User talk:Whatdoweknow

Hello, I'm Binksternet. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Shlomo Carlebach (musician) seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 18:55, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Shlomo Carlebach (musician) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Binksternet (talk) 20:49, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Test Whatdoweknow (talk) 17:27, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Drmies (talk) 03:42, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I explained at the time of my edit, unproved allegations do not merit being included in an opening identifying paragraph. They rightfully belong only under the section called controversy. MLK and JFK each had unproven allegations made following their deaths, but the Wikipedia norm is to include those allegations under"Controversy." Under Wikipedia norms allegations unproven in a court of law are NOT included in opening paragraphs. Whatdoweknow (talk) 08:16, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Shlomo Carlebach (musician); that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Binksternet (talk) 20:14, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Shlomo Carlebach (musician); that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Binksternet (talk) 02:23, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I eliminated redundant content that is more properly already found in the section called Controversy. JFK and MLK also had swirling rumors about sexual indiscretions but it can only be found under Controversy, NOT IN THE OPENING INTRODUCTION Whatdoweknow (talk) 02:25, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline for writing Wikipedia articles includes WP:LEAD which says the first few paragraphs are the lead section, and the lead section should summarize all the important elements found in the article body. The sexual attacks on minors are certainly an important part of Shlomo's biography, and at least one sentence about them should be in the lead section. The redundancy is purposeful, part of good composition. Binksternet (talk) 02:29, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Martin Luther King Jr., without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.   Aloha27  talk  03:24, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I simply cut and pasted relevant content that was already in the article! Whatdoweknow (talk) 03:27, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies then. But if it was already in the article, there is no reason to add it again. Regards,   Aloha27  talk  03:31, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit summary for that edit "I added important information that gives a more complete understanding of his character and personality" was incorrect if you cut-and-pasted information that was already in the article.   Aloha27  talk  03:35, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. Apparently if controversial material is found elsewhere in the article then it can be referenced in the introductory section, according to Wikipedia's own rules, according to what Binksternet showed me. Whatdoweknow (talk) 03:41, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, let's just take a look at your edit. The paragraph as you edited goes from 1955 to 1968, jumps to your edit (2019 information) and back to the 1955 Montgomery boycott. Does that seem to be chronological in the least to you? I don't mind telling you that it sure doesn't to me. I may be wrong, but not all the time.   Aloha27  talk  03:52, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Aloha, so are you saying that if I put it in correct chronological order you will honor my changes? I appreciate your perspective and insight. Whatdoweknow (talk) 03:56, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I have looked at the entry in its entirety I see the last sentence in the paragraph in question you didn't cut-and-paste reads "The tapes that could confirm or refute the allegation are scheduled to be declassified in 2027." (Citations 413 and 414.) Ergo, the information as it stands cannot be corroborated. So IMO said information belongs precisely where it is for now. Regards,   Aloha27  talk  04:06, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Binksternet I've summoned Binksternet to chime in here. He and I have been around for pretty much the same amount of time. Another set of eyes here could be helpful. Stand by.   Aloha27  talk  04:25, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Whatdoweknow's edit to the MLK bio[1] is a case of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point – a potentially blockable offense. Whatdoweknow previously mentioned MLK and JFK as examples of men who had sexual accusations, and their bios include the accusations down in the article body, but they are not summarized in the lead section. The HUGE difference between the MLK/JFK examples and Shlomo is that Shlomo attacked minor children, a felony that 99% of humanity concurs is odious. The obvious purpose of Whatdoweknow's disruptive edit is to show that sexual innuendo is not allowed in the lead section. With that point established, Whatdoweknow could conceivably remove the sexual accusations from the lead section of Shlomo's bio, so that it is once again confined to the controversy ghetto at the bottom.

Could the MLK biography include a bit about sex in the lead section? Perhaps it could, but it would never be the salacious nastiness chosen by Whatdoweknow. Rather, it might be something about his alleged adultery, which is widely commented upon. The problem that the MLK editors must contend with is that the article is gigantic in size, and it is impractical to work everything into a summary in the lead section. MLK's lead section will probably never adequately summarize the article body. Shlomo's biography does not have that problem because it is only 30k of text and not 250k. Another difference is that MLK's positive reputation has survived all the allegations made against him, unlike the shattered reputations of Harvey Weinstein and Bill Cosby. Shlomo's reputation has suffered to a degree that is difficult to measure, but it is not comparable to MLK's continued shining legacy. Binksternet (talk) 05:51, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Harvey Weinstein and Bill Cosby were convicted and found guilty in a court of law and had the opportunity to confront their accusers face to face and have legal representation and respond to the allegations and let the jury decide. Shlomo had no such opportunity. He had been dead for four years before the Lilith article was published, and in a subsequent interview with the writer it was revealed that her sources were largely anonymous and even admitted that she chose Shlomo as the subject for her article because she was looking for a Jewish angle to the phenomenon of clergy abuse. As Shlomo already had a reputation for hugging everyone he met, which made some uncomfortable, especially women who were raised in religious homes, he was the perfect target. In the interview the author even admitted that many of the salacious details were made up for dramatic purposes. Had this been brought up in a court of law Shlomo would have been cleared of all charges. A generation later suddenly the metoo movement discovered the Lilith article from 1998 and it caught fire on the internet and here we are. So to lump Shlomo together with Cosby and Weinstein is so very wrong. Many, including myself, knew Shlomo personally for decades and know that these accusations are complete distortions. They only belong in the Controversy section because they were only allegations and NOT PROVEN in a court of law. Internet slander is not proof of anything other than proof of the power of the internet to destroy reputations. I would have hoped that Wikipedia was better than that. And for the record, I deeply admire MLK, Jr, as much as I admire Shlomo. If you would like to learn more about the interview with the writer of the Lilith article please let me know. Whatdoweknow (talk) 13:53, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why am I not surprised that you would choose to denigrate Rabbi Goldie Milgram and all the other sources used by Sarah Blustain, named and anonymous alike. Where was the interview published, the one with Blustain after the Lilith piece? I would like to see such an interview. Binksternet (talk) 00:51, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Binksternet, I wasn't degrading Rabbi Milgrom. We are even Facebook friends. I was trying to point out that the article from Lilith Magazine was problematic from the perspective of high journalistic standards, especially in light of the Rolling Stone episode, of which Sarah Bluestein herself shows deep concern, as mentioned in the academic essay cited below. In this essay, the author, Dr. Natan Ophir, interviews the women named in the Lilith article. Let's just say that the agenda driven editorial embellishments helped destroy a man's reputation. He wasn't without flaws, but he was no monster, either. https.// huji.academia.edu/NOphir Whatdoweknow (talk) 15:33, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I had already seen Natan Ophir's paper in defense of Shlomo. To me, it looks very weak, making a case to defend Shlomo despite acknowledging that he sexually abused some women during his hugs. That's the bottom line for me. If Ophir says Shlomo was a great man but the victimized women were correct in describing his sexual molestations, then I don't care whatever dark motivation Ophir can contrive for Lilith's publication of the story.

It's disappointing that Ophir chooses not to publish any of his interviews verbatim. I think they would shatter his case. He only refers to them in giving us his conclusion. Binksternet (talk) 16:44, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]