Wikipedia

Talk:Rachel Corrie/Archive 3

< Talk:Rachel Corrie
Latest comment: 18 years ago by ArielSharon in topic Mother Jones Article
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 10

reliability of photo

Latest comment: 18 years ago56 comments8 people in discussion

The photo where she is standing with the loudspeaker has been questioned many times. [1] A look at the different shade shows that the photo is manipulated adn thus the whole role of the "eyewitness" is questioned:

  1. Corrie shade is to the right (sun at mid left of corrie) sun at 45 dgree angle
  2. Buldozer shade shows sun was at the Boldozer back but slightly to the right sun is very high (look at shade of piston falling on Bolduzer blade)
  3. building shade shows subn was higher than 45 degree
  4. man next to Corrie has no shade at all (and also he has no legs)

So I have my doubts if this photo (published by ISM) should be ussed here. Zeq 20:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

No conspiracy theories, please. If you have a good source for the above, please let us see it. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Sure Zeq 21:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
You've added another error: could you take "them" out of the kidnap section, please? SlimVirgin (talk) 04:26, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
sure.
Thank you. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 05:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Zeq's source for the claims about the photo is a activist site called "stoptheism". There is no way this is acceptable as a reliable source. --Zero 06:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. And even if this were a reliable and neutral source, an encyclopedia article is probably not the place for a recap of a long debate about whether or not a particular photograph is genuine, unless that single photo is of particular importance. If there is some legitimate doubt, either dump the photo or sum up the controversy in a single line. Gamaliel 06:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
The photo, as displayed on the International Solidarity Movement's and Electronic Intifada's own Web sites, is suspicious. The man next to Corrie not only seems to lack feet, he is standing in a very unusual position-- almost as if he is kicking a ball. Perhaps the best thing to do is to show the photo and say that it is allegedly a photomanipulated fake (or "it has been argued that it is a photomanipulated fake.") Bill 06:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Hm. This argument / allegation has been made pretty much exclusively by Bill, eg. on your omdurman.org website.--Joeboy 13:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)--Joeboy 13:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Now that I look properly, the information on the StopTheIsm website is virtually identical to what's on Bill's website, and contains various Bill catchphrases as seen eg. on his israpundit posts, such as "The ISM lied and Rachel died"[2]. This is exactly what the original research rule is about.--Joeboy 14:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
And, addressing the claim itself, the only one of the supposed discrepancies that could possibly be construed by a a reasonably person as suspicious is that there's a dark blob on the ground which, if it were Corrie's shadow, would be in the wrong place. This easily explained by the possibility that it isn't her shadow. Could the people trying to get this crap in wikipedia please go back to proving that Elvis is alive. --Joeboy 14:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Reuters and other news organizations have expressed the same concern and this is why the photos were later pulled back from their archive. Only stoptheISM web site still carry the story on the web but it is mentioned in the article itself.
As far as I know Reuters' problem was that they misrepresented the time frame of some photos. Is there a source for the suggestion that they thought there was any image manipulation? --Joeboy 13:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • If ISM is considered a source there is no reason StopTheISM will not be a source as well. This is the essence of NPOV to bring all POVs. If ISM and www.freepalestinecampaign.org can be a source for wikipedia a counter organization also can be. Zeq 06:30, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Zeq, I'd say neither should be used as a source, and I'm in fact going to go through this article and remove everything that depends entirely on ISM. As for freepalestinecampaign.org, we also shouldn't be using that. Can you point to what it's a source for? SlimVirgin (talk) 06:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Slim, The so-called "Eyewitnesses" are all ISM people. I think that without them there is no article but you can try. (BTW< if the oberver quote them it is still ISM word, newspaper are allowed to quote who ever they want as long as they prevent the liabel suit by quoting the source, even if the source lie)

Here is a list of sources used in this article that are as biased as StopTheISM:

ISM is the source for the photo I questioned. They further distributed it by they are clearly the source. If ISM material is removed the photo should go.

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

http://palestinechronicle.com/article.php?story=20030415073448759

http://www.freepalestinecampaign.org/Stranger%20article.htm


Zeq 07:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Don't use StopTheISM, and take out all ISM and freepalestinecampaign.org material. Bill 06:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

If Reuters wrote about this photo and these allegations, then use Reuters as a source. Gamaliel 07:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Reuters just took the photo of their web site. They did not want to admit they were foold. So there is no longer a record for it. We should take this photo out as well. It is clearly doctored. Zeq 07:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Unless you have any evidence for this interpretation of the action of Reuters, it is conjecture. Encyclopedia articles are not for the conjecture from individual editors or from unreliable, agenda-driven websites from either side. Unless there is some neutral, reliable source for the supposed debate about this photo, it should not be mentioned in the article. Gamaliel 07:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Zeq, the eyewitnesses are speaking in their own names, not in ISM's. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:16, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
No Slim, don't fall into that. They were them as part of the ISM. This is well established. They are ISM and so the photo was distributed by ISM. If we include their reports we should include material about the reliability of their reports. Zeq 07:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
I have added the following commentary about the photo; the statement simply says that its authenticity is a subject of controversy (i.e. there are conflicting points of views, neither of which are discussed). In terms of blocking the driver's vision, though, the photo speaks for itself. "The authenticity of the photo at the right [3] is a subject of controversy. If the picture is authentic, however, it shows that the bulldozer blade would have prevented the driver from seeing a person kneeling directly in front of it." Bill 07:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Zeq, the eyewitnesses were quoted by newspapers. We can use the newspapers as sources. What we shouldn't do is use any material (including eyewitness accounts) that relies entirely on ISM i.e. material that was posted only on the ISM website (or related websites). SlimVirgin (talk) 07:30, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't agree with this anlaysis but let's focus on the photo: The source for the photo was the ISM. If there is another source where this photos is available from (another reliable non agenda-based) source ? Zeq 07:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Zeq, you're perhaps getting the original source mixed up with our source. ISM may be the original source of the image, but if the Times of London published it, for example, we can use them as a source i.e. if they saw fit to publish it, it's okay for WP to do the same. See WP:V. So if reliable news organizations used this image, we can use it too. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:04, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Bill, your edit [4] is original research. If there is controversy, we have to cite a reputable source, and to say that it shows the driver could not have seen her is your own opinion. Again, you'd need to find a reliable source that says: "This photograph shows that the driver could not have seen her." SlimVirgin (talk) 07:33, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

This photo in question was taken 1-2 hours before her death according to the people who snapped it. In the caption of the photo on this page, it states :Picture taken between 3:00-4:00PM, 16 March 2003, Rafah, Occupied Gaza. Rachel Corrie (L) and Nick (R) oppose the potential destruction of this home (to the west of the Doctor's home where Rachel was killed). In the instance pictured, the bulldozer did not stop and Rachel was pinned between the scooped earth and the fence behind her. On this occasion, the driver stopped before seriously injuring her. Photo by Joseph Smith (ISM Handout). So this picture is NOT of the incident that killed her, the bulldozer DID stop (for whatever reason; maybe the driver saw her, maybe not). Using this picture as a source for propagating conspiracy theories when it is not of the incident that is relevant is pure original research. Ramallite (talk) 08:03, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

That's odd, because another eyewitness statement said it was someone else who was pinned up against the fence, but this other eyewitness didn't mention it had happened to Corrie. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
If we took this photo from Times of London this is a copyright violation. In any case the source for the photos is "ISM handout" and the person who took it is ISM "Joseph Smith" (who later apeared as "Joe Carr) and also made staments how her death served the cause. In short, we now know more than was known on March 18, 2003 and if the ISM words are used so should the analasys of stoptheISM. In fact StoptheISM seem less biased source. ISM has a clear agenda against Israel and stoptheISM has an agenda against a source that is controversial (at best) Zeq 08:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Zeq, you missed my point. If the Times of London, NY Times, WPost, whoever, saw fit to publish it, then it's okay for us to publish it too, no matter where it originated from. Remember: we publish what reliable sources publish. End of story. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, to clarify: the key question is whether reliable sources did publish this image. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Many published it but it is hard to recover this information on-line. The subscription archives I have access to only record text. However, you can still see it at the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, the Seattle Weekly, and some other newspapers and magazines. (Search in images.google.com to find them.)
  1. did they ? does any one has the source ?
  2. Reuters removed it so now we should undertand that what may have ben publishjed on march 18, 2003 when it was hot news is now found as a fake. The LA times published a photo known as fake, the NY times did - those publication does not make the photo to be true. France 2 published that Muhamad al-Dura was killed by Israel , CBS published the Bush letter (and was exposed by a blog) - we can not ignore StopThe ISM analysis that is looking at us straight in the face. Zeq 08:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Comparing a large organization with named members like ISM to a web site set up by unknown persons for the sole purpose of attacking ISM is preposterous. It is obvious that "stoptheism" falls well below the respectability standards we require. The ISM on the other hand played a central role in the story on this page and their claims (which should be presented as "claims" if they are at all controversial) are essential to the story. I am standing in front of the bulldozer... --Zero 13:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Zero, ISM is as poor a source as StoptheISM. Little is known about either organization and how (or whether) they check their facts. We publish ISM activist statements only if these have been published by mainstream news organizations or in published books. If there's anything in this article that appeared only on an ISM website, it should be removed. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
The Stop The ISM website was set up by Lee Kaplan[5], with, I think, some collaboration from User:Bill_Levinson.

