Talk:Random checkpoint

Suggestion

Article should be merged or deleted. Checkpoints obviously exist in many places including inside Israel. Flying checkpoints sound like science fiction. Amoruso 12:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

If you do a search on "flying checkpoint" in google, you get 559 hits. In google scholar, you get 9 hits. So while flying checkpoints may sound like science fiction, they are in fact, quite real and have very real effects. Interestingly however, the use of flying checkpoints (or at least the term itself) is confined to the Israeli and American armies. The section of the US use should be expanded. But otherwise, I do not see any problem regarding neutrality in this article. Your tag is inappropriately placed. Tiamut 16:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. temporary checkpoints, or "flying checkpoints" if you prefer, have been a standard practice in all armies, and all conflicts. They appear in Kosovo [1]

[2], Somalia [3], Viet nam , Haiti, and are in use by British forces [4] as well as civilian police forces [5]. I'll rewrite this article to focus on the military/police tactic, rather than its current POV Israel (and US) bashing spin. Isarig 16:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Isarig, the "Somalia" example you gave describes the use of flying checkpoints by US forces in Iraq. The example you gave for "British forces" is from an unreliable source, a usenet forum. The "civilian police force" example you gave doesn't even use the term "flying checkpoint". The only reliable source you listed that actually used the term "flying checkpoint" in reference to anyone other than the United States or Israel is the "Kosovo" example. You have no right to unilaterally delete the entire article on that basis. You are cherry-picking examples to try to prove that this article is POV. I ask that your restore what you have deleted and add a section on the use by Serb police forces in Kosovo and any other examples you find that might be relevant and that you add to the intro accordingly. I also ask (once again) that you stop undoing my work at every article you follow me to. Thanks. Tiamut 17:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

This article is ostensibly about the military/police tactic of temporary checkpoints, not about the alleged hardships of Palestinian who are inconvenienced by their use in the west bank. flying checkpoint and hasty checkpoints are one and the same. Please don't turn this into yet another soapbox to rage against the alleged evils of Israel and the US. Isarig 17:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

{edit conflict)

Isarig, this latest addition of yours:

Hasty checkpoints are set up to achieve surprise. They are established in locations where they cannot be observed by approaching traffic until it is too late to withdraw and escape without being observed. UN Checkpoint operations

to the introduction is WP:OR. The source is decribing "hasty checkpoints" not "flying checkpoints" and you do not have a source that claims that those two terms refer to same phenomenon. Please remove the material until you find a source that defines both terms as the same thing. Then you can change the introduction accordingly. Tiamut 17:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Your own polemical source defines a flying checkpoint as " a roadblock operated by Israeli soldiers and is set up randomly on Palestinian roads supposedly for security checks." - it is clear that this is exactly the same type (when you strip away the polemics of "supposedly") of checkpoint as the one defined by the UN as a hasty checkpoint. Isarig 17:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Your conclusion is still WP:OR unless you find a source that says explicitly that a hasty checkpoint and a flying checkpoint are terms that refer to same thing. Tiamut 18:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[6], give it up, will ya? Isarig 18:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

And yet another pro-palestinian sources which says this: [7]'“flying checkpoint” (a random, mobile checkpoint)'. we are dealing with a name for a random, mobile checkpoint, not something unique to any particular conflict, as the sources clearly demonstrate. Isarig

And yet another one: [8] stating very explicitly "A flying checkpoint is a mobile checkpoint." Isarig 16:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Further, in response to your uncivil accusation that I am turning this "into yet another soapbox to rage against the alleged evils of Israel and the US," I ask that you do a little self-reflection and ask yourself why you feel compelled to follow me around and delete any information I add that might reflect poorly upon Israeli or American foreign policy decisions. And also, you might ask why you feel the need to violate Wiki policies and guidelines by using sources that do not pass WP:RS and making WP:OR conclusions. You seem to be aware of these policies having invoked them to disallow the inclusion of material that does not accord with your own POV quite often. Tiamut 17:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Isarig, once again you have deleted most of the article. You have still not addressed the concerns I have raised here about OR. Please cease vandalizing the article. I do not want to edit war over this, but I will revert you if you do not restore the vast amounts of material you have deleted and replaced with poorly written copy. Thank you. Tiamut 17:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I have replaced the polemical US and Israel-bashing you introduced from a partisan source, with factual information from neutral 3rd party reference material. again, This article is ostensibly about the military/police tactic of temporary checkpoints, not about the alleged hardships of Palestinian who are inconvenienced by their use in the west bank. The article should tell the reader what such a checkpoint is, how it is operated and and why. It should not be yet another soapbox in which to lament the hardships endured by Palestinians, Iraqis or whatever. Isarig 18:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I wish you would tone down your rhetoric and discuss things step by step, rather than mass deleting. You notice that despite my comments on the OR nature of your additions I have not yet removed them. I don't understand why your have to tear things down in order to build. Why not place fact tags on info you feel is attributed to a partisan source and allow me to find to alternatives? Why radically alter the article without regard to the feelings of other editors? I would confused by your actions here were it not for the long history of like behavior I have witnessed over the last year. I am going to file for a Request for User Comment. I can no longer interact with you in good faith. Tiamut 18:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Please review WP:POT. You have accused me of stalking you, of vandalizing the article, and have the gall to complain about my comments? My goal is to create an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia entry on a military/police tactic should focus on that tactic, citing reliable sources. Your "feelings" about it are immaterial. This article is called Flying checkpoint - not Effects of checkpoints on Palestinians nor Use of checkpoints by the IDF. The article should not be used as a stage to mount yet another POV attack on the alleged evils of governments you disapprove of, which happen to use this tactic, as have virtually every police and army force has done in every conflict. By all means file an RfC, as your constant POV-pushing should be stopped Isarig 18:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

After reading more on RfC's for users, I realize that I cannot file a case by the narrow definition proposed there which require two editors involved in the same dispute to put forward the case. I resent your continued personal attacks and I am withdrawing from editing from this article (and perhaps others where you have followed me for now) until I can get an idea of how to proceed to correct the baseless accusations and harassment which started on your side long before I protested here and on your talk page twice this last week. I don't edit at Wikipedia to push a POV, I write about what I know and what I can find reliable sources to support. We have long history Isarig that began at Arab citizens of Israel when you strongly resisted many sourced additions I made there, deleting them despite confirmation from other editors of their accuracy. This behavior has continued on and off for over a year now. It has to stop and because I don't know which remedies are available to deal with this, I'm pulling back for now from here. Enjoy. Tiamut 18:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

According to Isarig's source above [9] "flying checkpoint" and "hasty checkpoint" are not synonymous. Rather, a "flying checkpoint" is "a type of hasty checkpoint." From the sources Tiamut has provided, and from what I can gather (in admittedly cursory researches), "flying checkpoint" is an American tactic in Iraq and an Israeli tactic in the territories, and isn't much used outside of that. If you wish to create the article Hasty checkpoint, Isarig, that might be a more appropriate way of housing the material you're working on here, rather than using it to make Tiamut's work disappear. You are writing, in short, on different though closely related topics.--G-Dett 19:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The sources I've provided actually show this term in use by UN peacekeeping forces in Kosovo, as well. I have no objection, though, to renaming this article Hasty checkpoint, and redirecting Flying checkpoint to it, and if enough material can be produced that significantly distinguishes flying checkpoints from any other type of hasty checkpoint (so far I haven't been able to find any, they appear to be one and the same) - maybe have an article dedicated to that particular type of checkpoint. Feel free to do some research. Isarig 22:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

What do cops call their DUI 'flying checkpoints'? This tactic is not only used by Army troops. --Shuki 23:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, to answer my own question: Sobriety checkpoints under cat Category:Law enforcement techniques --Shuki 23:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

de-WP:POINT

Well, we know that the article was created with a point in mind, and since then it has progressed into a fair and general enclyclopedia article as most should be. The only thing left, besides to agree on a name, is to remove any reference to a specifc armed entity since all armed forces and general police organizations use 'hastily set' checkpoints for a million reasons. --Shuki 23:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, this article was not created with "a point in mind". It was created because the term "flying checkpoint" is used in a number of existing wikipedia articles that I work on, and rather than defining what it means every time it is used, I thought it would be useful to have a page describing the phenomenon. Upon researching the use of the term, I found that it was used almost exclusively by and to describe the types of checkpoints erected by the Israeli and American armies. That turned out to be a coincidence. But because that was the case, I created section for its use by both these armies, as per the other articles on checkpoints which have sections describing their use elsewhere. I resent that you did not WP:AGF based simply on Isarig's overwrought protestations. Please try to be less judgemental in the future. Tiamut 16:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

There is exactly ONE article in the main namespace that uses that term - West Bank Closures, and that article describes a "flying checkpoint" as "unannounced spot-checks spontaneously erected for a period of time" - precisely the same as a hasty checkpoint. That article further uses as a source for its claims regarding "flying" checkpoints a UN report which says "Average number of random or "flying" checkpoints observed each week" - in other words, "flying checkpoint" is just another name for "random checkpoint". Isarig 18:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Not according to the one source of ours that addresses both.--G-Dett 18:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

We have more than one source using "flying checkpoint" interchangeably with 'random checkpoint'. We have one source that says FC is a type of a hasty checkpoint, but fails to elaborate on the distinctions, if any. I am not opposed to highlighting such distinctions, if they exist, and if they are of significance, there may be room for more than a single article. But as of now, the evidence seems to suggest that there are no meaningful distinctions, and that the terms are, in fact, synonymous. Isarig 18:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to move Flying checkpoint to Hasty checkpoint, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 14:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

