Talk:Machsom Watch

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Talk:Machsom Watch/archive1

Radical Left[edit]

I just noticed that User:Psychomelodic added the phrase (or the 'term') radical left to the intro. Where is this from? What source? Who calls it that? Is it appropriate? Just checking.. Ramallite (talk) 15:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

correct. I changed it. Zeq 16:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is not only an unsourced opinion (and so inadmissible) it is also wrong. --Zerotalk 10:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how it is at all possible but I gree with Zero and Ramallite (based on my own OR of knowing many in the organization). The women of watch are mostly post-zionist but not all of them. Zeq 11:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to the homepage the group is "politically pluralistic"[1]. // Liftarn

in this case they just lost creadability. I know too many of them personaly they are very left but not all of them are radical. some are moderate left. Zeq 04:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid you own experiences would fall under "original research". // Liftarn
True. this is why I only use sourced info in the article. Zeq 13:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Totally disputed?[edit]

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 {{POV}}? -- Ynhockey (Talk) 11:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No objections. Pecher Talk 12:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well my wife is a volunteer with Machsom Watch and based on her experiences I can say that the only criticism of the article is that it doesn't say much about what the watchers are witness to. Still, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, and I guess the link to the Machsom Watch site provides the missing information. 89.138.30.229 17:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Deletions[edit]

Zero, you're back and the deleting without discussion has started again. Why does the soldier's father have to be notable? He is giving his own opinion that his son was scared of the women and scared of being complained about, and that in the father's view, this may have been one of the causes of the son's death. Who else could give that opinion, given that it was the father that the son spoke to? SlimVirgin (talk) 11:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, in this case he is notable enough to discuss who he blames for the death. Quoting him also helps to show the attitude of the general public towards Machsom Watch.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 12:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By these standards we can quote any individual who has an opinion on something involving a family member. The soldier's father was not a witness to the events in question and his relationship to his dead son makes him emotionally involved and therefore not a reliable source. His opinion has no evidentiary value and does not satisfy WP:RS. What actual evidence is there that relates the death of this soldier to Machsom Watch? None at all, as far as I can see. --Zerotalk 13:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Under these "guidelines" we should delete the whole article since the women of Machsom wWatch are also deeply emotionaly involved. What Zero forget here is that the source (as far as Wikipedia is concerned) is not the father but those who choose to quote him. Material inserted back.Zeq 13:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's funny. An unreliable source becomes reliable because it is quoted by a different source (Women in Green) which is also of dubious reliability. I'll take the opportunity to state another reason to exclude this material: the interview of the father "quoted" by Women in Green does not mention Machsom Watch at all, only "some woman, some Israeli woman". Machsom Watch is not the only human rights group active at checkpoints as you know very well. Even then, the father does not directly blame this "Israeli woman" for his son's death, unless you think that Machsom Watch had the power to put his son on trial. --Zerotalk 13:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was a radio station, not Women in Green or Wikipedia, that decided the father should be interviewed. He told the interviewer what he said his son had told him, which makes him a relevant primary source who was interviewed by a secondary source, who placed the interview in the public domain. That's a standard route for source material to take before ending up in Wikipedia. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The source was a radio broadcaster Micha Friedman. It is also mention this way in: http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%9E%D7%97%D7%A1%D7%95%D7%9D_Watch. It is also quoted in: http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/1,7340,L-2912211,00.html . (web site of Israel's largest newspaper) Zeq 14:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC) There is nothing to add after reading slim's comment. Zeq 14:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Zero, funny you should mention a trial, because the women of MW in fact can bring soldiers on trial. A military trial of course. And assuming the commanders themselves don't have MW's guts. But soldiers on checkpoints can really get it if an MW woman notices and complains about some misconduct toward a Palestinian. This obviously harms Israeli security and causes unnecessary Jewish deaths (the last sentence is of course my opinion). -- Ynhockey (Talk) 07:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I happend to disagree with Yan on this. I think misconduct is bad, every instance of ME reporting real misconduct of soldiers in CP should be handled by their officers. On the otherhand, I had seen tons of abuse by the watch women agaist soldiers doing their job. I saw watch women trying to argue politically with the soldiers that they should obey orders "becuse they should not be there" and I saw watch women trying to smuggle palestinians accross checkpoints. Zeq 08:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense! Most of the abuse if not all of it comes from the soldiers against the women. These are 70 and 80 year old women, many of them served in te IDF and fought for Israel in the idependence war, many of them have grandchildren in the army. Their only concern is Israel's morality and keeping human rights, they have no interests or intentions to harm their own country. If you read their weekly reports you will see the enourmous amuount of daily abuses of soldiers agaisnt innocent civilians. There where also incidents, some of which were reported in the press, of soldiers being physiclly violent against these women and insults and swears against THEM by the soldiers are take place on a daily basis. Also, they didn't put a single soldier on trial but did report many inconducts (sometimes criminal offences) to military authorities which in most cases ignored them and rarely just moved the accused soldiers to another chekpoint. There were also icidents of Settlers threatening and using violence agaisnt the MW women (some of which , again, are very old), when the police and army mostly ignored this vioilence and never arrested a single offender.
Lastly, putting a soldier on trial for war crime isn't a bad thing, it doesn't "hurt Israel's security." It does, however show Israel's humane and democratic side and that justice can be done even during hard times and that power doesn't justify crime. Just imagine how history could have been different if orgainizations like Machsom Watch existed in all the places in history where no one resisted and the silent majority allowed the worst crimes of humanity to take place, swollowing the Governments propoganda about "security" and "threats" without a healthy dose of doubt and criticism which is necessary for a Democracy to exist and for Liberty to survive.

