Talk:Men of Israel

Talkheader
I have added a "talkheader" as a friendly reminder that talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article and not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject. This is mot the place to discuss ones believe that this is a propaganda piece to promote the state of Israel, which I frankly believe that it is not. Nor is it the place to discuss the assumption that David "Shankbone" and WatchingWhales are the same person. Just in case, I checked both of their contribution pages and I could not find any proof nor evidence that they are both the same person, even if they are the sole contributors to this article. I would suggest that only subjects dictated by the talkheader be discussed here and that any other discussion be taken to the Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. Thank you all. Tony the Marine (talk) 06:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. I was asked to look at this as an admin. I'm reluctant to remove posts saying A=B given that I'm elsewhere arguing (about another issue) that such posts shouldn't be removed, so I'd like to ask instead that the poster produce some clear evidence on the sockpuppet or COI board, as suggested above, or drop the allegation. If no evidence has been produced within a few days, the claims should indeed be removed. This is a talk page to discuss the contents of the article and nothing else. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 14:34, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Tony - I'm pretty open that WatchingWhales is an alternative account - it's known with ArbCom, on the Wikipedia Review, and if an issue comes up I return to my main account to discuss it. As Viridae said, there's nothing wrong with a known, uncontroversial alternate account used for new article creation. I think it's also accorded greater oversight as my main account has a long, good reputation for sticking to policies and guidelines, and certainly nobody has produced any evidence to the contrary.  That so many influential publications are discussing a gay porn film speaks volumes about the notability of this article.  Nobody has produced evidence that any information in this article is not information found in its sources.  No evidence, wrong forum, no issue. These accusations should be removed, per SV's suggestion. -- >David  Shankbone  15:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I was the editor who added the COI tag and, as per the directions on the template itself, posted the reasons for adding the tag. I included a diff in which one of the accounts admits to being the other, so I find it exceedingly odd that two separate admins feel unable to make the connection. I am not in any way connected to the IP which posted the other messages. I think the connection between David ShankBone/WatchingWhales and Michael Lucas is readily apparent by the other diff which I posted, so the suggestion that there is no evidence of conflict of interest is, frankly, ridiculous. For such a clear and simple COI case, this seems to be starting off in a direction that leads not to a resolution of that COI, but to somewhere else altogether. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Since these three sections appear to be topically linked, I'm removing the section divisions.

First of all, an alternate account and a sockpuppet are not the same thing. The former is used openly, as David Shankbone pointed out he does, whereas the latter is not. To be fair, David Shankbone appears to have referred casually to his alternate account as a "sock", but this is incorrect. As WP:Sock states, an alternate account is known as a sockpuppet when it is used in violation of policy. So long as he has not violated this policy, then it is an alternate account, and not a sock puppet. I would also suggest to 216.241.55.204 that you register with an account and username, since this is expected of users who with to edit continuously.

Second, I see no evidence that this article is a "propaganda piece", or that there is a COI or neutrality issue. The article is supported by sources like Patrick Goldstein of the L.A. Times., and appears to be neutral in its description of the film. You say that it was edited by someone who edits on a lot of the topics that Shankbone edits. So what? You say that he knows Michael Lucas. A look at David Shankbone's user pages shows that he is a prolific photographer on this project whose photographs adorn something like 5,000 pages on Wikipedia and the Commons. One of the most prominent types of subject he photographs are public figures. Naturally, this means that he has met many of the subjects of BLP articles he has edited, which is only logical. Q.E.D. I myself have met Wanda Sykes, Soupy Sales, Oliver Sacks, Mira Nair, Richard Dreyfuss, and many other people whose articles I've edited. This isn't COI. It's because I like to photograph BLP subjects, so naturally, I'm going to end up editing their articles. Some of these people have even asked me to help them with vandalism, or slanderous material in their articles, which I have, which is no different from one of them going to Jimmy Wales and asking the same thing. Merely knowing a BLP subject does not a COI. Unless you can establish that David Shankbone edits his article with the specific intent to promote him, and that this is the effect generated by the nature of his edits, this accusation has no merit. If you can point to specific quoted portions of the articles and explain how they or their wording betray a POV, then do so. If you can't, then the accusation is moot.

