Talk:Dov Hikind

message: Non-substantiated claims that Dov Hikind has been a terrorist "follower" should be removed. 84.23.155.84 (talk) 19:35, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Dov Hikind. 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/20070102030102/http://www.ny1.com/ny1/content/index.jsp?stid=1&aid=52486 to http://www.ny1.com/ny1/content/index.jsp?stid=1&aid=52486
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) 17:00, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: These recent removals seem like overkill. I agree that some content should be removed, to maintain a neutral POV. However, I can't find the policy in WP:BLP where it recommends removing all critical coverage about a living person. Could you please explain your proposed removals? epicgenius (talk) 21:03, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I never claimed "WP:BLP recommends removing all critical coverage about a living person". I gave my rationale in each edit. Can you give me a specific example of which one/s you have a problem with and for what reason? ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 03:02, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I never said you claimed that. I just said that based on your edit summaries saying "per BLP", that's what you seem to be saying. Anyway, this edit removed a "controversy" section because . However, a lot of BLPs have controversy sections, so maybe this can be trimmed to one sentence. Same with this edit with the summary . Again, this could've been trimmed into one sentence. I wasn't the person who added the information to this article, I just noticed the wholesale blankings.Next time, please be more careful with your reverts. My edit wasn't a "blind reversion". I selectively restored the sections that may need to be discussed. I agree that some of the sources are tabloids and the "views on a criminal incident" section is totally unnecessary, thus why I didn't restore them. I also fixed some errors, like changing "blasted" to "criticized", and removing the disambiguation link to profiling. On the other hand, your subsequent edit removed all of these fixes. epicgenius (talk) 13:30, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Criticism#%22Controversy%22_section ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 14:22, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: And please stop willfully and repeatedly misrepresenting the sources. Neither the Observer nor the Baltimore Sun articles say anything about "racial profiling" - because Muslims aren't a race, are they? And the authors aren't idiotic or bigoted enough to think that they are. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 14:27, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, you're assuming that I was the person who added that information. I wasn't, so therefore I can't be "willfully misrepresenting the sources". Although it's not strictly "racial" profiling, the article that best describes this phenomenon is the article on racial profiling. That's when people make pre-judgments based on physical characteristics. It could be ethnic, cultural, or religious judgments as well, not just "racial". epicgenius (talk) 20:57, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: "Again, you're assuming that I was the person who added that information. I wasn't, so therefore I can't be "willfully misrepresenting the sources"" - so you're clicking undo without even bothering to read the sources to ascertain the accuracy of my edits??!! That's mindless edit warring. As for the second part of your comment, that's so fantastically and moronically ignorant that I don't think I need to respond. Goodnight. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 08:31, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

text: More misrepresentation of sources. A question: do you really think Islam is a race? Or are you just trying to be difficult? ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 14:20, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. Your attacks against others ("that's so fantastically and moronically ignorant"; "are you just trying to be difficult?") are not acceptable. If you believe that this shouldn't be called racial profiling, then debate the merits of the argument. epicgenius (talk) 02:51, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent removals 

message: you are confusing conservatism (political ideology) with Conservative Party (American political party). Hikind is a conservative member of the Democratic party, but not a member of the Conservative Party, so that still qualifies him to be placed in the category with other conservative Democrats such as Happy Chandler and Ezekiel C. Gathings. Regardless of the capitalization on the category page, if you read the actual article on conservatism you will see that the term is not capitalized in sentence case, such as in this sentence in the lede:  I think you should reinstate the category. StonyBrook (talk) 06:50, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conservative