---

• neutral (for now). 'Flying cp' might be the name used by some units, somwhere but 'hasty cp' seems like a better way to describe them. --Shuki 23:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose I created this article to deal with the subject of flying checkpoints. As G-Dett has pointed out, a flying checkpoint is a type of hasty checkpoint. While I encourage editors to produce an article on hasty checkpoints that links to this one, I do not support moving this article to an as yet non-existent article (or one that has been superimposed over this one) in an attempt to deny facts regarding the limited and specific use of flying checkpoints by both the American and Israeli armies. The version of this article prior to its being wholly deleted and replaced by Isarig is here [10]. His edits are based on his deliberate confusion of the two topics, despite the efforts of other editors to point his out. I have not reverted the changes made by Isarig because I do not want to edit war. I ask other editors to incoporate any relevant information from his edits and those of Shuki into the version that appeared in the diff provided. It is simple rudeness that allows for editors to come along and completely change the subject, content and then the title of a new article on a related topic but not the same one, and then try to pass it off as NPOV to boot. It is also WP:OR. The sources provided state that a flying checkpoint is a type of hasty checkpoint and not its equivalent. We are misleading readers in the pursuit of Isarig's POV. Tiamut 09:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you've made it clear you don't want an article about hasty checkpoint or about flying checkpoint - you want an article about "the limited and specific use of flying checkpoints by both the American and Israeli armies" - IOW- you want a political soapbox, not an encyclopedic article. we get it, and oppose it.This unsigned comment was added by Isarig (talk · contribs) at 15:07, 20 May 2007 [11]Tiamut 16:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Tiamut, I can't AGF when numerous signs point in other directions. -> completely change the subject, content and then the title of a new article. I can't remember where I read on WP guidelines suggesting that if an editor might be worried that his creation will be changed by others, they should refrain from editing. Given that, you have contributed much to WP, and I welcome your continued contributions, but certainly, trying to relegate the idea of 'checkpoints', or any other issue, to one specific area of the world is quite ludicrous. By reading your creation, as well as the other checkpoint articles, I still do not know the difference between a flying, hasty, random, or surprise checkpoint. --Shuki20:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

"My creation" Shuki was new and still under development. In fact, I had tagged a section with an expand tag and was still researching the subject (as I already explained) when Isarig came by and deleted half the article and started adding things about hasty checkpoints, treating the two terms as synonymous when in fact they are not (according to the source he himself provided). You have once again failed to WP:AGF by implying that I had some kind of unwholesome agenda in creating this article (ignoring the section on the US with the tag to expand) and by implying that my resistance to Isarig's edits derive from a sense of ownership over the article, which they most certainly do not. I think my comments throughout this page have explained why I have objected to Isarig's edits and the objections are policy-based and largely based around WP:OR and WP:NPOV.Tiamut 11:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose per Tiamut. --Ian Pitchford 16:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per Tiamut.--G-Dett 16:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

  Comment. Google scholar gives nine citations for "flying checkpoints," none for "hasty checkpoints." Eight of the nine deal with flying checkpoints in the occupied territories; the ninth is from a United States Institute for Peace document that I can't seem to connect to. Not definitive data, of course, but quite suggestive of where the term is in use.--G-Dett 18:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

  Update. Here are the results from Lexis-Nexis. "Flying checkpoints" gets 20 citations from 2003–present, 19 of which come from coverage of the Israeli occupation. Interestingly, going all the way back to 1900 yields only 3 more citations, all from Beirut, the earliest from a 1983 Thomas Friedman dispatch sometime after the Israeli invasion. Friedman therein gives "flying checkpoint" as the translation of the Arabic term hajiz tayyar. These were set up both by the Israelis and by Lebanese militias; the origin of the term isn't clear. "Hasty checkpoints" gets a total of four hits from 2003 on, all from the American occupation of Iraq, and none before that (going back to 1900). From the data we have so far, I think the article should keep its name, and there should be no controversy over appropriating emphasis proportionally to Israeli-occupied territories, the U.S. occupation of Iraq, and miscellaneous other conflict zones, respectively.--G-Dett 19:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Lexis's actual coverage doesn't really go back to 1900; more like 1985. But your point is well taken, and your reasoning sound. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

    Thanks for the correction PMAnderson. That certainly casts doubt on my tentative speculation that the term first arose in the Lebanese war. I didn't realize that about Lexis; I should give it a go on ProQuest Newspapers, which I know for certain go over a hundred years back. --G-Dett 20:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

If google is not giving too much relevance to hasty or flying checkpoints, than perhaps there is no legitimacy for this article at all. There are arguments on notability when some people only have a few hundred mentions. --Shuki 20:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

A fair point in principle, but bear in mind that this was a Google Scholar search, not a regular google search. For perspective: Pallywood gets one hit only on Google Scholar and only five hits on Lexis-Nexis, one of them a letter to the editor (vs. nine and twenty, respectively, for "flying checkpoints"). On the other hand, "Flying checkpoints" gets 977 hits on regular google, next to a comparatively whopping 137,000 for Pallywood. Also bear in mind that google has a natural bias towards the vocabulary of the blogosphere over that of the mainstream media (with academic writing a very distant third). Google also gives preference to the blurtings of the id over the formulations of the superego: a google search for "Pamela =Anderson" + "blowjob" gets over three times as many hits as "William Shakespeare" + "King Lear."

"King Lear" + "blowjob," on the other hand, gets only 9290 hits – fancy that! – which is still a good ten times as many as "Flying checkpoint." Go figure.--G-Dett 20:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Source question

Isarig, I'm hoping you can tell us a little more about the following source, which you added yesterday: Guide to Military Operations Other Than War: Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures for Stability & Support Operations, Keith Earle Bonn, Anthony E. Baker, p.113-115 [12]. I can't find it in several research libraries. I see that it's available on Amazon, but I really don't want to buy it, and the pages you cite aren't provided by the "look inside" function. Google books has p.112, the page before the sequence you cite. It talks about how important good conduct is at checkpoints, because that's where "junior soldiers and leaders often make decisions with international import." Nothing much more on that page, as it's the beginning of a chapter and thus consists mostly of white space. Did you find the chapter in question online, or do you have the book to hand? If the latter only, would you mind terribly if I asked you to summarize its contents here? Does it refer, for example, to "flying checkpoints"? Thanks.--G-Dett 16:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Google books has those pages, here [13]

Isarig 17:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Isarig. I don't know why I couldn't get to pages 113 and 114 before. It's still not totally clear to me what information in the article is sourced to these pages, but I can see they're on point (for an article on "hasty checkpoints," that is; there's no mention of "flying checkpoints").--G-Dett 17:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I think both statements in the article sourced to this (regarding contraband, regarding timeliness) are clearly referenced in the text. I think that it has been made abundantly clear that "Flying checkpoint" is simply a name for a random, mobile checkpoint, and another name for that is "hasty checkpoint". We can call the article whatever we like, but there's no denying that "flying checkpoint", "random checkpoint", "mobile checkpoint" or "hasty checkpoint" are the same thing, with minute, if any variation. Isarig 17:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Separate questions here. I'm not taking issue with the sourcing; I was curious what in particular you'd found on those pages, and you've answered that. As for "flying checkpoint" and "hasty checkpoint" being synonyms, what's your source for that?

I've presented several sources that use FC interchangeably with either 'random checkpoint' or 'mobile checkpoint'. As far as I can tell, these are all one and the same. If you you have any source that describes the differences between FC, HC, RC and MC, I am not opposed to including it here and elaborating on the distinctions. Isarig 19:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, I'm curious about your reasoning in the sections above: "This article is ostensibly about the military/police tactic of temporary checkpoints, not about the alleged hardships of Palestinian who are inconvenienced by their use in the west bank." "Inconvenienced" and "alleged" were intended to be offensive, I gather. But setting that aside, I'm more curious about the distinction you make, and if it's a principled one or an ad hoc one. Would you agree by analogy that articles on suicide bombing, for example, should be about the guerrilla tactic more generally, not about the sufferings of Israeli victims? Should Child suicide bombers in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, List of Hamas suicide attacks, List of Palestinian Islamic Jihad suicide attacks, List of Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades suicide attacks, etc. be merged into Suicide bombing? Would that help to prevent articles becoming "political statements" (the term you used to justify your dismantling of Tiamut's work on this page [14])? What's your opinion of the article Exploding donkey? Thanks.--G-Dett 18:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I intended nothing offensive by those comments, and you would do well not to speculate on motives or intentions of other editors. Putting aside these violations of WP:CIVIL, my distinction is of course a principled one. An article on Suicide bombing should describe the tactic - and that is what that article does. If Suicide bombing was an article dedicated exclusively to the use of that tactic by Islamic terrorists, I would object to it on the same grounds. If some political partisan decided to label the the use of that tactic by Islamic terrorists as "flying suicides" - I would object to creating an article by that name. That does not preclude us, in principle, from having specific articles dedicated to lists of instances of the use of the tactic, such as List of Hamas suicide attacks or List of Palestinian Islamic Jihad suicide attacks - if such lists are notable enough. Similarly, I would not object, in principle, to List of IDF checkpoints in the West Bank.(I say in principle, becuase (a) I have not actually looked at the above-mentioned articles to say if they are noteworthy, and (b) my general position is that there is very little encyclopedic value in List of...-type articles, and I'd like to see less, not more of these in WP). I'll take a look at Exploding donkey and let you know. Isarig 19:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your first point, I think you misunderstood me. "Alleged" and "inconvenienced" were offensive; my mind-reading went no further than crediting you with the intelligence to realize this. Whether your phrasing amounted to a violation of WP:CIVIL or merely a show of poor taste is a moot point. Now, regarding the rest of your post. "Flying checkpoints" is not a partisan coinage but an accepted term in wide use on both "sides"; your analogy of "flying suicides" as a hypothetical "partisan" coinage was therefore very poorly conceived. Why not address the actual analogy I provided – Child suicide bombers in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? That's not a list, but an article. Should it be merged into Suicide bombing to avoid making a political statement? And yes, do get back to me after you read Exploding donkey. Generally speaking, it would appear that Arab offenses are endlessly subdivided and treated with microscopic exhaustiveness, while Israeli offenses must be folded into broader categories so as to avoid making "political statements."--G-Dett 19:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I misunderstood you, and I fail to see how referring to allegations as such, and to describing the effects of checkpoints as an inconvenience could be construed as something uncivil. If you are offended by this, too bad. I'm sure some fundamentalists Christians are offended by references to abortion as medically or surgically induced pregnancy termination, and prefer to see the term "murder" in that context, but that's no reason to avoid factually describing things as they are. "Flying checkpoints" is not a term used at all by the Israeli side, as Shuki note's below. These checkpoints are called "mobile checkpoints (מחסום נייד), "sudden checkpoints" (מחסום פתע) or some other similar terminology - but that's beside the point. As I noted earlier, I don't really care which of the (apparently) synonymous terms are used. But just to completely put your mind at ease, let me rephrase my analogy: If some impartial 3rd party decided to label the use of Suicide bombings by Islamic terrorists as "flying suicides" - I would object to creating an article by that name. Generally speaking, I think you generalize far too much when you say "it would appear that Arab offenses are endlessly subdivided and treated with microscopic exhaustiveness, while Israeli offenses must be folded into broader categories so as to avoid making "political statements." - that personal perception is probably the result of viewing things from a particular POV. where is the equivalent of Israel Defense Forces checkpoint for any other Army, or any other situation? Is there a Columbian checkpoint article for example? Is there a Yugoslav checkpoint article? How about OIRA Checkpoint or UK Army checkpoint? All these are examples explicitly called out (though of course not an exhaustive list of checkpoint users) in the Civilian checkpoint article, yet only the IDF usage is deemed worthy of its own article. As to Exploding donkey - I think that article is of little value in its current form. There is probably a worthwhile encyclopedia article to be written on the topic of the usage of animals in terrorism or military activities, and some of the material from Exploding donkey could be merged there, alongside descriptions of Israel's use of explosive carrying dogs, and perhaps a "popular culture" section describing fictionalized use - I think "Day of the Dolphin" told of a US plot to use trained dolphins as torpedoes. Isarig 21:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply Isarig. "The alleged hardships of Palestinian who are inconvenienced by [checkpoints] in the west bank" is offensive because of its misplaced skepticism (the hardships aren't a matter of disputed "allegations" among morally sentient people) and because of the way it sneeringly downplays collective national humiliation as a matter of "inconvenience." This is a pretty self-evident question of good taste. You lose nothing by making your case with rhetorical grace and respect, and you lose a great deal by electing not to do so. In this respect your abortion analogy is off the mark; one who believes that abortion is a medical procedure and a woman's inalienable right cannot concede, even rhetorically, that it's "murder" without conceding the very core of her argument. This is not true in your case, where the offense was gratuitous. You could have written "This article is ostensibly about the military/police tactic of temporary checkpoints, not about the hardships and humiliations of Palestinians who are subject to them in the West Bank." You would have conceded nothing substantive by that formulation, and you would have gained a measure of good will. If you want the last word, have it, but this closes the matter in my eyes.

