User talk:FortunateSons

Welcome!
Hello, FortunateSons, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Below are some pages you might find helpful. For a user-friendly interactive help forum see the Wikipedia Teahouse.
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Simplified Manual of Style
 * Your first article
 * Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
 * Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
 * and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place  on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 18:58, 18 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much FortunateSons (talk) 19:06, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

A lengthy welcome
Hi FortunateSons. Welcome to Wikipedia. I hope you don't mind if I share some of my thoughts on starting out as a new editor on Wikipedia: If I could get editors in your situation to follow just one piece of advice, it would be this: Learn Wikipedia by working only on non-contentious topics until you have a feel for the normal editing process and the policies that usually come up when editing casually. You'll find editing to be fun, easy, and rewarding. The rare disputes are resolved quickly and easily in collaboration.

Working on biographical information about living persons is far more difficult. Wikipedia's Biographies of living persons policy requires strict adherence to multiple content policies, and applies to all information about living persons including talk pages.

If you have a relationship with the topics you want to edit, then you will need to review Wikipedia's Conflict of interest policy, which may require you to disclose your relationship and restrict your editing depending upon how you are affiliated with the subject matter. Regardless, editing in a manner that promotes an entity or viewpoint over others can appear to be detrimental to the purpose of Wikipedia and the neutrality required in articles.

Some topic areas within Wikipedia have special editing restrictions that apply to all editors. It's best to avoid these topics until you are extremely familiar with all relevant policies and guidelines.

If you work from reliable, independent sources, you shouldn't go far wrong. WP:RSP and WP:RSN are helpful in determining if a source is reliable.

If you find yourself in a disagreement with another editor, it's best to discuss the matter on the relevant talk page.

I hope you find some useful information in all this, and welcome again. --Hipal (talk) 19:56, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics
ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:24, 9 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you, this is very helpful. Would it be possible to clarify whether or not the articles in question are covered, as neither me nor the persons discussed are citizens of any of the belligerents? FortunateSons (talk) 19:31, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * They are covered because the content you're trying to add is directly related to the conflict. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:34, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I understand, thank you. May I ask three clarifying question?
 * 1. Should my proposal then be put on hold until I reach that benchmark, or is there a way to “hand it over”?
 * 2. This decision applies exclusively to the English Wikipedia, right?
 * 3. Does that also apply to comments that pre-date the current conflict escalation?

FortunateSons (talk) 19:38, 9 December 2023 (UTC)


 * You can leave the request as it stands now, but can engage no further in discussion about it until you are extended-confirmed. Be aware that any gaming of the system to reach the threshold is likely to result in your extended-confirmed permission being revoked, being topic banned, or being blocked outright.
 * Yes, only the English Wikipedia.
 * It applies to any comments or commentary about those comments that in any way relate to the Palestine/Israel conflict.
 * ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:56, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, I appreciate the clarification! That does not restrict content about the countries insofar as they are unrelated to the conflict, right? FortunateSons (talk) 20:03, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Correct, but keep in mind that the topic area is broadly construed, so it is wise to stay as far from any hint of the conflict as possible. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:06, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I will do my best, thank you FortunateSons (talk) 13:43, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Does broad include this discussion? FortunateSons (talk) 18:51, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

