Talk:Rachel Corrie - Definition and Overview

Also see Talk:Rachel Corrie/Archive 1

Joseph Smith statement

I've done a general copy edit; moved the Cause of Death section to the Responsibility for section to improve flow; and quoted from the Guardian article on the IDF report. I removed the sentence at the end that said the Israeli govt. report has not been seen by Corrie's parents and that therefore the Wikipedia article is based on secondary sources, as it didn't seem to make sense. Corrie's parents would be secondary sources too. I also deleted the bullet points in the section describing her activities as they seemed POV, and just listed them in the normal way.

The Joseph Smith statement: Is this a verbatim eye-witness statement? If it is, it shouldn't have an electronic intifada link in it. It should probably be made clear whether this is an eyewitness account or someone else's commentary based on the statement. Slim 03:51, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)

How can you claim that Corrie was killed in "an incident involving a bulldozer"? Don't you have any shame? --Pravda 18:40, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Because the statement is true. Since the cause of death is itself disputed, the term "incident involving a bulldozer" is NPOVest as possible. MathKnight 20:23, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Corrie was killed by an Israeli soldier driving an armored bulldozer. That is a fact - even if Israelis dispute whether it was the intention of the driver to crush Corrie. To say it was "an incident involving a bulldozer" is very vague and deceptive. Please compare to Laura Bush: "At the age of seventeen, on November 6, 1963, while driving a Chevrolet sedan, Welch ignored or overlooked a stop sign and struck and killed Michael Douglas, aged seventeen, in a Corvair sedan. Douglas had been an acquaintance of Welch. She and her passenger, Judy Dykes (also aged seventeen) were treated for minor injuries at a local hospital. Welch was not charged."

Even though Laura Bush was not charged or convicted of vehicular homicide, it is a fact that she did kill Michael Douglas. Similarly, even though the Israeli authorities never charged their bulldozer operator with murder (or any other offense), it is a fact that he did strike and kill Rachel Corrie. --Pravda 20:39, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"it is a fact that he did strike and kill Rachel Corrie", it is indeed a fact that Rachel was hurt when she went to close to the bulldozer, but what realy caused her death is disputed. ISM stress the bulldozer ran over her, the IDF say that the bulldozer accidently droped on her slab of concrete when he pushed the mount of dirt and rubbles. This is discussed further in the body of the article. MathKnight 21:12, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether it was an accident or not, Rachel Corrie was killed by a bulldozer driven by an Israeli soldier - just like Michael Douglas was killed by car driven by Laura Bush. Corrie's death by bulldozer was confirmed by autopsy as explained in the article. --Pravda 21:19, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

One autposy report states the Rachel was struck by falling debris. Also, please stop using inflammatory edit summaries. MathKnight 21:30, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Trying to blame the debris for the actions of the bulldozer driver falls into the category of deliberate deception. That's what I mean by True Lies. You may like this book by Victor Ostrovsky if you haven't read it already. [1] (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0971759502/104-5210056-5987920?v=glance) --Pravda 21:54, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Why is it a deliberate deception? Futhermore, I don't blame anyone here (except the ISM who sent young and naive people to risk their lives without any need), it was an accident that was bound to happen sooner or later because of ISM's reckless practice of interfere with narrow-sighted working bulldozers against all safety regulations. MathKnight 07:53, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Your POV is interesting. Why is it deception to blame Corrie's death on falling debris rather than on the bulldozer driver pushing the debris? Do I really need to explain this? Many people consider these Israeli home demolition activities to be crimes against humanity that render thousands of Palestinians homeless in violation of international humanitarian law. [2] (http://www.hrw.org/reports/2004/rafah1004/). ISM activists who peacefully protest against these crimes don't feel that Israeli soldiers are justified in killing them. I am sure you have your reasons for believing that these Israeli activities are not crimes against humanity, that ISM is to blame for protesting, that Corrie's death was just an accident, and that she was killed by falling debris. Nevertheless, try to maintain NPOV. --Pravda 08:22, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

1. I'm not blaming. I'm trying to determine the cause of her death.
2. House demolitions are a different issue, different than Corrie's issue. I'll summerize that in my opinion they are justified mean of defence, as many Palestinian houses are used by terrorists to attack Israeli civilian and soldiers, and harbour terrorist infrastructure.
3. ISM have a right to protest, but they don't have the right to enter restricted military area, interefere with military activity; and certainly do not have to right to send young and naive people to risk their live recklessly by playing Russian rollete with a working narrow-sighted armored bulldozer.
4. In contrast to the impersion you got, I'm not saying that because the ISM engaged in illegal activity, the bulldozer driver or the IDF had the right to kill them. What I'm saying that the ISM engaged in illegal activity that sent young and naive people to risk their life in dangerous activity which was bound to result in fatal accident sooner or later, and unfortunately did ended in such fatal accident. No one ever forced ISM to play Russian rollete with heavy military vehicles or act as human shield in hostile envoirement. You can elaboration of this point of view here (http://www.google.co.il/search?q=cache:yCHkXMr4aKwJ:www.blarg.net/~minsq/NCArchive/00000019.htm+NO+Cameras+%2B+Rachel+Corrie&hl=iw&ie=UTF-8&inlang=iw).
5. And to sum up, I believe Rachel Corrie's death was an accident, and that the IDF had no intention of killing her. MathKnight 09:22, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Pravda, it's true that Corrie didn't suddenly die of old age. She was killed. But it's not clear that she was "run over" as the sentence originally said. Her fellow activists say she was, the Israeli eyewitnesses say she wasn't, and the medical evidence is inconclusive. I can change "died" to "killed" in the intro if you like, but I feel that "incident" should stay because it's the most neutral word. The article makes the two versions clear. Slim 21:36, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your attempt to compromise but I think "incident with a bulldozer" is highly disingenuous. As you can see from the US State Department report below, it is a straightforward accepted fact that Corrie was crushed and killed by an Israeli bulldozer, confirmed by autopsy. Even Israelis who claim it was an "accident" due to debris falling on her must accept the fact that the debris fell because a bulldozer was pushing it. Even if someone intentionally and suicidally jumps in front of a car on the highway, while they may be responsible for their death, it remains a fact that they are killed by a car. --Pravda 21:54, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Pravda, I've removed "incident." How about this: "Rachel Corrie (April 10, 1979—March 16, 2003) was a member of the International Solidarity Movement (ISM) who was killed when she confronted an Israeli soldier-operated bulldozer while protesting Israeli demolitions of Palestinian homes in Rafah in the Gaza Strip." That leaves it open as to whether the bulldozer ran over her or not, but without using what some might regard as a weasel word like "incident." Slim 23:15, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)

