almost churlish to point out that a neutral source would need to be neither Jewish nor Muslim.) I had to force you to quote him as giving his opinion rather than your giving his opinion as a fact, and even then you included material that had absolutely nothing to do with the subject (unless Spain has moved to the Middle East while I wasn't looking) to muddy the water. Dr Zen 00:17, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Looks like we have a repeating paragraph about "Danny" in all the confusion. Furthermore, it is interesting to see how this NPOV paragraph is subtly morphing into a more POV version in just a few hours: "Through February and March, according to ISM activists and e-mails Corrie sent to her family, she participated in a variety of actions, including protesting Israeli army demolitions of Palestinian homes by acting as a human shield; placing herself between Palestinian civilians and Israeli troops; protecting Palestinian wells from the Israeli army; criticizing the Bush administration for alleged complicity in the conflict; and demonstrating against the 2003 invasion of Iraq, where she burned a paper-drawn U.S. flag."
"Through February and March, according to ISM activists and e-mails Corrie sent to her family, she participated in a variety of actions, including protesting Israeli army demolitions of Palestinian homes in the militant stronghold of Rafah, by acting as a human shield; placing herself between Palestinians (missing civilians) and Israeli troops; protecting wells from the Israeli army; (missing criticizing the Bush administration for alleged complicity in the conflict; and demonstrating against the 2003 invasion of Iraq, where she burned a paper flag) and burning a paper U.S. flag during a demonstration. " -- Pravda 01:24, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I didn't put in that she burned the U.S. flag. The reason I left it in is that there's a photograph of her doing it (which I also didn't put in), and also because, when I was reading around for sources for these edits, quite a few articles said that her death didn't attract as much coverage in the U.S. as might have been expected because of the flag-burning episode, which apparently lost her some sympathy, so it seemed relevant. The U.S. flag-burning photograph got more coverage than any other, so far as I recall.
On the civilian point, I don't think anyone knows who all the people were she was defending. One editor wrote "Palestinian civilians" and another wrote "Palestinian terrorists," so I changed it to "Palestinians" to make it neutral. The Israeli argument is that these were people who were allowing their homes to be used for weapons-smuggling. We have no way of assessing that claim. We also have no way to assess the claim that these were families who were not involved in the violence. We are editing from a position of ignorance and our article should reflect that.
There's no effort by me to insert material that makes her look bad, but similarly I don't want to keep material just because it makes her look good. I want to try to present a version that is as neutral as we can make it. If you'll work with me on that, I'd be grateful. Slim 02:13, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
However, it is connected to her "activities in Gaza", and it is connected to "Rachel Corrie". As this is an article on Rachel Corrie, not on Rachel Corrie's death, it is therefore relevant. Reinstating. Martin 23:56, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
And that's just the beginning of a concerted effort that has badly slanted the entire article. I've been reviewing the history of the introduction and would like you to see how badly it has been degrading. It's really discouraging to see how this honorable woman's memory is being disgraced. I really would rather not be a part of it anymore so please feel free to carry on. -- Pravda 02:06, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
"Rachel Corrie (? - March 16, 2003), an American college student, was a member of the International Solidarity Movement protesting Israeli action in the Israel-Palestinian conflict. She was killed by an Israeli bulldozer in Rafah, Gaza.
While speaking via a loudspeaker and wearing a red coat, in front of a physician's home which the Israelis intended to bulldoze, Corrie fell down. A bulldozer then ran over her twice. Later, as a group of people gathered, a man was shot and killed by the Israel Defence Forces.
Corrie was a senior at Evergreen State College in Olympia, Washington."
"Rachel Corrie (1979 - March 16, 2003) was an American peace activist who was crushed to death while attempting to block an Israel Defense Forces (IDF) bulldozer in a Gaza Strip refugee camp.
Corrie grew up in Olympia, Washington, and graduated from Capital High School. She had been a senior at the Evergreen State College in Olympia, where she studied the arts and international relations. She took a leave of absence to participate in resistance against the IDF as a member of the Palestinian-led International Solidarity Movement (ISM). In her home town, she was known in the local peace movement and an active member of the Olympia Movement for Justice and Peace.
Friends describe Corrie as athletically slender with blond hair and thoughtful, intelligent eyes. She played soccer, gardened and loved the poems of Pablo Neruda. She was the daughter of Craig Corrie, an insurance executive, and Cindy Corrie, a school volunteer and flutist."
"Rachel Corrie ( 1979 - March 16, 2003) was an American peace activist who was crushed to death during the Al-Aqsa Intifada, while attempting to block an Israel Defense Forces (IDF) bulldozer in a Gaza Strip refugee camp.
