Talk:Rachel Corrie/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Information missing from the article

Resolved

Hi all. I made a bold edit and changed the section on "Possible kidnap attempt by Palestinians..." yada yada ydada to "Visits to Rafah by Corrie's Parents". They have visited the region a number of times since their daughter's death, not only to investigate what happened but to continue her life's work (a reason they also opened the case against Caterpillar [1]. Since their parents don't have their own article, and the reason they took activism for a just solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is inextricably tied to their daughter's death, I suggest we use this section to expand on their activist work (as documented in reliable sources).

There was and is, by the way, undue emphasis on the whole Palestinian kidnap episode. I recall watching a documentary on the Corrie's visits to rafah and their fear, as expressed by them, was related more to the Israeli tank fire being directed to the area they were staying in in Rafah. I'll try to remember which film it was and find some kind of text on the matter. But just saying, the section devoted to that (with three full paragraphs) seems a little like overkill. Tiamut^talk 14:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I've played with the subsection title to include both. I caution against, er, overkill on the visits by the parents. It isn't clear to me that the actions of the parents now, five years after Corrie's death, have much to do with her article. Still, let's see what you come up with! Though I caution again, any attempt to imply the Israelis were shooting at the Corries should have really strong sourcing.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

That's a rather strange comment Wehwalt. If the the actions of the parents years after their daughter's death have nothing to do with her, why do we have a whole section devoted to discussing the so-called kidnap attempt of her parents during one of the more recent visits they made there? Her parents have become crusaders on the issue of Israel/Palestine since their daughter's death, taking Caterpillar to court, supporting grassroots projects in the West Bank and Gaza. I don't know why we would not mention this, if it is documented in reliable sources.

And don't worry. I'm familiar enough with how sensitive people are to any information that portrays Israel is a less than perfect light. (Conversely, it's very easy to have a whole section devoted to Palestinian "terror" in an article about a girl who was killed by an Israeli bulldozer.) I wouldn't dare attempt to include information that the Israelis were shooting at the area in the Corrie's were in, without super-solid sourcing. It was in that documentary, but documentaries are not RS's here I don't think. So cheers. Tiamut^talk 15:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not "some people"; this is the only I-P conflict article I am involved with. I'm raising my eyebrows at some of the stuff that you and PR are putting in, but I will wait for you guys to finish before commenting.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't implying you were. But did you notice that you used "caution against" twice above? Once, to discourage adding things on the visits by the parents, and once to remind me of the need for strong sourcing on the allegation that Israeli shot at Corrie's parents. I'm not a newbie Wehwalt. I know about our WP:RS guidelines and I'm very familiar with the sensitivities surrounding articles in the I-P domain. You don't need to caution me against anything.

If you do have a problem with any source I have added so far, please do let me know which and why. I don't want to start incorporating material from them into the article only to find out you don't think they are reliable or relevant. Thanks. Tiamut^talk 16:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I don't have time to prescreen sources and won't be bound by "Well, you didn't challenge them at the time". Sorry if the language offended you, it was not meant in any negative sense. Please don't go overboard in adding external links, a while back we cut them way back (at one time there were about 40). I am trying to get rid of low value ones as you add more. This is not a Rachel Corrie memorial site, you know.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The significance of Rachel's parents and their foundation continuing to visit Rafah and work towards peace in the region is considerable. Unlike the significance of a failed attempt at crime on them, which strikes me as trivial indeed. PR^talk 15:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

If so, you should have no trouble in finding reliable sources. I really don't think the Foundation invokes WP:SELFPUB, it is not the subject of this article. Weren't there news accounts?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Here's one about the national campaign Corrie's parents launched to rebuild the homes that were destroyed in Rafah, spotlighting the work of a netowrk of American NGOs called the Rebuilding Alliance. [2] I'll keep looking for more and posting them here. I think it's totally ridiculous that we should devote so much space to a confused kidnapping attempt and none to the years of work her parents have since logged bringing attention to the the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Tiamut^talk 15:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

No reason not to have both. But the unusual, the crime, does always seem to get more newspaper attention. Human nature I guess.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:44, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Here's another one with more detailed information in the Jewish Journal [3]. Seems the Nasrallah family whose home Rachel was trying to protect before she was killed went with the Corrie's on the tour across america to raise funds for the rebuilding project. Notable and very relevant to this article. Tiamut^talk 15:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The Corries and Nasrallahs were interviewed by Democracy Now during that cross country trip. [4] An article about their visit to Iowa is here [5]; it describes the cross-country campaign a bit too, mentioning it involved visiting 22 cities across America. Tiamut^talk 15:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Well, go ahead and write something if you like and submit it to the harsh light of Wikipedia. I suspect though, that we should limit ourselves to a paragraph or so, and perhaps direct readers to "Main Article:Rebuilding Alliance" since, after all, that is who is doing it.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Again, we have three paragraphs (and we use to have a sub-section header) devoted to a maybe kidnapping attempt of Corrie's parents while they were in Rafah, that did not seem to be undue to anybody. "in the harsh light of Wikipedia." But now when people want to include info on the activism of Corrie's parents, their multiple visits to Rafah, and the 22-city cross-country tour they made with the family whose home Rachel died trying to protect to raise funds to rebuild Palestinian homes destroyed in Gaza - all of this stuff should be limited to a paragraph maybe two? I think you need to think a bit about how your position comes off here. And maybe think about how to cut down the maybe/maybe not kidnapping attempt if you are so concerned with keeping this article free of undue irrelevancies. Tiamut^talk 16:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, you are certainly entitled to your opinions, here and elsewhere, entirely your privilege. However, again, I feel like I'm being asked for commitments before I've seen the actual edits. Edit away, WP is the encyclopedia that can be edited by anyone, and let's see what we have. I'm unclear as to what is the difficulty about the possible kidnapping, certainly this article has been seen by editors taking every perspective and IIRC, the main concern has been about the title of the section (I think "Attempt to kidnap Corrie's parents" was changed to "Possible attempt to kidnap Corrie's parents"). But you want to take a look at things, feel free. Do you think it needs to be shorter? Or somehow balanced? It seems a bit of a contradictory position to me, but it's your view.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there should be a header for the kidnapping attempt at all. It garnered a brief mention for all of two days before it was totally forgotten, until we memorialized in an article on Rachel Corrie at wikipedia. While you on the one hand, said above, that the activities of her parents years after her death may not be relevant, you on the other, see no problem with devoting so much space (and a sub-header) to a one time event during one of their many visits to gaza.

I understand that you may not be familiar with their activist work and may think the kidnapping story more notable, but I think if you reflect a bit, you will see where the contradiction in your argument lies. Tiamut^talk 17:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Bad news trumps good news, I'm afraid. But both have a place in the article. Google search for "corrie rebuilding alliance" seem to get twice as many hits as "corrie kidnapping gaza" but if you play with the wording, you can vary that as you like, neither one of them seems buried and forgotten until Wikipedia came along! Do you want to propose language and we can talk it out here?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Incidently, how is rebuildingalliance.org (present ref 42) a RS under the guidelines we are working with on this talk page (i.e. no selfpub except for Corrie herself)?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't add that source. PalestineRemembered did. It's an NGO reporting on its own activities, so I guess it might fall afoul of Selfpub. I'll try to find a third-party source for that material, or something similar. Tiamut^talk 17:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Wehwalt that the attempt to kidnap the Corries is more notable than their efforts to promote their views about the I-P conflict. (The header barely makes any sense now.) I think an effective argumentum ad Googlem could be made for this, but it's really just common sense. People are generally more fascinated by crime and violence than quiet advocacy, and our newspapers, books, and encyclopdias reflect this. IronDuke 21:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Articles about the kidnapping may be easier to find, but I assure you that there are a lot of people much more interested the Corrie's volunteer work and the issues they have taken up since their daughter's death, than they are in a rumoured, failed kidnapping attempt. I think recentism has a lot to do with why the kidnapping event enjoyed so much prominence in this article until (it happened in 2006). But I think you would agree that since the initial reports were made, the issue has been largely forgotten. It's not essential to this article, and a brief mention here, without a header and section devoted to it, is sufficient. Tiamut^talk 14:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think there's room for both. I'd also say that if the failed kidnap attempt had simply happened and everyone had shrugged and moved on, you'd be right (or righter, anyway). But given that there were accusations and defenses being thrown around, I think it behooves us to treat the matter fairly. And it really isn't all that much text, is it? IronDuke 16:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Concur with IronDuke. Tiamut, how do you know that "there are a lot of people much more interested the Corrie's volunteer work and the issues they have taken up since their daughter's death, than they are in a rumoured, failed kidnapping attempt." Isn't that OR at the very least, and something we would have a hard time verifying?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:29, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Well Wehwalt, I don't know for sure, but in the circles I run in, we discuss their volunteer work (which is ongoing), much more than a rumoured kidnapping attempt from two years ago. But erhaps you should pose the question to IronDuke as well? How does he know that the attempt to kidnap the Corries is more notable thatn their efforts re: the I-P conflict. (Tiamut)

Perhaps you should. But you have the burden of proof, as the editor proposing changes. IronDuke does not. The ball is in your court.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:41, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

There's no consensus for his change, and it is also just odd... the section is clearly about a possible attempt to kidnap RC's parents, but is labeled as something else. Pending a consensus to overturn a long-standing caption, I have restored it. IronDuke 21:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I was planning to expand information on the Corries visits to the region and cut down some of the info on the kidnapping, which seems a bit unnecessary. They were not kidnapped, remember? This non-event on one day should not have more coverage than their work to rebuild hundreds of Palestinian homes over a few years. But to each his own. I'll see what else I can dig up on their volunteer work and visit to the region, add it and then we can discuss how to head the sections. Tiamut^talk 12:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Unnecessary to whom? It got multiple coverage from reliable sources, to wit newspapers.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:41, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't take it that my edits imply consent or support, I'm just doing some cleanup.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

It's the length of the coverage accorded to the kidnapping rumour that I find "unnecessary", not the mention of it. I don't believe in censoring information of any kind. I think you will find, as I continue to add newspaper sources to the section on Corries' parents' activism that your perception that this work is somehow less notable than a rumoured kidnapping is false.

And don't worry, I won't take your little cleanups as some kind of evidence towards your acceptance of the material I have added. I would say however, that if you're going to suggest we delete it anyway, that you probably shouldn't bother wasting your time. Tiamut^talk 13:53, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Rachel's Parents' work is very related to the subject for the memory of Rachel Corrie it should be in the article but not very long. It should contain what they have done since Rachel's death. We should open a different article page for Rachel Corrie Foundation where a more expanded info and discussion we can make on the subject. And put a link to there from Rachel's Page.

For the possibility of kidnapping events well 2 links exist one site is named global security which is full of advertising in everywhere quoted from voice of america which direct link is here [6] and should be replaced at the references section. The article written by Jim Teeple who "enjoys hearing from listeners and if he has time, will try to respond to any questions" with no source and by just a claim. Just as Reuter reports the claim "according to a witness" who, where, how we dont know. Though Craig Corrie made a statement about it "The Jerusalem Post reported Craig Corrie as saying: "there was never a threat made against us and the gun was never pointed at anyone." ... Craig Corrie said that when he entered the room and saw the man with the gun, he feared it might be a kidnapping attempt, but that the situation was never described to him that way by his host. Corrie added that the media accounts over-dramatized the incident." All different point of views should be in the article yet I agree the title of that part is not objective as we dont even know there was any kidnapping incident at all. And this incident should just be a part of Rachel Corrie's parents' actions since they established the Rachel Corrie Foundation. But the title misleads the info. If possible kidnapping attempt fits to the standarts why not corrie: media overdramatized the might-be kidnapping incident where no gun pointed to anyone or Corrie feared they might have been kidnapped at first but it never happened. You know why this wont be a good title and try applying same logic to possible kidnapping attempt to rachel's parents according to a non-clear and unknown-and-an-even-might-not-be-ever-existed-source's claim though they refused it.

Also you do even fine with sites full of advertising and purchasing links like globalsecurity that quotes from other sites while still not sure about if have any self published reports or is a "Reliable Security Information" as they self claimed which noone even didnt bother the check the first hand source of the context, extremely one sided sites like Tom Gross biography who also "worked as a staff writer and editor at the Jerusalem Post for two years.", a short and insulting editorial of national review[7] "... Rachel Corrie, the 23-year-old American radical who was crushed to death when she jumped in front of an Israeli army bulldozer. (The bulldozer was trying to destroy a building suspected of concealing tunnels used for terrorist weapons-smuggling; Corrie was part of a group that declared "armed struggle" a Palestinian "right.")" with boldest outrageous claims without even bothering to provide any source as reference [dont tell me it is an editorial], yet refuse to accept written statement of the eyewitnesses' taken by a member of Palestinian Center for Human Rights' who is a lawyer under oath. I cannot reason your actions of applying wiki policies at all. Kasaalan (talk) 14:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Refutation of photos which are not discussed

Resolved

I've removed this paragraph:

• The website Israel Behind the News has said that images on the ISM website, and subsequently used by Reuters, give a misleading impression of the incident.

I doubt very much the reliability of a site like Israel Behind the News; however, my main problem with this is that it gives negative commentary about photos that are (as far as I can see) not discussed anywhere else in the article. It's poor form to include information refuting something that is not even discussed to begin with. When people decide they want to add a section on what the content of the photos was, we can consider whether or not to re-include this and how. Tiamut^talk 16:58, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I found a link from Electronic Intifada Rachel Corrie page dated 16 March 2003 Photostory quoting ISM Handout while giving exact times and locations of the photographs taken as requested before for approval. It is clearly stated at the handout first photographs taken between 3-4 pm and last ones taken at 4.45 pm and 4.47 pm respectively. Therefore no controversy available in ISM handout by misleading time info. A quote from the page "Last updated: 21 March 2003 (added detail to captions in images and context to second paragraph)."

Hi there. It seems that Electronic Intifada is not considered a reliable source for this article. I can't imagine why, when a site like Israel Behind the News is. Perhaps Wehwalt might like to explain this further? We do need to discuss the photos in the article, they were key to the whole event and controversy. So what sources which discuss them are appropriate to use here? (This question is addressed to Wehwalt, since I don't understand the guidelines at the top of this page, or the way they are being implemented.) Tiamut^talk 17:33, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Wehwalt said "There was considerable coverage as to photographs being incorrectly labelled as happening just before Corrie's death; accordingly I'd want discussion and review before including that site." Therefore pointing out incorrectly labelled photographs. I quoted from EI for the exact date and update [16 and 23 march 2003 respectively] which doesnt have wrong labels about date site or time of the photographs. The date and time for the photographs already given by ISM at the first place. Therefore Israeli objections for a possible fraud of the time by ISM proved to be wrong. Electronic Intifada only quotes from ISM yet I will try to get ISM handout as a first hand source instead EI in later time.

Also another important matter I will point out not sure if stated before but photographs taken at the site Photostory also proves one important issue: Rachel was not only wearing a red-orange jacket but that red-orange jacket also has 2 big reflecting stripes on it and the 4 headlights of the D9R were open all the time. Also the blue sky reflecting from the D9R and environment light also proves the times given by ISM. But if anyone still objects I can make a sun study for the area in a later time. Photographs might help even more on the case for professionals. Kasaalan (talk) 17:50, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Wrong Image Used As A Reference at Rachel Corrie Article

Resolved

Replaced [8] with [9]

The image was a D9N [10] not the D9R that was used at the case [11]. Also Wikimedia link for D9R should also be added because it contains better visual info for the D9R's used by IDF.

These images [12] and [13] should have been used instead.

Also 712 clearly shows if one stands up it can be clearly seen by the operator. Side views are better for visibility tracking of the case study.

Also Hebrew Wikipedia D9 Page has a Technical Drawing from Side View for D9 series clearly shows the dimensions of the D9 series. I couldn't manage to add the image under the D9R image because it is uploaded to the Hebrew version of wikipedia. Can anyone help me on this matter.