I think it is very clear from all POVs that she was run over and killed by the bulldozer. Even if she was killed by debris and not the bulldozer blade, the debris was being pushed by the bulldozer. The State department report is pretty matter of fact about the fact that she was run over and killed. --Pravda 05:27, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Being killed by a falling debris is not being ran over. As I explained before, the exact cause of death and what interaction she had with the bulldozer is disputed. MathKnight 07:53, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What source can you cite that gives a cause of death other than trauma from a bulldozer blade, crushing by bulldozer, or debris pushed by the bulldozer? --Pravda 08:26, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"debris pushed by the bulldozer?" , as I said before, being hit by a falling debris - eventhough pushed by the bulldozer - is not being run over by it. I don't say there is no conection between the bulldozer and her death, I'm only saying that this connection does not consist a "run over" (i.e. the bulldozer drove over her and crush her). MathKnight 09:22, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm not swayed in the least by the discussion above that somehow Corrie was killed by "standing or kneeling" in front of the bulldozer, with the old wording trying hard to not seem to be implying she was partly at fault. This would be humorous if it wasn't so damned shameful. Can the IDF apologists at least recognize that Corrie was a HUMAN BEING and afford her that respect? I would be inclined to believe that it was not the intent of the IDF to run over Corrie with a bulldozer (i.e. it is possible that it was an "accident"), but let's apply Occam's Razor: she was killed as a direct result of the operation of a bulldozer. I'm not inclined to be tolerant of any further manipulation of this wording.

State Department Report

The State Department report does not accept Israeli government government findings or the reports of eyewitnesses, it merely reports both sides. "On March 16, an Israeli bulldozer clearing land in Rafah in the Gaza Strip crushed and killed Rachel Corrie, 23, a US Citizen peace activist. Corrie was standing in front of the bulldozer and was wearing a reflective vest. Eyewitness demonstrators stated that they believe the driver knew Rachel was in front of the bulldozer as he proceeded forward. The IDF conducted two investigations into the case, including a polygraph of the operator, and found no negligence on the part of the operator. The operator knew that there were demonstrators in the area, but claimed he did not see Corrie at the time she was struck. However, the report of the IDF Judge Advocate General recommended several remedial measures including remedying blindspots from the cabs of armored bulldozers, for improved safety during future operations." [3] (http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2003/27929.htm) The State Department lists Corrie's March 13, 2003 cause of death as "Other", indicating that the US does not view it as an accident, the way the Israeli government claims. [4] (http://travel.state.gov/travel/dsr.html) Do you have explicit evidence to support your contention that the US government accepts the Israeli side of the story? --Pravda 21:04, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

To judge from the link Pravda provided, it doesn't look as though the U.S. govt has accepted that it was an accident, so that sentence should probably be removed until a supporting reference can be found. Slim 21:37, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)

Quoting the Israeli report without reservations indicate that they pretty much accepted it (or more accurate to say: de-facto accepted, since I couldn't find any formal statement regarding Corrie). This is supported by complaints on the US government from left-wing and anti-Israeli activisist for not demanding an "independent" inquiry [5] (http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/comment/0,10551,961025,00.html), [6] (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/mar2003/corr-m19.shtml) Also, Corrie's death described as "other" and not as "homocide" or "terrorist action". MathKnight 21:50, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The report quotes the ISM eyewitnesses along with the Israeli government so the Israeli account is not given preference as "truth". Corrie's cause of death is described as "Other" and not as an "Accident" as claimed by Israel. --Pravda 21:57, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree that the U.S. may have accepted Israel's report from the simple fact that the U.S. is not responding to calls for another investigation. On the other hand, the U.S. State Dept. didn't list the death as an "accident." There were a few other deaths in the list Pravda provided, which were listed as "veh. accident" or "other accident," for example. With Corrie, they just say "other," which suggests to me that they're keeping an open mind. Slim 22:03, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)

"The neutrality and reliability of his account are disputed.

What published source is disputing the eyewitness testimony provided by Joseph Smith? Why is a discalimer needed if we attribute the account to him (According to Joseph Smith.....)? Why don't we need a similar disclaimer for the statements provided by Israeli authorities? --Pravda 22:03, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, point taken. Slim 22:08, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)

I've removed it. Slim 22:10, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)

I given two sources disputing Smith account: [7] (http://www.jerusalemdiaries.com/article/83) , [8] (http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1329/is_5_28/ai_107897303/pg_1). The reason why the disclaimer is needed, is since the entire description under is based solely on Smith's account - which have some contradicitions, as noted commantators and reporters. MathKnight 22:22, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree that there are several published sources disputing Smith's account, so it's correct to say its neutrality and accuracy are disputed. But Pravda has a point, because the Israeli report is also disputed, so if there's a disclaimer regarding Smith's account, there would probably need to be a disclaimer regarding the Israeli account. Perhaps instead of the disclaimer, you could expand the section directly under Smith's account, quoting from published sources who point to the inconsistencies? Slim 22:28, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)

There is already a paragraph describing some of the contradicitions, below the end of Smith's account. The orginal intention of the disclaimer was to point out the what written is not the objective facts (which are disputed, as both sides present different versions) but Smith's account. It was added to a rewrite by HistoryBuffEr, failing to point that out. MathKnight 23:17, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

MathKnight, I have no objection to the neutrality and reliability warning being on the witness statement, but Pravda doesn't agree because s/he feels the Israeli account would then also need a disclaimer. I think you both have a point, although I feel the eyewitness account is given more weight simply because it does say it is the account of someone who was there, and therefore a disclaimer is perhaps more important on that statement. But I'll leave it up to you and Pravda, as I have no strong views about this either way. However, I'd like to know to what extent this is a quotation from Smith's statement, and if it is a quotation, why it has an electronic intifada link in it. I'm going to read the Smith statement now and see whether it's a direct quote, which I didn't have time to do yesterday. Slim 23:23, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)

Smith statement

The statement from Joseph Smith that was in the article seemed instead to be a commentary on his statement, so I've replaced it with direct quotes. Slim 03:32, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)

Demolition of homes

I deleted from the first sentence that Corrie was killed by the bulldozer "while protesting Israeli demolitions of Palestinian homes", because that makes it sound as though homes were being demolished on the day of her death; or even that she was standing between a bulldozer and a home about to be demolished when she died. But if you read the eyewitness statement of Joseph Smith, it says the bulldozers were "demolishing farmland and other already damaged structures," which is consistent with the Israeli account that they were flattening land looking for explosives dumps. The activists say they were concerned for the safety of nearby homes, but there's no indication any were going to be demolished, so I felt that ought not to be implied by the first sentence. It now reads that she was "killed when she confronted an Israeli soldier-operated bulldozer in Rafah in the Gaza Strip."

