Talk:Random checkpoint

message: Well, we know that the article was created with a point in mind, and since then it has progressed into a fair and general enclyclopedia article as most should be. The only thing left, besides to agree on a name, is to remove any reference to a specifc armed entity since all armed forces and general police organizations use 'hastily set' checkpoints for a million reasons. --Shuki 23:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, this article was not created with "a point in mind". It was created because the term "flying checkpoint" is used in a number of existing wikipedia articles that I work on, and rather than defining what it means every time it is used, I thought it would be useful to have a page describing the phenomenon. Upon researching the use of the term, I found that it was used almost exclusively by and to describe the types of checkpoints erected by the Israeli and American armies. That turned out to be a coincidence. But because that was the case, I created section for its use by both these armies, as per the other articles on checkpoints which have sections describing their use elsewhere. I resent that you did not WP:AGF based simply on Isarig's overwrought protestations. Please try to be less judgemental in the future. Tiamut 16:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is exactly ONE article in the main namespace that uses that term - West Bank Closures, and that article describes a "flying checkpoint" as "unannounced spot-checks spontaneously erected for a period of time" - precisely the same as a hasty checkpoint. That article further uses as a source for its claims regarding "flying" checkpoints a UN report which says "Average number of random or "ﬂying" checkpoints observed each week" - in other words, "flying checkpoint" is just another name for "random checkpoint". Isarig 18:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not according to the one source of ours that addresses both.--G-Dett 18:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We have more than one source using "flying checkpoint" interchangeably with 'random checkpoint'. We have one source that says FC is a type of a hasty checkpoint, but fails to elaborate on the distinctions, if any. I am not opposed to highlighting such distinctions, if they exist, and if they are of significance, there may be room for more than a single article. But as of now, the evidence seems to suggest that there are no meaningful distinctions, and that the terms are, in fact, synonymous.  Isarig 18:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  de-[[WP:POINT]] 

message: Those editors mass deleting sourced material and asked to cease. Persistent deletion of sourced material constituted vandalism, particularly when such changes are neither explained nor discussed. Please feel free to add new material or place fact tags on sentences whose citations you feel are not reliably sourced. Otherwise there is no justification for these edits which restore an earlier extremely disputed version of this article which uses sources for hasty checkpoints as though they were the equivalent of flying checkpoints, which they are not. Tiamut 18:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There was a vote on that above and people agreed that flying checkpoint merited its own article. Tiamut 18:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

text: There was a vote on what to call this article - which discusses the military and police  tactic of a random checkpoint. People preffered to have it called "flying checkpoint", and I have no objection to that - but that's not a license to turn it into an an anti-US and anti-Israel soapbox. Isarig 21:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Text edited, examples added. It goes without saying that examples of use should be included. It can be expanded later. Add more material rather than deleting. The argument that it's used by 'everyone' is dubious, it's weasel and it's not cited. I note that of five additional countries previously mentioned here on Talk, only one may be valid and that cite is from 1998. -- Steve Hart 23:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

text: each and every one of these examples (which are by no means an exhaustive list) is valid.  I'm at a loss as to what the significance of the "1998" comment - are we supposed to exclude example if they are from more than 8 years ago? If you want to name examples, we can have a one liner that says something along the lines of "random checkpoints are used extensively by armies in all conflicts, recent examples include Kosoova, Lebanon, Somalia, Iraq and the West bank. Calling out the examples the way it was done in the article is akin to listing such examples in the Rifle article, along the lines of "Rifles have been used by the US army in Iraq". Isarig 01:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mass deletion of material

