W
Active Editors
Back to Profile

User Talk: Monk of Monk Hall

Server-side rendered snapshot of this editor's Wikipedia talk page discussions.

Activist deportations in the second Trump presidency


Thanks for the revert ↗. Apparently, the archived version of the article I had read was of a prior version of the article before it was updated. I re-archived it ↗, and saw that the update had that info. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 02:17, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

:Oh, that makes sense! Thanks for archiving the source, that's important. :) Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 10:21, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

A barnstar for you



{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align:middle;" | {{#ifeq:{{{2}}}|alt|100px ↗| 100px ↗}}
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Tireless Contributor Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | This is for your contributions related to Gaza war ↗. Pachu Kannan (talk) 19:37, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
|}

:Thank you! Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 21:48, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Explanation of Maersk edit



Hi Monk - for full transparency I work for Maersk. The reason we objected to your edit is the statement of fact that we ship arms based on and citing the ‘Democracy Now!’ interview with Francesca Albanese, which is highly biased and not credible. Also let me add that I am personally very concerned with the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and the need for immediate relief.

A little background - ‘Democracy Now!’ is a well-documented biased news source according to all of the leading media bias monitors (AllSides, Ad Fontes Media, and Biasly).

Francesca Albanese has faced criticisms for being biased, antisemitic, and making legally unsubstantiated claims. Lastly, report “the Economy of Genocide” that is the basis for the DM interview and what she submitted to the UN OHCHR was mainly composed of research done directly by the Palestinian Youth Movement, an obviously biased source who have made patently false claims in the past.

Therefore, we object to the Democracy Now! conclusion as fact that Maersk is shipping ‘arms’ specifically when it is our stated policy not to do so. We do fully acknowledge that we ship military cargo and our role in the F35 supply chain, as stated and detailed on our website. The intention of including our website was to show our position, not to specifically refute DM's claims. We understand this is a very charged issue and there are many different points of view, but we respectful argue that it is unfair to show conclusions based on biased 'reporting' as fact. I am happy to chat more if you like. Phil at Maersk (talk) 09:02, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

:Hi Phil,
:It's typically more appropriate to discuss content disputes on an article's talk page, so that other editors can weigh in. I disagree with your characterization of Democracy Now! ↗ and Albanese. Per WP:BIASEDSOURCES ↗, Wikipedia sources can be biased, and their bias is related to but not necessarily the same as their reliability. In the case of Democracy Now! which is an independent broadcaster with decades of award winning investigative reporting and news coverage, their bias does not necessarily make them unreliable.
:I think there is some ambiguity as to whether "arms" in this context means weapons (as in small arms) or armaments, which is a term that includes military supplies and components. The full quote by Nadya Tannous from the Democracy Now! article which is used in the Maersk article is "Maersk is still complicit in the transshipment of arms and weapons components, of military cargo to the Israeli Ministry of Defense." I interpret the juxtaposition of arms and weapons components in this sentence as implying that Tannous is talking about armaments, not specifically rifles and ammunition. Either that, or she is talking about small arms components rather than fully assembled weapons. In either case, her statement does not directly contradict Maersk's. In any event, Tannous says in the following sentence that Maersk is "endemic to the supply chain of the F-35 bomber, which is one of the most expensive and deadliest weapons on the market." I think that her assertion that the F-35 is a weapon is fundamentally correct, and calls into question Maersk's assertion that it does not ship weapons. In any event, you need a secondary source for this claim. I am sure there are news articles that quote Maersk's statement, and if you send me some I'll be happy to add them.
:In my subsequent edit, I will take your concerns into consideration and try to present the information from the Democracy Now! article in a way that reconciles it with the contrary information you presented. You should also familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's rules around conflict of interest editing, at WP:COIEDIT ↗. You are strongly discouraged from personally editing articles about your company as a representative of it. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 19:41, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
::Thanks and fully understand that I do have an inherent conflict of interest posting for Maersk, and I try to avoid this as much as possible. And this situation is obviously very complex - for example there are heavy trucks which the IDF has chosen to equip with weapons systems and use in offensives, however these same heavy trucks, due to their robust frames, are one of the few vehicles suitable for transporting desperately needed water and fuel for humanitarian relief. Another example is Motorola, who makes security cameras that are used all over the world to help keep schools, hospitals and public buildings safe, are also being used by Israel to identify, mark and kill assassination targets with drones - straight out of the Terminator. And the reality of supply chains today is that they are very complex and you cannot simply say 'you can sell that here for this but not there for that' These dual use goods are a key focus of Albanese's report. The F-35 is actually one so the most complicated machines in the world, and over 1,400 companies and 16 countries are involved in its production and supply chain. Thank you for keeping the conversation going and active. If I can locate a article that reinforces are position, I will certainly cite it - the problem is that a lot of the media that normally cover our industry sit behind a pay wall. 80.160.65.212 ↗ (talk) 08:23, 28 July 2025 (UTC)
:::This is a bit late but @Phil at Maersk, I would like to add that if you have access to media that are behind paywalls, many editors here would be happy to accept proposed changes using those media that provide useful information. I imagine that a lot of what editors have written about dual-use technology ↗ right now relies on older journal articles and news releases that can only provide so much detail for a broad audience - many of the sections in that article are very short, and that's just one topic. -- <span style="color:#4E8321">Recon</span><span class="skin-invert" style="color:#073131">rabbit</span> 16:30, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
::::Thanks for the comment, my understanding was that it is a violation of copyright to cut and paste anything from behind a paywall (from the publication side, not Wikipedia). It is a challenge that the information is very lopsided, as the Palestine Youth Movement report (which is what Albanese's report to the UN OHCHR is based) identifies many different items as dual use, beyond the 'traditional' military definition, in an effort to cast a broad a net as possible but there is little media coverage to dispute the report. For example companies like Volvo and Caterpillar have been targets since their construction vehicles have been used to demolish Palestinian homes in disputed settlements, and industrial robot makers have been targeted because some of their robots are used in Lockheed Martin factories. I completely get this approach given the unimaginable tragedy and suffering taking place in Palestine right now, but it can also create very complicated discussions around what is or is not complicity. Thanks for chiming in. &#126;2025-31240-52 ↗ (talk) 07:42, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Trump's first presidential run



