Talk:Camp 1391

The Coordinates are:

32.4700523603, 35.0230741947

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=http:%2F%2Fbbs.keyhole.com%2Fubb%2Fdownload.php%3FNumber%3D1165200&t=k&om=1&ie=UTF8&ll=32.470165,35.02208&spn=0.003847,0.005933&z=17

Felippo

Added. // Liftarn (talk)

Using a photo from a BBS to show the camp, while all news sources shows the camp was erased from maps, is a bad idea. Removed. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:19, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

What? Photo? BBS? It's just coordinates. You can used them in any mapping application, GPS unit or whatever. // Liftarn (talk) 17:53, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, the photo is hosted by Google, so nvm. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 17:55, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a guidebook to me. Since when does wiki include coordinates to prisons and police stations? I took out the external reference to Israel's police stations as entirely inappropriate and WP:NOT. Please do not put it back in until we have some consensus to do so. Tundrabuggy (talk) 19:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:GEO. // Liftarn (talk) 13:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Liftarn, could you please tell us the source for those coordinates? Thanks. Tundrabuggy (talk) 20:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

They were given by Felippo above. They have been verified by using various satelite photos, like Google Maps. Also see Wikipedia:Obtaining geographic coordinates // Liftarn (talk) 13:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

How do we know that that is indeed accurate? Anyone can pin Google maps. I can change that pin to read "Kremilin" if I want. Tundrabuggy (talk) 13:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually the coordinates go to a place called bbs.keyhole.com and a map that they have saved. What do you know about this group and if it is a RS? Tundrabuggy (talk) 14:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

From there, bbs.keyhole.com someone else took the coordinates and put them on wiki as if they had been actually verified. I do not think they are. I am going to remove once again the reference to the Eyeball site as I think it is not appropriate. I will post it somewhere for comment and let you know. Please leave it off until we get some consensus that it is appropriate to leave in. If and when we get consensus for it we can put it back in. In the meantime I am asking you nicely to leave it out for a few days. It does not conform to WP:NOT for the reasons I put in my edit summary. At the very least discuss it on the talk page before editing it back in. I will not remove the coordinates until we have verified (or not) them. Tundrabuggy (talk) 14:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

If we get a consensus to remove it we may leave it out, but it gives pictures of the facility and that is missing from the article (altough I hope some time we might get a free photo to use). As for cooridinates you can easily verify that they are at least in the right srea (they seem to be slightly to the north of the middle of the area). // Liftarn (talk) 17:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Who is Felippo above that you refer to? Tundrabuggy (talk) 19:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Felippo appears to be user Special:Contributions/91.64.83.16 who has made all of two edits to wiki, both in relation to the coordinates of this camp. Strikes me to be meager pickings for reliability. Tundrabuggy (talk) 19:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The coordinates can easily be verified so WP:V is no problem. // Liftarn (talk) 20:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

To where, that BBS forum? Well, if I am reading the sources we do have in this article, Israel erased maps that had this camp on it. I still feel odd using a BBS in order to cite something as contentious as this. So, I am also going to say no on the coordinates at all. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Zscout, what is a BBS forum anyway? And were you able to source it any closer than the first page of that forum? And @ Liftarn, what do you mean they can be easily verified? How do we know those coordinates don't belong to a baby-food manufacturer? Tundrabuggy (talk) 00:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

A BBS is short for Bulletin Board System. I tried looking for other pictures and coordinates for this place, and the only place they keep on tracing this to was this forum. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 00:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The coordinates can be verified by looking at a map. Just follow the link[1], select a suitable map provider (for instance Google Maps[2]) and look for yourself. // Liftarn (talk) 18:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Liftarn, the coordinates can be verified, but there is nothing that tells us that those coordinates refer to Camp 1391. The marker on Google Earth was saved by some group on a BBS system. I can go to Google Earth, find another spot in, let's say, eastern Poland (for example), name it Camp 1391, save the coordinates at some site (like the BBS one given here) and refer Wiki to it using the toolserver. Tundrabuggy (talk) 14:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I used some different coordinates on the top of my talk page which moves it somewhere else. I can add coordinates to any article I want. Do you see the problem? Tundrabuggy (talk) 15:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing that says the coordinates for, for instance, Karosta is correct either, but you can look at the maps and see for yourself. I would also suggest that you do not change the coordinates to WP:POINT. We could ask WP:GEO for help. We have a description of where it is "It is situated in Israel's North District near Pardes Hanna, less than an hour's drive from Tel Aviv and close to Highway 65 between Hadera and Afula.". Btw, the Pardes Hanna-Karkur article has coordinates, but is there a source for them? // Liftarn (talk) 21:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

