User talk:CarmenEsparzaAmoux

Orphaned non-free image File:Refugees International logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Refugees International logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:44, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

POV issues

This edit is clearly not aligned with the source, and is clearly not aligned with WP:NPOV. Please do better. BilledMammal (talk) 04:39, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

The phrasing was probably too abbreviated, but South Africa's request — as I understand it — is for the ICJ to issue an emergency measure to address a lack of humanitarian aid on behalf of the 677,000 people in IPC category 5 (Catastrophe), i.e. starving. Israel's legal team responded to the request calling it "wholly unfounded in fact and law, morally repugnant, and represent an abuse both of the Genocide Convention and of the court itself". Israel has already called South Africa's requests unfounded in fact and an abuse to the Genocide Convention, but the term "morally repugnant" really stood out to me from the source, which is why I quoted that phrase in particular. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 05:09, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

The issue is how you frame it; it isn't aligned with the sources, and takes a strong partisan position.

There is a similar issue with this edit; the source makes it clear that they are teenagers and at no point uses the word "children" in reference to them, but you choose to insert that word instead. Again, this is an WP:NPOV issue. BilledMammal (talk) 01:10, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

My understanding of a child is a person under 18... is that not correct? CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 01:12, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

The definition varies. However, regardless of what definition you use, the word "child" in this context isn't aligned with the source, and incorrectly implies that some of the prisoners were younger than 14. BilledMammal (talk) 01:19, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I see. Full transparency, I've ever heard that the word child implies a person under 14. Pretty sure I just read "teenagers under 18" and my mind translated it to child. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 01:21, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

It might also have been that the NYT source in question referred to the teenagers under 18 both as "children" and as "boys". Perhaps they have a POV, BilledMammal? :-) -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 01:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

The source doesn't refer to them as "children"? BilledMammal (talk) 01:46, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

The negotiations for the seven rounds of exchange — one for each day of the pause — had centered on women and children on either side of the conflict. source -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 01:48, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

There were 107 teenagers under 18, including three girls. Another 66 teenagers were 18 years old.

The Israeli government initially posted a list of 300 Palestinian teenagers and women who could potentially be released through the deal, and added 50 names to that list as the exchanges progressed.

That one use of "children" isn't referring to the Palestinian prisoners specifically - it's used because some of the hostages are under the age of 14. BilledMammal (talk) 01:55, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Law of holes. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 01:57, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

? BilledMammal (talk) 02:05, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

@BilledMammal: In any normal context, a child is someone below the age of 18, including most teenagers. What is this bizarre line of contrarian argumentation? WP:COMMONSENSE. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:16, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Per Child "A child (pl. children) is a human being between the stages of birth and puberty, or between the developmental period of infancy and puberty. The legal definition of child generally refers to a minor, otherwise known as a person younger than the age of majority."

- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 08:22, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you IOHANNSVERVS; Iskander, which some definitions are anyone below the age of 18, that isn’t true for all definitions.

Further, using it here is contrary to the source, and incorrectly gives readers the impression that some of the prisoners were under the age of 14 - this latter aspect is why the use introduces NPOV issues. BilledMammal (talk) 08:39, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Convention on the Rights of the Child: "For the purposes of the present Convention, a child means every human being below the age of eighteen years unless under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier." [1] Iskandar323 (talk) 09:30, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Generally, we write Wikipedia articles for the general public, not for lawyers. And regardless, that doesn’t address my second paragraph. BilledMammal (talk) 10:04, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

This isn't for lawyers. It's a UN convention passed by the general assembly. It is therefore the internationally agreed upon delineation of child versus non-child. What's your second paragraph? That the sources say "teenagers under 18"? Those are children. These are equivalent terms. Like "infant" and "baby", or "woman" and "human female", etc. I refer once again to WP:COMMONSENSE. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:10, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

As I pointed out in the Child article, the "common sense" definition is "between the stages of birth and puberty, or between the developmental period of infancy and puberty", while only "the legal definition of child generally refers to a minor, otherwise known as a person younger than the age of majority." - IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 11:20, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Even using the legal definition, "teenagers under 18" and "children" are not equivalent terms - the former is 13-17, the latter is 0-17.

