Talk:Pallywood

--Tom (talk) 14:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Earlier discussion:

• /archive1

Reliable sourcing

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

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

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A and B can be joined together in an article in order to advance position C. However, that would be an example of an unpublished synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and it constitutes original research."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

POV pushing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

POV edits

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Avoiding an edit war

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

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

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

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

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

ChrisO:

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

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

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

News fabrication also here

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

By some

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Frontpagemag article

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

Alleged examples

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'd never come across "Pallywood" until I saw it here. I fear this article is a good example of "introducing a neologism" one of the more obvious ways by which people could abuse process and damage Wikipedia. See avoid neologisms:

"There are several reasons why articles on (or titled with) neologisms may not be appropriate:

The first is that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and so articles simply attempting to define a neologism are inappropriate.

.......... Support for article contents, including the use and meaning of neologisms, must come from reliable sources.

.......... 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.

.......... Neologisms that are in wide use — but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources — are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia. They may be in time, but not yet.

.......... 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)".

Furthermore, the article is clearly rubbish, none of the incidents mentioned were instigated by Palestinian cameramem (only one might have been instigated by any Palestinians!).

But I fear there'd be a huge battle to operate WP policy and get this article deleted. An AfD would simply serve to delight POV-pushers and waste the time of everyone else. PalestineRemembered 07:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

"Conservative and neo-conservative"

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

3RR

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

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

Question for Jayjg

(copied to Jayjg's talk page)

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

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

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

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

Originating Pallywood?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It does? It looks like its own article to me. --Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 04:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I din't make myself clear, I meant that the Media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict article links to here for coverage of media falsifications, which is innappropriate. --Coroebus 11:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Toronto Star Article

Here's the relevant section for future reference:

Since Hajj's work was discredited, the right-wing blogosphere has shifted into high gear, seeking out other potential instances of photo manipulation. Many are examining images from Qana, the site of an Israeli bombing last week where at least 28 civilians were killed. Others are digging into events in Gaza, claiming images from that Israeli-Palestinian conflict have been staged or edited for the cameras. Right-wing bloggers have dubbed that "Pallywood."

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

Boston Globe Article

Relevant section:

It is against this backdrop that the Dura family initially embraced its high-profile role. French television broadcast a now-iconic image of young Mohammed cowering in his father's arms before he was shot dead on Sept. 30, 2000. His father carries the scars of eight bullets that struck him, and his right hand is a ball of gnarled fingers he can't move.

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.

But there's no question that Mohammed became the most famous "martyr" of the intifadah. His image was issued on postage stamps in Arab countries, and Algeria sponsored an international poetry festival in his memory.

--Coroebus 22:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg's revert

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

Utterly irrelevant now, given this is a dead discussion, but for anyone in the know, Israeli apartheid gets167,000 Google hits. --Coroebus 08:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

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

I have removed the Front Page Mag "Jenin Jenin Film-Maker Admits Fraud" reference from the lead because it does not mention "Pallywood" and thus is not a suitable reference to support the intro line "The term Pallywood, a portmanteau of Palestinian and Hollywood, is used to refer to the alleged staging of news events by Palestinian and other cameramen to portray Israel in an unfavorable light." You may think that this is about an example of "Pallywood", but (a) you need a source to say it is an example of "Pallywood", and (b) it doesn't belong in the intro because it doesn't have anything to do with establishing the meaning of the word. Try and engage with that fairly straightforward argument (by say, pointing out that it does in fact use the word, and pasting the relevant text) rather than blind reverting with an unhelpful edit summary like "restore sensible version". --Coroebus 12:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I have changed the origins intro to "Although the term "Pallywood" has existed for several years it was popularized by..." because the reference is to a single newsgroup usage (possibly even the origin!) which does not support the original line "The term "Pallywood" has been used by online debaters for several years" because it does not establish that it was used more than once (that is not to get into the OR nature of using the source). I have used "although" in the sentence because it makes perfect sense ("although it had been used before it was popularised by..." is perfectly correct English) and it does not violate [[9]] because it is not an attempt to "imply that one alternative is less favored than another" but rather to "emphasize a notable change":

Acceptable use:

"Before <event> <this>. After <event>, however, <that>."

Again, see if you can address that argument. --Coroebus 12:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, Jayjg has reverted again saying "please review WP:WTA carefully, thanks". It is both rude to refuse to address my arguments here but also makes him look silly - reading WP:WTA makes quite clear that "although..." is acceptable when it is in order to "emphasize a notable change" (as opposed to "[s]tructures where two alternatives are contrasted"); chronological use (shown above under "Acceptable use" quoted from WP:WTA) is acceptable (which is what my edit says: "Although the term "Pallywood" has existed for several years it was popularized by Professor Richard Landes" - i.e although before Landes it was used, it was after Landes's film it became widespread - perfectly acceptable chronological use). --Coroebus 18:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Right wing

Chris, you're trying to discredit this by saying that only right-wing bloggers have used it. I'd like to see that Star article, and also to check whether other media refer to its use. It's not only the Toronto Star that has talked about it, as the sources on the page show, and there are others besides these.

It would be helpful if editors could strike a "don't care" position, rather than constantly trying to undermine the thing they're writing about. It would lead to better writing, for a start. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Why do you keep reverting? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm simply reflecting dispassionately what the sources say. I don't care who uses the term. But if we have a source saying that it's used by right-wing bloggers - the journalist obviously thought it important to make that political distinction - then we should state that in the article. Why are you so reluctant to quote the exact words of the source? I've added direct quotes from Landes and Frum to the article; you've not objected to that; why are you objecting to the Toronto Star? And why are you constantly attacking my good faith in editing the article? -- ChrisO 00:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Chris, you can't hand on heart say that your editing of this article has been dispassionate. You argued strongly for its deletion, and since then you've tried to undermine all its sources. Why do you want to pick out that particular journalist, as though he's the only one who has commented on it? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Let me be blunt. When I first came across this article, I viewed it as a shoddily-written, badly-sourced piece on a non-notable subject. My criticisms of this article have always been about the notability and quality - not the subject matter. On the other hand, many of the people who voted to keep the article argued that it was notable, without saying why, or didn't bother making any policy arguments at all and simply argued from a political POV (Jaakobou and Leifern were particularly egregrious examples of this). Your own approach to this article has been less nakedly partisan, but I don't think you can say, hand on heart, that you're dispassionate about it. You've repeatedly made claims of disruption and POV-pushing - but I guess to a partisan, anyone who doesn't share your POV must be a partisan for the "other side". Personally, I detest both sides in the Arab-Israeli conflict - but I think articles on the subject should treat both sides fairly and equally, which is where you seem to have a problem. Perhaps you don't see that yourself, but that's certainly how it comes across to an outsider.

You're not an outsider, Chris. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you see me editing Arab-Israeli articles normally? It's an area I try to steer clear of. Unfortunately it's simultaneously one of the areas of Wikipedia that most needs attention and one of the worst to edit. So many of the more obscure articles are badly written and sourced - some of the articles are frankly a disgrace. But unfortunately there are some very vociferous and active editors who like to use Wikipedia to promote their POVs and blatantly ignore NPOV. They act in bad faith and assume that everyone else is acting in bad faith too - they edit war, they revert blindly, they don't bother engaging in debate, they act as though they own articles, and so on. Both sides do this, though probably not to an equal extent. I've edited on Wikipedia a lot longer than you have, so believe me, I've seen how it works. I'm sure you've come across the same thing - but you should really consider whether you've fallen into the trap of becoming what you've no doubt been fighting. -- ChrisO 01:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

As for the Star, the relevant quote is above at #Toronto Star Article. It's not "the only source you want to mention" as you claim - I've not found any other media sources saying who (other than Landes) uses the term. If you can find anything, please do. What I don't understand is that you have no objection to citing the Toronto Star to support the contention that bloggers use the term, but you immediately throw a fit when the actual words of the article are quoted. You're flying in the face of WP:ATT: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true." The article specifically attributes the usage of the term to right-wing blogs; this is completely compatible with the statement by Landes himself that his supporters are "primarily politically conservative". So I'm going suggest three choices here: 1) remove that sentence about bloggers altogether if you don't think the Star is a reliable source (and explain why you don't think it's a RS); 2) quote and attribute the quotation without hiding it, as you're trying to do now; or 3) find another source that describes who uses the term. -- ChrisO 00:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Lots of sources have said that bloggers use the term. We can see for ourselves that bloggers use the term. There is no need to search for a source that says it's only right-wing bloggers who use it, and then write the sentence as though that's the only source who has commented. This is so tiresome. :-( SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I would like to point out that the Toronto Star source is the source that was in the article to support the line "The term has been widely adopted by bloggers, particularly during the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict where assertions of media manipulation were also made." which was a modification of the original line "The term was widely adopted by right-wing bloggers, particularly during the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict where assertions of media manipulation were also made." (which is pretty much what I've changed it back to), but was then edited out to the current version by Leifern and ChrisO. --Coroebus 12:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

"Lots of sources have said that bloggers use the term." Cite, please. If you can cite it, let's use it in the article. "We can see for ourselves that bloggers use the term." Original research - you know we're not allowed to add what we can "see for yourselves". Come on, you can do better than this. The development of this article has been plagued by people making vague assertions without providing sources or resorting to OR. You of all people should know that isn't a good thing. -- ChrisO 01:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I seem to have started off a little edit war through actually reading cited sources to see if they support the written text and making some fairly innocuous changes. Funnily enough Jayjg and SlimVirgin seem to have rather different standards for verifiability when an article chimes with their POV (see Allegations of Israeli Apartheid for a similar article from the other POV where WP:NOR and WP:Verifiability are enforced with rather more gusto by these same editors, and where usage must be notable and/or academic). The rank hypocrisy is quite breathtaking. Now let's be serious here, if you want to include a particular sentence back it up with a reference, "it gets 160,000 Google hits" and "We can see for ourselves that bloggers use the term" are clearly not sufficient. --Coroebus 12:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

What makes SlimVirgin's position particularly ridiculous is that she apparently has no objecting to referencing the Toronto Star for the assertion that bloggers use the term, but she does object to actually quoting the reference. That makes it very clear what's going on - she has a POV objection to the source. Fortunately, "I don't believe it" isn't a valid reason for editors to remove content. -- ChrisO 12:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed this, and I don't know what it refers to. I don't really appreciate being thanked for my collaboration on the one hand, then being told I'm ridiculous soon after by the same person. What changed? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Nothing changed - I said your position was ridiculous, not that you were. Please re-read the above. The Toronto Star article provides evidence of who uses the term; why do you object to quoting the article when you don't object to citing it? If the article is reliable enough to be cited, surely it's OK to quote it? What are the "lots of [other] sources" that you mentioned earlier - can we please have some citations? Allegations of Israeli apartheid goes to some lengths to define who uses the term. This specificity is, I think, is something you were pushing for (quite rightly too) - but here you seem to be arguing we should use a vague formulation instead of the specific attribution from the Star. Why the difference? -- ChrisO 15:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Coroebus's revert

I have shown that Jenin Jenin is also associated with Pallywood, and you have still chosen to revert, asking to 'include the source that makes the connection', even though it is not at all relevant to the sentence being sourced. It however relevant to the first source, and who has heard of a source for a source?

I think the issue here is not individual sources, but users trying to do anything in order to portray Pallywood as a term used exclusively by fringe extreme-right movements. Assuming you are not such a user Coroebus, please state valid reasons for removing a perfectly legitimate source.

-- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 13:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The article is called "Pallywood", and the intro sentence says "The term Pallywood, a portmanteau of Palestinian and Hollywood, is used to refer to the alleged staging of news events by Palestinian and other cameramen to portray Israel in an unfavorable light.". The refs at the end of this intro sentence must be about the term "Pallywood" in the context of staging news events because that is quite simply how referencing works. You can't include a reference because it is somehow related to another source, it must be related to the sentence you are referencing!

You have suggested a reference that associates Jenin Jenin with the term "Pallywood" but you want to include a reference to an article about Jenin Jenin that doesn't refer to "Pallywood" at the end of the intro sentence. That is unnacceptable because the sentence is not about events that have been referred to as being associated with "Pallywood", but the word "Pallywood" itself. The only place that article could fit would be in the "Alleged examples" section, but even then this "Pallywood" article shouldn't really be referring people to sources about the events per se, but rather to sources associating those events with the word "Pallywood".

I'm not sure how removing a Front Page Mag ref, whilst leaving in one from the Int Herald Tribune is an attempt to portray the term as used exclusively by fringe extreme-right movements, or how inclusion of this irrelevant link combats that. --Coroebus 13:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The alleged examples section already implies that Jenin Jenin is an example of Pallywood, while Richard Landes clearly makes the connection on his website. Including pages from Richard Landes's website (Second Draft.org) in the article's body is somewhat silly considering it's the first external link under 'further reading'. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 14:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Clarification as to what this article is about

What is this article about? As I've said here there seems to be a conflict as to what different editors think this article is about. It is titled "Pallywood" and says:

The term Pallywood, a portmanteau of Palestinian and Hollywood, is used to refer to the alleged staging of news events by Palestinian and other cameramen to portray Israel in an unfavorable light.

Which suggests to me, and others, that the article is about the word "Pallywood" in a similar manner to Allegations of Israeli Apartheid being about the allegations. Other seem to think that the article is about "staging of news events by Palestinian and other cameramen to portray Israel in an unfavorable light" per se. If the latter is the case I would propose that the use of such a partisan neologism is unencyclopedic and that the article should be merged into Media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or renamed to something like Allegations of media manipulation in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. How about a poll?

Vote 1, What is this article about?

• This article is about the term "Pallywood" only, and not events that may have been described as "Pallywood".

Support --Coroebus 14:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

cf. Hafrada.--Coroebus 22:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Reject - such an interpretation is novel and not consistent with the introduction itself. And in clear violation of Wikipedia policy. --Leifern 01:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Reject if it's taken to the level of WP:POINT. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Reject per SV. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 15:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Support. If we're to have an article on this non-notable neologism, it should be confined to that neologism and its originators. -- ChrisO 15:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Reject - if an RS described something as "term X", why not mention it? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 20:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Reject - The term is nothing without the events the term describes. --GHcool 21:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The issue was not mentioning RS references to X as "Pallywood", but rather to extensive discussion of X outside of the context of it being called "pallywood" (see below about "that may be reasonably described as "Pallywood" even if they have not verifiably been so described"). --Coroebus 21:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Reject - this is obviously key to discussion of the term. Tewfik^Talk 19:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• This article is about the phenomenon of "Pallywood", including those events that may be reasonably described as "Pallywood" even if they have not verifiably been so described.

Support - the term's notability is dubious, but the subject it describes is clearly notable, and happens to have no one name other than Pallywood. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 14:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Reject - there's a difference between "bias media covrage" which is an international phenomena, and "pallywood", which talks about "palestinian produced" fabrications - as such, the 'jenin, jenin' film, which was produced, directed and written by muhamad bakri - later attacked for fabrications and lies - is an obvious example of an admitted pallywood production. btw, this whole thing has been discussed in the "nomintaed for deletion" voting. i'm thinking pallywood could be a sub-article in the media covrage article (small mention and ref to full article from the med cov article). another suggested sub-cat should be about the british media and another about the arab/muslim media who are probably the most enthusiast in promoting pallywood productions. Jaakobou 23:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Support, it's self-evident. --Leifern 01:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Support within very strict limits, for unambiguous cases. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Support so long as the source is clearly and unambiguously talking about that phenomenon; shouldn't be interpreted loosely. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Support per Jaakobou. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 15:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Reject. The issue at hand is alleged media manipulation. Using the term "Pallywood" as shorthand for that is grossly POV; it's associated exclusively with one side's arguments, it was coined to advance those arguments, and it's little more than a slogan intended to link a series of allegations. The contrast between the "support" votes above and the same people's positions on "Israeli apartheid" is instructive. -- ChrisO 15:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Support - again, quoting RS is fine. POV censorship is not. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 20:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Support for unambiguous cases --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 23:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Support all articles on Wikipedia should discuss the term and the phenomenon the term describes. --GHcool 21:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

reject Not the case at all. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. It is an encyclopedia. the events are part of the encyclopedia content.--Sefringle 03:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Support - this is obviously key to discussion of the term (perhaps with PinchasC's caveat). Tewfik^Talk 19:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Vote 2, If this article was to be declared about the phenomenon of "Pallywood", including events describable as such, should it be

• Called "Pallywood"

Support - I don't know what "describable as such" means. Surely we can mention the fact that some RS used this term, if any. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 20:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Describable as such is intended to mean that it may not be referred to as "Pallywood" but meets the general description (i.e. media fabrication in the context of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict) --Coroebus 21:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Support. It is about Pallywood, not other--Sefringle 03:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Merged into Media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

Support --Coroebus 14:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Although I'd probably keep the "Pallywood" article (about the word only - pretty similar to the current article) even though, as a neologism this is against Wikipedia policy, because I think it is actually a useful service we can provide giving the meaning of new words and some context about their use. --Coroebus 22:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Reject - it's a distinct phenomenon from the coverage itself. --Leifern 01:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

In that case you might want to consider adding your vote above ("Pallywood") or below ("Allegations of media manipulation in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict" or something similar). --Coroebus 12:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Support Wikipedia isn't the place to promote little-used neologisms invented by activitists. Catchpole 12:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Reject. Pallywood is a unique term discussing a unique phenomenon not covered by or distorted by this name. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Reject.Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 15:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Reject - per above. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 20:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Reject. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 00:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Support only because I haven't heard the term used very often in the mainstream media or academia. --GHcool 21:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Reject - two different, if related topics, Tewfik^Talk 19:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• Renamed Allegations of media manipulation in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (or something similar)

Support, in order to avoid countless notability disputes. The term itself doesn't matter, the subject matter does. Media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a relevant article and a good place for this information, but I feel that there is enough information to warrant an article of its own, whatever it be named. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 14:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Support. I think this is a reasonable solution - it would allow a more neutral and thematic approach to the subject, rather like Allegations of Israeli apartheid does, and as you say it'll avoid the notability disputes. I'll propose the move formally. -- ChrisO 11:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Reject. Pallywood is a unique term discussing a unique phenomenon not covered by or distorted by this name. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't even parse the question. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The idea was that the three options (stay called "Pallywood", merge into [[Media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, or rename to something less POV, would cover all possible viewpoints - unfortunately everyone has voted support/oppose instead of picking one of the three options so it obviously wasn't that clear. --Coroebus 18:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Reject per Jay.Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 15:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Reject per above. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 20:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Reject Pallywood is a uniquely Palestinian phenomenon. Unless it can be proven that Israelis stage and cover events in ways that do not adhere to standard practices of ethical journalism, then implying that this is something done on both sides is unnecessary and deliberate anti-Israel spin. --GHcool 21:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Reject Clear POV. It is not alleged. Calling things alleged is a way of discrediting facts.--Sefringle 03:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

See Allegations of Israeli Apartheid. In this case the incidents mentioned in the article are all controversial (Sabra and Shatila massacre, Temple Mount, Muhammad al-Dura, Battle of Jenin) and we would really be pushing the bounds to claim that they are unequivocal examples of Palestinian media fabrication!. --Coroebus 09:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Reject - two different, if related topics, Tewfik^Talk 19:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

---

--Coroebus 14:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Why is this neologism notable in the first place? Nobody seems to have answered this question. Could people please have a look at my comments under #Notability questions above? -- ChrisO 14:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I regard the debate about this article as being similar to that of Apartheid wall versus Israeli West Bank barrier, as the deletion vote was equivocal we have to work for the best outcome given the situation we have. --Coroebus 15:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

As noted before, I'm okay with a different title, as long as Pallywood redirects to it. --Leifern 01:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. -- ChrisO 11:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Reject - currently, there's no better name for media fabrications produced by palestinains - the titls (allegations of) "media fabrications by palestianins to villify israel" would be a ridiculous and poor replacement for the current informative and well representing title to the phenomenon. for now, i suggest we keep this title in refrence to "controversial palestinian productions produced in order to villify israel". Jaakobou 21:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

You probably didn't mean to put this here, meant to be under "Renamed Allegations of media manipulation in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (or something similar)"? --Coroebus 09:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Following on from the discussion above, I'm formally requesting a move of this article to Allegations of media manipulation in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (as per Ynhockey's excellent suggestion). The reasons for doing this are:

• Neutrality. "Pallywood" is a highly partisan neologism used by only one side in the dispute. If we are to have an article about the issue of alleged media manipulation in this conflict it needs to be under a neutral title. (Compare Israeli apartheid with Allegations of Israeli apartheid).
• Notability. The present article is about a video essay by an American academic working outside his professional field in a personal capacity as a political activist. This has led to disputes over whether the video essay is notable. We can avoid such disputes by subsuming the content of this article into an article with a wider scope, as Richard Landes obviously isn't the only person making such claims (and of course the claims were made well before Landes got involved).
• Wider scope. This would permit the issue to be covered in better detail with a wider context, rather than confining it to the very narrow subject of Landes' video essay.