This description was not in the article referenced, so I removed it and put in what the article did say, which was "on the main road between Hadera and Afula." Not sure where the original description that you give here comes from. Tundrabuggy (talk) 15:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not trying to prove a point, merely trying to help you understand why some of us here do not accept these coordinates, and trying to get consensus based on facts. The location (by means of coordinates) of this "secret prison" has not been verified by a reliable source. You keep insisting that because the toolserver will put it on the map here at wiki that it somehow makes it reliable. I would like you to understand the issue, but it would be nice if you could assume some good faith instead of suggesting that I am being disruptive. Towns are clearly on maps, and identify themselves with coordinates. Again, it is an issue of a RS. You have no way of knowing that those coordinates do not refer to a baby-food factory and not a prison, by your own admission. Tundrabuggy (talk) 23:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

We have some sources[3][4][5][6][7] the question is how reliable they are. // Liftarn (talk) 20:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

The coordinates stay out of the article. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Why so? // Liftarn (talk) 13:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

As I told you, I do not trust the links that are above, and the sources we do have, they said the place has been scrubbed from maps. It would be easier just to keep the coordinates out instead of trying to make guesses. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the facility is not on modern Israeli maps. It is however on older maps (that's how Gad Kroizer found it) it is visible[8]. // Liftarn (talk) 11:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Just for your information -- this map clip is from a 1:50,000 Soviet map from the 1980's titled 09-36-131-3 and the marked facility is labeled as "police post". This map is in several libraries' stock.--84.111.117.111 (talk) 16:41, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Anyone ever thought of just going there, taking a few pictures, seeing what happens? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.201.133.35 (talk) 04:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I noticed Rwendland added the coords using the Guardian article as a source. I checked and at least Google maps have it listed[9]. // Liftarn (talk)

The coordinates were already there; I just added the Guardian description of where it is as some level of justification given the disputes over including it. I think there is little doubt the coords are roughy correct. (They could be tweaked to the Tegart fort visible in the compound.) Rwendland (talk) 16:43, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

POV

The way this article is written is written tends to present opinion as fact, and is highly biased as to POV, it is certainly not balanced nor objective. It could be rewritten to present the same information in a more objective way, as well as provide other sources that are not so POV or at least balance. The number of links to repetitive and redundant unsubstantiated allegations presented as fact is unacceptable. Opinions must not be presented as fact. Wikipedia is not your soap-box.

Jonathon Cook describes Camp 1391 as a “concrete fortress”, yet also goes on to say “it looks like many other police stations built by the British in the 1930s”. Aerial photographs of the site show a small secured compound with a few buildings, not a “Guantanamo style” prison.

Aviv Lavie says that “as far as is known” the International Red Cross is not allowed to visit prisoners at Camp 1391, but provides no sources. Lavie is not an authoritative source on IRC activities, provides no references to IRC sources that corroborate this “fact”.

Statements by Leah Tsemel in the article are completely irrelevant to describing what Camp 1391 is or where it is.

