User talk:Makeandtoss/Archive 9

2023 Israel–Hamas war lead section

Hi, thanks for your active editing on the 2023 Israel–Hamas war article. I was about to make some significant edits to the lead section but saw you were still actively making changes on the area, and wanted to be in sync with you first:

A problem with the lead is that the second paragraph focuses largely on the background, rather than the characteristics, effects, and responses of the attack. I think all that background info should be moved to the Background section. For reference, September 11 attacks does not discuss Al-Qaeda’s grievances or the history of U.S. foreign policy in the lead at all.

What do you think? You or I could make the edits; I just didn’t want to interfere with any edits you plan to make. Merlin^sorca 10:57, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

@Merlinsorca: Thank for the notice. Please be aware of MOS:LEDE which states: "In Wikipedia, the lead section is an introduction to an article and a summary of its most important contents." A lede serves as summarization of the body, and by extension, the background; I see no reason why a background summary shouldn't be in the lede. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:01, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Your latest edit goes also against MOS:OPEN: "The first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific. It should establish the context in which the topic is being considered by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it." Makeandtoss (talk) 11:05, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Happy to edit it further - I just moved content around as my first edit.

The first paragraph had no detail and only described the names of the operations. Merlin^sorca 11:08, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

With this edit, it had too much detail and specifics. Needs a short sentence or two to describe the conflict. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:10, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I’ve added a single sentence to summarize Merlin^sorca 11:17, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

@Merlinsorca: The sentence you added does not make much sense. Israel has also moved tanks, helicopters, and fighters jets; so, what's the point of mentioning this in the lede? Makeandtoss (talk) 11:16, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I can see how you disagree with adding this info, but I don’t see how it "does not make much sense". Surely it makes sense to include info that makes the initial attack unusual? When have militants entered Israeli territory with air, land, and sea vehicles before? The 9/11 article mentions that the attackers used commercial airliners. Merlin^sorca 11:21, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Are you really saying "don’t mention that the attackers used airliners in 9/11 because the U.S. used airplanes when bombing the middle east"? Merlin^sorca 11:22, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

@Merlinsorca: Reread the article title. This article is about the war, and not about the Hamas attack exclusively. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:23, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Noted, so we can add a sentence summarizing the Israeli response - airstrikes, ground invasions, shutting off services, etc. I hadn’t gotten to that yet. Merlin^sorca 11:26, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

@Merlinsorca: I don't see how that would be beneficial to the article. Look at Iraq War, Russo-Ukrainian War; none of the opening paragraphs have details on the proceedings of the war, but rather the context in which it happened. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:28, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

A couple of thoughts:

- Seems the bigger issue is that the article is called a "War" but the first paragraph only mentions the invasion. Would you agree on resolving this discrepancy by rewriting the first paragraph to refer to this as a war?

- My aim was simply to highlight what makes this war notable / significant in the first paragraph. Specifically, how unprecedented the initial attack was (in terms of coordination, surprise, quantity, and vehicles during incursion), and how heavy handed the response is. As it stands, it is lacking. I’ll consider in a little bit and share with you. Merlin^sorca 11:41, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I see news sources use the word "unprecedented" to describe this. Perhaps the first few sentences should be:

The 2023 Israel–Hamas war is an ongoing conflict between Israel and Palestinian militant groups led by Hamas. Part of the broader Gaza–Israel conflict, it began with an unprecedented (I could see this word being omitted. If not, I would include references, and perhaps include a note explaining why it is unprecedented) militant invasion of Israel from the Gaza Strip on October 7, 2023. In response, Israel formally declared war on Hamas on October 8.[1] Merlin^sorca 12:09, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

@Merlinsorca: The 2023 Israel–Hamas war is an ongoing conflict between Israel and Palestinian militant groups led by Hamas. Part of the broader Gaza–Israel conflict and following an uptick of violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the war began with an militant invasion of Israel from the Gaza Strip on 7 October 2023, followed by an invasion by Israel of the Gaza Strip.

This could be an appropriate initial iteration. Israel's declaration of war is only a formality. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:17, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

"Israel's declaration of war is only a formality" - perhaps, but my idea of this is to provide a date of their declaration regardless, so readers have a good grasp of the timeline.

The 2023 Israel–Hamas war is an ongoing conflict between Israel and Palestinian militant groups led by Hamas. Part of the broader Gaza–Israel conflict and following an uptick of violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the war began with a militant invasion of Israel from the Gaza Strip on 7 October 2023. In response, Israel declared war on Hamas on October 8 and launched an invasion of the Gaza Strip.

Also, there is a discussion on splitting the article and creating a new one for the initial attack: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2023_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war#Proposed_article_split_for_the_initial_attack

If you agree to split, would you consider adding your opinion there? Merlin^sorca 12:35, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

You’re right and I agree the lead should summarize the background. I would say that it’s going beyond summarizing and including too much detail (it seems to be redundant, duplicating most of the info there). Wouldn’t a single line suffice? Merlin^sorca 11:08, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

How is the background paragraph, the second paragraph, duplicating any information in the lede? Makeandtoss (talk) 11:09, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

The paragraph in the intro currently reads:

The war represents a tipping point in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict and the Gaza–Israel conflict, which followed a violent year that saw increased expansion of Israeli settlements and clashes in Jenin, Al-Aqsa mosque, Gaza, which killed almost 250 Palestinians and 36 Israelis; Hamas cited these events as justification for the attack and called on Palestinians to join the fight to "expel the occupiers and demolish the walls"

The body section paragraph reads:

In 2023, there were several violent flare-ups in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Prior to the attack, including combatants and civilians on both sides, at least 247 Palestinians had been killed by Israeli forces, while 32 Israelis and two foreign nationals had been killed in Palestinian attacks.

The lead section mentions both the locations and number of dead in background events. Too much detail. It also includes a quote by one side justifying the war. The other war articles you referenced as examples do not include quotes from one side justifying their side of the war. Merlin^sorca 11:45, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:1RR at 2023 Israel–Hamas war

Please be careful to not violate WP:1RR at 2023 Israel–Hamas war. In the past 24 hours, your reverts include but aren't limited to:

1. 11:07, 11 October 2023, reverting this edit
2. 09:42, 11 October 2023, reverting this edit
3. 23:26, 10 October 2023, reverting this edit

Remember that {the term "revert" is defined as any edit (or administrative action) that reverses or undoes the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, and whether performed using undo, rollback, or done so completely manually. A series of consecutively saved reverting edits by one user, with no intervening edits by another user, counts as one revert.

The reverts at 09:42, 11 October 2023 and 23:26, 10 October 2023 are particularly problematic, because they are edit warring over the same content. Some of this can still be self-reverted; please do so, to bring yourself as close to compliance as you can. BilledMammal (talk) 16:05, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

@BilledMammal: I am aware of 1 RR and trying to avoid it. this edit isn't technically a revert to the same version, the previous editor's objection were taken into consideration, and a different source and different information were used. As for the rest of the edits they were changed after lengthy discussions here on my talk page and on the article talk, they too cannot be considered edit warring. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:03, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't need to be a revert to the same version to be a revert and count towards 1RR. Similarly, even after lengthy discussions it still constitutes a revert; you can violate 3RR and 1RR even when you are editing to enforce a formal consensus, and in this case no formal consensus existed.

I also previously missed 10:16, 11 October 2023, reverting this edit, which involves you reverting over the same content that you were edit warring over at 09:42, 11 October 2023 and 23:26, 10 October 2023. Please be more careful to abide by 1RR in the future. BilledMammal (talk) 11:14, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

@BilledMammal: [2] this edit is not edit warring, the objection was regarding the wording. As for this edit it is basically adding HRW and UN direct claims rather than the ambiguous Amnesty International source. Edit warring involves repeatedly restoring a version while avoiding discussions and consensus reaching, which I have not committed. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:17, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Above, I provided the definition of revert, with 1RR and 3RR being a bright line. Your edits meet that definition, with you reinstating wording about claims of war crime violations. Even if you don't believe your edits constitute edit warring they do constitute bright line violations. BilledMammal (talk) 11:37, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

You've also made two reverts today, with one of them overlapping one of your reverts from yesterday.

1. 11:13, 12 October 2023, reverting this edit
2. 11:02, 12 October 2023, reverting this edit (discussed below)

Please self-revert the most recent, to bring yourself in compliance with 1RR. BilledMammal (talk) 11:45, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

@BilledMammal: reverted myself to wait for consensus forming on the article talk page. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:49, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate that; please do try to be careful in the future, the rules in this topic are taken very seriously. BilledMammal (talk) 11:53, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

@BilledMammal: Although it appears your interpretation of the 1RR to be correct judging from the definition above, I’m currently very confused as I have been editing for the past 10 years on the basis that 1RR only applies to the same material or parts of it; and practically this has been also the understanding by numerous other editors as I have observed from their editing behavior. 1RR exists to avoid edit warring, but extending 1RR to any revert on a single article in 24 hours is practically limiting an article’s quality for no good reason.

To give an example, imagine 10 editors editing a trending article, all of whom have already engaged in a revert in the past 24 hours, and basically none of them can technically revert a new edit that is unanimously considered to be lousy? Makeandtoss (talk) 11:58, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

My understanding, reinforced by diving into the deep history of the various ARBCOM cases, is that it is intended to discourage reverts as a form of editing, even if it slows down editing - editors are expected to go to the talk page before reverting, rather than after.

By intent, this extends to edits that are unanimously considered to be lousy; in ARBPIA2, when 3RR was still in force in this topic area, the principle on edit warring stated the restriction applies even when the disputed content is clearly problematic. BilledMammal (talk) 12:16, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

@BilledMammal: But the definition of 1RR above clearly opposes any reverts even if the matter was discussed on the talk page and a new consensus was formed? Makeandtoss (talk) 12:18, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes; I think the idea is you need to convince editors who haven't already used their one revert for the day. In general, 1RR and 3RR apply even when a formal consensus is formed; one that I was involved in last year was at WP:NSPORT, where despite a formal consensus existing at WP:NSPORT2022 the fact that editors were edit warring against that consensus didn't justify editors edit warring in favor of it. BilledMammal (talk) 12:20, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

@BilledMammal: Looking at the state of the Israel-Hamas war, probably every single editor has already used their revert in a single 24 hour period, which would leave the article in a bad state in some instances. Edit warring " occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions. Editors engaged in a dispute should reach consensus or pursue dispute resolution rather than edit war." But when consensus is already reached, why should it be edit warring to restore consensus, in some instances at least? Makeandtoss (talk) 12:24, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

why should it be edit warring to restore consensus Personally, I think it shouldn't, at least when consensus is indisputable such as a formally closed discussion. However, that isn't one of the exceptions at WP:3RRNO, and I have seen it enforced previously.

Incidentally, I'm not convinced that every editor has used their revert; unless I'm forgetting something I haven't used mine, for example. BilledMammal (talk) 12:27, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

2023 Israel–Hamas war - please achieve consensus before making changes

You have reverted my edit for adding the formal the declaration of war. You should discuss this with me or open a topic on the talk page first.

Also, the inclusion of the background in the lead section is under discussion here, please discuss before making edits: [3] Merlin^sorca 11:29, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

@Merlinsorca: I was unable to check the editor due to the sheer number of edits. But the declaration of war is nonsensical. Israrl engaged in wars in 1982 and 2006 without a formal declaration. A war happens when two sides fight and not when one side decides so in a matter of formality. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:32, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

The fact that the Irsaeli response began immediately on 7 October, and the Israeli cabinet formally declared war on 8 October is good information for a reader to have. Formal declaration of wars potentially come with additional legal powers.

Look at Attack on Pearl Harbor - the Japanese attacked and then declared war later - is that meaningless? Should we remove all declarations of war from the lead section in that article? Note that there is no separate article for the initial Hamas attack now, so until then, this article must also function as such. Merlin^sorca 11:33, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree but not in the lede which is already bloated with tons of information. I see no prominence to the war declaration neither from a practical perspective nor from significant reporting in reliable sources. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:37, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I disagree; the declaration of war won’t take up too much more space. It’s significant that Israel’s cabinet voted to declare war on Hamas only, which explains to the reader why the article is called Israel-Hamas war and not Israel-Palestinian Militants war. Reliable sources mentioned the declaration of war, and I used one of those references - deciding whether that constitutes "significant reporting" is highly subjective and if you applied that standard to everything, then I could argue the entire lead section should be 90% about Israeli airstrikes because that was 90% of the CNN coverage on the war for a couple of days. Merlin^sorca 11:45, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

@Merlinsorca: in that case that war was specifically waged on Hamas then sure sounds relevant, omit the date however to avoid cluttering. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:51, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

ANI-discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Jeppiz (talk) 17:42, 12 October 2023 (UTC)