I simply do not agree that the checkpoints constitute a "collective national humiliation", and surely you realize that such categorization is a POV characterization. I concede that there is a great deal of inconvenience in having to endure unexpected checkpoints, and that is what I wrote. The "allegations" part refers to various unproven allegations - that people have died because they had to wait, that women had miscarriages, etc.. Isarig

I am needless to say unimpressed with your latest crop of analogies – Columbian checkpoint, UK Army checkpoint, etc. When something is iconic enough to merit its own article apart from the general one is a matter of judgment, of course, but the question is always highly context-specific, and depends upon the state of reliable sources. If you were really looking for workable analogies, you could have found some. Qassam rocket, Islamist terrorism, etc. The fact that Pallywood exists doesn't mean the Jew York Times or the Daily Tel Aviv should exist for the sake of fairness; fair or not, the currency and acceptibility of those terms just isn't comparable. Similarly, fair or not, most RS-material on "flying checkpoints" comes from Israel-Palestine.--G-Dett 23:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

G-Dett, virtually no one in Israel uses the term 'flying checkpoints'. --Shuki 20:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not surprised that you are unimpressed. You came here with a desire to advocate a certain viewpoint, and will not let facts deter you in that quest. As you concede - When something is iconic enough to merit its own article apart from the general one is a matter of judgment - and I have pointed out that the collective judgment of WP editors has so far judged the non-Israeli usage of checkpoints to be unworthy of separate articles, while the Israeli usage was found to be worthy of one - which seems , anecdotally at least, to counter your observation that it is only.Arab tactics that "are endlessly subdivided and treated with microscopic exhaustiveness". I could probably point out more examples, (e.g.: House demolition), but what would be the point? You would be equally unimpressed by them, and find one trivial distinction or another to discount them. I don't expect to convince you. Isarig 01:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

House demolition is a good example. So is Qassam rocket. These things are context-specific. You're right that what I said about Arab offenses being endlessly subdivided, Israeli offenses subsumed into the general, etc. etc., was overstated. Forgive me. I meant to say that one should have a consistent position (and perhaps I haven't given you sufficient credit for having one), not that the current state of Wikipedia balance was some sort of travesty. Best,--G-Dett 02:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Really? In Nazareth, Jerusalem, Umm al-Fahm etc., etc., I hear it used a lot.Tiamut 22:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you hear it used by those who su[pport the tactic of flying checkpoints? Isarig 01:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

People who support the use of "the tactic of flying checkpoints" don't really like hanging out with my kind - except perhaps at flying checkpoints where they seem to enjoy wasting my time and that of others. Tiamut 02:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Then you concede it is a partisan designation. Thank you. Isarig 03:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

No, that's not what I said. Basically, I said I wouldn't know how widespread its use is in daily converstion is among those who support their use. Please don't put words in my mouth. Thanks. Tiamut 11:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Further, reliable source material is readily available that debunks the conclusion you made based on a mischaracterization of my position. For example, B’tselem, the Israeli human rights group uses the term [15]. So does the The UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs [16]. The Atlantic Monthly in their six page special on Checkpoints, also uses the term [17] as does the Transnational Institute [18]. Besides these uses the term in reference to Israel, there are the other sources I already provided, for example, from GlobalSecurity.org which document its use by the American military in Iraq. Tiamut 11:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The child suicide bomber was separated from suicide bomber because the use of minors in that role was considered an especially notable concern. Is the idea of a temporary checkpoint distinctly notable from that of a regular checkpoint? Is the hardship suffered notably more unique than hardship suffered in a permanent one? The concern of many here seems to be that it isn't neutral to mention extensive information about hardship suffered on every entry related to the topic, just as there isn't an extensive discussion of suicide-bombers on every entry related to the topic. In terms of the Exploding donkey, it seems to be notable enough that an entire hierarchy of exploding animals exist, however ridiculous the title may sound. Tewfik^Talk 20:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Could we get back on topic here? This article is about "flying checkpoints". Any sources that do not contain reference to flying checkpoints should be removed. If someone wants to create an article entitled "hasty checkpoints" that links here, they are welcome to do so. The poll above shows that the inclusion of material on hasty checkpoints here is not supported. So, let's work on restoring the material that was deleted and keeping what is relevant from among the new additions. Thanks. Tiamut 11:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

This article is about flying checkpoints, which, as MULTIPLE sources have shown, are the same as "random checkpoint" and "mobile checkpoints", and nearly synonymous with "hasty checkpoint". The poll above only shows that people do not want to change the name to 'hast checkpoints", which is fine with me, but the article can, should and will include all relevant material about these kinds of checkpoints, from reliable sources, and will not become yet another soapbox to rile against the Israeli army or, the US occupation of Iraq. Isarig 14:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

It makes zero sense to create separate flying checkpoint, hasty checkpoint, mobile checkpoint entries, and the discussion here is not proposing that. As Isarig says, all of this material should be concentrated in one place, and this should not become a soapbox, but should only include the most specific information relevant to it, and not discussions of Palestinians being held up, or Israelis getting blown up, or any of these things. Tewfik^Talk 07:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Mass deletion of material

Those editors mass deleting sourced material and asked to cease. Persistent deletion of sourced material constituted vandalism, particularly when such changes are neither explained nor discussed. Please feel free to add new material or place fact tags on sentences whose citations you feel are not reliably sourced. Otherwise there is no justification for these edits which restore an earlier extremely disputed version of this article which uses sources for hasty checkpoints as though they were the equivalent of flying checkpoints, which they are not. Tiamut 18:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

There was a vote on that above and people agreed that flying checkpoint merited its own article. Tiamut 18:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

There was a vote on what to call this article - which discusses the military and police tactic of a random checkpoint. People preffered to have it called "flying checkpoint", and I have no objection to that - but that's not a license to turn it into an an anti-US and anti-Israel soapbox. Isarig 21:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Agreed - Sometimes WP gets out of hand with the examples it tolerates attached to each article while some articles are kept non-disputable and generic. I think that this is one article that does not have to list how each country uses mobile, hasty, random, flying, surprise roadblocks. Adding in a Lebanese militia section for balance, and frankly, even if a Palestinian Authority or Hamas sections are added as well don't make the article better. On the other hand, if we could get more editors here to discuss, then some sort of consensus could be made. --Shuki 10:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Text edited, examples added. It goes without saying that examples of use should be included. It can be expanded later. Add more material rather than deleting. The argument that it's used by 'everyone' is dubious, it's weasel and it's not cited. I note that of five additional countries previously mentioned here on Talk, only one may be valid and that cite is from 1998. -- Steve Hart 23:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

each and every one of these examples (which are by no means an exhaustive list) is valid. I'm at a loss as to what the significance of the "1998" comment - are we supposed to exclude example if they are from more than 8 years ago? If you want to name examples, we can have a one liner that says something along the lines of "random checkpoints are used extensively by armies in all conflicts, recent examples include Kosoova, Lebanon, Somalia, Iraq and the West bank. Calling out the examples the way it was done in the article is akin to listing such examples in the Rifle article, along the lines of "Rifles have been used by the US army in Iraq". Isarig 01:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Isarig