The following is Original Research, please stop reading immediately. To tell the truth, I have always been uneasy about this photo because of that shadow. However, since I make photo-composites myself for a hobby and have the necessary professional software, I spent a few hours examining it. I used the largest version I could find [6]. Now I can say that I am pretty convinced it is real and that the alleged disproof doesn't hold water. Corrie and the man have no visible feet because they are standing behind a slight ridge in the ground. Corrie's "shadow in the wrong place" is not a shadow at all but a patch of darker vegetation. Corrie's real shadow is faintly visible passing just on the far side of the man. The man's shadow (which supposedly doesn't exist) is in fact easily visible on the ground pointing away from Corrie. You can see shadows stretching out from both his legs that join together shortly before the edge of the photo. The angle from the place the shadows join to the crotch of his jeans matches the angle of the shadow of the bulldozer's hydraulic cylinder to within a few degrees. However, the most telling thing is the boundary between the background and the two figures which are supposedly pasted in. It is very difficult to get that boundary realistic enough that the deception can't be detected when the colors are measured pixel by pixel. The boundaries on this image seem to be perfect. This doesn't prove there was no pasting, but it proves that any pasting was done by someone quite skilled. Now we have to believe that someone with those skills put Corrie's shadow in an obviously wrong place by a very strange method (the blue and red components are darkened but the green is not - this is characteristic of dark vegetation and not characteristic of shadows), and pasted in a man without feet. --Zero 13:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

If anyone is still interested, I have posted a 600 DPI version of the photo here: http://ia310137.us.archive.org/1/items/Rachel_Corrie__The_Photo_They_Claim_Is_Doctored/RachelRafah.jpg Mgaines

Size does matter

While the size of ISM as "large" Vs StopThe ISM as "small" really does not matter anything the size of the photo does. Zero OR is not only OR but is also a conculsion that no one can reach looking at a photo with size of 325x480. I wonder if ISM can produce the original image ?

Zeq 15:26, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the size of StopTheIsm, surely it matters if an 'organisation' only consists of one or two people, otherwise wikipedia's original research rule becomes meaningless. Anyone would be able to set up a site and 'report' it on wikipedia. Which is pretty much what's happening with this photo claim.--Joeboy 15:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
And, for what it's worth, I do photo manipulation as part of my work (web designer / developer) and I agree with Zero that adding people / objects onto such a complex background is *very* difficult. It's also hard to see what possible motive there could be for doing so, as the photo doesn't actually show anything that's disputed by anyone.--Joeboy 16:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

For info, there's a previous discussion Bill and I have had about this here[7]

JoeBoy  : It would have been complex (but still possible) if there were details in this photo but at the size of 329x479 no one can blow up the photo and see problems. So Zero OR (and yours) does not hold water) Zeq 16:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
The theory, as presented by Bill, is that the Bulldozer was photoshopped onto the photo. That would be extremely difficult to do at all convincingly at any resolution. Also, I ask again, why would the ISM (or whoever) put a lot of effort into doctoring a photo, and risk getting caught doing so, when the resulting photo contains no disputed information?--Joeboy 16:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Could be many reasons, such as that Bolduzers indeed never came clos to homes that day and defnding brush clearling is not the same as "protecting home from demolitions". Zeq 17:26, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
And, I must reemphasize, is not of the accident itself? That happened later, elsewhere. Ramallite (talk) 17:06, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes far from homes (from the video I have seen on Ch.2) Zeq 17:27, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
If we're going to get into the photo conspiracy theory, we need to find a reliable source other than StoptheISM. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Here are few sources :


and few more (not all may be suitable for wikipedia but let's not forget that it was ablog that exposed CBS fabiracted document about Bush):

More than the photos (that at first were distributed by Reuters who got them from ISM media office) we need to ask ourself about the source: "Joseph Smith" or may it is "Joe Carr" (they are the same person) - such an individual can not be a source for Wikipedia article. If he can surly StopThe ISM is as good source as Joe carr. Zeq 19:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

If StopTheISM had been eyewitnesses to Corrie's death then their testimony would be equally valid.--Joeboy 19:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Only if the testimony was published by a reliable source. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Zeq, I only looked at one of the sources your provided, the Mother Jones article. It doesn't mention anything about this photo conspiracy. Which of these sources explicitly mentions it? SlimVirgin (talk) 19:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Most of them talk about the problem in the caption in the photos delivered to Reuters.
And JoeBoy: I don't see anything in Wikipedia sources policy about being an eyewitness. Zeq 19:30, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi folks. I'm sort of new to WP but I did my best to update the Joe Carr entry (Thank-you SlimVirgin for coming by to help.) I actually know Joe Smith/Carr - but I too have a hard time 'proving' he is the same person. The photo I plugged in is taken from a website where he is interviewed and calls himself Joe Carr. A photo from an article on electronic intifada shows a person by the name of Joe Smith. It's pretty clear it is the same person, but I challenge anyone to come up with better proof than an article written by David Horowitz's buddy Lee Kaplan. TroiS6 05:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
It does seem to be the same person. Thanks for the work you put in, TroiS6. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Zeq mentions the Mother Jones article: I have read criticism of that article that parts of it were plagiarized, and would caution using it as a reliable source. TroiS6 05:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Another Original reaserch argument Zeq 10:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Here and here appear to be pages on Joe Carr's site in which he calls himself Joe Smith. Actually, having known some anachists myself, I'm not too surprised. Using different names is an act of rebellion against the state control apparatus and thus a good thing for an anarchist to do. (I'm only guessing that this is his reason.) From the pages I linked to, you can see he doesn't hide the fact that he uses two names. I don't see much relevance to Rachel Corrie. --Zerotalk 09:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

He may have not noticed when he pasted his old e-mail to his new web site. a very unreliable source. Zeq 10:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
That's is very funny Zeq! TroiS6 20:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Source for George Rishmawi quote about getting "internationals" shot or killed

Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

SlimVirgin requested the original San Francisco Chronicle reference in which ISM leader George Rishmawi is quoted as saying this. It is here [8] and, if the link some day becomes unavailable, the citation is "S.F. Jewish activist held as security threat in Israel/ Social worker appeals deportation order -- colleagues tie it to crackdown on protesters" by Matthew Kalman, Teresa Castle, Chronicle Foreign Service. San Francisco Chronicle, Wednesday, July 14, 2004

The exact quotation is "'When Palestinians get shot by Israeli soldiers, no one is interested anymore,' [George] Rishmawi said. 'But if some of these foreign volunteers get shot or even killed, then the international media will sit up and take notice.'" Bill

Thanks for finding that, Bill. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

You need to read the article header more carefully. It was printed in July 2004, but the correction at the beginning of the article states: Statements attributed to Rishmawi were accurate, but the article should have noted that the interview with him was about 18 months ago.. 18 months before 7/04 is Jan-Feb of 2003, before Corrie was killed. This is something (his statement) I also read elsewhere but can't remember now, but it was definitely before her death. In fact, her name is not mentioned in the article even once. So to state that "The ISM also pointed out how the death of an "international" like Corrie helps its cause" is dishonest, because Corrie was alive at the time of his statements, and he never said that death "helps the cause" of ISM. Let's keep our standards consistent, please, and not apply vigorous vetting of sources selectively. Ramallite (talk) 07:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Ramallite brings good source and has a valid point. Zeq 08:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

corrie's name used as tool by protestors

I saw protestors at a CAT location the other day while travling on business. I am appalled that I see Palestinian scarfs on those protestors - these are the people who danced in the street with joy on 9/11 - and they want me to think they have real sympathy for a dead American girl? Rachel Corrie is dead because she was protecting a house which was being used by anti-Israeli terrorists. To blame that on the bulldozer is just plain dumb. Go to www.frontpagemag.com [9] and see the truth about Rachel Corrie.

