Talk:Pallywood

Earlier discussion:

• /archive1

Reliable sourcing

One of the points that came up very strongly in the recent AfD discussion on this article was how much of it was original research and not sourced to reliable sources. We do need to ensure that we avoid this, particularly where controversial topics are concerned. If we're going to keep this article, it should be impeccably referenced. I've edited the article to fix a number of problems with it, which I'll highlight below:

1. Blogs are not reliable sources. Please see WP:RS#Self-published sources (online and paper).

2. It's original research to cite random incidents as examples of "Pallywood" where there is no reliable source specifically linking the term to the incident. The "list of examples" is pure original research. None of the cited sources that links "Pallywood" to the incidents in question; it's purely someone's personal interpretation. This is a textbook example of a situation addressed by WP:ATT: "Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article in order to advance position C. However, that would be an example of an unpublished synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and it constitutes original research."

3. [Updated] Seconddraft.org is not a reliable source. There's absolutely no indication of who's behind it (see http://www.seconddraft.org/about_us.php ). Richard Landes is mentioned, but not in terms of actually running or owning the website. According to [1], the website is a personal self-published project by Richard Landes (although I note that it doesn't attribute its authorship!). WP:SELFPUB: "A self-published source is material that has been published by the author, or whose publisher is a vanity press, a web-hosting service, or other organization that provides little or no editorial oversight. Personal websites and messages either on USENET or on Internet bulletin boards are considered self-published. With self-published sources, no one stands between the author and publication; the material may not be subject to any form of fact-checking, legal scrutiny, or peer review. Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published and then claim to be an expert in a certain field; visiting a stranger's personal website is often the online equivalent of reading an unattributed flyer on a lamp post. For that reason, self-published material is largely not acceptable." None of the subsequent exceptions seem to be met either.

4. Lists of sources using the term rather than defining it are disallowed. A previous version of the article had a short list of "Uses of term by third parties". WP:NEO specifically disallows this sort of list: "To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term."

Please don't be tempted to ignore our basic policies and guidelines for political reasons - it's precisely because this is such a controversial area that we need to take extra care to make our articles as well sourced as possible. -- ChrisO 10:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

5. Another point. Landes' film is clearly an example of a self-published source. WP:SELFPUB states: "When a well-known, professional researcher writing within his or her field of expertise has produced self-published material, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as his or her work has been previously published by reliable, third-party publications." I gather Landes is a medieval historian (as am I, actually!) - can anyone explain why media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict might be "within his field of expertise"? If he was a professor of media studies, fair enough, but a medievalist is stretching it a bit. I think we're going to have to get rid of the citation of his film, as it would seem to be excluded by WP:SELFPUB. -- ChrisO 10:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[Added] Looking into this further, I found [2] which gives some background into Landes' work on the I-P issue - it's very clear that this is a personal political project, not something to do with his area of expertise. It's clearly outside the boundaries set by WP:SELFPUB. -- ChrisO 12:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding number 4 - if you want to link the term Pallywood with any event that's happened, you need to use a source that *uses* the term and doesn't define it. This article isn't only about defining the term but also showing its use and examples of it. Yonatan (contribs/talk) 11:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it would help if I gave an example of what I'm looking for! We need a reliable source that says something like "incidents of media manipulation, such as A and B, which have been dubbed "Pallywood" by C". In other words, something that specifically links the term with the incidents alleged to be examples of the phenomenon described by the term. -- ChrisO 11:32, 25

February 2007 (UTC)

I concur with ChrisO on all points but number 5. My reasoning is that this could as easily be an article about the documentary (in fact, it may potentially be better presented that way, with the extended use of the term a section within the article). It would be inappropriate to cite Landes as an expert showing that a particular act of alleged propaganda was false, but if we are talking about the film, it is acceptable for the film to be a source about itself, e.g. "Pallywood alleges that X". It is very difficult to write such material in a NPOV-compliant way, and it also woudl tend to attract editors adding material to the instances to prove or disprove the claim, so a cautious approach is best. But I don't see why, having cited Pallywood as the origin of the term, we can't describe its contents; it's probably what most people expect to find at the name. --Dhartung | Talk 17:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, up to a point. However, I'm not convinced that the film itself is notable - see the proposed criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (films)#Basic Guideline. Are any of these criteria met for the film, particularly the one about it being "the subject of multiple, significant published works, whose source is independent of the film and its creators/producers"? It would be helpful if anyone could find any examples of such works - I've looked but haven't found much. This excludes blogs, by the way! -- ChrisO 17:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with ChrisO. I also think that if this article exists, it should be about the documentary. Attempts to make it push a particular POV need to be monitored closely. Park3r 20:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

