Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:18, 24 August 2006

Archives
Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3

Prisoners section, note to Sarastro777

Your edit summary: "→Treatment of prisoners - someone conveniently (my emphasis) deleted the 70 sick prisoners are in fact children, which was stated previously," assumes bad faith. If you read the quote, it is not clear if 70 of the total prisioners are ill or 70 of the minors are ill. I thought it was probably the former, but did not and would not "conveniently" delete anything. Assuming that everyone who doesn't agree with you is also unscrupulous is completely fallicious. There are people with and without scruples on every side of every issue. Elizmr 00:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

To quote the source: "According to the Bureau, 70 children are ill due to the lack of basic medical attention." It's not a matter of assumption when you feign confusion with such an obvious quote. Sarastro777 01:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

That wasn't how it read in the text that was in the article. And now you've assumed bad faith again. What is the purpose of that? Elizmr 01:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

That is not only how it reads in the text, that is a direct quote which anyone can verify. The only personal attack was from you: "everyone who doesn't agree with you is also unscrupulous." Misplaced Pages:No Personal Attacks Sarastro777 01:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Sarastro, If you read above, (I'll find the link soon) you'll see that the Palestinian Beureu of Statsitics may or may not be a reliable source. If we can back this up with data from the Israeli beureu, I'd feel better about it. And I know, I could never spell beareu. -- Avi 01:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Judging from the bottom 1/3 of the article, it is your viewpoint that nothing is a reliable source except for Alan Dershowitz. Did I miss something? Sarastro777 02:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

LOL. I meant the talk page, here, hold on. Talk:Human rights in Israel#Political prisoners?. Please see John's response to me on this. -- Avi 02:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Here's the quote I edited: "According to the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics, more than 40,000 Palestinians have been arrested since the start of the September 2000 Al-Aqsa intifada. It continues to hold more than 369 Palestinians who were jailed before the Oslo Accords and currently holds 9,400 Palestinian prisoners in more than 30 jails located across Israel. Of these 330 are children, and according to the Bureau, 70 are considered seriously ill due to lack of "basic medical attention."

It is unclear if the 70 is 70 of the children or 70 of the 9.400 total prisoners they say Israel has. There was no reason to say I did the edit on purpose, and you had no evidence for that. I was careful to leave a lot of negative stuff on Isreal IN, so that should communicate my intent to be fair to you. Instead you accuse me of POV editing. I did not attack you. I just said not to assume I'm unscrupulous because I don't always agree with you. And you HAD called me unscrupulous. Where is the attack there? I don't see it. Elizmr 02:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Now *I* called you unscrupulous? I did a search for that word and it comes up only in your edit or where I am quoting your edit. The line in question is a completely separate sentence in which the subject is the children. Was it the comma that confused you? What language are YOU speaking? It's not a greatly constructed sentence, but even if you were confused, why did you just outright delete it? (rather than look at the source which was there and immediately clarifies any confusion?) I just don't see where you thought you were going with the way you handled this, from a constructive/collaborative frame of mind and now attacking me as if I was the one that made the mistake. You are probably very well-inentioned, in fact I would assume you are... but since you did delete the line because you were confused and did not check the source, the description of convenient deletion is very apt. 5 more seconds of work would have made it unnecessary. Sarastro777 02:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Elizmr - the sentence as it was constructed was extremely unclear as to whether it was 70 children or 70 people. On the other hand, it probably would have been better to check the source first, before deleting, but it was obviously an honest mistake, and not some kind of conspiracy. Beyond that, I think Elizmr was saying that Sarastro accused him of being unscrupulous by "conveniently" deleting something, not that Sarastro accused him of being "unscrupulous," using that precise word. Really, everyone should chill out here. This one issue not that big a deal, and not worth an argument. john k 03:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Sara777: You say "the description of convenient deletion is very apt", but it is against Misplaced Pages rules to assume bad faith, so "apt" or not you are breaking house rules. Please stop it, ok? I should have checked the source, and I apologize. The best thing to do would be to assume I was acting in good faith and clarify rather than assuming bad faith and using the snarky edit summary. Honestly, you expect the Israelis and Palestinians to get along and we can't even assume good faith on this Misplaced Pages page. Elizmr 23:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Obviously you did do the 'convenient' thing, by not taking the extra time to check the fact and just deleting a cited sentence. Of course this is all the edit note ever claimed. I don't understand what you want. I never accused you of not acting in good faith. Definitely not worth an argument as Johnk said. Sarastro777 22:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

If that's true, I totally apologize. Sorry! Elizmr 01:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

weasel words....

