→Undone revision: New Historians: Undone revision: New Historians Tag: New topic |
Tag: CD |
||
Line 136: | Line 136: | ||
@[[User:Nableezy|Nableezy]]: Please provide a rationale for [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_Historians&oldid=prev&diff=1203815163 reverting] my [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_Historians&diff=prev&oldid=1203797963 edit] to the article [[New Historians]]. The article on [[Palestinian refugees]] linked to states that refugees "fled or were expelled", meaning not all were expelled. If necessary, I can find a notable reference. (I've come across an estimate from Benny Morris before that 10-15% of the Palestinians were expelled by Israeli forces.) Thanks. [[User:Dotyoyo|Dotyoyo]] ([[User talk:Dotyoyo|talk]]) 17:39, 5 February 2024 (UTC) |
@[[User:Nableezy|Nableezy]]: Please provide a rationale for [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_Historians&oldid=prev&diff=1203815163 reverting] my [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_Historians&diff=prev&oldid=1203797963 edit] to the article [[New Historians]]. The article on [[Palestinian refugees]] linked to states that refugees "fled or were expelled", meaning not all were expelled. If necessary, I can find a notable reference. (I've come across an estimate from Benny Morris before that 10-15% of the Palestinians were expelled by Israeli forces.) Thanks. [[User:Dotyoyo|Dotyoyo]] ([[User talk:Dotyoyo|talk]]) 17:39, 5 February 2024 (UTC) |
||
:Expelled applies to those not allowed to return, so expelled by itself would work, but you can change to chased out to fled if you want. To pretend like it only applies to "some" of them is however a complete bogus assertion. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|<span style="color:#C11B17;font-size:90%">nableezy</span>]]''' - 17:45, 5 February 2024 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:45, 5 February 2024
Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction
The following sanction now applies to you:
You are topic banned from the Palestine/Israel conflict, broadly construed, for 90 days.
You have been sanctioned for WP:BATTLEGROUND editing.[1][2][3][4]
This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles#Final decision and, if applicable, the contentious topics procedure. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.
You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:17, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
- Hol up you’re going topic ban me for saying something that an uninvolved admin agreed with at AN, for answering a question on my user talk page, and for an edit you already cautioned me for? I get what you’re trying to do here but this is silly. nableezy - 17:11, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
- Are you taking about [5]? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:32, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
- For the part about AN yes. nableezy - 17:52, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
- I included that because I specifically warned about that above,
Additionally, you and Andrevan need to stop arguing. Your persistent arguing isn't convincing anyone else and it's disruptive to the rest of the discussions. Both of you need to stop responding to each other.
I included the same exchange in my sanction of Andrevan. - Like you said, an uninvolved admin made the same point. They're was no need for you to get involved in yet another argument in yet another location with Andrevan. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:57, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
- You’re basically saying that the substance of my comment doesn’t matter and that this apparently is a result of exasperation with me engaging with a specific person. I wasn’t bickering with Andre I was calling out misleading statements that were attempting to sanction another editor. That it was Andre making those statements had zero to do with my reason for responding. I was responding to the point made, independent of who made it. And, as a point of fact, when I made my point the uninvolved admin had not yet made the same point. I saw what appeared to be involved editors attempting to puff up support for a ban that I find to be poorly justified. And I dislike how involved editors can effectively railroad through a ban by making there appear to be more nefarious activity by a user and greater support for a ban than there actually is. So I said so. I was not under any interaction ban with Andre, I was not restricted from participating in an AN thread, and I did so reasonably and civilly.
