Talk:Israel Katz

Quote

@Number 57: What do you mean its undue? The content added is a quote, its a fact that he said that quote, its not a point of view.--Makeandtoss (talk) 21:57, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

@Makeandtoss: A single quote from Katz from 2015 now makes up around 20% of the article. This is clearly undue. Furthermore, Tanbircdq clearly has an agenda, adding quotes from numerous Israeli politicians to their articles. If we are unable to resolve this here, I will be raising with other admins.

Can I also ask what the relationship is between you two? It seems very strange that Makeandtoss would randomly find (and revert) other editors removing Tanbircdq's material. Then the two of you show up on this article again within 10 minutes of each other. I would like to WP:AGF, but this topic area is plauged with sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry, and this looks fairly like the latter. Number 57 22:15, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

You are not making any sense, the WP:UNDUE talks about points of view. Plus, I don't really care if it was Tanbircdq who put the material, I just find an urge to revert whoever removes sourced content just because it makes his role models look bad (not necessarily talking about you).--Makeandtoss (talk) 22:22, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Is that so? Perhaps you could tell us how you found your way to this fairly obscure (around 20 views a day) article? Someone should report these two, travelling together over multiple articles of living persons inserting and then edit warring over cherrypicked quotes. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:31, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

(e/c) Hmmm, that's not really answering the question of how you came across the edits to revert.

With regards to undue weight, the quotes are clearly designed to show Katz in a bad light and giving this kind of prominence to them in a relatively short article is inappropriate. I recommend reading the WP:BALASPS of the WP:UNDUE section if you are still having problems understanding this issue, specifically the sentence "For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." Number 57 22:33, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

An editor restores sourced content and now ad hominem accusations follow.

The content is direct quotes made by the subject cited from independent, reliable sources. In what way exactly does this fit into "isolated events, criticisms, or news reports"?

No More Mr Nice Guy, you threatened to report me based on your opinion that I violated 1RR, make sure you also report/WP:BOOMERANG Number 57 who actually violated 1RR with the edits here and here. Tanbircdq (talk) 00:26, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

If you cannot see that this is undue and inappropriate editing, then I think wider involvement in this issue will be required. Number 57 22:18, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

There's been a failure to adequately explain why the content should be omitted from the article. The content is full quotes made by the subject whilst he was an elected government official in a public office. Full context for the quotes is provided in the independent, reliable secondary sources it is cited from.

I don't see how just because a subject has a "relatively short article" article that he's exempt from verified information being added about him because of the WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument that "the quotes are clearly designed to show Katz in a bad light".

The content maybe controversial and interpreted as indirectly critical but it is clearly factual and not POV. The content is verifiable, therefore, I don't see how it's inappropriate editing, but rather that leaving the content out lacks the objectivity of having a WP:NPOV. Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. I welcome any third opinion on the matter. Tanbircdq (talk) 17:55, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

It has been explained, but it seems you are adopting a WP:IDHT stance. It's quite clear you are editing articles with an agenda, and this has no place on Wikipedia. Please stop or I will bring this to the attention of other admins. Number 57 20:47, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I'll take it to ANI now. Number 57 22:12, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I'm trying to add a new views section on the page but it keeps getting removed. I can't understand why this wouldn't be allowed as many pages about people have this sort of section, especially politicians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.254.204 (talk) 17:04, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

You've been told why (WP:BALASPS). A more pertinent question is how, on your very first edit to Wikipedia, you managed to restore text that was removed from the article several months ago. Which account did you previously use, or who put you up to this? Number 57 17:31, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

That is your opinion and I think you're wrong. I think it gives the page balance rather then removing negative information because it looks bad on him.

Haha, who put me up to it??? Is that a serious question or are you being sarcastic? Well I wanted to add some quotes made by this guy then looked at the history and found more so thought that should be added as well. 86.154.254.204 (talk) 17:50, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

If you think that having 33% of the article body being dedicated to three thing's he's said when he's served for nearly 20 years as an MK and been a minister for nine years (and the views being aired aren't even relevant to his portfolios), then I suggest you don't have a clue what balance is. It's quite obvious that you're trying to get as much material into the article as possible to make him look bad. This is not a WP:COATRACK, so if you don't like him, go and have a rant on an internet forum about it. This is not the place. Number 57 20:49, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

There any many other politicians who've only been active for a few years that have large amounts of views about them on their pages. But your logic is having no comments about a politician whose been in office for nearly 30 years, how did you work that one out?

Why would it make him look bad? Did he retract any of the comments? Clearly not as obvious as you being either Mr Katz's political supporter, his PR rep or a paid Hasbara, or maybe all three. 86.154.254.204 (talk) 17:30, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Third Opinion

A third opinion has been requested. There are already three editors involved in this discussion. If this is a content dispute, try moderated dispute resolution at the dispute resolution noticeboard or a Request for Comments. If this is a conduct dispute, and I see warnings about ANI, take it to Arbitration Enforcement, which is quicker than ANI for issues that are within the scope of discretionary sanctions, and do not also file at DRN. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:00, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Moderated Dispute Resolution

A Third Opinion was requested ten days ago. Now moderated dispute resolution has been requested, but declined because there has been no recent discussion, and the discussion that there was largely involved conduct issues. Resume discussion on this talk page, or go to Arbitration Enforcement. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:51, 12 January 2016 (UTC)