False Edit Summary in Hamas
Hey Nableezy, just updating on your false edit summary in Hamas page. I was trying to see when the US President call for elimination of Hamas disappeared. Also in Talk discussion we spoke and you seemed to suggest only EU was not lead worthy. Looking back I saw you removed several information bits, I noticed that you've removed the US's Joe Biden call for eliminating Hamas. In the edit summary you only referred to EU. Here is the edit summary:[1]
lead follows body, who cares the eu parliament passed a resolution
The European Parliament passed a motion stating the need for Hamas to be eliminated and US President Joe Biden has expressed the same sentiment.
Information removed is above. (Also 2 sources removed in addition but you can see that in the link sent).
This is not the first time I've seen you do this. Please make sure to include the full content of the edit summary since it may be misleading for others. Homerethegreat (talk) 09:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
- Lead follows body covers all of that. Nowhere in the body of the article did it discuss Joe Biden or the eu parliament, you just added that bullshit to the lead to continue turning the encyclopedia page into the case against Hamas. You have, consistently across a range of pages, attempted to skew the leads of articles by adding whatever bullshit you can Google up and stuff it in to the lead without a thought as to weight or how poorly you make the lead read. Sorry if my attempt to fix all those problems aren’t clear enough to you. But the edit summary is accurate, and your complaint here is as low quality as most of your edits. nableezy - 12:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
- I started this discussion to talk on your edit summaries and see how we can improve them, but you're answering with "Bullshit" and "as low quality as most of your edits". I'll be honest, It feels as if for a while now that you're writing in a negative style to me. Homerethegreat (talk) 17:02, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
- Yeah, my edit summary was accurate. And yeah, the edits to the lead of this article, along with Gaza Strip, and al-Shifa, and nearly every single article I see you trying to twist the lead into an IDF press release has been, in my view, low quality. Its just that Wikipedia has this fundamental weakness of not being able to deal with people who edit in such a way. It is clearly tendentious to anybody without blinders on, but our admins feel obliged to keep those blinders on to remain uninvolved. I wish WP had a way of dealing with it short of an actual arbitration case, but alas I have not found one yet. nableezy - 17:05, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
- I started this discussion to talk on your edit summaries and see how we can improve them, but you're answering with "Bullshit" and "as low quality as most of your edits". I'll be honest, It feels as if for a while now that you're writing in a negative style to me. Homerethegreat (talk) 17:02, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
@Homerethegreat: - in the diff you cited, nableezy's reason of lead follows body indeed covers it adequately. I could not find any mention of "Joe Biden" or "European Parliament" in the body of the article in that diff you cited. Please review WP:LEAD: Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article.
There was no false edit summary. starship.paint (RUN) 06:28, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
- The issue is as follows. That he erased the Joe Biden part whilst he said no one cares about the EU motion. So how is one sopposed to guess he erased the US presidential statement. Neverminded that the EU motion is significant and I do not think that no ones cares about a 17 trillion USD block calling for the elimination of Hamas. Homerethegreat (talk) 08:15, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
- Although I've seen now that there is a section in the body that speaks of it, I still wish to deal with the content at hand. I just pointed out this summary because it made working on the content confusing and difficult. I must believe we all want to improve Wikipedia. Homerethegreat (talk) 08:17, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
- The section only appeared after Nableezy's removal. Still, you have some point that Nableezy could have mentioned Biden in the edit summary e.g. lead follows body (Biden). starship.paint (RUN) 09:43, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
- Nah, the edit summary just lead follows body would have been enough. I added the bit on who cares about the EU parliament as an aside, not as a justification. The justification was lead follows body. nableezy - 15:24, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
- The section only appeared after Nableezy's removal. Still, you have some point that Nableezy could have mentioned Biden in the edit summary e.g. lead follows body (Biden). starship.paint (RUN) 09:43, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
- Although I've seen now that there is a section in the body that speaks of it, I still wish to deal with the content at hand. I just pointed out this summary because it made working on the content confusing and difficult. I must believe we all want to improve Wikipedia. Homerethegreat (talk) 08:17, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
ITN recognition for Henry Kissinger
On 30 November 2023, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Henry Kissinger, which you helped to improve and get ready. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. starship.paint (RUN) 06:23, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
- thanks, not sure it is deserved but thank you nonetheless :) nableezy - 15:24, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Sca partial block request
Nableezy, your post here seems to suggest that I should just sit mute and wait for the result. Is that what you meant? TNX. (I am editing productively elsewhere.) – Sca (talk) 14:24, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
- Yes. nableezy - 14:29, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
ANI
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:10, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Israeli occupation of the West Bank
The article Israeli occupation of the West Bank you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Israeli occupation of the West Bank for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of A455bcd9 -- A455bcd9 (talk) 15:21, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Barnstar
The Current Events Barnstar | ||
Thank you for all your work around Israel and Palestine. Andreas JN466 14:48, 6 December 2023 (UTC) |
- Thanks Andreas, I appreciate you. nableezy - 14:49, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
Reading material
Is there any material you'd recommend on Israeli sexual violence against Palestinians? I found some like Sexual torture of Palestinian men by Israeli authorities, Beyond Male Israeli Soldiers, Palestinian Women, Rape, and War, UN expert accuses Israel of sexually abusing Palestine prisoners, Four IDF soldiers held over alleged abuse of Palestinian detainee, IDF removes gag on 2016 conviction of officer for raping Palestinian woman etc. Anything else that you know of? VR talk 04:06, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
- Ill see what I can find. nableezy - 17:30, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
Proposal for 2023 Israel–Hamas war
Hi,
For some reason, the talk page for the 2023 Israel-Hamas war article is itself protected, and I couldn't find anywhere else to bring up a concern with the article. You seem like an active contributor to the article, so I'm coming here to you.
My question was regarding how the article has a section "destruction of cultural heritage" as well as a "war crimes" section. From what I understand of international law, the destruction of cultural heritage is itself a war crime ([2]), so shouldn't "destruction of cultural heritage" be a subsection of the war crimes section, rather than a section on its own? In addition, that would mean that the article of War crimes in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war should also have a section on cultural destruction (it's given partial coverage in the "indiscriminate attacks" subsection of the article). What do you think?
Thanks. JasonMacker (talk) 07:27, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
- It needs sources specifically saying that it is a war crime, if those sources exist then yes it should be moved. nableezy - 17:27, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
- Just passing by, but @JasonMacker, I believe that destruction of cultural heritage is a war crime when it's intentional, not when it's inadvertent ("Ooops, the bomb missed the real target") or unfortunate (e.g., the opposing military decided to use a cultural heritage site for military purposes). The opening line of the source you link talks about "strategic and targeted acts of destruction", which suggests that other acts of destruction are treated differently. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:46, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
Removal of Due content from Bethlehem
Hello Nableezy I saw you reverted me on Bethlehem, therefore removing very important information, some if it has been in the lead for years (for example, biblical mentions). In your Edit Summary you said: Rv unexplained removal of occupation and undue weight in lead for additions I added the removed sentences and image.
extended comments |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
[3] This is the revert in question. Please explain why you removed the following which I did not add: I will note that the above is very due. Bethlehem is world renown for its biblical history and its place in the Abrahamic traditions. Can you please explain why you removed due information that is vital in understanding the role of Bethlehem in the Israelite history as well as for Christianity which has made the city important for billions of people over history. Also if not mistaken this is not a recent addition, certainly not by me and it is due. . Here I agree that it merits discussion and is not strange however this is not a recent addition by me. Also there is merit to state that there are shared agreements between Israelis and Palestinians that dictate the state of Bethlehem.
