User:Irtapil/DraftMergeDebate

“Starvation blockade” of the Gaza strip
It seems weird to say “starvation blockade” to me. The blockade is already mentioned and the language used seems pretty biased. “Starvation campaing” targeting “the entire population of Gaza” just seems really weird, especially since, as I said before, the blockade is already mentioned right above. I may be wrong but I don’t think starvation blockade is a military concept, and the link just leads to the article about the blockade in general. As it is redundant I think that part should be removed. 188.150.162.83 (talk) 16:20, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It's unclear to me why we have two entries; I see Irtapil added the second, but the edit summary doesn't seem to explain why we have two. I've gone and merged them together, pending a discussion. Pilled Mammal (talk) 16:35, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you :) I thought it was a bit odd too to have two entries for the same thing 188.150.162.83 (talk) 18:34, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I see you've it, with no edit summary. Can you explain why you are doing it this way? Pilled Mammal (talk) 18:47, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Pilled Mammal
 * I typed out a detailed explanation before but I lost it when I switched windows to double check the edit history. I'll try just from memory. I'm fairly sure the edit when I merged it has an edit summary. You might be looking at the wrong edit.
 * There were 3 people editing the page at overlapping times. You, me, and another.
 * I had the page open for several hours, because I got interrupted. Then when I saved I accidentally over wrote someone else's changes.
 * one of their changes was to add the date that the restrictions slightly eased.
 * when I realised this I tried to restore their changes and merge them with mine before I did anything else, this edit has a summary.
 * I think the first time you merged it must have been while I was working on that. You probably changed the version where i had accidentally erased the date they added?
 * I got stressed because I couldn't work out how to reconcile all the versions without undoing someone else's edits. I decided to restore the date the restrictions changed, but that meant I had to unmerge the cells.
 * I might have saved several times in the process to avoid causing the same problem i had be leaving it open several hours the first time, if there is a missing edit summary look at the edits before or after.
 * Please undo the second merge and restore all the references that supported what that row said. I had already changed it to more neutral language. Which was not as well supported by the sources as such, but which seemed justified based on our practice of doing things like changing "terrorist" to "militant".
 * Irtapil (talk) 21:43, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Pilled Mammal
 * Can it please explain what ON EARTH this reference has to do with the row you put it on?
 * And why it is more relevant that the reference that was there specifically describing the event in the row?
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_engagements_during_the_2023_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war&diff=1195921771&oldid=1195921690&variant=en
 * That article focuses on an event two days previously, put it on that row if you really think it's important?
 * Or find another reference primarily about the blockade.
 * Please un do your second merge of the rows. I'm trying to leave it alone so it's less effort for you to do as a simple undo.
 * Irtapil (talk) 22:08, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Pilled Mammal because it did stop being "total" but it doesn't stop. See other comment. Irtapil (talk) 22:51, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @188.150.162.83
 * I was trying to distinguish total from near total. But it was already "near total" in September. But people weren't starving in September, so that's the best way I could think of to describe it.
 * If you can think of a less emotive way to describe it i am open to suggestions?
 * September = near total and oppressive but nobody starving
 * Mid October = nightmarish total blockade
 * Current = not as bad as October but still life threatening to a large proportion of population
 * I can change it to "life threatening" but more sources say "starving".
 * Irtapil (talk) 22:50, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It’s a single event, with a single article; we should have a single entry that matches the title of the article - I see no justification to seperate it into two, and I am concerned that the phrasing you have chosen, given that it is in wiki voice, has NPOV issues. Pilled Mammal (talk) 20:17, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I've gone and merged them into a single row; there were too many NPOV issues, both involving the title and involving aspects like claiming, in Wikivoice, that the entire population of the strip had been captured. Please do not restore without first getting a consensus here. Pilled Mammal (talk) 20:39, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Pilled Mammal
 * That was the size of the effected population.
 * That was the most suitable column for it.
 * If you like we can add another column for "starved or dehydrated"? But elsewhere you are complaining that we have to many columns!
 * You are constantly deleting stuff from this page while you contribute very little. Your pattern of editing is seeming both unhelpful and quite biased.