The final diff in your list you have already used as a basis for warning me, so that leaves us with, post warning, my making a point at AN that an uninvolved admin basically agreed with, and then responding to an editor on my own talk page. I do not see how either of those justify any action at all. Like I said, I understand what you are trying to accomplish here, but trying to be even-handed when the conduct isnt even is not actually fair. nableezy - 18:33, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
- Also, can you please clarify if this ban applies to my role as mentor to Davidbenna, which basically involves answering when he asks if an edit is part of his topic ban or not. nableezy - 18:54, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
- The issue is with the consistent pattern of your editing, rather than any single specific diff. I included the diffs to show some recent behavior, but there have been dozens of instances of your behavior demonstrating a battleground mentality, an inability to keep calm in the topic area, and lashing out at other editors. The individual interactions are not enough, in and of themselves, to sanction, e.g. your needlessly inflammatory edit summary (which should have been the first diff, not a repeat of the discussion on your talk page) which you tacitly admitted was unduly harsh. The problem is that it has remained a common occurrence after warnings.
- You were not interaction banned with Andre, that is true, and I was hoping that my warning would have been sufficient to keep you two from back and forth arguments. If that were the only issue then I would have gone with a topic ban, but that is not the case. As I've explained a few times, the disruptive arguing also makes it much harder to selectively target other disruptive behavior. That you couldn't, after this was explained and multiple explicit warnings, back off your tack of inflammatory commentary and arguing is a fair demonstration that you need a time-out from the topic.
- You'll find that another editor sanctioned has the same general view of the situation as you do, only that they're the editor that was sanctioned to maintain even-handedness. I don't believe either of you is editing in bad faith, and people acting in good faith don't believe their behavior is a problem. That is why uninvolved third parties need to step in from time to time and impress the view from outside. One thing I've heard from editors on both "sides" is that all I need do is read the interactions on talk pages and the problems will be self-evident. I've spent many hours in the past couple weeks reading many words in many talk page discussions and what was evident to me is that several parties needed an enforced step back.
- Lastly, the topic ban will prevent you from acting as their mentor on-wiki if it relates to ARBPIA. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:34, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
- My needlessly inflammatory edit summary? The grammar *was* garbage, jfc. It was a run on sentence that meandered between topics. You’re banning me for an edit summary that is demonstrably true? Couldn’t back off from arguing? If people continue to make arguments at odds with our policies I’m supposed to just stfu so as to avoid an admin deciding the volume is too much? Whatever, I’ve always been clear on my view of the style over substance method of editing and adminning here so I won’t belabor the point. And I assume I am banned from informing Davidbenna as well, so might be a good idea to let him know he needs either a new mentor for the duration of this ban because his topic ban removal was dependent on a mentor to help him adhere to the extant one or he needs to adhere to the total IP ban that was lifted with mentorship. nableezy - 20:46, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
- I didn't topic ban you for a single edit summary, I topic banned you for a pattern of behavior. Since you brought up style over substance let me try and explain my thoughts on that, and why
follow editorial and behavioural best practice
is one of the five key points outlined in alert/first. - When discussions, especially on very contentious issues, turn heated it becomes important to maintain a base level of cool headed interaction. There is already a pretty sharp divide between editors on the content, and any escalation makes it less likely that editors will be able to compromise. As things progress even small issues harden editors against each other, and any semblance of AGF goes out the window. Mistakes and misstatements are seen as deliberate, and things start being interpreted in the worst possible light.
- As shitty as that is, it shittier that it spreads to other people in the discussions. Editors who's views align with one side or the other rush to back up allies. Then we start seeing a real battleground. Discussions almost immediately break along those lines, and there is even less chance of constructive discussion and compromise. Due to the huge, hostile discussions that arise the likelihood of anyone uninvolved taking part shrinks and you're left with the same editors having the same unproductive discussions. Since tensions are already needlessly high editors that try to join the topic area, especially those who don't have a strong emotional investment or POV, aren't likely to stay around because it's not worth the stress and bullshit.
- Some of this is going to happen anyway when people have different points of view on an incredibly tense topic. The same thing is happening off Wikipedia too. The least that can be done is to try and avoid some of that through means that cost us nothing. I don't give a shit about bad words, lashing out once in a while, blowing off steam on a user talk page, or any of that. What I'm trying to do is stop disruption to the topic area caused by long term patterns of battleground conduct. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:42, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
- I’ll notify you when my appeal is ready. Be a couple of days though. nableezy - 03:32, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- I didn't topic ban you for a single edit summary, I topic banned you for a pattern of behavior. Since you brought up style over substance let me try and explain my thoughts on that, and why
- My needlessly inflammatory edit summary? The grammar *was* garbage, jfc. It was a run on sentence that meandered between topics. You’re banning me for an edit summary that is demonstrably true? Couldn’t back off from arguing? If people continue to make arguments at odds with our policies I’m supposed to just stfu so as to avoid an admin deciding the volume is too much? Whatever, I’ve always been clear on my view of the style over substance method of editing and adminning here so I won’t belabor the point. And I assume I am banned from informing Davidbenna as well, so might be a good idea to let him know he needs either a new mentor for the duration of this ban because his topic ban removal was dependent on a mentor to help him adhere to the extant one or he needs to adhere to the total IP ban that was lifted with mentorship. nableezy - 20:46, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
- You’re basically saying that the substance of my comment doesn’t matter and that this apparently is a result of exasperation with me engaging with a specific person. I wasn’t bickering with Andre I was calling out misleading statements that were attempting to sanction another editor. That it was Andre making those statements had zero to do with my reason for responding. I was responding to the point made, independent of who made it. And, as a point of fact, when I made my point the uninvolved admin had not yet made the same point. I saw what appeared to be involved editors attempting to puff up support for a ban that I find to be poorly justified. And I dislike how involved editors can effectively railroad through a ban by making there appear to be more nefarious activity by a user and greater support for a ban than there actually is. So I said so. I was not under any interaction ban with Andre, I was not restricted from participating in an AN thread, and I did so reasonably and civilly.
- I included that because I specifically warned about that above,
- For the part about AN yes. nableezy - 17:52, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
- (tpw) I can't be sure whether I would have taken this action or not but a round of sanctions for a group of noisy editors might be best to allow the conversation to move forward. But in your case specifically, you must have seen something like this coming. I greatly appreciate your mainspace work and your input on talk pages when you provide cogent, policy-based rationales; that kind of editing is rare and extremely valuable in contentious topic areas. But you've spent a lot of time lately bickering with other editors and getting into lengthy back-and-forths over side issues. I know it sometimes feels like you have to reply to everything but perhaps you need to take a step back and see how that looks to an outsider. What would you think if you saw two editors at each other's throats if the context was American politics or pseudoscience, for example? Not expecting you to agree with me, just food for thought. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:34, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
- (tpw) I've been watching this play out over the last couple of weeks and I can honestly say I'm surprised the entire group hadn't gotten a temporary topic ban yet. Don't take it as an affront to specifically you nableezy. It's probably best in the long run if everyone SFR sanctioned just takes a step away from articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict for a bit (there are plenty of other spaces on the wiki that could use your help!) Philipnelson99 (talk) 17:43, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
- Are you taking about [5]? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:32, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
- Nableezy has done excellent work in this very topic area, and this sanction is unduly harsh given the diffs SFR cites (one of which nableezy themselves acknowledged, before the ban, wasn't their best choice of words).VR talk 04:50, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- It’s basically a sanction for people disagreeing with each other. Can’t have that! It seems there was… “bickering”! A very serious matter, which creates all sorts of dangers on the encyclopedias and the talkies pages and must immediately be dealt with. Apparently, while there is no actual policy that says “bickering” is a sanctionable offense, nor any evidence that it harms quality of articles, it presumably signifies some kinds of “patterns of behaviors” and allows for the indulgence of an admin’s itchy trigger finger.
- This isn’t a comment specifically on Nableezy. I looked at the diffs provided on several of the involved users that just got slapped around. Some of these users I agree with, others I disagree with, some of them I usually don’t care about. But in ALL of their cases the “diffs” being provided are weaker than gas station decaf coffee. They’re simply instances of fairly standard discourse in a difficult area that happens on Wikipedia all the time, that someone all of sudden decided was problematic and could be used as an excuse to hang some sanctions on.
- It would really be better if admins avoided the “block them all and let God sort them out” approach to admin’ in contentious areas as it’s not only lazy and unimaginative but also does absolutely nothing to solve the existing problems. Volunteer Marek 06:17, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- User:Volunteer Marek, sometimes we have to do something. Drmies (talk) 22:43, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- I think the other way - the fact that in many instances you (as admins) don’t really need to do anything and your actions make matters worse not better - is a far more significant source of bias and trouble. So people were arguing. So what? Were nasty insults hurled? No. Was somebody doxed? No. Did it somehow depreciate article quality? No. Did someone even complain? Not really, not anymore than usual. Nothing bad actually happened, so why not let it be? Hands off, laissez faire! Let the folks work it out themselves. But that would give some admins little to do and would kind of reveal how inessential to the project-as-an-encyclopedia-not-a-social-media-site they are.
- People argue about stuff all the time, especially on contentious topics, and what some admins refer to as “bickering” is simply normal human interaction through which matters are resolved. Hell, I was at an academic conference few months ago, and you simply would not believe the amount of “bickering” I saw there. If that had been Wikipedia, one of you would’ve probably tried to “sanction” them. Yet, all them profs and students went home with better working papers after all that bickering. This here? It’s just “I’m a hall monitor so I have to find reasons to give out demerits” stuff. Volunteer Marek 23:38, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- Its always the same problem, I say somebody is making shit up and the issue is that I said they are making shit up, not that they are actually making shit up. Somebody makes opposing arguments based on which side looks bad for each and its a problem I call it hypocritical, not that it is hypocritical being the issue. I call bullshit on something and its omg he said bullshit, never mind it actually is bullshit. Its a backwards mentality to any serious endeavor, but I guess we've all known that to be the case from the start. nableezy - 23:45, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- Yup. I know this well. It’s ok to make shit up on Wikipedia, it’s not ok to call it out. And this encourages a certain type of cynical manipulative editors who then proceed to make a total mess of a topic area. And then the admins are all like “oh my god this topic area is so contentious, you guys are so bad!” as if they weren’t the ones in good part to blame for enabling this nonsense in the first place. Volunteer Marek 23:54, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- Its always the same problem, I say somebody is making shit up and the issue is that I said they are making shit up, not that they are actually making shit up. Somebody makes opposing arguments based on which side looks bad for each and its a problem I call it hypocritical, not that it is hypocritical being the issue. I call bullshit on something and its omg he said bullshit, never mind it actually is bullshit. Its a backwards mentality to any serious endeavor, but I guess we've all known that to be the case from the start. nableezy - 23:45, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- User:Volunteer Marek, sometimes we have to do something. Drmies (talk) 22:43, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- Nableezy is not the only one to be sanctioned, I am too. It is worrying to realize that someone has got the wiki power to directly deliver an extremely severe and brutal decision, without any intermediate moderate graduated step. I received a life sentence today, any discussion was vained and led to nowhere apart a brick wall. I am sending Nableezy all my support as they were advocating npov and were able to locate "talking points" introduced in edits. Kudos for the good work. Iennes (talk) 06:39, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- Hmm. I had a similar run-in with the core editor here. Faced with a boomerang, they stated they would step out of the ring, (which for other reasons, disenchantment with these games, I, the editor he was going for, did, while pleading lenience for Andrevan) and yet, once again . . Particularly disturbing is the remark
- I.e. in brutal layman's language, I'll accept any suspension if it takes out Nableezy.