POV pushing

ChrisO, it's become quite clear that it's your personal agenda to eliminate this article about "palestinian lies about israel" from existance... why don't you give this POV pushing a rest? last i checked there was a voting which resolved on "almost keep" and not a "delete" descision. Jaakobou 16:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I note that you haven't responded to any of my points above. Please go and read Wikipedia:Attribution to see why original research isn't allowed. The AfD discussion (not a poll) didn't reach a consensus to either delete or keep the article, but there were plenty of detailed comments about poor sourcing and original research. The results of an AfD discussion do not override standing Wikipedia policy on attribution. I should add that at no point have I made any political arguments, nor have I any intention of making any - this is about cleaning up an unsatisfactory article, not about pushing any POVs. I suggest that you assume good faith and confine your arguments to policy, not politics. -- ChrisO 16:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Jaakobou, could you please try discussing this rather than repeatedly reverting? You assert that "links support al-dura case under pallywood". Who makes this connection? If it's you who's making the connection, it's original research and can't be included. WP:SYN explicitly disallows that: "Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article in order to advance position C. However, that would be an example of an unpublished synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and it constitutes original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article." -- ChrisO 18:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it is you who have misread the policy you're stating. The article very explicitly is about the alleged practice of fabricating media events, not on the usage of the term. If there is an allegation of fabricated media events - by that definition - it can be covered under this article. We do this all the time - Bach applied lots of complex musical theory in his work without giving it a name, but nobody thinks twice about characterizing it with those terms after the fact. This is not a complex leap, and I have to agree with Jaakobou, that your attempts at a de facto deletion of the article looks suspiciously like an attempt at deleting the article itself. --Leifern 23:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Let me repeat my question: who is making the connection between any specific incident and "Pallywood"? You? Someone else? If it's someone else, who? Are they a reliable source? -- ChrisO 00:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

the film 'jenin, jenin' is attributed as palestinian fabrication (i.e. pallywood) both in the frontpagemag article about muhamad bakri admitting fraud and also in the couner-film made by pierre rehov. both reliable enough sources on a subject such as a (widely used) neologism. and same is the case with both the al-dura death and the gaza beach incident. now, let me repeat my question - first you try to front up delete the article, and when that fails, you and a friend hijack the page and revert any attempt to re-enter materials you've deleted (28 reverts/deteltions in past 14 days feb25 to mar11). why don't you give this POV pushing a rest? Jaakobou 09:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're still avoiding the question. Frontpagemag doesn't even use the term "Pallywood" in relation to this incident. The connection is being made by you yourself - it's a textbook example of original research. As for POV pushing, what I'm seeing here is an attempt by political activists to use Wikipedia to promote their personal views in blatant defiance of Wikipedia's fundamental policies. The unwillingness of some people to answer my questions about sources speaks volumes, as does their constant willingness to accuse others of "POV pushing". This isn't a political issue - it's about whether you're willing to follow Wikipedia's core policies. -- ChrisO 11:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I looked up the core policies, your insistance on the word "pallywood" in the article is not part of the policy. also doubling up to by-pass the revert rules and POV pushing. did you see the pierre rehov counter video? did you see the 'jenin, jenin' mention in the landes article? is the film not created by palestinains in order to make israel look bad? all you seem to be contesting is the lack of usage of the word 'pallywood' on frontpagemag... and this after you've nearly deleted the entire article. Jaakobou 11:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

