User talk:Perplexed566

'''Welcome! I'd love to get your input. '''

Im Tirtzu Editing Bias
Your bias editing on the "Im Tirtzu" page is very unprofessional. Please adjust your personal views to fit the Wikipedia objectivity standard.
 * I aspire to a NPOV. If you have suggestions for better approaches to any of my edits please suggest them at the Im Tirtzu talk page. I'd be happy to engage with you there. --PPX (talk) 13:20, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It turns out that allegation of bias came from a sock puppet now banned. PPX (talk) 16:11, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Editing Bias
Hi Perplexed. I ran into a couple of edits you made on the Breaking the Silence page, and I have noticed a pattern of your edits being incredibly biased to the hard left. Please readjust your editing habits as they take away from the objectivity trying to be achieved here at Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BoredSocks (talk • contribs) 11:21, 17 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Can you please be specific about any edits that you feel are not appropriate as per Wikipedia standards? I'd be happy to discuss them on the article's talk page so that we can get a better outcome. --PPX (talk) 13:03, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You are reverting edits with "NPOV" or "OR" when the sources say exactly what you are reverting. If you continue to do so, you will be warned and possibly blocked. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:32, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you please be specific about these cases? If and when I get things wrong I have no interest in keeping it that way. I have been noticing (and reverting) a bunch of OR because I keep finding that the sources are primary and not secondary.PPX (talk) 16:06, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I see now that you reverted my edit on Btselem, and that you are probably referring to my edit there. I think the explanation was given by another editor here about a self published source. PPX (talk) 16:19, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:OR is when I write something that is not sourced. Putting in a quote from an organization that is sourced is not OR. It could be WP:SYNTH if I add stuff to the quote that is not there. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:37, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * My understanding of OR is different. It requires "reliable, published sources" and self-published sources don't count for that. --PPX (talk) 16:43, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * That has nothing to do with original research. OR is me or you putting something into the encyclopedia without a source or because we "just know it to be true." Sir Joseph (talk) 17:13, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * How do you square that with this sentence? "The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist." PPX (talk) 17:16, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * That means I can't just put something in if I made it up. Putting in a quote from the NGO is not original research, it's the NGO stating as such. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:19, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * My plain English reading of the word "published" and the link it links to leads me to a different conclusion. PPX (talk) 17:38, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Please self-revert
@Perplexed566: Per RfC, there was a VERY strong consensus to add the Amos Harel opinion. To recap:

YES: "Yes, of course, it's appropriate" User talk:Cpsoper; "Harel is a notable commentator and no-one seriously disputes the fact that opinions can be presented as long as there is in-text attribution" TheTimesAreAChanging; Yes Amos Harel is a recognized journalist. Haaretz is a notable source. Kamel Tebaast; "Yes, agree with all the above. Amos Harel's words has to be in the article..." (cut out other crit if need be) User talk:Bolter21; "Yes, the opinion is notable and should go into the article." User:Ynhockey

YES (but cautious of too much criticism) "There is no rule against including attributed opinions in articles and Harel's opinion is permitted per se" Zero

NO: "Opinions are like assholes; everybody has one. Unless the opinion is reported by secondary sources, it doesn't need to go in the article." User talk:Malik Shabazz "There is also a discussion about whether the quote accurately portrayed his comments and whether it was presented in a NPOV manner. I believe it is best to defer the discussion about how he's quoted until after we determine whether he can be quoted."PPX

Please self-revert or I will report you to AN. Thank you.  Kamel Tebaast  20:13, 30 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the note.


 * You're right on one point. There is a clear majority about the legitimacy of including material from the article, but the issue of "whether the quote accurately portrayed his comments and whether it was presented in a NPOV manner" was explicitly excluded from the RFC discussion. (I was disappointed that most of the commentators were not uninvolved editors, but rather folks who had been a part of the discussion or who seem to be active in ARBPIA, but that's another matter...)


 * Discussion on the talk page continued after the most recent RFC comment, and a specific proposal was made (by me) for how to post the material in a way that took those additional concerns into account. I assume you missed it.


 * I hope you take the time to weigh in on the conversation on the talk page. PPX (talk) 20:35, 30 September 2016 (UTC)


 * This began after the quote was originally deleted. There was a consensus to place the quote. I added the original quote. It needs to stay. Future discussions are not about whether a quote goes in, but what the wording may be. At this point, you must put back the quote, and allow any future discussions to determine the exact wording. You need to immediately self-revert, per consensus.  Kamel  Tebaast  20:42, 30 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I think you're jumping the gun. For one, the RfC is not over yet. See WP:RFCEND. In addition, as indicated above, even if the RfC process was complete, I do not interpret the conclusion there as being that the original quote must be returned to the article. In fact I don't see how any objective reader of the talk page or even just the RfC could reach that outcome. And I'm a bit at a loss to understand where all of these demands that you're now making of me are coming from.


 * Fine points of Wikipedia process aside (and I fully acknowledge that I can get things wrong), take the time to read the full Harel article. I'm sure you'll see that that quote included on its own does not accurately portray the source. PPX (talk) 21:05, 30 September 2016 (UTC)


 * P.S. I don't intend to make any further edits of that article today. I'm aware that another editor already re-introduced your text. And I worry that to edit it again to make it representative of what Harel is actually saying might violate the 1RR. PPX (talk) 21:08, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * There will be no justification for deletion if the RfC closes with a clear consensus in favor of inclusion. If that occurs, as seems likely, the material must be restored—and future edit wars should be relegated only to the phrasing.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:37, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

PPX, I mostly agree with your proposal in the talk page. But there's only one thing missing: Don't you think something small about Ron Ben-Yishai's opinion should be added in the criticism section, even one line? Such as "Breaking the Silence leaves foreign audiences with the impression that the alleged, errant act of one solider, proven or not, is indicative of the ethos and the norms of the IDF entire." The same way you included the opinions of Ami Ayalon, Alik Ron, Amiram Levin and Yuval Diskin for those who support the organization.--Angelsi 1989 (talk) 00:46, 2 October 2016 (UTC)


 * For clarity, editor is allowed to edit, just not on the topic of the Arab-Israeli conflict.  Kamel Tebaast  05:13, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Help Needed with Zeek Wikipedia page
Hi There,

I have been following your recent edits on Wikipedia. You seem like you truly know your way around Wiki. I would like to ask you help improve Zeek Wikipedia article. Any input from an esteemed editor such as yourself would be greatly appreciated. Looking forward to hearing from you. Ymd2004 (talk) 22:18, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

New Israel Fund
On October 7, 2016, you deleted 153 words of text in the entry on New Israel Fund, with the explanation "Beef up lead/Ensure lead reflects article content/ Enhance NPOV/ Remove OR & questionable sources)." The text you deleted was a summary of some criticisms of the organizations, placed in the lead of the entry, alongside the existing positive self-description of the organization. You replaced the text with 51 words of new text that praised the organization and that was taken from the organization's website, as well 38 words that mentioned that organization had been criticized by "some associated with Israel's political right" without describing any of the criticism. The five sources you removed from the entry are Algemeiner, Arutz Sheva, The Forward, The Hill, and Jewish Telegraphic Agency; if you have disputes regarding all five of these sources, you know where to take them (to the best of my knowledge, all can be WP:RS in the right circumstances). Removing all this relevant text does not "beef up" the lead. Removing all description of the content of the five sources you deleted (and most of the content of the sixth source you retained) does not ensure that the lead "reflects article content." Replacing all specifics about criticism with self-praise from the organization's own web site does not "enhance NPOV." You've been around the block enough to know what vandalism is. Don't. Knowitall369 (talk) 12:23, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * PS. There's work to be done on the entry on NPOV and including both praise and criticism. Taking a hatchet to all critical material is not helpful. Knowitall369 (talk) 12:23, 11 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for engaging. I don't agree with your interpertation of my edit. And I certainly did not intend to "take a hatchet," but rather to use more of a scalpel. There were issues with what I took out. For instance, primary sources need to be used rarely and with inline attribution. In addition, the place for specifics to be added to an article is not generally with the lead; rather the lead should reflect what's in the article already. You might consider trying to add the content that you think belongs in the article in the body (or start with a discussion on the talk page). After all, the D in B-R-D stands for "discuss." &#91;&#91;PPX&#93;&#93; (talk) 20:06, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Youtube interview as credible source
Hi Perplexed. In the Im Tirtzu article you recently removed a source linking to an interview with Nobel Prize Laureate Robert Aumann because: "We need a reliable, and secondary source to include this." I sincerely wish to know how is it possible that an interview of the person himself cannot be a good source? We are not talking about a case where an organization claims that someone else supports it; we are dealing with a case where a person actively went on video and declared his support for something. To me, it seems absurd to say that this is a non-credible source because by definition there can be no source more credible than the person going on camera and saying something himself.

I would be grateful for an explanation as to your edit, because I searched Wikipedia for some guidance but was unable to find a specific article about such a case. PasterofMuppets (talk) 07:26, 16 January 2017 (UTC)


 * See here for policy on Youtube as a reliable source: "YouTube and other video-sharing sites are generally not considered reliable sources because anyone can create or manipulate a video clip and upload without editorial oversight, just as with a self-published website."


 * Even if this is genuine unmanipulated content, it would be a primary and not a secondary source. &#91;&#91;PPX&#93;&#93; (talk) 15:21, 23 January 2017 (UTC)