This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, 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.
|
There is considerable evidence linking the ISM to anarchist ideology, which I will enter at another time. They have also been infiltrated, and damning pictures taken. This is simply not a "peace" group. As of now, this article is POV and entirely useless. 68.5.64.178 00:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
There is no inherent contradiction between being an "anarchist" and being a member of a peace group. Many members of anarchist groups have been active in opposition to particular wars and to militarism in general. There is a long-standing tradition of nonviolent anarchism that includes such people as Dorothy Day, Phillip Berrigan, Daniel Berrigan and many, many others. Anarchist is not a synonym for "bomb-thrower". Ken Burch 5:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Solidarity link is wrong. It links to the Polish trade union not the socialist organization. Kpjas
Do we allow banner ads? [1]
If ISM can have one, do we have to let everyone have one?
A simple external link to ISM's website ought to be enough. What does everyone else think? -- Uncle Ed
I think displaying an organizations logo is important, many organization articles do have such a logo, and I think we should continue to display such designs. Susan Mason
The ISM stated in response to, "On behalf of the www.wikipedia.org; I am requestion permission to use images on your website." and their response was, "Help yourself and good luck!" Susan Mason
Kist, can't you try to keep the discussion about the barrier in the relevant article. Thanks! // Liftarn
I agree entirely. There is already a long article filled with argument. All that is needed here is a mention and a link, which is why my preferred text is just "Protests against the West Bank security barrier which in some cases involved minor damage." -- Zero 10:00, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)
This page is now protected because of an edit war. -- Viajero 10:41, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Sorry, I think I started the edit war by removing the word 'sabotage', which I felt to be misleading. Regarding the page as it stands, I have the following issues:
First para (The International... act of sabotage):
The quote about legitimate armed struggle is from a longer quote that makes is clear that the rights ISM recognises are rights granted by international law and UN resolutions. I think the quote should be either presented in full or removed.
I still think the word 'sabotage', while arguably applicable, is misleading. It implies (to me, anyway) acts which are clandestine. It seems to me that trying to breach a barrier is not best characterised as sabotage - it may involve damage but not everything that involves damage is usefully described as sabotage. I'm open to persuasion if people know things about the ISM's activities that I don't. Also the 'and have engaged in at least one act of sabotage' is (I think) a reference to events referred to elsewhere in the article ("The ISM have made several attempts to obstruct the construction of the Israeli Security Barrier...")
Second para ('The International... with the two terrorists'): 'has been tainted' is, it seems to me, not NPV. Surely that's just obvious?
Everything in this paragraph is mentioned elsewhere in the article. I don't know if there's accepted Wikipedia etiquette, but it doesn't seem to me to be acceptable for people to go through articles and insert repetitions of things they wish to emphasise. Since the paragraph conveys no information that's not elsewhere on the page I would suggest deleting it.-- Joeboy 11:49, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)
The article consists of text and lists. some of the material convered in the second list is already covered in the text above. the rest should be added to the text. one possible version would be:
This addresses in standard text format 5 of the 7 items in the list. Of the remains two: terrorists and Church of the Nativity, the first is already addressed in the text, the second can be added to the first list as an example(s) of the item: Acting as human shields. OneVoice 14:49, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
-- Joeboy 13:36, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Mintguy said: "(the presence of the wall is illegal in thefirst place , illegal acts against an illegal wall - illogical)"
The acts against the wall cant be illegal because the wall is illegally located away from the armistice lines....let's have another example....damage inflicted on an illegally parked car is not illegal. The logic seems to be flawed. Unless you wish to tell everyone where you park ;) OneVoice 15:12, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Existence of the wall illegal???? All the material that I have read objects to the location of the barrier not the existence of the barrier. In those areas where the barrier follows the Green Line objections seem not to have been raised. If I remember correctly this is the basis of the ICJ suit, the US objections, the Red Cross statement of Feb 18th etc. For example: "The ICRC, therefore, calls upon Israel not to plan, construct or maintain this barrier within occupied territory." OneVoice 15:26, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Is the hedge itself illegal or is the presence of the hedge in that particular location illegal? That's the first question. The second question is what legal recourse do you have to deal with the hedge being located on your property. You may not, legally, have the option to cut down the hedge before completing a legal proceeding. If that is the case, any cutting prior to the legal ruling is illegal. It gets more complicated when the government places the hedge there.