If there is a general consensus that this would be beneficial, I propose to make the move five days from now (Saturday 25 March). The present article name (Pallywood) would then redirect to the new article. -- ChrisO 11:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I object to this. It's a well-known term, and the AfD on it was keep. AfDs discuss whether the title should exist, not the contents, and it was decided that this should exist. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The contrast with your stance on Israeli apartheid is instructive. -- ChrisO 13:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, is it now? Please enlighten me as to what your assumption of bad faith instructs you. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Bad faith? No. Inconsistency? Yes, blatantly and unambiguously so. I recall your arguments for why "Israeli apartheid" should be moved to "Allegations of Israeli apartheid". Misrepresentation? That too. The AfD was not keep (look at the top of this page!) and the term is plainly not "well known" among anyone other than partisans and activists - zero academic or book references, and a bare handful of newspaper references. I'm not calling you a baddie - I don't do that, it's infantile. I am calling you out for being inconsistent and inaccurate. -- ChrisO 15:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, a couple of points here:

• I disagree with ChrisO's three reasons: the article isn't, nor has ever been about Landes's video or about the term itself. It's about fabricated media events for propaganda purposes, whether or not the term "Pallywood" applies to it or Landes has written about it.
• I don't think that Allegations of media manipulation in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the right title, either. For starters, it's not limited to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (in fact, there is ample evidence there is no such thing as a limited Israeli-Palestinian conflict to begin with), and this topic is more specific than mere "media manipulation," which could include the kind of spin that every government seems to do now.
• I am open to moving it to a more descriptive title, though I'm still mulling over what the right one would be. But SlimVirgin is right - we are still operating under the mandate of the AFD, so we can't just run off and do these things without asking for trouble. --Leifern 12:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

If the article is about allegedly (an important qualification!) "fabricated media events for propaganda purposes", then let's call it that. The term by itself is uninformative and POV, just as "Israeli apartheid" by itself is. I'm sure you'd agree that we need to treat partisan terminology consistently, whichever side it comes from. -- ChrisO 14:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

In this case I think there is a case to be made that much the same principle applies, though - just for the record - there is a difference between alleging events and alleging an interpretation. "Apartheid" is an interpretation of the meaning of largely undisputed events; media fraud are alleged events themselves. --Leifern 15:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Just a correction for both of you - the AfD result was no consensus, not keep or delete. Since there's no consensus, there's no decision or "mandate" to bind us. The outcome of the AfD means that we have to work to find a new consensus. Ynhockey's suggestion could offer a way ahead without this squabbling over POV and notability. -- ChrisO 13:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

There's no consensus for this move, as the tiny poll above indicates. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

That's the point of having a requested move discussion - to state the proposal, advertise it and get a wider range of views. -- ChrisO 15:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

No consensus in an AfD means keep, Chris. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

No consensus in an AfD has the practical effect of keeping an article, which is a very different thing from the community deciding to endorse or delete an article. It's the same as a no-consensus outcome on WP:DRV - the community neither endorses nor rejects deletion, but the practical effect is for the deletion to stand. Don't confuse judgements with outcomes. -- ChrisO 16:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the point is that there's an presumption that we keep articles unless there's a clear consensus to delete them, sort of like a presumption of innocence. Some deletionists may disagree, but it's not just a practical consideration. --Leifern 16:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. But we shouldn't mistake deadlock for endorsement. -- ChrisO 16:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Any other suggestions for titles? Allegations of Media Fraud in the Arab-Israeli conflict, Allegations of Anti-Israeli Media Fabrication, Palestinian Anti-Israeli Media Fabrication etc. --Coroebus 19:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

It would be preferable to have a title that could encompass allegations presented by both sides. An article focusing on one side to the exclusion of the other would be extremely unbalanced. Whatever title we choose, I think it has to include the word "Allegations" or a synonym for that - we must make clear that these are allegations, without being seen to endorse anyone's claims. -- ChrisO 19:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The title shouldn't beg the question, of course. But balance isn't the same as accuracy. I'd hate for us to think that for every case of news fabrication on one side, we must produce one for the other. It's the kind of moral equivalence that is so dangerous in this debate. --Leifern 20:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Leifern. Also, please see WP:TITLE. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 20:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• ChrisO, i propose, in the case of the Wider scope proposal, that this article would be refrenced as a Main article within' the wider area of "media wars in the arab-israeli conflict", similar to "history of israel" inside the Israel article. now you just need to start that article. Jaakobou 21:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose for reasons above.--Sefringle 03:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I did not propose necessarily moving the article to Allegations of media manipulation in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but instead moving it away from Pallywood (voted in support of: Renamed Allegations of media manipulation in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (or something similar)). I have the following reasons for my opinion:

• Pallywood is a controversial term, and while it is well-known and documented for some (such as myself), for others it is simply a neologism with 'zero academic or book references'. We don't even know who came up with the term (clearly it preceded Landes) and how it is used by who today.
• The scope of Pallywood, even when accepted as a notable subject, is debated - some say it's just the term, others say that it's the whole concept. Then there's the argument about what the 'whole concept' is. Does it include just staged media events and photo/video fakes, or the entire issue of using photography for propaganda (i.e. Jenin Jenin)? Does it only include the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the entire Arab-Israeli conflict (also Hezbollywood), or a concept that can be applied to any form of propaganda by any nation?

Basically I think it's important that Pallywood is documented on Wikipedia (actually most of the 'allegations' have been proven, like the entire Jenin Jenin, what the Palestinian side has made of the Battle of Jenin on the whole, and other events documented by Landes, Pierre Rehov, etc.), however, naming the article Pallywood is not very helpful to this very process. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 18:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Notmoved --Stemonitis 10:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Notability concerns

From Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms.

"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."

I am concerned that this article is not built on reliable secondary sources about the term. Catchpole 08:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

See also my detailed comments under #Notability questions above. I'm still waiting for a reply from the article's supporters. -- ChrisO 08:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Strictly speaking the handful of reliable sources that have mentioned the term are not using it but talking about it (see the Lexis Nexis newspaper hits I mention here. --Coroebus 09:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Catchpole, you have crossed the line into bad behavior now. This has been discussed ad nauseum, and it should be clear that this is not a dictionary entry, but an article about the phenomenon of staged and fraudulent media events. This is without question a notable topic within the broader issue. Your efforts to first redefine the topic to something ridiculously narrow and then disqualify it based on your new and novel interpretation have no place here. --Leifern 11:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I've raised four specific concerns at #Notability questions. You haven't addressed any of them. Why? -- ChrisO 14:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I have addressed all of these many many times on the talk page here and on the AFD, which you've tried repeatedly to circumvent. This article is unequivocally about fraudulent attempts at creating news for propaganda purposes. It is distinct from the general topic of media coverage and deserves its own article. The three other definitions are nothing but strawmen. We have gone over this many times before, ChrisO. I am deleting the tag again, as it has no merit. --Leifern 23:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

It is clearly not without question. A herd of bloggers posting "Pallywood" on each other's blogs is not inherently notable. Catchpole 17:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

what is clearly not without question is that wikipedia is supposed to give an explanation and examples on the very known term (150,000+ google hits) when someone looks for it. the "notability" questioning is ridiculous. Jaakobou 17:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't work like that - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate source of information. We've never relied on the number of Google hits to establish notability, and if you read WP:NOTABLE you'll see that a crude metric like that isn't included. Let me give you a comparable example. I've seen the term "Bushco" used on left-leaning blogs as a slang term for the George W. Bush administration. A Google search for "Bushco" shows 910,000 results, the vast majority of which are from anti-Bush bloggers. But the term doesn't seem to be used to refer to the Bush administration anywhere other than on blogs; consequently it's not notable, we don't have an article on it, and I'd never support the creation of one. "Pallywood" is in exactly the same category - in fact your evidence suggests that it's even less notable than "Bushco". -- ChrisO 23:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

BushCo can maybe fit into a "bad slang" dictionary, there's no phenomenon behind it unless you want to use it to describe bush haters maybe (but that has yet to happen). The comparisment is cute but it is also easily distinguishable from Pallywood and doesn't measure up, not even close. Jaakobou 23:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

As far as I understand it - I'm not American, so there may be nuances I haven't understood - "Bushco" is meant to portray the Bush administration as a (corrupt?) corporation; effectively, a one-word slogan encapsulating a political argument. That seems to be very similar to the way that "Pallywood" is used - as a one-word slogan encapsulating the argument that Palestinians fake media coverage. You seem to be making two a priori assumptions: 1) that there actually is a phenomenon of Palestinians faking media coverage (a proposition which I neither accept nor deny - I'm genuinely agnostic on the question) and 2) that "Pallywood" is the best term to use to refer to it, rather than something wordier but much more neutral like "Allegations of media manipulation...". Obviously I disagree with point 2, since all the indications are that "Pallywood" is neither a neutral nor a notable term. I would make exactly the same argument if someone tried to create an article on "Bushco". -- ChrisO 00:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Google searching is useful for establishing lack of notability, but much less notability. However, I would like to note that "Pallywood -blog" on Google renders 21,000 results, meaning a vast majority of those might well be 155,000 hits are blogging or related activities. But this is not my main complaint - please do not remove any tags until after discussion has been completed, unless it is in bad faith - and this is not bad faith. This is a legitimate concern with a legitimate policy. x42bn6 Talk 00:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see the point of having the tag there when the article was just kept on AFD. Friday (talk) 16:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Catchpole, your concern is suspect given your insistence on inserting original research based entirely on books and articles that use a term in other articles: [10]. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Play the ball not the man. Feel free to supply reliable sources discussing Pallywood. The AfD discussion was closed as no consensus.Catchpole 17:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

And that means "keep." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The ball here is whether or WP:NEO applies. You claim it applies here, yet edit in violation of it elsewhere. Which is it to be? Please state your viewpoints explicitly, so we know how seriously to take your alleged concern. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Can we please stay on the subject of this article? Are either of you going to address the questions at Talk:Pallywood#Notability questions? -- ChrisO 18:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Note

If a user removes the Noteability tag before this discusion above is concluded I will block them for edit waring. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 01:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

...Which would be 1) overturned as baseless and 2) made with a conflict of interest. This certainly looks notable and deserving of an entry to me. Picaroon 01:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you could add your comments on the Talk:Pallywood#Notability questions above, in that case. We have an endless parade of people saying "this is notable" but never saying why other than "it gets Google hits".. Let's get the why on the record. -- ChrisO 01:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

With pleasure. Picaroon 02:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Betacommand, you've restored the tag twice, so you can't take admin action in relation to this article for awhile. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

OR

Friday, which bits do you think are OR? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, I just thought it might be a better description of the concerns people had. Didn't want to seem like I was ignoring talk page discussion. I don't have much opinion on the content issue. Friday (talk) 18:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough. I've removed it because everything looks as though it's pretty well-sourced now. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Notability questions

Note: This is a refactored version of a post of 17 March.

During a recent Articles for Deletion discussion on this article, the issue of notability was raised. Several of the contributors to the discussion asserted that the subject of the article was notable, but without explaining why. In order to get the notability of the subject established on the record, I'd like to use this section to explore four key notability issues. I've added a space below each issue for responses from other editors (in order to keep the page tidy). -- ChrisO 18:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Alleged media manipulation in general

The subject is clearly notable, but it's already addressed in considerable detail at Media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Why is this a separate article rather than a subsection of the "Media coverage" article? -- ChrisO 00:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Responses to this question

from the "media coverage" acticle:

Outright forgery - video footage, quotes, and other items are fabricated to bias the presentation. See Pallywood for such allegations.[11]

for the umpteenth time: "media coverage" is too wide an article (as it should include worldwide media) to give a broad perspective account to palestianian produced stagings intended to villify israel or the term pallywood and it's common usage... i'd perhaps be supportive in a basic description (similar to the way History of Israel is written inside Israel) under a title of "Palestinain Produced Hate-Art against Israel" or "palestinian media manipulations and productions", but that would not negate the way the Pallywood article is currently written. Jaakobou 19:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I also think - in fairness to media organizations, reporters, etc., who are accused of being biased in their presentation of news from the region - that there is a difference between reporting facts in a biased way, and engaging in fraud for propaganda purposes. In other words, this topic isn't primarily about "coverage" - it's about propaganda of the worst possible kind. --Leifern 19:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The neologism "Pallywood"

As the references in the article show, the term "Pallywood" has barely been mentioned by the mainstream media. It's certainly not being used regularly by any media source that I can find, and only certain partisan bloggers seem to be using it regularly. If the use of a term is almost entirely confined to non-notable, non-reliable sources, is that term really notable? -- ChrisO 00:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Responses to this question

I have had a look for mainstream mentions of "Pallywood", particularly with regard to whether it is an acceptable title for an article about allegations of media manipulation (see poll below). Google scholar throws up one reference (Steinberg) but the mention is in an endnote to Second Draft ("Nidra Poller, ‘Myth, Fact, and the al-Dura Affair’, Commentary, September 2005; see also http://seconddraft.org/streaming/pallywood.wmv."), and a Lexis Nexis search finds 17 references in English language news:

"misinterpreted or -- as an American academic put it -- artfully staged Pallywood theater." NYT & Int Herald Tribune

"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." Boston Globe

"Landes claimed many scenes of violence against Palestinians are staged and coined the term "Pallywood" to describe the industry that produces this footage. He said this "staged" information is a way to further the Palestinian cause and to try the views of those who see it. Visitors to seconddraft.org can watch Pallywood, his 19-minute documentary, as well as several segments of unedited footage shot at Netzarim Junction, a disputed territory in the Middle East." Daily Free Press

"They dub the Palestinian propaganda complex, "Pallywood," and ask hard questions about the readiness -- eagerness -- of much of the world media to be deceived" National Post

"Right-wing bloggers have dubbed that "Pallywood."" Toronto Star

"to the dissemination of "Pallywood" terrorist video productions" Kansas City Star & Augusta Chronicle (Michelle Malkin)

And assorted non-mainstream sources: a letter to the editor, Atlas Shrugs, The Jawa Report, Say Anything, and some Second Draft press releases.

Notice both that all uses of the word are attributed to someone else (normally Landes), except for Michelle Malkin (who still writes in parentheses), rather than using the word as part of their usual vocabulary to describe the phenomenon of media manipulation. Clearly the word is both a marginal neologism but, more importantly, is not widely used to describe media manipulation in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and is thus an unnacceptable title for an article about said subject --Coroebus 21:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Should probably also point out WP:NEO:

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. (Note that Wiktionary is not considered to be a reliable source for this purpose.)

Neologisms that are in wide use — but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources — are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia. They may be in time, but not yet. The term does not need to be in Wikipedia in order to be a "true" term, and when secondary sources become available it will be appropriate to create an article on the topic or use the term within other articles.

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). To paraphrase Wikipedia:Attribution: If you have research to support the inclusion of a term in the corpus of knowledge that is Wikipedia, the best approach is to arrange to have your results published in a peer-reviewed journal or reputable news outlet and then document your work in an appropriately non-partisan manner.

--Coroebus 11:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for those data points, Coroebus. I did a search on Factiva and found 17 results; all the same media articles you quoted, plus a few press releases from Landes himself. The fact that we've had virtually identical results from two different databases shows, I think, that the term has had only very limited media coverage and no regular usage at all. -- ChrisO 01:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Richard Landes' film "Pallywood"

The term "Pallywood" was popularised among bloggers by a 17-minute personally authored, self-distributed video essay of the same title by Richard Landes, a medieval historian at Boston University. It's never been reviewed in any mainstream source and it lacks any other notable aspects as a film - for instance, it has no IMDB entry. It's also purely self-published. The latter fact raises questions about whether we should be citing it in the first place (see also the next point). What makes it notable? -- ChrisO 00:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Responses to this question

Nobody has claimed that the film itself is notable, though it may be. Strawman argument that needs no further response. --Leifern 19:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Richard Landes' political views

"Pallywood" the film is essentially a vehicle for Landes' personal political views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Landes is a medieval historian; he's not an expert on the I-P conflict, he's never published any academic papers or books on it, as far as I know he's not written newspaper articles about it and his self-published material appears not to have been quoted by any mainstream sources that I've come across. His own user page at Boston University makes no mention of his Middle Eastern activism [12]. In short, it appears to be an entirely private endeavour, separate from anything he's doing academically.

