Talk:Machsom Watch/Archive 1

message: I've re-added that paragraph with sources. This is very clear as far as I can see. Moreover, the MW accused Israeli soldiers of laughing, while they didn't laugh in the video (I remember seing it on TV, they didn't laugh). Besides, it's a littles senseless to have a section and MW criticisms without listing a single thing they did wrong, don't you think? -- Ynhockey || Talk 04:06, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticisms

message: While I didn't add that last paragraph, or its source, I maintain that if palestineremembered can be used as a source for dozens of articles, so can Arutz Sheva. If you remove Arutz Sheva, please remove all information taken from palestineremembered. Otherwise, please restore the paragraph. -- Y Ynhockey || Talk Y 09:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No deal.  --Zero 10:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why then do you support vehemently anti-Israel sources but oppose vehemently anti-Arab sources? -- Y Ynhockey || Talk Y 11:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Perhaps you might remind me where I used palestineremembered as a source for something.  I have no recollection of such a thing.  To the best of my knowledge, my standard for sources is consistently high.  (Nevertheless, your example is not equivalent.  An equivalent to Arutz Sheva would be radioislam.com.  palestineremembered is not in that class.) --Zero 12:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually the equivalent of Arutz7 would be Wafa the palestinian news agency. Zeq 12:39, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

text: This isn't about where you specifically used palestineremembered (because, as you probably know, I have never used Arutz 7 as a source myself either), but whether you support such extremely biased sources being on Wikipedia in general. Clearly you support palestineremembered since I've seen you editing articles using palestineremembered as a source, but not Arutz 7. I don't think we need to draw direct equivalents, because it's not about what type of source a certain source is (news, memorial, advertizement, etc.) but about how the particular source interprets the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. If pro-Palestinian sources are allowed to stay, then so should pro-Israeli sources. In Black September, the site palestinefacts.org (a pro-Israeli site) was not allowed as a source, and in Altalena Affair, etzel.org is not used. Why is there a bias against pro-Israeli sources? -- Y Ynhockey || Talk Y 12:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually Wikipedia has hundreds of "pro-Israeli" sources. --Zero 12:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Plenty of sources were given, including the corresponding HebWiki article. You will probably also find it in the external links given (though I didn't check yet) but here is another link to this accusition: YNET. Just google it and stop reverting. MathKnight 13:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  Arutz 7 is not a reputable source.  Language forks of Wikipedia are not used as original sources.  I never once claimed Palestine Remembered is neutral so stop misrepresenting my position.  The YNET article contains criticism only from some soldier's mother!  None of the claimed sources say anything about criticism from "Jewish Human Rights" groups.  Start playing by the rules.  --Zero 23:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is all over the Hebrew press, not just Arutz 7. Zeq 05:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Good idea. I was actually about to suggest that myself. Palmiro | Talk 16:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: It's not my fault that everyone in Israel hates Machsom Watch, except the uber-extreme left, but no one said you shouldn't start a praise section. Just don't forget those impartial sources you like to talk about... but please, no The Guardian or Al Jazeera. If you use those, Arutz 7 is fair game. -- Y Ynhockey || Talk Y 16:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  In fact, Machsom Watch has a very good reputation in Israel.  Some people think of them as nutty, but only right-wingers regard them as evil.  I guess we don't move in the same circles.  Btw, I'm nominating your Guardian=Arutz7 claim as Joke of the Week.  --Zero 01:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Guess not; I'm in the military police and most of my friends from basic training are guarding checkpoints now. I guess they would be biased against Machsom Watch. But don't forget that they are the ones who know best what exactly Machsom Watch does, unlike left-wing circles (even intellectuals) who have rarely, if ever, visited a checkpoint. About The Guardian, I can't recollect every single biased article which appeared in it (there have been tons), but honestreporting.com occasionally points out good ones, like this one. After reading that, I have much trouble believing that The Guardian is somehow less biased than Arutz 7. -- Y Ynhockey || Talk Y 02:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

text: By the way, funny I should remember this article, because just this Monday I was around Abu Dis, walked near the wall for a few minutes and saw a shepherd, which is likely the very same one which is shown on that picture. The wall doesn't look that scary from up close though. -- Y Ynhockey || Talk Y 02:48, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

