Talk:Zombietime

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Comments

zombietime is not commercial advertising, spam or the like. Please see zombietiming, which wouldn't exist but for zombietime-dot-com.

Zombiefan 21:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I cleaned up the article some. Could probably do with some more. But an article on the subject definitely has its merit, as it’s a fairly popular site, extensively used by other blogs, and referred to on a number of main stream media as far away as Denmark. Rune X2 00:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Your assistance is appreciated, Rune X2.

Please keep in mind that I'm a newbie at creating anything on Wikipedia. For whoever else that may lend a hand, zombietime is always in lowercase, even at the beginning of a sentence, Miss Crabtree notwithstanding :-0 Zombiefan 06:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


i agree, zombietimes is infomation. infomation that is needed. this site is also infomation and has links to other infomation sites.


Thank you to those who are providing the helpful template links! It's going to take me a bit to incorporate some of them, but it will be done. I really appreciate the link from Nmajdan! That template will really clean things up. Also, a big thanks to the folks who took care of the vandalism. I didn't see it, so I don't know what was done. I get the impression that entries created by newbies get some extra attention, 1) for offering advice and 2) to watch out for troll attacks like what occurred yesterday. People that pull that crap are no better than a horse's arse spraying graffiti. So, thanks again for all of your helpful advice and for keeping an eye on things. Having been a volunteer with a mountain search & rescue team, I am keenly aware of the value and importance of time put into any volunteer work because of one simple fact: If you didn't do it, who would? Kudos and thanks! Zombiefan 17:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Which photos did Fox etc use?

The article currently says that "photos from zombietime have also been used by more conventional mass media". Does anyone know whether these were photos taken by zombie or news photos used by zombie in his/her debunkings? It would be nice to add some detail here. Cheers, CWC(talk) 00:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I was in touch with zombie earlier and a detailed directory to all media appearances is being prepared. A link to the photos used by by FoxNews will be included. Some photos are zombie originals, others are from the various media outlets and are properly credited.

Thanks for your helpful edits, Chris. One of these days I'll 'get it'. Until then, I shall learn on the fly from you, Rune X2 and other wiki editors who have been so generous with your time. Zombiefan 04:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge from Zombietiming

Please merge any relevant content from Zombietiming per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zombietiming. (If there is nothing to merge, just leave it as a redirect.) Thanks. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-25 05:07Z

[edit] Review of article

This article is very problematic. It relies heavily on blogs, which are not reliable sources, and unattributed original research, which is specifically disallowed by Wikipedia policy (see WP:ATT). I'll take a look at it to see what can be done, but it's likely to require the removal of a lot of current content. -- ChrisO 15:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit]  ??? Review of article ???

"Original photographs, on-site reports and media analysis posted on zombietime are frequently cited as source material and linked to by the leading right-of-center and neo-con blogs, including most notably Little Green Footballs, Michelle Malkin, The Jawa Report, Hot Air, and Instapundit, among many others.[citation needed]"


For this, are you asking for a citation giving examples of each of these blogs linking to zombietime? If so, that's easy enough to do, but it contradicts your other point, that the entry "relies on blogs" too much. But how else can we prove the fact that zombietime is frequently cited by the leading blogs other than to provide sample links? It's not like there was ever an AP article that said "Leading Blogs Link to Photo Archive." It would only take a few minutes to give sample links to zombietime from each blog listed. How many do you want per blog?

"Material posted on zombietime also has been picked up by the mainstream media numerous times.[citation needed]"

The entire fifth section of the entry, "Media References to zombietime," is a verification of this statement. Do you want the citiation to be simply a reference to the fifth section of this entry? Or perhaps can we just add the parenthetical statement, "See "Media references to zombietime" below." ?

"As a result, zombietime is often counted as among the most prominent sites in the conservative blogosphere,[citation needed]"

What type of citation is needed for this? Does it have to be a non-blog citation? Or can it be a posting on a leading blog acknowledging zombietime as being prominent?

"Also, unlike most blogs with daily posts, zombietime is updated with new material comparatively infrequently.[citation needed]"

How can there be a citation for this, other than a link to the zombietime front page, which shows that there are only a few new reports per month on average? In any event, this sentence is not particularly important, so feel free to delete it if you feel it requires a citation which I can't provide. |Zombiefan 22:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Zombiefan. Welcome to Wikipedia, it's a great place. I think many of your questions and concerns will be answered if you read Wikipedia:Attribution. I understand you're a great fan of Zombie and Zombie's work - and situations like that can be problematic. Articles must be written from a Neutral Point of View, and when someone really likes something that can be hard. Please read COI Close relationships too. I don't dare edit the Michael Moore article for instance. Michael is one of my heroes and I probably wouldn't be very objective. (He is NOT fat - he's just big-boned!) Need any help, just give me a hollar!- FaAfA (yap) 10:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I've gone through and done some cleanup. I've edited some of the too-enthusiastic language. I've also added notes regarding various [citation needed] tags, indicating what is needed. I've also removed the [citation needed] tag in the top regarding major media exposure, as that is documented below, and made other minor edits. Αργυριου (talk) 20:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Major cleanup

I went through the article tonight and removed most of the OR, self sourcing, and NON RS V sourcing from blogs. I had expressed concerns over these issues quite some time ago, and after considering the recent comments by a senior Admin/Arbitrator dude on some other articles, thought it time. I will be glad to explain any of the edits, deletions, text changes, etc should anyone have any questions.- FaAfA (yap) 05:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

(Note: this was written before User:ChrisO, to whom I apologize, commented below.)
Good stuff. Here's a few notes, some taken from HTML comments in the article.
  • I've restored a ref to an interview zombie did with a blogger who calls herself "Blonde Sagacity". That's the interview that Jo Chandler of The Age (mis)quoted from. I've corrected the quote and cited the interview.
  • (Lede, 2nd para) Yep, we should ref each blog which has linked to zombietime.
  • Reports. We might find some useful cites for these statements in this old version of the article.
  • Motivation. FAAFA, you seem to be using that CNN poll to argue that zombie's characterization of the anti-war movement as anti-American is false. Isn't that WP:OR? I've commented the poll out for the moment.
  • Flight 93 National Memorial We now have cites for this, to news items in the Architectural Record from 15-Sep-2005 (which mentions zombie) and 16-Dec-2005. (BTW, I apologize for stuffing up one of those URLs earlier, especially to User:ChrisO.) ChrisO cited an Architectural Record item dated 1-Oct-2005, but I couldn't find it. (Could someone else do a search, please? OTOH, the 15-Sep-2005 item might be good enough.)
  • I've done a tidy-up on the references.
  • I've restored 2 external links to stuff by zombie. (Does anyone want to count FrontPage Magazine as "media" and move zombie's photo-essay to the "Media references to zombietime" section? I don't.)
  • We should not mention Downer's criticism of the MSM in 2 separate places.
  • Here's a more recent interview with "zombie", which might be useful (I haven't read it yet): {{cite web |author=Perlmutter, David |title= Zombietime, Blogs, and the Anti-War Movement |url=http://policybyblog.squarespace.com/journal/2006/12/5/zombietime-blogs-and-the-anti-war-movement.html |publisher=PolicyByBlog |date=2006-12-05}}</ref>
Cheers, CWC(talk) 10:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC) Updated to correct URL for 15-Sep-2005 item 13:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flight 93 memorial