Clearly this falls well outside the scope set out by WP:ATT: "Where a well-known, professional researcher, writing within his or her field of expertise has produced self-published material, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as his or her work has been previously published by reliable, third-party publications" (my bolding). Why are Landes' personal views notable, given that he's acting in a personal capacity outside his field of expertise and doesn't seem to be regarded by mainstream sources as an expert (or even a reliable source) on Middle Eastern affairs? -- ChrisO 00:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Responses to this question

Again, a strawman argument. Nobody has claimed Landes's political views are notable, not even - as far as I know - he himself has done that. Question needs no further answering. --Leifern 19:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

General responses

ChrisO, we have gone over all these arguments before in the AFD. The term gets lots of hits on Google, even if you substract out those that mention Landes. I have nowhere before in Wikipedia come across an argument that it needs to be cited in Lexis/Nexis a certain number of times to be notable. And I reject your premise that the topic of media fraud is covered adequately in other articles. This article has gone through an AFD before; it failed. Let it go.--Leifern 01:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you have a look at some quotes from previous discussion on a very similar article, and compare with the current discussions. --Coroebus 20:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for posting that - I've not been following that debate. I won't say I'm surprised at what you've found. -- ChrisO 22:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

All of us who believe this article should exist, base it on the premise that it is about a number of specific (alleged or documented) incidents in which anti-Israeli activists have staged news events for propaganda purposes. As I have pointed out on discussions about Allegations of Israeli apartheid, the "apartheid" charge is not about specific incidents - the vast majority of these are undisputed - but about an interpretation of what those incidents are motivated by and what they are intended to accomplish. Nobody has proposed that this article be about the term Pallywood, or the movie, or Landes's political views, and so your putting those up amounts to a strawman fallacy. As for the point that this phenomenon is already covered in another article, this a) has been rejected through the AFD; and in any case should be proposed through other avenues. --Leifern 18:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be unaware of Wikipedia:Notability (emphasis added): "A topic is generally notable if it has been the subject of published material which is independent of the subject, reliable, and most importantly, attributable. The depth of coverage and quality of sources must be considered in determining the number of sources required and whether the coverage establishes notability. Multiple sources are preferable and should be independent of each other... For example, popular Internet fads may be the subject of few or no reliable sources and fail to be notable" I don't believe we've ever accepted Argumentum ad populum as a valid argument for notability. But thank you anyway for addressing one aspect of the issue, albeit a question I wasn't asking. Could you please answer my four specific notability questions above? I'd like to get the answers on the record, since none of this article's proponents seem to have given any policy-based (as opposed to politics-based) rationale for the article's notability. -- ChrisO 01:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

As for point number (1) - I'm thinking that the article should possibly me made into a sub category (such as History of Israel on Israel) on an article titled: "Arab Media Manipulation" article, a generic "media covrage" article would make a search for "pallywood" impossible and would render wikipedia unusable for a person who wishes to learn about the phenomenon. Chris and Coroebus, all your other points are pointless and repetative "notability questioning" which has allready been addressed with on the AfD voting. Jaakobou 17:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• I think the notability tag should be removed. First, although this isn't always the case, it is most of the time: if an AfD doesn't show consensus to delete, the subject in question is at least somewhat notable. This is one of those cases. A variety of sources in at least three different forms of media have been supplied, and, while I question the reliablity of the groops.goougle link, all the others I can see look reliable enough to serve this purpose, which is asserting the notability of this term.

• Second of all, what does the pro-tag group of editors think leaving that ugly tag there is going to accomplish? The Wikipedians most qualified to write this article are already here - no one who patrols the category which that tag feeds into is going to come along and assert more notability than is asserted now (and, as I already noted, it asserts plenty.) This coming from someone who 1) geniunely doesn't care for either side in the Arab-Israeli dispute and 2) is a deletionist with higher standards for notability than many. Picaroon 01:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• I can't see how anyone can argue the term isn't notable. 60 Minutes broadcast a segment about it, for example. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Landes film

I'm confused about why we said this was self-distributed. It was broadcast by 60 Minutes. Do we mean that he previously arranged for it to be broadcast elsewhere, or was 60 Minutes the first North American showing of it? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

You are mistaken. The film Pallywood contains footage from 60 minutes, but it was not broadcast on the show. There also has been mentions on 60 minutes of the term Pallywood (I think, it would be best to find the original transcripts to document this), but the documentary itself was not shown in full (if anything a quick bit of it might have been briefly shown to illustrate a point, as they commonly do in their stories.) If you think about it, it doesn't make sense for the documentary to be shown in the medium as 60 minutes is all about original reporting by its star team, it does not rebroadcast features made by others. --70.48.242.216 21:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Further research indicates that CBS 60 minutes may not even have mentioned the term Pallywood or devoted a segment to it. Rather bloggers and others have accused CBS 60 Minutes of doing a "Pallywood" segment, a segment that is alleged to be based on anti-Israel staging. I can understand how these two things can be confused. --70.48.242.216 21:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm totally confused. The CBS thing clearly uses the word Pallywood in the title. I thought it was the Landes film. You're saying it was something else, and only used footage from the Landes film. But the two begin identically. What is leading you to say they were different films? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

A secondary concern is the OR link to a newsgroup posting in order to make the claim that the term has been used for a number of years. IMHO, both the OR claim based on the newsgroup posting and the claim that CBS 60 Minutes broadcast the documentary have got to go. I am sure there are sources that can be used instead of the OR newsgroup source in order to establish the usage of the term prior to the appearance of the Pallywood documentary, but this is not my area of expertise. --70.48.242.216 22:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

My experience is that the clique editing this article have no interest in WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:V or indeed anything other than their own narrow partisan POV. The article is an exercise in soapboxing - nothing more. -- ChrisO 22:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Chris, I've never edited an article without trying to stick to NOR, V, and NPOV, so I'd appreciate it if you'd withdraw what you said. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't call you part of the clique. -- ChrisO 23:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

ChrisO, I suppose we can exchange insults, but what I find is that there is a far more active clique that seems to be very anxious to remove not just this article but any mention of the specific and documented incidents that substantiates it. If anything is partisan, it's that relentless effort to censor very inconvenient truths. --Leifern 22:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Trust me, your activities and those of your enablers have been noted by more than just myself. -- ChrisO 23:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the OR claim and I have removed the claim that it was broadcast on 60 minutes. The first usages of the term should be added back in when someone finds an appropriate source. The claim of the broadcast on 60 minute I fear is simply incorrect. I did a search on the CBSNews.com website for Pallywood and it turned up 0 hits even though there is usually a separate news story on CBSNews.com for each 60 minutes segment going back much further than 2005 (the date that the article claimed it was broadcast.) It may have been removed from their website, but I doubt it. --70.48.242.216 22:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous editor, please familiarize yourself with WP policies and standards before trying to uproot articles. Among other things, if there is an undocumented claim, you should tag it as lacking in reference rather than deleting it. --Leifern 22:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Liefern, I am very familiar with Wikipedia policies. Thanks. I've used Google to translate to English the original German source of the 60 minutes claim. It reads: In the media one speaks 60 Minutes since an look up-exciting documentation of the US magazine „“of „Pallywood “- following Hollywoods film industry. I can't say for sure what that means except there is a connection between Pallywood and 60 minutes. On this page, it describes the main Pallywood movie as "An 18-minute edited film by Richard Landes that critically explores the al Dura incident and subsequent media treatment, including a 60 Minutes report (download 39 MB)." This second mention strongly suggests that the film Pallywood includes the 60 minutes report as part of its critical examination of the incident. I am going to download the movie to see what the 60 minutes report is about and whether or not it includes a rebroadcast of the movie as this article previously claimed, but I strongly doubt it at this point. --70.48.242.216 22:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The film Pallywood opens with a 60 minutes report about the conflict and then goes on to criticize it and other media coverage. I guess that settles what the primary connection between Pallywood and 60 minutes is. There might be another connection, but I haven't seen any sources to that extent. --70.48.242.216 22:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

So this is not a 60 Minutes segment? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

So, interesting that you should discount a reference in a language you don't know. As it is, I do read German, and the relevant paragraph is this:

Pallywood

“

Dass Palästinenser im Nahost-Krieg um die Bilder fälschen oder falsche Bilder in Umlauf bringen, ist nicht neu. In den Medien spricht man seit einer aufsehenerregenden Dokumentation des US-Magazins „60 Minutes“ von „Pallywood“ - in Anlehnung an Hollywoods Filmindustrie. In der Dokumentation sind zum Beispiel Palästinenser aus der jüngsten Intifada zu erkennen, die einen Toten auf einer Trage tragen. Einer stolpert, der angebliche Tote fällt auf den Boden - und springt behend wieder zurück auf die Trage, legt sich hin und mimt einen Toten.

”

...which translates to:

“

That Palestinians in the Near East War forge pictures or put false pictures into circulation, is not new. In the media one speaks since a documentary by the US-magazine's "60 minutes" of "Pallywood" - based on the Hollywood's film inudustry. In the documentary one can recognize, for example, Palestinians from the most recent intifadah carrying bodies on a stretcher. One victim, who is allegedly dead falls on the ground - and then jumps easily back on the stretcher and mimics a dead person.

”

--Leifern 22:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Bad grammar on Landes' part, I'd say. It sounds like his non-notable video essay includes the "60 Minutes" segment in an attempt to lend it some credibility. If so, the line 70.* quoted should have read something like: "An 18-minute edited film by Richard Landes that critically explores the al Dura incident and subsequent media treatment, including and includes a 60 Minutes report." -- ChrisO 23:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

There are many claims on the web that Pallywood is a documentary shown on 60 Minutes, but there are no good sources to this extent (and it doesn't make logical sense as that isn't what 60 Minutes does, it does original reporting only.) I believe that this resulted from people misunderstanding that 60 Minutes was one of the main subject of the film. I recommend that you contact the professor who created the documentary to clear this up once and for all. I am done with this issue. You are free to include in this article whatever content makes you happy, I won't stop you. --70.51.235.86 23:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Reposting this here in case you miss it above. Are you saying this was never shown on 60 Minutes? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

That is exactly what I am saying, that documentary was not shown on 60 Minutes. The documentary leads off with a clip from "60 Minutes", which is why you get that impression, but then the narrator of Pallywood starts talking over the video saying "Millions of viewers watched this in depth news report. Scenes like these of action and injury are a major source of information...." Also you can see from the background image used in the 60 Minutes clip, it is a segment entitled "Crossroads". A quick search turns up some information suggesting that it was originally broadcast in November 2000 and examined the IDF recreation of Mohammed al-Dura shooting as per this mention of the segment in this news article [13]:

A film crew from CBS' "60 Minutes" was there to capture the re-enactment, and broadcast its report on Nov. 12. The report, titled "The Crossroad," concerned the larger issue of the controversial Jewish settlements in the Gaza strip -- populated by more than one million Palestinians -- and the Israeli army outpost located at the Netzarim junction to protect those settlements. Anchored by Bob Simon, "60 Minutes" characterized the IDF's shooting re-enactment and findings as inconclusive.

When was Pallywood the documentary created? I am pretty sure it was created more recently than 2000. --70.51.235.86 06:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

September 2005, according to Landes' press release announcement. ("Boston U. professor claims media 'staged' footage of Middle East conflict", U-Wire press release, September 22, 2005). -- ChrisO 07:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, it was created in 2005, I believe. Thank you for that information, and I apologize for not paying proper attention. I did wonder why 60 Minutes would use a film by someone not employed by them, which would be unusual, but instead of letting my confusion tell me something, I shrugged it off. I'm sorry. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

9/11 celebrations

Liftarn, your source doesn't mention Pallywood. Did we decide sources must actually mention it, or not? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

True, I put it under the See also instead. // Liftarn

Actually, i'm not sure about the final descision for "sources including the word pallywood", i thought the almost-concensus was that the word is not a neccesity, however the article about the film 'Jenin, Jenin' was repeatedly removed from the "admitted stagings" and from the entire article... and i'm not sure on the "concensus"(?) reasoning for the removal.

In any event, regardless of the descision on the word Pallywood in sources (or lack of it), I believe Pallywood should describe "prominent palestinian produced/staged events meant to villify Israel" (and this inclusion of the celebration article most certainly doesn't fit).

User Liftran, under the assumption of good faith I'm expecting/hoping for a normative reasoning on the inclusion of this linkage... even under "see also". Jaakobou 09:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Why shouldn't it be included? It is clearly realted. If not then a lot of other things should be removed from the See also section. // Liftarn

Please avoid WP:POINT in the future. Why is it "clearly related"? Is it an example of Palestinians faking news stories for effect? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is. Not the intended effect obviously, but still a staged event. // Liftarn

Other than to make a WP:POINT, totally irrelevant here. Liftarn, you only discredit yourself with such propagandist edits. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 08:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't call the kettle black. // Liftarn

DFTT. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

So you admit it? // Liftarn

See also

Ok, so what detemines what should be included under See also and what should not? The only I found was Wikipedia:See alsos and that's no good. Wikipedia:Guide to layout#See also gives no guidance either. // Liftarn

Sandbox

The results of our discussions about what this article is actually about seem to be that it is about the phenomenon of "Pallywood", including those events that may be reasonably described as "Pallywood" even if they have not verifiably been so described and (through the negative approach of voting against any alternative) that it should be Called "Pallywood". Now I completely disagree with what seems like the victory of partisan politics over consistency, but so be it.

In which case, the article itself does not seem to represent what most people think it is supposed to be about, in particular, it reads as being about the word "Pallywood", and Landes's film in particular. So I've very roughly cut the article up a bit here as a sandbox to reflect the sort of structure I think it should have. Please comment/contribute. --Coroebus 16:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that replacing every section with one line really follows from the discussion above. I'm not sure what your vision was, but you may want to reread the Talk. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 06:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

it's not "horrible", but it's lacking and i don't see a reason to exchange it with the current better version. Jaakobou 10:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Each section is currently lacking because the current article has so little that is actually on the subject. If we are going to say the article is notable because it is about Palestinian propaganda the text should be about that - not the "strawman" topics above of Landes' film and the word itself. --Coroebus 20:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

it's getting tiresome to debate what's in and what's out in such a manner, i thought we've gotten some type of consensus and i believe any further conversation should wait until this article (and the general subject) is further contributed to considering the hangup caused by all the recent two month(!) long debate. Jaakobou 11:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Well I think it is useful to have a general structure we can all agree on - after all much of teh argument was on what the article was actually about - it seems silly to then decide that we don't care what state teh article is in - for instance, I would want to expand on the 'examples' section since that is what the article is essentially about, whereas we currently focus excessively on Landes and his film. --Coroebus 14:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

if you want to expand on something, go ahead and do it... or at least write it first on the talk page if you're uncertain about it's validity in the article. Jaakobou 10:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Foreign Language Sources

What's the policy on foreign language sources (e.g. the various German language ones appearing in the article. Presumably there's a preference for ones in the language of whichever Wiki they're on but are they ok as long as they say what they are meant to support? --Coroebus 14:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

If you find an English source about the lucrativeness of the job for palestinians, then it would be preffered to the germen one. Jaakobou 08:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

However, online translators (Google, Altavista...) can translate from German to English quite well. For example [14] // Liftarn

I was wondering about the principle really - while the main European languages (Spanish, German, French, Dutch etc) are pretty easy to confirm the content of, what about the more esoteric ones that we have to take someone's word on? Also, someone added a German article for "Pallywood" being used in the mainstream press (which obviously Sueddeutsche Zeitung is), but I was wondering whether you can use usage in language X to support a claim in language Y - I seem to recall something funny about Hafrada along those sorts of lines. --Coroebus 17:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Cameramen

Why do people keep trying either to remove this or shorten it? The source is discussing the Pallywood allegation. He makes the point about the cameramen, which is directly relevant for obvious reasons.

Those of you who are trying to keep it out of the article or minimize it — if practically all images that were aired from the West Bank and Gaza were taken by Israeli cameramen, would you be fighting to keep that out of articles about the conflict? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I removed it from the intro, then changed it to read closer to the source when you added it back minutes later in its own section. The source reads something like:

The world's large TV-broadcasters, CNN and ABC, news agencies such as Reuters and Associated Press, and German TV-companies work almost exclusively with Palestinian cameramen, if it concerns reports out of the Gaza Strip. The pictures of the hopeless world in the Gaza Strip are made primarily by Palestinians. Working as a cameraman for western media is considered to be one of the most lucrative jobs in the Palestinian areas. Some earn up to 250 USD a day. Some Palestinian families do not even earn as much in half a year.

Rather than the original odd phraseology "Pictures that are aired to the world...'cameraman to western media'" (which was better in the version you added that I accidentally wrote over). I was hardly trying to prove some partisan point by reflecting better what the source says (incidentally, I still don't like the "Images sent around the world from the West Bank and Gaza Strip" line which both includes references to the West Bank that isn't in the source, and the odd phrase "images sent around the world" which isn't in the source).

The source is discussing the allegation of fabrication but that does not mean that every line from the article must be repeated here which is why I removed the reference to how much cameramen make, and wages in Palestine, because I'm not clear what the relevance to the article is. I don't particularly care about keeping it but I don't see why we should. But then we're not trying to make an encyclopedic article but rather further just another battle in a tired and predictable little media war. --Coroebus 21:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I can't see a legitimate reason to remove it. The source is discussing Pallywood. He uses the term explicitly. He makes the clearly relevant point that the Western media relies almost entirely on Palestinian cameramen for images from that area, and that the job is an extremely highly paid one compared to almost any other in the area.

As I said, if this was an article about whether images coming out of that area were too pro-Israeli, and if one of the sources pointed out that all the images are taken by Israeli cameramen, you and CJCurrie would be clamouring to have that material included. I can only imagine the howling that would take place if anyone tried to remove it. Please try to be fair and consistent. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The article (google translation here) is discussing the Gaza Beach explosion, and it mentions "Pallywood" right at the end saying (can't be bothered to clean up the translation):

Pallywood The fact that Palestinians in the Middle East war falsify around the pictures or bring wrong pictures in circulation is not new. In the media one speaks 60 Minutes since an look up-exciting documentation of the US magazine „“of „Pallywood “- following Hollywoods film industry. In the documentation are to be recognized for example Palestinians from the youngest Intifada, which carry a dead one on a stretcher. One stolpert, the alleged dead one falls on the soil - and jumps swiftly again back on the stretcher, lies down and acts like a dead one.

