Talk:Rachel Corrie/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 14

Latest edits too close to hagiography

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

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

"had already demolished" is leading.

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

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

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

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

Source? Her own emails? Not good enough.

The Corries' have worked [typo]

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

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

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

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

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

We can try pinpointing some issues one by one

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

Source? Her own emails? Not good enough.

If you say some words in the sentence might be changed for a more neutral point of view I can only agree. But if you didnt even look at the photographs while she was in the area how can anyone explain you she tried to act as a human shield for those wells. Also this is not related if she has done the right thing or wrong, or whether she has good intentions or not. She tried to do it wether she accomplished her goals or not. There are photographs of her just by the side of wells waiting as a human shield. There is something called common sense. But you can again say. Source? Her own Photos? Not good enough. If you dont believe in photographs or her personal records why do you even read a newspaper. What kind of source you need. If you refer to the IDF report that IDF never published to the public we are not intelligence officiers and we cannot provide it to you. Try asking to IDF directly.

As I said before if you say some sentences need editing and summarizing I can only agree and try to help. But what you do is not editing but butchering, undoing, reversing. Between making the text neutral and erasing complete paragraphs there is a huge difference. You could ask for a source or mark as citation needed before you delete this part. This is one of the activities she had done at the area. Instead acting of an iron duke with an iron fist we all should settle help and edit for the article for everyone's sake.

You even changed "Rachel was trying to stop from being destroyed" to "Rachel believed she was preventing from destruction". She tried to stop them from being destroyed whether she was doing right or wrong, she was not imagining it, dreaming it or believing it, she was simply trying to do it whether she was right or wrong in doing it. Because the homes were destroyed by IDF and she act against it by trying. The language you use is way far from a neutral point of view. IDF would like to use such a twist at words but you shouldnt have had any reason in doing it and for Wikipedia it is out of standarts.

Yet other than that I agree too much personal info not related to an encyclopedia article has been added according to your post if all above has been added yet keeping track of them is hard and couldnt quite pinpoint them. But as the longness part there is no keep it very short part as a wiki guide. Same length as Beethoven page and way much shorter than Hitler page as a biography. As stated in the wiki guide this is not a printed encyclopedia and pages not limited by paper but by context. Yet I suggest again Rachel Corrie Foundation activities and memorial events of them other than lawsuits against IDF and D9R should be kept at minimum though wikipedia needs another page dedicated to them for details so maybe some editors are willing to creat one and adding info there. Yet also this is a biography and a biography page consist of every stage of a persons life that has effect on their lifes. So try not trimming much of her early years with your tiniest violinlike excuses next time, her fifth grade speech is a great indication of her later actions and we already tried to keep it short and as a summary. Kasaalan (talk) 01:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Also you got some parts wrong ""after Rachel was killed" "After Rachel died" I think is a little calmer, prose wise." She is not died she has been killed either by accident or by purpose. Even the IDF report states she has been killed by accident. She didnt suicide or chose death she has been killed at the area. Don't try to push it further.

What violins. The rest of the article might not has a great importance yet "Cindy Corrie relayed her daughter's belief that Palestine could be a "source of hope for people struggling all over the world.”" part is important. This is Rachel's belief and a reason for her actions at the area whether she is right or wrong. This is an important quote. You cannot play your tiniest violins whereever you like.

This is an important for an article if this council is notorious in the area yet didnt check about them. Yet as a general rule the awards given to a person is important enough to be mentioned at her biography. "Rachel Corrie was also given the "Muslim Public Affairs Council Courage Award" by Dr. Maher Hathout, who commented that "courage is not the opposite of cowardice, but rather the principle of standing up to injustice."[3]"

Also important for a biography. "Cindy Corrie was invited to deliver a speech at Olympia State College in September 2004, on what would have been Rachel Corrie's graduation day.[4]"

You butchered a lot. Some has right rest is because your IronDuke attitude yet couldnt track all of them. Think once if you will write, think twice if you will erase.

Also I doubt very much for your neutral point of view. An article by Joshua Hammer, Jerusalem bureau chief for Newsweek same article points she made Israeli soldiers laugh and wave back so what how can she became St. Rachel suddenly. A good indication of Rachel's motives, actions, way of thinking. Possibly should be summarized or phraphrased as according to ... yet should it be deleted for just might make her look good if she has actually behaved like that. Try reviewing your policies again. Kasaalan (talk) 02:15, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there has been a big net gain to this article, and frankly I'm still too distracted from picking up the pieces after Albert Speer's stint on the mainpage to fully absorb everything that has been said and done, especially since Kasaalan makes his arguments, shall we just say, at considerable length! But I think we can safely afford to lose some of the material, yes, including much of the fifth grade stuff. I shudder to think what I wrote in fifth grade, and I really doubt much of what I wrote has much to do with me as an adult, but then I am not a saint, secular or otherwise. I think we can find a sensible compromise between necessary background and overly sweet material. I suggest we discuss here and make a compromise that preserves the excellence added to the article, while ensuring that the reader doesn't need an insulin shot. That means, by the way, avoiding unilateral edits and building consensus.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes I write long yet explaining why a part shouldnt have been deleted takes long space. I quote the part then write reasons. But what IronDuke deleted is also as long as my comments according to his quotes. The sweetness part is in the eye of the beholder. Yet she spend a considerable time of her short life for trying to help others. You cannot change this and you cannot cut this part out from her biography this is how she lived and why she died. I wouldn't know what you were doing or thinking at the same age. Yet at age 10 at fifth grade if a child make a memorable and reasonable speech on world hunger, talk about acting for others, explaining her dreams and in her later life act for her own beliefs that is enough to be mentioned in her own biography page. This is a biography page it should contain several parts of her life not just her last months. It would have also been worth to be mentioned if she would slaughter a bunch of cats at the same age, and anyone couldn't object the matter because it would look bitter on her. Lots of the anti-Rachel links mention she is advocating terror, protecting bomb tunnels, she jumped in front of the D9 herself, she was acting like a fool, she was a radical etc. The rest of the people dont try to erase these links even they insult her blatantly with no source for the sake of balancing the article. Instead of trying to delete anything that would look Rachel good maybe if you try to find some info that would make her look bad will help the article more. Because it will become outrageous after a while. This article is a good research based on a reliable journalist Joshua Hammer, Jerusalem bureau chief for Newsweek trying to stay neutral read it, use it. You have some good points at editing but you gone too far by cencoring and cropping the rest. If you find a paragraph too long it as an editor you should paraphrase it instead deleting. Actually your last edits might need a good undoing for you to reedit them with a better neutral point of view, you simply overrated. Kasaalan (talk) 10:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that if she slaughtered a bunch of cats at age 10, her family would not have mentioned it! Perhaps for that reason, the early bio stuff should be attributed inline to her family. And, I'm sorry, in my view it needs to be cut back considerably, Rachel is notable for the manner in which she met her death, you don't want to hold up the reader too long in getting to that information. And as for the last part of your response, I take it you are referring to IronDuke, not me. I haven't edited this article in some days, being busy with a TFA and other Wikimatters. Besides, I saw you and Tiamut were very active here and it is best to let people finish working on an article before responding. Even if, really, you guys should have discussed it in advance of edits and sought to build consensus. But as I said, from what I have seen, the net is a significant improvement to the article, generally you and Tiamut did well, especially in adding references, but there is room for improvement.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:44, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I already referred to Ironduke in general but my answers to yours also mixed in so I am responsible for the misunderstanding. I am already aware you didnt edit for a while. The fifth grade speech is actually videotaped, already available on youtube though I dont know about its copyright status yet so I didnt put it as a reference. It is important for a biography and verifiable. Nothing is holding up the reader too long actually. The article is clearly sectioned. The reader can choose which info they need and read that part. Check with other biographies, early life part is at a regular length. Try to check Hitler. He has a very detailed early life as an entrance. Of course he is more prominent in history, yet you wouldnt want to miss info about his childhood there which clearly has affect on his later life. If someone mentions Hitler made paintings and drawings which some of them good, will that ever help to forget the crimes he committed. Maybe her family wouldnt put her misdoings but be sure IDF-focused media should have done without waiting a second and we can only point out what we can cite and verify. If anyone like to balance the article may try to find her misdoings or claims against Rachel. Yet deleting what she has done isnt a proper way, As a summary this time Ironduke has totally gone out of control even deleting awards given in name of Rachel, trying to twist words as she is not killed but died etc. All above I tried to point out in detail. Kasaalan (talk) 14:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

There is no hurry; we edit for the long term here. I think the question is more whether the edits in question regarding Corrie's writings at age 10 are encyclopedic, more than whether they are verifiable. And I would respectfully suggest that "totally gone out of control" is probably not the best phrasing to use about a fellow editor who has worked long and hard on this article, though you may if you like disagree with his point of view.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

"A work is biographical if it covers all of a person's life." Wiki Biography Page At first I paraphrased the speech yet another user converted it to a quote I am fine in either way though prefer paraphrasing. Yet if a ten year old girl's dream is to stop hunger by 2000 which she declared to public where she expresses her sorrow to the 40.000 preventable deaths from hunger each day, asks for everyone's help and act the same way she dreamed in her later years as an adult this is a prominent event in her life and truly encyclopedic for her biography article. This is a biography and a biography contains all prominent sides at all stages of a persons' life. Details are important, always. Such a big delete with such disputable reasons which I clearly pointed above I call simply as butchering the article beside from some good points and edits he made. But his lack of respect with tiniest violinist attitude what leads things gone out of control. I already say he has some good points for editing yet he didnt edit, paraphrased, summarized or neutralized the content which I would support and help but erased just the way he liked even replacing Rachel was killed lines by Rachel was dead just like she was strike by lightining or dead by natural reasons, he changed what she tries to do into she believed she was doing by even pushing further the limits of word twisting, this is simply a biased jargon. Deleting complete paragraphs with no prewarn, discussion, or attempt to impove them yet with adding disrespectful comments as a reason is not what I call hard work or what I expect from a wikipedia editor. Deleting is easy, improving is hard, therefore an editor should try to edit and improve to earn its title. Kasaalan (talk) 18:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

We should remember that Wikipedia is not a memorial site, nor a site for hagiographies (see, for those who insist on Wikipolicy links, WP:NOT, WP:NPOV. It is a site for encyclopedic descriptions of noteworthy figures. As Rachel Corrie is essentially a private figure with a single act of prominence, we should confine our biography to items relevant to her significance in history, while avoiding efforts to paint the subject in an excessively sympathetic light, as the current section on her childhood does (see, specifically, WP:UNDUE). Ray (talk) 21:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Ray. Besides, her youthful attention to ending world hunger has nothing to do with the reasons she was there in Gaza. If she had said "world peace", well, you'd have a bit more of a case, but it still wouldn't survive Ray's point.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the poem on World Hunger deserves at least some mention in the article. She read the poem at a press conference at her school. Okay, she was in fifth grade, but it is a part of the theater play "I am Rachel Corrie" and the poem is quoted in full in this book [1] onn the play and Corrie. Perhaps a good compromise would be to include it in the "Artistic Tributes" section?

The book link above leads me to another subject, which is that there are a number of book sources on Corrie, none of which we have utilized so far in this article. I will start perusing them for relevant information, posting links here for those interested in the coming days. I'm a little busy in real life right now, so please excuse me.

One last thing, IronDuke deleted or altered a lot of information in the article (some of which was there long before Kasaalan and I made any changes) without articulating the reasons for those changes, which are largely unrelated to this discussion. I'd appreciate it if he could give a line by line breakdown of his rationale here, so that I know what the problem is with the things he removed or changed so as to move toward finding solutions. I can't read minds. Thanks. Tiamut^talk 22:25, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Not sure if Ray read the emails of Rachel but we can put the case again. Ray's point of course good, and I can agree if someone tries to point out how she likes cats or hats or wearing pink or any other unimportant trivia. A speech like below from a 10 year old student is a good indication of her later actions. Do you only see the hunger in the speech or are there other concepts like: caring for others, children of the world is suffering everywhere, the poverty is all around us, and the 40,000 poor people dying from hunger each day are also humans just like us therefore we should help them because they need our help, a dream of preventing hunger by the year 2000 can be accomplished if simply everyone of us help together yet if we ignore there is no chance for them and nothing will change. This is an act speech not just a blatant speech that world beauties make in their competitions.

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

Read again then again then again. These are not minor words. These are not igsignificant words. These are not blatant words. Even if she was right or wrong she died while trying to help others. We cannot even argue for this matter. The core of the speech is helping others while we can. She acted as her speech and died in a country far far away from her homeland while trying to help others. Again she might have done the right or wrong thing but that is not our case here. Also there is another issue you dont mention hunger is a great issue for Palestinian children during Isreali blockades. Children are dying from hunger and because the lack of medication. Of course you can say Israel doing the blockades for preventing their citizen from attacks etc. Yet whatever the reason is hunger is also an issue in Palestine. And what is worse than being hungry is being homeless while you are hungry. Hungry in Gaza Again I advise not to push it further than you may reach. I already made my point clear yet we argue over and over and over again. Use your common sense, read the documents, make connections yourselves, go read other biographies, her own speech has a significant indication of her personality. I cannot let you trim important actions in her life because it would look good or bad on her. If she made this speech there it is, if she burned the US Flag there it is. Hating or loving her because her actions is up for others to decide. Simple and easy.