Stop vandalizing this article by deleting vast amounts of information and pretending your actions have reached consensus in talk. They have not. Tiamat 00:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Isarig ... contrary to your edit summary, your deletion of over 4,000 bytes of material is not explained on the talk page. Nor does this action enjoy consensus. Please cease and desist. It is vandalism to delete sourced information relevant to the topic at hand. As an editor states directly above, it is more beneficial to add to the article than to delete material that is reliably sourced. Please do so. Tiamat 03:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The explanation is right above - read it, and stop claiming this is vandalism when it is not. Isarig 03:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no explanation from you above, only (with regret) some hyperbole. As User:Steve Hart writes above: "It goes without saying that examples of use should be included. It can be expanded later. Add more material rather than deleting." Please cease deleting this material without consensus. Tiamat 03:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Please read more carefully. here is the explanation, once again: "I have replaced the polemical US and Israel-bashing you introduced from a partisan source, with factual information from neutral 3rd party reference material. again, This article is ostensibly about the military/police tactic of temporary checkpoints, not about the alleged hardships of Palestinian who are inconvenienced by their use in the west bank. The article should tell the reader what such a checkpoint is, how it is operated and and why. It should not be yet another soapbox in which to lament the hardships endured by Palestinians, Iraqis or whatever". Your repeated claims of vandalism are uncivil - stop them. Isarig 03:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

That "explanation" is from almost two months ago. It also explains nothing. If you have problems with the sources that are used, please place "dubious" tags or "citation needed" tags and I will look for better ones. Who uses checkpoints and how they impact the populations who are subject to them is relevant to the article. Finally, it is not uncivil to point out that you have deleted over 4000 bytes of material, without engaging in talk, repeatedly, despite the concerns raised by myself and other editors like G-Dett and Steve Hart regarding your actions. Calling it like you see it is not uncivil. It's called being honest. Tiamat 03:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Explanations do not go away just becuase they are 2 months old. An explanation has been given, and it is non-frivolous, even though you may not agree with it. For you to continue to label this as vandalism, when in fact it is a content dispute, and clearly not vandalism by the explicit language of WP:VANDALISM which has been shown to you time and again - is nothing short of disruptive editing. For you to claim that I have not engaged in discussion on talk, when the BULK of the contributions on this Talk page are by me is a simple lie. Cease this behavior. Isarig 03:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

That explanation has already been debunked and is outdated in light of the fact that the material it was discussing has changed significantly. It would be much more helpful for you to tag things you find controversial so they can be dealt with one by one. Further, I have read WP:VANDALISM and what you are doing is vandalism by my understanding of the contents of that page. It is not uncivil to state the facts as I see them. Tiamat 03:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The explanation has not been debunked. I have quoted the exact text of WP:VANDALISM to you, which says that where a non-frivolous explanation has been given, blanking of sourced material is not vandalism. If you do not understand that simple language, I am at a loss as to how to make it any clearer to you- I urge you again to cease this uncivil behavior. Isarig 03:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

From the outset, this "explanation" was absolutely frivolous. It does not cite specific sections of the article and it is in fact an uncivil comment in which you imply that I am soapboxing or editing with an agenda, and you further denigrate the hardships encountered by those who pass through checkpoints, as G-Dett pointed out below the comments when you made them over two months ago, and when the article was significantly different than it is now. In other words, your repeated deletion of over 4000 bytes of material (2/3 of the article) is not accompanied by a "non-frivolous explanation". You are accusing me of incivility for stating the facts and further of "disruptive editing" for doing so, when in fact you are engaged in disruptive editing. Tiamat 04:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

It was not frivolous: It explained that this is a article about a common military tactic, and that calling out 2 or 3 examples of its non-unique usage by some armies is inappropriate, as is making the focus of the article the hardships experienced by Palestinians. You may disagree with the explanation, but it is not frivolous, and thus labeling the subsequent deletion as "vandalism", after this has been explained to you, is uncivil. You have now been told by an administrator that your labeling it as vandalism is both wrong and disruptive - it really is time for you to stop it. Isarig 04:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you both take the night off this article and go do something else until at least tomorrow. The revert-warring up to the limit of 3rr is not helpful, and this dialog is stale. If you agree to come back tomorrow, I'll be here, too.--Chaser - T 04:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Isarig. The article does not provide a worldwide view of the phenomenon; only selectively mentions a couple of examples, though the tactic is ubiquitous. It's like mentioning only 3 wars, all relating to Israel and the United States, in the article on War. Beit Or 15:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Could you please provide sources that document the use of flying checkpoints in places other than the West Bank, Iraq, or Lebanon? That would help improve the article greatly. There is no need to delete sourced info already there. If you feel it is WP:UNDUE, could you provide a source that shows that the practice is "ubiquitous", as you claim? Thanks. Tiamat 16:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Not this again. Please read up above. The 3rd post on this page, by me, provides sources for these checkpoints being used in Kosovo, Somalia, VietNam, as well as by police forces. This is a common police/military tactic, used by every army and police force, in every conflict. Isarig 16:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

You mean the sources that speak of "hasty checkpoints" rather than "flying checkpoints". We've been through this Isarig. Any source that does not mention flying checkpoints by name is not suitable for this article. Please stop pretending that you have attempted to introduce information on the article topic and have been denied. It is you that are denying the inclusion of perfectly valid information, and not the other way around. Tiamat 16:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed we've been through this before. The Kosovo reference speaks explicitly about "flying checkpoints", as does the one about British Royal Marines in Iraq. Here's another one that speaks explictly of "flying checkpoints" used by British forces in Afghanistan and Pakistan [19]. As I've shown above, your own sources say that a flying checkpoint is a random checkpoint, and use the two terms interchangeably. If there is any difference between a "flying checkpoint" and a "random checkpoint" - please explain what that is, and provide a source for it. Until then, since we have such reputable sources that YOU provided as Thomas Friedman who say "Beirut drivers know there are normal, fixed checkpoints, or hajiz, as well as mobile or flying checkpoints", we can treat them as one and the same. Isarig 16:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea why this discussion is still going on about synonyms. If it is not possible to find multiple source distinguishing between hasty, mobile, roaming, flying, portable, surprise, temporary, etc... checkpoints, then it seems that there is no difference. In fact, IMO, English-wise - checkpoints do not fly, so this might be slang and not be the main title of the article. --Shuki 20:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Shuki, a flying checkpoint is a type of hasty checkpoint, as outlined in this source: [20]; however, the two terms are clearly not synonymous. An earlier suggestion made to Isarig (who acutally provided this source) was that he draft an article entitled hasty checkpoint, listing its sub-types, and that it could link to this article or conversely that this article could be incorporated into it, should it be determined that this was more appropriate. As for your observation that checkpoints do not "fly", these checkpoints do, in the sense that they can be quickly packed away for take-off and then landed in another location, "flying" from site to site. Tiamat 13:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

What is the difference then, between a flying checkpoint, and a mobile, random or hasty checkpoint? Isarig 15:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The only reliable source that uses both is this one: "One type of hasty checkpoint used in Operation Provide Comfort was the flying checkpoint. Mobile units of mounted infantry, combat engineers, and TOW vehicles moved to key intersections where armed Iraqis were known to operate. The mobile units setup hasty roadblocks to disrupt the threat." Outside of that, I don't have any information on what the exact differences between them are. What I do have are a number of reliable sources that use the term flying checkpoint which resulted in the creation of this article. I have no problem noting that flying checkpoints are a type of hasty checkpoint, and creating an article entitled hasty checkpoints to cover that phenomenon, and/or merging them into one article at a later date. I know that a hasty checkpoint google search only generates 234 hits on google web, and zero on google scholar, while a flying checkpoint google search generates 640 hits and 9 hits on google scholar. Tiamat 18:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

So you don't know of any difference, and don't have source that explains how they are different, and even the above source (which I provided, and you were ignorant of when you first used the term) describes it as "mobile units setup hasty roadblocks". Whereas I've provided several sources that say they are the same. I think we are done. Isarig 18:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for providing the motive for keeping the word 'flying' in the name of the article. I'm glad that I did not make the same mistake by insisting that we rename the article 'surprise checkpoint' as is the translation from Hebrew. I suggest moving this article to the neutral 'mobile checkpoints'. 'Mobile' is simply the opposite of permanent. 'Hasty' suggests 'unprepared'/'unplanned' which many mobile checkpoints, if not most, are not. --Shuki 20:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

You are ignoring the one source that explains that flying checkpoints are a type of hasty checkpoint. And as demonstrated by the google searches above, flying checkpoints is more commonly used than hasty checkpoints, and by scholarly sources. If they are indeed synonyms - which is not clear since we have no other sources to elaborate further on the different types of hasty checkpoints and how they do or do not differ from flying checkpoints - the title remains flying checkpoints, since it is more commonly used and with a longer lineage. If the terms origins are in Lebanon - it's earliest recorded use among the sources we have but not definitive - it makes sense for the English to be flying checkpoint: a faithful translation of hajiz tayyar. Hasty checkpoint seems to be of newer, and/or different provenance. How the two differ from one another in detail is however a matter of speculation without reliable sources. All of this though, is not the point here really. What is relevant is that you keep deleting 2/3 of the article, claiming that the use of flying checkpoints by different countries is irrelevant. If you really believe that hasty checkpoints and flying checkpoints are the same, why not add examples of the use of hasty checkpoints by others countries rather than deleting everything? User:Tiamut 21:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

the source that says that flying checkpoints are a type of hasty checkpoint describes "flying checkpoints" as "mobile units setup hasty roadblocks" - i.e. hasty checkpoints that are also mobile. That's exactly the same as random, mobile checkpoints. If we're gooing to do google tests, "random checkpoint" gets 1870 hits, nearly 3 times as many as "flying checkpoints", so it looks like another data point in favor of renaming this article "random checkpoints". The reason I'm deleting the examples hs been explained, several times: (1) Random checkpoint is a common military and police tactic, used by every army in every conflict. Compare with Ambush, or Patrolling - other articles about common military tactics, which don't have a section such as "Use of Ambushes by the IDF" , or "use of Patrols by US forces in Iraq" (2) Calling out the 3 specific examples in this article is undue weight, especially when one example (the IDF one) is longer than the main article body. These examples don't illustrate anything about the use of random checkpoints beyond what's already in the article. If you feel you must, add a line that says "random checpoint are a common tactic used by many military and police forces, and have been recently used by UN forces in Kosovo, Lebanese militias in Beirut, IDF if the West Bank and US forces in Kurdistan." Isarig 21:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a source that says that random checkpoints are the equivalent of flying checkpoints? Tiamat 22:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

If so, perhaps we can discuss expanding the article to include sections on their use by UN forces in Kosovo, US forces in Kurdistan, and expand the sections on Lebanese militias and the IDF in the West Bank. Tiamat 22:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

yes, and I've already provided them to you, several times. Read directly below, or above. And here they are, again: [21] - a pro-Palestinian source which says, explicitly : "“flying checkpoint” (a random, mobile checkpoint)", and another one, again pro-Palestinian which clearly and explictly says: "* A flying checkpoint is a mobile checkpoint." [22] . Flying checkpoints are the same as mobile checkpoints, according to numerous sources, including the ones you've provided. Are you ready to concede that they are one and the same? Isarig 23:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Anything that uses reliable sources to introduce information to an article is fine by me. When the article is unprotected, of course you can add the information on random, mobile checkpoints. Again, that's not really the main issue here. The main issue is the deletion of over 2/3 of the article outlining who uses these checkpoints, how, where, and how it affects those obliged to pass through them. Are you willing to cease deleting this information from the article.Tiamat 23:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

These sources are hardly new. I first showed them to you nearly two months ago, and we could have avoided this charade of claiming these are different things. But I guess it's better late than never. Now that we seem to agree that random, mobile checkpoints and flying checkpoints are one and the same, we can move on. The first suggestion is (agian) to rename this article to the more common name. After that, it should be modeled along the same lines of other articles about military tactics - see Ambush or Patrolling. There is no need to call out the usage by any particular force or in any particular conflict, unless there is something unique about that usage that is not covered by the generic description in the main article. Nor is there a need to have an endless list of who has used these checkpoints, because everybody does.. As I've written, if examples must be used, I suggest a simple sentence, along the lines of "random checpoint are a common tactic used by many military and police forces, and have been recently used by UN forces in Kosovo, Lebanese militias in Beirut, IDF in the West Bank and US forces in Kurdistan." Isarig 23:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

What is new is that you are talking about random checkpoints and mobile checkpoints now, whereas previously you were speaking of hasty checkpoints. Also, please specify what name you are proposing for the new article. But again, this is not the major point. The point is the massive deletions of this material: [23] A simple sentence on where these checkpoints are used and by whom is insufficient information on the subject at hand. Including who uses them, where, why, on whom, and how impacts those subjected to their use is all relevant information. We are not writing a military manual, but an encyclopedia. Tiamat 00:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why you persist in these foolish, and easily proven false, claims. Here is what I wrote on May 20, above: "...I think that it has been made abundantly clear that "Flying checkpoint" is simply a name for a random, mobile checkpoint, and another name for that is "hasty checkpoint". We can call the article whatever we like, but there's no denying that "flying checkpoint", "random checkpoint", "mobile checkpoint" or "hasty checkpoint" are the same thing, with minute, if any variation. . I am proposing we call this article "random checkpoint" , which is by far the most common name. We are not writing a military manual, but we are writing an encyclopedia, and this encyclopedia article is a about a common military and police tactic of random checkpoint. Just like we don't call out specific police forces that use radar guns, and just like we don't call out specific armies who use Ambushes, and just like we don't call out specific conflicts in which Patrolling was used, there is no compelling reason to do so here. If you feel you absolutely must state the obvious (i.e: that this tactic has also been used in some recent conflicts) - I have suggested a sentence that provides examples, which is more than enough to illustrate the main article body, which explains what these checkpoints are, who uses them, how and why. Isarig 02:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Provide the source

Please provide a source that establishes that a flying checkpoint is identical to a hasty checkpoint, as you introduced in this edit here: [24], Other editors have confirmed that the sources provided earlier do not establish this and that without them, this conclusion is WP:OR. Thanks. Tiamat 16:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I've already provided several of these, again read above. here they are once more: [25] - a pro-Palestinian source which says, explicitly : "“flying checkpoint” (a random, mobile checkpoint)", and another one, again pro-Palestinian which clearly and explictly says: "* A flying checkpoint is a mobile checkpoint." [26] . What is comical about this is that the source you want included in the article, Freidman's commentary on Lebanon, also says this: "Beirut drivers know there are normal, fixed checkpoints, or hajiz, as well as mobile or flying checkpoints". Flying checkpoints are the same as mobile checkpoints, according to numerous sources, including the ones you've provided. Isarig 16:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Tiamut, are there any sources that indicate these two are distinct?--Chaser - T 17:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, I see it addressed above and here.--Chaser - T 17:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, there seems to be quite a lot of conflict about that point. I think this is going to require something different.--Chaser - T 18:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Outside views

This article has spawned endless talk page comments far out of proportion to its meager length (which changes depending on who is winning the edit war). I don't think we will find consensus following current methods, so I suggest an article content requests for comment. This is strictly a request related to the content of the article, not the behavior of editors. If we pursue this option, I would ask that the request remain open for one or two weeks to get sufficient comments to reach a consensus. At the end of that time, I will ask that the two major participants in the above conflict (Tiamut and Isarig) agree to follow the consensus, even if it is contrary to your own opinion. Can you agree to that?--Chaser - T 18:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

In the meantime, a "totallydisputed" tag should be added to the article to reflect the on-going dispute. Beit Or 18:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

"Protection is not an endorsement of the current version." Beit Or, are you also in agreement with seeking outside views via an RFC?--Chaser - T 18:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether the article is protected or not. If there is a genuine dispute (which is the case here), it must be tagged. An RFC is up to the main editors of this page. Beit Or 18:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The protection tag already says "until disputes have been resolved", which is enough IMO. To add another tag could be seen as subtly endorsing one version over another. Perhaps we should comment out the disputed section temporarily? Daniel Case 19:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I added the {{POV}} tag, which doesn't contain the language about factual accuracy that {{totallydisputed}} has; this seems to be mostly an undue weight dispute. What do you all think?--Chaser - T 19:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The issue doesn't seem to be either POV or facts ... it's semantics. Can a flying checkpoint be distinguished from a hasty checkpoint? Are these just two different ways of translating the Arabic "Tayaar" (which literally does mean flying).

We ought to have a tag for that: "The meaning of the word {{1}} as used in this article is disputed." Daniel Case 04:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct. I think the issue here is quite simple. A flying checkpoint is, as several sources (who are both pro-Palestinian, and originally Arabic sources) clearly say - a random mobile checkpoint. 'tayaar' does indeed mean flying, and my guess is that this is an Arabic (or maybe even just a Palestinian) idiom, whereas the corresponding Hebrew idiom is "surprise checkpoint", and the corresponding standard English term is "random checkpoint" or some such. That explains why a Google search for the Palestinian-specific idiom "flying checkpoint" primarily yields references to the Palestinian context. What complicates things a bit is the single source which says that a "flying checkpoint is a "type" of a hasty checkpoint" - that American source which refers to the American operations in Kurdistan post the first Gulf war is the only one making such a distinction. From reading the description of that "flying checkpoint" my guess is that it refers to the fact that those checkpoints had flying air-cover in the form of attack helicopters. But the solution to our semantic problem is quite simple: I have provided several sources, pro-Palestinian and Arabic speaking, that say that a flying checkpoint is the same as a random, mobile checkpoint. Those claiming these are different things should explain, clearly, what the difference is. Isarig 15:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Chaser's question to Isarig and myself, I would be more than happy to abide by any consensus generated via the involvement of outside editors. My own question is: can I participate in the discussion on the article content and point newcomers to sources that address any issues raised? Tiamat 13:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment

This request for comment stems from conflict between two competing versions of the article. As seen in this diff [27], one version contains sections discussing flying checkpoints as used by Lebanese militias, and the U.S. and Israeli militaries. The other version addresses checkpoints generally but doesn't include specifics about those three countries. Isarig & co. argue that specific examples shouldn't be included because checkpoints were/are used in Kosovo, Somalia, Vietnam, Haiti, etc. and such general use precludes three specific examples which he regards as pro-Palestine soapboxing. Tiamut & co. argue that the sources for other uses are either not reliable, or refer to "hasty checkpoints" which are a broader phenomenon that includes flying checkpoints. Tiamut opposes moving the page to "hasty checkpoint" to incorporate both and is opposed to other page moves, but supports merging the page into an article on "random checkpoints" as long as the threeexisting examples are maintained, which she feels are the only examples of flying checkpoints, the topic of this article as she created it. The sources for various specific countries are near the top of the first thread on this talk page.--Chaser - T 03:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)07:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC) Additionally, Tiamut indicates that "flying checkpoint" is a distinct term and concept that shouldn't be conflated with other types.07:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Meta discussion about RfC

meta discussion

I did my best to be concise in representing both your views. Did I do a good job?--Chaser - T 03:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it was a good effort - but does not really capture the current status. Taimut has already agreed that 'flying checkpoints' are the same as "random checkpoints" - per the numerous reliable sources that say this, explicitly. She has also expressed willingness to rename the article. (see above - these are recent developments, from the past few hours). The only real remaining point of contention is - should this article call out, in great detail, some examples of their use (which I find were selected for promoting a specific POV, rather thna for expalining or illustrating some releavnt material which is not covered in the main body), or should it be more like other articles that discuss common military tactics (see for example Ambush or Patrolling) which have no such examples. Isarig 03:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Modified.--Chaser - T 03:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The rest of this thread descends into more argument about the merits; comments by a new editor are reproduced below.

