Talk:Pallywood

Earlier discussion:

• /archive1
• /archive2

Bringing this article in line with WP:NOR and WP:NEO

User:Jayjg is doing important work right now on the parallel article Jewish lobby; his overdue improvements there should be a model for us here. Specifically, he's emphasized the important distinction between primary-source material that uses the term and secondary source-material that discusses the term itself: "I'm going to have to ruthlessly remove any sources which are mere example of the terms usage, rather than discussions of the term, per WP:NOR and WP:NEO." He's also emphasized how the distinction applies on a sentence-by-sentence level within a single source (i.e. a sentence discussing the term is fine, but a sentence that goes on to describe what the "Jewish lobby" does needs to be removed). We should employ something of the same ruthlessness here; it may well mean that the sections on "Media in the Gaza Strip" and "Other examples" will have to be dropped in their entirety.--G-Dett (talk) 21:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Please don't start with wikilawyering again. Even if you're right, the section to be removed would be the "usage" section, not the material you don't like. <<-armon->> (talk) 00:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Read the post above, and then see WP:NEO: "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." This is an article about the neologism "Pallywood." The "usage" section is what's appropriate, per WP:NEO; most (but not all) of the other material belongs in Media coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict. We need to remove any sources which are mere example of the terms usage, rather than discussions of the term, per WP:NOR and WP:NEO.--G-Dett (talk) 01:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

This edit was sensibly motivated, and not by "wikilawyering". The most egregious section, "Media in the Gaza Strip," is a recapitulation of a single piece by a (credible) German journalist which happens to use the term "Pallywood," once. It really has no place here per WP:COATRACK; this article is supposed to be about the term. I'm not sure if reference to Durrah should be excised entirely, since it appears to be the keystone of the whole "Pallywood" opinion and thus important for understanding the term. Removal of the "In his video..." section probably went too far; I would cut out about half of it. Something like

In his video, Landes shows Arab-Israeli conflict-related footage, mostly taken by freelance Palestinian video journalists. He believes that systematic media manipulation (which he dubs "Pallywood") dates back to at least the 1982 Lebanon War, and argues that broadcasters are too uncritical of the bona fides of Palestinian freelance footage.

Landes' video is important to understanding the term, but we should avoid giving undue weight to his conclusions, beyond what's necessary to understand what the term "Pallywood" means.

The section on Frum should be removed. It's again just an example of usage, and undue weight. A7 (somehow left in before) most certainly should be removed, since it's an extremist, hateful source representing a fringe view. <eleland/talkedits> 01:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

These are sensible suggested changes; I'll make them now. I left in A7 because it actually discusses the term. I don't know much about it as a source, so I'll leave that to you.--G-Dett (talk) 01:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem of identification

Our article currently refers to a statement made by the Israeli network Arutz Sheva, but does not inform readers that this network is widely regarded as be one of the most nationalistic media outlets in Israel, with a strong bias toward a specific variety of right-wing, pro-settler Religious Zionism.

While I recognize the need to avoid describing this group in terms that could skew the discussion (a point that was made in a past dispute involving David Frum), I also think it's misleading for us to leave the reader with no clue as to Arutz Sheva's broader perspective. Could someone suggest a means of resolving this situation? CJCurrie (talk) 21:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Unlike New antisemitism this article is seeking NPOV by being very short...oh well. In this particular case, Arutz-Sheva is cited for an assertion that they make; and it's pretty clear from the assertion what side they are on in this particular issue. We could preface the statement with something like "Arguing for the acceptance of the term..." to make that abundantly clear. But I think we'll run into well-poisoning accusations if we try to characterize the media outlet further. --Leifern (talk) 21:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this is necessarily true. We often identify authors and media outlets with a brief statement that outlines their experience/credibility/focus/perspective etc. I recognize the need to avoid well-poisoning, but I don't believe that identifying A7 as Religious Zionist or right-wing is inherently problematic (except perhaps insofar as the former label could be interpreted as tainting all Religious Zionism by association with these crackpots, but that's another matter entirely). CJCurrie (talk) 21:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

They are cited for a very specific allegation, namely the adoption of a term. We're not using them as a source for the prevalence of fake/staged news events, etc. I realize that you think we should qualify a source and certainly buy reasons for doing so in certain cases; but it's a slippery slope, as many would characterize the Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation and BBC as news outlets with a clear and consistent anti-Israeli bias. So unless we want to accept that kind of description every time any of these is cited for any news item that might be construed as critical to Israel; we have to have a very good reason for qualifying Arutz-7 in this case. --Leifern (talk) 21:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm aware of the "slippery slope" argument as well, but I can't help but think there's a greater risk in providing no qualifying description of this rather extreme source. CJCurrie (talk) 22:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

More examples needed?

I was surprised to see few actual examples of the phenomenon on the page, e.g., staged scenes such as those publicized in the last few days: the Hamas candle incident and Arafat's donation photo op. I don't want to weight the article too much towards recent stories, so perhaps we should compile examples of this, so that the al-Durrah incident isn't the only example. A disinterested party reading this could come to the conclusion that the al-Durrah incident was the only significant example of this phenomenon, when it's just the most widely publicized example. Calbaer (talk) 22:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

This is not an article about allegations of media manipulation or fabrication, but an article about the term "Pallywood". That distinction is important because otherwise the article becomes structurally biased in that it only discusses Palestinian manipulation & fabrication. Neither source provided uses the term "Pallywood". Examples for the term should be reserved for those cases which are relevant to understanding the term. <eleland/talkedits> 22:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Sadly that is apparently not what the article is about, but rather about media fabrication, the POV title is the result of majority (even if partisan) opinion (see [1]). Of course consensus changes. --Coroebus 20:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Eh, no it's not. It is, and was always intended to be, about media manipulation and fabrication. It's limited in scope the way you describe because of repeated blanking vandalism. --Leifern (talk) 03:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll ignore the hysterical claim of vandalism. If you're serious, you need to explain why an article titled with a WP:NEOlogism is somehow exempt from the relevant guideline; to support 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. An editor's personal observations and research are insufficient to support use of neologisms because this is analysis and synthesis of primary source material. (No original research)

I'm quoting directly from the guideline, and furthermore, the guideline is only a straightforward application of WP:V and WP:NOR. <eleland/talkedits> 03:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's also not forget that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. It's been apparent from the start that some editors want to use this article to state this "phenomenon" - which may or may not exist - as a fact. If you have a look at Leifern's very first version of this article you can see what I mean, in the way that he describes highly contentious claims as if they were established facts. You can see the same sort of thing above in Calbaer's comments about the al-Durrah incident - I take it that he's a supporter of the minority POV that it was faked. We need to avoid this kind of one-sidedness; it's a fundamental breach of WP:NPOV. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

ChrisO, if you're going to misrepresent my actions, it would be helpful to your case if you didn't refer to something that directly disproves your point. The version you point to clearly states that the fabrication are "alleged." Nowhere do I make contentious claims out to be factual, and in fact at every turn I have avoided doing that.--Leifern (talk) 16:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I might have misread your intentions - if so, I apologise. Nonetheless, if you look at the two AfDs on this article you'll see that many editors have supported the retention of the article on purely partisan grounds, i.e. because they believe there's a "phenomenon" and want to assert that on Wikipedia. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that accusations of media fraud in a conflict that is so saturated with media coverage are serious and notable enough that they deserve an article that lays out the basis for the accusations as well as the evidence/arguments against it. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and I've always been open to changing the title to "Charges of news falsification against Israel" or something along those lines. --Leifern (talk) 15:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Beware that what you propose may violate WP:POVFORK. For allegations of media bias as well as arguments against it, please see Media Coverage of the Arab-Israeli Conflict. The Pallywood article should limit itself to describing the film by that name. ← Michael Safyan ^(talk) 23:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Ehm, no it shouldn't. Look, I know what some editors are trying to do here. They don't like the subject matter, as it embarrasses their strongly held beliefs. So they reduce the meaning of the topic until it's so narrow it's no longer notable. --Leifern (talk) 15:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

An equally significant danger is that of WP:COATRACKing. The same rationale was used to justify the existence of a now-deleted "Barack Obama Muslim rumor" article; in practice, it just turned out to be an unencyclopedic collection of poorly-sourced rumours and conspiracy theories. Such articles are inherently incapable of being properly encyclopedic. To quote WP:COATRACK, "Often the main tool of a coatrack article is fact picking. Instead of finding a balanced set of information about the subject, a coatrack goes out of its way to find facts that support a particular bias. A common fact picking device is listing great amounts of individual peoples' quotes criticizing of the nominal subject, while expending little or no effort mentioning that the criticism comes from a small fraction of people. That small fraction thus gets a soapbox that is far larger than reality warrants. Even though the facts may be true as such, the proportional volume of the hand-picked facts drowns other information, giving a false impression to the reader." This article had exactly those same problems for a long time, until it was cleaned up (though it's still not ideal); if it was expanded along the lines of Leifern's suggstion, it would end up even worse than it originally was. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Correction: it would end up more disagreeable to your POV than it is. Media fraud is a well-known phenomenon at this point and is getting increasing attention. The fact that the criticism comes from a small number of people is completely irrelevant - the media fraud is documented and persists. Even Charles Enderlin is starting to fess up. --Leifern (talk) 15:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

(unindenting) My POV, as you call it, is simply that we have to follow Wikipedia's NPOV and sourcing policies, describe the arguments fairly and neutrally, and not give undue weight to views that have little or no support in reliable sources. The fact that "the criticism comes from a small number of people" is actually highly relevant, given our policy on undue weight. It's clear from your comments on Enderlin that you're a supporter of the al-Durrah conspiracy theory, but as I'm sure you're aware (or should be), you can't use Wikipedia as a platform to promote your POV, particularly if - as you've just acknowledged - it's the POV of a small minority in the debate. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Those motivations you claim, ChrisO, are scarcely in evidence in your edits. Such self-righteous proclamations, coupled with personal attacks, and unilateral efforts to gut the article, don't reassure me much. Enderlin has recently commented on other media fraud incidents lately, and I wasn't referring to his al-Durrah story directly or indirectly. I don't have any opinion on what happened with Mohammad al-Durrah, but I think there are a lot of unanswered questions related to the story. The death of a young boy is not a frivolous matter. If you see my comments on the matter on the relevant talk pages, it should be very clear what my view is. I don't know what your measure is of a "small minority" but the al-Durrah controversy and other alleged cases of media fraud are covered by pretty mainstream media outlets. --Leifern (talk) 14:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

First, I really don't appreciate your personal attacks and constant assumptions of bad faith. I'm not attempting to "gut the article" as you put it - simply, as I've already said, to make sure we follow Wikipedia's NPOV and sourcing policies. Second, your revert of my edits - complete with assumed bad faith in the edit summary - is very unhelpful and I would strongly advise you against using reverts in that way. To quote WP:REVERT, "Do not revert good faith edits. In other words, try to consider the editor "on the other end." If what one is attempting is a positive contribution to Wikipedia, a revert of those contributions is inappropriate unless, and only unless, you as an editor possess firm, substantive, and objective proof to the contrary. Mere disagreement is not such proof. See also Wikipedia:Assume good faith." Reverting because of WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not an endorsed editing method. I'll remind you of the sanctions imposed in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles, which I've asked to be implemented on this article as well. We need to ensure that constructive editing takes place on this article in future, in accordance with Wikipedia's policies, rather than the sort of aggressive and confrontation reverting that's been typical on articles in this topic area. To quote again: "Generally there are misconceptions that problematic sections of an article or recent changes are the reasons for reverting or deletion. If they contain valid information, these texts should simply be edited and improved accordingly. Reverting is not a decision which should be taken lightly."