An example: The government builds a road across some portion of your property. What legal recourse is available to you. Dont try this at home! The government will whack you! (eminent domain is just the start.) Israel is the current duly consituted government in the area. From this situation devolves certain obligations toward the local populace. One of the Red Cross objections is that the location of the barrier is incompatible, in their opinion, with certain of these obligations of Israel vis-a-vis the local population. (Please note that the ICRC objection is based on location. Their statement/press release is referenced at the bottom of the artcile page.) OneVoice 18:52, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I live in the UK. If Israel were to build a wall on my land I would have every right to knock it down. Mintguy (T) 21:01, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
This is a silly argument, but just to mention one issue: Israel is not "the current duly consituted government in the area". According to everyone except Israel, Israel is the "occupying power". This is an entirely different role which implies that some of the normal rights of a government such as eminent domain do not apply. -- Zero 23:33, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
The occupier is the duly consitituted government for the duration of the occupation. From this derives the responsilibilites of the occupied vis-a-vis the local population. OneVoice 16:42, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
1. The security fence is not illegal. And no binding judgment has declared it is. The green line is an armistice line. As per UN SC Res 242, there are no final status borders until and unless all relevant parties peacefully negotiate them. A temporary fence built for compelling reasons of national security is legal.
2. I can't believe what I read above. Any act is legal against an illegally parked car?!? So, the next time you see a car with an expired meter, you can set fire to it? You must be kidding.
User:Kingturtle has wisely protected this page again. We have another opportunity to discuss the page rather than spend out time in edit wars. The paragraph that caused the most recent edit war is:
This is the first issue.
The second issue is the structure of the page. The page contains the an amount of duplicate materail in two formats, textual and list format. We should consider rewriting. We have a number of pages that cover the history of an organization in textual format. We have other pages that cover recent events in a list format. We should remove the duplicated material in favor of one format or the other.
Another issue is the use of the words sabotage and illegal to describe the actions taken to damage the barrier. OneVoice 21:44, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
OK, I've butchered the page fairly radically so that the various anti-ISM comments people are obviously keen to feature can be explored properly. The idea is to try to get the page more focused on facts and specifics and less on vague innuendo. Guy with the IP address I've forgotten, if you want your rock-throwing / violent protest comments to stick you're going to have to provide some specifics, ie. who threw the rock at whom, when and where, and prefereably a decent source (ie. not a frothing-at-the-mouth one like Arutz Sheva / Frontpage etc). I hope what I've done is an improvement, structurally at least. If not I'm sure someone will revert it. Enjoy yourselves, --
Joeboy 23:36, 11 May 2004 (UTC)
Structurally and contentwise it is a major improvement. Your rewrite presents information and allows folks to form opinions from a less prejudged page. 209.135.35.83 13:30, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
Regarding Arutz Sheva there are two items that are often stated:
Hello there 209.135.35.83. Firstly, thanks for your kind words about my rewrite - I hope we can keep this civil although we obviously disagree on a lot of stuff.
I wanted to explain my revert of your removal of the 'non-violent resistance' bit in the opening paragraph. It's not POV. This is, as the paragraph now says, what ISM recruits people to do. If you can find an ISM source seeking to recruit people for violent activities I'll think again, but the fact is that's not what ISM does.
"Better a well known opened admitted POV that a closet case of POV" - nonsense, if a site is not a reliable or balanced then it's not a credible news source. If you insist on citing it as a source then at least put in the 'controversies' section with some kind of health warning. -- Joeboy 14:10, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
Keeping it civil is up to us....we both know how to do so, we just have to choose to excerise our maturity rather than behave as adolescents. Disagreeing is also fine. It is unreasonalbe to expect that each person will agree with (all) others.
Regarding "Better a well known opened admitted POV that a closet case of POV" being nonsense...I disagree strongly. During the civil rights movement in the United States, stories regarding the activities taking place in the South were reported by a large number of newspapers. Many of those reports were is sharp contrast with other newspapers. Much, but not all of this, was due to the newspapers POV as expressed by what elements they wished to stress and emphasis and what elements they wished to supress. Known this POV allows one to read a paper and suspect that may not be present in the articles. A relevant example is the reporting regarding the reaction within Palestinian communities to 9/11. As you may know, the reporting was quite diverse in what it chose to report and what it chose to highlight....some papers changed their reporting during the day. Reporting ranged from live video of Palestinian celebrating in the streets and distributing candy to interviews with officials expressing horror, sadness and condolences to the victims. They were all actual events. POV decides which events make the paper and where they are placed as well as what if any "context" is added to or provided within the report.