text: There is another issue which is somewhat independent of bias.  Arutz7 is a tiny organization with hardly any independent capacity to gather news.  Almost everything they "broadcast" (now only on the internet) is just their spin on news gathered by someone else.  That makes them much less valuable as a source than serious news agencies and newspapers.  --Zero 08:16, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Jay, regarding palestineremembered.com, I was commenting on how Zero removed an entire section from this article only because the source was Arutz7, however, he did not remove the 'Arab villages' list from List of villages depopulated during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war (or any of these specific village articles), even though it's based in its entirety on palestineremembered.com's information. You may say that it's factual information and should be separated from their POV, but that's not true because I've found some places on their site where they deliberately inflate the victims by listing the same village twice under a different name, etc. (see my edits in that article). -- Y Ynhockey || Talk Y 08:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Comparing what I did to what I didn't do is hardly a logical approach.  If I had time to check List of villages depopulated during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war in detail I would use more academic sources.  Meanwhile it remains as an article which is mostly true but needs careful checking.  Btw, I don't recall anything about palestineremembered "listing the same village twice under a different name" and cannot see it in your edits on that page.  Can you remind us?  --Zero 10:05, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, my earlier long reply didn't go through (Wikipedia technical difficulties), but I'll summarize: Ajanjul and Bayt Nuba are listed under different entries although Ajanjul was merged into Bayt Nuba before 1948. There are probably other examples I don't remember. Also, you volunteered to check the entire list on Talk:List of Arab localities in Palestine 1948, a page which I'm now going to wipe and redirect to the other list, since you don't seem to object (maybe you just forgot that article?) -- Y Ynhockey || Talk Y 19:19, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks.  I didn't check the list of localities because I could not find the source (1946 Village Statistics) that I wanted.  I still can't find it.  The best I have is a list of villages in the 1931 census report.  It will miss many Jewish localities established later.  I'm not complaining about redirecting List of Arab localities in Palestine 1948 because I don't have time to bring it up to standard.  It would take at least a week of hard work and I have a real job to do. --Zero 10:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  On Ajanjul and Bayt Nuba, I don't agree with your analysis.  These locations were about 5km apart.  In the 1931 census they were counted separately but by 1945 the British statisticians had begun to treat them as parts of the same village.  Whether they were one village or two is clearly an opinion (and not terribly interesting, imo).  It is not right to say that palestineremembered tried to inflate the statistics by presenting them separately, because the population figure they give for Ajanjul clearly states "includes Bayt Nuba".  From the point of view of that site there is a perfectly good reason to treat them separately: Ajanjul was destroyed in 1948 but Bayt Nuba remained relatively intact until it was destroyed, and the population evicted by force, in 1967. --Zero 10:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  I partially disagree. While Arutz 7 can be trasted on facts (but not on interpretations or editirials) Al-Jazeera sometimes choose to quote only one side falsehoods as facts. Zeq 11:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Arutz Sheva as source

message: I was always under the impression that when you are born and grow up somewhere else you are usually not considered ---i or ----an.  My grandma is Hungarian not American, is this not the case?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 04:59, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that when you say "Israeli women" most people will take it that you mean "women who are citizens of Israel" unless there is some context that suggests it might mean something else.  It could possibly apply to a woman who grew up in Israel then moved somewhere else and gave up Israeli citizenship, but our article's context is that we are clearly taking about women resident in Israel.  Actually there is a more serious problem with "Israeli women": I think that it should be "Jewish Israeli women" (or "Israeli Jewish women", which would be better?) since I believe no Israeli Arabs or other non-Jewish Israelis are members.  (I'll check the facts on this.)  --Zero 05:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The reply from my highly-placed source (yes, this is Original Research) is that almost all the women are Jewish but there is no policy about that and a few Israeli Arab women are members too.  --Zero 00:18, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Israeli or from Israel 

message: Palmiro, why did you revert my edit? How is it 'very bad' to increase the coherence of an article? I mean, how does this read to you?
Their stated aims are to:
*"Our presence there is a political act. ...first and foremost, we protest against the very existence of the checkpoints.” [2]
Doesn't seem very coherent to me. The quotes are not necessary either, as direct speech is unencyclopedic and should, when possible, be replaced with reported speech.
:Apologies. I didn't mean to revert your edit, which had not yet been made when I opened the editing window. It took me several tries to send the edit, and I suppose several edits took place while I was trying - I hadn't realised the level of activity was that intense. I agree with you that the bit you cite above is not so good, but I didn;t have the time to fix it. What I objected to most of all in the version by Zeq was the "politically motivated human rights group", which seems to be just a way of casting aspersions on them. Is there any human rights group that isn't politically motivated? Palmiro | Talk 21:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Quote

message: They clearly spell this out and there is nothing wrong with being political. Zeq 19:54, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Our presence there is a political act. ..." 

message: If you have objections to sourced contnet use talk.
: You are here for your own political purposes and obviously don't give a damn if it's a good article.  Yes, please start another ArbCom hearing.  This time I will not be so wimpish in presenting the proof that you should be banned.  --Zero 10:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please explain your reverts. Please avoid revering (or doing any edit) without proper explnation and also be civil to your fellow editors. You should also always asssume good faith. Zeq 11:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  To Zero 

message: I would like for now to pose this as a question. Zeq 21:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the answer is obviously yes. But, why do you ask? -- Y Ynhockey (Talk) Y 04:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Machsom watch web site a propeganda ? 

message: Zero has at first tried to remove the quote from haaretz. After he understood he can not delete it he now tries to push it to the last line and the last paragrpah of this article.
NPOV policy is that we describe the controversy. We present both POV (in this case on the question of "what is Human rights ?"
Zero, if you dispute this I suggest that you start a dispute resolution process. Conduct a poll, file for mediation - what ever. That is the proper way to handle disputes. I am aksing you again to stop the edit war about a legitimate edit. Zeq 05:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputing a legitimate edit 

message: Hi Slim,
I think we had some edit conflict on checkpoint watch.
Anyhow:
The issue (IMHO) is to be NPOV about the checkpoints themself. Checkpointwatch has one view, most israelis has another view and they belive that the checkpoints protect israelis from terror.
Personally I think both are right. In any case, it is important to bring in the intro the watch goals (as they see them) and IDF head response about the broader Human rights issue. This is under mediation and you are welcome to join. I want to understand why you think critisim should go on top and not NPOV discussion about the chiken and egg about terror and checkpoints (which IMHO, is the controversy to describe)  Zeq 22:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't fully understand your question, Zeq. Some criticism should go in the intro, because the intro needs to be balanced. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Naybe I was not clear but it is not a big deal. The way you have it here:  is just fine. I added more source and Wikify Emil Gruntzweig - which i was very surprized to see had no article on him as he preceeded Rabin by 13 years as Israel's first political victim. I was with him that night. I will need to translate this:  http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%99%D7%9C_%D7%92%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%A0%D7%A6%D7%95%D7%95%D7%99%D7%99%D7%92 Zeq 06:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What should go on 1st paragrph ? 