I've therefore restored the edits that you reverted. If you disagree with my changes, let's discuss them here on the talk page, which is what's supposed to happen. To summarise the changes:

1) I've revised the article to focus on the two specific issues mentioned in the lead: Landes' video and the wider user of the term. The previous version had a section about Landes, then a section about other people's use of the term, then another section about Landes. The revised version is more coherent, focusing on Landes first then covering the wider use of the term. The al-Durrah subsection has been shortened, summarised and folded into the Landes section so that it's related specifically to Landes' video. I assume that Liftarn's use of the coatrack tag was related to that subsection; it's certainly not necessary to recap the al-Durrah story in much detail, particularly if we're focusing specifically on its relationship to Landes' video.

The article is not about the term. Was never intended to be about the term, shouldn't be about the term. If this reductionist outlook holds, I see no other recourse than to nominate the article for deletion. --Leifern (talk) 22:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The article isn't solely about the term. It never has been. Excluding the lead, something like 60% of it is about Landes' video. I've actually expanded the coverage of this aspect. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

2) WP:UNDUE is an essential element of NPOV. I've therefore taken out the bit about "Pallywood" being used on Usenet, as it's impossible to see this as being of any significance - it was used once by one completely unknown individual in an obscure newsgroup. It's impossible to relate it to any later usages, so we have no way of assessing its etymological importance. And Usenet is, of course, not a reliable source.

The purpose of the citation was to show that the term had been used before Landes used it. Please read previous discussions on this topic before making such edits, and also read what you delete. --Leifern (talk) 22:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

If the article isn't about the term, what's the need to show that it had been used before Landes used it? We don't know who coined the term, and we have no way of relating that early isolated example on Usenet to any later use of it. It's undue weight on an event of unknown significance, and to be honest it borders on WP:OR to be making such connections without having any reliable sources on which to draw. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

3) I've changed the line that read "Professor Richard Landes of Boston University is credited with having given the term currency in 2005." Who credited him with this and where? It's not supported in the sources as far as I can see. On the other hand, we can certainly say that he gave the term prominence, because our sources do support that.

No stronger case for one than the other, but I'm sure there's some purpose to it that escapes me. --Leifern (talk) 22:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

4) I've added some contextual and definition info from a recent Jerusalem Post article that (for once) specifically cites and defines the term.

5) I've removed a citation from Honestreporting.com, a Pajamas Media blog. Per this discussion, Pajamas Media isn't generally accepted as a "reliable, third-party, published source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" (to quote WP:V). It isn't necessary to quote it anyway - the same point is more than adequately covered by the genuinely reliable sources listed. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Chris's edits were sensible and in accordance with policy. We should not be relying on sources like "Honest Reporting," which is the website of an advocacy group, or on random Usenet postings from 2002. And we should not be portraying the al-Durra case as if it's widely regarded as "Pallywood" rather than the specific accusation of a specific source. I'm not sure why Leifern is so determined to portray this as vandalism or censorship. Can we just talk about it sensibly and in good faith? <eleland/talkedits> 00:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Eleland, please read previous discussions on this page. For example, the Usenet reference is simply documenting the first known use of the term, as people were - falsely - asserting that Landes coined the term. Chris's edits clearly altered the meaning of the article, something he knew to be contentious, and he went ahead and did it unilaterally without discussing it here. Then he goes running to admins complaining and crying that I reverted these edits, asking for further discussion instead. --Leifern (talk) 22:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the meaning of the article is just the same as it was before - it still covers Landes' video and it still covers the way the term has been used by others. Apart from the Usenet etymology and some excess detail on the al-Durrah case, almost all of the content that was in your revert is still in the article - it's merely organised slightly differently. There's actually more original content than there was before, since I've been able to add material from a Jerusalem Post story that specifically refers to "Pallywood". -- ChrisO (talk) 00:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd just like to pick up one point Leifern made that I missed in replying. Leifern said, "I don't know what your measure is of a "small minority" but the al-Durrah controversy and other alleged cases of media fraud are covered by pretty mainstream media outlets." On the al-Durrah matter, I've recently done a systematic survey of media and book coverage of the case, using some very comprehensive academic databases, and I've obtained some significant data on who has said what and when. I found only two newspapers (both, probably not coincidentally, owned by the same company) which actively supported the al-Durrah conspiracy theory - a small number of others reported on it but didn't support it. It's clearly a small minority POV as far as media coverage goes. This isn't really the place to discuss it, though; I'll write up the findings on Talk:Muhammad al-Durrah in due course. I also found a lot more material on the case which I'll add to the article. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

An example of Palestinian staged news from a reputable newspaper:

According to journalist Khaled Abu Tomeh, on at least two occasions in January, 2008, Hamas staged scenes of darkness and claimed that Israel had cut off the power flow into Gaza as part of its campaign to end the political and economic sanctions then being imposed against the Gaza Strip in response to Hamas rockets targeting civilian neighborhoods in Israel. American Clio (talk) 18:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)American Clio www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1201070777685

another example:

Another incident:

Shortly after the IDF incursion into Jenin, Israel released videotape showing a funeral being staged in Jenin. The “body,” wrapped in a green winding sheet, is showin being carried by pallbearers. When they drop it, the fake “body” stands up, unwraps the winding sheet and runs away.

http://edition.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/05/03/jenin.tape/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by American Clio (talk • contribs) 18:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC) American Clio (talk) 18:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)American Clio

Notification of Arbitration Enforcement

• Enforcement Noticeboard link (original request)
• Log of blocks and bans related to this enforcement

Under the discretionary sanctions imposed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles, this article has been placed on a one-revert rule. Any editor who makes more than one revert (and this revert must be discussed on the talk page) in a 7-day period will be blocked. Please edit cooperatively, and seek consensus and compromise rather than edit-war. ~Kylu (u|t) 01:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Article probation lifted (see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:ChrisO_gaming_WP:AE). -- tariqabjotu 19:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely not, and extremely bad form of you to do this unilaterally, Tariqabjotu. The discussion I read was about whether it was appropriate for ChrisO to revert the article to his preferred version before asking for the sanction. There does not seem to be any concern that Kylu acted incorrectly in placing the 1RR limit. If you want this reviewed, apply at WP:AE. Thatcher 02:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Removed again; this article does not need this just yet (see User talk:Thatcher#Pallywood restriction and WP:ANI#User:ChrisO gaming WP:AE). -- tariqabjotu 22:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Suggested new intro

I'm suggesting the following new intro, which I believe to be more accurate and better explains the topic. (current intro: [2])

Pallywood (a portmanteau of "Palestinian" and "Hollywood") is a controversial neologism that refers to news events where Palestinians have allegedly staged a crisis for the camera with the intent to portray Israel in an unfavorable light. The term, alongside less known others such as 'Hezbollywood' and 'Jenin massacre syndrome', is also used to support an accusation towards foreign journalists that they prefer manufactured news and hypes over the facts.

The term 'Pallywood' is perhaps best known in connection with an online documentary video, Pallywood: According to Palestinian Sources, which was produced by Boston University academic Richard Landes The term has also been adopted by a number of political commentators and right-wing bloggers.

Thoughts, suggestions? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

comment by Jaakobou: possible source for the hype text:

'Jenin massacre syndrome' by Sever Plocker, Yedioth Ahronoth.

I'm aware it does not use the term Pallywood, however, it uses 'Jenin Massacre Syndrome' and 'Palestinian "eyewitnesses,"' which seems like a clear part of the topic here. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions, Jaakobou - I've addressed them (indirectly) below. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

It would be better to have some direct address since I hope to have this inserted into the article. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Few changes, thoughts? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: I'm giving this a couple more days for comments and then, unless objections are expressed, inserting it. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 07:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I got tired of the wait but I'm still very open to suggestions/discussions. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) It's problematic in that it does not attribute the term correctly to rightwing/pro-israel bloggers, and it uses original research to link in the "massacre syndrome" article in order to sneak in the "prefers hype to facts" quote that you're so very, very fond of. The earlier version was fine. <eleland/talkedits> 05:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree. As I've said before, we have to be very careful about sticking closely to what our sources say, particularly where the subject is so contentious - there isn't room for personal interpretations. There are three particular problems (expanding on what Eleland says above):

1) The term isn't in general use and we need to be careful (for NPOV reasons) to attribute its usage properly, which this intro doesn't do. To quote WP:NPOV#Attributing and substantiating biased statements, "a potentially biased statement can be reframed into an NPOV statement by attributing or substantiating it. ... One way to make it suitable for Wikipedia is to change it into a statement about someone whose opinion it is."

2) The definition you provide "allegedly staged a crisis for the camera with the intent to portray Israel in an unfavorable light" isn't what the cited Jerusalem Post article says. Since it provides a concise definition of the term why not just quote it?

3) The last line about "alongside less known others" is pure original research. The ynetnews.com article that you cite doesn't say anything about "Pallywood" or draw a connection between that and controversies elsewhere. It's a case of synthesizing material to advance a position; to quote WP:SYN, "Synthesizing material occurs when an editor tries to demonstrate the validity of his or her own conclusions by citing sources that when put together serve to advance the editor's position. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research."

Hope this helps in terms of policy pointers. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Related diff: [3].

The article discusses a terminology with a certain meaning. What's important for the article is the meanning, not that each article relating this phenomena include the word "pallywood", this has been noted by numerous editors and it's reached a point where this is being brought up again and again in front of you ChrisO. Seeing that the issue of "article topic" is still unresolved - I'm asking for your suggestions that will be accepted by people interested in the general topic rather than the immediate 'Pallywood' word appearing on each article.

p.s. thank you for taking the time to join the discussion. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

But how do you determine what constitutes "the general topic"? As a source-based encyclopedia we can't use our own personal judgment to support the statement that "x is an example of y". To use an example from a completely unrelated field, if we want to say that "a supergiant is a star that is x, y and z" and "this star is an example of a supergiant", we need to have reliable sources for both statements. We're not qualified to state - indeed, we're prohibited from stating - such a thing on the basis of our own opinions or our own interpretations of the sources. We can't go beyond what our sources say and we can't synthesize our sources to advance a position that they don't cover, as both are canonical examples of original research.

There's a very practical reason why we need to be conservative in the way that we use our sources, quite apart from the policy aspects. People can dispute endlessly what the sources mean (and they can obviously dispute personal interpretations), but they can't dispute what the sources say. Thus, if the Jerusalem Post defines the term in a certain way and say that it's used by a certain community, someone might disagree with that on a personal level but it couldn't be denied that the Post had said it. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

You've missed my point. Many editors have presented that they are interested in the article being about the "meaning" and issues behind "Pallywood", rather than all the articles that have the word pallywood in them. We need to find an agreed upon solution to this issue before we can move on. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure many editors are interested in making this article a POV fork, but I hope that will not happen. // Liftarn (talk)

I'm sure that by communal discussions we can find a way to expand yet keep this issue encyclopedic and acceptable to the core editors. The question remains as to how we lay-out the plan for recording the related materials about the meaning and issues behind "Pallywood", rather than all the articles that have the word pallywood in them. Should we open some broad mediation to this issue or maybe you and/or ChrisO, who's been long-involved on the article can give a suggestion that might be acceptable to "the expansionists" among us? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

If articles isn't specificly about the word "Pallywood" then it would be WP:SYN to use them in the article. // Liftarn (talk)

Please read the paragraph again and let me know if you have problems following it. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

ChrisO, being that you're the main source for objection, I'd expect an attempt at discussion so we can resolve the material hangup. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 07:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I've been away over the last few days. I'm certainly not opposed to mediation. However, if it's to be of any use, we should first try to define what issues are to be mediated, and we need to be realistic about what can be achieved through mediation. In particular, policy requirements are non-negotiable - any outcome has to be compatible with policy, especially NPOV. Your position, if I understand it correctly, is that you want to expand this article into a more general discussion of alleged media manipulation. I'm not opposed to this in principle, but there are some significant practical issues that need to be addressed. In particular:

• How would an article on alleged media manipulation relate to the existing article on Media coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict? As Michael Safyan has rightly said, "Beware that what you propose may violate WP:POVFORK." How is it not a POV fork of that article?