Intro

Latest comment: 18 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion

Zeq, can I ask you please to leave the intro as it is? If you POV it in one direction, it'll have to be POV-ed in the other too, and it'll become too long and detailed. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

(copied from SV's talk page) Hi Slim, To the best of my memory the IDF never claimed what is now written in the article. They were not at all targeting the house for demolition (at least not that day)
I have seen what was broadcsted in Israel Ch 2 : video from a remote IDF camera that was on a lookup post in Philadlphi corideor about 100 meters away. The camera zoomed in on the D-9 about 1-2 seconds after rachel was hit.
The location was a rather open area, at least 20-30 meters or more from the row of buildings. IDF claimed that they were clearing brush not doing any demolition.
A bedouin officer who was in charge of directing the D-9 clearly said in TV inteview that earlier that day he tried to direct the D-9 but because sniper fire he was forced to enter his vehicle. If we are to report the IDF claims we should do it accuratly. I am sure IDF also changed their version few times (they always do, as they did in the Tom Hurndall case maybe 5 times) but what I wrote was their original claims they made. best, Zeq 18:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Zeq, I copied this here so that others can join in. What you say about the Bedouin officer is relevant if you can source it. I take your point about the demolitions. The intro as it currently stands is poorly worded in that regard, so I'll tweak it. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
I find the new intro problematic, and I'd like to return to the old one, which was:
Rachel Corrie (April 10, 1979–March 16, 2003) was a member of the International Solidarity Movement (ISM) who traveled as an activist to the Gaza Strip during the Al-Aqsa Intifada. She was killed in Rafah when she tried to obstruct an Israel Defense Forces (IDF) Caterpillar D9 bulldozer operating in an area designated by Israel as a security zone, adjacent to the Egyptian border. The circumstances of her death are disputed: the ISM and other eyewitnesses claim that the bulldozer driver deliberately ran over her twice, while the IDF claims that the bulldozer driver didn't see her and that the cause of death was falling debris pushed over by the bulldozer.
Problems with the new one (see below) are: (1) We say as a fact that it was a residential area of Rafah while only that the IDF had designated it as a security zone. In what sense was that immediate area "residential." How many people were living in it at the time? Photographs show Nasrallah's house as standing alone. (2) We say "the ISM and other eyewitnesses" as though there are any non-ISM eyewitnesses who say the same thing. (3) Do all the ISM eyewitnesses say they believe the driver deliberately ran over her twice? (4) Do they say she was actually trying to prevent a demolition? We know that no demolition occurred. We know that the IDF said none was going to occur. Do we know that any of the ISM activists believed that a (house) demolition was about to occur i.e. did they explicitly say that in their eyewitness accounts? SlimVirgin (talk) 19:19, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Rachel Corrie (April 10, 1979–March 16, 2003) was a member of the International Solidarity Movement (ISM) who traveled as an activist to the Gaza Strip during the Al-Aqsa Intifada. She was killed when she tried to obstruct an Israel Defense Forces (IDF) Caterpillar D9 bulldozer operating in a residential area of Rafah that the IDF had designated a security zone.
The circumstances of her death are disputed. The ISM and other eyewitnesses say that the driver of the bulldozer deliberately ran over her twice while she was trying to prevent demolitions. The IDF say that she was interfering with security operations designed to dismantle safehouses and tunnels used by Hamas and other groups for smuggling weapons from Egypt, that the bulldozer driver didn't see her, and that the cause of death was falling debris pushed over by the bulldozer.
I've tweaked it a little to make it clearer that there's no indication a demolition was underway, and to make it clear that only ISM witnesses say the driver did it deliberately, though we have to check that they did all, in fact, say that. It now reads:
The circumstances of her death are disputed. ISM eyewitnesses say that the driver of the bulldozer deliberately ran over her twice while she was trying to prevent what they say might have been a demolition. The IDF say the bulldozer driver did not see her; that the bulldozer was not engaged in a demolition; that Corrie was interfering with security operations designed to uncover tunnels used by Hamas and other groups for smuggling weapons from Egypt; and that the cause of death was falling debris pushed over by the bulldozer.
However, I still think the old intro was a lot better, as it didn't get into the business of whether a demolition was about to happen, and if so, what kind of demolition. This intro assumes prior knowledge on the part of the reader, and gets into the issue of motivation. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
I have twiked it a bit, if you feel strongly about it feel free to revert. I think the wikilinks and added info are important to capture what the sides claim. Zeq 20:47, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't want to waste a revert on this, Zeq. I'd appreciate it if you would revert yourself, because the intro is now unbalanced, you've introduced spelling errors, and the writing is not so good. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:54, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, Zeq. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the intro as it is currently written is problematic. It says:

The IDF say ... that Corrie was interfering with security operations designed to uncover tunnels used by Hamas and other groups for smuggling weapons from Egypt...

Steve Niva (PhD PhD political science, Columbia University] has said:

While no one disputes the existence of a small number of tunnels that funnel weapons to militants, Israeli security justifications for destroying Rafah in order to find these tunnels cannot be taken at face value. Nor can unsupportable claims that Corrie was defending tunnels and suicide bombers.
the Israeli army has never claimed that any tunnels were found under Dr. Samir Nasrallah's home, which Corrie was defending, nor any others in that area along the Egyptian border."

I propose this section be rewritten. An actual IDF statement should be cited, and Niva's statement should also be included in this intro section.

Policies 2

Latest comment: 18 years ago28 comments4 people in discussion

Because there seems to be some confusion about the issue of reliable sources, I've posted a section to the top of this page summarizing what our content policies say with regard to sources. See Talk:Rachel_Corrie#Policies. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 20:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Slim, Thanks for the clarification.

Please review this diff: [10] - If we can evaluate a published source like Perlmann surly we evaluate a private person like Carr who is know to change his name, give Reuters misleading captions for the photos. Given this, we should not be using quotes from such propaganda source on this article. The fact that some news paper quoted him (as he was one of the only few who were there during the event) is only a testimony to the fact that news papers will print anything, especially when no other sources are available. News papers care about one thing Libel suits. AS long as they bring his word in a quote they are protected from libel and therefore the responsibility for any lie pass to the quoted party. Therefore we can give it credibility just because he was quoted. Clearly the source for the photo is ISM media office and therefore the photos should be used. Let's apply the policies in a similar ways in all articles and toward all POVs. Zeq 13:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Zeq, I don't know the background to the Pearlman issue, but in general we don't evaluate our sources' sources. For example, if the NYT chooses to use a conman as a trusted source, we publish those stories and we make no comment on the dodginess of the conman, unless other mainstream newspapers comment on it, then we may publish their stories too. Please understand that we are a tertiary source. We publish what others have published. Period.
Also, it's not true that in putting libel in quotation marks, responsibility for the lie passes to the quoted party. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Of course it is true because what the paper claims is not "X have done Y" but the paper (true claim) is: " Mr. Z said that 'X have done y' ". so the only issue is did Mr. Z said it or not. Zeq 15:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • In this case, since we know that the real (original) source of the photo to be "ISM media Office" we should make a decision:
If we allow ISM propeganda material to be used in Wikipedia we should also allow material from StopTheISM organization.
Zeq 15:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I put the policy explanation up so that I can stop having to explain policy, Zeq. :-) What you say isn't correct. If I publish: "My friend Susan says Zeq (using your real name) steals money from his employer," it's actionable (assuming, depending on the jurisdiction, that it's false or that my grounds for believing it were poor), even if Susan did say it. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:51, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Zeq, please, does reading the policies make no difference to you? If a mainstream news organization uses StoptheISM as a source, we can publish that story. Otherwise, not. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

