Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:44, 9 March 2006

Template:RFMF

I have slightly modified the page to explain how the group has been discredited because anti-semetic groups have quoted them out of context- ] 08:03, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

You removed solid factual information and replaced it by junk. Desist. --Zero 15:25, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Junk? I only seek to describe that like many Israeli and Jewish Groups they are often quoted to give the appearence of dissension in Israel that doesn't neccasarily exist to the same extent in reality. I was perhaps overzealous in the original text so I will modify the previous comment but to not list anything would make the article incomplete. If you decide to edit the new passages which are extremly mild I will be forced to flag this page.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk

Please indicate your level of approval with the edited passage. If you decide to include a condescending comment similar to last time it will indicate that I am not dealing with an adult- Santa Claus

Your paragraph is barely English. Nobody will have a clue what it means. And spare me the nonsense about childishness, Santa! --Zero 10:27, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Give me a break, the only criticism you provided makes it seem like only right wing fascists disagree with the group, Machsom Watch is a fringe group. If your problem was just my choice of language you would have written something yourself since you wouldn't know as much about the group if you didn't also know it had very little support inside Israel or the Jewish community. Are you just disingenuious, stubborn, or are you trying to promote a particular viewpoint?

Look I really don't want to get into an edit war so if you have a certain attachment to your article or take issue with my writing, you can write something, but I am not going to let nothing be written about real opposition to the group. I would understand if it was a controversial group that still generally had a lot of support, but writing about Machsom Watch and leading the reader to believe what you have written is wrong.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk

Your paragraph does not even mention Machsom Watch and its relevance is unclear. Furthermore, it is an opinion and opinions have to be sourced. You can't just type your personal impressions into the article. Quote someone important saying something relevant. And, no, it is not a fringe group. It is a medium-sized (thousands of members) human rights group in the mainstream of the Israeli human right movement. --Zero 12:16, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Lyndon Larouge has about the same percentage of support in the US that Machsom Watch has in Israel, yet no one would deny he is on the fringe on American Politics. Look I am sure you wouldn't deny that there is much more criticism of Machsom watch than what you have provided. Although I will admit that NGO monitor is not the most neutral source in the world, the article could at least include their criticism. It appears that the quote from Women in Green in purposely chosen to make it appear Machsom Watch's critics are fascists.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk

The website from the quote is under references at the bottom. I will do a proper reference when I return from work.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk

Criticisms

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)

As much as I would hate to I think I am going to agree with Zero on this one, the passage is unnecessarily political, and too POV. If you can find some criticism that is more appropiate I think it would be helpful to the article.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk

Zero and I weren't even talking about that paragraph. The one you removed is a quote from a website. -- Ynhockey || Talk 05:56, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Well I was actually referring to that paragraph as well. The one I removed was also inappropriate I thought, I know you didn't change it or anything and it was properly cited, but honestly the quote seemed improper.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk

I agree it was a bit harsh, but I'm trying to represent a major viewpoint of those who are opposed to Machsom Watch - it is a prevailing opinion within Israel that the organization isn't helping anyone, and it's unfair that an article about it will only have good things. By comparison, the article on Ariel Sharon, who has much more support within the country he represents, lists a load of criticisms (scattered all over the article). I think the way it is right now (without that IDFIsrael quote) is fine, but if you disagree, we should reach a consensus regarding acceptable criticism of MW. -- Ynhockey || Talk 06:30, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Believe me I know that there should be more criticism of Machsom Watch in the article (just scroll up on this talk page) my impression is that by including your quote it actually kinda underminded our cause.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk

Violin incident

"Known blunders of Machsom Watch have included falsely accusing the IDF of forcing a Palestinian violinist to play his violin at a checkpoint, a story which was printed worldwide. It was later discovered that the violinist was playing at his own will."