Actually, I am still against moving the page for now, particularly since Isarig only seems to want to do this to delete the material on individual countries. This article as it is discusses the term flying checkpoint, what it is, where it is used, by whom, why, and its affect on those who must use them.

As I suggested to Isarig earlier, he could create a page entitled "Hasty checkpoint" or "Random checkpoint" if he thinks those terms are more relevant or notable than "flying checkpoints". Then, he could incorporate whatever information he thinks is beneficial to that page from here and argue for the merger or deletion of this page. Instead, he has chosen to either delete individual country additions here (totally stalling the article's development) or to insert material tendentiously related, based on his assertion that a flying checkpoint is the same as a hasty checkpoint because both are defined as random, mobile checkpoint, even though no one article actually equates one with the other. (Please read WP:OR.) He has done this to avoid having the country examples I listed included in the article (note that they are the only examples where flying checkpoints have been used - according to my research on the subject.

I would be more than happy to include more information on other countries where these types of checkpoints are used, or to create a larger article entitled "Random checkpoints" which lists types of "random checkpoints" and points to sub-pages like Flying checkpoint, Sobriety checkpoint, and even Hasty checkpoint. But I don't think that on the basis on the 2 sources we have that we should be advocating for a wholesale move. Tiamat 08:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

This is getting silly, and the misrepresentations are tiresome. Forget "Hasty checkpoints". we have multiple, reliable sources, stating explicitly that a flying checkpoint is a random mobile checkpoint. One of the sources you insist on inserting here, (Friedman) also says they are the same. Random checkpoint is by far a more common term than "flying checkpoint". I don't care that much what this article is called, so long is it makes clear, based on reliable sources that these are the same things. Other editors have already commented (months ago!) on the suggestion to create separate articles for these identical (or nearly identical, in the case of "hasty checkpoint"), and said: "It makes zero sense to create separate flying checkpoint, hasty checkpoint, mobile checkpoint entries, and the discussion here is not proposing that. As Isarig says, all of this material should be concentrated in one place, and this should not become a soapbox, but should only include the most specific information relevant to it, and not discussions of Palestinians being held up, or Israelis getting blown up, or any of these things." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Isarig (talk • contribs)

I think your tone is unnecessarily dismissive and you should be careful about accusing me of misrepresentation. Please focus on the article and how to structure it, using reliable sources. Now, a Sobriety checkpoint is also a random, mobile checkpoint, but it has a different purpose and set up than a Flying checkpoint, which may have a different purpose and/or set-up from a Hasty checkpoint or Random checkpoint. We can't really know what those differences are because of a lack of sources describing all of these together. My proposal is to create an article entitled Random checkpoint which outlines what that is using reliable sources and links to Flying checkpoint and Sobriety checkpoint. Or alternatively, in an attempt to reach compromise, I would accept that flying checkpoint be made a sub-section of an article entitled Random checkpoint. But again, this is not really the point. The point is that a whole lot of relevant material on who uses flying checkpoints, where, when, why and what impact they have on civilian populations has been repeatedly deleted. This is what prompted me to accuse Isarig of vandalism and what prompted him to file a WP:ANI accusing me of uncivil behavior. I cannot understand why this information is irrelevant or soapboxing. The term has a certain origin and use and connection to the real world where is used in certain places for certain reasons and has certain effects. These are all worth noting. Tiamat 18:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

When I repeatedly point out numerous sources that use "flying checkpoints" outside the examples you've provided (e.g: Kosovo, Afghanistan, Pakistan) and you keep repeating that the 3 examples you want inserted are the only ones that expliclty use that term, you are misrepresenting things. When you say we have no way of knowing if "flying checkpoints" may have a different purpose and/or set-up from a Random checkpoint, when the sources that describe flying checkpoints say they are the same as random checkpoint, you are misrepresenting things. When you choose to focus on the "hasty checkpoint" usage, when I've made it clear that my preference is for "random checkpoint", which multiple spources (including your sources) explictly say is exactly the same as "flying checkpoint", you are misrepresenting what this dispute is about. If you don't want to be accused of misrepresentation - stop misrepresenting. For the umpteenth time: calling out 3 examples, when ALL armies use such checkpoints is soapboxing and undue weight. Several editors (myself, Tewfik, Shuki, Beit Or and Jayjg) have already weighed in on this and told you that. Stop holding this article hostage to your political POV-pushing. Isarig 18:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I feel you are being unnecessarily aggressive and unfair. Have you ever tried to insert the information on the use of flying checkpoints in Kosovo, Afghanistan and Pakistan and been prevented from doing so? Further, I don't recall ever reading such information (forgive me if I missed it - i will check again in the discussion above). Second, you seem to be misunderstanding me and WP:OR : Just because A says B=C and D says E=C does not mean that B and E are equal. There is no article that uses the both "flying checkpoint" and "random checkpoint" as equivalent terms. Once again, your earlier edits focused on introducing "hasty checkpoint", even though the only source mentioning both terms said a flying checkpoint was a type of hasty checkpoint (also not conclusive evidence of equivalency). I would appreciate it if you would tone it down a bit and try to focus on achieving a compromise. Tiamat 18:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

And it just goes on and on. Look at your recent claim: "There is no article that uses the both "flying checkpoint" and "random checkpoint" as equivalent terms.". Only yesterday, I have (AGAIN!!) shown you two such articles, one which explictly says ""* A flying checkpoint is a mobile checkpoint." [28], and another one that says "“flying checkpoint” (a random, mobile checkpoint)" [29]. A third source is your own source, quoting Freidman on Lebanon, which uses them as equivalent terms. Why do you persist in this silly game? It has been established conclusively, using pro-Palestinian sources, that these things are exactly the same. With regard to Kosovo, Afghanistan and Pakistan - the Kosovo reference is in my very first psot to this Talk page, which you read and responded to almost two months ago! (http://www.hri.org/news/balkans/kosova/1998/98-10-18.ksv.html), while the Afghanistan and Pakistan reference was given to you two days ago - [30]. Please stop this game, it is disruptive. Isarig 18:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

It's quite clear that "flying checkpoint" is merely an alternate term for mobile random checkpoints, and that this article is being held hostage so it can be used as a propaganda piece. Put the article where it belongs, and stop using Wikipedia as a soapbox. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jayjg. Fancy meeting you here. Please focus on the article, rather than editors, and try to beWP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Tiamat 18:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't recall mentioning any editors, and I haven't even looked at the history of the article; I'm discussing the current article as it exists, under this name. Why, did my statements cut a little too close to the quick for your liking? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Tiamut, what are you talking about? 'AGF' has long been tolerated and exhausted. Your intentions are either very clear now or your willingness to compromise is lacking. We are arguing over adjectives as if one of them is 'THE' copyrighted brand and widely accepted term around the world. After several months, it has not been determined/proved, beyond a doubt, that one term is the universal term. And in the absence of this proof, a neutral, English-language term should be used, because 'flying' is merely a description of the checkpoint, not the type. In fact, I have a feeling that the 'flying' would have stay forever if the examples section hadn't been brought back in to clutter the article, reduce the quality, and localize it as well. --Shuki 18:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

First off Shuki, don't pretend that you have ever extended me "good faith". From the beginning of our encounters here and elsewhere you have accused me of having an agenda, as anyone who reviews the earlier section of this talk page can see. Secondly, both you and Jayjg are out of line in commenting in this section, which is to discuss whether Chaser properly represented Isarig's position and my own. While he has responded to Isarig's comments, and modified his position accordingly, he has not been able to respond to my own, which is unsurprising given how confused issues have become here because of the discussion taking place here instead of the RfC main section above.

As I have explained many many times, the main issue here is not the name of the article but the deletion of material on the use of flying checkpoints which amounted to 2/3 of the article. If Isarig had simply added material on "hasty checkpoints" or "random checkpoints" as separated sections and then worked towards integrating the material on "flying checkpoints" with these (should that be established clearly by more sources) I would have no problem. Instead, he has deleted material, advocated for a page move, and generally engaged in what I feel constitutes "disruptive editing".

In order to move forward, on my part, I am willing to consider the renaming of the article to Random checkpoint with the caveat that flying checkpoint be retained as a subsection of it for now with examples of its use in all countries that use this term to describe this phenomenon. Is this an acceptable way forward? Tiamat 17:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

It's accpetable along the lines I've suggested: A short paragrpah, of a sentence or two, saying something like 'Random checkpoints are a common feature in armed conflicts and police work. Some recent examples include usage by US forces in Kurdistan, UN forces in Kosovo, the IDF in the Wets bank and British forces in Afghanistan". Isarig 18:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you read what I wrote or else I wasn't clear because what you are proposing involved no compromise on your part at all. My proposal is that "flying checkpoints", constituting a very well-used term in its own right, be retained as a sub-section of a new article entitled Random checkpoint which mentions the different types and names for random checkpoints and discusses their use in all countries who use them. This means that the vast majority of the information you have been deleting would be retained in an article entitled Random checkpoint, with subsections on "hasty checkpoints" (and where they are used and what impact they have), "flying checkpoints" (ditto), and maybe even Sobriety checkpoint (or just a link to that article). In terms of formatting, we could do away with the sub-headings by country, but retain the information. Tiamat 18:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I read what you wrote, and can only re-iterate what I and half a dozen other editors have already told you: Random checkpoint=flying checkpoint, and there is nothing unique about either term, nor about the specific exampels you insist on including, that warrant having a specific subsection titled 'flying checkpoint", or having detialed descriptions of a common tactic used the world over. Isarig 21:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

That attack on Shuki is entirely unwarranted, as he has been among the most mild-tempered editors here. Having just reread the entirety of the discussion since my last comments some time ago, it seems that a) the sources indicate that "flying checkpoint" is identical to most or all of the other terms mentioned, and b) there is nothing unique about this tactic to justify an extended discussion of 'selected' examples. Tewfik^Talk 19:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Outside views

Please place comments here if you are new to this dispute. Thank you.