message: Stop vandalizing this article by deleting vast amounts of information and pretending your actions have reached consensus in talk. They have not. Tiamat 00:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Isarig ... contrary to your edit summary, your deletion of over 4,000 bytes of material is not explained on the talk page. Nor does this action enjoy consensus. Please cease and desist. It is vandalism to delete sourced information relevant to the topic at hand. As an editor states directly above, it is more beneficial to add to the article than to delete material that is reliably sourced. Please do so. Tiamat 03:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The explanation is right above - read it, and stop claiming this is vandalism when it is not. Isarig 03:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no explanation from you above, only (with regret) some hyperbole. As User:Steve Hart writes above: "It goes without saying that examples of use should be included. It can be expanded later. Add more material rather than deleting." Please cease deleting this material without consensus. Tiamat 03:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read more carefully. here is the explanation, once again: "I have replaced the polemical US and Israel-bashing you introduced from a partisan source, with factual information from neutral 3rd party reference material. again, This article is ostensibly about the military/police tactic of temporary checkpoints, not about the alleged hardships of Palestinian who are inconvenienced by their use in the west bank. The article should tell the reader what such a checkpoint is, how it is operated and and why. It should not be yet another soapbox in which to lament the hardships endured by Palestinians, Iraqis or whatever". Your repeated claims of vandalism are uncivil - stop them. Isarig 03:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That "explanation" is from almost two months ago. It also explains nothing. If you have problems with the sources that are used, please place "dubious" tags or "citation needed" tags and I will look for better ones. Who uses checkpoints and how they impact the populations who are subject to them is relevant to the article. Finally, it is not uncivil to point out that you have deleted over 4000 bytes of material, without engaging in talk, repeatedly, despite the concerns raised by myself and other editors like G-Dett and Steve Hart regarding your actions. Calling it like you see it is not uncivil. It's called being honest. Tiamat 03:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Explanations do not go away just becuase they are 2 months old. An explanation has been given, and it is non-frivolous, even though you may not agree with it. For you to continue to label this as vandalism, when in fact it is a content dispute, and clearly not vandalism by the explicit language of WP:VANDALISM which has been shown to you time and again -  is nothing short of disruptive editing. For you to claim  that I have not engaged in discussion on talk, when the BULK of the contributions on this Talk page are by me  is a simple lie. Cease this behavior. Isarig 03:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The explanation has not been debunked. I have quoted the exact text of WP:VANDALISM to you, which says that where a non-frivolous explanation has been given, blanking of sourced material is not vandalism. If you do not understand that simple language, I am at a loss as to how to make it any clearer to you- I urge you again to cease this uncivil behavior. Isarig 03:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From the outset, this "explanation" was absolutely frivolous. It does not cite specific sections of the article and it is in fact an uncivil comment in which you imply that I am soapboxing or editing with an agenda, and you further denigrate the hardships encountered by those who pass through checkpoints, as G-Dett pointed out below the comments when you made them over two months ago, and when the article was significantly different than it is now. In other words, your repeated deletion of over 4000 bytes of material (2/3 of the article) is not accompanied by a "non-frivolous explanation". You are accusing me of incivility for stating the facts and further of "disruptive editing" for doing so, when in fact you are engaged in disruptive editing. Tiamat 04:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was not frivolous: It explained that this is a article about a common military tactic, and that calling  out 2 or 3 examples of its non-unique usage by some armies is inappropriate, as is making the focus of the article the hardships experienced by Palestinians. You may disagree with the explanation, but it is not frivolous, and thus labeling the subsequent deletion as "vandalism", after this has been explained to you, is uncivil. You have now been told by an administrator that your labeling it as vandalism is both wrong and disruptive - it really is time for you to stop it. Isarig 04:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Could you please provide sources that document the use of flying checkpoints in places other than the West Bank, Iraq, or Lebanon? That would help improve the article greatly. There is no need to delete sourced info already there. If you feel it is WP:UNDUE, could you provide a source that shows that the practice is "ubiquitous", as you claim? Thanks. Tiamat 16:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not this again. Please read up above. The 3rd post on this page, by me, provides sources for these checkpoints being used in Kosovo, Somalia, VietNam, as well as by police forces. This is a common police/military tactic, used by every army and police force, in every conflict. Isarig 16:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean the sources that speak of "hasty checkpoints" rather than "flying checkpoints". We've been through this Isarig. Any source that does not mention flying checkpoints by name is not suitable for this article. Please stop pretending that you have attempted to introduce information on the article topic and have been denied. It is you that are denying the inclusion of perfectly valid information, and not the other way around. Tiamat 16:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Indeed we've been through this before. The Kosovo reference speaks explicitly about "flying checkpoints", as does the one about British Royal Marines in Iraq.  Here's another one that speaks explictly of "flying checkpoints" used by British forces in Afghanistan and Pakistan . As I've shown above, your own sources say that a flying checkpoint is a random checkpoint, and use the two terms interchangeably.  If there is any difference between a "flying checkpoint" and a "random checkpoint"  - please explain what that is, and provide a source for it. Until then, since we have such reputable sources that YOU provided as Thomas Friedman who say "Beirut drivers know there are normal, fixed checkpoints, or hajiz, as well as mobile or flying checkpoints", we can treat them as one and the same. Isarig 16:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no idea why this discussion is still going on about synonyms. If it is not possible to find multiple source distinguishing between hasty, mobile, roaming, flying, portable, surprise, temporary, etc... checkpoints, then it seems that there is no difference. In fact, IMO, English-wise - checkpoints do not fly, so this might be slang and not be the main title of the article. --Shuki 20:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Shuki, a flying checkpoint is a type of hasty checkpoint, as outlined in this source: ; however, the two terms are clearly not synonymous. An earlier suggestion made to Isarig (who acutally provided this source) was that he draft an article entitled hasty checkpoint, listing its sub-types, and that it could link to this article or conversely that this article could be incorporated into it, should it be determined that this was more appropriate. As for your observation that checkpoints do not "fly", these checkpoints do, in the sense that they can be quickly packed away for take-off and then landed in another location, "flying" from site to site. Tiamat 13:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is the difference then, between a flying checkpoint, and a mobile, random or hasty checkpoint? Isarig 15:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The only reliable source that uses both is this one: "One type of hasty checkpoint used in Operation Provide Comfort was the flying checkpoint. Mobile units of mounted infantry, combat engineers, and TOW vehicles moved to key intersections where armed Iraqis were known to operate. The mobile units setup hasty roadblocks to disrupt the threat." Outside of that, I don't have any information on what the exact differences between them are. What I do have are a number of reliable sources that use the term flying checkpoint which resulted in the creation of this article. I have no problem noting that flying checkpoints are a type of hasty checkpoint, and creating an article entitled hasty checkpoints to cover that phenomenon, and/or merging them into one article at a later date. I know that a hasty checkpoint google search only generates 234 hits on google web, and zero on google scholar, while a flying checkpoint google search generates 640 hits and 9 hits on google scholar. Tiamat 18:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So you don't know of any difference, and don't have source that explains how they are different, and even the above source (which I provided, and you were ignorant of when you first used the term) describes it as "mobile units setup hasty roadblocks".  Whereas I've provided several sources that say they are the same. I think we are done. Isarig 18:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for providing the motive for keeping the word 'flying' in the name of the article. I'm glad that I did not make the same mistake by insisting that we rename the article 'surprise checkpoint' as is the translation from Hebrew. I suggest moving this article to the neutral 'mobile checkpoints'. 'Mobile' is simply the opposite of permanent. 'Hasty' suggests 'unprepared'/'unplanned' which many mobile checkpoints, if not most, are not. --Shuki 20:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

