How can you possibly justify your vandalistic page blanking? Factsontheground (talk) 13:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did not blank the page. I removed your POV edit. How about putting in " Shamir discovers a noteworthy incident, in which African-Americans have stoned a Jewish school bus."? I am not interested in working on the article, but if you are please avoid POV and calling my edits "vandalistic"--Mbz1 (talk) 13:42, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you are not interested in working on the article, kindly leave it alone and stop reverting sourced material simply because it does not suit your agenda.

And, yes, blanking sourced material without any legitimate justification is vandalism. Factsontheground (talk)

Factsontheground, your edit is very interpretive one and in any case not in agreement with most sources. At least no in the way you put it. So, it was not vandelism done by Mbz1 and again, please avoid wikidrama.--Gilisa (talk) 14:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My edits are DIRECTLY SUPPORTED by the sources. There is nothing interpretive about it whatsoever. List the "interpretations" that I am making from the sources. Factsontheground (talk) 14:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, you choosed certain sources-there are many which clearly don't support your edit (like this one [1]-from the director himself). Second, as Mbz1 told, put it all or nothing-otherwise what we got obviously is POV. Third, edit with consensus. Fourth, why did you remove my post at the section below? Please return it--Gilisa (talk) 15:04, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Put it all or nothing"? What does that mean? I didn't remove your post at the section below. I was in the middle of writing my comment, as you could well see, and you purposefully caused an edit conflict. You can put it back if you want. Factsontheground (talk) 15:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I "purposefully caused an edit conflict"-oh realy, how can I do that? And how exactly did it cause to that my post removed?--Gilisa (talk) 15:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"And how exactly did it cause to that my post removed?" Sorry, but that is not proper English. I can't understand you. Factsontheground (talk) 15:16, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gilisa - What's the rationale behind this edit? The material seems supported by the source. NickCT (talk) 16:07, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please include that " Shamir discovers a noteworthy incident, in which African-Americans have stoned a Jewish school bus." to make it just a little bit more neutral. It is in one of the sources, and let's be done with that.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:16, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the material:

The film examines whether the problem of antisemitism is real or exaggerated and asks whether Jews are overly preoccupied with perceived antisemitism. The film notes that in 2007, the ADL reported a spike in antisemitism, claiming that there were 1,500 anti-Semitic incidents in the United States yet when Shamir contacts the ADL they can only list minor incidents such as websites with inflammatory comments, letters from employees denied time off for a Jewish holiday, or people offended by a cop's use of the word "Jew". Shamir also interviews a Rabbi who says that the hypervigilance of the ADL inflames relations between Jews and blacks in the United States. He also finds that there is more sensitivity to antisemitism among secular Jews than religious ones.

Here are the sources

• San Francisco Chronicle - In 2007, when Shamir filmed "Defamation," the ADL reported 1,500 anti-Semitic incidents in the United States - a fact that received prominent treatment in the Israeli press. After Shamir interviews Jewish Israeli newspaper editors who say anti-Semitism is rampant in the United States (and elsewhere), he flies to New York in the hope of following a recent dramatic case, but Foxman and his staff can come up with only minor incidents, such as a Web site containing inflammatory remarks.

• Jewcy - . However, in the film itself, the motivating factor seems to be Shamir’s bafflement by the preoccupation of the Israeli press and politicians alike with anti-Semitism, an obsession that Shamir readily links, rightly or wrongly, with the obsession of American Jews with the subject.

• National Public Radio - Shamir instinctively goes where the drama is, but he also has a gadfly's sharp radar for the gap between rhetoric and reality. When he presses ADL staffers for evidence to back up their claims of a sharp spike in North American anti-Semitism in 2007, they can offer only wan transgressions — letters from employees denied time off for a Jewish holiday, or people offended by a cop's incautious use of the word "Jew" — that hardly stack up compared with the Holocaust, which is repeatedly invoked by ADL officials as something that could happen again anytime, anywhere.

In the Brooklyn neighborhood of Crown Heights, where tensions between blacks and Jews flared into a serious 1991 riot, Shamir finds Jewish residents on one side who are fearful for their safety, and blacks on the other who recommend a thorough read of the notorious anti-Jewish pamphlet The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. But he also finds an Orthodox rabbi who notes that when a black person robs a Jew, the crime isn't necessarily an anti-Semitic one. The rabbi ventures further that the hypervigilance of the ADL inflames already volatile relations between Jews and blacks.

As you can see, I am doing zero interpretation and everything in that paragraph is directly supported by the sources.

Gilisa and Mbz1 stop behaving like vandals and restore the sourced material that you have blanked! Factsontheground (talk) 15:01, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Add that "Shamir discovers a noteworthy incident, in which African-Americans have stoned a Jewish school bus." to your edits, please.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:42, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BTW about antisemitism in San Francisco [2]--Mbz1 (talk) 15:45, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]