January 2024
Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Gigi Hadid. Thank you. - Hipal (talk) 20:29, 4 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I’m happy to alter content, but the references were (with the exception of a source used for specific details that I disclosed on the talk page) ABC, CNN and FAZ, which are all generally considered reliable in the context of WP:RS FortunateSons (talk) 20:50, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No offense, but are you fluent in English? --Hipal (talk) 21:40, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No offence taken. I am pretty fluent, but it is my third language, so I wouldn’t bet on understanding nuanced details completely. If I got something wrong, I am happy to correct it. However, the specific information regarding the accusations of racism against Hadid were sourced well in my opinion. No other things were added to the article by me. Could you explain what I did wrong? FortunateSons (talk) 21:45, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Given what look like difficulties understanding and addressing policy concerns, I think you should stay away from all contentious topics until you have a strong understanding of Wikipedia's content policies. It's difficult to tell if you're struggling with the language, ignoring discussions and policies, or simply WP:NOTHERE. --Hipal (talk) 21:51, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I understand your concern. I can say that I am editing in good faith (generally using talk page, no reverts without reason, use of the noticeboard). I obviously have my bias and my areas of interest, but most of my edits were either fine or at least not actually noticed (or a question of taste resolved trough consensus, which I would consider fine). In this case, I am happy to make an edit request with a rewrite, but would appreciate feedback beyond “bad”. Is that something you could do for me? FortunateSons (talk) 22:17, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Until you demonstrate what you assert, I've better things to do with my time. If you can make it clear you understand the policies and comments previously brought up, you'll find it easier to make progress. --Hipal (talk) 01:33, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You are free to disagree with me, but you can’t both disagree with my interpretation of your comments and not elaborate in which way my interpretation is wrong. FortunateSons (talk) 01:36, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I can help you, and don't feel it would be worth my time given the problems I've already identified. --Hipal (talk) 02:07, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I’m sorry to hear that FortunateSons (talk) 02:12, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It appears you've chosen to ignore this discussion.   WP:IDHT states, If the community spends more time cleaning up editors' mistakes and educating them about policies and guidelines than it considers necessary, sanctions may have to be imposed. --Hipal (talk) 19:03, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Understood. Would you be willing to direct me to the policies that I lack understanding off? FortunateSons (talk) 19:26, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Hipal, I hope this message finds you well. I have now edited for a few more months without issues going beyond inter-editor disputes in the areas known for them, making over 1000 edits, thereby (hopefully) showing my ability to understand and follow policy. Looking back on the content of the discussion, I nevertheless believe that including the content is covered by dueweight and RS, particularly for incidents of which we have good coverage. If you still disagree, I’m happy to use the relevant noticeboard if you prefer; I hope to come to a solution that is in line with policy and acceptable to all.
 * Specifically, I would like to include:
 * conduct perceived as blackface, as supported by CNN, ABC, Independent etc.
 * a more in-depth coverage of statements related to the I/P conflict as defined by PIA, supported by Haaretz, Independent, FAZ and others.
 * Thank you in advance for taking the time to respond. FortunateSons (talk) 19:46, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. Keep up the good work. I strongly encourage you to continue to work on other topics. --Hipal (talk) 16:21, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, I appreciate the encouragement. I will think about it some more, but it’s likely that I will use a noticeboard or another tool, so this is a heads-up to keep it fair and productive. :) FortunateSons (talk) 16:31, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

prior accounts
Have you used any other account on Wikipedia?  nableezy  - 18:17, 26 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I have not FortunateSons (talk) 18:24, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Why? FortunateSons (talk) 19:35, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Your editing reminds me of somebody. Also please see WP:HOUNDING. You’ve now several times shown up where I have just edited to places you’ve never been.  nableezy  - 18:43, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Sure, I found a few places one place of interest from you, but never to cause distress and apologise if I did; I occasionally ‘follow’ other users if they have similar interests (as I am pretty new), and no one ever minded/noticed before. I had interactions with Mw, EI, NGOM and topics regarding I/P before you interacted with me (feel free to verify through my edit history), and my only direct interaction referencing you was me partially agreeing with you (regarding EI), a place where I followed a user who wasn’t you.
 * Could you clarify if I accidentally violated this “This should always be done with care, and with good cause, to avoid raising the suspicion that an editor's contributions are being followed to cause them distress, or out of revenge for a perceived slight.“? If so, I apologise. FortunateSons (talk) 19:45, 27 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Wait, I checked, to the best of my knowledge:
 * places where I followed you:
 * 1. Talk Page on Israel, my edits are non-abusive, only one is somewhere were you commented, is there an issue with that one? If so, I apologise.
 * places where I commented after you (but didn’t follow you, to the best of my knowledge)
 * 1. Noticeboard on EI, a prior area of editing where I followed another user (who has not complained)
 * 2. ITN, followed another user (no complaints), the majority of your comments are after mine and not where I commented. However, that is where I jumped from (because I thought you made good points despite disagreeing, not out of any hostility)
 * places where you commented after me
 * 1. Mondoweiss
 * 2. NGO Monitor
 * (both edits appear to be fine, no reason for a grudge from my side)
 * As I said, no offence or harm meant. I sincerely apologise for any distress it may have caused. FortunateSons (talk) 20:23, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh, and may I ask who I remind you of? Is it a current editor, or someone who left? If it is someone current and you a concerned about policy violations regarding sockpuppeting, I am happy to have someone CheckUser me FortunateSons (talk) 20:29, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Electronic Intifada
Please stop removing the source, there is an active challenge to the close and your editing while that is ongoing is, in my view, WP:FAIT style editing. If the challenge fails then whatever, but as of now you’re making it so somebody such as myself will have to spend hours reverting those edits.  nableezy  - 14:03, 28 January 2024 (UTC)