Anon - the IDF did later demolish the home in question 0 a fact that has been deleted from earlier versions of this article. Whatever their intent on the day Corrie died, Corrie and the ISM apparently believed they were protecting the home from demolition. The article should be worded accordingly. --Pravda 05:24, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree that if the home was later demolished that should be in the article. Do you have a reference for that by any chance? Slim 05:26, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)

See [9] (http://www.rebuildingalliance.org/wl/pj-rachel-corrie-house/archives/000216.html). --Pravda 05:34, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Pravda, I've added this to the "Responsibility for Corrie's death" section:

"The report also states that the army had not, in fact, intended to demolish a house, but was searching for explosives in the border area designated "no man's land" by Israel. No houses were demolished on the day of Corrie's death, but one of the houses she believed she was protecting — the home of pharmacist Dr. Samid Nasrallah — was damaged six months later when the IDF knocked a hole in one of its walls. The IDF eventually demolished the house in January 2004, according to the charity Rebuilding Alliance, because it stood in "no man's land". [10] (http://www.rebuildingalliance.org/wl/pj-rachel-corrie-house/archives/000216.html)

I'd like to read some of the other witness statements before any change is made to the intro, to see whether they specifically mention a belief that homes might be demolished that day. Hope that's okay. Slim 05:58, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)

I removed any mention of house demolition from the intro and rewrote it to parallel the US State dept description. See what you think. I don't see Jayjg discussing anything in Talk although he keeps calling for more talk. --Pravda 06:10, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You changed an awful lot more than that in the intro. Why don't you discuss all the POV changes you made. Jayjg 06:14, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oh, and complex reverts are still a revert, as my comment noted. As you know, breaking the 3RR gets you an automatic 24 hour block. Jayjg 06:16, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

SlimVirgin and I have been working on an NPOV description of Corrie's death. In my last re-write, I paralleled the State Department description as closely as possible. It is quite different from the previous re-writes. Perhaps you can explain to me the difference between a "complex revert" and a new edit? --Pravda 06:24, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You've reverted the NPOV version "Her death sparked controversy because she was the first Western protester killed in the conflict and a U.S. citizen, and because of the highly politicized nature of the Arab-Israeli conflict to HistoryBuffEr's POV version "Corrie's death sparked controversy because she was a U.S. citizen and peace activist killed during a non-violent protest" and "the U.S. did not conduct or request an independent investigation, and Israel has cleared its soldiers of responsibility while refusing to release documents from the investigation" 7 times in 13 hours. [11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rachel_Corrie&diff=8810533&oldid=8810391) [12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rachel_Corrie&diff=8811516&oldid=8811460) [13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rachel_Corrie&diff=8812015&oldid=8811951) [14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rachel_Corrie&diff=8823534&oldid=8823500) [15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rachel_Corrie&diff=8823662&oldid=8823602) [16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rachel_Corrie&diff=8824517&oldid=8824294) [17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rachel_Corrie&diff=8825231&oldid=8825089). And a user who knows how to find ancient and controversial POV versions of articles on their fifth edit here, and revert to them in their entirety, while quoting Wikipedia policy, does not need further explanation on these matters. Jayjg 06:51, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I wrote entirely new versions each time. The last one was, "Rachel Corrie (April 10, 1979 - March 16, 2003) was a U.S. citizen peace activist who was crushed and killed by an armored Caterpillar D9 bulldozer operated by an Israeli soldier clearing land in Rafah, Gaza Strip.

Corrie's death sparked controversy because she was a U.S. citizen and pro-Palestinian peace activist killed during a non-violent protest within the context of the al-Aqsa intifada and the Arab-Israeli conflict. Advocates on both sides scrambled to blame her death on the Israel Defense Force (IDF), the International Solidarity Movement (ISM), the Palestinians, and on Corrie herself. The U.S. government did not conduct or request an independent investigation, and Israel has cleared its soldiers of responsibility while refusing to release documents from the investigation." What is objectionable to you about this? --Pravda 07:14, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Her death sparked controversy

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)

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)

IDF report

There are conflicting accounts regarding the release of the IDF investigation into Corrie's death. The Gannett News Services says the IDF released its report to several members of the U.S. Congress in April 2003, and that the Corrie family passed copies of the report to the news media in June 2003. However, in an article dated March 2004, Corrie's mother says that only the conclusions of the report have been released, and that only she and her husband, along with two American staffers in Tel Aviv, have been allowed to view the whole thing. I've put both these versions in the article, with links. Slim 18:54, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)

A bit of NPOVing

"confronted the bulldozer". If the circumstances of her death are so much in dispute, let's not suggest that she was "confronting" the bulldozer (which implies that her death was her own fault) but simply say she was killed by it. Dr Zen 04:31, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This from the guy who insisted that the children killed in the Ma'alot massacre weren't "killed", but merely "died"? Try taking out the word "killed" here to, maybe that will NPOV it. As for Corrie, she deliberately confronted the bulldozer a number of times by jumping in front of it, in order to stop it. It didn't sneak up on her unexpectedly in the night. Jayjg | Talk 04:43, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Some say she was lying down, dude. You can't argue that there are conflicting accounts and then insist on wording that suits your side of it.Dr Zen 05:29, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oh, and there's no dispute that she was killed by a bulldozer. There are no eyewitness accounts of Ma'alot and how the children died is disputed. Perhaps they committed suicide? There's as much evidence for that as there is for Corrie's doing so. Dr Zen 05:31, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