POV edits

This article is about alleged attempts at staging media events for a certain purpose. It is inappropriate and in gross violation of NPOV to delete references to such allegations, twist the meaning of the topic, and characterize as "right wing" those who seek to document it. The AFD was about one issue only, namely whether the article should exist - it is not appropriate to cite comments related to the AFD page to justify deleting sections. I am sorry if this topic creates too much cognitive dissonance for some of you, but you are still bound by policies and guidelines. --Leifern 23:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you maybe misunderstand the purpose of an AfD. They act as reviews of articles - not merely whether they should be deleted or not, but if they are to be kept, what changes should be made to improve them. The AfD highlighted a considerable amount of original research in the article (discussed at length above - see point 2). The outcome of an AfD does not give carte blanche for editors to ignore Wikipedia's basic policies, such as the ban on including OR. As you point out, "you are still bound by policies and guidelines". Hence the removal of the OR from the article. On the point about "right wing bloggers" versus "media critics", the referenced Toronto Star article specifically says "Right-wing bloggers have dubbed that [alleged media manipulation] "Pallywood."" If you want to say "media critics", I suggest you find a reliable source that says media critics. -- ChrisO 00:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

ChrisO, it is in fact your opinion that Pallywood is used by "right-wing bloggers," and just because one newspaper article says it's so, doesn't make it true. I might have used the term, and I am most certainly not a right-wing blogger. And you are right: an AFD does not give editors a carte blance to ignore basic policies, but it seems that you think it's appropriate to blank entire sections of the article based on your own opinions. The AFD didn't "highlight" any original research, except in your own wishful thinking. --Leifern 02:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Really, this isn't complicated. Let me spell it out for you:

1) WP:ATT says: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true." The Toronto Star says right-wing bloggers, not media critics, Marxists or Martians. Therefore we go with whatever the reliable source says - in this case, right-wing bloggers. It's original research to go beyond what the source says (and I shouldn't need to say that your own affiliations are completely irrelevant in this respect).

2) You seem to think it's appropriate to include entire sections of an article based on original research (had you forgotten the detailed analysis done by Chrislk02 in the AfD discussion?). I actually have no objection to including "examples of Pallywood" but they must be attributable to a reliable source that explicitly makes that connection. WP:ATT again: "Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article in order to advance position C. However, that would be an example of an unpublished synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and it constitutes original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article." Let me repeat my question above, since you haven't answered it yet: who is making the connection between any specific incident and "Pallywood"? You? Someone else? If it's someone else, who? Are they a reliable source? -- ChrisO 08:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

ChrisO, you have a lot of work ahead of you if you want to apply these principles to all of Wikipedia, but I suspect your position is uniquely created for this article. The term "Pallywood" applies to the phenomenon of fabricating media events about the coverage, and article is about this phenomenon, or rather allegations of it, whether or not the term "Pallywood" is invoked. Otherwise, we'll be playing a game of "Simon Says," which is childish. To make this clear, the explicit connection must be made between the general (news stories are fabricated) to the specific (examples of news stories being fabricated). Wikipedia is not a dictionary, so there is no burden to illustrate uses of the term. The "right wing bloggers" comment is poisoning the well, and for all we know that may have been the Toronto Star's intention. I can't imagine that the journalist meant to assert that it only exists in this context. --Leifern 18:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I do try to apply those principles to the Wikipedia articles that I edit. I have two featured articles under my belt, and four articles that I started have been on the main page in the last six weeks (see Piraeus Lion, Fjuckby, Minute Women of the U.S.A. and Alaska Mental Health Enabling Act). That's not a coincidence - I aim to write high-quality articles, using only reliable sources. Read my contributions, if you don't believe me. I acted on this particular article because it struck me as an example of a very poor piece on a controversial subject. Wikipedia deserved and deserves better. ChrisO 19:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Avoiding an edit war

Since CJCurrie and ChrisO seem intent on tag-teaming reversions to a gutted-out version of the article, let's see if we can pre-empt an edit war by examining the following premises:

• This article is about (alleged) events that fall under the definition of Pallywood. It is not a dictionary item about the proper use of the term.
• The AFD debate included a lot of discussion. There is no basis to take any of the assertions made during that discussion as an actionable consensus about the article itself.
• It must therefore follow that:

• Invoking supposed "analyses" or "themes" from the AFD has no other standing for editing decisions other than for reference.
• References to the alleged events are valid even if they don't contain the term "Pallywood."