Recent example of the attempt of Palestinians to lead around the world public at the nose is the attack of the Israeli Air Force on past Tuesday on three members „of the Islamic holy war “, with which eight civilians, among them two children, were killed. After the attack on the car, in which the members of the group of terror sat, one sees three men short, how they remove a short-range missile in wind hurry from the car.

But the reference to Palestinian cameramen comes near the beginning and is not explicitly linked to Pallywood allegations. My objection is to the wording (I don't mind a reference to most Gaza Strip cameramen being Palestinian particularly, but may move it to a Palestine specific section when I expand the examples since it isn't relevant to Lebanon), which I don't think represents the source very well, and to the pay reference, which is interesting but I can't see the relevance for unless you're trying to imply something. It is not about whether you "can't see a legitimate reason to remove it" but whether there is a legitimate reason to keep it. --Coroebus 10:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

If the source is truly "discussing the Pallywood allegation" and the reference is "directly relevant", then we should make the connection explict. CJCurrie 22:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

By all means read the article and do that. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I can't read German, Slim. Could you please tell me if the author has drawn a specific connection between "western reliance on Palestinian cameramen" and "allegations of Pallywood"? If no such connection exists, then I will reiterate my contention that the paragraph should be deleted. CJCurrie 22:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't rememeber how explicitly he draws the connection, but it's in the same article. I feel you're engaged in WP:POINT now. Please answer this honestly: Suppose the article were called "Israelwood," and it was about how the Israeli govt distorts images coming out of the West Bank and Gaza. Suppose we found a mainstream newspaper article that reported that almost all images aired in the Western media from that area are taken exclusively by Israeli cameramen working on a freelance basis, often working alone, who are paid an enormous amount compared to the averge wage. The newspaper article explictly uses the term "Israelwood."

What would your response be if I kept on deleting the information on the grounds that it was irrelevant to Israelwood; and then I conceded it could remain only if the source has drawn an explicit connection between Israelwood and the fact that all such images are taken exclusively by Israelis — an even more explicit connection than discussing the same two issues in one article? Would you not now be halfway up a wall, tearing your hair out and screaming at me? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

You may find this hard to believe, but it wouldn't necessarily prove anything if a mainstream newspaper reported that most images aired in the western media from the West Bank and Gaza were taken by Israeli cameramen working on a freelance basis. The report would be significant if a majority of the cameraman were representatives of the government or military (or a settler group), or if they were generally believed to share a common political bias. The mere fact of nationality, however, would not be sufficient grounds for us to include the reference. For all we know, half of our hypothetical cameramen could be Peace Now members.

As currently worded, this article simply states that a majority of cameraman are Palestinians working for high wages relative to their communities, and leaves the obvious insinuation that the images are "not to be trusted" for that reason. I find this more than a bit insulting, to say nothing of it being unencyclopedic.

Unless the source article has made a specific connection between the accusation of "Pallywood" and the nationality of the cameramen, the reference should be removed as irrelevant to the subject matter. Could I please request that someone who can read German review the source text, and determine its applicability? CJCurrie 00:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

This whole argument nicely underlines my concerns about foreign language sources. --Coroebus 10:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, there does seem to be a bit of an insinuation in the phrasing - it implies there's an economic motive without coming right out and saying it (or attributing that claim). If people feel that the point needs to be made - I'm not sure it's encyclopedic, given how speculative it is - it would be more satisfactory if we could say something like "according to X, the high wages (relative to local averages) paid to Palestinian cameramen may give them an incentive..." I don't think we should be trying to express it as a bare fact and leaving the reader to connect the dots. What do you think? -- ChrisO 06:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I would expect editors to start complaining that the article 'doesn't say that', and that it is OR. In this kind of case where the source articulates a clear implication without stating the conclusion as clearly, it is best to maintain the same level of ambiguity or detail as the source does, hence keep the current phrasing. Tewfik^Talk 18:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

In other words, to convey the insinuations of the source material? I'm sorry, but I'm not convinced that this is a good idea. CJCurrie 23:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Article is severely POV

The lead of this article today [15] is reasonable (if we accept that Wikipedia functions as a dictionary and not just as an encyclopaedia). But every subsequent line and section seems to have been written in order to POV that "Palestinians manipulate the media and Israel gets a raw deal". There is nothing included that could be called NPOV. Readers of this article could be excused for thinking they'd been reading propaganda. And not even well produced propaganda - note that the incidents refered to were all triggered by Israel. In only one of those cases might Palestinian cameramen even seem to have capitalised on actions by Israel! PalestineRemembered 15:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

This article is about Palestinian media manipulation. Obviously it will deal with Palestinian media manipulation. If you can come up with enough notable sourced material about Israeli media manipulation, feel free to create an article. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 15:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "triggered by Israel," but that's beside the point. PalestineRemembered, the article is about allegations of a certain phenomenon. It is up to the reader to determine whether these allegations are substantiated enough to be believed, it is not up to you to decide whether they should hear about them. --Leifern 16:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I do think there's a point on the 1st line that needs clarification (which I've done). The previous version said: "Pallywood (a portmanteau of "Palestinian" and "Hollywood") refers to news events that are alleged to have been staged by Palestinian and other cameramen to portray Israel in an unfavorable light." The term is obviously a neologism - you won't find it in any dictionary - so I've noted this. More fundamentally, "Pallywood" is a term which is used to refer to allegations that news events have been staged - it's a shorthand for a series of charges, in a similar sort of way to how "Watergate" is used as a shorthand to refer to a number of discrete events. To reflect this, I've changed the line to read "Pallywood (a portmanteau of "Palestinian" and "Hollywood") is a neologism used to refer to allegations that news events have been staged by Palestinian and other cameramen to portray Israel in an unfavorable light."

I think it would be useful to say who exactly uses the term, as we don't say that at the moment. Plainly it's a partisan term used by supporters of Israel; I can't imagine any Palestinian sources using it, for instance. It's not in the same category as "Watergate", which everyone uses regardless of partisan allegiances. -- ChrisO 10:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

i thought the change was a linguistic error. Jaakobou 15:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou for explaining to us the real point of editing this article. It is not "in order to help people understand the word Pallywood" (which would be a contravention of Wikipedia policy anyway, as I said), but is to WP:SOAPBOX and "deal with Palestinian media manipulation". Perhaps closer attention to the policies of Wikipedia would benefit everyone concerned, including genuine editors who are here to write an encyclopaedia and not have their time wasted. PalestineRemembered 15:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

please avoid personal attacks. an AfD was raised two months ago and many people have participated on the discussions. the phrasing "refer to allegations that news events have been staged" is a linguistic mistake which makes pallywood refer to allegations rather than be the title of such allegations. as for the "neologism", it is, as a co-editor allready explained to me in the past - a redundant repetition. Jaakobou 16:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I removed "admitted," because the source is Front Page Magazine and World Net Daily; because they're referring to just one filmmaker; and because he apparently admitted to artistic licence, not to the staging of a news event, so the example is not quite what's being discussed here. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that explanation. I'm not familiar with FPM, but the WND stories I've read have all been frothingly insane (e.g. "Soy is making kids gay" - hard to believe that's not in The Onion!). I can understand why it's widely nicknamed WorldNutDaily; I absolutely wouldn't use it as a source for anything. -- ChrisO 18:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I thought I had removed it, but my edit's not showing up in the history; I must have had an edit conflict with you, Chris, or there was a server glitch. I agree about WND. Front Page Mag's worth avoiding too, as a rule of thumb. Occasionally, it'll have something okay in it, which is why I don't like to rule it out entirely, but on the whole it's pretty extreme. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

You did remove it, quite some time ago; Jaakobou restored it to the article a few edits ago and has repeatedly been restoring it since. -- ChrisO 19:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I removed it again around the same time you did today, but the edit didn't show up. And now I've done it again. Jaakobou, the source isn't good enough. It's Front Page Mag referring to World Net Daily referring to some deposition. But even with a good source, it's not appropriate for the lead, because it's just one filmmaker admitting to something unclear. The point of the lead is to provide an overview of the subject, which is that the term Pallywood is used to refer to allegations that ... etc. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• some links to validate the admittion and lie in jenin, jenin:

http://e.walla.co.il/?w=/214/675518 bakri in admission. http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasite/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=328872 by prof. einhorn. http://www.bambili.com/bambili_news/katava_main.asp?news_id=5662&sivug_id=6 paraphrasing the judge as approving lies to be aired and that in her opinon the free market will decide.

• if the information is true, then there's no reason to remove the ref unless a better one is found. Jaakobou 19:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

It's just not appropriate for the lead. If you have a source that clearly refers to the film as an example of Pallywood (or, even without using that term, refers to it as an example of the thing that "Pallywood" refers to), then you could create a section on it, but it would have to be written carefully, with good sources and no OR. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

the links make it quite clear that this is an example that the public regards as a palestinian attempt to villify israel and israeli soldiers. i'm adding a few other links which illustrate that part:

http://e.walla.co.il/?w=/201/856175 http://e.walla.co.il/?w=/214/405284 http://www.business.msn.co.il/news/Internal/CultureEducation/200502/20050223163700.htm

-- Jaakobou 19:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Jaakabou - you've been informed of Wikipedia policy before - non-English web-sources may be acceptable if you provide a translation done by a WP:RS. Posting 3 foreign-language URLs is not following policy. PalestineRemembered 19:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

like i've allready said: it's about direct quotes - not general refrences. Jaakobou 19:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

This seems to be an example of creative license rather than staging as such, so it wanders off-topic a little. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

i'm reading from your reaction that you don't read hebrew. Jaakobou 21:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing about staging. Which source are you relying on for which claim? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

here's an admitted staging (a.k.a "mistake" editing) and a long explanation about one of the frauds in the film. and here - a prof. talks about some more of the blatant lies in the movie ("bombarded the hospital 11 times", "hand cuffed a handicap and then murdered him in cold blood", "the tank ran over him, i swear to god, went on top of him over and over and kneeded him into a paste together with the ground") and that freedom of sppech is a foundation rule but it does not protect the spreading of lies.

extra sources

camera review of both films - "jenin, jenin", and "the road to jenin"

another article calling: "The movie is riddled with outright lies, misstatements, half-truths, and Palestinian propaganda."

I figure this establishes the "pallywood" attribution, and also the admitted part. Jaakobou 08:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Bakhari doesn't admit to staging events in these links, or even to deliberate creative editing, but to having made "mistakes" in the way he edited certain sequences. He admits to creating false impressions, but says he did it unintentionally. Whether he's to be believed or not, this is not what's normally meant by Pallywood. Landes was using Pallywood to refer to the entire staging of events. There's clearly a connection between that and creative editing, but the sources you've found aren't strong enough for Wikipedia to make that connection without it being OR. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Can we have some translations (of the reliable sources) please - this is the English language wikipedia and if we allow untranslated/not readily translatable foroeign language sources like this we may as well hand over control to anyone who can find sources in a language we can't verify. --Coroebus 10:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

i can translate it, but i don't think it would qualify - my wuestion is, why would anyone object/contest to something that has been validated by numereous sources including the infamous frontpagemag, but also the far less infamous israeli supreme court of justice? (yes, no trasnlations there either). Jaakobou 11:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps because they just have your word for it. --Coroebus 11:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

and non of the links is worth anything? here's an english one ""Jenin, Jenin" was banned in December for its portrayal of fictional events as truth.", ""The film portrays itself as a documentary, and presents so-called testimonies and facts," the reservists charged in their lawsuit. The soldiers claim the film includes scenes of alleged cruelty on their part, including unjustified gunfire and the harming of innocent children, and that all these incidents are fabricated." - Jaakobou 12:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

That link is a source to that five IDF reservists didn't like the movie. It only gives information about the opinion of those reservists. // Liftarn

Amnon Rubinstein from Haaretz: comentary, and reprint (scroll down) - archived original. i think among my links, there were quite a few more people than just the 5 reservists. get over it, the film was considered palestinian propaganda also by the supreme court judge who allowed it's screening. Jaakobou 12:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the problem is that the only evidence you have that it is 'admitted' to be fabricated ultimately derives from worldnetdaily who say they have "obtained" a deposition by Bakri that says X, Y, and Z. I can't seem to source any other references to this deposition. --Coroebus 13:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Sabra and Shatila?!

This section says "citation needed." Indeed. But can someone explain how this would qualify as an example of "pallywood"?--G-Dett 21:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I simply expanded the examples of pallywood previously in the article. If a reference cannot be found then it should go. --Coroebus 21:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

In that the massacre had little to do with Israel, and was not conducted by Israel, but was still portrayed by the media as an Israeli action, failing to mention the Lebanese militias who actually committed the massacre. It doesn't necessarily satisfy our definition of (news events alleged to have been staged by Palestinian and other cameramen to portray Israel in an unfavorable light), but it is indeed a perversion of a real event (not staged) to portray Israel in an unfavorable light. Granted, I don't mind if you remove the section (I didn't add it anyway), but the above is probably the rationale used for adding it originally. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 21:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Are there people editing this article who believe the term "Pallywood" should include any media coverage alleged by some to be biased against Israel? Whether or not the coverage is Palestinian, and whether or not it allegedly involves staging?--G-Dett 21:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and they'll probably be by in a minute to revert you. --Coroebus 21:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Someone's going to revert-war over unsourced material not directly related to the article topic?--G-Dett 21:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Hard to believe, but there it is. The story of this article's development has been one long series of violations of WP:SOAP. -- ChrisO 21:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe you've mistaken this article for Allegations of Israeli apartheid. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

No, that would be WP:POINT, like your creation of all the "Allegations of x apartheid" articles. But we won't get onto that topic here. -- ChrisO 23:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Your sentence is unclear, and I believe I created only one of the seven "Allegations of apartheid" articles, so your claim is false as well. And if you don't want to get into something here, then don't, instead of doing the opposite. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Moving on. Media in the Gaza Strip?

Um, what's this doing here?--G-Dett 21:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe SlimVirgin answered the question somewhere above. It's relevant to the article to outline the possible causes of Pallywood, among other things. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 21:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Isn't this an example of original research, though? Does any reliable source actually link the pay rates for Palestinian cameramen to the alleged (let's get our terminology right here) incidents of media manipulation? -- ChrisO 21:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

You don't need to have a source saying that salaries have to do with Pallywood in order to put the info in the article. The fact that they do have higher salaries (as long as that is sourced) means that WP:OR is not violated. As you can see, the article does not mention any direct link between that and Pallywood, it simply presents the facts, in a proper WP:NOR and WP:NPOV manner. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 21:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I stand ready to be corrected by anyone who speaks German, but from what I can gather from the discussion above, the original article insinuates – but doesn't say – that Palestinian photojournalists are not to be trusted because of their salaries. What I can't understand is how someone thought it would be good NPOV practice for us to simply adopt that insinuation for our own article. Not even attribute it, just adopt it.--G-Dett 22:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

It's called Poisoning the well and is unacceptable in the encyclopaedia. "Poisoning the well is a logical fallacy where adverse information about someone is pre-emptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing everything that person is about to say. Poisoning the well is a special case of argumentum ad hominem." PalestineRemembered 22:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The definition does seem to fit this circumstance, if that's how the German article is being used. If someone is explicitly making the link, we should say so: "so-and-so argues that Palestinian photojournalists are not to be trusted because of their salaries". But insinuating a link is plainly not compliant with NPOV. I suggest we should take this section out, unless a reliable source making a direct connection can be found. -- ChrisO 22:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The article doesn't say that as such; it discusses the concept of Pallywood, discusses that the international media relies on Palestinian cameramen for images from these areas, and discusses what a sought-after position it is for financial reasons as well as political. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

That is a reliable source making a direct connection, Chris. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Then we need an in-line cite at the very least. Whatever its context in the original article, in our article right now it functions as insinuation.--G-Dett 22:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

What connection is this reliable source making? And what point are we making by relaying it so prominently, at the very head of the article?--G-Dett 23:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

It sounds more like an indirect connection to me. If I understand you correctly, the article is saying in separate places that (to paraphrase) "Palestinian cameramen fake footage" and "Palestinian cameramen are paid a lot of money relative to their peers". But does it say "Palestinian cameramen fake footage because they are paid a lot of money relative to their peers"? If it doesn't, we're merely repeating someone else's insinuation. If it does, we need to cite and attribute that explicitly. -- ChrisO 23:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

There is an inline citation. The source discusses that Palestinian cameramen are used exclusively rather than the networks sending in their own people; that it's a lucrative position for Palestinians; and that the reliance on local freelance cameramen has led to allegations of Pallywood. I don't see a problem here. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

It plainly doesn't make the connection directly. It states an apparent fact: "To work as a cameraman for western media is considered to be one of the most lucrative jobs in the Palestinian areas. Some earn up to $250 in a day. Some Palestinian extended families do not even earn as much in a half year." Then it goes on to describe alleged incidents of faked incidents, and finally it discusses the term "Pallywood". At no point does it make a direct connection: it states a fact, then an allegation, and leaves the reader to make the connection. That's plainly an insinuation. BTW, for the non-German readers, see the rough but understandable Google translation of the German article at [16] . -- ChrisO 23:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The source discusses the issue in relation to the topic. That it's discussed in relation to the topic means it passes muster in terms of the NOR policy, which explicitly addresses this point. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Could you point out where NOR addresses this point? Actually the problem with this section seems to me to be with NPOV, not NOR (specifically WP:NPOV#Attributing and substantiating biased statements). Repeating an insinuation would seem to violate at least the spirit of this policy and probably the letter too. -- ChrisO 23:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Slim, why did you revert me without comment? Why don't you want a contextualizing quote from the article? It's all that makes sense of the information showcased in this section.--G-Dett 23:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I should have known when I got an edit conflict that it would be G-Dett. I'd not looked at G-Dett's contributions since I last escaped from a talk page s/he was disrupting, but I see things haven't changed much: still only 299 edits to the encyclopedia, but around 1200 to user and article talk. [17] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

