Talk:Rachel Corrie

picture content

Do we really need three pictures in a six-paragraph article? -- Zoe

Does it really bother you that much? All 3 pics have a purpose, one shows her normally, one shows her in uniform, and one shows her just before the bulldozer ran her over. Susan Mason (paraphrased)

Why do we have zero photos for people murdered by Hamas, Hizbollah and Islamic Jihad terrorists? RK (paraphrased)

I agree that 3 photos are not necessary. You are of course free to start and add pictures to articles on individuals killed by Hamas, etc. --snoyes (paraphrased)

A style like that of sheep might help here. Martin

BigFatBuddha: Do you really think that so many images are necessary? It was my impression from the consensus above that even 3 were too many. --snoyes 19:26 Mar 18, 2003 (UTC)

There are probably too many images, or at least consensus that there are too many images. There isn't consensus on which of the images should be removed. I find the post-incident image distasteful, but have left it out of respect to the poster. -◈¡◈

We've now gone from 3 pictures to 5 pictures. This is really out of hand. This has turned into propaganda. We have fewer pictures, paragraphs, and people working on articles about people who actually made a difference in the world. -- Zoe

Its not propaganda, Zoe.. its overdone, perhaps.. but at least Buddha did a good job of presenting them all on the page with appropriate captions... Id say leave alone. More is sometimes ok. -豎&#30505sv

I don't think there are too many photos. There are far fewer pictures in Wikipedia compared with other places on the web, which in my opinion makes it seem dry and dull. GrahamN 01:22 Mar 24, 2003 (UTC)

I think the number and selection of pictures is entirely reasonable. I like having GFDL'd pictures in the wikipedia - make it more colorfull. It also avoids a number of NPOV issues - was Rachel's jacket red? or bright red? We avoid having to worry about such things, by having a picture to allow the reader to judge for hirself. Martin

People here may be interested to know: someone has listed Images of Rachel Corrie (the "alternate images" link on this page) on wikipedia:votes for deletion because it is "POV propoganda". :-( Martin

A seperate incident that day, in which a Palestinian man died, was considered not relevant, and removed.

This article doesn't make sense, 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. Also, could you cite a reference for her shouting 'my back is broken'? I've done some searching and can find nothing about it. I find it quite hard to believe that from beneath a pile of sand and over the noise of a bulldozer she could be heard shouting.

I think there's a reason that, for example, the BBC don't go into the details of her death [1], namely that seperating truth from propaganda hasn't yet been possible. There isn't any concensus amongst news sites as to how she exactly died so I don't think that if we're supposed to be presenting fact that we should yet have details of how she died. -- Ams80 12:16 Mar 18, 2003 (UTC)

Both passages are from official statements by the International Solidarity Movement. She was not heard saying "My back is broken" from beneath the rubble, but after they dug her out of the rubble. Susan Mason

Each of us is entitled to give our opinions on this talk page. Some may blame Israel, calling the killing "unacceptable behavior", while others may blame the girl. The article should take neither point of view, but just tell what happened. Let each reader form their own moral evaluation.

Also, it might be interesting to explain why that bulldozer was operating in that area. And the Arab who got shot, was that the guy who resisted arrest by Israeli troops and then opened fire on them his rooftop, or am I confusing that with another recent incident? There's so much violence in the region that it's easy to portray one side or another as the "bad guys", merely by carefully and quietly concealing their motives.

For example, "NYC police shot another black man today." Was it a summary execution, a botched arrest, a racial profiling incident, or did the suspect himself shoot at police first? Or what? Without providing the background, it can mislead people. Which is why propagandists generally omit the background on purpose.

I don't want the Wikipedia to be used for propaganda:

to support my own causes, or
to support causes I oppose

It should remain neutral, or else partisans will destroy it.

Let's just describe what each side thinks, and why -- while also presenting whatever facts are not in dispute. --Uncle Ed

Wow, that statement is quite astonishing considering the POV changes you just made to the article: Your summary: "shifting some of the implied responsibility from the bulldozer operater to the girl" - I thought we were not here to blame people - just to report the facts. Your summary: "Moved 2 out-of-place sentences. Are they better placed now, or?" Infact you only moved one sentence and deleted the other. --snoyes 18:13 Mar 18, 2003 (UTC)

I agree with Uncle Ed - this article _badly_ needs some NPOV'ing and ASAP!

PMelvilleAustin 18:08 Mar 18, 2003 (UTC)

Ed, PMelville - are you happy with the current explanation of why the bulldozers were in the area? Martin 21:47 Mar 27, 2003 (UTC)

Did the IDF offer medical aid?

The IDF did not offer any medical aid to Corrie.

Is there backup for this? Refusing to offer medical aid to a wounded civilian is a serious matter -- possibly even a criminal offense. This statement should be attributed to someone (even a partisan advocate), or else removed. --Uncle Ed

I quote from the first external link (Haaretz Newspaper):

"According to the activists, the tank arrived on the scene and was only 20 meters away, but the soldiers did not offer any assistance. A little while later, the heavy equipment pulled away, and a Red Crescent ambulance took the badly injured woman to Abu Yusef Najar Hospital in Rafah, where she was declared dead on arrival."

It also seems clear that they did not offer any help if you consider:

Time 1: Person is severely injured by IDF bulldozer
Time 2: (A little while later) a Red Crescent ambulance takes person away.