Will Chris and FaFaA please stop messing around with the sourcing for this? The Architectural Record article "'Crescent of Embrace' chosen for Flight 93 Memorial design" (1 October 2005) specifically cited zombietime on this issue. I don't know why Chris keeps deleting the reference and replacing it with self-references from zombietime - I would welcome an explanation. -- ChrisO

Sorry. I messed up the URLs last night. I searched the Architectural Record website and found a 15-Sep-2005 item which mentions zombietime. I also cited a 16-Dec-2005 item to say the design had been modified, and then pasted the wrong URL for the 15-Sep item. D'oh!
I didn't find the 1-Oct-2005 item. (Maybe the website uses different dates than the printed version? I've seen that before. Or maybe my search skills were inadequate.)
Thanks for your good work on this article, ChrisO; I apologize for making it harder. CWC(talk) 10:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I found the 1-Oct-2005 item on Factiva; it could be that it wasn't archived on the AR website. -- ChrisO 11:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Uh... this link is to a 12/16 article - which DOESN't mention zombietime 15-Sep-2005 item - FaAfA (yap) 12:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Expletive! I did it again. The correct URL is http://archrecord.construction.com/news/daily/archives/050915flight93.asp. Sorry! (The 16-Dec link is only to say that the design was changed.) Apologies from a red-faced CWC(talk) 13:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Motivation - Huh?

Who (and why) would replace The Age with a non RS V blog just to include a few extra words? Lets change it back, eh? What was wrong with the Age quote about their importance in terms of popularity? For months this article had unsourced unsubstantiated claims about how notable and important it is, and now an article used for sourcing claims otherwise, so that article gets deleted and replaced by a NON RS V blog? I don't think so. - FaAfA (yap) 12:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Who? That was me.
Why? The Age was quoting the blog interview (with some mangling), and I prefer to quote the subjects of articles directly. No big deal.
What was wrong with citing The Age on Technorati rank? Probably nothing, really. My thought at the time was that Technorati rank wasn't particularly meaningful for a non-blog website like zombietime, but FAAFA makes a very good point about needing to say something about how influential zombietime is. Who wants to put it back?
Cheers, CWC(talk) 14:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I will later. It's my understanding that the original blog wouldn't be RS V, but a legit newspaper using the same info from that blog would be! Silly, eh? - FaAfA (yap) 22:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My next concern

Reports
"Zombie has documented examples of far-left and antisemitic views being expressed at demonstrations."

This sentence and use of 'far left' doesn't jibe with:

"The anti-war movement is really an anti-American movement. The media [try] to demoralize the country by portraying the anti-war movement as reasonable, widespread, and destined for victory. But in fact it is a hate-fuelled fringe movement that only maintains even a hint of credibility due to media misrepresention. That's something I'm trying to correct."

Zombie's on record as claiming that the entire Anti War movement is "anti-American movement" a "hate-fuelled fringe movement" that is " [not] reasonable, [not] widespread, and [not] destined for victory". He's clearly opposed to anyone who's part of the Anti War movement, not just the 'far left' and 'anti semites'- FREE FaAfA ! (yap) 08:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

zombie documents examples of far-left and antisemitic views at anti-war protests to show that the anti-war movement is not reasonable, not widespread, etc. He doesn't spend much time documenting the less-extreme elements of antiwar protests, because the media does that. So stating that what (s)he documents is far-left and antisemitic is important to the article. Αργυριου (talk) 18:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
What zombie and you consider 'far left' is inaccurate opinion not fact. (along with the documentably false claim that the Anti War movement 'not widespread') Conservatives Sam Brownback, Chuch Hagel and Walter 'Freedom Fries' Jones are part of the 'Anti War movement' - are they 'far left'?. The founders and leaders of certain orgs like ANSWER and WCW could be accurately described as 'far left' but the majority of members of the Anti War movement aren't. I would estimate that at any given protest, less than 25% would be considered 'far left.' By the way, I visited zombietime last night. It has also documented pro Israel rallies, and pro right to life life events. The description of the site is inaccurate and needs changing. - FREE FaAfA ! (yap) 19:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Calm down. Much of what zombie documents at protests is indeed far-left, and there is much unquestionably anti-semitic propaganda documented besides. The falsity or not of zombie's claims about the anti-war movement aren't the subject of the article; the subject is zombie, and the claims (s)he makes, and the method of those claims. Αργυριου (talk) 19:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm entirely calm but thanks for your concern. The article needs to be NPOV, not refect zombie's (and his fan zombiefan) misinformed opinion that the entire Anti War movement 'hates America' and is 'far left'. I wonder if zombie would have the guts to repeat those dishonest claims to the large contingent of anti-war Iraq vets (several with prosthetic limbs) I met at the last protest I attended? Somehow I doubt it! The article also needs to reflect the fact that zombie documents events other than antiwar protests, like the pro Israel event, anti-abortion march, and art galley opening. I made a small change to reflect that. - FREE FaAfA ! (yap) 20:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

(Outdenting) I don't recall zombie saying that the entire anti-war movement "hates America" etc. For example, from the 2006/08 interview:

I would estimate that perhaps 20% of the American population agrees with these protesters, and the other 80% don't. And that other 80% would really hate them if they just knew what the protesters' beliefs really were. Which is why I try to expose them.

AFAICT, zombie says that the protestors "hate America", but doesn't say anything similar about anti-war people in general. In fact, the differences between the majority of anti-war people and the protestors is exactly what zombie is trying to highlight, isn't it?

Also: FAAFA's last edit has us saying that "Zombie has documented examples of ... Islamophobic views expressed at pro-Israel rallies". I can easily find examples of zombie documenting the other stuff in that sentence, but not Islamaphobic views. Which webpage(s) or photo(s) do you have in mind, FAAFA?

Cheers, CWC(talk) 09:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Why are you not aknowleging the quote used in the article - and quoted right in this section: "The anti-war movement is really an anti-American movement. The media [try] to demoralize the country by portraying the anti-war movement as reasonable, widespread, and destined for victory. But in fact it is a hate-fuelled fringe movement that only maintains even a hint of credibility due to media misrepresention. That's something I'm trying to correct." Here's one pic I'll find the others - FREE FaAfA ! (yap) 10:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I think I see: we're arguing about what zombie means by "the anti-war movement". Basically, I'm saying zombie means people staging protests, FAAFA says zombie means all anti-war people. What do other people think? (Also, I'd interpret the sign in that photo as anti-Israel, not Islamophobic.) Regards, CWC(talk) 13:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
How can you interpret a sign at a Pro Israel rally that endorses "Zionist ethnic cleansing" to "rub the Arabs out" and to create "pure Jewish state" as anti-Israel? We are not allowed to 'read into' zombie's words. He used the term 'anti war movement'. - FREE FaAfA ! (yap) 18:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Um, I interpret that sign as accusing Israel of evil, racist acts ("Zionist ethnic cleansing" etc). Zombie's report shows lots of pro-Palestinian protestors there, and I'm assuming that guy was one of them. Note the line at the bottom: "Rebate from the USA, Inc." How do other wikipedians see it? CWC(talk) 14:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Having read the full text of zombie's interview and also the page Chris links above, I think FAAFA is right - zombie is clearly trying to tar the entire anti-war movement as anti-Israel and anti-American. But Chris is also right about that sign. :-) -- ChrisO 22:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
You guys are wrong about the sign. There is just no way that someone who opposes Israel is going to have a sign saying (and supporting) "For a pure Jewish State" - FREE FaAfA ! (yap) 23:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Ummm, no. The meaning of the sign is pretty obvious. It's supposed to be a tin of some sort of detergent that "rubs the Arab out" (sic) - the underlying message being that "this is what the Israelis are doing". It's very clearly meant to be an anti-Israeli placard. -- ChrisO 00:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
You're the one who is wrong. The sign is clearly a "clever" way of accusing the Israelis of genocide against the Palestinians. McJeff 00:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Wrong - It is clearly a boastful pro Zionist sign. - FREE FaAfA ! (yap) 02:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
All three of you are engaging in WP:OR. Unless there is independent verification (an interview with the sign carrier, or something), the interpretation of the sign is ambiguous, and statements about the meaning or intent of the sign are not allowed here per WP:OR. Αργυριου (talk) 16:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
In this interview, Zombie states clearly that he is documenting "crazyness that has emerged on the left side". Aside from that the picture in discussion, there's only one case where Zombie chooses to focus intensively on the right-wing side, here, and he takes an unmistakably pro-right tone. If there's any true controversy over the "zionist cleanser" picture, then it needs to be ignored as per WP:OR, and it's still not an acceptable excuse to whitewash the fact that zombie is fundamentally anti-anti-war, not in support of moral equivalency (and in fact, in one point on his site, he flat out says he despises moral equivalency). McJeff 11:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

