Talk:Rachel Corrie/Archive 2

message: This line is factually wrong as well as POV: "Her death sparked controversy, in part because she was the first Western protester and U.S. citizen to be killed in the Arab-Israeli conflict, and in part because of the highly politicized nature of the conflict itself. Advocates on both sides scrambled to blame her death on the Israel Defense Force (IDF), the ISM, the Palestinians, and on Corrie herself."
Corrie was not the first U.S. citizen killed in the conflict. Many Arab-Americans and American Jews have been killed over the years. Sources are needed for the reasons why her death is controversial, or even claims that it is controversial. --Pravda 08:39, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have much interest in this article, but one point/question: she is indeed not the first US citizen killed, but she may have been the first Western peace protester, so the sentence may have been factually accurate as written. If some other Western peace protestor was killed before her (my knowledge of the fine details of the conflict isn't good enough to say one way or the other), documenting that would automatically make such a claim in this article factually incorrect, and therefore make its removal absolutely necessary. On the other hand, if she was the first Western peace protestor killed, that's probably noteworthy enough to include in the article. Noel (talk) 12:28, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Her death sparked controversy 

message: If someone purports this, please source them doing so. I've removed this contentious stuff until it is sourced.
Other statements, such as Smith's claim that they heard the bulldozer driver shouting at them (Smith, section 16:00-16:45), purportedly lack credibility because the engine noise and thick plates of armored bulldozers usually prevent communication.
:The above is in the Mother Jones article.
Then source the Mother Jones author saying so.
:You can't write that she was killed by the bulldozer, because that is precisely the controversial point. The ISM witnesses say she was. The Israeli witnesses say she was not. 
No, they do not. They don't claim some debris just fell on her. Even the Israelis don't claim it had nothing to do with the bulldozer. They couldn't hardly. There are eyewitnesses.
The medical evidence is inconclusive. She was killed as a result of something that happened when the bulldozer moved forward and she was unable to get out of its way. But to say she was killed by it implies that it hit her or ran over her, and that begs the question.
No, that's simply not true. However, if you want to rewrite the intro to say she "died as a result of the action of a ... bulldozer", I wouldn't change that.
:There's nothing wrong with using the word "confront". The bulldozer was trying to do something, and she stood or sat in its way in order to stop it. The word "confront" accurately describes that action. It isn't POV. It doesn't assign blame.
I say it does. It very much implies she purposely had herself run over by having a fight with a bulldozer.
:As you wanted, I inserted Judy Lash Balint's name; got rid of "even"; and wrote "do not agree" instead of "cannot agree" regarding the witness statements in the Responsibility for . . . section.  
Yes, I can see that you made cosmetic changes to cover for your wholesale reversion.
:You wrote above that the Israelis made up a cock and bull story about her death, even though you don't actually know that. If you have such strong feelings about this issue, it might be better if you did not edit this page. The article that was here until recently looked like an ISM press release. No one is trying to turn it into an IDF press release. We're trying to find something in between the two. Slim 06:17, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
The suggestion that she committed suicide is what I described as "cock", Slim. You are not trying to "find something in between the two". You are, as is usual on these pages, trying to put as fierce a pro-Israeli spin onto it as you can get away with. I'm working to keep that spin to a minimum.Dr Zen 06:37, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I am not trying to put a pro-Israeli spin on it. I am trying to prevent an anti-Israeli spin. I wasn't there, and so I don't know what happened to Rachel Corrie. Nor do you. Everyone who edits this page should admit that they don't know what happened, and should try to word things neutrally, sticking to published sources, mainstream newspapers if possible. There is already a lot of material on this page from ISM. Slim 07:02, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
I agree that we should word it as neutrally as possible. That's what I tried to do. For instance, I don't like weaselly statements like "others disagree" when  in fact a Zionist journalist wrote it in her blog. I think you can find a "published source" to back up just about anything. I think the POV thing comes in when an article tries to discredit eyewitnesses instead of simply reporting what they say. I'm astounded that you do not agree with that. Astounded!Dr Zen 07:29, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Purportedly?