"Rachel Corrie ( April 10, 1979 - March 16, 2003) was an American activist who was crushed to death when protesting Israeli occupation of the Gaza Strip.
As a member of the International Solidarity Movement (ISM), she traveled to Rafah during the Al-Aqsa Intifada and tried to block an Israel Defense Forces (IDF) Caterpillar D9 bulldozer. She was fatally wounded during this incident."
Rachel Corrie ( April 10, 1979 - March 16, 2003) was a member of the International Solidarity Movement (ISM) who traveled to Rafah in the Gaza Strip during the Al-Aqsa Intifada. While protesting the Israeli occupation, she was was fatally wounded when she tried to block an Israel Defense Forces (IDF) Caterpillar D9 bulldozer.
Her death sparked controversy, with various advocates scrambling to blame it on the IDF, the ISM, "Palestinian terror", and on Corrie herself.
"Rachel Corrie ( April 10, 1979 - March 16, 2003 was a member of the International Solidarity Movement (ISM) who was run over and killed by an Israeli soldier operated bulldozer while she was protesting Israeli demolitions of Palestinian homes in Rafah in the Gaza Strip.
Her death sparked controversy because she was a peaceful protester and a U.S. citizen, yet the U.S. did not conduct or even demand an official investigation and Israel has not held anyone responsible for her death."
"Rachel Corrie ( April 10, 1979— March 16, 2003) was a member of the International Solidarity Movement (ISM) who was killed when she confronted an Israeli soldier-operated bulldozer while protesting Israeli demolitions of Palestinian homes in Rafah in the Gaza Strip.
Her death sparked controversy, in part because she was the first Western protester and U.S. citizen to be killed in the Arab-Israeli conflict, and in part because of the highly politicized nature of the conflict itself. Advocates on both sides scrambled to blame her death on the Israel Defense Force (IDF), the ISM, the Palestinians, and on Corrie herself. "
Rachel Corrie ( April 10, 1979— March 16, 2003) was a member of the International Solidarity Movement (ISM) who was killed after kneeling or standing in front of a moving armored Caterpillar D9 bulldozer operated by an Israeli soldier clearing land in Rafah, Gaza Strip.
Her death sparked controversy, in part because she was a U.S. citizen and the first Western activist to be killed in the Arab-Israeli conflict, and in part because of the highly politicized nature of the conflict itself. Her death has been blamed on the Israel Defense Force (IDF), the ISM, the Palestinians, and on Corrie herself.
By sheer coincidence the article is protected on Jayjg's version. Ho hum. Dr Zen 03:33, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Please stop deleting material without discussion. She was not "run over" by the bulldozer. If you read the article, you'll see there is disagreement as to whether the blade hit her, or whether she was hit by a concrete slab. But no one is suggesting the bulldozer actually ran her over. Her injuries would have been much worse had this been the case, and she would likely have died instantly.
Also, the Mother Jones article link that you keep deleting is one of the most comprehensive articles published about this case. It definitely ought to stay. Slim 17:54, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
The current intro has degraded since I last looked. I have restored an earlier version, with some modifications.
I hope this explains my change. Martin 23:47, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Again, hope that explains the changes. Martin 00:11, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I think there's something of a structural problem in the article. We have: Reactions to Corrie's death and Responsibility for Corrie's death, but many of the reactions are trying to apportion responsibility. My current thought, therefore, is to instead have the breakdown "responsibility" and "memorials". Martin 01:22, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I've had a tentative first split, which has thrown into sharp contrast that we appear to have nothing on her proper funeral, or the Olympia peace vigil - only on stuff in Gaza. Dang. Martin 01:30, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Hi Martin, here are my thoughts on your changes:
Anyway, these are just my rough thoughts. SlimVirgin 05:23, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
Martin, I'd like to make some changes to the article based on the issues I raised above. Let me know if you have any objection. SlimVirgin 10:36, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
I don’t see why the article must not contain any information about her life. She was a student, and the names of her courses seem reasonable and harmless data. They are verbatim from an address by an Evergreen professor, near the end of this link [19]. Meggar 06:42, 2005 Jan 15 (UTC)
I disagree. I believe that the section entitled "Corrie's death", and later sections, are about Corrie's death. The other sections are about her life.
There are photographs, which are hard to fake. There are contemperaneous emails and reports from Corrie, and from the ISM. There are the recollections of Palestinians on the ground. On a more general note, we know that she was an ISM member. We know that the things she reported doing (and the ISM reported her doing) are precisely the sort of things that ISM members do. For example, various journalists have accompanied the ISM during their activities, including some who met Corrie in person. Meanwhile, IDF sources indicate that they regularly got/get interference in their military operations from the ISM, which is why ISM members are arrested and deported where possible.