text: You are ignoring the one source that explains that flying checkpoints are a type of hasty checkpoint. And as demonstrated by the google searches above, flying checkpoints is more commonly used than hasty checkpoints, and by scholarly sources. If they are indeed synonyms - which is not clear since we have no other sources to elaborate further on the different types of hasty checkpoints and how they do or do not differ from flying checkpoints - the title remains flying checkpoints, since it is more commonly used and with a longer lineage. If the terms origins are in Lebanon - it's earliest recorded use among the sources we have but not definitive - it makes sense for the English to be flying checkpoint: a faithful translation of hajiz tayyar. Hasty checkpoint seems to be of newer, and/or different provenance. How the two differ from one another in detail is however a matter of speculation without reliable sources.  All of this though, is not the point here really. What is relevant is that you keep deleting 2/3 of the article, claiming that the use of flying checkpoints by different countries is irrelevant. If you really believe that hasty checkpoints and flying checkpoints are the same, why not add examples of the use of hasty checkpoints by others countries rather than deleting everything? User:Tiamut 21:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: the source that says that flying checkpoints are a type of hasty checkpoint describes "flying checkpoints" as "mobile units setup hasty roadblocks" - i.e. hasty checkpoints that are also mobile. That's exactly the same as random, mobile checkpoints. If we're gooing to do google tests, "random checkpoint" gets 1870 hits, nearly 3 times as many as "flying checkpoints", so it looks like another data point in favor of renaming this article "random checkpoints". The reason I'm deleting the examples hs been explained, several times: (1) Random checkpoint is a common military and police tactic, used by every army in every conflict. Compare with Ambush, or Patrolling -  other articles about common military tactics, which don't have a section such as "Use of Ambushes by the IDF" , or "use of Patrols by US forces in Iraq" (2) Calling out the 3 specific examples in this article is undue weight, especially when one example (the IDF one) is longer than the main article body. These examples don't illustrate anything about the use of random checkpoints beyond what's already in the article. If you feel you must, add a line that says "random checpoint are a common tactic used by many military and police forces, and have been recently used by UN forces in Kosovo, Lebanese militias in Beirut, IDF if the West Bank and US forces in Kurdistan." Isarig 21:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Do you have a source that says that random checkpoints are the equivalent of flying checkpoints? Tiamat 22:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

