Misplaced Pages

User talk:Nableezy: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 13:37, 24 December 2023 view sourceScottishFinnishRadish (talk | contribs)Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators61,369 edits Unnecessary inflammation: new sectionTag: New topic← Previous edit Revision as of 15:08, 24 December 2023 view source Nableezy (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers56,197 edits Unnecessary inflammation: ReplyTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit ReplyNext edit →
Line 138: Line 138:


was mostly fine, but leave out the snide {{tq|Oh, thanks for that bit of wisdom then.}} Pulling things back to be a bit more dispassionate would be even better. ] (]) 13:37, 24 December 2023 (UTC) was mostly fine, but leave out the snide {{tq|Oh, thanks for that bit of wisdom then.}} Pulling things back to be a bit more dispassionate would be even better. ] (]) 13:37, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

:I think the inflammation was from the condescending and patronizing tone in the comment I was responding to, but I’ll try to find a way of answering what I find to be hypocritical patronization with something less acerbic than mild sarcastic dismissal. ''']''' - 15:08, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Revision as of 15:08, 24 December 2023

Archives
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6
Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12
Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15
Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18
Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21
Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24
Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27
Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30
Archive 31Archive 32Archive 33
Archive 34Archive 35Archive 36
Archive 37Archive 38Archive 39
Archive 40Archive 41Archive 42
Archive 43Archive 44Archive 45
Archive 46Archive 47Archive 48
Archive 49Archive 50Archive 51
Archive 52Archive 53Archive 54
Archive 55Archive 56Archive 57
Archive 58Archive 59


This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present.

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)
<pagestalker>User:Vice regent: How long back do you want to go? Eg from Nirim, you have this from 1949; for similar incidents during 1948; search Morris, 2004, "Birth of.." for "rape".
For "aftermath"; see eg
Cheers, Huldra (talk) 22:35, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
@Huldra: thanks! What do you mean by "aftermath"? Also I'm interested in both the 1949-1967 and post-1967 period. Finally, I'm not just looking for rapes (strictly defined) but any form of sexual violence. VR talk 18:14, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
@Vice regent: by "aftermath" I mean "life after rape"; Nazzal interviewed Palestinian refugees in Lebanon in the early 1970s, including about Palestinian women who survived rape. (AFAIK: most did't) I always though the importance of rape in 1948 beeing underestimated; even if the number wasn't large, the fear of it literally emptied villages. And it was a taboo subject; the Palestinians euphemistically said they left (their village) out of fear for the "honor of their girls" (there is an Arab expression for it; bint something?). (I haven't checked, but I wonder that wasn't a reason for leaving Ein Hod, noted in this book?)
About sexual violence in general; Tom Segev had an article in Haaretz a few years ago about how the Israelis castrated (in their public hospitals(!)) Arab Palestinian men who they accused of wrongdoing; I tried to find the article, but couldn't. (Any pagestalker to the rescue?), Interestingly, The Israeli rape-law was recently changed: if a Jewish man rapes a Jewish women, it is "only" rape. If a Palestinian man does the same; it is both rape and terrorism, cheers, Huldra (talk) 23:42, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
This? But its about the haganah.VR talk 00:21, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
User:Vice regent; hmm; I don't think so; I seem to recall that the article was by Tom Segev, cheers, Huldra (talk) 22:57, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
@Vice regent, Write all the information in the Israeli war crimes article. Parham wiki (talk) 12:37, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
That's tricky because to call something a war crime requires not just a historian, but an international legal expert to make that claim. A journalist can say "Israel reportedly sexually humiliated Palestinian prisoners", but you need an expert in international law to say if that was a war crime. VR talk 16:04, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
DCI Palestine report on a 13 year old prisoner raped by his guards, covered further by Democracy Now. nableezy - 15:02, 18 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 (), 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.

This is the revert in question.

Please explain why you removed the following which I did not add: as well as the city where he was anointed as the third monarch of the United Kingdom of Israel, and also states that it was built up as a fortified city by Rehoboam, the first monarch of the Kingdom of Judah. In the New Testament, the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke identify the city

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.

. InDuring the 1967 Six Day War, the cityBethlehem was capturedoccupied by Israel during the Third Arab–Israeli WarIsrael. Since the Oslo Accords, which comprise a series of agreements

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.

following persecution by PA officals and muslim officals.

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:

David is considered to have originated from Bethlehem.

Why is this controversial? It is well known and merits mention in the body?

A Hamas rally in Bethlehem

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

take it to the article talk
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I was puzzled by this response 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)
@Coretheapple: Please don't clog other editors' talk pages with long missives on article content concerns; take it to the article talk page where all editors can weigh in. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:08, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Filibustering

As you can already tell, filibustering behavior is impeding editing on some articles, would you know what is the best way to deal with this issue? Makeandtoss (talk) 10:10, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

You are constantly going to come across people who have gotten very good at getting in the way. They don’t have sources they don’t even read the sources you provide, but they know that just claiming such and such policy supports them is an effective way to slow things down. You just need to have faith in the wider community and bring the dispute to a noticeboard or an RFC. Honestly I think this topic is headed to arbcom again, between the filibustering and the email campaigns idk what else can really happen here. nableezy - 16:01, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