(Outdenting) The photo is only relevant to whether "Zombie has documented examples of ... Islamophobic views expressed at pro-Israel rallies". When I asked for evidence of such views, FAAFA (who put that claim into this article) produced that photo as evidence. He was going to "find others" but he's unfortunately been banned for 10 days (and faces another ban for a year). Does anyone else think that we should say Zombie has documented examples of Islamophobia? Regards, CWC(talk) 17:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

There have been a few signs shown on the site that might fall under anti-Islamic. The most notable one was on the page about the June 5th and 6th counterprotest, that said "End Arab occupation of Israeli land" [1]. There were a pair of pictures of pro-war protestors with signs encouraging the use of bombs as well somewhere on the site. But being pro war does not at all mean being Islamophobic. It's really just that one picture, and if the "zionist cleanser" sign was debatable, the "end arab occupation" sign is as well. I think the solution would be to mention that zombie occasionally documents far right signs and messages at counterprotests somewhere in the article, but not to try and claim there's any sort of equal focus on "out of line" right wing messages. As for FAAFA, he has apparently been banned for a year. McJeff 19:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] For FAAFA

Please don't delete referenced material again. Embedded links are fine.

[edit] re: references

FAAFA - when discussing blogs, links to blogs are often relevant, especially when the link provides a primary source. Primary sources are acceptable when discussing factual claims. For example, the best evidence that zombie claimed to have been subject to a DoS attack is zombie's claim on LGF. If the statement was that zombietime was subject to a DoS attack, then outside verification would be necessary, but the statement in question is that zombie made the claim, not necessarily that it happened. Secondly, there is no prohibition on linking to web content which is the subject of an article; once again, that is a primary source.

Please stop deleting references; it is destructive to the project of creating an encyclopedia. Αργυριου (talk) 18:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree about the blogs, and have had numerous admins say that blogs are not acceptable sources, even about other blogs. I am involved in an RFAr where this has been ruled to be WP. Sorry, but I will continue to delete WP violating blog sourcing, as I KNOW this to be policy. Please request a RFC or other avenue if you want to use blogs as sourcing. I'll research primary sourcing and 'claims' some more before reverting this. - FREE FaAfA ! (yap) 21:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
This is correct. We don't know for sure that zombie was the author of the claim on LGF. If the claim had appeared on zombietime, it would be a different story. -- ChrisO 22:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
For once, I will agree with Faafa. A blog, or self-published source, is only usable as a primary source to verify a statement made by a subject, and only when the authorship is unquestionable. A zombie post on LGF cannot be verified to be actually authored by zombie. - Crockspot 18:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the LGF post for zombie's claim of DoS attack, FAAFA is right, so I self-reverted. However, FAAFA's attitude towards reliable sources only coincidentally matches WP's, and I will revert FAAFA's deletion of primary sources. Αργυριου (talk) 18:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Another editor added the LGF thing back in. I left them a note on their talk, and asked them to discuss here. I won't revert at this time though. Crockspot 19:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I've removed it. Our policy on reliable sourcing is absolutely clear, and a blog post from an anonymous commentator who claims to be zombie is not remotely reliable. Personally, I find it rather odd that zombie doesn't seem to have mentioned this alleged DoS attack on zombietime, which makes me all the more suspicious of the claim's veracity. -- ChrisO 20:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Good point. I was the one who readded it (I think), I'll not do so again. McJeff 22:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
zombie was the author of the claim on LGF but don't let that get in the way of your destruction of what was a very informative wiki entry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.85.217.213 (talk) 07:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC).
Wikipedia has rules which forbid citing comments on blogs, because it's too easy to use someone else's name on them. (See WP:RS. Note that WP:Attribution, which supersedes WP:RS, does not mention blog comments specifically.)
Zombie's comment at LGF is the best argument I've seen yet for allowing exceptions to this rule: we know that LGF's registration system would not allow anyone else to use the name "zombie". (Another good test case: Bruce Perens comments on Slashdot, as listed here.) OTOH, if we change our rules to allow these exceptions, we would get lots of arguments about which websites require registration, how to tell whether a comment came from a particular person, etc, etc, etc. In this case, not mentioning the cyberattacks on zombietime.com seems to me to be the right answer; it leaves out an interesting but not very important (nor suprising) fact.
Creating an online encyclopedia is a lot more complicated than most people realize. Cheers, CWC(talk) 11:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Is there any way to 'prove' that LGF's "zombie" is the same person that runs the zombietime.com website per wikipedia's standards? I'm still a newbie to serious editing so I'm not real clear on some of the policies. I think the fact that zombie is a poster on LGF itself is somewhat noteworthy (LGF has a notorious rep), and things like the DDoSs from muslim hackers, while not of critical importance, are noteworthy enough that they should be included if there's a reasonable, feasible way to do so. McJeff 02:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
If you look for mentions of "zombie" in the LGF posts (as opposed to comments) and 'connect the dots', it's clear that the LGF commentator and the website owner are the same people. However (here's where it gets messy), the Wikipedia:Attribution policy strongly discourages (if not forbids) 'connecting the dots' like that. OTOH, that's a relatively new policy and still in a state of flux. Then again, one of the policies it replaces, WP:NOR, also discouraged/forbade 'connecting the dots' like that. And yet, there's WP:IAR ...
What we can say is that LGF frequently links to zombietime with every sign of strong approval. (IIRC, the phrase "LGF operative zombie" has been used more than once.) Cheers, CWC 16:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unsourced material

It seems that quite a bit of the material here is unsourced? Anyways, --Tom 15:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Like what? Αργυριου (talk) 16:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
The berkley section? I will edit stuff that isn't sourced. Anyways, --Tom 17:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please refrain from inserting inaccurate unsourced POV OR

"Zombie documents the views expressed at protests and other public events, focusing strongly on the antisemitism and support of terrorist organizations found there." This is unsourced innaccurate POV OR, plus, support for Palestinian rights and statehood does not equal support for 'terrorist organizations' in general. And people wonder why I get upset with the dishonest POV warriors 'round here! ;-) Please refrain from inserting this bogus claim again. - FaAfA Aloha 21:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I also deleted the unsourced OR 'How Berkley Can You Be' subsection which has been tagged as unsourced for weeks. This has been more than enough time to find a source - if one exists. If the article is going to use self-sourced OR, I suggest adding Zombie's admission which shows just how 'serious' a site Zombietime really is :
“ And finally, the most controversial section of all.