We are enjoined to only put into the article material from reliable sources. However, were are not given a definition of "reliable" that applies algorithmically to all sources. In that case we have to make a decision on the reliability of the source by looking at it carefully and discussing it. Pointing out that a source contains evident untruths or is based on sources that we agree to be unreliable is perfectly ok in the context of such a discussion. The only thing we are not allowed to do is to insert that analysis into the article. --Zerotalk 22:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
No, that isn't correct, Zero. What you believe is an evident untruth, others may find unproblematic. The whole point of WP:V is that we avoid that by setting the threshold for entry into Wikipedia as verifiability, not truth (in the words of the policy). If a reliable source publishes something relevant, we publish it too, even if some editors think it's false. Similarly, if an unreliable source publishes something certain editors believe is true, we don't publish it. We have no firm definition of "reliable source," so deciding whether a source is reliable is done by evaluating the extent to which they have a good fact-checking process, not by deciding whether what they say is true (in the opinion of some). SlimVirgin (talk) 23:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
But how do we "evaluat[e] the extent to which they have a good fact-checking process"? If I give you a book that I found in the library, how do you tell if it is reliable or not? You start by opening it and taking a look. If you see that it is mostly based on articles in Der Sturmer, you will decide that it is not reliable (I presume!). If you see that it is a book on astronomy that assumes the earth is flat, you will again decide that it is not reliable (correct me if I am wrong). Those two examples cover the bulk of what I wrote. As for "fact-checking process", I agree that is an important key but the difficulty is that many sources do not describe their fact-checking process in a way that lets us evaluate it directly. This is true of most web pages, many minor news sources, and quite a lot of books. We still have to decide whether they are reliable or not. Incidentally, look at the fourth point of section "Evaluating secondary sources" of WP:RS, it appears to disagree with you. --Zerotalk 00:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
How to judge whether a source has sufficient editorial oversight is usually a matter of common sense, and it depends on the article. A Wikipedia article on astromony would use scholarly books and articles. If one of them said the earth was flat, so would we. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
You keep adding this link [[11] but this is not a reliable source. It's a personal website that keeps changing its account of various events. It used to contain the original version of the kidnap, for example. WP:V and WP:RS say that personal websites may only be used as sources in articles about the subject. There is especially no need for the link here, because we have plenty of news sources. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Your explanation of why you think this source is unreliable appears to contradict your general statements about deciding reliability. Personally I like sources that are willing to admit errors and correct them; it shows integrity rather than unreliability. (That sentence to show how your reasoning is just your private opinion and not an objective application of the rules.) In fact this is a primary source published in a place associated with the authors, so the only real issue of reliability related to this statement (whether this is in fact a statement made by the Corrie parents) is covered. It is highly relevant to the topic, and your reading of the rules is pedantic and dubious. It is obviously correct to link to this statement, and we would even be entitled to quote from it (but I'm not planning to). Btw, I wonder if you noticed that this statement agrees almost 100% with Nasrallah and disagrees with ISM. --Zerotalk 00:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Zero, you're making no sense. It's not a question of being "willing to admit errors and correct them." If people who say they were eyewitnesses to something, say X on Monday but not-X on Tuesday, and then change the record so that no trace of X remains, they are unreliable. And you would not be able to quote from the Corries' personal website because it is contradicted by reliable, third-party sources. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
(a) The Corries' personal website is www.rachelcorrie.com. This statement appears on the website of a registered non-profit organization. It is not the Corries' personal website or in fact a personal website at all. (b) How do I verify that the statement changed? Who says that? I didn't see that. (c) Whose opinion is it that the change in the statement was significant? Sounds like OR to me. (d) Whose opinion is it that there was no reasonable explanation for the change? Sounds even more like OR to me. (e) Which "reliable, third-party sources" contradict this statement of the Corries? --Zerotalk 09:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
It is their personal website. It has no editorial oversight or fact-checking process. Personal websites or blogs are only allowed if they (a) belong to the person the article is about, or (b) are maintained by a known professional in a relevant field or a known professional journalist. I wish you would read the policies, Zero. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
It is not a personal website, it is a legally registered organization with a board of directors. Your claim about its editorial oversight or fact-checking process is just your unsupported allegation. Sorry, but I don't believe it. I note your lack of reply concerning your other claims, so they remain unsupported too. There is no policy that eliminates this source. --Zerotalk 01:11, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I am a student at the Evergreen State College in Olympia Washington where Rachel Corrie went to school. I did not know her and I do not really pay much attention to politics, but today I started surfing the internet to learn more about Rachel and I found Wikipedia's website. This morning I was listening to Democracy Now! and Rachel Corrie's mom and on of the people in London who wrote the play about her that you already have on your website. They were talking about how much misinformation there is on the internet about Rachel and how so many people in New York were afraid about protests that might happen if the play came there. Your website seems to be one of the places misinformation is coming from. It seems like the people who are in charge want to make her look very bad. You quote liberally from the Israel army people, as if they are trustworthy. They are an occupying army violating international laws. You have a picture of Rachel Corrie burning a cartoon flag, I guess because you think it makes her look bad. Conveniently there is a large propoganda machine to provide you with quotes and images so that you can then pretend in your chat board here to be neutral. Whoever is in charge of making decisions right now will sooner or later get tired of it or go get a job and then someone else like them will replace them so perhaps it is useless for me to even say anything. Maybe you should think about how all this work you are putting in to trash Rachel Corrie's reputation is also at the same timetrashing the reputation of Wikipedia. Any visitor to this website about Rachel Corrie will see immediately how if a few people have a political agenda they can put something to advance it on Wikipedia. - just visiting (unsigned comment)

Your inability to see that both the ISM version and the IDF version apear here is intersting. Does this looks like an IDF propeganda:

"ISM eyewitnesses say that the driver of the bulldozer deliberately ran over her twice while she was trying to prevent what they say might have been a demolition. "

Zeq 07:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about it, Zeq. He says here that he's Joe Carr/Joseph Smith. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not Joe Carr/Smith. I don't know him. Wikipedia's rabid supporters of Israel have a website for him already I see. It says he is from Olympia too. He must be nearby. We are both stealing someone elses wireless network apparently. Zeq|Zeq, that was a fast response so I will give you a fast one back. Then I am going to return to my life of real people, which doesn;t include Joe Carr but if I see him I'll tell him you say hi ;) . If you do a find on the Rachel Corrie Wikipedia website (Apple/F on a macintosh and I don't know about pcs) and search for the word occupation it doesn't come up once. If you search for the word illegal it comes up once but it is not in reference to Israels illegal occupation it is in reference to Rachel Corrie. Somehow Israel got the right to decide what is legal and illegal in a place that they don't belong. There isn't even a biblical reason for why they were in Gaza. They had no right to be there and the people who do have a right to be there didn't make any laws about it being illegal to try to stop doctors and small children from being killed by having their home demolished. It is understandable to quote what the Israel government says in response but you go on and on about a fake report like they issued. There is a television show in the US where a comedian reads fake news. He's very funny. Sorry to tell you this, but are not. - just visiting and now just leaving

Inconsistent application of policy

What makes you suppose that website has any fact-checking process or editorial oversight? This is exactly what I was arguing recently on Fred Bauder's talk page. If you don't like someone's POV, you argue that they're an unreliable source no matter how well qualified they are, but if you agree with them, they're a good source, no matter how unreliable or unqualified. So Mitchell Bard, with a PhD in political science from UCLA, 17 books published, including several about the Arab-Israeli conflict, director of the Jewish Virtual Library, and a former editor of the AIPAC's newsletter on U.S. policy in the Middle East, is not a reliable source, according to you, because you don't like him. But a website set by Rachel Corrie's parents counts as a citable source for you, because you want to use what they say.

As for my lack of reply about my other claims, I don't know what you're referring to. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Do you think I can't hurl the same accusations at you? Get your own house in order. If Mitchell Bard was an eye-witness to this event, I would definitely link to his account of it, even if it was on his personal web page. So would you. --Zerotalk 11:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure you can't "hurl the same accusations" at me, because I'm not that kind of editor. I doubt you'll find a single example of me rejecting material from a published author who writes, works, and holds a PhD in an area directly related to the subject matter. The only circumstance I can think of where I'd reject such a source would precisely be if he was involved in the publication on his personal website of contradictory accounts of something he supposedly eyewitnessed, and seemed to be in bed with an organization that made awkward facts disappear without trace from its website. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll focus here only on WP:V and WP:RS (and let other deal with WP:NPA]] if there is any).

Zero claimed: "It is not a personal website, it is a legally registered organization with a board of directors."

The "board" is mostly the Corrie family and other similar minded activists so not much of an "oversight" Zeq 11:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

The board seems to consist of the Corries; a local social worker who founded the Olympia Rafah Sister City Project; and a member of Ground Zero, a local anti-nuclear group. I wonder how much editorial oversight the latter two exercise over the Corries. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Zero, here's an interesting juxtaposition of the type of links you allow and disallow, depending on whether they fit your POV:

  • You removed a link to this article from the external links section in the article Palestinian people, on the grounds that, in your opinion, it is a "pack of lies." The article was written by Dr. Fred M. Gottheil, professor of economics at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, with a PhD in the subject, who teaches about the Israeli economy, and whose research focuses on the economics of the Middle East. His publications include Marx's Economic Predictions, Principles of Microeconomics, and Principles of Economics, as well as "Demographic and Economic Forces Underlying Likud's Perspective of the West Bank," in Israeli Politics in the 1990s (1991).
  • But you restored a link to this personal website, run by someone called Norman Ali Khalaf, a biology teacher from Bonn, to the external links section in the article on Jaffa, and you retained in the link description that it is an "official" city website, even though it clearly isn't, and the website itself says no such thing. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Slim, you hit the nail right on the head: "Inconsistent application of policy" is the issue. what you brought is just the tip of the iceberg. I wish Jimbo, ArbCom would notice this as well. Right now there is no mechanism in wikipedia to create a uniform application and enforcment of policies. Zeq 07:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Zero has apparently done precisely the sort of thing that got you, Zeq, in trouble, removing a reliable reference and adding a dubious one. I am not rendering an arbitration opinion here, just noting that a pattern of doing that is unacceptable. However, absent a request to do so we don't reopen cases or start new ones. And even if we do, we don't apply sanctions to isolated instances of poor behavior. Fred Bauder 16:33, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Mother Jones Article