The model of the machine can be clearly identified on rachel's scene photographs at [14] or [15] Kasaalan (talk) 20:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Kasaalan. We need to slow down just a little bit. Other editors cannot keep up when there are so many issues being raised at the same time. Let's try to focus on how we are writing here is related to article improvement. In this section, what I gather is that you have found a picture that more accurately represents the bulldozer that was used, right? That's good, and it's good that you went and ahead and replaced the other one. Do you think we need more than one (or maximum two) pictures? Because if you add this one too[16], which you link to above, you won't need the Hebrew version one anyway. If you still want that one, let me know, and I'll see what I can do about it. Tiamut^talk 22:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Hebrew One Technical Drawing from Side View for D9 series clearly shows the dimensions of a D9 particularly a D9L but their size is rather close to each other yet I will also check this info for exact size. By the help of D9R dimensions we can actually verify its field of view from operator seat better. If Rachel has risen on the razor blade yes it is very unlikely for the operator to not see her. Because the height of the razor blade is 1.9 meters with its silage extension which has big holes for letting operator to see through. And without the extension the height of razor blade is near 150 cm. So what we need further is the height of Rachel.

I but couldnt decide where to add wikimedia link to D9R actually therefore I asked another view. The page contains various views of D9R with different armors on them.

712 is not actually the exact D9R model used at area because it has additional window protections on it. So I wont put it at the main page anyway. Yet 712 is also good for one particular case on how high the dozer blade can rise up with its see-through silage extension. dozer blade parts Therefore it is an evidence for the case whether the operator can see Rachel or not and might be useful for cross referencing eyewitnesses' comments. And if the operator has risen the blade it just means his chance of seeing her is higher than before. Kasaalan (talk) 01:38, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Another fact is there were at least 2 soldiers in the operator cabin not just one. "After an investigation in 2003, the Israeli military concluded that the two soldiers in the D9R Caterpillar bulldozer that killed Rachel Corrie did not see her, though eyewitnesses indicate that she was clearly visible. The case was closed, no charges were brought, and the Israeli Government declined to release their report to the U.S. Government. On June 11, 2004, in response to inquiries from the Corrie family, Lawrence B. Wilkerson, Chief of Staff to Colin Powell at the U.S. Department of State, wrote of the IDF report, “Your ultimate question, however, is a valid one, i.e., whether or not we view that report to have reflected an investigation that was ‘thorough, credible, and transparent.’ I can answer your question without equivocation. No, we do not consider it so.” On March 17, 2005, in testimony before members of Congress, this position was reiterated by Michael G. Kozak, Acting Assistant Secretary of the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor at the Department of State." Advised by Department of State officials to pursue the matter in Israeli courts, the Corrie family in March 2005 initiated aprivate lawsuit against the Israel Defense Forces and the State of Israel. The Israeli Knesset subsequently passed legislation making it retroactively impossible for most Palestinians and others to take legal action against the IDF for injury that occurred in the Occupied Territories after September 2000." Informational Release from Craig and Cindy Corrie, parents of Rachel Corrie October 15, 2007

Also the highest speed of a D9R is 7.3 MPH (11.9 km/h) Forward and 9.1 MPH (14.7 km/h) Reverse, "The highest human footspeed ever recorded is 48 km/h (29.8 mph), seen during a 100 meter sprint by Asafa Powell. (His average speed over that distance was 36.96 km/h (22.95 mph) owing to the need for acceleration.)" for regular humans this speed is about 5 km/h walking 16 km/h running. So speed is not an issue in not seeing Rachel.

Dozer Blade "The dozer blade usually comes in three variants:

A Straight Blade ("S-Blade") which is short and has no lateral curve, no side wings, and can be used for fine grading.

A Universal Blade ("U-Blade") which is tall and very curved, and has large side wings to carry more material.

A "S-U" combination blade which is shorter, has less curvature, and smaller side wings. This blade is typically used for pushing piles of large rocks, such as at a quarry."

I will try to locate which exact dozer blade was used at the area from photographs which will give us exact dimensions. Kasaalan (talk) 11:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Kasaalan. Your interest in this subject and the details of it are inspiring. But some of what you are suggesting to do may fall afoul of our policy on no original research. While we can include information on the specs of the bulldozers and even how tall Rachel was, we cannot make any conclusions based onn that information, unless it is reported by a reliable source. So I suggest you find sources that discuss this issue in detail if you want to include such information. Your own calculations will not be accepted, since they would constitute original research. I hope you understand. Tiamut^talk 13:51, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning and that is why I pre quote my links here. But as the photographs already proved we may point out Rachel was wearing an orange safety reflector jacket with 2 reflecting stripes while D9R's 4 spotlights [I dont know the exact brand yet a D9T uses 10 Halogen, 11 - 6 Halogen, 5 HID or 6 Halogen as additional equipment] was open all the time and the possible fastest forward speed of a D9R can reach is no more than 11.7 km/h in its largest transmission which is equal to 200 m/m or 3,3 m/s. Also while the field of view of a D9R is resricted there were more than one IDF personel in the operator cabin which lessens the chance of not seeing her and effects of blind spot.

Anyway maybe we cannot add all yet I found some great source for the Rachel Corrie's Court Trials against the company Corrie et al. v. Caterpillar which contains Timeline and legal court proceedings with a factsheet Factsheet: Home Demolitions and Caterpillar[17]. Kasaalan (talk) 16:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Why do we need anything more than the court decisions, which explain the allegations and arguments in neutral and proper language? The so-called factsheet is by the advocacy group which brought the case for the Corries, fails under WP:SELFPUB. The court decisions are much better sources.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:23, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

So is this how you make an article in a disputable case. If legal court decisions is enough why do we need other sources in the first place. Go ahead delete the newspapers, magazines, eyewitnesses' statements. Are you just kidding me or did not checked the page? Anything prominent is needed. The first link contains the original scanned court proceedings to the court as pdf. All human rights organisations self publish their reports, and their reports referred as such in newspapers and books as a source. You dont even accept Human Rights Watch as a source, maybe not accept this one either. The factsheet is another case, it is not such an important source for it is not referencing the facts, so I wont even discuss over it. But why I actually referenced the factsheet is for some good details like "Since 2001, human rights groups have sent over 50,000 letters to Caterpillar, Inc. executives and CEO Jim Owens" and some other details for Rachel's case, which I will try to point out later with better more reliable sources. Kasaalan (talk) 20:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

We are not here to fight Rachel's case. The existing language fairly summarizes the plaintiff's allegations, and makes clear the court's reasoning. "Anything prominent is needed". No, that is not so. We write in what is called summary style here, appropriate for an encyclopedia. We hit the high points. Bogging the reader down in detail and irrelevancies (and yes, that is what the mail count for Catepillar is) encourages the reader to be bored and read something else. Such things may be appropriate for the article on Catepillar, I can't say, go talk with editors over there. For the Corrie article, not needed or desirable.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Direct Official Reports Quoted by Human Rights Watch

Resolved

1) Human Rights Watch obtained a copy of the summary of the IDF "operational investigation" ... contains major factual errors.
2) "Expert Opinion (Opinion 3/459/2003)" pathologist Professor Yehuda Hiss, March 24, 2003, National Center of Forensic Medicine. Contradicts IDF claim that bulldozer did not run over her. Says "death was caused by pressure on the chest (mechanical asphyxiation)"
3) Bulldozers had previously seen protestors and stopped in time. "Eyewitnesses interviewed ... stated that the bulldozer crew could and did see Corrie"

(click blue button at right to see text)

Neither the book nor the newspaper quote is good enough, while we have the direct reports to the case quoted by the HRW report which also e-published in The UN Refugee Agency Pages like the rest of the HRW reports. We cannot even discuss quoting from the book or from the newspaper, while we can directly quote from full text. Human Rights Watch obtained a copy of the summary of the IDF "operational investigation" into Corrie's killing. Like other investigation summaries seen by Human Rights Watch, the document is laden with generalities and emotive commentary, and contains major factual errors. Chief among these is the statement that "no signs substantiate assertion that Ms Corrie was run over by a bulldozer," a statement apparently based on a highly selective interpretation of the preliminary autopsy report. The document reads, "[a]utopsy conducted on Ms Corrie's body – final autopsy report has not yet been completed. Pressure on her chest and back probably due to compression between two solid objects. Pressure caused rib fractures and lung puncture causing respiratory difficulties. No additional signs of injury or other physical trauma. No signs substantiate assertion that Ms Corrie was run over by a bulldozer." Undated IDF document, The Death of Rachel Corrie, Military Installations Area (Philadelphi Road – Gaza Strip) 16 March 2003, on file at Human Rights Watch, p. 25, emphasis in original. The report concludes: Contrary to allegations, Ms. Corrie was not run over by a bulldozer, but sustained injuries caused by earth and debris which fell on her during bulldozer operation. At the time of the incident Ms Corrie was standing behind an earth mound and therefore obscured from bulldozer crew's view, whose line of sight was inherently limited. The irresponsible and dangerous conduct of ISM activists blatantly refusing IDF warnings to leave the area and purposely putting themselves in harm's way is a major factor leading to the tragic result of this incident. Undated IDF document, The Death of Rachel Corrie, emphasis in original. The claim of the "operational investigation" that Corrie was not killed by a bulldozer is directly contradicted by the findings of the final autopsy report, conducted only four days after Corrie's death released on April 24 at Israel's National Center of Forensic Medicine. The author of the autopsy report stated: "Based on the results of the autopsy which I performed on the body of RACHEL ALIENE CORRIE, age 24, I hereby express my opinion that her death was caused by pressure on the chest (mechanical asphyxiation) with fractures of the ribs and vertebrae of the dorsal spinal column and scapulas, and tear wounds in the right lung with hemorrhaging of the pleural cavities." "Expert Opinion (Opinion 3/459/2003)" of physician and pathologist Professor Yehuda Hiss, March 24, 2003, National Center of Forensic Medicine. Translation by U.S. Department of State done at the request of the Corrie family and provided to Human Rights Watch by Craig Corrie. This is final statement we should use from Expert Opinion of physician and pathologist Professor Yehuda Hiss. We cannot quote from elsewhere while we have direct quoted reports of IDF or INCFM while we have direct source.Kasaalan (talk) 14:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC) Eyewitnesses interviewed by Human Rights Watch, other human rights organizations, and the media stated that the bulldozer crew could and did see Corrie. They noted that two other incidents had taken place on the same afternoon in which ISM members had been at the point of serious injury, but the bulldozer drivers had stopped at the last moment – indicating they could see the activists even when in close proximity, balancing on the rising earth that the bulldozers pushed before them.272 They said that the activists had regularly had eye contact with the bulldozer driver in the last moments before jumping off the earth mound. One ISM member described it thus: To stop them, what we would do would be to stand on mounds. There was visual communication – he [the driver] would signal I was crazy with his hands. I was trying to look in the driver's face, eyes very directly and communicate [that] I would not leave. I was fighting, feeling really sad . . . I didn't want to be there, but I had no choice. I could see a blurry face and could make out facial expressions, but I'm not really good at describing people's faces. ... [272] In one incident, a woman became trapped by a piece of metal in an oncoming pile of sand and could not move away. The bulldozer stopped shortly afterwards. In the other, William Hewitt was pushed onto a pile of debris and barbed wire by the oncoming bulldozer, and could not break free. Again, the bulldozer stopped shortly before crushing him. Human Rights Watch interview, Alice (name withheld), May 5, 2003 and Human Rights Watch interview, Nicholas Durie, Rafah, April 15, 2003. See also, the eyewitness affidavits given to Palestinian Centre for Human Rights, available at http://electronicintifada.net/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/7/1674. Human Rights Watch interviews, Alice (full name withheld on request), Jerusalem, May 5, 2003 and Nicholas Durie, Rafah, April 15, 2003. The possibility that the bulldozer operator could not see Corrie cannot be ruled out, however. Thomas Doyle and Nicholas Durie, as noted earlier, both said that she had been crouching or kneeling when the bulldozer was twenty meters away and that she stood up after the machine had come closer. This uncertainty is precisely why a credible and impartial investigation into this incident is essential.

No need for secondary sources, while we have a major source which uses quotes from first hand official reports. Kasaalan (talk) 14:39, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Need to be careful - historically, WP was meant to be written from primary sources, only gradually did it become obvious this led to original research. However, we can paraphrase what HRW say. We probably must use an inline citation if we want to say "has major errors". What happened on the affadavit front, has it been decided that testimony can be used? PR^talk 18:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Of course that part is very important, but mostly the ""Expert Opinion (Opinion 3/459/2003)" of physician and pathologist Professor Yehuda Hiss, March 24, 2003, National Center of Forensic Medicine. Translation by U.S. Department of State done at the request of the Corrie family and provided to Human Rights Watch by Craig Corrie." is what I am interested in more. Because this is a direct quote from official report, and the best source available we could find. But we should paraphrase comments from HRW as "HRW claimed or argued ... ". I also suggest you to read it through, because it is a good report with various first hand sources referenced. Kasaalan (talk) 19:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I think I'm still waiting to hear why we need more witness statements, when we quote from three at length. Wikipedia is not a kitchen sink.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree that is why instead newspaper links that uses secondary even tertiary sources we should add more direct sources like The HRW report, which contains direct quotes from official Israel Defense Forces and Israel's National Center of Forensic Medicine's reports.

The eyewitnesses I provided here clearly states in similar situations, other IDF operators could make the D9R stop in time before anyone injured. Also 3 eyewitness statements [of 7 eyewitness in total] quoted doesnt mean, the quoted parts are the best for the article, or the best eyewitnesses they are to be quoted. Also because your objection to the link at electronicintifada which quotes PCHR, we couldn't add the links to the full statements yet. Actually I found another site providing full written statements of the eyewitnesses catdestroyshomes created and maintained by Jewish Voice for Peace. You might object this site too. Affidavits from eyewitnesses by Durie, Carr, Hewitt, Palestinian Center for Human RightsAffidavits from eyewitnesses by Schnabel, Dale, Purssell, Palestinian Centre for Human Right Kasaalan (talk) 19:09, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Catdestroyshomes.org? I wonder if they are npov. Just wondering.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:14, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing in policy to say that sources be NPOV, just that they must be RS. While Palestinian sources are naturally dismissed out of hand, sources such as "Jewish Voice for Peace" (subject to having a reasonable number of sober editors, not spreading lies or racehatred, not being Muslims in disguise) and provided their claims are not too "surprising" will often be acceptable. PR^talk 19:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps so, I couldn't say. But if they have anything useful to say, no doubt it would have been picked up by a high level news source whose impartiality is much less open to question.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:28, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I just made some effort to find a source other than electronic intifada [because you objected it] that publishes the written eyewitnesses full statements taken by a PCHR lawyer. They just e-publishes what PCHR published. Kasaalan (talk) 21:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Here is the direct original source of Palestinian Center for Human Rights. The written eyewitness statements taken under oath by PCHR lawyer. The source is found. PALESTINIAN CENTRE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS PRESS RELEASE 30.06.2003 AFFIDAVITS "Following the taking of these affidavits, PCHR submitted a request to the investigation department of the Israeli occupying forces that they question these eyewitnesses directly for the purposes of their investigation into the death. The questioning by Israeli occupying forces investigators took place in late March in the presence of Israeli lawyers representing PCHR." Reliable, first hand source. Kasaalan (talk) 22:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Article is missing too much info for both reports

Resolved

"The [IDF] report concludes:

"Contrary to allegations, Ms. Corrie was not run over by a bulldozer, but sustained injuries caused by earth and debris which fell on her during bulldozer operation. At the time of the incident Ms Corrie was standing behind an earth mound and therefore obscured from bulldozer crew's view, whose line of sight was inherently limited. The irresponsible and dangerous conduct of ISM activists blatantly refusing IDF warnings to leave the area and purposely putting themselves in harm's way is a major factor leading to the tragic result of this incident.""