I'll explain what is wrong with this. On Nov 9, 2004, three MW women observed a Palestinian playing his violin while trying to get through Beit Iba checkpoint and one of them filmed it. Akiva Elder of Haaretz picked up this story, together with the presumption of the filmer that the IDF had required the Palestinian to play, and published it on Nov 25 along with a statement from the IDF regretting the incident ("the officer in charge...acted in an insensitive manner, but not maliciously", etc). A few days later, the IDF issued another statement contradicting the first one; now they claimed that the Palestinian had started to play of his own accord. The Palestinian violinist has consistently claimed that he was told to play by the soldiers. Meanwhile, the MW women acknowledged that they did not know why he started to play because the conversation was in Arabic which they don't speak (actually two of the three women said that right from the beginning). The film does not help because the Palestinian is already playing when the film begins. That's about the whole story. So firstly the claim "falsely accused" is inaccurate; actually one women voiced a presumption that she could not in fact prove. Secondly, it is not true that the violinist was later discovered to have played of his own accord, rather that is the official claim of the IDF and contradicts the testimony of the Palestinian. It cannot be proved one way or the other. I'm not opposed to this incident getting a mention, but the present suggested text will not do. Btw, copies of the relevant Haaretz articles can be read in the Google cache: Nov 25, Nov 30, Dec 7. --Zero 12:14, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

While the details of the incident seem murky and the Palestinian would have reason to lie about the incident (as would Haaretz, a leftist news agency), I'm prepared to take Haaretz's word for it. So, how about this text:

Recently, Machsom Watch has been accused of falsely claiming that the IDF forced a Palestinian violinist to play his violin at a checkpoint, a story which was printed worldwide. While originally the IDF apologized for the incident, the IDF's commission on the issue denied responsibility, citing the testimonies of several soldiers. However, the Palestinian in question insisted that the original story was true.

EDIT: Keep in mind also that the human rights organization I cited is also a leftist organization, just like MW, and they oppose MW on this.

Not sure who you are referring to. It can't be NGO Monitor, which is published by advisor to Sharon, Dore Gold, and edited by a well-known rightwinger. Also, no left-wing organization would publish material from CAMERA without independent checks. --Zero 22:04, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

-- Ynhockey || Talk 13:07, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

If it matters I support Zero's last edit, it is pretty matter-of-fact and avoids controversial statements.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg (talk) 02:34, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes I also support the last edit, it's a good compromise. -- Ynhockey || Talk 04:29, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Arutz Sheva as source

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)

No deal. --Zero 10:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

Actually the equivalent of Arutz7 would be Wafa the palestinian news agency. Zeq 12:39, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Actually Misplaced Pages has hundreds of "pro-Israeli" sources. --Zero 12:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

Zero, give us a break, Palestine Remembered is neutral huh? here is an excerpt from their website: "Are you aware that Israeli Zionists, during the 1948 war, pushed over 150,000 Palestinian refugees into the sea?, For a long time, Zionists have been propagating fear based propaganda to their followers". Even by itself it is unacceptable to even consider the website as a source but it is even worse to claim it is somehow more neutral than Arutz 7. Its time to stop editing under a veil of neutrality Zero.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 21:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Arutz 7 is not a reputable source. Language forks of Misplaced Pages 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)

It is all over the Hebrew press, not just Arutz 7. Zeq 05:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

The "Criticism" section is nearly as long as the description section, which is long enough. Let's start a praise section. --Zero 10:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

I disagree, as it stands, the description section is already pretty much a praise section, an additional praise section would be ludicrous.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 23:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Arutz Sheva Israel National Radio, while it is not Misplaced Pages policy that it cannot be used as a source, it is Zero0000's longstanding policy that it cannot be used as a source. There is no question that it is a biased news source. Is it more biased than, say, Al Jazeera? I doubt it. More biased than The Daily Mirror. Not sure. Than CNN? Certainly. As for www.palestineremembered.com, that's a propaganda website, not a news source, but I don't see where it is used in this article, or where Zero0000 has used it as a source. Jayjg 07:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Sorry, my earlier long reply didn't go through (Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

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)

If Zero is correct in his assertion then I would agree with his conclusion, also although Al jazerra is definitely bias, it seems to be at least less blatant then the Arutz 7 website.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 09:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

Israeli or from Israel

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)

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)

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)

Quote

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.”

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)

-- Y Ynhockey || Talk Y 20:53, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

"Our presence there is a political act. ..."