• It's quite clear that "flying checkpoint" is merely an alternate term for mobile random checkpoints, and that this article is being held hostage so it can be used as a propaganda piece. Put the article where it belongs, and stop using Wikipedia as a soapbox. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jayjg. Fancy meeting you here. Please focus on the article, rather than editors, and try to beWP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Tiamat 18:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't recall mentioning any editors, and I haven't even looked at the history of the article; I'm discussing the current article as it exists, under this name. Why, did my statements cut a little too close to the quick for your liking? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The preceding is copied from inside the hidden thread and appears to be an RFC response.

• I don't see any substantive difference between "flying" or "hasty" checkpoints, and it appears the world at larges uses them nearly interchangeably, with perhaps minor connotation differences. I don't think the entire sections about specific nations are appropriate, but rather should be seriously pared down and included in the body of the work, to illustrate a general principle. There already exist articles about the US in the Iraq war, about Lebanese militias, and an entire article about IDF checkpoints. These are more appropriate venues to treat this material, and should be wikilinked instead of making sections here. --Haemo 04:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• Haemo and Jayjg above make sense. But then the text would become just a NPOV encyclopedic article instead of POV PR piece. How's that useful? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 05:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• After considerable thought, I'm going to have to concur with Haemo. This is a reversal of the position I took when this article was created. The sources do allude to a distinction between "flying checkpoints" and "mobile checkpoints," but they don't say what it is (presumably "flying checkpoints" change locations more quickly and are more ad hoc in nature). More importantly, however, there does not appear to be an independent body of literature committed to "flying checkpoints" (as used in Israel, Lebanon, and Iraq). It's very different in this respect from, say, House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, because the latter has been treated extensively in its own right as a major human-rights issue. In my eyes this is a simple issue of an overly specific article crossing over perhaps into a violation of WP:UNDUE. The charge of "propaganda" above has been leveled by editors who devote their time on Wikipedia almost exclusively to the dissemination of same; it should be discounted accordingly.--G-Dett 17:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Going nowhere

Listen guys, without 'starting over', we need a bit of order here. There are two discussions going; one about the title, the second about the content, and on top of that the RFC. We need to seperate them, and resist commenting in different sections which has made everything really confusing. It's also hot now, and I think there should be a rule about needing an airconditioned room as a requirement for editing. --Shuki 20:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Let's try to avoid posts to this talk page for a while and let some RFC opinions trickle in.--Chaser - T 03:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

For the sake of compromise, I am willing to accept a name-change to the article. It should be entitled Random checkpoint. Types or synonyms of random checkpoint - such as "flying checkpoint" - should be mentioned, as well as where the term was first used and where it is used now. The issue of the level of detail of specific examples of the impact on civilians in different countries or situations can be discussed as the new article takes shape. Tiamat 01:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

See talk is not an explanation when you do not leave a comment at the talk

Isarig: In our discussion over this article, there have been two issues: 1) the article's name (which now reads Random checkpoint and is thus settled) and 2) how to incorporate the content on individual countries. I pared down the text that was in the original article. I am not against paring it down even further and removing sub-headings so that it reads as prose. Your help with that would be appreciate. Deleting everything I added however, as you did here is not. Please edit and discuss rather than deleting and leaving vague edit summaries. Thanks. Tiamat 14:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

This talk page is full of my comments- I am probably the biggest contributor to it. The issue of separate countries has been discussed ad nauseum. It is POV to name just these countries, when the tactic is universal. Stop it. Isarig 15:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

That was your opinion, however, no consensus was reached. The material I have added is sourced and discusses the use of flying checkpoints by actors in three different countries. You are most welcome to add further examples to satisfy NPOV if you believe that listing three examples is insufficient. Tiamat 15:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

First of all, you are wrong - there was clear consensus to exclude this material - read the Talk page. Even if you were right, the onus is on editors wishing to ADD new material to an article to seek and get consensus for it - which you have failed to do. Isarig 15:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

By the way, please do not accuse me of playing games, as you did in this edit summary. Shuki's comments just above show that the issue of content and the article name were two separate ones. Consensus was only reached on the article name, and not on what to do with the content on examples of usage. Tiamat 15:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Returning to an article that you have extensively edit-warred over for months, in order to re-insert the same contentious material w/o consensus, while pretending the material has not been discussed previously is game playing, or if you prefer, disruptive editing. Isarig 15:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Isarig, all of these accusations you have leveled reek of incivility, bad faith, and misrepresentation.

1. I took a break from the article to get some distance, since I felt I could use some. That should be commended, not cited as evidence of disruption.
2. While we have discussed the material, as I pointed out to you above, no consensus was reached on whether or not to include it and what form it might be included in. This is therefore misrepresentation of the nature of the disagreement and discussion on your part.
3. While we did have some edit-wars here, I was not edit-warring by myself. You were an active participant. I have avoided the article for over a month to avoid edit-warring. My requests that you discuss the issues concerning the material here have been ignored by you, in favor of reverting out my additions.
4. The material I am adding is significantly shortened and without the sub-headings in an attempt to reach a compromise. You are rejecting these efforts as compromise and continuing wholesale reverts. Please work towards compromise. Thank you. Tiamat 15:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Re-read what I wrote: there was clear consensus to exclude this material - read the Talk page. Even if you were right, the onus is on editors wishing to ADD new material to an article to seek and get consensus for it - which you have failed to do. Isarig 17:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I saw this on the 3RR noticeboard. I'm not going to act, because I've been involved in the ArbCom case peripherally involving at least one of you. For the record, it looks like you're both at 3RR but haven't gone over yet, and if I were to act I'd protect the article rather than blocking anyone. Now, as an editor: I agree with Isarig's position - I don't think specific examples are a good idea in this article, regardless of how well-sourced they are, as they're prone to cherry-picking. This article should generally describe random checkpoints, but specifics of their use by the Israelis, or anyone else, belongs in a more specific article about Israeli-Palestinian relations. Using this general article to make a statement about Israeli-Palestinian relations is content forking. Again, that's just my 2 cents as an editor. MastCell ^Talk 18:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Tiamut, the article was fine as a good example of a generic entry in the encyclopedia. There is absolutely no reason to add the section with expanded examples and there are endless articles to prove this. Look at M16 rifle, many armies use it and apart from a list of those customers, we do not need more information of how soldiers in one country or another have used them, killed people, bashed skulls or whatever. It simply reduces the quality of WP. The consensus is to remove that section. --Shuki 20:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

This is a most bizarre argument. How does removing sourced information improve the quality of the encyclopedia? I would expect any article to have specific examples. Catchpole 18:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Removing cherry-picked examples, selected in order to push a certain POV, improves the encyclopedia by focusing on encyclopedic content, vs. politicaly motivated bashing. The article already mentions examples of where this common tactic is being used, and there are hundreds more that could be provided. Isarig 19:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see POV-pushing or "bashing" here. This is not a battleground. Three different examples are given to illustrate how the tactic is used which adds valuable context to the article. If they are more sources showing how the tactic is used in different situations then these could also be considered. Catchpole 20:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

If you don't see a POV-pushing attempt, let me suggest the following experiment: Instead of the 3 examples which were introduced earlier, why don't you introduce the following 2 examples: (1) The use of helicopter airlifted checkpoint by british forces in afganistan (documented in the Talk page above) (2) The use of random checkpoints by the UN in various conflicts. (also documented in the Talk page) See how much insistence there will be from Tiamut et all on keeping those examples in the article, to the exclusion of the ones they are pushing for. Isarig 20:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Isarig, WP:AGF maybe? Stop trying to make this out to be a POV-pushing case when you know as well as I do that when this article was created (by me) it was about "flying checkpoints" and the only examples I found of the use of "flying checkpoints" were by Lebanon, Israel and the United States. It was you who insisted that flying checkpoint was a synonym for random checkpoint (presumably to avoid having the practices of Israel highlighted) and then decided that we should not list examples since it is a universal practice. Why don't you add these examples alongside the others? The more examples of their usage, the more illuminating the article might be, as myself, Catchpole and others have pointed out above. Tiamat 12:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'll assume good faith. We're obviously not going to be able to include every instance of random checkpoint use, and will have to choose 2-3. Are you ok with just the two I described above? Or if you feel more than 2 are needed, perhaps we'll add one more describing the use by police, rather than military, and maybe another one about Viet Nam. Is that ok? Isarig 15:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I still oppose adding in any example from anywhere in the world other than a minor ref to them in one main sentence as in the current article. Any attempt to pick a couple of 'main examples' is POV and as discussed above, redundant and sloppy. --Shuki 17:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Why separate articles?

In a more perfect world I would like to see some sort of consolidation of articles into Checkpoint (security). We have this article, plus border checkpoint, civilian checkpoint, and also sobriety checkpoint (all rather small), but we don't have a main article (that I know of). A main article could discuss the types of security checkpoints and should be easier to edit. On a second note I believe we should add information about notable use of checkpoints inside country borders, not necessarily so much about how in each case, but rather where they are used frequently. It would be a disservice to the readers not to, because the use of checkpoints conveys information about the security situation in a particular place. Finally, I have no clear opinion on what constitutes notable examples of checkpoints. But my objections to the sources cited above (by Isarig) are as follows:

• Kosovo - the first cite is from 1998, the second from 2001. I won't doubt that there are checkpoints still in Kosovo, but there was a change with the introduction of the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government in 2001 and later the elections held late the same year (as well as the disturbance in 2004) so the use of checkpoints has likely changed. We need newer sources, the historical connection aside. I also take objection with the inclusion in the article of the text "recently used in Kosovo, Beirut", then citing a New York Times article from 1983(!)
• Somalia, this cite only discusses the tactical aspect and procedures of checkpoints by the US Army prior to deploying to Somalia under operation "Restore Hope" (in 1992). There was no infomation about the actual use of checkpoints in this country.
• Vietnam and Haiti - Isarig didn't give a cite for mentioning these two countries.
• "use by british forces" - a short forum post about checkpoints in Iraq set up by British forces. Not very useful by itself, and forum posts cannot be used as cites anyway.
• "as well as civilian police forces" - this fifth cite is the same as the second cite (Kosovo) and talks in passing only about one incident.

