Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Banana19208 (talk | contribs) at 01:08, 15 February 2019 (Requesting unprotection of Christian Distefano. (TW)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

"WP:RFP" and "WP:RPP" redirect here. You may also be looking for Wikipedia:Requests for permissions, Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission, or Wikipedia:Random page patrol.
    Welcome—request protection of a page, file, or template here.
    Shortcuts

    Before requesting, read the protection policy. Full protection is used to stop edit warring between multiple users or to prevent vandalism to high-risk templates; semi-protection and pending changes are usually used to prevent IP and new user vandalism (see the rough guide to semi-protection); and move protection is used to stop pagemove revert wars. Extended confirmed protection is used where semi-protection has proved insufficient (see the rough guide to extended confirmed protection)

    After a page has been protected, it is listed in the page history and logs with a short rationale, and the article is listed on Special:Protectedpages. In the case of full protection due to edit warring, admins should not revert to specific versions of the page, except to get rid of obvious vandalism.

    Request protection of a page, or increasing the protection level
    Request unprotection of a page, or reducing the protection level
    Request a specific edit to a protected page
    Please request an edit directly on the protected page's talk page before posting here
    this header: view • edit



    Current requests for increase in protection level

    Place requests for new or upgrading pending changes, semi-protection, full protection, move protection, create protection, template editor protection, or upload protection at the BOTTOM of this section. Check the archive of fulfilled and denied requests or, failing that, the page history if you cannot find your request. Only recently answered requests are still listed here.

    Shortcuts

    Place requests for new or upgrading pending changes, semi-protection, full protection, move protection, create protection, template editor protection, or upload protection at the BOTTOM of this section. Check the archive of fulfilled and denied requests or, failing that, the page history if you cannot find your request. Only recently answered requests are still listed here.


    Vedant Patel

    Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – repeated BLP violations by IP editors. – Recoil16 (talk) 12:04, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 12:20, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Adam Kinzinger

    Semi-protection: Vandalism and BLP violations after six previous protections. – Recoil16 (talk) 12:06, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 12:18, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    WRTV

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 12:19, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Warn the user appropriately then report them to AIV or ANI if they continue. Lectonar (talk) 13:05, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Biratnagar Kings

    Indefinite create protection: Repeatedly recreated – Indefinite semi or ECP please. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:26, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Not done. Page has been recreated once. Added to my watchlist. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 12:34, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    2025 Indian Premier League mega auction

    Indefinite full protection: Recreation of the page from the redirect; should be salted. This page being recreated is a WP:CFORK of List of 2025 Indian Premier League personnel changes. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 12:49, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Cardboard

    Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Myrealnamm's Alternate Account (talk) 15:35, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Pending-changes protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 15:56, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Elwood Edwards

    Temporary semi-protection: BLP policy violations – IP hopper keeps adding death claim with no sourcing. – The Grid (talk) 16:06, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Gua sha

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – Dynamic IP editor POV-pushing/deleting sourced content. Alexbrn (talk) 18:36, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:45, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: warned user Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:45, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    James Stewart

    Pending changes: Persistent vandalism. Mikemyers345 (talk) 20:10, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Airplaneman ✈ 21:19, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Video game publisher

    Temporary pending changes: Persistent vandalism. Mikemyers345 (talk) 20:18, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. IMO problem edits are infrequent enough that they are better handled by simple page-watching. MelanieN (talk) 23:01, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Timeline of the Donald Trump presidency (2019 Q1)

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Mikemyers345 (talk) 20:42, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Airplaneman ✈ 21:21, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Effeminacy

    Temporary full protection: Persistent poorly explained changes without discussion. Should be discussed. Request about 36 hour lock. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:46, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 36 hours, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:27, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: I warned the edit warrior, who is ripe for a block but was not waned Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:27, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Amidst the Chaos

    Semi-protection: Persistent addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content – IP adding unsourced content during article creation/expansion. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 21:05, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 12 hours, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:55, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    User(s) blocked. Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:55, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Jay Rock

