Talk:Relentless: The Struggle for Peace in the Middle East

Reverted?

I'm not sure why this was necessary; in line with WP:NPOV and WP:V we can't be adopting the film's claims in Wikipedia-voice with no source other than the film itself. <eleland/talkedits> 05:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Your change, which I believe was intended to clarify that these are positions of the film and not necessarily those of Wikipedia, went beyond merely clarifying this distinction; rather, the edit appears to discredit or reject the arguments of the film. I think the context already makes it clear that these are positions of the film and not of Wikipedia; however, if you wish to make this distinction more pronounced, I hope that you will take the following points into consideration:

1.) "...on the claimed failure..."

The word "claimed" is a very tricky word in that its meaning changes depending on its usage. Because it often appears in negatively worded set phrases such as "so-and-so claimed that it was true, but it is't", the word "claimed" has the effect of suggesting that the claims are not true. If you wish to use the more neutral word "alleged" here, then I will not object.

2.) "...which it says..."

I object to this on the same grounds as I object to the term "claimed." Reword this as "...which, according to the film,..." in order to achieve neutrality.

3.) "...footage... which it says... preached hatred of Jews and Israelis..."

This implies that the footage does not -- or even might not -- preach hatred of Jews and Israelis. The footage, however, clearly does preach hatred of Jews and Israelis. Whether the Palestinian Authority produced that footage, when and how frequently it was broadcast, and if suicide bombings can be attributed to these can be debated; however, that the video clips call for violence against Jews and Israelis is apparent from the clips and not up for dispute.

4.) "...footage... which it says... encouraged suicide bombing..."

As per my previous comment, the footage clearly does encourage suicide bombing. Whether anyone acted upon that encouragement can be disputed; that the clips encourage suicide bombing, however, is apparent from the footage and not up to dispute.

Michael Safyan (talk) 07:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

1 is quite sensible, I would like "perceived failure" rather than "alleged failure", as it isn't really a formal allegation as in court.

2 is wholly appropriate, no change to the literal meaning while perhaps avoiding unwanted subtext.

On 3 and 4, I have no doubt that the footage as presented in the film preaches hatred of Jews and advocates suicide bombing. However, given the reputation of many Israeli groups which translate Palestinian and Arab media for the Western press, I'm still skeptical. Do we know these were really broadcast on PA tv? Do we know whether the translations were accurate and in-context? Not having seen the film, and not knowing who provided the translations - though I would assume it was MEMRI or PMW - I don't want to suggest deceit on their part. But I'm just leery of using a "video op-ed" from a very partisan advocacy group as a reliable source for this information. <eleland/talkedits> 01:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your understanding, Eleland. Regarding #1, I think that "perceived" has the same effect as "claimed"; if you would indulge me, I strongly prefer "alleged." As an aside, news sources frequently use the word "alleged" in non-legal contexts. Regarding numbers three and four, I think this would be best addressed by creating a "Criticisms" or "Controversies" section and citing sources which claim that the translations are inaccurate or that the video clips do not actually come from the Palestinian Authority. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 05:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Relentless.png

Image:Relentless.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Video link

Per this diff:

Smb, please explain the deletion of the Google Video link. You cite the WP:LINKS policy; however, under the "Linking to YouTube, Google Video, and similar sites" section, it clearly states that "There is no blanket ban on linking to these sites as long as the links abide by the guidelines on this page". The link is very clearly pertinent to the article, and it would be incredibly useful to readers for the link to be made available. The only reason I can see for removing the link would be if it violated copyright; however, the video is hosted by Google with its authors' permission. Could you explain your rationale? ← Michael Safyan ^(talk) 02:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

It does not appear to be a legitimate channel. Please click on the "More from user" tab. A number of copyrights are violated. ~ smb 03:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? How does it "not appear to be a legitimate channel"? What am I supposed to see when I click the "More from user" tab? How is what I see when I click on the tab relevant? What and which copyrights "are violated"? And, how are copyrights violated when the authors (i.e. the copyright holders) have given permission for the video to appear on Google? ← Michael Safyan ^(talk) 03:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

(1) How does it "not appear to be a legitimate channel"? The channel is not operated by Honest Reporting.

(2) What am I supposed to see when I click the "More from user" tab? A number of copyrighted films and television programs.

(3) How is what I see when I click on the tab relevant? Wikipedia explicitly prohibits "linking to pages that violate copyrights".

(4) What and which copyrights "are violated"? To name three: "Control Room" (Noujaim Films), "Outfoxed" (Carolina Productions), "The Crash" (Jeremiah Films).

(5) And, how are copyrights violated when the authors ... have given permission for the video to appear on Google? Can you provide evidence for this? Thankyou. ~ smb 12:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Really Good Doco

I would like to say that Relentless: The Struggle For Peace In Israel is a really good documentary. It's a side of the conflict that you don't normally get to see. Most Western media especially where I live in Australia for some reason tend to focus only on the Palestinian concerns of the conflict. This documentary shows the concerns that Israel has to.

I first saw the documentary when I was in high school in my Hebrew class my teacher showed it to us. I was glad that she did because I'm doing Middle East Politics now at university and I recently had some essays that I had to write for the class and I used some examples from the documentary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.218.181.205 (talk) 11:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC)