Talk:Occupation 101

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Comments[edit]

<snipped entire section. nothing to do with the article; just a long and hostile exchange on the "propaganda" vs "informative" nature of the film. see WP:TALK, WP:SOAPBOX, WP:NPA, etc.> <eleland/talkedits> 00:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Later note: Returned comments below blanked by Eleland. I am noting a pattern here of blanking by Eleland in both the article and on the talk page. Much of the comment material is ontopic for a wikipedia talk page. See WP:TALK. Some of the material is offtopic for a talk page, but mass blind reversions of large parts of talk pages and articles is not the way to fix problems. Please take the time to do a proper edit. Old comments follow after the horizontal lines. --Timeshifter 18:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This movie is propaganda and is not cool man. You can’t justify terrorism in any form. Israel has a rite to exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by John grishem (talk • contribs) 11:54, 13 December 2006

My personal opinion is that I agree with you. Israel does have a right to exist, and terrorism can't be justified. However, what you and I believe or agree about doesn't matter to Wikipedia. This is an Encyclopedia, we don't call anyone "nut jobs" and the articles are supposed to be neutral and fair to all notable opinions. Please read WP:NPOV. If you want to add criticism, then find a notable source that criticizes the movie, and quote from that source. -- Karl Meier 19:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was a notable source used that criticizes them and furthermore this article unedited is deceptive and to be honest a blatant lie. The article claims that they are even handed when they clearly are bias and objective. It is important to an encyclopaedia that they not deceive and manipulate the reader like this article does. —Preceding unsigned comment added by John grishem (talk • contribs) 09:52, 21 December 2006

What the article currently does is basically to mention that it's subject is a documentary on the Israel-Palestine conflict, and then it list what specific issues and subjects it discuss. I don't understand how that should make the article "deceptive and to be honest a blatant lie"? Also, I don't see where the article claim that the creators of the movie are "even handed"? Could you please be more specific about which parts of the article that you believe is not as neutral as they should be? A different issue is that you are (as mentioned) very welcome to (re)add criticism from notable sources, as long as you are very specific about them. Who is it that has criticized the movie and what have they criticized it for? -- Karl Meier 22:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its the fact that the article gives itself the persona of a even handed film when it really is a crap piece of propaganda. You seem like a smart guy but if you actually see the movie or even just the intro you will see that it is clearly Islamic fascist crap. ow yea they changed their article because they knew that any semi intelligent person would realise its factual inaccuracy and bias. Dean Jenkins is a local San Diego independent film critic. Not internationally acclaimed but this movie isn’t international yet so... Shut up!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by John grishem (talk • contribs) 09:23, 7 February 2007

01:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)~ It amazes me the kind of language people are willing to use for their lack of vocabulary and ability to articulate their points of view. The movie was honest, informative, and showed a point of view that we can’t hear or read about in mainstream America. Everyone has the right to say their opinion, make movies that speak for ‘their truth’. Whether you believe that Israel has the right to defend itself against people who are defending themselves (we can argue for days about the cyclic blame game). What I believe is that we are ALL human, and no one no matter what religion, color, or background deserves to be kicked out of their homes, tortured, or disrespected. What I don’t understand are people who think they know what is going on there. Unless you are Palestinian living under the occupation where all you have know is death, blood, and injustice all your life you will understand the Palestinian point of view. On the other hand, only if you are Jewish who have been mistreated throughout history, promised a home and gone there lived there all your life and having to deal with killings on your land that has been home for so long you will understand the Israeli point of you. I am neither, so I have no room to judge. I could sit here and point out the flaws in both sides, but the truth of the matter is that Jews have been mistreated throughout history and they will fight for a land of their own no matter what. The Palestinians had their home, land, and lives shatter in front of their eyes, and for generations children have been raised to know one thing, war, hatred, and injustice. DO we really expect them to behave logically! Israel created generations of Palestinian where their dignity and human rights were stripped. Do you realize how much damage that can cause over time, and then we complain about their suicide bombings! Obviously it is wrong, and YES the Isreali people have the right to defend themselves against such violence, but this violence won’t stop unless the violence against the Palestinians stops in the firsts place. To solve a problem.. The root of the problem needs to be addressed. We need to learn from history and our mistakes. Above all we need to TRULY respect each other, and believe that we are equal.. All of us! 01:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Per soci (talk • contribs) 01:58, 19 March 2007

