Jump to content

Talk:Rachel Corrie/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

picture content

See also: talk:Images of Rachel Corrie

Issues under discussion:

  • What is the copyright status of these images?
  • Is the number of photos POV?
  • Is a "photo montage" appropriate?
  • A seperate incident that day, in which a Palestinian man died, was considered not relevant, and removed.
  • Ams80 thought that two ISM quotes were contradictory - "in one paragraph she's run over through being sucked off the top of a pile of rubble. In the next paragraph she has sand poured on her and is then run over." - see "contradictions in eyewitness reports".
  • Ed Poor said that The article should not judge morality of the death, but just tell what happened - "Let each reader form their own moral evaluation"
  • The reason for the bulldozers being in the area is basically controversial, with the IDF saying they were clearing shrubbery/bush, and the ISM saying they were demolishing houses.
In one of my edits, I removed the assertion that the IDF didn't offer aid, and instead simply stated some things: Rachel was crushed, then the bulldozers+tank withdrew, then Rachel was picked up by a Red Crescent ambulance. I think that gets across the facts of the matter well - reader can judge for hirself. Martin 21:47 Mar 27, 2003 (UTC)

I seem to recall, also, from reading the the New York Sun this morning, that protective shields on the bulldozer would screen a person from the driver's line of sight. Thus if the girl tripped and fell down, she could become invisible to the operator -- who might reasonably conclude that she had given up her protest and wisely gotten out of the way. Uncle Ed

  • some content cut here

To snoyes, replying to your "astonished" comment way above:

Generally, people are held to be accountable for their own actions. I think everyone who has edited or commented on this article would agree with this. If not, i.e., if someone wants to pay respect to nihilism or relativism or some other such social philosophy, we could add that to the article. Something like, John Noman of the Int'l Nihilist society said, "No one is to blame for this incident, because like the bumber sticker says, shit happens."

Initially, the article seemed to be written for the purpose of blaming the Israeli army for deliberately killing the girl. In short, the article accused Israel of murder. Well, that's one POV.

Another POV is that jumping in front of a moving vehicle, whose driver cannot see you, is suicide.

Then there is the legal POV, where in civilized nations there are varying degrees of responsibility all the way from accident, negligent homicide, manslaughter, and so on up to first-degree cold-blooded murder. I'd like to see something of the legal angle added to the article.

Getting to your comment: what is "astonishing" about balancing (A) the view that the bulldozer operator deliberately killed the girl with (B) the view that the girl deliberately or accidentally sacrificed herself? Are you astonished that anyone would disgree with A? Or do you think my change failed to bring balance? Or what?

I do think it is "neutral" to present a balance of responsibility for two people involved in a fatal accident. And I do think it was an accident. Perhaps I am wrong. If so, we should radically change the article to fix my error: we should focus on the controversy over how various advocates have characterized her death:

  • Joe Blow of Winds 'R Us says the Israeli Army murdered her.
  • Larry Legalist of the Jurists Union called the incident "negligent homicide" and vowed to bring charges of "manslaughter"
  • Captain Josh Nudnik said it was "an accident"

I hope these ideas help us all to improve the article. --Uncle Ed 15:37 Mar 19, 2003 (UTC)

Hmm, If you actually look at your edit that I was criticising for not being neutral, and you at the same time saying on the talk page that we need more neutrality then you would better understand my point.
  • You stated as fact that "she fell in front of [the bulldozer]". I think that we can agree that we don't actually know this! Rather, what is neutral is to report what people saw, and obviously associate the observations with which role that person has. (ie. if they are an activist, we will say this, if they work for the IDF, we will say this.).
  • Furthermore you stated as fact that the bulldozer was "was destroying tunnels" I've read four different news reports, inlcluding two from "right-leaning" news sources (CNN & Haaretz), nowhere was this mentioned. The fact that I deleted this unfounded sentence and you did not respond to that at all shows to me that you can't believe very strongly that this is actually true.
  • Thirdly, you stated as fact that the bulldozer operator "could not see her". Again, how can you claim to _know_ whether the bulldozer operator saw her or not. I agree with your above statement that we need to balance things out by reporting the views of different people, but there is an important difference between attributing statements to people and stating such opinions as fact. I was criticising the latter.
I still consider the article at the point after you corrected some of my mistakes after my major rewrite to be as close to neutral as the article has ever been. However, IMO it got progressively worse as people started putting in all the previous stuff again, oh well. --snoyes 16:05 Mar 19, 2003 (UTC)

Thank you for your courteous and detailed reply. You are, of course, correct on all three of your bullet points: (1) I don't know for a fact that she fell; (2) I don't remember for sure about "destroying tunnels"; and (3) whether or not the operator could see her is probably the biggest bone of contention of the entire incident.