Please explain the removal of this info. Following your removal it appears Christians only suffer from Israeli settlements, whilst sources provided clearly state that Christians suffer from Muslim and PA persecution which is significant. It is important to maintain both parts in order to accurately reflect the reasoning of dwindling of the Christian population which was in the 1960s about 80%+ and now less then 12%. Bethlehem is the birthplace of Jesus Christ, a very important figure in Christianity and also for Muslims. Bethlehem's prominence arises from its role for Christians and therefore it is WP:DUE to explain the reasoning behind their dwindling. However, if you wish to remove the reasoning then remove the entire section for NPOV. I think it's due to keep, but it has to be comprehensive and reflect both. When reverting Makeandtoss I should have restored partial self rv and put the Israeli occupation under international law section in modern history paragraph. You also removed a sentence in the body which is backed by sources and is also not in lead unlike your edit summary it is not in the lead:
Why is this controversial? It is well known and merits mention in the body? You also removed the image to the right, which is not in the body and is an image of a Hamas rally in Bethlehem. Why is this problematic? Perhaps you'd wish to add a picture of a Fatah rally in Bethlehem as well if its problematic in your eyes to show only Hamas. But again it's not in your edit summary and I did not add this picture and from a short look in history it was in the body for several months (I did not look far back so maybe it was there for years). Overall I saw you removed a lot of very due important information, also information which is not present in the lead was removed (David originating from Bethlehem and the image of the Hamas rally in Bethlehem). Can you please explain the removals? |
Homerethegreat (talk) 14:51, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
- We have article talk pages for a reason. nableezy - 14:56, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
RFC reviews
Howdy, Nableezy. Where would one go, to get the RFC reviewed at Trump's 2024 campaign? IMHO, it's not a neutrally worded. GoodDay (talk) 17:24, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
- Nowhere for now IMO, if it proceeds and then is closed then WP:AN. Better would be getting people on the talk page to agree to reformulating it in to a neutrally worded RFC prompt. nableezy - 17:42, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
Puzzled
I was puzzled by this response[4] to my remark that a paragraph in the article was too long and detailed. Are you confusing me with another editor who put the article in a bad condition in the past? I have never edited a passage in that article to say that there had been a mass surrender. Or as you put it, "pushed the lie hundreds of Hamas militants have surrendered to Israel ¯ Assuming the article "pushed a lie" in the past, what has that got to do with me? Coretheapple (talk) 16:19, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
- No, it was a statement on the general state of the article, not an assignment of blame. When things get added and they are emphatically pushing one specific POV it isnt a problem, when that is corrected with reliable sources that show that POV to have been effectively propaganda that was inserted as though it were objective fact, then it is overly detailed and too long. nableezy - 16:23, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
- OK, but that is not what you said. You said, "Guess it was the right amount of weight when it pushed the lie hundreds of Hamas militants have surrendered to Israel ¯\_(ツ)_/¯" That was in response to my suggestion that the paragraph be written in summary style, not that anything specific be added or not added. Coretheapple (talk) 16:27, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, it was in response to the suggestion that the inclusion of material that showed the previously included material to have been bogus is what has made things overly detailed and too long. nableezy - 16:37, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
- This is the totality of what you were responding to: "Perhaps what is being conveyed here can be described succinctly rather than reeling off what one media outlet after another said on this subject. The paragraph in question is overlong and disproportionate weight." By "conveyed here" I meant the entire "surrender" issue, not one aspect or another aspect of that issue. The article is very long and detailed and excessively so in my view. Sometimes things get ungainly during editing and we try to boil it down. However, if you feel the article should go into that detail on that point, if you feel it is not excessive, then simply say so. I am not familiar with what the article said in the past on that subject. I just don't have that frame of reference. Coretheapple (talk) 16:49, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
- Sure, like I said it wasn’t meant as casting blame on you, just a reflection on how the editing goes here. Burst of edits adding very POV material, later edits to fix that POV make things too bloated. But fair enough, you meant the overall topic and not just the addition on how the initial reports were bs. nableezy - 18:01, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
- This is the totality of what you were responding to: "Perhaps what is being conveyed here can be described succinctly rather than reeling off what one media outlet after another said on this subject. The paragraph in question is overlong and disproportionate weight." By "conveyed here" I meant the entire "surrender" issue, not one aspect or another aspect of that issue. The article is very long and detailed and excessively so in my view. Sometimes things get ungainly during editing and we try to boil it down. However, if you feel the article should go into that detail on that point, if you feel it is not excessive, then simply say so. I am not familiar with what the article said in the past on that subject. I just don't have that frame of reference. Coretheapple (talk) 16:49, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, it was in response to the suggestion that the inclusion of material that showed the previously included material to have been bogus is what has made things overly detailed and too long. nableezy - 16:37, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
- OK, but that is not what you said. You said, "Guess it was the right amount of weight when it pushed the lie hundreds of Hamas militants have surrendered to Israel ¯\_(ツ)_/¯" That was in response to my suggestion that the paragraph be written in summary style, not that anything specific be added or not added. Coretheapple (talk) 16:27, 12 December 2023 (UTC)