message: Please stop deleting material without discussion. She was not "run over" by the bulldozer. If you read the article, you'll see there is disagreement as to whether the blade hit her, or whether she was hit by a concrete slab. But no one is suggesting the bulldozer actually ran her over. Her injuries would have been much worse had this been the case, and she would likely have died instantly.
Also, the Mother Jones article link that you keep deleting is one of the most comprehensive articles published about this case. It definitely ought to stay. Slim 17:54, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
: It seems to have come under criticism for being somewhat innaccurate and/or anti-Palestinian. I'm tempted to include a link to Phan Nuygen's response. Would that be reasonable? Martin 01:02, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Anon [[User:66.120.4.209]]

message: * I reinstated a list. The paragraph with no bullet points was unnecessarily hard to read.
* I reinstated that she did a couple of thing to protest the war in Iraq. Not relevant to her death, perhaps, but certainly relevant to the person Rachel Corrie, which is the article title.
* "protecting a well" -> "at a well". We don't know whether there was a threat at the time of that photo, AFAICT. Playing safe for NPOV.
* Reinstating explanation of why she was documenting stuff - "observer". Her own words were "human rights observer", but that might be biased, even in scare quotes, so just "observer"
* Clarified that the smuggling tunnels report was part of her "observer" role, not part of her emails to Danny.
* I removed an "according to" attribution for her activities, because they're undisputed. Also, there's evidence other than ISM witnesses and emails for most of them (eg, the Associated Press photo).
Again, hope that explains the changes. Martin 00:11, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "activities in Gaza" change 

message: I think there's something of a structural problem in the article. We have:
Reactions to Corrie's death and Responsibility for Corrie's death, but many of the reactions are trying to apportion responsibility. My current thought, therefore, is to instead have the breakdown "responsibility" and "memorials". Martin 01:22, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  structural problem 

message: "She was killed after she attempted to block an Israel Defense Forces (IDF) Caterpillar D9 bulldozer conducting military operations in Rafah."
This is NPOV? You don't even say what killed her. Perhaps she had a stroke? A heart attack? Was killed by bees? 
At least, though, you've managed to convey that it was wholly her own fault.
A proud height for Wikipedia!
:Hi Dr Zen. ;-)  SlimVirgin 05:31, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
:Kind of reminds me of the time Dr Zen insisted the children in the Ma'alot massacre weren't "killed", but rather just "died" . He couldn't even bring himself to say they died on the Talk: page, instead just referred to their "mode of deceasing."   We should probably follow his lead here and insist that the article say "She died after she attempted to block etc."  After all, as he points out, Saying that they "were killed" implies strongly that someone did it on purpose. Saying that they "died" does not make any judgment. Still, I wonder what Zen thought those poor children died (err "deceased") of; perhaps they all had strokes?  Heart attacks?  Killed by bees?  Well, at least he managed to convey that it wasn't the terrorists fault. Jayjg (talk) 05:53, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Laughing! 

message: Corrie's family is suing Israel .  Someone might summarise.  --Zero 00:13, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect someone might. Jayjg (talk) 00:32, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am surprised the family is even suing Catipiller. I suppect they will not get far on that one. Zscout370 (talk) 01:44, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Lawsuit

message: I reverted the addition from the following reason:
# The rewording about "potential house demolition" - the ISM claimed the IDF operation was house demolitions, and it is likely that Rachel believed that this is indeed was the operation aim. However, the IDF explicitly stated that this operation was not intended to demolish house but to clear "no man's land" against IEDs and smuggling tunnels, moreover - no house was demolished in that incident. So, the current wording "what she believe was house demolition" is NPOV and best describing the situation.
# The following addition   Although protests like this are certain to work in her home country, it appears Corrie was naïvely generous and bravely unwilling to protect herself. She refused to adhere to the social convention of a region which does not commonly permit nonviolent demonstrations to be heard, especially from outsiders that have been warned away from potentially fatal interference within armed conflict. This being the general atmosphere of the area, none who were involved on any side of this dispute have publicly shown remorse in relation to how their presence in the matter had contributed to her death, yet insist on pointing the finger at others including the person who died. This is no show of respect to the dead, for many parts of the world. There have been no admissions of guilt by parties in how they allowed it to happen, whilst there is excessively insensitive and irresponsible sensationalism.  is highly POV.
MathKnight 07:48, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to mention original research. Jayjg (talk) 16:22, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explanation of revert (March 23) 