I added the weasel tag primarily because of the following phrase: "Amnesty International has been accused of having a double standard when it comes to its assessment of Israel.". Accused by whom? Israel? Doesn't sound neutral to me.62.142.46.22 10:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

It should be sourced (many people have said that, among them Israeli officials), but there's no nuetrality problem here. The article doesn't say Amnesty has a double standard, it says it's been accused of that, which is a fact. okedem 11:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Please read Misplaced Pages:Avoid weasel words. If the source is specified it is not weasel. The accusers of AI are plainly listed as NGO monitor, there is no weasel issue at all. -- Avi 15:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Mordechai Vanunu

Take 2

This is relevant to Freedom of Speech, but was reverted by Moshe Silverburg. The source I was using, The US State Dept referred to him as a whistleblower. This label differentiates him from some guy just violating state secrets. For those that don't know: Vanunu revealed Israel had a secret WMD project in which it had developed nuclear bombs to the British Gov't. Sarastro777 23:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

But why is it a violation of civil rights to incarcerate someone lawfully and legally convicted of treason? -- Avi 00:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you serious? Presumably because the law under which he is convicted is considered to be unjust. Nelson Mandela was "lawfully and legally convicted" of crimes for which he was imprisoned, too. john k 14:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

He was kidnapped from Rome by the Mossad and then 'lawfully tried'. Amnesty International considers him a "Prisoner of Conscience" -- so added that to make clear what the opinion of the human rights groups are on the matter (our own views don't count). Sarastro777 18:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

So you think that other countries would imprison someone who gave away state secrets? Is Jonathan Pollard a prisoner of conscience?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 18:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Here we go again. It doesn't matter what I think. That would be Misplaced Pages:OR. The information given is from a Human Rights Group that is cited. Your gripe is with them. Maybe you should call Amnesty International and ask them about Jonathan Pollard if it is an area of personal interest for you. Sarastro777 18:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Worth noting that Pollard was paid a lot of money by the Israeli government for his espionage work. Vanunu leaked information to the press. One can understand why the Israeli government wouldn't want people doing this, but the situation really isn't comparable to the Pollard situation. john k 20:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed it's not a good comparison, but I do believe Vaanunu's actions would constitute Treason in most western countries. okedem 20:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

It depends on how you view the state secret he revealed. If it was a legitimate state secret, then he's a traitor. If not, then he's a whistle-blower. It seems to me that it's at a muddy intersection, and I'm not sure what I think - I'd have to know more about the particulars. It could very well be treason, but it's certainly a lot more morally ambiguous than the classic kind of for-hire-by-foreign-governments treason, of which Pollard is certainly a classic example. I do think that kidnapping someone from a foreign country in order to put them on trial is generally wrong, and usually frowned upon. Not sure if it's a human rights issue, per se, though. john k 22:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Every country limits freedoms as it sees fit. Vanunu violated a law and was punished for that. The freedom of speech section should talk about press, assosiations, etc., instead of harping on one old criminal case. ←Humus sapiens 10:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Because Amnesty International and other groups cited comment on it, it is not a business as usual 'limit of freedom', a classification which is your own opinion and not backed by the human rights groups.. "Harping" is also POV, the point of the article is to document human rights issues. Classifying every section with wording like besmirching, harping, etc is not helpful to the process. I also ask you to examine your behavior which consists almost entirely of coming to this article and deleting material which you have not added. Your justifications are not borne out by the facts, also as in this case. I have not seen you add hardly one thing other than a table, in which you omitted to 'occupied territories', which showed a very poor rating, but did manage to list Israel. Sarastro777 02:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Ignoring your ad hominem for now. It's good to know I'm being watched. You are wrong on all points. Vanunu broke the law, end of story. The section on the Freedom of speech somehow managed to omit to mention that Israel is ranked #1 in the region. ←Humus sapiens 05:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Besides the fact that this is not a HR issue, even according to YOUR OWN QUOTE it is not a problem, because you are hanging your hat on the AI articles saying, in April of 2005, that “If Mordechai Vanunu were to be imprisoned for breaching the restrictions imposed on him, Amnesty International would consider him to be a prisoner of conscience.” He has not been imprisoned as far as I can tell today in 2006, only the restrictions have been extended. So you have no leg to stand on, from your own article. -- Avi 05:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Acccording to Amnesty International which is a Human Rights Group this IS a human rights issue. See ] I quote verbatim "9. The SCM concluded that Amnesty International must now call for the release of Mordechai Vanunu, as a way to end his continued solitary confinement and as a way to redress the other human rights violations he has suffered." FYI this edit got me a NPOV warning from User:Avraham --Oiboy77 18:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Among two other edits of yours, yes, and if you were to re-engage the editors in discussion, and a consensus is reached that it does belong, then there would have been no need for a warning. But, I am sorry to say, you have a history of undeniably NPOV edits. -- Avi 18:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The issue at hand is this edit NOT my "history of undeniably NPOV edits" I have posted direct citations from a Human Rights Organization. If you or any other editors have citations that directly refute the aformentioned citation I this it is justified to remove it. No consensus is required when adding material that has direct citations.--Oiboy77 18:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Oiboy77, do you insist that the history of your edits should be analyzed? ←Humus sapiens 20:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Take 2