I really appreciate your attention to detail, and the effort you are making to craft a neutral article. Please carry on, as I have no more time today. --Uncle Ed 16:35 Mar 19, 2003 (UTC)

The "tunnels" thing is from an HonestReporting.com communique on the 17th March - it's not been backed up by Israeli government statements, AFAICT, so I think we can put that one down to fog of war.
Here's the actual communique: [1] - the relevant quote is "The bulldozer was part of an operation to eliminate tunnels used by Palestinian terrorists to illegally smuggle weapons from Egypt into Gaza". It's been repeated in discussion fora and such, sometimes attributed to honest reporting, sometimes not, but never attributed to anyone else. Martin
  • "first to be killed" versus "first to die" - no longer relevant - neither are in the article.
  • existing structures => buildings, vegetations, homes - everything
  • If we want to discuss these demolition operations in detail, it should not be at Rachel Corrie

conflicts in eyewitness reports

Witnesses: ISM activists, Dr. Samir Nasrallah (maybe Samir Masri), Ali al-Shaar

First conflict I see is was she standing, sitting, kneeling, or lying in the path of the bulldozer:

  • Tom Dale (ISM): "Rachel knelt down in its way."
  • Greg Schnable (ISM): "Rachel was standing in front of this home."
  • Richard Purssell (ISM): "Rachel stood to confront the bulldozer..."
  • Joe Smith (ISM): "She sat down in front of it..."
  • Al-Shaar (Pal): "The American girl was lying in front of the bulldozer..."

Second conflict, did she actively climb onto the debris, or was the debris pushed onto her?

  • Tom Dale (ISM): "The bulldozer reached her and she began to stand up, climbing onto the mound of earth."
  • Greg Schnable (ISM): "The bulldozer began to push up the ground from beneath her feet."
  • Richard Purssell (ISM): "Rachel climbed up the pile and at the one stage was looking into the cabin window."
  • Joe Smith (ISM): "[He] continued to drive until she was forced onto the top of the dirt he was pushing."
  • Al-Shaar (Pal): "...the bulldozer took sand and put it over her..."

There are other, smaller, conflicts as well, but the above are the ones I see as the biggest.

I think that the following picture, taken from early ISM actions during the day, might help in picturing how things unfolded.

File:Ism-bulldozer.jpg

food for thought from º¡º

This page is about "Rachel Corrie".

It isn't about "The Murder of Rachel Corrie", "The Suicide of Rachel Corrie", or "Rachel Corrie in the Isreal-Palestine Conflict".

In my last edit, I tried to treat Rachel Corrie with respect. I tried to make the article focus more on her and less on arguments around her death. Yes, she is clearly most famous for the circumstances of her death, but that doesn't mean we should define her by her death.

To some, she is a martyr. To some, she was a supporter of terrorists. To some, she simply died in an incredibly stupid way. If we try to achieve NPOV by describing all these views in parallel, we might lose track of the fact that she was a person. -º¡º

  • Gummi Bears, etc - initial edit appeared sarcastic to some. The relevant section has been improved - please update further if needed.

Reliance on ISM reports

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:

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

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:

  1. Who treated Rachel Corrie as a martyr?
  2. In what sense is she the first "non-Arab martyr"?
  3. 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.

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.

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

larger version - 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." [2] (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 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

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)

As with other controversial issues, NPOV may be close to impossible to achieve. NPOV is not equal to an equal number of views on different sides, but maybe that's the best that can be done here. It does seem very hard, however, to believe that the drivers and the people who ordered them to act could not have anticipated a problem, given that it is clear that people were prepared to stand or sit in front of the vehicles. If this is not a war zone (which I believe is the situation, technically), the actions of those driving the vehicles would seem to be contrary to any civilised behaviour.