Pointing wiki policies here which we all already read is not helping the case. If anyone has any objection on any particular case than he should quote it here so we can argue more clearly. Because I pointed my objections above in detail yet assuming they have objections still noone bothered to discuss them with me one by one but this speech case. And for the prominance thing how do you suggest we will decide the length of a biography page. If we google Rachel Corrie 358 k, if we google Ariel Sharon 2.1 million, if we google Jackie Chan 8,4 million pages we got so according to this should we keep Ariel Sharon's biography a quarter of Jackie Chan. She is prominent at least for the supporters of Palestine, also known and loved accordingly maybe also hated accordingly for the same reasons. Kasaalan (talk) 23:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

@ Tiamut: if you read my post, I invite people who have concerns about edits I didn't explain in my initial post in this thread to please to tell me what they are, and why. @ Kasaalan. 1) If you could relax a bit, that would help. Shouty, accusatory posts just raise the temperature here. 2) There are many, many facts about RC's life we could put here. And many of them would be quite touching, I'm sure. But are they relevant? RC's life is not notable, only her death is. I'm not saying that to be callous, it's just a fact. Background on how she came to be in front of an Israeli bulldozer is essential, hagiographic text dumps about her 5th grade interests are not. As to the point about the wells, I don't deny that's what Corrie thought she was doing. What I'd need to see is proof that the IDF was actually doing that before we put it as a fact in the narrative voice. Also, I don't see where I used the word "tiniest" in regard to theoretical violins. I meant that the presentation of her life was lachrymose, maudlin, and saccharine. Nothing to do with sympathy. IronDuke 00:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Playing tiniest violin of the world means not caring at all refers to your jokes which I find unnecessary as they lack respect and accusatory in the first place. Yet discussing each other will not going nowhere most possibly so we may try discussing the article. As I stated above her later actions and her fifth grade speech is tightly connected, and that is also the same concerns of her what is made her stand against an armoured D9R. Tong twisting is not going to help to the article. She was trying to do something whatever her reason is, She was not believing she was doing or imagining it. Read my above seperate comments on your edits. Answer if you like and explain your motivation. Kasaalan (talk) 02:41, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand your violin point, though I'm beginning to gather that understanding it is not necessary.; you will correct me if I am wrong. Corrie's 5th grade speech on world hunger is "tightly connected" to her activities in Gaza? Source? IronDuke 03:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Why dont you read my detailed statements above which are already long, instead making me repeat myself everytime? You still dont try to answer any of my objections which I provided above, yet asking questions. What we have in hand? "A biography consists of all parts of a persons' life." So we are talking about prominent details. What she has done she has done we cannot change it. Her burning of US flag is prominent just like her speech. The connection or contracditions between her early and later actions or way of thinking can only be developed by referencing to her actions in a biography. She made a prominent speech in which she adresses her dreams and ambitions for helping others especially the ones in third world countries who are dying from hunger. Why? She claims "I’m here for other children. I’m here because I care. I’m here because children everywhere are suffering". Stating "stopping the world hunger by the year 2000 as a dream that can be accomplished with the help of everyone" is prominant enough to be mentioned in any biography page. But putting it as a whole might be very disputable therefore we tried quoting and summarizing it to a sentence. Later in her life Rachel become an environmentalist and a political activist, died in another country while she was trying to help others who also suffering and dying from hunger and lack of medication during blockades without a shelter.Hungry in Gaza Yet again I state the core of the speech is about helping others who need our help especially in the third world countries, including but not limited to hunger. But if we dramatize events in this format you would be right it wont be suitable in any encyclopedia format which is also why we didnt do it in the first place. And also I can admit I overacted myself, yet jokes as accusations are not making our day in a discussion page of a tragic event and deleting big parts simply making things even more complicated which we already stuck a bit. Also repeating myself is not very good for time wise if you can try quoting and answering my objections above then we argue argue further for details. You have some good reasons for editing which I can agree and support yet your edits outweight the balance to the IDF side instead of neutralizing it. Between after Rachel was killed[sounds like not necessarily but mostly on purpose], after Rachel died[sounds like she died by natural reasons] and after the death of Rachel[more neutral than the others] there are big differences if you will change a phrase try to pick a more neutral one than it was before. Kasaalan (talk) 14:10, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

How about "after Corrie's death"?--Wehwalt (talk) 14:17, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Edit conflict again my long answer is lost therefore only a summary. For this case it is better to use after her death, and repeating the word kill over and over again in the article should be avoided. But also at least should be mentioned once in the timeline because she is killed by an armoured D9RWoman killed accidentally by IDF as terrorist fugitives resist surrender By Israel Insider staff and partners May 1, 2006, that is not disputable, the disputable part is if it is done by purpose or by accident. That is why IDF insists she is killed by accident and ISM insists she is killed on purpose. Concise Oxford English Dictionary desribes kill as "cause the death of". Kill is not a biased word to use yet overusing it might possibly harm the tone of the article. She murdered should be avoided beside the quoted legal claims of the sides just like turning the sentences into she died, as if she died for natural reasons, should be avoided which may also be very misleading. Kasaalan (talk) 15:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

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

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

I would again suggest that we include this information in the “Artistic Tributes” section for now, perhaps as follows:

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

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

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

As for the other stuff, step by step. Tiamut^talk 15:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I still don't see how the concern for world hunger relates to her actions in Gaza. The concerns of a dramatist are different from the concerns of wikipedia. You'd be right if this was an article on the play. And yes, step by step, we are still trying to see if there is consensus for the matters that you added to the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Her speech includes but not limited to the world hunger, it is about helping others in the third world countries who needs rest of the world's help. She died while she trying to. Kasaalan (talk) 15:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

"The play does not try to turn her into a secular saint. At times you feel a tangle of admiration and irritation at her naivety, yet you are grateful that someone was prepared to act on their beliefs. Corrie's concern for suffering humanity was precocious[means mature for her age]. At 10, she spoke at her school Conference on World Hunger and is captured on video, seen at the end of the play. The notion that she was a self-regarding atrocity tourist is outrageous. She was acutely aware that, unlike her new Palestinian friends, she could leave. She chose not to. Given that she had gone to the Middle East to meet people who were "on the receiving end" of tax dollars and that it was an US-made bulldozer that killed her, it will be a tragic irony if her home country does not allow her a hearing." My Name Is Rachel Corrie by Paul Taylor The Independent The part is not just about the play but also referring to her fifth grade speech which is played during the play with Rachel's own voice. Kasaalan (talk) 16:08, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

A review of a play, with the needs of drama overriding those of history, is not a reliable source, anymore than a review of 1776 would be acceptable as a RS for what happened at the Continental Congress--and yes, many of the words in 1776 are drawn from John and Abigail Adams' letters, so no need to reply that the words in the play were drawn from Corrie's. As I said before, the fact that they play the fifth grade speech during the play has nothing to do with whether we include it in this article. As for the word "kill", however it is defined, it carries such connotations that its use in this article should be confined to quotations.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

She made this speech and he refers to the speech directly. "Corrie's concern for suffering humanity was precocious[means mature for her age]." Unlike you, who is a wiki user, referring the speech as childish , a critic at The Independent clearly adresses the speech as mature. A mature speech from a 10 year old child. Not very frequently we came up with. Later in her lifes she tries to act as she thinks. Also the play based on her diaries and letters which reflects her way of thinking and the way she sees things, therefore cannot be addressed as solid unquestionable truths but the indications of her beliefs, her own reasons behind her acts they are. Kasaalan (talk) 18:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I did not refer to her speech as childish. Please do not say that I did without diffs. It is not relevant, in fact, whether it was a mature speech or not. You do not reply to my points.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:59, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Again refers to IronDuke for "hagiographic text dumps about her 5th grade interests". Long text, hard to address sometimes, I used you in a more plural way because trying to answer you both but again my fault. Yet cant we even settle on that her 5th grade interests are same with her 25 year old interests.Kasaalan (talk) 04:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

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

I guess it was inevitable we'd get down to Godwin's Law. No. Not the same at all. Anne Frank's diaries have been a constant best seller for the past half century. She is notable for her life; Corrie is notable for her death. The context of her diaries (the refusal to let people see what she wrote) is of course relevant. You may argue that everything from fifth grade on is relevant to Corrie's death, but it is at a far greater remove than Anne Frank refusing to let people see her writings, writings for which she is now world famous. I would find a more suitable comparison, were I you.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Rachel is notable for her life, what she did and what she tried to do and what she dreamed to do in a such short lifetime and why, of course after hear death it is widely known, but not only because her death. Lots of people are killed by IDF, including lots of foreigners too, but Rachel is more notable among them. Also this is her biography, the speech is notable in her life as a good indication, might not be the greatest step for humanity, but one of her own greatest steps. Any of the above points are not answering my question. Being a best seller not proofs your reliability at all, only notability it proofs, also not relevant to the case. Why do we care "Margot and Anne had highly distinct personalities, Margot being well-mannered, reserved, and studious, while Anne was outspoken, energetic, and extroverted." Why shouldn't we if it reflects her and quoted by a friend of her family. Can anyone come up with false arguments like "only their family friends' say so" or "her mother says so", will that be reasonable? I cannot distinct your approach clearly with the same attitude I refer. I just picked Anne Frank because a critic mentioned her name in the article, so I couldnt care less for the "inevitable laws" you referred, I mainly compared their wiki biography as the length, detail and info they contained especially the early life section. If "Anne showed aptitude for reading and writing" that is a good indication for her later actions, if Rachel made a prominent speech on helping others at age 10 which calls everyone taking action against this preventable death cause for third world countries, if at such a small age "Corrie's concern for suffering humanity was precocious", and if at age 25 she left her home, her education to for trying to help people living in another third world country, when "she could leave." though "she chose not to", according to her own beliefs and in name of others that is notable and relevant for her biography. Even if we cannot settle on her 5th and 25 year old interests for others are basically the same, and she has acted as she referred at age 10, I suggest we need a group of independent hardworking admins on the page for a neutral conclusion.Kasaalan (talk) 19:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Anne Frank is a poor choice for comparison. Leaving aside the fact that she is orders of magnitude more famous than RC, when she died she was little more than a child; to ignore her childhood would be to ignore her life. And yes, there are descriptions of her personality, just as there are in this article -- in fact, there are already many more references to her personality than are needed. IronDuke 01:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) A limited amount of this material has value in being humanizing, something the article presently lacks. It seems as though we've gone from one extreme to the other. From complaints of "hagiography," we've gone to this characterization of how she went about establishing trust: "learning a few words of Arabic, burning a paper American flag in effigy, participating in a mock trial denouncing the "'crimes' of the Bush Administration."" That's more than a little ridiculous. I'm not sure how to resolve it yet, but the material at the top of the section is more neutral (incredible, but true) than that kind of characterization. arimareiji (talk) 08:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Bot addition

Kasaalan, PR - question: Would you concur with immediately adding a bot which archives all threads older than 14 days, or would you rather have a transition of archive-by-consensus until it's manageable enough to add a bot? This is an abstract of a longer discussion at Talk:Rachel_Corrie#More_archiving. arimareiji (talk) 04:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

If policy of the project is to archive sooner, then point us to it. In the meantime, these efforts to conceal what's been discussed are disrupive and pointless. And it's disturbing you'd insert this new section under a misleading title. PR^talk 08:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Will the bot dearchive the archived threads automatically to main discussion page when someone replied to them. Kasaalan (talk) 11:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

No, that isn't done. Obviously we can link to and quote from an archive. I think we are going to have archiving imposed on us if we don't do it ourselves, this is one of the biggest talk pages on Wikipedia right now.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Which threads are the most important ones that you wish to keep "visible"? If they are important because they are evidence of consensus, one way of handling things is to add an information box at the top of the page that links directly to the archive of those discussions, without having to keep the entire discussion on the live page. For example, see the box under the archive list at Talk:New antisemitism. --Elonka 18:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

We're being graciously allowed 24 hours (although now it's more like 16) before Elonka implements her solution. In that time, I would recommend commenting in any section that you consider to be unresolved, as she herself has suggested previously. arimareiji (talk) 21:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

(unindent)Regardless of what Elonka does or does not do, I'm still going to continue trying to get some of these issues formally resolved. There are some sections which I believe can be fairly characterized as resolved - I'm going to tag those as such. If you disagree, please remove the tag - by definition, if you disagree then that means it's unresolved. arimareiji (talk) 08:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The Skies are Weeping Artistic Tributes

Almost immediately, Munger says, he was inundated [overflow-spam] with unsolicited [uninvited] e-mail from outside Alaska, a lot of it hateful -- "just threatening, harassing, bizarre ... short of the stuff you'd take to the troopers." But some of his student musicians received threatening messages too, Munger says -- and that was a different story. It was one thing to invite problems on himself; it was quite another to inflict them on his students.

'Over the past five days local artists preparing for the premiere of "The Skies are Weeping" have been subjected to a growing crescendo of internet virus attacks, hate mail and bizarre religious-political polemics. It appears to be orchestrated. Some of the incoming venom is quite threatening. ... After consulting with staff here at the University of Alaska Anchorage Department of Music, I have decided that I cannot subject sixteen students, whose names, fortunately, have not been released to anyone, to any possibility of physical harm or to the type of character assassination some of us are already undergoing.

Revision Difference

The edits lost too much details, and turned into not shorter but a lot weaker by context.

