Jump to content

Talk:Rachel Corrie/Archive 14

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14

Misrepresenting sources

Brewcrewer made an enoromus POV push yesterday, he added,

"in part of an operation to eliminate tunnels used by terrorists to illegally smuggle weapons from Egypt into Gaza." despite "terrorist" "illegally" and "smuggle" not being in any of the sources. That the source also states that the operation was also to destroy the homes was tellingly kept out. He made this same edit twice in the article.

", a frequent contributor to the pro-Palestinian site The Electronic Intifada," to needlessly describe a writer

"suspected of hiding contraband weapons and terror-related smuggling tunnels" (not in the source)

He adds comments by the notorious NGO Monitor - sourced to NGO Monitor and ridiculous and offensive remarks made by Shurat HaDin.

he removed,

That Rachel was "Wearing a bright orange fluorescent jacket and, until shortly before her death, using a megaphone, she was killed while standing in the path of a bulldozer that she believed was about to demolish the house of local pharmacist Samir Nasralla's family whom she had befriended."

"According to B'Tselem, approximately 1,700 homes were demolished resulting in 17,000 people becoming homeless between 2000 and 2004."

"and that she had studied methods of Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King with care."

"Corrie wrote to her mother, "The vast majority of Palestinians right now, as far as I can tell, are engaged in Gandhian nonviolent resistance"

He changes,

"eyewitnesses"(sourced) to "fellow ISM protestors{sic}"(unsourced) and "the Israeli government saying"(sourced) to "the Israeli government eyewitnesses saying"(unsourced)

"The ruling, the Israeli justice system, and the investigation it exonerated have been criticized." to "The ruling was met with criticism." when the sources do criticize the ruling, the judicial system, and the investigation.

"in order to use non-violent methods for challenging the policies of the Israeli army" to "in order to challenge the policies of the Israeli army"

There's even more unacceptable POV pushing problems made in the edit by brewcrewer but I grow too tired and disgusted to continue. Sepsis II (talk) 21:38, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

You're the one who's POV pushing. He was simy reverting to the edits approved by many contributors already. --monochrome_monitor 00:33, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

NGO Monitor and Shurat HaDin

MathKnight, please explain why you've restored the following paragraph:

Shurat HaDin, an Israeli group which aims to apply legal pressure to accused terrorist groups, has said that the Corrie Family should sue the Palestinian Authority and ISM over their daughter's death. In addition, NGO Monitor president, Gerald Steinberg said, "Corrie's death was entirely unnecessary, and the leaders of the ISM bear much culpability for her death."

The first part is sourced to a Wordpress blog, the second, while sourced to a reliable source, represents the view of one person and is undue weight here. Also explain why you restored what she believed to be, there is no dispute that the house was being demolished. nableezy - 17:01, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Shurat HaDin is a very notable NGO and if you looked it is entry you see it had notable legal achievements (such as winning hundreds of millions of dollar compensation for terror victims). MathKnight 19:20, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Its a wordpress blog, it doesnt get any more self-published than that. They can be used for information about themselves, not for information about Corrie. See WP:SELFPUB. nableezy - 20:53, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Also, the edits were added by a sock of a banned account, I am re-reverting on that basis. nableezy - 17:01, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
First, you attacking ad hominem and it is not accepted. Second, it is not a sock puppet of banned account, it is my account at the university, since I'm working in a different computer than home in a grad students common office, and I don't want to log in/out every time I switch computer. Since I have officially said it is my account (see user page) and did not tried to pretend I'm someone else it is not a sock puppet. It is more like a user that also operated a maintenance "bot" account. This is not a reason to revert automatically edits by User:MathKnight-at-TAU account. MathKnight 19:18, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Im sorry that you misunderstood what I wrote. The initial restore of that material was from Cønffucius (talk · contribs), a now blocked sock of a banned user. I was not reverting you for being a sock, I reverted you on the merits of the edit. nableezy - 20:53, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

House demolition?

You write "there is no dispute that the house was being demolished" but I quote from the article:

According to the judge "The mission of the IDF force on the day of the incident was solely to clear the ground.... The mission did not include, in any way, the demolition of homes."[1][2]

The court ruled that no house was demolished in that operation and that was no intention of demolishing one. A court verdict is a reliable source. MathKnight 19:18, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I dont know that a court verdict is a reliable source, but Corrie was in between a bulldozer and a house when she was run over and killed by said bulldozer. I dont know what the mission of the day was, but the actual action of the day should be relatively clear. nableezy - 20:53, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
You may dispute a court's verdict, which I think qualifies as a reliable source, but you can't claim anymore that no one says that the mission that day was not house demolition and that no house was demolished in that operation. The court clearly disputes that the house was being demolished that day, the armored bulldozer just cleared shrubbery and soil near it. MathKnight 05:41, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
We have had this discussion here many times before.
The facts as I understand them remain as follows:
1. ISM witnesses claim house demolitions were attempted but they managed to stop them by going inside a building and by standing in front of the bulldozers. If this is correct then the "just clearing vegetation" claim is a lie.
2. The IDF claim is that they were only scheduled to clear "vegetation and rubble" ON THE DAY THAT CORRIE WAS KILLED . I.e. implying that they had been demolishing houses on previous days and they intended to on subsequent ones but on the day Rachel was crushed to death were only clearing vegetation. If this is correct then the ISM witnesses specific and detailed statements are a lie.
Either way, someone is lying and we wiki editors should NOT decide for the reader who it is.
That house demolitions did not occur ON THAT DAY is a statement of fact, but I think is irrelevant. All we can know for certain is that house demolitions did not occur on that day after Rachel had been killed.
I see TWO alternative understandings for why that is:
a.) they may have been attempted but were prevented (ISM claim) and were curtailed after her death OR
b.) they had never been planned for that particular day (IDF claim).
We don't know which is true. Which is why I think this 'fact' of no house demolition on that day does does not support either side of this disputed point.
FACT: the house in question was eventually demolished (2 years later I think).
CONCLUSION: Making the article present one side of this disputed point - as if there was no dispute - therefore seems a clear WP:NPOV violation.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 18:00, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
But the COURT accepted IDF claim that no house demolition was planned that day. So we have ISM's claim, the IDF's claim and the court's verdict. The court accepted IDF's statement and ruled that no house demolition was planned that day (and in fact, no house was demolished in that action). MathKnight 11:41, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
.The court's verdict has been criticised, as the article details. Therefore the article should not favour one side of a disputed subject. That would violate neutrality. This has been discussed previously numerous times and once with your involvement.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 00:09, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree with MathKnight. Both claims should certainly be included, but this article seems to be a platform for the ISM position, especially by quoting only the bystanders who blame Israel. --monochrome_monitor 00:44, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
I attempted to make house demolitions more NPOV by saying "alleged" with a disclaimer of the ISM claiming it and IDF denying it. --monochrome_monitor 20:49, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Whether house demolitions were planned or attempted on that particular day is a disputed issue, but you put "allegedly" on more general statements about house demolitions. That houses were demolished frequently in those days is not "alleged" it is 100% fact. Zerotalk 23:38, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
I didn't mean to make it ambiguous, I included that house demolitions happened frequently but wanted to explain that whether they happened that day is unclear. Please tell me what phrase or phrases you are referring to and I'll try to clear it up. What I was trying to say is that since it's disputed whether demolitions occurred that day, then we can not say as fact that she died protecting a house from demolition. We can say that she believed she was protecting a house, or the ISM claims she was protecting a house, but can't say she was protecting a house. I'm sorry if I'm unclear. --monochrome_monitor 20:59, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 July 2014