Lastly, regarding Talk Page etiquette, if by "propaganda piece" or accusations of COI/POV, 216.241.55.204 and Delicious carbuncle were focusing their attention on the article or how it was written, then they were within the bounds of WP:TALK. Aside from their accusations, which I dealt with above, they were not discussing the article's subject, but the article itself.

So let's all keep calm, and try talking this out, without accusations, okay? If anyone has a problem with specific passages they can point to, then please do so. Nightscream (talk) 17:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I've replaced the section titles, since removing them makes it appear as if my COI comments are part of a discussion with the IP editor, which they are not. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I find it difficult to respond directly to your comments, since you seem to be addressing both me and the IP editor together as if we were one person or shared an agenda. However, let me make it perfectly clear that we are not and, so far as I know, do not. Feel free to rephrase. I have no idea why you assume I am anything but calm and I know that I have violated no talk page guidelines in letter or in spirit. This talk page seems to be a magnet for admins to state why they think such overt COI is something else. I'm perfectly happy to take this to the COI noticeboard if that is what is necessary. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:21, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I interviewed Michael Lucas when I was doing interviews for Wikinews and to solve the issue over his birth name (which was a big issue); I interviewed over 40 people. Your link does not establish a COI, only that I work on Wikimedia projects.  My only association with Lucas is via my work on Wikimedia, of which he is a big supporter of the free knowledge movement (he has given us quite a few high quality, professional images).  You placed a COI template on the article without providing any evidence that this article is biased.  You're welcome to check the sources, and try to find more.  You're here off the Wikipedia Review simply making an accusation, without showing any evidence of bias at all nor how this article doesn't comport with WP:V and WP:NPOV.  The IP editor is banned editor User:Ionas68224, who is also banned on Simple as User:Jonas D. Rand.  -- >David  Shankbone  19:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I did not respond to you and the IP editor as if you were one person. I responded to the accusation of sock puppetry, which both of you made together. Since the accusation of sock puppetry and COI are contextually linked, it is only natural that I responded to that overall theme collectively.


 * You have not established that the article is COI, overt or otherwise. You have merely asserted it, and we have refuted this assertion, and provided reasoning to explain why it's not: Merely knowing or having met a BLP subject does not constitute a COI. If you feel that this reasoning is flawed or fallacious, then you can provide a counterargument explaining what's wrong with it. Instead, all you've done is repeat the original assertion, which indicates to me that you know you're wrong, and just don't want to admit it. I'll say it again: If you can quote passages whose wording appears to exhibit a POV or COI, then do so. If you can't, then whether you make this an issue here or on a Noticeboard makes no difference if you can't articulate your position beyond pointing out that an editor knows or met a BLP subject, or respond to rebuttals directly. Nightscream (talk) 20:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I did nothing "together" with the IP editor. Please stop implying that we are in any way working together or toward the same ends. The account WatchingWhales is an acknowledged sockpuppet of David Shankbone. There is no accusation, it is merely a statement of fact. You may take issue with my use of the term "sockpuppet" but "sock" is the word used by Shankbone himself in the diff I provided. My only reason for mentioning it was in regard to the COI claim. I will start a thread at the COI noticeboard since this seems to be becoming rather long for a talk page. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * (e/c)I'm not "here off the Wikipedia review" - Please don't ascribe any other motivations to my actions, and let's keep this on the topic at hand, which is very simply that I feel there is a conflict of interest here. User:David Shankbone's involvement with Michael Lucas has been discussed before and should be well-known to the admins who have posted here, so I'm not sure why I should need to refresh anyone's memory. I will offer these photographs taken by David Shankbone to rebut his assertion that he simply interviewed Lucas:
 * Oct 2007 File:Michael_Lucas_2_by_David_Shankbone.jpg
 * Oct 2007 File:Michael_Lucas_by_David_Shankbone.jpg
 * Dec 2007 File:Russian_Birth_Certificiate_of_Michael_Lucas.JPG
 * Aug 2008 File:Michael Lucas with Israeli flag on Fire Island.jpg
 * Aug 2008 File:PJ DeBoy on Fire Island at the home of Michael Lucas.jpg
 * Aug 2008 File:Diving off a deck into the Great South Bay of Long Island.jpg
 * Feb 2009 File:Michael Lucas portrait shot.jpg
 * note that the photos taken in August of 2008 are described as taken at the home of Michael Lucas and link to a blog post which notes that Lucas invited Shankbone to stay with him. Can we stop playing games here? I appreciate Shankbone's photographic contributions, but there isn't another set of rules for prolific contributors. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The photos of his documents, as I pointed out above, were to settle the birth name error for his Wikipedia article; it was the first time I had met him when I was at his office to interview and...take those photos for the article. Lucas, who obtained his Israeli citizenship this year, noticed my well-publicized work in Israel, and also saw all the New York City photography I've done.  Because I had photographed two places he considers home, he invited me to photograph his third: Fire Island.  We had very few good images. The blog posts make the purpose of the trip clear: to document the island's tourist season at its peak, when hotel rooms were going for $1,200 a night that Labor Day weekend.  The photographs are found throughout Wikipedia, on the Internet and published.  While I was a guest of Lucas and his husband, a prominent businessman, it was for Wikimedia and the creative commons.  I walked around with a camera the entire time. I was probably an annoyance.  They hosted three different groups of people, and we all did our own thing and barely saw one another.  Lucas is not a friend, he's an acquaintance.  I have photographed hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of people for this website, particularly New York City-based people.  You could fashion a COI out of selectively looking at my contributions.  For instance, I photographed gay marriage founder Evan Wolfson; wrote a biography of him that has changed very, very little in its year and a half of existence with the antiquated criticism section; interviewed him for a Wikinews feature article and my blog; I *would* call Evan a good friend; and yet if you were to poll all the editors at Same-sex marriage, where I have taken the lead in drastically re-shaping the article, they would all probably tell you that I'm seen as fair and neutral to all sides.  You're using innuendo and select contributions to say there is an obvious COI, yet you have failed to actually show any articlespace evidence of this supposed COI. You can't just have weapons with a COI charge--particularly those flimsy ones--you also need a crime, which you have failed to show.  -- >David  Shankbone  21:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Any further discussion about COI should go here. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Let me set the record straight. I am not Delicious Carbuncle. We are not working in collusion against anyone. I don't even know what country DC lives in. Yes, he posts on the Wikipedia Review. I have, on and off, posted on the Wikipedia Review for over two years. This, however, has little to nothing to do with this discussion, David. Your efforts to try and direct the focus of this discussion away from your conflict of interest, and toward DC's and my participation on that Board are apparent, and I ask you to please stop doing this. See my message on the page linked above as well. Jonas from Nevada 216.241.55.204 (talk) 22:49, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Men of Israel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090926134733/http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/wealthofnations/archive/2009/09/23/gay-porn-mogul-hopes-to-arouse-interest-in-israel.aspx to http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/wealthofnations/archive/2009/09/23/gay-porn-mogul-hopes-to-arouse-interest-in-israel.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090126202221/http://www.out.com/detail.asp?id=22719 to http://out.com/detail.asp?id=22719
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061107005109/http://www.lucasblog.com/archives/2006/08/dear_friends_an.html to http://www.lucasblog.com/archives/2006/08/dear_friends_an.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080216000624/http://daily.stanford.edu/article/2008/2/14/adultFilmStarsRemarksSparkDebate to http://daily.stanford.edu/article/2008/2/14/adultFilmStarsRemarksSparkDebate

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:26, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Men of Israel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090511100125/http://www.dnamagazine.com.au/articles/news.asp?news_id=8963 to http://dnamagazine.com.au/articles/news.asp?news_id=8963

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:32, 25 January 2018 (UTC)