I also located the Anchorage Daily News article 'The Skies Are Weeping,' a cantata by Philip Munger lyrics and where he clearly addresses the 4th movement is based on Gush-Shalom translation which is mirrored in another page. "4. Recitative: I had no mercy for anybody ... from: [2]"

"Munger has set two poems written as memorials to Corrie, one by San Francisco poet Phil Goldvarg and another by Sri Lanka poet Thushara Wijeratna. The other vocal settings are of a new poem by Alaska poet Linda McCarriston, a musical setting of the testimony of Moshe Nissim, an Israeli bulldozer driver who ran amok in the 2002 Jenin incursion, a rare complete setting of Psalm 137, and excerpts from Rachel Corrie's last e-mails to her mother.

Texts, full score and additional information for or about the new work are available by calling (907) 746-... or e-mailing niklake@... Other information may be obtained by calling the UAA music office at 786-..."

Moshe Nissim is clearly named in public emails. Kasaalan (talk) 00:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Checked the whole speech word by word. The original source is interview with Moshe Nissim, made by Tsadok Yeheskeli, published in Israeli Newspaper Yediot Aharonot on 31 May 2002 and translated by Gush-Shalom word by word. So whether the Gush Shalom translation is exact or not, which clearly addresses to the original Hebrew newspaper interview with date, this is the source Munger used with no doubt.

"I had no mercy for anybody. I would erase anyone with the D-9, ... and I have demolished plenty."

"I wanted to destroy everything. I begged the officers, over the radio, to let me knock it all down; from top to bottom. To level everything. ... When I was told to bring down a house, I took the opportunity to bring down some more houses."

"For three days, I just destroyed and destroyed. The whole area. ... I wanted to get to the other houses. To get as many as possible."

"I didn't see, with my own eyes, people dying under the blade of the D-9. ... But if there were any, I wouldn't care at all. ... If you knocked down a house, you buried 40 or 50 people ... If I am sorry for anything, it is for not tearing the whole camp down."

"I had lots of satisfaction in Jenin, lots of satisfaction."

"No one expressed any reservations against doing it. ... Who would dare speak? If anyone would as much as open his mouth, I would have buried him under the D-9."

An entire movement quoted word by word from this interview with a D9 operator translated by Gush-Shalom, I haven't came across any partisan comment by peace organisation Gush-Shalom so far, for a reason to delete the reference as unreliable. Kasaalan (talk) 23:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Found original link as a reliable source for the lyrics of the Play Critical Concern [3] published on 25 April 2004. This proves the source is Gush-Shalom translation mirrored by another website.[4] Since other movements also contains poems devoted to Rachel which should be mentioned in artistic tributes, we should mention all sectins inspiration.

"Munger has set two poems written as memorials to Corrie, one by San Francisco poet Phil Goldvarg and another by Sri Lanka poet Thushara Wijeratna. The other vocal settings are of a new poem by Alaska poet Linda McCarriston, a musical setting of the testimony of Moshe Nissim, an Israeli bulldozer driver who ran amok in the 2002 Jenin incursion, a rare complete setting of Psalm 137, and excerpts from Rachel Corrie's last e-mails to her mother.

In this source it says fifth recitative for Moshe Nissim excerpts. Kasaalan (talk) 15:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Kasaalan, we give the cantata ample space. WP is written in what is called summary style. It means we don't need every detail. In this case, your proposed edit would be for the sole purpose of bolstering what you see as the proper side of the story, and is therefore rather pointy. You are not trying to give us the basis of the cantata (best put in an article on the Cantata, or one on Munger), but are trying to say "this is how Israeli bulldozer drivers act". Even if what you are proposing was an RS (which it is not, by the way), it has no place in this article.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Instead facts you focus more on your claimed might-be perceptions of imaginary readers. Well I can even try to find the Hebrew original of the interview, if you will try to hide behind translation is not reliable claim, but that is no concern of you. I am not trying to say anything, just stating a fact, but you try to trim off the Moshe Nissim interview in the first place, because it would look on IDF negatively. You intimidated very much even by IDF personnel's own words, despite the fact they have been excerpted fully by Munger, you try to erase this fact from the article. The section title is artistic tributes. Poems devoted to Rachel Corrie are artistic tributes, and instead mentioning them seperately it would be shorter to mention them within Munger Cantata. Above is not my proposed edit, but a quote from press emails, clearly referencing the sources he used. He used Gush-Shalom translation of Moshe Nissim interview, devoted a full section with word by word excerpts from the interview. Kasaalan (talk) 15:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I am asking, do you have any sound argument that Philip Munger didn't entirely excerpted from Gush-Shalom translation of Moshe Nissim interview, word by word, because it is addressed clearly in the Critical Concern article. Kasaalan (talk) 15:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

So you are saying the supposed Nissim interview is an artistic tribute to Corrie?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Before the word play why don't you answer the question first. Do you have any sound argument that Philip Munger didn't entirely excerpted from Gush-Shalom translation of Moshe Nissim interview, word by word. Source is Text to 'The Skies Are Weeping,' a cantata by Philip Munger Anchorage Daily News.

• 1. Choral Prelude: Psalm 137 (King James Version)
• 2. Dance for Tom Hurndall (no lyrics)
• 3. Aria-Lament: Rachel Poem For Rachel Corrie by Phil Goldvarg March 18, 2003
• 4. Song: God the Synecdoche in His Holy Land Poem in memoriam Rachel Corrie by Linda McCarriston
• 5. Recitative: I had no mercy for anybody All sentences excerpted from Gush Shalom translation of D9 operator Moshe Nissim interview by Philip Munger
• 6. Song: The Skies Are Weeping poem for Rachel Corrie by Thushara Wijeratna
• 7. Chorale with soprano solo; Rachel's Words (edited by Philip Munger)

The cantata is devoted to both Rachel Corrie and Tom Hurndall. Section 1 based on King James Bible Psalm 137, Section 2 is Dance for Tom Hurndall, Section 3, 4, and 6 are 3 poems written for Corrie, Section 5 is entrily Moshe Nissim excerpts, Section 7 Rachel Corrie's own writing edited by Philip Munger. Not that hard to understand if you bother to read. Moshe Nissim interview is not an atistic tribute, but Philip Munger excerpt of the interview translation is. Kasaalan (talk) 18:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Also you say the play has been given ample space, yet you changed all of its context by the revisions you made. Revision Difference Kasaalan (talk) 18:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

By trying to be tactful in an earlier point, I think I may have been too vague. I'll abandon tact and explain as simply as possible: The original insertion of "The fourth movement" (as it was worded then) was probably meant to mock Munger by making him sound histrionic. Please trust me on this. It's the same type of mockery as claiming (falsely) that there was a Rachel Corrie Memorial Pancake Breakfast, a rhetorical device / play on words. ("Pancake" can literally mean breakfast food, but can also mean "something as flat as a pancake." It's meant to evoke supposedly-funny images of Rachel being crushed under the bulldozer.)

The desire to insert such mockery could explain why someone made an edit of dubious value. The fourth movement is not a particularly significant part of the cantata. A more broad characterization of it, such as Bishko's "dreadful, beautiful music" may be appropriate. But a detailed argument about the fourth movement is not, because the purpose of the section is not to talk about Moshe Nissim or to mock Munger. The purpose of the section is to describe artistic tributes related to Rachel Corrie.

The lack of an RS was the final straw that made me decide to delete it. But my primary reason to delete it was to remove a subsection that should have never been added, because it bogs down the narrative with extraneous detail. arimareiji (talk) 23:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

First of all we have RS for Munger used Gush-Shalom translation word by word, and excepted sentences from it. Whether the translation is reliable or not is another discussion. Also near all sections of the cantata is an artictic tribute themselves. 1 Excerpt from Bible 2 Dance for Tom Hurndall (the cantata dedicated to both Rachel and Tom actually) 3-4 2 poems for Rachel by 2 poets 5 excerpts from Moshe Nissim interview translation 6 poem for Rachel from another poet 7 Rachel's words edited by Philip Munger The content already shows what is in it You can add after debates or strongly stress the translation is based on Gush-Shalom etc. yet this is the context that should be mentioned primarily, also the plays official blog removed for it is not reliable which is not true, official blogs can be used as a source, the blog has the pictures for the show also listing financial supporters including Noam Chomsky. Philip Munger added political lyrics that is why it is debated. Moshe Nissim interview is a prominent part in the play. Both by length and stress. All lyrics are quoted for a reason, we should mention the names. Kasaalan (talk) 22:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Tom Gross

Wehwalt, congratulations - you get to be the official spokesperson for Tom Gross. I know you're thrilled. (Not.)
But seriously, I'm hoping you can help me with regard to his paragraph in "Artistic tributes."

1. I can't find a RS for an article of that name in The Spectator. "Dead Jews Aren't News", however, was published on the same day he says "The Forgotten Rachels" was published. He may (understandably) wish he had named it "The Forgotten Rachels," but that's not the name it was published under.
2. When I first started looking into this, I believed that "tell[ing] the stories" of the other Rachels made a good argument for its tangential inclusion in "Artistic tributes." But after reading the article, I don't believe that's a fair characterization. It's a political diatribe that barely mentions the six Rachels other than to use them for example. It would belong under My Name is Rachel Corrie as criticism, but I don't believe it belongs here.
   

Kasaalan - I know you have very strong feelings about Tom Gross, but can you hold off until Wehwalt has a chance to respond? You don't need to convince me for its removal, I'm already leaning that way. If he wants to bring up evidence for its inclusion, he should be allowed to. (struck as moot) arimareiji (talk) 02:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Might be better utilized as an EL. I must admit I never read it, and I am reasonably certain I never added it to the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

If you read it, you might change your mind about it even being usable for an EL. The link's above if you want to do so, or you could be a trusting soul and take my characterization that it's naught but a rant - I don't mind either way. Thank you for the help, and if you decide on the latter could you mark this one resolved? If you decide on the former and think it should be included as an EL, let me know here. arimareiji (talk) 03:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Then why are the first, second, and fourth ELs NOT just "rants", the difference being they take a pro Corrie perspective?--Wehwalt (talk) 03:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

My mistake, I was thinking of the See Also's when I said that. Fair enough. arimareiji (talk) 03:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

It's added. arimareiji (talk) 03:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Please keep descriptions neutral - otherwise, we might as well say it "contrasts Rachel Corrie's brutal murder at the hands of the vicious Israeli military to the terrorist murders of six Jewish Rachels by bloodthirsty Palestinians." You know, to keep it "in balance." (/sarcasm) arimareiji (talk) 04:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Frankly, Arimareiji, I'd be cooler with your arrangement on the ELs if you hadn't brought it in AFTER I objected to all the ones on one side of the matter being put at the bottom, to which you gathered the Gross article. I'm not totally happy with what you've put in there which seems to stack the deck in favor of pro-Corrie websites, since naturally a website "rachelcorrie" will inevitably come first. I also wasn't a big fan of the way you recharacterized the articles. I'm sure we can tell the readers a bit more about the other six Rachels other than the fact they are dead. This article is not improving in balance.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

My edit was only after your rearrange because I hit an edit conflict. Which, incidentally, cost me some time to re-do. XP

As far as websites going first, it was based on a website having more material than an article. No hidden agenda. arimareiji (talk) 04:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

When you describe pieces as "criticizing" Corrie or her parents, that is rather questionable. As is taking out (not even rephrasing) the other Rachels thing. For all the reader knows, the other six Rachels lived in Monsey or Brooklyn and died peacefully in 1959.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

"Killed in the same conflict" is more neutral, though it borders on ambiguity. I had thought the title spoke for itself in this context. I didn't use "The Forgotten Rachels" because that's not how it was titled when it ran. arimareiji (talk) 05:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm referring to the characterization, not the title. Though I suspect, trolling through the net, that the piece had different titles depending on where it was used.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The Tom Gross piece is an unpleasant polemic, adding little to the case and nothing to the article. Whatever he suspects about the facts, it is deliberately offensive to claim that the death "was almost certainly an accident". And the link he's set out to create is well-poisoning, even if he had been making a significant point. PR^talk 16:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

(reply to Wehwalt) I did the same trolling when I was trying to locate it, and I'd dare say the Spectator is the authoritative source on what the title was when they published it. Tom Gross isn't republishing it himself under a different title, he's claiming that it had that title when it was published in the Spectator. There are multiple references to his site on the web, but those are derivative claims and not unique publications.