• What would its scope be - the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the Arab-Israeli conflict or what?

• What would its title be? "Pallywood" would be a totally unacceptable title for a general article - it would be an endorsement of a highly partisan minority POV (to quote WP:NCON#Descriptive names, "Choose a descriptive name for an article that does not carry POV implications.") If you want a more general article, it must be renamed to a more neutral descriptive title. That requirement's non-negotiable, as it's necessary to meet WP:NPOV.

• Both sides would need to be represented fairly and in proportion to their significance, to avoid undue weight on small-minority POVs such as Landes' conspiracy theories. How would you represent the views of the Arab/Palestinian side?

• What sources would you use? Bear in mind (since this is something that comes up tediously often) blogs and personal websites are not reliable sources. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking that there's enough material out there about nicknames given to the phenomenon of palestinian and arab style of work with the media when israel is involved. I'm thinking we can break a generic article into subsections and expand if needed, but for now, we can use this article as a platform before breaking it off into parts. any other suggestions? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

p.s. blogs can be semi-reliable when reporting an uncontested, real phenomena.. esp. if you have secondary sources reporting on this phenomena. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Please respond. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment - I'm very displeased with the style of (lack of) communication/dispute resolution on this issue and am considering taking it to mediation. thoughts? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Pardon me? I was waiting for you to respond to the questions I asked above. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Like I've said, "I'm thinking we can break a generic article into subsections and expand if needed, but for now, we can use this article as a platform before breaking it off into parts. any other suggestions?" Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, this discussion is going nowhere and it's not that high on my "to-do" list of issues. I'll probably re-explore the problem at a later date. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment - It is not useful to load down the concept with constant use of pejoratives that do not advance the discussion (such as calling all people who discuss the subject as "pro-israeli"). First, one need not be "pro-israeli" and agree with the basic premise that media manipulation is a significant issue with regards to Palestinian sources in the Arab-Israeli conflict. The first paragraph proposed in this section would seem a perfect compromise if this is not to be a propaganda piece, a discussion of the concept, with a note that it has been adopted also by groups such as right wing writers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.183.100.98 (talk) 13:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Sticking to the sources

I think it would be a good idea if we had a fresh look at the cited sources to ensure that we're staying as close to them as possible. Since the Jerusalem Post has helpfully defined the term, attributing it to "pro-Israel media-watchdog advocates", I've quoted this directly in the lead. Leifern rightly flagged the "perhaps best known" line as weaselly, so I've gone back to the cited Boston Globe story, which states: "There has been heated debate in recent years whether the Duras were even struck by Israeli bullets during the gunfight or whether they were instead hit by wild Palestinian gunfire. A campaign led in part by Boston University Professor Richard Landes has sought to portray the Dura case as an example of "Pallywood," or theatrical Palestinian propaganda." [4] I think the last section, which Leifern wants to call "Other alleged examples", is a bit problematic - it won't be helpful to turn the article into a laundry list of miscellaneous claims of media manipulation (which would in any case be a POV fork of Media coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict). We need to stick as closely as possible to the sources; if they've used the term "Pallywood" to refer to an incident, fair enough; if not we can't describe it as an episode of "Pallywood" because we would have no source to make that connection (thus, original research and conceivably coatracking). We must also make sure that we don't endorse any of the claims made. I've therefore changed "He shows that systematic media manipulation..." to "He argues", as the first is an endorsement of his claims - per WP:NPOV#A simple formulation, "Assert facts, including facts about opinions — but do not assert the opinions themselves." -- ChrisO (talk) 08:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Media fraud is a notable enough topic to warrant its own article without being an NPOV fork or coatrack, much like "Crushing by Elephants" isn't a POV fork "capital punishment." This goes back to the rather bizarre premise that only media fraud characterized by a credible source as "Pallywood," then it can be mentioned here. The POV-pushing is more likely to come if we omit examples of an accusation because it doesn't include the magic word. --Leifern (talk) 12:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you even going to acknowledge that the language in WP:NEO exists? "Pallywood" is a partisan neologism with very limited traffic; it is known mainly in the rightwing blogosphere. It is no more appropriate to categorize all accusations related to Palestinian media manipulation as "Pallywood" than it is to create an article "Zionazi" including information on all right-wing or fascistic Israeli political parties. <eleland/talkedits> 13:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I have previously gone on record that I am fine with renaming the article. If it's only to be about a term (and I'll just ignore the imaginative assertion that it is "known mainly in the rightwing blogosphere"), then the article should be deleted. --Leifern (talk) 13:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The term has 2,747 Google blog hits and 41 Google News hits. Most of the "news" sources are unreliable; pretty much all the mainstream news coverage is included in this article already. For comparison the term "Zionazi" has 28 Google News hits. "Israeli Occupation Forces" + IOF has 1,630 News hits. Should we start an article "Israeli Occupation Forces?" I doubt that even a redirect to Israel Defense Forces would survive, let alone a private playground for pro-Palestinian bloggers in the vein of this crappy article. <eleland/talkedits> 13:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Might I remind everyone here that there is an article entitled Media Coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict (which I am currently rewriting here), and that allegations of pro-Israel/pro-Palestinian or anti-Israel/anti-Palestinian media bias belong in that article? This article should not be renamed, because the documentary Pallywood: According to Palestinian Sources... should have its own article; however, content pertaining to allegations of bias, in general, which do not appear in the film, should be moved to the media coverage article. ← Michael Safyan ^(talk) 21:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that reminder, Michael. I was going to make that point myself but you seem to have beaten me to it! It's also worth pointing out that the term "Pallywood" is not a general synonym for allegations of particular media bias - as Eleland points out, its usage is confined to a specific subcommunity which we consider inherently unreliable as a source - so it wouldn't be appropriate to use it that way. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, ChrisO; however, I must disagree with that argument. Unless one can find a source which can demonstrate the frequency with which the term "Pallywood" is used and in which communities, the argument that the Pallywood article should not include allegations due to a lack of notability become rather weak. More importantly, a.) an article already exists on the topic b.) allegations in the Pallywood article present only one side of the allegations, thereby constituting a POV-fork (whereas the media coverage article presents allegations of bias from both sides), and c.) the article should limit itself to discussing the film, since all uses of the term -- absent sources demonstrating to the contrary -- reference the film. ← Michael Safyan ^(talk) 00:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Having had a look at the sources, it's not strictly accurate to say that "all uses of the term reference the film". I've actually only found a handful of sources so far that specifically mention the film (it blatantly fails the notability criteria of WP:FILM, for instance). Most of the sources use the term in connection with the political campaign of which the film is a part, i.e. promoting a revisionist (or in Landes' case denialist) view of incidents such as the al-Durrah killing. I've only found two mainstream sources which have actually endorsed the term as a synonym for "media manipulation" - the Jerusalem Post and National Post of Canada. Both (probably not coincidentally) were owned at the time by the same proprietor, Conrad Black and started to use the term at the same time, albeit infrequently. However, I agree completely that the media coverage article should be the place for general discussion of the "media bias" allegations, and you're quite right that it would be unbalanced to present only one side of the argument. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

(off-discussion, but on topic) this source, is worth mentioning as a counter opinion/pov: - http://www.electronicintifada.net/v2/article5560.shtml Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Right wing bloggers

I recall being reverted whenever I wrote that "right-wing" bloggers were the main force behind the "Pallywood" accusations, and some skepticism about it on this talk page.

Landes said that within five days of the site's launch, it had been listed on more than 60 blogs, adding that the blogs in support of seconddraft.org were primarily politically conservative.

Hunt, Molly. "Boston U. professor claims media 'staged' footage of Middle east conflict." The Daily Collegian 2005-5-23

Hope that clears things up. <eleland/talkedits> 04:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Just be sure to include the references next to the phrase "right-wing". ← Michael Safyan ^(talk) 05:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Good find, Eleland. I note that it's from his own university's newspaper, so it's obviously an informed source. I suggest that it might be useful to add a paragraph at the end of the "documentary video" section describing responses/reactions to the video. I'll have a look through the sources to see if we can identify specific reactions - David Frum's National Post piece (cited in the article) comes to mind. The Boston Globe story also cited in the article describes the video as being part of "A campaign led in part by Boston University Professor Richard Landes" but it would be helpful if we could flesh that out a bit if we can. It might be worth going back to Landes' own website to see what he says about it. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Blogs as sources

I'm afraid we can't use blogs as sources for the statement that "some have dubbed [it] 'Hezbollywood'" - I'll explain why. WP:V#Self-published sources (online and paper) clearly states that self-published sources such as blogs are "self-published sources" and are "largely not acceptable." It goes on to say that self-published sources "should only be used in articles about themselves." As you'll note from my bolding, such usage is limited to articles about the blog in question. Hence (for instance) it's legitimate to cite posts from Little Green Footballs in that article, but not as a general reference source on other articles. Since Pallywood is not about any blog, we can't use blog sources in this article. There is also a general presumption against using blogs as reference sources for assertions about third parties (which would rule out blog sourcing for a general statement like "some have dubbbed..." - the third party is the "some" in that line). But if you can find a reliable source, which in this case probably means a mainstream newspaper, please go ahead and add the reference. -- ChrisO (talk) 03:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

It looks like at least one RS, a German daily newspaper, reported on bloggers' use of the term: [5]. Also Electronic Intifada had an article on the "Hezbollywood" slur, EI's a partisan website obviously, but the editors are quoted fairly often in mainstream media for an independent Palestinian view, and have published op-eds in major newspapers like the Financial Times, so I think they're reliable enough for attributed commentary on a partisan issue. <eleland/talkedits> 04:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

When it says that blogs should only be used "in articles about themselves," it means that they should not be relied upon except to describe the blog or its positions. I think you are interpreting the statement too literally, by assuming that a blog cannot be relied upon to describe itself or its positions, except in an article specifically about the blog. If a statement says that "at least one blog has used the phrase 'Hezbollywood'", it is perfectly legitimate to reference one such blog as proof that, indeed, at least one blog has used the term. ← Michael Safyan ^(talk) 05:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment: This article is about a (mostly) web-based neologism that became extremely famous. I'm aware that it 's not the best situation that we haven't found a higher authority reliable source, but clearly the material is true. So, it is expected that, with the desire to build the encyclopedia, editors can try to find better sources/rephrase, not delete the work of others. ChrisO, am I getting this wrong? do you have a reason to believe this information is false? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 07:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

When are you going to acknowledge the distinction between "which I personally like" and "that became extremely famous?" We've been going over this for a year now, and nobody has shown that this term has penetrated the real world beyond a handful of offhand RS mentions in stories about other topics. Again, look at the Zionazi or Israeli Occupation Forces (IOF) analogy: based on a rough survey of Google Web, News, Blog and Scholar searches, "Zionazi" has approximately the same level of "extreme fame" and "IOF" is considerably better-known. You just keep making the same assertions with the same lack of evidence, and it's exceedingly frustrating. <eleland/talkedits> 07:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Eleland,

1. I don't see a problem with writing a neutral article about the derogatory terms "Zionazi" and "IOF".. we can also insert "IsraHell" (a Latuff favorite) into that article somewhere.
2. per WP:CIV, I don't personally like the term Pallywood, so please make the comments content related rather than user related speculation.
3. I felt your recent edit (probably) helped resolve the situation. [6]

Cheers. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, good work (again) Eleland. Jaakobou, in answer to your question, I don't doubt that the information is true, but we have to be scrupulous in sourcing it - we have to be careful to use sources that won't be contentious or are otherwise questionable. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

If there is no reason to believe the input is false, please use the tags option and not the delete. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

You're right - apologies. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

ChrisO, which "information" do you not doubt the accuracy of? I guess I don't understand how the question of whether to mention "Hezbollywood" as constituting "similar allegations" hinges on when and how blogs can be cited. Allegations about activities of the media wing of Hezbollah, a Shia militant group and political party in Lebanon, have nothing whatsoever to do with allegations about stringers in the Palestinian occupied territories. The only connection is that both sets of allegations alight with a triumphant cackle upon a stupid and vulgar pun. We may as well write that "Similar allegations have been made by other media analysts, particularly after similar assertions of media manipulation (dubbed "Jew York Times" by some) in the context of the Arab-Israeli conflict..."--G-Dett (talk) 18:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have been clearer. I didn't doubt that some have used the term "Hezbollywood", since that's trivially provable. What I doubted was that it had been used by any reliable sources (I note that the israelinsider blog claims to have coined the term). -- ChrisO (talk) 08:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits

I would encourage the latest contributor to this article to look over WP:NOR. The recent edits (drawing in unrelated material from the 1930s and generally advancing a particular viewpoint) are simply not suitable. CJCurrie (talk) 06:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. In particular, please see WP:NOR#Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position. The recent edits are exactly the kind of thing that our synthesis policy prohibits. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

CJCurrie, Please do not blank out cited material just because it's inconvenient for your POV. --Leifern (talk) 14:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I thought some of the material was fine and some was not. I think the reversion was too extensive. Bigglove^talk 15:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The information about al-Durrah could be significant, however, I don't understand why we would discuss only the apparent new ballistics evidence, without mentioning the evidence which led Enderlin and the world media to believe al-Durrah really had been killed by the IDF, such as the fact that the IDF accepted responsibility for having killed him. We should also remove sources, like the Melanie Phillips/Spectator screed, which don't mention "Pallywood."