It seems that we don’t live in the same world here you are obviously trying to make up for your own lack you vocabulary you mendacious asshole. I just used that word because it is not a very commonly used word you should look it up. Your point is very compelling mr um who ever you are. But listen here have you watched the news lately?? I have besides my glances at Fox news there has not been one accuracy described piece of journalism about Israel in a year. (The last one I found was a New York time article that was very accurate during the Israeli-Hezbollah war.) How is it that you can be so blind sided by your own sanctimonious self-righteous mind set that you wouldn’t even question what is before your eyes in the name of political correctness. We have a democratic system that allows us to be able to challenge anything any way we want. I have the right to question any piece of information i deem fit. You actually believe that there are alternate truths in this reality that we live. No get your facts straight son You have to understand that all the major Jewish settlements that are included in Israel today were built on terra nullius land (land without an owner) this was done to minimise harm. The only exception to this was Hebron the establishers of that settlement were very naughty and deserve to be put on the naughty stool for time out. There was no forced displacement of Pal people they moved on advice from other Muslim countries who promised them a home in their countries but were disappointed when they were placed in DP camps. (Displaced persons camps.) Why doesn’t the movie talk about the hundreds of thousands of Pal people still living in such camps today? Political reasons they don’t want to upset Jordan, Arabia of Saudi ect. I do like your egalitarianism though every man was made equal great concept that fully endorse. But the next bit pisses me off. You really think that their living conditions can justify the murder justify the lack of humanity? I specifically hate the part where you say "DO we really expect them to behave logically!" even though it should be a question mark the point is still invalid because they do act logically they = nomads so when they expect an Israeli bomb they move on, or they create a human shield knowing that we wont shoot deliberately at women and children they are very logistical my boy but what they don’t have and what I do expect them to have is a sense of humanity/humility and any form of compassion for human life. Golda Meir said "we will achieve peace when they love their children as much as they hate us."-paraphrased quote. finally what it comes down to is an assessment of reactions if you look at all the response attacks by Israel they mirror the attacks by the opposition once they bombed a train in Tel Aviv so we bombed a train in Gaza ect. Some times you cannot sit on the side line Mr... you have to make a judgment of what is the correct way to do things. i would like to reiterate my acceptance of you equality for all statement top stuff keep it going. From Simon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.132.243.223 (talk • contribs) 00:40, 20 March 2007

Possible Copyright Infringement[edit]

Someone put up a notice at the top of the article concerning possible copyright infringement. The notice says the infringement concerns

I removed the copyrighted text. --Timeshifter 08:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of wikilinked cast[edit]

Tewfik is repeatedly adding POV to the introduction, and repeatedly blanking much of the wikilinked cast section of the article. See these diffs: [1] [2]

One of Tewfik's frivolous reasons for his mass deletions was "WP is not a mirror of IMDB". That was in one of his edit summaries. It is common in wikipedia articles on films and documentaries to have detailed info on the cast. For example:

Tewfik has a long history of mass deletions of info he dislikes in articles concerning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This has been mentioned many times in talk pages. Tewfik often deletes info that is counter to the views of the far-right of Israeli politics. In other words WP:NPOV info from all sides. --Timeshifter 19:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Convenience break[edit]

Here is the cast info Tewfik and Armon keep deleting large parts from:

The entire list of featured interviews[1]:

  1. ^ Occupation 101 :: Interviewees. From official Occupation101.com site.


Most of them are well know anti-israeli propagandists.Marcus —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.79.57.29 (talk) 23:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Convenience break 2[edit]

Tewfik also keeps deleting this external link below for clips from the movie. This exposes the nature of these Tewfik edits.

By the way, the movie clips are interesting, and show the technical quality of the film. References and external links back up the claims made in wikipedia articles. Claims such as "award-winning" film. So references and external links are both important.--Timeshifter 19:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the entire cast list. Wikipedia is not paper and I don't understand why this information is not relevant to the article. Tiamut 08:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that WP is not paper, but keeping the entire list of 34 interviewees does not seem to reflect well on WP quality either. A simple test, if a specific guideline does not exist, is to bring other examples from larger productions, perhaps in the same category, to back up any editing choices such as including 34 interviewees, or any at all. After a quick view of other movies, I'm leaning on removing the list of 'cast' members, but then again, leaving up the shortened one-sided list of fringe leftists actually reflects on the credibility of this documentary. --Shuki 09:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent)