"It sailed to join a flotilla intended to break Israel's blockade of Gaza—used to prevent weapons and unauthorized materials with military applications from being smuggled through Turkey and Iran—and take in supplies."

In this sentence, Israel's Blockade of Gaza is based upon smuggled weapons and other stuff from Turkey and Iran. There is no source of this claim. If the source is No.114, Associated Press' news, then it only says smuggled weapons from Iran. Including Turkey in this sentence gives a wrong view of Blockade in Gaza. Secondly, blockade of Gaza is not only designed for smuggled weapons. There are some other versions of the story, telling the blockade is "to punish Gaza since they elected Hamas". The reason of the blockade in the article is a one-sided, biased view, the view of Israeli Government. To create fairness, other views on the Blockade should be put in there (with sources) and/or linked to Israel's Blockade of Gaza article.

84.51.41.198 (talk) 09:06, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Done See [1]. I've simplified it. Details about the military applications of coriander and other materials banned by Israel are in the main article about the blockade. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:41, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Peace activist?

The ISM is not a peace movement. It specifically supports "resistance" which is a euphemism for Political violence. Therefore, Corrie abandoned her past peace-activism when she worked actively with ISM. Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 04:56, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Your personal opinions about the topic are irrelevant to the article. Editing the article based on your personal opinions is not consistent with the principles and policies of the encyclopaedia. Your proposed edit introduces a claim that there is a temporal gap between her peace activism and her involvement in ISM ("Rachel Aliene Corrie (April 10, 1979 – March 16, 2003) from Olympia, Washington, was an American peace activist who later became a member of the pro-Palestinian group called International Solidarity Movement (ISM).") To support such an edit you would need a WP:RELIABLE SOURCE that describes a temporal gap between her peace activism and her involvement in ISM. Without a cited source to support your edit it should be reverted on sight. Dlv999 (talk) 05:33, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Interesting that in support of your thesis you refer to the article on Political violence. All of the descriptions of political violence in that article refer to acts of violence by states against dissidents. Perhaps you should go to that article and suggest adding acts like lying down in front of bulldozers to the list of types of political violence. Ravpapa (talk) 09:35, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
ISM is a violent organization that supports terrorism. Unlike their statement, ISM was involved in violent activities against Israel. Therefore ISM is not a peace movement. Sources: there are plenty in International Solidarity Movement. MathKnight 10:00, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Interesting that you say that. I read the article on ISM and did not find a single suggestion that ISM was involved in violent activities. There was the issue of a quote that some interpreted as being a statement of support for armed struggle; but it did not suggest anywhere that ISM itself deviated from its policy of nonviolence. There was also an accusation by the IDF that two Kalashnikov rifles were found on the ISM premises, but the IDF later corrected itself and said there were no rifles.
If you know of documented cases where ISM was involved in violent actions, you should definitely add it to the ISM article. Otherwise, I suggest that it is an error on your part to reference that article as support for the claim that ISM embraces violence. Ravpapa (talk) 12:18, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Here there are: ISM activists gave money to Hamas [2], ISM activists attacked soldiers [3] (the Hebrew source: בישראל אומרים שהקשר בין אנשי ה-ISM לגורמי טרור פלשתיניים אינו מסתכם בלינה בבתי מחבלים. לטענת השב"כ, חלק מאנשי הארגון מקיימים קשרים עם פעילי טרור, ופועלים לשיבוש פעילות צה"ל בשטחים. באחד המקרים חשפו פעילי ISM מארב של צה"ל, לאחר שהאירו עליו בפנסים. בחודש יולי תקפו שני פעילים חיילים של צה"ל במחסום בית-פוריק. קצין צה"ל מספר שבמספר מקרים פעילי ISM "פתחו ציר" בשביל הפלשתינים, כלומר: הלכו ראשונים ובדקו אם יש מחסומי צבא בהמשך הדרך. "Israel says that the connection between ISM activists to Palestinian terrorists is not merely sleeping in terrorists' houses. According to Israel Security Service (Shin-Bet), some of the activists maintain connections with terrorists, and act to distrupt IDF actions in the territories. In one case ISM activists exposed an ambush set by the IDF after lighting on it with flashlights. In July, two ISM activists attacked soldiers in a Beit-Pourik checkpoint. IDF officer tells that in several cases ISM activists opened routes to Palestinians by going first to check if there is a military checkpoint in the way." (use Google translate) [4] And there is court ruling: Israeli judge Oded Gershon ruled about the ISM that "In fact, the organization abuses human rights and morals rhetoric to blur the graveness of its actions which manifested de-facto as violence."[3] He also ruled that ISM activists provided financial, logistic and moral aid to terrorists.[4]