They clearly spell this out and there is nothing wrong with being political. Zeq 19:54, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

To Zero

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)

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)

To Zero (2nd request or maybe 3rd)

You removed a sourced material. Pleas avoid removing such material. You have also removed material which presented the POV of the those who think there is a need to take care of everyone's human rights. The right of the jews not to be killed is also a human right. This is an NPOV encyclopedia and all POV must be represented. Clearly the POV of the Mchsom Watch is represnted but the other view was not. Not the whole Haaretz article must be brought into Misplaced Pages how ever the main POV about the subject of the article should be. Zeq 11:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Zeq that the quote is absolutely relevant, as it is a critique of the organization by the institution directly affected by the organization's activities. However, I agree with Zero that the critical comment probably belongs in the Criticism section. I also encourage Zero to use the talk page to discuss reverts, and remind everyone to be mindful of WP:3RR. Babajobu 14:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

There are hundreds of "relevant quotes" on the web but we already have a criticsm section that is nearly half of the article. That is already too long. Note that I am not playing the same quotations game as I could easily add a large number of quotations in praise of the group. We don't even quote the group members about what motivates them yet it is supposed to be ok to add endless near-identical criticisms. This is not acceptable. --Zero 11:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, criticism by the Israeli army is especially relevant since they are the creator and proprietor of the checkpoints that Machsom Watch monitors. I agree with you that the perspective of the organization is missing from this article. But this does not necessitate cutting down the criticism section, which is not especially long by Misplaced Pages standards. Rather, I suggest you get the perspective of the organization in there somewhere. I wouldn't just add random quotes from members of the organization discussing their motivation, but rather some comments or quotes that have the official imprimatur of Machsom Watch itself, e.g. something from a statement of purpose of theirs, or whatever, and maybe a complimentary quote from a notable person. Babajobu 12:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Babajobu. Also, The language in Zeq's proposal was better, Zero's phrase "concern about the effect on civilians of the siege" implicitly labels Israeli actions as a siege, which is propagandistic. -- Heptor _talk 12:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Since the 1st paragrph discuss the Organization own description NPOV means that other views will get the same level in the 1st paragrph. A clear NPOV rule is to describe the controversy - clearly there is a controversy here and it is the existence and need for checkpoints. Checkpoint watch is so ignorant of the need that every time a terrorist is caught in one of the checkpoints they (who are there to see it) claim that he was sent by IDF so clearly since they go to such length to argue against the checkpoints there is a controvesy. BTW, I my self am against the checkpoints as well. I think israel should defened it self on the border not inside Palestinian territory. Zeq 15:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I highly second Babajobu's opinion. The article should not present Machsom Watch's perspective as facts. For example, in the sentence "Machsom Watch also expresses concern about the effect on civilians of the siege of West Bank communities by Israeli military authorities reacting to the Al Aqsa Intifada.", the word "siege" is taken directly from MW's website. Obviously, that's MW's concern about what MW sees as siege, but the article presents these opinions as facts. To conform with WP:NPOV, we must always clearly attrbute MW's opinions to MW. Pecher 15:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

The way to handle that problem is well-established: use their words in quotation marks. The pov that they have is an important piece of information. I agree it shouldn't be presented as plain narrative. --Zero 23:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

We already have their words. Right at the start of the article. This is taken directly from their web site :

• Monitor the behaviour of soldiers and police at checkpoints
• Ensure that the human and civil rights of Palestinians attempting to enter Israel are protected
• Record and report the results of our observations to the widest possible audience, from the decision-making level to that of the general public
• Protest against the very existence of the checkpoints

Zeq 04:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree to quote Dan Halutz in the introduction of this article just as soon as Machsom Watch is quoted in the introduction of Dan Halutz. Also, stop adding the link to Haaretz - a week or two from now it will be dead. --Zero 23:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

You are wrong but you are free to Edit Dan Halutz and we will see you there. This is the Machsom watch article. The group has a view (POV) on the issues of Checkpoints and Human rights, their view is in the 1st paragrpah. The IDF has invited them to a meeting and expressed the other POV. Mchsom watch gave details on the meeting o the Press and now it all desrve (as per NPOV policy) o be in 1st paragraph. In fact, a wider discussion of the controversy is needed. Zeq 04:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I think an IDF point of view should be in the lead, but don't think it should be as long and detailed. Perhaps something like: In response to the above stated aims, the IDF, which maintains the checkpoints, responded that human rights lie not only in the protection of Palestinian civilians at checkpoints, but also in the protection of Israeli civilians from terrorist acts.
I realize there may be a few problems with that, because not only is it slightly different than what Halutz really said, but also the IDF spokesman is the official voice of the IDF, not Halutz. However, I suggest a wording which responds to MW but mentions only the IDF as a body (or the spokesman at most), but not Halutz. -- Y Ynhockey || Talk Y 05:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Yan, Chief of Staff is an authoritative voice for the IDF, in fact he is above the spokesman so there should not be any problem. WE have used 60 words from Machsom watch web site and the quote from IDF is about half than that (32 words) so I don't think we need to make any shorter. In fact I think we need to expend it. Mchsom watch view is only one POV, IDF has another view that desrve to be heared. Zeq 06:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Outrageous! Please go to IDF and quote the opinion of Hamas in the introduction, then we will have something to discuss. This is 'not an article on checkpoints, nor is it an article on human rights. First we describe the topic of the article, then we give external opinions and comments on it. That's how good articles are structured. --Zero 09:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