We should be able to find better description than saying she was killed when she confronted a bulldozer. She was killed protesting the destruction caused by the bulldozer. She was killed engaging in passive resistance. Or simply, she was killed by a bulldozer. The description in the article allows readers who are so inclined to conclude that she was confronting the bulldozer if that's their POV. It shouldn't be the article's POV though. --Pravda 05:35, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That's what I'm saying. Say she was killed by a bulldozer and colour that how you like.Dr Zen 05:51, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"scrambling to blame", "both sides"... It's POV that there must be two and only two sides in the conflict. There are also neutrals of all different shades. Many, many opinions. So let's just make it NPOV, yes? Dr Zen 04:31, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, let's NPOV it by pointing out that activists on all sides scrambled to blame all sorts of people and groups. Oh wait, that's what the NPOV version already said, and has said for months. Jayjg | Talk 04:43, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No. It said "advocates" (what that?) on "both sides" (with no explanation of what these "sides" are) "scrambled" to attribute blame. Well no, actually. One side said the bulldozer driver murdered her; the other made up some cock about her committing suicide (!) in their usual fashion.Dr Zen 05:29, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Must agree with Jayjg here that all sides did blame each other. I think "scrambled" is a bit POV. It is true that people project their opinions on Corrie's life and death. It is almost like a Rashomon drama, but unfortunately, real. --Pravda 05:36, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I understand your struggle to understand that it's not black and white, us and them, but there have been lots of opinions on Corrie's death from all sorts.Dr Zen 05:54, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"protester". Come off it. A protester is what she was on the day. It's intended to diminish her to so describe her. We call people who do what she did "peace activists", even on Wikipedia. She was a "peace activist" who was "protesting".Dr Zen 04:31, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Peace activist"? Come off it, that's a POV description attempting to imply that people on the Palestinian side are "for peace", but people on the Israeli side are "for war". Jayjg | Talk 04:43, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Bullshit. There is a war and Corrie was doing what she thought was best to try to end it. If you want to put in (sourced) claims that the IDF work for peace, you are more than welcome.Dr Zen 05:29, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No need for rudeness. She could be described as a peace activist or human rights activist or a pro-Palestinian or anti-Israeli protestor but activist protestor or protesting activist might be most neutral. She was more than just those things that she became labeled with in death and I think the article describes that. --Pravda 05:37, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Zen, you're playing word games. The article states that, "according to ISM activists and e-mails Corrie sent to her family, she participated in a variety of actions, including protesting Israeli army demolitions of Palestinian homes by acting as a human shield . . . " That sentence was inserted by someone who shares your POV. If she was protesting, she was a protester. Slim 05:44, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

Oh look, the gang's all here. I don't have a POV, Slim. I said, if you read what I wrote, that she was protesting (and the editor you note says that this was one of a variety of actions she did) at the time but that doesn't make her a protester, any more than I am a typist because I am typing.Dr Zen 05:51, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You don't have a POV, Zen? This is what you wrote above: "One side said the bulldozer driver murdered her; the other made up some cock about her committing suicide (!) in their usual fashion. Dr Zen 05:29, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)"

This is what is normally referred to as a POV. Slim 07:11, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

Purportedly?

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) (http://www.ccmep.org/2003_articles/Palestine/032003_the_moments_before.htm), 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)

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)

Zionist POV pushing gang autoreverts again

It is impossible to make good-faith NPOV edits to any article on subjects on Jayjg's list. You simply get reverted by him or one of his cadres.Dr Zen 06:01, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There's no point accusing them because they believe they are doing the right thing. They can be convinced with evidence. In my opinion, the version you are submitting is clearly more NPOV than the version they are protecting. I think that they are not bothering to read your version and are just reverting "on principle". It is frustrating. --Pravda 06:10, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That's what I find upsetting. It's the sheer arrogance of them. They don't believe they have to discuss changes because they outnumber those who want a neutral point of view.

I ask how any editor in good faith can claim this: "Other statements, such as Smith's claim that they heard the bulldozer driver shouting at them (Smith, section 16:00-16:45) (http://www.ccmep.org/2003_articles/Palestine/032003_the_moments_before.htm), purportedly lack credibility because the engine noise and thick plates of armored bulldozers usually prevent communication." is NPOV. What the hell does "purportedly" mean? I find it astonishing that SlimVirgin, who claims to be a champion of sourcing material, thinks that this is not expressive of a POV.Dr Zen 06:14, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Actually, "purportedly" was my edit of a poorly worded description that was unsourced probable original research by MathKnight. --Pravda 06:19, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, I really think that should be sourced or cut. The whole commentary is so POV that I think efforts need to be made to try to cut the editorialising to a bare minimum.Dr Zen 06:21, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Read my comment above. The low visibility, difficult-to-hear claim is, I believe, in the Mother Jones article. I will check it now. And yes, of course I'm reading before I change or revert. I never revert on sight. I've explained why I reverted above. Slim 06:24, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

You can't say or imply that the bulldozer hit her or ran her over. As you don't like "confronted," I have rewritten the intro again. It now reads:

Rachel Corrie' (April 10, 1979—March 16, 2003) was a member of the International Solidarity Movement (ISM) who was killed after kneeling or standing in front of a moving armored Caterpillar D9 bulldozer operated by an Israeli soldier clearing land in Rafah, Gaza Strip. While some eyewitnesses believe the bulldozer ran over Corrie, other eyewitnesses say it did not. The medical evidence is inconclusive."

This is as straightforward and as factual as it gets. I've also reinserted the paragraph about it being hard to hear from the cabin, and have linked it to the driver's interview where he says it's hard to see or hear. Slim 06:56, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

Okay, Slim, I think the description is fair enough, although I don't feel it's POV to say she was killed by the bulldozer, whether it did it directly or knocked some debris down on her. Even the IDF don't claim the bulldozer had nothing to do with it, so you can take a bow for being even more biased than them, which takes some doing. However, there are no eyewitnesses that say she was not crushed by the bulldozer (at least none cited in the text). "Ran over" is the wrong phrase. I don't think anyone claims that. As it happens, Dooby said he had hit someone. I don't believe we mention that in the text. I've had browser problems, but when I get the article back up, I think I'll include that and source it.Dr Zen 07:23, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for not reverting. Remember that Dooby said he'd hit someone only according to one of the ISM witnesses. I don't feel it's necessary to say the journalist wasn't present. It's pretty clear from the fact that she's not quoted that we're not regarding her as a primary source. Slim 07:32, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

Intro

Zen, please stop changing the intro. The way you wrote it sounded as though all the eyewitnesses believe the bulldozer ran over or crushed her, and it's only the IDF who are saying it didn't. There were a number of ISM witnesses, plus the two bulldozer drivers, and whoever was in the tank, possibly more than one. There may also be other witnesses we don't know about. Even some of the ISM witnesses don't seem to be sure what happened, and at least one indicates she simply stumbled in front of the bulldozer. Therefore, it's safest to say "some eyewitnesses believe the bulldozer ran over her, while others say it did not." Slim 07:54, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

Good article

After some intenstive editing over the last few days, it seems this article has improved no end. A good, balanced read, as it stands. Dan100 09:30, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, Dan. Slim 21:58, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

killed after kneeling or standing in front of a moving armored

Please do not insert to the intro these types of misleading descriptions that are factually accurate but intended to place blame on Corrie for "lying in front of a moving bulldozer." --Pravda 22:16, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Pravda, this intro was agreed with Zen, who didn't like "confronted." The intro as it stands is absolutely factually correct. You can't change it for "was killed by" because that implies she was hit or run over by the bulldozer, and that is not known to be true. Please leave it as it is. The number of changes this intro has seen is verging on the ridiculous. As it stands, it is purely descriptive with no added POV. The bulldozer was moving, and she either knelt or stood in front of it. You may not like it, but that is what all the eyewitness statements say happened. If you change or add to their statements, you are editorializing i.e. adding POV. Slim 22:25, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