Source: cited by HRW from an obtained copy of the summary of Undated IDF document, The Death of Rachel Corrie, with emphasis in original.

"The findings of the final autopsy report, conducted only four days after Corrie's death released on April 24 at Israel's National Center of Forensic Medicine. The author of the autopsy report stated:

"Based on the results of the autopsy which I performed on the body of Rachel Aliene Corrie, age 24, I hereby express my opinion that her death was caused by pressure on the chest (mechanical asphyxiation) with fractures of the ribs and vertebrae of the dorsal spinal column and scapulas, and tear wounds in the right lung with hemorrhaging of the pleural cavities."

Source: quoted by HRW from "Expert Opinion (Opinion 3/459/2003)" of physician and pathologist Professor Yehuda Hiss, March 24, 2003, National Center of Forensic Medicine. Translation by U.S. Department of State done at the request of the Corrie family and provided to Human Rights Watch by Craig Corrie."

HRW reported, the conclusion of IDF report that Corrie was not killed by a bulldozer is directly contradicted by the findings of the Israel's National Center of Forensic Medicine's final autopsy report.

We should fully quote the IDF and NCFM reports as they are. The article is currently missing too much info for both reports. Kasaalan (talk) 00:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Kasaalan, it's called summary style. We give the reader the high points. A wikipedia article should not be an amorphous mass of information, but a well written, tightly organized summary of the information, it is a starting point, not the be all and end all. There is no point to going into great detail on the autopsy.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I rewroted the part with full credits and necessary quotes. Can you check the integrity in the main page. Kasaalan (talk) 00:43, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I gave the credits inline for better integrity because reports quoted or parahrased by HRW not directly, yet you can also move them in reference section if you like. But then we need seperate reference for each quote explaining how HRW cited them. Kasaalan (talk) 00:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, we need the cause of death. We don't need the backup info. To put it in is unneeded and very likely POV. Please hold off on your constant edits and wait for other users to weigh in.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:54, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

The report says the death is caused by [not just] by pressure on the chest [but also] with broken ribs, broken spinal column and heavily internal bleeding in the lungs. You are not a medical expert, so don't try to shorten the conclusion. Also when did I edit the main page constantly? I only add info on discussion page and this one is of my rare edits to the main page. Kasaalan (talk) 01:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

It gives the cause of death WITH the injuries. Between here and the article, your edits ARE constant.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:06, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Wehwalt you don't know anything in the medical area, so why are you still trying to push it? The expert says the death resulted "by [not only] pressure on the chest [but also] with broken ribs, broken spinal column and heavily internal bleeding in the lungs." But you try to summarize it into pressure on the chest with injuries. Don't try to push on what you don't know. Stay strict to the experts' views. Deleting the info there is a thing that you shouldn't do. If you like to shorten that much use my translation of the medical terms into English, but medical terms is way better for reliability. If you like to call some independent admins to the page it is only alright with me, it is not a threat but may only be a relief to me. Kasaalan (talk) 01:13, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Kasaalan, you're new here, so I'm going to stick to giving you advice. It is VERY bad form to say to another editor "you don't know anything", whether generally, or about a specific subject. Civility and the assumption of good faith is very important on Wikipedia. With respect to what you said, no it is not unfair to anyone to summarize in the way I did. The words in the autopsy report as reported by HRW did not come down on stone tablets, and they are not even the complete summary. I suggest we summarize in the way I suggested, and put the full quote in a note. That is, state that the death was caused by "pressure on the chest (mechanical asphyxiation)". Incidently, I don't see how that is inconsistent with debris falling on someone.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Your insistency on erasing the final conclusion of autopsy is exactly why I said you don't know anything on medical area, it may not be very polite but it is also not very impolite either. I don't find my claim uncivil, or having lack of good faith. I didn't claim, there were any bad intension of yours, yet pointed it is caused by lack of knowledge on the field. There is nothing wrong with one's admitting of his lack of expertise in one area. It is normal for us to don't know anything on medical area. Personally, my medical knowledge is only limited to the names of some bones and muscles in human body [in anatomy] along a very weak knowledge on autopsy cases learned from some books and documentaries [in forensic], which is also near nothing, if not considered nothing totally. Maybe because you confused it with the IDF report summary, your claim is not true. HRW got the summary of the IDF report, but HRW did have the full text of the autopsy report translated by US Department of State on request of Corrie family, and fully quoted the conclusion part, so the autopsy report is exact. Actually neither you nor me is not eligible to summarize an autospy report, I with even little knowledge on medical area while taken my time to research the medical terms of the conclusion from a dictionary, can easily say her death result is not caused only by pressure on the chest. Of course it is, but only mentioning mechanical asphyxiation is similar to saying her death cause is a D9R. Because her backbone is also broken along with ribs and soulder blades. Also what leading to her death is the heavily internal bleeding in the lungs caused by the tearing of internal lung membrane. My translation is imcomplete, also, just trying to make things a bit clearer. Summarizing medical text may be very misleading and dangerous, especially for people who don't have medical background. I already stated HRW reported the contradiction, I didnt claim there is a contradiction. I also don't know why HRW claimed there is a contradiction between reports, that is why we should quote these parts intact. You can save 1 line at most for summarizing the autopy report, but miss too much info for the death result of Rachel, that we cannot bear to handle. I cannot learn the integrity of the contradiction HRW referred, if there is any, unless I do more research on the area. But it shouldn't also be come out of nowhere, maybe the mechanical pressure means something further than we know, e.g. pressure of a metal dozer plate. Actually even if we have space, and noone objects, we should also add last sentence of the IDF report summary "The irresponsible and dangerous conduct of ISM activists blatantly refusing IDF warnings to leave the area and purposely putting themselves in harm's way is a major factor leading to the tragic result of this incident." I left it out because of possible objections, but suggest adding it too. Kasaalan (talk) 09:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Already in the article, or was, last time I checked. Then you admit to not knowing enough about medicine to know whether or not my edit kept it a fair summary or not, right?--Wehwalt (talk)

Of course I am not an expert to summarize from an autopsy report, but most possibly you are not, too. Or do you claim you know better than the expert of the Israeal's National Center of Forensic Medicine. You cannot summarize an expert opinion, which is already 1 sentence, into 2 words, it would be very misleading. Expert opinion clearly adresses his foundings. Pressure on the chest is not a proper summarizing for the case, because the conclusion mentions pressure on the chest with fractures of the ribs, spinal cord[back] and shoulder blades, with tear wound in the right lung and heavily bleeding in the membrane that covers the lung. You are trying to trim off critical info out of the conclusion part of an experts opinion. Not a good idea at all, I strongly object to any summarizing of the quote without mentioning damaged internal organs and bones. Kasaalan (talk) 17:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Cordesman Quote for Investigation Section

Resolved

"Shortly after Corrie's death, an Israeli spokesman attributed the death to "falling debris."[19]"

Does Cordesman an Israel citizen or any other spokesman the line refers. Because he lives and teaches in America, and an American citizen he is as far as I know. Tried reading the page but couldnt find any spokesman referred in the book. Page 72

"While Isreal initially alleged that Corrie was killed by falling debris, the Israeli National Center of Forensic Medicine performed an autopsy and found that her "death was caused by pressure on the chest from a mechanical apparatus".

If this is the orginal quote for the summary, Cordesman only refers Israel alleged Corrie was killed by falling debris, but INCFM found her death caused by pressure on the chest from a mechanical apparatus, he is not stating her death is caused by falling debris. Yet Cordesman also is not a medical expert or the main source for the reports. So we dont need this quote as long as we have HRW quotes. But it might be a good idea to refer "One year after Corrie's death, Yasser Arafat hosted her parents to thank them for their daughter's "sacrifice"." as Wehwalt suggested before. Also why the direct link to the book on reference is removed? Kasaalan (talk) 18:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

NPOV doesn't mean neutrally reporting misquotes as accurate

Resolved

(Refers to this edit.)

1. The first "quote" cited is an obvious misquote of the full statement which changes its meaning. We are not required to attribute the respectability of Wikipedia to a source by repeating it as accurate, if it's obvious that the source a) has an ax to grind and b) has turned "John weighs 100 pounds, and a sperm whale weighs 10 tons" to "John weighs 10 tons."
2. If you want to reinstate the "In another interview," it should be as a direct accurate quote so that the reader can judge the degree to which his statements to the writer were paraphrased.
3. The last edit was to correct the statement to what the cite actually says in its present form; it's as close to verbatim as possible without being plagiarism. That was not true of the previous version. arimareiji (talk) 23:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand your first point. How do you know it is inaccurate? Regarding number 2, I have no objection to it being a direct quotation from the source, or a close a paraphrase as possible. Number 3 is fine.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Still think you need to put the other one in. He asserted he interviewed Smith, and was then told by the ISM press person not to do so again.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

You could read the quotation directly above it, though it's semi-tl;dr. Or, if you're a trusting soul you could take my word for it that it can be characterized thus, italicizing only the parts that were selectively quoted:

The bulldozer started forward, with Corrie sitting in front of it. She climbed to the top of the pile of rubble, looking directly into the cab of the bulldozer. Despite this, he continued forward and lost sight of her as she was dragged into the pile of rubble. Despite the obviousness of her position, he reversed and dragged the blade over her. She wasn't run over by the treads.

Incidentally, this wasn't a news article. It was an opinion editorial titled "The Myth of Rachel Corrie."

Last but not least, sorry for venting. It crawls my nerves when someone is misquoted thus, even if I heartily disagree with them. What I should have done was to recognize that you weren't the one that did so, nor were you defending the OpEd writer for doing so - you were defending keeping a cite which on first face is legitimate. My apologies, I was in the wrong. arimareiji (talk) 23:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I think maybe we're looking at two different things... sorry, but could you link me to the guy who says he interviewed Smith then was told not to do so again? arimareiji (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 23:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC).

It is the cite that supported the passage you deleted, it is certainly a biased source and probably should have an inline source, but here it is.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:19, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow. I don't know if I was on drugs yesterday, or somehow mudged the URL and got a later / more "polished" version. If the latter, the writer was guilty of convenient rephrasing in the version I saw. If the former, it's only the person who paraphrased it for the Wiki article whose phrasing changed the meaning. This version of the article faithfully reproduces what Joe Carr/Smith said, and I'll restore a complete paraphrase in the near future in balance to how much of PCHR gets used (if any). Thank you for the help. arimareiji (talk) 00:04, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Direct Eyewitness Accounts Taken by PCHR

Resolved

The direct link to the PCHR report other than EI page. "Following the taking of these affidavits, PCHR submitted a request to the investigation department of the Israeli occupying forces that they question these eyewitnesses directly for the purposes of their investigation into the death. The questioning by Israeli occupying forces investigators took place in late March in the presence of Israeli lawyers representing PCHR." Written Eyewitness Accounts Taken Under Oath by Lawyer Kasaalan (talk) 01:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

As a devil's advocate, this comes dangerously close to being (or flatly is) a primary source. It's not open-court testimony, and the information given on the page doesn't make it independently verifiable - it simply asserts that these are affidavits. But considering that it appears to be corroborated by material in the article, it's possible that it could qualify under this snippet from WP:Reliable_source_examples (emphasis added to qualifiers):

Websites and publications of political parties, religious groups, anti-religious groups, or any other partisan group, may exhibit bias and should be treated with caution. Neither political affiliation nor religious belief stated in these sources are in themselves a reason not to use them, as these websites can be used to present the viewpoints of these groups, if properly attributed. Such sources should be presented alongside references from other sources in order to maintain a neutral point of view.

I believe that with the above qualifiers it can be used, but I'd much rather defer the question to other editors' judgment. arimareiji (talk) 01:58, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The eyewitnesses may be telling the truth or some may even be lying. We cannot judge only by their claims for the case, and oly action PCHR took here is documenting and publishing the statements. The source is as it is. The procedures their lawyer took for documenting the eyewitness statements under oath seems formal and have integrity. This is the most reliable and direct publicly available source for the eyewitness statements I could find. "Following the taking of these affidavits, PCHR submitted a request to the investigation department of the Israeli occupying forces that they question these eyewitnesses directly for the purposes of their investigation into the death. The questioning by Israeli occupying forces investigators took place in late March in the presence of Israeli lawyers representing PCHR." Also PCHR was the HR organisation that took the affidavit statements, and "took the legal action for Israeli Forces to question these eyewitnesses directly, in the late March with the presence of Israeli lawyers representing PCHR", so PCHR involved as a first party to the case. Reliability is another discussion issue, yet it is verifiable and a primary source for the case. PCHR may not be neutral to the Israel-Palestine conflict possibly, yet doesnt seem much of an extremist organisation either. About PCHR Kasaalan (talk) 12:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Kasaalan, putting it in an affidavit doesn't make it any more reliable, as any lawyer will tell you. W.S. Gilbert, a barrister himself, hit the nail on the head when he said in The Mikado, "Why should I kill you when making an affidavit that you've been executed will do just as well?" The best statements are contemporary, excited utterances, when motivation to prevaricate hasn't settled in. Studied, formal statements with lawyers hovering around are not seen as any more reliable in the eyes of the law than any other statement.--Wehwalt (talk)

Kasaalan - while a primary source is considered to have more value in many settings, in Wikipedia being a primary source is nearly disqualifying. Take a look at this link to see what I mean. Whether this is the best approach or not is a moot point; it's a community standard.

Whether PCHR is extremist is open to debate, but they are at the least partisan and thus fall under the strictures I quoted in my first response. There would be no question that this source couldn't be used 1) if the material added from this source isn't corroborated by other cites within the article, or 2) if it's used without careful attribution to the source so that the reader can judge possible bias. I personally believe that if both conditions are met, some of the material for Joe Carr can be used to replace his unsourced account at the beginning of the ISM eyewitness accounts section. But I'd much rather defer to the consensus of other editors on this question; I'm coming in late on it. arimareiji (talk) 13:55, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

What I mean by primary is first hand direct source from a first party to a disputable case, for they took the legal actions in Israeli courts first. In the same manner the IDF or Israeli goverment reports, or IDF personnel interviews are also primary sources. Also, these eyewitness testimonies repeated at IDF and if there were any contradiction they would have easily locate and stated contradictions. I don't know about how partisan PCHR is or may be considered, but as far as I searched they are widely known and accepted in international HR area, they even prized by the President of French Republic in 1996, you may look at the about page for detail at their site. On the other hand IDF or IDF oriented media used in references may also be considered as partisan easily just as PCHR. "PCHR is a legal aid agency providing representation for victims of human rights violations in the Gaza Strip. PCHR has submitted more than 1200 complaints to the Israeli occupying forces regarding human rights violations since the beginning of the current Intifada. In no case in which PCHR has submitted a complaint, has any individual in the Israeli occupying forces, security services or other persons, been prosecuted or otherwise disciplined for any act perpetrated against a Palestinian or foreign national." But according to this we cannot reach a conclusion as "IDF personnel is partisan, therefore their interviews shouldn't be used". What we discuss here is if the report intact or not, in other words if it reflects eyewitnesses' statements as they are or not. These are the eyewitness accounts, eyewitnesses' own written statements and claims given under oath, and I can easily say this report is intact and just reporting what the eyewitnesses say. It contains no interpretation. Therefore this report has a higher value than most of the links we already used in reference section. We are not discussing if eyewitnesses lie or not, we are discussing if the report is intact or not, if it matches to the claims of the eyewitnesses. We cannot take eyewitnesses claims as solid facts, yet also we should mention and reference them for the neutrality of the article. This is the case for the IDF just as it is for the ISM. We are not judges, we are just presenting the sides' claims. Also we already have uncited quotes from eyewitnesses in the article, and when I present the first hand source of them, you still object. Your mikado quote has nothing to do with my referencing because I don't try to reach a conclusion basing eyewitness accounts, I am just quoting what they claim.