text: If so, perhaps we can discuss expanding the article to include sections on their use by UN forces in Kosovo, US forces in Kurdistan, and expand the sections on Lebanese militias and the IDF in the West Bank. Tiamat 22:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: yes, and I've already provided them to you, several times. Read directly below, or above. And here they are, again:  - a pro-Palestinian source which says, explicitly : "“flying checkpoint” (a random, mobile checkpoint)", and another one, again pro-Palestinian which clearly and explictly says: "* A flying checkpoint is a mobile checkpoint."  . Flying checkpoints are the same as mobile checkpoints, according to numerous sources, including the ones you've provided. Are you ready to concede that they are one and the same? Isarig 23:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anything that uses reliable sources to introduce information to an article is fine by me. When the article is unprotected, of course you can add the information on random, mobile checkpoints. Again, that's not really the main issue here. The main issue is the deletion of over 2/3 of the article outlining who uses these checkpoints, how, where, and how it affects those obliged to pass through them. Are you willing to cease deleting this information from the article.Tiamat 23:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These sources are hardly new. I first showed them to you nearly two months ago, and we could have avoided this charade of claiming these are different things. But I guess it's better late than never. Now that we seem to agree that random, mobile checkpoints and flying checkpoints are one and the same, we can move on. The first suggestion is (agian) to rename this article to the more common name. After that, it should be modeled along the same lines of other articles about military tactics - see Ambush or Patrolling. There is no need to call out the usage by any particular force or in any particular conflict, unless there is something unique about that usage that is not covered by the generic description in the main article. Nor is there a need to have an endless list of who has used these checkpoints, because everybody does.. As I've written, if examples must be used, I suggest a simple sentence, along the lines of "random checpoint are a common tactic used by many military and police forces, and have been recently used by UN forces in Kosovo, Lebanese militias in Beirut, IDF in the West Bank and US forces in Kurdistan." Isarig 23:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is new is that you are talking about random checkpoints and mobile checkpoints now, whereas previously you were speaking of hasty checkpoints. Also, please specify what name you are proposing for the new article. But again, this is not the major point. The point is the massive deletions of this material:  A simple sentence on where these checkpoints are used and by whom is insufficient information on the subject at hand. Including who uses them, where, why, on whom, and how impacts those subjected to their use is all relevant information. We are not writing a military manual, but an encyclopedia. Tiamat 00:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know why you persist in these foolish, and easily proven false, claims. Here is what I wrote on May 20, above: "...I think that it has been made abundantly clear that "Flying checkpoint" is simply a name for a random, mobile checkpoint, and another name for that is "hasty checkpoint". We can call the article whatever we like, but there's no denying that "flying checkpoint", "random checkpoint", "mobile checkpoint" or "hasty checkpoint" are the same thing, with minute, if any variation. . I am proposing we call this article "random checkpoint" , which is by far the most common name. We are not writing a military manual, but we are writing an encyclopedia, and this encyclopedia article is a about a common military and police tactic of random checkpoint. Just like we don't call out specific police forces that use radar guns, and just like we don't call out specific armies who use Ambushes, and just like we don't call out specific conflicts in which Patrolling was used, there is no compelling reason to do so here. If you feel you absolutely must state the obvious (i.e: that this tactic has also been used in some recent conflicts) - I have suggested a sentence that provides examples, which is more than enough to illustrate the main article body, which explains what these checkpoints are, who uses them, how and why. Isarig 02:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Isarig

message: Please provide a source that establishes that a flying checkpoint is identical to a hasty checkpoint, as you introduced in this edit here: , Other editors have confirmed that the sources provided earlier do not establish this and that without them, this conclusion is WP:OR. Thanks. Tiamat 16:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've already provided several of these, again read above. here they are once more:  - a pro-Palestinian source which says, explicitly : "“flying checkpoint” (a random, mobile checkpoint)", and another one, again pro-Palestinian which clearly and explictly says: "* A flying checkpoint is a mobile checkpoint."  . What is comical about this is that the source you want included in the article, Freidman's commentary on Lebanon, also says this: "Beirut drivers know there are normal, fixed checkpoints, or hajiz, as well as mobile or flying checkpoints". Flying checkpoints are the same as mobile checkpoints, according to numerous sources, including the ones you've provided. Isarig 16:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tiamut, are there any sources that indicate these two are distinct?--Chaser - T 17:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Nevermind, I see it addressed above and here.--Chaser - T 17:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, there seems to be quite a lot of conflict about that point. I think this is going to require something different.--Chaser - T 18:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Provide the source