There's only one kind of picture I ever get requests for: "protest babes," as they have come to be called. The public (or at least a certain segment of the public) can't seem to get enough of them. And I've certainly noticed that whenever I append these types of images to the end of a report, my visitor statistics go way up. And so, theoretically to please my male chauvinist readers -- but actually to lure in unsuspecting Web surfers looking for sexy pictures but who will instead get a dose of politics as they scroll down to the bottom of the page -- I give you: Girls

 ”
FaAfA Aloha 21:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
zombie repeatedly cites examples of protestors waving the Hezbollah flag, waving pictures of Nasrallah (sp?), support for Hamas, and all these groups are declared terrorist organizations by the United States of America. Support for a Palestinian homeland, Israel non-involvement in Lebanon etc... does not necessarily involve the support of any of the aforementioned terrorist organizations. And trying to insist that Hezbollah is not, in fact, a terrorist organization, is POV. Hezbollah was officially designated as a terrorist by the US government.
I am readding the statement that was deleted. I will also be going through all of FAAFA's edits to readd anything I feel he deleted with his fake-POV claims to sabotage the article. McJeff 21:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Michelle Malkin's blog as a source?

Should we be using Michelle Malkin's own blog and a post of hers at Hot Air as a source? Refs 24 and 25 seem very dubious - we have a strong presumption against using blogs as sources (see WP:SELFPUB). I don't think we actually need ref 24, as the issue is discussed by two mainstream sources, but is there a better source - Fox News would be the obvious one - for the statement that ref 25 is cited to support? -- ChrisO 21:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Without bothering to read the article, I'd say probably not an acceptable source for this article. WP:ATT covers the same material you cited, but a little more guidance is given:

2. Professional self-published sources
When a well-known, professional researcher writing within his or her field of expertise has produced self-published material, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as his or her work has been previously published by reliable, third-party publications. Editors should exercise caution for two reasons: first, if the information on the professional researcher's blog (or self-published equivalent) is really worth reporting, a reliable source will probably have covered it; secondly, the information has been self-published, which means it has not been subject to independent fact-checking. Self-published sources, such as personal websites and blogs, must never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP. If a third-party source has published the same or substantially similar material, that source should be used in preference to the self-published one.

- Crockspot 23:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Caveat - I'm assuming that BLP applies here. If she is writing about the site, and not the site owner, there may be some room for argument. Crockspot 00:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Um... Duck. Jinxmchue 00:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
She seems to be writing about the site being featured on Fox News (complete with a presumably unauthorised video clip from FN - there's no indication that it's been used with permission). See [2]. The FN clip does substantiate her statement, but it also very likely falls foul of the "YouTube clause" at the top of Wikipedia:External links: "If you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work." I think we should err on the side of caution on this one and remove the link. -- ChrisO 00:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
The HotAir TOU states that all content is used with permission, or in compliance with U.S. Fair Use rules, and provides a way for copyright holders to complain. Given that the video has been up for 7 months, I believe the link is not copyvio, and should not be removed. Αργυριου (talk) 01:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
It is not a requirement of a proper citation that there be a hypertext link to the video. You write the citation like it was a book, as long as you have the verified date, show name, network, etc. As long as it is accurate, and someone could conceivably go to Fox News and pull the tape. Humans have been citing sources long before the innernets. Crockspot 02:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

(Unindent)

  1. A minor correction: reference 25 ("Video: Fox reports on Zombie’s expose of the ambulance incident") is not by Michelle Malkin, and not from michellemalkin.com, her blog. It was posted at hotair.com by "Allahpundit".
  2. We're using reference 25 to support our claim that "has used zombie's photos and analysis during news broadcasts, including [a] Brit Hume report about [...] the Qana Red Cross Ambulance Incident". The ideal cite would include a link to a page about that report on the Fox News website, but they don't seem to keep archives.
  3. Whether HotAir.com's use of that clip might be Fair Use is not for us to decide.
  4. AFAIK, Fox News is quite happy to have people post clips of their shows, but that does not affect Wikipedia's blanket ban on CopyVios.
  5. So I agree with Crockspot: we should change reference 25 to something like "Special Report with Brit Hume, 24 August 2006"? Or is there some approved way to reference specific items on news broadcasts?
  6. There's a chronological problem with our use of references 23 ("Comment is Free: A Matter of Fact", January 2007) and 24 ("The ambulance hoax: why no missile could have done this", by Andrew Bolt, September 2006).
  7. Given that Andrew Bolt's blog is officially part of the website of Australia's best-selling newspaper, I contend that we can use it as a cite for statements about what Bolt (and like-minded pundits) say, write or believe. BTW, Comment is free not a WP:RS either, AFAICT.

Cheers, CWC 11:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

  • There is a {{cite video}} template, as well as other more generic templats, at WP:CTT. - Crockspot 12:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Just double checked, the cite video template does not even have a slot for a url, so there you go. - Crockspot 12:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zombie's gender

The interview cited in the article calls Zombie a 'he', and his last entry with the pics and comments on the 'protest babes' supports that. In light of this, shouldn't the article refer to zombie as 'he' instead of this 'person of mystery' so anonymous that his/her gender is unknown? Seems a bit of a charade. - FaAfA Aloha 01:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

This is not proof positive. Not even close. Despite attempts by the politically-correct crowd to make it otherwise, "he" can still be used as a gender-neutral pronoun when needed. As for the "protest babes" issue, here's the paragraph from zombietime.com:

There's only one kind of picture I ever get requests for: "protest babes," as they have come to be called. The public (or at least a certain segment of the public) can't seem to get enough of them. And I've certainly noticed that whenever I append these types of images to the end of a report, my visitor statistics go way up. And so, theoretically to please my male chauvinist readers -- but actually to lure in unsuspecting Web surfers looking for sexy pictures but who will instead get a dose of politics as they scroll down to the bottom of the page -- I give you: Girls

Zombie is simply using the term because that's the term others are using. And, in fact, the paragraph makes it seem far more likely that Zombie is a woman. Try again.
p.s. You've put too many equals signs in the titles of this and the next section. I am correcting it. Jinxmchue 03:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I made them subsections on purpose. Why you think the above paragraph indicates a woman I don't know, but I really don't think this is a very important issue, like the one below. - FaAfA Aloha 03:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Why make these sections seem to be part of the discussion about Michelle Malkin's blog? As to the paragraph I quoted, have you honestly ever seen it commonplace for a man to refer to some other men as "male chauvinist[s]?" Women are far, far more likely to use that term. Jinxmchue 04:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. Your silence shows me you understand. Jinxmchue 23:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
My silence shows I really don't care much about this issue - but - since Zombie's from San Fran, maybe the article should include the possibility that Zombie is transgendered. - FaAfA Aloha 00:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Is this part of your newfound - again - love for Wiki interaction rules? Jinxmchue 01:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ref #2 is OR