"Primary sources are sources very close to an event. For example, an account of a traffic accident written by a witness is a primary source of information about the accident. Other examples include archeological artifacts; photographs; historical documents such as diaries, census results, video or transcripts of surveillance, public hearings, trials, or interviews; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires; written or recorded notes of laboratory and field experiments or observations; and artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos, and television programs. The key point about a primary source is that it offers an insider's guide to an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on.[7]"

"Our policy: Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source." Kasaalan (talk) 21:57, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

(deindent) Per the quote you listed above: "Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them." That's why I previously quoted this:

Websites and publications of political parties, religious groups, anti-religious groups, or any other partisan group, may exhibit bias and should be treated with caution. Neither political affiliation nor religious belief stated in these sources are in themselves a reason not to use them, as these websites can be used to present the viewpoints of these groups, if properly attributed. Such sources should be presented alongside references from other sources in order to maintain a neutral point of view.

PCHR's webpage is not a "reliable source" by the Wikipedia definition, because they're partisan - they are an interested party to this topic. Per the above quote, this does not by itself disqualify it as a source. But any use of it would have to be constrained by the guidelines listed above. arimareiji (talk) 23:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I've felt for a while that whatever eyewitness accounts we do use should be cut back considerably so that they can be incorporated into the text, rather than be lengthy block sections. I just haven't wanted to get into it on this issue.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:20, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

PCHR main page has nothing to do with its report on eyewitness statements, because they are not commenting or paraphrasing the eyewitness accounts, they are publishing it word by word. Source is intact, it is the best source we can find that is publicly available for full eyewitness testimonies. Also, as I stated earlier, this eyewitness testimonies repeated in the investigation of IDF, which is done by PCHR request, therefore they are involved as a first party to the case, and any contradiction would be easily located by IDF in ther interrogation. You may call PCHR "partisan", but eyewitness accounts has nothing to do with their "partisan" ideas or comments in the article, also I am not aware of PCHR activities or their neutratily very much, but the source which is a known and accepted Human Right Organisation internationally, is more reliable than a maintstream newspaper for the full eyewitness accounts, also more reliable than some other "partisan" Israeli based references already sourced in the article for eyewitness accounts. Basically these are eyewitnesses' testimonies, their own claims, repeated at IDF interrogation and it is not my fault that IDF didn't publish their report publicly, PCHR did publish it therefore I use it, if IDF would have published it I would use it too. Eyewitness written testimonies given under oath with signatures taken by a lawyer, repeated at the Israeli investigation and published by Human Rights Organisation which is a first hand party to the case, primary source, source is intact, involves no paraphrasing, therefore a clear reference for eyewitnesses' claims. I will try to read all eyewitness accounts and check if they quoted properly later. But the primary source will be PCHR report, with other newspaper interviews. Kasaalan (talk) 13:38, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Kasaalan, I am not sure you are getting the distinction between primary source, meant to mean a firsthand account, and primary source, meaning a principal source, a source we are getting a lot of material from. The PCHR affidavits are the first, and should not be the second. I would rather work from newspapers, who have sifted and winnowed through fact checking processes and put their credibility and money on the line, then quote from a first hand account. That is why WP doesn't favor first hand accounts.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:56, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Whether PCHR is more or less reliable than any other partisan source is moot. They are a partisan source, and can not be used in isolation. Their material must be accompanied by corroborating material in the article, not just in your review of available material. It also must be clearly attributed so that the reader can judge possible bias. arimareiji (talk) 15:40, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I am referring primary as firsthand source by means of "Primary sources are sources very close to an event. For example, an account of a traffic accident written by a witness is a primary source of information about the accident." which is clearly adressed on wiki guidelines. I am not referring principal source as scientific means. There is no bias involved in the report because the statements are intact with no paraphrasing by PCHR. Neither newspapers nor PCHR can sift or winnow eyewitness statements, they can just publish them intact, and that is why we use them. We are not talking about any comment or paraphrasing here, so your partisan claims fall out of the guides. Also you say newspapers put credibility and money on the line, yet Human Right Organisations fall under same category, I referred you already they have international credibility, if a Human Right Organisation would change the eyewitness statements in any way, it would be easily located by IDF and Israel courts by now, and they would suffer severely for their actions. The procedure they took is clear for taking eyewitness statements, and your claimed standarts has nothing to do with PCHR, because they are not paraphrasing the claims, they publishes it intact with legal binding. Kasaalan (talk) 22:58, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Turn it around; say the Zionist party posted a video clip that they claim shows "what really happened" on their website without any verifiable sourcing other than themselves. You'd be correct in saying that we cannot use that clip without parallel sources corroborating it, and with clear attribution for the reader to judge bias.

1. It doesn't matter that unedited video would be much more probative than an unedited affidavit. We have only their word for it that they didn't edit it.
2. As with a video clip, an affidavit / firsthand account is a primary source by Wikipedia definition.
3. Wikipedia has guidelines established by the community for how to deal with use of a primary source by a partisan group, which I confusingly abbreviated earlier as "partisan source."
4. Those guidelines apply, whether it's to "my side" or "your side" or anyone else's "side".

If you want to take up the question of whether those community guidelines should be changed, this isn't the forum to do it in. It's great that you've provided a source for Joe Carr's original statements, one which I believe can be used to make the article better. But it needs to be used under the guidelines, if other editors agree that it can be used. arimareiji (talk) 23:58, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Zionist or not, if the party posted a video clip interviewing with IDF eyewitnesses, WikiGuidelines would't object for mentioning it, but WikiGuidelines would object stating a conclusion based on that interview. What we do here is same. We are trying to mention 2 opposing sides' eyewitness accounts. If ISM members eyewitnessing the event are partisan the IDF personnel eyewitnessing the event are also partisan. If PCHR that publishes the ISM eyewitness testimonies is partisan, some Israeli newspapers interviewing with IDF personel are also partisan. This is a disputable case. So we should mention both sides arguments, with the highest quality sources we can find. We cannot trim off one or two sides' claims by saying they are partisan, because they are the first hand party here who are involved the case. Actually we cannot progress much on the article because we don't have some admins here, and not much editors around for neutrality, our editors for the page are 6, 3 against 3 pro side, and for a disputable article, even our neutrality might be disputable. Kasaalan (talk) 14:09, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Are you even listening to anything I'm saying, or have you decided you already know what I'm going to say and thus keep repeating variants of the same arguments? I'd be vaguely interested (and possibly amused) to know which "side" you think I'm on.

Incidentally, per dictionary.com, partisan = "an adherent or supporter of a person, group, party, or cause." That does include PCHR. And it doesn't include most newspapers. arimareiji (talk) 16:41, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) You see why it is so difficult to reach consensus on this page these days? We get tales told at great length by Kasaalan (and repeatedly), full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:59, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I am reading what you write, but we don't have enough editors to reach a consensus around. I know what partisan means, and partisan word includes most of Israeli based articles used in reference section just as PCHR. Not sure what side you are, I don't know your edits so I cannot comment on you, yet on Wehwalt I can comment, and I can say he doesn't apply same Wiki standarts to the both sides equally. We need a group of admins watching over page, that is easiest way to reach a consensus. For example look at this page Tom Gross and tell me this is not a partisan source. Look at this sourceVoaNews what the news based on "according to a source", and according to an unknown source we use imaginary titles like "possible kidnapping attempt" although Corrie rejects the incident. [By the way the first source to voanews was a really untrustable page, I searched and added the original voanews reference] Isn't this source partisan too israelenews or this human rights activists or aids to terrorists. Yet even when I try to use Human Rights Watch report as a reference, I have to discuss pages long with Wehwalt to add it, why, because he even refuses internationally accepted Human Rights Watch claiming using it would be against WikiGuidelines, than I need to search and proof, how HRW reports already have been used in Wikipedia in dozens of page before I can add it as a reference. Or even when I want to add a page from The Boston Globe, people can refuse for it is not mainstream like New York Times, then I need to research and proof The Boston Globe belongs to The New York Times group. We cannot even reach a consensus on kill word [Concise Oxford English Dictionary kill cause the death of], and trying to replace them into death just like people die from natural reasons. Lots of info was missing in the article, and instead wasting time on baseless objections I could improve the article much more than its current state. I researched and referenced lots of important info missing in the article myself, unlike some editors who [instead researching] taking their time on "neutralitizing" and trimming off the article against "hagiography threats", yet it took much more time for me to discuss on objections caused by double standarts here. Why do we even need to discuss so long on the reliability of HRW, when I it is already widely accepted in the world by governments, press, academic studies and wikipedia. We couldn't reach a consensus on mentioning Rachel's fifth grade speech against hunger, which indicates it is hard to reach a consensus. Because our interpratation of WikiPolicies are different, therefore we need some independent admins' help on the page. Kasaalan (talk) 18:00, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Kasaalan, admins aren't better editors than anyone else, and are not better equipped to judge content on articles like this. They simply have gone through the RfA process to be given certain tools useful in maintaining Wikipedia (that is why the symbol for adminship is a mop). Arimameiji's comments seem neutral and to the point. If there are disagreements, there are many ways to settle the issue, from posting on noticeboards to asking for third opinions, which avoid excessive formality and get the job done.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:08, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

New section for teapot tempests

Resolved

Just wanted to be able to scroll a little less; I'm getting lazy in my old age. Please note that by referring to any individual source as partisan or non-partisan, I am not trying to judge whether it should be included. Impressions:

1. Can't comment on Tom Gross without knowing what he was being used as a source for.
2. I'm not impressed with VoA's sourcing or neutrality, but they're not partisan per se.
3. Israelenews doesn't come across as partisan, though the reporter herself and the fact it's an OpEd (opinion editorial) verges on partisanship. When I get back to re-including it, I'd like to specifically mention that it's an OpEd and not a news article.
4. Without knowing more about The Jewish Journal, I can't be sure, but the fact that they titled a blatant OpEd as a "Community Brief" makes me think they are partisan.
5. I suspect you mean the Human Rights Watch report published under the umbrella of UNHCR (the UN Office of the High Commissioner on Refugees); my impression is of this alone. By one definition, it could be considered 'partisan' - they are promoting a cause, that of human rights. But to me it comes across as non-partisan with respect to politics. I'm also impressed by their almost-religious sourcing of material; it verges on scholarly.

As Wehwalt said, adminship does not confer nobility. It does imply that an editor has remained neutral enough to not piss off a lot of people, otherwise they would fail their RfA. Pissed-off people have long memories. It also implies that an editor knows their way around Wikipedia, is familiar with the rules, and for the most part has "been there done that." Generally, an admin's opinion is trustworthy, though there are always exceptions. Perhaps the biggest testament to an admin's trustworthiness is when they don't use their admin tools to "win" arguments - which means that a group of admins overseeing this article would not solve anything.
The only resolutions we can reach in article editing are either compromise and consensus, or getting admins to banish those who refuse to edit constructively. The former is what we need here, not the latter. arimareiji (talk) 19:49, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Tom Gross when you examine his other articles and his biography in the site is broadly partisan, but I don't object his referenced article because he is clearly partisan on his other articles. Yet when I like to use a verifiable fact from a site, it gets objection by the site is partisan therefore unreliable. I don't like to go in detail much in each of the sources, there are even more examples in the article, "Voice of America (VOA), is the official external radio and television broadcasting service of the United States federal government. Its oversight entity is the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG)." and unofficially related to CIA, and some of the sources in the reference, whether partisan or not, are not eligible for wikiguidelines as reliable sources, or even maintstream. And if anyone objects even Human Rights Watch report, they should also object most of these references, yet they don't and that is why I mention on double standards. Even while I question the reliability of sources like these, I am not trimming them off from the article, because their claims are somewhat common in Israel and gives a different thought to the article. Yet, when I try to add missing information to the article, same wikiguidelines which not applied to these links, came before me as an objection for not adding my sources. If you wonder, HRW has been refused for being unreliable, so we had to quote it from UN website as referenced by a reliable source. Why I have to repeat myself over and over again is because constant objections even on primary sources, and we don't have much editors around for settlement, and whatever you call it, we generally have 2 opposing ideas for applying rules and as 1-1, 2-2 or 3-3 generally, so we cannot progress fast. Actually even I object Wehwalt much, that is mainly because we have conflicting ideas, and mostly we are the only ones around here, we need more editors and independent admins around, because we cannot settle on applying wikiguidelines or choosing reliable sources most of the time, yet sometimes we cannot even settle on very basic things which leads conflicts bigger. Kasaalan (talk) 00:31, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Would anyone like to step forward and explain objections to using the HRW report filed under the UNHCR as source material for this article? I can't see any reason for excluding it, but I may not know the whole story.

(If you're not answering this question, please consider waiting a short while before adding a new edit and changing the edit summary. The current edit summary is meant to get additional input from people who have this watchlisted, and stifling the input of people who could answer this question is not a mark of good faith.) arimareiji (talk) 02:31, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to see it mentioned inline it was from HRW, or else backed up with another source, but otherwise I'm OK with it.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you; I'll restore the question into the edit summary for a little while in case there are outright objections. arimareiji (talk) 02:56, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Tom Hurndall

He is fatally shot in the head by IDF sniper for certain we should mention it in the explanation. Being two words shorter does not make the explanation better. This is the exact reason Tom Hurndall mentioned in the see also section. "British ISM volunteer fatally shot in Gaza" True but we already know who shot him, and he convicted at Israel military courts than we should mention its position. He fatally shot in the head by IDF sniper stayed in coma and died 9 months later. "In the head" is important because it directly shows the intention. You cannot shoot a man in the head by mistake. If we don't mention IDF personnel than it misleads the reader like who shot him is unknown.

"Thomas "Tom" Hurndall (29 November 1981 – 13 January 2004) was a British photography student, a volunteer for the International Solidarity Movement (ISM), and an activist against the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories. On 11 April 2003, he was shot in the head in the Gaza Strip by an Israel Defense Forces (IDF) sniper, Taysir Hayb. Hurndall was left in a coma and died nine months later.

Hayb was convicted of manslaughter and obstruction of justice by an Israeli military court in April 2005 and sentenced to eight years in prison.[1] On 10 April 2006, a British inquest jury returned a verdict of unlawful killing meaning "intentionally killed", or, according to the Hurndall family QC, murdered.[2][3]"

"On 27 June 2005, Sergeant Taysir al-Heib was convicted of manslaughter, obstruction of justice, giving false testimony and inducing comrades in his unit to bear false witness.