I think that this Jerusalem Post feature has a much better and more detailed treatment of the whole Enderlin/Durrah/Pallywood campaign than any source I've yet seen. Perhaps we should incorporate it. <eleland/talkedits> 16:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

This isn't the place to rehash the Al-Durrah story, much less insert POV commentary along the lines of "ZOMG!!111 LANDES WAS RIGHT!" (which, let's face it, is effectively what our latest contributor's efforts amount to). Al-Durrah material should be confined specifically to that which directly relates to Landes; leave the wider issues to the Al-Durrah article. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Consensus

Let me be clear here: there is no consensus on this article, Eleland's objections notwithstanding. What has happened is that a number of blatantly anti-Israeli editors have hijacked the article and narrowed its definition to the point that all relevant meaning is lost. To avoid getting into revert wars and other petty and non-productive arguments I only drop in every once in a while. But please don't insult all of us by claiming consensus. --Leifern (talk) 15:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I would certainly not claim that there is "consensus" for everything in the article. However, my impression is that the vast majority agree that this article is not about every allegation of media manipulation, fraud, or bias in the Isr-Pal conflict, but about that subset of allegations relating to "Pallywood." And there is a broad WP-wide consensus that personal commentary blogs are not reliable sources, which your recent revert defies. <eleland/talkedits> 16:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

No, the article is supposed to be about all media fraud perpetrated to put Israel in a bad light, whether or not the term "Pallywood" is invoked. It is not about Landes's video or the term itself. Your blanking of an entire section rather than the parts that you think violates RS guidelines illustrates the hijacking issue rather well. --Leifern (talk) 16:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, if you'd like the article to be about "all media fraud perpetrated to put Israel in a bad light," then perhaps you should move it to "Media fraud against Israel," where it will be promptly AfD'd, and closed either as delete or merge to Media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Or, you should explain why the entire WP:Avoid neologisms guideline should be contradicted, not to mention vast swathes of WP:NPOV, including Wikipedia:NPOV#Article naming, Wikipedia:NPOV#Article structure, Wikipedia:NPOV#Undue weight, Wikipedia:NPOV#Fairness of tone, and finally also Wikipedia:Content forking. Better get typing, Leifern, it's necessarily going to be a long explanation. <eleland/talkedits> 16:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Not surprisingly, that whole entry is a massive strawman argument, but I've gotten used to that by now. It's all been covered before and then bulldozed into line with the anti-Israeli POV. I have proposed that we delete this article and create one called Allegations of anti-Israeli media fraud, but there just isn't any interest in this for reasons that are obvious from the treatment this article has gotten. --Leifern (talk) 16:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I think you capture the essence of the problem right there, Eleland, although maybe not in the way you intended. I, for one, would not object if there was a consensus to move this article to Palestinian media manipulation, but I wonder how long it would stay there. 6SJ7 (talk) 16:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

That would be a rather clear POV fork of Media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and the article name would definitely be disallowed. It would surely be better to merge this article into that one. If not, Leifern's proposal for a new, broader article may be viable as a spinout, but the content he suggests shouldn't (and mustn't) be wedged into this existing article for the reasons I explain below. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Leifern, you should read the interesting discussion that is currently going on at WP:ORN#Providing examples of use of a term (in the case, relating to "Jewish lobby"). The issues being raised there are very similar to those being discussed here. Read in particular Jayjg's arguments against synthesis which, for the record, I agree with. Quite simply, your conception of this article is a fundamental violation of the WP:SYN requirements. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

ChrisO, stop putting up strawman arguments that you would have liked me to make for your own purposes and focus instead on what I've actually written. I've also contributed to the discussion you're mentioning. --Leifern (talk) 18:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

"No original research" means exactly what it says. That means you don't add your own interpretations to articles and you don't synthesize sources to advance an unpublished argument. This really shouldn't be difficult for you to understand. I appreciate you may not be happy about what our policy requires, but that's too bad. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I haven't promoted original research. You are the one who are trying to make it sound like one mention about one usage of the term in the Jerusalem Post is the same as saying that only pro-Israeli watchdog activists or whatever use the term. That is original research. If you're going to cite an article, cite it for what it says. I wanted it taken out to avoid this, but I was - as usual - reverted. --Leifern (talk) 18:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

As I said, this really shouldn't be too difficult for you to understand. We have a reliable secondary source which actually describes the usage of the term, rather than just using it in passing. It specifically attributes the use of the term to a particular group of people. It doesn't say "inter alia" - that is your personal interpretation, the inclusion of which WP:OR prohibits. If you have another reliable secondary source which describes the usage of the term, let's see it. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

ChrisO, what it seems you have a great deal of difficulty understanding is that there is no basis in the source you cite to claim that the term is exclusively used by "some pro-Israel media watchdogs," which is what you are trying to imply in the statement. The source simply states that the al-Durah case is a prime example of what they refer to as "Pallywood." That's all it says - it makes no representation about the prevalence of the term, who is most likely to use it, what the term might possibly mean, etc. But you are trying to poison the well by qualifying the usage to a limited number of people when there is no basis for this. It is you who are committing gross violations of OR policy. --Leifern (talk) 18:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

You're misinterpreting it, Leifern. The term may well be used by people other than "pro-Israel media watchdogs". In fact, I'm sure it is (after all, we're discussing it here and we're not "pro-Israel media watchdogs" - well, I'm not anyway). But we can't say that in the article, because we don't have a reliable source that we can cite that says that. As WP:V says, "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." If you don't have a reliable, published source to support any particular assertion it can't be included - simple as that. If you can find one, then by all means include it. I have absolutely no objection to that - all I'm asking is that you support your assertions with reliable sources, as policy requires. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Campaign

Richard Landes is leading a campaign, along with several others? What campaign? --Leifern (talk) 21:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

some pro-Israel activists, who accuse Enderlin of fabricating the footage and bearing responsibility for all that followed. Throughout 2000 and 2001, Enderlin, a Franco-Israeli binational, and his family, who have lived in Jerusalem since 1968, were accosted, insulted and compared to Hitler by French-speaking individuals. Israeli police advised France 2 to provide Enderlin with protection, which the station did.

[...]
Phillippe Karsenty, 41, born in Paris to a Jewish North African family and owner of Media Ratings, a pro-Israel media watchdog based in Paris, is convinced that Enderlin, 62, doctored the tapes. Heatedly, Karsenty tells The Report, "Hundreds of people have been killed because of this report ... These pictures are more potent than the 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion.' Very few people read that fabricated book but everyone has seen this TV clip."
[...]

Karsenty now devotes himself nearly full-time to his campaign against Enderlin, which he has taken to Jewish and pro-Israel organizations abroad, most notably in the United States, where he has gained support of media watchdog organizations, such as the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA).

That's all from the Jerusalem Post feature I linked above. And I just noticed it's only an excerpt from a story appearing in the associated Jerusalem Report magazine in two weeks or so. <eleland/talkedits> 21:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully the Jerusalem Report magazine will appear on the web. Could the two of you please look out for it and post a link if you find it? As for Leifern's question, the cited source says: "A campaign led in part by Boston University Professor Richard Landes has sought to portray the Dura case as an example of "Pallywood," or theatrical Palestinian propaganda." -- ChrisO (talk) 22:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, the extract is all we get. <eleland/talkedits> 22:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm unclear, has the magazine story actually been published yet or are we still waiting for it? -- ChrisO (talk) 22:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

This doesn't constitute a campaign. I hope the people who accosted Enderlin are identified and put on trial. --Leifern (talk) 22:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, it doesn't matter that you don't consider it a campaign - our reliable source describes it as such, therefore we describe it as such. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Relevant Updates,Slanted Interpretations, Lack of Neutrality

ChrisO, I used traditional media sources as citations in addition to the nontraditional sources. Additionally, I have other, traditional sources to use and a more proper edit might be (citation needed) instead of a complete reversion which removes many many edits. There is news regarding this issue that should be included, and when you remove large amounts of editing, you're also reverting back to a pretty non-neutral (and misleading due to lack of information) article. I have not placed my personal observations or conclusions in the article, but I have an article which states that Pallywood is a term used by many bloggers and media watch dogs. That citation didn't get listed because you reverted the article too quickly. In addition to that, I listed examples in an effort to allow people to see for themselves. That should be perfectly acceptable.

Additionally, Pallywood is NOT a neologism. It is a blend of Palestine and Hollywood and does not characterize a new idea. It applies the idea of media manipulation to Palestine, but the idea is not new. In fact, I had edited the article yesterday to an example of such manipulation from 1932. That edit was also erased. I think it is inappropriate to characterize Pallywood as a neologism because it is an old idea in new clothes. Mis-characterizing it limits the scope and removes credibility.

Furthermore, your insistence on characterizing Pallywood as a term used only by Pro-Israeli media watchdogs is bias and uninformed. I cited many other examples of those using the term and even your own source says only that a certain video was used by Pro-Israeli media watch dogs as an example of Pallywood. It does not say that only Pro-Israeli media watchdogs use the term Pallywood. Saying so implies that the term is the exclusive purvey of pro-Israeli watchdogs, which it is not. It is a term used by many media watchdogs. Unless you can find a citation to an article stating that Pallywood is a term used by only Pro-Israeli watchdogs, your claim should be removed.

And, I have included other examples of alleged Pallywood, and I have included updates about the controversy referenced on the page. If the video is mentioned as something that is alleged, when proof comes out to support the claims of the video, it should be allowed to be listed. It gives veracity to the claim behind the definition and avoids the impression that Pallywood is a tin-hat conspiracy theory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielleb32 (talk • contribs) 23:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, let's address the points you raise:

1) Might I suggest that you look up neologism to see what it actually means? We have quite a good article on it here on Wikipedia. As the first line states, "A neologism is a word, term, or phrase that has been recently created (or "coined"), often to apply to new concepts, to synthesize pre-existing concepts, or to make older terminology sound more contemporary." Claims of Palestinian media manipulation are certainly not a new concept but as far as anyone has been able to determine, the term "Pallywood" was only coined within the last few years. Nobody's been able to find a usage older than the start of this decade (and believe me, we've all looked).

