User talk:Voorts/Archive 38
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Voorts. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 | Archive 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 | → | Archive 42 |
From AN
Re which of those examples meaningfully alter the article's POV
[1], I think most people familiar with the topic area would agree with me, but let me walk you through the first example, "Palestinian militant," which you described as "introduces Palestinians for the first time in that paragraph to clarify that it was Palestinian militants infiltrating into Israel." A few points:
First, the word before "militant" will determine how the group is perceived; there's a difference between "militants," "Palestinian militants," "Islamist militants," "Muslim militants," "jihadi militants," "Hamas militants," and even "Hamas-led militants." Each of those has a different impact when it comes to WP:NPOV, and changing from one to the other is thus a substantive edit, not a copyedit.
Second, if they weren't Palestinian, who else would they be? Certainly not Israeli. It's obvious that the militants who attacked Israel from Gaza are Palestinian, that doesn't really need to be clarified.
Third, if we wanted to give the reader more information about who the militants were, why choose "Palestinian" and not some other equally-accurate descriptor like "Muslim" or "male"? The reason is because if you said "Muslim" that would put wp:undue focus on that aspect of the militants' identity.
Fourth, Wikipedia follows the sources. Go check that edit again, look at the cited source: does it say "Palestinian" militant or describe them as "Palestinian" at all? Nope, it actually calls them "terrorists" (because it's Ynet), but not "Palestinian terrorists," rather "Hamas terrorists," because even Ynet knows not to attribute the action to Palestinians as a group; they're not the relevant group; the relevant group is a sub-group of Palestinians.
Fifth, there are better alternatives, like "Hamas militants" or "Hamas-led militants".
You wouldn't believe how often in the topic area such descriptors are changed. There are constantly discussions and sometimes edit wars over "Palestinian" v. "Palestinian Arab," "Hamas" v. "Hamas-led," "Jewish" v. "Zionist" v. "Israeli," and so on. These labels are substantive, and changing them changes the meaning of the sentence. They're not copyedits. Levivich (talk) 01:59, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- These are all fair points about how language is ideologically loaded, and even labels can create a host of implications. But, I'm not seeing evidence here that RTH is consciously taking an anti-Palestinian view and putting that view into practice through one-word edits that subtly elide Palestinians with Hamas. Assuming that to be the case, then how do you explain the example of removing "supporting Israel"? What about that edit is anti-Palestinian? I would think that someone intentionally making POV-altering edits would have some kind of coherent ideology. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:02, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- Voorts, with respect, you're missing the point. RTH's edits are entirely defensible as content edits. They don't have to be bad edits to make him involved; they just have to be substantive rather than cosmetic or administrative, and they very clearly are. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:11, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- I think we have different thresholds for "substantive". I just don't view edits that rephrase kinda meh sentences or add clarifying words to be substantive. If I'm wrong and those are considered substantive edits for the purpose of INVOVLED, then I will stand corrected. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:14, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not saying there is a POV to these edits, or that even if there is, that the POV is anti-Palestinian (as opposed to pro-Israeli; there's a difference). It doesn't matter, it's about substantive edits, not partisan edits.
- But to your question about removing "supporting": the difference between "US is supporting Israel by moving ships closer" and "US is moving ships closer" is that the former says the US is supporting Israel, whereas the latter doesn't. That's a significant change, especially given the important of US support for Israel both historically and in the current war.
- Just as with the Palestinian militants example, we must follow the sources. Look at the source cited for that content, and you'll see it's not just about US troop movements, it's about US support for Israel through troop movements: "Further military aid to Israel would be sent in the coming days, the White House said, adding that the US was working to ensure Israel's enemies did not try to seek advantage ... the US is eager to prevent Lebanon's powerful Hezbollah movement from joining the conflict ... The US sends billions of dollars of military aid to Israel, a close ally, each year. Since World War Two, Israel has been the largest overall recipient of US foreign aid." The US didn't move ships as a peacekeeping measure, it moved ships specifically as part of its long term ongoing support of Israel, which is a key aspect of the conflict. That's why removing "supporting Israel" is a substantive edit. Levivich (talk) 14:53, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- Voorts, with respect, you're missing the point. RTH's edits are entirely defensible as content edits. They don't have to be bad edits to make him involved; they just have to be substantive rather than cosmetic or administrative, and they very clearly are. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:11, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
DYK for Jules Loh
On 30 August 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Jules Loh, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that journalist Jules Loh reported that Malcolm X told him that "his own people would kill him" before his assassination? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Jules Loh. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Jules Loh), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Z1720 (talk) 00:03, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
WikiCup 2024 August newsletter
The fourth round of the 2024 WikiCup ended on 29 August. Each of the 8 contestants who advanced to Round 4 scored at least 472 points, and the following contestants scored more than 700 points:
Generalissima (submissions) with 1,150 points, mostly from 3 featured articles, 2 featured lists, 7 good articles, and 13 did you know nominations;
Arconning (submissions) with 791 points, mostly from 2 featured lists, 8 good articles, 4 did you know nominations, and plenty of reviews;
AirshipJungleman29 (submissions) with 718 points, mostly from a high-multiplier featured article on Genghis Khan and 2 good articles; and
BennyOnTheLoose (submissions) with 714 points, mostly from 1 featured article on Susanna Hoffs, 2 featured lists, and 3 good articles.
Congratulations to our eight finalists and all who participated. Contestants put in extraordinary amounts of effort during this round, and their scores can be seen here. So far this year, competitors have gotten 36 featured articles, 55 featured lists, 15 good articles, 93 in the news credits, and at least 333 did you know credits. They have conducted 357 featured content reviews, as well as 553 good article reviews and peer reviews, and have added 30 articles to featured topics and good topics.
Any content promoted after 29 August but before the start of Round 5 can be claimed during Round 5, which starts on 1 September at 00:00 (UTC). Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. If two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether for a good article, featured content, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. Remember to claim your points within 14 days of earning them, and importantly, before the deadline on 31 October.
If you would like to learn more about rules and scoring for the 2024 WikiCup, please see this page. Further questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges (Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), Epicgenius (talk · contribs), and Frostly (talk · contribs)) are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:13, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
Feedback request: Social sciences and society Good Article nomination
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Spotify and unions on a "Social sciences and society" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:30, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – September 2024
News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2024).
Guideline and policy news
- Following an RfC, there is a new criterion for speedy deletion: C4, which
applies to unused maintenance categories, such as empty dated maintenance categories for dates in the past
. - A request for comment is open to discuss whether Notability (species) should be adopted as a subject-specific notability guideline.
Arbitration
- Following a motion, remedies 5.1 and 5.2 of World War II and the history of Jews in Poland (the topic and interaction bans on My very best wishes, respectively) were repealed.
- Remedy 3C of the German war effort case ("Cinderella157 German history topic ban") was suspended for a period of six months.
- The arbitration case Historical Elections is currently open. Proposed decision is expected by 3 September 2024 for this case.
Miscellaneous
- Editors can now enter into good article review circles, an alternative for informal quid pro quo arrangements, to have a GAN reviewed in return for reviewing a different editor's nomination.
- A New Pages Patrol backlog drive is happening in September 2024 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles and redirects in the new pages feed. Currently, there is a backlog of over 13,900 articles and 26,200 redirects awaiting review. Sign up here to participate!