Talk:Pallywood

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Israel (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Palestine (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Journalism  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Journalism 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.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Footnoting[edit]

May I please request that we not include unrelated citations in the middle of direct quotes? Apart from being tendentious, this is improper style. CJCurrie (talk) 19:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

What exactly is unrelated about the example? It's both from Jenin and also shows a dropped martyr springing back to life. JaakobouChalk Talk 20:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
It's unrelated in the sense that it doesn't refer to any words written by Paul Schneidereit. In any event, your last edit includes both a direct misattribution and an obviously inappropriate link that only serves to slant the discussion. I'm sure you'll simply revert me (and accuse me of precipating an edit war) if I remove it again; as such, I'll wait for someone else to do the same. Suffice it to say, however, that your approach to footnoting would not be considered appropriate at any accredited institute of higher learning. CJCurrie (talk) 21:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Opened on WP:3O -- [1] -- for uninvolved opinions.
Note to uninvolved editors: the discussed diff is the following -- [2]. JaakobouChalk Talk 21:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
The citation gives the source for what the quote is saying. It's exactly on point and completely appropriate. The person says that something has happened, and the footnote gives the evidence that it has indeed happened. That's what footnotes are for! -- Zsero (talk) 21:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
That's somewhat correct, although it would be more accurate to say that this particular footnote has been included to verify a journalist's assertion. In other words, it's original research, which is forbidden -- and it should be removed. CJCurrie (talk) 21:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
What original research? It's from a reliable source. Looking for sources is what we're supposed to be doing, right? Or is the encylopaedia supposed to write itself? Talk about tendentious. -- Zsero (talk) 22:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Leaving aside for the moment the question of whether "Israel Insider" is a reliable source, the footnote is still entirely inappropriate. A journalist has made an accusation, and you've included a footnote that seems to verify the accusation. The cited text makes no reference to the journalist's argument. This is a textbook case of original research, and it should be removed as such. CJCurrie (talk) 22:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I have to say CJCurrie is right on this point (and I'm kicking myself a bit at not having spotted this earlier). The israelinsider.com reference is not being used to attribute what the journalist says - it's being used by you to try to assert that what he says is correct. It's not just a violation of WP:NOR, it's also a violation of WP:NPOV, specifically the requirement in WP:NPOV#A simple formulation: "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves." It's simply not our business to try to corroborate or refute anyone's claims. We report claims and any counter-claims; that's all. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not following the argument. The person mentions a certain film he'd have seen without naming it. I don't understand the problem with an (e.g. 'name of vid')[ref link] type addition to help clarify the discussion to the wiki-reader. JaakobouChalk Talk 22:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
The source is not directly related to Schneidereit, so I agree that it is a violation of WP:NOR, but there is no reason not to use it to illustrate what DF Intelligence Officer Colonel Miri Eisen said. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I think this is basic writing clarification (e.g. "e.g. Wired (USA), The Week (India)") and belongs with both instances. The first one would be a primary ref and the second one as an e.g. type clarification. I figure, if we insist that it is somehow controversial to link his statement with the fake funeral (which was filmed in Jenin in April 2002 as part of the attempt to prove the "massacre" claims) that a wiki-link can be made instead of a ref type link. Thoughts? JaakobouChalk Talk 22:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay, let me explain this from the top. The quoted article is a journalist's discussion of what he views as examples of "Pallywood" incidents. He mentions a particular incident which he asserts is an example of a "staged funeral". Zsero wants to assert that the "staged funeral" story is a fact, so he's inserted a reference to a completely separate article about that story in order to demonstrate its supposed factuality. In doing so, he's altered a direct quotation to make it appear that the journalist referenced the israelinsider.com story. This is a straightforward violation of Wikipedia:Verifiability, as it's a falsification of the original source. It's also a violation of WP:NPOV, as it's an attempt to state an opinion as fact. Finally, it's simply not relevant to this article whether the "staged funeral" story is true or not. The article isn't about that story, so there's no need to raise that question. The story is only relevant in that this journalist has cited it in connection with the "Pallywood" conspiracy theory. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

← (ec) (from WP:3O) It is absolutely inappropriate to insert text into a direct quote or otherwise convey the impression that the cited source made statements or drew conclusions not directly attributable to said source. The e.g. link should be removed immediately from its present position. I am unfamiliar with this article and this area in general, but assuming that both are germane reliable sources, it would seem appropriate to include the Israel Insider link in a clearly attributed separate sentence following the Schneidereit quote. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 23:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, though of course that raises the question of whether israelinsider.com is a reliable source. I can't say I've heard of it before, though I note that it has very few links from mainspace articles (see [3]). It seems to be some kind of web-based alternative news site or group blog run by a Tel Aviv "Internet design and development company" (which doesn't exactly raise my confidence in it). I think we'd have to be very cautious about using this, considering WP:V's requirement that we use only "reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." -- ChrisO (talk) 23:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Eldereft, thank you for the 3O. JaakobouChalk Talk 23:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I have never been able to get a complete picture of Israel Insider's editorial structure. It is owned and operated by Koret Communications, a public relations firm. Their website notes that II "is committed to communicating balanced and accurate information about Israel, relating to her conflicts, and celebrating the successes, innovations and contributions of her people." The site's editor notes that "We are not a newspaper - we have no reporters in the field. We are much more a news magazine, taking the main story of the day and explaining it in English to people, and not only to Jews."[4] Mr. Koret often publishes himself on his site, and he seems to have a definite political agenda. (For example, he claims that Barack Obama is a secret Muslim and Friedman is an antisemite, etc.) So, no, II meets none of WP's standards for reliable sources, despite Jaakobou's constant use of it as an RS. <eleland/talkedits> 00:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
See [5], Israel Insider may not be an RS, but Australian Broadcasting Corporation, is. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, of course, but... huh? What are you saying that ABC piece is reliable for? It doesn't mention Pallywood, fake or staged events, hoaxes, or anything relevant that I can discern. And it's mostly direct interviews with Israeli military sources... why would we want to use that? <eleland/talkedits> 12:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

ChrisO, would you mind fixing this issue and linking the diff here? I tend to believe that if you add a notice about this instance, I'd be able to support whatever version you come up with. JaakobouChalk Talk 10:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

conservative and pro-Israel advocates[edit]