G-Dett, your "quote" didn't provide any context regarding "Pallywood"; it seemed quite obviously intended to make an entirely different point. In any event, it's highly dubious at best to try to present "quotations" in English from a German language original. Best to just summarize the author's points, as is done. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense, Jay. First of all, it's not my quote, but the journalist's. Secondly, it does indeed provide context for "Pallywood," unlike your "summary," which provides irrelevant insinuations. Thirdly, if you want me to provide the original German, I'll do so. If you wish to avoid foreign-language sources, I quite understand and we'll delete the source entirely. --G-Dett 01:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, the quotation doesn't seem to be about Pallywood at all, and its best not to invent quotations from foreign language sources, but instead paraphrase their contents. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The quotation from the source may well not be about Pallywood, but you're insisting we keep a section that isn't about Pallywood either, but about Palestinian cameramen's earning potential. The only connection made with Pallywood is that it is in an article that later talks about the term. I think we should be very wary of including things because, even though it doesn't make any explicit links, we think there is some subtext in the original article. Down that road original research and 'textual analysis' lies. For what it's worth, reading the article I can't see any implication that their earning potential leads to fabrication, although it is difficult to see why else it is there, perhaps just adding context. --Coroebus 09:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

You're accusing me of "inventing" the quote, Jay?--G-Dett 02:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I am certain the author was not speaking English. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

"Translate" is the word you're looking for. "Invent" sounds like you're doubting my honesty, and your glibness in using it raises serious questions about your own.--G-Dett 02:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

When you put it in quotes like that, you are implying that he actually said that. It is an invented quote. Also, please avoid further violations of WP:CIVIL. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any useful purpose to posting ad hominems. I don't know and I don't particularly care what edits G-Dett has made elsewhere; (s)he has made some useful points here. Let's deal with that rather than casting aspersions, please. -- ChrisO 23:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I also disagree, and there is a point here, Chris. G-Dett makes a habit of this, and it won't be entertained here, at least not by me. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Pardon me, Slim, but the habit I see here is your resorting to unprovoked personal attacks when faced with a content question you have no good answer to.--G-Dett 23:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind her aspersions, never have, but I would like an answer to my question.--G-Dett 23:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Avoid unnecessary edit war

Sorry, I hit return accidentally. My edit summary should read: "don't edit-war, don't delete the only part of the paragraph that makes it relevant, don't violate WP:SYN, and don't resort to personal attacks and blind reverts as a means of avoiding discussion of content."--G-Dett 01:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I already explained the reason the quote doesn't belong above. It's hard to understand someone who edit-wars with the edit summary "don't edit war"; kind of a "do as I say, not as I do" approach. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, no. Review the edit history here and on the mainspace. I introduced an issue here, regarding an entire section of the article that had no direct bearing on the subject matter, and appeared to have been inserted for the purposes of insinuation. My concerns were echoed by other editors, one of whom suggested deleting the section in question. I agree that the section is self-evidently bogus as it stands now, but instead of risking a confrontational edit, I have the original article translated in order to find out if the author had a larger point with an explicit (as opposed to sleazily insinuating) connection to "Pallywood." I found one, and added that to the article, thereby preserving everything of the existing paragraph and doing what I could (within the constraints of WP:NOR) to make it relevant and legitimate. This was speedily reverted by Slim, with a testy but irrelevant rhetorical question in lieu of a proper edit summary. I added some of the deleted material, with alterations to make it more acceptable, and accompanied by a cordial edit summary of my own. This was reverted without explanation by Slim, who followed up her blind revert with an irrelevant and wholly gratuitous personal attack on the talk page, which you then echoed. Slim then followed this with more hasty and indefensible edits to the mainspace, in which she tried to compensate for the insinuating pointlessness of the material from the German article by synthesizing it with another article by the populizer of the phrase "Pallywood." I fixed the problem but again took pains to preserve everything Slim wanted, and to explain my edit in detail. I was again snap-reverted, with a testy insult and rhetorical question. So no, Jay, in short, this isn't a case of calling the kettle black. It's just another case of disruptive behavior from Slim. I'm loath to do it, but I'm thinking of reporting this as an ongoing case of harassment, since that is what it seems to be. I would much prefer, however, to just work together, come what may, to clean up the problematic section. Thanks, --G-Dett 02:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

In what way is your pseudo-quote relevant to the notion of Pallywood? Please be explicit. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Cut the snideness, ask a serious question and you'll get a serious answer. --G-Dett 02:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a serious question, and not at all snide; please do not continue violating WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF, and instead answer the question. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Stop calling in policies about civil behaviour every five minutes, the insults started flying way up this page, and look like they started with SlimVirgin. It is childish to get into slanging matches with people then trying to hide behind WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF when they respond in kind. --Coroebus 09:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

This is far worse than asking someone to observe the civility policies, and clearly shows your bias in these matters. Based on that comment, I'll be ignoring yours from now on; I'm sure you appreciate why. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh boo hoo. This is what pissed me off in the first place, winding people up then coming over all hurt when you get any grief back yourself. It hardly shows my bias that I don't like the way you have tag-team edit warred with G-Dett and then got her blocked for 3RR. My bias is that I don't like the odd partisan POV pushing that goes on in Israel-Palestine related articles, as nicely evidenced by attempts to have al-Aqsa intifada renamed Second intifida, not necessarily a bad name change (they're pretty much interchangeable) but the motivation is utterly bizarre and based on an extreme minority viewpoint. I'm here to try and keep you lot honest I'm afraid, if I offend you in the process, c'est la vie, you're a big boy and I'm sure you'll get over it. --Coroebus 20:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

"You lot." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Yep, the coterie of editors pushing (to a greater or lesser extent) partisan views on these articles. What did you think I meant? --Coroebus 20:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Coincidentally, I recently had e-mail from another editor recently on the problems afflicting our Middle Eastern articles. I'm sure (s)he won't mind me quoting: "If you spend any time at these articles, you'll quickly learn who these [disruptive] editors are. They come from both sides of the dispute, and they're united in the common purpose of discrediting each other: their sole purpose appears to be to get as much material which supports their point of view into the article, and to find specious justifications for keeping opposing points of view out. There is also a good deal of system-gaming, 3rr tag-teaming and bad-faith WP:ANI reporting." I can see what my correspondent means, and it's something which many admins and at least two arbitrators that I know are concerned about. There's a venomous atmosphere on these articles. Slim, you're not the only offender, but when you attack editors without apparent provocation (as in [18]) you're only adding to the general atmosphere of hostility. I don't know what your history with G-Dett is, but that was unnecessary. I wish all of you would just quit the endless sniping and get on with improving Wikipedia instead of bashing each other. -- ChrisO 20:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Chris, I apologize if you feel that I contributed to a poor atmosphere by pointing out G-Dett's contributions pattern, but unusually I want to argue that it's justified in this case. My history with him or her is that I've had to take several articles off my watchlist because G-Dett has arrived on the talk page to abuse other editors, leave long-winded descriptions of who-said-what (which are invariably inaccurate as well as pointless), and in general contribute to an atmosphere that causes many sensible editors to leave the page. If this were accompanied by a magnificent editing record, I'd overlook it as a personality quirk. But it's accompanied by almost no editing experience at all. Most of what G-Dett does on Wikipedia is cause talk pages to ignite. That's what I was pointing out. SlimVirgin ^(talk)

Slim Virgin's description of G-Dett render her unrecognizable. G-Dett is well-known for diffusing tensions at the Israeli apartheid talk page, and has been thanked for her good humor there on more than one occasion, and even by those that don't share her opinion. I noticed SlimVirgin's comments above and was quite surprised that she chose to make them again here. The inappropriateness of these kinds of comments was already pointed out to her. For example, from archive 20 there:

G-Dett, at the risk of repeating myself, someone who has made only 214 edits to articles, but 825 to article, user, and project talk, most of which involve insulting people, is coming pretty close to the definition of a troll. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I welcome any and all comments on my talk page, including gratuitous insults, personal harassment, and fan mail from your old friend Kiyosaki the crank. So feel free to post comments of this sort there, Slim, and in the meantime use article talk pages for their intended purpose, content discussion. Thanks.--G-Dett 16:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

G-Dett engages in extensive talk so as to build consensus. This is a wise practice considering that she edits at articles where such an approach defuses tensions and helps to reach amicable compromises. That you cite her editing article to talk page ratio as "evidence" that she is a troll is a violation of WP:AGF, WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. It is also bad taste and goes against community consensus where in administrative reviews, it is often noted that a good article to talk page ratio is 1:10. G-Dett has never attacked anyone during the time I have had the good fortune of editing articles with her. You should apologize for your comments. Tiamut 15:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Tiamut 09:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

When you invoke WP:CIVIL at this point, Jay, it is in manifestly bad faith, as well as being a rather obvious example of trolling on your part. I think rather than feed, I'll put in a request for comment, and work on stimulating the energies of this page's serious editors.--G-Dett 02:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, I don't see any violation of WP:SYN, and it's hard to see why the article would twice need to say that Landes popularized the term Pallywood, except perhaps as poisoning the well, particularly as the source itself describes Landes as "a professor at Boston University." Jayjg ^(talk) 02:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Disputed sentence

I can't see the problem with this sentence:

Working as a cameraman for the Western media is regarded as one of the most lucrative jobs in the Palestinian areas, Schmitz writes, with some cameramen in the area earning up to $250 U.S. per day, as much as some Palestinian families might earn in six months.

It is mentioned by a reliable source, so it passes WP:V. It is mention by the source in relation to Pallywood, and he actually uses that word, so it passes WP:NOR. It gives the reader a backdrop against which to understand the article, namely that the Western media relies on freelancers in that area; that they can earn a lot of money compared to what they might be used to, making it financially as well as politically lucrative; and that the reliance on this freelance work has led to allegations that the usual journalistic standards are being undermined.

I've asked this question before, but no one would answer it. I'd ask that those opposing this material answer it honestly.

Would you still be opposing this if you learned that CNN, ABC and the other networks were relying exclusively on Israeli Jewish cameramen for images out of the West Bank and Gaza Strip? That the cameramen were working unsupervised. That they were earning in one day as much as other Israeli families earn in six months. That their material was going on air without being checked for accuracy. That these were the only images the networks regularly had access to from that area, because they won't send in their own cameramen.

If that were the situation, the people who are now opposing this article would be guarding it like mother bears with their cubs, and I can only imagine how long and detailed it would be. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Slim, you mean an article on "the Jewish media"? The Jew York Times, say?[19] [20] [21] [22] If such a thing existed, and were being carefully tended to and stocked with insinuations like this one, I promise you I'd be doing what I'm doing here – popping off those cubs one by one, mother bear be damned.--G-Dett 18:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Well you'd get to keep all the above paragraph about Israeli Jewish cameramen (as long as they were sourced) except the bit about pay, unless your source actually made some kind of point about their pay being relevant. Look at the bit G-Dett keeps putting in, "Schmitz stresses that media pictures of hopelessness in the Gaza Strip are taken primarily by Palestinians", I don't see what the relevance of that line is, but it is in the source, and the source talks about "Pallywood", yet we are able to resist including it. Your justification for including the line about pay is that there is therefore a financial incentive for Palestinian cameramen to fabricate footage, that is entirely OR on your part, and the source makes no such allegation, whether you think it is in the subtext or not. It is just this kind of odd guilt-by-association and snide linguistic sheenanigans that makes the articles on these topics read so badly. If there is a source that explicitly makes the connection between pay and fabrication find it and include it, otherwise this is OR. --Coroebus 08:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd want to keep most of the article if the cameramen were Israeli Jews, but for some of the editors on this page, even that isn't the case; they'd prefer to see it deleted entirely, because it's the wrong POV.

As for the money thing, you're projecting your own OR here. There's no suggestion (that I recall) in the source that there's distortion for money; nor is there in our article, so I don't know where you're taking the insinuation from. I don't see it myself. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Well then what are we trying to say by referencing the pay (other than setting some background context, which is all I can see in the article)? What is the connection between pay and Pallwyood, both generally, and in the article? --Coroebus 09:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

First this: "It gives the reader a backdrop against which to understand the article, namely that the Western media relies on freelancers in that area; that they can earn a lot of money compared to what they might be used to, making it financially as well as politically lucrative; and that the reliance on this freelance work has led to allegations that the usual journalistic standards are being undermined." (emphasis added)

Then this: "There's no suggestion (that I recall) in the source that there's distortion for money; nor is there in our article, so I don't know where you're taking the insinuation from. I don't see it myself."

'Nuff said. --G-Dett 21:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The dilemma we are in is that the information about Palestinian salaries by itself is merely insinuating (“it gives the reader a backdrop against which to understand the article,” as Slim delicately puts it); on the other hand to paraphrase the German journalist’s unspoken suggestion would run afoul of OR.[23] There is of course the option of leaving it out altogether, but given the personal and ideological tensions involving editors and administrators on this page, I opted instead the other night to have the Schmitz article translated by a native speaker, to see if Schmitz makes his point more explicitly and less insinuatingly in the article itself. If he did, my reasoning went, we could quote him making his point, retain the information about Palestinian salaries (which appears to be important to key editors here, for reasons not clearly articulated), and resolve the outstanding NPOV issue, all the while steering well clear of OR. And sure enough, the original has just such a statement: “The pictures of hopelessness in the Gaza Strip are taken primarily by Palestinians” (or variously translated, "the images of the hopeless world of the Gaza strip are taken primarily by Palestinians"). I am not taking this out of context, or patching it in from some other part of the article. It arises in the very section from which the information about salaries is culled. In fact, it’s right there sandwiched in the middle of it. The following three-paragraph extract is translated but otherwise unchanged from the original:

Harbed works for the Arab television production company Ramattan News Agency. The agency has offices in Ramallah in the West Bank, and in Gaza city, the capital of the Gaza Strip.

The major international broadcasters CNN and ABC, wire services such as Reuters and Associated press, and German television agencies work almost exclusively with Palestinian cameramen when reporting from the Gaza Strip.

The pictures of the hopeless world of the Gaza Strip are taken primarily by Palestinians. Working as a cameraman for the Western media is regarded as one of the most lucrative jobs in the Palestinian areas. Some make up to $250 a day, as much as many Palestinian extended families earn in half a year.

As you can see, the quote about "pictures of hopelessness" (or "images of the hopeless world") was in fact excised from the original material when it was first inserted into the article. Slim and Jay have successfully tag-edit-warred to maintain that excision – that is, to retain everything from the second and third Shmitz paragraphs except the topic sentence of the third.

I am at a loss as to their reasons for taking such a peculiar position. After two unexplained reverts the objection was voiced that I shouldn't directly quote from a foreign-language source. With that hurdle cleared as quickly as it was conjured, both Slim and Jay are now claiming that the excised sentence is “not relevant to the notion of Pallywood." I find this claim unconvincing, even bizarre. The sentence in question – again, "The pictures of hopelessness in the Gaza Strip are taken primarily by Palestinians" – is obviously relevant. The full title of the very film that gave this term currency (or coined it, according to many) is "Pallywood: According to Palestinian sources..." and a screenshot of this suggestive phrase is what we've selected as our image to illustrate the subject of our article. So the disputed quotation is obviously relevant. What is not obviously relevant is information about the salaries of Palestinian photojournalists; it might fairly be said, in fact, that the only self-evidently relevant sentence in the entire paragraph is the one that Slim and Jay insist on excising.

Again, I'm at a loss. It's easy to conclude that their objection to the excised sentence is merely personal and visceral, motivated by the fact that it was I who restored it. The other possibility is a little more troubling. The very thing that I and others are objecting to about the Schmitz material as it's currently presented – that it's weirdly oblique and insinuating, rather than direct in its implications – may be precisely what appeals to the Wikipedians who have edited it in this way. In any case, if there are serious reasons for the seemingly tendentious way the Schmitz material has been edited and presented, I'd like to hear them. If there are not, then the section should be fixed accordingly. --G-Dett 12:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with your point about the "weirdly oblique and insinuating" nature of the material. Its relevance is clearly that it implies a motive for the alleged media manipulation - i.e. fake footage, get $$$. Otherwise, why include it? The problem is that Schmitz never actually comes out and makes this connection. He states the salary issue as a fact, then makes an allegation about media manipulation, but leaves the reader to connect the two. -- ChrisO 08:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The sentence of Schmitz's that was snipped out of this passage comes very close to making this connection, which is why I tried to restore it the other night. It would be better not to have this pointless insinuation at all, of course, but if Slim and Jay are going to insist on retaining it then I will insist that the snipped-out sentence – the topic sentence of the paragraph in question, after all – be restored. In that sentence, at least, Schmitz is at his most straight-forward about what he's suggesting. Including it would improve our paragraph considerably: we'd be citing the insinuation to its source, as it were, rather than coyly relaying it. Slim's reasoning that any chunk of prose taken from an RS article on a given topic meets WP:V and can therefore just be forklifted into a Wikipedia article on said topic is specious. If she holds fast to that reasoning, however, then she can have no conceivable objection to restoring the sentence that's been black-penned out (at first through a quiet snip of editorial scissors and then through a nasty edit war).

If there's no interest in this compromise, then I'll join others in pushing for deletion of the entire paragraph as irrelevant and at best insinuating. --G-Dett 11:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

If it's background context or motive, it's still relevant. If Schmitz isn't explicit either way, neither should we be. Let the reader decide. <<-armon->> 14:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

At this point, Schmitz is more explicit than we are, because we've snipped out a key sentence of his from the passage we're using.--G-Dett 15:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Unless there is some reason to dispute that salary issue is accurate, there's no good reason to remove it. I think the reason that Schmitz wasn't explicit is because it's unclear if and when the reports become "distorted". What we can say, it that there is a good motive for freelancers to provide marketable footage. The lengthy objections and deletions of the paragraph is looking to me like an attempt to hide an uncomfortable truth which is germane to the topic. <<-armon->> 22:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Attempt to hide? Come on, Armon. The salary stuff can go in – as long as Schmitz's main point is not excised, leaving us to do the insinuating. Though I stress that I think Coroebus's version is much better.--G-Dett 22:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

What I reverted was the deletion of the paragraph. <<-armon->> 02:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Compromise re disputed section

Coroebus's version (which I've restored) actually seems like the best yet suggested.--G-Dett 16:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I am pleased to see the movement towards compromise. Out of curiosity, Jay, can you say where you find "intended to portray" in "Die Bilder von der hoffnungslosen Welt im Gaza-Streifen"?--G-Dett 23:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I think "Schmitz states that the images portraying suffering in Gaza" is closest to sense of the original in context. <<-armon->> 02:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I personally don't see the need for this line, but if we're going to include it surely the translation is Die (the) Bilder (pictures) von (of) der (the) hoffnungslosen (hopeless) Welt (world) im (in) Gaza-Streifen ((the) Gaza Strip) werden (are) in erster Linie (primarily) von (by) Palästinensern (Palestinians) gemacht (made): "The pictures of the hopeless world in the Gaza Strip are made primarily by Palestinians." (my German is piss poor so I may not have the "werden in erster Linie...gemacht" bit quite right) --Coroebus 15:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for butting in, folks, but the emphasis in the disputed sentence (take this from a German speaker) is on "the Palestinians". Translation is always interpretation, and the thing that Schmitz leaves unsaid is who else takes pictures and what worldview those pictures portray. My shot at a translation would be: "It is primarily the Palestinians that take the pictures of a world of hopelessness in the Gaza Strip." Dr Zak 15:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Obviously Dr Zak has the authority as a native speaker, but this translation doesn't make for very idiomatic English, and in terms of sense and emphasis I don't see a significant difference between it and Armon's translation. And after all this is paraphrase; we're not doing direct quotation. Armon's translation strikes me as the best.--G-Dett 17:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

No worries. Perhaps you guys might want to include the sentence in question in the footnote so anyone with a knowledge of German can compare the paraphrase against the original. I guess what I'm saying is that people here on the page and the author of the piece in the Süddeutsche have a thesis that they want to get across and won't quite spell out. Dr Zak 17:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

You got that right.--G-Dett 17:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

"images indented to portray suffering". Would like to point out again my opposition to both the money references (for the reasons spelled out above - i.e. it is not relevant) and the 'images of suffering' reference (I don't see what it adds, or even what it is supposed to convey), and particularly the addition of the word 'portray' to this line when it does not appear in the original German, nor any translations that have been provided, I can only assume it is supposed to modify the extra line to skew it to benefit a particular POV (again). Oh yeah, and ha ha, "indented to portray"?! --Coroebus 18:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

"used by online debaters for several years"

The sentence "The term 'Pallywood' was used by online debaters for several years[5] before being popularized in 2005 by Richard Landes" appears to be OR. The source given for it is a usenet-style internet forum thread, in which one particant says of Jenin footage:

First Hollywood, then Bollywood, and now...Pallywood! Has a certain ring to it.