As far as the characterization, can you be more specific? I believe it's accurate to say that he's contrasting how their deaths were treated by the media, though it would be more accurate to say that he mentions them in passing while characterizing and criticizing "the cult of Rachel Corrie." It's not accurate to say that he's "telling their stories" - if you read the article (you've said that you haven't), you'll see what I mean. arimareiji (talk) 16:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I read it last night after you brought it to my attention. No, he is not telling their stories, he is drawing the contrast between the megareported Rachel and the six Rachels whose trees fell (or, more accurately, were cut down) in the forest. It is well worth keeping.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, if the ELs themselves are worth keeping at all. I'm beginning to doubt that; see below. What confuses me is: What aspect of "the other Rachels" was erroneously taken out? arimareiji (talk) 17:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

My concern was with your characterization of the article, see my other posts on the subject.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I have, and I'm confused. Are you talking about your previous concern that the phrasing should be "killed by Palestinians"? arimareiji (talk) 18:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Did someone else kill them and I didn't get the memo?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't aware Gross asserted that; I'll have to go back and reread. arimareiji (talk) 03:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Still don't see that assertion except for one Rachel, but "Jewish victims of the Intifada" is sourceable. That is, if we don't scrap the descriptions altogether, which needs more sleeping on. arimareiji (talk) 03:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

(modified outdent)Let's play Jeopardy! Who killed them for 200? Six Israeli Rachels died in the Intifada. Anyone want to buzz in and say who kills Israelis in the Intifada? One guess.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

What you're saying is logical, but it's not asserted. The trouble with reasonable conclusions rather than sourced ones is that they're generally correct but not necessarily specifically correct. For example, "This woman was killed by an IDF bulldozer in the Gaza strip and named a shaheed/martyr, what is her nationality?" (Incidentally, we both fail at composing Jeopardy "answers.") I trust your logic more than I do many allegedly-reliable sources, but them's the rules. arimareiji (talk) 04:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Tom Gross is obviously an extremely partisan source, worked notably for pro-Israeli-partisan sources like NGO_Monitor[5], yet the article points out Israeli victims of the conflict, therefore might be keep. Yet since he is a partisan source he doesn't mention civillian Palestine casualties which is ten times bigger than Israeli civillian casualties after 2002. The UN report on Civillian Casualties for both sides are very clear, as well as demolished houses. For the link you can double link to both the spectator and Tom Gross site, leave each link in its own title since he obviously changed the title later and added some additional pictures etc. Yet it should also be noted that he added an introductory note which is not published on Observer under References Section. Kasaalan (talk) 17:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Partisanship is not a problem - the problem is falsification ("almost certainly an accident") and hatred ("cult of Rachel Corrie"). We know there are many victims of crime - that doesn't (or shouldn't) impact our concern (or lack thereof) for this case. PR^talk 18:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Well about partisanship is not an issue if I can verify the info, but Gush-Shalom mentioned as unreliable for being partisan for the translation of Moshe Nissim interview. By the way found a source for the The forgotten Rachels titlefull text, which belongs to Jerusalem Post abstract and not to the Spectator. Kasaalan (talk) 18:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

There is no reason I know of to think that Gush-Shalom is unreliable (certainly not for a translation that is widely circulated!). If material for them is a significant part of any memorial to Rachel, then we should have a flavour of it (and we'd do that even if there were question marks hanging over it). PR^talk 18:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

(reply to Kasaalan) Nice work. The first link actually sources to the IFCJ, which is a less reliable source than the Jerusalem Post, but your JP link is enough to establish that it was published. And it corroborates the fact that Gross changed the title after (2005) the Spectator article (2004), then misattributed it to the Spectator. arimareiji (talk) 23:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

(reply to PR) "There is no reason" to think that a blatantly partisan source has a conflict of interest in providing an accurate translation? When no one "widely circulate[s]" it and corroborates its validity except partisan sources on the same side? When that translation is a scathing indictment of the other side? You have very nonselective (or perhaps very selective) criteria for what a reliable source is. arimareiji (talk) 23:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The original Hebrew is here - we'd instantly know if there'd been falsification. There is no reason to doubt the good-faith of Gush Shalom (unlike, say, CAMERA or the MFA). Lengthy excerpts of the Gush Shalom translation appeared (so I'm told) in Tanya Reinhart's book, Israel/Palestine: How to End the War of 1948 (Seven Stories Press, 2002). Reinhart was a columnist for Yediot Aharonot as well as a professional linguist - it's ludicrous to suggest that she'd publish an erroneous translation. Let me repeat what I said, partisanship is not an issue since most sources suffer from it to one degree or another. What's at issue is the faults identified in eg the works of David Irving - falsification and hatred. Gush-Shalom doesn't suffer from either (at least, I've never seen any indication of it). Editors of the project should stick to sources like that and run a mile from sources such as Tom Gross, who, from just one glance, appears to suffer from both. I tend to agree with what you were struggling towards at the beginning of this section, editors who think Tom Gross is suitable should not be editing this article. Fortunately, Wehwalt is not in fact one of these editors. PR^talk 20:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Please don't put words in my mouth that are a mile away from what I actually said. It's not good faith by any stretch. What I was "struggling towards at the beginning of this section" was finding out if there was any rationale for keeping Gross in "Artistic Tributes"; I believed there wasn't. Wehwalt averred that (at the time) he hadn't read it, and suggested it as an EL instead. I agree. That's a far cry from sarcastically insinuating that Wehwalt should not be allowed to edit this article. Playing word games, such as not-quite-calling those who disagree with you racist liars, is not a protective mask for gross incivility.

"The original Hebrew is here - we'd instantly know if there has been falsification." Perhaps true for those who can read Hebrew; I am not among them. However, the cautions against POV sources for controversial assertions do not require proof of falsification before excluding them. arimareiji (talk) 21:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry to misunderstand what you were saying, but the point I'm making is of the utmost importance. Gush-Shalom comes across as a good-faith organisation. It's not linked (that I'm aware of) to falsification or hatred. Whereas Tom Gross is linked (judging by this article) to both. We should not encourage anyone to think his opinions provide anything useful. I don't know what you mean about POV sources in this case (or indeed, any case) since Kurdi Bear's actions were not "controversial". As Btselem tells us: Among the units that received citations was "the Central Command’s engineering division, whose soldiers include the operators of the D-9 bulldozers in the Jenin refugee camp, for performing under fire with dedication and tenacity." Y-net, June 4, 2002 PR^talk 17:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

PR, Tom Gross is a highly respected Middle East journalist. Stop soapboxing, making WP:BLP-violating statements about him being "linked" to "falsification or hatred", and equating him with David Irving. Don't let this happen again. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Good work for finding original Hebrew one PR. So Gush-Shalom provided original Hebrew text as well as their translation, an important indication for good faith of Gush Shalom. So we found both Hebrew original and English translation of Gush-Shalom, proved Munger used Gush-Shalom translation, if we can find an online version over Yediot Aharonot and check the integrity of the translation the source will completely be verified. Kasaalan (talk) 15:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Well if you include Gush-Shalom an Isareli HR organisation into POV, you might include most of Israeli newspapers into same category.

Another translation by btselem.org again an Israeli peace organisation. Operation Defensive Shield

• Moshe Nissim, driver of a D-9 bulldozer, who served on reserve duty in the Jenin refugee camp:

• Difficult? What do you mean, difficult? You must be kidding. I wanted to obliterate everything. I begged the officers to let me demolish it all from top to bottom. That we should level everything … For three days all I did was destroy. The whole area.I would knock down every house they fired from. To do that, I would demolish several other houses. They called out on a bullhorn to warn the residents before I came. But I didn’t give anybody a chance. I didn’t wait. I didn’t strike once and wait for them to leave. I would smash the house really hard so that it would collapse as quickly as possible. I wanted to work as fast as possible so that I could get to the other houses. To get a lot done. Maybe others were restrained. Or they say they were restrained. Nonsense. Anybody who was there and saw our soldiers in the houses would understand that they were in a death trap. I was thinking how to save them. I knocked down everything, but I didn’t demolish just for the sake of it. Everything was according to the orders I received. Lots of people were inside the houses when we began the demolition. They would leave their houses when we came in. I did not see anybody die under the shovel of the D-9, and I didn’t see any house crash down on a living person. If there were, though, that wouldn’t have bothered me one bit. I am sure that people died in these houses, but it was hard to see. There was lots of dust and we worked a lot at night. I got a real kick out of every house that was demolished, because I knew that dying means nothing to them, while the loss of their house means more to them. You demolish a house and you destroy forty or fifty people for generations. If one thing does bother me about all this, it is that we didn’t wipe out the whole camp.

• Zadok Yehezkeli, “I Made a Soccer Field in the Middle of the Camp,”Yediot Aharonot, May 31, 2002

• “Among the units that received citations was… the Central Command’s engineering division, whose soldiers include the operators of the D-9 bulldozers in the Jenin refugee camp, for performing under fire with dedication and tenacity.”Y-net, June 4, 2002

Also quoted in Steven B. Kramer's Thesis as a source. Kasaalan (talk) 16:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Article by Tamir Sorek, assistant professor of sociology and Israel studies at the Universily of Florida Middle East Report Winter 2007

It is not a coincidence thatMoshe Nissim, the D-9 operator who bulldozed hundreds ofhouses in the Jenin refugee camp in April 2002, planted a largeflag of Beitar Jerusalem atop his bulldozer before beginning his"work." In a newspaper interview, this devout Beitar fan said:"There were many people in the houses we started to destroy....I did not see a house fall on a live person. But if there was sucha case, I don't give a damn. I'm sure that people died in thesehouses, but it was hard to see.... I made them a stadium in themiddle of the camp."4

Yediot Aharonot May 31, 2002

Trying to locate sources referenced Moshe Nissim interview. Kasaalan (talk) 16:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Wehwalt, reverts

1. Your exact words in defense of referring to the ISM as a "motley collection of anti-globalization and animal-rights activists, self-described anarchists and seekers" were "really, I don't care if you take it out. I put it in when Tiamut and Kasaalan were making this, as IronDuke put it, hagiography. I think things are a little more balanced now." Was I mistaken in thinking that you were concurring that it was undue POV, since you said this after I had already made the attribution?
2. "Corrie worked hard to overcome this suspicion, learning a few words of Arabic, burning an American flag while surrounded by Palestinian schoolchildren, participating in a mock trial denouncing the "'crimes' of the Bush Administration." As I said earlier on this talk page today, this is pretty grossly undue as a characterization of someone going about winning trust. Hammer characterizes her efforts as being a frenetic, very human, attempt to talk to and engage people. It's borderline mockery, and it actually needs a different direction of change than the one I made. Not to mention you already worked in the bit about her burning the American flag a couple of paragraphs later.
3. Please explain why "It was undignified ... She slipped and she was trying to scramble up, and it crushed her. It was not expected. It was an accident." is germane to Artistic Tributes. An opinion as to whether her death was accidental or intentionally-caused wouldn't belong here, it would belong in Autopsy and Investigation. Except that, well... the opinion of the director of the Sydney production of a play isn't exactly expert opinion. Nor is it particularly germane to the director's involvement in the play. arimareiji (talk) 18:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

If I said that, then fine. There is so much on this talk page that it is impossible to keep things straight. Those were her activites in Gaza; to say burn a flag in effigy is rather questionable, and to stress "paper" is minimization. There is no requirement a flag be made of cloth, I checked the relevant article. If you think that it doesn't fall under the trust building, we can split up the sentence. It is a significant event, because it lost her a lot of support later. As for the comment by the play director, that is intended to balance against claims that everyone involved in MNiRC was out to make her a plaster saint. Shows they were taking a balanced view.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Which claims? You're "balancing" against an argument that no one makes in that section. I think it would be fair to say this is more of a gratuitous insertion of "See, even they admit my side is right." arimareiji (talk) 19:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

There aren't sides here, I seek balance, not a side. Remember that I opposed the pancakers too. If this is the view of someone who worked with the Corrie family on the production, it is well worth keeping.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, why is it relevant to the section Artistic Tributes? It doesn't relate to the director's involvement with the play, nor does it relate to the play itself. And again, it appears to be a gratuitous insertion of POV. arimareiji (talk) 19:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, you were right and I was mistaken about required materials to define a "flag," according to [6], which was an interesting trip down memory lane. (Perhaps because of my familiarity with Wikipedia, I'm more prone to trust ushistory.org on the matter.)

"According to the Flag Code, a flag is a flag or anything "by which the average person seeing the same without deliberation may believe the same to represent the flag.""

Still waiting for a response on why that comment is relevant to either the director's work on the play, to the material of the play, or to the play itself. Additionally, would you prefer a full enumeration of organizations, media, individuals, etc, who have said they think she was intentionally run over? To phrase it as only "the ISM" is misleading, as you're aware. I was under the impression that the lead was meant to be an executive summary. arimareiji (talk) 15:42, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Many is weasel wording, as I am sure you are aware. Did you insert it as a straw man for your argument on the director? And just because you disagree with my reasoning doesn't mean I haven't given you reasoning or have to come up with new ones.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

(undent)

1. In that case, what wording would you suggest? It's dishonest to say that only the ISM asserts that, and it needs rephrasing.
2. The full quote you snipped: "It was undignified ... She slipped and she was trying to scramble up, and it crushed her. It was not expected. It was an accident." Whether the dozer driver was in any way at fault is another matter. "No charges have been laid, that's for sure."
3. In addition to being unrelated to the play itself (the subject of the section), being an "answer" to an argument that you're saying is implied (but the only place it's implied is by you on the Talk page), and being unduly WP:POINTy, it's a mischaracterization of the source. In-context, she's saying that Rachel Corrie didn't intend to get crushed by the bulldozer, not that the bulldozer driver didn't mean to run her over. arimareiji (talk) 03:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Wehwalt, please address the points above.

Additionally, in the edits you're making despite not addressing those points, PNN is your own source. You're the one who made that edit. But when I include the full context instead of only the part that makes them look bad, you revert because the source is "unreliable" (but you still keep the part you want)? I don't want to take this to dispute resolution, but you're making it impossible to make NPOV edits even when there are no grounds to oppose them that can stand up to scrutiny. arimareiji (talk) 17:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with you above. There are certainly plenty of people who think it was an accident. But what is important is what the principals in all of this think. If you want to give a fuller quote, that is fine. Regarding the PNN matter, I would say that what is important is what Craig Corrie said. To say that the IDF then came in and broke up the thing with rubber covered steel bullets etc is gratuitous and at quite a remove from the subject of the article. I believe that was the reason you weren't wild about including info on the Mike's Place bombing. Shall we mention the memorial event attended by the terrorists after they stopped by the ISM office and then went to Tel Aviv to kill? Sauce for the goose and all that!

If you absolutely must have something on "others", we can say that the incident was polarizing, with many agreeing with the ISM and others agreeing with the Israeli government. For you to insert a "many" for the ISM makes it look like the whole world thinks Rachel Corrie was murdered, except the IDF, which of course is not the case. My belief in your good faith is weakened by zingers like that. And excuse me for not answering your point right away; this talk page is in a terrible state and sometimes it is difficult to tell.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

1. "I don't agree with you" is not a substantive refutation (with respect to your insert of "It was an accident") to: 1) it's off-topic, 2) its alleged pertinence is that it's a reply to an argument no one but you and IronDuke have made (on the talk page), but most importantly 3) it's a mischaracterization of the source. WP:ILIKEIT is not a reason to keep something that can be accurately described thus.
2. "If you insert stuff I don't like but can't make a cogent argument against, I'll insert stuff you don't like" is virtually the definition of WP:POINT. Corrie, or in this specific section her parents' activities after her death, is the subject. Not "Palestinians are terrorists, and here are some good examples."
3. You like PNN if it says something that can be selectively snipped to make it look like Corrie is encouraging armed resistance, but don't like it if the full context (he said nonviolent resistance, and the demonstration was broken up forcibly) is included. Why did you insert the source if you believed it's unreliable? Or is it only unreliable when it contradicts your worldview? arimareiji (talk) 17:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

4) Again, what wording do you suggest? I'm almost certain that you'll object to any wording I propose, if you choose to see "many" as "the whole world" rather than "a number of sources." arimareiji (talk) 17:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)I think sources like PNN are more reliable for quotes than they are for anything else. And no, I don't see it as tit for tat, if what happened (clearly unrelated to Corrie) regarding the "demonstration" should be in the article, the Mike's Place matter, which is closely related in time and place to Corrie (after all, the bombers went to where she died) should be in there. It's all about balance. Regarding point four, exactly who, besides the ISM and Corrie's parents, make up the "many" that you refer to? Typical comment if you are having an article reviewed and you leave in a weasel word like "many" is "who?"--Wehwalt (talk) 18:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

1. Are you conceding the fact that it's a mischaracterization, or do you just refuse to talk about it?
2. If you don't think it should be tit for tat, why did you say "Shall we mention the memorial event attended by the terrorists after they stopped by the ISM office and then went to Tel Aviv to kill? [which you already have done] Sauce for the goose and all that!"?
3. Do you realize that when you cut out "demonstration" and claimed (and are still claiming) it showed that I was being POV, you were actually attacking yourself? I didn't change that - it was your own wording. And even if you hypothesize that it was really a riot, demonstration covers the gamut from quietly holding signs to a riot. That's why I continued use of your term in the later sentence.
4. Again, what wording do you suggest in its place? arimareiji (talk) 18:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

If you expand the standard for inclusion on the page, it is hardly tit for tat to bring it up. I am not "refusing to talk about" anything, this is a long talk page with a discussion which veers all over the place, and you seem to want your responses stat on a number of topics at the same time. Words can have one connotation in one circumstance, I think demonstration was neutral when I brought it in, but if you are going to include the PNN claims (and they make no pretense at neutrality), then the connotation becomes pejorative, all the reader will think from your version of events is a static meeting at which people spoke and were assaulted by troops with tear gas and rubber bullets, since you don't mention that the "demonstrators" went after the security wall as the PNN article says they marched on the security wall. If you want the bullets in (I'd advise not), then you should mention that the crowd was dispersed only when they went to the wall. It does not help your argument that I am being selective to make a side look bad when there's black all over that pot. I'm not sure which wording, you are discussing that you want me to make a proposal on. The weasel wording that you don't defend? Is this still a straw man argument which you will use as a rationale for excluding the theatre director's comments? You come up with language that satisfies WP:WEASEL.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Follow the numbers. Your paragraphs are indeed "all over the place," but I've stayed within the same structure.

1. "I don't agree with you" is not a substantive refutation (with respect to your insert of "It was an accident") to: 1) it's off-topic, 2) its alleged pertinence is that it's a reply to an argument no one but you and IronDuke have made (on the talk page), but most importantly 3) it's a mischaracterization of the source. WP:ILIKEIT is not a reason to keep something that can be accurately described thus.
2. Are you saying that "Shall we mention the memorial event attended by the terrorists after they stopped by the ISM office and then went to Tel Aviv to kill? [which you already have done] Sauce for the goose and all that!" was not an expression of "tit for tat"?
3. Your words don't match the diff of your edit. You evidently thought I added it, so you attacked it as POV - but it was your own wording.
4. I've repeatedly asked the same question in full form, and you've refused to answer it several times. You claim I "don't defend" it, but I've already said I'm asking for how you would word it because you've made it obvious you'll object to any wording I propose. Example: "The IDF maintained Corrie died by accident, while the Human Rights Watch investigation determined that she was run over deliberately."

Reference material for #1: The full quote, which makes it evident that she's saying that Rachel Corrie didn't intend to get crushed by the bulldozer: "It was undignified ... She slipped and she was trying to scramble up, and it crushed her. It was not expected. It was an accident." Whether the dozer driver was in any way at fault is another matter. "No charges have been laid, that's for sure."

Your snipped version, which makes it sound as if she's saying the bulldozer driver didn't mean to run her over (in fact, you said as much earlier): "It was undignified ... She slipped and she was trying to scramble up, and it crushed her. It was not expected. It was an accident." arimareiji (talk) 19:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

1. I've said that if you want the full quote, I have no objection. I think it is well worth including in the artistic tributes section.
2. I'm at something of a loss to see that langauge that I have not included is somehow "tit for tat". I've merely pointed out to you, on talk page, which is what it is there for, what your broader standard of inclusion would lead to. Frankly, an event that took place two weeks after Corrie's death is probably far more relevant than one which took place five years later.
3. Please don't assume you know my thinking. Demonstration was perfectly appropriate by itself. It is less appropriate when you throw in the rubber bullets and tear gas, because then you are significantly altering the POV of the passage, especially when, in a most POV manner, you don't mention that the people were dispersed when they tried to march against the security fence. You make it sound like the course of events was people gather at a set spot, Corries speak, Israelis come in and start shooting up the place. That's a fair reading from your language, and yet, since you read the article, you know that is not the case.
4. I would ask you to assume good faith and that I would seriously consider your language. Personally, I don't think any such language is needed, but you are the proponent and I decline to do your work for you. If that is the language, in the last reply, that you propose, then obviously it is inappropriate because it asserts as a fact that Corrie was run over deliberately.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

1. The full quote would be even more egregiously off-topic. The topic is the play, which is a subtopic of artistic tributes to Corrie. To make half the paragraph about the director's personal opinion on whether the bulldozer driver meant to run her over is completely WP:UNDUE, even moreso than including a short de facto misquote of her personal opinion.
2. A) I only copy/pasted your language regarding why you would add it; I didn't make it up. B)You have in fact already added that in once "for balance." C) You're further engaging in said behavior as I write this.
3. You didn't say "I'm removing my wording because you changed the context," you called the word itself a POV characterization. That's pretty self-evident wrt intent; one doesn't need to be a psychic.
4. Your demonstration of good faith was to say WP:WEASEL and revert, imply I inserted it "as a straw man for your argument on the director", say that I was trying to make it sound like "the whole world" was against you, and refuse to discuss what wording you won't revert. That's not particularly good faith, nor does it contradict my assertions.
5. I have to confess to a bit of dishonesty - I wouldn't have wanted to word it that way at all. Instead, I deliberately mirrored the wording and changed sides in the hopes that by looking at it from the other side you would see how POV it is at present. But instead, in one sentence, you assert that it doesn't need changing if it's worded that way in favor of the IDF. And in the next, you say it's a (functional) assertion in favor of Corrie to make it sound just as "official" as you want the IDF side to sound.arimareiji (talk) 20:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Pointing fingers isn't going to help resolve this matter, nor will your mischaracterizations of my positions. To term my comment that "or you to insert a "many" for the ISM makes it look like the whole world thinks Rachel Corrie was murdered, except the IDF, which of course is not the case" as "say that I was trying to make it sound like "the whole world" was against you" is sheer mischaracterization. Perhaps . Exactly what are you proposing? I gather you want the director comment removed, but I'm not quite clear on what else you think should be done. Stop saying what a awful, hotheaded, and POV editor I am and perhaps discuss the edits you want made?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Your preferred "neutral" wording: "An Israeli military investigation ruled the death was an accident, while the ISM maintains that Corrie was run over deliberately."

According to you, grossly POV: "The IDF maintained Corrie died by accident, while the Human Rights Watch investigation determined that she was run over deliberately."

In other words, "(acronym) maintained Corrie (manner of death) / (full name) investigation ruled/determined (manner of death)" is grossly POV - but only if it's not in favor of the Israeli military. If it is, then it's neutral.

I'll leave it up to anyone who cares to determine for themselves whether that's a "mischaracterization." arimareiji (talk) 22:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit break again

I've modified the language in the last sentence of the lede, and I think that should answer your concern without using weasel words. I also modified the language regarding the HRW report because I felt it was too close to accepting what HRW said as facts, rather than as allegations.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Removed Comments of External Links

If you will remove comments explaining the external links at least seperate them pro or against. People cannot read all links, links should be tagged.

Also I still don't understand the neutrality on not accepting Gush-Shalom translation used in The Skies are Weeping, which is relevant both artistically and practically, removing publicly available cantata lyrics and content from paragraph but adding tons of after debates instead and objecting Electronic Intifada, but accepting Jewish World Review or Tom Gross.

By the way burning an American flag is not a crime, mock or real, according to American laws, so there is no crime to be minimized anyway. But this time I didn't read much of your discussion. Kasaalan (talk) 22:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Pro or against what? The Cardinals winning the Super Bowl?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

People cannot just hit and miss every single link, the info in them should be added. Actually there is no sound reason to remove context from the links. But if you like to remove that much at least you can group the links, well you can group blatantly calling Rachel or ISM as terrorist into one side for example. American footbal team names like Indians or Cardinals are disrespectful in any manner, and that bowl is not super by any means. Kasaalan (talk) 22:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I think we can assume that they are looking for info, not cheerleading for one side or the other. So if we lost words like "opposing" and "criticizing' and the like, and just said "editorial concerning Corrie" that would be a good way to go. Maybe someone will click on an article and be educated! By the way, the Cardinal name has nothing to do with any human being or bird, the early team got cast off uniforms from a team known as the Maroons, and someone said "That's not maroon, that's Cardinal red." That's without looking at the article, which I'm sure gives the legend in great detail.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

ELs

Wehwalt, which option do you prefer in listing External Links?

1. No characterization at all, just the link
2. Link, plus characterization if the name of the link doesn't make it obvious
3. Link, plus characterization regardless

My belief was that the second option was the best choice. Would you prefer the first option? The third option seems a recipe for disaster, and from the results of this brief attempt I'd say the second seems ill-starred as well. For that matter, I'm about ready to chuck the section down a well rather than deal with the POV "balance" war that I sense on the horizon. arimareiji (talk) 17:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd rather go to 1. Let the articles speak for themselves. The problem was, that as of last night, of the nine visible EL's, seven took similar points of view. You excluded one from the article and added it as the tenth EL, at the bottom; the first seven all had the same POV. I rearranged them so the minority point of view had spots 2,3, and 5, you then saw fit to do your own rearranging, in a way I felt was unhelpful, since it guaranteed that Corrie's POV would be presented first, and it had the effect of relegating two of the minority points of view further down the stack. I made my concerns known to you. I would be OK with leaving rachelcorrie.org first, suggest having two from the minority point of view as 2 and 3, and then as 6 and 7 (if needed), and if we ever get that far, as 10 and 11.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Incidently, if you did chuck it down a well, you'd have me slamming the cover home and padlocking it. For the record, about a year ago I got rid of about forty ELs and Further Reading links. There wasn't any opposition worth mentioning.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I've said this twice already, but I didn't "see fit to do my own re-arranging" for some nefarious purpose of denying you top spots or to "guarantee that Corrie's POV would be presented first" - you keep insinuating it, and it's not appreciated. In response to your legitimate concern about order, I set about re-ordering them alphabetically and by weight rather than the "first come first serve" structure. I ran into your edit conflict, and had to re-do it. By the time I was finished, you had made a nonsystematic rearrangement. I thought it was better to avoid future fights over "Who's On First" by using a systematic arrangement. I mistakenly thought that the result, #2 in the first group (of 4) and #2/3 of the second group (of 6), would be acceptable to you and that you would similarly prefer to avoid future fights. I had no idea you would be so violently opposed, especially since the result did in fact front-weight your POV although less drastically (#2, #5, #6 of 10). arimareiji (talk) 18:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Sleep calls. arimareiji (talk) 18:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Sleep well. But if I've gone to the trouble of rearranging, some sort of heads up or discussion would have been nice. And let's lose the "violently", OK? I think we've done quite well to bang out most of this on talk page, though things have obviously gotten heated, which I regret.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with 1 at all, 2 or 3 should be taken, why it is obligatory to remove the content while anyone can easily ignore the explanation if they feel to, though have to read whole article to understand why it is added as external reference. It is clearly indicated Wikipedia has no space limitation as printed encylopedias, no way every reader can click each link to know what the article is about or why it is embedded as external reference. No sound reason to remove explanation of the links, title is not enough, and it should not be taken as a preference, but an obligation to make each link explanation refer to its content. But even it is not enough, even writers should be mentioned for articles.Kasaalan (talk) 14:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Also why do we use greatly POV and basically same Tom Gross article in reference, in additional reading and in external references sections seperately. It is already a POV article, definately not worths to repeat in 3 different sections, double linking to each article one time is enough already. Kasaalan (talk) 14:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