Is this correct? I see other sources as well. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you do, but the cited source (the Jerusalem Post) does specifically and explicitly attribute it to "pro-Israel media-watchdog advocates". I'm afraid characterising its usage on the basis of your own research is classic original research by synthesis. We're not in any position to evaluate its usage for ourselves; all we can do is report how others characterise it. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Mmmm. If one source says that then you attribute it to that source rather than asserting it as a fact. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Fine. I just attempted to add an attribution but got edit conflicted with you putting in exactly the same wording - great minds, eh? ;-) -- ChrisO (talk) 01:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 :) Now, if we can just find other sources that describe Pallywood in different terms, that would be great for NPOV. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment, I'm against the use of "watch-dog" in the lead and prefer earlier and more encyclopedic version of "conservative and pro-Israel". Requesting the involved parties consider this opinion and revert back (or find a better consensus). JaakobouChalk Talk 09:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC) p.s. sample for 'conservative' who use the term is Michelle Malkin. JaakobouChalk Talk 09:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


If we're going to be such sticklers for details and nuances, the quoted source (Jpost) does not actually say that the term is used by "conservative and pro-Israel" advocates. It says something else - that "conservative and pro-Israel" advocates say that the Al durrah incident is an example of what has been dubbed - by unspecified other sources - "Pallywood". NoCal100 (talk) 23:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I did a quick skim of the mainstream sources mentioning the term "Pallywood," and most of them actually attribute the term to Landes alone, rather than to "advocates" or "watchdogs" of any sort. If we want to be über-strict about sourcing, we should attribute "Pallywood" to Landes. I realize that this is a controversial article, which tends to mean that editorial discretion is practically verboten, but can't we all agree that this term is promoted by pro-Israeli advocates and leave it at that? <eleland/talkedits> 16:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

instances of alleged media manipulation[edit]

I've noticed the recent diffs, and wanted to suggest a compromise - or at least promote discussion that will, hopefully, resolve the dispute.

Several of the instances referred to as Pallywood, are in the 'alleged' state, but several have either been admitted to as exaggerations and/or fraud (in full or in part), while others were determined as frauds by multiple non-partisan investigations. I believe we can find some neutral phrasing that inserts this situation into the article, without giving undue weight to the unproven allegations. The first re-phrase suggestion that comes to mind is "instances of alleged and, on several instances, addmited(ref,ref) media manipulation".

Thoughts/Suggesions? JaakobouChalk Talk 07:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

If the instances have been reliably "admitted" then fair enough - but the key will be what references can be used. They would have to be reliable mainstream sources, not the usual flaky partisan blogs that some have tried to cite here. As for the other POV edits that I reverted, we clearly cannot say "demonstrating that the entire incident was staged by the Palestinians" - that would be taking one side's POV as fact. We need to state Landes' assertions as assertions, not proven facts. Given that Landes' claims are a quintessential conspiracy theory, it's worth mentioning (particularly as we have a reliable source) that they are seen that way (thus the Blum reference). Finally, given that Landes' claims are promoted by one particular side of the commentariat, this is again worth mentioning. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't referring to Landes in particular, although there have been some recent developments on this one, but rather to the general text. I completely agree that blog charges don't amount to anything more than allegations, but we have a few instances of full or partial addmitance of exaggerations/manipulation (the film Jenin, Jenin, for example) and a few where the manipulation was so blatent that it's been proven as such (Tuvia Grossman incident used by Arabs to delegitimize Israel, for example). I agree btw, with the majority of your revert, but I figured that others did have some raw validity hidden within their edit and that we can find some re-phrase that gives a little more weight to the few cases of 'admitted as accurate' allegations. JaakobouChalk Talk 08:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Those are pretty dubious examples, especially your claim that the Grossman photo was "manipulation ... so blatent that it's been proven as such," but whatever. There's not a whole lot of room for compromise on this central point: everything we include in the article has to have a reliable source connecting it specifically to "Pallywood." Not just general claims about propaganda or media manipulation but P-a-l-l-y-w-o-o-d. Anything else violates WP:NOR and makes this article a dumping ground for every shoddy partisan claim made in some backwoods blog. And that cuts both ways, btw; I could easily write a long footnoted essay about how the "Pallywood" phenomenon compares to other examples of historical negationism, quote examples of bloggers making ridiculous claims about "Pallywood" incidents which were rapidly shown to be 100% false, etc etc, but that wouldn't be appropriate for Wikipedia. <eleland/talkedits> 09:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Please focus on the topic of the thread. i.e. that several of the instances were admitted as exaggerations. JaakobouChalk Talk 10:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
So "the topic of the thread" is what you assert, and anybody who doesn't agree is off-topic. Lovely. Jaakobou, we will not use information in this article that doesn't A) come from a reliable source B) discuss "Pallywood" specifically. Also, the Grossman photo was not "admitted as exaggeration," nor was "Jenin, Jenin." You're making up the facts as you go along. <eleland/talkedits> 11:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Conservative[edit]

Re "conservative" as to David Frum and Michelle Malkin, at least the latter of these is notable as a conservative commentator and likely not notable otherwise, which I think is a reason to replace that word. Unrelatedly, some of these edit summaries seem to be gratuitously insulting other editors; if there are behavioral complaints, these should be raised on the talk page. Mackan79 (talk) 15:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

There are 3 commentators in that section. The 3rd one clearly does not fit, and it is arguable if Frum deserves that label. We do not poison the well in this manner - if people don't know who Malkin or Frum is , they click on their link and read about them. If your "unrelated" comment was a refernce to my edit summary - warning people to stop edit warring in edit summaries is not insulting - the edit warring is. Canadian Monkey (talk) 16:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
From reading the article, it doesn't appear that Schneidereit "applies" the term, as we say in the previous sentence. He seems to discuss how it has been used, along with discussing the related controversies. Considering the sentence at issue gives Frum and Malkin as examples, and we're talking about those who "apply" the term, I think it's accurate and appropriate to note that they're conservative, and that it would be misleading to say the term has been applied generally by commentators. Mackan79 (talk) 18:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Needs updating[edit]

With the new judgment against France 2 in the al-Durrah situation, I think Pallywood is in need of some updates. I see a lot of commentary and information about the concept of Pallywood, but very little evidence is given (even though there is A LOT). I also see this article was nominated for deletion before, which is understandable.

anyways, I'm not prepared to edit as my personal bias fails to conceal my neutral hat. Some are better at hiding it than others...so I'll leave it to the skillful and willing.


so yeah! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikifan12345 (talkcontribs) 03:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Disputed tag[edit]