- Like me, nableezy can be a lout from time to time, but unlike me, and many others here, including Andrevan, he is a master of method, severe yet, if it comes to punitive implications, lenient towards those he has had occasional to contest. Who are we left with, in an area plagued by POV obsessing, where cool technicians capable of neutral line judgements and not endless talk page waffle are as rare as hens' teeth?. Zero and Levivich. I think ScottishFinnishRadish, one of the most evenhanded admins ever to weigh in in this area, indeed an invaluable presence, but one should always 'distinguish'. Identical terms of banning for behaviours that come from editors with different profiles just happens to look like impatience, rather than close evaluation of each case at hand. I know that the fear is that such careful distinctions of evaluation would risk opening a can of worms with challenges of bias, but . . . Nishidani (talk) 09:35, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- I don’t fault SFR here, I understand why he did what he did and I think he’s doing his best, I just think the sanction is misguided. But I think the thing to do is just appeal it rather than keep going around the merry go round. But it’s a busy day in the real world for me so I’ll take a bit to get my appeal set. nableezy - 09:44, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- Good for you, Nableezy, and good luck with it. I understand you don't care much about the weather? Drmies (talk) 22:43, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- It's true, I can't stand the rain. nableezy - 23:49, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- Good for you, Nableezy, and good luck with it. I understand you don't care much about the weather? Drmies (talk) 22:43, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- I don’t fault SFR here, I understand why he did what he did and I think he’s doing his best, I just think the sanction is misguided. But I think the thing to do is just appeal it rather than keep going around the merry go round. But it’s a busy day in the real world for me so I’ll take a bit to get my appeal set. nableezy - 09:44, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- To be fair, from my perspective, 90 days topic ban does indeed seem too harsh especially looking at the diffs. This could have been solved with a warning first, at least, or a much shorter max 48 hour ban. Makeandtoss (talk) 23:20, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- Just for the record, they were given a warning by SFR (after a reminder about the same issue) on December 25th: "Nableezy, this is now a warning. Stop this. Leave out the accusations. You can discuss possible misinterpretation or misrepresentations without direct personal commentary. This needs to stop."
- Their response was "I think you’re making a mistake but I don’t think engaging further is likely to lead to anything positive, so noted.", followed by a longer post where they complained that they didn't think the warning was fair/justified (essentially, too long to quote in full). Chuckstablers (talk) 02:21, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
- @ScottishFinnishRadish can you also provide an update on the sanction modification here? Dont want to be in a situation where somebody points back at this in 60 days. nableezy - 16:04, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Per the appeal at AE, I have modified the sanction to 30 days with a carve out to assist Davidbena [6]. Happy new year! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:55, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, same to you and yours, nableezy - 16:56, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry for not leaving a note when I closed the AE thread. I briefly considered it, opened your talk page, and then figured you didn't want to hear any more about it. I figured wrong. – bradv 22:20, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Per the appeal at AE, I have modified the sanction to 30 days with a carve out to assist Davidbena [6]. Happy new year! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:55, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
Question about creating a new page
Hi, I noticed that there is no page about israeli human rights violations. In contrast there is one about human rights violations by the CIA. Neither Human rights in the State of Palestine and Human rights in Israel seem like the correct article to add this information.
At present, there are many scattered articles with information about said human rights violations such as here and in the "full articles" linked within.
I want to create a main page about israeli human rights violations, in Israel as well as the OPT. Has such a page been created before and then deleted? I don't want to waste my time if the page will just end up being deleted.
Thanks, and if you have a better place I can ask these kinds of questions I would really appreciate it. I already really appreciate your help so far. DMH43 (talk) 03:48, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
EDIT: NVM, I now see that there is a section deep in the page Human rights in Israel about the OPT, but even that is pretty poorly written. I will try to incrementally improve that page.
