User talk:Johnadams11

Happy Holidays

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2025!

Hello Johnadams11, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2025. Happy editing, Abishe (talk) 23:32, 24 December 2024 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 23:32, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! To you too! Johnadams11 (talk) 22:08, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Academic discussions

Thanks John for politely presenting to me perspectives that are different from my own. You have indicated that you enjoyed this discussion, so have I! Do you have experience/interest in any of the following:

• Alleged Israeli war crimes in Gaza
• Alleged Israeli intent to commit genocide in Gaza
• Comparisons between Israel and apartheid south Africa
• Hamas/Israeli use of human shields

These are all topics I'd like to discuss both on wikipedia, for the sake of improving articles, and possibly off wikipedia (say over email) for general interest.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 07:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

@Vice regentHey VR. Thanks so much for the note, and again, for the good follow through on the bombardment article. My academic focus (MA) is on mid 20th Century, and the comparisons with Gaza is what got me interested in that particular article. I can get interested more broadly in Hamas/Israel, and am happy to help in any way I can, as I've enjoyed this process. For what it's worth, I think one of the more enduring stories of this conflict is one that as of now has been under-reported IMO: the micro-analysis of virtually every moment on social media. To my research, never before in the course of human conflict have we seen a global audience exposed to almost every military operation -- down to single sorties. If I have time I plan to write about this.

In any event, my answer to you is that I am flattered by your asking, and I'm happy to help in any way I can. I look forward to working with you. Johnadams11 (talk) 14:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

For example, what do you think of Palestinian right of armed resistance? Would love some constructive criticism on that.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 20:18, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

@Vice regent Hi VR. Thanks for asking. To be honest I'm not all that interested in this subject. I actually didn't know there was a debate about whether Palestinians have the "right" of armed resistance. I always thought that the basic debate (if any) was about the nature of that resistance.

All that said, and sadly, this won't be helpful to you, it's curious to me that the entire first paragraph does not contain any citations that assert the basic premise of the article. I am reminded of the WP:SYNTH notion you introduced me to.

I also have the opinion, now having clicked through to the Right to Resist article, that these two articles, at least in basic conceit, seem to be extremely similar. As a result, I end up feeling the hand of a broader interest in advocating for Palestinian causes. I may be wrong as I definitely do not have enough data on whether or not a similar number of similar articles appear for similar conflicts. Johnadams11 (talk) 04:13, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

That's fair. WP:LEAD don't require citations, as the idea is that all that content must exist in the body and be cited there. At the same time, it would be good if you brought up any issues at Talk:Palestinian right of armed resistance. But I also understand if you're not that interested.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 08:26, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

@Vice regent Ah. Interesting. Thanks for teaching me that about citation requirements in the lead. That understood, I do think the lead is meaningfully improved by using one of the later citations (like this one) in the first sentence. As it is, I think the nature of the reaction I had in reading it the first time is some puzzlement over why exactly this topic is notable. The citation would have assisted greatly IMO. Johnadams11 (talk) 16:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Can you be WP:BOLD and make that edit? :-) VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 15:51, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

@Vice regent I'd be happy to, but regrettably, I lack the status required. Thanks very much however for familiarizing me with WP:BOLD. This is very helpful guidance. I see now that in the interest of consensus I've sometimes been too timorous. Thanks again. Johnadams11 (talk) 16:25, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Oh I see! I didn't realize that.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 16:48, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

@Vice regent Oh I thought you would have inferred this from the fact that I was requesting EC edits on that other article. Hey -- with respect to that article Israeli bombing of the Gaza Strip, when you have a chance, can you link me to the discussion where the infobox template was changed from the one for example used in the Dresden, Hamburg, and London bombardments? Sorry to be so focused on one thing. It's a focus area for me. Johnadams11 (talk) 17:23, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

@Johnadams11 I'm not sure ever having seen that discussion. You can search the archives or look at the talk page's history.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 23:38, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. Couldn't find anything so started a discussion here. Johnadams11 (talk) 01:50, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Re[1], sorry sometimes I get busy.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 20:18, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Removing text from talk page

You shouldn't remove a discussion from an article talk page, especially after people have contributed to it. I've restored the RfC text and marked it as withdrawn by the proposer. It'll be eventually archived. See WP:TALK about deleting comments. Even one's own should just be crossed out if it has had a good chance of having been seen. NadVolum (talk) 12:58, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

This is helpful. Thank you. That was actually my instinct. That woman shouting at me caused me to over-react. Johnadams11 (talk) 15:37, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Removal of sourced info

Can you explain this[2]. I find this to be an NPOV violation because you are removing perspectives that are critical of Israel and Hamas, and that are published in RS.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 04:10, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