On 11 August 2005, al-Heib was sentenced to eight years in prison by a military court.[1]

Tom Hurndall's family and their legal team were denied access to the military police report which led to the trial. After an appeal to the Israeli Supreme Court, the state prosecution offered access to the report to the legal team, but not the Hurndall family, in early August. According to a spokesman for the Tom Hurndall Foundation,[7] this will allow them to decide whether Taysir could be indicted for the more serious charge of murder, and to find out if responsibility for Hurndall's death lies higher up the chain of command.[8]" Kasaalan (talk) 12:26, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Learn about what the purpose of a "see also" is. We could simply list the names with no text at all.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:02, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Completely agreed; the subject of this article is Rachel Corrie. Not the ISM, or ISM members who have been (allegedly) killed/injured by the IDF. Just Rachel Corrie. Also please keep arguments short and to the point, rather than cutting/pasting large sections of text in lieu of a cogent argument. arimareiji (talk) 13:19, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

There are almost no cases we'd not state who killed an international observer, particularly when it was a series of high-profile court cases in two countries that determined what happened and who carried it out. PR^talk 09:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

There's already a Wikipedia article on him that discusses all that, PR; the issue here is why mention him in the article on someone else? Were they friends? Were they together when she was killed? Had they ever even met? I believe the answer to the latter 3 questions is "no", "no", and "no". Also, he wasn't an "international observer", he was a political activist. Jayjg ^(talk) 09:30, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

If you ask the wrong questions then you get nowhere. Both Rachel and Tom were ISM activists. So Yes. They both have been killed within 1 month one after the other. So yes. They both have been killed in the same city. So yes. They both have been killed by same army's personnel whether on purpose or not. So yes. Both case have been subject of Israel Courts. So yes. Similar incidents happening in similar location in Gaza, in similar dates, by IDF soldiers, that is why the cases are related. Kasaalan (talk) 14:48, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Who says they're the wrong questions? Why are yours more relevant? Do you have reliable sources tying them together? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I make the cogent argument, and quoted the reasons for a them. There is a certain conviction present in this case by Israeli courts, so there is no allegation or claim present on who killed Tom Hurndall. "Also provide a brief explanatory sentence when the relevance of the added links is not immediately apparent." Wiki says this as a guideline, we couldn't simply just list the names beause relevance of the links wouldn't be apparent. He is not allegedly killed, he is certainly killed by an IDF sniper with a bullet in the head, this is why I put the quotes from the wiki article. It is not allegedly because the Israel Military Court sentenced him to 8 years. A certain conviction is present on the case by 2 seperate courts. He is killed by an IDF sniper. Is it a better brief when we keep out, he is killed by an IDF sniper, from the brief, or is it more misleading, like it is unknown who shot him like a disputable case. Wehwalt generally suggests "keeping it short", but keeping it short by 3 words, is way misleading than the space it gains. "Keeping it short" approach cutting out necessary details, as stated in the wiki guidelines this is an electronic encyclopedia, and space is not the biggest issue in Wiki. Kasaalan (talk) 21:47, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

If space was the biggest issue on wiki, they'd be sending you bills for your talk page contributions! :) However, I digress. Putting those three see alsos, with their accompanying text, is an attempt to say "Because the IDF shot these people, they therefore must have intentionally done harm to Rachel Corrie." That's not the purpose of a see also.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

It is your comment, yet not objective. I don't claim "IDF shot these people, therefore they intentionally harmed Rachel", what I say is Tom Hurndall has been shot in the head by an IDF sniper, it is the final decision of 2 different courts including Israel Military Court, and your shortening is covering this fact, and it misleads the readers by hiding crucial undisputable info. A sniper means not a regular soldier but a sharpshooter whose specialty is shooting where he aims exactly with his special longrange rifle with a scope, a sniper shot Tom in the head and that is the fact. You try to trim off the crucial parts and calling that neutralizing, yet it results in erasing off IDF's misdoings even the ones accepted by IDF. The killer is known for sure by verdict of Israel Military Court, similar incidents happening in similar location, in similar dates, by IDF soldiers, that is why the cases are related. I am not commenting like you, I am stating the facts and you are erasing the facts. That is not neutral point of view, that is IDF based point of view. Kasaalan (talk) 14:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Come on, Kasaalan, you're defending it because you hope the reader will get that implied point. Why else are you so assiduously defending it? And why else are the dates that these events took place in there? You want the reader to think the IDF went on a little killing spree at the expense of foreigners, come on, you can admit it, we're all friends here.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Simply juxtaposing the dates is fair game, I think - but only if no WP:OR/WP:SYNTHESIS conclusions are asserted. I doubt that anyone whose mind wasn't already made up would see a relationship in the absence of proof. It's not our responsibility, nor would we be able, to anticipate and try to protect a reader from their own POV. That would verge on telling them not to stuff beans up their nose, I think.arimareiji (talk) 15:58, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we should add, say, Adam Shapiro to the list. And I would still delete the text, leaving only the names.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:22, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

ISM and/or a link to IDF demolitions work / rationale (if such an article exists), or... well... any article to balance against "IDF's raison d'etre is to kill everyone in sight", would be pertinent. Adam Shapiro, not so much I think. arimareiji (talk) 17:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Wehwalt re-inserting redundant material

Resolved

I deleted the following passage from the end of the "possible kidnapping attempt" section:

In March 2008, The Observer reported that the gunmen, who carried Kalashnikovs, intended to kidnap the Corries, feeling that they would be valuable bargaining tools. According to the paper, Nasrallah persuaded the gunmen to go on their way. They may have killed two men on the Egyptian border instead.[59]

This adds absolutely nothing of value to the section. The bit about the men killed on the border is hearsay speculation ("it is said that" - unsourced and unattributed in the Observer article) that is irrelevant to this article, and even if it were so, it does not belong in this article on such flimsy evidence. The only other difference is that it says "Kalashnikovs" (plural), a point of only marginal interest. The earlier newspaper reports, which stated that only one of the men carried a gun are much more likely to be true: they are closer to the incident than the Observer article, a long piece which focuses on Rachel's background and the effect of Rachel's killing on the Corrie family, not on the detail of an incident two years ago.

Removing this bit is an easy, non-controversial way of trimming this section. It really needs to be trimmed further (WP:UNDUE), not expanded with worthless repetition.

--NSH001 (talk) 17:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you should be looking elsewhere in the article for things to trim. Like the lengthy witness statements that should be boiled down into the text or at the worst brief blockquotes. However, I'd be fine with deleting the border sentence, but the rest should go back in. Why? Because there is doubt as to the gunmens' intentions, and this dispels that.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Just my opinion, your mileage may vary - but I don't think the Observer really adds much. I don't think it's fair to call its assertions hearsay. But then again, they don't tell us what the source for their assertions is. And the "might have killed Egyptian border guards" comes across as a little weaselly.

Striking through a now-moot section of my own comments.

I think there might be a different angle which would help the kerfluffle make more sense. It's... well, quixotic of the ISM to object because "the Corries weren't the intended kidnap victims, the people next door were." It doesn't cast the situation in a more favorable light. But it shows common ground between the two accounts, which makes more sense than polar disagreement. arimareiji (talk) 17:54, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

If it sounds improbable, here's the quote from cite 57: "In the early morning of January 4, two Palestinian men visited three American members of the Olympia-Rafah Sister City Project (ORSCP) at the home where the Americans were staying in Rafah, a city on Gazas border with Egypt. The two men reportedly wanted to hold the three foreigners in exchange for the release of a family member who was arrested by Palestinian security forces for an earlier kidnapping. The Corries were staying in a nearby home and helped to talk the men out of going through with the plan." arimareiji (talk) 18:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I've WP:BRD'ed out a version I think might be acceptable to everyone; please feel free to redact as much as needed. The media and ISM accounts are almost identical, except for the relative levels of sympathy in wording: Two men with a gun go into a home where Americans are staying in order to kidnap them, and get talked out of it by the Corries.

To me, it previously came across as: "Either they were being kidnapped, or some guys came to visit them for a little spot of tea." The more plausible reconciled version, which I find much more amusing: "Either the media wanted to report a better story than the one that really happened, or the ISM wanted to put a good face on it and said the kidnappers weren't bad guys because they were going to kidnap someone else." arimareiji (talk) 19:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

(Personally, I think the media just wanted a better story and "improved" it; in my experience they do that a lot. But either way, I still think it's more amusing.) arimareiji (talk) 23:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I may play with it a little bit, but it is quite good. Only thing that wasn't clear is if they asked the Corries for autographs, had their pix taken with them (hopefully without the AK47's showing), or gave them their cell phone numbers before they went to the border and blew away a couple of randoms.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The observer link was not working, so I cannot comment on that article without the article link. Current references for the case may help for the discussion. voice of americatelegraphisraeliinsider Kasaalan (talk) 19:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Lots of little edits and one section refactor

Resolved

I've been a busy little bee, as you can see from the edit history. If there's anything you disagree with or don't understand the rationale for, please check the edit summaries - I tried to individuate them as much as possible to make it easier to deal with each on its merits. And of course, I'm always around to answer questions. arimareiji (talk) 01:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I support some key points should be mentioned for her early life. The dove parade and her fifth grade hunger speech is notable for her life. I added two parts, "yet declined to comment on why ACP drivers didn't get the bulldozers to stop" and "wearing an orange flourescent safety jacket with 2 reflector stripes, had positioned herself in the path of a C9R bulldozer with spots on". Kasaalan (talk) 04:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

While I understand your frustration with IDF's unwillingness to explain their conclusions (i.e. issue a full report that's transparent about their reasoning), these quotes aren't the place to speculate about it. The cites being used here don't support them, which means that the additions amount to WP:OR.

I'm not finished with this article yet by any means, and plan to add HRW material that addresses IDF transparency issues the right way - sourced, and in context. arimareiji (talk) 09:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

To further clarify - no one questions that she was wearing a visibility jacket. But your additions go a step farther, and both insinuate and assert that the IDF/spokesman refused to address the issue. Those aren't supported by the sources for the sentences you modified. If you'll give me a chance to do so instead of re-explaining why this is nonproductive, I plan to address that the correct way using HRW. arimareiji (talk) 14:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

"For now, the official Israeli line is that the driver did not see Rachel through the bulldozer's thick bullet-proof glass. However, the spokesman acknowledged that the armoured personnel carriers (APCs) that accompany bulldozers are responsible for directing the drivers towards their targets. So why didn't the APC drivers get the bulldozer to stop? The IDF declined to comment." [18] You said my additions not supported by the references, but they were already in the article. HRW needs to be added and might be better, yet also this is a necessary part when the article quoted because it states both claim and an objection to that claim, the paragraph is a whole splitting it in two misleads the view. Also Rachel was wearing an orange flourescent jacket, yet the photographs also proof the D9R spotlights were also on and the jacket has 2 reflector stripes which shines against light sources, so this part is extremely important to the case against blindspot arguments. Rachel and D9R Where in the article it will be stated we can discuss, however the jacket and spotlights should be stated at least once. Kasaalan (talk) 15:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

In both cases, you're performing dubious WP:SYNTHESIS to say that they're connected. I know the reference; I'm the one who refactored it based on that reference. The "decline to comment" is NOT in reference to her jacket. And "you can see spots in the photo, and spots reflect off of stripes, so the bulldozer driver could see her" is blatant synthesis. We don't insert our own opinions, and we don't insert our own deductions. Please keep those rules in mind.

Every hour I spend re-explaining the rules to you is an hour I'm not trying to neutralize POV that detracts from Rachel's story (something I think you want told), and probably another two or three more hours before I have the mental stamina to come back again and deal with fighting against you to make even the most obviously-needed reforms. At some point, you need to learn that fighting to "win" every little Pyrrhic victory is not helping you. arimareiji (talk) 19:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't claim the declining of comment with her jacket is related, but it was part of the article and it should be mentioned untill you made a better view from HRW article. I am not performing any synthesis because I don't try to to reach a certain point with these claims, but I am stating undisputable facts. IDF mentions about the blindspots, and I state the open spots of D9R by the event photographs. I did not try to reach any synthesis, yet it is a fact she did wear an orange safety jacket with reflector stripes while the spotlights of the D9R is obviously on during whole time. I don't claim basing on this fact as the IDF is certainly wrong or ISM is certainly right, yet again I state this fact because it lessens the probility of not seeing Rachel during the events, because a safety jacket is more than just an orange color while while the spots hit the reflectors, but again I didn't insert any comment in the article, I just described the situation pointing the facts is necessary. I don't insert my opinion, or my conclusions, I state the prominent facts for the case. If your mental stamina is a concern to you, I can sincerely recommend you getting professional help on the matter. The article is not about victory, it is about revealing the truths. Also this is not a minor spot to discuss, it is a major fact for the case. Our job here is stating the facts, the conclusion is not ours to make. I state the facts again and again, and deleting the facts is not a way of neutralizing the article. Kasaalan (talk) 19:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

1. I really don't appreciate your implication that my being frustrated with your constant bickering indicates that I need "professional help on the matter."
2. This essay goes a long way toward explaining how most editors feel about statements like "it is about revealing the truths [sic]." Please keep in mind when reading it that it is satire, and not serious. arimareiji (talk) 19:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I constantly restating the facts without exhausting over page most of which consists of baseless objections to my edits, and if you want to name my actions that much maybe you should read the discussion page over again. I don't feel like caring to your personal statements on my behaviour. There aren't enough editors for being able to mention most in any way. So trying to win any argument by exaggerating the numbers will not help. As I explained earlier, the editors you referred are only limited to 2 and made some really biased effort on the article with their double standarts, so I don't have the impression I have discussed with independent editors that much. That is why I argued we should call some independent admins for the page earlier. Also your frustration, what you aprreciate or how you amuse yourself is out of my concern here, but being unable to stand even a short discussion like this, also might be a good indication on the mental strength of a person. Why I recommend you to consider seeking for help, because you mentioned it yourself just as it is an important matter. If it is a trivial case that only concerns yourself, maybe you shouldn't mention it, where it is unrelated. Kasaalan (talk) 20:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

1. "Short discussion"? This page is 302,000 characters long even after archiving threads significantly more than a month old. The overwhelming majority of it is yours. For comparison, the average English word's length is 5.1 characters. That would make this page longer than two full-length novellas.
2. I'm not talking about editors on this page when I say most editors would agree with this essay's farcical conclusions about "truth warriors." I'm talking about the whole of Wikipedia.
3. Keep up the insinuations that I lack "mental strength" and need "professional help." You'll make the acquaintance of some "independent admins" in very short order. arimareiji (talk) 20:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

1. So if I restate your claim, I have read all of my own writings, I have read all of opposers' claims, I have researched, than read that articles, parashrased or quoted them with clear references for providing answers against constant objections, which is "longer than 2 full-length novellas". Why did I researched for info, while some others mostly trying to shape the article according to their point of view. After I came there is some obvious improvement in the article. I found the middle name of Rachel is Aliene. Might sound trivial at first, but I learned it while I have read the medical reports and legal court documents. I located the exact serie of D9 used in the case was D9R. Might sound trivial, yet it affects the field of view, the sizes, the cabin, the location of operator, the spotlights anything and everything to the case. I found the medical reports of Rachel even the original ones. ... It took a long time, yet answering objections took more time. But if you won't read my discussions for necessary cases, than don't base your argument for they are long, because I have made the research then read them all before I provide them here. And if you read them, you might also understand why I discussed so long on quoting the HRW report or why full text for the eyewitness accounts should be referenced from the first hand sources. It is not my fault 2 editors constantly objected to the primary sources. That is why it took so long. Also some of the text here are for other editors to evaulate, before I make the edits based on quotes. They are prepublished here for future edits, while providing time for others to read and object them.

1. Verifiable facts needs to be stated. Wikipedia:Verifiability You don't argue the facts, yet you argue with me while I provide them in the article. If you can get some independent admins to the page, go ahead, it might help.
2. I have written a longer answer for this case but I don't like to discuss further. If you keep your trivial personal mood statements out of the discussion, no need for us to discuss them over here. Yet if you will rephrase my statements, then try to threaten me by your own false rephareses, you might feel the urge to call admins, however it is not my concern what I haven't said or what you think I have said. My statements are above and as they are just like yours. Kasaalan (talk) 21:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Kasaalan, you say "Rachel was wearing an orange flourescent jacket, yet the photographs also proof the D9R spotlights were also on and the jacket has 2 reflector stripes which shines against light sources, so this part is extremely important to the case against blindspot arguments." Which reliable source says this is "extremely important to the case against blindspot arguments." Why do you think you need to make an argument against the blindspot arguments? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Answers are given in new section. Eyewitness statements and event photographs clearly describes the jacket in detail as I do. Kasaalan (talk) 17:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Safety Jacket in Detail

Resolved

Primary and direct source from a side to the case. ISM eyewitness written testimonies given under oath. Their claims for her safety jacket are backed up by event photographs. The photograph clearly shows that Rachel Corrie was wearing a flourescent orange safety jacket with 2 reflector stripes while the 2 spotlights of D9R is on. Using an apparent photograph to describe an item important for a case is not likely to involved with original research but if it is the eyewitness statements already contains this fact. By the way ISM gave out the permission to the photos for press can we use the event photographs from ICFI in the article?

