This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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.
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.
-- Saforrest 17:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
"Claims" is a non-neutral word. "States" is neutral. Please respect WP:NPOV. Jayjg (talk) 15:14, 17 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. [1]
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 (talk) 15:15, 17 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)
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." [2]
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)
"States" is evidently not neutral here, even more so than "claims". I move to replace it with what I deem a more neutral verb "says". If you got issues with it, please explain. Lixy ( talk) 23:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
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
the text:
why is this information taken out of the article? [3] [4] Jaakobou Chalk Talk 12:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
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 Chalk Talk 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 ( Talk) 17:23, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
What is confusing to readers is omitting the fact that the Palestinian territories are occupied by military force by the government of Israel. This is not a POV. It is a fact. If the Israeli government is not occupying these territories, can anyone explain to me what is it that they are doing there? I am not sure why we have to argue over this. If the pro-Israeli camp is uncomfortable with the word occupation, then let them call on the Israeli government to stop sending its troops to the WB and Gaza in order to subject millions of people against their will. ( Casa2000 ( talk) 01:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC))
Many countries do not recognize Palestine and so then is it not to those countries, Israeli territory, not occupied territory? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.105.252.223 ( talk) 07:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Bias in the phrase "He made later a film on the Jewish refugees (Silent Exodus) describing the fate of the million Jews expelled from Arab countries after 1948, but deliberately forgot to describe his own community from Algeria, considering that the Algerian war was a colonial problem involving France more than the Jewish community."
"Deliberately forgot" is a very biased turn of phrase, an accusation of duplicity. Changing it to "He chose not to describe his own community from Algeria, since the Algerian war was a colonial problem involving France more than the Jewish community." 75.85.81.0 ( talk) 01:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 11:53, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 06:24, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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.
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.
-- Saforrest 17:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
"Claims" is a non-neutral word. "States" is neutral. Please respect WP:NPOV. Jayjg (talk) 15:14, 17 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. [1]
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 (talk) 15:15, 17 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)
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." [2]
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)
"States" is evidently not neutral here, even more so than "claims". I move to replace it with what I deem a more neutral verb "says". If you got issues with it, please explain. Lixy ( talk) 23:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
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
the text:
why is this information taken out of the article? [3] [4] Jaakobou Chalk Talk 12:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
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 Chalk Talk 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 ( Talk) 17:23, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
What is confusing to readers is omitting the fact that the Palestinian territories are occupied by military force by the government of Israel. This is not a POV. It is a fact. If the Israeli government is not occupying these territories, can anyone explain to me what is it that they are doing there? I am not sure why we have to argue over this. If the pro-Israeli camp is uncomfortable with the word occupation, then let them call on the Israeli government to stop sending its troops to the WB and Gaza in order to subject millions of people against their will. ( Casa2000 ( talk) 01:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC))
Many countries do not recognize Palestine and so then is it not to those countries, Israeli territory, not occupied territory? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.105.252.223 ( talk) 07:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Bias in the phrase "He made later a film on the Jewish refugees (Silent Exodus) describing the fate of the million Jews expelled from Arab countries after 1948, but deliberately forgot to describe his own community from Algeria, considering that the Algerian war was a colonial problem involving France more than the Jewish community."
"Deliberately forgot" is a very biased turn of phrase, an accusation of duplicity. Changing it to "He chose not to describe his own community from Algeria, since the Algerian war was a colonial problem involving France more than the Jewish community." 75.85.81.0 ( talk) 01:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 11:53, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 06:24, 4 April 2023 (UTC)