User talk:Arsonatdennys

Welcome!
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.

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
ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:26, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Crude answer to compex question
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)