No, I am afraid that the NPOV version is to state that she was killed by a bulldozer. The POV versions try to lay blame on Corrie for getting in the way of the bulldozer or on the bulldozer driver for intentionally running her over. Please do not assume that your POV is the correct POV. Try to work towards neutrality without inserting perspectives and descriptions that support the way you perceive the facts. --Pravda 22:50, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Pravda, I'm not sure if you realise but 'NPOV' stands for neutral point of view, not no point of view. So SlimVirgin's version of the Intro is written in correct Wikipedia style. Dan100 22:27, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

All POVs are adequately covered in the body of the article which is why the intro should be very neutral succinct and devoid of slanted descriptions that tend to support the blame game of one side or the other. If describing Corrie as a peace activist is unacceptable then surely describing her actions as "kneeling in front of a moving bulldozer" is also biased. The intro does not have room for all POVs that are described later in the article and so it should just state the very basic facts; she was killed by a bulldozer. --Pravda 22:50, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Summarizing the statements of eyewitnesses is NPOV because it means we are not adding our own opinions, but are just stating the known facts. It is not a known fact that she was killed BY a bulldozer.

Pravda, this is a matter of commonsense. It is true that she would not have died if the bulldozer had not moved toward her. It is also true that she would not have died had she not knelt or stood in front of it. It would be POV if this article were to blame her entirely for her death. But it would also be POV to imply that she played no role in her own death. The NPOV way is to stick to the descriptions of other people, particularly the eyewitnesses. Slim 23:10, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

Do the eyewitnesses say she was "run over" or do they say she was "crushed" by the bulldozer's blade? Run over implies, at least to me, that the bulldozer passed over her (because we are not meaning it in the sense of "knocked down"). Why are you so insistent on removing the word "crushed"? No one suggests she wasn't crushed by something and that something was either the bulldozer or something the bulldozer moved. I have to protest at an editor who is putting in even more biased wording than any of the "other people" who described the event.Dr Zen 23:16, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You agreed to this wording yesterday. It doesn't say crushed or run over. Please read the witness statements for what they say. Slim 23:20, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

I did not agree the wording you insist on reverting to.Dr Zen 23:24, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"It is not a known fact that she was killed BY a bulldozer." You think the debris just fell on her as she was walking by?Dr Zen 23:24, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Which* eyewitness says she was not crushed? The bulldozer driver could not see out of his cab. The other soldiers didn't notice that Corrie was about to be killed because they were "handling" other activists. What medical evidence is "inconclusive"? The autopsy said she was crushed by the blade! The *army* disputed it, as you source, but without presenting *any* evidence. So the evidence is actually conclusive and it is POV to say otherwise. The army said she was hit by a slab of concrete but did not present witness reports (no wonder! It claimed there were no soldier witnesses) nor, so far as I know, a fresh autopsy. It just says so. The intro exactly reports the facts. The eyewitnesses say she was crushed. The army says she was not. The medical evidence (her autopsy) says she was crushed by a blade. The army says she was not. Dr Zen 23:32, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Confronting a bulldozer?

That's not really NPOV, now is it? Why is it so hard to just state the fact in the intro that she was killed by a bulldozer without attributing action on Corrie's part that implies she is responsible for being killed? The rest of the article describes the many points of view that the intro has no space to summarize. --Pravda 22:58, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Because there is disagreement about what actually killed her, as far as I can tell. Jayjg | (Talk)</sup> 23:28, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Jayjg has ignored the ongoing discussion and reverted to an earlier wording that caused the dispute in the first place. I think it's fair enough to say that Corrie knelt or stood in front of the bulldozer. All accounts say she did. Dr Zen 23:19, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

She spent the day playing cat and mouse with it; if that's not confronting I don't know what is. And it appears that Dr. Zen is ignoring the actual eyewitness evidence and the article itself, which point out contradictory statements regarding what she was doing, including standing, sitting, kneeling, and lying. Jayjg | (Talk)</sup> 23:28, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Jayjg has not reverted or made a recent edit, at least not according to my browser, unless I'm having refresh problems. Slim 23:22, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

I made a small word change, using your word "confronting". Maybe it's been reverted already, who knows. Jayjg | (Talk)</sup> 23:28, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

One of us is. I get this as the most recent before mine: [18] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rachel_Corrie&oldid=8871381)Dr Zen 23:26, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes I was having refresh problems. I've added that the medical evidence is inconclusive, which is important. Don't you feel that, had she been crushed by the bulldozer, she would have had many more injuries than she did, and the medical evidence would not have been ambiguous? What do these bulldozers weigh? Slim 23:27, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

The autopsy said she was crushed by the blade, Slim. It did not say she was "run over" by the bulldozer. It says she has injuries consistent with being crushed by the blade. The autopsy, Slim. Not your conjecture or mine. The pathologist's.Dr Zen 23:34, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Meanwhile, your typical blind POV reverts are destroying good and undisputed edits as well. Jayjg | (Talk)</sup> 23:35, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

These blind reversions have to stop because, as Jay says, you're reverting undisputed edits too. As we can't agree on the eyewitnesses sentence, and on the medical evidence, I have remove that sentence from the intro, and I am going to look around to try to find a reputable reference for the medical evidence. I'm not comfortable using just one reference (The Olympian) that claims to know what the autopsy said. Slim 23:42, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

Oh I see. When it's your POV, one source will do. When it's the "other side"'s, they must present dozens of sources. *All* the eyewitnesses say she was crushed by the bulldozer. None say otherwise. The army argues, and you have argued, that the driver couldn't see her, and the other soldiers present were too busy to notice that she was in danger. So. You cannot pick and choose to suit your POV. Either we take the eyewitness accounts or we do not.Dr Zen 23:49, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Corrie did confronted the bulldozer. Instead of keeping distance, she tried to block the path of the bulldozer and interfere with its work. She apperntly also tried to climb over the bulldozer, so it is accurate to say she confronted the bulldozer. MathKnight 06:21, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Crushed

All eyewitnesses *and* the IDF say Corrie was "crushed". They disagree over what crushed her but not that she died because of crushing. They agree that the crushing was caused by the action of the bulldozer, although they disagree over whether the crushing was done on purpose or accidentally.

However, the extremist POV pushers who are guarding this page will not allow the introduction to say that she was crushed, even though *no one* except them disputes it.