Here is the direct original source of the written eyewitness statements taken under oath by Palestinian Center for Human Rights lawyer and then repeated at IDF office by request of PCHR. PALESTINIAN CENTRE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS PRESS RELEASE 30.06.2003 AFFIDAVITS

(click blue button at right to see text)

"Following the taking of these affidavits, PCHR submitted a request to the investigation department of the Israeli occupying forces that they question these eyewitnesses directly for the purposes of their investigation into the death. The questioning by Israeli occupying forces investigators took place in late March in the presence of Israeli lawyers representing PCHR." "I the undersigned Gregory S. Schnabel, U.S.A. Passport ... Born April, 26, 1974, give my statement under oath for the advocate Raji Sourani about the death or homicide of Rachel Corrie on the 16th day of March, 2003. ... Both Rachel and Richard were wearing orange florescent jackets. Rachel was carrying a megaphone which she was using to communicate with the soldiers inside the vehicles. Richard and I unfurled a banner with the words "International Solidarity Movement" printed clearly on it. ... The bulldozer approached Rachel from a distance of 10 to 15 meters away. Rachel was clearly visible and was still wearing her orange florescent jacket. As the bulldozer advanced Rachel signaled to the bulldozer driver by waving her arms. She was standing in a wide open area. There were no rocks, walls, trees or obstructions of any kind. The house of Dr. Samir was approximately 5-10 meters behind her." "I, the undersigned, Thomas Edward Dale, British Citizen (passport ...), born 17/08/1984, am giving this statement under oath to the lawyer Raji Sourani, about the homicide of the late Rachel Corrie. I give this statement on 22nd March 2003, having been given legal warning and choice. ... The light was good and there were no obstructions between me and Rachel, nor between her and the driver. There were no gaseous obstructions to vision. Rachel was wearing the orange ‘high visibility’ jacket which she had been wearing all day. I was holding the megaphone. Rachel had been using it all day until a few minutes before hand, when I had come from where I was standing, go the megaphone and went back to my position." "I, the undersigned, Richard, J.A. Purssell, U.K citizen Passport No. ... d.o.b 12/10/1971 give my statement under oath to the lawyer Raji Sourani after having been given legal warning and choice. ... For the next two hours we all acted to try and obstruct the work of the bulldozers. We stood in front of them and in buildings it seemed they might be trying to destroy. Throughout this time there would be someone on the megaphone announcing that we were internationals. Some of us including Rachel were wearing orange fluorescent jackets with reflective strips similar to those worn by construction workers for high visibility. There seemed to be no discernable pattern to what the bulldozers were doing. They ranged up and down the kilometre long strip, sometimes working together, sometimes not. On more than one occasion the drivers gestured to us, waving, pointing or sounding their horns. They were clearly aware of our presence. ... The bulldozer was moving at no more than five or six miles an hour. As it advanced its blade was placed in the ground and earth piled up in front of it. As the bulldozer reached the place where Rachel was standing, she began as many of us did on the day to climb the pile of earth. She reached the top and at this point she must have been clearly visible to the driver, especially as she was still wearing the high visibility jacket. She turned and faced in my direction and began to come back down the pile. The bulldozer continued to move forward at the same speed." "I the undersigned, Nicholas James Porter Durie, passport number ..., born on 16th of June 1983 in Dundee, Scotland, am giving my statement under oath for the advocate Raji Sourani on the death or homicide of the late Rachel Corrie on the 16th of March 2003. ... Just prior to the incident which led to Rachel's death I was sitting atop just such a pile of rubble with my fellow activist Joe, and owing to the bulldozer nearest me being in reverse I was focusing on the other bulldozer which was moving towards Rachel (who was crouched about fifteen metres from the front of the bulldozer, and thus was patently within the line of sight of the bulldozer driver, wearing a fluorescent orange jacket) at a speed of some five miles per hour, or so, a slow and purposeful advance. The bulldozer’s blade was lowered and the bulldozer continued to progress at a steady five miles per hours, or so, notwithstanding Rachel’s presence as it reached Rachel with its pile of earth and rubble in the van of its shovel. When this reached Rachel she ascended the pile. It was at this point within the driver’s capabilities both to see Rachel on the top of the pile of earth and to stop, as it was within the capabilities of the nearby driver of the other bulldozer, and the crew of the nearby tank to see Rachel atop the mound of earth. At no point however did the driver of the bulldozer which killed Rachel make any attempt to stop or slow down. The bulldozer maintained its steady pace." "I the undersigned Joseph Carr, USA Passport number ..., born 25 April, 1981, give this statement under oath for the lawyer Raji Sourani about the homicide of the late Rachel Corrie on 16 March, 2003. ... One bulldozer began to damage part of the structure on which we were standing, so a Nick began standing and sitting on the edge of the structure, and made it impossible for the bulldozer to work without injuring him. At this point, Rachel, Greg and Tom joined us from the well, with a banner and a megaphone. Rachel and Richard were wearing jackets that were fluorescent orange and had reflective stripping. ... I was elevated about 2 meters above the ground, and had a clear view of the action happening about 20 meters away. Still wearing her fluorescent jacket, she knelt down at least 15 meters in front of the bulldozer, and began waving her arms and shouting, just as activists had successfully done dozens of times that day. The bulldozer continued driving forward and headed straight for Rachel. When it got so close that it was moving the earth beneath her, she climbed onto the pile of rubble being pushed by the bulldozer. She got so high onto it that she was in clear view of the cab of the bulldozer. Her head and upper torso were above the bulldozer’s blade, and the bulldozer driver and co-operator could clearly see her. Despite this, the driver continued forward, which caused her to fall back, out of view of the diver." "I the undersigned, William George Hewitt, United States passport number ..., born on February 10 1978 in Chowchilla California U.S.A., am giving this statement about the homicide of the late Rachel Corrie on the 16th of March 2003 under oath to the advocate Raji Sourani. ... We used a large banner and a megaphone to clearly communicate our presence and identity to the IOF soldiers. Rachel Corrie and Richard both wore bright orange high visibility jackets with reflective tape on them. For most of the duration of these events, Rachel spoke to the bulldozer drivers through the megaphone, telling them that we were internationals, our nations of citizenship, that we were unarmed and no threat to them. Obviously the drivers saw us; they responded by honking horns and even returning gestures from the bulldozer cabs. Several times ISM volunteers sat down in front of bulldozers, and each time the driver stopped before injuring them. ... Rachel was mortally injured at approximately 5:00 PM. When this happened, I was walking toward her with Alice. Both of us saw her standing in front of Doctor Samir’s house. She was wearing a bright orange jacket with reflective strips on it. She was gesturing at a bulldozer driver. When I first noticed her there, she was about twenty meters away from and directly in front of the bulldozer. As it continued to advance at a slow, steady pace, she sat down in front of it. She sat down, the driver pushed a churning wave of dirt up to her knees, and as the dirt began to touch her she tried to move backward, and then tried to stand up. Then she lost her balance as the dirt began to engulf her. She was lifted up onto the moving dirt, and then she fell. Her feet were caught under the bulldozer blade. The driver continued to advance slowly and drove completely over her, then reversed and backed away. I was only about five meters away when the driver began to crush her legs. The entire time I was walking toward Rachel. The only reason I did not dive in front of the bulldozer myself and risk being killed as well in order to help Rachel was because I did not believe until I actually saw her legs disappear under the steel blade while she struggled to escape that the driver would not stop! As the driver drove over her, I passed directly in front of the bulldozer, waving my arms and yelling, “Don’t kill my friend!” After he drove over her completely, I was on the opposite side of the bulldozer, close enough to take two steps and touch its driveshaft. I continued to wave and yell at the driver, “You are killing my friend!” It is clear that the driver saw Rachel well before she sat down; he could not have see her leave his field of vision at any point, since she remained directly in front of the machine. He approached slowly; he could not have seen her disappear except under the blade. Because of my and Nick’s experience of nearly being crushed, and of the driver stopping at the last moment, I am convinced that it is possible for the driver to see the point where the bulldozer blade contacts the ground. In addition, she was lifted right before she fell and was crushed; this made her even more visible." "This statement has been given before me, lawyer Raji Sourani, in my office at the Palestinian Center For Human Rights (PCHR), and in my presence on March 31, 2003, by William Hewitt. After I had given him legal warning to tell the truth, he signed this statement in the full capacity of his free and independent will." Lawyer signature Public Document

SUMMARY FOR EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS ON SAFETY JACKET

(click blue button at right to see text)

Both Rachel and Richard were wearing orange florescent jackets. Rachel was clearly visible and was still wearing her orange florescent jacket. The light was good and there were no obstructions between me and Rachel, nor between her and the driver. There were no gaseous obstructions to vision. Rachel was wearing the orange ‘high visibility’ jacket which she had been wearing all day. Some of us including Rachel were wearing ORANGE FLOURESCENT JACKETS WITH REFLECTIVE STRIPS similar to those worn by construction workers for high visibility. She reached the top and at this point she must have been clearly visible to the driver, especially as she was still wearing the high visibility jacket. I was focusing on the other bulldozer which was moving towards Rachel (who was crouched about fifteen metres from the front of the bulldozer, and thus was patently within the line of sight of the bulldozer driver, wearing a fluorescent orange jacket) at a speed of some five miles per hour, or so, a slow and purposeful advance. The bulldozer’s blade was lowered and the bulldozer continued to progress at a steady five miles per hours, or so. Rachel and Richard were wearing jackets that were FLOURESCENT ORANGE and HAD REFLECTIVE STRIPPING. I was elevated about 2 meters above the ground, and had a clear view of the action happening about 20 meters away. Still wearing her fluorescent jacket, she knelt down at least 15 meters in front of the bulldozer, and began waving her arms and shouting, just as activists had successfully done dozens of times that day. Her head and upper torso were above the bulldozer’s blade, and the bulldozer driver and co-operator could clearly see her. Obviously the drivers saw us; they responded by honking horns and even returning gestures from the bulldozer cabs. She was wearing a BRIGHT ORANGE JACKET WITH REFLECTIVE STRIPS on it.

A short summary for the eyewitness statements on flourescent orange safety jacket with 2 reflective strips. Kasaalan (talk) 13:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• • Massive cut/pastes are not persuasive if they don't directly address the actual question being asked. This has been an ongoing issue in the last month. arimareiji (talk) 15:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, your "summary" contains several first-person statements. Either those are also just cut/pastes, but this time being masqueraded as honest discourse, or you're asserting that you have a massive WP:CoI. Neither is good. arimareiji (talk) 15:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't want to jump in here too much, especially since Kasaalan hasn't answered the question posed at the end of the last section. But those photographs are not "event photographs", but were taken earlier in the day. We cannot use them as they are nonfree and do not fall under any fair use criterion.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

What question you refer, because my quotes explains why the jacket should be described in detail. As you call my statements original research it is only clear, either you haven't read the full eyewitness statements I provided, or simply ignored them. You asked the question on sources, claiming it was original research, so I proved you it is not original research, but based on the eyewitness statements and event photographs which are completely verifiable as I clearly referenced earlier. Quotes are big yet interconnected, also I have clearly marked related parts with bold and added as a summary at the end for those who don't like to read in detail. My summary of course contains first person statements, because these people are the eyewitnesses to the case, therefore should be considered as a Primary Source according to wiki guidelines for the case. Moreover the eyewitness statements can be easily proved by the event photographs. Wehwalt your claims are simply wrong. Look at the page with event photograph. You can easily see she was wearing the safety jacket before the incident. And in this collage posted by permission from ISM you can easily see she is wearing same safety jacket after the incident. On contrary to your claims, we have both before and after the incident photographs publicly available. As I already prooved you earlier, which you didn't bother to read or care, all of the photographs' timeline is clearly available. The page is "last updated on 21 March 2003 (added detail to captions in images and context to second paragraph)" on contrary to your claims. Look at the photostory at EI. The photographs clearly marked by timeline. First 2 photographs before the incident [19][20] taken between 3:00-4:00 PM and the other 2 photographs after the incident [21][22] taken at 4:45 PM and 4:47 PM respectively. So the claims of the eyewitnesses can be easily verified when you look at the event photographs. Wehwalt with false claims you can get nowhere. Also you claim they are non-free yet ON THIS PHOTOGRAPH IT IS CLEARLY STATED ICFI USED IT BY PERMISSION OF ISM so we can clearly address ICFI site as a reference. Also the photographs were taken from ISM press handout which gives us no reason to doubt for copyright issues. Uploading an image on wiki has stricter guidelines unlike using it as a proof. Kasaalan (talk) 17:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, fortunately I don't have to answer most of that because it is still a nonfree image. Using it in a press handout does not release the photo into the public domain. And just because we know what site a photo can be found on does not mean we can use it here. I take it that since WSWS used it by permission of ISM, that means we can too. That is not the case. It would have to be releasted into the public domain, have a suitable license, or else fall under a fair use exception. Go read up on copyright issues for images here at WP.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not talking about uploading the picture here, but I am talking about using the WSWS page, which has the permission from ISM to use the photographs, as a reference for the jacket, which has the right to publish picture from ISM. Or any other site like common dreams or Electronic Intifada, showing the source is ISM handout, and even AP used it from ISM handout. Press handouts are for public to view them, as a general rule, unless they stated otherwise. Also you should answer about your false claims on timeline. The sites and eyewitness accounts clearly show the timeline of the photographs. They are not giving false info on event timeline. We have both before and after photographs clearly show the jacket she is wearing with timeline, and eyewitness accounts stressing the jacket in detail because it is important, which can be easily verified by event photographs. You haven't made good arguments for not to describe the safety jacket in detail, which is an extremely important detail for the case. Kasaalan (talk) 17:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Despite adding 7kb, mostly of unattributed copy/paste material, you still have not answered the question "Which reliable source says this is 'extremely important to the case against blindspot arguments[?]'". This is a nigh-canonical example of example 8 under Gaming the system:

Stonewalling - actively filibustering discussion, or repeatedly returning to claims that a reasonable editor might have long since resolved or viewed as discredited (without providing any reasonable counter of the discredital), effectively tying up the debate or preventing a policy-based resolution being obtained.

Feel free to ignore the link to what a "filibuster" is, but by doing so you'll miss why it's the cornerstone of the example. arimareiji (talk) 17:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

You ignore the common sense actively. Eyewitnesses do stress "the orange flourescent jackets used by construction workers with stripes for high visibility" for a reason.

EYEWITNESSES DO STRESS ON SHE WAS WEARING HIGH VISIBILITY SAFETY JACKET

(click blue button at right to see text)

Thomas Dale "Rachel was wearing the orange ‘high visibility’ jacket which she had been wearing all day." Richard Pursell "Some of us including Rachel were wearing orange fluorescent jackets with reflective strips similar to those worn by construction workers for high visibility." "She reached the top and at this point she must have been clearly visible to the driver, especially as she was still wearing the high visibility jacket." Joseph Carr "Rachel and Richard were wearing jackets that were fluorescent orange and had reflective stripping." George Hewitt "Rachel Corrie and Richard both wore bright orange high visibility jackets with reflective tape on them." "She was wearing a bright orange jacket with reflective strips on it."

All of which are easily verifiable by event photographs. All of the eyewitnesses stresses the jacket. And most of them go in detail describing it is highly visible flourescent orange color with reflecting stripes. Do they lie, no, we already verified their claims by photographs already. Why do they do stress that Rachel was wearing a safety jacket just as they are told in ISM training? For being "highly visible" against IDF operators. All eyewitnesses stresses the safety jacket in their testimonies even with detail, therefore it is important, while we verified it by photographs, and use common sense. You even try to object to the obvious. Her family stresses on the safety jacket in the editorial published at Herald Tribune just like they do on courts. "On March 16, 2003, an Israeli soldier and his commander ran over Rachel ... clearly visible in her orange fluorescent jacket ..."

