Talk:Defense for Children International – Palestine et al v. Biden et al

Palestine Low‑importance

	Palestine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Presidents Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject United States Presidents (assessed as Low-importance).

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Further information

The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:

Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.

After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.
Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!

Corrie v. Caterpillar

Is this 2007 case a rock-solid precedent? That case had to deal with potential abuse of bulldozers from Caterpillar for punitive home destruction. The delivery of heavy bombs is on a completely other level. Butnotinvain (talk) 11:47, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Updating article

I recommend updating the article to reflect its current status as a pending case before the Ninth Circuit. Oral arguments were heard on June 10. Localunnamedsource (talk) 17:42, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why is a dismissed case of particular encyclopedic value to Wikipedia?

Anyone can put forth a case in a court of law. I am unsure why a dismissed case is of particular encyclopedic relevance if the court dismisses it. For example, if I were to put forward a dismissed case that Wikipedia was a pro-Hamas website, can I then create a Wikipedia page about it? What other examples are there that dismissed court cases are of particular encyclopedic value? Tobyw87 (talk) 05:18, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Easy. Trump v. United States (2022) is another example of a notable dismissed court case. Dismissed or not, all that matters is reliable source coverage. On another note, interestingly there is a post on the Israel discussion board of Reddit, posted over an hour ago, that explicitly shows the post above, calls Wikipedia Hamas propaganda and calls on people to create a Wikipedia account, as I/P issues are so one sided right now it is actually disgusting---I really wish more people would join in this fight in setting the "Narrative". starship .paint (RUN) 06:50, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Starship.paint Wow, that was a good catch. Thanks for archiving, too :) I wonder whether this call to creating SPAs should be posted on a noticeboard, or it's too mundane. — kashmīrī ^TALK 13:05, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kashmiri: - mundane at the moment, I think, if we see new accounts pop up we can just refer back to this. They already know we know, by the way. starship .paint (RUN) 13:12, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but it's not only new accounts. We had a flood of resold accounts[1] at Tamil genocide, need to keep an eye on those, too. They are still easy to spot if one knows where to look. Unfortunately, some admins do get fooled. — kashmīrī ^TALK 13:22, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kashmiri: - plus the two compromised accounts who tried to take out Nishidani at WP:AE. starship .paint (RUN) 13:29, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed another recent post, 2 days ago, one person said: We should all become Wikipedia editors right away and start out editing articles on topics where we can contribute until we have brought editing history to be able to correct these false claims., another person said: I’m going to create a Wikipedia editors account, and so should you. starship .paint (RUN) 14:29, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]