This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ynhockey (talk | contribs) at 17:23, 2 August 2008 (→Recent edit - Occupied: comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 17:23, 2 August 2008 by Ynhockey (talk | contribs) (→Recent edit - Occupied: comment)(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)
Categories:- 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