This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jayjg (talk | contribs) at 22:00, 3 August 2008 (→Recent edit - Occupied). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 22:00, 3 August 2008 by Jayjg (talk | contribs) (→Recent edit - Occupied)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | Palestine Start‑class Low‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | Biography: Actors and Filmmakers Start‑class | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
Such a crap to add this to this article:
"However, his opponents maintain that international organizations such as Reporters Without Borders keep telling on the wounding of journalists by IDF's firings ( http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=20764)."
WHy is it there? While: The country’s journalists enjoy a freedom not found elsewhere in the region, but though 2006 was one of the safest years for them since the start of the second Intifada in 2000, many problems remain. (Israel - Annual Report 2007 ) http://www.rsf.org/country-43.php3?id_mot=153&Valider=OK
and: Since Hamas came to power in January 2006, journalists have faced the usual shooting from Israelis and, more recently, have been victims of fierce clashes between supporters of the Islamist Hamas and El Fatah, which supports President Mahmoud Abbas. Palestinian Authority - Annual Report 2007 http://www.rsf.org/country-43.php3?id_mot=155&Valider=OK
btw, reading the first article "the usual shooting" appears to be mainly clash related unlike the kidnappings and such in areas such as Gaza.
Removed rebuttal to criticism
I've removed the following as POV. It is completely improper to baldly assert that rehov's point of view is "closer to the facts" than others with no sources to back this up. Similarly, asserting that it was impossible for Israeli soldiers to have killed Muhammad al-Durrah is a much stronger claim than is made in the Muhammad al-Durrah article itself. I'm keeping these here because it should be possible for these rebuttals to be restored if sourced and ascribed to a particular person or group.
- Allthough, in many occasions it has been proven that his point of view was much closer to the facts than most pro-Arab clips. For instance, his film "The road to Jenin" sticks to the number of casualties, acknowledged by both Palestinians and Israelis, and has been used as a proof in Justice against Mohammad Bakri's " Jenin Jenin ", which was advocating the theory of a " massacre ".
- His work on the Muhammad al-Durrah event was also controversial. But later events indicate that it was actually impossible for Israeli soldiers to have killed this child, whose death was only witnessed by one Palestinian, namely the reporter who accused Israel of this death.
--Saforrest 17:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
"States" vs. "Claims"
"Claims" is a non-neutral word. "States" is neutral. Please respect WP:NPOV. Jayjg 15:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- "Claims" is appropriate since what he is claiming is itself non-neutral.--Kitrus 04:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sure it's your opinion that it's non-neutral. Nevertheless, WP:NPOV requires that we use neutral terms when describing positions. See WP:NPOV#Fairness_of_tone. This is policy, so please stop ignoring it. Jayjg 12:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I've removed the following WP:BLP violation to the Talk: page for now:
Pierre Rehov is criticized by anti-Zionists for a lack of objectivity and depth. His work systematically depicts Israelis as victimized protagonists, and Palestinians as manipulative aggressors.
User:Kitrus added the link at the end of the paragraph, but the source makes none of the claims that are actually in the sentence. Jayjg 15:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- I added the N.Y. Times link several months ago, found it deleted (I wonder why) and re-added it recently without re-reading it. Another source should replace it as a reference to the claim of bias. Rehov is clearly biased.--Kitrus 04:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- First you have to find a link that actually supports your claim, though. Do you have such a link? Please abide by WP:V, which is policy. Jayjg 12:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
NPOV
Pierre Rehov is not neutral and neither is this article. Please apply WP:NPOV standards when editing.--Kitrus 04:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- Have you actually read the policy? You're doing the exact opposite; you're asserting your personal opinions as fact, rather than what I have done, which is attribute the opinions to the people who have stated them. Please explain which statements in the article you think fail WP:NPOV. Jayjg 12:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
On July 15 of 2006, Rehov was interviewed by Andrew Cochran , the founder of The Counter Terrorism Blog, on the "Suicide Killers" film. Answering one of Cochran's questions on the importance of the film, Rehov claimed that: "My film is not politically correct because it addresses the real problem showing the real face of Islam."
The rest of the interview reveals that Rehov holds an extremely negative view towards the Islamic faith and blames Islam as a whole for the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. It is ironic that Rehov recalls the anti-Jewish prejudice that he experienced in Algeria at a young age when he is now denigrating the Islamic faith in the same terms.
Rehov's objectivity should be questioned and his derogatory views towards the Islamic faith is a clear indication of bias and prejudice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casa2000 (talk • contribs) 14:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
- Actually on a CNN interview available on YouTube (or a Daily Show interview, can't remember for sure), Rehov says that "Islam is a beautiful religion" and claims that the extremists are corrupting its image. Not sure how this is important to the article. -- Ynhockey 15:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Criticism
Jaakobou, since you won't stop trying to insert your Zionist-centric views into this article, I've decided to delete the reference to Hannity & Colmes altogether. What partisans might be saying in support of their ideological brethren does not constitute ostensibly impartial commentary (of the type exemplified by the NYT review, as pointed out by 151.201.141.132), and violates WP:NPOV. Your blatant and transparent attempt to muddy the water by comparing third party criticism for Rehov's filmmaking with partisan cheerleading is illegitimate and agenda-driven and has no place here.Stingray86 19:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)Stingray86
- User:Stingray86, (1) try giving a look at WP:CIV. (2) i simply reverted one POV with the other POV, your choice to prefer one POV over the other does not constitute WP:NPOV. (3) NYT is not impartial, best i reccolect, they allow terrorists to have their own op-ed articles... or was that the LAT, i'm not 100% sure. Jaakobou 10:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
- Template:Jaakobou As indicated above, I warned this user against editing in violation of WP:NPOV, to which s/he asserts that s/he has the right to insert her/his own POV into the article. The existence of partisan opinion in support of Rehov has no relevance to the discussion regarding Rehov's critics, which makes the reference to Hannity & Colmes completely gratuitous. I note as well that Jaakobou's User talk page indicates a longstanding problem regarding NPOV. Given Jaakobou's rather blatant admission of editing in violation of WP:NPOV, I request that s/he be blocked from making any further edits to this article. Stingray86 18:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)Stingray86
- personal attacks are frowned upon in wiki, just NPOV the article instead of making personal attacks. Jaakobou 12:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
hannity and colmes
the text:
- Rehov's latest film, 2006's "Suicide Killers," was supported by Hannity & Colmes who asserted that it would reveal "the nature of the enemy".
why is this information taken out of the article? Jaakobou 12:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Recent edit - Occupied
Hi Casa2000, there's a bit of a difference between "Occupied territories" and "PA control territories" (i.e. Palestinian territories). It is my understanding that the related text is in regard to territory under the Palestinian control and therefore, there is no justification for the "occupied" political differentiation. A discussion on this issue occurred a while back where it was agreed that Occupied is a legitimate mainstream title to the "disputed territories" (the preferred Israeli title) but should not be over-used as the main descriptive due to it's over-political nature. Is there an objection to reverting this part of your edit? Jaakobou 16:19, 2 August 2008 (UTC) clarify 16:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
What Jaakobou says is true. Rehov is mainly talking about areas A and B in the territories, which are not occupied (especially area A, which is under Palestinian civilian and military control). -- Ynhockey 17:23, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
- The distinction has absolutely no recognition in international law, as the P.A. is not a sovereign power, and no permanent measures have been enacted to alter the status of the territories. (Or, those measures that have been enacted, IE the annexation of Jerusalem, have been categorically rejected and denounced by the international community as invalid.) The Oslo Accords represent a limited, voluntary transfer by Israel of certain powers and responsibilities, not a permanent change in the status of the territories. Palestinians throughout the West Bank remain subject to detention and trial for alleged security offenses under Israeli law. Infrastructure and resources remain under the total effective control of Israel. Israel retains - and has repeatedly exercised - the option of military action in any part of the territories. The consensus view of jurists is that the West Bank in its entirety remains occupied territory. (Take, for example, the ICJ wall opinion, paragraphs 75-78, which recapitulate this consensus. The opinion passed 14-0, and the only judge who did not sign it in fact agreed with much of its conclusions.) Even in the case of Gaza, most authorities say that Israel retains "effective control," albeit from a distance, and thus retains the status of Occupying Power.
- Jaakobou's claim that "occupied territories" is an "over-political" title that should not be relied on is unsupported by source material. Simply read any report from a mainstream authority on human rights and/or international law. It will consistently use either "the occupied territories" or "the Occupied Palestinian Territory." These are the default terms in the literature for the areas in question.
- Any attempt to marginalize and discredit this mainstream, consensus opinion on the status of the territories is invalid and should be discounted. If the term "occupied territories" is considered prejudicial or demeaning, well, tough. WP:NPOV does not entail - in fact forbids - the abandonment of mainstream scholarly views, regardless of the implications those views may have for certain political or national ideologies.
- This principle applies both ways. For example, the term "the Zionist entity" is not used, since there is general consensus that the State of Israel is indeed a recognized, sovereign State, rather than an interloping "entity." Israeli cities are referred to by their Hebrew names, rather than the Arabic names of the Palestinian communities destroyed to make room for them. It may well be deeply offensive to some Arab readers to see, "Lod, Israel" instead of "Lydda, Palestine," but as I said, tough. Them's the breaks. Please stop militating against this basic, essential principle of Misplaced Pages editing. <eleland/talkedits> 00:55, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- The fact that the term 'occupied' is used by most countries and the UN has nothing to do with WP:NPOV. It's adding the term to the already clear term 'Palestinian territories' that severely violates the policy. However, for example, writing simply 'occupied territories' would not be a violation (although it's less clear and easy to understand than 'Palestinian territories'). The reason is that you're loading up negative terms where they are not necessary to clarify the subject matter. For example, we don't write in every occasion 'the terrorist organization Hamas', even though most countries which recognize terrorist organizations have Hamas on the list. An even clearer example is al-Qaeda, which is listed as terrorist even by the anti-Israeli UN.
- In short, I don't strongly oppose the term 'occupied territories' (although it's not easy to understand for people not familiar with the subject), but do oppose using overtly loaded language in order to push a POV and prove a point.
- -- Ynhockey 16:09, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- Are you trying to distinguish here between "Occupied" Palestinian territories and "Unoccupied" Palestinian territories? Say, parts of the West Bank versus the Gaza Strip? Or do you consider all of the Gaza Strip and West Bank to be "occupied", and are merely inserting a pleonasm? Either way, it just introduces confusion, either by trying to create an unclear distinction, or by adding unnecessary words. And regarding your "State of Israel" vs" "Zionist Entity", aside from the quite obvious fact that the latter is an epithet, not a name, the term on Misplaced Pages for the Palestinian territories is, well, the Palestinian territories. Jayjg 22:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- Start-Class Palestine-related articles
- Low-importance Palestine-related articles
- WikiProject Palestine articles
- Start-Class biography articles
- Start-Class biography (actors and filmmakers) articles
- Unknown-importance biography (actors and filmmakers) articles
- Actors and filmmakers work group articles
- WikiProject Biography articles