Talkback
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Thanks
For that revert, I just assumed that and even edited at that article beforehand which I will now have to undo. Is it the case there is no article about that strike anywhere? Selfstudier (talk) 18:50, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- No worries, I had to triple check before adding the paragraph to be sure it was a different airstrike, given the date and location. I don't believe there's a separate article about it on Wikipedia. The Jabalia camp strikes received a ton of press at the time, so it seems like the Engineers' Building strike flew under the radar until Human Rights Watch released their statement today. Gaza City was being encircled at the time, and under heavy repeated bombardment, so it's not too surprising this one didn't pick up any press when it was concurrent with the Jabalia camp strikes. entropyandvodka | talk 19:50, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- I added another source, which Human Rights Watch mentioned. I was mistaken about the location, as Google Maps shows another building called The Engineers Building (3-4 miles from Jabalia refugee camp). The Airwars website gives an exact set of coordinates of the attack, which is about 8 miles south of the Jabalia refugee camp. They also gave a higher casualty count than HRW, but I guess HRW said "at least" and only reported what they could also verify. Airwars calls the building Al-Muhandeseen Tower, "the Engineers Tower". Here's their report: https://airwars.org/civilian-casualties/ispt0784-october-31-2023/ The sources also agree that the location was in close proximity to the Nuseirat Camp. entropyandvodka | talk 22:15, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi; at topics related to the Israel-Arab conflict, editors are restricted to one revert every 24 hours: An editor must not perform more than one reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes or manually reverses other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert.
In the past 24 hours you have made two reverts:
Please self-revert 07:05 - see also MOS:CLAIM. BilledMammal (talk) 07:51, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- My intention with the second edit wasn't to revert; but to expand and to contextualize the original sentence (not a reversal of your edit), and to better structure the sources of that paragraph. Since you're taking that as a revert, I'll go ahead and undo it, but intend to reinstate the same material later tonight.
- It would be best for us to reach a consensus if you have a specific issue with the edit, the content it pertains to, or the sources used (the report itself was a new source I added; the UN news page was already cited in that paragraph, the quoted portion being in an embedded video on that page).
- Regarding MOS:SAID, MOS:CLAIM, do you have a specific point you'd like to make? Your original edit, the one I DID revert, was not in line with that section of MOS, in my view. The report the edit discussed (and cited), is the written report of the rapporteur's findings. Her comments were made in conjunction with the submission of the report, explaining the findings of the report. The relevant detail isn't that she said something, it's the findings of the report.
- Omitting the fact that these were the findings of her report, and simply saying she 'said' the remarks, makes it sound no different than someone expressing personal opinion in an informal way. This would be misleading.
- If you have no issue with my second edit, which I've now reverted, feel free to undo my reversion if we're in agreement. If not, let's discuss it. entropyandvodka | talk 23:08, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- My issue with your second edit is that it goes against the source, and that it goes against MOS:SAID.
- I'll also note that your self-revert comment, which said
Will be putting that material back in later tonight for the same reasons
, was inappropriate; you are seeing WP:1RR as an allowance, rather than a hard limit. In addition, I'm not convinced that reinstating the self-reverted comment seven hours later (and just 23 hours after first instating it) is appropriate; at best, it feels like gaming the restrictions, at worst it feels like another 1RR violation. I would ask that you again self-revert it. BilledMammal (talk) 02:25, 27 April 2024 (UTC)- There was the initial revert, over a single word choice, then the additional material, all of which was fully relevant and sourced, and sought to resolve the issue the original reverts were over to begin with; this was also a day after the original edit to include the material that, at your request, I had self-reverted. I'm not trying to circumvent the process, but to get the article as clear and informative as possible. A lot of it still needs work.
- Regarding her spoken comments, we do use the word "said". Regarding her written report, the source [1] says "Rights expert finds ‘reasonable grounds’ genocide is being committed in Gaza". The report is also provided as a source. I'm not sure how you can argue this goes against the source when it's near verbatim to the source.
- How would you write that section, without losing any sources or information? entropyandvodka | talk 03:16, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not going to get too deeply into the content dispute here - you violated 1RR with the edit on 07:05, 21 April 2024, you self-reverted only to reinstate again at 06:18, 22 April 2024. I don't believe that is appropriate, and I am asking you self-revert again to remedy any gaming/1RR violations.
- To touch briefly on the content dispute, we say the report "found Israel was committing genocide". That is against MOS:SAID, and against the independent source we use which say "she believed that Israel's military campaign in Gaza since Oct. 7 amounted to genocide". BilledMammal (talk) 03:26, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- Just from the Reuters source you mentioned:
- "Israel, which did not attend the session, rejected her findings."
- "'I find that there are reasonable grounds...'."
- "'...present my findings.'"
- Here are a couple others:
- BBC [2] "...Israel has already dismissed her findings."
- NPR [3] "...human rights lawyer and appointee with the U.N. found..."; "She presented her findings this week in Geneva..."
- In the current version of the article, we have: "...submitted a report to the UN Human Rights Council that found..."; what's key here is that "found" is in reference to the legal determination or conclusion of the report of a UN fact finding mission. entropyandvodka | talk 18:33, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- We can debate the content after you self-revert - are you going to do so? BilledMammal (talk) 18:43, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- Regarding 1RR, we are in disagreement about the edit my self-revert was over. You took that as a revert, when it was a good faith attempt to provide context and more accurately place the sources within the paragraph. The previous version didn't give any context at all to why Albanese was saying what she was saying, which is hugely important. I self reverted as a courtesy, since you took that edit as a revert, though I don't believe it to be one, and didn't at the time I made the edit. I'll explain why. In the contested edit, and the current version, we do still use "said" when referring to her remarks, which is why I didn't consider it a revert in the first place. Your version used said (which you changed from found), but it also made no mention of the report whatsoever:
- 'On 26 March, 2024, the UN special rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Francesca Albanese, said that Israel had committed genocide. She stated that "there are reasonable grounds..."'
- Compare this to the current:
- "On 26 March, 2024, the UN special rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Francesca Albanese, submitted a report to the UN Human Rights Council that found Israel was committing genocide in Gaza. In her statement presenting the report, she said..."
- The edit, and current form of the article, doesn't remove any information from the version you edited to; our differences were referring to separate things: the findings of the report, and her attendant statements. Given that, I'd argue I was never in violation of 1RR. Your original one word edit changed the meaning of the first sentence to be about her statements, not the findings of her report. The expanded version mentions both her statements and her report. The short version, after her change, only mentions her statements. This is a substantive addition by the expanded version, not a deleterious one. Thus, it was not a reversion of your edit.
- We're now many days out from that, and your only proposal thus far is to remove context and sources from the paragraph, with what seems to be a general unwillingness to actually address the substance of the issue. entropyandvodka | talk 19:07, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- All three were reverts, with you switching from some form of "said" to "found"
- said that Israel had committed genocide → found that Israel had committed genocide
- said that Israel had committed genocide → finding reasonable grounds that Israel had committed genocide
- said that Israel had committed genocide → found Israel was committing genocide
- I don’t want to take this to AE, but if you continue to refuse to self-revert I will. BilledMammal (talk) 19:18, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- Once again, adding material is not reverting. And as it stands, the article says:
- "...she said, '...Israel has committed three acts of genocide...'"
- The explicit proposition of your edit is still, and in each edit was, right there in the paragraph. Each instance there of found/finding is in reference to the report, which your edit doesn't mention at all. Thus, it was adding content in each case, which is plainly evident comparing my latest edit. Adding material is not a reversion. If you'd like, we can have a sentence that says she said Israel had committed (or was committing, given the present tense of her comments at the time of the report) before providing her exact quote, though this is redundant, as it's explicitly established by the exact quote. entropyandvodka | talk 18:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- If your issue is just specifically with the word found, it would alternatively be appropriate to say something like 'submitted a report that concluded', but explicit mention of the report and its findings should be made. entropyandvodka | talk 19:09, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- All three were reverts, with you switching from some form of "said" to "found"
- We can debate the content after you self-revert - are you going to do so? BilledMammal (talk) 18:43, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Can you point out the consensus
Can you please direct me to the consensus you're referring to in this revert? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:00, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- The discussion at the top of the talk page of the article regarding the title of the page, which reached the consensus that the title should follow the same naming conventions of other similar pages. It stands to reason (and WP:CONSISTENT) that things like the short description should also follow the conventions of other articles. Other short description examples:
- Russia: Violations of the laws of war committed by the Russian Federation
- United States: War crimes perpetrated by the U.S. and its armed forces
- Britain: War crimes perpetrated by the United Kingdom and its armed forces
- etc
- entropyandvodka | talk 02:56, 27 April 2024 (UTC)