You are free to edit IDF . If you find the introduction to be POV make it NPOV. Otherwise I request again that you honor Misplaced Pages NPOV policy and self revert your last edit which was clearly POVing the introduction. Zeq 09:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to go with Ynhockey on this one, the IDF POV is definitely relevant here but I would say it is faulty reasoning to suggest that their view should be just as thouroughly represented as Machsom Watch's, after all this is the MW article.

Also I think it is unreasonable to suggest that Yan's voice is more authoratative that the IDF spokesman just because he is of higher rank, the Generals in most countries including Israel have been known to make unofficial public remarks that are contrary to their nation's established policy.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 09:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The IDF opinion is in the Criticism section. I think my wording of it is better than Zeq's poor English, but feel free to edit it iut you disagree. Also, the problem of whether it is an IDF opinion or a Halutz opinion is solved by just noting who said it and what his position is. No need to classify if beyond that. --Zero 09:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree your version is less ackward(??) akward? but I think we could still use at least another sentence or so, the criticism section now still seems relatively poorly written as a whole, it might as well just be a bullet list since each point has so little "flare".- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 09:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Zero, look at the AIPAC talk section

It is excessive. A careful selection of half the material would tell the same story and be less ugly. --Zero 10:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The issue here is (as always) NPOV and not my poor english. Is my poor english the reason you removed 30 words from top of the article to a seprate section ? Zeq 10:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I didn't move it to a separate section, I moved it to the existing section where it belongs. --Zero 10:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The first section of this article desrve to have more than just the organization own claims. The answer of the IDF to their claim desreve to be in the first paragrph. there is more than one POV on this issue. Zeq 10:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the intro must include criticism. It's unfair to include only when POV in the intro, especially when the other POV is already presented in the article. Pecher 11:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I think we could just make the current intro more innocuous and add something like "...is a controversial group".- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 12:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Zero, look at the AIPAC talk section - he got you there, Zero. Just because an organization acts for the insterest of Israel doesn't mean it should be criticized while organizations which are against Israel's interests should only be praised. If you support praise+criticism in AIPAC, then you should support it here as well. -- Y Ynhockey || Talk Y 17:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

In what sense did he "get me"? The AIPAC article supports me completely. There is no criticism at all until the organisation has been described at length (largely in its own terms) and its history given. The "controversies" section is the 6th and critical comment from outsiders does not come until the 8th section. That is a reasonable overall structure for articles on organisations to have. There is no precedent and no justification for criticism of the organization to be quoted in the introduction. --Zero 23:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

by saying that the group is "controversial" we did not say much. NPOV policy is to describe the controvesy.

The group web site is quoted on the 1st paragrph. This is one POV. The other POV (not even about the group itself, i.e. not a direct critism of it) but just a different view of the main issue : i.e. Human rights is something that BOTH palestinians and Israelis have a right too. So this view (about the actions taken by IDF, the actions that the group protest against) must balance the group own claims. This is the essence of the NPOV policy.

I would love to have an ArbCom case about it and let them decide. It is a win-win.

The article now is conforming to NPOV policy or maybe by quoting the group it is quoting propeganda.

MY Suggestion to Zero:

Follow Dispute resolution process: File for mediation, conduct a poll. If it does not get your way, I would like to see this get to ArbCom. (same about sarafend btw). In anycase I suggest that you stop the edit war about it. Zeq 22:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I should mention that my comment asking zero to look at the AIPAC article did not have to do with this article, but was a seperate matter. Sorry- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 23:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Is Machsom watch web site a propeganda ?

I would like for now to pose this as a question. Zeq 21:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, the answer is obviously yes. But, why do you ask? -- Y Ynhockey Y 04:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Disputing a legitimate edit

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)

Mediation on the dispute

Template:RFMF