message: This article has spawned endless talk page comments far out of proportion to its meager length (which changes depending on who is winning the edit war). I don't think we will find consensus following current methods, so I suggest an article content requests for comment. This is strictly a request related to the content of the article, not the behavior of editors. If we pursue this option, I would ask that the request remain open for one or two weeks to get sufficient comments to reach a consensus. At the end of that time, I will ask that the two major participants in the above conflict (Tiamut and Isarig) agree to follow the consensus, even if it is contrary to your own opinion. Can you agree to that?--Chaser - T 18:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the meantime, a "totallydisputed" tag should be added to the article to reflect the on-going dispute. Beit Or 18:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Protection is not an endorsement of the current version." Beit Or, are you also in agreement with seeking outside views via an RFC?--Chaser - T 18:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't matter whether the article is protected or not. If there is a genuine dispute (which is the case here), it must be tagged. An RFC is up to the main editors of this page. Beit Or 18:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The protection tag already says "until disputes have been resolved", which is enough IMO. To add another tag could be seen as subtly endorsing one version over another. Perhaps we should comment out the disputed section temporarily? Daniel Case 19:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the  tag, which doesn't contain the language about factual accuracy that  has; this seems to be mostly an undue weight dispute. What do you all think?--Chaser - T 19:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The issue doesn't seem to be either POV or facts ... it's semantics. Can a flying checkpoint be distinguished from a hasty checkpoint? Are these just two different ways of translating the Arabic "Tayaar" (which literally does mean flying).We ought to have a tag for that: "The meaning of the word  as used in this article is disputed." Daniel Case 04:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are absolutely correct. I think the issue here is quite simple. A flying checkpoint is, as several sources (who are both pro-Palestinian, and originally Arabic sources) clearly say - a random mobile checkpoint. 'tayaar' does indeed mean flying, and my guess is that this is an Arabic (or maybe  even just a Palestinian) idiom, whereas the corresponding Hebrew idiom is "surprise checkpoint", and the corresponding standard English term is "random checkpoint" or some such. That explains why a Google search for the Palestinian-specific idiom "flying checkpoint" primarily yields references to the Palestinian context. What complicates things a bit is the single source which says that a "flying checkpoint is a "type" of a hasty checkpoint" - that American source which refers to the American operations in Kurdistan post the first Gulf war is the only one making such a distinction. From reading the description of that "flying checkpoint" my guess is that it refers to the fact that those checkpoints had flying air-cover  in the form of attack helicopters. But the solution to our semantic problem is quite simple: I have provided several sources, pro-Palestinian and Arabic speaking, that say that a flying checkpoint is the same as a random, mobile checkpoint. Those claiming these are different things should explain, clearly, what the difference is. Isarig 15:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Regarding Chaser's question to Isarig and myself, I would be more than happy to abide by any consensus generated via the involvement of outside editors. My own question is: can I participate in the discussion on the article content and point newcomers to sources that address any issues raised?   Tiamat 13:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Outside views

message: :Please place comments here if you are new to this dispute. Thank you.
*It's quite clear that "flying checkpoint" is merely an alternate term for mobile random checkpoints, and that this article is being held hostage so it can be used as a propaganda piece. Put the article where it belongs, and stop using Wikipedia as a soapbox. Jayjg (talk) 17:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Jayjg. Fancy meeting you here. Please focus on the article, rather than editors, and try to beWP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Tiamat 18:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't recall mentioning any editors, and I haven't even looked at the history of the article; I'm discussing the current article as it exists, under this name. Why, did my statements cut a little too close to the quick for your liking? Jayjg (talk) 18:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The preceding is copied from inside the hidden thread and appears to be an RFC response.
*I don't see any substantive difference between "flying" or "hasty" checkpoints, and it appears the world at larges uses them nearly interchangeably, with perhaps minor connotation differences.  I don't think the entire sections about specific nations are appropriate, but rather should be seriously pared down and included in the body of the work, to illustrate a general principle.  There already exist articles about the US in the Iraq war, about Lebanese militias, and an entire article about IDF checkpoints.  These are more appropriate venues to treat this material, and should be wikilinked instead of making sections here.  --Haemo 04:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Outside views

message: Listen guys, without 'starting over', we need a bit of order here. There are two discussions going; one about the title, the second about the content, and on top of that the RFC. We need to seperate them, and resist commenting in different sections which has made everything really confusing. It's also hot now, and I think there should be a rule about needing an airconditioned room as a requirement for editing. --Shuki 20:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Let's try to avoid posts to this talk page for a while and let some RFC opinions trickle in.--Chaser - T 03:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For the sake of compromise, I am willing to accept a name-change to the article. It should be entitled Random checkpoint. Types or synonyms of random checkpoint - such as "flying checkpoint" - should be mentioned, as well as where the term was first used and where it is used now. The issue of the level of detail of specific examples of the impact on civilians in different countries or situations can be discussed as the new article takes shape. Tiamat 01:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Going nowhere 