First of all, neither usenet forums nor their anonymous participants are RS's. Secondly, we're using this as primary source material, rather than secondary source material. Thirdly: even if the thread were an admissible RS, it doesn't support the sentence in our article. The forum member in question believes he's coining a phrase ("has a certain ring to it"), not using one already extant, and there's no evidence anyone picked up on his "coinage." Even if we were to find such evidence in another usenet forum, we'd be back to the problem of making OR conclusions based on non-RS primary source material.

Meanwhile, there are multiple sources crediting Landes for having coined the term:

1. "Landes claimed many scenes of violence against Palestinians are staged and coined the term "Pallywood" to describe the industry that produces this footage." [24]
2. "Tom Paine interviews Richard Landes. Richard is responsible for the video works Al Durah and Pallywood and it was he who coined the term Pallywood." [25]
3. "Coined by our fellow sub rosa blogger Richard Landes of Augean Stables, "Pallywood" refers to "the staging of scenes by Palestinian journalists in order to present the Palestinians as hapless victims of Israeli aggression." [26]
4. "Richard is a most enjoyable fellow in person, though not unfamiliar with hyperbole. But in this case (excuse the pun) he may well be correct that it will become something very big. The trials involve blogging (a topic of media fixation) and Pallywood, Richard's own term. Falsified and staged media photography received far more exposure than ever during this summer's war in Lebanon. 'Pallywood' has arrived as a word."[27]

Landes himself claims credit for having come up with the term:

1. "Many people have written me about the rushes from Talal abu Rahmeh. It was viewing them for the first time that inspired the term 'Pallywood.'" [28]
2. "The joke was on us all – the responsible media, the trusting public, the “scoop”-hungry journalists who rummaged through these cheap scenes, looking for something they could use in the evening’s broadcast. That’s when the term Pallywood first occurred to me." [29]

When this came up before, Slim wrote:

I feel that we're adding OR to the article by trying to guess where it was first used. I know that it's been used by ME commentators for many years, but where we'd find that written down, I don't know.[30]

Apparently the result of that discussion was our present edit. But this makes no sense at all. We are dismissing what five reliable sources (including Landes himself) say unequivocally about the origins of the term, and instead claiming that the term "was used by online debaters for several years" – a speculation based on very doubtful evidence from a non-RS primary-source usenet thread, coupled with what Slim says she's sure must be true. And all in the name of WP:NOR.

Verifiability, not truth, as everyone here knows. But it should be added that the two in this case have not even been shown to be at odds. When it comes to linguistic coinages, if a tree falls in the forest and nobody hears it, it didn't happen. --G-Dett 21:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I've raised that point before, funnily enough people seemed to have something vested in that particular piece of OR and opposed its removal. --Coroebus 22:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've read the discussion above, and the matter seems to have been dropped rather than concluded. In terms of policy, though, this is pretty cut-and-dried.--G-Dett 22:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Shall I remove the offending sentence or will one of you? Tiamut 23:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the text should credit Landes for coining the term, and give all six sources. I thought I would wait to hear back here first, but if you want to do it now be my guest. The evidence for the edit couldn't be clearer.--G-Dett 23:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I only count one RS, and the rest are blogs. Is this the only evidence we have of term being used before Landes? It would definably be OR if we credited Rob Hansen (the usenet poster) with coining it, but if there's evidence that it's been used before Landes, then we want to keep the article accurate and we don't want to give Landes undue credit. I had a similar discussion regarding Fisking here -but that wasn't really resolved either. We could remain agnostic on who actually coined the term, and state what appears to be an undisputed fact: The term 'Pallywood' was popularized in 2005 by Richard Landes. <<-armon->> 23:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

How is this the "undisputed fact"? We have three sources saying he "coined" it, another saying it's "Richard's own term," and two cited instances of Landes himself describing when the term first "came to me," and recalling the experience that first "inspired the term." We have no reliable sources saying he "popularized" it, and that locution strongly implies that the term had some currency before him – an entirely unsourced speculation. Why don't we do here what we usually do in Wikipedia, and present what the sources say? Why in this one case should we be "agnostic" about what they say, and strong insinuate the opposite?--G-Dett 23:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Interesting -- the person being replied to in the post is a Joel Rosenberg, but not that Joel Rosenberg, rather a firearms trainer in Minnesota of the same name.[31] -- Kendrick7^talk 00:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

If you'll excuse me for engaging in a bit of OR myself, I suspect that what we have here is an example of reinvention. There's no evidence that Landes was influenced by an earlier coinage of the expression, and the expression itself is sufficiently obvious ("Palestinian" + "Hollywood") that I'm sure it's occurred to multiple people, independently, at multiple times. What we can say for sure is that Landes popularised the term, but it's impossible to say who actually first used it. -- ChrisO 00:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The reliable source in this case is Google Groups, who certifies that this message was posted on a usenet group at a certain date. So endeth this discussion (and yet another attempt at gutting this article). --Leifern 00:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Why don't we just say that the term is credited to Landes? Popularized implies its popular or well-known (which it is not) and that it existed and was used with the same meaning and intent prior to its usage by Landes (and we have no reliable source to prove that). Tiamut 00:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

That's a fair point, Tiamut. Let's do that. Leifern, I was under the impression that Google Groups is not generally regarded as a reliable source. And please cut out the insinuations of bad faith - they're not helping anyone. -- ChrisO 00:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. Improvements on the formulation are welcome, but I think it's much more in line with the sources cited in the article now. Tiamut 00:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. "Attributed" is probably best.

As for Armon's objection that he can "only count one RS, and the rest are blogs" – this article is about a term whose currency is almost entirely confined to the blogosphere. One of the blogs he's saying isn't an RS (www.theaugeanstables.com) is Landes' own blog, and a sister blog to www.seconddraft.org, a blog that's given us three of our sixteen total cites for this article. If we removed all blogs (and the usenet thread) from our bibliography, we'd have only eleven cites left. Of these, only nine are taken from mainstream media outlets. These nine appear to exhaust all mainstream media attention to "Pallywood," and all of them mention the term in close connection to Landes (and to the blogosphere, for that matter). --G-Dett 00:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)--G-Dett 00:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit coflict)Landes appears to be wrong that he used the term first. I think ChrisO is right and that it's a case of reinvention. Anyway, I don't have a problem with "The coining of the term "Pallywood" has been attributed to Richard Landes of Boston University". <<-armon->> 00:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Leifern, talking candidly, what do you have against removing that OR reference to the term being used for years? I don't think its retention or removal serve any particular POV, and it really is a clear policy violation. I mean, I don't care about it being kept particularly, but why do you feel so strongly about it? --Coroebus 10:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, re-reading WP:ATT I think it is allowable. See here:

Edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge.

Google groups is a primary source, but it's perfectly reliable for what we said, and anyone can check it. I don't think anyone here disputed that the post exists and pre-dated Landes. <<-armon->> 12:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually it wasn't reliable (or even accurate) for what we said, so I've changed what we say. I would only point out what an extraordinary path we're taking in this case. In an article with only 16 cites, we have six cites saying Landes coined the term. Someone's trolled the internet to find primary-source material to contradict this, and all that can be found is a single fleeting moment in a usenet thread. Wikipedians then insert the usenet thread as a "source," and write their own speculative conclusions based on what it shows. It is about as classic, textbook a case of OR as can be found, although I've reduced the problem somewhat by at least limiting our comment to what the source actually shows.--G-Dett 13:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Notability

(Different issue so I refactored -<<-armon->>)

Which, of course, takes us back to the original question I raised a while back: if only nine media sources have referred to "Pallywood", how notable is it really? We seem to be spending a lot of time debating something to which the media has given negligible attention. -- ChrisO 00:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It seems that its we editors here at Wikipedia who are in fact popularizing the use of the term via this entry. Tiamut 00:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The AfD on it was keep. <<-armon->> 00:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

It was a nice try, though. BTW, I still get 126,000 Google hits for "Pallywood". On the other hand, I only get 629 Google hits for "hafrada"; now that's an original research dicdef begging to be deleted. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

You wish the article Hafrada (Separation) didn't exist, (indeed you tried to gut it when it was located at Hafrada but your objections have been and are most spurious. 35+ sources and counting (and none of them are from blogs). found another two books that use the term and define it. Any books on Pallywood? Tiamut 10:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I thought we needed peer reviewed sources for "POV pejorative political terms"? --Coroebus 08:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The chart of comparative casuistry Coroebus points to is pretty devastating.--G-Dett 13:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The AfD was actually no consensus (see the top of this page!), and the reason why you find so many Google hits for it is because of a campaign among partisan bloggers which, let's face it, is what's also behind the creation and retention of this article. I don't believe we're in the business of documenting every blogosphere meme, especially when it's virtually ignored by reliable sources. -- ChrisO 07:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Seventeen sources for such a short article is actually quite a lot, and they include the International Herald Tribune, Boston Globe, Daily Telegraph, Toronto Star, National Post, Los Angeles Times, and New York Times, so it's hard to know what you mean. I also wish you'd stop the insulting rhetoric about a campaign being behind the creation and retention of this article. Just because you personally don't like something doesn't mean it's evil. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it is six unique articles (see above), but I would argue that as we seem to have decided that this article is not about the term 'Pallywood', but about the phenomenon so dubbed (see above), then we should be more discerning in our choice of title (compare and contrast the fight to change al-Aqsa Intifada to Second Intifada because the former title is too POV!) --Coroebus 10:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Pallywood (pejorative term). There's absolutely no reason why this article shouldnt be moved there. Hornplease 19:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually I can think of a few reasons. First of all, there's nothing else Pallywood can refer to, therefore using Pallywood (whatever) as an article title is against Wikipedia's naming conventions. Also 'pejorative term' automatically assumes a side. How about having an article named Israeli Apartheid (pejorative term)? Not good. Thirdly, as long as 'Pallywood' is included in the title, there's absolutely no good reason to move this article anywhere. If you suggested a different move though, like to 'Allegations of Palestinian media manipulation', I might support. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 19:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no objection whatever to Israel apartheid (pejorative term), though I concede your broader point. In any case, Allegations of Palestinian media manipulation, with Pallywood as a redirect, seems perfectly appropriate to me. Hornplease 19:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that Pallywood (pejorative term) would be appropriate because this article is (apparently) not supposed to be about the term 'Pallywood', but about Palestinian media manipulation. The suggestion to move to Allegations of Palestinian media manipulation on the other hand I would support (perhaps keeping a quick and not too detailed explanation of what 'Pallywood' the term is supposed to mean). --Coroebus 20:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I think Pallywood is fine if the article stays focused on use of that term for allegedly staged or doctored photos or footage. If it expands into an article on Allegations of Palestinian media manipulation more generally, then of course it should be renamed. "Allegations," mind you, is a word with a very specific meaning, and shouldn't be used by us as a mere weasel-word or substitute for scare quotes, as it has been in at least one article and its various phony spinoffs.--G-Dett 21:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Latest reverts

I'm struggling to understand Jay's latest reverts.[32][33]

1. In the first, Jay's "copy edit" seems designed to give a reader the impression that sources show some currency for the term before 2005. What the primary-source material tracked down and interpreted by Wikipedians (in flagrant violation of WP:NOR) actually shows is that one non-notable usenet forum member once typed "Pallywood" in 2002 and promptly congratulated himself for his cleverness ("has a certain ring to it"), though no one else – not even on his usenet forum, much less the wide world – seems to have paid him any attention or picked up on his brainstorm. Let me be very clear: using this usenet thread as grounds for our speculations is indisputably OR. I can't see the justification for violating a core rule in this way, but if Jay (who is usually quite vigilant about this) is going to insist upon a waiver just this once, then our (lamentably OR) text needs to be absolutely clear, not coy and calculating, about what our primary-source material shows and what the reader will find if she follows the link.

2. Jay's second revert removes "alleged" from the following sentence:

He [Landes] believes that this type of alleged media manipulation dates back to at least the war in Lebanon in 1982.

Jay reasons in his edit summary that "[Landes] doesn't believe it is 'alleged', he believes it *is* media manipulation. Double qualifier made the sentence meaningless." I think this is a basic question of grammar, and that Jay is mistaken. There is a difference between "believes in" and "believes that." Grammatically and idiomatically, the phrase "believes that" applies only to the main verb of the clause it controls, which in this case is "dates back." In the architecture of this sentence, Landes' "belief" has to do with the dating of the phenomenon, not the existence of the phenomenon. Adding the word "alleged" does not make the sentence meaningless, it makes it more precise.

Any sentence of the sort So-and-so believes that phenomenon X dates back to 19__, where the very existence of phenomenon X is in dispute, is begging the question.

Which is better: "Desmond Tutu believes that this type of apartheid policy in the West Bank dates back to 1967" or "Desmond Tutu believes that this type of alleged apartheid policy in the West Bank dates back to 1967"? Jay insists that the first is preferable, and the second is meaningless. I disagree.--G-Dett 14:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Landes doesn't believe it is "alleged" manipulation, be believes it is actual manipulation. Regarding the Pallywood reference, your wording made unwarranted assumptions, that it was used only once. We don't know that it was used only once, but we do know it was used as early as 2002. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

"Believes that" doesn't apply to what the manipulation "is," it applies to when it dates to. This is a grammatical error on your part. Please read talk posts before reverting; your post does not respond to mine.--G-Dett 15:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

You may believe it to be the case, but in fact your wording is at best ambiguous. Please do not make further uncivil suggestions and insinuations regarding what I have or haven't read. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not what I "believe to be the case"; it's an elementary question of grammar, about which you are mistaken.

Regarding WP:CIVIL. Your first "response" gave no indication whatsoever that you'd read my post; in fact, it made a great show of ignoring it. It was not uncivil of me to point this out. Editors are supposed to look to policies like WP:CIVIL for guidance in editing disputes. They're not there to be used as weapons against other editors. When they're used in this way, the result often exceeds mere hypocrisy, and crosses over into a deep cynicism and even contempt for the policies themselves, which in turn poisons the atmosphere of good faith. Try to watch that.--G-Dett 17:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Really, just comment on article content, not on editors. The rest is just one WP:CIVIL violation after another. It's the continuous WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF violations that poison the Talk: page. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you (and other editors here) understand very well what the problem is with using WP:CIVIL as an aggressive weapon. Respect for that policy precludes taking seriously such abusive invocations of it.--G-Dett 18:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

No, WP:CIVIL is simply policy, and a good one. Please follow it from now on; it will lower the temperature on the Talk: page, and assist in collegial editing. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

It is indeed simple policy, and good policy, and as I've said, respect for that good policy precludes taking seriously abusive invocations of it. You have made something of a habit of using it as a weapon to bludgeon editors you're busy provoking, while giving no thought to how it might apply to your own behavior. The problem has been noted. Please reflect graciously on it, instead of deliberately exacerbating it in an effort to make a point, get last licks in, etc.--G-Dett 19:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, please focus on article content, not other editors. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

What content issue were you focusing on when you started this shoving match, Jay? WP:CIVIL is undermined, not strengthened, when it's invoked cynically and abusively. Try to address the problem, Jay, instead of repeating and perpetuating it.--G-Dett 19:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Jay, move on. Nothing to see. Point made. Don't disrupt the conversation further. Hornplease 19:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

My wording made no assumptions; rather it gave the narrowest and most accurate reading of the source material. The larger question is, why are you insisting on an OR-waiver in this case?--G-Dett 15:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Your "narrow and most accurate reading" makes an unwarranted implication, my wording does not. And the larger question is, why would you assume that I would respond to leading questions? Jayjg ^(talk) 16:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you actually maintaining that our use of the primary-source usenet thread doesn't violate WP:NOR? Here is what you're simultaneously arguing over at New antisemitism: "But the only reason you want to include direct citations to these articles is because you disagree with Taguieff's conclusions; that's the very essence of original research, constructing a counter-argument using primary sources."[34]

Can you please articulate, very explicitly, what your principles are for cases like this? Thanks.--G-Dett 17:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't insert the source, I just made sure the wording surrounding it was neutral. Do you not think the term was used in 2002? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

By the way, Landes used the term before 2005, and he was quoted in the press as doing so. Here's a copy of an article in French from November 2004. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Just another example of the double standards Jayjg employs in implementing policy - one set of easy-breezy rules when the POV expressed is in agreement with his own and another set of draconian laws when the POV expressed opposes his own. Assuming good faith is becoming totally impossible, having seen his edits and comments here and how they compare to the impossible standards for reliability invoked by him at Allegations of Israeli apartheid, Sabeel, Palestinian people and Hafrada (check the history and archive). Tiamut 14:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Please comment on article content, not other editors, and avoid further violations of WP:CIVIL. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm commenting on policies and how they are implemented here versus other articles. Since you were the one to revert an edit that was made with the input of many other editors, who used policy arguments to make their case, I've noted the hypocrisy in your edit. Tiamut 15:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, please avoid further violations of WP:CIVIL; it's a serious policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I am conforming to WP:CIVIL. Do your edits conform with WP:NPOV?Tiamut 16:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Commenting about editors, calling them hypocrites, etc., does not conform with WP:CIVIL. Do you have a specific question about article content, not other editors? Jayjg ^(talk) 16:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I do. Why are we including original research? How is a usenet source which does not pass WP:RS establish that the term was in use? Tiamut 16:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are saying; do you dispute that the term was used in 2002? Is the link provided phony? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

"But the only reason you want to include direct citations to these articles is because you disagree with Taguieff's conclusions; that's the very essence of original research, constructing a counter-argument using primary sources."Comment by Jayjg, April 27.

