Misplaced Pages

Talk:Machsom Watch: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 21:34, 2 March 2006 editMoshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users12,202 edits Arutz Sheva as source← Previous edit Latest revision as of 14:58, 9 December 2024 edit undoTom.Reding (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Template editors3,799,059 editsm top: Category:Articles with conflicting quality ratings: -Start, keep CTag: AWB 
(483 intermediate revisions by 39 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|1=
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)
{{WikiProject Israel}}
: You removed solid factual information and replaced it by junk. Desist. --] 15:25, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
{{WikiProject Palestine|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Human rights|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Women's History|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Organizations}}
}}
{{ARBPIA}}


: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.- ] 05:30, 28 October 2005 (UTC)


]
: 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
__TOC__


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


I just noticed that ] 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.. ] <small>]</small> 15:27, 7 May 2006 (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?


::correct. I changed it. ] 16:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
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.- ] 05:30, 28 October 2005 (UTC)


It is not only an unsourced opinion (and so inadmissible) it is also wrong. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 10:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
: 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. --] 12:16, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


:::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. ] 11:18, 8 May 2006 (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.- ] 19:23, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


According to the homepage the group is "politically pluralistic". // ]
: The website from the quote is under references at the bottom. I will do a proper reference when I return from work.- ] 19:30, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
: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. ] 04:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


:: I'm afraid you own experiences would fall under "]". // ]
==Criticisms==


:::True. this is why I only use sourced info in the article. ] 13:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
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? -- ] || ] 04:06, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


==Totally disputed?==
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.- ] 06:24, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
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 {{tl|POV}}? -- ] <sup>(])</sup> 11:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
:No objections. ] <sup>]</sup> 12:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


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. ] 17:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Zero and I weren't even talking about that paragraph. The one you removed is a quote from a website. -- ] || ] 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.- ] 06:24, 7 November 2005 (UTC) :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. ] (]) 15:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


==Deletions==
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 ], 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. -- ] || ] 06:30, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
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? ] ] 11:25, 9 May 2006 (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.- ] 07:26, 7 November 2005 (UTC) 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.- ] | ] 12:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


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 ]. What actual evidence is there that relates the death of this soldier to Machsom Watch? None at all, as far as I can see. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 13:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
== Violin incident ==


::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 Misplaced Pages is concerned) is not the father but those who choose to quote him. Material inserted back.] 13:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
"''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.''"


::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. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 13:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
: 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: , , . --] 12:14, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


:::It was a radio station, not Women in Green or Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages. ] ] 14:07, 9 May 2006 (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:


::::<s>The source was a radio broadcaster Micha Friedman. It is also mention this way in: http://he.wikipedia.org/%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) ] 14:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)</s> There is nothing to add after reading slim's comment. ] 14:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
::''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.''


:::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). -- ] <sup>(])</sup> 07:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
::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, ], and edited by a well-known rightwinger. Also, no left-wing organization would publish material from CAMERA without independent checks. --] 22:04, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


::::I happend to disagree with Yan on this. I think misconduct is bad, every instance of ME reporting <b> real </b> 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. ] 08:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
::-- ] || ] 13:07, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
::: 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.
:If it matters I support Zero's last edit, it is pretty matter-of-fact and avoids controversial statements.- ] ] 02:34, 8 November 2005 (UTC)


::Yes I also support the last edit, it's a good compromise. -- ] || ] 04:29, 8 November 2005 (UTC) I suggest this article will be reedited to make it more NPOV. ] 13:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


as if an israeli soldier had to fear sth. from a complaint (about the treatment of a palestinian)...--] (]) 10:05, 2 August 2008 (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. -- <font face="wingdings">Y</font> ] || ] <font face="wingdings">Y</font> 09:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


== Heat/Light ==
: No deal. --] 10:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


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. ] <small>'''(''' ] '''/''' ] ''')'''</small> 17:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
::Why then do you support vehemently anti-Israel sources but oppose vehemently anti-Arab sources? -- <font face="wingdings">Y</font> ] || ] <font face="wingdings">Y</font> 11:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


