Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:57, 7 July 2014

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Rachel Corrie article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article: You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive) You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. Further information The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are: Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required. With respect to the WP:1RR restriction: Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring. Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence. After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions. Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Palestine Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Misplaced Pages. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Anti-war Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anti-war, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the anti-war movement on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Anti-warWikipedia:WikiProject Anti-warTemplate:WikiProject Anti-warAnti-war Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Artistic Tributes to Rachel Corrie was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 22 March 2009 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Rachel Corrie. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

Rachel Corrie received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

This article was nominated for deletion on 8 May 2009. The result of the discussion was keep.

A news item involving Rachel Corrie was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 30 August 2012.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on March 16, 2014.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Rachel Corrie. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Rachel Corrie at the Reference desk.

Policies

(Please do not archive. New editors are asked to read this section carefully before editing.)

Because this is a contentious article, all edits should conform strictly not only to WP:NPOV, but also to the policies and guidelines regarding sources: WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:RS. Jointly these say:

• Articles may not contain any unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, analyses, or ideas.
• The above may be published in Misplaced Pages only if already published by a reliable source.
• A "source" refers to the publication Misplaced Pages obtained the material from (e.g. The New York Times). It does not refer to the original source of the material (i.e. wherever The New York Times obtained the information from).
• A "reliable source" in the context of Rachel Corrie means:
  • articles in mainstream newspapers, books that are not self-published, scholarly papers, official reports, trial transcripts, congressional reports or transcripts, and similar;
  • 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, so long as the material is notable, is not unduly self-aggrandizing, and is not contradicted by reliable third-party sources;
  • no highly biased political websites unless there is clearly some editorial oversight or fact-checking process.

NGO Monitor and Shurat HaDin

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

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

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

Shurat HaDin is a very notable NGO and if you looked it is entry you see it had notable legal achievements (such as winning hundreds of millions of dollar compensation for terror victims). MathKnight 19:20, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Its a wordpress blog, it doesnt get any more self-published than that. They can be used for information about themselves, not for information about Corrie. See WP:SELFPUB. nableezy - 20:53, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Also, the edits were added by a sock of a banned account, I am re-reverting on that basis. nableezy - 17:01, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

First, you attacking ad hominem and it is not accepted. Second, it is not a sock puppet of banned account, it is my account at the university, since I'm working in a different computer than home in a grad students common office, and I don't want to log in/out every time I switch computer. Since I have officially said it is my account (see user page) and did not tried to pretend I'm someone else it is not a sock puppet. It is more like a user that also operated a maintenance "bot" account. This is not a reason to revert automatically edits by User:MathKnight-at-TAU account. MathKnight 19:18, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Im sorry that you misunderstood what I wrote. The initial restore of that material was from Cønffucius (talk · contribs), a now blocked sock of a banned user. I was not reverting you for being a sock, I reverted you on the merits of the edit. nableezy - 20:53, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

House demolition?

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

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

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

I dont know that a court verdict is a reliable source, but Corrie was in between a bulldozer and a house when she was run over and killed by said bulldozer. I dont know what the mission of the day was, but the actual action of the day should be relatively clear. nableezy - 20:53, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

You may dispute a court's verdict, which I think qualifies as a reliable source, but you can't claim anymore that no one says that the mission that day was not house demolition and that no house was demolished in that operation. The court clearly disputes that the house was being demolished that day, the armored bulldozer just cleared shrubbery and soil near it. MathKnight 05:41, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

We have had this discussion here many times before.

The facts as I understand them remain as follows:

1. ISM witnesses claim house demolitions were attempted but they managed to stop them by going inside a building and by standing in front of the bulldozers. If this is correct then the "just clearing vegetation" claim is a lie.

2. The IDF claim is that they were only scheduled to clear "vegetation and rubble" ON THE DAY THAT CORRIE WAS KILLED . I.e. implying that they had been demolishing houses on previous days and they intended to on subsequent ones but on the day Rachel was crushed to death were only clearing vegetation. If this is correct then the ISM witnesses specific and detailed statements are a lie.

Either way, someone is lying and we wiki editors should NOT decide for the reader who it is.

That house demolitions did not occur ON THAT DAY is a statement of fact, but I think is irrelevant. All we can know for certain is that house demolitions did not occur on that day after Rachel had been killed.

I see TWO alternative understandings for why that is:

a.) they may have been attempted but were prevented (ISM claim) and were curtailed after her death OR

b.) they had never been planned for that particular day (IDF claim).

We don't know which is true. Which is why I think this 'fact' of no house demolition on that day does does not support either side of this disputed point.

FACT: the house in question was eventually demolished (2 years later I think).

CONCLUSION: Making the article present one side of this disputed point - as if there was no dispute - therefore seems a clear WP:NPOV violation.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 18:00, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

But the COURT accepted IDF claim that no house demolition was planned that day. So we have ISM's claim, the IDF's claim and the court's verdict. The court accepted IDF's statement and ruled that no house demolition was planned that day (and in fact, no house was demolished in that action). MathKnight 11:41, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

.The court's verdict has been criticised, as the article details. Therefore the article should not favour one side of a disputed subject. That would violate neutrality. This has been discussed previously numerous times and once with your involvement.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 00:09, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with MathKnight. Both claims should certainly be included, but this article seems to be a platform for the ISM position, especially by quoting only the bystanders who blame Israel. --monochrome_monitor 00:44, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Palestine-related articles
• Low-importance Palestine-related articles
• WikiProject Palestine articles
• B-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• B-Class Anti-war articles
• Mid-importance Anti-war articles
• Old requests for peer review
• Misplaced Pages In the news articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Selected anniversaries (March 2014)