message: I forgot to explain my edit. I restored "Other commentators speculated that the driver failed to see her or expected her to jump out of the way," because I don't see any problem with it. I changed "various advocates blamimg it on ... Palestinian terror" — which was being changed to "Palestinian violence" — to "the Palestinians." If anyone disagrees, feel free to change it. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:00, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
The problem I have with other commentators' "speculation" is that it is not based in any more information than you or I have. It's just what they feel must have happened. We don't include speculation in other historical events -- or if we do, we do not give it the same prominence as eyewitness accounts or accounts from at least partly reputable sources. I've deleted it accordingly.
I've been bothered for a while by the inclusion of the speculations of a rabidly partisan Israeli journalist on her blog. I don't think we should source comments to blogs -- to do so would open the floodgates for all sorts of ill-informed comment to be presented as fact. No one wants that, I hope. However, it should be pointed out that she is an Israeli and not a neutral commentator and it should be pointed out at the very least that she made the comments in question on her blog. I appeal to the pro-Zionist editors here to remove the comment by her altogether. It does not meet the standards we set for inclusion: it is speculation on the part of someone who is biased, was not present and has no special knowledge of the events. She is just putting the mockers on others' accounts, not actually adding anything of her own account. I haven't removed it myself because frankly I know it would be reverted and it's about time we tried to find another way to edit articles in this area without the acrimony and revert wars. I figure one way is to present here an argument that I believe no neutral editor could dispute in good faith and leave it to the other side to take the requisite action, or to dispute it, or ignore it, as they choose. -- Grace Note
:If you want to remove biased/non-neutral sources, you'd have to remove everything based on ISM testimony as well, which would leave you with very little. Are you prepared to do that? Jayjg (talk) 03:26, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, you should take a deep breath and read Wikipedia:No personal attacks.  I haven't "threatened" to do anything at all.  Commentary is commentary, it's certainly cited as that, but the complaint wasn't about commentary, but rather about someone who was biased.  We have commentary from biased sources about all sorts of things all over the place; its very common in Wikipedia articles.  For example, look at how many places Noam Chomsky is cited, particularly in anti-U.S. and anti-Israel contexts; you could hardly find a more biased source.  Should all references to him be removed as well? He's rather "Olympian" fellow who "Did Not See" any of the things he comments about either. Oh, and what on earth are you talking about when you suggest I "go back to expanding the Palestinian terrorism article"? I've never expanded it. Jayjg (talk) 03:48, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro again

message: Is there a source for this claim?
:Corrie's death sparked controversy, in part because she was a U.S. citizen and the first Western activist to be killed in the Arab-Israeli conflict, and in part because of the highly politicized nature of the conflict itself.
Given the lengthy history of the conflict I doubt she was the first western activist to be killed. Certainly Westerners have been killed fighting for Israel in its wars and Westerners working for the US government and NGOs have been killed as well. I suspect whoever wrote this meant first westerner killed protesting against the Israeli occupation - can someone please help me determine if this is true? GabrielF 01:39, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: First western activist killed?

message: Always wished I could edit my edit summaries.  "not stupid" should have been "but stupid". --Zero 10:46, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: oops

message: I've rewritten this piece because there's been some reverting because of it, so it now reads:
The widespread media coverage of Corrie's death, and the London play in particular, sparked criticism of what British journalist Tom Gross called "the cult of Rachel Corrie." In an article called "The Forgotten Rachels," published in The Spectator on October 22, 2005, Gross tells the stories of six other women called Rachel, Jewish victims of the Arab-Israeli conflict whose deaths received little, if any, coverage outside Israel.  The article prompted a National Review editorial arguing that "Corrie’s death was unfortunate, but more unfortunate is a Western media and cultural establishment that lionizes 'martyrs' for illiberal causes while ignoring the victims those causes create." 
I've also created references and further reading sections, and I've tidied some of the links, deleted some dead ones, and a couple of blogs. SlimVirgin (talk) 12:59, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "The Forgotten Rachels"

message: The picture sizes on this article are too small.  In the case of the Cat D9 bulldozer, it is helpful to increase the pic size to see the relative size of the bulldozer compared to human scale.69.209.209.251 10:11, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was a bit overwhelming at 500px. Perhaps something in between? SlimVirgin (talk) 10:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Some people with slow connections have difficulty viewing pages with large images on them. You're also adding POV wording. The wording on this page is the result of careful compromise and discussion over many months. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:18, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, increasing the size of the image doesn't change the scale. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Not if they can't view the page because of it, it doesn't. Take a look around on other pages. It's unusual to find images as large as you want to make this one. Also, you've violated 3RR. See your talk page. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

text: You changed the picture size again. It counts as a revert. Please read your talk page and the policy page and stop trying to game the system. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

text: You mean, her dead grimace is not important? ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

text: But we need to accomodate readers who have largebulldozerphobia. ←Humus sapiens ну? 11:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just realized that it's the Disruptive Apartheid Editor. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:54, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

text: You've just dated yourself. —Viriditas | Talk 11:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

text: There's a tag on the image page saying it should be deleted because there's permission to use it only for non-commercial purposes. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Disruptive Apartheid editor is a banned editor. Jayjg (talk) 15:11, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture sizes