This article has been tagged as disputed since March. Is the dispute still active? If not, let's remove the tag. If the dispute is still active though, could someone please articulate exactly which parts are still disputed? Thanks, Elonka 18:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Far from removing the "Neutrality Disputed" tag, it needs a new one "This article contravenes the basis of the project". The obvious problem is that it's a magnet for editors who wish to make nasty ethnically-specific accusations of dishonesty. (This is not general, we manage to have articles on other seriously offensive terms without having this effect). We don't have an article for Jew York Times - but if someone created one, I imagine there'd be a storm of protest and an indef-blocking. (The Hated Google Test gives 78,000 for "Pallywood" and only 11,400 for the antisemitic term - but I doubt if this is a good reflection of their relative prominence).
But the real problem arises directly from the above - attempts to delete this article damaged the editorial process - so much so that the conclusion of the last one has been edit-warred out - and, as with so many other I-P articles, necessary administrative action to protect the editorial process is not happening. (Bizarrely, often the only actions we're seeing are carried out to protect a twisted version of "CIVIL", abuse of which has become a favorite tool of wiki-lawyers).
Here's what the community decided and should have got:"the [article] content should be kept, the term Pallywood should also be addressed within the article, the film/video should also be covered but neither has enough to be the focus of a stand-alone article even when combined. ... a number of possible article names were suggested, Alleged Palestinian media manipulation [or] Alleged media manipulation in Palestine". PRtalk 08:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
PR, how about just editing the article? You can also tag specific sections or sentences that you have concerns about. If no one addresses the concerns, delete those sections of the article. No one has spoken up here at the talkpage in months, so if no one complains, you're welcome to edit the article yourself. --Elonka 22:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
This article was, by it's nature, always bound to be a honey-pot for the ethnically abusive. The maker of the film of this name (it's not actually a film, never been shown anywhere) is insisting that Palestinians either shot dead one of their own children, or, even more outrageously, made it appear that the kid had been killed. Until administration of the project treats such people with the contempt they deserve, the I-P conflict articles will continue to look like a propaganda sand-box.
In this particular case, we even have a determination that the article name is non-notable and needs to change - but editors who wish to operate to policy know full well the disruptive obstruction they will face. The editor who did this and this, along with the editor who did this and this didn't accidentally breach consensus, they set about to trash it in the full knowledge that anyone trying to stop them would fail, with the eventual certainty of administrative action against them. PRtalk 11:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Comment: While Palestinian use of children has on occassion been hard to justify, best I'm aware, Mr. Landes did no such thing as to claim the boy is alive or that Mr. Jamal al-Durrah shot his own child. Landes is not the only person to express concerns about the validity of the initial reports and others, such as the 'Three bullets and a dead child' documentary, illustrate a reasonable probability that Palestinians were indeed implicated. JaakobouChalk Talk 19:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Problems with latest anon edits[edit]

Leifern, I don't know how you can possibly claim that "this version is more NPOV than ChrisO." The anonymous editor's changes were sloppy, unsourced and very obvious POV-pushing (deleting sourced content, falsifying quotes to push a POV), as even a brief check should have shown you.

Let's go through the specific problems with it:

  • The anon editor has blatantly falsified the quote from the Jerusalem Post in the first paragraph. The Post did not say what the anon has it saying - the anon has simply rewritten this quote to present his own personal opinion as if it was something that the Post had published. Check the cited article if you don't believe me. Forging quotes from cited sources is absolutely not acceptable.
  • The claim that Landes "originated" the term is unsourced and probably unsourcable. People tried some time ago on this talk page to determine who had originated the term, but no adequate sources could be found. It's pure original research to claim, without any sourcing, that Landes invented the term.
  • Under "wider use of the term", the anon has deleted - without explanation - a quote from the Jerusalem Post; I'm guessing because the anon has a POV problem with it.
  • The additions under "Wider use of the term" are wholly unsourced, obviously POV and rather incoherent - notice the unfinished sentence?
  • The cited sources in the last edit do in fact corroborate the attribution of the term to "right-wing publications".

Next time, please check whether the changes are actually any good before reverting to them. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment 1: I support ChrisO's note that the changes of material quotes were innapropriate. However, on a content note, there are certainly a few problems which should probably be corrected. I disagree with the mentioning of JPost (in the lead of all places) as if it's the sole authority on explaining the term, and also with the usage of the term watch-dogs. Also, the term right-wing could easily be replaced with 'conservative' and be considered more encyclopedic.
Comment 2: Chris, regardless if you are correct or incorrect with the revert (and I believe you were correct) you really have to stop making personally directed commentary (per "I'm guessing because the anon has a POV problem with it.").
Comment 3: Leifern, I don't understand how you could revert to a version where the quotes from the cited references is changed. You should really not make such an error in the future even if some parts of the changes feel more NPOV.
With respect, JaakobouChalk Talk 06:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC) clarify 06:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Jaakobou, I don't see the JPost as being "the sole authority". If I remember the development of this article correctly, we were looking for a reliable source to define the term and someone found the JPost article, which had a very clear and concise summary definition. Do you think it's inaccurate? As regards the "few problems" you perceive, could you possibly identify what bits you see as problematic, so that we can work out what to do about them?
By the way, I don't think my comment about the anon's "POV problem" was unfair - given the other edits the anon made, it's pretty clear that he removed the JPost quote because he didn't agree with what it said (which obviously isn't a valid reason for removal). In the anon's first edit he also added more personal commentary with a link to a video sharing website that attempts to dump spyware on your PC - fortunately my firewall caught the attempted download. It was a very bad bit of editing all round. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
As an issue of civility, bad editing or not -- and it was indeed bad editing, don't get me wrong -- we should focus on content/edits, not percieved personalities/ideological prefrences.
Content-wise, I would prefer the introduction text toned down a bit per encyclopedic concerns (a more generic descriptive) and we can move the JPost quote to some "definition" or "history" section. I may make a suggestion version later today.
Cheers, JaakobouChalk Talk 09:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC) better, 09:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Definition section[edit]

I'm thinking it would help make the introduction more encyclopedic if we construct a "Definition" sub-section where we accumulate possible definitions from the more reliable sources (JPOST, and others if they exist). Thoughts/Suggestions? JaakobouChalk Talk 19:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Misrepresenting sources[edit]