--Leifern 18:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I note that you're avoiding my questions yet again. Let me repeat them for you once more: who is making the connection between any specific incident and "Pallywood"? You? Someone else? If it's someone else, who? Are they a reliable source? The more you avoid answering this, the more obvious it becomes that the section you want to add is merely your own personal original research. -- ChrisO 20:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

ChrisO:

• Please stop dropping unfounded allegations on my talk page. It only reflects poorly on you and doesn't help the discussion.
• I have, in fact, answered your question. To me - and I believe any reasonable reader - this article is not about the usage of the term Pallywood (in which case an exact match between the incident and phrase would be required), but about the types of incidents the term is supposed to describe. If the topic of the article is event fabrication for purposes of manipulating media impressions, the examples I have inserted are entirely appropriate and not at all original research. I think the case is very strong for this interpretation, as Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Please reflect a bit on this distinction. As it is, I have only deleted the "right wing bloggers" comment that was found to be inappropriate. --Leifern 21:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to keep repeating this until you answer it: who is making the connection between any specific incident and "Pallywood"? You? Someone else? If it's someone else, who? Are they a reliable source? -- ChrisO 21:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

You are committing a rhetorical fallacy, in that you are making an assumption that the link only exists if the word "Pallywood" exists in the reporting of the story. I challenge that premise, as I've explained before. --Leifern 21:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

News fabrication also here

Not that I'm surprised, but it turns out that the assertion that a "credible news source" has stated as a matter of fact that the term is adopted by right-wing bloggers, is false. The quote is lifted from a column by Antonia Zerbisias's op-ed column on the phenomenon. Op-ed columns are not valid news sources, and in any case her quote does not give basis for the phrasing in the article. --Leifern 19:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

By some

Chris, "by some" is a bit weasely and unnecessary, and not the best of writing. All terms are only used "by some." This term is fairly well known, and insofar as it's ever used, it's used to refer to the alleged staging of events in the Arab-Israeli conflict. It's never used "by others" to mean anything else. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you can think of an alternative formulation... I think we do need to note somehow that it's a politically loaded term, used for a specific political effect by a fairly narrow group of political activists. It certainly isn't in general use and we shouldn't give the impression that it is. I did a Factiva search on it yesterday which found only 13 hits, most of which were the NY Times article which we've already cited, Landes' own press releases or a couple of Michelle Malkin's opinion columns. I've found no evidence that it's in wider use in politics, the media or academia. -- ChrisO 10:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:LEAD: "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any. It should be between one and four paragraphs long, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear and accessible style so that the reader is encouraged to read the rest of the article. Small details that appear in the full article should be avoided in favor of a very brief overview of the article." We need to use the lead to define the three key facts about the term: (a) what it means, (b) where it comes from and (c) who uses it. These three elements are then discussed further in the rest of the article, but the lead by itself should provide enough information for the reader to get the overall gist. -- ChrisO 11:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Since there seems to have been some confusion on this issue, I haven't deleted SlimVirgin's references in the lead - I've simply moved them down to "Alleged examples" to support the examples given there. -- ChrisO 11:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your question, your edits to that specific section were included with a whole series of other edits; perhaps you should make less controversial edits separately from the controversial ones. Also, is it 100% clear that Landes coined the term, and first used it in the documentary? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I was wondering that too. Why do we think Landes coined it? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, I've addressed that below. I think you have a good point.

Jayjg, might I suggest that making reversions without bothering to read what you're reverting isn't a good idea? You did it twice, even after I'd flagged it up on your talk page. Please don't engage in sloppy reverts like that - it doesn't help anyone! -- ChrisO 00:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Frontpagemag article

I have no general opinion on the reliability or otherwise of Frontpagemag, but I note with concern that the article itself is basically a repackaged report from WorldNetDaily.com. That I do have a problem with! WorldNetDaily is a widely ridiculed publication with a poor reputation for factual accuracy (it's not nicknamed WorldNutDaily for nothing!) and I have a very hard time thinking of it as a reliable source. I don't think it does much good for our own credibility if we use WND as a source, even indirectly. -- ChrisO 10:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Alleged examples

I've significantly revised this section of the article. Since the term is Landes', it seemed sensible to cite the specific incidents that he considers to be part of this alleged phenomenon. As has already been pointed out above and in the AfD discussion, it's original research for editors to assert that A is an example of B, where the original source doesn't make that connection (it's a textbook example of synthesis, as discussed at WP:SYN). But since Landes does make that explicit A-B connection, I think it's OK to cite that. -- ChrisO 10:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Chris, I'm surprised at you. Please don't remove sources. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