FYI, "woman" and "human female" are also not equivalent terms; the former refers to gender, the latter to sex. BilledMammal (talk) 12:53, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps we could let this go? Again, the NYT explicitly uses both the term "children" and "boys". The legal term is the one which has priority when it is a question of (pretrial) incarceration, which is a legal issue. In any case, unambiguous compromise language has been introduced (aged 14-17) so that en.wp is more "neutral" than the NYT source it is citing. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 11:29, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Furthermore, @IOHANNVSVERVS, Wikipedia is not a reliable source, so please stop quoting it. The sourcing for that page is also especially poor, but even there, if you read beyond the lead, you will get to the convention on the rights of the child in the first section. Honestly, everyone arguing that a child is not commonly defined as someone under 18 needs to drop the stick. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:42, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Arguing in the abstract is pointless. The only relevant facts for this context are those of Israeli usage:-

'The Committee is concerned that Israeli legislation continues to discriminate in the definition of the child between Israeli children (18 years) and Palestinian children in the occupied Palestinian territory (16 years) according to Military Order No. 132. Convention on the Rights of the Child:Israel United Nations CRC/C/OPAC/ISR/CO/1 29 January 2010 Nishidani (talk) 14:08, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

In practical terms, an Israeli sniper who kills a 16-17 year old Palestinian, is killing a man. A Palestinian militant who kills a 16-17 year old Israeli is murdering a child. This bias is repeated in many comparative statistics. The POV pushing consists in ignoring real definitions in place in order to dedefine Palestinians under 18 as not children, unlike the case with Israel's own distinction.Nishidani (talk) 14:10, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I hope my intentions are not being misunderstood here. I'm not POV pushing nor do I even have an opinion on the underlying content dispute. In fact, I've likely not been paying attention enough to the specifics of the content and may be missing some context.

I just think that many readers would not expect the word 'child' to refer to a 17 year old, and would rather expect someone of that age to be referred to as a minor.

@Iskandar323, here are some proper sources rather than citing Wikipedia:

• Oxford Dictionary: "There is no definitive definition of a child: the term has been used for persons under the age of 14, under the age of 16, and sometimes under the age of 18."
• Merriam-Webster: "A young person especially between infancy and puberty."

I wasn't trying to be argumentative and excuse me if I've caused more confusion than clarity in this discussion which I probably had no business joining in the first place.

- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 15:03, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

In this edit, you again make an edit unsupported by the source; please be more careful. I'm not evening keeping an eye on your edits in particular - although I wonder if I should - but issues keep coming up. BilledMammal (talk) 04:34, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

And looking through your edits now, there is the same issue here; the source attributes the claim, but you put it in Wikivoice. BilledMammal (talk) 04:37, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

The first one is definitely my fault; thanks for catching that. The source was a mix of describing the shelling and airstrikes in the author's own voice and then included the word "reported" specifically for the children's deaths, I'll definitely be more careful about looking for that sort of mixed voice article. Second one was already a bit confusing/problematic as the existing sentence structure was in Wikivoice, even though the sources there attributed the death tolls [2]. I probably should have restructured the entire sentence to add attribution for all three totals, specifying that the 136 was from Gaza Media Office and then 4 and 3 were to CPJ. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 04:49, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. BilledMammal (talk) 05:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, I am not looking at your edits specifically; instead, when I find something that seems particularly out of place with the source I search the history for who added it.

At War crimes in the Israel–Hamas war, you added a sentence saying The Post stated there was no evidence released that showed a tunnel network could be accessed by any part of the hospital. However, The Post made no such statement; it said None of the five hospital buildings identified by Hagari appeared to be connected to the tunnel network. and There is no evidence that the tunnels could be accessed from inside hospital wards.

Please be more careful to ensure that your additions align with the sources and do not violate WP:NPOV by failing to be aligned with the sources. BilledMammal (talk) 04:09, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Now, at Al-Shifa Hospital siege, you said that Al Jazeera English reported that Israel had committed "heinous" war crimes during the siege. That isn't correct; Al Jazeera merely says that there are reports of heinous war crimes. Your version directly attributes the claim to Al Jazeera English, suggesting that they had verified the reports - Al Jazeera, meanwhile, presents the claims with a level of uncertainty.

I'm not sure what to do here; there seems to be a consistent issue with you making edits that are not reflective of the sources used. BilledMammal (talk) 05:16, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I think I'm somewhat confused by your issue with this edit. I feel that "reported that" and "reports of" is an appropriate paraphrasing. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 05:20, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

The difference is significant. Al Jazeera didn't report that war crimes had been committed; it reported that there were reports of war crimes being committed. The former gives greater credibility to the reports than the latter - it suggests that Al Jazeera stands by the reports. BilledMammal (talk) 05:25, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

No, BilledMammal is right. Al Jazeera described reports and witness descriptions of war crimes but did not make those claims themselves. To be fair, the thrust of the Al Jazeera report was that the claims were true, but yes it was inaccurate the way you phrased it. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 05:48, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

AJ is an RS, right? It's saying in its own voice that there are reports of war crimes. It would therefore be acceptable to write in Wikivoice that there were reports of war crimes, right? Rather than doing that, I am attributing acknowledgement of these reports to Al Jazeera. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 05:30, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Rather than doing that, I am attributing acknowledgement of these reports to Al Jazeera. No, you said Al Jazeera said war crimes had been committed. Al Jazeera merely said there were reports that war crimes had been committed. BilledMammal (talk) 05:32, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

"It's saying in its own voice that there are reports of war crimes." Exactly, AJ is saying there are reports of war crimes and not themselves saying that there were war crimes.

"It would [...] be acceptable to write in Wikivoice that there were reports of war crimes, right?" Yes.

- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 05:51, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Ok, that's helpful. So, the two ways to phrase this to both match the source and be Wiki compliant would either be:
1. "Al Jazeera reported that there were reports of heinous war crimes"
2. "Heinous war crimes were reported" CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 05:56, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

It would be a violation of NPOV to say as a statement of fact that "heinous war crimes were reported", as that would be Wikipedia using the word heinous which would be inappropriate/unencyclopedic. We could say 1. There were reports of war crimes. 2. According to Al Jazeera, there were reports of "heinous war crimes." 3. Al Jazeera described "reports of heinous war crimes." IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 06:07, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

The second isn't a problem so long as you say "Heinous war crimes were reported" by whom - so if it's witnesses, say witnesses. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:36, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

It needs to be clear that it is Al Jazeera using the word 'heinous' and not Wikipedia. It also needs to be clear that Al Jazeera is reporting claims made by others and not making these claims itself. This is really quite simple and you'll need to understand this clearly to continue editing this type of content, as these are not insignificant differences. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 06:21, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Right. For the most part this is definitely all pretty straightforward, and very helpful. I like how 2 and 3 avoid passive voice while also avoiding grammatical clunkiness.

What I think is a little bit less “simple” for me here is the line around WikiVoice. AJ as an RS is saying, in its own voice, there are reports of heinous war crimes, so writing “there are reports of heinous war crimes” would be a Wikivoice summary of the reports, rather than a Wikivoice statement of fact describing the alleged crimes, right? Or am I missing something? CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 06:29, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I believe the claim above is that AJ said "there were reports", so Wikipedia saying "there were reports" is just mirroring the RS language. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:39, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

See WP:Editorializing, WP:Impartial, WP:Subjective.

RSs often describe things as good or bad or ugly, but it is not appropriate for Wikipedia to do so. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 06:47, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I mean, all war crimes are heinous, so it's actually a little tautologous or by the by here more than a characterisation – there's no such thing as a non-heinous war crime. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:52, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

So sticking to the facts we would omit the subjective descriptor of 'heinous', and just say that there were reports of war crimes. Or we could say: There were reports of war crimes, which Al Jazeera described as "heinous". IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 06:51, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

That wasn't the original issue raised, which was merely on the reported/were reports of divide. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:53, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Other issues

1. Bombing of the Gaza Strip - You said that Israel had caused 18.5 billion dollars in damage. The source said the the Israel-Hamas war had caused 18.5 billion dollars in damage.
2. Humanitarian aid during the Israel–Hamas war - You said that The Financial Times, meanwhile, reported that "just a trickle of humanitarian aid can enter or be distributed in Gaza each day", despite Israel's promise to open the additional crossing points. The issue here is that "despite Israel's promise" is not supported by the source. Regarding the reasons, the source says Obstructions are legion: bombardment from Israeli forces, insecurity within Gaza, a lack of security staff, unpredictable Israeli checks, just a handful of overloaded entry points, shortages of delivery vehicles, corruption and the countless miseries of war. and about the promise to open the crossing points says Even Israel’s recent promise to open extra crossing points, long demanded by the international community and yet to be fully implemented, will solve only some of the issues.
3. War crimes in the Israel–Hamas war - You said In response to an Israeli attack at the Al-Aqsa Hospital on 31 March 2024, WHO chief Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus stated, "The ongoing attacks and militarisation of hospitals must stop. International humanitarian law must be respected." You omitted important context from your source - that the attack was on Islamic Jihad militants, and the BBC understands that four of them were killed in the attack. Further, you put this under the Israeli section, when Ghebreyesus is talking about both sides.

BilledMammal (talk) 06:21, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

These are all things that are normally addressed on an article talk page. This is starting to look more like incessantly picking at somebody's edits and less like "I noticed an issue". If you feel some context is missing, add it. nableezy - 06:35, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

In this case, because it's a repeated issue with this editor of them failing to accurately represent their sources, typically in a way that results in NPOV issues. At some point it moves from a content issue to a conduct issue. BilledMammal (talk) 06:45, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Or its a failure of another editor to assume good faith and making accusations that do not stand up under their own weight. That indeed moves into a conduct issue, also known as WP:HARASSMENT. nableezy - 06:47, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

+1. I was close to posting something along these lines. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:56, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

No, BilledMammal is right and their concerns are legitimate. All four of the most recent examples presented here do contain not insignificant mistakes. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 06:57, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Mistakes that could still be either simply amended or addressed on the relevant pages. Also, "missing context" is not a mistake – just something that needs addressing and not wasting any more community time over. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:58, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

"Mistakes that could still be either simply amended or addressed on the relevant pages." — Yes but it's obviously much better to address the root of the problem and to prevent like mistakes from occurring. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 07:12, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Also Carmen's responses here indicate that these mistakes have been resulting from a lack of understanding on their part and that similar errors would have likely occurred if this had not been addressed here. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 07:07, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

BM. On the 26 March you wrote:

To be clear, I am not looking at your edits specifically; instead, when I find something that seems particularly out of place with the source I search the history for who added it.

One can take your word for that, or not. The persistence with which you return to the editor's talk page, rather than merely editing to correct the actual articles where you might disagree with EsparzaAmoux, suggests to me otherwise. It may not be technical harassment, but in context, making lists of several edits out of the 1,000 this editor has made in just a month and making a case out for a 'concerning' pattern in their editing is statistically meaningless. As with the earlier thread re 'child', much of this is picayune nitpicking, better fixed by simply correcting the edits you disagree with on the relevant pages. It is the height of not only pettifogging, but POV defensiveness, to suggest, from the France24 source, that the $18.5 billion in damage in the Gaza Strip was caused by the Hamas-Israeli war, and not by Israel. The original source is without equivocation:-

The cost of damage to critical infrastructure in Gaza is estimated at around $18.5 billion according to a new report released today by the World Bank and the United Nations, with financial support of the European Union. That is equivalent to 97% of the combined GDP of the West Bank and Gaza in 2022. Joint World Bank, UN Report Assesses Damage to Gaza’s Infrastructure World Bank 2 April 2024.

In lieu of reports stating that Hamas has undertaken massive bombings of its own water, sewerage, housing (220,000 apartments), warehouses, industrial and agricultural infrastructure, the report clearly states, by listing what has been damaged, that the figure is overwhelmingly associated with one of the two belligerents, Israel. And your point, taking leverage from the France 24 title, appears little more than a grasping at the straws of one headline's phrasing to imply that the report itself is not assigning responsibility to Israel.

It's rather like citing the headline in the Bloomberg report, '(the Gaza War Has Caused $18.5 Billion in Infrastructure Damage,') and ignoring what the text says, i.e.,

'The findings offer one of the most detailed assessments yet of the destruction that’s resulted from the military campaign that Israel launched in the days after Hamas militants attacked the country’s south on Oct. 7 and killed some 1,200 people. About 32,000 Palestinians have been killed in the response, according to the Hamas-run health ministry.' Eric Martin, Gaza War Has Caused $18.5 Billion in Infrastructure Damage, New Report Shows Bloomberg 2 April 2024

Clearly, with less than 2 years experience, but with an imposing workload requiring extensive reading, and intensive editing to actually create and complete new articles (a capacity for which is very rare in Wikipedia - most preferring to tweak or kibitz), the minor glitches you highlight are to be expected. The editor has no record of pertinacious editwarring, shows an amenable responsiveness to queries (better placed on talk pages) and to make a mission of repeatedly calling attention to these statistical blips on her talk page does look like a bite-the-relative newby kind of harassment, a kind of preparation for a formal report.Nishidani (talk) 13:01, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I keep coming across issues with this editors contributions. Sometimes it is because they turn up on my watchlist, sometimes it is because I check the history of the page after correcting a particularly problematic section. On occasion, I have looked through a small sample of this editors recent contributions after finding an error in this manner, but such use of an editors contribution history is appropriate.

As for the cost of the war, the source only says The World Bank says the Israel-Hamas war has caused damage of around $18.5 billion to Gaza's critical infrastructure, according to a new report published Tuesday. The edit was not aligned with this claim, and these aren't, as you say statistical blips. They're an significant and repeated issue, and I hope that CarmenEsparzaAmoux can commit to being more careful in the future. BilledMammal (talk) 07:00, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

The minor things you pick up (several challengeable: You were wrong to upbraid her on 'child' and your recent remarks on the World Bank are misprisions) are ones that, in normal editing, one corrects in article space, with an edit summary 'adjusting per source'/'not quite alligned with source language'. Most editors do this day in day out, and in this area, correcting inexact or misleading paraphrases of a source takes place every other hour.

please be more careful. I'm not evening keeping an eye on your edits in particular - although I wonder if I should - but issues keep coming up (26 March 2024 )

.

To be clear, I am not looking at your edits specifically; instead, when I find something that seems particularly out of place with the source I search the history for who added it. 7 April 2024

That is all very odd in its unelicited defensiveness asserting you are 'not keeping an eye on her edits' while doing precisely that, combing for trivial slips that would lend themselves to a claim that they all fit a dangerous pattern - suitable to an AE report, of consistent source distortion. It evinces lineaments of a careful hounding, esp. from an editor with the the opposite POV who has frequent recourse to reporting others. You should just come out clean and say: 'If I catch you doing this again, - and I do check all of your work - I'll report you.' Nishidani (talk) 08:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Agreed that BilledMammal is being more accusatory than cooperative here. I hope that this doesn't discourage Carmen from continuing the work they are doing in this topic area, as from what I've seen they've been making very productive contributions. If the issues pointed out here are their gravest mistakes out of the thousands(?) of edits they have made in this topic area then that actually speaks to the quality of their contributions, especially considering the highly contentious and delicate/sensitive nature of the content involved. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 16:23, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't check all of her work - even here when I reviewed some of her recent edits I only looked at a small sample - and I don't want to report her, I want to resolve this issue without the need for drama, although you and Nableezy are making that difficult. What I'm hoping for is for CarmenEsparzaAmoux to recognize they need to be more careful, and implement that going forward. BilledMammal (talk) 02:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

I have come across issues with your contributions as well. If you’d like me to take a hammer at them to demonstrate how you consistently slant material without properly reflecting the sources, eg here where you place a lie in the lead of an article, then I can do that for you. I can take the finest toothed comb to your contribs and show just how you consistently use poor sources where it suits your POV and remove quality ones where it doesn’t. I can show you giving half the story when the other half doesn’t advance the narrative you are seeking to advance. I can do that any time you’d like me to. If you have an issue with an edit raise it on a talk page, but I promise you that the golden rule is going to make a come back, so do unto others BM. nableezy - 12:30, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I'll even add that BilledMammal's own "POV issues" are in fact much more concerning than the mistakes of Carmen which have been brought up here. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 16:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

If you have issues with my editing, then please raise them on my talk page so I can understand your concerns and, if appropriate, adjust my behavior. However, it isn't helpful to raise it here - regardless of whether there are issues with my editing, that doesn't change the fact that there are issues here that need to be addressed. BilledMammal (talk) 02:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

There aren’t issues with Carmen's editing however. nableezy - 03:31, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

While editing Killing of journalists in the Israel–Hamas war I was reviewing the sources around the killing of Hamza al-Dahdouh and found that one of the claims wasn't accurate. We said an investigation by The Washington Post found "no indications" that Dahdouh had been "operating as anything other than a journalist". However, the source says The Post found no indications that either man was operating as anything other than a journalist that day, emphasis mine.