These facts, together with ISM's support in Palestinian violence, disqualifies it as a "peace organization". MathKnight 08:57, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Why don't you add this information to the article on ISM? Seems that is the place to be discussing this, not here. Ravpapa (talk) 12:29, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
What part of the article do you wish to change? The article is about Rachel not the ISM. At present the lead states that Rachel Corrie was a peace activist and provides verifiable sources for that. It also states that she was a member of ISM and provides a source. So the article correctly informs that Rachel Corrie was an American peace activist who was also a member of the International Solidarity Movement. --Mystichumwipe (talk) 12:10, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
So I take it you agree ISM is not a peace organization. MathKnight 12:21, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
What you or I personally think or agree upon is irrelevant. Does the article reflect the consensus of verifiable sources with neutrality? If you think it does not, present your case. I think at present it does. Again, this article is about Rachel not the ISM.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 13:52, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
She's not a peace activist at all. This article fails to mention that the house wasn't occupied, and why Israel was clearing it (to find tunnels smuggling illegal weapons).

--monochrome_monitor 20:30, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Due process?: Monochrome Monitor added a POV tag +es, and after I reverted [5] did so again [6]. I started a talk here. I won't go xRR. I restate that the POV-tag, as applied & not followed-up, does not help anything. -DePiep (talk) 21:40, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Are any of the warring editors actually going to respond to the issued raised or just continue disruptively reverting? --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:09, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
What are you talking about, who are you talking to? -DePiep (talk) 10:14, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Also, I don't see her referred to as a "peace activist" in the cited source. Can anyone pinpoint the exact area in the article making this statement? --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:22, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
BBC profile, the source cited in the lead, first sentence "Rachel Corrie...was a committed peace activist". Sean.hoyland - talk 04:37, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Text is consistent with the cited WP:RS but not the editors personal views on the topic. This is not an WP:NPOV issue. The issue is that the editors views are not consistent with the sort of sources that we base articles on. Dlv999 (talk) 07:05, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Where can I read the case for the POV tag? I read what is on this page so far and didn't find it. Zerotalk 13:46, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
It is about 10 lines above your post. A case has been made that it is POV to describe her as a peace activist when that is disputed, and that the article violates NPOV by not mentioning the house she was supposedly protecting was unoccupied or providing details on the nature of the IDF operation Here come the Suns (talk) 17:33, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
I see no case for the POV tag as the dispute is over personal opinions but that dispute will continue until we state she died in a suicide attack against a bulldozer which was trying to bring peace to the world. The account directly above my post and the OP are very likely the same. Sepsis II (talk) 18:00, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
I also support the POV tag. --monochrome_monitor 00:46, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

