Talk:Rita Katz

Removed WP:not encyclopedic notice

I removed this notices and expanded, along with another editor, some essential information about the subject. There is a link to a lengthy profile published in the The New Yorker which should definitely be used to expand the article more. Alcarillo 15:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Illustration of bin Laden

I believe the illustration of bin Laden is a reworking of the likeness of a politician which was produced in error and has been widely debunked. It should therefore be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.27.172.154 (talk) 05:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Sources of Katz's Early Life

Although three sources are given, the accounts of Katz's early life all boil down to the same thing: an interview with Katz. Is there no independent corroborating source for her claims?

50.0.36.209 (talk) 19:39, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

There has recently been a number of unconstructive edits by a disruptive editor. The issue revolves around the addition of non-notable content: the claim that an Iraqi speaks Arabic. (See [1])

As part of his edits the disruptive editor has made various false claims inc.

• he has been subject to personal attack [2]
• That those who challenge him are involved in disruptive behavior on other pages [3]

Further disruptive edits have included:

• The addition of non-notable and very badly-written content, and when he is challenged responds with accusations of 'vandalism'. [4]
• Posting claims to Admin noticeboards falsely claiming he had previously given a 3RR warning to those who challenge him.

A review of the disruptive editor's history reveals he is highly focused on anti-Chinese and POV pro-US edits, and consequently his motivation is open to question.

Just out of curiosity if I was in fact "anti-Chinese and POV pro-US” how in the world would that effect my edits on *this* particular page (the page of a right wing Iraqi-Israeli researcher/pundit who to the best of my knowledge has never even commented on China or related issues)? Also way to assume I’m a man... Your keep a really open mind. I agree that if Katz hadn’t left Iraq before the age of ten then there would be nothing “notable” about their Arabic fluency, but they did. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 03:17, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Your edit history demonstrates clear political bias, and includes POV edits in respect of China, Arabs, Israel and the US.

In respect of I agree that if Katz hadn’t left Iraq before the age of ten then there would be nothing “notable” about their Arabic fluency, but they did. Your reasoning lacks logic.

In respect of Also way to assume I’m a man... Your keep a really open mind.:

• Also way to assume I’m a man I have no idea what you mean. Whilst each word is English you have strung them together in such a way which makes no sense.
• If you do not wish people to assume your are male then you should not use a masculine name.
• Your keep a really open mind. A review of [5] would be informative.

The name is a play on the Horse-eye Jack, a fish, and is entirely genderless. I would prefer if you use “they” or a variant when referring to me, but also feel free not to if thats your thing. You cant just say "Your edit history demonstrates clear political bias, and includes POV edits in respect of China, Arabs, Israel and the US.” unless you are willing to back up your assertions with diffs. BTW the only editing I do which could be perceived as POV has to do with Taiwan (which you have *not* mentioned), but thats a claim that could be made about any editor who treats Taiwan as an independent nation. My reasoning doesn't need to be compatible with formal logic, it just needs to be compatible with wikipedia policy. Please sign your posts on talk pages. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:35, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Back on topic, the New Yorker piece includes the line "Katz, who was born in Iraq and speaks fluent Arabic, spends hours each day monitoring” so its inclusion is warranted. On what wikipedia policy grounds are you challenging its inclusion? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:35, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Your edit history is informative about both your bias (as noted above) and your attitude (peevish, immature and disruptive). Your comments are informative about your education (low standard of English and lack of logical reasoning.)

Do you have anything to add besides personal attacks? Perhaps a comment on the New Yorker piece? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:56, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

The previous message contained observations after reviewing your edit history and comments. These were not intended as personal attacks, and should you wish to consider them as such then it speaks of your attitude not mine. Your quoting of a sentence from a newspaper is irrelevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:9313:B900:18C1:831F:C24D:4EA7 (talk) 20:11, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Per WP:personal attacks those are indeed personal attacks. Its a magazine not a newspaper and it is in fact highly relevant. As you havent advanced a policy based argument for removal I am adding the content back in. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 09:30, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

No they are not, and the content you try to add is non-notable. Your continued behaviour and comments (and as shown by your edit history many others have found) both reinforce previous observations and show that discussions with you are akin to teaching a pig to sing.([6])

And should you be unhappy with the tone of discussions remember that you initiated non-constructive behaviour including disruptive editing, posting fake warnings, making accusations of vandalism, posting false reports on admins noticeboards, posting inappropriate responses to the admin who review (and rejected) the case, and deleting admin messages to you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:9313:B900:4555:820B:4D19:124B (talk) 11:31, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Please cease your personal attacks and focus on the issue at hand. The New Yorker (again, a *magazine* not a newspaper) is considered a WP:RS, anything they have to say about the subject is fair game. You should also review WP:notability before continuing your argument, I think you fundamentally misunderstand what “notable” would mean in this context and are actually trying to make an argument based on WP:DUE. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 12:12, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Please stop making false allegations. You have done this before (to a number of editors) and you again have done with the above message by claiming personal attacks and alleging that others are making arguments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:9313:B900:4555:820B:4D19:124B (talk) 12:21, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Thats not a policy based argument... And you do in fact appear to fundamentally misunderstand what “notable” means in this context, I don't think thats in any way a "false allegation." I’m trying to help you out here by pointing you to WP:DUE. It might also be helpful for you to review Wikipedia:Disruptive editing as it doesn't appear you have ever done so. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 12:29, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Thats not a policy based argument. Well, at least you acknowledge you have made false allegations, although you are now trying to wriggle out by Wikilawyering.

And you do in fact appear to fundamentally misunderstand what “notable” means in this context, I don't think thats in any way a "false allegation. That is simply word salad, and another example of your low standard of English.

I’m trying to help you out here: funny, and based on your behaviour & edit history untrue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:9313:B900:B1E7:71D5:E20A:E1CA (talk) 12:42, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

I acknowledged no such thing. Your non-article related comments would be much more appropriate on your or my talk page, on the Rita Katz article talk page lets discuss the Rita Katz article. You need to actually make an argument, WP:DUE is probably your best place to start. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 12:50, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

It is disappointing, although no surprise, that you are now claiming not to have made false allegations. Equally, it is no surprise that you continue to be disruptive. It is amusing that you claim others should read the Wikipedia article on Neutral point of view considering your edit history (and admission by you in an earlier comment) demonstrates the opposite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:9313:B900:B1E7:71D5:E20A:E1CA (talk) 12:56, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

If you want to put a post on my talk page by all means put a post on my talk page, but please make a policy based argument here about including the fact that Rita Katz is a fluent Arabic speaker so that we can at least attempt to come to a consensus. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 13:02, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

I note you have acknowledged my earlier comments about your peevish behaviour and deletion of an admin's comments, see [7] However, the second part of your edit summary shows both you have not stopped being peevish and contiune with false allegations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:9313:B900:B1E7:71D5:E20A:E1CA (talk) 13:20, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

This is not the appropriate venue for these comments, please limit yourself to discussing the contents of Rita Katz. As I said before you are welcome to continue this line of thought on my talk page or on one of your many talk pages. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 13:24, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Yet further amusing comments from you considering it was me who initiated this section about the article: this followed your disruptive editing of the article, which was associated with other unconstructive behaviour by you. It seems you have moved from making false allegations to trying (falsely) to claim some form of policy-related high ground. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:9313:B900:B1E7:71D5:E20A:E1CA (talk) 14:15, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

All you have to do is come up with a policy based argument for why Katz’s fluency in Arabic shouldn’t be included, I’ve already made my argument but would you like me to restate it? If you want to have a discussion about misgivings you have about the way I’ve been treating you please either take it to my talk page or to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 14:57, 1 December 2019 (UTC)