message: Isarig: In our discussion over this article, there have been two issues: 1) the article's name (which now reads Random checkpoint and is thus settled) and 2) how to incorporate the content on individual countries. I pared down the text that was in the original article. I am not against paring it down even further and removing sub-headings so that it reads as prose. Your help with that would be appreciate. Deleting everything I added however, as you did here is not. Please edit and discuss rather than deleting and leaving vague edit summaries. Thanks. Tiamat 14:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This talk page is full of my comments- I am probably the biggest contributor to it. The issue of separate countries has been discussed ad nauseum. It is POV to name just these countries, when the tactic is universal. Stop it. Isarig 15:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That was your opinion, however, no consensus was reached. The material I have added is sourced and discusses the use of flying checkpoints by actors in three different countries. You are most welcome to add further examples to satisfy NPOV if you believe that listing three examples is insufficient. Tiamat 15:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, you are wrong - there was clear consensus to exclude this material - read the Talk page. Even if you were right, the onus is on editors wishing to ADD new material to an article to seek and get consensus for it - which you have failed to do. Isarig 15:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

text: By the way, please do not accuse me of playing games, as you did in this edit summary. Shuki's comments just above show that the issue of content and the article name were two separate ones. Consensus was only reached on the article name, and not on what to do with the content on examples of usage. Tiamat 15:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Returning to an article that you have extensively edit-warred over for months, in order to re-insert the same contentious material w/o consensus, while pretending the material has not been discussed previously is game playing, or if you prefer, disruptive editing. Isarig 15:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Re-read what I wrote: there was clear consensus to exclude this material - read the Talk page. Even if you were right, the onus is on editors wishing to ADD new material to an article to seek and get consensus for it - which you have failed to do.  Isarig 17:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw this on the 3RR noticeboard. I'm not going to act, because I've been involved in the ArbCom case peripherally involving at least one of you. For the record, it looks like you're both at 3RR but haven't gone over yet, and if I were to act I'd protect the article rather than blocking anyone. Now, as an editor: I agree with Isarig's position - I don't think specific examples are a good idea in this article, regardless of how well-sourced they are, as they're prone to cherry-picking. This article should generally describe random checkpoints, but specifics of their use by the Israelis, or anyone else, belongs in a more specific article about Israeli-Palestinian relations. Using this general article to make a statement about Israeli-Palestinian relations is content forking. Again, that's just my 2 cents as an editor. MastCell Talk 18:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tiamut, the article was fine as a good example of a generic entry in the encyclopedia. There is absolutely no reason to add the section with expanded examples and there are endless articles to prove this. Look at :M16 rifle, many armies use it and apart from a list of those customers, we do not need more information of how soldiers in one country or another have used them, killed people, bashed skulls or whatever. It simply reduces the quality of WP. The consensus is to remove that section. --Shuki 20:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a most bizarre argument. How does removing sourced information improve the quality of the encyclopedia? I would expect any article to have specific examples. Catchpole 18:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Removing cherry-picked examples, selected in order to push a certain POV, improves the encyclopedia by focusing on encyclopedic content, vs. politicaly motivated bashing. The article already mentions examples of where this common tactic is being used, and there are hundreds more that could be provided. Isarig 19:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see POV-pushing or "bashing" here. This is not a battleground. Three different examples are given to illustrate how the tactic is used which adds valuable context to the article. If they are more sources showing how the tactic is used in different situations then these could also be considered. Catchpole 20:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you don't see a POV-pushing attempt, let me suggest the following experiment: Instead of the 3 examples which were introduced earlier, why don't you introduce the following 2 examples: (1) The use of helicopter airlifted checkpoint by british forces in afganistan (documented in the Talk page above) (2) The use of random checkpoints by the UN in various conflicts. (also documented in the Talk page) See how much insistence there will be from Tiamut et all on keeping those examples in the article, to the exclusion of the ones they are pushing for.  Isarig 20:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Isarig, WP:AGF maybe? Stop trying to make this out to be a POV-pushing case when you know as well as I do that when this article was created (by me) it was about "flying checkpoints" and the only examples I found of the use of "flying checkpoints" were by Lebanon, Israel and the United States. It was you who insisted that flying checkpoint was a synonym for random checkpoint (presumably to avoid having the practices of Israel highlighted) and then decided that we should not list examples since it is a universal practice. Why don't you add these examples alongside the others? The more examples of their usage, the more illuminating the article might be, as myself, Catchpole and others have pointed out above. Tiamat 12:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I'll assume good faith. We're obviously not going to be able to include every instance of random checkpoint use, and will have to choose 2-3. Are you ok with just the two I described above? Or if you feel more than 2 are needed, perhaps we'll add one more describing the use by police, rather than military, and maybe another one about Viet Nam. Is that ok? Isarig 15:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I still oppose adding in any example from anywhere in the world other than a minor ref to them in one main sentence as in the current article. Any attempt to pick a couple of 'main examples' is POV and as discussed above, redundant and sloppy. --Shuki 17:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: See talk is not an explanation when you do not leave a comment at the talk