As I mentioned in the section below, there is clearly no consensus for change demonstrated here. It is contrary to our usual practice to change the status quo ante (i.e. consensus content before the discussion started) once a discussion has begun until consensus for a change is established. The removal of this information was part of an single complex edit and not mentioned at all in that edit summary. The related list in See also was removed in another edit a bit later (this time with edit summary). This unresolved discussion is reason enough to restore the information, but while I was checking other changes in the big edit I noticed that the Israeli source Haaretz also uses the same description in the title of an article we are already using as a reference. I am restoring the lead content and adding the Haaretz reference so it is clear that this is an appropriate term, in widespread use in reliable sources, to summarise Corrie's activism. The list is clearly appropriate since Corrie is listed there. I've restored it at the end so it does not interrupt the links to other casualties. --Mirokado (talk) 21:50, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I've restored back to the stable version of Sean.hoyland from late June, there's been a serious POV attack on the article this month, a lot of unnecessary and bias "according to" and "allegedly", well poisoning, removing her non-violence, addition of fringe advocacy groups, etc.. Sorry if good edits were caught in that mess, but it had to be done. Sepsis II (talk) 00:12, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
As expected one of the editors that hounds me reinstated the clealy unacceptable revisions, if someone could undue the unexplained drive-by hounding that would be great. Sepsis II (talk) 00:48, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
FWIW, I still think I oppose the description "peace activist" in the lede. I appreciate the BBC but it appears to be the only RS calling her such and there thousands of articles about her. Indeed her activities cannot fairly be described as "peace activism" because most of her activities involved some sort of protest. Not saying that's not a good thing but that type of activity is not typically described as "peace activism." --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:50, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. The designation of RC as " peace activist" seems highly POV. It is also vulnerable to deletion in terms of the paucity of RS cites thus far demonstrated supporting this epithet Irondome (talk) 01:05, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I think that the Haaretz article has to count as reliable for this context. It is how she was described by a source which had no reason to be particularly sympathetic to her, immediately after her death, thus undistorted by any source bias in her favour or propaganda spin. This is a biography of Corrie: I don't see how we can provide a fair summary in the lead if we suppress information about what sort of "activity" she was performing. Perhaps editors who do not like the phrase "peace activist" can suggest a well-sourced alternative which they consider more acceptable while still providing the necessary background. I don't buy the suggestion that pacifists do not protest, have a look at Greenham Common Women's Peace Camp for example. --Mirokado (talk) 23:52, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Which Haaretz article? Also I guess you're not aware, but Haaretz (not to dispute its reliability for news reports) is considered to the far left of the Israeli political spectrum. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:02, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
The first callout in the lead, also used twice more in the article:
"American peace activist killed by army bulldozer in Rafah". Haaretz. March 17, 2003. Retrieved May 8, 2008.
No I'm not that familiar with the Israeli press, thanks for the information. --Mirokado (talk) 00:34, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. That's in the headline so that's not as good as if it were in the body of the article. Regardless, I think what we have to answer is how do most RS's describe her in their opening sentence. If most do not refer to her that way it would not make sense for her Wikipedia article to refer to her that way in the opening sentence of the lede despite the procurement of one or two articles out of a few thousand article that do refer to her that way. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:42, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Haaretz reporting repeatedly uses the descriptor "peace activist" both in their headlines and article body. See e.g Supreme Court hears appeal of Rachel Corrie case It is a descriptor used widely by mainstream RS covering the topic. e.g. NPR, BBC, Al Jazeera The Jewish Chronicle, ITV News, ABC News, Al Monitor Dlv999 (talk) 10:56, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Again, there are so many news articles about her one is bound to find her described as a "peace activist" by at least a few (I submit a lot of them were cribbed from her description here). The essential question is how do more reliable sources describe her? I just checked Google News and I'm listing all the articles that came up:
Within the first three pages of results there are all the links that described her instead of simply stating "Rachel Corrie." What we can discern is that most (4 out of 5 in this instance) sources describe her simply (and correctly) as an "activist." --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:34, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
The fact that the data returned doesn't include the high quality RS that are cited on this very page indicates that the results can't be used to draw reliable conclusions. That doesn't mean you are wrong of course, just that it's not possible to tell from this data. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:22, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
If you agree that it would be appropriate to use the term used by most reliable high quality sources, please suggest a better way of determining this issue. You know very well that for every source describing her as a "peace activist" I can produce ten sources that describer as simply an "activist" or "Pro-Palestinian activist." --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:40, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
No I don't "agree that it would be appropriate to use the term used by most reliable high quality sources". I think it doesn't matter what I think because it's covered by NPOV. If she is described in a variety of ways, describe her in a variety of ways. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:49, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Type Rachel Corrie into the google search bar and is asks you, Rachel Corrie - Peace activist or MV Rachel Corrie, ship? This conversation is beyond the pale really, there's no question that someone who spent their life defending an occupied people against war crimes is a peace activist. Sepsis II (talk) 03:42, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
It is what documents support it rather then by what websites say. Also how many of those websites are disqualified to use as a source? Also that the current version is heavily written with a biased against the IDF, which goes against Wikipedia's Neutrality view for each article. Articseahorse (talk) 05:05, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
What evidence in the article and/or evidence present in RS but absent from the article led you to conclude that "the current version is heavily written with a biased against the IDF" ? Can you cite examples of that bias, explain why they qualify as bias (using policy and RS based arguments) and propose improvements so that they can be discussed one at a time ? Generally speaking, in my experience, editors who show an interest in this article do so because of their own bias, which very often makes their assessment of bias unreliable. I hope you are different because what this article needs is disinterested editors who don't care about Corrie, the IDF or anything else this article discusses but who can identify genuine instances of bias/NPOV non-compliance that can be discussed and fixed without anyone giving their personal opinions about any of the real world issues, people, organizations etc. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:06, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
I also think the peace activist label is unjustified. If some Arab and far-left outlets state something it doesn't automatically become true. Pro-Palestinian does not necessarily mean pro-peace, just as pro-israel does not necessarily mean pro- peace. Were the violent pro-Palestinian rioters in France who trashed Jewish stores and sinogogues pro-peace? No. Are the Christians who support israel and want to bomb the dome of the rock pro-peace? No. Simply advocating a cause you consider just is not inherently peaceful. For example, one abolitionist murdered a bunch of people. And sepsis, the reason google search says "peace activist" or "MV" is because she was in the wiki category and there was a disambig page saying it. Basically, you are appealing to self-consistency. And don't pretend you don't have a serious POV issue in this subject.

Anyone support changing "peace activist" to the more objective "activist"?

I support activist. Until we have clearer information it's best to keep her neutral none of her activities were in concerns to a peace effort from both sides, mainly she was involved in activities against the israeli side, to be a peace activist you would think she would have given a statement supporting both sides hoping for peacePalestinewillbefree (talk) 01:50, 15 July 2014 (UTC) I support it. --monochrome_monitor 21:16, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I see you have again made this change without any consensus for it here. It will take a little while to formulate yet another response here, in the meantime I have restored the consensus version. --Mirokado (talk) 22:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Retain "peace activist" per the sources. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:18, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello again. There have been discussions about this phrase in the past. You can find at least some of them by typing "peace activist" with the quotes into the archive search box at the top of this talk. The previous one as far as I remember was Talk:Rachel Corrie/Archive 13#'peace activist' and 'weasel_words'? which I also interpret as having ended as "no consensus for change". It so happens that I was the last person to post there, but that has nothing to do with the outcome of course. You will notice that another editor posted a list of questions which nobody answered, just as some of the questions asked in this thread have received no response.
I don't think there ever will be consensus to remove information about the peaceful nature of Corrie's protesting completely from the lead of this article, however much some editors would like that. I have already suggested trying to find an alternative phrase which we can live with.
There are various "best practices" and "dispute resolution procedures" which Wikipedia has evolved to try to deal with such disagreements. Here are a couple of starting points for reading about them:
  • WP:BRD: Bold, Revert, Discuss. Make changes you think are appropriate, if someone disagrees with them they revert and if you still think your change is needed, you start a talk page discussion. In this case your removal was reverted (first time not by me, incidentally) so to follow this common practice you should not restore the change until the discussion is finished.
  • WP:DR: Dispute resolution. This is the top-level page introducing ways to resolve a dispute (or to have it deemed resolved somehow). I suggest, if I may, that you read through it and follow links there which you feel are relevant
--Mirokado (talk) 23:54, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Protesting nonviolently does NOT make you a peace activist. The fact that 90% of sites refer to her as an activist while wikipedia still calls her a "peace activist" is just laughable. --monochrome_monitor 14:07, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Peace Activist vs Activist

There have been some arguments on both sides but we haven't put it to a definite vote. I'm going to tally them so far, please add yours, especially if you're uninvolved. --monochrome_monitor 14:53, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Change to Activist: Chicago Style (without pants), MathKnight, brewcrewer, Here come the Suns, monochrome monitor, Irondome, Palestinewillbefree, Wikieditorpro