The "rules" in war zones are not civilised, but "permitted" under the rather strange agreements between countries. -- David Martland 11:18, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)

What is the source for the claim that Corrie refused to burn an Israeli flag? If there isn't any, then the text should be deleted I think -z. b.

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)

Sincere NPOV efforts

This page seems like it makes an honest attempt to be NPOV. Unfortunately, the source of most of the material is a bit of a problem. As it is, most of the article places blame on the IDF and supports blaming the IDF. I don't care enough to search out quotes from the opposition, but I make a few minor alterations where it seemed necessary:

  • crushed to death -> killed (accounts differ on cause of death, crushing or suffocation, etc.)
  • occupation -> presence ("occupation" is a loaded POV word, especially in the introduction, "occupation" would be okay if it was noted that it was the ISM view)
  • blame -> also note that some blame the Palestinians
  • in a few places, it was not clear that what the source of information was, so I added attributes appropriately
  • run over -> killed by bulldozer (uncertaintly about cause of death, again)
  • are -> were (use correct tense)
  • rephrased sentences containing "mundane" and "simply" (POV)

Daniel Quinlan 05:34, Sep 28, 2003 (UTC)

Mostly good. My mods:

  • Rachel died of suffocation in hospital. The suffocation was due to being crushed by a bulldozer. There's no contradiction between suffocation vs crushing as cause of death.
  • She wasn't protesting against the presence of Israelis, she was protesting against the occupation of Israelis. "Presence" suggests some kind of racism. :-(
  • I've not seen anyone genuinely try to pin the blame on the Palestinians in general, rather than the ISM specifically, and similarly for Israelis vs IDF. (though people might use "Israelis" as shorthand for "IDF", etc).
  • The greenhouse destruction is according to Corrie, not according to the ISM.
  • were -> are. The IDF still undertake demolition operations.
  • Killing of innocents -> like the US and UK in Iraq, the Israelis acknowledge that their occupation causes the deaths of civilians, which they describe as regrettable. Thus, this is an undisputed fact, rather than something that needs attribution.

What do you think? Martin 16:18, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Regards bias in sources, what would be really handy is if the full IDF report was publically available in English on the web, but it isn't: all there are are a few snippets quoted in newspapers. Alternatively, the IDF soldiers involved could provide eye witness accounts giving their side of events. But, sadly, all of the publically available eyewitness accounts come from one side of the conflict. A matter of regret, but scarcely Wikipedia's fault. Martin 16:32, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)

(remove "Innocent" which is unnecessary and somewhat POV)

It's not POV because both sides acknowledge that some of the Palestinians killed are innocent (as opposed to Palestinian militants, their supporters, etc). It's necessary because the innocence of those killed is rather critically related to the reason Corrie was there in the first place.

(1 link to start to balance out the 3 anti-IDF pro-ISM links)

Look at the type of links, rather than merely counting them:

The ISM certainly have a point of view, but the article doesn't link to an opinion piece by some ISM worthy pontificating, but to things that Corrie herself wrote. Nothing on those pages attempts to pin the blame for Corrie's death on the IDF. Specifically, we don't link to [3] .

The Guardian certainly has a point of view on the Middle East conflict, as do all newspapers. I wouldn't call them "anti-IDF pro-ISM", but you're entitled to your opinion. But the article doesn't link to a "leader" from the Guardian, or one of its "comment" sections, or a letter, but to a piece of reporting (indeed, one largely made up of quotes from the IDF report). Ideally we'd replace this with a direct link to the IDF report itself, but that's not available.

Of the three, the Corrie "memorial site" is the most troublesome. Its primary usefulness is as a link site - linking to relevant eye witness statements, the Mar 19 US press release, newspaper reports, and other useful primary or secondary sources, more extensively than any other site I've found. Sadly, the maintainer of the site has exercised a fair amount of selection bias. I'd dearly love to see a neutral replacement for it, or failing that a twin link site with links selected from a more critical POV. But, because of its usefulness, I'm loathe to remove the link to it. Martin 11:01, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)

If it is being used as a link site, list it as a link site with disclaimers. Daniel Quinlan 15:44, Sep 29, 2003 (UTC)
Well, I think that "memorial site" is a fairly suggestive disclaimer. Martin

Daniel and Martin, I would like to thank you both for your valiant efforts at bringing neutrality to the Rachel Corrie article.

