Talk:Machsom Watch

message: While the fact that we've had this amount of discussion proves that the neutrality of the article is disputed, the whole thing is well-sourced and therefore the article is factually accurate. Who else thinks that we should change the template to ? --  Ynhockey (Talk) 11:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No objections. Pecher Talk 12:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I too find it odd that the article is almost completely about criticism of Machsom Watch, and over and over says how what they claim is wrong, and how "disruptive" they are — but hardly mentions what they report. Lars T. (talk) 15:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Totally disputed?

message: Right now the article spends a lot of time on specific incidents and allegations that don't really cohere into a picture of what's going on.  It looks like the situation is chaotic, with emotions high on all sides.  In an environment where everyone, soldiers and palestinians alike, is afraid of getting injured or killed,  reports are bound to conflict with each other.  I added a cleanup template.  Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 17:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heat/Light 

message: I haven't followed this article for a while now, but noticed that the entire 'support for Machsom Watch' section is sourced by an editorial from HaAretz. I mean, news stories are fine even if it's a known pro-Machsom Watch newspaper, but editorials? Ynet has dozens of new editorials each week. Should we use these as sources too? I don't think editorials in general, which are primarily opinion pieces, have a place on Wikipedia as sources for anything. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 17:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Haaretz editorial is not being cited as a source of facts, but rather as a source of opinion.  Nothing wrong with that.  The editor of Haaretz is a very well-known and influential commentator, much more so than (for example) NGO Monitor or Yossi Olmert who are cited in the criticism section.  --Zerotalk 09:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Support of Machsom Watch 'source' 

message: This section has now grown totally out of proportion with the rest of the article, IMO. Continue like this, and we can change the title of the whole article to "Criticisms of Machsom Watch".  Some of the stuff has to go. Comments? Regards, Huldra (talk) 01:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not so bad, and I cut out a bit. Feel free to remove the "violin incident" section if you want to cut it down further. Jayjg (talk) 03:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticisms of Machsom Watch

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Machsom Watch. 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  tag to http://www.machsomwatch.org/media/simaKadmonEng.asp?link=media&lang=eng
*Added  tag to http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/690397.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100819195848/http://www.acri.org.il/story.aspx?id=176 to http://www.acri.org.il/story.aspx?id=176
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071026152406/http://www.acri.org.il/hebrew-acri/engine/story.asp?id=176 to http://www.acri.org.il/hebrew-acri/engine/story.asp?id=176
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060825140947/http://fletcher.tufts.edu/research/2005/SharonDeutsch-Nadirnfinalthesisn.pdf to http://fletcher.tufts.edu/research/2005/SharonDeutsch-Nadirnfinalthesisn.pdf
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) 13:24, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified