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]

Here is the material:

The film examines whether the problem of antisemitism is real or exaggerated. 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

• [1]

• [2]

• [3]

Please sign on the above Factsontheground. Also, it is not how it's sourced, but how you choosed to edit the sources-to put it mildly, very interepretive.--Gilisa (talk) 14:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]