I'm not impressed by IronDuke's latest attempts to rewrite the intro. G-Dett is quite right to point out - as has been pointed out many times before - that this term is not in general usage. You will find only a handful of references to it in reliable sources, as opposed to the online ravings of far-right bloggers. That being so, we need to define who uses the term, and the cited Jerusalem Post article provides a concise definition and description which is reflected faithfully in the article. I'm having trouble understanding what IronDuke meant in his revert summary: "Still well-poisoning, ad hominem style -- also, inaccurate". Is IronDuke assuming that the JPost is poisoning its own well, or directing "ad hominems" against itself? (One assumes that it's "pro-Israel", right?) IronDuke also hasn't explained what he considers "inaccurate" about the JPost's definition. To be honest, though, I don't think it's appropriate for him to substitute his personal POV for that of a reliable, mainstream published source - that's original research by definition. The current description is source-based and a faithful reflection of the source cited at the end of the line. IronDuke's preferred version is not, and for that reason it's unsatisfactory. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Chris, that I am wounded by your failure to be impressed with my edits should come as no surprise. You've done your best to educate me, and yet I remain obdurate. Levity aside, how is it that I know it's well poisoning? Because poeple with an axe to grind insist on sticking it back in. JPost is a fine source, it just isn't the only source, and shouldn't be cited in the lead as though its opinion were the only one. Or do you maintain that it is only "pro-Israel media-watchdog advocates" that use the term? IronDuke 04:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
This isn't about "having an axe to grind" - it's about basic factual accuracy. We're bound by the rules of verifiability and the prohibition on original research. As I've pointed out, the term is not in general use: you won't find it in dictionaries and it appears only to have appeared a handful of times in mainstream sources - not surprising given the overt ethnic/racial overtones in the term. It's very misleading to imply that it has any widespread mainstream usage. Now, it may well be used by sources other than "pro-Israel media-watchdog advocates", but do you have any source to state that? Because otherwise you're getting into original research. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm confused now (easily done, I know). Are you saying that you don't know whether sources which are not "pro-Israel media-watchdog advocates" use the term? IronDuke 22:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
No, I'm saying that we don't have any sources to say that anyone other than "pro-Israel media-watchdog advocates" use the term. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
But we ourselves use sources, in the article, which are not "pro-Israel media-watchdog advocates", yes? Or is everyone a pro-Israel media-watchdog advocate until proven otherwise? IronDuke 01:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Recent changes[edit]

There was a solid consensus for use of the Hezbollywood term and certainly the "has been used" terminology is false. Unless you have some source saying this neologism is no longer under use, then this link shows a good number of sources which use the term within the last month alone. JaakobouChalk Talk 20:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Jaakobou, is there a single source that describes this ethnic slur as a neologism? "Neologism" connotes widespread use; marginal use of an ethnic slur among a handful of fringe figures in a bitter nationalist dispute does not meet this standard. "Ipod" is a neologism; marginal words and phrases like "Pallywood" and "Jew York Times" are not. Nor does the fact that the ethnic slur in question has become fashionable among a small, intensely nationalist coterie of Wikipedians make it a neologism.
If you're about to ask – no I don't know of a source off-hand that describes these ethnic slurs (Pallywood, Jew York Times, jewspapers, etc.) as ethnic slurs. Which is why I'm not currently adding that information to the article.
Is there "solid consensus" that "Hezbollywood" should be treated as synonymous with "Pallywood" in the lead?
"Has been used" in English is not past tense, although newcomers to the language sometimes think it is. It's what's known as present perfect. The present perfect "keeps the subject in a present state of reference or in a present state of mind." "Was used" would mean the slur is no longer in use. "Is used" by contrast would mean it's found a pretty stable and accepted place in the lexicon. "Has been used" describes its current status of the slur while leaving its ultimate fate open, which is why it's ideal in this context.
When someone says "Angelina Jolie has been seen at all the A-list parties lately," they don't mean her moment in the sun is over. Quite the contrary.
On a related, English-as-a-second-language note, why are you still treating "claims" and "incidents" as synonymous? And why are you presenting claims from op-eds in the lead as straight-up facts, and emphasizing phrases you like from them by putting them in italics? [6]--G-Dett (talk) 21:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
G-Dett, giving examples antisemitic words to make a point about Pallywood being an ethnic slur is in extremely bad taste. I think you should strike out the relevant examples and their context to avoid a personal confrontation with other editors. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 22:05, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Ynhockey, that wasn't a POINT. Those are analogous slurs used in exactly the same way as "Pallywood." Thankfully no nationalist editors are currently trying to promote them to the status of "terms" or "neologisms." Let's try to keep it that way, and in the process let's not lose sight of the fact that that's exactly what's going on with "Pallywood."
Incidentally, the fact that "Pallywood" is an ethnic slur and "Hezbollywood" isn't is precisely why I don't see the logic of treating them synonymously. Hezbollah is an organized political party and militant movement, and like any such movement (or state for that matter) they have a media/propaganda wing. Allegations have been made against that propaganda department and an epithet has been coined. The same could be done for Israeli "hasbara."
The idea behind "Pallywood" is completely different. The culprit is not any organized office of propaganda, just stringers and so on who are ethnically Palestinian. It's simply the idea that mainstream news sources are depending on photographs, footage, and so on produced by Palestinians, who lie and falsify things. It is exactly the same idea as the old mid-century slur about "jewspapers," and those who used that slur made exactly the same arguments: the New York Times and other papers were owned by Jews, many journalists were Jewish and therefore their accounts couldn't be trusted, and so on. And there are still marginal cranks who talk about the "Jew York Times," and make the same "critique," if you can use that word for this kind of crap.
I appreciate your suggestion, but no I won't strike anything in my post, and I respectfully disagree with your distinction between ethnic slurs directed at Jews and those directed at Arabs.--G-Dett (talk) 22:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Let's not forget that the first half of the term, "Pally" is itself an ethnic slur - there are plenty of examples of bloggers ranting about "Pallys" or "Pallies" (see e.g. [7]), a term comparable to (say) "Pakis" or "Dagos". "Pallywood" is a very clear allusion to such slurs - it's not even a dog whistle, it's out there in the open. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I can't believe you're justifying G-Dett's behavior. JaakobouChalk Talk 13:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
To quote a great Jewish philosopher, "first take the plank out of your own eye". G-Dett is right to highlight the parallel. Elliot Oring (Engaging Humor, p. 44) highlights the use that racist groups make of "humorous" terms such as "Jewspaper", "Jewsmedia" and so on to make assertions about supposed Jewish control of the press. "Pallywood" is in exactly the same vein - it's an overt ethnic slur intended to make assertions that all Arabs are congenital liars. (Why is it used to refer to the Lebanese when they're not even Palestinians?) The sensible thing to do, if sensible people were in the driving seat in this wretched conflict, would be for both sides to say "all ethnic slurs are equally bad". Unfortunately we seem to be in a situation where both sides seek to appeal to overt racism and religious hatred - anti-semitism and Islamophobia alike - to gain allies. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:03, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I understood your justification for this beforehand but I still can't believe it. You'll pardon the personal tone but from where I'm sitting, there seems to be some parallel with your actions and the time when Eleland was calling a Jewish editor "Nazi" and "goose stepper". This is disgraceful.
p.s. in case it were not clear, this article is titled 'Pallywood'; not 'insert Jewish pejorative here'. JaakobouChalk Talk 18:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Jaakobou, we are discussing a number of related ethnic slurs. You on the other hand are not only discussing but employing and promoting one of the ethnic slurs in question, making it very difficult to take all your gasping outrage – "I can't believe it," "disgraceful," etc. etc. – very seriously.--G-Dett (talk) 18:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
G-Dett hasn't called anyone names. She's merely pointed out - as have I - that the term has overt pejorative racial/ethnic aspects, and that it's used in a very similar way to anti-semitic slurs. Those are just statements of the obvious, frankly. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Remember, comment on content, not the contributor. Lets avoid anything that might be mistaken for an attack or an accusation, as that will just inflame things. Prodego talk 00:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Break[edit]