Virtually all of the content of this article represents opinion and speculation, two things that have no place in a Wikipedia article. There for, I'm adding the POV tag. Do not remove until consensus is reached (this by the way is standard Wiki policy). Proxy User (talk) 05:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

What you call "repetitive and redundant" is multiple sources and that is a good thing. Unless you have a reliable source describing it you can't look at satelite photos and draw your own conclusions as that would be original research. As fr Red Cross visits, do you have a source sying the opposite? Considering the secrecy of the facility there is obviously some matter of speculation. It is possible that they sneak in Red Cross personell, but no source says so. So, in clonclusion you will have to dig up sources if you want any changes in the article. Btw, I found a photo[10] and it looks like concrete to me, but yes, it may be plasterboard made to look like concrete. // Liftarn (talk)

The sources cited are not authoritative in any way, and are nothing more than a particular political view. As opinions and POV speculation, they have no place here, no more than an opposing "pro-Israel" opinion. Wikipedia is not your political soap-box nor mine. It is not my responsibility to provide opposing views of inappropriately included unsubstantiated opinion and speculation, Wikipedia is not a forum for editorials.

"Btw, I found a photo and it looks like concrete to me, but yes, it may be plasterboard made to look like concrete."

Yes, it's a prison of some kind, this is known. As such, one assumes it is not made of paper-maché. Camp 1391 may be everything you think. It may be worse. But the sources cited are certainly highly POV opinion and speculation which is not appropriate for an encyclopedic article. Proxy User (talk) 21:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

In what way do you feel the sources are unreliable? The certainly seem to fullfill Wikipedia's requirements for reliable sources. You can bring it up at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard if you want. // Liftarn (talk)

Editorials are not suitable sources for facts. These articles do not provide reliable facts, rather opinion and speculation based on POV ideological sources. I am not required to provide alternative sources to take issue with existing ones. Proxy User (talk) 05:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I see the problem. In some way you have missinterpreted news articles as editorials. Well, as far as I can tell none of the articles used as sources are editorials. The articles used are reliable sources and as such there is no problem in using them. // Liftarn (talk) 08:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

These articles are written by people with a clear POV political view (the validity of that POV political view is irrelevant). They are not unbiased. They can not be proven to be factual. They are opinion and speculation.

If they are not based on known and established facts, than they are not factual. If the are not factual, than they are speculation and opinion. If they are speculation and opinion than they are not appropriate for references in an encyclopedic article. It's that simple.

Under which part of WP:RS do you propose these sources qualify? I don't see it. Proxy User (talk) 11:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

"reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" for instance. Or "Material from mainstream news organizations". Newspaper articles are generally considered as reliable sources. Also see Wikipedia:Verifiability and read "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" over and over until you understand it. // Liftarn (talk)

My main point is not the sources (though there are serious problems with CouterPoint and Haaretz), the point is that opinions and speculation are not suitable as sources for facts presented in a unbiased Wikipedia article. Such material can not be presented as fact, and opinion and speculation are inaapropriate for encyclopedic articles. Certainly they can not be presented in a way that implies they are fact. This is the essence of POV. Wikipedia is not the place to push political agendas. Proxy User (talk) 05:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I hear what you say, but it makes no sense. You might as well go "Plaid wheelchair! Stale gurgelhupf in green sunset.". They are words, but they make no sense. Unless you can come up with any real objection I am going to remove the POV tag. Using facts from reliable sources to make an article is very much OK. // Liftarn (talk) 09:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

If you remove the POV tag, I will put it back and label your action as vandalism. (Please review WP:OWN) Here's the point: You are not using VERIFYABLE facts from reliable sources. Simply calling something a "fact" does not make it a fact. The content at dispute here are opinions and speculation based purely on second and third hand information from obscure political operatives with clear and undeniable POV. You are presenting clearly POV opinions and speculation as fact which is improper. Opinions and speculation are not factual and are inappropriate content for an encyclopedic article.

None of the articles used as sources provide any factual information beyond the details of how this prison was recently discovered and what its historical background is. Beyond that the information they present (and you regurgitate here) is opinion and speculation (not VERIFYABLE fact) based on a particular political view. For example, just because Aviv Lavie says the Red Cross can't visit, is it so? Aviv Lavie does not represent the Red Cross. Leah Tsemel is an Israeli lawyer who specializes in advising Palestinians, this alone creates the appearance of non-neutral POV. Her included statement "Anyone entering the prison can be made to disappear, potentially for ever, it's no different from the jails run by tinpot South American dictators" is clearly a personal opinion and political view and neither she nor the article present any factual supporting evidence. Saying Camp 1391 is "the Israeli Guantanamo" almost certainly violates the spirit of WP:WEASEL, it's certainly not a factual statement, but obviously an opinion.