My 2 cents:

In general, it's okay to use the word "killed" for both accidental and deliberate human deaths. US newspapers say that a pedestrian is "killed by" a car, even if the driver is not deemed to be at fault. Say, a jaywalker jumps out heedlessly into a stream of traffic. On the other hand, the entire article hinges on the circumstances and motivation of Rachel Corrie's death. We really have to tread carefully, because we don't want to endorse either:

  • the view that the bulldozer driver deliberately ran the girl over, knowing full well that this would result in her death (see homicide, murder); or,
  • the view that the bulldozer driver (or the IDF generally) was negligent, leading to Corrie's death (see manslaughter)
  • the view that the bulldozer driver had no idea that she was even there, so that he's not culpable in anyway (see accidental homicide).
  • the view that Corrie was responsible for her death (see suicide, suicide by cop, accidental death)
  • the view that the bulldozer driver was a combatant in armed conflict and her death was collateral damage or the death of an enemy combatant.
added a third option - Martin
added fourth and fifth option - Daniel Quinlan

If a lot of the links above are in red, that's because no one's written articles for them yet. Without those articles, it's hard to classify this event.

Another view (my own personal one) is that the bulldozer driver knew there were some kids trying to block him. I assume he figured, "What the heck. If they want to die, let them. I'm just doing my job here, and if they get in the way too bad." However, the suppositions of Ed Poor have no place in a Wikipedia article, especially one on such a controversial subject.

My suggestion is merely to leave the imbalance as it is. If 80% or more of the comments from advocates amount to anti-Israeli accusations, so be it. Imbalance can be neutral, if every POV is attributed to its source. We might even use a heading like "Objections by partisans" or "Accusations of murder" or something like that, to emphasize the source of the POV. --Uncle Ed 13:57, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, the main problem with this article is the section starting "Most eyewitness accounts of Corrie's death have come...", until the text "Crushed beneath the debris and the bulldozer, Corrie suffered massive internal injuries". It could do with essentially a complete rewrite. Martin 17:16, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)

These accounts have changed over time and continue to differ on key details. Not good enough. BL 20:24, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Nod. But see BigFatBuddha's discussion above. Martin 20:54, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Photo of dead person

(removing memorial image which is graphic, I don't believe a link is appropriate, even Qusay and Uday Hussein articles don't show their images at death)
(removed memorial image again, please find one without the dead body, I have no objection to the image other than that aspect)

How about you find one "without the dead body", and you get permission to use it under the GFDL? I think the image is fine.

Anyone showing dead bodies on any site is usually pushing a heavy POV. It is highly POV of Wikipedia to show this graphic image and not include images of other Americans killed in Israel or Israeli-controlled territory.
If you want to find GFDL pictures of other Americans (and Israelis and Palestinians and others) killed in Israel or the disputed territories, by whichever group, I encourage you to do so. Genuinely. I agree that photos can be POV, but I don't believe this one, in the context of the rest of this page (note in particular the "flag burning" photo) is a problem. On the contrary, I consider it useful and informative. Martin 19:46, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I'm going to keep removing the image of Rachel Corrie at death for the aforementioned reasons. I have no objection to an image of the memorial, although I happen to believe that a memorial image is unnecessary. Your claim that this image is made appropriate because other GFDL images of the memorial are unavailable is fallacious -- either the image is appropriate or it isn't. If you want to link to the memorial site, you don't need this graphic image to do it. There's already one image on the page where she may be already dead. Daniel Quinlan 20:45, Sep 29, 2003 (UTC)

?? The memorial image doesn't link to the memorial site, if by that you mean rachelcorrie.org from external links. It links to the image description page. The image description page links to the BBS News site, which is by no means a Corrie memorial site.
The image is entirely appropriate. It is entirely reasonable to show a photo of a dead person where the death of that person, and its cause, is discussed extensively in the article. It is further desirable, given that the Palestinian memorials of Corrie are one of the things for which she is notable, that a photo of one of said memorials be made available.
If you find replacement GFDL image or images that you consider more "appropriate", that illustrate the same key points that this one does, then I would have no objection to using those to replace it. However, I consider this image appropriate, and therefore do not wish to see it removed without the provision of a suitable replacement. Martin 21:00, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)

best known for ?

Rachel Corrie (April 10, 1979 - March 16, 2003) was an American best known for her activism in protest of Israeli actions and policy in the Gaza Strip.