Keep as peace activist: Bastun, Sepsis II, Ravpapa

Someone is going to have to explain this, it might as well be me. We don't put things involving article content to "definite votes". You really do need to read Wikipedia's policies, guidelines and at least some of the essays - not all of them at once of course but at least the ones which are brought to your attention. This is a complex project and there is a lot to learn, I'm afraid. I suggest in particular Wikipedia:Consensus. Also relevant is the essay Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. You also need to read Wikipedia:Requests for comment (which is linked in one of the pages I mentioned last time). That is probably closest to what you are trying to do here. Have a look at some recent RFCs to see how they are structured, how people contribute and how the closer (would probably need to be a uninvolved admin in this case) assesses the result.
You and others have contributed to the discussion after most if not all of those you have listed. Don't assume that everybody ignores the arguments that are presented. Let them speak for themselves.
You have ignored my suggestion that we seek alternative wording. Why?
You omitted me from the list you prepared. Why?
Please do not add me, this would need to be done properly if at all.

--Mirokado (talk) 00:03, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I didn't mean to ignore anything. What alternative wording? And I thought you were nuetral on the subject, that's why I didn't add you.

It's just obviously a violation of NPOV to call her a peace activist. --monochrome_monitor 16:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Wow, I think that may be the nicest compliment anyone has paid me on Wikipedia! Thank you! No more time tonight, but I have been reading what you say and will respond. --Mirokado (talk) 00:31, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
A bit more about editing from a neutral point of view: quoting from WP:NPOV, this "means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". If we do that, readers can form their own opinion about the subject of the article. The lead should provide a complete but brief summary of the article. In this case, I think that "all of the significant views" means that we must somehow include the description of the kind of activism Corrie practiced. Reliable sources use phrases like "peace activist". Corrie herself referred to "non-violent activism". I doubt very much whether you will find significant, or indeed any, coverage asserting that she practiced violence, but if there were I imagine that we would mention it in both lead and article body. Since so much of the activism in the Israel-Palestine conflict has been, and still is, violent, to omit this information would be significantly misleading – bias by omission. --Mirokado (talk) 00:32, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the definitions. I agree that it may be a significant point to mention, especially since the ISM has engaged in violent protests. We could call her a non-violent activist, like civil disobediance, but she's not a peace activist. She advocated for Palestinians but not exactly for peace. So can I change it to "non-violent" activist? --monochrome_monitor 18:25, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
She is what the reliable sources say she is, which certainly includes 'peace activist'. You must simply accept that. You don't need to tell people what you think about reliable sources using that description because it doesn't matter what we think. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:31, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes but reliable sources also refer to her as a far-left protester. Selecting which side we want to take is biased. There are "reliable sources" that say lots of things, but I've found most refer to her as an "activist". It doesn't matter how you cite a statement if you are choosing the statement before finding the citations. In this case, the author wanted to convey her as a "peace activist" and sought citations to prove it. --monochrome_monitor 18:38, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Water Well Protecting Efforts

I don't think that this deserves its own section as it's not particularly different from "activities in the Palestinian Territories". It's also given a bit of undue weight considering its unreliably sourced. I propose condensing it with the previous section. --monochrome_monitor 15:00, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I've just had a look at that whole section. It does need a rewrite, but I think we need to improve the coverage related to the house demolitions, rather than mixing the water well issue into that section too. The destruction of vital (and expensive) civilian infrastructure and the use of snipers against those in the area make this qualitatively different from the demolition events. I suggest a new subsection to deal with the house demolition issue more thoroughly. --Mirokado (talk) 22:45, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Would that be merged with this section? Like house demolitions/water well demolitions/civilian infrastructure? If we have a separate section on House demolitions we should have a separate on one Tunnels and terror smuggling/militant activities. The page does already link to both. If possible we should get a source other than the ISM, as its an unreliable primary one.--monochrome_monitor 16:22, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. I was thinking of a section structure something like:
2 Activities in the Palestinian territories
(existing content covering her arrival, initial training etc)
2.1 Attempts to prevent house demolitions
2.2 Water well protecting efforts
2.3 Controversy over protest against the Iraq War
2.4 Corrie's emails from Gaza to her mother
Although we clearly need some background information about IDF operations and ISM activities here, since this a biography we don't need to cover in detail issues ancilliary to what Corrie herself was doing (the information certainly belongs in other, directly relevant, articles of course, some of which are already linked in the section hatnote). The tunnels are already mentioned several times in the article. Is there significant coverage in sources of her being active in Gaza in areas not involving houses or wells? --Mirokado (talk) 00:07, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
What concerns me is that though all the information you added would contributed to the article, its only source is official ISM stuff. We shouldn't explore biased anecdotes since there's no difinitive historical record for it. How about "attempts to prevent demolitions" to cover both wells and houses (which we should not state were demolished on the day she died as an absolute fact)? Oh and no problemo for replying. I'm honestly trying to make this more neutral, like if you saw I change some of the excessively weaselly allegedlies to state that demos were a fact but demos during that day are disputed. --monochrome_monitor 18:32, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
How about we add what you suggest, condensing and debiasing whatever the ISM says happened (like I tried to do in this article where they were the primary source), but then add a section on controversy over the ISM's lies, for instance making it seem like a picture showed corrie before her death when it was really hours before, she was sitting, didn't have a megaphone, and it was a different bulldozer? --monochrome_monitor 18:43, 26 July 2014 (UTC) That way we can describe her activities in the territories while maintaining the ISM's unreliability, which was actually significant in the media account of her death.
Yes I have noticed your changes here, and appreciated the removal of "allegedly"! I think it is preferable for the section about Corrie's activities to concentrate on what she was doing, with an appropriate amount of context to aid the unfamiliar reader. That would make the "houses" and "wells" bits fairly symmetrical. How people and organisations reacted after her death belongs to, for example, the section on reactions to her death. Certainly inaccuracies in the reports should be covered along with the reports themselves. How we cover them depends on how reliable sources cover them. You would for example need really impecabble, independent sources to use the word "lies" in the article. Not sayin' you can't, just sayin'! --Mirokado (talk) 21:59, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your cooperation! I'll look for non-primary source information on her activities. As for "lies", it could just be in a new controversy section surrounding the media reaction. There was quite a bit of controversy surrounding the AP's misleading caption of the picture. --monochrome_monitor 00:27, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Role of ISM section

Not sure who wrote the original section, but they had some real cynicism.

