User talk:Iskandar323/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Category:Right-wing politicians in Israel has been nominated for deletion

Category:Right-wing politicians in Israel has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason (talk) 03:49, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Third opinion in the ongoing content dispute at the Foreign Policy of Bashar al-Assad

Hello Iskandar323, can you provide your constructive views on an ongoing content dispute in the talk page of Foreign Policy of Bashar al-Assad. Since I think you are quite knowledgeable on Arab-related issues, I have pinged you for efforts in dispute resolution here. Thanks! Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 5:21, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Iskandar323. Thank you for your work on Sabbath stew. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, I had the following comments:

I'm thrilled to share the exciting news that your article has met all of Wikipedia's guidelines! After a careful review, I'm happy to say that it's good to go. Great job! Wishing you and your family an absolutely fantastic day ahead!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 00:47, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Your recent edits to List of Palestinian suicide attacks

WP:CTOP applies to this article. In light of your edits listed below (made immediately following the failure of your nomination to delete the article entirely), am concerned they are in violation of ARBPIA procedure, as well as contentious topics policy, WP:NPOV, WP:MNA, WP:EQ, WP:DE, and WP:GAMING.

It reeks of bad faith editing, especially when it was made clear a renewed effort is being made to clean the article up and revise it to standards. Making numerous deletions in succession makes remedying any legitimate concerns you have a hindrance given arbitration rules on reverting edits, which may run you up against system gaming accusations.

These are contentious topics. WP:BOLD and WP:JUSTDOIT doesn’t necessarily apply so cleanly here as it does on regular topics. Recommend reverting edits, engaging in good faith suggestions (like missing citation tags or talk page suggestions), and let the process take its expected course with necessary consensus (as arbitration procedures demand).

If you feel this comment and above recommendations are in haste, I will be happy to request attention from an uninvolved administrator or ARBIA administrators to chime in. Mistamystery (talk) 06:51, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

@Mistamystery: There is nothing bold about removing unsourced content. A core content pillar of Wikipedia is verifiability. You need to back right away from the accusations and wikilawyering. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:55, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Verifiability is not the issue at hand here. There are sources and external links on the page that back up the entire list, suicide attacks during the 2nd intifada are well documented and attested, and there is no reasonable doubt around any of the attacks (previously) listed on the page. Just because a citation is missing, doesn’t mean you blank sections, most especially on ARBPIA pages.

I didn’t make these rules up. It’s not up to me what is and isn’t in violation of contentious topics policy, and I’m trying to abide by general Wikipedia policy and recommendation by going directly to you and speaking respectfully before raising the issue anywhere else.

Again, if you feel that I am incorrect in my understanding of contentious topic guidelines, I am happy to seek the guidance of the arbitration page and/or an uninvolved administrator. Otherwise, I respectfully ask that you speak to me in a kind and neutral tone. I don’t need to “back away” from raising legitimate concern as the platform insists we do. This is a house we all share, and must be kind to each other. Mistamystery (talk) 07:14, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

@Mistamystery: You must forgive me, but I don't see the above message as even diplomatic, let alone 'kind'. I removed the material year-by-year to make it easy for anybody who want to restore the material with sources to do so in a simple fashion. However, a handwave at the notion that sources probably exist somewhere out there or buried in the external links does not fulfil WP:V. Any editor is absolutely within their rights to removed unsourced content, and any editor who wishes to restore that content has the WP:BURDEN of sourcing it. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:25, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Appreciate the explanation. And please be assured all things were said with kindness and propriety in mind.

Regarding the edit concern, I recently ran into a multi-user, multi-revert incident on a 1RR ARBPIA page, which subsequently created a cascade of issues (including sudden editor hyper-sensitivity) that really got in the way of easily addressing the issue.

I understand its within editor rights to blank (seemingly) unsourced content, but I do think it’s important to advocate for other approaches for dealing with this problem (most especially given that there is so much unsourced - but ultimately valid - content all over the platform).

Mistamystery (talk) 07:54, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Editors have different approaches. Sure, I don't delete every bit of unsourced content I see without questions. I often tag material instead. But unsourced lists are a particular plague on Wikipedia, and I have little sympathy for them. This sort of content simply falls foul of my more deletionist leanings. However, you'll note that I didn't remove any entries with linked articles, even though those entries are also lack technically unsourced, in the sense of content that cannot be verified by in-line citations located on the page itself. As for the other material, most of which has been both unsourced and unlinked for more than a decade, well ... time's up. And the list that remains is a more reasonable and digestible piece of content as a result. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:15, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Edit request

Hi there, given your membership to WikiProject Palestine, I wondered if you may be so kind as to incorporate (some or all of) my suggested edits here and here?

Happy to discuss. All the best. Yr Enw (talk) 13:50, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Article restoration

Would you please restore this article? Thanks. 39.34.179.108 (talk) 08:00, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Caesarea National Park moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Caesarea National Park. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Rkieferbaum (talk) 17:57, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Re'im music festival massacre

You cannot seriously believe that POV changing the title of Re'im music festival massacre, as you did here arguably one of the most visible and heavily edited pages in one of the most contentious areas of this website, about a topic that is in headlines around the world is uncontroversial and shouldn't need to go through WP:RM? Not only that, but claiming it should be changed "per the sources" when a simple Google search would reveal an overwhelming amount of RS, from across the ideological spectrum, that refer to the wanton slaughter of 250+ people at a music festival as a "massacre": NBC, Washington Post, New Yorker, Billboard, Wall Street Journal, The National News, Daily Beast, Guardian.

In the name of collaboration, not several weeks ago you graciously agreed with me to go through the RM process for article in this contentious area. Not only me, but @Schwede66: also brought this up to you, and you committed to use the RM process. Please stop your unilateralism nd hold up your commitments. Longhornsg (talk) 07:22, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

@Longhornsg: I'm sorry, but I don't really agree with your point here. 18 hours ago, when the page had rapidly been created and the details were exceptionally unclear; it was not then a clearly supported or NPOV title. 18 hours later the picture has become clearer and the language substantiated. This is often the nature of rapidly changing content that is chasing the news cycle far more closely than it should, or really, should not do at all, per WP:NOTNEWS, but as we all know, this is unfortunately a perennial issue on Wikipedia. I believe most if not all of the sources posted above post-date the page's creation/titling and the edits you link, which really just exemplifies how ahead of the actual news cycle the page was erected. So again, I think your point is a little off here. Wikipedia does not future-gaze, and NPOV now is not NPOV then. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:32, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Can you keep an eye on an article temporaily.

In article Zainab Abbas, there is new unconfirmed rumors about her leaving India during the world cup. Some are adding a controversy section which seems to be gross NPOV. So can you confirm or whether the info is correct to put. The details may be in violation Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. 182.183.0.254 (talk) 13:38, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Your "vote"

The strike wasn't on the border between Israel and Lebanon, it was in the Sheba farms, between Lebanon and the occupied Golan Heights. Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:39, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

@Supreme Deliciousness: I'm aware of where events kicked off, but there has also subsequently been an incursion and a series of strikes across the border proper, making it a broader geography. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:49, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:Synth

@Iskandar323 It's WP:SYNTH because the implication is that Israel has committed a war crime, this is after all under the war crime section, without any source in this passage having accused Israel of committing a war crime. WP:SYNTH states: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source." The article then says NPR says Israel blockaded Gaza, HRW says a blockade is a war crime, thus the implication Israel has committed a war crime, once again this is under the war crime section. However neither source explicitly stated that Israel committed a war crime, C is being implied which makes this text book Synth. In order for this to stay HRW needs to explicitly state that Israel committed a war crime else it doesn't work. Alcibiades979 (talk) 11:17, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

@Alcibiades979: I would agree with you IF the HRW was talking about any old blockade, but here they are talking about the specific blockade that Israel had proposed implementing, and then it was implemented. Unless the HRW makes a statement that their position on this has changed, I don't see what the problem is with repeating this. The wikivoice sentence remains couched in the guarded language of what it would mean, per the HRW usage. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:25, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

HRW repeated the same again yesterday after the power cut off. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:28, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes but it falls under the subheading of Israeli War Crimes if it were in some other section it'd be fine. This is in essence original research. If what you're saying is true then HRW should post a statement shortly accusing Israel of war crimes at which point we can write in an uncontroversial entry in the section, but until that point, why crystal ball it and try and infer their opinion? Alcibiades979 (talk) 11:28, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

@Alcibiades979: Everything is really only potentially a war crime right up until a trial is held and the law proclaims it so. This burden would call for the removal of every piece of pre-trial speculation about the potentially criminal nature of the events, i.e. the entire section. All sources say "would", "likely", etc. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:33, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Impact of the occupation

I'm trying to find an article on the Impact of the Israeli occupation on Palestinian people, but I can't find it. Am I not looking carefully? Or should an article like that needs to be created? VR _talk 21:24, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM

Please refrain from using talk pages to express your personal opinion about the subjects of articles. This is especially true for Arab–Israeli conflict topics and American politics topics. I understand that these are difficult topics, but that's why it's important to maintain a constructive dialogue without posting provocative political comments. Edits like this, this, and this are disruptive. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:04, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Those comments are on matters of weight and NPOV that are relevant. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:44, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Genocide against the Palestinians.

I thank you for your contributions to the recent discussion about this article and it’s being merged. However, I still support this issue having its own page. Read my thoughts if you wish on the Apartheid in Israel talk page, the section entitled ‘This merge is repellent’. What is your opinion and how can we facilitate the matter once again having its own page? Scientelensia (talk) 12:39, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I believe you should refer Muboshgu to the appropriate board, but that’s only my opinion. I wonder if they have been engaging in this behaviour for a long time and whether, if so, that could be brought up Scientelensia (talk) 15:56, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Your reverts

Two days ago, you reverted a WP:BRD move on contentious information on Joe Biden. Today, you restored this POV content to Kathy Hochul despite the valid complaint about it on the talk page. Please do not edit war in high profile American politics articles. Seek consensus on talk pages. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:03, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I don’t believe it was POV content. Read the source and reconsider perhaps. Also, read my statement. I’m sure Iskandar323 has justification for their actions. You should also seek consensus on the talk pages for the removal of content which it seems most people agree on keeping as they either restored it or did not delete it. Scientelensia (talk) 15:06, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

The edits about which you complain seem useful and relevant to me. Scientelensia (talk) 15:07, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

@Muboshgu: I didn't restore POV content. I restored well-sourced WP:RSP content. The only complaint about the latter was the dedicated controversy section - I took that onboard, restoring it elsewhere. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:25, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

@Muboshgu: In fact, on the contrary, it is you who has now reverted Israel-Palestine content twice within 24 hours at Kathy Hochul, which is a violation of the WP:1RR restrictions set at WP:ARBPIA. Now that you have been made aware, please self-revert or I will be taking this violation to WP:AE to request sanctions. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:28, 17 October 2023 (UTC) I was rusty on the rules: the page does in fact technically need to be pre-tagged for this to apply. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:30, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

It was added, then it was reverted. It is not long-standing content and is objected to on POV basis, both on Biden's page and Hochul's. The complaint on Talk:Kathy Hochul is about the content itself, as well as the "controversy section" framing. I'll note that HJ Mitchell agrees with me. You would both do well with a refresher on what is and is not POV. Having a RSP source does not absolve an editor for writing up something in a biased manner. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:35, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

• How was it POV?
• What was biased about it, as the source makes it clear that it is true?
• Why are you violating the WP:1RR restrictions set at WP:ARBPIA and expecting not be punished? I strike this comment.-later
• Why do you attempt to punish me on arbitration pages when you make perhaps wrong edits?

Scientelensia (talk) 15:55, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

The content you added to Hochul's article is accurate and sourced, but specifically presented to show Hochul in a negative light, with a quote from a Palestinian activist to drive it home. It does not present the "other side" at all and makes a big deal out of a few words that she said without context. Bias in the NYT isn't relevant here, bias amongst Wikipedia editors is. Kathy Hochul's article is not on a 1RR restriction. And I am not attempting to "punish" you; someone else brought you to arbitration enforcement and I had relevant info to add to the discussion. They'll decide if any sanctions are necessary, not me. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:08, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Ok. How could the other side be added then? Scientelensia (talk) 16:20, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

@Muboshgu: FYI, in undoing what I thought was my rather sensible splitting out of Kathy Hochul's political views to their own section, you should be aware that you've returned a bunch of 2023 content under a subhead of 2011-2013 - perhaps you would like to provide your own solution if you didn't like mine - assuming you saw what I'd done and why, and didn't just throw the baby out with the bathwater. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:37, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I've restored the formatting changes. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:41, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I've opened a discussion on the content. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:57, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

On a talk page? Scientelensia (talk) 21:08, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

On the Kathy Hochul talk page, yes. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:13, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. Scientelensia (talk) 21:17, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Issam Abdallah

On 18 October 2023, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Issam Abdallah, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 02:38, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

When israel is created

Where is this part :

The State of Israel was established on May 14, 1948, in the aftermath of World War II and the Holocaust. Its establishment was met with both international support and regional opposition. Almost immediately, neighboring Arab states, in rejection of the partition plan, initiated the 1948 Arab–Israeli War. Despite facing initial challenges, Israel managed to survive and consolidate its territory. Subsequent conflicts, including the Six-Day War in 1967 and Adel8745 (talk) 09:49, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't understand the question here. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:53, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