Summary: I think we should consolidate some of the information. As for Isarig's sources, not very good ones, and I note that the absence of sources in some areas doesn't exclude notable examples from other places, as long as the principle in WP:UNDUE is upheld. If the use of checkpoints is as widespread as in the impression left by some editors, it shouldn't be that difficult to find such sources (for instance, working of List of wars 2003–current) -- Steve Hart 01:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I have no objection to consolidating the various checkpoint articles into one. Feel free to add the appropriate Merge tags to each and to start the discussion. Your comments regarding my sources are a different story. Those editors proposing to add detailed, specific examples into the article are not claiming this is needed to illustrate some current usage, but rather to illustrate how and why they are used. As such it makes no difference if checkpoints in Kosvo were used in 98, '01 or yesterday. A US manual in preparation for deployment is as good an example as a post-deployment one, but rest assured there are plenty of sources that describes the actual usage. The use of checkpoints in Afghanistan is sourced to a CNN transcript. Civilian police sources are not the same as military UN peace keeping forces. In short, your objections to these specific examples are without merit, and should we decide to include specific examples, there's no reason why the can't be used. Isarig 01:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Steve Hart's proposal for a merger of this information into a more comprehensive article on Checkpoints (should it be Checkpoint (security) or Checkpoint (military)? I don't know. Perhaps Checkpoint in general with links to all). It could be structured along the lines of House demolition. I also agree with your analysis of the sources, though perhaps mentioning historical examples would be useful, depending on their notability. Tiamat 02:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I would like to point out the difference between the strategical and tactical aspects (the Somalia link, -> which is really US) and examples of notable use of checkpoints. These two should be separate sections in a new article. Examples of use should in my opinion be limited to cases where there is a notable debate surrounding the existence and consequences of such checkpoints. And, I think we should keep it rather short. -- Steve Hart 17:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Merge tag placed

I've placed tags on border checkpoint & civilian checkpoint & this article, suggesting the creation of a new article. -- Steve Hart 17:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• I'd support a merger to "checkpoint (security)". Using military as a qualifier immediately limits the content of the article by excluding opearions such as police or customs checkpoints for law enforcement. -- saberwyn 07:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• I support the merger as well. I'd like to see the main page called something like Checkpoint (security). The main page could describe the general function and format of all types of security checkpoints (e.g., border security, customs, immigration, fixed-military, roving military, civilian, sobriety, etc.). Then, if necessary it could link to other pages that focus on specific types of checkpoints.Not home 19:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Support the merger and per Saberwyn, the article should be restricted to military checkpoints. Tiamat 10:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support and keep the article generic without discussing the specific uses by specific organizations, i.e. Columbian Army, Polish police, etc... --Shuki 23:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
• Support - put them all into one Good Quality article ChrisDHDR 10:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - Border checkpoint should be merged with Border control, not with the other articles. In these cases it is the border that is the critical point, and who and what (and with what documentation) is allowed across. They are both part of Category:borders, not per se types of Checkpoint (security). 17:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TiffaF (talk • contribs)

• In countries like the United States, the Border Patrol does not administer the official border checkpoints. The guards at the checkpoints like San Ysidro are in fact the border guards of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The Border Patrol generally polices the border areas outside the checkpoints. --Oakshade (talk) 17:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - Border checkpoints are very unique from internal security checkpoints as the former separates completely different jurisdiction. Sometimes these jurisdictions are even at war or combative conflict with one another (Russian and Georgia, North Korea and South Korea for examples) while the latter can not only be within jurisdictions, but within local municipalities. Even Washington D.C.'s Trinidad neighborhood has security checkpoints that have absolutely no separation of government, laws, language, ethnicity or military forces. While a border checkpoint can include an in depth screening of documents and inspection of goods which might determine the overall legitimacy of the right of passage from one nation to another, a security checkpoint can just simply be to check for specific items like weapons within a single neighborhood. --Oakshade (talk) 17:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Sobriety checkpoints

I have merged Sobriety checkpoints to this article, as the term used only in US, and even tagged so. Feedbacks welcome. Doorvery far (talk) 06:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The opening section seems inaccurate: "Checkpoints are also often set near the exit points of public events where people have been drinking to prevent large numbers of drunk drivers from being released into traffic simultaneously from the event." For the most part, police are interested in expediting traffic. If checkpoints are set up for event traffic, the checkpoints are going to be away from the event itself, but timed to screen drivers from those events.Unitacx (talk) 02:22, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps saturation patrols are used close-in, as this avoids problems with trying to run a checkpoint when people are leaving an event, but also allows police to screen a large number of vehicles, and achieve visibility, if desired. I was unable to locate any suitable references for either sobriety checkpoints or saturation checkpoints at events. (I do recall seeing comments on selection of locations for sobriety checkpoints near bars, but that is different from public events, so I didn't pursue that.)Unitacx (talk) 02:22, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Opposition To Sobriety Checkpoints

"Opposition to sobriety roadblocks is generally stronger among civil libertarians, conservatives and libertarians." I think before this element is kept as-is, it should be developed from a second source; Conservatives typically support law and order (emphasis on "order") and therefore would seem to support these checkpoints. (For the time being I left it be, since there are some who do oppose these activities.) 97.120.224.90 (talk) 20:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)A REDDSON

¿How?

I'd like to see some explaination on how they are set up; IE, posting signs, escape routes (if any), secondary inspection areas, basic inspections, etc. In fact, that's the only reason I even looked at the article. 97.120.224.90 (talk) 20:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)A REDDSON

Maybe the ¿How? could be addressed in the "further reading" section. There are a number of references on this, but mostly on a per-state basis. Unitacx (talk) 02:25, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Sobriety checkpoint efficacy

The section on 'Effectiveness' of sobriety checkpoints includes leadingly positive language about their efficacy.

′′′ the number of alcohol related crashes was reduced by 20% in states that implement sobriety checkpoints compared to those that do not. ′′′

The use of the word 'reduce[d]' implies a comparison of the same statistical unit at two different times (e.g. a paired-difference, or repeated measures test), which is in contrast to the wording in 'compared to those that do not' which implies a comparison between separate statistical units (e.g. a two-sample test). In this case a state is the meaningful statistical unit. I assume that the actual meaning of the referenced material is the latter, but the citation is a link that leads only to the CDC injury and violence prevention and control page, and not to an article representing the content it purports to cite. The reason that this is important is that, as worded, the section overstates the influence of sobriety stops. In a repeated measures test, the credibility of alternate explanations of the observed statistical phenomenon is diminished (i.e. the only variable that was changed between paired measures is the experimental variable ergo that must have caused the observed effect), whereas in a two-sample test, the causality of the experimental variable to the observed effect is much more tenuous (i.e. perhaps there are other variables that differ in common between states that do and do not have sobriety stops). As such, the wording implies that there is data extant to indicate that states exhibit a decrease in DUI accidents after instating sobriety stops, rather than the less significant actual data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazyeirishman (talk • contribs) 15:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

States Using Checkpoints

The section on which States use checkpoints is not wholly accurate. It claims that random checkpoints are not used in Montana, which is false. They are, and have been for some time. They do not, however, call them "Sobriety" checkpoints and instead opt for referring to them as "vehicle safety" checkpoints. Reference: http://billingsgazette.com/news/local/article_39a4fd0e-51fb-5bea-8a1c-5470de2cc332.html?mode=story — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.166.240.249 (talk) 07:54, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Split this article?

The first paragraph summarizes the article as "a military and police tactic involving the set up (sic) of a hasty roadblock primarily by mobile truck-mounted infantry or police units in order to disrupt unauthorized or unwanted movement and/or military activity." But that is simply not true. The bulk of the article concerns sobriety checkpoints, which is a police tactic involving the setup of a "hasty" roadblock in order to detect violations of state sobriety laws, rather than to disrupt unauthorized or unwanted movement and/or military activity. Furthermore, other types of checkpoints are not mentioned, such as certain information-gathering checkpoints (Illinois v. Lidster, S.Ct.2004), immigration checkpoints (separate from border checkpoints; United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, S.Ct.1976), and driver's license and registration checkpoints (Delaware v. Prouse, S.Ct.1979). I suggest splitting this article into military checkpoints and police checkpoints, with the latter at least mentioning police checkpoints other than sobriety checkpoints. DavidForthoffer (talk) 12:01, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree 100%. Sobriety checkpoint actually used to be its own separate article before someone rammed it in here (without discussing it on the Sobriety checkpoint talk page, I might add). You could probably just look through the history to find it and separate it again. Ejgreen77 (talk) 13:04, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

International rules

It is most essential to mention a few international rules for DUI or random checkpoint , so I have added a few of them with reliable reference links.

Kalamya (talk) 20:25, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Random checkpoint. 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/20091023233503/http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/roadsafety/advertisingcampaigns/rbt/ to http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/roadsafety/advertisingcampaigns/rbt/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091018101558/http://www.afp.gov.au/act/drugs_alcohol/drink_driving.html to http://www.afp.gov.au/act/drugs_alcohol/drink_driving.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131029212551/http://www.kpax.com/news/3-arrests-lots-of-citations-at-billings-traffic-checkpoint/ to http://www.kpax.com/news/3-arrests-lots-of-citations-at-billings-traffic-checkpoint/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110515081416/http://publichealthlawresearch.org/public-health-topics/injury-prevention/accidents-involving-alcohol/evidence-brief/selective-breath-t to http://www.publichealthlawresearch.org/public-health-topics/injury-prevention/accidents-involving-alcohol/evidence-brief/selective-breath-t
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091009002920/http://www.chp.ca.gov/html/dui-en.html to http://www.chp.ca.gov/html/dui-en.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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 03:26, 20 May 2017 (UTC)