To be even more biased than the IDF, who have good reason to want the incident described as accidental or Corrie's fault, takes some doing. The action of the editors involved actually disgusts me. You are willing to suppress the truth to pursue your agenda, even that small part of what happened that is accepted as true by *everybody*. You cannot begin to claim to be interested in working towards the goals of Wikipedia. You are here to prevent those goals from being attained. I'm absolutely disgusted with you. You do it on every article. You present the views of Israel, the IDF and their supporters as the truth and revert and contest any other insertions. Your view needs one source -- no matter how tainted that source is (even to the extent of having someone "dispute" the eyewitness accounts who was not present, has not investigated it and has no part, official or otherwise, in the events except for idle curiosity -- none of which prevents you from considering her blog a good source!) -- while another, the good-faith reporting in a reputable paper of the parents of the victim, who were given a copy of the autopsy report, just isn't acceptable.

Look at other articles. In Tom Hurndall, we do not say he was shot by a sniper, but many news sources do. If an Israeli was shot by a Palestinian, you would insist that the Times of London was reputable enough for its description of the shooting to be used. In Arafat you insisted that leaders of nations could not be considered representative of the views of their people; however, Benny Morris is representative of the consensus views of historians, despite being an Israeli. (It seems almost churlish to point out that a neutral source would need to be neither Jewish nor Muslim.) I had to force you to quote him as giving his opinion rather than your giving his opinion as a fact, and even then you included material that had absolutely nothing to do with the subject (unless Spain has moved to the Middle East while I wasn't looking) to muddy the water.Dr Zen 00:17, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

And you express your disgust liberally and at any given opportunity on this and on many other pages, against me and many other editors. I for one am very tired of it. You seem to do very little but cause trouble or get in the middle of trouble that others have started. I told you before that if you were abusive to me once more, I would cease to engage with you. It seems that you're incapable of assuming good faith, or of engaging with people to make constructive compromises. Until you interfered in this page, Pravda and I were making good progress toward NPOV, which I believe would have continued. As I've said before, you can't do here what you do on Usenet. Now please leave me alone. Slim 00:51, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)

This page is for discussing the article and issues connected with it, not for you to express your problems with me. Please don't indulge in it again. My comments were entirely to do with this article and the difficulties with editing it. Yours are entirely personal.Dr Zen 01:10, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Actually, SlimVirgin is following official policy, as outlined in Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, Wikipedia:Wikiquette, and Wikipedia:Civility. SlimVirgin is observing your repeated inability to follow these policies. When you repeatedly call editors, extremist POV pushers , and when you repeatedly attack them with comments like, The action of the editors involved actually disgusts me. You are willing to suppress the truth to pursue your agenda...You cannot begin to claim to be interested in working towards the goals of Wikipedia. You are here to prevent those goals from being attained..., you are in no position to hypocritically claim that the page is not for expressing problems with other editors when that is in fact exactly what you have been doing all along. Please follow the policies listed above:Discuss the facts and how to express them, not the attributes of the other party. --Viriditas | Talk 06:36, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"extremist POV pushers"; "The action of the editors involved actually disgusts me"; "You are willing to suppress the truth to pursue your agenda"; "I'm absolutely disgusted with you". These are only a small selection from this page of your personal attacks against me and several other editors, on many pages involving different subject matter. Perhaps you're so used to doing it that you don't notice it anymore. I'm not going to get into a row about it. I've asked you to stop doing it. Slim 01:19, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)

"During her stay she communicated with Danny ... During her stay she communicated with Danny"

Looks like we have a repeating paragraph about "Danny" in all the confusion. Furthermore, it is interesting to see how this NPOV paragraph is subtly morphing into a more POV version in just a few hours: "Through February and March, according to ISM activists and e-mails Corrie sent to her family, she participated in a variety of actions, including protesting Israeli army demolitions of Palestinian homes by acting as a human shield; placing herself between Palestinian civilians and Israeli troops; protecting Palestinian wells from the Israeli army; criticizing the Bush administration for alleged complicity in the conflict; and demonstrating against the 2003 invasion of Iraq, where she burned a paper-drawn U.S. flag."

"Through February and March, according to ISM activists and e-mails Corrie sent to her family, she participated in a variety of actions, including protesting Israeli army demolitions of Palestinian homes in the militant stronghold of Rafah, by acting as a human shield; placing herself between Palestinians (missing civilians) and Israeli troops; protecting wells from the Israeli army; (missing criticizing the Bush administration for alleged complicity in the conflict; and demonstrating against the 2003 invasion of Iraq, where she burned a paper flag) and burning a paper U.S. flag during a demonstration. " --Pravda 01:24, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

HI Pravda, a lot of the previous version was either unsourced, or irrelevant to her death. That she criticized George Bush is not connected to her death; and also to describe that as "participating in a variety of actions" sounds odd, like she went to Rafah to do that. Maybe we should find a direct quote from ISM regarding what she was doing, and attribute it to them? Slim 01:33, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)

If criticizing Bush and the Iraq war is not relevant to her death, why is burning the US flag? Why is describing Rafah as a "militant stronghold" relevant? Why are the Palestinians she was defending not allowed to be described as civilians? It appears that there is an effort by some editors to insert context only if it sheds a negative light on Corrie and her actions while also deleting context that imparts a positively on Corrie. I think this reflects an effort to "push" one POV over another. --Pravda 01:45, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I didn't put in that she burned the U.S. flag. The reason I left it in is that there's a photograph of her doing it (which I also didn't put in), and also because, when I was reading around for sources for these edits, quite a few articles said that her death didn't attract as much coverage in the U.S. as might have been expected because of the flag-burning episode, which apparently lost her some sympathy, so it seemed relevant. The U.S. flag-burning photograph got more coverage than any other, so far as I recall.

On the civilian point, I don't think anyone knows who all the people were she was defending. One editor wrote "Palestinian civilians" and another wrote "Palestinian terrorists," so I changed it to "Palestinians" to make it neutral. The Israeli argument is that these were people who were allowing their homes to be used for weapons-smuggling. We have no way of assessing that claim. We also have no way to assess the claim that these were families who were not involved in the violence. We are editing from a position of ignorance and our article should reflect that.