Martin, your reversion notwithstanding, this is just not true. While the previous edit was harsh, it was 100% correct. She is best known for her death. Daniel Quinlan 21:07, Oct 9, 2003 (UTC)

Hmm. I think both were 100% correct, but the one was broader and thus more suitable for an intro. But I've thought of a better way of putting it... Martin 22:16, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)

.... And we're now back at "occupation" and "crushed to death". Round and round in circles. I officially despair of ever getting an intro acceptable to all sides. In happier news, I've rewritten the death sequence to update it for the information from the IDF report and other analysis. Tell me what you think. Martin 23:08, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Which I've made changes in the introduction. See my comments. The death sequence seems okay, although I am quite worried about verifiability of the facts. It should be clear(er) when the ISM and IDF reports/statements agree and when they do not. One thing also needs to be clarified: why the bulldozer backed up, the circumstances, etc. Was the driver being directed to back off by other ISM protestors? Daniel Quinlan 05:55, Oct 10, 2003 (UTC)
As far as can be seen, given that the IDF report is not public, both IDF and ISM reports are compatible with the version of events given here, with its copious use of the word may. The details of conflicts can be moved out of line I think, as with the "was she run over" header. Much of the conflict is over intention and interpretation rather than events, in any case.
The reasons for the driver backing off are unknown. He was being shouted at by the other protesters at the time, but he may have not been able to hear them or understand what they were saying. He may have been directed by the soldiers in the tank. It's all speculation. Martin 08:41, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)
From documented radio-commlink broadcasted in Uvda (Ch 2) the bulldozer stopped because he felt something. Then he reveresed and saw Corrie. It is not likely a dozer can feel an impact in a human-being, so I think it is more possible that the dozer did hit some conecrete foundations of a wrecked debris, giving a little "shock" to the earthmoving machine.

autopsy

An autopsy found that the cause of Corrie's death was falling debris.

Interesting. The autopsy report Corrie's parents quote has the death as being due to crushing due to a mechanical apparatus. Perhaps there were two autopsies? If so, please provide a citation, and add details to the section marked "autopsy". Martin 17:55, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I added the proper citation.
Thanks! And thanks for attributing the Olympian. Martin 20:55, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)
ISM eye-witness accounts have changed over time and continue to differ on key details (for example: did Rachel had a bullhorn moments before the incident? Was she sitting, kneeling or standing in front of the bulldozer?).

I think that's your POV. The sitting/standing thing is (imo) consistent with her initially sitting and standing as the dozer approached. The bullhorn thing is due to the mislabelled ISM photo, not eyewitnesses.

IDF insist that the bulldozer blade didn't make direct contact with Corrie's body. Most likely is that the bulldozer blade accidently pushed the debris over her and pressed her indirectly.

Citation? I've not seen them insist that - only that it wasn't their fault, and that she wasn't "run over" - both of which are compatible with the version given in the text. Martin 20:55, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Maybe insist in not the right word, you can change it to "claims" etc. According to IDF claims the blade push on her debris, suggesting that it didn't make direct contact with her.
The report quoted in the guardian only says that she "was not run over", not that the blade never touched her... Martin 20:00, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Stop portraying Corrie's burning of an effigy of the US flag as the burning of a U.S. flag, or I'll lobby the Palsolidarity people to sue you. Capeche?

Was "handmade" not clear enough?
You're welcome to lobby whoever you wish, but don't make legal threats. Martin 12:02, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)

ISM permission

(to Martin) For the umpteenth time, the ISM has given us permission to use the Rachel Corrie picture. You need to archive this page, it is too long. Lirath Q. Pynnor

I still don't believe you, Lir, and several attempts to verify this claim of yours have gotten me nowhere. You earlier, masquerading as "Peter Chamberlain", said that you'd been given permission by email. So perhaps you could copy that email to me so that I can at least look at it? Martin 11:46, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)

If you don't believe me, then you won't believe me no matter how much effort I put into it. The fact of the matter is, you can't verify whether or not I talked to the ISM. I did talk to the ISM, they did give us permission, if you want to edit war over the pictures -- fine. Lirath Q. Pynnor