 * Before you delete anything else,  please contribute something constructive. Please, try to add some of the missing information. You can add the missing death counts for each Kibbutzim? Or try to build a table of Palestinian rocket attacks that's as detailed as the one we have for what Israeli airstrikes?
 * Numerous sources refer to Gaza an an "open air prison" but I've not found a place thar fits here. Because that has been the situation for nearly two decades. (Incidentally that is also the context for an infamous 2019 speech from a minor Hamas backbencher that is frequently quoted out of context.) Irtapil (talk) 21:09, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Pilled Mammal
 * The reason what you've done now doesn't work is that there is
 * Now a huge comment on the last cell meaning that the row takes up half a page with blank space.
 * You also deleted all of the references I had with reputable sources supporting what I wrote.
 * It also means that the row can't be sorted to show where the change in conditions occurred relative to other events.
 * You've re-merged that twice now, and as far as I can tell it was less than 24 hours apart. On pages relating to this "contentious topic" there is supposed to be a rule of one "revert" per 24 hours WP:1RR
 * I would like you to undo that second merge please.
 * I have been meaning to post the background info to that on your talk page for ages, but you are very active on these pages, so surely you've seen it already by now?
 * I try to ignore borderline cases because being strict on the 1RR makes it impossible to edit. But that was fairly difinitive, unless I'm very mixed up about when you merged it the first time?
 * Irtapil (talk) 21:21, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Pilled Mammal
 * I had already changed it to the most neutral possible way to communicate what was done. You could have added quotation marks around the footnote that said "starvation used as weapon of war" if you were worried about "wiki voice"? But that was also just a footnote, deleting ALL the details in that row was somewhat excessive collateral damage. Irtapil (talk) 21:49, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @188.150.162.83
 * I changed to to more neutral language, but then somebody deleted it.
 * The sources all say "famine" or "starvation" but I figured since we usually change "terrorist" to "militant" it was justified to changed it to "obstruction of food and water supply"?
 * But now it's all packed into a giant comment in the last cell that makes that row take up half the page.
 * Irtapil (talk) 20:58, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm going to reply to all your comments here, rather than trying to address them separately.
 * First, though, please stop pinging me. Nine pings to a single page over just a couple of hours is excessive, especially when I am already involved in the relevant discussions.
 * Second, the source says:
 * I think the relevance is obvious? There were far too many sources previously, and they were bizarrely all tangential to the topic; I think this is an improvement, although we could replace it with this as a more detailed source?
 * Third, claiming that the entire population of Gaza had been captured is a WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:OR violation. It's not only an NPOV violation, it's false - there is no justification for us making it in Wikivoice.
 * Fourth, the edits were more than 24 hours apart.
 * Fifth, your version was not neutral; it made several claims in Wikivoice that are not supported by the sources - in line with WP:ONUS, please don't restore it. Pilled Mammal (talk) 07:48, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The bits I suspect bother you were the exact words from the sources, possibly I should have used quotation marks to avoid the "wiki voice" issue?
 * Possibly I had too many references and not all were relevant, but I really want an explanation from you of why this
 * … is more relevant to the blockade than  any  of the sourcrs that were there alrrady?
 * at least one of which was entirely about and the blockade itself and it's relevance as a military tactic.
 * Or the language of the announcement from
 * Arguably the one about the language is too tangential? but it's still more relevant than the reference that seems to be mostly about another event.
 * If they're were too many then the best to keep would be, "Starvation as a weapon of war" from Human Rights Watch, which explains why the blockade is in a military engagements table. That quote is the exact wording used in the source, but could be rephrased to be "more Wiki" if you wanted.
 * I chose HRW specifically because they take a very balanced view on the conflict, they have criticised the Palestinian militants equally often to their criticism of the IDF and in equal detail.
 * If you want to replace references, you need to find sources that are equally relevant, or more relevant, You removed two sources entirely about the relevant event and replaced it with one that has just a couple of sentences mentioned in it in an sticky that is mostly about the wrong event.
 * You could maybe justify that if your added the involvement of Egypt, mentioned in that quote, but you didn't.
 * Even if you consider the BBC particularly balanced or trustworthy (a valid perspective) they have other articles that are more focused on the relevant event.
 * Even if you consider the BBC particularly balanced or trustworthy (a valid perspective) they have other articles that are more focused on the relevant event.

versions
Edit by Pilled Mammal
 * Revision as of 20:33, 15 January 2024
 * →‎Military engagements: "See talk page"

created

REMOVED