I think you are quite sure of what Tiamut is saying, Jay, because it's something you've said time and again. --G-Dett 17:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you explain your point? Because I'm not getting it. Do you agree or not that the term was used in 2002? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

My point is Tiamut's point, and her point is one you've articulated on many, many occasions, perhaps most succinctly ten days ago: "that's the very essence of original research, constructing a counter-argument using primary sources."Comment by Jayjg, April 27.--G-Dett 18:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Um, what is the "argument" and what is the "counter-argument", though? And can you please answer the simple question; do you agree or not that the term was used in 2002? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The "argument" is what six sources, including Landes himself, say: that Landes coined the term. The "counterargument" is that "the term 'Pallywood' was used by online debaters for several years before being popularized in 2005 by Richard Landes," or in your latest attempt to insinuate the term's previous currency, "had been used as early as 2002." I take it you know what the "primary source" is in this case, but perhaps I should take nothing for granted.

In answer to your last question. By looking at the non-RS primary source usenet thread you've provided, I can determine that the word "Pallywood" was typed once by a forum member in 2002, who believed he was the first to do so and indeed may well have been. This is a perfectly legitimate way to produce a droll anecdote – Hey, did you know that some guy on usenet "coined" Pallywood three years before Landes did? I'm serious, I swear, it's on this random thread, I'll send you the link, if it hasn't gone dead yet. Reminds me of the proverbial tree falling in the forest...if a person "coins" a word and not a single soul picks it up from him, did he really coin it? Anyway, what's the deal with that Landes guy these days? I hear he's running a couple of blogs and is still flogging his 18-minute film, etc. etc. – but on Wikipedia, it's called "original research," and is, as you know and have emphasized on countless occasions, forbidden.--G-Dett 19:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

So the issue is that you want to say its creation was attributed to him, and you don't want to mention that it was used earlier by at least one other person, even though you know that to be the case. Is that it? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I've seen it argued quite a few times on wikipedia that NOR, RS, etc. mean that things acknowledged to be false by the editors themselves should be included because an RS says so (and obviously vice versa). --Coroebus 19:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm just asking a question; it should be easy enough to answer. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I gather Jay's conceded the point about WP:NOR, naturally enough, since it was his point to begin with:"that's the very essence of original research, constructing a counter-argument using primary sources."Comment by Jayjg, April 27.

As to whether I'm willing to waive the WP:NOR rule in this case, as Jay is requesting, I am – provided that the phrasing of the OR he puts in isn't designed to insinuate (or leave open to the misinterpretation) that there are sourced indications that the word was in circulation (at all) before Landes put it in circulation. This is the problem with saying that "the term...had been used as early as 2002." It is deliberately ambiguous and even insinuating. A nonce word is one thing, a term another. The OR issues are clear, and I'm happy they've finally been acknowledged (though not in as forthright a manner as could have been hoped for). If editors want to let readers know that a usenet forum member once used "Pallywood" as a nonce word in 2002, before Landes' film coined it as a term in 2005, and want a get-out-WP:NOR-free pass from me to do it, consider my permission granted.--G-Dett 19:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I have neither conceded anything, nor requested anything. Please don't put words in my mouth. Instead, re-read my comments: "So the issue is that you want to say its creation was attributed to him, and you don't want to mention that it was used earlier by at least one other person, even though you know that to be the case. Is that it?" Just answer the question, thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Your question indeed amounts to a concession, of course,and at any rate it's been amply answered. Again: No. You have my permission (I can't speak for other editors) to break the WP:NOR rule just this once, so long as you don't use that permission to insert something that misleads the reader about what your non-RS primary source shows. For more details, read my previous post again, or for the first time, as the case may be. --G-Dett 19:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, I haven't conceded anything, nor have I requested anything. I'm just trying to understand your point, but your answer wasn't really relevant to my question. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Be more specific.--G-Dett 20:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you or don't you want the article to mention the fact that the term "Pallywood" was used before Landes used it? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I've answered that question several times, and in copious detail. Please read the posts more carefully. There are obvious WP:NOR and WP:RS issues, which you've so far refused even to address. And there is your own argument to reckon with – "that's the very essence of original research, constructing a counter-argument using primary sources" – which you have yet to do. Even if we waive these obvious policy issues just this once, there is the question of just what your primary-source material shows (and this, of course, is why primary-source material can cause such problems in the first place). Nevertheless, I'm willing in this case to see these policies violated by you just this once, so long as the OR you insert confines itself to the baldest statement of what you've found in your non-RS primary source (that "Pallywood" was used once by a usenet forum member in 2002), and does not insinuate that the word was a "term" (i.e., had any currency) before Landes's film coined it.--G-Dett 20:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Moved to left
G-Dett, if you just answered Jay's question with a 'yes' or a 'no', I think it would be much easier on other editors as well (such as myself) who want to know what your position on this is. Having read all your replies, I have not yet been able to find a coherent answer to Jay's question. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 20:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Ynhockey, with respect, I think my answer was very clear. But why don't you summarize what you think my position is, from what I've written. If you're off, I'll right you, and if it's apparent that I've somehow sown confusion where I thought I was being direct, methodical, and exhaustive, then I'll take added pains to clarify.--G-Dett 21:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

G-Dett, the burden of explanation lies with the person who wants to make their position count. With respect, I have better things to do than re-read this entire conversation in an effort to fish out your answer to Jay's question. Your position from what I gather is that you oppose the link's inclusion. The question is why. Consensus is not reached by 'voting' (i.e. each user's overall position counts as one 'vote' until you see what is supported); it is reached by discussion (a debate, if you will), which you have mostly managed to avoid, a part of which is asking the other side questions which would be tough to answer. I think it's fair that you answer Jay's questions before he answers yours because he asked first (as in any other debate). -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 21:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

You needn't "gather" anything about my opinion, Ynhockney, and you certainly don't need to fish it out. It's already been fished, killed, cleaned, fileted, sauteed and served to you. What I can't do is chew and swallow for you; you'll need to do that. My opinion has been reiterated several times, in versions both concise and detailed, in order to be easily digestible by all – regardless of individual taste, appetite, or capacity. The nice plus for anyone who chooses to debate me is that they get such clear and methodical answers to their questions, in multiple iterations if they need, want, or demand that. This kindness is not always reciprocated, however. I have yet to receive any answers at all to the following questions: 1) Is a usenet forum a reliable source? 2) Why is it the "the very essence of original research, constructing a counter-argument using primary sources" in some cases, but not this one? 3) Is a nonce word the same as a "term"? Is it not misleading to point to a usenet forum member's playful nonce word as a "use of a term"? Does the sentence, "The term 'Pallywood' had been used as early as 2002," not a) conflate terms and nonce words, and b) strongly suggest to the reader that this one-off nonce word is the tip of the iceberg, an indication of likely broader currency?

Any sort of answer to these questions would be most welcome.--G-Dett 21:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The answers to all these questions can be found in 2 of my comments, a few comments down. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

You eat your fish, I'll do the hunting and gathering. But how about giving me a hint as to where I'll find the answer to #2? I'm looking high and low for it. Thanks, --G-Dett 22:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I think G-Dett is saying she finds this to be a violation of policy. I agree. It's OR and a usenet group is not an reliable source. There is no secondary reliable source that attributes the use of Pallywood to anyone but Landes. Tiamut 20:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand the whole point of having the usenet link. Basically it proves that the term was used before Landes coined it. It does not prove, or set to prove, anything else except that fact. As long as it is not disputed that it's indeed pre-Landes, it does not have to qualify as WP:RS because the content of the linked page is not relevant. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 20:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

In other words, precisely what Jay defines as original research and rules out accordingly: "that's the very essence of original research, constructing a counter-argument using primary sources."Comment by Jayjg, April 27.--G-Dett 21:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Please note also the distinction between a nonce word and a "term." And take care what conclusions you draw from this non-RS primary source. You write, "Basically it proves that the term was used before Landes coined it." No it doesn't. It proves that "Pallywood" was used at a nonce word once in 2002 by a usenet forum member. I have made very clear that if you want to include that fact, even though doing so violates WP:NOR certainly and WP:RS probably, you have my go-ahead.--G-Dett 21:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Uh, the article as it stands now doesn't even define Pallywood as a "term" but as a neologism (which is similar to a nonce word in many ways). Many will argue that it is actually a nonce word even now (i.e. used by Landes for some particular staged photos, but is not relevant to media manipulation - in fact, we've had this discussion several times on this very talk page). If that still makes the article notable, then so is the usage in 2002. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 21:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Nonce words, neologisms, and "terms" are related but they are not interchangeable. Nonce words are made up on the spot by the user, "invented" (as it were) every time they're used; the usenet forum member's 'coining' of "Pallywood" is an obvious example of this ("First Hollywood, then Bollywood, and now...Pallywood! Has a certain ring to it"). Neologisms are much more stable: a word gets invested with stable semantic content by a community of users. Neologisms however can be mere fads; when their use becomes even more stable and deeply rooted, they become terms, which the OED defines as "a word or phrase used in a definite or precise sense in some particular subject, as a science or art; a technical expression (more fully term of art)". "Pallywood" as coined by Landes is a neologism that might be becoming a term. Clearly Landes would like it to. Clearly some Wikipedians would also like it to, which is why they are reaching for specious genealogies, combing through the nether reaches of the internet, looking for any glimmer of evidence that the word had some heritage and enjoyed some currency before Landes. What they've found is primary-source evidence of one instance of 'Pallywood' as a nonce word in a non-RS usenet thread. To answer Jay's and now your question for the nth time,I won't object to inserting this meager, desiccated little finding into our article (WP:NOR be damned), so long as the formulation citing it adds nothing to the bald fact, either by way of explicit claims ("The term 'Pallywood' was used by online debaters for several years") or by way of suggestion ("The term "Pallywood" had been used as early as 2002"). Bald fact: "Pallywood" was used once as a nonce word in a usenet thread in 2002. Throw it in there, just like that, if you're dying for it. And then we can go back to the usual Wikipedia protocols – WP:NOR, WP:RS, etc. --G-Dett 22:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

You may be right that the 2002 cite was a nonce word, but that involves analysis we aren't allowed to do. All we can say is that someone used it in 2002. <<-armon->> 03:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, what we're not allowed to do is use the usenet source at all. Usenet threads are not RS's, and as Jay has pointed out, it's the very essence of OR to use primary sources to argue against secondary sources. What I've suggested is a compromise, in order to incorporate material that – though it doesn't meet Wikipedia's standards – is important to several editors here. If no satisfactory compromise can be found, of course, then the usenet material will simply have to go, and we'll stick with what the sources say – that Landes coined the term.--G-Dett 12:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you guys still arguing about this? It's really a minor point. Also, please recall that articles are edited based on policy, not based on what other editors say. If you're willing to accept my direction in all editing matters, then feel free to quote me as an authority; otherwise, please stick to discussing article content, not other editors. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Does that mean you agree it should be taken out? Hornplease 23:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I never really cared about it one way or the other. On the one hand, it's clear that the term was used at least once (and in the exact same sense) before Landes popularized it. It's also clear that the French press quoted Landes himself using the term before 2005. On the other hand, some editors here appear to be objecting to mentioning that fact, on purely technical grounds. If they honestly feel that removing the information - which they all acknowledge is factually correct - somehow benefits Wikipedia, then who am I to stand in their way? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure who "some editors" refers to, but I've made clear repeatedly (both here and on the mainspace) that I don't object to mentioning the 2002 use on grounds technical or otherwise.--G-Dett 02:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Arb section break

(edit conflict)Do we even need to mention when the word was coined, or whether it has been attributed to Landes at all? Couldn't we just say "it was popularised by..." and leave it at that? Or, if we really really must talk about origins, since we have no RS on the topic (or at least, none that accord with what we seem to accept is the 'truth'), we could say that, regarding the origin of the word it has been attributed to Landes (cite), that Landes claims he invented it (cite), but that its use has been recorded before Landes (e.g. (cite)). --Coroebus 21:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Coroebus, how is what you suggest any different than how it reads now? "The term "Pallywood" had been used as early as 2002, [5] but Richard Landes of Boston University is usually credited with having given the term currency in 2005, with his 18-minute documentary film Pallywood: According to Palestinian Sources.[4]" -or was your suggestion before that edit? <<-armon->> 03:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Well obviously the first suggestion differs by not having the reference to its origins at all. The second suggestion includes Landes's own claim to have originated it (which only seems fair if we're going to say he didn't via OR), and doesn't emphasise the 2002 date, or have the "as early as" phraseology, which I think we ought to avoid so that we don't credit a google groups posting with originating the term. --Coroebus 09:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

OK well I've reverted to that version for now. What do others think of Coroebus' second suggestion, along the lines of: the origin of the word has been attributed to Landes (cite), that Landes claims he invented it (cite), but that its use has been recorded before Landes (e.g. (cite))? <<-armon->> 12:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Which source established that its use has been recorded before Landes - a primary source from a google usenet forum. Is this a reliable source per Wikipolicy? WP:ATT states quite clearly: Personal websites and messages either on USENET or on Internet bulletin boards are considered self-published. With self-published sources, no one stands between the author and publication; the material may not be subject to any form of fact-checking, legal scrutiny, or peer review. Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published and then claim to be an expert in a certain field; visiting a stranger's personal website is often the online equivalent of reading an unattributed flyer on a lamp post. For that reason, self-published material is largely not acceptable. How is the inclusion of this information justifiable under Wikipedia policies? Tiamut 12:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Tiamut is right about policy, of course. We'll be bending WP:RS in this case, as well as breaking WP:NOR outright by using primary-source material to stage a counterargument (the "very essence of original research," as Jay pointed out). I'm open to compromise, though surely the burden of compromise lies with those asking that policy be waived in this case. That said, I'd be willing to go with the gist of Armon's formulation, slightly altered as follows: the origin of the term has been attributed to Landes (cite), and Landes claims he invented it (cite), but its use as a nonce word has been recorded on at least one occasion before Landes' film. (e.g. (cite))--G-Dett 13:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I've actually been looking at a similar situation on Separation of Church and State, where Thomas Jefferson is credited with popularizing the phrase, although others also used it before him. What's generally said there is that the phrase is traced to him or that he popularized it, without reference to whether it may have been used earlier. This seems to go with what Coroebus is saying, that perhaps the additional comment just isn't necessary. Mackan79 13:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I've read this discussion through and tried to understand it - and as best I can tell, the 2002 reference does not belong. The WP:RS sources say that Landes invented/popularized the word in 2005. Finding (one) earlier use of the word in 2002 on the Usenet and inserting it into the article is indeed "the very essence of original research, constructing a counter-argument using primary sources." PalestineRemembered 17:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

You're right on the technical question, of course, but this was a compromise. "Pallywood" as a portmanteau is not a terribly original brainstorm, and we know that it occurred to one puckish usenet member in 2002, three years before Landes coined it as a term. After various attempts to build on this bit of trivia, editors have accepted the current edit, which if it bends WP:RS at least no longer implies a dubious genealogy from the one isolated nonce use to the later coinage of the term. It's fine with me as a compromise, and I think everyone here's tired of the subject, but if you have unanswered objections you could put in an RfC.--G-Dett 17:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I dropped "usually". There are no sources which credit anyone else. <<-armon->> 21:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Attributing statements

I see there's a fresh dispute about whether to note the conservative political leanings of Arutz Sheva and the Mackenzie Institute. Fortunately we have some good advice from Jayjg which we can use to guide us:

The article seems to focus on the fact that non-notables like student demonstrators use the term, but fails to note its prevalent use among neo-Nazis and anti-Semites such as David Duke and Jew Watch. I've rectified that. Let's make sure we give the reader the complete picture of the phrase's use. (Talk:Israeli apartheid/Archive 3#Other uses ignored).

As Jayjg is well known for his promotion of neutral wording, reliable referencing and consistency between articles, I suggest that this article should do what's done in Allegations of Israeli apartheid#Overview and note the political leanings of the proponents of the term. -- ChrisO 11:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I support CJ's edits and concur with ChrisO's post. I say "concur" not "agree" because I don't actually think Jay's post from AOIA is relevant. (In that case the question of well-poisoning arose not because of how Duke and Jew Watch were identified, but because such marginal figures were being cited as notable support for a concept in the first place – a clear violation of WP:UNDUE.)