So, are you saying that you won't forward me a copy of that email? Perhaps you could make it public instead? For example, you could put a copy on the image description page. That's good practice anyway, because it allows people to see the precise copyright status of the image, the contact details of the person who granted permission, and judge whether or not they are in fact capable of granting permission.
It would be good if you would be a little co-operative before assuming that I'll never believe you. There's an easy way to verify whether you were given permission - just talk to the same person who you talked to, and check with them that they said what you're saying they said. However, I can't do that if you want tell me who you talked to, when, or what exactly they said. Can I? Martin 22:26, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I have told you before who I talked to, its somewhere in this maze of talk pages. If I get around to it, I'll find it for you; in the meantime, the polite thing for you to do is to stop acting as if Im trying to deceive you. I am being cooperative -- it is you who is not being at all cooperative. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Perhaps reading Image talk:Rachelcorriemar.jpg would refresh your memory? Take as long as you like, Lir: there's no rush. However, in the meantime, the known GFDL image gets preference over the image of uncertain copyright status. Martin 00:42, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The image is not of uncertain copyright status. You have been aware that permission was granted for over a year now. I guess we will just have to have an edit war. Lirath Q. Pynnor

"They said we could use the images", does tells us neither (A) whether the ISM own the copyright (and thus have the ability to grant us copyright), nor (B) whether it is a Wikipedia-only license, or the GFDL, or something else.
The image will remain of uncertain copyright status until those questions are answered to everyone's satisfaction. Martin 01:47, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Huh?

MyRedDice added this to the article :The network location of this Document is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Corrie Why? RickK 03:04, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I removed it. It looks ugly and the idea of adding this to every single article just because some people have issues with the GFDL being enforced is ridiculous. Yes, it would be nice if mirrors linked back to us, but this is not the way to force them to do that. Provide a special version for the database download if you want to that includes such links, but don't go wrecking articles, please. Angela. 08:48, Feb 15, 2004 (UTC)
The printable versions of articles have all the links and notices needed. It wouldn't be hard at all to make a cur dump of that. --mav
Special version of database download wouldn't be sufficient. Lacks creativity, which is necessary for copyright under US law. Also, network location needs to be on all versions, or redistributors can simply redistribute a version without the Network Location. Martin
Then make all the database dumps have them, but there is no reason for the live version to have them. I don't see how it not being creative is an issue. It might mean they could legitimately remove it and distribute it without that, but is that really going to happen? Surely if you give them the database with these links in, they're not going to go round taking them all out again. I'd also suggest that copying and pasting in an ugly URL to a page is hardly creative anyway, especially if this is being done with every article. It might be creative the first time you do it, but it's not very creative the next time. It's something a bot could do, which rules out any creativity in the same way that link and spelling corrections are not creative. This should probably be moved to one of the copyright related pages. Angela. 06:39, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)
Perhaps. On the other hand, I'm not planning on forcing the issue, so there's no need for wider discussion at this point, I suspect. Martin 19:15, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

This article has 21 external links. IMHO, that's about 15 too many. Please refer to When should I link externally. Kingturtle 23:59, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The page you cite is Nov 2001, and is considering the question, should I write google, or google, rather than the issue on this page.
The CNN and Guardian articles could probably be moved to HTML comments below the relevant sections of articles: done.
I think the Israeli report links are necessary, given that the reports are unpublished, so anything we say about them has to be backed by citations, IMO.
I think the "further opinions" links can probably all go, though I would like to keep the No Cameras weblog, as it provides quite a balanced perspective on the whole thing (it's written by a pro-Israeli person, but seems fair to me, a pro-Palestinian person, which I normally find is a good sign).
I think the "list of links" should stay for defensive purposes - they reduce the temptation of people to add lots of external links themselves. Martin 00:06, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

This site claims these are six affidavits from eyewitnesses http://www.countercurrents.org/pa-corrie050703.htm . This seems to be the rawest and most "official" info on the ISM perspective, but I don't want to post it without some support, as this is my first post.

