Talk:Israeli checkpoint

message: The first sentence states the Israeli government viewpoint as fact, which is not acceptable.  Given that it is only a stub, I'll hold back other criticism for now.  --Zero 23:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can change it to something like a checkpoint's stated aims are to: *what's written there* if you really think checkpoints are not good. But other than Machsom Watch and other self proclaimed 'human rights' organizations, who don't consider it a human right for Jews to remain living, I don't think people who actually know about what checkpoints do can say they are redundant and don't enhance Israel's security. -- Y Ynhockey (Talk) Y 04:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

message: Actually a lot of checkpoints are called Erez, also a military police company which checks all southern checkpoints is called Erez. I added only the Bethlehem at the start because I thought the Gaza Erez checkpoint was closed and no longer operated as it did before the disengagement. I actually don't know anything about its status right now. -- Y Ynhockey (Talk) Y 13:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Erez

message: I would appreciate if someone could add in a sentence that random checkpoints in Israel are called 'flying' checkpoints mostly because of the translation from Arabic of ta'ayar(?), because this term is otherwise not used widely in the area. --Shuki 20:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  flying checkpoint 

message: How can it be proved that this source is credible? Some of their work seems literally OR and not factual. --Shuki 20:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Applied Research Institute Jerusalem

message: Those מחסום checkpoints must surely also have an Arabic name. May be جاحز ? Or may be حدود ?--Soylentyellow (talk) 20:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's حاجز and if it's a "flying checkpoint", it's حاجز طياار . Tiamuttalk 22:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Arabic name?

message: There is a complete lack of citations in a few sections and there are also a few sections that lack neutral POV. I've tagged the offending sections.--72.70.76.185 (talk) 23:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of citations and Neutral POV 

message: What is this argument about undue weight? The section is very short as it is, and doesn't nearly have all the necessary information about IDF efforts to ease the lives of Palestinians at checkpoints. One quote from a high-ranking officer to summarize the situation, properly sourced and attributed, hardly seems like undue weight, when the whole article is pretty much dedicated to criticism of checkpoints. —Ynhockey (Talk) 11:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It wouldn't be out of place if the section was called "IDF viewpoint" or similar. "IDF efforts" smacks of an even-handedness the section doesn't possess. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 16:30, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The section is perfectly legitimate. If you have an issue, then improve it. If you find you need to balance out this claim, then please add something from a RS. --Shuki (talk) 16:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

text: LP, it is not disputed that the IDF employs humanitarian officers, therefore the title "IDF efforts" is perfectly legitimate. As Shuki said, if you have a source saying that the IDF does not employ such personnel, I'd like to see it. Otherwise your argument is not relevant; the section talks about IDF efforts and happens to include a quote by an IDF officer who explains what these efforts are. If you have a secondary source that explains it better, feel free to provide it here. —Ynhockey (Talk) 22:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No-one said it was disputed. What are you talking about? Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 11:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Do not delete self defense arguments of IDF or unnecessary edit war, add counter arguments against IDF if you have RS, tagged as unbalanced as your discussions. Changed title to IDF arguments and efforts for NPOV. You may expand the section if you like. Section is neutral, yet it may be better balanced with criticism if you have RS. Kasaalan (talk) 17:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't tag sections as "Unbalanced" just because there might be some other opinions, which we don't know of , in unknown sources. If you have such sources, add them. I'm also renaming the section, because there are no "arguments" there. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 18:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually you may easily tag as unbalanced since the section only contains self-referenced advertising of the IDF for a controversial case like checkpoints. Kasaalan (talk) 18:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No, not when you have more than 1/2 the article dedicated to criticisms of the checkpoints. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 19:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Half of criticism section is again consisted of IDF viewpoints anyway. Kasaalan (talk) 23:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

text: If there is going to be a criticism section than fairness means that the criticized party can respond. That's called balance. --Shuki (talk) 21:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  IDF officers 

message: Links are mainly critical. I didn't check contents yet. Kasaalan (talk) 14:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Kasaalan, Shuki was right in removing a controversial statement that nobody (including yourself) cared to source since November 2008! If you have a reliable source for the claim, please feel free to add it with the content. Otherwise, please don't add the content without a source. —Ynhockey (Talk) 19:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

text: On a side note, ironically, the last Haaretz article actually gives praise to the IDF for allowing unlimited quantities of food. Maybe this should go into the article, as it is about IDF checkpoints. —Ynhockey (Talk) 19:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:LINKSPAM removed. Kasaalan, this discussion page is not a sandbox for urls you are collecting. If you have information to contribute to WP, please insert into mainspace with proper references, preferably WP:RS. --Shuki (talk) 20:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Reports and news

message: As the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs has noted (): Checkpoints are composed of two elements: • an infrastructure which inhibits vehicular and pedestrian traffic and permanent presence of Israeli security personnel (e.g. the IDF, the Border Police, the civil Police, a private security company). Security personnel usually check the documentation of persons crossing the checkpoint and conduct searches on their vehicles and their belongings.
The IDF may create these checkpoints but they are operated by  non-IDF personnel. Either this article should be renamed or I am going to create a new one on Israeli checkpoints in general. But it would be easier to simply rename this article, though because it contains no specific information about about IDF-manned checkpoint as opposed to the other checkpoints. Factomancer (talk) 11:28, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: But you did it already. So why create a misleading section that you are looking for discussion and consensus? Not good faith at all Mrs Factomancer. --Shuki (talk) 20:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to rename article "Israeli checkpoint" instead of "Israel Defence Forces checkpoint 

message: The paragraph that speaks about the OCHA report quotes some numbers, yet I was not able to find these figures in the provided source.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.181.169.46 (talk) 13:15, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  OCHA Report 

message: I have found a broken link and ask for correction. The source mentioned is still accessible via Wayback Machine:
https://web.archive.org/web/20130606212221/http://www.idfblog.com/2013/05/06/reality-check-the-truth-behind-crossings-in-judea-and-samaria/ Thanks a lot! -- Mondra Diamond (talk) 11:06, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken link 

message: Needs expansion, citation or explanation. Or possibly better translation in English?
It sounds like it is either a phrase that has been directly translated into English. Or a claim that checkpoints are extremely recent, while they've been recorded, documented, photographed and videod for more than 20 years now. 2A02:C7C:A75E:AC00:24CC:1F49:78B8:FF38 (talk) 08:47, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Primarily today?