Talk:International Solidarity Movement
Solidarity link is wrong. It links to the Polish trade union not the socialist organization. Kpjas
Do we allow banner ads?
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 agree, a simple link should suffice. --snoyes 18:23 Mar 18, 2003 (UTC)
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
- That is an advertising banner, not a logo. If they had the 'Seal of ISM' or something similar, that might be appropriate, but the Wikipedia should not have advertising, even if it is for a nonprofit organization.
- --cprompt
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
The Barrier
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)
- I would prefer "Protests against the "West Bank security barrier" which in some cases involved minor damage." or "Protests against the West Bank barrier which in some cases involved minor damage." to be more NPOV. The term "security" is rather POV and probably caused a lot of this edit war. // Liftarn
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)