Fair use

Yes, stevertigo, I know fair use law. I can also agree that, under some interpretations of the GFDL, Wikipedia is legally entitled to use the portrait you prefer under fair use. Nevertheless, the free image is preferable to the non-free. (see Wikipedia:Fair use)

The reason for this is that Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia. As such, we should only use fair use images where there is not a free alternative. As there is a free alternative in this case, we should use that. Any questions? Martin 21:32, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think its quite strange that you should continue the defy the perennial asthetics of martyrdom, and chose the ugly photo over the purdy one, for sake of a timid interpretation, for which the support is unsupported. -SV(talk) 22:34, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I don't even see that one is purdier than the other steve.
However, it's not that I'm doing it for the sake of a timid interpretation of the GFDL. That's not my reason at all. Rather, I'm simply interested in replacing a non-free image with a free image, so this article can be widely redistributed. Martin 22:44, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)


TV documentary

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)

Argh! 25 hours late! Sorry pete. :( Martin 17:57, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
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)

Tunnels

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)

Dissenting Opinion

Since I don't believe in the phony art of NPOV, I here post. There is a big controversy brewing up in Alaska, where resident composer/conductor Philip Munger of the University of Alaska at Anchorage is weathering a blistering firestorm of attacks from segments of the community for daring to create his cantata to Rachel's memory, entitled "The Skies Are Weeping." Keep up the fight, Mr. Munger, and may you change not a note, nor a word.

Jayjg, 5 reverts warning

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)

Protection

Okay, we had no substantive discussion during the last revert war, the page sat in limbo for a week, and when it was unprotected the revert war resumed immediately, but there was still no discussion here on the talk page. What does it take to get anybody to actually discuss the problems with the content? --Michael Snow 04:43, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Michael, I've tried discussions with the ultra-ultra-Orthodox POV pusher Jayjg on several other articles; the result was always the same: no matter who said or proved what and how many editors complained, Jayjg would always just revert to his version (which somehow always paints Israel in saintly tones), without making any changes requested in Talk. So, as he seems to be on some kind of a "godly mission", I've given up on talks with him. I am, of course, open to talking with any open minded editor. HistoryBuffEr 04:59, 2004 Nov 2 (UTC)
I'm all for it, but, as you see above, HistoryBuffEr refuses to bring his proposed changes to the Talk: page of this and many other articles, and refuses to respond to me, and instead generally uses the Talk: pages for personal attacks. Jayjg 05:08, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

HistoryBuffEr, let's open the dialogue here

Which parts of the article do you want to change, and why? Jayjg 17:57, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

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)

(P.S.: since you made your changes in large bulks it is hard to follow after them. It is better if you talk your changes one point in a time, instead of hiding disputed changes in large chunk of edits. MathKnight 20:23, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC) )

Discrepancies in reports?

An article on alleged discrepancies in the various reports: [4] Jayjg 17:35, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

HistoryBuffEr, let's open the dialogue here

Hi, I'm not Jayjg. So which parts of the article do you want to change, and why? – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 02:10, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

Well, you sure sound like one right above :)
Did you know that WP does not require preapproval of changes?
Have you ever tried reading my version? What about that "diff" link, ever tried clicking on it?
In general, my version draws from (and presents) more sources and is more accurate, informative and clear. The specific changes should be obvious from the article.
Let me know if you have any questions.
HistoryBuffEr 04:30, 2004 Nov 18 (UTC)

I'm not asking you to pre-approve your changes, HistoryBuffEr. I'm just hoping to get a dialog going so that the page can be unprotected and the revert-wars can stop. I haven't been insulting or condescending to you, and I would appreciate it if you refrained from being insulting and condescending to me.

When looking through the differences between the version you prefer and the version you keep reverting, I don't understand why you prefer certain parts. For instance, you removed the information that Corrie was a member of the International Solidarity Movement (ISM), refering to her only as a "peace activist". Why? Instead of having a single link to the Israel article at the first mention of the term, you revert to a version that links to the Israel article 47 times. Why? You removed the statement that Corrie "attended two days of training in non-violent resistance techniques and philosophy". Why?

Instead of directing me to look at your changes and stating that they should be obvious, it would be helpful if we discussed the individual changes on the talk page, as described in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution#First resort: talk to the other parties involved. Thanks, – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 15:19, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