Would you prefer that this POV be hidden? Please read the relevant sections in Intrafada (page 26) regarding suppression of international press corps by Palestinian groups 209.135.35.83 14:26, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
Zero has spoken...pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
for instance...Zero knows that this protest never took place: http://www.israelnn.com/news.php3?id=62314 (anonymous)
If Arutz Sheva were a credible source it would retract its accusations after they were shown to be false. It doesn't, it seeks to deliberately mislead its readers. As a matter of interest, would you support the use of other POV independent websites as sources? The KKK et al? -- Joeboy 14:49, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
I have seen corrections on Arutz Sheva. Corrections in the New York Times are not easy to find...usually on the editorial page or just before if memory serves. Would be nice to have corrections printed with the same prominence as the original story...I have not seen that anywhere. It may be the case with some news outlets. All sites are POV. The New York Times is distinctly different in POV from the Washington Times or the BBC. This is one reason knowning the POV is important. I am sure that there is material at the KKK that is useful. I dont believe that I have ever seen a newspaper without a significant portion of usable data...remove the editorializing within the article and you have one view of events.
Example:
As at time of publication, Israeli forces killed 5 Palestinians, including 2 children, and injured at least 80 others, including 17 children, in al-Zaytoun neighborhood in the south of Gaza City. Israeli troops invaded the neighborhood early this morning. PCHR is concerned that the number of casualties will increase as heavy fighting is ongoing and there are restrictions on access for ambulances and medical staff to the area. Throughout the current Intifada, Israeli forces have conducted a large number of incursions into densely populated Palestinian areas, resulting in deaths and injuries to civilians and destruction to civilian property and infrastructure. [2]
Is there useful information there? Yes. The numbers might be accurate that might be off...the radio reported yesterday that over 100 were wounded. Al-Jezeera reports 120 wounded [3]. Are we to say that one of these is deliberatedly falsifying the report? The article does not mention Israeli casualties. Are we to believe that there were none or knowing the POV of the publication, could we surmise that they are not reported whether or not they occurred.
If so POV they why report this:
(IsraelNN.com) PA officials are calling upon terror organizations to return the body parts of the soldiers killed in the Tuesday morning bomb attack in Gaza for humanitarian reasons and in compliance with Islam, Army Radio reported. [4]
Intelligent use of information rather than blanket declarations are a mark of maturity and intelligence. Even Der Strumer (sp?) contained news that could be separated from its POV.
209.135.35.83 15:01, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
This article [5] led to its author being force to pay 11,787NIS ($2,600) in damages to an ISM activist by an Israeli court. Arutz Sheva nonetheless continues to publish it on its website. They deliberately publish lies about the ISM, and I don't see why we should help to spread them. -- Joeboy 15:40, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
Are you referring to the article that has the word OPINION in 24 point type immediately above it. the article being the ONLY ONE on the page? That's an editorial, not a news article. editorials are explicitly POV...that is one of their prime purposes...to present the POV of the publication or the author of the editorial (OPINION) piece.
libel laws vary widely between countries. The UK is very different from the US. Do you have more information regarding the libel suit I can read?
Can you find a news article?
ohhh....people scream when I do that! I'll refrain from screaming. I can read. The press release is from ISM...do you have more information by chance. Libel suits are generally not covered in the news, so it may be very hard to find something. I am interested in what the court said regarding the case. You may remember Evelyn Waugh's lawsuit....he won but there was a lot of information in the case itself...not to say that the two cases are similar.
Did you notice the source of the two articles I quoted (one with 80 injured, the other with 120 injured) ?
I am convinced you or I and many others here can use a variety of news sources and cull the information from the chaff. Did you see another other news source report Arafat's request/instructions to the groups in Gaza?
"the body parts of the soldiers killed in the Tuesday morning bomb attack" if you believe that to be POV...how would you phrase that for NPOV...accuracy of course should be maintained. 209.135.35.83 17:58, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
Did you respond regarding the two articles on the same incident quoted immediately above? A discussion or dialog requires us to discuss the same issue, not jump from one issue to another if we dont like how the discussion is proceeding. Please can you respond substantively to the examples I brought as I have to yours.
209.135.35.83 15:53, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
Joeboy...."'forged links' with ISM" how do you know that this is not true...i am not asking about who denies it...but rather how do you know the truth of this.
Tom Hurndall was at a checkpoint. the checkpoints exist, from the Israeli perspective, to prevent terrorism, there are counter terrorism measures.
Do you believe that the ISM has never mislead the IDF as the location of persons sought by the IDF?
Did you notice the source of the two articles I quoted (one with 80 injured, the other with 120 injured) ?
I am convinced you or I and many others here can use a variety of news sources and cull the information from the chaff. Did you see another other news source report Arafat's request/instructions to the groups in Gaza?
regarding your statement: "Because it's a slow news day" perhaps we both wish that was the case. the situation in gaza has resulted in a significant increase in the fighting.
"the body parts of the soldiers killed in the Tuesday morning bomb attack" if you believe that to be POV...how would you phrase that for NPOV...accuracy of course should be maintained. 209.135.35.83 18:51, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
-- Joeboy 20:01, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
"the body parts of the soldiers killed in the Tuesday morning bomb attack" if you believe that to be POV...how would you phrase that for NPOV...accuracy of course should be maintained. 209.135.35.83 17:58, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
209.135.35.83, where does your statement that the IDF hadn't scheduled any house demolitions on the day Rachel Corrie was killed come from? -- Joeboy 23:32, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
deceive israel border controls at Ben Gurion Airport in order to enter Israel prior to preceding to areas controlled by the PA....i believe that this is indispuatable. there is no direct international access to the PA controlled areas. the sea port does not accept passenger vessels (as far as i am aware). the airport is shutdown. furthermore the ISM web site states explicitly:
We believe that it's less suspicious if you come through Israel but you have to have a really good story about why you are coming, and must not mention anything about ISM or knowing, liking or planning to visit Palestinians. You must play it as though your visit is for other, Israel-based reasons, like tourism, religion, visiting an Israeli friend, etc. So do a little bit of research and put together a story that you'll be able to answer questions about. For example, if you say you are visiting a friend in Jerusalem, you should have the name and phone number of a real Israeli person. If you are coming for religious purposes, have a book or two on religion and travel in Israel; have an itinerary, etc
the entry is to Israel.
The Telegraph is a standard newspaper in the UK, no reason to add the "discount this information" paragraph above its link.
Once a court decision is reached, allegations no longer applies.
I can't find the official link at the moment, which is what i would prefer, each actor in the situation stating what their intentions and instructions were at the time....here a reference "Israel says that the crew's assignment was to sweep the area for booby traps planted by militants." Mother Jones' article about 60% into the article. all in all the article is rather sympathetic toward Rachel Corrie. It does bring out the possibility that Rachel Corrie believe that a house demolition was underway, while the operator was sweep the area for booby traps...using the blade to remove the top inch or three of dirt trigger any explosive planted beneath....the same act understood very differently by different players. not an uncommon situation in this world of limited information. 209.135.35.83 18:06, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
regarding the intro paragraph: "the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem." rather than "the Israeli occupation of the Palestine", which would include all of Israel but for the Golan Heights which were part of Syria, not Palestine....unless the article is meant to indicate ALL of the Mandatory areas including Tel Aviv...in which case it should be stated explicitly "the existance of the State of Israel and the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem." 209.135.35.83 18:19, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
You keep making the names Adam Shapiro and Huwaida Arraf links to...nothing at all. The links are broken so why do you keep replacing them?
Stop it, whoever you are but presumably a GUTalk troll. I am not "jayvg".
JOTAVITCH
Why do you replace the line stating that the IDF never said there were tunnels? The IDF DID claim there were tunnels, that was their excuse for bulldozing all the homes in the area.
Why are you deleting the line that no tunnels were found? No tunnels were found.
Why do you insist on linking to the telegraph article? It adds nothing but bias.