  • Converting a statement which stated that ISM's role is to "bring attention to Palestinian suffering" because "nobody cares if Palestinians are killed, but if foreigners get killed, world media will notice." This was spun as a criticism of ISM, by omitting the first statement. I have added the previous statement.
  • A statement saying that "ISM knew there was some risk, but it had never happened before and if it did, it had to be intentional etc." is prefixed with an editorial commentary "ISM knowingly put its members at risk". Pretty cynical. Just quote the statement, let the reader draw his own conclusions. I have removed the editorializing.

I have also renamed the section as "Role of ISM", rather than "Criticism of role of ISM". Kingsindian (talk) 02:57, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

2014 Appeal

I'm not particularly versed in the legal process but the introduction of this article says that "An appeal against the August 2012 ruling has been granted and will be heard on May 21, 2014." That happened, do we have any update on how it went? --monochrome_monitor 00:29, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I have updated that paragraph. No decision yet. --Mirokado (talk) 14:34, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

NGO Monitor an 'NGO-monitoring group'?

It is quite clear that their only mission in life is to discredit human-rights organizations criticizing Israel. The have no broader mission, contrary to HRW or Amnesty. I doubt notability, but even so, they should be characterized truthfully (as they are BTW in Wikipedia's own linked 'NGO Monitor' article). What about 'an Israel-based think tank with the stated mission...' ? 93.106.59.137 (talk) 06:51, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, but that is not as bad a distortion as putting them in the "human rights organisations" section. I moved them to the political section. Zerotalk 07:24, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Much better now after several back-and-forths. I would agree with you Zero0000 that 'human rights organizations' continues to be not the right header for this; ideas? Also 'anti-Israel NGOs'? Hmmm. 88.112.32.173 (talk) 21:10, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
The description "NGO Monitor, which critiques various anti-Israel NGOs" is a direct quote from the Jerusalem Post.Cathar66 (talk) 22:12, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
OK. That doesn't make it correct. E.g., Amnesty International has done many, usually right, things over the decades, and also criticized Israel. It has a reputation [Disclosure, I was an Amnesty activist in a previous life]. 'anti-Israel NGO' throws all of that away. 88.112.32.173 (talk) 04:45, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring of questionable claims

So far at least two editors (User:Peleio Aquiles and myself) have tried to remove User:Ashurbanippal questionable claims that Rachel was killed "in their operations to eliminate tunnels used by gunmen to smuggle weapons from Egypt into Gaza." User:Ashurbanippal has reverted all attempts to remove his claims. While this claim has been a talking point by anti-Arab groups, the claim is disputed, and should not be stated as fact in the article. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 15:23, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

But it still should be mentioned as a claim by the IDF since it has been reported that Hamas uses tunnels to bring in weapons and supplies. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-28430298

"The tunnels dug by Hamas are usually about 65ft (20m) underground - so, even if you know the approximate location, they are almost impossible to detect. Therefore to discover the tunnels, the Israelis must either have excellent intelligence from within Gaza or they must go in and search for them house by house."

Articseahorse (talk) 13:08, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 February 2015

Please change, "She was killed by an Israel Defense Forces (IDF) armored bulldozer in a combat zone in Rafah, in the southern part of the Gaza Strip, under contested circumstances[2][4] during the height of the second Palestinian intifada.[5]" to "She was killed by an Israel Defense Forces (IDF) armored bulldozer in Rafah, in the southern part of the Gaza Strip, under contested circumstances[2][4] during the height of the second Palestinian intifada.[5]" Per Rachel Corrie's parents, during legal proceedings in the lawsuit brought against the Israeli government, IDF witness accounts were conflicted and there was NO agreement as to the area being a 'closed military combat zone'. The IDF commander in charge of the demolition operations did NOT consider it a 'military combat zone'. Please correct this fact. You can verify the information by reviewing the details of the court case. Zalani (talk) 16:17, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Can you provide a link to these court case details you are providing? From perusing this article, it seems "in a combat zone" is warranted. In the Rachel Corrie#In Israel section, there is sourced text that supports this. The source says "In a 162-verdict, the Judge Gershon pointed to three entry bans and noted that the Philadelphi route had effectively been a war zone formally declared a closed military zone at the time of the accident.". Before I would consider making any changes, I would need to see proof that supersedes Gershon's opinion. Cannolis (talk) 18:19, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Compromise on this statement.

In regards to this Statement; "While there, she had engaged with other ISM activists in efforts to prevent the Israeli army's demolition of Palestinian houses in their operations to eliminate tunnels used by gunmen to smuggle weapons from Egypt into Gaza."

Perhaps it can be posted as this.

"While there, she had engaged with other ISM activists in efforts to prevent the Israeli army's demolition of Palestinian houses. IDF has claimed that Hamas has been using the houses in a tunnel network to smuggle weapons and supplies from Egypt into Gaza."

