This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
<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/ talk edits> 00:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
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
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
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
Someone put up a notice at the top of the article concerning possible copyright infringement. The notice says the infringement concerns
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)
Here is the cast info Tewfik and Armon keep deleting large parts from:
The entire list of featured interviews [1]:
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)
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)
(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)
"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."
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. Tewfik Talk 00:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
Response Palestisraelian wikiwar. Tactic: information suppression. For the record: I haven't seen that documentary. -- victor falk 08:11, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
comment - this RfC is constructed poorly, i've no idea on how you'd expect any outsider to give an informed comment. Jaakobou Chalk Talk 19:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
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)
(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)
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)
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. Tewfik Talk 21:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
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/ talk edits> 18:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
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)
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:
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)
- - - -
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)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
<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/ talk edits> 00:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
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
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
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
Someone put up a notice at the top of the article concerning possible copyright infringement. The notice says the infringement concerns
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)
Here is the cast info Tewfik and Armon keep deleting large parts from:
The entire list of featured interviews [1]:
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)
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)
(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)
"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."
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. Tewfik Talk 00:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
Response Palestisraelian wikiwar. Tactic: information suppression. For the record: I haven't seen that documentary. -- victor falk 08:11, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
comment - this RfC is constructed poorly, i've no idea on how you'd expect any outsider to give an informed comment. Jaakobou Chalk Talk 19:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
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)
(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)
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)
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. Tewfik Talk 21:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
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/ talk edits> 18:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
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)
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:
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)
- - - -
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)