Does that answer your question? Martin 14:19, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Many authors have articles only because they have written books, but it seems reasonable to me to include a potted biography of an author's life in their article, not just information on their books. Similarly, Corrie is notable for her death, but I think it's appropriate to include information from her earlier life. I also think such information is interesting. Reading about an author, I wonder what in his life influenced his cynical approach to politics. Reading about an activist, I wonder what in her life influenced her to put her life at risk.
I can agree there is a danger in including personal information that is uninteresting, simply because we have it. I can also agree there is a danger of sentimentalisation, which would be expressing a Point Of View. If we steer clear of those dangers, I don't think personal information should cause a problem. Martin 13:07, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I absolutely agree with that sentiment. Are you referring to the current section entitled "Corrie's death"? Martin 13:07, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Since the Mother Jones article is relied on so heavily by some, in the interests of NPOV the ISM response to that article should also be included:
http://tron.phpwebhosting.com/~ism/pressreleases/PR_16Sep03_12_08_24BethlehemISMMediaOffice.php
"She was killed after she attempted to block an Israel Defense Forces (IDF) Caterpillar D9 bulldozer conducting military operations in Rafah."
This is NPOV? You don't even say what killed her. Perhaps she had a stroke? A heart attack? Was killed by bees?
At least, though, you've managed to convey that it was wholly her own fault.
A proud height for Wikipedia!
It's unclear (from the article) whether the arabs planned or were prepared to kill the children or if they were killed in the crossfire of the botched operation. It's likely that some people belive that they did not, but that they intended just to use them as a bargaining chip. (One could discuss the morality of that, but it's a different issue.) Using the term "died" is a poor way to represent this, though I think you could take it in better faith and be less scornful.
Similarly with Corrie, except that the evidence suggests that the bulldozer killed her; the situation is less ambiguous. Whilst we should present that evidence without comment, it does not address the content of the introduction. The introduction should say that evidence has been presented and by whom, and what claims have been made, and by whom, e.g. the Israeli army has denied X and said Y, but has yet to present any evidence, if that is the case. Mr. Jones 08:46, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
There is a video footage which shows Rachel Standing, speaking into a loud speaker, asking the bulldozer to stop. If he could not 'see her', he could obviously hear her. Yet he proceeded. She was NOT sitting in the video footage. She was evidently standing, and consequently struck. It is actually laughable that your Zionist contributors do not even question this yet jump to protect the IDF's brutal actions blindly. It is sad too. Please refer to website for details: http://www.rachelcorrie.org/memorials.htm -Z A
I want you to be in the cockpit of one of those gigantic D-9 bulldozers and try to hear somone outside the thick, bullet-proof, glass encasing when you have the noisy motor plus the shovel and earth being moved about. He definitely couldnt see her, I also doubt he could hear her. - user:Eliram
The edit wars seem to have finally settled into a nicely NPOV article. Is it time to remove the NPOV tag?
I feel the article is POV, and I'd like to try a rewrite when I have some time. It's been a couple of weeks since I looked at it, but I've laid out some of the issues above. Basically, parts of the article read like an ISM press release. I don't like the bulleted list of activities she engaged in, because it's irrelevant; because there's no way of verifying any of it; and because the bulleted style looks like a press release. The only things about her that are relevant before her death are (a) she was an ISM activist; (b) she travelled to Gaza to engage in demonstrations/protests; (c) some of those protests involved acting as a human shield to prevent what she thought might be bulldozing of houses; and then (d) what happened that day. I also feel the witness statements should be presented in a more analytic manner, by discussing what each of them says about each issue, because they do contradict each other, rather than relying on Smith for the bulk of the description. That's a big job though, which is part of the reason I've delayed tackling it. I think we go overboard with photographs of her, and that we say too much about memorials. Our job is not to contribute to making her a hero or to denigrating her, but simply to describe the circumstances surrounding her death. SlimVirgin 02:32, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
I still don't like the remorseless focus on her death as the sole subject of the article, and the removal of all content unrelated to that issue. I feel that an encyclopedic biography should provide a broader picture than we are providing here. In particular, the current article is unhelpful to readers seeking a greater understanding of the ISM, and the activities and interests of a typical ISM member, where prior versions were more helpful. To me, the more routine aspects of ISM life are just as interesting as the circumstances of her death. I appreciate that they are unimportant to folks only interested in slagging off the other side, but I think we should consider non-partisan readers in our writing a little more.
The article has lost background information on Corrie's early life and activities in Gaza, as this information is deemed not relevant to her death, and might make some readers sympathetic to Corrie. However, it has retained information (and a photo) on her flag burning protest against the Iraq war, which is likewise not relevant to her death, and might make some readers hostile to Corrie. I would prefer to err on the side of including more information - both that which might prejudice some readers towards Corrie, and that which might prejudice them against Corrie.
Corrie's parents's jobs indicate something about her social grouping. Her activities in college indicate something about her academic interests. Both should be kept, IMO.
Clearly, I have a bias, as do most commentators. However, you have also removed information that helps folks with the opposite bias. In particular, Corrie writing about smuggling tunnels indicates that she was aware that some houses in Rafah were being used for this purpose. Some pro-Corrie advocates have erroneously argued that she was unaware of the smuggling, and we should be clear on this. Martin
If I understand you, you're suggesting that all the bulldozers she obstructed may have been bulldozing fields and things, and none of them were clearing houses? That seems pretty unlikely to me, but I suppose I could trawl through her emails to demonstrate conclusively, if you genuinely think it's a possibility. Martin
Corrie's family is suing Israel [23]. Someone might summarise. -- Zero 00:13, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I reverted the addition from the following reason:
is highly POV.Although protests like this are certain to work in her home country, it appears Corrie was naïvely generous and bravely unwilling to protect herself. She refused to adhere to the social convention of a region which does not commonly permit nonviolent demonstrations to be heard, especially from outsiders that have been warned away from potentially fatal interference within armed conflict. This being the general atmosphere of the area, none who were involved on any side of this dispute have publicly shown remorse in relation to how their presence in the matter had contributed to her death, yet insist on pointing the finger at others including the person who died. This is no show of respect to the dead, for many parts of the world. There have been no admissions of guilt by parties in how they allowed it to happen, whilst there is excessively insensitive and irresponsible sensationalism.
MathKnight 07:48, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I didn't see them at any other site. -- Powergrid 03:48, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The real ugly truth is that this poor girl who died so tragically is being used as a propaganda pawn. Look at how your link misrepresents the before picture (4th pic down): "From this photo, there can be no doubt that the Israeli bulldozer driver could clearly see Rachel and that this was no accident", even though major newspapers like CNN and the New York Times printed retractions about these same misleading Reuters photos: (NY Times retraction: "A picture caption on March 17 with an article about an American protester who was crushed by an Israeli Army bulldozer in Gaza referred incorrectly to the bulldozer shown. It was one that the protester, Rachel Corrie, had earlier tried to stop from destroying a Palestinian home. It was not the one that killed her.") [25] Also note how the after picture (5th pic down) in your link has been squeezed and doctored to change the bulldozer to look more like the one in the first picture. Yet the same set of before/after pictures here clearly show different bulldozers. Your proposed link is simply not credible due to its obvious intent to mislead. And let’s not pretend that bloody pictures and this myth are being propagated out of any compassion for Rachel. Rather, misrepresenting the chain of events that led to her death so that it appears she was intentionally murdered by an Israeli bulldozer driver conveniently serves the useful purpose of fomenting anti-Israel hatred. There is spin alright, and it's certainly anti-Israel. -- MPerel( talk | contrib) 09:28, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
As far as I concern, keep this link. However, This link should be put in context, which explains the (mis)caption issue. There is no doubt that the link contain false information (as was proved when news agencies issued a correction about the captions) and this should be noted right next to the link. MathKnight 22:08, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Apparently, someone has a play with her being the main character. This is what someone summarized the play as "But what the play does give is a uniquely personal account of the short life of someone who felt driven to help the oppressed - a quest that took her to a land far from home, into a dispute she knew little about." [27] Wk muriithi
I'm not responsible for removing the Rachelcorrie07.jpg (I had put in my own Rachelcorriefb.jpg), but I have put in a TRULY NPOV picture now which simply combines the two. KaintheScion
Now that Slimvirgin's abuse of admin powers has been resolved: the Rachel Corrie image as it starts the article needs to be either (a) removed, (b) moved lower into the article ("below the fold"), or (c) replaced with a montage of itself and her flag-burning photograph.
Otherwise, the article is slanted from the beginning. If the flag-burning image can be claimed (and you'll get no argument here) to cast her in a negative light, then the "innocent schoolgirl" photo attempts to portray her in a positive light, and that TOO is POV-pushing. KaintheScion
If "No Cameras" weblog and Rachelcorrie.org deserve places in that section, so does this one. KaintheScion
I haven't seen any mention of the relatively new "Rachel: An American Conscience" documentary. The documentary features actual radio transmissions from when Rachel was murdered, and that includes the bulldozer driver stating that he "hit an object", did see him (her), and she's very hurt. It also includes military video of Rachel standing in front of a bulldozer shortly before she was murdered.