It's unacceptable to delete the direct quotation from the Jerusalem Post that attributes the term. Let me repeat what I posted above, which has apparently been overlooked by Jaakobou: We need to define who uses the term. It's deceptive and misleading to imply that the term is in general usage. Plainly it's not, other than in certain blogs. The cited Jerusalem Post article provides a concise definition and description which is reflected faithfully in the article. The current description is source-based and a faithful reflection of the cited source. No good reason has been advanced for deleting the JPost's description, and I note that none of the people trying to delete it have bothered to explain their reasons here. Also, I noticed that Jaakobou had introduced a quote from IsraelInsider. This is not a reliable source; it's a self-published "social blogzine" according its publisher (see WP:RSN#IsraelInsider). Self-published opinion pieces from an apparently rather fringe website should not be used as sources. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

ChrisO, I've replied on the relevant forum. G-Dett, your examples are provocative and completely out of order and it would do you well to scale back when asked to do so nicely. JaakobouChalk Talk 02:06, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

p.s. G-Dett, please provide a source to support the assertion that ""Neologism" connotes widespread use". Thanks. JaakobouChalk Talk 02:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

p.p.s. I've found this source with some type of definition that words better for me than the current "neologism" one. JaakobouChalk Talk 02:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

p.p.p.s. it would seem that, like Landes and Pallywood, Israel Insider take some of the credit for Hezbollywood.[8] I'd be happy with a sincere attempt to add this new information. Thanks! JaakobouChalk Talk 02:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC) +some source for the German speakers among us. JaakobouChalk Talk 02:19, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Nationmaster is a very old copy of Wikipedia and the page you've highlighted is a copy of an article that you wrote that was deleted back in 2006 (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hizbollywood). As for Israelinsider, we can't use it as a source - it's a self-published group blog. Please address the points I've raised on the reliable sources noticeboard. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Jaakobou, I don't need a source telling you what a neologism is; you need a source telling us that "Pallywood" is a neologism. WP:V and WP:RS don't require that every single element of talk-page debate be sourced, but they do require that everything in the article itself be sourced.--G-Dett (talk) 18:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

There are other sources in the article, such as the Mackenzie Institute, who use the term, and do not fit the JP definition. It's ok to mention that definition, and attribute it to the specific JP article, but it is improper to imply that these are the only people who use it. NoCal100 (talk) 05:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

If it's "OK to mention that definition", why did you remove it? I've restored it and added "among others" to cover any situations such as the one you cite. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

"...by a number of academics..."[edit]

Who are the academics that use this ethnic slur? I know that Berko and Erez put it in quotes and mention that others use it, but this isn't the same thing.--G-Dett (talk) 02:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't know the answer to that one but Mr. Dry Bones has written a piece that seems notable enough for the article. [9] Any takers? JaakobouChalk Talk 17:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
'Any takers?' Is this a joke?
Jaakobou, can you please explain your criteria for a good source for the purposes of this article? --G-Dett (talk) 17:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
As far as I am in concern, notable blogs such as hotair, little green footballs, and yes, Mr. Dry Bones (who is published on several mainstream news papers), or notable groups such as CAMERA, or honestreporting as well as PajamasMedia are valid sources for this meme.
I'm curious to why reliable information is being rejected here; It certainly doesn't seem to fall within the purpose of the project.
Warm regards, JaakobouChalk Talk 20:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC) +add link 20:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Mr. Dry Bones is a cartoonist. The "piece" of his Jaakobou is linking to is a post on his personal Blogspot.com blog, wherein he explains "the stories behind the cartoons." Here are his musings on "Pallywood," which Jaakobou wants to add to this article:

Do the Palestinians fabricate photographs and news footage? You bet they do! It's part of their propaganda war against us. Look at this photograph of the frightened Palestinian boy that has become an icon for the anti-Israel movement. Could this news footage image of 12 year-old Mohammed Al Durah and his dad(reproduced everywhere) be a Pallywood fake? I don't know. Second Draft presents the evidence and examines the possibilities.

In other words, not only is Jaakobou's source non-notable and non-reliable, but he's saying nothing at all. Jaakobou is simply scouring the web looking for sources that use the ethnic slur he's trying to promote, so that the article will seem more substantial and the slur's currency more established.
IronDuke's playing a similar game when he finds two scholars who mention "Pallywood" – once, in quotes, in a footnote saying that others use it, followed by a link to the "Second Draft" blog – and then uses that to have the article claim that the term "has been used by academics". It's pretty shameless.
The following (hypothetical) rewrite of the lead is more accurate than what we've got:

Pallywood, a portmanteau of "Pally" (an ethnic slur for Palestinians) and "Hollywood", is a slang-word with currency among a small coterie of right-wing bloggers and conspiracy theorists, who argue that freelance journalists and photographers of Arab descent tend to be fabricators whose hoaxes have been accepted and disseminated by a gullible or biased Western media. Its use has been noted by two academics, several journalists, and one cartoonist.

--G-Dett (talk) 21:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Mind you avoid things like "IronDuke's playing a similar game" or "Jaakobou is simply scouring the web looking for sources that use the ethnic slur he's trying to promote". Assume good faith please. Prodego talk 22:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Coinage?[edit]

