User talk:Vice regent

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

Hi, this is my discussion page. Do not hesitate to leave message for me. Old messages are eventually archived.

Archives

Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

RfC Closure

[edit]

@Vice regentHey VR. Just dropping in to start to gather some opinion on the RfC going on in the Gaza bombing article. I believe we now have consensus, and wanted your opinion. No rush of course. Johnadams11 (talk) 03:33, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. 5 out of 7 users who commented support removing it from the lead, so that does look like consensus for removal from lead. However, most of the comments were made in the last week. We should wait until comments stop coming in (say a week without any comments) before evaluating consensus.VR (Please ping on reply) 04:50, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Vice regent As we go on, please consider WP:Bludgeoning if thinking about commenting further. With the exception of me, I believe you've engaged with near everyone who's disagreed with you. Johnadams11 (talk) 00:41, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Third Lebanon War

[edit]

Information icon Hello, Vice regent. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Third Lebanon War, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 18:11, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Using Op-eds for controversial statements and miss representing content

[edit]

Hello @Vice regent,

I noticed that in the article Israeli invasion of Syria (2024–present), you added information that seemed questionable to me [[1]]. Your addition was not based on a news source but rather on an opinion piece, which is not considered a reliable source on Wikipedia without attribution (Wikipedia:NEWSOPED).

Moreover, you wrote, based on this source, that the IDF "took other civilians as prisoners", but I could not find any mention of this in the source itself. Additionally, you wrote "Israeli forces also shot and killed civilians", but I found in the source that it only mentions soldiers firing shots, there is no mention of anyone being killed as a result.

I would appreciate it if you could clarify why you relied on this source and what led you to write what you did. Rafi Chazon (talk) 14:28, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rafi Chazon the relevant policy here would be MOS:LEADCITE, which states that "Although the presence of citations in the lead is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article, there is no exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none."
In this case, you can see there were already many citations in the article for Israeli forces both killing civilians and taking them as prisoner: [2](SOHR), [3] (EuroNews), [4] (TimesOfIsrael), [5] (SOHR). Given these sources, can you now undo this edit of yours? But I agree, it would be a good idea to add these citations directly at the end of the sentence. VR (Please ping on reply) 21:50, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Vice regent Thank you for your response. However, there are still a few things that I did not understand.
You wrote: "Israeli forces also shot and killed civilians, and took other civilians as prisoners". However, based on the sources you provided, this does not seem entirely accurate.
First, these sources mention an airstrike targeting civilians, whereas the phrase "shot and killed" generally implies rifle fire and face-to-face combat, which is not mentioned in the sources you cited.
Second, it appears that the sources you provided regarding the killing of 11 Syrians, some of whom were civilians, are primarily based on a single original source. However, upon examining that source, it states: "The explosion is believed to br caused by a new Israeli airstrike" (the typo is in the source). The information is presented in a uncertain manner regarding Israel’s responsibility for the explosion. This skeptical framing is maintained in this current article, where the event is described as follows: "On 29 December, 11 people, mostly civilians, were killed in what is believed to be an Israeli airstrike". So why did you phrase your lead as if this were an undisputed fact rather than something still in question?
Third, the source you cited to support your claim that the IDF took civilians as prisoners does not explicitly state this. It reports that the IDF arrested residents of Rasm Al-Rawadi village and took them to a school. It does not specify how long they were held there, it is entirely possible they were released after just a few hours. Describing this event as "took other civilians as prisoners" seems inaccurate based on the given source. The same source mentions that the IDF took two men from Syria into Israeli territory, which indeed appears to be a case of prisoners. However, the source does not state that they were civilians, it is entirely possible that they were militants fighting against the IDF. Your categorical assertion that the IDF took Syrian civilians as prisoners does not seem to be accurately supported by this source.
Fourth, the two main sources are from SOHR, which was characterized by another source you provided as follows: "SOHR, run by a single person, has regularly been accused by Syrian war analysts of false reporting and inflating casualty numbers as well as inventing them wholesale". Given this, relying solely on such a source for this kind of claim seems irresponsible. It would be preferable to find additional independent sources that corroborate this information.
Fifth, you did not address the question I originally asked you. Although you were not required to cite sources in the lead, you nonetheless chose to include one from an opinion piece. Why did you cite this source if it does not actually support your claim? And why present it as a source for something it does not even state? This struck me as rather puzzling, and I would appreciate your clarification on this matter.
Once again, thank you for your response, and I look forward to your answers to these questions as well. Rafi Chazon (talk) 14:39, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved the discussion here.VR (Please ping on reply) 05:39, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Vice regent I saw that you moved the discussion there, and I’ve already responded to the points you raised. However, you continue to evade the key question that led me to start this discussion in the first place.
My question is technical: Why did you use an opinion piece as a source to support claims that are not even stated there? And if, as you claim, there is an abundance of sources supporting your argument (which is not the case), why didn’t you cite them directly as references for what you wrote? Rafi Chazon (talk) 14:56, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've already explained, but here it is once more.
  • MOS:LEADCITE allows, even encourages, but does not require inline citations in the lead if they have been cited elsewhere in the article.
  • WP:CONSECUTIVECITE says "If you say an elephant is a mammal more than once, provide one only at the first instance."
All of this tells us: the citation for a fact need not be at the end of the sentence. As pointed out above, and on the article talk page, the citations for these facts were not just in the article's body, but also in the article's lead (in the infobox). Though in hindsight, I think it should be, to avoid the confusion it apparently caused you. So I guess in future, I'll err on the side of over-citing if need be.VR (Please ping on reply) 01:48, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for March 2025 Israeli attacks on the Gaza Strip

[edit]

On 19 March 2025, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article March 2025 Israeli attacks on the Gaza Strip, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:41, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Third Lebanon War

[edit]

Hello, Vice regent. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Third Lebanon War".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! DreamRimmer bot II (talk) 15:24, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are involved in a recently filed request for Arbitration Committee.

[edit]

You are involved in a recently filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Amendment request: Johnadams11 Topic Ban and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, Johnadams11 (talk) 01:42, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnadams11 sorry for the delay. As you can see I've been quite busy these days. FWIW, I think your tban is overly harsh and I would have supported reducing it.VR (Please ping on reply) 17:31, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Pahalgam attack edit

[edit]

Hi Vice regent--

Your edit here [6] refers to three named references that don't exist, resulting in some reference errors—can you fix?

Celjski Grad (talk) 16:25, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Pahalgam attack

[edit]

Hi, saw your reply to me on the talk page but I can't reply there currently. Here is a second "generally reliable" source that mentions the circumcision checks by the terrorists. https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/madhya-pradesh/15-year-old-boys-among-the-attackers-says-pahalgam-victims-son/article69487247.ece Anantanni22 (talk) 18:44, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Vice regent was unsure if I should ping here. Anantanni22 (talk) 18:47, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration motion started from the SPI thread

[edit]

Since you commented at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Smallangryplanet and I've now used you as an example, you might want to check out Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions#Smallangryplanet and Lf8u2. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 05:09, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]