This article is not your soapbox for your (or anyone's) political view. It is inappropriate for you to use this article to push your personal political view, there are plenty of places on the Internet that you can use to advance your personal political view, but an encyclopedic Wikipedia article is not one of them. These things these people say may in the end prove to be true, however these sources present opinion and speculation, not suitable source material for an encyclopedic article. Proxy User (talk) 07:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) You say that "My main point is not the sources". Ok so it's not an issue about the reliability of ths sources. Ok, fine. Then it's OK to state what those reliable sources say. That is perfectly within Wikipedia's policy. I am useing facts from reliable sources. Is a reliable source says A then I can (and should) say A in the article. Personal opinions is clearly labelled as such (also perfectly OK). Saying that Camp 1391 have been called "the Israeli Guantanamo" is a fact backed up be reliable sources. Sorry, your argument doesn't hold water and I'm going to remove the tag as you still haven't come up with any actuial objections apart from WP:IDONTLIKEIT. // Liftarn (talk) 13:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Please do not remove the POV tag until consensus is reached. This is the Wikipedia process. You do not own this article. Please review WP:OWN. You do your position no favors by violating Wikipedia policy.

As to the article, no, you are NOT using facts. These are statements of belief that you quote, not facts. Please provide proof that they are facts? They are opinions and speculations, not facts. You have quoted opinions and speculations, not first-hand or even second-hand information, from Web sites with clear agendas, and you present these opinions and speculations as fact. Allowing this sort of "source" opens the door to legitimizing the use of Websites like " StormFront" to source articles at Wikipedia that assert racial superiority of the "White" race. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, you can't have it both ways.

As to WP:IDONTLIKEIT, I'm sorry, you are incorrect, I have no agenda here other than insuring opinion and speculation are not misrepresented here as sourced fact. What may seem to be so may very well be so, but opinion and speculation is not sourced fact and should not be presented as such. The fact is, the way this article reads is clearly loaded with POV. It undermines both the article and Wikipedia as an encyclopedic source.

Your POV is showing more and more. Please stick to the facts. Wikipedia is not your soapbox. Rather than going around like this, why not consider ways to rewrite the text so that it is not so obviously POV? Proxy User (talk) 08:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can tell you are a WP:SPA and so far you have made no effort what so ever to make any valid arguments what is POV in this article. Unless you do so I will remove the tag again. You may say "not facts" as many times you like, but that doesn't change that they are WP:RS and they mey be used within the article just as it says "Wikipedia articles should use reliable, third-party, published sources.". Newsweek, The Guardian and Haaretz are all reliable sources. I again ask you, what is POV with the article and what would you like to have changed? Please be specific instead of "it's all bad". // Liftarn (talk) 19:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Liftarn, I have looked at ProxyUser's contrib list and he is one issue at a time, not just one issue. He has edited a lot of different articles. Not an SPA in my view. Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, my fault. I only checked the first page. // Liftarn (talk) 17:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

There! I've put it up at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Using Newsweek, The Guardian and Haaretz as reliable sources. // Liftarn (talk) 19:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

It is not really an issue of are those two sources are "reliable". It's an issue of if it is proper for opinion and speculation to be presented as fact. It is not. These two sources may be quite "reliable" for many things. But regardless, presenting opinion and speculation from any source as fact is not proper.

It is also not proper to base the validity of my position on if or not how many "issues" I choose to pay attention to at one time. My attention to this or that issue has no relevence to if or not the content of this article is biased POV.

Again, the issue is, is proper for opinion and speculation to be presented as fact? It is not. You may present them as opinion and speculation if you wish, but are opinion and speculation appropriate for an encyclopedic Wikipedia article? Perhaps we'll find out.