message: פעילותן של מתנדבות מחסום-ווטש, לצד נסיונות הצבא להציג "כיבוש נאור" בעיני העולם, אכן הביאו לשיפור קל במחסומים, והפכו את ההישרדות היומיומית לנסבלת יותר. אולם מחסום-ווטש מתנגד לעצם הקמת המחסומים. במחסומים הללו ניתן לראות, על בסיס יומיומי, את ההשפלה והדיכוי המתמשכים - צבא כובש. 
translation:
The activity of watch volunteers, along with the army attempts to present an "enlightened occupation" to the rest of the world, indeed brought slight imporvment in checkpoints and had turned the daily susrvival (of Palestinians) to somewhat bearable (spelling?). But Machsom-watch object the actual existense of the checkpoints - in thise chackpoints it is posible to see on a daily basis the humiliation caused by an occupation army,
Zeq 22:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  From http://www.etgar.info/watch.html 

message: from http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/690397.html
Last update - 23:55 05/03/2006    
 
[ Text deleted for obvious copyright reasons. --Zero 02:01, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Take a copy if you want, folks, but this blatant copyright violation can't be allowed.  --Zero 10:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Haaretz Article - full text 

message: I looked at all the "citation needed" tags. It seems much of this article is direct quotes from how the group describe itself. The source is it's own web site. Zeq 04:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The sources need go into the article. It's no use us being the only ones to know the sources. If you quote someone, for example, you need to link to, or otherwise cite, your source after the quote. Also, please add new posts to the bottom of this page so that people can see them. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: sources for ths article 

message: Zero justifies his edit war with: "Criticism in the introduction is a violation of normal article structure.) "
We may need ArbCom to rule on that. While NPOV policy is clear it may need more calrifications. Zeq 11:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We are going to have criticism in the lead section when hell freezes over.  --Zero 13:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not a very strong argument so I reverted it back to this version:  and i suggest that if you have real arguments you raise them at the mediation yiou were offered to participate. Zeq 14:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Zero, what's the problem with having criticism in the lead? The intro should provide an overview of the whole topic, good and bad. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I don't see any criticism or even factual reporting of the many well-known and well-documented human rights abuses carried out by the organization in question in the intro to the Israel Defence Forces article. And there we are talking about facts that have been reported by the likes of Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International. Here we appear to be talking about criticism by the IDF (what a surprise) and by NGO Monitor, a website maintained by an Israeli lobbying group (the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs) for the purpose of criticising Palestinian and Israeli human rights groups. This sort of criticism is so obvious, and the parties involved so interested, that it would be arguably be a bit silly to include it in the lead even if such was the norm in other articles about controversial organizations. Palmiro | Talk 00:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zero's argument 

message: The revrts by zero are getting disruptive. there was nothing in talk to justify the last revert.
Zero is engaging in edit war. I will  not participate  in the edit war. For the last time, I ask Zero to participate in Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation#Machsom_Watch. (The issue  is now clear: NPOV or not NPOV ?) Zeq 06:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Zero, you seem to have reverted fives times in the last 24 hours. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:53, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverets by Zero 

message: It does not make sense to have them both. This is getting ridiculus. Article sections should be NPOV  and  written well without duplication.
It is kind of a POV fork in the article itself: Zero gets the 1st paragrph to be as he wants it and in return we get  two sections  of counter-reactions.  I do not accept this kind of solution .
The 1st paragrph need to be as short as possible  and  NPOV. The best way to do it is with the qoute from the IDF about why the checkpoints are need from a human rights perspective.
Zeq 11:39, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just reverted that edit, honestly I don't know what Ian Pitchford was trying to do. But Israel Defense Forces checkpoint might be an appropriate place for that sort of criticism. P.S. The Guardian should probably not be used as a reliable news source, even if you intend to edit that other article. -- Y Ynhockey (Talk) Y 14:01, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no reason that the Guardian should not be used as a reliable news source, and Linda Grant (the author inter alia of When I Lived in Modern Times) is hardly hostile to Israel, to put it mildly. Palmiro | Talk 14:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is  lack of NPOV (there is no problem using Guardian as souce as long as we keep the intro NPOV)  Zeq 15:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text: All - Please check carefully that sources added to this article do support the claims made. --Ian Pitchford 17:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Palmiro, why did you bring back the change without discussing, especially than two users were opposed to it? Also, just for the record, I wasn't opposed to it because of The Guardian (that was just a side note), but because someone's opinions on checkpoints in general are completely irrelevant to this article (unless this someone is MW, which it isn't in your edit). -- Y Ynhockey (Talk) Y 17:22, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which edit of mine are you referring to? Palmiro | Talk 17:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text: That edit was made by Ian, not by me. Palmiro | Talk 18:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh yeah, sorry. I need to stay off editing Wikipedia today :( have been sick for a few days now, hopefully I haven't made any mistakes which I didn't notice, other than on this talk page (made quite a few). -- Y Ynhockey (Talk) Y 20:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  We now have <b> two </b> counter-arguments sections  

