Talk:Atzmona attack

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:

You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic

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.

Further information

The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:

Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
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.

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.

After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.
Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!

POV title

Latest comment: 6 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion

What sources refer to this event by this name? nableezy - 02:36, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

It's from the books (example), Los Angeles Times, Haaretz as well as this is how it's called in sp-wiki. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 03:12, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Yes, but other sources such as Haaretz call it an attack. So does the Jerusalem Post. Your book source is published by Encounter Books, not academic. Your LA Times article is a letter from a reader, again not a reliable source. So I repeat, what sources refer to this as the Atzmona Massacre? nableezy - 18:12, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Requested move 10 December 2023

Latest comment: 5 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved, remains unopposed after being open a long time. (non-admin closure) BegbertBiggs (talk) 20:00, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Atzmona Massacre → Atzmona attack – POV title that the sourcing does not support. Called attack in most reliable sources, for example Haaretz, Jerusalem Post, while the Guardian called it a raid. Only highly partisan or non-reliable sources use "massacre" as a title, which would only be allowed as POVTITLE if it were the WP:COMMONNAME which it is not nableezy - 18:04, 10 December 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 03:27, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Feedback from New Page Review process

Latest comment: 2 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Nice work

North8000 (talk) 14:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Add topic