Talk:Rachel Corrie/Archive 1

message: Two sections of the article repeat themselves and way too much is taken from ISM sources to be NPOV-credible i feel
PMelvilleAustin 09:06 Mar 19, 2003 (UTC)
If you disagree with the ISM, then quote some other source. Deleting ISM statements is not going to make this a better article. Susan Mason
Who keeps removing all the eyewitness and ISM reports, and WHY? Dietary Fiber
: Various people, including myself. I can't speak for others, but I think BigFatBuddha's positions is described above (under "food for thought"). Anyway, my reasoning went something like the following:
: We want to describe Rachel's death, and normally eyewitness quotes would be a good way of doing this. But this runs into problems: there are conflicts (see above) in eyewitness reports, so it's not possible to quote a single eyewitness report as being representative of them all. Further, the IDF witnesses have not made public reports, and the Israeli army hasn't commented in the kind of detail that the ISM has commented, which hinders attempts to achieve balance.
: Given all that, it seemed better to me to quote from no eyewitnesses, rather than just from one, and better to say that we don't know what happened, rather than trying ourselves to reconcile the different reports into a single coherent account. Perhaps it's a matter of aesthetics? Martin
Why not quote from several of the eyewitnesses? If the Israelis decide not to comment, that is no reason to ignore those who have commented. Dietary Fiber
If the bulk of our description is a POV eyewitness quote, then it appears that we are asserting that POV. I'm not really sure how I feel about this, and I wonder if there's some precedent for dealing with articles like this. cprompt
: Well, I've self-reverted that bit of the article. I'm really not confident about describing the death in a neutral way, so I'll leave it to other wikipedians. All yours, "dietary fiber"... :) Martin
I disagree, if I write an article on Jesus Christ and spend the majority of the article reciting Christian assertations of Christs holiness, I am not asserting that POV, I am merely discussing it fully. Dietary Fiber
-----
The following expose should be considered in making this a truly NPOV article:
* copyright material removed - see below
* Source of expose article on the Rachel Corrie incident (Jewish World Review)
::: The essence of the "expose" is that :Image:RachelCorrie08.jpg was not taken immediately before the incident, but some time before. Which we knew. Note that the ISM website currently captions the photo "Rachel confronting one of the 2 bulldozers conducting home demolitions on the day she was killed". It looks like this is a Reuters-originated fog of war error. Martin
----
The fact that Corrie was there all day seems to indicate that the IDF knew she was there. Dietary Fiber
: But she wasn't there all day, sahib, she had only come running to that specific house when her friends called her on the radio.  She (and the others) had been in the area all day, but there hadn't been an extended standoff over this one house. -º¡º
: I'm sure that issue is not Did the army know the girl was in the area? but How much responsibility does the girl bear for her own death? (I daresay an American civilian would have stopped driving as soon as he saw that kids were getting in the way; however, this was not in America.) --Uncle Ed 01:15 Mar 26, 2003 (UTC)
::I don't see why why your issue is more important than my issue. Dietary Fiber
::Ed, the accounts I've read have said that in the events leading up to this, the bulldozers had NOT been stopping for the protesters.  It was generally up to the protesters to jump aside when this game of "chicken" got to be too much for them.   You know, this is the first I've thought of it comparing it to that game, but that was in some ways what this was. -º¡º
*sigh* I never like the game of "chicken", not when lives are really at stake. Moreover, it's a very one-sided game when it's bulldozer against teenager. *sigh* I wish kids would not throw away their lives like that. 
On the other hand, "Greater love hath no man than to lay down his life for his brother." 
I don't know what to think, except that when brothers fight I wonder where the parents have gone off to, eh? --Uncle Ed 21:56 Mar 26, 2003 (UTC)
: The danger shouldn't be overstated. Yes, it was more dangerous than anything most of us are likely to get up to - but the ISM have been doing this for a couple of years now, and this is the first fatality. Martin
* content regarding copyright status moved to talk:Images of Rachel Corrie
----
Cut from article:
:In Rafah and elsewhere in the Palestinian territories, Corrie has been treated as a shahid or "martyr" - the first non-Arab to be treated in this way. 
Ahem. Treated as a martyr by whom? Does this mean one or two obscure people said "that girl was a martyr"? Or that her friends in Solidarity International decided to label her "a martyr"?
And what does "the first non-Arab to be treated as...a martyr" mean? Joan of Arc wasn't an Arab.
Now don't get me wrong. I'm not saying this sentence shouldn't be in the article. But please recognize that such a sentence raises more questions than it answers.
Please tell us:
#Who treated Rachel Corrie as a martyr?
#In what sense is she the first "non-Arab martyr"?
#Does this mean "martyr to the cause of establishing an independent, non-Jordanian Palestinian state", or what?
Then, please put the sentence back. --Uncle Ed 17:09 Apr 8, 2003 (UTC)
Good catch - I didn't realise that was unclear. Incidentally, this info is from ISM activists and various news sources (though generally "left wing" news sources, I should add). It's not been disputed by anyone, and I don't see that it serves either side of the confict in particular, so I felt confident enough to add it as fact.
# Who: Palestinians in Rafah and elsewhere. All kinds - including unsavoury types (Hamas representatives, for example). In particular she got the "martyr photo" plastered on walls next to those of the Palestinians who've died (inc. sucide bombers, other people crushed by tanks or 'dozers', gunmen, victims of Israeli snipers, etc, etc). I could provide a list in the article, but I'm concerned that would be unbalanced. Perhaps an example would be best.
# First non-Arab to be treated by Palestinians as a martyr to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. IIRC, it's been reported a few times, but potentially it might be hyperbole. At some point I'll have to check back through other foreigners killed in the conflict and do articles on them.
# I'd prefer martyr to the conflict rather than your phrasing, because while Corrie did want to see a Palestinian state, she had other aims/causes as well, that were equally important.
----
* Images talk moved to talk:Images of Rachel Corrie
----
I'm sorry, but I just have to say about that picture, they were protecting a well... and they brought bottled water along?!? -- John Owens
:  - is that bottled water? I thought it was some kind of soda drink (insert your own gag)... It's probably because the well was still under reconstruction - it got bulldozed sometime in January. Martin
:: Well, I still can't read the label of course, so all I really have to go on is that it seems to be either clear or empty, and it wouldn't seem to make much sense to keep an empty bottle in the middle like that. But of course, it could be any of several kinds of soft drink, I suppose, yes. And if the well was being rebuilt, that certainly would make much more sense. -- John Owens
----
I restored one Corrie quote, as follows:
:Corrie's death was foreshadowed by an email she had sent a month earlier where she wrote "[We] stood in the path of the bulldozer and were physically pushed with the shovel backwards, taking shelter in a house. The bulldozer then proceeded on its course, demolishing one side of the house with [us] inside."
I like this quote, and was the editor to originaly add it.  Over time, the article muted into a form where this quote was lumped with a bunch of things that Corrie said, but I feel it deserves to stand on its own somewhat.  I think it is a very relavant quote because it foreshadows her death, and shows that she was aware (or at least willing to claim) that the bulldozers were willing to "physically push" demonstrators.  If true, this would mean that her death shouldn't have come as a surprise. -º¡º
: One problem is that it references a single incident, whereas in practice it seems there are fairly regular "close calls" - earlier that day a bulldozer allegedly stopped shortly before it would have impaled an activist on a piece of barbed wire, and there are plenty of similar incidents on the ISM website. I think I'd prefer a more general quote - perhaps from the ISM? Martin
::No, a quote from the ISM would miss my point entirely.  I like *this* quote because it shows that *Corrie* knew that being hit by bulldozers was a risk.  A quote from another source would show general knowledge of the risk, but wouldn't show that she *personally* was aware of it.  I think that she personally wrote of the risk demonstrates her bravery or stupidity depending on your perspective. -º¡º
::: But compare that with this quote - "I am staying put in Rafah for now, no plans to head north. I still feel like I'm relatively safe and think that my most likely risk in case of a larger-scale incursion is arrest."  (February 20). I don't think we will ever know for sure how conscious Rachel was of the risks she was taking... Martin
::::They seem apples and oranges to me.  If she was aware that a bulldozer would shove her, then she should be aware of what happens if she slips beneath a bulldozer.  This doesn't seem to contradict feeling safe in Rafah.  I feel safe in the town I'm in right now, but it wouldn't be wise for me to go lay down in traffic. -º¡º
----
Trivia: this mailing list post by Jimbo Wales is in concordance with my own thoughts, so I shall quote rather than writing it out myself. Martin
: If she said to have had a love of gardening, and this is verifiable from published sources, then I think there's nothing wrong with having it.  
: It is true that gardening is not her claim to fame, but I think that in the future when people read an article about her, rather than a more general article about the Palestinian situation in 2003, they will likely be asking themselves "What kind of person is this?"
: No matter what a person's political position is, or view of Rachel Corrie's actions, there's no question that it is very *interesting* to say: "What sort of person does such a thing?  What motivated her?  How is she different from me?  How are we similar?"
: Personal details are relevant to a biography of this sort.
::Yes Martin, and I didn't propose we delete every personal fact about her.  Having a "love of gardening" is not the same as having "gardened".  We can tell from the information about her that she was committed to the peace cause, and it is completely appropriate to write about that.  This other stuff is pretty trivial.  Saying she participated in Burning Man is like saying she went to a Grateful Dead concert, it is just a trivia. -º¡º
:::for what it's worth, Al Gore is a known Grateful Dead fan, been to concerts, but his wikiarticle does *not* mention it. Kingturtle 20:18 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)
:I'd like to add my few words, even though I know absolutely nothing about Rachel Corrie and don't care whether she was a keen gardener or a Grateful Dead fan.  There are a huge number of biographical articles in wikipedia, and the length and detail of them has very little to do with the "importance" of the subject.  Some of the ones taken from Britannica are enormous and contain enormous quantities of apparently irrelevant information.  I've done my share of pruning of some of these, but I try not to take out any details that people could possibly want to hear - I just concentrate on summarising.  I think there's room for this kind of trivia in the biographies.  If people want to know about Rachel Corrie enough to read the article, then they may conceivably want to know about her hobbies; if they don't want to know, they won't read the article.  It's as simple as that. Deb 21:23 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)
::I suppose that, without knowing why a user reads an article, it is hard to know what is appropriate to write.  Some people who look up Rachel Corrie would be happy to learn "American girl protesting Israeli occupation of Palestine who was run over by a bulldozer, some debate as to who was to blame.", while other people might want to know what her favorite color was and if she had any cute birthmarks.  How do we write an article so the person who wants the first level of knowledge doesn't have to read through the second level to get to it? -º¡º
:Good point.  I believe the biography standards say that the opening sentence, separated from the rest of the article by a space, should say what the person is famous for.  So the article would begin:
:Rachel Corrie (dates) was an American girl, etc, etc.
:Rachel Corrie was born in such-and-such place and loved gardening, etc.
:Deb 21:53 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)
:: With the new intro, Buddha, would you be happy if I restored the trivia? Martin
:::Well, no, not happy.  Maybe I'm not getting why you are attached to these factoids, or I'm not explaining how unimportant they seem to me.  Saying she played soccer, gardened, and attended burning man seems out of place.  I've done all three of those things myself at least once, but mentioning them in my bio would be very misleading.  I've also eaten a green bean, taken a photo, and washed a dog.  What I would like to read is something like "she was captain of her soccer team", "ran a volunteer garden to feed starving mexicans", or "once set herself on fire and naked screaming around the burning man".  I guess what I'm saying, in another way, is a list of random activities she pursued isn't very interesting.  A list of activities that were a BIG DEAL to her is. -º¡º
:: That's much clearer! I'll see what I can do... :)
::: Wow! I said something comprehensible!  I guess the drugs are working. -º¡º
----
can we say U.S. activist rather than American activist? Kingturtle 12:14 Apr 18, 2003 (UTC)
:Oh my.  Are you saying that she wasn't an American?  This is a big can of worms that keeps popping up all over wikipedia... -º¡º
::She is American, but there is a North, South and Central America. Which one is she from? It is the United States of America. America is a land mass that consists of the continents of North and South America. The Pan American games are not limited to the United States. Kingturtle 00:25 Apr 29, 2003 (UTC)
:::This was argued to death on the mailing list WikiEN-l. Everyone I know in the United States refers to themselves as "American", people I know in Canada, Brazil, and Mexico do not. I think that people reading this article will definately understand that "American" is being used as "U.S. citizen".
:::--cprompt
----
* I removed the additional photos - Graft -> talk:Images of Rachel Corrie
----
: I just entered a correction to the caption under the photo of Rachel's burning a paper effigy of the U.S. flag (the caption had read simply "flag)."  If we're going to be true to exsanguinated "neutral" POV, let's at least have the caption match the text of the article, shall we?  mailto:f.g.wilson@sbcglobal.net
----
* Discussion of the "Burning Man" photo -> 
* Discussion of the importance of talk pages versus articles -> Wikipedia talk:Talk page
Someone with more of a stomach for writing with a "neutral" POV might want to take a stab at updating the article with the fact that since her death (and well prior to the recent cease-fire) and the pressure put on Israel by the international community, their military has stopped bulldozing homes as an intimidation tactic.  14 July 2003
---- 
In answer to Graham, Rafah does straddle the border, with some neighborhoods on the Egyptian side. Been there, seen that. Danny
----
Why does the article call it a "mock U.S. flag"?  Could this be explained?  --Daniel C. Boyer 19:09 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)
: It was handmade on a piece of paper. Maybe "handmade" should replace "mock". I'll do so. Martin 22:55 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)
----------------------------------------
don't know much about the Wikipedia, so sorry if this comment is out of place - but it's not appropriate for an "encyclopedia" to describe Corrie using the idiosyncratic ISM lingo:  ie. she died "resisting", she took part in "actions".  I'm not sure how it's really possible to have an open-source encyclopedia on topics like Corrie.
: Comment entirely in place, no worries. The "ISM lingo" is not idiosyncratic (cf non-violence, etc), but it may be considered biased. See if you can find an appropriate NPOV replacement?. Martin
----
This is very sad, and I didn't know about it beforehand. I think it should stay in Wikipedia. It is interesting that even with such a recent event there is considerable room for interpretation, and errors of fact. I don't know if the picture shown on this page is representative, but unfortunately it does not show the participants in front of the bulldozer wearing orange vests, as the Guardian article claims they did.
: The two photos in the top right of the "fatal incident in Rafah" section show the orange/red flourescent jackets. You might find the larger versions more useful. Martin 12:19, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't remember precisely - it was in the references somewhere. It may have been a statement by the parents, or it may have been a news report. See if you can verify it, if you have some reason to doubt it. Martin 12:19, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reliance on ISM reports 

