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)

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)

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)