This is reminding me of certain editors at Islamophobia who try to stop sources being used unless they actually use the term "Islamophobia." So even if they're talking about prejudice against Muslims, even if it's clearly the kind of post-9/11 stuff that the term Islamophobia refers to, they still try to keep the sources out. We shouldn't engage in that here. If the source is clearly talking about the same phenomenon that the term "Pallywood" refers to, we have no reason to exclude it, especially when it's simply being used as a back-up source. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

It's worth stressing that it must be very clear that the same phenomenon is being discussed. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm surprised at you, given your close involvement with the development of WP:ATT. Might I remind you of WP:SYN? Your jewishworldreview.com article doesn't make any mention of "Pallywood", unlike the other two sources you've cited - using it the way you have is a classic example of synthesis (A - "Pallywood = media manipulation", B - "incident X was media manipulation", therefore C - "Pallywood = incident X"). I've raised this point repeatedly on this talk page but some of the other participants have repeatedly declined to answer it - would you care to comment? -- ChrisO 11:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Here you go, the latest example: Karl Meier won't allow us to refer to country polls of people saying they hate Muslims, because the pollsters didn't use the term "Islamophobia." Please let's not engage in that kind of editing here. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Chris, I found one source that referred to Dura as an example, and which used the term "Pallywood," and then I added other sources to support that view of the Dura incident, without that specific word. It really is verging on WP:POINT to insist that every single source cited in an article use a particular vocabulary. There is nothing in ATT that indicates editors should do that; on the contary, the policy says it should never be used for disruption and editors are expected to apply it with common sense.

Please tell me: do you feel that only sources who actually use the term "Islamophobia" should be permitted on that page? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Please don't change the subject. I'm not asking about the term "Islamophobia", which is a pretty well understood and widely used term in any case (conspicuously unlike "Pallywood", I note - I'd never even come across the term before seeing this article). Also, please don't avoid the question. Your sources certainly support the assertion that the Dura incident was "media manipulation", but do they support the assertion that the Dura incident was connected to Landes' claim of "Pallywood"? Why isn't it synthesis to make this connection, particularly as you seem to be making the connection, not the sources? I have no objection to citing Landes' own connection of the two, which is why I cited him, but you seem to be going beyond the sources here. -- ChrisO 11:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Looking again at the sources from your version of the lead paragraph, I see that two of them do specifically cite "Pallywood" in the context of the al-Dura incident. I've moved them to the "Alleged examples" rather than deleting them (my mistake). -- ChrisO 11:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

You certainly did delete sources in this edit. And I'm not changing the subject. There are editors who feel that Islamophobia is not an established term, but is just a neologism used to stifle criticism. Those editors are therefore insisting that we use only sources that use that precise term. My question to you is whether you agree with that; and if not, why you're doing it here. And don't say "because this is not an established term," because that just begs the question. The point is that it's a poor and highly POV way to edit, so I hope it doesn't happen here too. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

As for this not being a well-known term, it's well known among journalists who work in the Middle East, and not only since 2005, so I wonder which sources say Landes made it up. I definitely heard it years ago. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to get drawn into whatever battles you're fighting on Islamophobia. I will note, though, that there's a big difference in the degree of usage of the two terms, as a look at Google Books shows. A search for "Islamophobia" returns 557 books using the term, many of which are serious academic studies by well-established authors. A search for "Pallywood" returns just one result, about "Mayor Don "Pally" Dimaio", whoever he is - obviously nothing to do with Landes' usage. Similarly, Factiva returns hundreds of results for "Islamophobia" but only 13 for "Pallywood", most of which are either Richard Landes' own press releases, a Michelle Malkin column and multiple copies of a New York Times article with a throwaway reference to the term. It may be "well known" among journalists - actually I wouldn't be surprised given the mau-mauing they've had from partisan activists - but they certainly haven't written about it. In short, as far as reliable sources go, the term appears to be utterly marginal. That's why I nominated the article for deletion in the first place! -- ChrisO 18:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