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Machsom_Watch&diff=43285824&oldid=43278316 Zeq 13:53, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just reverted that edit, honestly I don't know what Ian Pitchford was trying to do. But Israel Defense Forces checkpoint might be an appropriate place for that sort of criticism. P.S. The Guardian should probably not be used as a reliable news source, even if you intend to edit that other article. -- Y Ynhockey (Talk) Y 14:01, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no reason that the Guardian should not be used as a reliable news source, and Linda Grant (the author inter alia of When I Lived in Modern Times) is hardly hostile to Israel, to put it mildly. Palmiro | Talk 14:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is  lack of NPOV (there is no problem using Guardian as souce as long as we keep the intro NPOV)  Zeq 15:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text: All - Please check carefully that sources added to this article do support the claims made. --Ian Pitchford 17:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Palmiro, why did you bring back the change without discussing, especially than two users were opposed to it? Also, just for the record, I wasn't opposed to it because of The Guardian (that was just a side note), but because someone's opinions on checkpoints in general are completely irrelevant to this article (unless this someone is MW, which it isn't in your edit). -- Y Ynhockey (Talk) Y 17:22, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which edit of mine are you referring to? Palmiro | Talk 17:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text: That edit was made by Ian, not by me. Palmiro | Talk 18:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh yeah, sorry. I need to stay off editing Wikipedia today :( have been sick for a few days now, hopefully I haven't made any mistakes which I didn't notice, other than on this talk page (made quite a few). -- Y Ynhockey (Talk) Y 20:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  It is getting more ridiculus:

message: The following paragraoh has been inserted into the article:In December, 2005 the European Parliament's Delegation for Relations with Israel found that 'The goals of the group are to monitor the behaviour of soldiers, to ensure that the human rights of Palestinians attempting to enter Israel are protected, and to report back. It can thus be said that, today, there is much less physical violence than before, but verbal and behavioural violence has increased'
This quote conveys no new information to the reader, as the statement essentially repeats the stated goals of MW, which are given in the intro to the article. It does not follow directly from the quote that physical violence declined thanks to MW's efforts. If one reads the entire section of the report titled "8. Machsom Watch - women for human rights", one can see that the section contains lots of extraneous information unrelated directly Machsom Watch, but concerning checkpoints in general: for example, the sentence "The worst situation is in Hebron, where the presence of a 500 especially violent settlers has resulted in the city being divided in areas H1 and H2, something which makes impossible the daily life of 65,000 Arabs." or a statement that "[i]n 2004, 53 babies were actually born at checkpoints". None of this has anything to do with MW, so I have removed the paragraph. Pecher Talk 18:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking carefully through the report, it appears that it generally consists of summaries of the views of the EU delegation's interlocutors, and that this quote is more likely to represent the views expressed by Machsom Watch members to the delegation than any conclusion the delegation itself came to, so I think you were right to take it out. Palmiro | Talk 18:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: European parliament quote

message: Machsom Watch is a human rights organization composed exclusively of Israeli women.
The word machsom is Hebrew for "checkpoint", in reference to Israel Defense Forces checkpoints inside the West Bank and along entry points from the West Bank into Israel. The group also calls itself "Women for Human Rights". 
According to its website[
], the group's aims are to:
* monitor the behavior of soldiers at checkpoints;
* ensure the human rights of Palestinians attempting to enter Israel via checkpoints;
* report their observations to wide audience: from the decision-making level to the general public. 
Most members of the group see their role as protesting against the existence of the checkpoints.  
The women presence in checkpoints had a positive effect of reducing phisical violence in the checkpoints and caused security forces to act with more restrain. 
Machsom Watch has been criticized by the Israel Defense Forces in disrputing the operation of checkpoints, hostility toward the troops and legedly makng false accusations. During a two-hour meeting with members of the group in March 2006, IDF Chief of Staff Dan Halutz told the women that: "Humanitarianism is not exclusively owned by Machsom Watch and it is tested not only at the checkpoints, but also in preventing suicide bombers from reaching the markets of Tel Aviv and Netanya."  
:It's actually pretty good, but I still think there should be no direct quotes in the lead section, instead there should be reported speech. By the way, double new lines don't work within blockquote, you might want to add line breaks. -- Y Ynhockey (Talk) Y 20:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm fairly neutral about this. It's more balanced than the other "with-criticism" version but it doesn't read very well, and really confirms me in my opinion that this sort of disputation does not belong in the lead. Palmiro | Talk 20:20, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry but I don't understand last comment. please be specific what's wrong.Zeq 20:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just don't think it flows very well; it introduces very specific material into what should be a general overview. It's more a stylistic question. Palmiro | Talk 20:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Style prefernces are individual but i am sure my style can be improved. What i tried to do is to summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it could stand on its own (as a concise version of the article itself) Zeq 20:57, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested lead section 

message: The article now contains the following sentence sourced to The Irish Times: "The Israeli army claims that it has listened to Machsom Watch and is 'implementing training programmes to enable soldiers to carry out their work in the 'most moral and respectful way possible'." It is by no means self-evident that the statement from the IDF actually says that the programs were implemented in response to MW's criticism, so I am asking the editor who inserted the quote to provide a fuller quote from The Irish Times's article. It would also be great to have the exact quote of the IDF's statement so that we could ascertain that it was not quoted out of context. To me, the reference to training programs sounds like a routine response to criticism, not a change adopted under pressure. Pecher Talk 19:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just FYI (based on my OR - this is not for the article): The IDF has indeed did this as result of watch critism. Zeq 20:07, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Irish Times quote

message: Organizations, groups, etc. are not commonly called by the name of the person we imagine to head them, for any number of reasons.  To begin with, the groups have proper names; if we thought it should always be called "Dore Gold's organization NGO Monitor" then we should change the name of the article to Dore Gold's organization NGO Monitor.  Second, while Dore Gold, as the current head of the JCPA, is also the publisher of NGO Monitor, the actual editor of NGO Monitor is Gerald Steinberg.  Third, Dore Gold could move on to another job next week, and we can't be going around updating all the articles to now call it "Moshe Stern's organization NGO Monitor".  Fourth, you wouldn't describe other organizations this way; for example, you wouldn't describe Machshom Watch as "Ronnee Jaeger's organization Machshom Watch", or Amnesty International as "Irene Khan's organization Amnesty International". Jayjg (talk) 03:25, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  --Zero 04:25, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NGO Monitor 