The ref #2 (Sant Cruz Sentinal) says "In addition to the Elders of Zion protocol published in New Jersey, war protesters at a recent San Francisco peace rally were photographed displaying pictures of the devil with a dollar sign over his head standing over a globe, surrounded by the words "Zionist Pigs" and "Stop the War Pigs."" Dozens of people probably took pictures of that offensive sign at that protest. I know I saw other pics of it, I think on Indymedia. To imply that this article was referring to Zombietime's photo is highly speculative OR. Agreed? - FaAfA Aloha 02:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

This article uses Zombie's pic of the sign mentioned New_Antisemitism. Notice, in the lower left, the other sign in front of the main sign. This page for the conference written about in the Santa Cruz article has its own pic of the sign. link This is not that particular Zombie pic. Even if straightened and unskewed in Photoshop, it would still have that other sign in the lower left. This article was using VERY speculative and HIGHLY unlikely OR to tie that article to Zombietime. I'm deleting the ref as required. - FaAfA Aloha 04:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I restored before I saw this. Can you find anyone else who published this image? It was widely discussed in the media and on blogs, and it was definitely Zombie's images that was being talked about. If you can find another published example of it, then I'd agree it would be speculation to assume it was Zombie's, but I'm not aware of another one. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Regarding your second point, Zombie has a couple of versions of that sign, one of which is straight on just like the one in the conference poster. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Unless the article mentions Zombietime (which is doesn't), it's unsupported speculative OR. The conference pic doesn't credit Zombietime either. You're an Admin aren't you? Are you claiming this nebulous connection it ISN'T unsupported speculative OR? Thanks - FaAfA Aloha 09:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I think claiming it's not from zombietime because it doesn't mention that site is a little WP:POINT. The image is a famous one, zombietime is the only site that originally published it that anyone is aware of, and there are two images that the poster could have come from: one that's on the site, which is straight on with a tiny bit in the corner showing a man's hair, easily removed; and a second one that zombie sends on request, which is completely free of any intrusions, but is slightly squint. If you like, we could ask the conference people where they got the image. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I remember seeing a similar photo on Indymedia (I think) and was shocked and disgusted by it, as 99% of my friends on the left would be. Sorry but neither the article nor the conference mentions Zombietime - the ref isn't supported - and your wish to include a ref that is speculative, unsupported OR is a violation of a cornerstone of WP, and furthermore, your suggestion that Wiki contact the organization to see if they used Zombie's pic is suggesting yet MORE OR. Perhaps you can ask the Santa Cruz Sentinel to update their article and credit Zombietime. That is the ONLY way that ref could be included. - FaAfA Aloha 09:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
This pic to which you refer pic could not be the conference pic link either. A mans head is in the lower left of zombies pic, but not in the conference pic. - FaAfA Aloha 09:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
In fact, it is the identical picture. You can even see the curly brown hair of the man at the bottom of the letters P and I in the word "PIGS". Jayjg (talk) 20:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
True enough. When you blow it up, you can see the hair. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I guess that settles it. Next! - Crockspot 20:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I reverted this OR. Just because you people think its the same pic doesn't make it so, and the fact that neither source mentions Zombietime, prevents that ref from being used. The conference page is copyrighted by the school. They would not be claiming copyright for Zombies pic. Y'all know this tenuous link between that article and Zombietime is OR. - FaAfA Aloha 21:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
You're engaged in a WP:POINT here for reasons best known to yourself. It is clearly that image that's being discussed. If you believe otherwise, please give us an example of who originally published it other than zombie. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
If the image isn't specifically credited to Zombietime, how do we know for sure that it comes from there? How do we know that it in fact originated with Zombie, as opposed to some other source from which Zombie might have obtained the picture (e.g. Indymedia)? -- ChrisO 21:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I know I saw it on Indymedia or another site other than Zombietime shortly after the protest in 2003. I never even heard of Zombietime until 2005 or 2006. Many pages with photos from 2003 would no longer be online 4 years later. It is OR to claim that they were talking about Zombie's pic. It would not be OR to claim they're talking about the sign, but to claim they're talking about Zombie's (only) photo of the sign IS OR - FaAfA Aloha 21:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Your personal recollections (or not) are all fascinating, but there's no point in pretending that these aren't the same picture, when anyone can see they are identical, even down to the curly brown hair. Jayjg (talk) 21:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Claiming that they are the same pic is OR. The conference site is copyrighted, with no credit to Zombietime, as would be common if they used his pic. - FaAfA Aloha 22:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

<I posted about our differences of opinion regarding OR in Village Pump 'policy'. Is that the best place to post my concerns? If not where is? Thanks.- FaAfA Aloha 21:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for comment - No Original Research

Is claiming that the Santa Cruz Sentinal article is referring to Zombie's (only) photo of an antisemetic sign Original Research ? Is claiming that a copyrighted but unsourced pic on an antisemtic conference site, which might be Zombie's, as being Zombie's pic Original Research? (see discussion above) - FaAfA Aloha 21:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Given that there seems no suggestion that anyone else might have taken the photo, this all seems rather moot.--Runcorn 22:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. I concede that Zombie may have taken the pic (although it's odd that the UC wouldn't credit him on a UC copyrighted site) but for the article to claim that this passage "war protesters at a recent San Francisco peace rally were photographed displaying pictures of the devil with a dollar" was referring to Zombie and ONLY Zombie is OR. - FaAfA Aloha 22:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Do we actually know for sure that zombie took the picture? Does s/he claim authorship of it? Having a picture on one's website doesn't automatically mean that one is the author... -- ChrisO 22:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, he claims authorship. He took all the photos on his site, so far as I know. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Here is the what the newspaper said:

In addition to the Elders of Zion protocol published in New Jersey, war protesters at a recent San Francisco peace rally were photographed displaying pictures of the devil with a dollar sign over his head standing over a globe, surrounded by the words "Zionist Pigs" and "Stop the War Pigs."

Anyone who thinks this might not be the zombietime image, please produce another source who published an image of that poster independently of zombie. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