== Support of Machsom Watch 'source' ==
::: 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.) --] 12:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


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 Misplaced Pages as sources for anything. -- ] <sup>(])</sup> 17:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
::::Actually the equivalent of Arutz7 would be Wafa the palestinian news agency. ] 12:39, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


: 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. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 09:48, 30 May 2007 (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 ], the site palestinefacts.org (a pro-Israeli site) was not allowed as a source, and in ], etzel.org is not used. Why is there a bias against pro-Israeli sources? -- <font face="wingdings">Y</font> ] || ] <font face="wingdings">Y</font> 12:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


"Haaretz editor is very well-known and influential".
::::: Actually Misplaced Pages has hundreds of "pro-Israeli" sources. --] 12:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
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. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 02:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


==Criticisms of Machsom Watch==
:::::: 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: . Just google it and stop reverting. ] 13:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
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, ] (]) 01:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
: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. ]<sup>]</sup> 03:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


== MW Wiki page ==
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".
I would like to add 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 ], and of course, arguments should not contain ]. Editors may find this a useful ].<br />Best Wishes <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']'''.''']'''</small> 19:39, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
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.- ] | ] 21:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
:Or they may find that the text is worthless propaganda from NGO Monitor. --] (]) 19:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
::In which case we will have to advance to surreptitiously ] on the tip of their nose, informing them of the ], and directing them to a host of other cognitive biases, such as the ].<br />Best Wishes <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']'''.''']'''</small> 20:05, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

:::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 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 Misplaced Pages Machsom Watch article, rather than Machsom Watch itself, the subject here. <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;←&nbsp;&nbsp;]&nbsp;&nbsp;</span> 20:55, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
::::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 ] claims to trump verified material. Have a look at similar unscrupulous practices that took place on the ], which are dutifully recorded there.<br />Best Wishes <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']'''.''']'''</small> 21:25, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

:::::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. <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;←&nbsp;&nbsp;]&nbsp;&nbsp;</span> 22:33, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
:::::::And you seem to be forgetting what Misplaced Pages 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?<br />Best Wishes <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']'''.''']'''</small> 23:15, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
::::::::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? <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;←&nbsp;&nbsp;]&nbsp;&nbsp;</span> 11:13, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

You have to look at the published version 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 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 . 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 Misplaced Pages (in which case, why are they writing about it?) since the alternative explanation would be rather more damning. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 04:05, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
:Please read the guidelines on how to handle a ] to ensure that the integrity of this discussion is maintained.<br />Best Wishes <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']'''.''']'''</small> 09:23, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
:: I'll see your ] and raise you a ]. 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 Misplaced Pages ] 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? ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 11:14, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
:::And I re-raise your BLP ] as this content does not identify a living person, but instead discusses the actions of a cyber moniker. Even a virtuoso ] could not claim that this user is somehow identifiable.<br />Best Wishes <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']'''.''']'''</small> 11:44, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
::::Libels on Misplaced Pages editors in Misplaced Pages articles are of no concern? <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;←&nbsp;&nbsp;]&nbsp;&nbsp;</span> 12:18, 4 May 2012 (UTC) (and perhaps you meant to refer to a profession other than chiropodist?)
:::::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.<br />Best Wishes <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']'''.''']'''</small> 12:55, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
::::::However, you don't have a clue how many people (including my fellow administrators) know my off-wiki identity so your objection is overruled. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 13:09, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

::::::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 Misplaced Pages and wherever Misplaced Pages is discussed (or, at least, those places which aren't inhabited by a pack of baying scumsters). <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;←&nbsp;&nbsp;]&nbsp;&nbsp;</span> 14:15, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
::::::::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.<br />Best Wishes <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']'''.''']'''</small> 14:34, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::If you're so sure of your position, then try re-using the paper's claim about Zero anywhere on Misplaced Pages. Libel means making an ill-founded, defamatory, untrue claim in written form about a person. What phrase, apart from "libel on a Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages rules here and, unless words have been given special Misplaced Pages definitions, they normally mean what dictionaries say they do.
:::::::::<span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;←&nbsp;&nbsp;]&nbsp;&nbsp;</span> 15:22, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