2) You cited a Chinese example of media manipulation from 1937 (not 1932). This is a classic example of original research. I'm pretty sure that nobody except you has ever tried to relate a 1937 Chinese incident to modern "Pallywood" claims. This is precisely what WP:SYN prohibits: "Editors should not 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 to advance position C. This would be synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, which 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." In this case, "A" is "Chinese incident", "B" is "Pallywood", and "C" is your argument that "Chinese incident is like Pallywood". It's a textbook example of original research.

3) I'm only insisting on characterizing "Pallywood" in the way that our sources characterize it. We can't characterize it differently just because we disagree with the sources. If our sources say "it is used by green aliens from the planet Mars" then that's how we have to characterize it, regardless of whether or not we personally agree with that. If we insert our own views of who uses it, that's impermissible original research. Note that that statement doesn't imply exclusivity - the term may well be used by people other than "pro-Israel media watchdogs". But we can't say that in the article, because we don't have a reliable source that we can cite that says that. If we say it on the basis of our own personal research, that's (yet again) original research and is specifically prohibited by WP:NEO: "An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs and books that use the term) are insufficient to support use of (or articles on) neologisms because this is analysis and synthesis of primary source material (which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy)."

4) What you call "nontraditional sources" are disallowed for the purpose for which you're trying to use them. Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources.

5) Finally, your statement in the article that "Landes' suspicions were verified in March 2008 by Jean-Claude Schlinger, an independent ballistics expert" is a plain violation of the neutral point of view policy. To quote, "The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth"." What you're doing in that case is to represent Schlinger's opinion as proven fact. Again quoting WP:NPOV, "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves."

As for the tin foil hat aspect - well, I'm not the one advancing conspiracy theories, am I? -- ChrisO (talk) 00:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

ChrisO - neither Danielleb32 nor anyone else is claiming that there's a conspiracy. Without getting into when a term goes from being a neologism to a commonly accepted term, a more neutral term would indeed be what Danielleb32 is proposing. Bollywood is not characterized as a neologism but as an "informal term." Apartheid wall is described in the context in which it is used. Axis of evil is described as a "term." Your insistence on calling this a neologism is plainly made to insist that the article be subject to restrictive criteria in terms of scope. As for the idea that only pro-Israeli media watchdogs ever use the term, this is perhaps the most blatant case of original research in this discussion yet. When Danielleb32 finds examples of media fraud from the 1930s, he/she is making a legitimate point - that this isn't something new in propaganda wars, or unique to this conflict. And finally the findings of an independent ballistics expert are not mere opinions, unless you are prepared to challenge the person's expertise and/or independence. Meanwhile, it is perfectly appropriate to cite it. --Leifern (talk) 14:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Once again, go and read the policies and guidelines. WP:NEO clearly defines what is to be considered a neologism: "words and terms that have recently been coined, generally do not appear in any dictionary, but may be used widely or within certain communities." Bollywood doesn't fall into this category; it's at least 40 years old and has been in dictionaries for decades. "Apartheid wall" would be covered by the definition; it's a new term not found in dictonaries. "Axis of evil" would not be; it's in the Oxford English Dictionary and probably others by now. "Pallywood" certainly is covered by the definition, as it's a very new non-dictionary term with a very restricted audience. I call it a neologism only because it is one, and I'm telling you what our policies and guidelines require in such cases. The word "neologism" has been the consensus term in this article for the past year and in all that time dozens of editors, including SlimVirgin, Jayjg, Humus sapiens, Jaakobou, Tewfik and not least yourself haven't objected to it. Even Danielleb32 hasn't tried to take it out. You're on your own here, Leifern.

You're also plainly not reading what I wrote above. Go and read this edit. I have no intention of typing it out again because you can't be bothered to read what I've written. As for Danielleb32's "examples of media fraud from the 1930s", including such things in this article is an absolutely canonical, textbook example of original research by synthesis. You know that perfectly well, so why are you arguing that it isn't? Finally, you're missing the point that everything that isn't "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute" counts as an "opinion" (see WP:NPOV#A simple formulation which I linked above). There is - to say the least - serious dispute about the assertions made by Schlinger. We are therefore absolutely prohibited from stating his POV as fact. WP:NPOV is explicit on that point, going as far as bolding it for emphasis: Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves. -- ChrisO (talk) 03:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

ChrisO, for someone who has immodestly declared himself an expert on Wikipedia, you certainly have a great deal of difficulty with some pretty basic points I've made. I have objected countless times about the scope of this article and proposed that it be retitled to reflect the notable topic. I can't speak on behalf of the others you mention, except to note that you can't accept their lack of objection on any article as consensus. Besides, I'm not even arguing whether it's a neologism - I'm debating whether this is the right introduction to the topic of the article. As for your other arguments, I would thank you for not assuming that I have argued opinions I haven't. Also, your interpretation of guidelines is novel - you're entitled to your interpretation of them, but your assertion that you're an expert does not give you definitive authority. And you're the one who is missing the point: if Schlinger's findings are controversial, then we should include what have been challenged, aside from your not liking them. --Leifern (talk) 00:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Video vs documentary II

{{editprotected}}

per this diff: [7]

It seems that despite previous discussions - here - Liftarn (talk · contribs) has decided to remove the word 'documentary'. [8]

Current version uses - "Richard Landes' video" - and should be altered, in accordance to previous consensus to some version that includes the word 'documentary'.

Suggested version: Richard Landes' documentary video

Cordially, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 01:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

No objection, but let's wait until protection is lifted. The change isn't an urgent one. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

 Not done for now. The 'consensus' in the archive is weak and did not come to any real conclusion; I'd like to see some more discussion to be sure that everyone (or at least most people) can agree on a neutral title. If you can get a few more people agreeing with the proposal above, readd the {{editprotected}} tag. Happy‑melon 12:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I think, arguing for the change that Jaakobou proposes, video describes the medium while documentary describes the genre. It could be a video drama, or a film documentary, or a comic book, or whatever. Using the term "video documentary" would clarify that it's a video, not a film, and that it was in the documentary genre rather than any other genre. What do other people think? -- ChrisO (talk) 03:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

IIRC there was some kind of rough consensus to introduce it as an "Internet documentary video" and refer to it from then on as "the video" or "Landes's video." I think it's in archive 2... eh, not really much of a consensus, just two users with Jaakobou presumably against it, see Talk:Pallywood/archive2#Video vs documentary. <eleland/talkedits> 21:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion towards resolving the current dispute

From what I can see of the current dispute, it is partially based on a misunderstanding of overlap about what is being covered within the article. The neologism "Pallywood" is not a good candidate for inclusion in Wikipedia by itself, as noted by the many editors who have linked WP:NEO. However, that notwithstanding, suggest that the article be rewritten to separate two items: the video documentary made by Mr Landes; and the Controversy over the alleged falsification and manipulation of the media by Palestinian extremists in the Al-Durrah case. Since the al-Durrah article already covers the controversy very adequately, I suggest that the current article be rewritten as an encyclopedic article only on Mr. Landes' documentary, which can link to Muhammad_al-Durrah#Allegations that the incident was staged. Dalamori (talk) 23:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The documentary isn't notable per WP:NOTFILM, it has received only a handful of mentions and one or two "capsule reviews" buried in other articles. The neologism isn't notable, either, actually, but the AfD discussions have been closed on the basis that the junction of the two is somehow notable. So the split will be resisted as an attempt to whittle away then delete the article. (Which I don't think is a bad idea, actually, but that's what will be faced.) <eleland/talkedits> 00:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the useful comments, Dalamori. I have to agree with Eleland's comments above. Editors have tried to make the article into various things - a dictionary definition for a neologism that fails WP:NEO (as you noted), a review of a video that failed WP:NOTFILM and a coatrack for various claims of media manipulation whether or not they have anything to do with Landes' documentary. I'm guessing you came here from Danielleb32's comments on Wikipedia:Third opinion‎; the problem is that he and another editor have repeatedly pushed to include personal original research and material sourced from blogs, which as you'll know from WP:V and WP:OR isn't acceptable. So it's not really so much a case of a "misunderstanding of overlap" as a misunderstanding over Wikipedia's sourcing policies. I've explained this to both of them in some detail (see above). -- ChrisO (talk) 10:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep the article

There have been several rather dramatic incidents of palestinians staging news. I just put two more in the discussion aaboce, section "More examples needed." To me, Pallywood appears to be a real if minor phenomenon. American Clio (talk) 18:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)American Clio

Pallywood and Fraud, a suggestion

Pallywood is certainly a term that is being used to discuss a phenomenon: the deliberate creation of fraudulent news by Palestinians. It is distinct from spin, which everybody does.

The phenomenon is real, there are multiple well-documented nstances.

I propose to open a section to explore that question In fact, I attempted to do so, only to to have thsi carefully sourced section removed on the bases of "independent research." CNNand the Jerusalem Post are reponsible sources.

More importantly, I propose to either change the title of the page to something like "Pallywood and News Fraud, or Pallywood; Palestinian news fraud.

Or to add alternative titles such as Palestinian New fraus, or Palestinian news staging. American Clio (talk) 23:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)American Clio

Other instances of fraudulent Palestinian news

According to Palestinian journalist Khaled Abu Tomeh, on at least two occasions in January, 2008, Hamas staged scenes of darkness in order to film news segments claiming that Israel had cut off the power flow into Gaza as part of its campaign to end the political and economic sanctions then being imposed against the Gaza Strip in response to Hamas rockets targeting civilian neighborhoods in Israel.

Shortly after the 2002 IDF incursion into Jenin, Israel released videotape showing a fake funeral being staged in Jenin. The “body,” wrapped in a green winding sheet, is shown being carried by pallbearers. When they drop it, the fake “body” stands up, unwraps the winding sheet and runs away.

I think this section should go back up. American Clio (talk) 23:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)American Clio

Please don't add this. It's original research by synthesis. To quote that page, "Editors should not 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 to advance position C. This would be synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, which 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." In this case, "A" is "Gaza + Jenin", "B" is "Pallywood", and "C" is your argument that "Gaza + Jenin is like Pallywood". Wikipedia policy specifically prohibits this kind of thing. If you have a reliable, verifiable source that says "Gaza and Jenin are examples of Pallywood", then please feel free to add it, but please don't make this kind of claim based on your own personal research. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, I notice that you added a reference to michellemalkin.com. That's a blog, and we have a clear policy against using those as sources: "self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable." (WP:SOURCES) -- ChrisO (talk) 23:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. pallywood is a term applied to a phenomenon. It is therefore an appropriate page on which to discuss that phenomenon. See my suggestion, above, for adding alternative names to this page, such as : Palestinian news staging, or palestinian news fraud. American Clio (talk) 23:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)American Clio

Let's be accurate here. There are a number of disputed incidents which some people have asserted collectively constitute a "phenomenon". "Pallywood" is a cutesy neologism which some partisan advocates have coined to refer to that alleged "phenomenon". The existence of said phenomenon is, obviously, something which is very much disputed. We cannot state as fact that the "phenomenon" exists (or doesn't exist). Wikipedia's non-negotiable neutral point of view policy requires us to "Assert facts, including facts about opinions — but do not assert the opinions themselves." We cannot, therefore, act on the assumption that you clearly hold, that the claimed phenomenon exists. You may not be aware that there's already an article on the issue of media coverage - Media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, with a section on "Incidents of controversial media reporting". Why not try adding material there? -- ChrisO (talk) 23:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's be honest here: The above statements shows your clear bias and the reason that you've been making constant efforts to keep the Pallywood article incomplete. Showing michelle malkin may be acceptable because she is reporting news, which is what she does. There is an exception for self-published sources when the self-publisher is an expert in that field already. Furthermore, your whole A and B thus C statements muddy the issue. If someone says, Here's an example of pallywood. And someone else says, Here's an example of pallywood. They aren't drawing a conclusion. YOU are drawing the conclusion, finding it distateful, and removing the statements. Danielleb32 (talk) 13:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point. My "constant efforts" are intended only to ensure that the article meets Wikipedia's neutrality and sourcing rules, which are non-negotiable requirements. As Michael Safyan says below, "Although you may find these rules annoying and inconvenient, please keep in mind that these very same rules also prevent highly POV Palestinians from making outrageous accusations against Israel or denying the Holocaust on Wikipedia." We shouldn't lose sight of the fact that the "Pallywood" claim is an element in a pro-Israel propaganda campaign, just as Palestinian claims over the West Bank barrier are elements in a pro-Palestinian propaganda campaign. Wikipedia isn't a party in the conflict; we're not an outlet for either side's propaganda, and we certainly don't endorse either side's point of view. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Chris is right. If it doesn't specifically say the event in question is Pallywood, for our purposes it isn't. If we opened that door, all sorts of things could make their way into this and other articles that seem like they should "obviously" be included, but would be highly controversial. Who's to judge? It's easiest--and best for WP--to simply repeat what the sources say, not to collect examples of things that may or may not be considered Pallywood. IronDuke 00:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

It's an interesting phenomenon. And the evidence that it does exist is extremely storng. That lights-out incident in Gaza and the fake funeral were as well-documented as anything that comes out of the region.