message: On the off-chance that there is a UK-based Wikipedian who has this article on their watchlist and checks their watchlist within the next hour (!), please note there is a Rachel Corrie documentary on Channel 4 (UK tv) at 8pm local time (7pm UTC) that may be of interest. Pcb21| Pete 17:49, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Argh! 25 hours late! Sorry pete. :( Martin 17:57, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  No worries. It was a long shot - particularly with a certain football match on at the same time (I shamefully admit this took my attention away from C4)! Pcb21| Pete 22:57, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: TV documentary

message: :Corrie was well aware of the existence of the smuggling tunnels since at least mid-February 2003, as she writes about the "Events Surrounding the Deaths of 2 Men in Tunnels beneath the Block O area". (Source: The ISM press release, March 3, 2003 (http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/WO0303/S00019.htm. Includes Corrie's own report, item 4.)
After all the denials here and elsewhere, we find out that not only was Corrie aware of the smuggling tunnels, she had written about them for ISM.
: Yes, there are smuggling tunnels in Rafah - this is well documented, and I don't recall it being denied here, and indeed it is in the article. However, some have claimed that the specific homes Corrie was protecting wre being used for smuggling. My understanding is that this is not the case. Martin 00:11, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tunnels 

message: Jayjg, you have made 5 reverts in 30 minutes. This is a clear violation of rules. 
Your revert history now exceeds any sysop.
You are a prime candidate for a de-sysop call. Consider this an official warning. HistoryBuffEr 04:47, 2004 Oct 24 (UTC)
:Hi HistoryBuffEr.  It's interesting to note 4 apparent reverts of your own.  As for me, the versions I entered differed, so they were not reverts.  I must say it is pleasing to note that you have finally discovered the Talk: page here, and are apparently able to enter information in it as well.  I recommend you use it in the future to propose major edits of the article, rather than continually entering them without receiving consensus, as this is Wikipedia policy.  Jayjg 05:23, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jayjg, 5 reverts warning 

message: Which parts of the article do you want to change, and why? Jayjg 17:57, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The article was just been unprotected and... Well, HistoryBuffer - you keep deleting parts of the article you don't like - a specially those regrading eye witness conflicts and dispute over Joe Smith accounts which you base the entire description of it on his account solely, although it has been disputed by many. MathKnight 20:23, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  HistoryBuffEr, let's open the dialogue here 

message: An article on alleged discrepancies in the various reports:  Jayjg 17:35, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discrepancies in reports? 

message: (Please fill in. HistoryBuffEr 21:12, 2004 Nov 18 (UTC))
:Red herring, shifting the burden of proof, and tu quoque, noted.  We are not talking about other editors.  We are talking about your edits.  --Viriditas 03:48, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quadell's questions to other editors 

message: Why is there a revert war going on here with no discussion? Also, Jayjg, I'm sure you've aware that you've reverted the article three times in the last few hours. Reverting again would naturally be against the three revert rule. See you next week. Cool Hand Luke 11:05, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: HistoryBuffer deletes part of the article, basing all the description on a disputed account of one person (Joe Smith) and removes every other description on what happened. He failed to reply on the talk page for my explaination for why his version is unaccepeted. The artilce was protected not too long ago, and each time it was unprodected - HistoryBuffer reverted to his own version, neglecting the talk page. For his abusive behaivor he is now stand for arbitration. MathKnight 11:19, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: Thanks for pointing that out, CHL.  These days I am quite careful about both observing and monitoring infractions of the 3RR.  However, I had no doubt that other editors would observe the refusal of HistoryBuffEr to discuss his changes in talk, his lack of responses to objections raised in Talk:, as well as the blatant POV present in HistorBuffEr's personal version of the article, and take appropriate action. Jayjg 14:55, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert war 

message: September 11, 2001 attacks only has NINE pictures. Rachel Corrie has TWELVE? in the next 24 hours, i am going to narrow this article down to 6 pictures. Kingturtle 06:19, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  12 pix is too much