message: Why the narration by ISM is considered to be "what they thought" or "what they said," and Israeli military's version is considered as official, without no question or no insertion of "what they say"? Isn't this hypocritical? Either both versions should be written "what both sides say," instead of justifying one side. Soomaali Feb. 01, 2006
:Not clear what you're saying here; can you provide specific examples? Jayjg (talk) 18:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I see.  The IDF produced a film about Corrie's death; the article does not assert it was accurate. Jayjg (talk) 18:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "What they thought...what they said" 

message: Zero has reverted my edit that George Rishmawi, an ISM founder, was at the time he founded ISM a member of the Palestinian People's Party, calling it well poisoning. Is it though? It's directly relevant to the foundation of ISM. If I had said "Rishmawi, who is Palestinian," that would be simple well poisoning, but the PPP is a Palestinian communist party, and a faction of the PLO,  so that speaks directly to the issue of how partisan ISM is, which is clearly relevant here. Disputed passage below. Any thoughts? SlimVirgin (talk) 00:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The factoid about his former affiliation would be relevant in an article on him, and also in the article on ISM.  This article is about neither of these things.  The fact is that we have no context at all for this quotation.  We have no idea what he was talking about when he said these words.  Bringing up his former affiliation is just adding an artificial context that we do not know to be at all related to what he said and why he said it. --Zero 01:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, Zero, I didn't see your response until now. It's more than a factoid. That ISM was founded by a member of the Palestinian People's Party speaks to the issue of what kind of organization it is i.e. what kind of organization Corrie was a member of. Regardless of the lack of context for the quotation (which I didn't add), we don't need a context for his membership of the PPP. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, so suppose that everything we quote from Yitzhak Shamir in his capacity as Prime Minister of Israel is presented as "Prime Minister of Israel Yitzhak Shamir, formerly a leader of a terrorist organization which offered to fight for Nazi Germany, said ' ... '".  Is it ok?  --Zero 20:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Well poisoning

message: Ugh! I had written up four paragraphs and went to sign it with the tildes and accidentaly hit "escape" and lost everything.  Here goes another try...
I'm new to Wikipedia editing/contributing, and more specifically to doing so on the Rachel Corrie page, so I'm looking for advice on what and how to add additional information to the page.
Video and audio are now available which show Israel Defense Forces (IDF) footage of the bulldozer approaching Rachel seconds before she was struck, as well as communications between the bulldozer operator and his commander just after Rachel was struck.  The bulldozer operator says that he "hit an object" and "I think that the object got hit by the dobby (D-9) and he is in a severe condition."   He is asked "Did you see him?" and responds "Yes I saw him, I think he is dead."
This video and audio has been aired on Israeli public television and appears in a documentary called "Rachel: An American Conscience"
The IDF video of the bulldozer approaching Rachel just before she was struck is available here: http://www.ourmedia.org/node/158250
The same footage, along with the IDF communications, taken from the documentary is available here: http://www.ourmedia.org/node/158271
How should the contents, conclusions, etc., from these videos be added to the page?  Should they be linked?  What does everyone think? Mgaines 06:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that these are edited videoes, which mix various videos, footages and cutting off some of the IDF video with the communications. MathKnight 16:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Links to the movies can be added in the external links section.  If there is a place where an official response can be found, that should be linked to also. --Zero 16:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newly available video - what and how to add additional information 

message: I reread the source again that attributes ISM as having released the press release. It says, "according the ISM Media Group in the name of the Olympia-Rafah Sister City Project, "news reports stating that the parents of slain American human rights activist Rachel Corrie were the intended targets of an attempted kidnapping Wednesday in Gaza are incorrect." The source is misleading. ISM posted ORSCPs press release on their website, archived here: http://www.palsolidarity.org/main/2006/01/04/no-attempt-to-kidnap-rachel-corries-parents/  "The ISM Media Group" and the ORSCP are not the same entities, and the way this article is written, it makes it seem that they are. (The press release on the ISM cite has a link to ORSCP at the top ... just because they reprint somebody else's press release does not mean the information is "according to them". This source  needs to not be cited, because the work ORSCP does is very different from the work ISM does, and ORSCP works very hard to make it clear to the Israeli and US government that they are not in any way affiliated with ISM. Having this source on this page could potentially endanger the lives of US citizens who travel to Gaza to work with ORSCP, who have no interest in doing the work that people who choose to work themselves with ISM do. It could also lead to the legal status of ORSCP being endangered. - Jonathan 22:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jonathan, I can't stress enough that we don't publish original research. We only publish what reputable sources publish, which in this case means largely what journalists have written. We only have your word for it that the source is wrong. I mean no disrespect by this; it is simply that we do not publish the opinions of individual editors. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:50, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fine, then there should a notation in the article that the source is contested. However -- I do not see why it makes a difference that the article state that ISM refutes the claim rather than ORSCP. ISM is the subject of much more controversy -- I have read the rules: why are they considered reliable enough to cite, but not ORSCP? - Jonathan 23:11, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They're not! We're not citing them; we're citing the newspaper. I'm afraid I can't keep on answering these points. Please read our editing policies carefully: WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:RS. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Press release