I see someone has a suggestion for renaming the page "Palestinian Media Manipulation." That's interesting. Although it is the idea that the Palestinians go beyond manipulation, that they actually stage fake news that makes this wrothy of an article.American Clio (talk) 23:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)American Clio

Actually, the question of what is "worthy of an article" is another kettle of fish entirely. You might wish to read Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline and see whether the topic you suggest meets those criteria. A more general article on the subject of alleged media manipulation, per Leifern's suggestion, might be viable, but there are some significant problems of scope, neutrality and overlap with other articles (especially Media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict). I'm not going to get into those issues right now because I need to get some sleep, but please just be aware that it's not a straightforward question (nothing about the Middle East ever is, is it?). -- ChrisO (talk) 00:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

"See also" links

I see American Clio has added some new "see also" links. I think some of these links don't have much direct relevance to the article, so I've taken those out (while leaving the rest), following the principle of "only making links that are relevant to the context". The key thing to bear in mind that (as discussed above) this article is not a clearinghouse for any and all allegations of media manipulation. If it was, perhaps some of those links would be relevant, but it's not. We need to exercise some sort of editorial judgment about what links are relevant; the simplest and most obvious criterion is that a reliable source should have related the subject of the link to the "Pallywood" meme. 2006 Lebanon War photographs controversies and Battle of Jenin are fine, as Landes cites both in relation to his claims. Journalistic fraud too, as that is what is being alleged. I've never seen anyone draw a connection between Ouze Merham / A land without a people for a people without a land and "Pallywood", so those two links are inappropriate - I see from the linked article that the latter is over 160 years old, when Hollywood didn't exist, let alone the supposed Palestinian version. I have no idea what the relevance of Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America and Honest Reporting is, since neither is cited in the article and I'm not aware of either playing any significant role in the controversy. These two seem more like promotional links than anything else. Unless an organisation has played a notable role in a controversy (e.g. Anti-hunting#See also lists two notable anti-hunting groups that have played a major role in that controversy) there seems little point in using it as a "see also" link. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree on this one. Ouze Merham hoax is not linked enough to this event to cause for 'see also' linkage, and HonestReporting and Camera can be used if there are reports they have created on the issue. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

btw, these are the camera reports that I've found:

• 'BACKGROUNDER: Mohammed Al Dura: Anatomy of a French Media Scandal'
• 'Updated: France 2 vs. Philippe Karsenty: The Appeal'

I haven't gone over them, but there might be something worth of inclusion from them. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the links, it seems more likely that would be relevant to the al-Durrah article rather than this one. We're not rehashing the al-Durrah story here, after all. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with some of the links and disagree with others. The page you linked to is not relevant for see also sections. The relevant page is WP:ALSO (part of Wikipedia:Layout). To sum it up, the link in see also doesn't have to be referenced in the article or talked about in it, but it should simply be of a similar or relevant topic. I'd say that linking to any organization which is against pro-Palestinian media bias is relevant, especially organizations like CAMERA and HR, which are directly involved with exposing and fighting against mistakes in the media regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (Pallywood being a notable example of what they are fighting against). If not HR, then at least CAMERA should be linked. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 20:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't think this is reasonable. As I said above, this article is not a clearinghouse for general allegations of media manipulation. The fact that CAMERA and HR have been active in campaigning against what they perceive as media bias isn't relevant to this article because they've played no significant role that I know of in this controversy. You'll notice that they're linked from the "See also" section of Media coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict; that's appropriate, because they're significant players in that context (or so I gather, anyway). But they have no significant role in this particular controversy. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

By that logic, it is not reasonable to link 2006 Lebanon War photographs controversies, because it has absolutely nothing to do with the term Pallywood, even though it's referenced in the article (which, by the way, according to WP:ALSO, would make it even less suitable for See also). The 2006 Lebanon controversies were neither directly related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, nor to Landes's Pallywood or the al-Durrah affair.

Moreover, by that logic, the Battle of Jenin link should also be removed because it actually has nothing to do with the specific term Pallywood. Most of the notable allegation of manipulation in Jenin were made by Pierre Rehov and not Landes. Only a small video clip or two from Rehov's collection were included in the Pallywood video.

To sum it up, very few subjects have direct relevance to Pallywood as a term/specific video by Landes, but as was said about 100 times on this talk page, and according to Landes himself, Pallywood actually refers to more than just one or two specific events.

-- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 20:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

It's been said about 100 times on this page by a handful of editors who want to turn the article into a WP:COATRACK, yes, but I'm not prepared to accept that. You have a point about the Lebanon War issue - I misread what the article said (Landes refers to the 1982 war, not the 2006 one) and clearly the Lebanese aren't Palestinians. That link should therefore come out. I believe Landes does specifically make a connection with Jenin, so I think that's appropriate. I take it you agree with my point about CAMERA and HR's lack of any significant involvement in this issue? -- ChrisO (talk) 23:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• I use links to lead me to articles about similar topics. I add them as a courtesy to others. Thus: Ouze Merham and "A land without a people fo ra people without a land" are both articles about Palestinian propagandists making things up out of whole cloth. Just like Pallywood.

Honest Reporting and CAMERA are both sites that follow media distortions about Israel.

They are relevant, ordinary links.American Clio (talk) 23:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)American Clio

I've explained all of this above. Nobody but you has made a connection between OM, the "A land" line and "Pallywood". That's pure original research on your part, and I've explained to you here why it's not permitted by Wikipedia's policies. Could you please try responding to the policy requirements I've described? We're not going to make any progress here if you keep repeating the same thing over and over again. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

ChrisO, I figure the problem starts whre we've discussed before on expanding how the article treats these issues. I see this 'see also' as an extension of our previous discussion where you're taking a position of a (i hope you don't mind this statement) "deletion-ist" and I and others prefer a more "inclusion-ist" approach regarding similar issues. I happen to agree with you on the 'see also' issue but 100% disagree on what should/could be added to the article (see my earlier suggested/rejected introduction). I can't see this article becoming more stable until this issue I've raised is resolved. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

This particular article should not be expanded, in my view. It has a clear, straightforward focus - i.e. Landes' documentary (we'll leave aside for now the issue of whether that is itself notable). As I've said before, I'm not opposed per se to a separate article on alleged media manipulation, linking to this article. However, we need to avoid POV forking and we must not let this article become a coatrack for propagandists of either side - as we've seen already, it attracts editors who don't have much regard for NPOV and original research requirements. That's my main concern here.

Nobody has yet answered the questions I asked you on 12 February about what a new article would cover and, in particular, how it would not be a POV fork of Media coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict. See my comments here. If you could provide some answers to those questions, that would be a useful starting point for the discussion. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

As before, I still don't have time to go deeply into this, but I still stand by my earlier suggestion for a possible new intro. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

• ChrisO,

I am beginning to understand your line of reasoning. You want to apply Pallywood strictly to richard Landes and the Al Durra affair. I, on the other hand, am interested in what I perceive as the Palestinian proclivity to make stuff up. This is where I see a link between the fake funeral staged at Jenin, the bogus use of A land wihtout a people for a people without a land and the Ouze Merham and similar quotes. An article on media coverage won't handle these and similar incidents, because that focuses on , well, media coverage. "Pallywood", as a term, seems to have the potential to cover outright fabrication of this kind, which I see as distinguishable from more routine and familiar kinds of spinning. the Ouze Merham page is having a debate about how to handle that particular fabrication.American Clio (talk) 01:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)American Clio

• So, should we expand Pallywood to cover other instances of the outright fabricaiton of news by Palestinians, or have a series of pages, Pallywood, Ouze Merham, etc.American Clio (talk) 01:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)AMerican Clio

American Clio, firstly, if you would like to document "Palestinian proclivity to make stuff up", at the very least do so at Media coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict/rewrite -- where it belongs -- rather than here. Secondly, please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policy, especially neutral point-of-view and POV-fork. Although you may find these rules annoying and inconvenient, please keep in mind that these very same rules also prevent highly POV Palestinians from making outrageous accusations against Israel or denying the Holocaust on Wikipedia (at least when we catch them and complain about them doing so). ← Michael Safyan ^(talk) 02:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• • ...or, should we respect WP:UNDUE, WP:NOTE, WP:TITLE and WP:SOAPBOX and write neutral articles about provably notable topics? Wikipedia does not allow us to pick a single source, or a small collection of sources, and decide on our own that they are correct. For example, you refer to the "fake funeral staged at Jenin," as if it were well-established that any "fake funeral" took pace. The truth is that a single grainy videotape was presented to Western media by the IDF, appearing to show a group of people carrying another person on a board, then dropping him at which point he gets up. Are you aware that "playing martyr" is the main pasttime of Palestinian kids, and that Palestinians who commented on the video pegged it as such? Have you considered the inherent contradiction in conducting a fake propagand funeral, but not inviting any press to witness it, so that the only video comes from IDF surveillance? Reputable media outlets who covered this story kept at a distance, reporting the IDF claim of a fake funeral and the Palestinian claim of kids playing soldier. The "fake funeral" meme comes from a constellation of blogs and online extremist tabloids - as does, incidentally, the "Pallywood" meme. These are highly controversial, fringe claims, not established facts by any means.
  • Perhaps you are not aware that Israel has also been widely accused of fabricating or distorting incidents. For instance, in the aftermath of a well-planned ambush against security forces in Hebron, the Israeli Foreign Ministry announced to the world that Jewish worshippers has been massacred. [9] This claim spread around the world in hours and resulted in harsh international condemnations by everyone from Kofi Annan to the Vatican. It was rapidly debunked, however, and there were pointed questions about why the MFA made this claim even though Israeli press, from the beginning, knew that this was a "purely military operation" (in the words of the mayor of the Hebron settlement.) See [10], [11], [12], [13], among others - this story was far more widely covered in reliable sources than anything relating to "Pallywood" or "fake funerals" in Jenin, and had a much greater propaganda impact than anything the Palestinians have ever done.
  • There are many other incidents, of course - the "Qassam rocket in Palestinian ambulance" video that was promulgated to provide justification for Israeli attacks on the PRCS, only to be debunked, with IDF sources admitting that the "Qassam" was a stretcher. There was another incident, during the siege of Jenin, where PRCS director Khalil Suleiman was killed by Israeli fire. Israel claimed that he'd been driving a bomb-rigged ambulance at army positions, only to admit that the "bomb" was a medical oxygen cylinder that caused an inferno when they shot up the ambulance, burning him to death. [14]
  • My point is that there is no consensus on Wikipedia for including articles in the form of "[Negative aspect of] [given party to a conflict]." This kind of information on propaganda and fabrication should not be presented in a one-sided manner, relying on obscure, fringe, and highly partisan sources, in order to make out Palestinians (or Israelis) as notorious liars fooling the world with falsehoods. You may personally feel that way about the Palestinians, OK, I believe the same about the Israeli government. The point is that Wikipedia has a neutral point of view, and cannot be used to accumulate negative points about one side or another in this manner. <eleland/talkedits> 02:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

