Talk:Machsom Watch

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Talk:Machsom Watch/archive1

Contents 1 Radical Left 2 Totally disputed? 3 Deletions 4 Heat/Light

[edit] 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 ^(talk) 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^talk 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"[1]. // Liftarn

in this case they just lost creadability. I know too many of them personaly they are very left but not all of them are radical. some are moderate left. Zeq 04:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

[edit] 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 ^(Talk) 11:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] 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 ^(talk) 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^talk 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 Wikipedia 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^talk 13:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

It was a radio station, not Women in Green or Wikipedia, that decided the father should be interviewed. He told the interviewer what he said his son had told him, which makes him a relevant primary source who was interviewed by a secondary source, who placed the interview in the public domain. That's a standard route for source material to take before ending up in Wikipedia. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The source was a radio broadcaster Micha Friedman. It is also mention this way in: http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%9E%D7%97%D7%A1%D7%95%D7%9D_Watch. It is also quoted in: http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/1,7340,L-2912211,00.html . (web site of Israel's largest newspaper) Zeq 14:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC) There is nothing to add after reading slim's comment. Zeq 14:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Zero, funny you should mention a trial, because the women of MW in fact can bring soldiers on trial. A military trial of course. And assuming the commanders themselves don't have MW's guts. But soldiers on checkpoints can really get it if an MW woman notices and complains about some misconduct toward a Palestinian. This obviously harms Israeli security and causes unnecessary Jewish deaths (the last sentence is of course my opinion). -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 07:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

[edit] 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)