message: Often my edits are uploaded suddenly when I'm still typing the edit summary.  Does that happen to anyone else?  The "arbeit macht frei" graffiti written on one of the "Hope of us all" signs was claimed by the group "Jews against Genocide" that has nothing to do with Machsom Watch.  Quoting MW's denial without noting that the denial was proved correct is very naughty.  If this incident is in the article at all (I vote "no") it should be reported honestly: as a malicious slander against MW that was refuted. --Zero 04:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't "very naughty" unless the person who entered that info is privy to that, right? Right. El_C 04:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So instead of adding that, you removed the whole thing? What were you thinking? El_C 04:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In other words, please explain why you "vote no" and why you failed to assume good faith. El_C 04:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

text: It's a terminal. But, so what? That dosen't mean anything. El_C 04:50, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Zero, if you have material to add, do so, but PLEASE stop deleting other people's work if it's written properly. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:53, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Truncated edit summary 

message: PLEASE stop reverting. The intro must have some criticism in it, no matter how brief. People who are reverting are not taking care to ensure that the material is not repeated elsewhere in the text, or that it flows correctly. Others are slapping in quotes from British newspapers without correct the spelling or the punctuation so it's consistent with the rest of the text. There were also sentences ending with a comma, and the material from the Guardian is arguably original research because this article isn't about whether the checkpoints should exist. Also, could I request that the references are not placed in the middle of sentences; it's hard enough to read for flow with them at the end. Please can we try to pay some attention to the writing? SlimVirgin (talk) 04:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately this always happens with highly disputed articles. I made a bunch of edits to Israeli Arab to make the article much more coherent, which sparked a huge debate (not unlike the one we're engaged in now), and in turn returned the article to its previous poor writing style and coherence. I have not yet thought of a way to combat this, although we could protect the page and agree on a final version to use, then unprotect and implement this version. -- Y Ynhockey (Talk) Y 04:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here you go, look  El C, you moved a chunk out of the intro and slapped it in history, when some of it is critcism and needs to go in that section, and some of it elsewhere. You can't just move chunks around without re-reading the page. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do not bloat the lead. It's poor form. Please find a way to condense the lead in relation to other setions. That's all I ask. El_C 05:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When it was condensed to one sentence, Zero deleted that too. Why don't you condense instead of deleting? Why does Zero delete the grafitti section instead of explaining? Why delete, delete, delete? SlimVirgin (talk) 05:05, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read Wikipedia:Lead section: "The lead should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it could stand on its own as a concise version of the article." SlimVirgin (talk) 05:07, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried reading it, but found it too boring. I really dislike articles where the lead is that lengthy in relation to other sections. The manual of style cannot revert me, nor can it ask me to stop  reverting. It is totally powerless! El_C 05:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's now really short, 5 sentences. Jayjg (talk) 05:29, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jay has managed to clean up the mess (thank you); the intro is properly written with just one sentence of criticism, and the flow is restored. I'm asking everyone please to leave it be now and make suggestions for change on the talk page instead of reverting. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

text: "Credit due to El C who was the first to summarize the criticism."  That was fleeting, and I only read it now. :( El_C 05:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, we had it sorted out last night, thanks to your summary. Then when I got back on this evening, it had gone again, probably thanks to Zero. So I reverted to the nearest version of the intro-with-criticism that I found; not because I wanted that version, but because I felt uncomfortable about reverting very far back. I actually prefer the shorter criticism. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

text: But it only offers criticisms of the group, whereas before it had a sentence commending it. This sentence was 1/4 the size of the sentence critcizing the group. I'm not sure I'm comfortable with that. El_C 05:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm fine with you adding a sourced sentence commending MW as well. Jayjg (talk) 06:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really believe in sourcing things. I'll just assume someone praised it, somewhere. :) El_C 06:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Writing

message: Wikipedia: Lead section: "The lead should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it could stand on its own as a concise version of the article." SlimVirgin (talk) 05:08, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a farce. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now, now. I'm sure it's not that boring; cut the MoS some slack. El_C 05:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Zeq, it appears to be difficult enough to get even one critical sentence in the lead; please stop attempting to introduce many more such sentences. And, as I said above, please stop trying to make any other edits as well. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 05:27, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

text: What is a farce is that my reduction of the lead yesterday was gone and we were back to a lengthy lead with two seemingly inseprable passages. Zero's unexplained deletionism and assumption of bad faith (totally unacceptable, and I expect a response to that), SlimVirgin's pleas of not to revert while she reverts. Can someone please explain to me what is going on here? El_C 05:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure exactly what has gone on here, but the lead is now 5 sentences; is that "lengthy"? Jayjg (talk) 05:27, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's only involves criticisms of the group, not criticism in favour of it. El_C 05:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't care how much criticism is in the intro, or whose it is. It can be Zeq's IDF quote, or the NGO monitor, or what's there now, but there must be some. When I edit, I'm trying to improve the writing and the flow throughout the article, which is still pretty bad after my edits because the information has been inserted piecemeal, but better at least than before I edited, which is why I'd be grateful if the edits weren't reverted. Please improve what I write. Don't just delete it. Zeq, I also ask you please to stop changing the intro. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:25, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whereas I care, I care about the length. Maybe we need a carebear to help turn the lack of caring into caring, somehow? I'm fine with only touching on it being controversial and directing the reader elsehwere in the article if the lead is going to be that sizable. I've already condensed it once, why do I have to do it again today? That some needed to be more brief, just reinserting it in its entirety was unhelpful. I havne't deleted a single thing in this article, I only added material (which was nonetheless deleted). El_C 05:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