You're referring to why this section has been deleted several times? I've also wondered the same thing... Homerethegreat (talk) 14:14, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Concerns about new article

Besides the severe OR issues, Nazism in Palestinian society was written almost entirely by an editor who is not extended confirmed. What is the proper procedure to follow in that case? (t · c) buidhe 04:56, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

@Buidhe: I'm honestly not sure about the permissibility of the non-EC creation of restricted content - it honestly seems like a bit of a grey area, but once it is created, it's obviously hands off for them. However, if you think the issues with the content are severe enough and it's not ready for mainspace, there is always the option of returning it to draft. It almost feels like such cases could be covered by the WP:G5 speedy deletion criterion, but if they are, it's not currently explicitly so. The best option I suspect is to simply query the administrator's noticeboard on all of the above, which I might do if you don't get there first. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:38, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I draftified the article and left a note on talk explaining the OR issues.

(t · c) buidhe 06:59, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

@Buidhe:, WP:ARBECR "Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required." Selfstudier (talk) 10:48, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. —DIYeditor (talk) 19:48, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Advice

Mate, no point arguing with editors of such strong POV at AFD. I would advise taking a step back and letting it be. starship.paint (RUN) 09:57, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: It was less arguing; more just expressing incredulity! Iskandar323 (talk) 10:11, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Right, even so, you've made many comments to the AfD already (you are the joint #2 commenter). Your opinion has surely been expressed? starship.paint (RUN) 12:22, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I would imagine so, yes. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:58, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Diminishing returns, and you starship.paint (RUN) 15:04, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Gideon

Hi, Iskandar323; you mentioned here that I might consult you as we progressed at Talk:Operation Gideon (2020). I've mostly completed reading hundreds of sources, and posted my summary of source analysis at User:SandyGeorgia/GideonSources. What I've found is that the earlier lists alleging the preponderance of sources calling the event a coup may have been cherry-picked source counting, as numerous high-quality sources never refer to it as a coup, including recent books and peer-reviewed sources. I have posted that analysis at Talk:Operation_Gideon_(2020)#Source_analysis and have encouraged commentary in that section to focus on whether this source analysis is good before we move on to talking next about what to do with the Requested move. An interesting aspect is that most of the sources that never call this event a coup don't hesitate to call other events in other circumstances a coup. I've also (perhaps clumsily) tried to work coup in to the body of the article and the lead; although it's not the majority point of view, it's enough of a significant minority that it warrants mention in the lead IMO. I wanted to let you know in case you want to weigh in now as we decide which direction to go next, but particularly, as to whether my source analysis is lacking in any way. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:56, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Scythians article size

Several months ago at Talk:Scythians, you and Nikkimaria pointed out at the article is absurdly large. The person mainly responsible for the size of the article is Antiquistik. Although Antiquistik acknowledged your concerns at the talk page, but they continue to make sweeping, enormous changes to the article, which add over 69,000[1] or even over 150,000[2] characters to the article. So this is a problem that is getting worse with time. Furthermore, their edits seem to carelessly remove content, which is difficult to spot owing to the sheer size od the edits.

I am thinking Antiquistik should be advised to make their edits in piece-meal fashion, and to focus more on splitting the article and removing WP:INDISCRIMINATE material, rather than adding more bloat. If they can't do that, I would say that is when their behavior becomes actionable. If you would like to share your thoughts, I'd very much appreciate it.- Hunan201p (talk) 23:16, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Talk Page Etiquette

You have been around long enough that you should know that starting the third new section on a talk page on a topic is considered poor etiquette. And you also knew there was an existing RFC on the talk page on the same subject.

Would you consider removing or merging your needlessly duplicative talk page section? Walt Yoder (talk) 21:33, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

@Walt Yoder: AGF please. There are polite ways of alerting editors to things that they might not have noticed. I used the add topic button and didn't see the other thread. Re: the RFC: that's an overcomplicated mess. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:45, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Al-Ansar Mosque airstrike for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Al-Ansar Mosque airstrike is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al-Ansar Mosque airstrike until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Longhornsg (talk) 00:00, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Massacres in the State of Palestine

A tag has been placed on Category:Massacres in the State of Palestine indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:14, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Can you help me completing the Wikidata Item for your new article?

Hi, @Iskandar323 I recently added a Wikidata Item for your new article, Nakba denial. Can you help me adding relevant properties for it? Many thanks. Athayahisyam (talk) 09:50, 2 November 2023 (UTC)