That's a big response from someone insisting on repeating Palestinian propaganda by using an outdated Ariel Sharon quote for similar purposes on Wikipedia. Please refrain from advocacy where it is unnecessary.

p.s. claiming that "[Palestinian] Medical personnel in the area" (e.g. Jenin Martyrs' Capital/Camp) [15] are somehow an IDF admission of anything is quite a concerning phenomenon of how you repeatedly misquote HRW pieces. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 04:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC) minor corrections 04:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

p.p.s; the admission was made by the IDF spokesman's office, according to the World Health Organization. [16], That it was an oxygen tank was confirmed by the St Petersburg (Florida) Times [17] among other media reports (as noted by your favorite source, the online magazine Israel Insider: [18]). The Jerusalem Post had an indepth article on the targeting of PRCS ambulances and the propaganda used to justify it. [19] And your BBC link has nothing to do with anything, unless it's just a lamebrained attempt to portray every Arab in the Jenin region as a terrorist. <eleland/talkedits> 04:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not interested in turning this talk page into a forum. And while the Jenin camp has produced 28 suicide bombers and is currently controlled by 'Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades' I had never once made anything remotely close to suggest that every Arab in Jenin or it's camp is complicit. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 06:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's helpful to get into a debate about the rights and wrongs of the issue. But your exchange with Eleland does make the useful point that this debate is happening in the context of a propaganda war between the two sides. That makes it all the more important that we shouldn't take sides, and that Wikipedia itself shouldn't be used as a tool to fight the propaganda war. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

American Clio, one of the most important points of Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy - so important that it's shown in bold type on that page - is this: "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves." We cannot state one side's opinion as fact. As Michael points out, that's a universal standard. You may perceive a "Palestinian proclivity to make stuff up" but that is your opinion, not a matter of undisputed fact like the propositions that "the sky is blue" or "water is wet". You may regard it as a fact, but plainly others do not.

Second, the term "Pallywood" cannot be used as a general article title. It's appropriate for a narrowly focused article concentrating on a work of that name (i.e. Landes' documentary), but it would be a serious violation of neutrality to use it as the title for a wider article. To quote NPOV again, "The neutral point of view is a point of view that is neutral, that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject: it neither endorses nor discourages viewpoints." The policy requires article names to be neutral and descriptive to avoid endorsing one side's point of view (see WP:NPOV#Article naming): "Sometimes the article title itself may be a source of contention and polarization. This is especially true for titles that suggest a viewpoint either "for" or "against" any given issue. A neutral article title is very important because it ensures that the article topic is placed in the proper context." Hence, for example, "Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy", not "Attorneygate"; Dalmatian anti-Serb riots of May 1991, not "Dalmatian Kristallnacht". Because "Pallywood" is a term invented by one side to represent its point of view about an issue, Wikipedia's policy forbids us for using it as a general term for that issue. That would constitute endorsing one side's point of view, something which we must not do. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Definition of Pallywood

Journalist Ruthie Blum, writing in the Jerualem Post, describes the Pallywood as a term coined by Richard Landes to describe "productions staged by the Palestinians, in front of (and often with cooperation from) Western camera crews, for the purpose of promoting anti-Israel propaganda by disguising it as news." [3] Landes himself defines Pallywood as " a term I coined... to describe staged material disguised as news. [4]

I think that we should at least consider that Landes himself and Blum, the features editor at the Jerusalem Post, have offered formal definitions that include not only the al Durra incident, but such incidents as occurred in January when the government of Gaza deliberately shut off the power grid then told camera crews that Israel had done it.American Clio (talk) 18:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)American Clio

Proper sources would work best. Your recent addition to the article seems ok/proper at first glance. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

AC, it is not for us to determine where the definition applies and doesn't apply. On wikipedia that's called original synthesis; taking source A that says one thing, source B that says another, and linking them together to make an original point C, not found in either source. In this case the formula seems to be:

• Landes and his allies define "Pallywood" as news events staged for propaganda purposes by Palestinians
• Reports indicate that Hamas held a parliament session by candlelight, when there was no need to due so, for propaganda purposes

Therefore

• Hamas's candlelight meeting was an incident of "Pallywood."

This is not allowed on Wikipedia, because it serves to express the personal conclusions of a Wikipedia editor, rather than the conclusions of reliable sources. If this seems hard to understand on the "Pallywood" issue, perhaps it would help to consider an example from the opposite side:

• Some Palestinian activists define "Zionazi-ism" as a fascist ideology expressed by racist violence against Palestinians
• Reports indicate that settlers in Qiryat Arba have been involved in racially motivated violence against Palestinians

Therefore

• Settlers in Qiryat Arba are "Zionazis."

Do you see how disruptive and inappropriate this would be? It's the same for all sides involved. <eleland/talkedits> 19:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way, what is the reliable source which claims that Hamas shut down its own power grid? I'm aware that some insinuations were made by IDF-affiliated sources that the fuel supply should have lasted longer than it did, and I'm aware that Palestinian parliament in Gaza held a candlelight session during daylight hours. I've never heard it claimed in reliable sources that they actually shut down power to their own people, however. The Israeli power cut to Gaza (power reduction, that is) was very widely reported, and to my knowledge nobody has ever claimed that it did not occur. <eleland/talkedits> 19:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

'two documented examples

According to Palestinian journalist Khaled Abu Tomaeh, on at least two occasions in January 2008, the Hamas-controlled government of Gaza staged scenes of darkness in order to enable news crews to film scenes of Gazans sitting in darkness while claiming that Israel had cut off the power flow into Gaza.

Shortly after the 2002 IDF incursion into Jenin, Israel released videotape showing a fake funeral being staged in Jenin. The “body,” wrapped in a green winding sheet, is shown being carried by pallbearers. When they drop it, the fake “body” stands up, unwraps the winding sheet and runs away.

Susan Sowerby (talk) 19:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the rewrite. I think there are more examples. the question is, do they fit into this article? American Clio (talk) 19:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)American Clio

Hello, Susan, welcome to Wikipedia. Since a lot of fairly new editors have arrived at this page, do you mind if I asked; how did you find it? Is there a blog posting or something making the rounds, asking people to pitch in on the "Pallywood" article?

Now, on point: neither of the given sources mention "Pallywood." Please review the above discussions regarding original synthesis and other policies. We can't go around applying controversial terms like "Pallywood" or "Zionazi" willy-nilly to incidents which we think fit the description. Rather, we should keep an objective distance, and report where reliable sources have claimed that incidents fit the "Pallywood" label. <eleland/talkedits> 19:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The article I tood the definitions form is in today's Jerusalem Post.Susan Sowerby (talk) 20:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC) Susan Sowerby

Interesting. Besides al-Dura, Landes very briefly mentions the candlelight thing and the Gaza beach explosion. There was also one important tidbit...

LANDES: Well, yes, they are cranking it out faster than we can refute it - on every front - but there are certain significant fronts on which we are fighting back effectively. Take Wikipedia, for example. There's a fight going on right now at Wikipedia about the nature of information accuracy, truth, history, etc. These are all crucial issues for the 21st century. And Jews and non-Jews who are aware of historical events need to be weighing in at sites like that.

Hardly bodes well for WP:NPOV, not to mention "Wikipedia is not a battleground." <eleland/talkedits> 20:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Note: "reliable sources" are a bit flexible in this case considering the main use of this terminology is by right-wing/conservative bloggers -- some of them very notable, such as Little Green Footballs, Michelle Malkin and also Richard Landes' site. I do agree that there is need for caution in source selection on this topic as in any other similar problematic topic. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

There's an English expression - you've put the cart before the horse. If , that's an argument against having the article in the first place, rather than an argument against relaxing policy requirements in order to expand it. <eleland/talkedits> 21:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure there's enough responsible editors who'd be able to review the sources used in the article and achive some form of consensus when difficult issues arise. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• I did a google search to explore Eleand's question as to whether " the main use of this terminology is by conservative bloggers of dubious reputation." Of course, "main use" is determinative phrasing - there will always be more bloggers than edited publications. Nevertheless, In a a very short time I discovered examples of use by commentators and publications, not just bloggers.Susan Sowerby (talk) 22:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)Susan Sowerby

Due to the controversial nature of this article there has already been an extensive roundup of mainstream reliable sources. The last time we looked, it seemed that a few reliable sources had mentioned the term in passing; some gave it as an example of a "conspiracy theory" spread through the Internet, others took it more seriously, but still attributed it to the blog- and vlog-ers. It's not about sources which just use or define the term, but sources which actually discuss it in detail. That seems to be limited to the blogosphere. <eleland/talkedits> 01:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

2006 photographs controversy

Chris, I'd be interested in formulating a different version that this one for the photograph controversy, since in it's current form, its inclusion is not entirely clear and good faith editors such as yourself might not be aware of the connection and remove the link. Any suggestions? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd be most happy if you'd be willing/can include a "Hezbollywood" sub-section into the "Wider use of the term" section. This would clear the "connection" issue up and also remove the need for a see also link. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll have a think about how this might be done. We would have to be careful to avoid original research though - we can't add it if no reliable sources have made the connection. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Excising The Philadelphia Trumpet

Chris. You think it's fringe. I think that it is not more fringe than, say Counterpunch (which lacks a print edition) or The Nation, just more Christian. Church magazines may seem odd or fringe to most secular folk, but they are legitimate publicatins. I am restoring that section.Susan Sowerby (talk) 23:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)Susan Sowerby

Anyone who wants to know what the Trumpet is can click the link.Susan Sowerby (talk) 23:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)Susan Sowerby

I'm not sure it's noteworthy enough, we can discuss it though. can you please paste the related diff regarding the paragraph+source you wish to enter here on the talk page for easier review and discussion? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

will do.

I got curious. The Trumpet, a magazine of which I had never heard, has a monthly circulation of 294,000. The Nation, which we all know, circulated only 184,296 and the New Republic, "betwween 40,000 and 65,000"

Kinda makes you rethink the concept "fringe."Susan Sowerby (talk) 23:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)Susan Sowerby

• Here is the paragraph that ChrisO wishes to remove:

According to the Christian magazine, The Philadelphia Trumpet, "Pallywood is grittier than Hollywood, less musical than Bollywood, but it has its own actors, directors, props, storylines, sets, special effects, professional film crews—and worldwide audiences. It is a recognized phenomenon in which Palestinians exaggerate or completely fabricate violence and injuries and portray Israelis as bloody, dispassionate aggressors intent on maiming and killing Palestinian men, women, youths and, wherever possible, children." [16]

Susan Sowerby (talk) 23:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)Susan Sowerby

It is from this month's Trumpet and I believe that it speaks to the increading use of the term Pallywood.Susan Sowerby (talk) 23:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)Susan Sowerby

Reason give for removal by ChrisO: "The Trumpet; seems to be rather a fringe source" I suspect that he had never heard of the magazine. I certainly never had heard of it. But that doesn't mean that it is "fringe", only that neither Chris or I belong to that church.Susan Sowerby (talk) 23:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)Susan Sowerby.