Pallywood is a coinage? That doesn't even make sense. I refrained from commenting on the content of this article in this recent dipute, but this is going too far. I mean, now we're trying to pervert the English language for absolutely no reason? Why? The definition for "neologism", a new word, meaning, usage or phrase seems to apply perfectly for Pallywood, and I can't see any good reason for using grammatically-incorrect wording instead. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 22:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Coinage, noun...5. an invented or newly created word or phrase: “Ecdysiast” is a coinage of H. L. Mencken.
That's from Random House Unabridged, but you'll find it in any decent dictionary, from these online compiler jobbies all the way up to the OED.
No grammatical incorrectness here, thank you very much.
There is a shade of difference between neologisms and coinages, in that the latter are more casual, clever, and transient. As Random House's Mencken example suggests.
A neologism, by contrast, is "a word or phrase which is new to the language" (OED). New as they are, neologisms are part of the language, and you will find them in the dictionary. Irrational exuberance is a neologism. So is Islamophobia; as is Islamofascism. So is "neoconservative" in its current sense. But words like "Pallywood" and "Jewspapers" are simply coinages.--G-Dett (talk) 22:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
The word is correct, the usage in this case is not. The idea is to say The word X is a coinage of Y, as the example in dictionary.com suggests, not The word X is a coinage. Additionally, there's absolutely nothing in any definition of the word neologism that suggests that the term must be universally accepted/able, and that appendage to the supposed definition seems to be your coinage, I'm sorry, invention. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 23:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
You seem to have forgotten that "Pallywood" is a coinage of Richard Landes, so the semantic problem you're inventing wouldn't apply even if it were true. Which it is not, of course. It's absolutely fine to say such-and-such is a coinage without saying whose.
There is actually a literature on morphology and word-formation, if it comes to that. As Laurie Bauer (Morphological Productivity) writes, "a neologism is a word which becomes part of the norm of the language." All coined terms are coinages; some go on to become neologisms. Bauer in fact identifies exactly the problem we're facing – at what point does a newly coined word become a neologism? – and suggests avoiding it by using the term "coinage," which she points out is "neutral" as to what the word's "eventual status will be in a language." No darling, I wasn't making that up. :) --G-Dett (talk) 23:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
You just proved my point. Laurie Bauer herself admits that there are definitions of the word "neologism" that contradict what she said, and herself uses only one meaning which she believes is the most relevant (p. 39). Moreover, she does not give an example of how the word coinage should be used so even if we were to consider her book as our Bible here, there is no indication that the word coinage is appropriate here (grammatically). Moreover, it is implied on the same page by Bauer that the word coinage is in itself a neologism. Let's avoid using grammatically-incorrect and confusing structures and instead improve the article. If you feel so strongly that neologism is inappropriate here, there are other alternatives, such as the very simple "term", "word" or "new word". For example:
Pallywood is a term coined by Richard Landes and used by pro-Israeli groups and individuals to describe what they regard as ... etc.
-- Ynhockey (Talk) 00:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand a word of what you've just written regarding Bauer and grammar and neologisms, and I don't think you do either, but your suggestion for rewriting the first sentence sounds fine.--G-Dett (talk) 00:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually it's not. We've had this debate before, a long time ago - the article used to say that Landes coined the term but nobody could find a source for that. The cited source certainly doesn't say it. The attribution to Landes had to be removed as it was unsourced original research. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Does that warrant a blanket revert? I don't remember the discussion you refer to, but the main issue raised here is using the word 'coinage', not the statement about Richard Landes. Please address the concerns on talk before making blanket reverts. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 10:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Ynhockey, I don't think anyone except you is questioning the word "coinage." Not Websters, not the Oxford English Dictionary, not the morphologist Laurie Bauer, whom you've completely misread...--G-Dett (talk) 12:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually ChrisO just blanket-reverted without addressing the concerns about the word, so let's wait for more opinions. Meanwhile, I suggest restoring the version we agreed on because, as you correctly noted, The Jerusalem Post and other secondary sources say that Landes coined the term. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 20:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Are you quite sure of that, Chris? The way I recall it, the Jerusalem Post had described the word as a coinage of Landes', and Landes himself described having coined it, but SlimVirgin and Jayjg searched around in old usenet threads and found an anonymous poster who wrote something like "first Hollywood, then Bollywood...now Pallywood?", a post which Slim and Jay then used to counter the claims of secondary sources and Landes himself. I explained that (a) Usenet threads were not reliable sources; (b) using primary sources to counter secondary sources was classic original research; and (c) that "Pallywood" in the Usenet thread was actually a nonce word, not a term. You may well imagine the talk-page merry-go-round which ensued; if you cannot imagine it, I'll dig it up for you. :) --G-Dett (talk) 12:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Another source[edit]

Found here.
Cheers, JaakobouChalk Talk 14:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

That's Melanie Phillips' blog. She is generally regarded as a fringe commentator - frequently referred to as "Mad Mel" by other UK media outlets. I suspect the source would probably fail WP:RS on several counts. -- ChrisO (talk) 04:16, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
It appears on The Spectator's website, and she is a noted commentator in this field. Looks pretty solid to me, but I'm open to more thoughts. (PS: Other media outlets (such as?) may smear her, but I'd be very careful about throwing stuff like that around on talk pages.) IronDuke 04:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
She is a biased observer but, to be frank, the UK media is biased in its own self as well. There's even a documentary about this that I saw a while back. I think it was called 'No Excuses For Terror' or something similar. Anyhoo, I do agree that her arguments cannot be stated as "facts" but should be noted as "Mellanie Phillips argued/noted/stated/commentated that...". I hope that solves the WP:RS concerns.
Warm regards, JaakobouChalk Talk 08:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC) added note about documentary. 09:00, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
There's no point in posting a source which by your own admittance is biased. With your line of thought every yahoo who's spoken about Israel/Palestine should be posted except with the inclusion of "Mr. X stated....". Not to mention your little insertion is pointless as it'll be referenced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.131.222 (talk) 08:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
The issue is notability and Melanie Phillips passes this test IMHO. Cetainly, not every yahoo should have their bloggings written into the article, but this case fits the basic criteria for this article.
Warm regards, JaakobouChalk Talk 14:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Melanie Phillips is an extremist, eg seeking to defend a notorious case of using a 13-year old Palestinian boy as a human shield with "... we see a child sitting on the bonnet of an IDF jeep with his hand chained to the windshield - which is most likely to have been done to stop him from running away rather than using him as a human shield" (picture is here - it's not even his hand, it's his upper arm). It is difficult to understand why a low-circulation magazine prints this, but it's unlikely a reputable site like Wikipedia would wish to be associated with material so offensive, defending a practice that is prima-facie illegal. IP86.158.184.158 (talk) 15:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Removal of sources coming from the US media[edit]

With the blatant pro-Israel bias coming from nearly all US media outlets I think this article should refrain from using articles coming from the US. Kind of wide but there are plenty of other places like Canada, Australia, etc who have a much better track record. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.131.222 (talk) 07:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

You're, of course, kidding right? "Pro-Israel bias coming from nearly all US media outlets.." what? If you want to play that game then I could say that there shouldn't be any articles from Russia, Europe, most of Asia...you get the point. They have a heavily anti-Israel bias. More so than any bias from US media. Mind you, most of those nations have a less free press. Meaning in many of those countries there are laws that decide what can be put on the air and are subject to government censorship. Ridiculous... 68.18.25.74 (talk) 10:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Richard Landes's credibility is questionable[edit]

Here's quote from the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs in an interview with Richard Landes:

The main goal of modern Jihadism - a cataclysmic apocalyptic movement - is Islam's dominance over the world. It makes millennial claims, promising that once Islam rules everywhere, there will be world peace.