:More details at ]. Or let's not be generous and take the opportunity to note here that and others were by Zeq i.e. CAMERA. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - ''']'''</small> 04:19, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
: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. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - ''']'''</small> 06:08, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

== External links modified ==

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on ]. Please take a moment to review ]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added {{tlx|dead link}} tag to http://www.machsomwatch.org/media/simaKadmonEng.asp?link=media&lang=eng
*Added {{tlx|dead link}} tag to http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/690397.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100819195848/http://www.acri.org.il/story.aspx?id=176 to http://www.acri.org.il/story.aspx?id=176
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071026152406/http://www.acri.org.il/hebrew-acri/engine/story.asp?id=176 to http://www.acri.org.il/hebrew-acri/engine/story.asp?id=176
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060825140947/http://fletcher.tufts.edu/research/2005/SharonDeutsch-Nadirnfinalthesisn.pdf to http://fletcher.tufts.edu/research/2005/SharonDeutsch-Nadirnfinalthesisn.pdf

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

{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}

Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 13:24, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 14:58, 9 December 2024

This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconIsrael
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Project Israel To Do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
WikiProject iconPalestine Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Misplaced Pages. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconHuman rights Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconWomen's History Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconOrganizations
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

  • You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
  • You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Further information
The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:
  1. Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
  2. Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

  • Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
  • Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.

After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.
Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!


Talk:Machsom Watch/archive1

Radical Left

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 15:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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)

According to the homepage the group is "politically pluralistic". // 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)
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)

Totally disputed?

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 11:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

No objections. Pecher 12:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

Deletions

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 11:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

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. --Zero 13:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages is concerned) is not the father but those who choose to quote him. Material inserted back.Zeq 13:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
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. --Zero 13:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
It was a radio station, not Women in Green or Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages. SlimVirgin 14:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
The source was a radio broadcaster Micha Friedman. It is also mention this way in: http://he.wikipedia.org/%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)
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 07:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)

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)

Heat/Light

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)

Support of Machsom Watch 'source'

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 Misplaced Pages as sources for anything. -- Ynhockey 17:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

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. --Zero 09:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

"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)

Criticisms of Machsom Watch

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)

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 03:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

MW Wiki page

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)

Or they may find that the text is worthless propaganda from NGO Monitor. --Frederico1234 (talk) 19:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
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)
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 Misplaced Pages Machsom Watch article, rather than Machsom Watch itself, the subject here.     ←   ZScarpia   20:55, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
And you seem to be forgetting what Misplaced Pages 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)
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)

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 Misplaced Pages (in which case, why are they writing about it?) since the alternative explanation would be rather more damning. Zero 04:05, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

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)
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 Misplaced Pages 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? Zero 11:14, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
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)
Libels on Misplaced Pages editors in Misplaced Pages articles are of no concern?     ←   ZScarpia   12:18, 4 May 2012 (UTC) (and perhaps you meant to refer to a profession other than chiropodist?)
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)
However, you don't have a clue how many people (including my fellow administrators) know my off-wiki identity so your objection is overruled. Zero 13:09, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
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 Misplaced Pages and wherever Misplaced Pages is discussed (or, at least, those places which aren't inhabited by a pack of baying scumsters).     ←   ZScarpia   14:15, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
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)
If you're so sure of your position, then try re-using the paper's claim about Zero anywhere on Misplaced Pages. Libel means making an ill-founded, defamatory, untrue claim in written form about a person. What phrase, apart from "libel on a Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages rules here and, unless words have been given special Misplaced Pages definitions, they normally mean what dictionaries say they do.
    ←   ZScarpia   15:22, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)

External links modified

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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)

Categories: