Talk:Rachel Corrie
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)
Later, as a group of people gathered, a Palestinian man was shot and killed by the IDF.
President Bush gave an ultimatum to the leadership of Iraq today. Later, I ate some pasta with grated cheese. Seriously, that sentence seems awkward and unrelated to the article. Perhaps if we could find the reason why the Palestinian man was shot, we could find a reason for it to be in the article. -- cprompt 05:53 Mar 18, 2003 (UTC)
Well they ran her over, then as people gathered to say, "What the gvdl is wrong with the Israeli military" they opened fire on the crowd. So it does seem related. Susan Mason
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)
Moved from the article:
- Later, as a group of people gathered in the vicinity, a Palestinian man was shot and killed by the IDF.
Is this the same man described in the news account below?
- "Undercover troops surrounded the four-story home of Mohammed Saafen, 34, a leader of the militant Islamic Jihad group in central Gaza. Saafen's relatives came out of the house, but the fugitive (news - Y! TV) barricaded himself inside and shot at soldiers, drawing return fire." [2]
If it's not the same man, please provide some context for the statement, and then put that statement back into the article. --Uncle Ed
I agree with Uncle Ed - this article _badly_ needs some NPOV'ing and ASAP!
PMelvilleAustin 18:08 Mar 18, 2003 (UTC)
To answer my own question (above), it would seem that whoever the man was, it was in a separete incident. Please follow this link, which I got from the user:RachelCorrie page.
- 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)
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 Susan. -◈¡◈
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
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. -豎眩sv
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. -豎眩sv
According to RK, "This stupid idiot jumped in front of a moving bulldozer". So much for non-violent resistance, eh? --24.199.73.209
- Please sign your comments on talk pages (I did it for you this time). Also, talk pages are intended for discussion on how to improve articles. I don't see how your regurgitating something RK said somewhere adds anything of value. Also, you have replaced normal quotation marks in the article with a long string of characters which seem to have the same effect - this is confusing. Maybe you want to have a look at Welcome, newcomers. --snoyes 03:11 Mar 19, 2003 (UTC)
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
- [HERE ARE SOME PICTURES--SHE WAS CLEARLY VISIBLE TO THE DRIVER http://italy.indymedia.org/news/2003/03/209185.php]
Moved from article. -- Ams80 14:37 Mar 19, 2003 (UTC)
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)
- Ams80 (first foreign protester to be killed -> first foreign protester to die)
The two statements are not equivalent. Rachel may have been killed accidentally or killed deliberately, but she definately was killed. Dieing is a wider category - one can "die of old age" without being killed by anyone or anything in particular. That's my feeling anyway. Martin