Latest comment: 18 years ago31 comments6 people in discussion

I regurgitated this section from the archives. Owing to the information in Phan Nguyen's Counterpunch piece, and the fact that (as far as I see) none of this here WP Corrie page info (as it presently exists) is drawn from the Mother Jones article, make me think it should go down in the Further Reading section, not in the References section, and so I have reoriented it to there. I also added a link to Nguyen's piece. TroiS6 10:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Q to 63.199.241.125: Why does the fact that Phan Ngueyn supposedly being a coordinator of ISM need to be mentioned? The Mother Jones article is shoddy journalism, and it shouldn't matter what the bio is of whoever it is that is pointing this out. Ngueyn obviously has his own ideology, but the refutation is more than a simplistic subjective arguement. The cover story of this week's The Nation also challenges this article, calling it "a much disputed piece that relied heavily on right-wing sources". And that piece is written by a Jewish journalist who is not know for writing about Palestine/Israel. How about just taking the Mother Jones reference out? TroiS6 15:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
TroiS6, please don't make so many changes or remove material. Also, please read our editing policies before editing, because anything not in compliance with them will be reverted. They are WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:RS. And don't use expressions like "X pointed out ..." because that makes it sound as though WP agrees. Similarly don't write "X claimed," because then we're doubting it. Finally, the Mother Jones article is shoddy journalism in your view, but that's irrelevant. Don't remove reliable sources again. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Is the Mother Jones piece really "much disputed"? If so, by whom? As far as I can tell, it's only disputed by ISM activists and supporters, and Philip Weiss, the author of the article in The Nation. Jayjg (talk) 17:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
I've reread the article and tried to find a reliable source somewhere that says Phan Ngueyn "responded on behalf of ISM", and I can't. He wrote that article. It appeared on the Counterpunch website, and also in Counterpunch's print magazine. Those are verirfiable facts. Zeq's allegation above is not. TroiS6 18:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Per SlimVirgin's demand, I am busy reading WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:RS and am unwilling for that reason, and also because I think the article shouldn't be used, to fix the links to the Motherjones article which are presently broken.TroiS6 18:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for reading the policies, TroiS. It can take a few weeks of reading them and editing to really get the hang of how they work in practise, but in the meantime, the important ones regarding sources are WP:V and WP:RS. As for Ngueyn, it doesn't matter whether he was writing on behalf of ISM. His involvement with it is clearly relevant, and was almost certainly why Counterpunch published the piece. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Don't want to beat a dead horse, but I believe I as a I had not slept in a couple days when I wrote the rant about Nguyen and some other things on this talk page, what it is that I actually think should happen with this page. The section under "Visability" should either should not mention Hammer's mother Jones article, or if it is mentioned, it should be pointed out that this article has been challeneged by respected journalists. Alexander Cockburn, editor of Counterpunch and regular contributor to The Nation defended Ngueyn's piece in a column in The Nation. So there are at least two prominenent, established and respectable journalists who have had articles published in The Nation that take issue with The Mother Jones piece. Nguyen made a case that Hammer's article should not be taken seriously. Ngueyn is affilated with the ISM, and is not a well known writer, and his article appeared in a "muckraking" website, so perhaps it shouldn't be used on the Rachel Corrie WP page. Thinking more calmly now, I understand that logic better. Hammer is a well known journlist, and his article appeared in Mother Jones, which is also some what of a muckraking outfit (less than Counterpunch though) but the important thing is he is a reasonably well known respected journalist, and so ordinarily, his writing would qualify for this page. I understand that and agree. But the way the page is written now, there is no way for the reader to know that there are respected and established journalists who have read Hammer's piece and also critiques of Hammer's piece (Ngueyn's and perhaps others) and have come to the conclusion, and written about this in The Nation (which is a respected publication, and is the oldest news magazine in the United States). I don't agree with Hammer's article , but that's just my opinion. Nguyen's article itself is, perhaps, not citable. I don't think the Mother Jone's article should be cited either, at least not how it is at present. Hammer is quoted as saying the IDF video makes "a credible case" that the driver could not see Corrie. If the article is going to say that, then it should also say that Cockburn and Weiss say that Hammer's article itself is not credible. TroiS6 20:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Weiss didn't say that, so far as I can see. Please stop misrepresenting sources. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for posting before properly proofreading. My sentences are too long. I meant to say: "the way the page is written now, there is no way for the reader to know that there are respected and established journalists who have read Hammer's piece ... and have come to the conclusion that it is not credible, and written about this..."TroiS6 21:31, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
What are the names of the established journalists who have taken issue with Hammer's article, and what exactly (quoting them) did they say, with links, please? (This does not include Nguyen, who is a college librarian.) SlimVirgin (talk) 21:46, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Alexander Cockburn wrote in The Nation

the magazine Mother Jones ran a 7,000-word attack on Corrie and the International Solidarity Movement, which was convincingly demolished in CounterPunch by Pran Nguyen

Philip Weiss wrote, also in The Nation

"fall 2003 Mother Jones profile of Corrie," was "a much disputed piece that relied heavily on right-wing sources to paint her as a reckless naif."

TroiS6 22:28, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Not sure I'd count Cockburn as a respectable source, but even if you count him (and it's not clear whether you're quoting him, plus the link was subscription-only), that gives you only two, and Weiss just says "much disputed": he himself is not criticizing it. So, in fact, only one. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Weis's article can also be found [12] here. Cockburn absolutely should be considered a respectable source, particularly because The Nation chooses to let him write there. Regardless of of whether you associate him with Counterpunch. Blaint does afterall write for Frontpage, and as you yourself said, "Counterpunch and Frontpagemag are clearly two sides of the same coin".TroiS6 23:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Another reason why the Mother Jones article should not be used as a reference; The editors themselves issued a CORRECTION in the following issue:
"The Death of Rachel Corrie" incorrectly stated that a memorial service at which mourners were tear-gassed by an Israeli tank was sponsored by Yasser Arafat's Fatah Party. In fact, the service was sponsored by the International Solidarity Movement; Fatah had held a different memorial event for Corrie two days earlier.TroiS6 00:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
This is not a retraction of Hammer's statement about the video being credible - but it is a very serious factual error, that might to lead people to wonder, if Hammer could get that wrong, what else might he have gotten wrong as well?
It isn't a "very serious factual error," but one that has no bearing whatsoever on the thrust of the story, and they corrected it. Please stop this endless criticism of a reliable source. We're not going to remove it from the article. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Another way the Mother Jones article is disputed: In the article, Hammer says,
According to the Israeli army, as Corrie guarded the well, two D9 bulldozers, accompanied by a small tank, left their base along the Egyptian border at 1:17 p.m. and lumbered toward the no man's land surrounding Samir Nasrallah's home in Hai as-Salam. Israel says that the crew's assignment was to sweep the area for booby traps planted by militants
Steve Niva - who is arguably much more knowledgable about this subject than Hammer has said:
Israeli security justifications for destroying Rafah in order to find these tunnels cannot be taken at face value. Nor can unsupportable claims that Corrie was defending tunnels and suicide bombers ... the Israeli army has never claimed that any tunnels were found under Dr. Samir Nasrallah's home, which Corrie was defending, nor any others in that area along the Egyptian border."
So Niva also disputes the Mother Jones article. The article is, as Weiss said, much disputed. If you don't want to remove the Mother Jones quote from the article, then it should be pointed out that it is a disputed source by other reliable sources.TroiS6 00:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Let's not start dealing with Niva, although if anyone want to deal at leangth in the cheap prpoeganda methods he use I guess we can do it. In any case he dispute the Israeli army view (which is OK, many including my self dsipute them many times). Mother Jones usd the raw material from the video (which was also shown on israeli TV where i saw it) - this video is not disputed. Zeq 04:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, do please immediately, at your earlieast convenience, inform me why Mr. Steve Niva, PhD Columbia, who has apparently considered good enough to land jobs at American, Georgetown, and Evergreen State, all three very reputatble institutions ... please tell me why Mr. Niva's writing, which as far as I can tell qualifies as reliable, appears nowhere in WP's Rachel Corrie entry? I really, really want to know what you are talking about when you say "cheap prpoeganda methods", and I await your reply. Thankyou, TroiS6 20:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Give me a break, just becasue Niva got jobs at a few university's doesn't mean he cant be ridiculously bias, There are plenty of people who work at even more prestigious institutions and are just as bad.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 21:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll give you one example. In the Israeli-Palestinian conflict trying to look for reason, for cause and effect is an hopeless task. Both sides have many who have enough power to cause the process to go mad. But Niva, he finds reason in all that. Do you know how long it takes to prepare a suicide bombings. I don't. My guess is that it can be from few days to few weeks. Not only assembly of a bomb, convincing someone to kill himself, recording his video, brainwashing him so he does not give in the last minute, smuggling him into Israel, getting someone to deliver him right to the place where he would explode (this takes a support unit, usually made up of Israeli arabs) all this takes time. But Niva, he knows that if a suicide bombing took place after Israeli killed a terrorist leader, Niva, He knows the reason for the suicide bombings.