OTHER PRESS SOURCES REFERRING TO THE SAFETY JACKET

(click blue button at right to see text)

CounterPunch "She wore an orange safety flap-jacket with reflective stripes, and photos clearly show her holding a megaphone." AlAhram Weekly "However, Dale challenges the Israeli account. "The bulldozer driver had plenty of time and a full and clear view of Rachel. It was daylight and, in any case, she was wearing a high- visibility orange vest with reflective stripes. We [peace activists] had been in the area for [about] three hours and they [the Israeli army] were well aware of our presence and what we were doing there," a distressed Dale told Al-Ahram Weekly in a telephone interview." Workers.org "The ISM statement recounts that the face-off with the military lasted almost three hours. When a bulldozer advanced, Corrie--wearing a fluorescent orange jacket with reflective stripes, and shouting through a megaphone for it to stop--climbed onto the mound of dirt to face the driver. Troops in a nearby tank that flanked the standoff were reportedly in communication with the driver." CBS News "A friend of Corrie, Charles Smith, said Monday that Corrie had sat down in front of the bulldozer when the driver scooped her up with the earth, dumped her on the ground and ran over her twice. Smith said Corrie was dressed in a bright orange jacket with reflective stripes." WMNF Community Radio "On March 16, 2003, Rachel and others from the ISM stood between a 60-ton Caterpillar bulldozer and a Palestinian home with a family inside. Accounts vary about what occurred, but despite Rachel’s orange safety jacket, the bulldozer pushed aside dirt and debris, crushing Rachel and ran over her twice." For the similar case of Tom Hurndall Guardian "The Hurndalls have concluded that Israel has no intention of seriously investigating the shooting of their son, who was wearing a bright orange jacket, and had already carried a small boy to safety and was stooping to pick up a girl when the bullet struck." BBC His mother Jocelyn told BBC News 24 she was "pleased" at the arrest, adding: "This is one first step to getting a truthful outcome. We knew all along that Tom was shot in cold blood. We have far too many witness statements. There was no Palestinian fire and Tom was wearing a bright day-glo jacket as he was rescuing the children."

Safety Jackets are important that is why they have been wearing by ISM members, also why they have been strictly instructed to wear them in their training, and the stripes on them are important, as they flashes against bright light sources just as of D9R's spotlights. Common sense is important, they need to be mentioned, I don't claim it should be added as "extremely important" in the article, yet they should be mentioned in detail for the same reason. Kasaalan (talk) 18:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• • • What you call common sense is what Wikipedia calls WP:SYNTHESIS, and prohibits. And you're not being persuasive by continuing to paste kB after kB of material and expecting everyone else to read it, when you haven't read the repeated (and much smaller) warnings against several different types of counterproductive editing tactics like this. The most recent one is above, but they're scattered throughout the page.

Note to editors posting small comments, i.e. under 10 lines: It may be helpful, for the time being, to use ** rather than :: to marginate your comments. I can't speak for anyone else, but it's getting increasingly difficult for my old eyes (Kasaalan, I'm not inviting you to make more personal comments about me) to find smaller comments in this haystack of a page. arimareiji (talk) 19:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Your approach lead huge vertical spaces between paragraphs. Kasaalan (talk) 20:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually no synthesis I made by describing the safety jacket. I am just pointing out obvious details, ignored by other editors. Why do you wear a safety jacket, easy, for your safety, just as construction workers do, that is also why safety jackets has been manufactured. Safety jackets are made from special material and painted with special paints. That is what makes them different from regular coats. Yet she further wears a safety jacket with stripes on it. Do you object that. Most possibly, no. But there are different types of safety jackets as you may have known. Some safety jackets have reflective stripes on them. They are reflective against light sources. She was wearing one of these. Do you object that. Most possibly no. The eyewitnesses, her family, and some newspapers clearly stresses this fact by describing the jacket in detail, as I posted above. Do you object that. Saying just the color of the safety jacket is misleading by definition of safety jacket. "Fluorescent jacket" is not enough to describe the jacket because "She was wearing a bright orange jacket with reflective strips on it." as multiple eyewitnesses stress in detail. And there is a huge difference between them, when there is bright lightsources like D9R spotlights on this case. The reflective stripes have been used on the safety jackets for a purpose, that is why we should mention them. Otherwise there would be no difference between a safety jacket with reflective stripes and without the reflective stripes. The quote in the article is simply misleading, while better detail quotes are already available from eyewitnesses accounts. Also why do you count mentioning the D9R's spotlights were on, which is a strict verifiable fact, as a synthesis or reaching a conclusion, I am not so sure. The wikiguideline refers another point in that example. I am just describing the case, as it is, without trying to reach a conclusion in the article or make a synthesis. Yet if we don't mention the facts, how can we stand neutral to the case. As I gave the examples above, the jacket is stressed by the first hand sides for the case multiple times in detail. Kasaalan (talk) 19:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know whether you have knowledge on work safety or safety jackets in particular, yet the safety clothing are manufactured and painted specially. And the reflective stripes on them are also specially added. All details are important for the jacket.

DETAILED INFO ON

1 HOW THEIR MATERIALS DIFFER FROM REGULAR COATS

2 WHY ORANGE COLOR IS IMPORTANT FOR SAFETY JACKETS

3 HOW SAFETY JACKETS WITH REFLECTORS WORKS

4 HOW IT IS OBLIGATORY TO WEAR SAFETY JACKET FOR CONSTRUCTION WORKERS IN US BY FEDERAL LAWS

5 HOW EASILY DISTINGUISHABLE THEY ARE IN DAYLIGHT FROM 1 KM THAN A REGULAR JACKET

6 HOW 3M REFLECTIVE STRIPES PROVIDES 250 M VISIBILITY WITH 180 DEGREE WIDE ANGLE

(click blue button at right to see text)

High Visibility Safety Jacket high visibility clothing "PU coated polyester, PVC coated outer, 3M reflective silver 5cm bands. Concealed hood. inside pocket. Pockets with flap and stud fastenings. Mobile phone pocket. Taped waterproof seams. 190 gsm polyester wadding with 140 gsm polyester wadding. Personalise this item with screen printing, embroidery or one of our customisation methods. £21.40" Orange Color Wikipedia Article "Due to its brightness, orange is used in the construction industry on road signs and safety jackets to warn passers-by of the pending dangers ahead." High-visibility clothing Wikipedia Article A reference how the reflective stripes work. [23] "High-visibility clothing, a type of personal protective equipment (PPE), is any clothing worn that has highly reflective properties or a color that is easily discernible from any background. Yellow waistcoats worn by Emergency Services are a common example. Part of the surface of the garment may have retroreflective stripes. This way they become much more visible in the dark for observers near a light source, such as the driver of a car with its headlights on. The pattern of the retroreflecting parts also helps to distinguish between objects and people. For greater visibility during the daytime, very bright colors are used for the main body of the garment by means of fluorescent material. Federal law in the United States requires all personnel working on a federally funded highway to wear a high visibility vest starting on November 25, 2008. In general, people who wear high-visibility clothing are those who need to be be seen during poor lighting or weather conditions, or when working in environments where there is a lot of moving machinery. Examples include pedestrians, workers, cyclists, motorcyclists, hunters and hikers. From a good vantage point along a road or cycleway with a sight line of 1 km or more, one can watch bicyclists approaching during daylight, and see that those clad in high-visibility clothing become readily visible long before dull-clad bicyclists riding next to them." Working Principles diagram "Ever Visible products use patented 3M reflection materials on which reflective glass prints are closely attached, providing a 180-degree wide angle and 250 meters distance visibility, making the wearer a luminous body and make him/her more visible and reduce the accident risk. The fluorescent dyes used for high-visibility clothes worn on daylight, it turning short wave radiation into long and visible wave radiation. High visibility at night must be continued with reflective glass beads, that can reflect incident light efficiently."

Detailed info on why a safety jacket is important and leads high visibility including working principles and manufacturing material details. Kasaalan (talk) 20:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Remember the original question, "Which reliable source says this is "extremely important to the case against blindspot arguments[?]"

Per the applicable definition of blind spot: "In driving, the part of the road that cannot be seen in the rear-view mirror." A blind spot is not an area which is overlooked, it is an area whose view is blocked. In driving, the head of the driver blocks vision in the rearview mirror. Here, it would be an object such as an instrument panel or the blade of the dozer. If she cannot be seen because of an interposing object, it doesn't matter whether she's wearing camouflage or a Day-Glo jumpsuit. Per your own quote, the jacket is important because it "can reflect incident light efficiently." Not because it can reflect light around solid objects.

WP:SYNTHESIS is unusable because two people working from the same set of facts can reasonably reach opposite conclusions. Please stop trying to insert it, and please stop pasting vast amounts of text you claim supports you "if only [we] would read it all." It's a grossly-undue burden, and you've been repeatedly asked to keep it pertinent rather than snowballing material to the point of being unreadable. arimareiji (talk) 21:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Eyewitnesses claims the dozer was moving at a low speed like 10 km/h [the maximum speed is already 12 km/h] while they were 20 metres away, and she has changed her place before she stand there, and even she made eye contact with the driver climbing up the dozer blade. Actually what the IDF meant by blindspot is even another discussion. But the dozers has high vibration inside the cabin especially on non smooth ground like the area, which all weakens the blindspot claims. And if there were 2 operators at the cabin it is far less possible for not seeing her. Yet this are synthesis as you claimed. I don't use synthesis, but stating how much the top speed of a D9R, or if their spots were on, is actually not a synthesis, but a state of fact. Kasaalan (talk) 22:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I will ask again do you object or have any doubt, on Rachel was wearing a flourescent orange color safety jacket with reflecting stripes during the event, which is verifiable by event photographs. If the answer is no, why do you insisting on preventing me to mention what type of safety clothing she wear that day. I can go in detail and explain by a synthesis this time, why a reflector stripe is against blindspot arguments in a cabin of D9R, which has maximum speed of 12 km/h or 30 cm/s, on a rough ground which leads vibration in the seat, while more than 1 personnel were inside and the spots of D9R was on. But since I am not trying to conclude a result like that on the main article page, as the safety jacket is totally proves IDF operator was lying, I won't go into detail. Yet, even if the safety jacket is against blindspot arguments or not, it is important to mention she wears a safety jacket with reflector stripes on, as stressed very clearly by every eyewitness to the case, because the spots of D9R were on during the event, which can be clearly seen in the photographs. I strongly object on cutting out the necessary details. This is a main claim of the eyewitnesses, for the operators seen her. Because she wasn't static all the time, and she moved relative to the D9R. Mentioning the jacket she wear as an orange jacket is simply misleading as I explained what a safety jacket is and how it works above, which some don't bother to read. And again I say I am describing the jacket as it is, I am not trying to conclude anything on the main page by this fact. An orange jacket is a misleading and poor description for a safety jacket. She was wearing this type of jacket with no doubt, and I will describe the jacket in detail by the quotes of eyewitnesses. This is an important detail for the case, and claiming the opposite is a highly biased argument. Kasaalan (talk) 21:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

There may be copyright issues with actually putting photographs into the article, but there are no problems with describing what they show. PR^talk 22:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I will try to find a solution for the photographs, but referring to a page that has permission from ISM to use them is reasonable enough for me. She was wearing a flourescent orange safety jacket with reflective stripes while the spots of the D9R was on. This is the fact, yet they object me to mention it. Even though I already proved above, how multiple eyewitnesses stresses this key fact in detail. Kasaalan (talk) 22:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid PR is incorrect, we cannot describe what the photographs supposedly show, because it would inevitably involve characterizations by us. If a secondary source describes it, then it might be usable. Also, I'd agree with Kasaalan about one thing,, we could have a long discussion about blind spots. Suffice it to say, that you are going about trying to prove that the bulldozer driver saw Corrie and proceeded anyway. You're trying to do it in pieces, blind spot of a dozer is, etc etc. The thing is, WP can't do that kinda thing, it is synthesis and pointy as well.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

There must come a point at which inventing policy becomes disruptive. There is no OR or SYNTH involved claiming that Corrie was wearing a hi-vis, nor is it a "characterization". (Assuming that the photos are part of the same incident and reasonably contemporaneous, as I understand them to be). PR^talk 10:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:SYNTHESIS: "Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to come to the conclusion C. This would be a synthesis of published material which advances a new position, which constitutes original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this same argument in relation to the topic of the article."
Short version: You can't write that A fact plus B fact makes C conclusion unless you're quoting a reliable source that says "A fact plus B fact makes C conclusion." arimareiji (talk) 01:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

We are not talking about anything near C. We are trying to state there is something called A and B. And Wehwalt try to object because if we describe A and B because people can result in C in their minds. She was wearing high visibility safety jacket with reflective stripes during that day. Noone can object this, and all the evidence shows it this way. Also he claims we cannot describe the photograph, or reference a page that has the permission for publishing the photograph is clearly a double standart. Yet the reference 7 has the flag of Rachel burning a mock American flag sourced by AP Photo. And I have the Al Ahram link for Event Photographs which I posted earlier, contains sourced photographs from AP and Reuters. Also Al Ahram, stressed in the article by its quote "However, Dale challenges the Israeli account. "The bulldozer driver had plenty of time and a full and clear view of Rachel. It was daylight and, in any case, she was wearing a HIGH VISIBILITY ORANGE VEST WITH REFLECTIVE STRIPES. We [peace activists] had been in the area for [about] three hours and they [the Israeli army] were well aware of our presence and what we were doing there," a distressed Dale told Al-Ahram Weekly in a telephone interview." Al Ahram Weekly Your baseless objections has no real value. Also the ISM photos has editorial licence, that is how press agencies use them anyway. Kasaalan (talk) 13:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Editorial licence? What might that be? If another periodical uses a copyrighted photo, they pay royalties on it, that is how photographers make a living. WP does not pay royalties, thus we can only use free photos or else use nonfree under a very limited claim of "fair use" which does not apply here (read up on the policies before you try to say otherwise). If you do not like the ref which goes to the flag burning photo, there are others which clearly state that Rachel burned the flag, Mother Jones for example. And please, insinuating that Arimareiji needs professional help because your filibustering saps his energy is the kind of statement that will get you blocked. Don't indulge in it, however momentarily satisfying it may seem.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

First of all, the photographs taken at event was not belong to any photographer. As I stated earlier 2 ISM member who are witnessing the event took the photos. And the ISM published photographs in press release. That is why under the license of press agencies, it says AP Photo/ISM because ISM provided the photographs. Yet you still not reading what I write. I say if the flag picture can be used, and I claim it should be used, why do you claim Al Ahram Weekly article which have the event pictures for the case, can't be used by any guideline you refer. I provided my source above yet you simply ignoring it and still insinsting on unbalanced arguments on things I don't claim. Kasaalan (talk) 14:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Photographs are copyright to the people who took them. It is possible the photographers' rights are held by the ISM, but they still are. Under what wiki policy regarding images do you allege we can use the photo?--Wehwalt (talk) 14:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

As I said earlier the copyrights are not belong to any photographer but 2 ISM members who are also eyewitnesses. And they provided the photographs to ISM which provided the photographs to the rest of the world for informational use. "Use in an "editorial" manner means use relating to events that are newsworthy or of public interest." We can give reference to the Al Ahram Weekly article page that contains the photograph, just as you do for cbc article containing the burning flag image, according to the whatever wiki policies you refer while doing so. The newspapers pay fees to use the photographs at their papers to photo agencies, therefore Al-Ahram which is "one of the most widely circulating Egyptian daily newspapers" has the right to publish the photographs, just like any other newspaper or magazine we used in the article as a reference. I am not talking about uploading the photographs to the wikipedia untill I can get the clear copyright status. Kasaalan (talk) 15:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Clear copyright status = explicit permission from the photographer, who is by definition the copyright holder, or verifiable fair-use attribution. Also, please note that an implicit C conclusion does not justify juxtaposing A+B next to an opposite conclusion D. See the example in WP:SYNTHESIS, but what this concretely means is that we cannot beg the question by saying "IDF says they could not see her, but here's a photo of her reflective jacket and here's a photo of the spotlights." arimareiji (talk) 16:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Before discussing further can you give opinion on referencing Al Ahram Weekly for event photographs, and whether we can state the direct eyewitness quotes or al ahram interview with eyewitness stressing she was wearing a highly visible safety jacket or not. Kasaalan (talk) 18:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe I just did. Were you talking to someone else? arimareiji (talk) 18:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

You gave your opinion on A+B like synthesis like for she was wearing a jacket and the spotlights were on. Kasaalan (talk) 20:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

You have every right to refuse to read corrections, explanations, or anything else within other editors' posts that you don't want to see. Likewise, you have every right to ask for the 15th time to have the same subject explained again. However, I have every right to stop giving explanations if I feel it's not a productive use of time. arimareiji (talk) 21:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

You also might think you have every right to ignore common sense or wiki guidelines, but you actually don't. I already proved you what is a safety jacket and how it works, why it is important for high visibility, even how it is obligatory to wear it by construction workers in USA. You already know ISM giving out strict instructions on wearing safety jackets and also provide them for their members, that is why she was wearing them in the first place. Moreover the photographs clearly show the safety jacket was on Rachel all the time, which none of you can object. Even more, I clearly showed, how the safety jacket Rachel was wearing, has been stressed on multiple eyewitness accounts in their written testimonies given under oath, as well as news source like Al Ahram, CBS, and Counter Punch which either interviews with eyewitnesses or quotes from their testimony mentions this detail. I cannot let you cut out this detail from the article. If IDF claims as blindspots in D9R resulted the case which, might or might not be true, should be in the article. Then the primary source claims by eyewitnesses that she wears a high visibility safety jacket at the area, which is a clear fact, should also be stated in the article. You haven't provided any reasonable argument yet for not mentioning what safety clothing she was wearing in a dangerous area. And I will quote from eyewitness statements describing her safety jacket, whether you like it or not, then you can go complain any admin you like, which higly I support because you are simply wrong. Kasaalan (talk) 23:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow you. You're saying that I don't have the right to stop explaining Wikipedia policies you've been pointed to or had explained a dozen times? Pray tell which guideline says you're permanently entitled to explanations, from me personally, of which policy you're currently violating? arimareiji (talk) 23:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

No I just don't agree your use of wikipolicies because, this is the main edit I intend to make for the jacket in the first place, and it is not against wiki policies in any way. Bold parts are my edits.