My reading of the Santa Cruz Sentinel article does not lead me to believe that he's specifically referring to zombie's photo. A researcher of anti-semitism would do at least as well to trawl Indymedia, so it's entirely possible the photo was first seen there. The Santa Cruz Sentinel article has absolutly no mention of zombie or zombietime.com, and so I removed it. Strangely enough, FAAFA is right on this one.
However, people are conflating the formerly cited article (which has no photos which might be from zombie, unless zombie's day job is with the Sentinel) with the web page of the anti-semitism conference in 2003, which does have an image which might be derived from a photo by zombie, or might not. Whether it is or not is irrelevant to the statement that zombie's work has appeared in the "mainstream media"; UC conference proceedings are not mainstream media. Αργυριου (talk) 23:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Slimvirgin, aren't you in effect requesting a negative proof (a logical fallacy, of course)? The newspaper quote absolutely doesn't mention zombietime and it seems to be purely an assumption that it does, based on a personal inference on your part. That does seem very OR-ish. -- ChrisO
Chris, imagine I removed a source from Pallywood that you had used to support the view that Landes had popularized the term. My reasoning for removal was that the source said simply: "the term was popularized by a 2005 film called Pallywood," but it didn't mention Landes. Therefore, I argue, we can't be sure the source is talking about the Landes film. You ask me for evidence that there's another 2005 film called Pallywood. I reply that you're requesting a negative proof, which is a logical fallacy. Would that be a reasonable position for me to take? SlimVirgin (talk) 23:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Could we stick to the matter at hand, please? I'm not going to get sidetracked. -- ChrisO 00:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
It is the matter at hand. I'm giving you an analogy so you can see that this is WP:POINT. I'd appreciate it if you would address it. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
No, it's not WP:POINT, and your constant accusations of bad faith are inappropriate. It's a bullying tactic, not an effective way to seek consensus. -- ChrisO 23:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Please answer the question. I've offered an analogy. It's a good one, and the point of it is to show that you're being inconsistent. That's not a bullying tactic, but a perfectly standard way of testing intuitions. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't really matter. An article in a minor newspaper about an academic conference which may or may not have used one of zombie's photos without credit is a really poor citation for the claim that "the mainstream media" has used zombie's work. If the claim had been that zombie's photos had sparked a re-examination of leftist anti-semitism in the U.S., and the link was to the conference proceedings, not to the newspaper article, I'd think it should stay in unless there was a good reason to believe that the photo came from somewhere else. But that's not the claim which was being supported on the sleender reed of the Sentinel article. The Fox News ref is plenty, and much better. Αργυριου (talk) 23:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree. The Sentinel article is a very vague and unspecific citation. It'd be better all round if we could stick to unambiguous sources, like the Fox News ref. -- ChrisO 00:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
The ref from 'The Age' which does mention Zombietime, and as a newspaper, carries much more weight than the Santa Cruz Sentinal anyway, could be used as the second ref for the 'mainsteam media' claim. (other refs too) Slim, I really don't appreciate your accusations that my attempts to follow WP to a 'T' is WP:POINT. I've worked long and hard to clean up this article after giving the original author plenty of time to bring it into compliance with WP. I started to go through the refs and found that the Santa Cruz Sentinal article didn't support the ref it was used for. To accuse my efforts to change what not long ago was a fan-written hagiography into a reasonably WP compliant article as being WP:POINT is a distinct violation of AGF. - FaAfA Aloha 00:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Just FYI, unrelated to this, FaAfA has been banned for 1 year per ArbCom ruling. --Tbeatty 02:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I removed the Santa cruz sentinel article link since it makes no reference to zombie. The conference link uses a picture. Maybe link that page if reliable sources can confirm that the conference is using zombie's picture on their web site? --Tom 14:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Comparing the conference picture in [3] to zombie's picture at Image:AntiWarRallyFeb162003.jpg, I don't think they are the same image, though they obviously show the same placard. zombie's picture is taken from a fairly shallow side angle to the placard, I would estimate about 20-30 degrees or so. The conference picture shows the placard from head on and is cropped to show only the placard rather than the protester(s) around it. The two are quite clearly different. The only thing the Sentinel article tells us is that "war protesters at a recent San Francisco peace rally were photographed displaying pictures of the devil" - it doesn't say who took the photos, it doesn't even tell us that the photos were published, and I see absolutely no reason to assume that zombie was the only person taking pictures at that rally and subsequently publishing them. -- ChrisO 23:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Never mind, I found the picture in question [4]. I cropped and enlarged it to the same scale as the picture shown in [5] - they're definitely the same image albeit with alterations to the colour balance. The giveaways in the conference picture are (1) the tufts of hair from the man shown walking in front of the sign at the front left, under the word "PIGS", and (2) the fragment of background on the upper right - you can make out a series of broad white lines, corresponding to the light-coloured windows in the same spot on zombie's picture. The conference clearly did use the zombie picture. My point about the limitations of the Sentinel articles still stands, though - it's a general statement of fact rather than a citation of zombie. Nobody reading the article or conference materials would even know that zombie had played any part in them. -- ChrisO 23:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Does that mean we can restore the sentence about zombie's photos being used without attribution, with the UCSC conference materials as a ref? Αργυριου (talk) 01:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, it would seem to be true, but who would be making the connection? We would be. I suspect this would still count as OR. To be honest, I'm not sure that the sentence adds much to the article anyway; it seems a minor point in the context of the article as a whole. -- ChrisO 07:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recap

OK, I think we have several distinct issues here. Let's recap to clarify the unresolved issues.

1) Was a zombie picture used by the academic conference? Yes - my own analysis above convinces me that this did happen. But I'm pretty sure that we can't cite my analysis since it's original research by definition, rather than based on an attribution from a reliable source. Question: Does zombie or any other source state that the picture was used by the conference?

2) Does the Santa Cruz Sentinel article reference zombie or his pictures? Plainly no. The article merely says "war protesters at a recent San Francisco peace rally were photographed displaying pictures of the devil". It doesn't cite any pictures or any photographer and it's inconceivable that zombie could have been the only photographer there. I see absolutely no reason to believe that this refers to zombie and only to zombie; that conclusion is purely the inference of certain editors.

3) Do we even need to cite the Sentinel in the first place? Zombietime has clearly been cited by the media on a number of occasions. Why is it so important to include the Sentinel reference despite its weakness? The point that zombietime has been cited by the media has been made very adequately - making the point again with the Sentinel reference seems a bit redundant. I'd advise Tewfik et al to leave it out, as I honestly don't think it adds anything to the article. There's plainly no consensus to include it - it would be better to drop this very weak, contentious reference so we can move onto more productive things. -- ChrisO 23:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I came here from the RfC page, and I agree with this. Frankly, if your source is so weak that the only way to connect the article's subject to the statement is by manually comparing source images, you need to find a better source anyways. --Haemo 06:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Terrorist organisations

I think it's important that we properly attribute who calls the organisations in question terrorist groups. The wikilink goes specifically to the U.S. State Department list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations. The groups supported by the protesters photographed by zombie are plainly on this list. However, we shouldn't assume that the same designation is universal, because plainly it isn't. Hezbollah, for instance, isn't designated as a terrorist group by the European Union and many other the groups outlawed by the US aren't outlawed by the EU (see the OJEC list of groups proscribed in the EU and compare that to the US list). The point zombie is making, quite rightly, is that the protesters' statements are extreme in the context of United States politics. In the context of European politics, Hezbollah is generally regarded as unpleasant but is only proscribed fully in the Netherlands. My own country, the UK, proscribes Hezbollah's External Security Organisation (see Terrorism Act 2000) but permits Hezbollah political activities. So I think we need to make it clear that zombie's perspective is strictly about US politics, rather than a universal statement. -- ChrisO 22:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

But Hamas is supported too, and they're designated as terrorists by more than the U.S. Also, I think one arm of Hezbollah is or was designated by others too. The best thing might be to remove the wikilink to the State Dept, because this isn't really about American politics. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Given that you yourself say that these groups, all or parts of them, are so designated by others, what's your argument for saying this is strictly about U.S. politics? SlimVirgin (talk) 22:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Zombie is an American, taking pictures of American demonstrations and publicising them to a primarily American audience. The entire context of his/her work is specifically focused on US politics. If you look at the home page of zombietime.com, every single demonstration listed was staged in the US - and not just anywhere in the US, but the relatively small locality of the Bay Area. Zombie doesn't document (for instance) demonstrations in London, Gaza or Cairo where demonstrators routinely express support of Western-designated terrorist groups. The focus is squarely on the demonstrators' transgression of s/he sees as US political norms. -- ChrisO 22:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
By the way, before I get accused, I'm not for a moment denying that the likes of Hamas are terrorist groups. Clearly they are. But we need to be careful not to assume that US or European designations are universally shared - clearly they're not. Context is always important. -- ChrisO 22:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
But if we're talking about Canada, European Union, Australia etc, you can't say the terrorist designations are only U.S. It's simply inaccurate, and you won't find a source to support you. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Why this? Why not just tell it like it is: designated by a number of countries. Then we can list the groups and countries in a footnote if you like, with references. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I said specifically the US in the first instance because the wikilink added by McJeff went specifically to the US list of proscribed organisations. In the edit you've just highlighted, I said "including the United States" because zombie is specifically documenting demos in the US - not demos in other countries which might or might not proscribe the organisations in question. As I said before, zombie is documenting events in the context of US politics, not those of anywhere else. I don't think there's any need to add a list of proscribed groups to this article - that's already sort-of dealt with by List of terrorist groups. (Come to think of it, do we actually have a canonical list anywhere on Wikipedia of what groups are proscribed and where? That could be a useful article if it doesn't already exist.) -- ChrisO 23:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
What difference does it make that the groups are regarded as terrorists by the U.S.? They're regarded as terrorists by many others. That the demos are in the U.S. doesn't touch on what that particular sentence says. I think it's POV to highlight any single country when there are so many. For example, it would still be bizarre for those demonstrators to support terrorist groups that are so designated by Canada, Europe, Australia etc, even if the U.S. were not among them. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
We seem to be going round in circles here. I just explained what difference it makes. Zombie is documenting US demonstrations in the context of US politics. The demonstrators' offence in zombie's eyes is a transgression against US political norms. S/he's not claiming to state universal truths. We shouldn't try to do so either, regardless of our personal POVs on the matter. -- ChrisO 23:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Chris, you've just explained why you believe that it makes a difference. And I have explained why I believe it does not. You write as though what you say is fact, and what I say is simply my wrong-headed opinion.
Zombie doesn't say anywhere that the transgression is against U.S. politicals norms; if you want to state or imply that, you'll need to source it. So far, it is only your opinion.
We would not be stating universal truths. We would be stating that these groups are regarded as terrorists by a number of countries, without highlighting any one of them. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Let me ask you a question. Why do you think it's POV to mention the US, when zombie is an American, photographing American demonstrations? -- ChrisO 00:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Because we're talking about who designates these groups as terrorist, and I'm arguing there is simply no call to highlight any single country — unless it's the only country that so designates them, but it isn't. That a bunch of Americans would support groups designated as terrorists by, say, only the European Union would be in itself cause for concern. My understanding of the Zombie website is that he deplores the support of these protesters for these groups because of who the groups are, not because they're designated as terrorists by the U.S. If you want to say his focus is only on U.S. designations, and that's primarily what he cares about, you'll need a source.
This is a lot of back and forth over a fairly obvious point, I have to say. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

(Undent) I'd just like to mention that the reason I directed the link to the list of organizations listed as terrorist by the US Gov't was because FAAFA was insisting that Hezbollah was not a terrorist organization. The page I'd linked to states that Hezbollah is officially designated terrorist. The other reason was that zombie's issue, more than the terrorist-support itself, has been how the United States media doesn't properly cover it. I felt that linking to that page was relevant to the article. McJeff 01:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, that's a fair rationale. -- ChrisO 01:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Berkeley section

I removed this as unsourced:

The How Berkeley Can You Be? parade on September 19, 2004, in Berkeley, California featured, among many other participants, several naked anti-Bush protesters. Photographs of these protesters walking in the presence of children watching the parade were included by zombie in his report which led to a number of commercial and corporate Web filtering software packages to ban zombietime.com as a pornographic site. Because of this, zombietime remains inaccessible from some corporate networks with Web filters, even though the photographs were intended to document the activity of the protesters, not as something sexually titillating.

Thanks, --Tom 12:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. There's no particular reason to include that except for the statement about being blocked by corporate filters, and there's no source for that. Even if a source were found, the issue of being blocked could easily be written in a better way. Αργυριου (talk) 16:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I have to agree. To be honest, I'm not sure that the statement about being blocked by corporate filters is particularly notable anyway. Anyone who's had any experience of using content-control software will know how inaccurate the listings often are. There's a lot of collateral damage. I recall being unable to follow Bill Clinton's impeachment proceedings in 1999 - I was in Sweden at the time - because the library computers I was using deemed the news reports to be pornographic! -- ChrisO 17:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unsourced BBC mention

I noticed that this line has had a {{Fact}} tag on it for a few weeks: "A BBC reporter earlier used images taken from the Mohammed Image Archive to confront an imam about the Islamic position on religious iconography." It's hopelessly vague - where, when, what programme, which reporter, who was the imam? I haven't been able to find any references to it on the BBC News website so I assume it was in a broadcast, but the Beeb doesn't have a public archive of transcripts of such things. How can we go about sourcing this? -- ChrisO 17:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Why doesn't the editor who added it provide a source? It should be removed along with any other material that doesn't provide a source. Maybe, BIG maybe, this article can be cleanup from the mess it currently is. Doubtful however. --Tom 20:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't know who added it; it'll require some digging in the history (which I don't have time to do myself) to find out. Maybe you could take a look and ask the editor in question? -- ChrisO 20:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've removed it as unsourced. We can add it back if and when we find out where it came from and what it refers to. -- ChrisO 06:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "rarely mentioned by the mainstream media."

Threeafterthree has been continually removing a sentence from the article that says "Zombie states that such displays of sentiment are rarely mentioned by the mainstream media." with the claim that it is unsourced. The truth of the matter is that the focus of the entire website is that what zombie is showing you is what the mainstream media does not like to talk about. You will never see the kaffeya-wearing terrorist supporters on the news, never see the harassment of the conservatives and in particular Christians that show up at events. There is no source cited because the entire site is the source. McJeff 16:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

This is the essence of WP:OR. what we/you/I need is reliable sources that back up what you are claiming. What you say might be true, but we need to be able to source all the material on this project. Thanks --Tom 17:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Unless he actually states that, he doesn't "state" it. Try to find a different, non-OR way to say what you're talking about, and it will probably work. --Haemo 19:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure he does say it somewhere - McJeff, could you dig up a specific statement from zombie along those lines? -- ChrisO 19:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Zombietime.com isn't working for me right now - either slow as bile, or just plain times out whenever I try to access it. So at this point in time I can't. I do recall zombie calling out the media on the Tookie Williams page - for having people pose and fake being sad, and for HELPING the Tookie-lovers try to intimidate and silence the Christians. There's also the Anatomy of a Photograph page, where he talks in depth about how "telling the truth but not the whole truth" is a standard media practice. So if someone wants to look those over and see if there's something that would make a good source, that'd be awesome. If you want to edit the sentence back out that's fair I guess, but I think it would be better to put up a fact-request and if a proper one can't be found in a week or so, then remove it.McJeff 19:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I couldn't get through to zombietime.com either. Let's give it a chance to come back up and then have a look to see if there's anything we can use to source the statement. -- ChrisO 19:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

(Undent) There's all sorts of stuff on the Tookie page. Zombie goes into detail about how the media deliberately cast the Christian pro-death protesters as the "bad guys", and the most violent of the socialists as the "Good guys". There's footage of the media staging photos with people pretending to be sad, and transcripts of speaches deifying Tookie that weren't mentioned in any mainstream source (that I am aware of.)

On the page for Global Day of Action, there's the following sentence. "But the media, predictably, steered clear of anyone who wasn't camera-friendly for a mainstream audience; this NBC camera crew, for example, purposely plucked out of the crowd a nice young woman with a tight shirt who looked like she might say something to make the event appear palatable. This girl would have been their preferred choice, but she blew her chance for camera time with an overly blunt t-shirt selection."

The "Anatomy of a Photograph" page [6] is entirely devoted to the MSM's inaccurate coverage and deliberate whitewashing of the rallys.

So that's what I got while only checking the pages of the protests etc... that zombie designated as "major". McJeff 18:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I readded the sentence using the Anatomy of a Photograph page as the source. Sounds good? Needs more sourcing? Better phrasing? Did I steer clear of OR? What do you think? McJeff 06:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response to "Motivation"

A lot of people here are saying we ought not to rely on blogs for hard facts, but the "Motivation" section is based completely on a blog entry. So why is this "Blonde Sagacity" blog, which no one has ever heard of before, treated as a reliable source? I recommend that this entire section be removed, as is it pure speculation. And if someone insists on having this speculative section, can't we at least base it on a more reliable site? We don't know who Blonde Sagacity is, or if the interview even really took place, but zombie apparently did give a much more detailed interview to an actual qualified journalist, David Perlmutter, who is a Professor of Journalism and Associate Dean at the University of Kansas:

http://policybyblog.squarespace.com/journal/2006/12/5/zombietime-blogs-and-the-anti-war-movement.html

And in that Perlmutter interview zombie is much more eloquent and explicit about his or her "Motivations." If anything, that interview should be cited. For example, this passage lays it out pretty clearly:

There are three themes [to zombietime]. The first, obviously, is a platform to expose the craziness that has emerged on the left side of the political spectrum since 9/11. The second theme grew out of that: it became abundantly clear that my photo essays were revealing aspects of these rallies and events that were not being covered by the mainstream media. I would post photos and videos of extreme lunacy at some event, and then the "legitimate" media would come out with their own story on the same event, and it would be a total whitewash -- they would hide what really went on. So more and more I made it my mission to expose not just went on at this or that rally, but to show how the media is biased in covering it. I emphasized my point with a mini-essay I called "Anatomy of a Photograph," showing how a photo of a protester published in the San Francisco Chronicle was intentionally misleading. That mini-essay got a massive amount of attention, showing that the public is also hungry for incisive media analysis. So, that has become the second theme of zombietime -- analyzing media bias. Thirdly, I have used zombietime and my reputation as zombie to promote the notion of "citizen journalism" -- individual non-professionals who go out and report on the news themselves. I have encouraged and trained many "acolytes," or people who have asked for advice on how to emulate what I do. My long-term goal is to create an army of "zombies", exposing the truth around the world.

It just seems that the editor who cited that Blonde Sagacity site is trying to find a way to discredit zombietime, based on the flimsiest pretexts.

Furthermore, the rest of the "Motivation" section is based on a blatantly biased hit piece published in the Australian newspaper The Age, which zombie already completely demolished in the "Ambulance" essay on zombietime:

http://www.zombietime.com/fraud/ambulance/#attempted_refutations (scroll down a bit)

Here's a short quote from zombie's refutation the the Chandler Age hit piece ( I cite it here because it directly rebuts the quote given in wiki's "Motivation" section):

  • If I'm such a low-wattage player, then why am I being profiled in The Age? Anyway, I've never claimed to be "high-wattage," nor does my wattage have any bearing on the evidence presented here.
  • Chandler completely misapprehends the Technorati statistics. The number "955 blog posts" she refers to is not the number of posts I have made, but rather the number of blogs that currently have a posting that mentions the word "zombietime." Comparing my mentions to those of a columnist in a mainstream high-circulation newspaper (Andrew Bolt), and to the most popular independent news site on the entire Internet (Drudge) is a conscious attempt to make my influence seem puny. Since few people actually use the word "zombietime" in their postings, preferring instead to just call me "zombie" or to link to my reports without mentioning me at all, a more accurate Technorati search can be made by searching for any blog posts that link to my site, which gives (at the time of this writing) 6,349 links -- while Andrew Bolt gets 379 links (many of which are about my report anyway) while Drudge has 24,000. If being one-fourth as bright as the most powerful light on the Internet (Drudge) makes me low-wattage, then low-wattage I shall be.

I don't understand why the original paragraph that outlined zombie's apparent motivation was deleted in the first place, and replaced with this politically slanted section. If we must have a "Motivation" section (and I don't see the point, as no other wiki entries about individuals or blogs feel the need to explain their "motivation"), why don't we just revert to this?:

Despite being generally perceived as a conservative by critics, zombie self-identifies as "a lifelong liberal" who was originally anti-war [Footnote A] but whose political alignment was changed by the events of 9/11 and the misguided response to the War on Terror by the political left. As such, zombie is a member of a wide-ranging group of pundits -- such as blogger Charles Johnson [7], critic Christopher Hitchens [8], and columnist Cinnamon Stillwell [Footnote B] -- who might more accurately be described as socially liberal neoconservatives.

Footnote A: Interviewed with zombie by David Perlmutter: http://policybyblog.squarespace.com/journal/2006/12/5/zombietime-blogs-and-the-anti-war-movement.html

Footnote B: http://cinnamonstillwell.com/8455.html

Do with the above as you see fit because it matters little were I to make the changes.

Lastly, I couldn't help but take notice that when the Thought Police began their swarm in late February, one of the first references to be removed was the fact that the Israeli Foreign Ministry referred a reporter to zombietime.com in re: the Qana Red Cross Ambulance incident.

Rest assured, my faith in Left-think is such that I know that had the referral been made by Hamas or the Syrian and/or Iranian foreign ministries, the properly sourced reference to zombietime.com would still be there today.

To the handful of anti-Idiotarians who have been so helpful and supportive in this effort to add zombietime to Wikipedia, my most sincere thanks for your past help and your ongoing efforts.

To those who have dedicated their time to infantile attacks and destruction of content, I'm not at all surprised. You've merely demonstrated that viewpoints contrary to Moonbat Theology are verboten.

To the horse's ass suggesting that zombie is transgendered because of domicile, go back to Stormfront, kid. Or is it Young Pioneers Camp? Some self-loathing, maybe??? | Zombiefan 03:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Please don't post inflammatory rants - they're not helpful. You may wish to have a look at WP:NPOV, which requires us to document "all significant published points of view ... not just the most popular one." That means we have to include criticism of zombietime, where relevant. We're trying to write an article that is fair to all sides rather than a hero-worshipping piece. It's certainly relevant that a major Australian newspaper has portrayed zombie as a fringe player. As for the Perlmutter interview, I agree that that is something that should be cited. Although it's on a blog, I think this is one of the rare exceptions when we can allow a direct quote from a third-party blog, as it's been produced by (and relates directly to the professional work of) a "well-known, professional researcher writing within his or her field of expertise." -- ChrisO 08:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I've had a minor problem (not enough to change let alone debate) with the bit about Zombie being a low-wattage player. Zombie's website isn't updated frequently, and there's no reason for people to be visiting it multiple times per day, like LGF, DKOS, etc... And I agree that the Perlmutter interview should be included in the article. Mostly I agree with ChrisO on this however. McJeff 15:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I'll also throw in a suggestion that this might be an appropriate time for a WP:IAR. McJeff 19:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../z/o/m/Talk%7EZombietime_b7f0.html"