But what about the facts ?

Well, if the facts don't fit, let's massage the facts a bit. If just 3 out of 4 bombings had some Israli killing "before" than this is a theory with 75% success right ?

And what about the first ever suicide bombing ? Why don't blame the jews also. No matter than the first bombing took place in 1993 in Mehola Junction. Let's ignore that suicide bombings and say that the first boming took place in 1994 (as Niva does here: [13].)

The whole idea that in the crazy situation someone can come and say "Event X caused event Y" is a cheap propaganda. Do you want more ?

You know what it sounds like ?

Imagine someone does a very isolated event , something very rare like changing one's middle name and that person tries to explain why he did that> Under these circumstances one can say "I changed it to Name X because of event Y" and I would believe this person to tell the truth. But Niva tries to create order from the chaotic scene in the middle east – what does he think he is : Is he God ? He really can tell what caused what in the middle east conflict ?

What if the targeted killing is what caused Hamas to declare Hudna ?

Do you have any idea how many times people said that if Israel will kill Sheikh Yassin the middle east will burn ?

Well guess what, Yassin was killed and Rantisi too and the remaining hamas leaders declared a cease fire that is almost in effect for 1.5 years now. But I guess only Niva the genius knows what caused what. Well I don't. When I will be God I will know. Zeq 21:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

PS Not even israeli generals can know what caused what in this crazy situation. Maybe it was the killing of Hamas leader that brought Hamas to win the elections. I am sure that was not the Israeli generals intentions but thank God, we don't use them as relaible source for wikipedia either. We only use humans. Niva just too smart for us. Zeq 22:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

If you want him as a source maybe we should focus on the infulance, he as her teacher, has on Corrie young mind. Maybe if Corrie was furtunate not to meet Niva the God she would be alive today - did you ever thought about that ? Zeq 22:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Wow! You say, "to prepare a suicide bombings ... (this takes a support unit, usually made up of Israeli arabs) " How do you know this? Please don't immediately discount what I am saying. I think it's really quite amusing that you would site an article from Counterpunch. I would really like if you could direct me to a source that says "the first bombing took place in 1993 in Mehola Junction." If this indeed does contadict Niva's research about suicide bombings, I would like to send him an email and ask him why he says the first one was actually a different one, and when I get a response, I will let you know what he says (if you are interested). A lot of people make a lot of outlandish statements about how Israel, when they drop bombs on civilian neighborhoods and murder children (colateral damage, the US military would call it) and alleged leaders of Hamas and other factions (extrajudicial killing, human rights organizations call it) they are supposedly doing so "in response" to suicide bombings or other dispicable actions by members of militant Palestinian factions. Niva's research seems perfectly legitimate to me: he seems to be trying to disprove this dominant idea - that when Israel commits a gross human rights violation or does something that is a blatent violation of international law, they are "responding" and when someone who is part of a Palestinian faction that engages in active resistence to the occupation commits a gross human rights violation, they are "provoking" a "response". This discourse for the most part goes unchallenged in the US press, and makes it very difficult for academics to have any sort of analysis approaching what might be called neutral objectivity. You and other editors of the Rachel Corrie entry and other similarly controversal topics on wikipedia seem to have no problem citing sources that never attempt to challenge this discourse. Niva does, partly because of his backgroud (I understand he spent part of his childhood in East Jerusalem, where his father was a doctor) - just as the willingness of most academics engaged in research concerning Israel and the middle east do not attempt to challenge the dominant discourse is partly a result of their background. I recognize that no academic or journalist can ever be entirely objective; I also recognize Niva to be an outstanding scholar. Because his research attempts to challenge the hegemony of US and Israeli propoganda, his analysis is largely marginalized from the mainstream press. The fact that he is not entirely absent, that even though he takes on such a controversial subject as the one you speak of, and still manages to be published in mainstream outlets, I think is further proof of his excellence as a scholar, and further reason he should be cited. The Rachel Corrie entry would be more balanced if he were. Now another thing: you say "Yassin was killed and Rantisi too and the remaining hamas leaders declared a cease fire that is almost in effect for 1.5 years now." I didn't know there was ever a formal declaration of a cease fire. Was there? You also say "Maybe it was the killing of Hamas leader that brought Hamas to win the elections. I am sure that was not the Israeli generals intentions but thank God, we don't use them as relaible source for wikipedia." Oh really? The intro to the article says, "The IDF say the bulldozer driver did not see her; that the bulldozer was not engaged in a demolition; that Corrie was interfering with security operations designed to uncover tunnels used by Hamas and other groups for smuggling weapons from Egypt." Who says this exactly? Who says "Corrie was interfering with security operations designed to uncover tunnels used by Hamas and other groups"? This should be cited. Reilable source PhD Steve Niva says "Israeli security justifications for destroying Rafah in order to find these tunnels cannot be taken at face value. Nor can unsupportable claims that Corrie was defending tunnels and suicide bombers. The Israeli army has never claimed that any tunnels were found under Dr. Samir Nasrallah's home." If the article is really NPOV that should be cited too. Now I have kept original research out of this response up until now, but now I would like to say just one brief thing about this supposed cease fire. ETA, in Spain, recently declared a cease fire. Why? journalists have offered numerous conjectures as to why they have done this. Jane Walker, writing for Time, said "ETA has lost considerable support among the Basque people in recent years and the organization has been seriously weakened by close cooperation between the French and Spanish security forces." But does she or anyone else really know why they have issued a cease fire? No. I personally think it has more to do with the fact that after the horror of the Madrid train bombing, ETA realized that they were going to have to change tactics. I have long thought, as Steve Niva has also said, that the barbaric suicide bombings of Hamas and these other resistance groups is bad tactics. Perhaps they are starting to figure this out. Perhaps their decision to cease fire (if this is actually the case) has something to do with the fact that the new leaders, replacing the ones Israel has extra-judicially assassinated (again, in blatent violation of international law) are more media savvy, and recognize that blowing up innocent women and children on busses does not win them popularity points with the public of Israel nor the United States. TroiS6 23:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I love it when I hear someone state their is a gigantic conspiracy of powerful people that want to protect Israel and the only person that can stop their propaganda machine is one man, ONE MAN THAT HAS THE COURAGE TO SPEAK OUT! lol. I must admit I find it quite strange that if there are so few people that have the courage to speak out then why do we hear about how evil Israel is so often. Anyways, I know this is only the talk page but how bout we keep the propaganda down to a minimum.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 23:41, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

"why do we hear about how evil Israel is so often"? Largely because of anti-Semitism. Niva is not an anti-Semite. He is an outstanding scholar and deserves to be cited.TroiS6 23:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
What's wrong with suicide bombings is that they're "bad tactics"? You remind me of the delightful Tom Paulin. Anyway, as Moshe said, this is the talk page for the article, not for discussion of the Arab-Israeli conflict. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

To be continued on Troi talk page. Zeq 04:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

This is the last thing I will write on this page, I promise. I have been accused of being disruptive. I can see how this page is dominated by people who have been so indoctrinated with propoganda that they can't think staight anymore, and so I am going to go and resume my beautiful life and let you continue lying to yourselves about how objective you are, in peace. But first, I do believe it is important to respond to Zeq's lie above, about what Niva supposedly said. He asked:
what about the first ever suicide bombing ? ... No matter than the first bombing took place in 1993 in Mehola Junction. Let's ignore that suicide bombings and say that the first boming took place in 1994 (as Niva does here: [14].)
What Niva says, if you follow the link, which unfortunately most people reading this won't - and even if you do, (like Zeq apparently has, except he has sadly misread it and is misrepresenting what Niva said) is:
...the first Palestinian suicide bombing inside Israel on April 6, 1994 following the massacre of 29 Palestinians in Hebron's Ibrahimi Mosque by the American-Israeli settler Baruch Goldstein...
He says the first bombing INSIDE ISRAEL. Mehola isn't in Israel - it's a settlement. Sorry to inform you, but the West Bank is not "part of Israel". Zeq knows this, and that is why he adds
Let's ignore that suicide bombings and say that the first boming took place in 1994 ...The whole idea that in the crazy situation someone can come and say "Event X caused event Y" is a cheap propaganda. Do you want more ?
I can see you don't want anymore, and so I am leaving. I will leave you to your pathetic attempt to do what ever you think it is you are doing by propogating this fiction you claim is neutral objectivity. TroiS6 07:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