What you say now about "Pallywood" was true until recently of "Islamophobia," and the anti-Islamophobia-term editors were arguing their case then, and still, and will likely be arguing it in 10 years time, because it has nothing to do with the facts and everything to do with POV. We should simply report who has used this term and in what context, and if there are other sources discussing exactly the same context, even without using the term, we can clearly use them as sources too, so long as there's no doubt that that's what they're talking about. In other words, if we have at least one source who uses the term, the subject falls with the purview of this article, so long as we stick narrowly to discussing "the alleged staging of news events by Palestinian and other cameramen to portray Israel in an unfavorable light," and don't start discussing the issue (e.g. media coverage of Jenin) in general. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

"Conservative and neo-conservative"

There is no basis for this qualifier. The Toronto Star citation is an opinion piece and is therefore not a legitimate source for this. Landes describes himself as a left-of-center person. --Leifern 13:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

3RR

Chris, in case you haven't noticed, you seem to have violated 3RR. I've left a note on your talk page. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - it's hard to track all the changes when you're in the process of being piled-on... -- ChrisO 21:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Question for Jayjg

(copied to Jayjg's talk page)

Jay, what is it about the following sentence that you find so objectionable that you have to revert it:

• original - "The term was coined with the publication of a short 2005 documentary video Pallywood, produced by American historian Richard Landes of Boston University, in which he argued ..."

• revised version - "Professor Richard Landes of Boston University originated the term in a short 2005 documentary video Pallywood, in which he argued ..."

Disclaimer: I wrote both versions but I feel the second works better - it's shorter, punchier and gives Landes' academic status. So why don't you like it? I've already asked for your input on your talk page, but you haven't bothered replying either to that or to my comments under #By some above. -- ChrisO 21:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Originating Pallywood?

Chris, why do you say Landes originated the term (not sure that's very good English)? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'll forgive the grammar. ;-) You have a good point... Landes himself isn't very enlightening (see [3]). I've found an isolated example of the term being used in 2002 ([4]). The first mention of the term in connection with Landes that I've been able to find is here, in French ([5] ). I suspect that the term may have been invented on multiple occasions - it's not exactly original to portmanteau-ise Hollywood with something else (compare Nollywood, Tollywood and Kollywood for examples). But the first reliable usage of the term that I've been able to find is Landes himself. I think Leifern's current version of the "origins" section is fair enough - we don't really have enough evidence to tie it directly to Landes, but he certainly seems to have been the chief populariser of the term. -- ChrisO 23:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I feel that we're adding OR to the article by trying to guess where it was first used. I know that it's been used by ME commentators for many years, but where we'd find that written down, I don't know. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, take a look at this, from Boston U's own internal newspaper: [6] It says specifically "Landes claimed many scenes of violence against Palestinians are staged and coined the term "Pallywood" to describe the industry that produces this footage." Since it's obviously sourced to Landes himself (who's interviewed in the article) I think we have our reliable source. -- ChrisO 00:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Chris, you're continuing to revert. [7] Any undoing of another editor's work is a revert; see WP:3RR. By all means, add material, but please don't keep undoing my edits. Would you mind putting that material back where it was? We shouldn't start with Landes as though he invented the term, because he clearly didn't. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Umm, no, that's not a revert. I'm not undoing your edit, I'm simply changing its order in the paragraph. 100% of your words are still in the article - nothing whatsoever has been removed. Regarding starting with Landes, it seems the logical thing to do given that Landes' usage of the term is basically what the entire article is about. I suppose I could live with it being at the start of the paragraph though. -- ChrisO 00:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Any undoing of another editor's work counts toward 3RR. Please read the policy. I added that material to the beginning of the section for a reason, namely that I wanted it to be there, and you've moved it. You keep wanting to draw attention to Landes as the first user, the first popularizer, whatever, and I think that's OR or, at best, not entirely clear. All I'm asking is that you add material without undoing what I've written, and I'll try to do the same for you. In that way, we can cooperate, instead of editing in conflict. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