Since a dispute still exists over the wording of this article, the POV tags stay. Proxy User (talk) 04:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

ProxyUser, could you please get specific over just which details you consider speculation and which is fact? Maybe if we do just one aspect at a time instead of the whole article? --Tundrabuggy (talk) 12:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

First, I don't see any reason why the article could not be rewritten in such a way as to remove bias. Liftarn is resistant to this, and I understand that he has strong feelings about the Israeli / Palestinian situation. But allowing such bias to influence the content of this article jeopardizes the validity of Wikipedia as an encyclopedic quality source.

Visits from the Red Cross are not allowed and the prisoners are not told where they are...

Is that so? Is Aviv Lavie qualified to say this? What is his source? He doesn't give one. Are we to take the word of someone with no connection to the Red Cross, and who gives no authoritative reference? Who is to say he isn't making it all up? This may be his opinion, but based on the referenced article, it can hardly be taken as fact. Yet it is given as fact in the Wiki article.

Dubbed "the Israeli Guantanamo", the secret was kept in such a manner as to be even unknown to Prof. David Libai

Dubbed by who? This series of words add nothing to the Wiki article except what is clearly a POV opinion of nameless people interviewed for the Haaretz article. The CounterPunch article that is used as a reference for this POV does not in any way refer to "the Israeli Guantanamo" or Prof. David Libai. In the Haaretz article, Prof. David Libai does not say he has never heard of Camp 1391, he says:

"I will not say a single word about the subject, for the simple reason that I am not familiar with it. This is the first time I have ever heard about such a thing."

The distinction is small but important. For example, his own words leave it perfectly possible that he is familiar with Camp 1391, but not specific allegations of it being "the Israeli Guantanamo". But this is in any case irrelevant because the statement is clearly opinion and boarders on WP:WEASEL.

According to Leah Tsemel, an Israeli lawyer who specialises in advising Palestinians, "Anyone entering the prison can be made to disappear, potentially for ever, it's no different from the jails run by tinpot South American dictators.

WP:WEASEL (...run by tinpot South American dictators...), opinion, speculation.

The whole tone of the article is anti-Israel / pro-Palestinian. Wikipedia articles should not be taking political POV. This article is an affront to the idea of balanced, non-POV encyclopedic articles. The fact is, the last four paragraphs add little to the article other than to advance a political view. While all these things are possibly true (there is a good chance at it, as a matter of fact), they are none the less nothing more than opinion and speculation.

Are we to allow opinion and speculation simply because it fits a humanitarian political view? Shouldn't a Wikipedia article present things that are known as facts? If we allow opinion and speculation shouldn't it be made clear and presented in such a way as not to be "loaded" POV but rather presented as one of several possibilities? Proxy User (talk) 08:06, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles should be based on WP:RS, not WP:TRUTH.

• "Visits from the Red Cross are not allowed and the prisoners are not told where they are, nor are their families or lawyers" is sourced to an article in Haaretz and that is a reliable source.
• "Dubbed "the Israeli Guantanamo"" is sourced from two different reliable sources.
• "the secret was kept in such a manner as to be even unknown to Prof. David Libai" the exact quote is "This is the first time I have ever heard about such a thing.". We could use the quote instead if you prefer that.
• "According to Leah Tseme" the statement is attributed and sourced. No problem here.

If you want to put something else in the article then you first need to find some WP:RS that supports it. Now go away and look. // Liftarn (talk) 18:09, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Haaretz gives no source for the Red Cross quote, and Haaretz is not the official Red Cross media outlet.

"Dubbed "the Israeli Guantanamo"" is sourced from two different reliable sources.

Really? So if some Web site publishes any wild statement, it can be used in a Wiki article? It is not a factual statement (it is opinion and speculation), it is clearly POV, it adds no factual value to the article. Stormfront.org is a reliable source for views on White Supremacy, perhaps we should include their take on Camp 1391?

The fact is, all these statements are opinion and speculation that are at most attributable to POV sources, and add not factual value to the article.

Wikipedia is not your soapbox, Liftarn. Maybe you should start a blog or something. All of these opinion and speculation are WP:WEASEL. You also need to review WP:OWN, this is not your article to push your political views.

