Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:04, 14 December 2024

Archives

1, 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Disinfo

I didn't know of disinfo until I saw your comment. Help me navigate that website please. How is this disinformation? The WaPo article cited says "The evidence shows that Israel has carried out its war in Gaza at a pace and level of devastation that likely exceeds any recent conflict, destroying more buildings, in far less time, than were destroyed during the Syrian regime’s battle for Aleppo from 2013 to 2016 and the U.S.-led campaign to defeat the Islamic State in Mosul, Iraq, and Raqqa, Syria, in 2017." VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 01:01, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

EUvsDisinfo typically has the relevant outlets/links to the actual disinfo (or screenshots of them) on the left and a Summary/Response section that explains what and how is being distorted, falsified, etc. - Amigao (talk) 02:09, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes I see that and can you explain to me how exactly is the above link a distortion or falsification? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 02:38, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

What is untrue is the Telegram link/screenshot to the left of the page that distorts the underlying WaPo article. The issue was not with the WaPo article per se. That is what the EUvDisinfo page is explaining. - Amigao (talk) 14:59, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes and what exactly is the issue with the Telegram screenshot? It is clear that Israel's destruction in Gaza is greater than the destruction in Aleppo? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 17:39, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

EUvsDisinfo was not disputing the contents of the WaPo article, only the distortion of it. That is quite clear from explanation in their "Response" section of the link you provided. - Amigao (talk) 19:19, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Removing unsourced information

Please refrain from outright deleting unsourced or unrealiably sourced text that otherwise contributes to the quality of an article without discussion. Instead you could find a source to cite or use a template such as . In addition, please engage with the cited sources before taking action, as text that might seem unsourced at first glance may be confirmed by a citation further down in the section. Thank you. Khaverte (talk) 14:30, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that WP:RS is hard WP:POLICY on Misplaced Pages. One is always free to restore unsourced text with a WP:RS. - Amigao (talk) 15:09, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I am aware of this. However, I am voicing this request because (a) requesting citations, rather than deleting text, makes the work of other Wikipedians easier, (b) immediate deletion may result in actually sourced text being deleted (as described in the initial message, and as has been the case in the History of opium in China article), and (c) text deletion may result in otherwise valuable and factual information being omitted despite a reliable source being available (but uncited), as not all contributors check the edit history of every page for instances of unsourced text removal that can be restored. See also WP:NOCITE. Khaverte (talk) 15:43, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

How would a reader even know that a statement is factual if there is no WP:RS there to back it up? That puts an undue burden on the reader to research unsourced text if they wish to confirm its veracity, which is an unrealistic expectation in most cases. How would they know that it is not WP:OR? Also, please see WP:PROVEIT. - Amigao (talk) 15:59, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

My point regarding (c) does not relate to the reader, but rather to future editors and article quality. Unsourced text deletion lowers the likelihood of WP:BESTSOURCES being added to the article when compared to the use of a {{Citation needed}} template, as it effectively hides the need for additional citations in the edit history. A {{Citation needed}} eliminates the burden on the reader you mention while also avoiding the issues of (a) and (b). Once again, please see WP:NOCITE. To illustrate my position: my work on History of opium in China would have been easier if you had used {{Citation needed}} instead, and if I had not been invested enough to monitor the article's history after my initial edits, it would be unlikely that an outside editor would have noticed the multiple instances of removal and provided the needed sources. Khaverte (talk) 16:36, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

You can also consider using a sandbox to write drafts if you do not yet have the sources to support the text. It is hard for editors to know when someone makes an edit and intends to add the source later and when they do not. Superb Owl (talk) 17:21, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

You seem to have misunderstood the issue. That is not at all the case that is being discussed here. Every one of my edits has been accompanied with citations. Khaverte (talk) 17:25, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

A tag for 'citations needed' is a temporary fix but one that seldom leads to the tagged text getting a WP:RS in practice. There are some good past discussions about this very issue in the talk archives of WP:V and WP:RS that I recommend. - Amigao (talk) 21:41, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Deletion, on the other hand, almost never (this case being an exceedingly rare exception) leads to the text getting a WP:RS, by virtue of the would-have-been-tagged text simply no longer existing in the article body. Why not choose seldom making the article better over almost never doing so?

You have still not addressed (a) or (b).

Could you please link to those discussions? There are 81 archive pages on WP:V alone and I do not find it reasonable to expect a user to read through all of them in search of a discussion concerning a specific topic. Khaverte (talk) 21:56, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

It's obvious he has a bias and interest in being Pro-American, Pro-Israel and Pro-Disruption in his edits. This account might be under the control of a government mass psyops program, he also removed my edit regarding Global Times and changed it back to being objective. We should report this account. Preaching of "state actors" in his user page while doing actions of similar caliber is crazy. Invictalock (talk) 10:56, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Also, thank you for adding WP:BESTSOURCES to History of opium in China. This is a good instance of how this process leads to an all-around stronger article. - Amigao (talk) 16:01, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

TNT and Synth

I don't call for TNT lightly - the references in that article are so entangled and use so much WP:SYNTH that blowing up and starting over really does seem like the correct call. Please review my detailed notes here - I put them at article talk because, regardless of whether my AfD succeeds, these serious deficiencies in citation need to be addressed. Simonm223 (talk) 16:43, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

It's quite obvious he has a bias and interest in being Pro-American, Pro-Israel and Pro-Foreign Interest in his edits. This account might be under the control of a government psyops effort, he also removed my edit regarding Global Times and changed it back to being heavily biased after I corrected his wording. We should seriously consider reporting this account. Preaching of "state actors" in his user page while engaging in the same behaviour is crazy. Invictalock (talk) 14:04, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

PressTV as source of Iranian designation

I saw you removed my edit on Iran considering the HTS as terror org due to the PressTV source. How would this not fall under the exception. It's a state-media source being used to determine how the Iranian state considers the HTS (a terror group or otherwise). It's not being used as a source for facts on an event. ReiPeixe (talk) 00:12, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

It's obvious he has a bias and interest in being Pro-American, Pro-Israel and Pro-Disruption in his edits. This account might be under the control of a government mass psyops program, he also removed my edit regarding Global Times and changed it back to Objectivism. We should report this account. Preaching of "state actors" in his user page while doing actions of similar caliber is crazy. Invictalock (talk) 10:55, 14 December 2024 (UTC)