Wikipedia quality is enhanced by including more info, not less. Wikipedia is not paper. And especially for a documentary putting only part of the interviewees in the article (and their affiliation wikilinks) is against WP:NPOV. It does not allow the reader to form their own judgments about the credibility of the documentary. And removing the link to the movie clips also removes an additional big factor in judging the credibility of the film. Spinning wikipedia articles is against WP:NPOV.--Timeshifter 13:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your own examples prove my point - neither Rain Man, The Hollywood Ten, or Independence Day (film) include every nonnotable castmember, nor do the members of Category:FA-Class film articles. Additionally, continually labelling it as "award winning" when it only received minor recognition is inappropriate. Put aside your personal animosity for a minute and examine the edits you are making which Eleland, who often disagrees with me, still disagrees with. Continuing extensive personal attacks and incivility don't strengthen your "case". TewfikTalk 14:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The examples prove my point. They include all notable cast members. And in a documentary, all interviewees with credentials are considered notable. I am sure that not all the people seen in the documentary are listed on the Occupation 101 film or official site. There are usually always many more people shown in a documentary but who are not listed.
In this documentary there are many people speaking who are not listed in the interviewees list. Just look at the movie clips and see for yourself.
It is award winning. It has won top honors in various categories at film festivals in various cities. Please stop censoring info you don't like, Tewfik. Your edits frequently do this type of mass reversion of info you don't like. But Wikipedia puts out all significant info from all sides. Including info you don't like. Such as awards. See WP:NPOV.
I have no personal animosity against you, Tewfik, and your accusation of that is a violation of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL.
And please stop adding your own personal attacks and characterizations of interviewees to the article. If you can find sourced info criticizing this documentary, then feel free to add it. Otherwise, let the readers decide for themselves by following the wikilinks for the interviewees and their affiliations. Censoring those wikilinks as you are doing is spinning the article. --Timeshifter 18:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Without regards to the introduction, I have to say that Tewfik appears to be clearly in the right when it comes to the cast list. Wikipedia is not paper, but it is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and it isn't appropriate to list scores of interviewees, especially when there is so little prose in the article as a whole. His personal POV's and deletions on other articles aren't relevant as far as I can see. The shorter cast list, properly wikilinked, is completely acceptable and in line with Manual of Style and policy. <eleland/talkedits> 19:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Removing sourced info is not in line with wikipedia. Please stop making it up as you go along. Quote guidelines and policies. I showed you examples of other films and documentaties. A cast list is not indiscriminate info. --Timeshifter 23:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When I hear the words "removing sourced info", I reach for my revolver. We all know it's sourced and accurate. The question is whether a list of everyone interviewed for the piece is in line with Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines#Cast and crew information, as well as common sense. "The key is to provide plenty of added value "behind the scenes" background production information, without simply re-iterating IMDB ... a cast list inserted into the body of the article may be appropriate, though some editors frown on lists inside articles ... for credits where the character has not been mentioned in the plot section, a short summary of the importance and role of the character in the film would be necessary". <eleland/talkedits> 23:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please holster the revolver, and see WP:CALM. IMDB does not have wikilinks. This is unique WP:NPOV "behind the scenes" background info. "Background information about the cast and crew should be provided."
From Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines#Documentaries:

"Documentaries present a special case, as they present themselves as recounters of fact. Therefore criticism of content ought to be included if it is presented with reasonable documentation and if there is evidence of public awareness of the controversy."

The wikilinks for the interviewees and their affiliations provide balanced and detailed analysis (and criticism) of the people in the documentary. Feel free to add more reliably-sourced criticism of the film itself. --Timeshifter 01:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Content[edit]

Hello Eleland, I appreciate the rationale behind your changes to the content of the body, but there are a number of issues which I would like to address. As far as the summary of events covered, I based the line on the "about" page of the film's website, and US aid to Israel, in addition to redirecting to the same place as the previous link, is not specifically mentioned there, and thus the added stress seems to lend undue weight to that topic. Neither does the Queens article say that there added stress on the aid, only that it is mentioned. The second issue is slightly more complex, in that while "relies heavily on interviews with Israeli academics who support an end to Israeli control of the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem" is cited, exceedingly few Israeli academics were interviewed, and of those, people like Ilan Pappé are notable not for their opposition to Israeli control of the West Bank etc., of which I understand there are many in the Israeli academic world and elsewhere, but for their generally critical views of Israel (as supported by RS in his entry - the boycott and support for Hamas for example). So while I carefully worded "many with personalities known for their criticism of Israel or advocacy for Palestinian causes" to reflect the WP entries of [almost?] all of those listed as being known either for critical opinions or support, perhaps you have a different idea that would prevent us from using the misleading phrasing now employed. TewfikTalk 00:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the added emphasis on US aid to Israel. I changed "Israeli academics" to "prominent Israeli scholars" because that is what the Queen's Journal article said.
The interviewee list (that you keep blanking large parts of) shows the many Israeli scholars that are interviewed, and their wikilinked affiliations.
Do you have a third-party source for "many with personalities known for their criticism of Israel or advocacy for Palestinian causes" that specifically mentions this in relation to this film? If not, then it is unnecessary original research. It is original research, and it is redundant and unnecessary, since people can follow the affiliation wikilinks, and decide for themselves.--Timeshifter 08:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rough consensus[edit]