So what if some writer in the telegraph thinks the ISM supports terrorism? The article gives no proof, it's just opinion. Should we link to every opinion that's been printed? I can find dozens of links to articles where the opinion expressed is that ISM does not support terrorism. Should we end up in a link war? Is that what wikipedia is for?
As for the 'quote' from Flo; the link is to indymedia. Anyone can post to indymedia under any name at all. Flo was in jail at the time it was posted, there is no way she made the post. You probably made it yourself! Does wikipedia really consider anonymous posts from indymedia to be reliable sources?
Maybe this needs to go to an arbitration board - wait, that's been done with you a few times already, hasn't it?
I added the FULL ISM quote on International law and armed struggle. The full quote reads "As enshrined in international law and UN resolutions, we recognize the Palestinian right to resist Israeli violence and occupation via legitimate armed struggle. However, we believe that nonviolence can be a powerful weapon in fighting oppression and we are committed to the principles of nonviolent resistance. " Just putting in the first sentence and omitting the second is very misleading.
I added more text from the Palestine chronicle article. The section that jayjg keeps limiting it to is taken out of context and give an entirely different meaning to the words of the writer. This article is refereced. Please leave it alone.
Johnjoe
I edited the 'with him' from Raphael's statement on the Mike's Place bombing because they did not attend 'with him'. They showed up there. You should either reference Raphael saying they went 'with him' or leave it as it is. Johnjoe
I would like a reference for all ISMers only being allowed in if they 'deceive Israeli border officials'. This simply is not true in all cases. It is true in many cases but not in all of them. Javjv claimed he removed my statement because it was an 'unreferenced POV', the entire section is an unreferenced POV and should either be referenced, removed, or clarified. Johnjoe
I also added a disclaimer on the telegraph article that I feel should stay. That article rehashes every 'controversy' contained on this page and provides no links to evidence for their claims. If we are going to link to this type of propaganda, then we should be honest about it's contents. Johnjoe
I removed an unreferenced section under strategy
This looked like some kind of personal attack on an ISMer using a person's full name and without any references.
User:Johnjoe, I think you're trying to stick up for ISM here, which is fine, ISM has been subjected to a lot of negative and dishonest propaganda and it's good to try to debunk that. I'm not sure I agree with the way you're going about it though. Since this stuff's all over the internet anyway, there's not a lot of point in just deleting dubious claims made on this page. A better approach IMO is to address the claims and point out the problems with them.--
Joeboy 14:15, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Jayjg: It is an objective fact that these have taken place. What else do you call lies (later conceded as such by the government) propagated by a government with the clear intent of discrediting a political group that acts against its interests? I'm talking about the Tom Hurndall case, but there is a vast amount of similar lying about the ISM in many other cases. Hence "propaganda". AW
>> ISM media co-ordinator Kristin (Flo) Razowsky has been quoted as saying "Israel" is an illegal entity that should not exist. This quotation originated from the open comments section of the indymedia website, and were made by someone using the name "Flo Rosovski".[17] A later post by someone using the name "the real flo razowsky" stated the original posting was posted on a date when Flo was "actually in detention and had no access to email." Note, the real spelling of Flo's name is "Razowsky".
Does this actually add anything? It's pretty much on the level of pure speculation over what some anonymous person may or may not have said - should it be here at all?
Seems non-notable to me, anyone can post anything on Indymedia claiming to be anyone else. If I posted on indymedia claiming to be G. UU. Bush that wouldn't be notable enough (by a long long long ... etc ... way) to go on his page.-- JK the unwise 19:35, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
I was just coming here to say the same thing - it sounds like an utterly trivial event, with absolutely nothing behind it. It's just one anonymous online forum posting with no reliable sources about its veracity or false-ness, either way. I'd say it should go. Unless the the ISM itself uses it as some sort of example of false claims, or if the ISM's opponents use it as an example of a ISM person exposing her "real beliefs" or whatever. If the only place it's used for either purpose is here on Wikipedia, we're treading close to original research territory. CDC (talk) 16:42, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
The links to ISM press releases (hosted at phpwebhosting.com) all seem to be dead links. ISM themselves don't seem to have them either. At least not in an accessible way. Anyone know of an archive?-- SVTCobra 01:55, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
It's highly prejudicial - both against rachel and against ism - to have the only photo on the page be of a flag. No reasonable argument can be made for having that photo be the main reference photo for Rachel Corrie.