I suggest this article will be reedited to make it more NPOV. Tal :) 13:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

as if an israeli soldier had to fear sth. from a complaint (about the treatment of a palestinian)...--Severino (talk) 10:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heat/Light[edit]

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)[reply]

Support of Machsom Watch 'source'[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"Haaretz editor is very well-known and influential". You're right at about that one. He is on record as telling his American guests of honor that "Israel wants to be raped by the US" at Annapolis and that it would be his "wet dream to see it happen". I rest my case. J.D. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.68.95.65 (talk) 02:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Criticisms of Machsom Watch[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

MW Wiki page[edit]

I would like to add these revelatory findings, published in a reputable academic journal, that supposedly disclose obscurantist activity, that includes the prevarication of false claims. I remind editors that there should be zero conflicts of interest, and of course, arguments should not contain original research. Editors may find this a useful mirror test.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 19:39, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or they may find that the text is worthless propaganda from NGO Monitor. --Frederico1234 (talk) 19:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In which case we will have to advance to surreptitiously placing a dot on the tip of their nose, informing them of the Dunning–Kruger effect, and directing them to a host of other cognitive biases, such as the Illusion of asymmetric insight.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 20:05, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Have a look through the version history (it's not very long) and see if you can identify the edit where Zero0000 justifies this removal by falsely claiming that he or she “removed unsourced attacks.” I'd say that this edit is the only candidate whose edit comment fits the description. However, neither the sentence removed by Zero or any of the ones round about it are cited to sources. I'd say that a paper, even one published in an academic journal, that makes libellous claims isn't a great source, particularly as it's discussing the Wikipedia Machsom Watch article, rather than Machsom Watch itself, the subject here.     ←   ZScarpia   20:55, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As a result of the shocking information that I have recently learned, I politely request that you argue from policy, and not personal opinion and interpretation. It is most rare for "I know best" claims to trump verified material. Have a look at similar unscrupulous practices that took place on the Titian page, which are dutifully recorded there.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 21:25, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And which shocking information would that be? As far as the claim made about Zero is concerned, it's easy to confirm whether or not what the paper claims is true by examining the primary source evidence, the version history of this article. I've looked. And failed to find anything that confirms the paper's claim. Other people can look too. If no-one can find anything, then we can conclude that the paper is not reliable. You seem to be forgetting that whether a source is accepted as reliable or not is a matter of consensus. I've challenged the paper's worth. Now you should produce an opposite case. And, remember, at the end of the day, the content of the paper is tangential to the topic of the current article anyway.     ←   ZScarpia   22:33, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And you seem to be forgetting what Wikipedia has to say about how to treat research papers: Do not interpret the content for yourself. Why are you automatically assuming that the "removed unsourced attacks" falsehood claim is based on lack of sources? It could be that the authors did not consider the material that Zero removed to be an "attack", a highly subjective term, and therefore questioned its legitimacy. With attribution, why can't this source serve as a source for its own views?
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 23:15, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What interpretation? What assumptions? Do you understand that material that likely libels living people cannot be included? And also that, although source reliability is a requirement for inclusion, that it is not a guarantee of inclusion?     ←   ZScarpia   11:13, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have to look at the published version here rather than the preprint version you found. (The changes are few, though.) As far as I can see, the article has no information about Machsom Watch at all, so it is not useful as a source for this page. We don't discuss ourselves in article space. As for the mention of me, I'm rather proud to be the target of that rubbish. Not only do they quote both the removed text and my edit comment incorrectly, but anyone can see that the sentence I removed was not only unsourced but unacceptable for other reasons (who are "Jewish Human Rights activists", for example?). The words "disrupt the work of soldiers at checkpoints” that I supposedly deleted come from a different sentence, which I not only did not delete but actually checked and attributed properly. That sentence is still in the article more than 6 years later. Let's be generous and suppose that Oboler, Steinberg and Stern don't know what "unsourced" means on Wikipedia (in which case, why are they writing about it?) since the alternative explanation would be rather more damning. Zerotalk 04:05, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the guidelines on how to handle a conflict of interest to ensure that the integrity of this discussion is maintained.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 09:23, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see your WP:COI and raise you a WP:BLPREMOVE. Although, now I come to think of it, adding the rubbish from the Steinberg article together with the fact that no such edit of mine existed (definitely allowed, since Wikipedia can be used as a primary source for descriptive statements about itself) might be more fun. But no, I am more concerned with writing good articles than scoring points. What is your purpose? Zerotalk 11:14, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And I re-raise your BLP bluff as this content does not identify a living person, but instead discusses the actions of a cyber moniker. Even a virtuoso chiropodist could not claim that this user is somehow identifiable.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 11:44, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Libels on Wikipedia editors in Wikipedia articles are of no concern?     ←   ZScarpia   12:18, 4 May 2012 (UTC) (and perhaps you meant to refer to a profession other than chiropodist?)[reply]
No. The Wiki policy is based on libel, which requires the promulgation of defamatory material that damages a person's reputation. In this instance, since the editor is unidentifiable, unless you are aberrantly acquainted with his feet, the damage is nil. You appear to be foisting a civil duty onto a legal concept, and ignoring the need for resultant detriment.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 12:55, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
However, you don't have a clue how many people (including my fellow administrators) know my off-wiki identity so your objection is overruled. Zerotalk 13:09, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think that we can assume that Zero0000, though operating under an assumed name, is a living person, that his user name is a form of identity and that his reputation as an editor has value and significance to him on Wikipedia and wherever Wikipedia is discussed (or, at least, those places which aren't inhabited by a pack of baying scumsters).     ←   ZScarpia   14:15, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Once again no. Generally speaking, you will have to establish actual damages arising from a lack of due care and prove a causal link to the publication of the defamatory material. You will singularly fail to do so as the claim cannot be said to be one that is "tending to harm the reputation of the plaintiff" as it does not recognizably identify an actual person, nor will you be able to prove resultant damages. I am reluctant to mention this but a claimant's poor reputation serves to mitigate damages, and you should bear this in mind if you are considering legal action. ZScarpia, if you wish to spout your original research concerning Wiki articles, that is your prerogative, but please do not assert misleading legal analysis that is wholly imagined and error-strewn.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 14:34, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you're so sure of your position, then try re-using the paper's claim about Zero anywhere on Wikipedia. Libel means making an ill-founded, defamatory, untrue claim in written form about a person. What phrase, apart from "libel on a Wikipedia editor" would you have me use?
We have a primary source, the Machsom Watch article and its version history. We have a secondary source, the paper that you cited, which makes a claim about an edit Zero made to the Machsom Watch article. Examination of the primary source shows that no edit of the kind described in the secondary source was made by Zero. Are you really maintaining that pointing that out is a form of original research?
Perhaps you don't understand where we are. We're operating by Wikipedia rules here and, unless words have been given special Wikipedia definitions, they normally mean what dictionaries say they do.
    ←   ZScarpia   15:22, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
More details at User_talk:Sean.hoyland#Funny_staff. Or let's not be generous and take the opportunity to note here that this edit and others were by Zeq i.e. CAMERA. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:19, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, for the record, the published version does still include, on page 291, details of your reverting the policy violations by Zeq the CAMERA activist and another editor. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:08, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:24, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Machsom_Watch&oldid=1208663924"