I forgot to explain my edit. I restored "Other commentators speculated that the driver failed to see her or expected her to jump out of the way," because I don't see any problem with it. I changed "various advocates blamimg it on ... Palestinian terror" — which was being changed to "Palestinian violence" — to "the Palestinians." If anyone disagrees, feel free to change it. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:00, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
The problem I have with other commentators' "speculation" is that it is not based in any more information than you or I have. It's just what they feel must have happened. We don't include speculation in other historical events -- or if we do, we do not give it the same prominence as eyewitness accounts or accounts from at least partly reputable sources. I've deleted it accordingly.
I've been bothered for a while by the inclusion of the speculations of a rabidly partisan Israeli journalist on her blog. I don't think we should source comments to blogs -- to do so would open the floodgates for all sorts of ill-informed comment to be presented as fact. No one wants that, I hope. However, it should be pointed out that she is an Israeli and not a neutral commentator and it should be pointed out at the very least that she made the comments in question on her blog. I appeal to the pro-Zionist editors here to remove the comment by her altogether. It does not meet the standards we set for inclusion: it is speculation on the part of someone who is biased, was not present and has no special knowledge of the events. She is just putting the mockers on others' accounts, not actually adding anything of her own account. I haven't removed it myself because frankly I know it would be reverted and it's about time we tried to find another way to edit articles in this area without the acrimony and revert wars. I figure one way is to present here an argument that I believe no neutral editor could dispute in good faith and leave it to the other side to take the requisite action, or to dispute it, or ignore it, as they choose. -- Grace Note
I also agree on the lack of judgement that led to a right-wing Israeli blog being used as a source for comments on an already-disputed article. Those of you claiming the article here isn't POV might want to try removing the copious references to a partisan blog that pervade the article as it currently stands. Jeus 02:59, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure where you learned to cite sources, but testimony from a witness (as in, a witness actually at the scene of the incident in question) is known to the civilized world as a 1st Person Source. A blog post, written by an Olympian resident about an event She Did Not See in Israel, is a 3rd Person Source. Before you go about threatening the removal of substantive parts of an article, you should probably take a deep breath, and go back to expanding the Palestinian terrorism article. Because you do not have the authority to demolish an article, simply because your ideology prevents you from accepting any negative commentary about the Israeli "Defense" Force.
Jeus
03:35, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Mustafaa, what was wrong with the following sentence? "Her death sparked intense controversy, with various advocates blaming it on the IDF, the ISM, Palestinian violence, and on Corrie herself." That seems to me to sum up the various positions. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:04, July 19, 2005 (UTC) Hey all, excuse me if I'm out of order here, this is my first time commenting on a wikipedia page and I'm not sure I'm doing the right thing here. I'd like to see something added to the bulldozer driver's account of not seeing Rachel. The IDF has produced and aired on Israeli TV footage which is also included in the new documentary "Rachel: An American Conscience" from the actual radio transmission from the bulldozer driver at the time he ran over Rachel. "Dooby" acknoledges "hitting" Rachel with the bulldozer, acknolodges seeing her, and saying he thinks she is in "severe condition". That's a pretty big fact that is left out of this page. I could put that section of video online for anyone who would like to see it. -mattG
Is there a source for this claim?
Given the lengthy history of the conflict I doubt she was the first western activist to be killed. Certainly Westerners have been killed fighting for Israel in its wars and Westerners working for the US government and NGOs have been killed as well. I suspect whoever wrote this meant first westerner killed protesting against the Israeli occupation - can someone please help me determine if this is true? GabrielF 01:39, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Always wished I could edit my edit summaries. "not stupid" should have been "but stupid". -- Zero 10:46, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
I've rewritten this piece because there's been some reverting because of it, so it now reads:
The widespread media coverage of Corrie's death, and the London play in particular, sparked criticism of what British journalist Tom Gross called "the cult of Rachel Corrie." In an article called "The Forgotten Rachels," published in The Spectator on October 22, 2005, Gross tells the stories of six other women called Rachel, Jewish victims of the Arab-Israeli conflict whose deaths received little, if any, coverage outside Israel. [28] The article prompted a National Review editorial arguing that "Corrie’s death was unfortunate, but more unfortunate is a Western media and cultural establishment that lionizes 'martyrs' for illiberal causes while ignoring the victims those causes create." [29]
I've also created references and further reading sections, and I've tidied some of the links, deleted some dead ones, and a couple of blogs. SlimVirgin (talk) 12:59, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
--A friend recently pointed me to this page and since I consider myself somewhat of an "expert" on Rachel Corrie I have decided to offer input and suggestions for this page. That being said, I have major issues with this "The Forgotten Rachels" section. The whole "forgotten Rachels" idea was created purely for propaganda purposes, in an attempt to dishearten those who memorialize Rachel and are still demanding transparency and accountability for the events leading to her death. I think the arguments presented in the "forgotten Rachels" can be easily countered, and I would be happy to do that, but that is not really the point of why I think this section should be removed or at least modified. Any fringe group can come up with any such comparison for almost anyone in the news or of historical significance, does that mean they merit an entry on the wiki page for that person? Of course I think not, and I'm wondering if any other editors have an opinion about this.