Apparently, someone didn't see this massage on the talk page, and didn't understand why using such a photo as a reference would be prejudicial. (I assumed this would be pretty obvious) But when a reference photo to a person is used, it's not customary or NPOV to use a controversial or provacative photo. For example, List of billionaires (2005), which mentions Bill Gates, links to Image:Bill Gates1.jpg and not to Image:Bill gates-mugshot.jpg. Likewise, the Democratic Party (United States) article uses Bill Clinton.jpg to reference Bill Clinton, and not a more controversial one like Image:Monita.jpg. The article about the individual can address the more controversial and provocative stuff, but it's prejudicial to include such an image as the primary reference photo.
I removed the Hamas quote because Hamas is not connected to ISM, so it looked a bit odd. To include that quote, we would probably have to include discussion (sourced) about the extent to which ISM actions have good propaganda value for the extreme Palestinian groups. I also removed the bolded parts of the other quotes. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
According to this report: www.israelnewsagency.com/internationalsolidaritymovementterrorism9330405.html ISM is part funded by Hamas.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.80.32.11 ( talk • contribs)
I just tried to do a copy edit, but the article's so POV, it's pointless trying to edit it. The first few sections have no sources, so it's not clear which parts are quotes from ISM websites, and which have been paraphrased by Wikipedia editors. It needs to be rewritten with every single point being carefully sourced to reputable sources. There also needs to be some criticism in the intro, because this is a highly controversial organization, and our intro gives no hint of that. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Removed POV. Reasons for removal: 1) POV was undated 2) article has had numerous edits since POV discussion 3) article now has opposing viewpoints 4) reason for original POV not clearly stated.-- Chrisdab ( talk) 04:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I created a page for Brian Avery - his case is potentially quite significant, as the Israeli Supreme Court ordered the military to reexamine it. Perhaps someone would like to add a section (more than the brief blurb that is stated in 'significant events') about this on this page? TroiS6 12:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
We've got a couple citations in this article to sources which first aren't really verifiable, in that, they're someone's Comcast webpage, claiming to be reproducing text from the Jordan Star. Second, it's unclear to me that the Jordan Star is a notable or reliable source, and thus I'm not sure whether their editorializing about Shapiro is sufficiently important to be in the article.
I'm really not wild about linking to a comcast user's webpage though. Anyone have any thoughts? I'm leaning towards removing them, but I wanted to give others a chance to make a case for keeping them. Bibigon 04:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't live in America so I don't know for sure how 'mainstream' or reliable Indymedia is generally viewed as. However, isn't it a little risky using Indymedia as a source for almost the entire article? Mainstream papers such as the Boston Globe, New York Times, The Guardian etc etc. may be seen as partisan but are generally viewed as reliable sources for Wikipedia articles. I'd suggest finding a record of this incident from one of those instead?
EDIT: Accidently listed the Mike's Place section - it's the terrorist in the office which relies on Indymedia articles.
There is evidence that the ISM supports terrorists and is opposed to israel's existance. New York post colomnist Andrea Peyser has interviewed one of ISM's founders Charlotte Kates. Kates said that ISM support Palestinian suicide bombers. She was asked if she believes israel has a right to exist. she said tha tIsrael is a colonial settler state and tha tcolonial settler states don't have a right to exist. In the Seattle times, some ISM members hid Palestinians who Israle was going after. They told the seattle Times that they knew that the palestinians they hid were members of Hamas and Islamic Jihad. there i evidence that iSM supports terrorism and you can find tha tevidence if you do some research. the ISM is really working with palestinian terror groups working in the form of a peace group and goes around claiming that the Israelis are evil agressors and the palestinians are victims fighting for their land and go around recruiting human shields for the palestinian terrorists.--Dendoi 2:18 PM Sunday July 8, 2007
I removed dead links to two ISM press releases regarding the Mike's Place Bombing; I couldn't find them on the ISM website either, probably since they were issued about 5 years ago, but it would be nice if someone could find them. AshcroftIleum ( talk) 23:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I deleted a quote in the section on ISM stands on nonviolence because it lacked a citation. I would have added a citation needed if it wasn't a quote by a living person. If you have the source, add it back in. LamaLoLeshLa ( talk) 18:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Recently noticed this, thought it might be interesting: http://www.maannews.net/en/index.php?opr=ShowDetails&ID=28361
Lapsed Pacifist ( talk) 18:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
You're using anonymous Indymedia postings as sources. You're quoting a living person advocating violence against noncombatants without any source. You're hacking apart the alleged words of a group founder and then reinterpreting them as advocating the necessity of terrorism. You're advancing a "Pallywood" style conspiracy theory clearly based on amateur photo-analysis from some blog, although I can't be sure since there's again no citation and it's even tagged {{ cn}}.
Is there any worthless propaganda claim about ISM that you're not including in this article? I suggest you guys add how they pour bacon grease into the aquifers of Tel Aviv in between beating their wives and smuggling cigarettes into the European Union. 64.231.63.229 ( talk) 03:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Removed this link http://stoptheism.com/
As it is quite clearly a series of death threats and smears. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.3.4 ( talk) 19:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
George Rishmawi asks, "when did occupation begin?" It began after the violent terrorism that preceded in the 1940's and 1950's. The one subject Palestinian Arabs don't want to discuss is the fact that occupation is a direct result of Arab terrorism in the 1950s.
The only illegal occupation before 1967 was by Jordanian Arabs who ethnically cleansed Jews of Jerusalem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.106.161 ( talk) 07:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I did a bunch of clean up, updating, referencing, etc. Needs more info on ISM notable activities including running blockades of Gaza. Will put it on my list. CarolMooreDC ( talk) 03:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
What is the relevance of statements that any organization has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize?
Such nominations do not mean that the organization has "Peace" as its sole motive.
In the first place, such Nominations are confidental -- for 50 years after they are made -- and furthermore, just about anyone can make such a nomination.
Ok, not just anyone but I would guess that well over a million people in the world are Qualified Nominators.
What was the motive for making such nominations or for making public the fact that they were made?-- Komowkwa ( talk) 05:35, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Is listing an injury as a casualty really correct? Seems misleading to me. . . . Accipio Mitis Frux ( talk) 04:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Should mention that the ISM significantly antagonized a number of journalists when they released photos of Rachel Corrie which they claimed were taken right before she died, but which turned out to be taken hours before she died; that actually had something to do with why Rachel Corrie never became a major cause celèbre in the U.S. Also, the ISM apparently staged an amazing childish temper tantrum at the end of the Bethlehem church occupation in 2002, trying to make the issue be about them personally, and threatening to hold their breaths until they turned blue in the face unless somebody did something or other which nobody cared about except they themselves. AnonMoos ( talk) 06:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Nobel Price nominations are not verifiable as nominations are kept under seal for 50 years by the Noble Price foundation. As such, it is against WP's content policy to include purported nominations in an article. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:21, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
The long paragraph about Kayla Mueller says clearly she was abducted and killed by ISIS in Syria. Why is this appears under "ISM member casualties in Palestine and Israel"? What is the connection exactly between her death and Israel/Palestinian territories? Elvenking ( talk) 16:56, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
There is a photo captioned, "19-year-old Swedish ISM volunteer wounded by Israeli settlers in Hebron in November 2006" within a section ISM member casualties in Palestine and Israel / ISM member casualties timeline. The incident is not a casualty, is justifiably not listed in the timeline of casualties, and it would be better in a section on injuries sustained by ISM members, or removed entirely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.33.126.2 ( talk) 02:18, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on International Solidarity Movement. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1236764180001&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1226404781453&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFullWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:26, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on International Solidarity Movement. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.sydney.indymedia.org.au/node/11605When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:21, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on International Solidarity Movement. 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.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:24, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
I’m thinking of adding an infobox to this article, with info such as a link to website, year of founding etc. Any disagreement? Gareth fr ( talk) 18:14, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
This article isn't protected, so you should be able to edit it yourself. If you are still having problems editing it, please ask for advice at WP:TEAHOUSE. |
Hi! I was using citation hunter and came across this page. I found a reference before realizing that the page is protected. If someone could review and add a reference for this article that would be great:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/apr/03/israel2
I'm a newbie and would really appreciate feedback, especially if there are any errors in what I'm doing here. Thank you!
TheIrisNebula ( talk) 02:54, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
References
{{
cite news}}
: Check |url=
value (
help)