nice catch. :) Rainsage (talk) 20:34, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

:Thanks! Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 15:04, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 4



Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Samuel Davis Wilson ↗, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Italian invasion of Ethiopia ↗. Such links are usually incorrect ↗, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. <small>(Read the FAQ{{*}} Join us at the DPL WikiProject ↗.)</small>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 07:56, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Miriam Lewin



If you're working on this subject (as in your subpage) I'd be happy to add to that by translating from :es:Miriam Lewin ↗. -- <span style="color:#4E8321">Recon</span><span class="skin-invert" style="color:#073131">rabbit</span> 16:36, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

:Oh, that would be great! I appreciate your help. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 17:35, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
::Looks like it's OK to put in mainspace around now, I'll keep working on it in a little while. -- <span style="color:#4E8321">Recon</span><span class="skin-invert" style="color:#073131">rabbit</span> 22:00, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
:::Awesome, thanks for your help! Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 15:20, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message



<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
<div class="ivmbox-image" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;flex-basis: 40px">40px ↗</div>
<div class="ivmbox-text">
Hello! Voting in the '''2025 Arbitration Committee elections ↗''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2025|end}}-1 day}}. All '''eligible users ↗''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee ↗ is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process ↗. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans ↗, topic bans ↗, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy ↗ describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please review the candidates ↗ and submit your choices on the '''2025|poll}}|voting page ↗'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:55, 18 November 2025 (UTC)</small>

</div>
</div>
<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2025/Coordination/MM/07&oldid=1322758895 -->

Excellent work



{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align:middle;" | 100px ↗
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Special Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | For your extensive work on articles related to recent world events. Burrobert (talk) 05:28, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
|}

:Thank you, much appreciated! Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 14:47, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

your technical error on page 'Crisis in Venezuela', 6Jan2026



In this edit ↗ (6 Jan., 21:29), you mentioned ' ref name=":42" ', which however is never defined . --Corriebertus (talk) 22:11, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

:Oh, that's weird. I'm not sure why that happened, probably related to the edit conflict when I tried to publish that edit. It should be fixed now. Thanks for catching that! Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 23:54, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

::Thanks for cleaning that up. Venezuela is in a complicated (and deplorable) situation (Mr. Donald Trump brought this extra to our attention, this week), but at least our article is better readable, now. Thanks, again. --Corriebertus (talk) 08:58, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

CS1 error on Second presidency of Donald Trump ↗


25px|alt=|link= ↗ Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have '''automatically detected''' that this edit ↗ performed by you, on the page :Second presidency of Donald Trump ↗, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive ↗, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:Qwerfjkl/Botpreload&editintro=User:Qwerfjkl/Boteditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:Qwerfjkl&preloadtitle=Qwerfjkl%20(bot)%20–%20Monk_of_Monk_Hall&section=new&preloadparams%5b%5d={{FULLPAGENAMEE:Second presidency of Donald Trump}}&preloadparams%5b%5d=1332958804 report it to my operator].
Thanks, <!-- User:Qwerfjkl (bot)/inform -->Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 21:47, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

CS1 error on Killing of Yahya Sinwar ↗


25px|alt=|link= ↗ Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have '''automatically detected''' that this edit ↗ performed by you, on the page :Killing of Yahya Sinwar ↗, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive ↗, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:Qwerfjkl/Botpreload&editintro=User:Qwerfjkl/Boteditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:Qwerfjkl&preloadtitle=Qwerfjkl%20(bot)%20–%20Monk_of_Monk_Hall&section=new&preloadparams%5b%5d={{FULLPAGENAMEE:Killing of Yahya Sinwar}}&preloadparams%5b%5d=1335537333 report it to my operator].
Thanks, <!-- User:Qwerfjkl (bot)/inform -->Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 19:57, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Your suggested text on Alex Pretti



Monk, I'm just curious about your suggestion for covering the 'taillight kicking' incident by Pretti and didn't want to over 'clog' the Pretti talk page:

"''<u>Pretti was identified as having been present at a January 13 confrontation</u> between over 100 observers and ICE agents conducting door-to-door raids in Powderhorn Park. During this confrontation, ICE repeatedly used chemical irritants against protestors, forcefully detained a bystander on her way to a medical appointment and arrested two observers. In a video from the confrontation, a man later identified as Pretti can be seen kicking the taillight … etc … ''.

I don't doubt that each separate part of this text is fully sourced/able, but to what extent is Pretti directly linked to the 'January 13 confrontation' and the 'bystander' incident. I'm simply trying to establish how sourced the 'back story' to the taillight kicking is and how much that 'back story' ties directly to Pretti, ie curious to know if there is any sourced context to his kicking, spitting etc.

Please name me if you reply here - thanks Pincrete (talk) 12:51, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