text: OK. I don't care  who  edit the intro or  who's  qouote we use, or even no quote at all. However, the fact that the existence of checkpoints is for human rights must be clear from intro. This is an NPOV issue. Zeq 05:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At most, for the benefit of the reader, you could have a brief section saying: There are X number of checkpoints stretching along Y miles of terrain in the areas known as A, B, and C. Their existence is controversial. Followed by a pro-checkpoint position and an anti-one, both sourced. But bear in mind that the article is not about the checkpoints. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:49, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

text: My response to El_C:  In my opinion Zeq should be banned for causing multiple edit wars including this one.  Since I openly expressed that opinion to the Arbitration Committee it would be odd to deny it here.  I do not assume bad faith on the part of anyone else here.  As for "unexplained deletionism", I don't believe I have deleted anything at all without explaining it. As to what to do about this article, Jayjg is showing his usual good sense and we should start with his idea for the introduction and discuss further changes before making them in the article. --Zero 05:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That dosen't respond to the "very naughty" bit at all. El_C 05:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh, now I see why you were angry at me. You were right to be. I thought Zeq had added that since I forgot you read Hebrew, and I didn't see your comments above until this moment. I should have checked. Given as you are one of the W/P editors I have the most respect for, I would never suspect you of playing the game that I thought someone else was playing. I apologize unreservedly. --Zero 06:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said on my talk page. Apology accepted. I now understand. Thank you for the kind words. Much appreciated. El_C 06:19, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I support discussions. This article  has  an RFM about it and it make sense to resolve it there. Zeq 05:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seemingly all articles you are involved with have an RfM with you, Zeq. Medcom's tasks seem to largely consist of disputes involving yourself. El_C 05:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm fine with El C adding praise as well, but I think the description of what they do should be restored. Jayjg (talk) 06:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

text: It doesn't matter what the Hebrew Wikipedia says. You've deleted the group's own words about itself, which it's quite normal to have in an intro, and you've made the intro shorter than is standard, after Jay had cleaned it up, and after Zero (who would prefer no criticism) had agreed, which meant we had consensus. That isn't helpful. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Snuh? I did not delete it. Again, I havne't deleted a single thing in this article, I only added material. El_C 06:21, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, my intro is better, everyone agrees, including yourself. No, no need to thank me. :) El_C 06:23, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: How to write a lead

message: As the criticism in the article draws heavily on material from NGO Monitor it's worth noting that its parent organization, the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, is funded by the American junk bond fraudster Michael Milken who was convicted on 98 counts of insider trading that resulted in the misappropriation of billions of dollars of public sector funds. Milken also funded Justus Reid Weiner's notorious attack on Palestinian rights activist Edward Said. According to Gabbard and Saltman the Center is an extension of Milken's campaign to privatize public schooling in the US and "lobbies for privatization of Israel's economy and education system". (All of the above from p.6: Gabbard, David A. and Saltman, Kenneth J. (2003). Education As Enforcement: The Militarization and Corporatization of Schools. London: Routledge. ). --Ian Pitchford 11:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is poisoning the well but this is the Talk page where the rules are laxer.  I find the information interesting.  It is instructive to realise how many of these "independent organizations" are actually branches of the same tree.  --Zero 23:51, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Just because Milken gave money to the organization doesn't mean he controls it.  Maybe it would if he was the only person that gave them money, but he isn't.  And I misunderstood the intention, I thought he was advocating putting it in the article.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Additional Context

message: The following sentence, including a quote from The Guardian has been inserted into the article:According to Linda Grant of The Guardian, who toured Israeli checkpoints with members of Machsom Watch in 2003, the criticism of Machsom Watch is tempered by "a growing climate of opinion in Israel, including from a former Likud mayor of Tel Aviv, that the checkpoints only exist to harass the Palestinian population and are ineffective at stopping suicide bombers." The original article does not say that the "climate of opinion in Israel" somehow "tempers" the criticism of Machsom Watch. The quote in question comes from a paragrpah that simply provides a background on what the author sees as changes in the Israeli public opinion, and the quote is entirely unrelated to the criticism of MW. Thus, I have removed the sentence in question. Pecher Talk 21:09, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Guardian quote

message: Apparently this Yossi Olmert we quote here is the brother of Acting Israeli PM Ehud Olmert. Just thought I'd share this discovery with you. --Zero 22:54, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually my intention was just to mention this out of interest.  I wasn't planning to delete him.  Anyway, he criticised MW so he's already poison ;-). --Zero 11:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Yossi Olmert

message: The "violin incident" is only a few lines of a long section, do we need it in the section heading?  I propose "Criticism and praise" instead. --Zero 00:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Section heading

message: " critisied by IDF for allegedly disrupting the operation of checkpoints"
They have been critised for "alegedly" the critism is about disruption.
Once we state the source (IDF) we should stick to what that source said and avoid the word alegedly. (is this what's called weasle word ?)
Removing this word would not mean we endorse the view of the IDF just that we quote their allegations as they see it. This is part of their POV and it is 100% NPOV to prsent both POV side by side. Zeq 05:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't like the word "allegedly" either, but your version might mislead some viewers.  I suggest that both occurrences of "criticised for allegedly" be replaced by "accused of".  --Zero 11:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Double "doubt" word 