It's in three sections? I missed seeing that, could you point me to them? arimareiji (talk) 15:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Reference 54 Tom Gross on The Forgotten Rachels, Additional reading Gross, Tom. "The Forgotten Rachels: Anti-Israel propaganda sells out on the London stage", The Spectator, October 22, 2005, External Links Dead Jews Aren't News both article body is actually same but in his site he added extra info with photographs, double referencing it once in references section [to both spectator and his personal site] is enough. Kasaalan (talk) 21:11, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Lead

Proposal: To change the last sentence of the lead, per Wehwalt's correct assessment that the structure is grossly POV, to be mirrored on both sides. If it's an Israeli military investigation, it's a Human Rights Watch investigation. If it's HRW, it's IDF. If one determines, they both determine. (Rules is strictly incorrect, since it was not a judicial proceeding.) If one says or maintains, they both say or maintain. arimareiji (talk) 22:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Change "ruled' to "found"? That and maintain seem to be a fair parallel, especially since maintain speaks of a continuing position.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

You yourself asserted that it was grossly POV when the shoe was on the other foot. Exactly (not anyone's estimation of "fair") parallel wording eliminates all doubt. arimareiji (talk) 22:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, and a pair of shoes, parallel wording isn't possible or desirable because there are two different positions which were expressed differently. The IDF did a report. The ISM made allegations, many of which seem to have been adopted by the Corrie family. I suggest you consider well, then adopt my suggestion. If not, then make a specific proposal, and may I say, Arimajeiri, if you had spent half the letters you've invested in criticizing me and my editing style here and on my talk page in making concrete proposals, we'd be done with this by now.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

You insist it's only the ISM. So, I insist that we only name the weakest person asserting it on your side... Rush Limbaugh. Sound fair? No? HRW did a credible investigation, arguably moreso since they had no inherent conflict of interest and made public their sources and reasoning. I've made a concrete proposal, and you're insisting that we keep it in a structure you argued "asserts as a fact" that one side is right. arimareiji (talk) 23:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

There you go again with your talk of "sides". Did the HRW say that Corrie had been deliberately run over? I wait with bated breath.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

"With all due respect," as you said, you demonstrated clearly that you've chosen a side when you asserted that neutral wording is to phrase it for the IDF's benefit using a structure that, when it was turned around, you protested was "assert[ing] as a fact" that the IDF was wrong. arimareiji (talk) 23:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)You forgot the shoes. Let me know when you have a proposal with specific language. I think I've only asked for one is it four times now?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

No, this is the first. Before that, you asked for what edit I would recommend, and once asked for a "specific proposal" - which I've already made. I'm reading through the HRW report at present. When you actually read the sources instead of looking for material that makes persuasive (although inaccurate) sound bites, it can take a while. arimareiji (talk) 23:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

If you would prefer that the HRW findings be summarized instead of spelled out in detail, that's fine as long it does not change the accuracy of the characterization. Likewise if you want to rephrase the reasoning of the IDF. But insisting on the most sensationalist wording possible and saying that HRW has to be replaced in order to provide that would not be neutral; likewise insisting that the two sides have to be characterized with different degrees of credibility.

Both the operational and military police investigations by the Israel Defense Forces asserted that Corrie's death was accidental, and that neither wrongdoing nor negligence occurred. By contrast, the Human Rights Watch investigation asserted that "the bulldozer drivers... could see the activists even when in close proximity" and that the IDF investigations were neither credible nor impartial, but that "the possibility that the bulldozer operator could not see Corrie cannot be ruled out."

Source quotes, which can be skipped if you believe the above is an accurate characterization of the HRW findings:

• "This uncertainty is precisely why a credible and impartial investigation into this incident is essential," by contrast with the IDF investigations.
• "At the heart of the problem is a system that relies on soldiers' own accounts as the threshold for determining whether serious investigation is warranted."
• "So-called "operational investigations" may serve a useful military purpose, but they do not constitute proper investigations: they are wholly inadequate to determine whether there is evidence of a violation of human rights or humanitarian law, and they serve as a pretext for maintaining, incorrectly, that an investigation has taken place."
• "The impartiality and professionalism of the Israeli investigation into Corrie's death are highly questionable."
• "A key requirement is that those investigating an alleged crime must be effectively independent from those implicated in the events in question. The Israeli military's system for investigating wrongdoing by Israeli soldiers fails all of these requirements."
• "These and other changes are practical, possible, and necessary if Israel wishes to develop a justice system that effectively counters the impunity now granted to its security forces."

arimareiji (talk) 05:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't agree. I don't think HRW is a party to this matter. To give them equal footing, and in-paragraph rebuttal, of the official Israeli government report, is inherantly POV. While some attention is properly paid to them in the Reactions section, that is all they are entitled to, and I am willing to discuss modifying the paragraph in the reactions section if you like. In addition, they did not interview the bulldozer driver nor any Israeli official with responsibility for the matter. In fact, they interviewed a grand total of three witnesses, no doubt Huey, Dewey, and Louie of the ISM, well propped up by their attorneys and protected from media contact per the request you threw out of the article. They accuse the IDF of generalities, much the same could be said for them. They accuse the IDF of factual mistakes; much the same could be said for them (they certainly whitewashed their description of Corrie!). They are appropriate for the reaction section, not for the lede. While I am willing to discuss it, I don't think my view of the matter is terribly likely to be changed by discussion, and we may want to discuss the manner in which we resolve this. Many of the quotes you posit don't have to do with the Corrie matter in particular; they have to do with the fact that they don't like how the Israelis investigate. Should we insert that HRW wants the Palestinians to be able to file complaints in Arabic on the Internet? Militaries routinely use internal investigations, as does, for example, the U.S. Incidently, I note that you started this with, on the article page, saying that "many" believe that Corrie was intentionally run over. Was HRW a part of that many? They don't seem to actually want to come right out and say it.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

So, to review:

• It's not "terribly likely" that your mind can be changed by discussion.
• You've listed a lot of derogatory WP:SYNTHESIS reasons you personally disbelieve HRW, and openly demonized HRW's contradiction of the IDF. You don't give any credit to any reason whatsoever to believe them.
• You've repeatedly asserted that your reasoning (that every organization or individual who's been brought up as contradicting the IDF is not credible) should be used as a basis for phrasing the lede to express said lack of credibility.
• Only a few days ago, you said that the best wording of the sentence(s) we're discussing (which means that yes, this does have immediate relevance) is one which you yourself asserted is blatantly POV - but only if that wording is used to contradict the IDF. By contrast, you asserted the same wording is "neutral" if it's used on behalf of the IDF.

As I've said elsewhere, you do have the ability to contribute to making this article better by contributing your POV, and by being a watchdog against phrasing that can be construed unfairly. But I don't believe the foregoing reflects your positive contributions or the best of your abilities. And I would assert that your viewpoint is not the only one that can be considered reasonable; nor does your refusal to back away from it mean it's the only course that can be followed. "I don't agree" is not synonymous with "Thou shalt not." arimareiji (talk) 17:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

There being no matters of content, or replies to my points, in there, I acknowledge that you've replied.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe your assertions speak clearly to any neutral editor with regard to the nature of these issues. So I suppose that means I "acknowledge your acknowledgement" of the above. arimareiji (talk) 17:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Flag burning picture

One of the most famous pictures I've seen of Rachel is of her burning a mock American flag. Would it be alright to include this picture of her? Since she died for her beliefs, it seems strange to not let her encyclopedia article reflect her strong emotions. Tech408 (talk) 18:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The thing is, that is a copyrighted photograph and I kinda doubt we could come up with a fair use rationale to cover that.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Besides copyright issue, we have direct links to the photograph while she was holding the burned the mock US flag, technically I am not sure who burned it bu she was holding it, therefore it is mentioned in the article already. Kasaalan (talk) 12:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Skies are Weeping Blog Official Blog

While I added The Skies are Weeping Official Blog for London Stage, but the reference removed. But official blogs are good sources for info about play. There are good photographs of the event, and info on financial supporters. Before I add again as a reference I will discuss the matter again. Kasaalan (talk) 12:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of NPOV in lead section

• Previous version: "While an Israeli military investigation ruled the death was an accident, Corries' parents and the ISM maintain that Corrie was run over deliberately."
• Changed to: "Both the operational and military police investigations by the Israel Defense Forces asserted that Corrie's death was accidental, and that neither wrongdoing nor negligence occurred. By contrast, a Human Rights Watch investigation asserted that "the bulldozer drivers... could see the activists even when in close proximity" and that the IDF investigations were neither credible nor impartial, but that "the possibility that the bulldozer operator could not see Corrie cannot be ruled out.""
• When I rhetorically proposed rewording the previous version to "The IDF maintained Corrie died by accident, while the Human Rights Watch investigation determined that she was run over deliberately," Wehwalt's response was that "obviously it is inappropriate because it asserts as a fact that Corrie was run over deliberately." If that version would be partisan, then it's no less partisan to flip the wording in favor of the IDF as the previous version does. Look carefully: They're mirrors of each other, with the only change being to add "Corries' parents."
• I believe this change restores NPOV. It is not NPOV to say that one side has an "investigation" while the other has only their claim, not NPOV to say that one side "rules" (synonymous with "determines") while the other "maintains," and not NPOV to make one side sound as credible and official as possible ("the Israeli military") and the other non-credible and partisan ("Corries' parents and the ISM"). arimareiji (talk) 07:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe this is an improvement. The lead is not the place to hash out the fight between pro and anti forces (leaving aside that HRW comes out the clear victor in your version). Let's leave the relatively stable version in place until consensus favors some sort of change, please. IronDuke 18:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Could you explain what aspects you believe the HRW is the "clear victor" in, so that they can be mirrored? Blindly reverting to a version that two editors have described as sharply favoring one side (albeit one only by subterfuge) is not the answer, especially when there's no counter-proposal. arimareiji (talk) 19:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Sure... the part where you discuss how HRW doesn't find IDF credible... wait! Brainflash: we take your intro, just as it is, but then add "though many consider HRW to be a seething cauldron of anti-Israel propaganda." Better yet, let's not recapitulate the IP conflict in this particular intro at all. The "two editors" in question are quite wrong -- the lead doesn't favor either side, which is why it's superior to your version. I say again: get consensus here (not "two editors"), then changes can be made. IronDuke 19:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe you said all that's needed by asserting that the lead should be phrased with "though many consider HRW to be a seething cauldron of anti-Israel propaganda." The remainder doesn't even attempt to discuss, and WP:IDONTLIKEIT on one editor's part is not consensus. arimareiji (talk) 19:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Is there a point to your last post? I don't mean that in a snarky way, I'm literally not getting what you're driving at. IronDuke 19:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, I note that you've reverted quite a lot of material that has been thoroughly discussed in your absence, at the same time that you appeal to "consensus." Would you care to explain why your opinion is sufficient to overturn it without discussion? arimareiji (talk) 19:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what you're referring to specifically, or why you have a problem with it. Happy to hear more, though. IronDuke 19:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

You appear to be reverting anything you don't like that's transpired in your absence, and are ignoring quite a bit of discussion that went into it. You can't appeal to consensus on one hand and then assert that your absence in the discussions means any consensus reached is invalid. arimareiji (talk) 19:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

"You can't appeal to consensus on one hand and then assert that your absence in the discussions means any consensus reached is invalid." But you can? Tell we what you object to, and where consensus was reached that it should stay out (or in). I'll make the changes myself, if you can show it. IronDuke 19:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah! I see you have the courage of your convictions, and have jammed your nakedly partisan lead back in (as you slash out info you don't like). Is this, again, done of the basis of your two-editor "consensus"? IronDuke 19:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

You asked me to find the pertinent discussions from archives. Was that a rhetorical claim, or are you willing to wait while I do your research for you? arimareiji (talk) 20:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

It was in no way rhetorical. I thought you could wait until you had actually, you know, proven your point before mass reverting everything I did. But that's fine, I'll leave it on your version until you find it. IronDuke 20:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

(undent)

• Talk:Rachel_Corrie/Archive_7#Lots_of_little_edits_and_one_section_refactor
• Talk:Rachel_Corrie/Archive_8#Munger.27s_inbox
• Talk:Rachel_Corrie/Archive_8#IDF_Operator_Mentioned_in_The_Skies_are_Weeping
• Talk:Rachel_Corrie/Archive_8#Links
• Talk:Rachel_Corrie#Tom_Gross

And that's the bare-minimal version of the discussion and consensus behind the material you mass-reverted - the edit history is clear on who reverted weeks of changes in seven minutes of "separate" edits.

With respect to "most" above, I was not including your previous deletion and my restoration of "Corrie was in an international exchange program." However, the only rationale you provided was "trim". You didn't respond to my restore and explanation of "Restoring exchange-student info; it's a good foundation to her later decision to be an activist abroad"; instead you later deleted again with "very, very minor point". Would you care to elaborate on why participation in an exchange-student program is a "very, very minor point" in the early life section of someone who decided to be an international activist?

Nor was I including the lead you strenuously insist is "nakedly partisan." As far as that goes, my question still stands after your sarcastic non-answer: What specific aspects are prejudiced towards the HRW? You may consider them "a seething cauldron of anti-Israel propaganda," but Wikipedia does not exist to tilt POV debates toward "The Truth." It exists to neutrally characterize disputes within the bounds of WP:RS, not to engage in them.

Find a non-partisan WP:RS that makes those claims about HRW's unreliability, and I'll add it in for you. Find wording in the lead that characterizes the HRW more positively than the IDF, and I'll mirror it inasmuch as possible so that they're characterized in the same light. I.e. since you object to "credible," try "the IDF found that it was not credible that either wrongdoing or negligence had occurred," or some synonym thereof that the IDF actually said. Obviously their wording can't be mirrored exactly since the HRW nonreciprocally concedes that it's possible the IDF is right, which I would think favors your side of it. But this whole dispute grew out of the fact that the wording as it existed did not characterize them neutrally, for the reasons I listed at the top of the section. You haven't answered any of those reasons except by claiming sans evidence "Mine is neutral, yours isn't." arimareiji (talk) 21:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that... it'll take me a bit to get to this, but I will try ASAP. IronDuke 22:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay...

• Talk:Rachel_Corrie/Archive_7#Lots_of_little_edits_and_one_section_refactor

Read it. What does it have to do with our discussion?

• Talk:Rachel_Corrie/Archive_8#Munger.27s_inbox

Read it. The consensus was what there? And how many were involved in this discussion? And how does that mean my edit should be insta-reverted?

• Talk:Rachel_Corrie/Archive_8#IDF_Operator_Mentioned_in_The_Skies_are_Weeping

I might be seeing a pattern here... what is the point of this? It seems largely to do with the 4th movement of Munger's piece... were my edits related to that? What is this thread meant to show?

• Talk:Rachel_Corrie/Archive_8#Links

And?

• Talk:Rachel_Corrie#Tom_Gross

Yes! This thread actually does address the issue (sort of). I see you, Kasalaan and PR who don't like the Gross piece, Wehwalt on the fence, Jayjg in favor (and me). That suggests to you that's okay to remove a section that's been in the article (a heavily-warred over article) for years? You were saying something about chutzpah, yes?

Your other points: "Would you care to elaborate on why participation in an exchange-student program is a "very, very minor point" in the early life section of someone who decided to be an international activist?" Would you care to elaborate as to how they are linked? With a reliable source?

"You may consider them "a seething cauldron of anti-Israel propaganda,"" When did I say this? Please be as specific as you can.

"Find a non-partisan WP:RS that makes those claims about HRW's unreliability, and I'll add it in for you." You mean, in order to oppose your use of a partisan source, I must find a non-partisan source to impeach them? Isn't that a bit backwards?

"which I would think favors your side of it." I don't have a "side" of it. I've been struggling to keep this article neutral since long before you got here.

As for the lead, the HRW section looks to be about twice the size of the IDF section. And no, I'm not interested in expanding it. This is a summary of a summary, not a place to hash the battle out again. I'll also note that the way you have it, HRW says "the bulldozer drivers... could see the activists" and also that "the possibility that the bulldozer operator could not see Corrie cannot be ruled out." So the IDF could see her, except maybe they couldn't. Far better to have the actual freaking eyewitnesses, who say that the driver could see her (or variations thereof). I think that actually favors your side. IronDuke 04:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Objections to the Tom Gross article were met with threats. Nevertheless, there was a majority in favor of taking it out, leading to a presumption it has to come out - so where is it? Still at the top of the reading list!

Other blatant problems start with the lead which doesn't even include the "accusations" that are central to this case (instead injecting the well-poisoning claim that there is controversy).

Meanwhile, the international observers, HRW, a source at the very highest level of RS, is being compared with the IDF, the "defendant" in the case. The latter being notoriously sloppy, even if it wasn't specifically indicted over the "investigations" in this Corrie case.

I hesitate to comment on the other glaring POV faults at this article - but have a look at article Pat Tillman. If we can write a fair article about his death, fairly reporting the suspicions that he was murdered by his own US forces, I'm sure we can write this article better, fairly reporting conclusions reached by the RS. In Tillman's case, the US has no record of killing it's own heroes - whereas Israel has sometimes admitted murder of internationals (including another member of ISM, Tom Hurndall), and judicial cases elsewhere have passed verdicts amounting to murder (James Miller, Iain Hook) over which Israel refuses to act. PR^talk 10:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

You weren’t threatened PR, you were just told to stop soap-boxing. I still think that's a good idea. IronDuke 04:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

(Anyone else - this is an explanation of incidences where IronDuke claimed ignorance of prior consensus/discussion before making mass-reversions, and now claims links to the sections where it occurred doesn't prove it or that they're irrelevant.)

• Talk:Rachel_Corrie/Archive_7#Lots_of_little_edits_and_one_section_refactor - Use of HRW, which you seem to vehemently object to and have removed because in your exact words "many consider HRW to be a seething cauldron of anti-Israel propaganda," i.e. WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
• Talk:Rachel_Corrie/Archive_8#Munger.27s_inbox - Two editors hammer out a rework of Munger's cantata at length. You revert with only the edit summary of "balance," i.e. WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
• Talk:Rachel_Corrie/Archive_8#IDF_Operator_Mentioned_in_The_Skies_are_Weeping Further discussion of Munger's cantata; see above.
• Talk:Rachel_Corrie/Archive_8#Links - The material for Bragg's song is brought up as a possible link; no objections. A different editor later includes it. You revert with only the edit summary of "minor," i.e. WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
• Talk:Rachel_Corrie#Tom_Gross - Read more carefully, there were two arguments. 1) Whether he should be in "Artistic Tributes"; 2) whether he should be in the article at all. We have two editors against leaving Gross in the article at all, two who say his accurately-titled Spectator article "Dead Jews Aren't News" (not "The Forgotten Rachels") should be removed from "Artistic Tributes" to EL since it only got in via mischaracterization, one who supports letting Gross stay in the EL, and... well, you. Who reverted "Dead Jews Aren't News" into "Artistic Tributes" with only the edit summary of "restore deleted material," i.e. WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Apparently, it belongs there while a Billy Bragg song about Corrie doesn't - I fail to see the logic.

The rest:

• (ar)Would you care to elaborate on why participation in an exchange-student program is a "very, very minor point" in the early life section of someone who decided to be an international activist? (ID)"Would you care to elaborate as to how they are linked? With a reliable source?" (ar)Would you care to answer the question with something other than a sarcastic insinuation that WP:RS requires that RS's be excluded unless they have their own meta-RS's (to show that they're pertinent)? Or alternately, a quote of where WP:RS says that?
• (ar)Find a non-partisan WP:RS that makes those claims about HRW's unreliability, and I'll add it in for you. (ID)"You mean, in order to oppose your use of a partisan source, I must find a non-partisan source to impeach them? Isn't that a bit backwards?" (ar)You assert they're partisan and therefore unreliable. Until that's backed up with a nonpartisan WP:RS, i.e. something better than a partisan blogger (who have the nasty tendency to confuse "partisan" with IDONTLIKEIT), you're again arguing to exclude based only on your own beliefs.
• (ID)"I don't have a "side" of it. I've been struggling to keep this article neutral since long before you got here." (ar)I'm well-aware of your long-term activity here. Can you name a single instance where you've made an edit positive to Corrie apart from reverting straw-man vandalism?
• Finally, you DONTLIKE the edit to the lead, despite the fact that it's been admitted by someone else who was defending it that if the wording were reversed, they would consider it blatantly POV. But you don't want to be engaged in changing it, because you like it the way it is. You also assert that it's unfair that the HRW sentence is longer even though it's longer to reflect that they concede that it's possible the IDF is right. But somehow that's still POV against the IDF.
• Note to other editors: Please do speak up for or against if you want to, but keep it to these subjects while you're in this section. Bringing up unrelated topics will only muddle the issue. arimareiji (talk) 15:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

“…this is an explanation of incidences where IronDuke claimed ignorance of prior consensus/discussion before making mass-reversions, and now claims links to the sections where it occurred doesn't prove it or that they're irrelevant.)

• Wow. I do seem to do an awful lot of “claiming,” don’t I? If only, like you, I had the stone tablets to hand, I could simply read off them couldn’t I? You have, I think, demonstrated consenus in precisly none of the threads you continually link to.
  

“Talk:Rachel_Corrie/Archive_7#Lots_of_little_edits_and_one_section_refactor - Use of HRW, which you seem to vehemently object to and have removed because in your exact words "many consider HRW to be a seething cauldron of anti-Israel propaganda," i.e. WP:IDONTLIKEIT.”

• It is odd that, in your attempt to discredit me, you actually discredit yourself by failing to read what I wrote above. Um… hyperbole? Did that just sail over your head, or did you literally not read what I wrote? And where, I ask, is the consensus that HRW stay in the lead?

“Talk:Rachel_Corrie/Archive_8#Munger.27s_inbox - Two editors hammer out a rework of Munger's cantata at length. You revert with only the edit summary of "balance," i.e. WP:IDONTLIKEIT.”

• Ah. I had hoped we would return to the sacred, mystical consensus consisting of two editors. And where, if I may ask this, does this quorum say that everything that I put into the Munger section should be reverted? Please look at my edit again and be specific.

“Talk:Rachel_Corrie/Archive_8#IDF_Operator_Mentioned_in_The_Skies_are_Weeping Further discussion of Munger's cantata; see above. Talk:Rachel_Corrie/Archive_8#Links - The material for Bragg's song is brought up as a possible link; no objections. A different editor later includes it. You revert with only the edit summary of "minor," i.e. WP:IDONTLIKEIT.”

• Minor doesn’t actually mean “I don’t like it,” hard as that may be to digest. It means… wait for it… that it’s minor. Feel free to show notability, though, I am flexible on this point.

“Talk:Rachel_Corrie#Tom_Gross - Read more carefully, there were two arguments. 1) Whether he should be in "Artistic Tributes"; 2) whether he should be in the article at all. We have two editors against leaving Gross in the article at all, two who say his accurately-titled Spectator article "Dead Jews Aren't News" (not "The Forgotten Rachels") should be removed from "Artistic Tributes" to EL since it only got in via mischaracterization, one who supports letting Gross stay in the EL, and... well, you. Who reverted "Dead Jews Aren't News" into "Artistic Tributes" with only the edit summary of "restore deleted material," i.e. WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Apparently, it belongs there while a Billy Bragg song about Corrie doesn't - I fail to see the logic.”

• I well understand that failure. Tom Gross is notable, even though he didn’t pen a minor, aching tribute to RC. Why would we reduce him to footnote without even mentioning what he said? I mean, it works sort of nicely as you have it, too, don’t get me wrong. The footnote comes after his sentence “They also visited Ramallah in the West Bank, where Arafat met them and presented them with a plaque in memory of their daughter.” Which is 1) A loving yet pithy precis of what Gross was writing about or 2) So very much beside the point of his piece that it is worse than useless. And the National Review was excised, by you, by consensus, right? It had at least the fabled two editors, yes? Just because I don’t see it doesn’t mean it isn’t there.

“(ar)Would you care to elaborate on why participation in an exchange-student program is a "very, very minor point" in the early life section of someone who decided to be an international activist? (ID)"Would you care to elaborate as to how they are linked? With a reliable source?" (ar)Would you care to answer the question with something other than a sarcastic insinuation that WP:RS requires that RS's be excluded unless they have their own meta-RS's (to show that they're pertinent)? Or alternately, a quote of where WP:RS says that?

• It’s nothing to do with a meta-RS. It would merely be something like (from a RS) “We knew from her early interest in exchange student programs that RC would be interested in a place like Gaza,” or words to that effect. If you can make that link, I’m happy to have it. If not, it’s just OR.

“(ar)Find a non-partisan WP:RS that makes those claims about HRW's unreliability, and I'll add it in for you. (ID)"You mean, in order to oppose your use of a partisan source, I must find a non-partisan source to impeach them? Isn't that a bit backwards?" (ar)You assert they're partisan and therefore unreliable. Until that's backed up with a nonpartisan WP:RS, i.e. something better than a partisan blogger (who have the nasty tendency to confuse "partisan" with IDONTLIKEIT), you're again arguing to exclude based only on your own beliefs.”

• So if I can finding something other than a partisan blogger to support that point you’ll concede it?

“(ID)"I don't have a "side" of it. I've been struggling to keep this article neutral since long before you got here." (ar)I'm well-aware of your long-term activity here. Can you name a single instance where you've made an edit positive to Corrie apart from reverting straw-man vandalism?”

• I can absolutely do this. How will it alter your behavior if I do?

“Finally, you DONTLIKE the edit to the lead, despite the fact that it's been admitted by someone else who was defending it that if the wording were reversed, they would consider it blatantly POV. But you don't want to be engaged in changing it, because you like it the way it is. You also assert that it's unfair that the HRW sentence is longer even though it's longer to reflect that they concede that it's possible the IDF is right. But somehow that's still POV against the IDF.” arimareiji (talk)

• Yes, that’s right, I do like it the way it is. If someone can suggest an improvement, I’m all ears. And where was the response to the actual points I brought up? And where is the consensus for your version that you keep so loudly claiming? IronDuke 04:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• • They're your claims, whether you now want to disown them or not. If by "consensus" you mean "IronDuke didn't agree," I would have to concede the point. But "consensus" doesn't mean "let another editor WP:OWN the page as if it were "stone tablets" and revert any changes they don't like unless you can first demonstrate massive agreement that they're wrong." It means that if, for example, two opposed editors hammer out and agree upon a compromise and no one opposes, a later "I object!" by one editor is not grounds for reverting out of hand with no discussion other than edit summaries such as "minor" and "balance."