:Good question, I had to look into this. I added the Sahan Journal ↗ source to Operation Metro Surge ↗ before the killing of Pretti, and before the 13 January video was uncovered. When I saw the video I immediately knew it was consistent with the description of events given by Sahan Journal after the protests of the 13th. Excerpted from the piece: {{tq|Andy Larson, a south Minneapolis resident who was out observing ICE activity Tuesday, told Sahan Journal that one protester kicked out the taillight of an ICE vehicle and was tackled to the ground up the road on Park Avenue and E. 36th Street.}} Later coverage by CBS News, which focuses on Pretti after he has been identified in the video, links to a YouTube video called "36th & Park, Mpls Jan 13, 2026 ↗". This is entirely consistent with Sahan Journal's account of the same events. In my opinion, this consistency alone shows beyond a reasonable doubt that the incidents described are one and the same. However, I'm not sure if this satisfies the requirements of WP:SYNTH ↗. Thankfully, The Guardian ↗ gives us a smoking gun, unambiguously linking Sahan Journal's coverage to Pretti. From their coverage of the Pretti video resurfacing: {{tq|Sahan Journal, a local outlet that covers immigrant communities, reported from the area that day that a crowd of more than 100 people had gathered to observe and protest following reports of ICE’s presence in the neighborhood. The outlet reported that one woman had been forcibly removed from her vehicle after officers smashed her window. Aisha Gomez, a state representative, was also at the scene and told the outlet that agents had tackled another man and pushed his head into the ground before carrying him away. Gomez told the outlet officers had gotten physical with her, too, saying: “I was shoved with no verbal communication whatsoever.”}} Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 14:57, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
::Thanks for the effort. I doubt if your proposed text would 'pass' due to SYNTH and WEIGHT concerns, but parts could do and it's good anyhow to better understand the context of the 'kicking' incident. The 'thuggery' of the Guardian video, ''(which is slightly longer than ones I had seen before)'', with the agents clearly indicating "we're going to deal with this jerk in our own fashion", and brandishing weapons and pepper spray at the onlookers is quite shocking in itself. Pincrete (talk) 05:41, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
:::Sorry I forgot to tag you in my first reply @Pincrete. What do you see as the synth concern here? In my mind, the Guardian article which explicitly connects the Sahan piece to later works written when Pretti is identified by name is sufficient to address concerns of improper synthesis. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 16:08, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
::::Both synth and due ''(and for me personally, consistency, having argued that the taillight kicking isn't 'Background')''.
::::From my memory of the Gdn article, there is no problem in tying the 'kicking the taillight' to a 'Renee Good' protest, but more problematic to link it to other 'incidents' at the same event. Borderline off-topic if no, or virtually no, sources have explicitly linked the 'woman removed from her car' ''(on her way to a medical appointment?)'', or Gomez to Pretti. Other editors are keen to mention that Pretti was armed that day which is fairly widely reported ''(AFA we know he may have ordinarily been armed when outside his home, which his licence and his constitutional rights permit, so why is that relevant?)''
::::But that's just a personal opinion though, and I'm mindful of keeping the article focused on the shooting and the 'fallout' from that. Pincrete (talk) 07:00, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
:::::Ok @Pincrete, I see where you're coming from, and find your interpretation of policy plausible as well. In favor of including my proposed language, I'd say that Sahan Journal links the other incidents to someone kicking the taillight, but he hasn't yet been identified as Pretti. The Guardian links Sahan Journal's reporting to Pretti. The connection made by the Guardian is supported by reporting from other sources. Whether that's enough of an explicit connection, I don't really know. I'd be interested to hear other editors' input. If the RFC consensus goes in favor of including some mention of the incident, the wording will then become the next logical discussion to have. Do you think it might be worth moving this discussion to the article's talk page, perhaps after the conclusion of the RFC if the question of wording proves relevant? Or could it be added as a subsection in the ongoing RFC? Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 03:55, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Illegal immigration §&nbsp;Requested move 25 February 2026 ↗


25px|link=|alt= ↗&nbsp;You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Illegal immigration §&nbsp;Requested move 25 February 2026 ↗. <!-- Template:Please see --> Edittttor (talk) 20:43, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

2026 Iran war ↗


Hi Monk of Monk Hall. I restored sentences added by me and later removed by you from the lead of this article. These sentence are "On 7 March, president Masoud Pezeshkian apologized for strikes on neighboring countries, attributed them to "miscommunication in the ranks", and said those countries would no longer be targeted unless US attacks are launched from them." per https://indianexpress.com/article/world/iran-president-pezeshkian-apology-neighbours-trump-surrender-demand-10569646/ and https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/3/7/iran-to-halt-strikes-on-neighbours-unless-attacks-from-there-pezeshkian, "The statement highlighted internal divisions, as Pezeshkian, representing tripartite leadership council, urged diplomacy while the paramilitary Revolutionary Guard continued independent operations" per https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/3/7/iran-to-halt-strikes-on-neighbours-unless-attacks-from-there-pezeshkian and https://apnews.com/article/iran-israel-us-march-7-2026-d347fd6a03185f51d670bf4e7cbf5373 and Trump informally suggested that a new Iranian regime would work with the US on oil production, as happened following US intervention in Venezuela per https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/trump-privately-shown-serious-interest-us-ground-troops-iran-rcna262176. I think these sentence are notable enough to be mentioned in the lead of such an important article. What is your opinion? Pachu Kannan (talk) 15:21, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

:I think it's too long for the lead. It might be possible to include the attempt to de-escalate if it can be summarized in just a few words. I don't think the topic is unimportant, but the lead needs to be succinct. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 17:42, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
::Thank you for the response. Can you help to summarize it in just a few words. Pachu Kannan (talk) 18:23, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
:::I would split the sentence with the list of countries attacked by Iran so it says something like "Iran attacked countries A and B. It also attacked X and Y, but later sought to de-escalate, blaming miscommunication during the fighting"
:::The material on Trump's plans for Iran is not appropriate for the lead. Trump says a lot of things, most of them turn out not to be true. We need to wait and see what actually happens first. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 21:05, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Ali Khamenei ↗


Can you help to fix possible WP:NPOV ↗ violations (if there are any) in this article. Pachu Kannan (talk) 08:49, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Response to "Your edits at 2026 Iran war" on my talk page



I'm responding to the message you left on my talk page ↗ here as I prefer to keep my talk page clean per WP:NOTWALLOFSHAME ↗. You wrote, "Please stop adding the material about security forces shooting at protestors to the reactions section. It is not a civilian reaction and that material is already present in the impacts section." I'd respectfully argue that the security forces shooting at reacting/celebrating civilians is most certainly suitable material for the civilian reaction section, especially since it was merely a clause to a sentence, and that this could be taken up on the article talk page; however, since you noted that it's already present in the Impacts section, I'm fine with leaving it as is and will leave it at that in order to prevent duplicate material in the article. But to claim that it's "not a civilian reaction" is completely incorrect, especially since it was a clause added to the sentence regarding their celebratory reactions per the WP:RS ↗, along with the associated WP:Link ↗. In the future, I advise you to take up these discussions on the article talk pages to reach WP:Consensus ↗, and feel free to ping users there for their input. Though as I said, I will leave it at that since it is already noted in the Impacts section. Ronnnaldo7 (talk) 05:41, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Desalination plant



I notice you added what an Iranian official said ↗ about an alleged attack on a desalination plant. As far as I know, both the US and Israel have denied making such an attack. Their denial was already described somewhere else in the article (although that denial was later deleted ↗, probably accidentally). Are you aware of any verification that such an attack occurred? —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:46, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

:According to Foreign Policy ↗'s article ↗, {{tq|Major outlets have reported the accusation, though independent verification remains limited.}} I've found CBS, Guardian, AP, Al Jazeera, WSJ, Bloomberg and NYT coverage of the strikes. All of these articles, to the extent that I can access them, seem to report both the strikes on Qeshm and the subsequent Iranian strikes on Bahrain with attribution. It would presumably be fairly easy for any mainstream news outlet to verify using satellite data whether such an attack occurred or not. The fact that this is not mentioned one way or the other suggests to me that the question of whether such an attack occurred is not credibly contested. Rather, the denial by the US and Israel seems more of the WP:MANDY ↗ "You technically can't prove that ''we ↗'' bombed the country we're at war with" sort. The fact that Iran International reported on the strikes despite fairly openly supporting the Iranian opposition ↗ suggested to me that the attack is credible enough to be reported with attribution, in the absence of independent verification one way or the other. It looks like the removal you linked to was of the incident itself as well as the US/Israeli denial, in the timeline section. I agree that both the incident and the denial are too detailed for that section, but I think that my edit was appropriate for the strikes section. What do you think? Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 16:49, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
::A lot of what I have seen when looking for information is articles saying something like "There have been claims of attacks on desalination plants in the Iran conflict, so let's talk about how important desalination plants are to the people in the region ..." Other articles seem to accept that there may have been an attack but do not focus on it. Most articles seem generally unconcerned about whether the alleged attack on Qeshm Island actually occurred or not, whether the desalination plant is situated next to (or inside of) some military facility, what the extent of damage to the plant was if it happened, whether it is possible to repair the damage, who might have made the attack, and what is happening to the people who needed the water produced by that plant. While there are reports of further investigations being conducted about some other topics (e.g. the attack(s) that affected a school), there has been basically no news about the alleged Qeshm Island for several days. There was a report of an Iranian drone attack ↗ on a desalination plant in the UAE, but that seems to have been debunked. There were also claims in the Israeli press that UAE participated in the alleged attack on Qeshm Island, but that has been forcefully denied and has practically disappeared from the news. But no one seems to be providing investigative reports to attempt to verify the claim made by the Iranian government officials that there was an attack on a desalination plant on Qeshm Island or to assess the details of the circumstances and extent of alleged damage. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:33, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
:::@BarrelProof, wanted to follow up with you on this because I'm reading the HRANA ↗ report ↗ for 7 March, when the attack on the Qeshm desalination facility allegedly took place. HRANA treats the attack as if it happened, though the article doesn't specify in writing the extent to which HRANA has independently verified it. The bottom of the article does include a number of compiled videos corresponding to the attacks listed in the report, but the attacks aren't labelled (at least, not in English) so it's hard to know which video, if any, corresponds to the Qeshm strike. My intuition is that HRANA is a reliable and independent enough source that their assertion the strike took place is sufficient to stop treating it as an alleged event. What do you think? Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 19:19, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
::::The HRANA article that you linked above very clearly ''does not'' indicate a conclusion that such an attack took place, even if we would consider HRANA to be a reliable source. That HRANA article only mentions the alleged incident in one place, in a sentence about what they "preliminarily recorded" within the last 24 hours. It very clearly indicates that this is not a verified report. A lot more than 24 hours have gone by now at this point. Contrast this with the school incident. There have been a lot of news reports that describe further investigation of the Minab school incident. For the alleged attack on the desalination plant, I have not seen any significant further reporting. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 21:36, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
::::I found an article by Al Jazeera ↗ that describes the alleged attack as a fact, but it provides no evidence or other new information indicating how a conclusion was reached about it. In fact, the only other article that it links to is an article that just describes it as an allegation by Iranian government officials. The rest of that Al Jazeera article describes the island as a fortress filled with military installations and weapons. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:06, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

New message from Cyfraw


{{talkback|Talk:2026 Iran war|Impact on Sports|ts=20:17, 18 March 2026 (UTC)}}
<b style="color:#00B">cyrfaw</b> (<small style="color: green;">talk</small>) 20:17, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

2026 Iran war ↗


Hi Monk of Monk Hall, I added a sentence to the lead of this article which says that "Some members of the Iranian diaspora and opposition have rallied in favour of US-Israeli action and expressed hope the war would lead to the liberation of the Iranian people". Closure of the Strait of Hormuz by Iran is also described as a violation of law of the sea. But I have a confusion whether these types of sentences are WP:DUE ↗ in the lead of a war of aggression like this war and the Russo-Ukrainian war. Russia Matters source cited in the Russo -Ukrainian war article says that there were civilian fatalities in Russia but they were comparatively low than in Ukraine. But we are not mentioning it? What is your opinion. Feel free to remove my edits. Pachu Kannan (talk) 05:49, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

:I think that support from the diaspora/opposition is too detailed for the lead. Not sure about the law of the sea, I suppose its dueness would depend on who and how many people are saying that. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 16:25, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
::If you disagree, feel free to remove the sentences. Pachu Kannan (talk) 17:27, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Nomination of :Spillover of the Gaza war in Syria ↗ for deletion


<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">48px|alt=|link= ↗</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article :Spillover of the Gaza war in Syria ↗, to which you have significantly contributed ↗, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines ↗ or if it should be deleted ↗.

The discussion will take place at '''Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spillover of the Gaza war in Syria ↗''' until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by ''SDZeroBot'' (talk) 01:02, 22 April 2026 (UTC)<!-- User:SDZeroBot/AfD notifier/template -->

Background section of the 2026 Iran war ↗ and lead of the Gaza war ↗


Hi Monk of Monk Hall, it is mentioned in this section that "Iran severed diplomatic ties with the US and Israel and held the American embassy staff hostage for over a year". But no reason is cited for these incidents. Do you think the reason is necessary? If you think so, can you add it with WP:RS ↗. Pachu Kannan (talk) 11:39, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

:I think it's probably good the way it is. Readers who are interested in the motives of the students that stormed the embassy can click through the link to the main page on the hostage crisis and read about it there. The details of their motivations aren't really relevant to the background of the current war. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 15:05, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
::Ok. Pachu Kannan (talk) 18:22, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
::I also added two sentences about Hamas losses in the lead of the second article by citing an Al Jazeera article. Feel free to remove it if it is WP:UNDUE ↗. Pachu Kannan (talk) 18:50, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
:::I trimmed your edit on the Gaza war page. Not sure if it's due or not, but it does feel a little out of place. I'd recommend consulting with other editors about how to better integrate it into the lead. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 19:38, 14 May 2026 (UTC)