This entire paragraph is POV save the arguably noteable fact that detractors call anyone remembering Rachel a "cultist". I would argue that fact is not even worth mentioning, but cede that it is debatable given the amount of coverage Rachel's death has recieved and that the larger section is about "memorials". Further, the editorial linked to is all of one paragraph.
To sum up, I think this paragraph should be deleted because it does not contribute to any knowledge or facts about the life, death, or activities of Rachel Corrie, nor does it contribute any knowledge or facts about memorials of Rachel Corrie. -mgaines-- Mgaines 05:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
The picture sizes on this article are too small. In the case of the Cat D9 bulldozer, it is helpful to increase the pic size to see the relative size of the bulldozer compared to human scale. 69.209.209.251 10:11, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
No, I disagree, it shows the true scale of the Cat D9. Why is this a problem? Please explain. 69.209.209.251 10:14, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Scale as per the size of the bulldozer to human beings. You misunderstood. It helps to make the picture more useful to readers. 69.209.209.251 10:23, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
The picture is better in larger size, and you are wrong about 3RR, the passive voice was kept, even though it's bad form. 69.209.209.251 10:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
It's called trying to make the picture visible, and it's called compromise. Where did your fellow editor come in from? Calling in reinforcements for help in an edit war is gameing the system. Please stop it. Why is this a big issue? 69.209.209.251 10:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
If there is one picture relevant to this article for the reader to see, it's the size and scale of the D9, that Rachel encountered and died under. 69.209.209.251 10:34, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
THE CAT D9 is a large bulldozer, most people don't really know that, the picture is relevant. 69.209.209.251 10:59, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Humma, humma, humma!!! 69.209.209.251 11:11, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
No comprendo......let's make the pic more visible, is that a problem? 69.209.209.251 11:14, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, that's too bad. It's a revealing picture about the size of the CAT D9. I thought it was really incredible to see that photo. A HUGE bulldozer, no doubt. Most people have no idea how large it truly is. 69.209.209.251 11:26, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
To those who are suggesting large pictures slow down to those with slower connections, why many articles on Wikipedia are accompanied by large pictures without a problem, but these ones cause such a fuss? What is the deal? Small pictures should accompany the article, and if clicken it would take to another page, with the large pictures on that page. Let the public decide. Is there something ominious about the pictures? Why fear, folks. Soomaali Feb. 01, '06
Why the narration by ISM is considered to be "what they thought" or "what they said," and Israeli military's version is considered as official, without no question or no insertion of "what they say"? Isn't this hypocritical? Either both versions should be written "what both sides say," instead of justifying one side. Soomaali Feb. 01, 2006
Zero has reverted my edit that George Rishmawi, an ISM founder, was at the time he founded ISM a member of the Palestinian People's Party, calling it well poisoning. Is it though? It's directly relevant to the foundation of ISM. If I had said "Rishmawi, who is Palestinian," that would be simple well poisoning, but the PPP is a Palestinian communist party, and a faction of the PLO, [30] so that speaks directly to the issue of how partisan ISM is, which is clearly relevant here. Disputed passage below. Any thoughts? SlimVirgin (talk) 00:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
One of the founders of the ISM, George Rishmawi, formerly a member of the Palestinian People's Party, was quoted in the San Francisco Chronicle as having said early in 2003: "When Palestinians get shot by Israeli soldiers, no one is interested anymore. But if some of these foreign volunteers get shot or even killed, then the international media will sit up and take notice."
Ugh! I had written up four paragraphs and went to sign it with the tildes and accidentaly hit "escape" and lost everything. Here goes another try...
I'm new to Wikipedia editing/contributing, and more specifically to doing so on the Rachel Corrie page, so I'm looking for advice on what and how to add additional information to the page.