message: In a more perfect world I would like to see some sort of consolidation of articles into Checkpoint (security). We have this article, plus border checkpoint, civilian checkpoint, and also sobriety checkpoint (all rather small), but we don't have a main article (that I know of). A main article could discuss the types of security checkpoints and should be easier to edit. On a second note I believe we should add information about notable use of checkpoints inside country borders, not necessarily so much about how in each case, but rather where they are used frequently. It would be a disservice to the readers not to, because the use of checkpoints conveys information about the security situation in a particular place.
Finally, I have no clear opinion on what constitutes notable examples of checkpoints. But my objections to the sources cited above (by Isarig) are as follows:
*Kosovo - the first cite is from 1998, the second from 2001. I won't doubt that there are checkpoints still in Kosovo, but there was a change with the introduction of the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government in 2001 and later the elections held late the same year (as well as the disturbance in 2004) so the use of checkpoints has likely changed. We need newer sources, the historical connection aside. I also take objection with the inclusion in the article of the text "recently used in Kosovo, Beirut", then citing a New York Times article from 1983(!)
* Somalia, this cite only discusses the tactical aspect and procedures of checkpoints by the US Army prior to deploying to Somalia under operation "Restore Hope" (in 1992). There was no infomation about the actual use of checkpoints in this country.
*Vietnam and Haiti - Isarig didn't give a cite for mentioning these two countries.
*"use by british forces" - a short forum post about checkpoints in Iraq set up by British forces. Not very useful by itself, and forum posts cannot be used as cites anyway.
*"as well as civilian police forces" - this fifth cite is the same as the second cite (Kosovo) and talks in passing only about one incident. 
Summary: I think we should consolidate some of the information. As for Isarig's sources, not very good ones, and I note that the absence of sources in some areas doesn't exclude notable examples from other places, as long as the principle in WP:UNDUE is upheld. If the use of checkpoints is as widespread as in the impression left by some editors, it shouldn't be that difficult to find such sources (for instance, working of List of wars 2003–current) -- Steve Hart 01:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no objection to consolidating the various checkpoint articles into one. Feel free to add the appropriate Merge tags to each and to start the discussion. Your comments regarding my sources are a different story. Those editors proposing to add detailed, specific examples into the article are not claiming this is needed to illustrate some current usage, but rather to illustrate how and why they are used. As such it makes no difference if checkpoints in Kosvo were used in 98, '01 or yesterday. A US manual in preparation for deployment is as good an example as a post-deployment one, but rest assured there are plenty of sources that describes the actual usage. The use of checkpoints in Afghanistan is sourced to a CNN transcript. Civilian police sources are not the same as military UN peace keeping forces. In short, your objections to these specific examples are without merit, and should we decide to include specific examples, there's no reason why the can't be used.  Isarig 01:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with Steve Hart's proposal for a merger of this information into a more comprehensive article on Checkpoints (should it be Checkpoint (security) or Checkpoint (military)? I don't know. Perhaps Checkpoint in general with links to all). It could be structured along the lines of House demolition. I also agree with your analysis of the sources, though perhaps mentioning historical examples would be useful, depending on their notability. Tiamat 02:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I would like to point out the difference between the strategical and tactical aspects (the Somalia link, -> which is really US) and examples of notable use of checkpoints. These two should be separate sections in a new article. Examples of use should in my opinion be limited to cases where there is a notable debate surrounding the existence and consequences of such checkpoints. And, I think we should keep it rather short. -- Steve Hart 17:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

text: *In countries like the United States, the Border Patrol does not administer the official border checkpoints.  The guards at the checkpoints like San Ysidro are in fact the border guards of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.  The Border Patrol generally polices the border areas outside the checkpoints. --Oakshade (talk) 17:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why separate articles? 

message: I've placed tags on border checkpoint & civilian checkpoint & this article, suggesting the creation of a new article. -- Steve Hart 17:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *In countries like the United States, the Border Patrol does not administer the official border checkpoints.  The guards at the checkpoints like San Ysidro are in fact the border guards of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.  The Border Patrol generally polices the border areas outside the checkpoints. --Oakshade (talk) 17:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge tag placed

message: I have merged Sobriety checkpoints to this article, as the term used only in US, and even tagged so. Feedbacks welcome. Doorvery far (talk) 06:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sobriety checkpoints 

message: "Opposition to sobriety roadblocks is generally stronger among civil libertarians, conservatives and libertarians." I think before this element is kept as-is, it should be developed from a second source; Conservatives typically support law and order (emphasis on "order") and therefore would seem to support these checkpoints. (For the time being I left it be, since there are some who do oppose these activities.) 97.120.224.90 (talk) 20:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opposition To Sobriety Checkpoints 

message: I'd like to see some explaination on how they are set up; IE, posting signs, escape routes (if any), secondary inspection areas, basic inspections, etc. In fact, that's the only reason I even looked at the article. 97.120.224.90 (talk) 20:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  ¿How? 