The source[3] clearly says: "Israel’s military spokesperson said Friday that militants in Gaza killed two young hostages “with their bare hands,” without providing evidence for the claim, a day after the boys' remains were returned to Israel." It says the same for Hamas. Similar statements are made by NYT, Guardian etc. Please revert your edit.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 04:16, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Likewise CNN says "Hagari cited forensic findings and intelligence as backing those claims, but did not provide specific evidence."[4] VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 04:18, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

@Vice regent Comrade. Do you have evidence that either party provided evidence for their claims? In the absence of these, the idea that "neither party has publicly released evidence" comes off as a contradiction to Israel's claims that it has released such data to "partners." I have become very sensitive to "although editing" which consistently seeks (without evidence) to suggest Israeli duplicity. Johnadams11 (talk) 04:42, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Neither Israel nor Hamas has publicly released any evidence to the best of my knowledge. Do you have evidence that Israel has released its evidence? But most importantly, we go by both what RS say, not on our research. In this case we have at least very high quality RS (CNN, NYT) all saying Israel has not released evidence. Please review WP:NOR.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 07:36, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Another source: "Dr. Chen Kugel, Israel's chief pathologist, said Saturday night that there was no evidence that Bibas, who was 32, had been killed in a bombing. He did not elaborate or present evidence for the assertion." [5]. VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 07:43, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

And another: "Hamas claimed that Shiri, Ariel, and Kfir were killed in an Israeli airstrike in November 2023, and said that they initially handed over the body of another victim of that airstrike instead of Shiri’s due to “an error or mix-up of bodies”, according to Al Jazeera.

Israel rejects that version. On Friday, Israeli military spokesperson Daniel Hagari said in a video that the captors murdered the two boys and then tried to “cover up” the crime, although he didn’t provide any further details or evidence to support this claim."[6] VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 07:46, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

One more source: "Hamas claims that the Shiri and the two children were killed in an Israeli airstrike on the enclave in November 2023, however upon receiving their bodies Israel claims that they were killed with "bare hands". Neither party has released evidence to the public over the claims."[7] VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 07:50, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

:::@Vice regent Please share the proposed edit, and I'll be happy to comment. The edit I removed implied that Israel's statement that it had shared evidence with partners was false. Johnadams11 (talk) 12:03, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

This one[8]. The edit clearly said Israel had not "publicly released any evidence". VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 12:06, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

@Vice regent I am curious. Do you comprehend the defect I have repeatedly said I am trying to defeat? Johnadams11 (talk) 15:18, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

No one ever said "Israel has not released any evidence to its partners". Instead what was written was that "Israel has not publicly released any evidence." Those are two different things and the latter is supported by 7 different RS.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 15:32, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

@Vice regent In the way these sentences are structured, do you know that implication I'm referring to?

In any event, I could potentially get there if it were "Neither Hamas, nor Israel has released information to the public," which emphasizes "the public," and is the pivot of confusion. Additionally, there are sources which say that the families have asked that details NOT be released to the public. What do you say about that? Johnadams11 (talk) 15:54, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Well its not just the public, right? BBC News emphasized they have "not seen or verified this evidence." [9]

"Additionally, there are sources which say that the families have asked that details NOT be released to the public." That part is more complication and has additional dimensions including the family saying that "authorities were yet to complete their report on the murders, much less present it to the family".[10].

I would prefer: "Neither Hamas, nor Israel has released information to the public. Israel said it released the evidence to its partners, while BBC News said it had not seen the evidence, and Guardian said the evidence had not been independently verified."

But ultimately, I came here to ask you to politely revert what I thought was a NPOV violation. Further discussion of the wording can continue on the article's talk page. But simply removing the views of 7 different RS, while keeping Israeli gov't views, is very problematic.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 16:12, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

@Vice regent My dear friend. I have repeatedly emphasized that my concern with certain treatments was the unfounded implication that Israel has not done what is said it had done (release information to partners). And here, you now propose language (your "while" treatment) that does exactly this. Sadly, my impression now is that this must be your specific intent, for I cannot otherwise fathom how, after the multiple times I have raised this specific point, this would again reappear. I would be thankful for you to disabuse of me of this. Further, so there is no confusion, my argument is on structure, not content, so please be mindful that no further harangues about number of RS are required. Johnadams11 (talk) 17:00, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

We can drop the while. So then: "Neither Hamas, nor Israel has released evidence of their claims to the public. Israel said it released the evidence to its partners. BBC News said it had not seen the evidence, and Guardian said Israel's claims had not been independently verified."" Is that amenable to you? If not, is there something specific here you object to? And please be mindful of WP:ASPERSIONs.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 17:16, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

@Vice regent Your accusation that my comments to you were aspersions signals the end of our relationship. Any reader of this string will see that I repeatedly emphasized a single point, and that despite all this you built language that violated that very thing. I asked you to disabuse me of the idea that this must have been your intent. You did not do this, but instead accused me of casting aspersions. Last, I would point out that the WP definition of aspersion which you linked requires the absence of evidence. The evidence of the correctness of my inference is overwhelming. Good luck to you. Johnadams11 (talk) 17:32, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Well, I'm very disappointed to hear that. I remember that even before you were extended confirmed, I had engaged very constructively with you to help improve the article on these Israeli bombing of Gaza, making sure to respond to your concerns. (Before you were ECR, I was under no obligation to do so, and indeed many wikipedians may even have deleted your comments outright). So I feel confident I've been engaging you in good faith all this time.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 17:36, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

JohnAdams obv knows what I'm talking about, but leaving links here for a 3rd party of how I went out of my way to show JohnAdams good faith: [11][12].VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 17:46, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

@Vice regent "I feel confident I've been engaging you in good faith." Great. Then -- once again, please explain why it was that you built something that was at direct odds with what I had explained multiple times (and in the edit comment) was my single concern. You may trust that I was eager to be disabused, largely because of our history. Johnadams11 (talk) 17:56, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Mistake? I did correct my mistake quickly right? I thought actions speak louder than words. (To be clear, I think your point is that BBC is not what Israel meant by 'partner'; although Israel hasn't specified what it means by 'partner', we shouldn't assume BBC is).VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 18:03, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

@Vice regentOK. On the merits of this, I do not believe that the present edit requires the reformulation you suggested. Instead, I suggested that it simply be appended with a sentence regarding the public disclosure. (Which is where it was when I made my edit.) So, the revised paragraph would be:

Hamas and Israel have made conflicting statements about the cause of death for Shiri Bibas and her children. Hamas claims that they were killed in an Israeli airstrike. In contrast, Chen Kugel, director of Israel's National Institute of Forensic Medicine, said that a forensic examination of the remains found "no evidence of injuries caused by bombing". Israel has claimed that forensic examinations indicate that Shiri Bibas was "brutally murdered" and her children killed with "bare hands" in November 2023. Israel Defence Forces (IDF) spokesman Daniel Hagari said that evidence of these claims had been shared with "partners around the world so they can verify it." Hamas accused Israel of fabricating "baseless lies. Neither Hamas, nor Israel has released evidence to the public."

I would also lose the words "in contrast," but I left it here for illustration of the proposal. Johnadams11 (talk) 18:24, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

I would summarize this as follows:

In November 2023, Hamas officials said Shiri, Ariel and Kfir were killed during the Israeli bombing of Gaza and have maintained this stance since then. After examining the bodies of all three at its National Institute of Forensic Medicine, Israeli officials said there was "no evidence of injuries caused by bombing" and that they were "brutally murdered" with "bare hands" in November 2023. Neither Hamas nor Israel has released any evidence to the public. Israeli officials said evidence had been shared with "partners around the world so they can verify it". BBC News said it had not seen the evidence, and Guardian said Israel's claims had not been independently verified."

I think this version is more condense and omits information that is too much detail for the lead (we don't need to mention the exact spokespeople for either side). Also, if we mention Israel sharing the evidence, we should also mention Guardian saying the evidence has not been independently verified. But if we omit both, then we can further condense this as follows:

In November 2023, Hamas officials said Shiri, Ariel and Kfir were killed during the Israeli bombing of Gaza and have maintained this stance since then. After examining the bodies of all three at its National Institute of Forensic Medicine, Israeli officials said there was "no evidence of injuries caused by bombing" and that they were "brutally murdered" with "bare hands" in November 2023. Neither Hamas nor Israel has released any evidence to the public nor shown it to reporters." VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 18:40, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

BTW, if you agree with some parts of my suggestion, but not other parts, please indicate which parts. That way we can "narrow" our differences.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 18:42, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

@Vice regent My suggestion, with: inclusion of the sharing claim, specificity on Israel claims by victim, and removal of "reporters" (as this would be synonymous with a "public" release).

In November 2023, Hamas officials said Shiri, Ariel and Kfir were killed during the Israeli bombing of Gaza and have maintained this stance since then. After examining the bodies of all three at its National Institute of Forensic Medicine, Israeli officials said there was "no evidence of injuries caused by bombing;" that Shiri Bibas had been "brutally murdered" and that her children killed with "bare hands" all in November 2023. Israeli officials said evidence had been shared with "partners around the world" so they can verify it. Neither Hamas nor Israel has released any evidence to the public." Johnadams11 (talk) 18:51, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Ok, so I think our difference can be summarized as follows:

• you want to mention that Israel shared the evidence with partners for "verification".
• I want to mention that Israel shared the evidence with partners for "verification" and that news media mention they haven't seen it and there hasn't been independent verification.

Other than that we agree. Am I accurately summarizing our disagreement? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 19:03, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

@Vice regent

To be a bit more precise:

1. Yes, I think the Israeli claim on having shared data is important.

2. I also favor adding that no information has been shared with the public. What I do not favor (really the main thing I think we disagree on) is linking that idea in a way in which it reads as an exception to the "shared" claim (unless of course there are RS that it is indeed an exception). Johnadams11 (talk) 19:08, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Well I mean do you agree that BBC hasn't seen that evidence? Do you also agree that the Guardian claims that there has been no independent verification of Israeli claims? Both of those are factual. And given Israel didn't specify who it shared the evidence with, there's not much more we can say about the Israeli position.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 19:11, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

@Vice regentThis is good progress because I think we have gotten to the heart of it. I believe you are saying that the Guardian idea does fit with what Israel is saying because while Israel indeed MAY have shared, we haven't yet heard anything. I'd be ok with a treatment like that. BBC i feel is less interesting because for it to BE interesting one has to expect that BBC is an Israeli "partner." Make sense? Johnadams11 (talk) 20:38, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Regarding BBC: Do you remember the World Central Kitchen aid convoy attack? This is what BBC said: "Drone footage of this was shown to journalists at an IDF briefing on 4 April but has not been released." So IDF showed (but didn't release) some of its evidence with BBC (and others), though it did refuse to show other evidence. In this case, BBC says IDF hasn't shown it anything.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 21:44, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

@Vice regent Yes. And this idea is soundly captured by a statement that the parties have made no information public. No need to limit to BBC. Also, for both this idea, and the "not verified," we would have to add some kind "as of" dates. This is one of lesser reasons I've not been a fan of these. WP is not a newspaper. Wherever possible I think we should seek durable solutions.Johnadams11 (talk) 21:57, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay! I got incredibly busy with the start of Ramadan and other real life matters. I'm fine with adding dates both for Israeli statement on when it said it shared the information and regarding independent verification. Can we agree that we both agree on this text:

In November 2023, Hamas officials said Shiri, Ariel and Kfir were killed during the Israeli bombing of Gaza and have maintained this stance since then. After examining the bodies of all three at its National Institute of Forensic Medicine, Israeli officials said there was "no evidence of injuries caused by bombing" and that they were "brutally murdered" with "bare hands" in November 2023. Neither Hamas nor Israel has released any evidence to the public."

And the part where we disagree is where you prefer:

Israeli officials said evidence had been shared with "partners around the world so they can verify it."

And I prefer:

On 21 February, Israeli officials said evidence had been shared with "partners around the world so they can verify it". Shortly afterwards, BBC News said it had not seen the evidence, and Guardian said Israel's claims had not been independently verified.

If so, we can implement the part we agree on and put the part we disagree at talk page, perhaps for an RfC? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 23:01, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

@Vice regent Ramadan Karim. I'm perfectly fine with the present edit of the Article. What are you seeing to improve upon? Johnadams11 (talk) 02:46, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

1RR Violation on Denial of the 7 October Hamas-led attack on Israel

Your recent editing history at Denial of the 7 October Hamas-led attack on Israel, specifically this edit, is a violation of the WP:1RR sanction in place on all WP:PIA pages. Please self-revert this edit. Nobody participating in a conversation does not imply carte-blanche to make a given controversial edit. Wikipedia is a volunteer service, sometimes it will take longer than we might like to get feedback or comments on a given topic or question. Thanks. Smallangryplanet (talk) 10:21, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

@Smallangryplanet I made an edit; it was reverted; I reverted. One RR. Johnadams11 (talk) 10:44, 7 March 2025 (UTC) Johnadams11 (talk) 10:44, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

@Smallangryplanet I've spent some additional time on this, and see that the most meaningful part of the content I removed was inserted in this edit in late October. I note that there was no consensus for those edits and that the subject appears never to have been raised in Talk. (It appears that editor has never participated in Talk at all.) In any event, while I can see the point that my first edit might be seen as a "revert" by some, it's obvious my edit, preceded by a discussion in Talk, and retaining the primary point of the omitted section, was plainly made in good faith. As I indicated in that comment, I continue to seek opinions on the topic generally, but to date have heard none. Johnadams11 (talk) 14:27, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

The issue is not the first edit (a revert!), which I reverted. The issue is the 2nd edit, made within 24 hours of the first one, that is also a revert. The good faith nature of the edit is not at issue, the problem is two reverts within a 24 hour period. As you have not reverted and refuse to do so, I shall take this to AE. Smallangryplanet (talk) 09:02, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Johnadams11. Thank you. Smallangryplanet (talk) 09:18, 9 March 2025 (UTC)