The Vanunu stuff seems to be being reinserted and removed by various editors over the last few days. I think this needs to be discussed here, rather than continuing the reversions.

I'm not convinced on the merits of including some mention of him or not, but if it is to be included, the current text isn't very good. The "if he violates the restrictions" wording is very awkward, especially since the nature of the restrictions has not been discussed in the article. There are two issues here: 1) his original imprisonment for treason; and 2) his current restrictions, and his status if he were imprisoned for violating them. The current version does not clarify this distinction at all. This needs to be done if a discussion of him is going to be in the article. john k 19:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Please see section 10 above -- Avi 20:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

It is a little more understandable if the issue is the writing in the section, which can be addressed. I hope this is now the accepted viewpoint. The previous arguments being made to justify deleting the material consisted of "there is a law" or "there is a limit to freedom." Certainly the mere existence of some law does not ever morally legitimize any behavior by gov't. See:Nuremberg_Racial_Purity_Laws

Some sources on the matter: Another AI source: "The organization is also calling for his release from custody as redress for the persistent and past human rights violations to which he has been subjected." ^-- background on the "persistent human rights violations" are documented in ] Sarastro777 20:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Sarastro, please do not tell me that you are comparing racial purity laws with a soveriegn country's right to protect its military secrets(not to mention vanunu violated every pledge/oath he took when given security clearances)???? -- Avi 20:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can gather, what HS said above pretty much amounted to an argument that governments can decide to limit freedom of speech, and that such limits then do not constitute problems with freedom of speech. Sarastro's counter-example was probably ill-chosen (it's a bad idea to bring the Nazis into things), but surely we can all agree that laws can be passed which violate human rights? Whether this particular law does is a matter for debate, but the fact that Vanunu was tried and convicted of something that was a crime in Israel does not necessarily mean that he's not also a martyr to free speech, or what not. For instance, how is what Vanunu did significantly different from the actions of Daniel Ellsberg? He is generally viewed today as a hero of free speech in the United States. What he did was certainly illegal, but is generally viewed favorably now. It seems to simple to just say that Vanunu is a "traitor." john k 22:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, that source is as of 1998. -- Avi 21:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

So, Human Rights violations are erased from ever having existed after a period of time? Sarastro777 21:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The comparison is blindly claiming the existence of a law exempts gov't from human rights scrutiny, which has been done on this subject. In the obvious example above we can see that is a false argument. There are also wider issues of his status as Whistleblower, which means he was reporting behavior that could be considered illegal under international law. This is not a matter for us to decide, but there is a massive amount of Human Rights violations perceived by numerous organizations, basing around his 'freedom of speech.' This IS something that is relevant to this article. Sarastro777 20:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I think what's needed are better citations of the idea that Vanunu's original imprisonment was unjust and is considered a human rights violation by whatever group. john k 22:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Please see ] It is a clear citation. And clearly uses the verbage Human Right Violation in a un-birmirching way.--Oiboy77 18:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

1) Vanunu is not the case of freedom of speech, and 2) AI is not a WP:RS in this matter. Its credibility is highly disputed when it comes to Israel. ←Humus sapiens 20:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Amnesty International is a reliable organization. You need to quit pushing the excuses. I didn't see you worrying about reliability when quoting Op/Ed pieces by "Neo Cons" and David Horowitz, whatever you would call him. Sarastro777 01:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

1. {{cite web | url = http://www.thejerusalemfund.org/images/informationbrief.php?ID=160 | url = http://www.thejerusalemfund.org/images/informationbrief.php?ID=160 | title = Palestinian Political Prisoners in Israel"