The difference in meaning between these two is significant, and so I checked the history, and found that you had added it.

This is why I think there is a problem here; every time I find a disparity between what our sources say and what we say significant enough to check who the editor was, you are always that editor - there is a problem here, and we need to work out a way to address it. BilledMammal (talk) 06:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

There is absolutely no disparity or distinction between these two statements. This is exactly the kind of completely wide-of-the-mark nitpicking that everyone is complaining about. No one has implied that Dahdouh has been anything other than a journalist on any day as far as I am aware. Do you have a source that contradicts this default negative and says that he has operated as other things on other days? In the context, "that day" is that only one where aspersions of other activity have, afaics, ever been made against Dahdouh – therefore, exoneration on that day is an exoneration of the only charges against him, and specifying this in exactly the same words as WP time is not not only unnecessary, it could risk inappropriate close paraphrasing of the source. The only way that this can be read otherwise is if you infer that WP inserted the time clause "that day" expressly to cast aspersions on Dahdouh regarding other days, but that is an assumption that cannot be actually be deduced from the source. I read you as definitively wrong on this point, making this a prime example of a wholly unnecessary post on another user's talk attempting to make mountains out of molehills, and here specifically where not even the originally espied molehill serves. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:13, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Out of courtesy to the editor, I think this discussion could be closed down. EsparzaAmoux should take note that her every edit is being examined by Billed Mammal for evidence, however nugatory, that there is a reportable pattern of deliberate source distortion in her work. Billed Mammal, if he refuses simply to tweak these trivial differences in articles,- the collaborative mode of editing wikipedia- should take his case to AE. Otherwise this looks like a pattern of vexatious harassment or of demanding extenuating discussions with EsparzaAmoux over the merits and fine points of any edit she may make when, it is obvious, while she acknowledges briefly issues raised from time to time, and shows a readiness to take on board helpful advice, is an editor who prefers to dedicate her time to major content creation, not the trivial-pursuits of niggling on the talk pages.Nishidani (talk) 09:18, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

@CarmenEsparzaAmoux: For your reference, you can ping Billed Mammal and simply ask them to refrain from posting to your talk, and to raise any relevant issues solely on article talk pages without recourse to your talk – a request that it is common courtesy on Wikipedia to abide by. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:24, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Well said, especially regarding that Carmen "dedicates her time to major content creation" and so that only these small errors (which are not "POV issues") have been pointed out here out of thousands(?) of significant/large-scale additions needs to not be lost sight of here. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 13:50, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree that any "POV issues" are exclusively the *complainant's* as even a cursory reading of the source shows (once again). (This may be why the source was not linked above.) -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 14:54, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

No one has implied that Dahdouh has been anything other than a journalist on any day as far as I am aware.

The source CarmenEsparzaAmoux added says that Israel has alleged both Dahdouh and Thuraya were members of PIJ and Hamas respectively. It doesn't say that claim is true - but it also doesn't say that it is false. BilledMammal (talk) 10:32, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, so we don't make BLP violating aspersions by inference. And in case you haven't been paying attention over the last six months, everyone is Hamas, including your uncle's pet dog. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:40, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, CarmenEsparzaAmoux. Thank you for your work on Effect of the Israel–Hamas war on children in the Gaza Strip. Klbrain, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

This FA-rated article has had concerted improvement by many authors over the next month. It's an important and challenging topic; I'm impressed that the community has been able to manage this without article protection.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Klbrain}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Klbrain (talk) 21:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Original Barnstar
		Thank you for your many contributions on War crimes in the Israel–Hamas war. You're doing great work!! Perfecnot (talk) 22:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 03:55, 18 April 2024 (UTC)