Arsonatdennys
Welcome! edit
Hi Arsonatdennys! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.
The rule that affects you most as new or IP editor is the prohibition on making any edit related to Palestine/Israel conflict unless you are logged into an account and that account is at least 30 days old and has made at least 500 edits.
This prohibition is broadly construed, so it includes edits such as adding the reaction of a public figure concerning the conflict to their article or noting the position of a company or organization as it relates to the conflict.
The exception to this rule is that you may request a specific change to an article on the talk page of that article or at this page. Please ensure that your requested edit complies with our neutral point of view and reliable sourcing policies, and if the edit is about a living person our policies on biographies of living people as well.
Any edits you make contrary to these rules are likely to be reverted, and repeated violations can lead to your being blocked from editing.
As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:
Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.
If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
Happy editing! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:26, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
- hi there, so sorry about that. I did see the contentious topic designation but hadn't realized it applied to discussion in the Talk Page too (other than the exception you mentioned regarding a specific change). thanks for letting me know! Arsonatdennys (talk) 18:21, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Introduction to contentious topics edit
You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
- adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
- comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
- follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
- comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
- refrain from gaming the system.
Additionally, you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.
ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:26, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Crude answer to compex question edit
The short answer to your questions on the sexual violence on Oct 7th article is that we cannot ourselves question the reliability of 'reliable sources', regardless of how outrageous or un-evidenced some of their claims might be. We can - and do - attribute the claims to the source, rather than render them as fact, and we can report other reliable sources questioning the claims.
I share a degree of your scepticism, the trouble is at the moment that many news sources are simply repeating the most outrageous claims, whilst scepticism about those claims tends to be either more muted or coming from fringe sources that take the polar opposite view, that no such violence happened. My personal view is that there may well finally be found to be substantial sexual assault and 'gendered violence', (a very vague term) but nothing like the amount or kind which is being reported at present. But my/your personal view has no place on WP. Pincrete (talk) 12:12, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
- interesting! Thanks for indulging my curiosity on the matter.
- I see that the page for Reliable sources has some language referring to contexts where reliability of a source may not be as clear cut e.g.
- > Whether a specific news story is reliable for a fact or statement should be examined on a case-by-case basis
- > the trouble is at the moment that many news sources are simply repeating the most outrageous claims, whilst scepticism about those claims tends to be either more muted or coming from fringe sources that take the polar opposite view
- Yes that's what prompted my questions tbh. Not so much the idea that my or your personal view should be on WP but the question of how one would raise an issue regarding a source's reliability on a topic. And if there's consensus that the situation is as you describe, whether that raises questions about which are reliable sources and which aren't. fwiw I haven't seen outlets like Mondoweiss make any generalizations about it that deny anything happened at all so much as questioning the validity of the reporting itself.
- Al-Mayadeen is, of course, not constrained by any such compunctions and is quite reasonably understood to be a state propaganda outlet. What's frustrating is that NYT in particular has been functioning as the same (U.S. foreign policy propaganda) from the opposite perspective but is given credence as if it's reporting on the topic is just as reliable as on other topics. Arsonatdennys (talk) 18:48, 30 January 2024 (UTC)