 * 1. FAIT applies to things not currently justifiable by policy (and is also not strictly policy), the RFC on EI is, so that is not technically applicable here.
 * However, I appreciate your comment and am of course willing to engage with the spirit of it, so:
 * 2. My editing pre-dates your Noticeboard, and I am generally only removing edits that would not be useable for generally unreliable either (generally related to Israel, Palestine, BDS and BLP, so cases where there is a higher standard for sources), or cases where the sourcing appears questionable. I generally evaluate those case by case, including engaging on the talk pages of affected editors where I consider it to be prudent.
 * In many other cases, I either take no action or leave a comment on the talk pages of the subject; if you are willing, I am happy for you to engage with those in good faith by going through my edit history, and wave any rights regarding WP:Hounding when it comes to talk page entries on EI (assuming that there are no other issues with your comments). Retracted due to later interactions with the user
 * And lastly:
 * 3. If you have a specific issue with one or more, I am happy to discuss it here? But preferably, I am open for you to use a dispute resolution tool of your choosing to have a decision on this, as I am sure that this is not the last time that such an issue comes up and a binding ‚case law‘ is probably beneficial to all. FortunateSons (talk) 14:21, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * So far there is unanimous support for overturning the decision you are basing a huge chunk of your editing on. While that process proceeds I am asking you to refrain from adding to the burden of undoing, manually in most cases, hundreds of edits if it closes with that decision overturned.  nableezy  - 14:32, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 1. the support is not really unanimous, but it is the majority (for now)
 * 2. my edits are mostly things still covered by 3, such as not generally removing subject matter experts (a valid point you made in your vote, btw.)
 * 3. I am happy to pause while you pursue a dispute resolution measure of your choosing, which I consider a reasonable baseline if you believe that my actions violate the letter or spirit of said policy. If you don’t, I will stick with my interpretation, which is that my edits are still permitted.FortunateSons (talk) 14:37, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Administrators' noticeboard.  nableezy  - 15:03, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you! FortunateSons (talk) 15:18, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Do you mind if I respond to the comment on the talk page on Hajo Meyer in the affirmative? It’s an improvement imo FortunateSons (talk) 17:39, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh, and is there an admin noticeboard you can leave a marker/link at? Just so we get a resolution in a reasonable time frame? FortunateSons (talk) 21:04, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * As I've noted here, subject-matter experts (here Joseph Massad) are considered differently from generic editorial material, per WP:EXPERTSPS, and different considerations apply when weighing such sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:18, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * You’re right, I missed that, thank you! FortunateSons (talk) 20:24, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Ditto Sarah Irving on Sahar Khalifeh. As noted at RSN, EI has a high volume of guest writing from experts, so it pays to carefully check the authors. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:45, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I actually found her, but I believe that this at best tangentially related to her field of study, which is historical and not contemporary. I believe that this is the area of her activism and journalism, but not of her academic work. Do you disagree? FortunateSons (talk) 20:54, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 31
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited EBS Symposium, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages BCG and BNP. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 05:48, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Discussion on SFR user talk page
I noticed that there is a lengthy discussion on the SFR talk page, titled "What are the rules regarding this?" I clicked through and am having trouble ascertaining just what specific edits are at issue in your initial post. Can you please elaborate, perhaps in the discussion itself so that people arriving late can figure out what sparked this situation? Thanks in advance, Coretheapple (talk) 15:16, 13 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I can only summarise what I perceive to be the issue, but to try to be as neutral and fair as possible: There was a depreciation of Electronic Intifada, which was later overturned. Before that (and partially during the discussion regarding overturning) I removed a significant amount of the citation from EI, based on my good-faith belief that this depreciated (and now gunrel) source is not generally usable in specific areas, mostly I/P and BLP, unless an exception applies (you can find the discussion above). When asked to stop, I stated that I would if instructed by an admin or dispute resolution tool, and have done so once that happened.
 * Now that the decision is overturned, that user is broadly reversing all removals of EI. While some reversals may be justified based on the new ruling, I would like them to justify inclusion with arguments and to comply with the standards set forth for the inclusion of a gunrel source. They believe that my removals are no longer justified by policy, as the depreciation was revoked, and that the non-depreciation is a sufficient argument for inclusion and therefore continue to revert the edits without a specific argument.
 * That being said, you do have to read the discussions on both their and my talk page and the linked discussion, otherwise you only have my POV.
 * I hope that helped, please feel free to reach out if you need further information or if you believe that a part of my description is inaccurate or incomplete, just so it remains readable for those uninvolved. FortunateSons (talk) 15:51, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Does that answer your question? FortunateSons (talk) 15:51, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I have been away for a while and am trying to catch up. Yes, typically sources that are generally unreliable are just that. Coretheapple (talk) 16:27, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * You’re welcome! Just to clarify on the place of discussion: I brought it up on their user page, they requested I don’t do that, and an uninvolved admin ist generally the first (and in this case, probably only) step of the escalation letter towards a measure of dispute resolution.
 * The discussions on EC on the other hand is out of place. But it wasn’t my idea and was quite interesting, so… FortunateSons (talk) 16:41, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Actually no, if you feel there is a user conduct issue you can bring it up at WP:AE. But I have a hunch that it will either go nowhere, boomerang against you (whether warranted or not is immaterial) and/or be kicked back to the talk pages of the articles involved. So why not just cut to the chase and bring it back to the talk pages of the articles involved? Coretheapple (talk) 17:00, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * An uninvolved admin can be an adequate remedy when it comes to conduct, but yes, the likelihood of success is limited. I already left talk page comments in some places, I’m just not looking to do it 50 or so times. FortunateSons (talk) 17:04, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Is this an issue in that many articles? That's quite a bit. I would suggest, if you haven't done so already, listing somewhere (maybe the discussion segment of the RS/N discussion?) precisely where this has been an issue, where EI is used and is disputed. Better you do that where the most people can see it. Here and only here may not be optimal. Coretheapple (talk) 17:36, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, to quote the user “all your edits based on it being deprecated are invalid and I am going through them to restore them”. I’m not sure if they are being selective at all, if they are, it will probably not be as many, if they restore them all and I challenge all of the ones on my to do list as well, we may get into the 3 digits if we are unlucky. Unfortunately, building consensus in either direction for a general policy is probably not going to be particularly successful based on my past experience in this area of editing, so if these reverts are permitted, it will just be a very slow and tedious process.
 * This process would have been significantly faster if they actually explained their reverts beyond “not depreciated”, but apparently such edits are permitted and not actionable, so this will just be a very slow exercise in consensus building. FortunateSons (talk) 18:04, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh I see. That clarifies matters. Thank you. Coretheapple (talk) 19:13, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking the time. It’s just very frustrating, because some of the reverts have a point and some don’t, so I get to ask for every single one when quick comment would save us all hours of our time FortunateSons (talk) 19:26, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Olivia Frank (intelligence officer) has been accepted
 Olivia Frank (intelligence officer), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/New_question&withJS=MediaWiki:AFCHD-wizard.js&page=Olivia_Frank_(intelligence_officer) help desk] . Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Thanks again, and happy editing! GnocchiFan (talk) 13:32, 30 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much, @GnocchiFan :) FortunateSons (talk) 13:33, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Congratulations! ProfGray (talk) 00:02, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you, also for your contribution to the article! FortunateSons (talk) 00:03, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Please stop.
The closer did NOT forbid the use of Mondoweiss in BLPs. Nothing actually changed about how we use it. What you're doing now looks like an end run around trying to depreciate it. If you want to remove the refs you need to actually explain why the use is problematic. Please self revert any revert any removals that left lines unreferenced unless you can do so, or I will. Parabolist (talk) 22:27, 14 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Apologies for the wall of text, but as this might come up again, it’s nice to be somewhat thorough:


 * Intent: I am not trying to depreciate it by removing all or most uses, I am just following the changed RfC in combination with existing policies and removing uses from BLP unless I consider them covered by ‚great caution‘. Leaving a bad source for BLP is undesirable and should be avoided, and leaving a is not generally inappropriate in such cases; I rarely directly remove content unless it was highly problematic per se. The removal of problematic BLP uses was part of the purpose of the RfC, in the words of it’s creator: […]I'd rather get consensus before I start ripping citations to it out of BLPs.
 * Conduct: I leave accurate and polite edit summaries, elaborating where relevant. I also engage on talk pages, and left talk pages edits in cases that I considered less clear. No other conduct issues seem to be apparent, and evaluation of sources used is standard practice. On that note, please do not cast aspersions, as you did both in this comment and this edit summary, and AGF instead. In the long term, I plan (and others will, if I don’t get to it fast enough) to either add citations or remove the content, but leaving a potentially defamatory, hostile or unreliable source instead of just removing it and leaving a cn is definitely not mandated after the close. By the way, many of my edit summaries do point to specific issues, most importantly the mix of BLP and contentious topic and the implied lack of (noticed) specific reason for inclusion. WP:BLPFRINGE is applicable where relevant.
 * Close content: this is wrong. No substantial changes were made except the rules regarding BLP, logically meaning that the BLP rules were changed, which is (IMO) an adequate justification for evaluating uses that are potentially problematic, an issue that is quite clearly given where you reverted my removal (BLP, Hunger strike, semi-current conflict). You can make an argument in that complies with „great caution“ if you find one, and I’m happy to engage on the talk page discussion (please ping me if you do so), or you can just add an RS, both of which would be a productive way to address the issue you state to be having. Relevant change per close: There is a consensus that Mondoweiss is biased and that content cited to it should be evaluated and, when appropriate, presented as per WP:RSEDITORIAL and that it should either not be used at all — or used with great caution — for biographies of living people. No further consensus as to its underlying reliability emerged. This appears to be, more or less, a community endorsement of the status quo for Mondoweiss at WP:RSP.
 * FortunateSons (talk) 23:21, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Please note that the Mondoweiss close has been contested on the grounds that the discussion did NOT establish that MW should not be used for BLP's. Therefore please cease your removals of this source until this is resolved Selfstudier (talk) 16:30, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the notification, I will do so until it is resolved, per the precedent on EI. Am I right in the assumption that I am free to participate in the ANI? FortunateSons (talk) 18:45, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Figured it'd only be fair to return the favor :) Even though we didn't see eye to eye, I think we at least understood each other's perspectives well enough that we could see how someone could reasonably come to different conclusions, and when the subject of discussion is quite possibly the most divisive subject in the world I think that level of mutual understanding is something worth celebrating. Your calm tone, patience, and willingness to assume good faith really stood out in a positive way.  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 09:29, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much, it's my first one! :)
 * To have this sort of discussion, which remained civil and fair despite the topic (and let's be honest, unlike much of the RfC), is something that is often missing from this topic area. I felt like you understood my arguments for their sake and not merely to have a counter, and am really glad that my tone and conduct came across the way I wanted to. In addition, your arguments helped me to better understand and empathise with your position, and your tone, style of argumentation and the quality of your arguments made the discussion not only worth having, but also enjoyable. Your ability to disagree in such a respectful way deeply impressed me, and was a good reminder how we should all aspire to conduct ourselves. FortunateSons (talk) 13:03, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Deprecation removals
I don't know if you're doing these automatically or what -- surely this is a tedious task at any rate -- but I think you should consider using the actual citation needed template, instead of just having that be the text in the ref tag. For example, this diff -- it ends up needing to be fixed later in an AWB run. If you're doing these all manually, I guess it is what it is, but if you're using a predefined string for the replacement, I would recommend  over. jp×g🗯️ 00:23, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Of course, I think the optimal solution would be to comment out the original citation, which tends to make it easier to re-reference things from bad sources. That is to say, an article in the Daily Crapheap might consist entirely of original reporting, or it might say something like "This story was originally broken by the Reliable Times", in which case you can go there and click the link and cite the Reliable Times article. It's not a big deal either way, since it's in the page history anyway, but if I am trying to find a better citation it usually helps to be able to see what the old one was, even if it's from a bad source. jp×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 00:27, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Dear @JPxG, thank you for the nice message, I hope correcting that wasn’t too tedious.
 * I’m afraid I’m doing it manually, whatever that says about the way I use my time. :)
 * In this particular case, the source was later re-closed as 3, so this is less of an issue anyway.
 * Regarding your first comment, I have already started using in most cases, but will start doing it in all cases, thank you.
 * Regarding commenting out, I hadn’t thought about that before. Should I just put it into the edit summary, or what would be the way that makes it easiest for the next person? FortunateSons (talk) 07:23, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @JPxG: Electronic Intifada isn't actually deprecated, so there is no actual reason to be expunging it without thought, and yes, definitely without leaving a citation needed tag. Where the source is linked in multiple points with a ref name, these removals are especially problematic as they are liable to create ref errors, and yes, bot chaos. If a source is unreliable, the best option, if you are not interested in engaging with the content is to tag it as "better sources needed". Iskandar323 (talk) 09:46, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This is quite bad. Dozens of references were removed in January based on either a false premise, misleading edit summary or lack of understanding of the difference between GUNREL and deprecation. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:52, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It’s none of those: the source was depreciated, the close was later successfully challenged; you can see the discussion above, I paused upon request at AN during the challenge and did not continue after the close with the same style of removal. As far as I recall, we already discussed this back then, no?FortunateSons (talk) 09:55, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Foodspring has been accepted
<div style="border:solid 1px #57DB1E; background:#E6FFE6; padding: 0.5em 1em; color: #000; margin: 1.5em; width: 90%;"> Foodspring, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/New_question&withJS=MediaWiki:AFCHD-wizard.js&page=Foodspring help desk] . Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Thanks again, and happy editing!   [[User:CanonNi ]]  (talk • contribs) 10:17, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Matthias Goldmann has been accepted
<div style="border:solid 1px #57DB1E; background:#E6FFE6; padding: 0.5em 1em; color: #000; margin: 1.5em; width: 90%;"> Matthias Goldmann, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/New_question&withJS=MediaWiki:AFCHD-wizard.js&page=Matthias_Goldmann help desk] . Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Thanks again, and happy editing! Mdann52 (talk) 16:59, 4 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much! FortunateSons (talk) 17:09, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Reply
- I think that for the first part of the RfC, the 3:1 description was fair, but the "strength of the argument" was not. To say that the source was generally unreliable, one should show it was not just biased, but publish incorrect information on a regular basis. I believe this is not at all the case for this source after looking at the entire discussion. That's why I think the RfC should not be closed "by parts". Saying that, I will not make AN posting given my previous negative experience with administrative discussions, and I do not feel myself sufficiently familiar with this subject, so whatever. My very best wishes (talk) 15:46, 18 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Welcome to my talk page :)
 * The 3/1 description if mostly accurate, but it’s !votes for a reason, and the question of mismatch between vote and content is something to look at, though of course by someone less involved than me.
 * I agree that a joint close would be beneficial, but based on the nature of this RfC (and its excessive length), I’m not sure how likely it is that someone will volunteer hours or days of the life.
 * I might open one, but I’m pretty busy right now, so I can’t promise anything. FortunateSons (talk) 15:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I do not ask you or anyone to submit such request. But if anyone does, this should be based on the guidelines: #1 - no (after looking very quickly), #2 - no; #3 - no; #4 - no. Based on that, this is not a good case to submit to AN. Unfortunately, there is no official "review" board for RfC closings, such as one we have for AfD. My very best wishes (talk) 16:10, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Of course, any review submitted by me would be only in my name and by my own free will.
 * I think it might be a promising case for AN strongly based on 1 (particularly the quote on top of their talk page) and 2, but we will see if that is convincing.
 * A review board for RfCs would be a cool idea, has that been suggested at the village pump? FortunateSons (talk) 16:46, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, second part of #2 might apply here ("The outcome is a close call or likely to be controversial"). Saying that Anti-Defamation League was a "generally unreliable source" is controversial. #1 - you need some diffs to prove your point, and I do not see them. And again, I did not ask for anything, just checked RSNB and commented because this is an obvious cases of an RfC that needs to be closed as a whole by experienced admins. Personally, I do not care if it will be closed as a "generally unreliable source" or however. My very best wishes (talk) 16:58, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That’s a good point. Yes, I might do it, but only of my own free will.
 * I think a proper close by an admin might be good even with the same outcome, simply with the function of having a clearer and more detailed close for the future, particularly if referenced in a discussion about the topic. FortunateSons (talk) 19:32, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This whole thing was ripe for closing a month ago. My very best wishes (talk) 20:36, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 100%, I think that’s the only thing that everyone will agree about. FortunateSons (talk) 20:39, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Just saw that you’re taking a break. I hope everything works out, and best of luck with whatever it is! FortunateSons (talk) 12:37, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Work in progress for discussion
Notes:

a) credit for creating the original list:

b) WP:EXPERTSPS applies, so unless there are concerns about falsified quotes, the source is secondary here

c) any translation should be scrutinised, and mistakes will be corrected inside the table once found

d) now written out, the categories get blurry. I have my own opinion, but will leave it to the others on the details

FortunateSons (talk) 21:28, 25 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Here's a list I pulled together for a previous discussion similar to this, based on sources that appeared in the article:
 * - Omer Bartov - NYT - Genocidal intent, risk of genocide
 * - 800 scholars in law, conflict studies, and genocide studies - Third World Approaches to International Law Review - Risk of genocide
 * - Abdelwahab El-Affendi - Journal of Genocide Research - Genocide
 * - 100+ Global Rights Groups - Common Dreams - Genocide
 * - Mark Levene - Journal of Genocide Research - Genocide
 * - Zoé Samudzi - Journal of Genocide Research - Genocide
 * - Martin Shaw - Journal of Genocide Research - Genocide
 * - Elyse Semerdjian - Journal of Genocide Research - Genocide
 * - Raz Segal - Jewish Currents - Genocide
 * - 100 Civil Society Organisations and Genocide Scholars - Al-Mezan Centre for Human Rights - Genocide
 * - Human Rights Watch - Human Rights Watch - Failure to prevent and punish Genocide
 * - Amnesty International - Amnesty International - Failure to prevent and punish Genocide
 * - Michael Fakhri - The Guardian - Genocide
 * - Ernesto Verdeja - TIME - gravitating towards a "genocidal campaign"
 * - Center for Constitutional Rights - The Intercept - Genocide
 * - 47 scholars in the fields of history, law, and criminology - International State Crime Initiative - Genocide
 * - Israeli Public Figures represented by Human Rights Lawyer Michael Sfard - The Guardian - Ignoring incitement to genocide
 * - Ben Kiernan - Time - Does not meet legal definition for genocide
 * - Adam Jones - Vox - Causing Article 2, Clause C
 * - Dov Waxman - Vox - Risk of genocide
 * - Norman Finkelstein - GV Wire - Genocide
 * - Eva Illouz - Le Monde - Not genocide
 * - Eva Illouz - The Forward - Incitement to genocide
 * - Genocide Watch - Genocide Watch - Risk of genocide
 * - Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention - Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention - Genocide
 * I've removed the countries who held stated positions from the initial list, as they are out of scope for this list.
 * These are some more, not included in the previous list:
 * 60 scholars, including some who have since published individual opinions/papers - Contending Modernities - Risk of genocide, with incitement to genocide
 * Verena Buser - Jewish Journal - not genocide
 * Omar Shahabudin McDoom - Journal of Genocide Research - No position stated, but questions by we haven't seen statements from some Genocide scholar institutions and groups warning of a risk, and denouncing aspects of the violence in the Israeli assault on Gaza
 * There are then the half-dozen new articles published in the Journal of Genocide Research I have yet to read.
 * While these next two are historians, the fact they published their opinion in Quillete, means we shouldn't really be using them for the article. I included them in the previous list, as someone had previously added them to the article, and I tried to bolster the "not genocide" view as much as I could at that time:
 * - Norman J. W. Goda - Quillette - Not genocide
 * - Jeffrey C. Herf - Quillette - Not genocide
 * -- Cdjp1 (talk) 23:16, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. Do you want to add them to the list, or keep them separate for now? FortunateSons (talk) 23:19, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I’m done with the quotes; do you think that any of those are inaccurate or misleading?
 * I need to sleep now, but will continue once I’m awake. Thank you :) FortunateSons (talk) 23:45, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Kittel – Not genocide, can't access full article, so I'm not sure if the "broad or narrow sense" comment is attributed to Kittel. Mentions Germany’s special considerations [see bias] when it comes to considering genocides due to WW2.
 * Ambos – Details Bartov's position from November, doesn’t really take a position, just provides various considerations necessary for a legal determination. Mentions Germany's biases with regards to supporting Israel.
 * Wiese – Agree on the translations of her comments. Though I do have questions on her assessment that Croatia v Serbia found that genocide requires the "sole aim", as I can't see such argument in the ruling, (I assume this stems from the "only inference" statement) though I am not a lawyer so I may be missing something.
 * Platt – Not been able to listen, but no issue on the title translation. For inclusion, I'd want a transcription of the actual audio.
 * Schabas – We already have Schabas' opinions detailed in the article from English language sources. This would be a re-iteration essentially on his opinions a couple of months after the source we have cited.
 * Herik – No issues
 * Cohen & Shany – No issues in the summation. Lots of issues with the arguments, including from the critique of legalism, but that is by-the-by for this.
 * Walter – agree with translation, again issues with arguments, but again legalism.
 * Burke-White – Summation of opinion is fine.
 * Feldmann – Translation fine (also agree with much of WSWS' commentary to him)
 * Pfeifer/Weipert-Fenner/Williams – Translation fine, some interesting commentary on various actions, so may be able to add more from this, or at least have it as a citation throughout various parts of the article.