Armon, Eleland, Hazard911, and Timeshifter (me) have kept the same text of the article since Eleland's version of 17:17, 28 October 2007:

The only change made in the article was the addition to the top of the article of this template by Armon:

{{advertising}}

Click the above link to see the banner. No one has removed the banner except Tewfik.

So with his blind reversions Tewfik is going against a rough consensus of 4 editors since 17:17, October 28, 2007.

See these diffs of Tewfik's reversions of the various editors since 17:17, October 28, 2007:

and a few more times too...--Timeshifter 01:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Say what? I tag your version (Timeshifter's) with an advertising tag, and now I'm supposed to be part of a consensus to keep it that way? Uhh no. If Tewfik improves it, removing the non-notables from the cast list (which does have support) and tones down the advertorial language, I don't have problem with removing the tag. In fact, the less time articles are tagged, the better. <<-armon->> 23:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, there is no such thing as "my version" or "your version", each version reflects the collective decision of everyone before it. The version you link to was last edited by me to trim wordy and redundant prose (which, unfortunately, keeps making it back into the article, because this stupid cast-list war is obscuring the process of normal improvements.) As for the advert tag, it is self-evidently obvious that the tag applied to the version which was copy-pasted direct from the Occupation 101 website. The current protected version does not read like an advertisement. It is roughly what I would like to see from the article, although I would again trim some of the wordiness and redundancy, and I'm not convinced that we shouldn't specifically mention US aid to Israel which seems based on the movie's site and some of the reviews to be a major theme. <eleland/talkedits> 23:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Your version" is whatever version someone is edit-warring for. OK well if the cast-list war is stupid, TS needs to drop it. Support from "editors" Hazard911 and Occupation101 notwithstanding. <<-armon->> 23:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure Occupation101 and Hazard911 are the same guy, and s/he claims to be the copyright holder for Occupation 101 website materials. Occupation101 was a promotional name so I had to report it to WP:UAA after which Hazard showed up to make the same edits. <eleland/talkedits> 00:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm OK, if that's the case, then there's also WP:SOCK and WP:COI issues with that editor. Could we say that the rough consensus is to at least trim the list? <<-armon->> 01:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It still looks like Hazard911, Timeshifter (me), and Eleland want the full list of featured interviewees. By the way, it is not a list of all the interviewees. Watch the Gaza clip online. Children were interviewed. The children's names are not listed. Armon, I saw that you had not removed the full list of featured interviewees, and I assumed you were allowing it to stay in the article. It seems that you changed your mind on another article, and have started removing material from it, too. Material that you had previously allowed to remain in the article. In both cases you are removing material giving a fuller view of Palestinian viewpoints. That is against WP:NPOV. Also, in both cases you are tag-teaming with Tewfik. --Timeshifter 00:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Really -it's time to drop it. Have a moan to Eleland for this edit for not sticking to some kind of unalterable position as well -even though that defies the whole purpose of discussion. As for Hazard911, his "vote" isn't credible. <<-armon->> 04:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Eleland's edit was from October 17. He has since let stand the inclusion of the full list of featured interviewees and the highly relevant wikilinks for their affiliations. The unalterable position seems to be your position. Hazard911 sounds like a new user. The opinion of new users counts too. Even new users you don't like. Even new users who may have changed their user name. Even new users who may be involved in the website of Occupation 101. I have no idea who Hazard911 is. Even if Hazard911 is involved somehow with Occupation 101 his opinion would matter. He would not be allowed to do the actual editing (according to WP:COI), but he could discuss what should or should not be in the wikipedia article. Please stop your "time to drop it" comments. It is against WP:OWN. --Timeshifter 06:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The respected editor, Taimut, wrote higher up: "I have restored the entire cast list. Wikipedia is not paper and I don't understand why this information is not relevant to the article."
Are you going to tell her to drop it too, Armon. Please stop the rudeness, incivility, and blind reverts. Ultra-nationalist supporters of the far-right of Israeli politics do not have the right to hold hostage the editing of wikipedia articles by joining up as tag teams (Armon and Tewfik) of blind reverters who revert all kinds of other material besides the material they want deleted. Eleland asked that people stop blindly reverting the intro section. You and Tewfik, in your zeal to blank much of the cast section, haven't spent the effort to separate out the ongoing editing of the intro of the article.
Tewfik and Armon need to stop their tag-team blind reversions on multiple wikipedia articles.--Timeshifter 15:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, Timeshifter, would you stop trying to tell me what I am thinking? I don't support including the entire cast list at this time. I haven't supported it since I first saw it (and had to tag this entire article as a copyviol). Now, there's no need to draw battle lines here. Wikipedia is not— well, it isn't supposed to be a battleground, even if it usually winds up that way on Israel-Palestine pages. The cast list is a style issue, not a question of POV, censorship, or whatever. I'll open a style RfC, and we can all have a nice, civil discussion referencing relevant policies and guidelines (and NOT referencing edits on tangentially related pages - I oppose that game when it's played against pro-Palestinian editors, and I'll oppose it here, too.) <eleland/talkedits> 16:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You let stand the cast list. That is all I said. In your previous comments you wrote "each version reflects the collective decision of everyone before it", and did not mention opposition to the cast list. There is no copyright violation in the cast list. It has additional text in the list.
It is not a style issue. It is blanking of large parts of an article. It is incredibly relevant material to a wikipedia article on a documentary. Documentaries are not like fictional films where much of the article can be spent elucidating plot issues, etc.. The most relevant info for a documentary are the wikilinks for the featured interviewee affiliations. Deleting much of the interviewee list and their wikilinked affiliations removes the most relevant WP:NPOV info.
I will open a substance RFC, and we can address the heart of the matter. I don't appreciate your condescending tone. --Timeshifter 18:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll work on a less condescending tone, can you work on a less hysterical tone? An article on a documentary can discuss the content of the documentary, just as a fictional film's article discusses the plot issues, etc. Check the article for What the Bleep Do We Know!?, for example - and note how the list of "featured individuals" selects the most prominent figures and includes context and analysis. <eleland/talkedits> 19:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Calling reasoned discussion "hysterical" is just more condescension on your part. The "Featured individuals" section of the wikipedia documentary page that you link to lists far more interviewees than you will allow here. And a lot more info per interviewee. The "credits" section has even more listed. My previous comments give links to more examples of wikipedia articles on documentaries and films. --Timeshifter 19:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the length of the cast lists for these documentaries:

Inclusion of interviewees and wikilinked affiliations[edit]

Concerning the Occupation 101 article on a documentary about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. There is dispute about an attempt to remove the info about many of the featured interviewees and their wikilinked affiliations.--Timeshifter 19:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response Palestisraelian wikiwar. Tactic: information suppression. For the record: I haven't seen that documentary. --victor falk 08:11, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment - this RfC is constructed poorly, i've no idea on how you'd expect any outsider to give an informed comment. JaakobouChalk Talk 19:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Introductory section of the article[edit]

Eleland deleted the substance of the additions by Hazard911 to the introduction. See this diff.

I can understand some of Eleland's edits of the links and wikilinks in the introduction, but I don't understand Eleland's removal of the substance of Hazard911's additions.

I left a note on the talk page for Hazard911, asking Hazard911 to come here and discuss his edits of the introduction.

This discussion section is only about the introduction, not about the interviewee list. I am hoping people can stop doing mass, blind reversions. Instead, I am hoping we can keep editing separate for each section of the article. --Timeshifter 19:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Timeshifter, you're talking about a version which read, "...presents its case through dozens of interviews, and questions the nature of Israeli-American relations. Presenting its case through dozens of interviews, it questions the nature of the Israeli military occupation..." and resulted from a clumsy copy-paste of a previous version on top of the existing version. As I said in the edit summary. <eleland/talkedits> 20:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There were more changes than that. You deleted more text and links. I started this talk section in the hopes that Hazard911 and others who have been editing the introduction will discuss changes. I haven't been editing the introduction, so I am not the one to talk to. Maybe you can go to Hazard911's talk page, and try there too. I am trying to bring things back to a more civil tone. By all parties. Myself included. --Timeshifter 21:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) Here is a version of the introduction I pulled together from some of the past edits:

Occupation 101: Voice of the Silenced Majority is a 2006 documentary on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict directed by Sufyan Omeish and Abdallah Omeish, and narrated by If Americans Knew founder Alison Weir. The film discusses events from the rise of Zionism to the Second Intifada and Israel's unilateral disengagement plan, and presents its case through dozens of interviews. It questions the nature of Israeli-American relations. Specifically, it questions the Israeli military occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, and whether Americans should help pay for it. Occupation 101 includes interviews with mostly American and Israeli scholars, religious leaders, humanitarian workers, and NGO's critical of the alleged injustices and human rights abuses that stem from Israeli policy in the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza Strip. Americans and Israelis who are not part of the government are interviewed on the premise that they would be more credible than Israeli or Palestinian government officials.

Those who are interested in collaborative editing are encouraged to discuss here the changes you make as you edit the introduction. --Timeshifter (talk) 20:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tewfik is vandalizing the page again. See his last edit. He BLINDLY went back to an old version of the introduction that most people agree had many problems. He completely ignored the changes I made. See this diff. --Timeshifter (talk) 02:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that "most people" seems to consist of yourself and the COI account, and that your version replaces sourced statements with nonneutral rhetoric, my reversion was exactly in order. Charges of vandalism in the course of good-faith content disputes are tantamount to personal attacks. Vandalism can be reported at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. TewfikTalk 21:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Several people have edited the introduction over time. It is the result of collective editing. Since you often blindly revert parts of articles to POV versions from way back I am not surprised at your wikilawyering over the meaning of the term vandalism. I am using the common meaning of the term to describe your edits of this introduction. I am describing your edits, not you, therefore it is not a personal attack. Wikipedia uses a submeaning of the term "vandalism" in its enforcement at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. I am using the overall meaning of the term as concerns activities that destroy the efforts of others. In this case the collective edits of several people.
Rather than continue to wikilawyer you might actually engage in discussing what "nonneutral rhetoric" you are referring to. Otherwise I suggest the rest of the editors can ignore one obstructionist. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cast list[edit]

I really don't care either way any more; I think continuing to squabble shows poor judgment on both sides. The cast list is one or two clicks away via EL's. Just stop fighting over such a stupid non-issue. Get the page protected indef, I don't care. <eleland/talkedits> 18:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"nonneutral rhetoric" and "or" (original research) claims by Tewfik[edit]

Tewfik. What "nonneutral rhetoric" are you referring to in your previous reply? I asked you once already about this, and you refuse to reply.

In a later edit summary after doing the same large blanking revert [3] you wrote "accusation not even remotely true; rv replacement of sourced passages with or".

My accusation in an edit summary [4] was that you refuse to reply on this talk page. My edit summary: "Try using the talk page, Tewfik. You have been asked a question there, and refused to answer."

Now you throw in "or" (Original research) in your last edit summary that I quoted. What "Original research"? Everything is sourced that I put in the interviewee list that you keep blanking large parts of. Also in the intro that you keep removing parts of.

So are you going to continue to refuse to reply?

Tiamut, Hazard911, and I believe the entire featured interviewees list with detailed affiliation wikilinks should remain.

I gave several examples of other films and documentaries with similar numbers of cast members or interviewees discussed or listed:

Shuki, like you, wanted to just leave up "the shortened one-sided list of fringe leftists" that you prefer in your edits. See Shuki's comment higher up. I don't know if the people listed in your preferred shortened interviewee list are "fringe leftists" or not. But a shortened POV selection is against WP:NPOV. --Timeshifter (talk) 07:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed section[edit]

I removed a section on criticism in which the only discussion +lengthy quote was from CAMERA. I don't think CAMERA should be completely ignored, but there are two concerns here:

  • There are no other critics in that section, by which I mean reviews, positive or negative - so including just CAMERA is undue weight
  • The quote was added by some sort of role account with a history of adding quotes from CAMERA to all sorts of articles.

I am looking right now for reviews. To start off with, I will add some negative reviews, since there are bound to be some; the only one I've found right now is from WorldNetDaily, which is equally marginal. Relata refero (talk) 13:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] 

- -
- -

Dishonestly Removed section[edit]

Quite a Blatant admission of Bias and Dishonest Editing. CAMERA is not "Marginal", it is Well researched by any standard and regularly gets corrections from Mainstream Media Outlets worldwide. But Wikipedia, written by amateurs and edited by Leftist Bigots, is somehow above their professional grade critique. WorldNetDaily, with it's evangelical outlook, would be "marginal" but you Dishonest anti-Israel Clowns have no business Eclipsing CAMERA.

- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.255.135.68 (talk) 19:33, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Occupation_101&oldid=1209473370"