Talk:Victoria Affair
 | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
 | A fact from Victoria Affair appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 28 March 2011 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Background edit
Please don't move the "background" to the end of the article - that makes no sense. The background is needed in order to understand the article - i.e: why arms are smuggled (Israel maintains a blockade), how is this event related to previous events (it is the 5th or sixth such attempt), and who is the likely culprit - Iran was behind previous attempts, both overland and on the high seas. Tzu Zha Men (talk) 15:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- I disgree. The purpose of the article is primarily to inform the reader of the affair. The background section is useful but it should be at the end, in my opinion, after the reader has an understanding of what occured. This approach is common in almost every newspaper article as well as encyclopedia. Anyone else have thoughts on this? Best, GoetheFromm (talk) 17:31, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with the GoetheFromm. That is the format it should be (which it is now) -- quick summary, then background, then the details of the subject. 204.44.0.4 (talk) 20:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- That's not what GoetheFromm is saying - he wants quick summary, then the details of the subject, THEN background. Tzu Zha Men (talk) 20:29, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with the GoetheFromm. That is the format it should be (which it is now) -- quick summary, then background, then the details of the subject. 204.44.0.4 (talk) 20:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. While news items often focus on the "here and now", and answer the "5 W's" before providing background, an encyclopedia is supposed to follow a more logical format of "Background/Event/Aftermath". That's the way we do it on most, if not all, articles, such as Operation Cobra, Falaise pocket, Operation Lüttich, Karine A Affair or Palestinian land laws. If there's an example where the background come sat the end, I'd like to see it. Tzu Zha Men (talk) 20:29, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Article Based on Fake News? edit
This article appears to be entirely based on fake news. The information provided is lop sided and does not appear to make any logical sense. Requesting further investigation by domain experts or anyone with access to more reliable sources.Xoltron (talk) 12:08, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Legality edit
The legality section has no supporting references or documentation. The implication is that the UN resolution linked supports the actions taken here, but I see no reporting to that effect, and the plain reading of the statue makes it quite unclear whether it actually covers the weapons described in the article.