message: I have removed the part about Balint's weblog entry because, as the Policies section on this page states, this article is to include "no personal websites, blogs, or other self-published material unless the website or blog was Corrie's own, in which case it may be used with caution...". I have also removed the section about Richard Purssel's comments, because both links are broken. Follow them and you get a message that the "article does not exist". I trust it once did, but it does not now. Someone needs to find good links if that's going to be in here. TroiS6 09:52, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Balint's material is published as a book, Jerusalem Diaries. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:52, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Blaint's book is put out by Gefen Publishing House. They put out books about Judaism, Jewish thought, and Israel, including history, the Holocaust, and related subject matter. They seem to have a lot of interesting books, and I thank-you SlimVirgin for calling that book to my attention. And as I stated in another section, I am busy reading WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:RS, so perhaps this is off mark - but perhaps it would be better if a source from a book that is peer reviewed were used instead of this one. The fact that Blaint is a journalist is mentioned, as if that's supposed to make her book (which I admit I have not read) more reliable. WP:V and WP:RS seem to be a little ambiguous to me, about whether this source is reliable just because it is published in a book put out by a publishing house somewhere. Here, it is cited as appearing in a blog, and as the Policies section at the top of this page states, the page is to include "no personal websites, "blogs", or other self-published material unless the website or blog was Corrie's own, in which case it may be used with caution...".TroiS6 18:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read the policies carefully. Blogs may be used if they're maintained by known professional journalists, or professional researchers in a relevant field. Also, it would be absurd if we could only use peer-reviewed sources. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As so many of us seem unable or unwilling to actually go read the policies unless commanded to do so, I feel led to quote from WP:V:  "..self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. Exceptions may be when a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information on the professional researcher's blog is really worth reporting, someone else will have done so." Now, this gets to my point in the entry immediately above this one. I understand it says an exception can be made if.... However, any nut-job can get a job as a journalist these days, and while their work is subject to a certain level of standard when it is to appear in the paper or whatever publication they write for, especially if they are journalists and not merely editorialists, the same standard does not apply for personal blogs. Or books published by publishing houses that don't use the sort of stringent peer-review standards like, say, SF State University Press, which recently put out N. Finkelsteins rage generating publication. That book, I beileve, is extremely reliable not because I agree with what Mr. Finkelstein has to say, but because it has undergone a thourough review by scholars prior to being published. As far as I know, Ms. Blain't book has not. I am not pointing this out because I disagree with her, but rather because I agree with the policy as stated in WP:V, that "if the information on the professional researcher's blog is really worth reporting, someone else will have done so." So how about we remove it? TroiS6 19:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: TroiS6, if you want to change the policies, please do that on those talk pages, not here. Also, perhaps you could wait until you've made more than 62 edits to the encyclopedia. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  I'm not proposing a change in policy: I recognize my own inability to understand just what the policies are, at this juncture. Nor am I saying I disagree with the analysis put forth in Ms. Blaint's book: I haven't read it. I am saying that the section looks kind of... sucky. (Is that an okay word to use?) i believe many readers will read it as: "Blah blah blah, who wasn't even freakin' there (she just happens to live in Israel, where, as everyone knows, the populous is SO informed about what happens in the territories) says in her freakin' blog, blah blah blah." No,  I'm  not disagreeing with the pollcy. I just said it seems a little ambiguous to me. Perhaps its just me.  To help, I will try to find a similar source that doesn't look (to me) like just another conspiracy theory. I do mean to offendl; I do appreciate your (and everyone elses) work. TroiS6 20:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The policy does say that blogs of "well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field, or a well-known professional journalist" are acceptable; Balint seems to qualify.  While Wikipedia does require that only reliable sources be used, that doesn't restrict it to using peer-reviewed material, which would be an unreasonably high standard of inclusion. Jayjg (talk) 22:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Alleged contradictions