There have been hundreds of edits on this article. How come you don't ask anyone else about their edits?
Before you pull out that old Jayjg's saw about "stable" versions: There is no preference in WP for old versions, all that matters is whether the result is neutral and useful to readers. So, I'll answer your questions for now, assuming that you'll ask the others about their edits too.
  • I did not remove "that Corrie was a member of the ISM". As far as I can tell, her ISM links remain in the article unchanged. I did change the intro: As a member of at least 2 peace orgs, Corrie is (more accurately) described as a "peace activist". Disagree? Let's hear why.
(And, what's up with your "only as a peace activist"? Is ISM some kind of terrorist org?)
  • There is nothing sinister about excessive wikilinks, just a result of a runaway global replace command. This has been fixed. (Interesting you didn't complain about equally numerous "Palestinian" links.)
As for "attended two days of training in non-violent resistance techniques and philosophy" this was removed simply to shorten a long sentence. I have no problem with this info, but it does look redundant: it is natural and expected of a peace activist to learn about non-violent resistance. Not to mention that "two days of training in philosophy" sounds silly.
Now, let's see some questions to other editors (unless you represent them all.)
HistoryBuffEr 19:23, 2004 Nov 18 (UTC)
Hi, Quadell. HistoryBuffEr has very problematic reputation regarding the Isr-Pal articles. If you will check history, you will see he deleted many of my edits (never bothering to say why). And hence, the reverts of his version to the older one. MathKnight 19:31, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for responding. I'd like to remind you again that I'm not out to get you. (I don't think the ISM is a terrorism organisation, I don't think your wikilinks were sinister, and I never said anything about stable versions.) Please assume good faith. My only goal here is for the edit wars to stop.
The reasons you mentioned -- that "peace activist" was a better description because she was a member of more than one group, that the wikilinks were a simple mistake, and that you were shortening a sentence -- are perfectly reasonable. Describing your changes will help avoid these conflicts.
In one of Wikipedia's guidelines, it says "If someone disagrees with you, try to understand why, and in your discussion on the Talk pages take the time to provide good reasons why you think your way is better." It also advises "Assume the best about people whenever possible. Wikipedia has worked remarkably well so far based on a policy of openness. This suggests that most people who visit do want to help, and do succeed at helping." The whole policy is well worth reading.
When the page is unprotected, I hope this revert war doesn't start back up. I'd like to encourage you to make specific changes to improve the article, but not simply revert multiple changes without explaining. I'd also like to ask you to describe why you make the changes you make, if you think some of us might consider them controversial, like it asks in the guideline I mentioned above.
Will you do that? – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 00:33, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
I am still waiting for any sign of your claimed impartiality and desire for consensus:
  • Where are your questions to POV pushers?
  • Where are your requests of them?
I've even created a section for you below.
HistoryBuffEr 02:35, 2004 Nov 19 (UTC)
Quadell, I encourage you to look at the Talk: page above in the section "Conflicts in eyewitness reports". Then I encourage you to ask why HistoryBuffEr prefers to give the version listed in only one report, and ignores all the others. Jayjg 02:58, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Quadell's questions to other editors

(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)

Just protect again or temp ban for those who refuse to discuss changes?

Which should do I implement? Pcb21| Pete 23:21, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I guess it depends on how you define "changes". As far as I can tell, there is one person who wants to make a whole huge whack of changes (HistoryBuffEr), and at least 5 other editors who want him to discuss them first in Talk. Is that how you see it? Jayjg 22:53, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Pete, check Jayjg's record first: if you count how many changes he has proposed you'll find 0, and objections posted by Jayjg are also 0. You'll find him only stating that all changes must be submitted to him for his aaproval. For much more see the Artbitration case against Jayjg. HistoryBuffEr 23:18, 2004 Nov 30 (UTC)
I had a look at the link and I could find no evidence for your claims about Jayjg. --Viriditas 01:37, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Revert war

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)

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)
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)

12 pix is too much

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)

You will be reverted for your unilateralism. If you want to add more pictures to 9/11, go ahead -- but stop trying to vandalize and censor the site. Lirath Q. Pynnor

  • my record here at wikipedia shows that i do not vandalize or censor. i am fair, and i don't need to defend myself to you. don't bait me. if you disagree, fine. express it here. that is why i brought it up in the TALK area before i made any moves. thank you, and come again. Kingturtle 07:40, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I hate to be taking Lir's side, but I don't think "other articles have fewer pictures" is a reasonable justification to remove the pictures here. All the ones I see are perfectly relevant and add to the article. RadicalSubversiv E 08:06, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

How can you plan to delete quality pictures, yet claim that you do not vandalize or censor? Lirath Q. Pynnor

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rachel_Corrie/Archive_1&oldid=1137110774"