There's no effort by me to insert material that makes her look bad, but similarly I don't want to keep material just because it makes her look good. I want to try to present a version that is as neutral as we can make it. If you'll work with me on that, I'd be grateful. Slim 02:13, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)

Pravda, I've deleted the repeated Danny paragraph, and I'll look around for a quote from ISM (or a mainstream newspaper) about what she was doing in Rafah, and then I'll quote that instead of the unattributed paragraph, if that's okay with you. Slim 01:37, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, that's good, but a stronger effort at NPOVing this article would be welcome. --Pravda 01:45, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Why don't you say here what you feel is POV, and we can try to reach a compromise? Slim 01:47, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)

That she criticized George Bush is not connected to her death

However, it is connected to her "activities in Gaza", and it is connected to "Rachel Corrie". As this is an article on Rachel Corrie, not on Rachel Corrie's death, it is therefore relevant. Reinstating. Martin 23:56, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Introduction has been horribly POVed

And that's just the beginning of a concerted effort that has badly slanted the entire article. I've been reviewing the history of the introduction and would like you to see how badly it has been degrading. It's really discouraging to see how this honorable woman's memory is being disgraced. I really would rather not be a part of it anymore so please feel free to carry on. --Pravda 02:06, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• The day after she was killed this was the full article:

"Rachel Corrie (? - March 16, 2003), an American college student, was a member of the International Solidarity Movement protesting Israeli action in the Israel-Palestinian conflict. She was killed by an Israeli bulldozer in Rafah, Gaza.

While speaking via a loudspeaker and wearing a red coat, in front of a physician's home which the Israelis intended to bulldoze, Corrie fell down. A bulldozer then ran over her twice. Later, as a group of people gathered, a man was shot and killed by the Israel Defence Forces.

Corrie was a senior at Evergreen State College in Olympia, Washington."

• A week after she was killed:

"Rachel Corrie (1979 - March 16, 2003) was an American peace activist who was crushed to death while attempting to block an Israel Defense Forces (IDF) bulldozer in a Gaza Strip refugee camp.

Corrie grew up in Olympia, Washington, and graduated from Capital High School. She had been a senior at the Evergreen State College in Olympia, where she studied the arts and international relations. She took a leave of absence to participate in resistance against the IDF as a member of the Palestinian-led International Solidarity Movement (ISM). In her home town, she was known in the local peace movement and an active member of the Olympia Movement for Justice and Peace.

Friends describe Corrie as athletically slender with blond hair and thoughtful, intelligent eyes. She played soccer, gardened and loved the poems of Pablo Neruda. She was the daughter of Craig Corrie, an insurance executive, and Cindy Corrie, a school volunteer and flutist."

• April 2003:

"Rachel Corrie (1979 - March 16, 2003) was an American peace activist who was crushed to death during the Al-Aqsa Intifada, while attempting to block an Israel Defense Forces (IDF) bulldozer in a Gaza Strip refugee camp.

• From December, 2003:

"Rachel Corrie (April 10, 1979 - March 16, 2003) was an American activist who was crushed to death when protesting Israeli occupation of the Gaza Strip.

As a member of the International Solidarity Movement (ISM), she traveled to Rafah during the Al-Aqsa Intifada and tried to block an Israel Defense Forces (IDF) Caterpillar D9 bulldozer. She was fatally wounded during this incident."

• From April 2004:

Rachel Corrie (April 10, 1979 - March 16, 2003) was a member of the International Solidarity Movement (ISM) who traveled to Rafah in the Gaza Strip during the Al-Aqsa Intifada. While protesting the Israeli occupation, she was was fatally wounded when she tried to block an Israel Defense Forces (IDF) Caterpillar D9 bulldozer.

Her death sparked controversy, with various advocates scrambling to blame it on the IDF, the ISM, "Palestinian terror", and on Corrie herself.

• From October 2004:

"Rachel Corrie (April 10, 1979 - March 16, 2003 was a member of the International Solidarity Movement (ISM) who was run over and killed by an Israeli soldier operated bulldozer while she was protesting Israeli demolitions of Palestinian homes in Rafah in the Gaza Strip.

Her death sparked controversy because she was a peaceful protester and a U.S. citizen, yet the U.S. did not conduct or even demand an official investigation and Israel has not held anyone responsible for her death."

• Yesterday:

"Rachel Corrie (April 10, 1979—March 16, 2003) was a member of the International Solidarity Movement (ISM) who was killed when she confronted an Israeli soldier-operated bulldozer while protesting Israeli demolitions of Palestinian homes in Rafah in the Gaza Strip.

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. "

• Now:

Rachel Corrie (April 10, 1979—March 16, 2003) was a member of the International Solidarity Movement (ISM) who was killed after kneeling or standing in front of a moving armored Caterpillar D9 bulldozer operated by an Israeli soldier clearing land in Rafah, Gaza Strip.

Her 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. Her death has been blamed on the Israel Defense Force (IDF), the ISM, the Palestinians, and on Corrie herself.

I would say most neutral people would say there's been a move toward NPOV not away from it. How could any neutral editor judge, ONE day after her death, before any autopsy had taken place, and before anyone had investigated, that:" She was killed by an Israeli bulldozer in Rafah, Gaza. . . . While speaking via a loudspeaker and wearing a red coat, in front of a physician's home which the Israelis intended to bulldoze, Corrie fell down. A bulldozer then ran over her twice."

This make it sound as though the bulldozer was actively chasing her. And "Friends describe Corrie as athletically slender with blond hair and thoughtful, intelligent eyes. She played soccer, gardened and loved the poems of Pablo Neruda." I'd love to see how fast you'd delete a similar description of the Israeli soldiers: "Friends of the bulldozer operators say they are handsome young men, with kind smiles, a great love for their children, and a passion for Shakespeare." Come on. These things may be true, but you can't justify them in an encylopedia article. Slim 02:23, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)

• All* eyewitnesses say she was crushed as a result of the bulldozer's action. *None* suggests she was killed in any other way. The driver said he did not see her. The other soldiers present say they were "handling" other activists. Dr Zen 23:06, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I must say, Alberuni, I found this Pravda sockpuppet much more pleasant to work with than your other sockpuppets, particularly Wiesenthaler. You might note, you actually got a lot more co-operation with it as well. Are you simply abandoning it for RomperRoomReject then? Jayjg | (Talk)</sup> 21:00, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

By sheer coincidence the article is protected on Jayjg's version. Ho hum.Dr Zen 03:33, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It's not my version; it was the collaborative effort of at least a dozen editors. And what are you trying to say here? Don't just insinuate, spell it out. Jayjg | (Talk)</sup> 03:44, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Anon

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 (http://www.counterpunch.org/nguyen09202003.html). Would that be reasonable? Martin 01:02, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Intro change

The current intro has degraded since I last looked. I have restored an earlier version, with some modifications.

1. Lack of full stops. I split the sentence into two.
2. Lack of clarity on why she was in Gaza.
3. Apparently people are blaming "the Palestinians" for Corrie's death. If true, this would be a racist minority, akin to the equally racist minority who blame Corrie's death on "the Jews" or "the Israelis". I would prefer that the intro not pander to such extremists.
4. Speculation about why the death sparked controversy. I could offer alternate speculations. No such speculation should be in the intro. I have moved it to "Reactions to Corrie's death".
5. "standing or kneeling" - again, some info on WHY she was in that place, and less focus on her exact posture at the time. Changed to "attempted to block".
6. "clearing land" - is one of a number of reasons given for the bulldozer's location by various authorities at various times. It's also alleged it was trying to demolish houses, for example. I settled for "conducting military operations". I pondered removing any reference to the reason it was there, but figured that would be as bad as removing any reference to why Corrie was there.