    Semi-protection: Repeated attempts to add that the artist is Grammy award winning to the first sentence of the article by IP editors. This is not done per WP: PUFF. You'll notice articles like Beyonce do not lead with "Grammy award winning". StaticVapor message me! 21:11, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @STATicVapor: Though that may be the case, I think it'd be appropriate to mention the Grammy somewhere in the lead (like Beyonce's article). I personally don't see a need to protect the page for this reason, just a need to mention the Grammy somewhere in the lead (but not the first sentence). Airplaneman ✈ 21:17, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Mark Dice

    Extended confirmed as SP has not stopped the disruption. Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:01, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite long-term extended protection: 30/500, WP:ARBPIA enforcement - See Iran–Israel proxy conflict. -2607:FEA8:A75F:F823:60A8:58E5:34BD:8901 (talk) 22:08, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    ArbCom has previously made it clear that Iran is not included in the scope of ARBPIA. Samsara 00:35, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Declined Samsara 00:35, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Palestine Solidarity Movement

    Indefinite long-term extended protection: 30/500, WP:ARBPIA enforcement. 2607:FEA8:A75F:F823:60A8:58E5:34BD:8901 (talk) 22:16, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Al-Qaeda

    Indefinite long-term extended protection: Arbitration enforcement – This article that is related to Arab–Israeli conflict. In context, Osama bin Laden, the group's founder was antisemitic in context. ---2607:FEA8:A75F:F823:60A8:58E5:34BD:8901 (talk) 22:23, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    The A in PIA does not stand for antisemitism, it stands for Arab. Therefore, PIA refers to a specific regional conflict, and not antisemitism in general. As an example, antisemitism is not EC protected even though it is a highly visible page that has been disruptively edited in the past. The specific criterion set out by ArbCom is, "any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict". Samsara 00:29, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Declined Samsara 00:29, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Greater Israel

    Indefinite long-term extended protection: Arbitration enforcement – This article that is related to Arab–Israeli conflict. ---2607:FEA8:A75F:F823:60A8:58E5:34BD:8901 (talk) 22:23, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Columbia University

    Permanent semi-protection: Persistent Edit warring and vandalism. This level-5 vital article is semi protected almost every week for a period of 1 week, twice in January for vandalism and 3RR. Due to the name recognition, it is subject to consistent vandalism from trolls and competing institutions. Disputed contents are added and warred regularly. It's sister college's page is already locked due to vandalism so I am requesting permanent semi-protection as it is already classified as a good article. (Nochorus (talk) 23:55, 14 February 2019 (UTC))[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Dlohcierekim (talk) 00:03, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Pending-changes protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Dlohcierekim (talk) 00:03, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: Someone look it over and see if you agree. Can't go with indef. Not yet. Dlohcierekim (talk) 00:03, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Gucci

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 00:16, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected Dlohcierekim (talk) 00:22, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Current requests for reduction in protection level

    Shortcuts

    Before posting, first discuss with the protecting admin at their talk page. Post below only if you receive no reply.

    • To find out the username of the admin who protected the page click on "history" at the top of the page, then click on "View logs for this page" which is under the title of the page. The protecting admin is the username in blue before the words "protected", "changed protection level" or "pending changes". If there are a number of entries on the log page, you might find it easier to select "Protection log" or "Pending changes log" from the dropdown menu in the blue box.
    • Requests to downgrade full protection to template protection on templates and modules can be directed straight here; you do not need to ask the protecting admin first.
    • Requests for removing create protection on redlinked articles are generally assisted by having a draft version of the intended article prepared beforehand.
    • If you want to make spelling corrections or add uncontroversial information to a protected page please add {{Edit fully-protected}} to the article's talk page, along with an explanation of what you want to add to the page. If the talk page is protected please use the section below.

    Check the archives if you cannot find your request. Only recently answered requests are still listed here.

    Shortcuts

    Before posting, first discuss with the protecting admin at their talk page. Post below only if you receive no reply.