1RR violation

You violated 1RR with first revert and second revert. Please self revert or I will report you. Dovidroth (talk) 17:03, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Self reverted. (Personal attack removed) nableezy - 17:39, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
Knock that off. If you have evidence of off-wiki coordination email arbcom. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:44, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
Already did but I don’t know how that was a personal attack. nableezy - 17:50, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
There's no {{remove unnecessarily personalized comment about an editor pointing out a mild 1rr violation and aspersion about a third party relating to off-wiki canvassing}}. I figured you'd get the drift. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:53, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Invitation

Hello Nableezy, we need experienced volunteers.
  • New Page Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles. We could use a few extra hands on deck if you think you can help.
  • Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines; Misplaced Pages needs experienced users to perform this task and there are precious few with the appropriate skills. Even a couple reviews a day can make a huge difference.
  • Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision (if it looks daunting, don't worry, it basically boils down to checking CSD, notability, and title). If this looks like something that you can do, please consider joining us.
  • If you would like to join the project and help out, please see the granting conditions. You can apply for the user-right HERE.
  • If you have questions, please feel free to drop a message at the reviewer's discussion board.
  • Cheers, and hope to see you around.

Sent by NPP Coordination using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:27, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Result of arbitration

Hi, do you know if I can start editing restricted pages once i reach 500 edits? Or should i aim for 600-700? Thank you! DMH43 (talk) 19:29, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

You can start at 500, but I wouldnt treat getting to 500 as a goal more just a result of editing normally. The whole point of the restriction, beyond putting a tiny brake on the sockpuppetry, is to get people better acquainted with our content policies in less heated topics. So just edit normally and as you gain experience you'll find yourself past 500 edits without really trying to get there. nableezy - 19:33, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
Ok great, thank you! DMH43 (talk) 19:36, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi

I'm sorry - and I'm sorry it was you who made the edit. It was inevitable, as many wrong things are, but you could have left it to somebody else. So many ugly things are happening, and some people are stoking and throwing it at the fan, like Sarsour, and some are just feeling helpless, 'cause ugliness is taking over all around, from all sides. And then better not add to it, stay out of it. I'll try - again - to follow my own advice. Take care, stay good. Arminden (talk) 01:18, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Arminden, the reason I defended you at AE is because I get why there is this anger. I understand why you were editing emotionally. And I dont think that some isolated outburst wipes away all of the good things youve done here. There have been several moments in the past 10 weeks or whatever its been that have made me edit emotionally. A good friend of mine has lost over 15 people in his family in that time, and I got to keep seeing one of his little cousins, the orphan child of what had been an orphaned father, all over social media. There was a video of a child that was still alive with half their face blown off, you could see him still moving, still in pain, and then you get the update that they are undergoing surgery with no anesthesia, and then that they, mercifully, died. And the fact that I was literally thankful that this child died fucked me up. And it showed in my edits, I was editing with my emotions, and my emotions were white hot. Some of our best editors have fallen victim to that over the years, Malik Shabazz reacted to a white man who had harassed him over years over multiple accounts calling him "sonny boy" and the resulting what was, just given our editor base, overwhelmingly white men ho-humming on ANI about a white man calling a black man boy in any context at all the way that I imagine I would react if that had happened to me. And he lost his admin bit as a result, and I dont think the anger ever really subsided from there, until he just left. The amount of esteem that people I highly regard hold for you is enough reason for me to not report you for the things youve said to and about me in the past. And now too. But you have to be able to realize when your emotions are what are driving your edits. And that somebody who is simply following our editorial policy shouldnt be expected to deal with an editor saying something like Sleep well. If you can. nableezy - 01:30, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm beyond sorry to hear about those people. How can you live on in times like this? I don't care now about blocks or arbitrations or any of those games, it feels so irrelevant. There's very little one can hang on to when the real world falls down the drain. Misplaced Pages is little more than FB mixed with crosswords. It can't move anything. And things need moving, as you see and feel more painfully than me. It shouldn't have been you to take the FGM thing out, and it shouldn't have been me to put it in, and even less to come back at you. I wasn't even fully aware who took it out when I replied. It's just one more of those games that - in real life - end up killing: we choose to see only this bit, ignore the other, that's what the rules are asking us to, that's what "people" are expecting us to do. A spade is never a spade, even when it hits the skull bone; it depends on the angle you look at it, context, etiquette.

Sorry. I hope better news will come your way. Good night. I'll go out to get some air. Arminden (talk) 01:56, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Idk honestly, you do the best you can to help as much as you can, but sometimes you just feel helpless. And yeah, a lot of what happens here definitely feels irrelevant, but I do still believe in the fundamental tenets of this place, that we can create as close to objective recountings of the things that are happening in the world by following some simple rules. And one of those is, in this case, that our sources have to be used in the way that they are originally being used, or to give a totally hypothetical example you cant take a source about Ali's FGM that is unrelated to Sarsour's comment about her to write about Sarsour's comment. That the thing that keeps our own biases in check, and we all have them, me you all of us, are these rules that regulate what sources can be used and how they can be used.

I hope the same for you Arminden, I sincerely hope the people you know and care about stay safe, and I hope we can all soon go to sleep not being terrified of the news that is surely going to greet us in the morning. nableezy - 02:21, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Unnecessary inflammation

This was mostly fine, but leave out the snide Oh, thanks for that bit of wisdom then. Pulling things back to be a bit more dispassionate would be even better. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:37, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

I think the inflammation was from the condescending and patronizing tone in the comment I was responding to, but I’ll try to find a way of answering what I find to be hypocritical patronization with something less acerbic than mild sarcastic dismissal. nableezy - 15:08, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
User talk:Nableezy: Difference between revisions Add topic