There is no evidence of the IDF offering any assistance between times 1 & 2. Of course it is not clear how long the time between 1 & 2 was, but if you consider media:Rachelcorrie05.jpg then one could infer that the IDF had an opportunity to help, but neglected to do so. --snoyes 18:56 Mar 18, 2003 (UTC)

To Snoyes: Thank you, I guess we can say:

Activists said that Israeli soldiers did not offer any assistance.

That sentence is properly attributed.

I'd also like to hear from the IDF why they didn't offer assistance, or even that they offered assistance but it was refused, or they they tried to get close but were stoned, or that they were the ones that called the ambulance. Anything but stony-faced automatons grimly watching as a beautiful blonde perishes in the rubble. --Uncle Ed

Just a minor quibble I just corrected, I really don't see how the bulldozers could be expected to offer aid; I've changed it to say "the operators of the military bulldozers" for now, but I don't really know if it was operators, commanders, or who. But it's certainly better than it was. -- JohnOwens 17:49 Mar 21, 2003 (UTC)

I suspect that the reason the IDF didn't offer aid is that, with tensions in the region being high, and having just run someone over, they feared for their own safety if they left their vehicles. Withdrawing to let the Palestinian ambulance pursue its work unfettered was probably the best they could do. That's pure speculation, though. Martin

In one of my edits, I removed the assertion that the IDF didn't offer aid, and instead simply stated some facts: 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. 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.

Anyway, Israeli laws governing negligence are probably different than those of America. I am more familiar with the latter. --Uncle Ed

Cuttin' in: Thats right, here it's murdah, over there its just a'killin. -豎&#30505sv

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. Martin

Here's the actual communique: [2] - 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 ◈¡◈

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. -◈¡◈

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:

copyright material removed - see below
Source of expose article on the Rachel Corrie incident (Jewish World Review)

The essence of the "expose" is that Image:RachelCorrie08.jpg was not taken immediately before the incident, but some time before. Which we knew. Note that the ISM website currently captions the photo "Rachel confronting one of the 2 bulldozers conducting home demolitions on the day she was killed". It looks like this is a Reuters-originated fog of war error. Martin

The fact that Corrie was there all day seems to indicate that the IDF knew she was there. Dietary Fiber

But she wasn't there all day, sahib, she had only come running to that specific house when her friends called her on the radio. She (and the others) had been in the area all day, but there hadn't been an extended standoff over this one house. -◈¡◈

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. -◈¡◈

*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

Why was this photo removed?

Image:Rachelcorrie01.jpg

Dietary Fiber

Because we don't have permission to use it under the GFDL. This is an open content encyclopedia - that means we should use open content photographs wherever possible. It's still at Images of Rachel Corrie, though. Martin

We have permission from the ISM to use everything on their site. Dietary Fiber

They've not granted us permission under the GFDL as far as I have been able to make out, and they've not (yet) responded to my request for email clarification. If you know better, please say. Preferably quote an email at me. Martin

Send an email to: Marissa McLaughlin [email protected]

Dietary Fiber

I have done. I've yet to receive a response (see Talk:Images of Rachel Corrie). Are you Marissa? Martin

No, but Marissa is aware that everything on the wiki is copyleft. Try to bear in mind the political affiliations of Rachel Corrie. These people do not have a problem with GFDL. Dietary Fiber

Cut from article:

In Rafah and elsewhere in the Palestinian territories, Corrie has been treated as a shahid or "martyr" - the first non-Arab to be treated in this way.

Ahem. Treated as a martyr by whom? Does this mean one or two obscure people said "that girl was a martyr"? Or that her friends in Solidarity International decided to label her "a martyr"?

And what does "the first non-Arab to be treated as...a martyr" mean? Joan of Arc wasn't an Arab.

Now don't get me wrong. I'm not saying this sentence shouldn't be in the article. But please recognize that such a sentence raises more questions than it answers.

Please tell us:

Who treated Rachel Corrie as a martyr?
In what sense is she the first "non-Arab martyr"?
Does this mean "martyr to the cause of establishing an independent, non-Jordanian Palestinian state", or what?

Then, please put the sentence back. --Uncle Ed 17:09 Apr 8, 2003 (UTC)

Good catch - I didn't realise that was unclear. Incidentally, this info is from ISM activists and various news sources (though generally "left wing" news sources, I should add). It's not been disputed by anyone, and I don't see that it serves either side of the confict in particular, so I felt confident enough to add it as fact.

Who: Palestinians in Rafah and elsewhere. All kinds - including unsavoury types (Hamas representatives, for example). In particular she got the "martyr photo" plastered on walls next to those of the Palestinians who've died (inc. sucide bombers, other people crushed by tanks or 'dozers', gunmen, victims of Israeli snipers, etc, etc). I could provide a list in the article, but I'm concerned that would be unbalanced. Perhaps an example would be best.
First non-Arab to be treated by Palestinians as a martyr to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. IIRC, it's been reported a few times, but potentially it might be hyperbole. At some point I'll have to check back through other foreigners killed in the conflict and do articles on them.
I'd prefer martyr to the conflict rather than your phrasing, because while Corrie did want to see a Palestinian state, she had other aims/causes as well, that were equally important.

I don't care how many pictures S.I. wants to upload of her, as long is the images don't get in the way of the text. I figure, put them at the bottom of the page. --Uncle Ed 22:33 Apr 8, 2003 (UTC)

S.I. ? Martin