It covers the position of the IDF as why they were destroying the houses and puts it in a way that it is a claim and staying neutral POV.Articseahorse (talk) 20:47, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with your proposal. I'll change the lead if there aren't further objections.--Ashurbanippal (talk) 00:31, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
This looks like original research (wp:OR). The article referenced claims that some Palestinian houses were demolished in attempts to destroy tunnels. There is no reference given to any article stating the house near where Rachel was killed was demolished for this reason. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 18:03, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
This practice has been reported before by the BBC. Egypt also performs similar actions in destroying houses to combat weapons smuggling into Gaza. The added phrase would identify why the IDF where performing theses operations. Without that sentence, it makes it seem like the IDF was destroying houses for fun. Articseahorse (talk) 20:30, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Egypt has apparently decided to do what Israel did, namely destroy every single house within a certain distance of the border. It is very naive to suppose that every single house hid a tunnel, even though some of them did. In any case, the IDF initially said they weren't going to destroy the house Corrie was standing in front of but were just clearing vegetation. Of course they came back later to destroy the house and to the best of my knowledge never claimed there was a tunnel under it. Zerotalk 08:28, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Are you referring to the bit near the end of Rachel Corrie#Military investigation? It's been tagged for a citation since 9/2012. I haven't managed to find anything myself, the best I got was a video on Facebook from the Rebuilding Alliance which I don't quite think is a RS. Cannolis (talk) 18:30, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2015

The Israeli Supreme Court upheld the lower court ruling and put an end to the Corrie lawsuit.

70.161.80.253 (talk) 23:27, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

 Not done It's not clear how you want this added. Please post requests in the form "change X to Y" or "add Z between P and Q". Also, you must provide a reliable source. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:34, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Known for...

The article info box says (and the second sentence of the lead paragraph implies) that she was known for being a member of the International Solidarity Movement (ISM) with a reference to an article talking about the controversy surrounding her death. I also found out about her through this controversy. Also, a simple google search of her name produces many articles talking about the same bulldozer death controversy and her family's trial. I think it would be reasonable to mention this incident in the "Known for" field of the infobox (or just not say anything) and move the current second sentence of the lead paragraph, "She was a member of the pro-Palestinian group called the International Solidarity Movement (ISM)" to somewhere more appropriate since it is not as important as the controversy around her death. I will make these edits now and just wanted to make my reasoning clear. Thanks! Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 06:24, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I noticed that the first section "Early life" talks about her involvement with ISM thoroughly and it's in a good place so it's all good! Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 06:32, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Rachel Corrie. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:34, 17 October 2015 (UTC)


Criticism of court ruling

The newly added sources that purport to show that the court verdict was criticized by B'Tselem and Yesh din do not actually show those organizations criticized the ruling. The criticized the Army, in general , for usually not conducting proper investigations, but there is no indication in the sources that they were critical of the court ruling. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 14:49, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

@When Other Legends Are Forgotten: The human rights organizations are all quoted in context of the trial. The article states: "The conduct of military police was at the heart of the trial, as well as the verdict. The Corrie family charged that the military investigation into the bulldozer incident was "negligent and unskilled," but Judge Gershon wrote in his ruling it was conducted with great professionalism and in a comprehensive and fulfilling way.". Later on in the article, B'Tselem is quoted explicitly on this point: "Israeli human rights groups, such as Michaeli's B'tselem, charge that it is the rule and not the exception for army investigation efforts to be inadequate and flawed. They say that this pattern has been uninfluenced by the trial, citing a decision in May to close a military police investigation into the killing of 21 civilians in an Israeli airstrike during the Gaza war in January 2009 without taking any measures." . Yesh Din is quoted as saying: "Yesh Din alleges that the military police rarely utilize routine tools such as polygraphs and that key witnesses are often not questioned and criminal liability of superior officers is not examined." This is exactly Human Rights Watch's criticism: The military police failed to interview witnesses, and when they finally did so, they didn't cross check the statements. There were very basic steps the military police failed to do. Kingsindian ♝♚ 16:57, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
You are making my point. Re-read what you quote above. Yesh DIn is critiquing the military police investigations, in general. B'tselem is criticizing the way the army conducts investigations, in general, and refers to a different case altogether as an example.. Neither of them is criticizing the court ruling. You seem to want to make the extrapolation that since these organizations criticize the military investigation, and the court took the position that the investigation of the Corrie case was sound, they are , inter alia, critiquing the court decision - but Wikipedia does not allow that kind of original research. You need to find a source that directly says the organization criticized the court ruling. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:23, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
This is a distinction without a difference. The military investigation was the key in the court case and the court judgement, the source clearly states this. B'Tselem and Yesh Din are quoted for their viewpoint that the military investigation was flawed, in context of an article on the trial. Anyway, this is a rather minor point: I have rephrased the sentence to make the criticism explicit. Let me know if this is ok. Kingsindian ♝♚ 00:48, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Combat zone?

Rafah was, and is, under illegal military occupation. It is not however a "combat zone".Royalcourtier (talk) 07:45, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Rachel Corrie. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:42, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Rachel Corrie. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:18, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Rachel Corrie. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:04, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I have substituted the correct archive for palestinechronicle, the selected archive for bbc is the site homepage, the referenced pages are no longer available. --Mirokado (talk) 21:34, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Rachel Corrie. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:39, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

The archive the bot is selecting is of the generic home page for the site - the link is not available. --Mirokado (talk) 21:16, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
I've now added {{cbignore}}. --Mirokado (talk) 21:34, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 March 2016

There is a grotesque falsehood in your article about Rachel Corrie. The article states ".. she had engaged with other International Solidarity Movement (ISM) activists in efforts to prevent the Israeli army's demolition of Palestinian houses in operations to eliminate weapons smuggling tunnels."

It must be changed to reflect the truth - that the only claim of weapons smuggling tunnels referenced in the article is from "the Israeli authorities," as ACTUALLY stated in the referenced material (and deceitfully edited by a Wikipedia contributor).

The referenced BBC article states: "The Israeli authorities said at the time that demolitions were necessary because Palestinian gunmen used the structures as cover to shoot at their troops patrolling in the area, or to conceal arms-smuggling tunnels under the Gaza-Egypt border."

Three references are provided; only one makes any reference to the Wikipedia claim that the activists were trying to prevent demolition of houses in connection with "weapons smuggling tunnels." That is the BBC article.

Wikipedia must not use reference-sources falsely. Wikipedia must not assume that "The Israeli authorities" are a reliable source - and it should not provide statements by them as if factual. The full sentence or an honest paraphrasing must be used - not altered.