(I can't believe I'm having to do this.) Please go and look at http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Undo : "To reverse the effects of an action." Your edit was not reversed. 3RR does not prohibit amending an edit (unless "undoing" has suddenly acquired a meaning which isn't in the dictionary). Claiming that an amendment which kept 100% of your text intact - moving it down two lines - was a "reversion" is just silly. -- ChrisO 01:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Chris, what's your source for "Although Professor Richard Landes of Boston University has often been credited with coining the term ..." You gave only one example, the Molly Hunt article. Also, why start with "although," when you can simply start with what came first? Starting with "although" is you trying to build the case that Landes is the first usage that matters; it's OR. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Google for "pallywood landes coined". You'll find quite a lot of people crediting Landes, although from the look of it quite a few of them seem to be quoting the Molly Hunt article. As for Landes being "the first usage that matters", haven't we already effectively stated that (or at least Leifern has) with the line about Landes popularizing it? Popularizers do tend to be the first important users of a concept, surely? And I note that Jayjg seems to agree with my view given his latest edit to the article ([8]). -- ChrisO 01:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Note: Please see the village pump policy discussion regarding the title of this article

here. Thanks. --Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 17:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

No one seems to be talking about this article specifically. I should like to point out that I intend to edit this article as an entry on a neologism (which arguably doesn't really need its own entry) and if we want an article about media manipulation/fabrication in the Arab/Palestinian-Israeli conflicts then we need to have a separate article with a much more neutral name (such as "Allegations of..." or "Media Manipulation in the Arab-Israeli Conflict"). Currently Media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (which could probably deal with this sufficiently) redirects here, which is inappropriate. --Coroebus 20:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Toronto Star Article

Here's the relevant section for future reference:

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."

--Coroebus 20:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg's revert

Thanks. Please don't remove valid references, and please don't start sections with "Although", a word to avoid. Also, the word is extremely widely used; it gets 160,000 Google hits. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I removed references for valid reasons (see the diffs), for example because they did not use the term in the text. Please justify each citation with reference to my reasons given. You may not like my use of the word "although" but your reference to WP:WTA is meaningless in the context ("These words can imply that one alternative is less favored than another" hardly applies to this situation). The word may be widely used but that is also irrelevant if you do not have sources to back up the claims in the article - please not that I have left in primary sources that you would usually remove if they disagreed with you as OR. I find your blind revert in bad faith, please engage with my reasoning --Coroebus 23:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Notability questions

I'd like to return to an issue that came up during the recent AfD discussion: the question of notability. Several of the contributors to the discussion asserted that the subject of the article was notable, but without explaining why. I'm still not convinced that is notable. I'm open to persuasion, though, so I'd like to ask other contributors for their thoughts.

I think there are possibly four angles to the subject matter of the article, each one of which raises some questions:

1) The general issue of alleged media manipulation. The subject is clearly notable, but it's already addressed in considerable detail at Media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Why is this a separate article rather than a subsection of the "Media coverage" article?

2) The neologism "Pallywood". I'm not convinced that this neologism is notable. As the references show, it's barely been mentioned by the mainstream media. It's certainly not being used regularly by any media source that I can find, and only certain partisan bloggers seem to be using it regularly. If the use of a term is almost entirely confined to non-notable, non-reliable sources, is that term really notable?

3) Richard Landes' film "Pallywood". This definitely seems to fail notability requirements. It's really only a personally authored video essay (only 17 minutes long, I gather). I've never seen it reviewed in any reliable source, it has no IMDB entry, it's purely self-distributed, etc. The fact that it's entirely a self-published What makes it notable?

4) Richard Landes' political views. "Pallywood" the film is essentially a vehicle for Landes' personal political views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Landes is a medieval historian; he's not an expert on the I-P conflict, he's never published any academic papers or books on it, as far as I know he's not written newspaper articles about it and his self-published material appears not to have been quoted by any mainstream sources that I've come across. His own user page at Boston University makes no mention of his Middle Eastern activism [9]. In short, it appears to be an entirely private endeavour, separate from anything he's doing academically. Clearly this falls well outside the scope set out by WP:ATT: "Where a well-known, professional researcher, writing within his or her field of expertise has produced self-published material, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as his or her work has been previously published by reliable, third-party publications" (my bolding). Why are Landes' personal views notable, given that he's acting in a personal capacity outside his field of expertise and doesn't seem to be regarded by mainstream sources as an expert (or even a reliable source) on Middle Eastern affairs?

I think there's a strong rationale for saying that Landes' film and political views aren't notable, but as I said, I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise. What do the rest of you think? -- ChrisO 00:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)