message: I just want to remind everyone that there is an RFM about this page. At the root of the issue s to add info which explain the environment in which these checkpoints exits and reasons for that.  This is a POV that is missing. Zeq 07:41, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediation 

message: Ian, this isn't an article about the checkpoints and what people in Israel think about them. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed it's not, but it is in part about how Machsom Watch's activities affect the functioning of checkpoints, which makes it important to represent the debate within Israel about their purpose and value, see below. --Ian Pitchford 22:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The quote is not about Machsom Watch's activities. It's one journalist's opinion of how the checkpoints are viewed, citing no sources. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Guardian quote

message: I have added to this article reference to a piece from the Irish Times in which the journalist explains, as part of her interview with Colonel Erez Weiner, the IDF`s operations director in the West Bank, that the army listens to Machsom Watch. This is an interesting and important observation published in a reliable publication. It belongs in the article.
Given that we have Yossi Olmert's viewpoint in the article that the group's "activists disrupt the work of soldiers at checkpoints who are trying, not always successfully, to prevent the entry of terrorists" it is reasonable to represent the scepticism in Israel about the value of checkpoints for security as expressed in Linda Grant's article on Machsom Watch. In Wikipedia we don't represent one side of an important debate.
I see no justification for Pecher's repeated deletion of this material, particularly as both publications are more reliable and have better quality control than many of the sources quoted and cited in the article, e.g., NGO Monitor, Arutz Sheva etc. --Ian Pitchford 22:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article isn't about how the checkpoints are viewed, so you're engaging in original research in trying to add that POV. As for the first quote, there's no need for it in the intro; you can place it elsewhere. The intro contains the group's view of itself, then one sentence of criticism, which isn't enough but which was agreed to as a compromise to stop the incessant reverting. If you add more material in favor of the group, more criticism will be needed, and we'll be off again. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ian, because The Irish Times is subscription-only, I asked you to provide a full quote from the article saying that the IDF implemented trainings in reponse to Machsom Watch criticism. I gave you several days to do that and removed the quote in question after you failed to respond to my comment. Pecher Talk 08:50, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ian's text includes a link to a copy of the article available for free.  Did you not see that, or do you dispute it?  The text there says "The army said it listens to Machsom Watch and is developing and implementing training programmes for to enable soldiers to carry out their work in the 'most moral and respectful way possible'." --Zero 11:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

text: As reproduced above, the quote consists of two unrelated parts: a) that the army listens to Machsom Watch, and b) that the army implements trainings for soldiers. Only the first part has any relation to MW because it is a response to MW's charge that the IDF gives little or no response to MW's criticism. The second part is a general statement that the army is doing its best to ensure that soldiers behave well at checkpoints; nothing indicates that the trainings were implemented in response to MW's criticsm. Leaving the full quote in the article would misleadingly imply that trainings are a consequence of MW's activities. Pecher Talk 13:11, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It doesn't say that the training programs were created because of Machsom Watch's criticsm, but it does imply that the training programs take into account Machsom Watch's criticism.  --Zero 13:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reinserted this, in the intro where it usefully balances the purely negative views given before. The version I have inserted respects the article and therefore addresses Pecher's point. Palmiro | Talk 21:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

text: You simply reinserted the same sentence without "addressing" anything. Pecher Talk 06:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If I understand your contention, it is that "The army says it listens to Machsom Watch and is developing and implementing training programmes to enable soldiers to carry out their work in the "most moral and respectful way possible" consists of two unrelated assertions and one cannot draw a causal relationship between them. The summarised account of this quote I included in the article follows the same structure as the original, and so this objection cannot be raised to it. Palmiro | Talk 16:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Carrying over ambiguous statements into Wikipedia undermines its quality as an encyclopedia and may qualify as disruption. Pecher Talk 12:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The statement is a useful exposition of the IDF's position, and including it in Wikipedia is necessary especially as negative remarks by the IDF about the group are also being relied on in citing criticism of it. It would be intellectually dishonest to include only the negative things the IDF says about the group. If you can find a less ambiguous statement to this effect, feel free to include it instead. I note that this objection does not imply any lack of neutrality of accuracy in the article, and am still awaiting details as to why you think there should be a totally-disputed tag on the page. Palmiro | Talk 13:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

text: It would be even more dishonest to mislead readers into thinking that the IDF said something it did not say. This is the reason behind the totally disputed tag: the article implies some praise of MW by the IDF, while in fact there is none. Pecher Talk 13:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How exactly does the article imply that? It provides a concise and accurate summary of the statements attributed to the IDF. Palmiro | Talk 14:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

text: The article does that by linking together unrelated statements by the IDF. Pecher Talk 15:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What evidence have you for this contention? Palmiro | Talk 15:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I have already explained my points above. Pecher Talk 15:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What evidence do you have for your contention that the article implies praise of MW by the IDF by linking two unrelated statements together? Palmiro | Talk 16:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Endless asking "what evidence do you have" is essentially argumentum ad infinitum, a.k.a. ad nauseam, logical fallacy. You do not offer any new arguments in response to the points I made above. Pecher Talk 16:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not a logical fallacy to ask the other party in a debate to substantiate an argument they have consistently failed to substantiate. It is, I suppose, the triumph of hope over experience. Palmiro | Talk 17:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

text: It is a logical fallacy to consistently ask for evidence after being supplied with one. Pecher Talk 17:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where, where, where, for the sake of all that is alcoholic? Palmiro | Talk 18:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

text: In the eponymous section and at the top of this section. Hopefully, you will learn someday that consumption of ale is not particularly conducive to editing. Pecher Talk 18:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The ''Irish Times'' and ''The Guardian''

message: I just noticed that just fw days ago it was Zero himself who added this links. With the edit summary: "OK, have it your way" .
Now, Zero has removed these links for no good reason, even those he him self added just days ago:  .
*This behaviour is disruptive and I must ask you to stop it. Thank You. Zeq 16:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have just admited that you did this to make a point. Next time, if you object something please use talk instead of making a point and adding a link you think is not appropriate as well. Zeq 03:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Zeq, every day you sound more like a teenage boy in bad need of a girlfriend.  Is writing rubbish here the most exciting thing in your life?  --Zerotalk 10:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I may be a female. But in any case: I fine on this aspect of my life. Thanks for your thoughtfulness. Zeq 11:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Zero, although I disagree with Zeq many times (if not most), I must admit your behavior in this page, especially as an admin, strikes me as odd. First you refused mediation (and didn't comment on that), and now you've violated WP:NPA. (I won't get into the other alleged policy violations, that's between you and whoever accused you.) Is there any reason for this kind of attitude? -- Y Ynhockey (Talk) Y 11:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, I know I shouldn't make personal attacks but I'm sick to death of this bad-faith editing and blatant POV pushing.  They don't even try to be neutral and these endless stupid allegations of Zeq are a personal attack on me.  He doesn't believe half of what he writes, nobody can be that idiotic.  --Zerotalk 11:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have just added a violation of WP:AGF to a number of your prior violations of WP:NPA and WP:CIV. Pecher Talk 14:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Zero: I would appriciate an answer to the questions below that have been posted even before your last revert. Zeq 13:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Disrupting Wikipeda to make a [[WP:Point]]

message: Zero,
#In this edit  you added a link you previoulsy removed - why ?
#You also reduced the rather good description of another link (which previoulsy you tried to remove) but there are other links which has a long description. Why do you se a problem with few more words ?
#While you admited (above) that you yourself engaed in WP:Point you have thratn a fellow editor with being blocked - on what grounds ?
#where you intending on using your admin power to block someone in a content dispute you are involved in ?
#last but not least, you have offereed mediation about this article. We can add your latest dispute/behavior to the issues - not too late to accept - maybe you will join mediation ?
Thanks in advance for your reply,
Zeq 11:06, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questions to Zero about an edit 

message: Not that it's my business, but I'm currently witnessing an edit war between Huldra and SlimVirgin, and have to say I support SlimVirgin's version. There are many facts out there which are contested and therefore must be put down as allegations. For example, in Media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, everything is written as an allegation, even though many of those things are widely known to be true. -- Y Ynhockey (Talk) Y 12:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see the problem. Huldra's is certainly better. It gives the groups account of their reasons for foundation. I don't think anyone disputes that there were indeed press reports of this, so I don't see why the accurate and objective "press reports" should be replaced with the doubt-casting and POV-ish "allegations". I would suggest that you go back to that other article and get rid of as many fatuous instances of the word "allegations' as possible, in fact... Palmiro | Talk 12:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're effectively suggesting to commit a WP:POINT violation. Claims by one group are nothing more than allegations. However, feel free to change the word to "accusations", if you prefer it. Pecher Talk 12:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the source talked about "press reports", not "claims by one group". You should be able to understand the difference. And no, I am not suggesting a violation of WP:POINT; I am suggesting that where one article is poorly (and by YNHockey's account, inaccurately or misleadingly) written, that poor writing should be fixed rather than used as a model for overcoming disagreements in another article. I am still waiting for your justification of NPOV+accuracy tag, or your reply to my comments in the debate above on the Irish Times quote in which you - in an edit summary - ludicrously accused me of not participating despite the fact that the last comment there was mine and you did not reply to it. Palmiro | Talk 12:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, these are just claims by Machsom Watch founders that "press reports" talk about human rights violations; the reports in question may be perceived differently by other people. I see nothing in Ynhockey's remark suggesting that the article on media coverage is "inaccurate" and "misleading", and I propose that you refrain from implying opinions to other people. Pecher Talk 12:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We are descending to the furthest depths of pedantry and sophistry here. You must surely be aware that there have been many press reports regarding human rights abuses at Israeli checkpoints. As regards the other article, Ynhockey suggests that it reports as mere "allegations" things which are known to be facts. I would consider that misleading, though perhaps others might not. Sadly, it does seem to be in line with Wikipedia's inability to write honestly about any matter of controversy. Palmiro | Talk 12:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, assuming we don't want to involve other articles in this, you could even set a standard from this article alone to support SlimVirgin's version. For instance, in the lead it says: referring to Israeli Defense Forces checkpoints who's stated purpose is to prevent Palestinian terrorists from the West Bank from entering Israel. So if an IDF view which also has a zillion press reports to support it, is considered a 'stated aim', not simple 'an aim', why should MW's view not be considered 'alleged human rights violations?' Either both parts should state the view as it is, or they should not. We shouldn't have double standards in the same article, at least. -- Y Ynhockey (Talk) Y 12:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But Huldra's version did not talk about human rights violations as a matter of fact (although they are); it talked about press reports of them. That is quite a difference. Palmiro | Talk 12:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we please try to adhere to NPOV?  There are allegations of human rights violations, by whomever, whether the press, or Machsom Watch, or Huldra and Palmiro. That's what policy demands we report. Jayjg (talk) 18:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit war

message: While I know that what Palmiro wrote is more or less correct (this is my OR which can not be used in wikipedia) I agree with Pecher that the source does not support what is written. Palmiro: Can you find a btter more accurate and more descriptive source ? Zeq 16:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we end this ?