2601:647:0:EE8C:6C85:F4B0:1F2:C725 (talk) 07:31, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

@2601:647:0:EE8C:6C85:F4B0:1F2:C725: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.
Yes, I agree, that's bad editing. I've attempted to rewrite it. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:47, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Rachel Corrie. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:23, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Rachel Corrie. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:13, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Removal of last line relating Khalid Islambouli to Rachel Corrie

Hello,

This is a request to remove this line from this prominent page about Rachel Corrie:

"Near her symbolic gravestone are twelve other symbolic gravestones, including one for Khalid Islambouli.[123]"

Why exactly is the generalization of 12 gravestones called out and a name in particular relating to someone that attempted to assassinate the Egyptian president directly attributed to Rachel Corries page? That page in particular describes Khalid A. with "Following his execution, Islambouli was declared a martyr by many radicals in the Islamic world, and became an inspirational symbol for radical Islamic movements as one of the first 'modern martyrs' for Islam.[1]".

This link at the end attempts to relate Corries story to terms and a personality that does not relate to her. Please remove this line, it's clearly subversive. SpeakUpTruth (talk) 12:20, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Good call. That doesn't really fit, so I've gone ahead and removed it. Cheers, -- Irn (talk) 14:37, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 October 2017

In the "Artistic Tributes" section of the "Subsequent Events" subheading, please add that Irish world music group, Kíla, released an instrumental tribute entitled "Rachel Corrie" on their 2014 album, "Suas Sios". 198.62.89.21 (talk) 20:08, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Done Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:24, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rachel Corrie. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:19, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Removal of Graphic Photo

I have removed the graphic photo showing Rachel Corrie as an individual, with her wounds from the incident. This is not the usual practice here - there are no photos of killed or assassinated individuals (e.g. Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, John F. Kennedy, Yitzhak Rabin, Muammar Gaddafi, Jovenel Moïse) on Wikipedia as far as I can tell. Even photos of dead people on Wikipedia such as those in World War II articles like The Holocaust, or more recent conflicts like the Rwandan genocide do not show the face of individuals.

Besides this, the photos in other articles are generally from trusted sources like news agencies, reputable newspapers, documentaries and books, etc. However, the source of this photo is attributed to Joe Carr, an ISM activist who was physically present with the subject of the article at the time of the incident, campaigning for the same cause. It is hardly a neutral source like one of those mentioned above. Having such a graphic photo in the article has no encyclopaedic value - it is there to elicit a visceral, sympathetic response from readers. Therefore, to me, this is a clear case of WP:ADVOCACY, instead of WP:NOTCENSORED, and should be removed. --Terrancommander (talk) 03:11, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

I disagree that it has no encyclopedic value. Like many images found throughout this encyclopedia, its value is that illustrates the subject. It provides texture and understanding to what happened when she died, which is the very reason that she is notable. For what it's worth, I also disagree that the image is particularly graphic, and it does not elicit a visceral, sympathetic response from this reader. -- irn (talk) 13:51, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
It's interesting to compare this complaint to the one just a few minutes ago here. Also, there are plenty of contrary examples, such as Maxim restaurant suicide bombing. Finally, the statement about image sources is simply incorrect. Wikipedia is full of images taken by Wikipedia editors with no reliable organization behind them. It is an exception to the WP:NOR policy that, for better or for worse, the community has agreed to. Zerotalk 14:18, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
I think the OP has a point. The restaurant bombing picture should not be there either. If OTHERSTUFFEXISTS then get rid of the stuff, not dump it everywhere and then use that very dumping as an argument to keep the whole mess in place as some kind of accepted status quo. There are some famous cases like the Vietnam War photo of the naked girl (who now has a Wikipedia bio) running from a napalm attack, or Mohammed al Dura, or politicians whose assassinations were captured on film, where the photograph itself is iconic and an important part of the story that appears in most accounts of the event. Here we are cherrypicking photos that did not pass editorial review that a RS publisher might have performed as to the taste, legality, invasion of privacy, blatant bias, or other problems associated with publication and captioning of the image. Sesquivalent (talk) 18:28, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Iraq War protest controversy section / Robert B Spencer quotation

The "Controversy over protest against the Iraq War" section has a couple of issues.

First, it doesn't really describe any controversy, with just one person being described as criticising her. I assume, given the statement from the ISM in the section, that there was more than this, but it's not actually mentioned in the article.

Second, that one person whose criticism is referenced in the article is Robert B. Spencer, a conspiracy theorist who has founded anti-Muslim hate groups. Surely there are better sources for criticism of a photograph that was "widely circulated" and the controversy around it if it warrants a whole section of this article? I don't think Spencer is an appropriate person to reference for criticism of this action, especially if he is the only example given and the context of his views and beliefs are not given here, and propose that the sentence referencing him be removed (and ideally replaced with a range of examples of criticism that make it clear why this event warrants a whole section of the article). AKiwiDeerPin (talk) 20:46, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Removed Spencer. nableezy - 20:58, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2023

Change "American journalist Charlie Wolf" to "Charlie Wolf, formerly the Communications Director of Republicans Abroad UK"... as I doubt someone merely namecalling merits the title of 'journalist' (and his article doesn't, while it does have the comdir). 92.18.125.136 (talk) 13:50, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

 Done, BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:08, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

missing a song

The punk band ten foot pole also has a song about her titled 'Rachel Corrie' 24.52.215.185 (talk) 15:29, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

  1. ^ "The Guardian's Rachel Corrie obsession".
  2. ^ Sabel, Robbie (August 31, 2012). "ISM was using activists as terrorists' human shields". Jewish Chronicle.
  3. ^ Hebrew source (Ynet, 28.8.2012): "למעשה, הארגון מנצל לרעה את השימוש בשיח זכויות האדם והמוסריות כדי לטשטש את חומרת מעשיו המתבטאים באלימות בפועל".
  4. ^ Report in Ynet (in Hebrew), 28.8.2012
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rachel_Corrie/Archive_14&oldid=1258934170"