• • I didn't say it represented consensus that it stay in the lead, I meant exactly what I said - that it's a viable RS to use. I do find it sadly ironic that in the same breath, you accuse me of not reading your words. And I agree, your statement of "many consider HRW to be a seething cauldron of anti-Israel propaganda" is hyperbole - but I don't see why you're asserting that as if I had argued that it's not hyperbole.

• • I've already referred you to the discussion section itself. If you prefer to have it pureed and spooned into you for easier digestion:

(final conclusion; if you want the whole discussion of it then refer to the whole discussion)

"I've rephrased it, breaking it down into two sentences this time, one for each source, and relying as far as possible on quotes from Munger.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you; I didn't anticipate how much your second edit would complement the first. I'm making two minor modifications; one is changing it back to "[just] short." "Just short" was indeed a misquote, but "just... short" is awkward and "short" erroneously excludes the "just" that I believe was meant to modify the phrases following it. arimareiji (talk) 02:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, what do you expect of a weekly free newspaper? I took out the stray t that was in there, too. It all looks good.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)"

• • Minor means "I don't like it" when it's the only reasoning provided. Try reading WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which refers to calling something "cruft" or "trivia" without explanation as being examples of DONTLIKEIT. I believe most people would agree those terms are functionally synonymous with "minor."

• • Minor =/= irrelevant to topic at hand, as was demonstrated to be true at length in the discussion where four editors overtly disagreed with its inclusion on that basis. To reiterate what you snidely recharacterized as a failure, I fail to see the logic in excluding a song about her death as an artistic tribute while including the article "Dead Jews Aren't News" as an artistic tribute.

• • If you can find a WP:RS which asserts their unreliability directly rather than as OR or SYNTHESIS (which is really just a specialized case of OR), then yes - I'll certainly concede that it should be added into the article body next to their usage. If you find one or several which are strong enough to overcome the implicit UN endorsement and demonstrate that they're not the most credible source on the Corrie side, I'll add on a concession that they shouldn't be used in the lead.

• • I'll concede that you've made at least that much effort, possibly more, to make the article neutral as opposed to only pushing the POV of one side. If not, I stand by my previous rewording to "activity."

• • It's OR to include an RS? Unless you can first quote a second RS that "proves" through OR that the first RS is relevant? Amazing logic.

• • I'm comfortable with letting my statements to this point stand on their own merit in refuting the above. arimareiji (talk) 07:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

"They're your claims, whether you now want to disown them or not... "consensus"... means that if, for example, two opposed editors hammer out and agree upon a compromise and no one opposes, a later "I object!" by one editor is not grounds for reverting out of hand with no discussion other than edit summaries such as "minor" and "balance."

I'm disowning nothing… what an odd thing to write. Your strawman is immaterial. Two editors "hammering out" a compromise does not consensus make. You link, as I said, to discussions that either have nothing to do with what is being discussed – or fail, usually utterly – to achieve consensus.

"I didn't say it represented consensus that it stay in the lead, I meant exactly what I said - that it's a viable RS to use. I do find it sadly ironic that in the same breath, you accuse me of not reading your words. And I agree, your statement of "many consider HRW to be a seething cauldron of anti-Israel propaganda" is hyperbole - but I don't see why you're asserting that as if I had argued that it's not hyperbole."

You said in earlier posts, in a general way, that my edits did not meet consensus. Later, you backed away from that and suggested that only some of the edits you reverted were against consensus. Even if HRW is an RS in this article (and I think that's debatable) we don't need a long disquisition from them in the WP:LEAD it's bad style, and it's also very partisan. And you haven't got consensus for this change, yet keep making it (and insisting that we should all abide by consensus). I find that… ironically sad.

And you were indeed arguing that what I wrote is not hyperbole. Perhaps you lack an understanding of what hyperbole means. I will do you the same courtesy you did me, and "spoon feed" it to you. "Hyperbole comes from ancient Greek "ὑπερβολή" (meaning excess or exaggeration) and is a figure of speech in which statements are exaggerated. It may be used to evoke strong feelings or to create a strong impression, but is rarely meant to be taken literally." You suggested to me that "I believe you said all that's needed by asserting that the lead should be phrased with 'though many consider HRW to be a seething cauldron of anti-Israel propaganda.'" And also "You may consider [HRW] 'a seething cauldron of anti-Israel propaganda.' No, obviously not – this is where the hyperbole comes in. I understand, I think, what you're up to here. You take a hyperbolic statement I'm making in the service of a larger point and pretend that I am making that statement in earnest in order to discredit my remarks. I think I'll save us both some time if I tell you that while that's sure to work on some editors, it absolutely won't work on me, and you'll be forced to endure my patient explanation to you (and all those reading) about just how wrong you are. You can keep up the disingenuous denials, but I don't think you're doing yourself any favors.

"I've already referred you to the discussion section itself. If you prefer to have it pureed and spooned into you for easier digestion...

You have indeed referred me to the discussion itself. And I keep asking you not to, as the discussions you are referring to do not serve your point. Where is the objection to the part of the Munger section I restored? Never mind consensus, where is the argument against it? I quote my own unanswered post above: "... what is the point of this? It seems largely to do with the 4th movement of Munger's piece... were my edits related to that? What is this thread meant to show?" Do you consider that thread to show consensus that the edits I made to the Munger section were not good?

"Minor means "I don't like it" when it's the only reasoning provided."

No, it doesn't. It self-evidently doesn't.

"Minor =/= irrelevant to topic at hand, as was demonstrated to be true at length in the discussion where four editors overtly disagreed with its inclusion on that basis. To reiterate what you snidely recharacterized as a failure, I fail to see the logic in excluding a song about her death as an artistic tribute while including the article "Dead Jews Aren't News" as an artistic tribute."

Who said it was? Of course it's relevant. But the song is non-notable, is it not? Can you establish its notability, other than by assertion? And the Gross article is in because it complains about this very subject. Is that something you continue to "fail" to see? Nor did you respond to my point about how "moving" it to EL destroyed the piece's entire point. And I take it by your silence that you concede that you were wrong to remove the National Review segment. But tell you what I'll do: I'll move it to another section. Would that satisfy you?

"It's OR to include an RS? Unless you can first quote a second RS that "proves" through OR that the first RS is relevant? Amazing logic."

Indeed… so you're saying that anything that's ever been written about RC can and should be included in the article, as long as it comes from an RS? No? On what basis do we exclude things? Can they be excluded because they are trivial? Or is that never a good enough reason to exclude something? For example, "Rachel loved to wear a Guatemalan poncho in high school," coming from an RS, should be in the article because it could be argued that it shows she was interested in foreign/exotic things?

"If you can find a WP:RS which asserts their unreliability directly rather than as OR or SYNTHESIS (which is really just a specialized case of OR), then yes - I'll certainly concede that it should be added into the article body next to their usage. If you find one or several which are strong enough to overcome the implicit UN endorsement and demonstrate that they're not the most credible source on the Corrie side, I'll add on a concession that they shouldn't be used in the lead."

Editorial in the Jerusalem Post (yes, editorials in JPost are RS's, even when written by people one disagree with) [[7]].

Note that in the following they even include a denunciation of the UN (which anyone who follows this issue understand is an organization which is rabidly anti-Israel).

"A number of leading NGOs had been slow to adapt to a post-cold-war world in which some of the greatest challenges it human rights have come not from governments, but from terrorists, war lords, criminal organizations, and other nongovernmental actors. Such respected human rights organizations as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch never fully grasped that the anti-Israel forces in Durban did not want to change the policies of Israel but to eliminate Israel as a Jewish state, and in that sense advocated the suppression of the human rights of Jews. Making the task of the Israel haters easier was their already established tradition of using the UN's human-rights apparatus against Israel . The UN Commission on Human Rights annually adopted five anti-Israel resolutions." (American Jewish Year Book 2002 By David Singer, American Jewish Committee pp 889-89)

See also: [8] "American Jewish Committee, a major Jewish civil and human rights group..."

The Jewish Divide Over Israel By Edward Alexander, Paul Bogdanor, Vernon Bogdanor, p. 129 ddiscusses "the prosecutorial inquisition of such venomously anti-Israel NGOs as Human Rights Watch!"User talk:IronDuke - Bogdanor is a totally non-RS source - see this from his web-site - re-publishing a 1962 pamphlet (?) seeking to deny what everyone accepts, that Kastner defended a known Jew-killing Nazi from trial at Nuremberg with an affadavit - and to deny what almost everyone thinks, late in the war, Kastner collaborated with the Nazis and tricked some 450,000 of his fellows to go quietly to the ovens. Bogdanor's attempt to white-wash this case is contemptible. PR^talk 12:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Off the subject of Israel , we have:

"In an open letter to the Board of Directors of Human Rights Watch, over 100 experts on Latin America criticized the organization's recent report on Venezuela, A Decade Under Chávez: Political Intolerance and Lost Opportunities for Advancing Human Rights in Venezuela, saying that it "does not meet even the most minimal standards of scholarship, impartiality, accuracy, or credibility." User talk:IronDuke

And also

"We find it troubling that a report on Human Rights depends heavily on unreliable sources." [9]

"I'll concede that you've made at least that much effort, possibly more, to make the article neutral as opposed to only pushing the POV of one side. If not, I stand by my previous rewording to "activity."

I don't know what to say,. I obviously wasn't expecting that kind of generosity. So… if I show what I've done, you'll concede that I've done what I've shown I've done. Hmmm… tempting… just seized on a much better idea, though: why don't you go back and see for yourself? The subject seems to interest you, and you may well find it illuminating.

"I'm comfortable with letting my statements to this point stand on their own merit in refuting the above. arimareiji (talk) 07:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)"

You haven't responded to my point that the HRW stuff contradicts itself, or whether the National Review stuff should be in.

Oh, and while I have your attention, when you write, "I'm well-aware of your long-term activity here." What does that mean… I've been on this article for a lot longer than you've been editing. Is this your first account? If not, what other accounts have you used? IronDuke 03:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

HRW is on the front lines of fighting human rights abuses in despotic Arab countries, such as Iran and Saudi Arabia, where religious minorities, homosexuals, and women often find themselves subject to the worst kinds of abuses. That they treat Israel and the United States exactly the same in this regard is a testament to their reliability. HRW started out monitoring the Soviet Union for various abuses and it's reputation for accuracy and care rose progressively until it is second only to the International Red Cross (we tend to forget the latter because it's only meant to report to government, not publish anything). In the I-P conflict, HRW has been very critical of Israel, of the Palestinian Authority, and of Hamas. Each rankles at the criticism of itself and praises the criticism of the others.

When I last checked, there were objections from most editors to Tom Gross's article in there - and yet, there's more of it now than there was before. What's going on at this article? PR^talk 10:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Very long discussion, didn't read every part but some users cannot get the idea on what reliability is in real terms.

If you have reliable source on HRW is not neutral against Israel you can state that in the article, yet that is not a reason to delete and silencing, erasing, shortening or not using their claims as a reference, they are notable enough worldwide according to the wikipedia, journalism and generally academic standards and should be mentioned as they are. Also they are much more credible than Israel on army investigation about their own personnel. Israel covers their wrongdoings partisanly, that is why international opinions matters much on the case. Yet United Nations not only accept HRW but also use their reports on its official pages, that is enough by any standard to mention their claims in the article.

Actually we should also add some more info on house demolishions with statistics since that is the reason Rachel Corrie went to Gaza. There are statistics on the case in HRW and UN reports.

Let alone in artistic tributes, Tom Gross is not even neutral and eligible to be mentioned anywhere in the article as being extremely partisan, by the way since he worked mainly for Israeli newspapers and doing consultancy for untransparent organisations, he has a great conflict of interest for the matter, yet for being neutral and multi voiced we don't try to delete his opinion to the case, since what he say in the article might have some notability, yet if you like to mention his claims in the article, that results providing Palestinian side answers to his claims become necessary. Tom Gross argues there are forgotten Rachels that is true 6 of them, yet he doesnt provide the statistics on Palestinian loss of children, women, civillians during same period. I will add that info along with demolished houses, and agriculture lands by IDF to explain the current situation by reliable sources. By the way I still didn't get answers on why do we mention Tom Gross' same POV article in references, externals links and additional readings 3 times seperately. Isn't double linking once is enough in references.

I added Palestinian side claims to the smuggling tunnels on they used for bringing food against Israeli claims on they used for bringing weapons. That is what the neutrality mean, giving enough info on both side's claims. You cannot just say Israel says tunnels are for weapons, but not mention Israeli blockade on the area or lack of food, medication or gasolin in the area. They may only cook their meals once a day under wood fire to feed their children a bread is 7 dollars under siege.

Israeli side users should try to research and find better sources to add the article against Rachel, if they seek more neutrality somehow, yet they try to erase info from ISM sided views, or unbalancing the current sources, and that doesn't help. Actually the more editors the better, because some partisan users really try to shape the article as however they like. Kasaalan (talk) 15:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Once this present dispute is over, let's discuss the contrasting food/weapons claims in a new section - you have a point, although it needs examining from an WP:RS standpoint. I only re-included the weapons claims because the way it was written made no sense with both sides' claims removed. You're right that the other side should be added back in. But how we add it back in will result in many long debates. And right now, in this section, we're talking about these reverts and whether there's consensus for or against them. arimareiji (talk) 16:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)