I know I wish I could learn to be as objective as you clearly are, it is truly unfortunate I am too indoctrinated with propaganda, and it is just sad that my indoctination forces me to think it is strange to lie about being personal friends with the Corries' and claim that the leader of ISM uses my personal computer.- ArielSharon 08:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
I formally request that somebody please ban me, TroiS6, (I am from Olympia you freakin moron) from wikipedia so that I do not feel compelled to respond to idiots like that last person. I promise not to create any other user names, and to stay away from idiots for at least three months, and that includes coming here to see what kind of stupid things ways people have of ignoring reality. ThanksTroiS6

ISM in Counterpunch

Latest comment: 18 years ago17 comments4 people in discussion

I've made the following invisible until we decide whether it's a reliable source within the terms of WP:V and WP:RS:

Criticizing Hammer's article, ISM activist Phan Nguyen wrote in Counterpunch that: "Hammer gives no indication that he has viewed the footage of his fellow Middle East journalists. However he admits to having viewed an Israeli propaganda video that was produced specifically to absolve the military of any responsiblity in Rachel Corrie's death. The video, along with a PowerPoint slideshow that was distributed to US Congress members, was produced prior to the conclusion of the Israeli investigation." [15]

Counterpunch is very much a borderline source. On the plus side, it is run by journalists. One the down side, it admits its aim is "muckraking": it says of itself "Ours is muckraking with a radical attitude and nothing makes us happier than when CounterPunch readers write in to say how useful they've found our newsletter in their battles against the war machine, big business and the rapers of nature."

It's the leftwing equivalent of Frontpagemag.com. Would we quote from Frontpagemag if the writer was involved with an organization we wouldn't use as a source?

I'd be happy using a mainstream or well-known writer who was published by Counterpunch, and I'd also be happy using an ISM activist who was published by a mainstream newspaper, but the combination of ISM and Counterpunch makes the source very borderline indeed. At one point in the Counterpunch piece, the activist accuses a named journalist of plagiarism, just about the worst accusation you can make against a journalist, and not one we could repeat. So if we're not able to use one part of it, I wonder whether we should be willing to use any of it.

It's also not clear what point the ISM activist is trying to make. Hammer says he watched the IDF video. Nguyen points out that the video was made before the IDF investigation was complete. But so what? The material in the video was part of their investigation, so it's kind of a silly point to make. Does anyone else have a view on whether this article should be quoted from? SlimVirgin (talk) 17:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