Video and audio are now available which show Israel Defense Forces (IDF) footage of the bulldozer approaching Rachel seconds before she was struck, as well as communications between the bulldozer operator and his commander just after Rachel was struck. The bulldozer operator says that he "hit an object" and "I think that the object got hit by the dobby (D-9) and he is in a severe condition." He is asked "Did you see him?" and responds "Yes I saw him, I think he is dead."
This video and audio has been aired on Israeli public television and appears in a documentary called "Rachel: An American Conscience"
The IDF video of the bulldozer approaching Rachel just before she was struck is available here: http://www.ourmedia.org/node/158250
The same footage, along with the IDF communications, taken from the documentary is available here: http://www.ourmedia.org/node/158271
How should the contents, conclusions, etc., from these videos be added to the page? Should they be linked? What does everyone think? Mgaines 06:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
There's been too much activity going on recently and I have no idea who added what, but I'd like to make a few changes for accuracy and context. Changes I propose are in bold:
The way it reads in the article would make a reader think she randomly jumped in front of a bulldozer in a no-mans-land border minefield, when she was actually in a residential area and had a reason (in her mind at least) to want to stop the Caterpillar. Any objections, complaints, concerns, grievances, or outrage? Thanks Ramallite (talk) 19:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Ok, hmmmm, so Slim and Jayjg agree, and Ramallite agrees and puts the version in, but then Slim adds back in the part that was the problem we were trying to address, after agreeing to the above. Ug! That doesn't seem quite fair, does it? Under the IDF POV, it already presented the perspective that she was interfering (which would be equivalent to "obstructing"). Describing an activist as protesting sounds reasonably neutral, no? I'm going to revert it, but please let's discuss further, I'm sure we can work this out and come to something mutually agreeable for everyone. -- MPerel ( talk | contrib) 22:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
My objections:
I'm a slow writer and there were edit conflicts trying to post this, so if it doesn't address anything anyone says, keep that in mind : ) Consider this, that just like we explain in the paragraph, it's the circumstances of her death that is the very thing that's disputed. That's why I attempted to move as many details as possible about those circumstances of her death out of the "neutral" part, because in this terrible story, there is no neutral way to relate the events. So she was protesting (both sides would agree to that), one side says she obstructed or was responsible for jumping in the way of the bulldozer. The other side says the bulldozer mowed her down. My solution was to remove the bulldozer out from the neutral part of the paragraph and instead let each POV present the events from their perspectives about how the death occured from the bulldozer. In your revert edit summary, you said we have to add "that she was trying to obstruct the bulldozer; otherwise the death is left entirely unexplained". Well that's just it. The circumstances of the death is what is disputed. It wasn't left unexplained. It's explained from each POV in the POV part of the paragraph. If we add back in the bulldozer to the neutral part, and then relate the events there as they occured from the IDF perspective, it's no longer the neutral part. In my view, there's no way to mention the bulldozer at all in the neutral part of the paragraph and remain neutral. That part needs to be described from each side's POV. What do you think? -- MPerel ( talk | contrib) 23:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
First, thanks for taking up my suggestion re the revert.
I can't see what the issue is here. One should describe the location of an event in order to give readers this information. Was it on a beach, in a forest, on a farm, in a city? How can we argue about such a basic thing? -- Zero 02:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Ramallite, I reverted your edit to the kidnapping section, [31] that said Corrie's parents deny they were the gunmen's original targets, because I couldn't see where the article said that, [32] and in any event, how could they possibly know? SlimVirgin (talk) 18:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't see why we need this section at all. In my opinion it describes a minor non-event that has hardly anything to do with the topic of the article. If it has to stay, I agree with Ramallite on the contents. We have to follow the source unless we have a better source, and the opinion (the only one we have from eyewitnesses) that the Corries were not the target can't be ignored. Actually it is a fine reason for believing that this story is irrelevant to the page. -- Zero 03:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Comparison to source: On 3 January 2006 [source says 4th], five gunmen [source says two men, of whom one was a gunman] burst [image of entry mode not supported by source] into a house Corrie's parents were visiting in Rafah, and allegedly tried to kidnap them. The gunmen are reported to have abandoned their plans when told who their intended victims were [no mention of that in the source at all], although the Corries disagree with that interpretation of events [so whose interprettation is it, and why is the key point of disagreement missing?]. -- Zero 11:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I happen to know Mr. Nassrallah, that's how I know he speaks poor English. If you want to verify for yourself that he speaks poor English, I suggest you find a copy of the UK television special "The Killing Fields" in which he appears.
As for this article not specifically stating that the incident spoken about was not the same misreported incident that this whole section is perportedly about, then fine. Since there is a section about how Rachel's parents were supposedly the targets of an kidnapping -- which they themselves have said is not the case ... How about there be a new section, about how two of Rachel's friends were ALSO the targets of a kidnapping attempt. They are quoted in this news story as saying that is indeed true. Why are Rachel's parents important enough to have their own section, but not Rachel's friends?
(But really -- there are no reports of any other Americans from Olympia experiencing an attempted kidnapping during this time. I think it is obvious that this is the same incident being talked about.) As for the fact that they say "Palestinian friends" -- I suppose it is less than ideal that it is not spelled out in specific detail, but as I happen to know what actually happen, let me spell it out for you and anyone else who happens to be reading this:
Rachel's parents were staying with Palestinians. Rachel's friends were staying with other Palestinians. Armed gunmen came to try to kidnap Rachel's friends. Before they could do so, the Palestinians that Rachel's parents were staying with were called, and then they came over, along with Rachel's parents, to talk to the gunmen. Rachel's parents do not speak Arabic -- their hosts, and Dr. Nasrilah, talked to the gunmen, and when the gunmen realized who Rachel's parents were, they agreed to leave, without kidnapping anyone. Up above, you complained about ISM not being a reputable source, so I supplied the press release from ORSCP, which is a non-profit organization (registered in the US) and respected enough that the Israelis will let people into Gaza traveling with ORSCP. That, along with the Olympian article are both legitimate sources, and at least one of them ought to be included in this section, if it is not entirely removed. - Jonathan
Excuse me if I sound repetitious, but I have read all the argument above on how this episode should be presented and I still don't see an argument why it is significant enough to mention at all. It was just a little dramatic moment; nobody was kidnapped, nobody was hurt, big deal. I propose we delete it. -- Zero 13:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
It isn't significant enough for so much discussion on the talk page, but it's significant enough for a brief inclusion in the article. The parents of the subject might have been take hostage from the home of the person the subject stayed with and became friends with, but when the gunmen found out who they were, they decided otherwise. That speaks to the idea of Corrie's notability in that area, which is something the article repeats at some length, yet it's only this part of it that some people want to see deleted. The material is relevant to the subject and is sourced to reliable, third-party sources. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
I rewrote this section to get the date right, to link to a copy of the JP article which quotes Nasrallah directly, to link to the Corrie parents' statement that agrees almost exactly with Nasrallah ("Though one of the men who entered our host’s apartment was armed, we were never threatened physically or verbally. The men were polite, though it was clear that they were interested in taking, at least, two Americans with them. We declined to leave. It was through very quick thinking and action by the Palestinian couple who were hosting us that our safety was ensured."), and to continue linking to the ISM statement that disagrees with them (though I'm not sure we need to). -- Zero 06:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I removed a contradiction in this section, as it said the "gunmen left when told who the corries parents where" than a sentence later "the gunmen wanted to use the corries as bargaining chips".- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
I reread the source again that attributes ISM as having released the press release. It says, "according the ISM Media Group in the name of the Olympia-Rafah Sister City Project, "news reports stating that the parents of slain American human rights activist Rachel Corrie were the intended targets of an attempted kidnapping Wednesday in Gaza are incorrect." The source is misleading. ISM posted ORSCPs press release on their website, archived here: http://www.palsolidarity.org/main/2006/01/04/no-attempt-to-kidnap-rachel-corries-parents/ "The ISM Media Group" and the ORSCP are not the same entities, and the way this article is written, it makes it seem that they are. (The press release on the ISM cite has a link to ORSCP at the top ... just because they reprint somebody else's press release does not mean the information is "according to them". This source needs to not be cited, because the work ORSCP does is very different from the work ISM does, and ORSCP works very hard to make it clear to the Israeli and US government that they are not in any way affiliated with ISM. Having this source on this page could potentially endanger the lives of US citizens who travel to Gaza to work with ORSCP, who have no interest in doing the work that people who choose to work themselves with ISM do. It could also lead to the legal status of ORSCP being endangered. - Jonathan 22:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
I have removed the part about Balint's weblog entry because, as the Policies section on this page states, this article is to include "no personal websites, blogs, or other self-published material unless the website or blog was Corrie's own, in which case it may be used with caution...". I have also removed the section about Richard Purssel's comments, because both links are broken. Follow them and you get a message that the "article does not exist". I trust it once did, but it does not now. Someone needs to find good links if that's going to be in here. TroiS6 09:52, 21 March 2006 (UTC)