I seriously doubt jihad will lead to the apocalypse.

"The second Palestinian uprising can be considered the moment when Islamic apocalyptic discourse, which had evolved rapidly since 1980, went public."

And now the Palestinian intifada or rebellion according to wikipedia, is actually an apocalyptic event.

He reeks of propanganda with his apocalypse nonsense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.131.222 (talk) 08:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

It's, sadly, a quite notable opinion that's not entirely rejected by numerous Islamic groups. JaakobouChalk Talk 11:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Article assessment for WP Israel[edit]

Pallywood is a high priority for Wikipedia Israel. Israel's image in the world is shaped by this kind of propaganda. An article about it is crucial for understanding the dynamics of the conflict.--Gilabrand (talk) 10:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I have to respectfully disagree. It's not an insignificant issue, of course, but there are many more pressing matters regarding Israel. Changed it to Mid, hope that's a compromise people can live with. IronDuke 00:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I can live with that. —Ynhockey (Talk) 00:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Wording in the lede[edit]

I have restored the long-standing introduction, while also making it clear that not all pro-Israel media watchdogs use this term. Can others suggest why the long-standing wording should be changed? CJCurrie (talk) 00:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. Find a source to make your change and stop edit warring. Find a source please -- you know how to read edit summaries, don't act like you invented the wheel and are not the one introducing a personal opinion into the lead. JaakobouChalk Talk 09:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree with CJCurrie. The original lead should be retained absent actual reasons to change it. 83.111.100.10 (talk) 21:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
That was not the "original" and you require a source to make that change. Whoever you are. JaakobouChalk Talk 22:20, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I see that Jaakobou has implied that I'm using a sockpuppet. My response to this statement, and to his latest revert more generally, can be found here: [10]. CJCurrie (talk) 06:24, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

"[S]ome pro-Israeli media watchdog advocates" is an incorrect presentation and is also a poor choice of words. You're selecting a sub-group of the far larger group people of those who use the term (e.g. Zionist neocon blogsphere, Elders of Zion, Palestinian Authority, Right wing Israelis, Settlers) and you need a source. That is simple Wikipedia guideline for controversial statements -- and this is one of those. Catfish? JaakobouChalk Talk 01:06, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
p.s. tell your two alter-egos in the Arab peninsula to stop making reverts for you. Please.
This is what the source we're using for the lede actually says:
But pro-Israel media-watchdog advocates have gone further, arguing that the footage is a prime example of what has been dubbed "Pallywood" - media manipulation, distortion and outright fraud by the Palestinians (and other Arabs, such as the Reuters photographer caught faking photos during the Second Lebanon War), designed to win the public relations war against Israel.
Based on this (and other reasons that I've already mentioned), I think it's entirely appropriate for us to indicate that the term is used by pro-Israel media watchdog advocates. I've added the qualifier "some" because I don't think it's appropriate for us to indicate that all pro-Israel media watchdog advocates find this (racist) term appropriate. CJCurrie (talk) 02:32, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Sonia has made a clear improvement to the initial insertion. Thank you for your efforts! Still, the initial phrasing -- "some pro-Israeli media watchdog advocates" -- is still in there and is of poor choice even if we accept a special notability for this group, which I tend not to do. I'm not sure on how sources (i.e. not a single source) notate this issue. As such, I've decided to do the work I asked you to do for your change and have come up with these results in my first 3 sources...
  1. Book by David Pratt (historian) - mentions only professor Richard Landes as the source.
  2. Book by Cindy D. Ness (anthropologist) - does not outline a special group of users. Side note: I like her concise definition (per "phenomenon of manufacturing documentation about the conflict", "staged by local organizations to acquire sympathy and support from the outside world") better than the current quoted phrasing.
  3. Book by Anna Geifman (historian) - uses the term on her own account.
After this short review I'm even more convinced that introduction of a certain group into the definition is incorrect. Moreso, when the current phrasing suggests the people behind the term represent watchdog organizations and are not free thinking individuals and proper researchers.
See also:
WP:MOSBEGIN for the concept of opening with a clear definition.
Wikipedia:NOTFORUM#FORUM for understanding why it is of poor form to brand the article's title as 'racist' when that personal perspective is not supported by sources.
p.s. I can see how the group of 'pro-Israeli media-watchdog' can be used further down, but sources do not support its disproportionate use in the definition.
Best regards, JaakobouChalk Talk 23:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Jaakobou, of the three sources you've identified, two simply make use of Richard Landes's work (Ness's book has a link to Landes's film), while the third is from a "terrorism expert" based in Israel whose doctoral thesis was supervised by Daniel Pipes. Beyond which, I don't think that looking for works that make passing reference to the term is the best way to find acceptable wording for the introduction.
Incidentally, you'll note that I haven't branded the term as racist in the article space.
I'm okay with User:Sonia's adjusted wording. If you're willing to accept it as well, then this content dispute can finally be at an end. CJCurrie (talk) 00:09, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Whether we like it or not, all three are valid wiki-sources and were only presented to strengthen my belief that pointing out a single group in the definition itself is a poor choice that goes against policy. Best I am aware, the only notable person/origin/user for the term is -- as was already presented in the article -- Richard Landes. I'm open to a wider review of sources that support the alleged notability of the group you wish to insert in the definition but we can't define the term in accordance to your personal preference when there is no foundation to define it in this manner. I am not against mention of this group later down, but they cannot be singled out like this in the definition, even with the thoughtful rephrase attempt. If you want this to remain you must show some definition related notability through sources. This was my initial request to you and after doing a shallow source-hunting (first viable 3 sources I found) my initial perspective was only strenghtened that you were incorrect in this instance.
p.s. Wikipedia:NOTFORUM#FORUM helps us avoid soapboxing from either side of the political spectrum which, in turn, helps promote collaboration and better articles.
Warm regards, JaakobouChalk Talk 19:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Jaakobou, this is Wikilawyering. There are only a limited number of credible sources that use this term at all; the fact that you've found a few sources that use the term in passing does nothing to change the fact that it's been used primarily by pro-Israel media watchdogs (and some other pro-Israel commentators). For us to imply that the term has widespread usage is (i) incorrect and (ii) not supported by any sources. I suspect we'll have to take this to mediation, if you're not willing to accept any sort of compromise on this front.
Btw, my views about the nature of this term (I believe it to be racist) were applicable solely toward my decision to add the word "some" as a qualifer, which usage was consistent with both Wikipedia policy and basic common sense. CJCurrie (talk) 23:54, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Addendum Here's what some published sources have said about term "Pallywood":
France 2 has stuck by its story. But pro- Israeli commentators argue that this is finally independent proof of ``Pallywood, the purported Palestinian-Hollywoodesque manufacture of news footage to further the cause, despite its fiction. We may never know the whole truth. (New Zealand Herald, 20 August 2008)
Some Israelis and their supporters have suggested for years that video that might attract sympathy for Palestinians living under Israeli occupation is routinely staged and dismissed such scenes as "Pallywood" productions. (Robert Mackey, NYT Blogs, 5 August 2010)
Since Hajj's work was discredited, the right-wing blogosphere has shifted into high gear, seeking out other potential instances of photo manipulation. Many are examining images from Qana, the site of an Israeli bombing last week where at least 28 civilians were killed. Others are digging into events in Gaza, claiming images from that Israeli-Palestinian conflict have been staged or edited for the cameras. Right-wing bloggers have dubbed that "Pallywood." (Toronto Star, 9 August 2006)
CJCurrie (talk) 00:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Disputed wording the lede