There are two aspects about the ISM article in counterpunch:
  • ISM was in panic after the motherjones article
  • counterpunch would allow almost anything to be published in order to attack any other left-wing publication.
Counterpunch want to "own" the extreme left wing media spot - this is a very capitalistic thing to do:-)
Zeq 17:37, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
I believe Counterpunch is a 'more' reliable source than Frontpage because they are more likely to be sued, because the United States courts, now much more conservative than they were ten or twenty years ago, are much more likely to rule against them. Frontpage is a right wing source, Counterpunch is left. Both these publications are based in the United States, and presently all branches of government are dominated by iindividuals more likely to find favorable what Frontpage has to say than what Counterpunch has to say. If a lie or untrue statement is told in either publication, Counterpunch is more likely to pay consequences. TroiS6 17:52, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Wow, that's an amazingly conspiratorial bit of analysis. You don't have to be involved in a branch of government to sue someone; in the United States lawsuits are launched at the drop of a pen. Jayjg (talk) 17:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
You have to be able willing and able to pay the legal fees of your opponent if you lose. TroiS6 17:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
TroiS6, that's an odd argument and one you're not in a position to make. Counterpunch and Frontpagemag are clearly two sides of the same coin. So the question is: would we quote from an unknown non-professional writer who worked for a political organization we wouldn't use as a source if the only place the material appeared was in Frontpagemag? SlimVirgin (talk) 18:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
If the option is to not use any sources like Frontpage, and also not to use any sources like Counterpunch, then I'd say yes, that's a good idea. I am still reading WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:RS, so I am not yet true in the position to make the following statement either, but I think I might as well anyway ;-) . I don't think the MotherJones article is should be used either, without also pointing out that writing very critical of that MJ article was printed by that also very magazine (MJ) in later issues, and also in a number of other reliable publications. This should be cited right where MJ is cited, so WP readers aren't led to believe the MJ article is more reliable than it actually is. Perhaps pointing out that the comment in the widely circulated recent Nation article - which, left as it is ... oddly, no one seems to think unrelliable - might also be a good idea.TroiS6 18:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Let me rephrase that: the information Nguyen points out is important. He points out that the guy who wrote the MotherJones article didn't bother to speak to journalists who were actually in Gaza at the time of Corrie's murder/killing/accident/suicide. He says that the MJ writer based his article largly on material provided by the IDF, designed to refure ISM's claims, put out before the commision that decided the bulldozer actually didn't cause her death had completed their findings. The MJ article is viewed to be damaging to ISM supporters, and is viewed to be good propoganda for IDF spokesperson supporters, because it questions many of the claims ISM people and other witnesses said, without admitting the fact that the journalist did not do adequate research. He should have said that the video that was put out by the IDF was put out before the fact finding commision had issued their findings. The fact that they did that, would lead many people to conclude that the IDF commisioned investigation was biased from the beginning -- that, as Corrie's parents claim, there has yet to be a full, thorough investigation into the nature and causes of R. Corrie's death. Nguyen's piece is important, despite his alleged involvement with ISM. I suspect if a policy is suddenly changed, whereby it is deemed that Counterpunch is not to be used, it is because Nguyen's article is so damning to to the claims of those who perhaps in good conciounce *think* they are supporting Israel. TroiS6 18:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand your points, and you're engaging in OR. (1) It doesn't matter how important the info is that Nguyen points to, in your opinion, because he is not a reliable source; (2) How does Nguyen know that Hammer didn't speak to other journalists, and anyway why should he? Journalists don't use other journalists as confidential sources; (3) You keep saying Nguyen "pointed out," as though you know what he is saying is true. But you don't; (4) It's of no concern to Wikipedia that the Hammer article is damaging (or otherwise) to ISM; (5) You say Hammer "should have said" that the video was put out by the IDF before the commission issued its findings: but why? and anyway, you're engaged in OR again.
I can only ask you for the third time to read our policies very carefully and also WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a soapbox and you seem to be here to push the ISM position. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Points taken. But how exactly was it decided Nguyen is not a reliable source? Because the article is in Counterpunch? Or because he is allegedly affiliated with ISM? There does need to be a reliable source that says he is affiliated with ISM, if Counterpunch is not considered unreliable, in order to consider him unreliable, no? Is there a reliable source that claims this? If so, what is it?TroiS6 21:53, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
If we're going to play games, you'll have to be smarter than that. If Counterpunch is a reliable source, then we can believe that Nguyen works for ISM, in which case we can't use the article, because ISM is not a reliable source. If, on the other hand, Counterpunch is not a reliable source, then we can't believe that Nguyen works for ISM, but as he has chosen to be published by an unreliable source, we can't use his article anyway, so it doesn't matter who he is. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
The only source I've that claims Phan Nguyen is affiliated with ISM was that A-Infos Radio Project link. On their "About" link, it says that "The A-Infos Radio Project was formed in 1996 by grassroots broadcasters, free radio journalists and cyber-activists to provide ourselves with the means to share our radio programs via the Internet." Are you equating that with Counterpunch? Counterpunch was recently cited by the NYTimes. I'm not sure if I've ever seen Frontpage cited in the NYTimes. I know I've never seen "The A-Infos Radio Project" cited in the NYTimes, let alone anywhere else. My point: Counterpunch is read widely enough, and has a good enough reputation, that the news paper of record cites them. So should Wikipedia. My second point; is the A-Infos Radio Project reliable? If no, and if yes to Counterpunch (I advocate for this) then the Nguyen Counterpunch article IS reliable. Unless there is some other source that says Nguyen is somehow affiliated with ISM (maybe there is, but I haven't seen it.) And also: Is Frontpage considered relliable? These are valid questions.TroiS6 22:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
It hardly seems likely that source would be lying about Nguyen, does it? Of course, we know that he's a Palestinian activist friend of Rachel's in Olympia (e.g. [16] [17]), and the "Designated liaison for the [Corrie] family"[18]. The local paper "The Olympian" describes him as "a friend and fellow peace activist who has made similar trips to the West Bank cities of Nablus and Ramallah as recently as last summer"[19], Olympians for Peace in the Middle East refers to him as a "local International Solidarity Movement (ISM) delegate"[20], Salon.com states he "spent time in the West Bank last year with the ISM"[21], and the Seattle Times refers to him as "Phan Nguyen of the ISM group in Olympia"[22] And, of course, he refers to himself as "an ISM volunteer myself"[23] [24]). But you know him intimately, so I'm wondering why you would even pretend he didn't work for the ISM; can you explain? Oh, and by the way, aside from being an ISM activist and representative of the Corrie family, what is it that makes Nguyen's opinions notable at all, or worth quoting in an article? What is his expertise in this subject? Who is he? As far as I can tell, he's just a librarian at Evergreen State College. But then again, I don't have to tell you that, do I? Jayjg (talk) 23:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
"...you know him intimately"? That's gotta be original research. Jayjig, the links you have provided re. Phan Nguyen are not what you present them to be. Your first link is signed Phan Nguyen, for Palestine Media Watch. Your second link has him associated with Evergreen College. The third link you provide, sure enough, lends credence to the fact that he knows the Corrie family. I do not believe this should disqualify him as reliable: Olympia is a small town, and its quite likely that a lot of people there knew the Corries, even before Rachel was killed. Furthermore, if Phan works at the small college of Evergreen as a llibrarian, where Rachel Corrie went to school, it seems likely that he might have known her. But that proves no "membership" with ISM. Israel is a small country; it's likely that Ms. Balint (who by the way is a "contributor to frontpagemag.com") knows people serving in the Israeli army ... and come to think of it, as an Israeli citizen, she would have had to have served at one point herself as well, so I suppose that makes her a "member" of the IDF (if someone who has once worked with ISM is forever considered a "member", than why is someone who was once worked with the IDF not also forever considered a "member"? When does one stop being a "member" - of either organization? Anyway, your fourth link, sure enough says he's a peace activist. So? It also nails down pretty solidly the assertion that he was a friend of Rachel Corrie's. (okay?) In addition to placing him in the Palestinian West Bank in the summer of 2002, that link also tells us that Nguyen was 28 years old, three years ago. But is he now or has he ever been a "member" of the ISM? No proof yet. Let's look closely at link #5: OMPE, an organization which seems to not even exist (perhaps it once did, but I challenge you to find any reliable source from the last two years that would lead one to believe that it is an actual organization that could today be contacted to verify that the information on this website is correct and accurate) describes Phan Ngueyn is a delegate of ISM. What does that mean? The WP doesn't say anything about ISM having "delegates". I've read about ISM "members", in these pages and others, but no "delegates". Maybe ISM was trying to organize some kind of political convention. If you're a delegate, does that make you a "member"? No, Sorry. That salon article, the sixth link you mention, says that Phan Nguyen was (three years ago, when this article was published) an Evergreen student who spent time in the West Bank last year with the ISM." It doesn't say Phan was working as a "member" of ISM. He might have been working with the Christian Peacemaker Teams. He might have been working with Rabbis for Human Rights. He might have been working with Gush Shalom. Or the PFLP. People who have worked with these groups routinely "spend time in the West Bank with the ISM". The seventh link takes us to an archived Seattle Times story on Rachel Corrie, dated the day after Corrie was killed. Here we have Phan Nguyen as allegedly being part of the ISM group in Olympia. What ISM group in Olympia? What does the ISM group do in Olympia? When do they meet? Who are their "members"? How are they associated with the group Rachel was with in Gaza? Corrie had a "support group" in Olympia, of which Phan Nguyen was a part (see link 8.) I suppose that's what this journalist is referring to. So Phan was part of a support group. Now we must ask the question: is someone "with" an ISM "support group" a part of ISM? Consider: Recently there was much press coverage of the death of Christian Peacemaker Teams "volunteer" Tom Fox. (By the way, how come CPT workers aren't referred to as "members"?) On March 11 AP reporter Dena Potter wrote about Fox's "support group" at Fox's Langley Hill Friends (Quaker) Meeting. Potter refers to a man by the name of Paul Slattery as being a "member" of Fox's support group. Was Slattery a member of CPT? No. Is he a "member of Langley Hill Friends Meeting? The article doesn't say. Like a lot of religions, Quakers have a more or less codified membership process that one must go through in order to become a "member". This article doesn't say whether Slattery is a "member" of the Langley Hills Friends Meeting. If Slattery were to merely "attend" the meeting, this would not make him a member. To become a "member" he would either have to be born Quaker, or he would have to apply for memberhship. And in a similar way, merely being a "member" of a support group for an individual that is going to Iraq or Palestine or whatever, would not be enough for that person to be considered a member of the group the person being supported was affiliated with. (If you are interested in learning more, numerous recently published articles about Fox discuss the role of Fox's "support group". Regarding Phan Nguyen, the fact that he was a member of a support group for Rachel Corrie in no way should be taken as proof that he is now or ever has been a "member" of the International Solidarity Movement. Your last two links are actually both the same article, an article which was written two days after Phan Nguyen's friend was killed, on the day the 2nd US war against Iraq officially began. In this article, we find Phan referring to himself as "an ISM volunteer myself". Does he once refer to himself as a member? No. Has any reliable news organization or web site - anywhere, ever - referred to Phan Ngueyn as a "member" of the International Solidarity Movement, the way Rachel Corrie, Joe Carr, Brian Avery, or any of the other activists that have come to public attention via reporting of reliable news organizations have been referred to? I doubt it. Does Phan Nguyen, referring to himself two days after his friend was killed as a "volunteer" constitute the same level of involvement as these other activists? No. He was a member of Rachel Corrie's support group. He thus, perhaps saw himself as a "volunteer". Phan Nguyen appears to be a librarian at the Evergreen State College, in Olympia, Washington. Living in a small town, and having attended the same college that Rachel Corrie attended, at the same time, he had occation to meet her and her family before Rachel Corrie died. I see no reason to stretch these sources that you have provided, or other similar ones that you might provide in the future, to try to make it seem that Phan Ngueyn is more involved with the International Solidarity Movement than what his involvement actually is, unless the reason you wish to do so is so you can claim that, as a "member" he has no "reliability". Why do you want people to think Phan is "unreliable"? Could it be because the analysis he provides in the Counterpunch article is, as I put it before, "so damning" to the case of those who wish to ignore the inadequacies of the Mother Jones piece in question? Yes.
I'll let the above speak for itself, except to point out that the link didn't say he knew the Corries. It said he was their representative. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, it was a rather breathtaking response, don't you think? I don't suppose this link describing Phan Nguyen as a student organizer with ISM would do much good. Nor would this link, describing him as the coordinator for the International Solidarity Movement support group in Olympia, WAN help, nor would this link describing him as an ISM volunteer, apparently from a news release sent out by the ISM itself. This link describing him as an activist in the International Solidarity Movement won't help, nor will this article from the Washington Free Press describing him as an International Solidarity Movement activist.
Undoubtedly it would be useless to produce this link describing Phan as a member of the International Solidarity Movement in Olympia, Wash., or this link from The Olympian describing him as a friend of Corrie and member of the International Solidarity Movement. And it looks like The Olympian got it wrong in this story as well, when it describes Phan Nguyen as Corrie's friend from the International Solidarity Movement. The Seattle Times must have also gotten it all wrong when it described him as Phan Nguyen of the ISM group in Olympia, as did his local radio station KAOS (FM), when it described him as Phan Nguyen, student, member International Solidarity Movement. Naturally this letter Phan signed, as one of eighteen activists with the International Solidarity Movement just won't do - after all, it could be a different Phan Nguyen, couldn't it?
Well, there's no point going on; for some reason regardless of the number of sources explicitly stating it, Phan doesn't want us to know of his membership in the ISM. Very well, let's pretend for a moment that Phan isn't a member of the ISM; the critical question remains, of what possible relevance would the views of a librarian from a state college be? Jayjg (talk) 19:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, now we also know why some ISM members change their names so often. give them denaibility. Zeq 20:10, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Okay, okay. Please disregard that long rambling post. I have made myself to look like a fool, and I admit it. Also, I was trying to respond to a question in the section posed above, and believe I accidentally wrote into a different window, posting here instead, and without signing. I deleted that, and moved it above - sorry for doing that. TroiS6 22:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rachel_Corrie/Archive_3&oldid=1048519720"