I've suggested that a re-write to a less confrontational wording would improve the article, but apparently you want confrontation. I'm not going away, Liftarn, this article is clearly POV. But it doesn't have to be... Proxy User (talk) 18:36, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Proxy, I think you are overstating your case here. Yes, this article needs to be neutral, but Liftarn is referencing some good sources (though Counterpunch is not a good source, IMO). We should be careful, as we use the Haaretz article, not to suggest that Haaretz is taking a positon so much as it is repeating the assertions of others. (I hope it's clear what I mean by that.) I'd also add, Proxy User, that while I agree that Liftarn should not be removing the tag as long as there is an active discussion, you should not refer to it as "vandalism." WP:Vandalism has a specific meaning, and this does not meet it. IronDuke 18:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The Counterpunch article was first printed in Le Monde diplomatique. Adding the tag to the article may be a type of vandalism as there still haven't been any example of POV, weasel phrases and certainly nothing not in complicance of WP:NOT. // Liftarn (talk) 20:31, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

False on the face of it. I have clearly outlined the POV. But it is the nature of your strong political beliefs that you choose to see it not as POV but as truth. This actually supports my position. This article is not in complience with WP:NOT, specifically the section "soapbox". Proxy User (talk) 21:33, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think a reprint is good enough here. AFAICT, Le Monde diplomatique sometimes republishes what is clearly advocacy journalism. That's iffy for our purposes. Just to be clear: adding the tag is not vandalism. Removing the tag is not vandalism. Saying that they are is a) clearly wrong and b) apt to inflame matters for no gain. To your other point, Proxy User has pointed to some POV concerns. As I say, I believe he overstates his case, but the tag should remain until it's sorted out. IronDuke 20:49, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, IronDuke. You say Liftarn references some good sources, but that (IYO) CounterPunch is not a good source (I agree. CounterPunch is political publication with an obvious POV). But that's 50% right there. Also, if the article was from Le Monde diplomatique, than that's the article that should be referenced.

I've suggested a re-write to tone down the rhetoric would be a possible solution. That's called a compromise, but it seems Liftarn wants to make some type of political statement. If this content can not be re-written with less of a POV slant, I'd like to see the content gone. Wikipedia is not a political forum. Speculation and opinion are inappropriate for an encyclopedic article. Those who wish to have political discourse need to do it in an appropriate forum. That forum is not Wikipedia.

It's interesting that none of these allegations have hit the mainstream media, and that's telling. What it says is that while these things might be true, there is not a lot of actual evidence to support it. That's why these things are put forward in editorial stories as opinion and speculation. If they are to be included here, that must be made very clear. And, this opens the door for counter points to balance the POV. Proxy User (talk) 21:33, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

May I direct you to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Using Newsweek, The Guardian and Haaretz as reliable sources. "Newsweek, Ha'aretz, the Guardian, and Le Monde Diplo are reliable sources. If there is concern that an article based on those sources is skewed, other sources discussing the issue can be discussed on the talkpage. If there are none, the article is not skewed in wiki-terms, however much it may be skewed in real life." // Liftarn (talk) 17:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Reliable source for what? Reliable source or not, that doesn't address the central issue: Should opinion and speculation be presented as fact? Is it proper at all to include opinion and speculation? No to both cases.

There is no reliable evidence that the Red Cross is not allowed to see prisoners at this facility. That an opinion article states it is not reliable. That's called opinion and speculation, it's no better than Joe Blow on the street saying it. Period. Now, if there was a source that quoted the Red Cross on the matter, that's different. WAY different. But, alas, there is no Red Cross source (or any other source besides the single POV speculation referenced).

"Dubbed "the Israeli Guantanamo"" is obviously POV / bias and WP:WEASEL. Clearly opinion. Without question. It has no place in this article. Obviously included to push a particular political view. 100% improper, nothing more than soapbox posturing. Serves no other purpose.

Please take your soapbox to a more appropriate forum (there are many where it will be well recieved). Proxy User (talk) 08:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Proxy, I agree with this statement of yours above : "Reliable source or not, that doesn't address the central issue: Should opinion and speculation be presented as fact? Is it proper at all to include opinion and speculation? and it is true not just for this article but for so many, particularly in areas of contention like this one. So often journalists seem to mix opinion and speculation in with actual facts and the average dude has no idea what is fact and what is fiction. I think this might be a failing of the concept of RS - definitely needs to be pursued further as an important question. Tundrabuggy (talk) 13:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems that has come up with an actual reference for the Red Cross issue. This still leaves the Gitmo issue, and this:

According to accounts in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, the detainees were blindfolded and kept in darkened cells (as small as 1.25 m × 1.25 m with a heavy steel door and black or red walls), and threatened with or subjected to sexual abuse and/or deprived of running water and adequate toilet facilities. Mustafa Dirani, a detainee who joined the camp in May 1994, has filed a suit in Tel Aviv's district court for sexual abuse in the camp.

What is the purpose of this in the article? As long as stuff like this remains, the article is POV. The whole wording of the article pushed a spacific POV, and this point can not be argued. The article is not neutral in any way. Proxy User (talk) 07:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

More soucres

We have a source for that no Red Cross visits is allowed[11] (or any other independend organisation[12]) as well as for the demands to open it up.[13] // Liftarn (talk) 18:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Than use it. That still leaves the Gitmo reference. It's still POV. Proxy User (talk) 07:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

To those blanking the sections

Why? What is the problem? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:40, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is "blanking" sections, I think they are attempting to eliminated the obvious bias from the article. It seems, though, that it is impossible to keep editors like you who claim ownership from using Wikipedia as a soapbox. What a shame. Proxy User (talk) 03:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Then what do you think is POV about the article? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Much of the article is non-factual editorializing, with speculation and second-third-forth hand unverifiable accusations phrased to push a political view. The references come from publications which are not unbiased news sources. The general tone of the article is designed to push a political view.

It's pointless to argue this point with you since you hold these same views and feel that it is perfectly appropriate to push them in a encyclopedic forum as fact rather than speculation. Your insistence of this misuse of Wikipedia does Wikipedia a disservice.

Indeed, it also does your cause a disservice by wrapping it in obvious political bias rather than facts. But this is besides the point, which is that you have decided that this is YOUR article, and only YOUR view will be allowed. See WP:OWN, not that it matters since you will certainly pay no attention to it. Proxy User (talk) 18:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

At least your talking, so that was the point of this thread is. Now, you mentioned "non-factual editorializing" as the main problem of the article, with biased sources. Why do you feel that, lets say, Newsweek and the BBC, are biased? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Karkur Tegart fort, not Meretz

Despite what Dr. Kreuzer wrote, there is more and more evidence to suggest that this facility is located in the Karkur Tegart fort, not in the "Meretz" one. The Meretz locality is presently in Kibbutz Hamaapil which is some distance from the facility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.234.58.37 (talk) 11:54, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

To confirm this, if the description "a Tegart fort on route 574 between kibbutz Barkai and kibbutz Ma'anit in northern Israel" is correct, it was probably Karkur Police Post. I say "probably" because on British maps it is marked just "Police Post". However in the Palestine Gazette no. 909 (1939) I see "The contract for surfacing section of Karkur-Megiddo road between Karkur Police Post and District boundary at Arara and supply of broken stone for the road section west of Karkur Police Post" which matches this pretty well. It wasn't actually on that road but only about 1km from it, and all along that road I don't see any other police posts marked. Also in a book of Ordinances I see "Wadi Ara – Construction of the Karkur Police Post" and Wadi Ara is what Barkai was called then. Zero^talk 13:29, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

A map showing Tegart forts in Roza El-Eini, Mandated Landscape shows this one as "Wadi 'Ara". Zero^talk 23:50, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

If Meretz fort is in Kibbutz Hamaapil, it is 10km away in a straight line, which is impossibly far away. Zero^talk 23:55, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Camp 1391. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060806195929/http://www.counterpunch.org/cook11122003.html to http://www.counterpunch.org/cook11122003.html

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) 09:14, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Camp 1391. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303180032/http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0%2C7340%2CL-3716489%2C00.html%3B to http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0%2C7340%2CL-3716489%2C00.html%3B

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) 19:57, 19 September 2017 (UTC)