British ISM activist Richard Purssell gave the following account in an affidavit recorded and published by the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR):

"Some of us including Rachel were wearing orange fluorescent jackets with reflective strips similar to those worn by construction workers for high visibility. ... On more than one occasion the drivers gestured to us, waving, pointing or sounding their horns. They were clearly aware of our presence. ... As the bulldozer reached the place where Rachel was standing, she began as many of us did on the day to climb the pile of earth. She reached the top and at this point she must have been clearly visible to the driver, especially as she was still wearing the high visibility jacket. She turned and faced in my direction and began to come back down the pile. The bulldozer continued to move forward at [5-6 mph]. As her feet hit the ground I saw a panicked expression on her face ... The pile of earth engulfed her and she was hidden from my view."

By the way, could the editor, who cut out the "especially as she was wearing the high visibility jacket" part from the eyewitness quote "she must have been clearly visible to the driver, especially as she was wearing the high visibility jacket", possibly explain us why he find it so crucial to trim off this conclusion part, to save 9 words from the quote which leads a defective meaning for the readers. Kasaalan (talk) 23:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• That's not the edit you were trying to make earlier - this is a trifling concern by comparison.
• "could the editor... explain [sic] us why he find [sic] so crucial to trim... which leads [sic] a defective meaning"

...Are you seriously asserting that by adding Richard Purssell (who wasn't even there beforehand), and adding PCHR material as a named source, I'm acting in bad faith and trying to sway the reader against The Truth of your side of it? Your logic escapes me.

• If you're absolutely fixed on that phrase, reinsert it at that location for God's sake. There's no terrible secret hidden intent, I was simply trying to trim out weak material to focus on the core arguments.
• Adding lots of references to the jacket doesn't strengthen your case, it weakens it because needless repetition bores the reader. Your strongest argument is not the jacket, it's that she was in line-of-sight at the top of the mound, above the blade of the dozer just before she was run over. If she wasn't in line-of-sight at that moment, the jacket is irrelevant. arimareiji (talk) 00:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

If you're not only inserting "especially as she was wearing the high visibility jacket," then I do in fact need to partially revert you. By expanding it that much, you're detracting from the core point he makes. arimareiji (talk) 00:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The spotlight case might involve synthesis, I was already aware and trying to discuss on that. Yet the objections came as a whole therefore I tried to prove why the safety jacket is important and stressed by multiple eyewitnesses so many times first. I cannot find a good reason for trimming out after the especially part in "she must have been clearly visible to the driver, especially as she was wearing the high visibility jacket" quote. But I am not referring to your bad intention with that trim, yet your misjudge on that matter. Because he explains strongly, the high visibility part. You claim it is a stronger case that she was in line of sight. Yet the safety jacket provides to be in line of sight from e.g. 1 km in daylight, or 250 m at night. Also safety jacket helps to be distinguished from ground easily, especially that is exactly why it is obligatory to wear them in places with moving vehicles such as constructions. That is the same reason ISM members wear them in the area. Also eyewitnesses already claim she was in line of sight with the driver and safety jacket would help on being seen from both close and long distance. Read in detail at the How Safety Jacket Works part above if you need further information for safety clothing. That is why safety jacket is important. Yet it is far beyond my opinion on the case. Multiple eyewitness clearly stresses why they wear them. "Some of us including Rachel were wearing orange fluorescent jackets with reflective strips similar to those worn by construction workers for high visibility." Adding this is not detracting from the point he makes, but stresses it. Promiment detail, with a reason, cannot comprimise from that part. Also I will add wikilink to High_visibility_clothing, where how the safety jacket works can be read in detail. For more info you can read Safety Clothing Standards and Reclector Stripe Visibility Over Distance Table. Kasaalan (talk) 12:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The term line of sight means there is no physical barrier between an object and an observer. It doesn't refer to distance or ease of distinction. I know what a safety jacket is, and no safety jacket can make a person visible to someone whose vision is physically blocked. There are already multiple references to the jacket; it's tedious and unpersuasive to keep telling the reader the same fact. arimareiji (talk) 12:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

What about before the argued blindspot. Multiple eyewitness clearly stresses that part, which you try to trim off for being redundant. She was wearing a Class 2 Safety Jacket which is even suitable for 25-50 mph where maximum D9R speed is 7.3 mph = 11.7 km/h = 33 cm/s. Safety Jacket Categories by Vehicle Speed Around the Place Details are important even the color. Knowing what a safety jacket is not the same as knowing how it works. Read High_visibility_clothing or Safety Clothing Standards if you like. Kasaalan (talk) 12:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I know what a safety jacket is, as I just said, and I know how it works. I'm a native speaker of the language, and may understand the language slightly better. For you to argue that a safety jacket puts a person who is not in line of sight into line of sight shows that you don't know what line of sight means. arimareiji (talk) 12:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

That is your own claim only, I said either the operator lost sight of her, she was in clear sight before that moment. You are a native english speaker, and I am professional on graphics, therefore natively know how photography or human eye works, took work ergonomicss and safety class while at college, what any key term means in the area etc. This is the 4th time I added the line, because this is the 4th time you deleted it with needless objections. Your deletion of "Some of us including Rachel were wearing orange fluorescent jackets with reflective strips similar to those worn by construction workers for high visibility" is wrong. If you like to undue the article that much, add more weight or sources against ISM case, which is perfectly fine and needed. Kasaalan (talk) 13:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

"Yet the safety jacket provides to be in line of sight from e.g. 1 km in daylight, or 250 m at night." Those are your own words, and they demonstrate a lack of knowledge (let alone "professional" knowledge) on the subject area of optics (not graphics). It's not "[my] claim only" that line of sight means an uninterrupted line of vision, that's the definition of it - and no, I didn't make up that definition. Check the wiktionary edit history if you like. arimareiji (talk) 13:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The least I can compromise on "She reached the top and at this point she must have been clearly visible to the driver, especially as she was still wearing the high visibility jacket [fluorescent orange with 2 reflective strips]." Kasaalan (talk) 13:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Since Kasaalan has been advocating for more statements, maybe, Arimareiji, it is time to put back that variant statement of Carr's you took out.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Wehwalt I won't let you cut off the conclusion part of an important claim by multiple eyewitnesses. As I stated "She reached the top and at this point she must have been clearly visible to the driver, especially as she was still wearing the high visibility jacket [fluorescent orange with 2 reflective strips]." is the least I can compromise if arimareiji will cut off the first sentence. Call some admins if you like for settling the case. Kasaalan (talk) 14:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Admins are not judges of content, see WP:ADMIN. If the fluorescent orange with 2 reflective strips is not in the quote, we can't use it. Period.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

It is, but with slightly different wording: "orange fluorescent jackets with reflective strips." Might I suggest my wording of [fluorescent/reflective], which was deleted earlier? arimareiji (talk) 14:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

"Some of us including Rachel were wearing orange fluorescent jackets with reflective strips similar to those worn by construction workers for high visibility." quote axactly as clearly stressed in the testimony. And possibly a lot of admins can judge better than you. I only restated in this format because you constantly begged for space and trimmed of the first sentence. Kasaalan (talk) 14:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it probably weighs against your case, Kasaalan because if multiple witnesses stress the same thing, then people start to wonder if there has been collusion in their testimoney (no!). I suggest, if Kasaalan is wedded to the matter, putting it exactly in place and exactly how phrased, using ellipses if needed. Boy, if admins are such judges of content, I guess I can only hope to be worthy of ascending that Mount Olympus someday.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Would "wearing the [[High_visibility_clothing|high visibility jacket]] [fluorescent/[[High_visibility_clothing#Gallery|reflective]]]" be sufficient to demonstrate the point? I believe the added link is much more illustrative; a picture is worth a thousand words. arimareiji (talk) 15:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

"Wearing the high visibility jacket [fluorescent/ retroreflective strips]" is alright as long as it mentions the retroreflective strips because "Part of the surface of the garment may have retroreflective stripes." [24] it is not obligatory to do in every safety clothing. Mentioning 2 strips is actually referencing the jacket belongs to middle safety class 2 and not highest safety class 3 which has 4+ stripes or safety class 1 with lowest visibilty level, therefore more neutral, yet may be left outside. Also the term retroreflective is technically more correct than reflective. Kasaalan (talk) 15:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit break

Resolved

I have no objection to the strips if it is direct quote from the affidavit. Otherwise it is OR.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The term he uses is "reflective," though I agree he's less technically correct than retroreflective. He does say "strips" and not "strip," but I don't think it's a practical concern. "Reflective" is ambiguous in both directions (could mean 1, or 15, or the whole jacket), but if someone is that concerned with the number of strips they can easily check the source. Finally, I think "reflective" does positively indicate that it has the reflective strips, obligatory or not. arimareiji (talk) 15:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually reflective is correct in daily use but misleading on this particular case. I didn't notice it before, too. The orange color safety jacket manufactured from e.g. Polyurethane is also made to be reflective. Yet retroreflective strip concept used in [[High-visibility_clothing] is another thing. [25]] Because "Retroreflectors are devices that operate by returning light back to the light source along the same light direction." They particularly reflects the light right back to the source, unlike other reflective objects which reflects light with an angle. If you read Operation section with diagrams under Retroreflective article, you can better understand how it works to be seen even from long distances, and side angles. The stripes area on the jacket determines which safety category it falls under. The number of stripes are generally multiples of 2 like 2, 4, 6, 8 because evenly distributed to the 2 sides. For example if the jacket were a level 3, it would most possibly have 2 extra vertical stripes over shoulders with 2 or 4 stripes in arms near wrists than the one used by ISM. Also the width of the stripes are 2 inches wide generally as a side note. Therefore it leads the number of stripes is prominent for determining the safety level. Kasaalan (talk) 16:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

So it reflected sunlight right back at the sun. As Arimareiji has pointed out, out of line of sight means out of line of sight.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Not that easy. The sunlight and weather conditions, might help for her visibility, or have no negative effect at visibility depending the case. Only if there were some extreme conditions like very bright sunlight which blocks driver's vision, it could have negatively effect the visibility of ISM members. Safety wear with retroreflecting stripes actually providing high visibility in both day and night conditions especially against moving vehicles, that is why they have been manufactured in the first place. "Part of the surface of the garment may have retroreflective stripes. This way they become much more visible in the dark for observers near a light source, such as the driver of a car with its headlights on. The pattern of the retroreflecting parts also helps to distinguish between objects and people." "In general, people who wear high-visibility clothing are those who need to be be seen during poor lighting or weather conditions, or when working in environments where there is a lot of moving machinery." The reflective stripes would reflect the spotlights of D9R back to the driver, independent from where she stands at side or front, far or near, unless she stands in the common blindspot for the 2 personnels in the D9R cabin. But that is not our discussion, or what we will state on main page by synthesis. We are trying to state the facts in the main page, such as what kind of safety wear she was wearing. Also don't forget, out of sight is just an IDF claim, just as the claims of ISM. If you take an IDF claim as a fact, then try to belie other facts or arguments based on that claim, that would not help much for the article. IDF claims, the D9R has a limited field of view, which we can verify by D9R photographs and therefore should mention in the article. Yet that does not proves the operator didn't see Rachel. ISM claims she was wearing a high visibility safety jacket, which again we can verify by event photographs without a doubt. Yet that does not prove the operator did see Rachel for sure and killed her on purpose, either. Those are the claims of the opposing sides with their own synthesis. Kasaalan (talk) 17:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Problem is, he said reflective - not retroreflective. We have to use his own wording when we quote him, as much as reasonably possible. Besides, an expert's definition of retroreflective means functionally the same thing as an average person's definition of reflective. That's why Purssell phrased it that way, and why we didn't notice it before. An expert might be confused by using the technically-ambiguous term reflective, but they would probably know the subject matter well enough to recognize the intended meaning.

I don't take either side's claims as fact. But in a debate, if the other side makes an assertion (i.e. "she was not in line of sight"), you have to answer the assertion directly (i.e. "she was on the top of the mound, visible over the blade"). Answering it with a non sequitur like "she was wearing a high-vis jacket" makes it look like their assertion must be true because you have no rebuttal. arimareiji (talk) 19:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

We can put [retro]reflective strips, reflective[retroreflective] strips, or reflective strips with a wikilink to retroreflective such as reflective strips, if it will solve the issue for you. Because it is certain what he refers is retroreflective not reflective. Yet even this one missing flourescent orange color in description, therefore the brackets [fluorescent orange with reflective strips] is needed in the article referring to "Some of us including Rachel were wearing orange fluorescent jackets with reflective strips similar to those worn by construction workers for high visibility." sentence, if the first sentence will be trimmed.

Basically ISM eyewitnesses stress on high visibility safety jacket with [retro]reflective stripes, mainly to argue, D9R operators general awareness of their presence, and Rachel's awareness in particular during their collapse. Kasaalan (talk) 20:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikilinking to retroreflection is definitely a good idea. It includes the info but sidesteps using it in the text of his quote, which would be a misquote. But... if you make a wikilink from reflective to retroreflective, that will preclude making a wikilink from reflective to High-visibility_clothing#Gallery. I believe the latter is a much better illustration than the former.

Again, the reason the difference was overlooked is that when most people think about reflection, they only think about retroreflection. I would speculate this is because people think only in terms of their perspective, and thus 1) any reflection of themselves that they don't see or 2) any reflection they see of something else (i.e. any type of reflection other than retroreflection) is unimportant. But the result is that calling it retroreflective in the text would be a moot point as well as being a misquote. arimareiji (talk) 21:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I also agree on wikilink solutions are better than misquote. High Visibility Clothing includes retroreflective stripping generally but not necessarily and they are different concepts, so the retroreflective stripping should be pointed out just as eyewitness stressed. Not sure if I understand you exactly, but we can put High_visibility_clothing wikilink in "especially as she was wearing the high visibility jacket" part and retroreflective wikilink in [flourescent orange with reflective strips] part if it is fine by you. If it is not, I will try working on another solution. Kasaalan (talk) 23:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)