Uhm, do you know anything about the Worldwide Church of God? Nobody is saying the source is fringe because they haven't heard of it. The Trumpet is the magazine of a controversial, cult-like millennial sect. Salon describes reading it as "falling down an evangelical rabbit hole." [20]<eleland/talkedits> 23:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

That was certainly my understanding as well. It seems to be a fairly extreme religious sect and frankly I'm not at all comfortable about using it as a reliable source. It would be rather like quoting the Church of Scientology's magazine as a reliable source on its pet hate, psychiatry. I think it would fall into the category of what Wikipedia:Verifiability would term a "questionable source"; it certainly couldn't be considered mainstream. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I know nothing aobut the church, except taht they print a large circulation magazine. Personally, I find Counterpunch highly offensive, but I have seen it cited in Wikipedia articles. More to the point, the citation is not brought to prove the validity of the charge of falsifying news, it is brought to establish that the term is in increasing use as a term of art by those who wish to make the allegation that Palestinians deliberately stage fake news. Susan Sowerby (talk) 00:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)Susan Sowerby

I concur. The Scientology example would apply if the Trumpet was being cited to prove that Palestinians make up news. It is , however, cited under a secion called something like "wider use of the phrase" It certainly does show that this term is being used by a Christian magazine in Philadelphia. Roger Warren (talk) 00:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)Roger Warren

As this issue is essentially about whether the Trumpet is a reliable source, I propose that we obtain an outside view on the question. Wikipedia has a reliable sources noticeboard where community feedback can be obtained on sourcing issues. I will post a question there concerning this source. In the meantime, please don't restore it to the article - the article is no poorer for not having it temporarily, but would be degraded if a non-reliable source was included. I'll update this message with a link to the RSN discussion when it's ready (in the next few minutes). -- ChrisO (talk) 00:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

While you are over there, would you do me a favor and also query Counterpunch? I would like to get a better feel for what is an acceptable source. I still believe, however, that there is a difference between citing Turmpet on a fact, and citing it to demonstrate that this term is in use.Susan Sowerby (talk) 00:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)Susan Sowerby

I've posted the RSN request concerning the Trumpet at WP:RSN#The Philadelphia Trumpet. Regarding Counterpunch, I'm not familiar with that publication but I've seen it mentioned a few times. I think the general view is that it's not a reliable source; having said that, I don't think the issue's ever been definitively settled (I've just searched the archives but not found any specific discussions on that topic). I'll pose the question. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I just went to the web page and read some articles in the Philadelphia Trumpet. I read the political articles, not the religious ones. I found it cogent and well-sourced, albeit very right-wing. Susan Sowerby (talk) 01:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)Susan Sowerby

I found a Watchman Expositor profile that describes the PCoG as an "American-born cult" with about 6,000 members - [21]. I have to say it really doesn't sound like a mainstream organisation, and that 300,000 copy circulation figure sounds very fishy; that would be 50 copies per member (!). The page cited for its circulation figures doesn't give any explanation of how those figures are derived, and I strongly suspect that they're counting free-distribution copies of the magazine rather than circulation in the conventional sense of subscriptions or sales. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Protestant sects are incredibly competative. You need a more objective source. http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/relmove/nrms/philcog.html this is Herbert W. Armstrong's old church. It used to be a very big deal.Susan Sowerby (talk) 01:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)Susan Sowerby

Take a look at their world headquarters, nice digs. http://www.raisingtheruins.com/index.php?page=background&view=pcg I don't know how you define fringe, but you have got to have a lot of members to have a building like that. Generous, rich members. click on Whatever happened

to the Plain Truth? It explains what the Trumpet is. This is not a small-potatoes outfit. Oh, the last page when you keep clicking is a subscription blank  ;-) Susan Sowerby (talk) 01:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)Susan Sowerby

Magazines are legally required to publish subscription figures, in the print edition. Such figures are not legally required to be published online. And, yes, publishers do lie and inflate numbers. Susan Sowerby (talk) 01:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)Susan Sowerby

• "Keep the Trumpet quote

This is a small article about a small topic. It is well sourced. Susan wants to add a sentence from some small Christian magazine that demonstrates the increasing acceptence of the term Pallywood. The section to which this would be added is a seciton on " Wider use of the term." Susan points out that she does not rely on the accurate reporting of the Trumpet. Sthe merely wants to demonstrate how the term is being used. I see no problem whatsoever with doing so. Especially since this talk page has repeatedly questioned that the term is being widely used. American Clio (talk) 13:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)American Clio

Extended debates on the truly trivial threaten the viability of the Wikipedia project. We need people willing to research and make substantive contributions. On this page, for example, there have been repeated assertions that this word is used exclusively by a tiny number of right-wing blogs. Instead of wasting her time arguing the point. Susan googled up a series of actual uses by actual magazines. This is useful. It settles a point about which this page has debated. Research ought to be encouraged. Not attacked.American Clio (talk) 13:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)American Clio

Controversial

• the opening sentence labels the term Pallywood "controbversial." I don't exactly doubt it, but, could we have a citation of someone calling it controversial?Susan Sowerby (talk) 19:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)Susan Sowerby

I found a reliable source calling the concept Pallywood controversial and inserted it http://www.upjf.org/actualiees-upjf/article-13447-145-7-al-dura-shooting-pallycood-production-paul-schneidereit.html Susan Sowerby (talk) 19:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)Susan Sowerby

Wider use

• the assertion that this has been confined to a few right-wing blogs is plainly absurd. I an adding a brief sentence with some of the uses of Pallyword found in major daily papers. As I saod, the sentence, clause actually, is very brief, but the footnotes are voluminous. This makes it hard to read. I am posting it so that you can read it without the haze of "ref" and so forth. Susan Sowerby

The word "Pallywood" has sometimes been used by credible and quasi-credible journalistic sources who are specifically reporting on Landes' video. This isn't quite the same as indicating widespread use of the term. Please, let's discuss the sources on this page before making changes. CJCurrie (talk) 19:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

There are now several sources posted that use the term more broadly. Susan Sowerby (talk) 19:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)Susan Sowerby

As I've said before, we went through this earlier. The term "Pallywood" has appeared in mainstream media, but they haven't exactly "used" it. Going through Google News Archive, here's what you find:

...or as one American academic put it artfully staged Pallywood theater.

International Herald Tribune

But pro-Israel media-watchdog advocates have gone further, arguing that the footage is a prime example of what has been dubbed "Pallywood"...
Jerusalem Post

A campaign led in part by Boston University Professor Richard Landes has sought to portray the Dura case as an example of "Pallywood..."
Boston Globe

"[Palestinians] engage in the systematic staging of action scenes," [Landes] said, calling the footage Pallywood cinema.
New York Times

One internet documentary that turns this accusation around by exploring factual inaccuracy in the mainstream media is Pallywood...

Telegraph

As you can see, none of this indicates that mainstream media have actually adopted the term. They've mentioned the term, attributing it to somebody else. I'm sorry to keep making an analogy which revolves around a plainly offensive term, but the New York Times, the Jerusalem Post, and the National Review have all "used" the term "Zionazi," by this warped standard. <eleland/talkedits> 21:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that kind of trawling for usage isn't permitted; it's a form of impermissible original research. To quote Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms, "Support for article contents, including the use and meaning of neologisms, must come from reliable sources. Wikipedia is a tertiary source that includes material on the basis of verifiability, not truth. 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." We are supposed to describe others' analyses of a particular thing, not to carry out our own analyses. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

“The term Pallywood mockingly refers to allegations that an "industry" exists to create news stories, and particularly visual images, that show Palestinians being victimized by Israeli brutality. In other words, the accusation is that Palestinians sometimes fake the news to make the Israelis look bad and gain sympathy for their cause.”

“As the court attempts to unravel this mystery, it’s fair to also recall this is not the first accusation of a news event being a Pallywood production. The al-Dura case may be as France 2 insists. But we’ve seen cases where the bodies of Palestinian martyrs carried on stretchers are inadvertently dropped, then, of their own volition, climb back on again. We’ve seen reports of massacres, as in Jenin in 2002, that turned out, after independent investigation, to have been greatly exaggerated. Needless to say, such episodes don’t instil an abiding trust in subsequent Palestinian claims, at least until they’re verified.”

Canadian journalist Paul Schneidereit writing in the Halifax, Nova Scotia, The Chronicle Herald, Nov 27, 2007

Here is a Canadian journalist in a reputable newspaper writing abotu the meaning and use of the term Pallywood. It costs a couple of bucks to access the article on the Chronicle Herald web page. It was reposted here http://www.upjf.org/actualiees-upjf/article-13447-145-7-al-dura-shooting-pallycood-production-paul-schneidereit.html Susan Sowerby (talk) 15:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)Susan Sowerby

Back to The Trumpet

In addition to adding the quotations above, form the Halifax Chronicle Herals, I would like to add the quotation form thTrumpet, to establish that people other than Richard Landes apply this term to a category of journalistic incidents. I maintain that it is valid to cite the Trumpet as an example of wider use. The only argument against it so far is the magazine of a particular belief-group disliked by its idiological opponents. I fail to see how that makes it different than, say, The Nation, Al Ahram or the National Review. The quote form the Trumpet is: According to the Christian magazine, The Philadelphia Trumpet, "Pallywood is grittier than Hollywood, less musical than Bollywood, but it has its own actors, directors, props, storylines, sets, special effects, professional film crews—and worldwide audiences. It is a recognized phenomenon in which Palestinians exaggerate or completely fabricate violence and injuries and portray Israelis as bloody, dispassionate aggressors intent on maiming and killing Palestinian men, women, youths and, wherever possible, children."Susan Sowerby (talk) 23:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)Susan Sowerby

I certainly wouldn't want to give the impression that I'm opposed to using the Trumpet because it's run by "my ideological opponents." Although I find The National Review and The Weekly Standard to be run by "my ideological opponents," I would absolutely support using them as sources here if they ran article about "Pallywood." The problem is that there's no evidence that The Trumpet represents a significant bloc of opinion on this issue, it has a poor reputation for accuracy, and it seems to express views which are generally seen as extremist. All of these are strikes against its use according to WP:NPOV and WP:V. If we were writing an article about Christian Zionism or Millenialism or Evangelical Protestants there might be a good reason to use the Trumpet regardless, but this article is about news media and the Middle East, two subjects on which the Trumpet has little relevance. <eleland/talkedits> 02:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

We've had a discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard about the usefulness of The Trumpet as a source. Nobody seems to think that it is a particularly good source. I think, ultimately, the question is whether it has "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" (as required by Wikipedia:Verifiability. I've done a search of news archives and Google Books but found negligible use of The Trumpet as a source. The few sources I did find used it mainly as a source on the Philadelphia Church of God, which is fair enough given that it's the official organ of that outfit, though I was amused to see that one source described it as "hopelessly fundamentalist"! It seems to me that if other reliable sources are not citing the Trumpet as a source for information on general issues, we should not do so; I've found nothing that suggests it has a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." If there is no consensus here or among the wider Wikipedia community that The Trumpet qualifies as a reliable source, we should not use it as such. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

In infer from the above that neither ChrisO nor Eleand has any objections to including the material form the halifax Chronicle Herald.Susan Sowerby (talk) 15:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)Susan Sowerby

Not based on the reliability of the source, no. <eleland/talkedits> 15:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Important to keep this in mind

Talk:Allegations_of_Israeli_apartheid#Pallywood_as_an_example

Israeli Apartheid is REDIRECTED to allegations... Zeq (talk) 13:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Footnoting

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. Jaakobou^{Chalk 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 -- [22] -- for uninvolved opinions.

Note to uninvolved editors: the discussed diff is the following -- [23]. Jaakobou^{Chalk 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. Jaakobou^{Chalk 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? Jaakobou^{Chalk 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 [24]). 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. Jaakobou^{Chalk 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."[25] 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 [26], 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. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

conservative and pro-Israel advocates

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). Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC) p.s. sample for 'conservative' who use the term is Michelle Malkin. Jaakobou^{Chalk 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

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? Jaakobou^{Chalk 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. Jaakobou^{Chalk 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. Jaakobou^{Chalk 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

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

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 (talk • contribs) 03:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)