message: The section on 'Effectiveness' of sobriety checkpoints includes leadingly positive language about their efficacy. 
′′′
the number of alcohol related crashes was reduced by 20% in states that implement sobriety checkpoints compared to those that do not.
′′′
The use of the word 'reduce[d]' implies a comparison of the same statistical unit at two different times (e.g. a paired-difference, or repeated measures test), which is in contrast to the wording in 'compared to those that do not' which implies a comparison between separate statistical units (e.g. a two-sample test). In this case a state is the meaningful statistical unit. I assume that the actual meaning of the referenced material is the latter, but the citation is a link that leads only to the CDC injury and violence prevention and control page, and not to an article representing the content it purports to cite.
The reason that this is important is that, as worded, the section overstates the influence of sobriety stops. In a repeated measures test, the credibility of alternate explanations of the observed statistical phenomenon is diminished (i.e. the only variable that was changed between paired measures is the experimental variable ergo that must have caused the observed effect), whereas in a two-sample test, the causality of the experimental variable to the observed effect is much more tenuous (i.e. perhaps there are other variables that differ in common between states that do and do not have sobriety stops).
As such, the wording implies that there is data extant to indicate that states exhibit a decrease in DUI accidents after instating sobriety stops, rather than the less significant actual data.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazyeirishman (talk • contribs) 15:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sobriety checkpoint efficacy 

message: :The section on which States use checkpoints is not wholly accurate. It claims that random checkpoints are not used in Montana, which is false. They are, and have been for some time. They do not, however, call them "Sobriety" checkpoints and instead opt for referring to them as "vehicle safety" checkpoints. Reference: http://billingsgazette.com/news/local/article_39a4fd0e-51fb-5bea-8a1c-5470de2cc332.html?mode=story  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.166.240.249 (talk) 07:54, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  States Using Checkpoints 

message: The first paragraph summarizes the article as "a military and police tactic involving the set up (sic) of a hasty roadblock primarily by mobile truck-mounted infantry or police units in order to disrupt unauthorized or unwanted movement and/or military activity." But that is simply not true. The bulk of the article concerns sobriety checkpoints, which is a police tactic involving the setup of a "hasty" roadblock in order to detect violations of state sobriety laws, rather than to disrupt unauthorized or unwanted movement and/or military activity. Furthermore, other types of checkpoints are not mentioned, such as certain information-gathering checkpoints (Illinois v. Lidster, S.Ct.2004), immigration checkpoints (separate from border checkpoints; United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, S.Ct.1976), and driver's license and registration checkpoints (Delaware v. Prouse, S.Ct.1979). I suggest splitting this article into military checkpoints and police checkpoints, with the latter at least mentioning police checkpoints other than sobriety checkpoints. DavidForthoffer (talk) 12:01, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree 100%. Sobriety checkpoint actually used to be its own separate article before someone rammed it in here (without discussing it on the Sobriety checkpoint talk page, I might add). You could probably just look through the history to find it and separate it again. Ejgreen77 (talk) 13:04, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split this article? 

message: It is most essential to mention a few international rules for DUI or random checkpoint , so I have added a few of them with reliable reference links. 
Kalamya (talk) 20:25, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  International rules

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Random checkpoint. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091023233503/http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/roadsafety/advertisingcampaigns/rbt/ to http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/roadsafety/advertisingcampaigns/rbt/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091018101558/http://www.afp.gov.au/act/drugs_alcohol/drink_driving.html to http://www.afp.gov.au/act/drugs_alcohol/drink_driving.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131029212551/http://www.kpax.com/news/3-arrests-lots-of-citations-at-billings-traffic-checkpoint/ to http://www.kpax.com/news/3-arrests-lots-of-citations-at-billings-traffic-checkpoint/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110515081416/http://publichealthlawresearch.org/public-health-topics/injury-prevention/accidents-involving-alcohol/evidence-brief/selective-breath-t to http://www.publichealthlawresearch.org/public-health-topics/injury-prevention/accidents-involving-alcohol/evidence-brief/selective-breath-t
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091009002920/http://www.chp.ca.gov/html/dui-en.html to http://www.chp.ca.gov/html/dui-en.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:26, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified