Talk:Behind the Mask (2006 film)

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animal rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of animal rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Animal rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Animal rightsTemplate:WikiProject Animal rightsAnimal rights articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Film: Documentary

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the Documentary films task force.

Untitled

Why was the notability tag removed. I hadn't thought about notability until Weregerbil put it on, but after they did I tried to find some info on this film and had trouble finding any notable sources. It doesn't show up on IMDb or on blockbuster.com's dvd listings. The full title of the movie in quotes only turns up 4 hits. Can someone show how this film is notable. I think it should be mentioned in the ALF page, but I'm not sure it deserves it's own article. Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 20:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you haven't already, please se AfD discussions for Shannon Keith and Uncaged Films. I think all three pages are problematic. The creator now suggest that Uncaged Films can redirect to Behind the Mask (ALF) (since it is the company's only film so far) but the question still is whether the film is notable. It seems to fail WP:NOTFILM and the external sources look pretty self-refering. Medico80 21:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was me who made that suggestion [1] and I am not the creator of any of these articles. This is the second time I've had to ask you to get your facts about these pages. Please read articles, posts, and edit histories more carefully. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have reached this article by reading articles about radical animal right groups, which include AFL. There appear to be lot of soapboxing going on. It's not the first time that wikipedia is used as a platform for promotion. I propose this article for deletion. If anyone disagree, please demonstrate that this film satisfy Wikipedia threshold of inclusion. Vapour

YouTube links

This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it. Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed. I'm putting this message here, on this talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy. In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material that violates someones copyright. If you are not sure if the link on this article should be removed or you would like to help spread this message contact us on this page. Thanks, ---J.S (t|c) 03:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The YouTube video is not used as a source. There is an external link to the trailer in the appropriate section. I'll look into the copyright issue later. Djk3 (talk) 23:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Endorsing terrorism and terrorist groups should not be allowed on Wikipedia.--29 February 2008 Susan nunes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.228.60.4 (talk) 18:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not an endorsement of the video. In fact, the leading sentence in the about section begins with "Known only as 'terrorists' by the mainstream media and FBI," and that is not cited. I think that probably violates WP:NPOV in the direction opposite what you're saying. If you're suggesting that there shouldn't be an article about this on Wikipedia at all, and not for notability reasons, then that's censorship and it's despicable. Djk3 (talk) 23:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Behindthemaskalf.jpg

Image:Behindthemaskalf.jpg 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 Wikipedia articles 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 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 02:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]