    • To find out the username of the admin who protected the page click on "history" at the top of the page, then click on "View logs for this page" which is under the title of the page. The protecting admin is the username in blue before the words "protected", "changed protection level" or "pending changes". If there are a number of entries on the log page, you might find it easier to select "Protection log" or "Pending changes log" from the dropdown menu in the blue box.
    • Requests to downgrade full protection to template protection on templates and modules can be directed straight here; you do not need to ask the protecting admin first.
    • Requests for removing create protection on redlinked articles are generally assisted by having a draft version of the intended article prepared beforehand.
    • If you want to make spelling corrections or add uncontroversial information to a protected page please add {{Edit fully-protected}} to the article's talk page, along with an explanation of what you want to add to the page. If the talk page is protected please use the section below.

    Check the archives if you cannot find your request. Only recently answered requests are still listed here.

    Shortcuts

    Daniel Brandt

    Unprotection: As of the time of this posting,

    • The article receives about 22 daily views
    • The article is watched by 250 editors

    Samsara 15:51, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Can of worms time. Unless we are seeing legitimate edit requests, I'm disinclined. Too much history and disruption to take the risk. Further thoughts appreciated. Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:25, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I saw the discussion on WJB's talk and while I see Samsara's point, I'm inclined to agree with WJB's protection. Enigmamsg 20:27, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I still remember the times :)....no unprotection imho. Lectonar (talk) 08:45, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I do too (I even created the Wikipedia Review article) and yes this should definitely remain semi protected. Fish+Karate 10:36, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    A note that if anyone is looking for the old article the deleted history is at Daniel Brandt (activist). Fish+Karate 10:41, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    There is no vandalism on article or in its history so their should not be protection Abote2 (talk) 11:28, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @Abote2: That is because the subject of the article is not what led to the protection in the first place...have a look at the permalinks provided above. Lectonar (talk) 11:39, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The musician himself isn't actually the problem — but unfortunately he happens to share the same name as somebody else who comes trailing an extremely problematic history, and certain people are very likely to try to hijack this article given half of one per cent of a chance to try. Bearcat (talk) 23:15, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Seriously. The amount of disruption over the former subject is staggering. AfD's, ArbCom, admin's driven off Wikipedia. Probably the most damaging series of events in Wikipedia's history. Most of its been hidden. But if you search in the Wikipedia namespace for this name, you'll find enough to curl your hair. And yes, that legacy is the past disruption that justifies create protecting that page for this long and semi protecting that page now. That's why so many people still watch that page more than a decade later. Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:24, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    We have no evidence that this will continue. And if we keep it at semi, we'll likely never know and may be keeping an innocuous article under an iron dome. With PC1, at least we'll know whether there is a problem. Samsara 02:41, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I wish we had something like a ping|admin.... let's hear some more opinions, folks. Lectonar (talk) 08:04, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Just post a notice about this discussion on the article talk page. That would be a place to start. And if there are a gazillion watchers, we should have a good discussion-- or crickets. Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:59, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    In so far as the possibility of disruption goes, there has already been a checkuser block because of a comment on the talk page. This article is a powder keg. Having said that, I have placed notice of this discussion here. Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:06, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @TonyBallioni and Risker: Or did I just strike a match? Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:09, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Noting with disappointment that @Samsara: opened this discussion seeking to overturn my protection of the article without (a) notifying me by ping or on my talkpage and (b) without setting out the full explanation I had given for the protection on my talkpage. The reasons given in this unprotection request fail to mention the problematic history of this page and could have had an unfortunate result if those responding to it had been newer users who were not been aware of that history. For ease of reference, I reproduce the central part my explanation for the protection (thank you @Dlohcierekim: for linking to the discussion):
      "I'm familiar with the general policy against pre-emptive protection, but I don't agree that this is pre-emptive. An article of this name has been the subject of sustained problematic editing and the protection is justified on that basis. The move protection is in effect just a continuation of my salting of the page post deletion, designed to prevent recreation of the article about the former subject. The semi protection is intended to reduce the chance casual reinsertion of material about the former subject, or a wholesale rewriting of the article. The protection is not speculative, it reflects my assessment of the particular risks posed by this article in the context of its wider history. In response to your point, leaving the page unprotected has already proved infeasible. The fact that the page history of problematic editing has been deleted, moved and oversighted does not mean that it should be disregarded when considering appropriate steps to protect the subjects of BLPs (and/or, for that matter, Wikipedians)."
      I stand by the protection, especially in light of the incident on the talkpage, and believe it would be reckless to unprotect. WJBscribe (talk) 15:55, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Do you acknowledge that the more discussion this takes, the worse it's likely to get, and that if you had simply never protected the article, it might still happily be sitting there, just as it did for the first 37 hours? Samsara 16:03, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Template talk:WikiProject Republic of Macedonia

    Unprotection: This is Admin only which is getting in the way of correcting the page per the decision to move the parent page to North Macadonia (see that talkpage). Legacypac (talk) 22:19, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Languages of the Republic of Macedonia

    Unprotection: Per [1] and the fact the main page for the topic was moved to North Macadonia this is inappropriately protected so only admins can edit or move it. Legacypac (talk) 23:03, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Christian Distefano

    Unprotection: Create a redirect for Paw Patrol actor. Banana19208 (talk) 01:08, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Current requests for edits to a protected page

    Further information: Wikipedia:Edit requests
    Shortcut

    Ideally, requests should be made on the article talk page rather than here.

    • Unless the talk page itself is protected, you may instead add the appropriate template among {{Edit protected}}, {{Edit template-protected}}, {{Edit extended-protected}}, or {{Edit semi-protected}} to the article's talk page if you would like to make a change rather than requesting it here. Doing so will automatically place the page in the appropriate category for the request to be reviewed.
    • Where requests are made due to the editor having a conflict of interest (COI; see Wikipedia:Suggestions for COI compliance), the {{Edit COI}} template should be used.
    • Requests to move move-protected pages should be made at Wikipedia:Requested moves, not here.
    • If the discussion page and the article are both protected preventing you from making an edit request, this page is the right place to make that request. Please see the top of this page for instructions on how to post requests.
    • This page is not for continuing or starting discussions regarding content should both an article and its discussion page be protected. Please make a request only if you have a specific edit you wish to make.
    Shortcut

    Ideally, requests should be made on the article talk page rather than here.

    • Unless the talk page itself is protected, you may instead add the appropriate template among {{Edit protected}}, {{Edit template-protected}}, {{Edit extended-protected}}, or {{Edit semi-protected}} to the article's talk page if you would like to make a change rather than requesting it here. Doing so will automatically place the page in the appropriate category for the request to be reviewed.
    • Where requests are made due to the editor having a conflict of interest (COI; see Wikipedia:Suggestions for COI compliance), the {{Edit COI}} template should be used.
    • Requests to move move-protected pages should be made at Wikipedia:Requested moves, not here.
    • If the discussion page and the article are both protected preventing you from making an edit request, this page is the right place to make that request. Please see the top of this page for instructions on how to post requests.
    • This page is not for continuing or starting discussions regarding content should both an article and its discussion page be protected. Please make a request only if you have a specific edit you wish to make.
    Further information: Wikipedia:Edit requests


    Gaza genocide

    My suggestion is to leave out the following 2 sentences in the "German complicity" paragraph as they seem to be based on misunderstandings:

    "She also highlighted police suppression of pro-Palestine protests throughout Germany[509] as evidence of state complicity.[508] Karen Wells et al. highlight how Germany has entrenched its complicity in Israel's actions by banning use of the word "genocide" in reference to Israel.[471][better source needed]"

    1. In general violent protests are not allowed in Germany. As some of the first pro-Palestine protests were violent, they were sometimes forbidden by courts, if they were expected to turn violent. But that is common policy in Gemany with all subjects and not special for pro-Palestine protests.

    Meanwhile, there even is a calendar concerning pro-Palestinian protests[2] with daily up to 20 protests all over Germany. Thus, there is no general police suppression of pro-Palestine protests as is suggested by the current wording.

    2. The word “genocide” is not banned in reference to Israel in Germany - maybe that was a misunderstanding: What is not allowed in Germany is to call for genocide against Jews. The slogan “From the river to the sea” is seen as such call and banned. Gilbert04 (talk) 15:34, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @FortunateSons: A quick browse shows at least for the first part support for removal, can you add any additional incite? -- Cdjp1 (talk) 12:38, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I can confirm that both statements are broadly true. IMO, the best resource for this discussion (in the contemporary context) is probably Steinberg: Versammlungsfreiheit nach dem 7. Oktober - NVwZ 2024, 302. Direct citation: “Die Subsumtion unter diesen Tatbestand bereitet aber auch sonst Probleme. Die Stadt Frankfurt a. M. hatte dem Anmelder einer Versammlung „Frieden in Nahost" am 2.12.2023 untersagt, während der Versammlung zur Vernichtung Israels aufzurufen, dem Staat Israel das Existenzrecht abzusprechen, sowie die Aussagen „Israel Kindermörder", „Juden Kindermörder", „Israel bringt Kinder um" sowie „From the river to the sea" zu tätigen. Diese Beschränkungen hob das VG Frankfurt vollständig auf. Auf die Beschwerde der Stadt differenzierte der VGH Kassel Aufrufe zur Vernichtung Israels verstießen - wie gesagt - gegen § 111 StGB und die Aussage „Juden Kindermörder" erfülle den Tatbestand der Volksverhetzung (§ 130 StGB). Demgegenüber wurden andere Außerungen wie „Kindermörder Israel" oder die Bezeichnung der israelischen Militäroperationen in Gaza als „Genozid" nicht beanstandet und die Entscheidung des VG insoweit aufrechterhalten. Es sei davon auszugehen, dass bei den militärischen Verteidigungshandlungen Israels auch Kinder zu Schaden kämen. Eine solche laienhafte Zuspitzung sei im Rahmen der Meinungsfreiheit hinzunehmen. Anders hatte der VGH Mannheim am 21.10.2023 ein Verbot der Parole „Israel Kindermörder" und „Israel bringt Kinder um" durch die Versammlungsbehörde trotz bestehender Zweifel über deren Strafbarkeit aufrechterhalten; im Verfahren des vorläufigen Rechtsschutzes sei nur eine summarische Prüfung möglich; eine einmal getätigte Äußerung könne nicht rückgängig gemacht werden. Die Unterscheidung zwischen antisemitisch und antiisraelisch stellt sicherlich eine Gratwanderung dar, die hier im Einzelnen nicht beschrieben werden kann“autotranslated: “However, the subsumption under this offense also causes other problems. On December 2, 2023, the city of Frankfurt am Main had prohibited the person registering a meeting "Peace in the Middle East" from calling for the destruction of Israel during the meeting, from denying the State of Israel the right to exist, and from making the statements "Israel, child murderer," "Jews, child murderer," "Israel kills children" and "From the river to the sea." The Administrative Court of Frankfurt completely lifted these restrictions. In response to the city's complaint, the Administrative Court of Kassel differentiated that calls for the destruction of Israel violated - as mentioned - Section 111 of the Criminal Code and that the statement "Jews, child murderer" constituted incitement to hatred (Section 130 of the Criminal Code). In contrast, other statements such as "Israel, child murderer" or the description of Israeli military operations in Gaza as "genocide" were not objected to and the Administrative Court's decision was upheld in this respect. It can be assumed that children would also be harmed in Israel's military defense actions. Such a lay exaggeration must be accepted within the framework of freedom of expression. On October 21, 2023, the Mannheim Higher Administrative Court upheld a ban on the slogans "Israel, child murderer" and "Israel kills children" by the assembly authority despite existing doubts about their criminal liability; in the interim legal protection procedure, only a summary examination is possible; a statement once made cannot be reversed. The distinction between anti-Semitic and anti-Israeli is certainly a balancing act that cannot be described in detail here.” There is no broad ban on pro-Palestinian protests either, and they were even allowed to happen on Oct. 7 of this year (in some cases). While there are legal disputes on specifics for both, I’m pretty confident that no reasonable person would disagree with “broadly permitted” regarding both claims. FortunateSons (talk) 16:54, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Bonus: there can be cases where something isn’t criminal, but can be restricted in other ways, for example due to different burdens of proof or social pressures. FortunateSons (talk) 17:11, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've removed #2. But there does seem to be evidence that pro-Palestine protests have been banned in parts of Germany at times.[3][4][5].VR (Please ping on reply) 14:55, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. Maybe the following article gives a bit more clarity.[[6]] Gilbert04 (talk) 18:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately that source seems incomplete. Germany has indeed suppressed peaceful criticism of Israel.[7] And Washington Post says "A planned photo exhibit in southwestern Germany was canceled as a result of social media posts by its curator, including one describing “genocide” in Gaza."[8] VR (Please ping on reply) 22:32, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I do not think that any source will ever be complete. Let me add two more.[[9]][[10]] Gilbert04 (talk) 20:44, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Gaza genocide 2

    Consider changing "The Israeli government rejected South Africa's allegations, and accused the court of being antisemitic, which it often does when criticised" to "The Israeli government has been accused of consistently weaponizing antisemitism against it's critics, including in the ICJ ruling." Ecco2kstan (talk) 23:12, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The Weaponization of antisemitism page hyperlinked over "often done" has many sources to draw from regarding the accusations' consistency and nature.
    My main concern with the original text is that it's voiced as if it's an observation made by a Wikipedian. The benefit here is that the weaponization of antisemitism has a clearer consistency grounded outside of Wikipedia. Perhaps other ways to word this out include adding a time scale (increasingly accused since Oct. 7th) or specifying the critique (against critiques of their actions since Oct 7th).
    If a lead paragraph change is necessary, there may be reason to outline Israeli motives and conditions for the genocide, including Zionism and anti-Arab racism. Ecco2kstan (talk) 23:25, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ecco2kstan, how about: "The Israeli government rejected South Africa's allegations. Supporters of Israel say that accusing Israel of genocide is both antisemitic[11][12] and a form of Holocaust erasure[13], but others argue antisemitism shouldn't be exploited to shield Israel from such allegations.[14][15][16][17]".VR (Please ping on reply) 00:12, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not as familiar with the Holocaust erasure claims, but I'm happy with that reworking! If that weaponization of Holocaust denial detail isn't on the weaponization of antisemitism page already, it might be a worthwhile phenomenon incorporate if there's more citations you can find. I might look into it myself. Thanks! Ecco2kstan (talk) 03:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That does sound quite balanced. +1 from me. Neutral Editor 645 (talk) 18:02, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Vice regent: Would you please make this change, so we can close this request? ~Anachronist (talk) 21:28, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The text I originally wanted modified was changed to "Israel's supporters say that accusing Israel of genocide is antisemitic, but others argue antisemitism should not be exploited to shield Israel from such allegations" after other discussions on the talk page. I almost like it better, but by saying "Israel's supporters" it relieves some of the responsibility from the Israeli government in the accusations that was, to an extent, duly credited in the original modification. Maybe now, it should just say "The Israeli government and their supporters say that accusing the state for genocide antisemitic..." or something similar. Ecco2kstan (talk) 17:39, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Israel–Hamas war

    Stated Israeli tank losses in casualty and losses infobox are incorrect, attributed article from Business Insider states "The IDF again had problems with anti-tank missiles during the 2006 war in Lebanon, when Hezbollah employed Russian-made Kornets. Though about 50 Merkavas were damaged, only five were destroyed, according to the IDF, which also struggled with poorly maintained vehicles and ill-trained crews." Casualties and losses box states this number as if it was from current conflict. Article does, however, state that "Israel has lost nearly two dozen tanks during fighting with Hamas since October 7." I believe losses of tanks in the infobox should be fixed to reflect this. 155.225.2.98 (talk) 14:17, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Create a level 3 header with a link to the article in question, then a {{Pagelinks}} template and then the reason. It looks like this: Example (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) your request here. ~~~~

    Handled requests

    A rolling archive of the last seven days of protection requests can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Rolling archive.

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=883372894"