- @DMH43: Nableezy is presently subject to a topic ban that doesn't allow him to answer questions like this. I suggest you ask someone else, such as Selfstudier. Zerotalk 04:13, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
- @DMH43: I asked Nableezy for his opinion on this previously and they indicated at the time that they thought it best to leave the material where it was although personally I would prefer a separate page. While we wait for an exit from "purdah", it seems like a reasonable idea to improve the material. Selfstudier (talk) 11:11, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
- FYI, editor @Crampcomes: created Human rights violations against Palestinians by Israel which has promptly been nominated for deletion. Selfstudier (talk) 12:29, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Selfstudier
- That article gets off to a weird start? "According to the United States Department of State and international, Palestinian and Israeli human rights organization's…"
- Irtapil (talk) 06:55, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
- Best discuss at the article talk page rather than here. Selfstudier (talk) 10:00, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
- FYI, editor @Crampcomes: created Human rights violations against Palestinians by Israel which has promptly been nominated for deletion. Selfstudier (talk) 12:29, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Not to be petty, but …
I appreciate you using a dispute resolution measure as requested and (afaik) there is no requirement for neutrality, so this may just be a petty complaint by me, but:
„continuing with their campaign of removing all citations to EI while this challenge is ongoing.“
is not really a great phrasing.
1. I am not removing all, only the ones that are not appropriate. I have left some alone, and also left talk page entries where I believe that a removal is not or not clearly required. You were aware of me doing/claiming to do this, as that is my comment you responded to with the noticeboard link.
2. “campaign” may or may not be an accurate phrasing (I don’t think so, but I can understand why someone else could), but I would appreciate you striking and replacing it with something neutral. FortunateSons (talk) 13:41, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
- Pass. nableezy - 14:59, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
Just a thanks
I am aware that you are topic banned from editing regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for a duration of time, but I want to say that I greatly admire your contribution to Wikipedia over more than a decade.
I wish you the best and I hope to see your writing again in the future. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 09:04, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
- It actually expired but thank you I appreciate that very much. nableezy - 12:42, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Blocks
Hi. I see it got you too. Horrible times, with repercussions on Wiki, too. Thanks again for showing understanding when I was in the dock. Wiki is not such an important stage, but it can still sometimes sting.
If you can be bothered with this, and I'd fully understand if you'd ignore it: I was trying to figure out some Hebrew text concerning plants dumped onto a page and Gilabrand seemed like the perfect person to ask. Now I see she's banned indefinitely. Hard to believe, she does belong to a certain generation and its mainstream Zionist convictions, but she's equally Wiki-active and harmless, with tonnes of useful factual contributions. What unexpected crime did she commit? Do you know if anything can be done about it? Wiki militancy has reached painful proportions, cancelling useful contributors is seriously harming the project. Thanks.
May peace for all those who wish it come sooner than it looks. Arminden (talk) 11:14, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
- Gila was blocked for topic ban violations, and I thought that block was quite over the top and said so. Her appeal didn’t go over as well as I had hoped it would, with some part of it due to apparent copyright violations in her work over the years. I thought she was a very good editor and regretted the tiffs we had with each other very much, and I wish the ban had been appealed much earlier so that this block wouldn’t have happened. I don’t think there’s anything that can be done at this point, she’s either going to be blocked for the topic ban violations or the copyright violations. Sorry, wish I had better news for you on that front. Or any front to be honest. Take care Arminden. nableezy - 12:46, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Chicago City Council
Can't keep them Chicagoans down Selfstudier (talk) 10:30, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
Undone revision: New Historians
@Nableezy: Please provide a rationale for reverting my edit to the article New Historians. The article on Palestinian refugees linked to states that refugees "fled or were expelled", meaning not all were expelled. If necessary, I can find a notable reference. (I've come across an estimate from Benny Morris before that 10-15% of the Palestinians were expelled by Israeli forces.) Thanks. Dotyoyo (talk) 17:39, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
- Expelled applies to those not allowed to return, so expelled by itself would work, but you can change to chased out to fled if you want. To pretend like it only applies to "some" of them is however a complete bogus assertion. nableezy - 17:45, 5 February 2024 (UTC)