I hope this explains my change. Martin 23:47, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hi Martin, I like your new intro. The problem with this article is that it was changed by a user called HistoryBuffEr and I don't know how extensively because I haven't checked the entire edit history but enough, it seems, to have made a POV difference. When I saw it a couple of weeks ago it was horribly POV, and so I did a slight rewrite of the existing page, when really I should have gone into the history and reverted to a much earlier one, or used an earlier one as a base. I was intending to do that once I've finished a couple of other things I have to do, and in fact last night I went through a lot of the edit history and saw your previous versions, which are much more straightforward and factual. What I was trying to avoid in the intro is "was run over by" because it's not clear that anything ran her over. At one point I had "an incident with a bulldozer," which didn't work, and after many changes, we ended up with "standing or kneeling in front of a moving bulldozer," which is accurate but sounds fake. SlimVirgin 00:06, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, Slim.

I'm just looking through changes between the last version I edited, and the current version. I think there's been a fair few good changes, but also a few which I'm not so keen on. I also need to check through the Talk page a little. :) Martin 00:16, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think your changes are reasonable Martin, and perhaps they can defuse the argument about the exact wording of the opening paragraph. Slim, I think the article could still use a good NPOVing, particularly around the sections which describe her death; as you know, HistoryBuffEr's version relied on only one of the many eyewitness accounts. Jayjg | (Talk)</sup> 00:19, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"activities in Gaza" change

• 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)

structural problem

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)

I've had a tentative first split, which has thrown into sharp contrast that we appear to have nothing on her proper funeral, or the Olympia peace vigil - only on stuff in Gaza. Dang. Martin 01:30, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Response to changes

Hi Martin, here are my thoughts on your changes:

• I prefer your intro.
• I like the way you've restructured it.
• I don't like the bullet points regarding her activities in Gaza. That was the first thing I got rid of, and I intended to go back into the article and rewrite that section. This is about the death of Rachel Corrie, not her life, so we should probably stick to issues directly related to her death. With this list of activities, particularly if it's bulleted, she sounds as though she was almost on an official mission; and there's no third-party source to confirm that she did these things.
• I don't like the description of her mother as a school volunteer and flutist. School volunteer means she doesn't work for a living, but flutist/flautist suggests she's a professional, so it shouldn't come second; and if she's not a professional, it shouldn't be mentioned. She's not the subject of the story; talking about her hobbies or interests starts to look POV.
• I don't like including what Corrie had studied the year before her death; that has no relevance that I can see, and there's no reference given.
• I was going to rewrite the Joseph Smith statement to include some quotes from him, but not his entire description. I looked recently at the edit history and found some good descriptions of what happened based on his and the other eyewitness statements, but written in the third person. I agree with Jayjg that some of the other eyewitness statements need to be brought in. I only worked on the Joseph Smith one because I inherited it from the HistoryBuffEr version, except he had made it even more POV by interspersing it with links from electonric intifada and others, so I cut the extra stuff out and pared it down to the Smith statement, but I didn't intend it to stay that way.

Anyway, these are just my rough thoughts. SlimVirgin 05:23, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)

Martin, I'd like to make some changes to the article based on the issues I raised above. Let me know if you have any objection. SlimVirgin 10:36, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

I don’t see why the article must not contain any information about her life. She was a student, and the names of her courses seem reasonable and harmless data. They are verbatim from an address by an Evergreen professor, near the end of this link [19] (http://www.furnitureforthepeople.com/rachel.htm). Meggar 06:42, 2005 Jan 15 (UTC)

This is about the death of Rachel Corrie, not her life

I disagree. I believe that the section entitled "Corrie's death", and later sections, are about Corrie's death. The other sections are about her life.

there's no third-party source to confirm that she did these things.

There are photographs, which are hard to fake. There are contemperaneous emails and reports from Corrie, and from the ISM. There are the recollections of Palestinians on the ground. On a more general note, we know that she was an ISM member. We know that the things she reported doing (and the ISM reported her doing) are precisely the sort of things that ISM members do. For example, various journalists have accompanied the ISM during their activities, including some who met Corrie in person. Meanwhile, IDF sources indicate that they regularly got/get interference in their military operations from the ISM, which is why ISM members are arrested and deported where possible.

Does that answer your question? Martin 14:19, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I would like to get rid of the bullet points because this is not a press release; describe the statements of Joseph and the other eyewitnesses, not just pick out one then recount it verbatim; and I don't agree that this article is about her life, because had she not died, no one would have written about her. I had the same problem when I wrote Jeremiah Duggan, another young person who died in controversial circumstances, and I had to be careful not to "personalize" him too much: it's POV without meaning to be, because unfair to the other "side" in the controversy. SlimVirgin 16:58, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)

Many authors have articles only because they have written books, but it seems reasonable to me to include a potted biography of an author's life in their article, not just information on their books. Similarly, Corrie is notable for her death, but I think it's appropriate to include information from her earlier life. I also think such information is interesting. Reading about an author, I wonder what in his life influenced his cynical approach to politics. Reading about an activist, I wonder what in her life influenced her to put her life at risk.

I can agree there is a danger in including personal information that is uninteresting, simply because we have it. I can also agree there is a danger of sentimentalisation, which would be expressing a Point Of View. If we steer clear of those dangers, I don't think personal information should cause a problem.

I can't tell who wrote this comment. I agree, but this article includes irrelevant and uninteresting info, like her mother playing the flute in her spare time. It's silly to include information like that, and it makes the article read like a press release. SlimVirgin 23:53, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

describe the statements of Joseph and the other eyewitnesses, not just pick out one then recount it verbatim

I absolutely agree with that sentiment. Are you referring to the current section entitled "Corrie's death"? Martin 13:07, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes. It relies very heavily on a re-write by the user HistoryBuffEr, who was banned, among other things, for POV editing. He preferred one particular eyewitness version of the events because it was the one which was most negative about Israel. Regarding what influence Corrie to put her life at risk, I doubt she thought her life was at risk; activists in Israel are quite bold, but you don't find them going to Sudan or similar places, where their lives would truly be at risk. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:30, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Mother Jones Article

Since the Mother Jones article is relied on so heavily by some, in the interests of NPOV the ISM response to that article should also be included:

http://tron.phpwebhosting.com/~ism/pressreleases/PR_16Sep03_12_08_24BethlehemISMMediaOffice.php