Persons newly arrived at this discussion should note that there is currently a dispute as to the proper wording of the lede. I am prepared to accept the following wording:

Pallywood, a portmanteau of "Palestinian" and "Hollywood", is a coinage that has been used by some pro-Israeli media watchdog advocates, among others, to describe alleged "media manipulation, distortion and outright fraud by the Palestinians and other Arabs ... designed to win the public relations war against Israel." The incidents of the Muhammad al-Durrah tapes and the 2006 Lebanon War photographs controversies (dubbed "Hizbollywood" or "Hezbollywood")ref name="tagesspiegel"'Im Zweifel für den Zweifel,' Der Tagesspiegel 2006-08-09]/ref are notable events which have been cited as examples.ref name="jp071012"'Caught in the Mohammad al-Dura crossfire, by Calev Ben-David, The Jerusalem Post, October 12, 2007:
:
But pro-Israel media-watchdog advocates have gone further, arguing that the footage is a prime example of what has been dubbed "Pallywood" - media manipulation, distortion and outright fraud by the Palestinians (and other Arabs, such as the Reuters photographer caught faking photos during the Second Lebanon War), designed to win the public relations war against Israel./ref

Others have proposed this wording:

Pallywood, a portmanteau of "Palestinian" and "Hollywood", is a coinage used to describe alleged cases of "media manipulation, distortion and outright fraud by the Palestinians and other Arabs ... designed to win the public relations war against Israel." The incidents of the Muhammad al-Durrah tapes and the 2006 Lebanon War photographs controversies (dubbed "Hizbollywood" or "Hezbollywood")ref name="tagesspiegel"'Im Zweifel für den Zweifel,' Der Tagesspiegel 2006-08-09]/ref are notable events which have been cited as examples.ref name="jp071012"'Caught in the Mohammad al-Dura crossfire, by Calev Ben-David, The Jerusalem Post, October 12, 2007:
: But pro-Israel media-watchdog advocates have gone further, arguing that the footage is a prime example of what has been dubbed "Pallywood" - media manipulation, distortion and outright fraud by the Palestinians (and other Arabs, such as the Reuters photographer caught faking photos during the Second Lebanon War), designed to win the public relations war against Israel./ref

I believe that the second wording is inappropriate in that it implies a greater currency for the term than actually exists. The term "Pallywood" is not widely used, and it is important for us to clarify within the lede that the term's usage is generally limited to a particular position within the Israel-Palestine dispute. Secondary sources (such as they exist) are clear on the term's framework. (I could add that passing references to the term within a few published studies are not sufficient evidence of wider usage.)

I believe that the term "Pallywood" is racist but I have not edited the article from this vantage point, except in that I added the word "some" before the phrase "pro-Israel media watchdog advocates" so as not to imply that all such advocates make use of the term. This action was not in any way inconsistent with Wikipedia policy.

I am open to compromise but I do not believe the second wording is at all acceptable. Comments and respectful dialogue are welcome. CJCurrie (talk) 00:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I can see your point about the second version suggesting it is of wide-usage when it is not. Give me a little while to think about a compromise suggestion. Considering your added sources, I'm conflicted on how to mention the groups which I see as most notable -- i.e. pro-Israel advocates and media analysts. Another alternative, which is probably better -- as I'm interested in maintaining the idea of a clear 'definition' -- is to rephrase the usage part of the definition wich something such as 'which is sometimes used in the context of "manufactured news"'. I'm open to suggestions here but I do hope you understand why I believe focusing on "media-watchdog [organizations] advocates" in the definition is undue.
p.s. let's drop the word racist from the discussion. You don't see me throwing around my personal beliefs about Palestinian media. The point, which is supported by policy, is to help promote positive dialogue. JaakobouChalk Talk 07:19, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
If you're willing to present a reasonable compromise suggestion, then I'm willing to consider it fairly. Thanks for taking my arguments into account. CJCurrie (talk) 07:27, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I completely disagree with the notion that "Pallywood" is not wide-used. google search on this terms gives 149,000 valid results. I have to agree that I am new here , and already find it hard to believe "pro-palestinian" activists good faith. the problem is not with this term or another , the problem is well orchestrated Nazi like disinformation and misinformation efforts for which WP became another arina. --Jonathango 20:50, 1 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JonathanGo (talkcontribs)

Describing wikipedia editors as engaging in a "well orchestrated Nazi like disinformation and misinformation efforts" really undermines your claims about "good faith" Poyani (talk) 23:24, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

What's the point of adding the name in Arabic and Hebrew script?[edit]

What's the point of adding the name in Arabic and Hebrew script? It's not even an Arabic nor a Hebrew word. The Arabic and the Hebrew words are not translation, they are merely transcription of the English word. Additionally, the phrase is English and rarely if ever used outside of English language. I removed the Arabic-Hebrew transcription and they were re-added! --Mahmudmasri (talk) 18:57, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

That the phrase is rarely used outside of English language does not necessitate its exclusion. My view is that the more information provided, the better. This is a policy disagreement as opposed to a content one and I am amenable to being disproved.
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 20:45, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

So the JIDF exists and the best Israelis can do is...[edit]

Say that Pro-Israel, Anti-Palestinian people say that a mythical group called "Pallywood" exists?

So the JIDF article has a variety of direct sources that objectively show the JIDF to exist as an organization. Yet this article can't even present evidence of "Pallywood" exists but just sites Israeli propaganda saying people say it exists. Where's the evidence it does exist? I'm pretty sure anecdotal claims from people who aren't reliable sources doesn't justify an article.

I nominate this for deletion. 124.148.98.14 (talk) 06:56, 10 May 2014 (UTC) Sutter Cane

A particularly ugly ethnic slur[edit]

Isnt it time something was done about this particlarly ugly racial slur?

http://972mag.com/a-particularly-ugly-ethnic-slur-pallywood/98824/