 * Goldmann – I would have thought you may pull on the "smoking gun" comments. Translation is fine. Again, other commentary from Goldmann on some of the other legal cases presented in the article could (and probably should) be included in the article.
 * Hartwig and Müller – Translation is fine, may need to have an explainer on the added "necessarily", for people who will question it. I'd prefer a different source than Watson for it, as the commentary Watson provides is, poor in my opinion.
 * Khan – I would want the time frame of his comment included, "bislang", which I understand to be "so far"/"until now".
 * Talmon – Like with Kittel, we really want the full articles, but the translation of the little available is fine.
 * Sassoli and Diggelmann – Translations fine, I'm just confused by the use of the term "generational" in Diggelmann’s comment.
 * -- Cdjp1 (talk) 08:38, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much!! I will finish the table and make an effort to dig up archive links for what is inaccessible, and try to fix what you brought up. I don't know what generational is supposed to mean, it's either swiss german or an error in the article. FortunateSons (talk) 08:48, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Paywall removal for you:
 * Kittel
 * Talmon FortunateSons (talk) 09:11, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think I have addressed everything except the transcript (which I will probably have to do manually). Are there any issues I missed? FortunateSons (talk) 09:30, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for all your efforts. The archives are erroring for me at the moment, I can dig around on them properly later though. If you don't mind, I will begin adding the list I provided in the formatting of the table this evening as well. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 10:43, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Of course, thank you for the kind words and your effort! FortunateSons (talk) 11:11, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I’m going ahead and adding the current version while it’s permitted, you are welcome to update it there as well :) FortunateSons (talk) 11:36, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I have allowed others to make changes to the version in the discussion. You’re welcome to directly add sources there, or add them here, and I will help move them later :) FortunateSons (talk) 14:50, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'll add to the table directly there, I can't promise it will all be done quickly, but I'll do as best I can. Once the 'discussion' (seems too civil a name for it with how heated it has gotten) is over, I'll copy the table onto the head of the talk page, so it's will be easily hat hand for reference for the inevitable future discussions. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 15:51, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a reasonable plan. I’m pretty busy over the next week or so too, so no hurry from my end. FortunateSons (talk) 15:53, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Which of these, if any, are published in peer-reviewed journals? I'm not seeing how (non-specialist) newspapers quoting scholars in one sentence or two, is equivalent to detail in-depth and scholarly studies of the subject? Pardon my intrusion here.VR (Please ping on reply) 05:22, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Hey, the original question was whether or not there was significant disagreement among scholars whether
 * or not this is a genocide. Respected professors saying that it isn’t (or isn’t clearly) is such disagreement. FortunateSons (talk) 06:26, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * A source in Hebrew: Haaretz in Hebrew, Professor Daniel Blatman, Holocaust historian (left leaning), November 2023:
 * עצם העובדה שישראל והפלסטינים מנהלים ביניהם מלחמה עקובה מדם כבר ארבעה דורות, והם מבצעים האחד בשני פשעי7 אומרת כי בעזה באוקטובר 2023 התחיל ג'נוסייד
 * The mere fact that Israel and the Palestinians have been waging a bloody war between them for four generations, and they are both committing war crimes and hair-raising acts of violence, still does not mean that a genocide began in Gaza in October 2023 Vegan416 (talk) 09:24, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm assuming that you speak and read Hebrew? Mine isn't even close to good enough for this, but I think additional Hebrew sourcing may be good for the article and this and future discussions, if you have the time to create something FortunateSons (talk) 09:28, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes. Hebrew is my mother tongue. I'm on it (as time permits) Vegan416 (talk) 09:31, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * There is no time limit here, particularly looking at the ongoing discussion on the closers talk page, this might take a while FortunateSons (talk) 09:32, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Another Israeli source (in English this time):
 * Israeli Newspaper site, Professor Dina Porat, Holocaust historian: "University lecturers in Europe, U.S. claim Israel commits genocide and ethnic cleansing without a foundation in reality, leaving historical study without a factual basis and only with a subverted version of events". Vegan416 (talk) 10:13, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Vegan416 we don't mention Porat by name, but do include hers and other Holocaust scholars' response to Bartov's opinion in the article. The article is a Haaretz article by Frilling et al., 28 November 2023. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 10:38, 26 June 2024 (UTC)