Armon's concerns about well-poisoning in the present case are not frivolous by any means. It's just that they should be balanced with the need to supply basic information about a subject. The term "Pallywood" does not have broad currency, and its use is quite clearly confined to the right-wing blogosphere and to conservative commentators very sympathetic to Israel. If we're going to give the final word (as CJ points out) to people claiming, among other things, that "Pallywood" has become "a household word," then their political orientation is necessary context, and coyly withholding it violates WP:NPOV. Political orientation is crucial to use of the term "Pallywood." If there were an article on the Jew York Times ([35], [36]) or The Daily Tel Aviv (cf [37], [38]), it would be important to identify the political orientation of sources who use those terms – all the more so if those sources were quoted making large claims about wide currency (i.e. "household term"). The same principle clearly applies here.--G-Dett 14:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

ChrisO, while I appreciate your acknowledgment that I am well-known for promotion of neutral wording and reliable referencing, I must point out that articles are edited based on policy, not one what you imagine other editors believe or do, or based on out-of-context quotations of what they have said on other articles. In the future, please confine your Talk: page comments to discussions of article content (this article), not discussion of other editors. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm wondering how legitimate it is to go around labeling all or most of the sources that use Pallywood as "conservative." The editors who are doing this would never allow sources elsewhere to be constantly labeled left-wing. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't generally subscribe to the whole one dimensional representation of the political spectrum, but having grown up in a U.S. state where the liberals are really conservatives, and having moved back to my birthplace, where the the conservatives are really liberals (or at least have to pretend), I can testify that these labels are extremely subjective. Humus must have told me a dozen times that Haaretz is a "liberal" paper, and while I'm sure that's true relative to other Israeli media, it ain't exactly Indymedia, ya know? -- Kendrick7^talk 04:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we should just re-name the articles in question; you know, neoconservative political commentator David Frum, conservative Israeli news channel Arutz Sheva, Mackenzie Institute, a conservative Canadian organization. That way we can ensure uniformity in all Wikipedia articles that refer to them. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, I'm wondering why the MacKenzie institute is described as an "organization" rather than a "think-tank", and why the editors here believe it is "conservative"? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm a little bemused by all this hand-wringing. No one's suggesting that this or that source should be "constantly labeled" right-wing or left-wing or whatever. The question is whether we should be straightforward or weirdly coy about who uses the term "Pallywood" and in what context. The article on Wage slavery tells us that the term "is generally associated with socialist criticisms of capitalism, but has also been expressed by some proponents of liberalism, like Henry George ([1]), Silvio Gesell and Thomas Paine ([2]), as well as the Distributist school of thought within the Roman Catholic Church. Criticism of capitalism on these grounds is connected to the belief that one should have freedom to work without a boss or obligation," and the article is better for this bit of contextualizing. It's similarly helpful to learn from Chickenhawk (politics) that "those who use the term are generally but not always on the political left; most factions or individuals labeled "chickenhawks" are members of the U.S. Republican Party." I like that limousine liberal tells me that the term is "a populist epithet." This is emphatically not tantamount to identifying the sources in question everywhere and always as "critics of capitalism," or "leftists," or "populists"; that's a total red herring. Political context is crucial to the use of terms and phrases like wage slavery, limousine liberal, chickenhawk, and Pallywood. Pallywood would do well to emulate the commonsensical and un-neurotic directness of these articles.--G-Dett 16:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Is the claim that those who use the term "Chickenhawk" are usually on the left sourced, or is it original research? Are those who use the term throughout the article labelled as "Left-wing commentator", "Left-wing politician", etc.? Pallywood would do well to follow Wikipedia policy, as should all other articles. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Is there a policy that CJ's edit violates? Please be specific.--G-Dett 17:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPOV ("representing fairly and without bias all significant views) and possibly WP:NOR, depending on whether or not he has sources for his claims. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm puzzled as to how describing a conservative Canadian organization as a conservative Canadian organization can be said to violate NPOV. CJCurrie 03:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Poisoning the well is a well-known tactic used to bias the reader. Would you mind answering the questions listed above? I'll repeat them here. Why do you refer to the the MacKenzie institute is as an "organization" rather than a "think-tank", and why do you believe it is "conservative"? Why is the original research regarding which blogs Landes believes support seconddraft.org relevant to this topic? Also, why do you belive ArutzSheva is "conservative", and why do you label David Frum "neo-conservative"? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

(i) I can't see how describing a conservative organization as conservative constitutes "poisoning the well" either (since you seem to have dropped the charge that it's NPOV), (ii) I would have no objection to replacing "organization" with "think-tank" (my change on this front was more benign than you imagine), (iii) I'm familiar with the MacKenzie Institute, and can assume you that there will be little difficulty verifying its conservative orientation, (iv) I'm not involved in the blogs issue, (v) perhaps you'd prefer we describe Arutz Sheva as "religious Zionist", per its Wikipedia entry, (vi) the fact that he wrote a book with Richard Perle would seem to validate the label, although I don't believe that particular change was mine in any event. CJCurrie 03:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

(i) You misunderstand; poisoning the well is a violation of WP:NPOV, which states views must be presented fairly and without bias. Poisoning the well is intended to induce bias. (ii) O.K. (iii) Excellent; please do so. (iv) It seems part of a series of edits intended to make the argument that "Pallywood" and "right-wing" are indelibly linked. (v) A link to the Arutz Sheva article is all that is required. (vi) See (iv). Jayjg ^(talk) 04:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

(i) I still don't see how describing a conservative organization as conservative constitutes bias, (iv) I could just as easily respond: why are we highlighting the views of two rather marginal conservative organizations (Arutz Sheva and the Mackenzie Institute) to begin with? CJCurrie 04:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

(i) Continue re-reading poisoning the well as many times as it takes to assimilate its contents. The fact that every source using the term is described as "conservative", and a digressive original research statement about conservatives supporting seconddraft.org is inserted, is telling. (iii) Please provide the references. (iv) A more relevant question would be why do we have articles quoting groups like Sabeel, and why do we even have articles like Alliance of Concerned Jewish Canadians? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

(i) I didn't make the digressive statement you're referenced, but I'll note that virtually every source mentioned on this page actually is conservative, (iii) patience, Jay, (iv) I'm glad to see we're staying on-topic. CJCurrie 05:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Poisoning the well applies if stating the political affiliation of the institute in questionwould a. predispose the reader to doubt any assertion and b. unrelated to the assertion that is being made. In this case, the Mackenzie Institute is conservative, and as far as I can tell the fact that this word is part of a specific political divide, rather than a generally used term, is quite an encylopaedic bit of information; and further, this article is, I understand, about the term and not the phenomenon. As G-Dett says above, the chickenhawk article, etc. etc. Is there some reason why you feel, in an article about the term, that this information is irrelevant?

If you feel Sabeel is being quoted somewhere inappropriately, I strongly doubt that anyone will object to removing the quote. I don't see it, however, as a reply to CJC's point. Hornplease 09:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, we don't have any sources commenting on the MI's "conservatism". It's unclear what the label is supposed to mean anyway. <<-armon->> 14:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the Mackenzie Institute newsletter is a great source anyway. I think if we're going to include these little approving quotes in the article we need to set some context as to who someone is - and that may involve referencing their political orientation if that's an overwhelming aspect of their notability and stance(see here for a similar view being forwarded in our favourite comparison article - let's see which way things go in each one). I see that Jay doesn't want anyone to make the point that 'Pallywood' is a conservative term, but it is isn't it? That seems to be what Landes himself says, as well as other sources (i.e remember the discussion about whether we should say it was used by bloggers, or 'right wing bloggers' which was what the source actually said) --Coroebus 08:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Despite Landes himself being on the "left", his opinion was that the term had gained more traction among the "right" and that has been noted in the article. That, and the fact that the sources have their own articles means there's no good reason to editorialize. If the reader wants to dismiss the sources on the basis of their political orientation, real or imagined, the reader can, without our help. The Mackenzie Institute is a perfectly good source for this article as it's well within the area they study. <<-armon->> 12:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

If this was a report from the Mackenzie Institute I might agree that it was a reasonable source, but this is their (monthly?) newsletter, hardly a study, more like a pretty non-notable blog or minor magazine, and we seem to be trying to use it as a source for who uses the term, which I would think rather requires better sources than that (and of course, if anyone included the well sourced claim of "right-wing bloggers" it would be reverted within seconds). Also, the quote we use is weird, it makes more sense in context: "The Palestinians...have since demonstrated a long history of posing for the cameras...and the cynical "Pallywood" nickname from once-deceived journalists for PA news services becomes understandable."

How about this? The Mackenzie Institute has written that given "a long history of posing for the cameras...the cynical "Pallywood" nickname from once-deceived journalists for PA news services becomes understandable." <<-armon->> 14:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Reads better, but like I say, I don't think it ought to be there at all. --Coroebus 14:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't find your "newsletter" objection to be very strong. It's an "official" publication of the org, and despite the attempts to marginalize it, it's respected -see sidebar on this page. <<-armon->> 14:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

This is not research from said thinktank, it is a newsletter, like the newsletters from various other organisations, and it is only an aside in said newsletter, serving no purpose in our article (particularly as a direct quote). I think it is down this road that messy POV-fest articles like Allegations of Israeli Apartheid lie. --Coroebus 14:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Armon, if you're trying to prove the Mackenzie Institute is a respected organization, it might be best to show proof that doesn't come from the Mackenzie Institute itself. I still think this is a pretty marginal source. CJCurrie 22:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Armon pointed to a page in which the Mackenzie Institute appears to be quoting others, not itself. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes: selectively quoting others for its own promotion. CJCurrie 23:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, you'd expect them to quote compliments, not insults, wouldn't you? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd also expect more objective evidence of the group's status as a respected group. For the present discussion, I mean. CJCurrie 01:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Such as... Jayjg ^(talk) 02:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

By the way, it does seem to get regularly quoted in the Canadian press: [39] Jayjg ^(talk) 03:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

CJCurrie, for starters, can you produce reliable sources indicating that Frum is a neoconservative, and that Arutz7 is "conservative"? Then at least we'll know if the well-poisoning also violates WP:V on top of WP:NPOV. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) I don't believe "well-poisoning" is an applicable description. See Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles#Attribute assertions, which advises that the potential bias of the source be identified in neutral terms. I'm not familiar with Arutz7 but according to a Google Books search, it "propagates ... the right wing's position" (Shlomo Deshen, "Religion in the Israeli Discourse on the Arab-Jewish Conflict", p. 117 in Ernest Krausz, Studies of Israeli Society. Transaction Publishers, 1980. ISBN 156000178X) and is "strongly associated with the ideology of the national-religious right-wing of Israeli politics". (Motti Regev, Edwin Seroussi, Popular Music and National Culture in Israel, p. 271. University of California Press, 2004. ISBN 0520236521) There are several more references of a similar nature. David Frum is described as a neoconservative in numerous publications. Rather than list them all, here's two links: [40], [41]. Amusingly, it seems he was even awarded the title of "Neoconservative of the Year" in 2003! [42]. As for the Mackenzie Institute, it's described by Murray Dobbin as being one of a number of conservative Canadian think-tanks and campaigning groups (Murray Dobbin, Preston Manning and the Reform Party, p. 101. James Lorimer & Company, 1991. ISBN 1550283596) although most sources merely call it a "think tank specialising in terrorism and security issues" or words to similar effect. -- ChrisO 07:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

hyperbolic language

i'm not overly contesting the edit, i just need some type of minor explanation to why this edit makes for better english. personally, i feel the previous phrasing is easier to follow as it gives the ending part an extended level of doubt beyond the other allegations that are more solid and plausible. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

See also section

I removed Bagdad Bob per relevance. --Tom 18:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I also removed the Battle of Jenin but left the other Jenin article related to propaganda. Anyways, --Tom 17:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Tom, the article about the battle of jenin has advanced leaps and bounds since august 3, and personally i feel the link belongs here considering the event was only notable due to fairly blatant massacre accusations made in the media (btw, the video of the fake funeral is from that jenin battle). please go over the article and let me know what you think. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 01:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jaakobou, the Battle of Jenin is already linked above the See also section so why include it again. I think I left the Jenin, Jenin link in originally. I would rather see less links in the See also section than more and have them specifically related to propaganda rather than inclusion of events, ect. Anyways, it seems that others have stepped in so I will defer to others. Cheers, --Tom 13:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

i'd appreciate some serious reasoning given to this repeated removal of notes from the see also section.^{[43], [44], [45]} Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 01:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that's the right starting point for discussion. What criteria are being used for the inclusion of "see also" links? -- ChrisO 13:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

(1) i believe you're not part of this revert discussion. (2) What criteria are being used for the removal of "see also" links? (don't ask silly questions, there is clear relevance of topics here - they are included in order to expand the knowledge of the encyclopedia reader). Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Jaakobou, anybody can comment here, and its not a silly question. Chris, I would refer to this, thanks. --Tom 22:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Jaakobou, you've missed the point I was making. Obviously it's not a good idea to link indiscriminately to other articles. In choosing to link to particular articles, you obviously have some reason to choose the articles in question. What is that reason? What are the criteria you're using for inclusion? Why those articles and not others? -- ChrisO 23:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

if you have others that you think are fitting, feel free to bring them in the debate. otherwise, all the information is at your footsteps if you just bother to go over it. p.s. i'm not interested in rhetorical debate at this point in time. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not remotely rhetorical. If you and the other editors can agree on a common set of criteria for linking, it'll avoid revert wars in the future. So, what are your criteria? -- ChrisO 23:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

is that an admission that you revert war regardless of the material being relevant or not relevant as long as there is no set of rules? to be frank, it would seem that you are only interested in polemics over the advancement of the article... if you are objecting to the addition, make your objection noted properly rather than divulge in meaningless babble over some non existent set of rules that will be ignored as soon as two other users get interested in the article. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Why are you accusing me of revert warring when I haven't touched the article for months? I'm trying to find some common ground to end this disagreement between you and Tiamut, Kitrus and Threeafterthree, not between you and me. Are you refusing to negotiate in good faith? -- ChrisO 00:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

i will talk with the people involved, not with someone making demands for policy statements or he'll war revert. to the point, i will not waste my time on a pseudo agreement with you that will not be honored with the other editors. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 01:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

arguments for inclusion and/or removal

Without an argument for the inclusion of these links, I stand by my revert of your additions. Tiamat 10:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Tiamut, the argument for the inclusion of the Jenin, Jenin film into the article about Pallywood, is that same as with the article's designation (i.e news events... staged by Palestinian... to portray Israel in an unfavorable light), the film was produced in order to do just that and is regarded as a well noted example that even received it's own counter film. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

If this is the case, and there is a reliable source that makes a connection between Jenin Jenin and Pallywood, why isn't it mentioned in the article? Tiamat 13:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

are you saying we either have it on the article or have it nowhere? i assumed that the "see also" section had a purpose. can you explain this purpose to me if not to include material that expands the knowledge of readers? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Pallywood is a neologism and the article should treat it as such. The entries under "See Also" are meant to relate to this neologism, not "confirm" it. By putting Jenin Jenin their, immediate suspicion is cast on the film.--Kitrus 07:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

could you please explain, i don't follow your logic here, are you saying that this film was not "staged by palestinains... portray israel in an unfavorable light" ? have you read the article ? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:40, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

If a reliable source claims that Jenin, Jenin is an example of Pallywood then you can definitely discuss this in the article. You cannot however, placeJenin, Jenin in the see also section as though it were an uncontested example of Pallywood. Please incorporate any such material into the article itself if you find it relevant and provide the proper NPOV contextualization. Tiamat 12:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

there you go "criticism that the film was rife with false, propagandistic charges about Israeli actions during the army’s April 2002 incursion into the Jenin refugee camp." now please revert your change. p.s. if you need further examples, you can try reading the article. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Sources with a strong bias (like CAMERA) are by definition not reliable. // Liftarn

Jaakabou, let's try this again. I have no problem with you discussing this article from CAMERA in the body of the text, as long as the opinion about Jenin, Jenin is attributed to CAMERA and they are properly described as a pro-Israel advocacy organization. What I do object to is placing Jenin, Jenin in the "See also" section without any contextualization which implies that Jenin, Jenin is an undisputed example of Pallywood which cannot be established with the sources that we have. Please try to understand this distinction. Tiamut 15:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

a fairly reasonable point Tiamut (despite the supreme court's decision), i agree to this assessment with this one.. will fix it sometime in the future. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Hezbollywood

On the same basis I've removed the links to the Lebanon controversies. Matters relating to Lebanon are by definition not part of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, so can hardly be described as "examples of Pallywood". -- ChrisO 16:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

see Hezbollywood. certainly fits in the see also section. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

It's obviously related. It's the same claim of media manipulation in the same conflict. <<-armon->> 00:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Chris is right though, we shouldn't link to the article as "Hezbollywood". <<-armon->> 08:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

requesting clarifications

could someone please explain the process behind this edit? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

If you have a copy of the 2003 L.A. Times article allegedly cited, please restore it and accept my sincere apologies. If you do not, then I believe it's all self-explanatory in the edit summary and comment. It is likely that this article was never published by the L.A. Times, although the confusion is understandable since the author is an L.A. Times columnist. See LA Times archive search. Eleland 20:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Eleland's right, the policy is WP:CITE#HOW "say where you got it". <<-armon->> 23:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Note on lead

I'm not going to get into any edit war on this, partly because I'm considering nominating this article for deletion. But Jaakobou's preferred version of the lead –

Landes makes note to the images which were broadcast and those which were not and argues these dramatic pseudo-events that reach the mass media are designed for propaganda purposes, in order to create bias against Israel by presenting disingenuous images of Palestinians as unfortunate victims of Israeli aggression

– besides being ungrammatical, begs the question. Syntactically, any sentence with the structure So-and-so claims that X is Y assumes the veracity of X. In this case, X is "dramatic pseudo-events." Jaakobou's version assumes the very thing that's in dispute, i.e., that images of Palestinian suffering are "dramatic pseudo-events," hence begging the question.--G-Dett 03:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

(1) i'd be happy to hear an honest explanation on the grammatical errors, but to be frank, i'm not sure you'd be interested.

(2) Landes uses the term "dramatic site bites" in his film and calls people on (what he sees as) exaggerating and acting for the camera - i don't see why pseudo event is an improper usage of words to depict these statements of his.

(3) i'm not assuming anything, the text clearly states "Landes makes note.... and argues....".

-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Jaakobou, I'm guessing English isn't your native language - I agree with G-Dett that your preferred wording is very unsatisfactory. "Makes note to the images which were broadcast and those which were not" doesn't make any sense at all - syntactically, it's gibberish. "These dramatic pseudo-events" is hyperbole and, as G-Dett says, begs the question - the phrasing makes it very clear that you're promoting Landes' POV. The term "pseudo-events" is far too clumsy and too unclear for the reader - what's a "pseudo-event" supposed to be? "Disingenuous images" is also strange wording - "disingenuous" isn't a word that you would expect to see used in this context. The previous wording is grammatical and neutrally worded - please don't try replacing it with something that is neither. -- ChrisO 10:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

AfD

I've nominated this article for deletion.--G-Dett 02:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Now the AfD has concluded the article must be rewritten accordingly.--Burgas00 18:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The result was no merge Yahel Guhan 05:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Liftarn has proposed that this article be merged with Media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I'm not sure which part of that article he envisages it being merged into, but it seems to me that the section Incidents of controversial media reporting could be an appropriate place to start. -- ChrisO 18:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

So you can bury "Pallywood" even further? I oppose the merger. I have also asked the closing admin on the AfD to reconsider. Let's see how that goes first. 6SJ7 19:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Please don't be so negative. It's not a matter of "burying" anything - the closing admin has reached a reasonable policy-based compromise, so let's assume good faith and move forward on that basis. -- ChrisO 19:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

What Chris said. The closing admin's decision was a very smart one, and smartly articulated. Giving context doesn't bury anything; how could it when "pallywood" is a redirect? The user who types in "pallywood" will soon find a larger, more interesting, better-sourced, more encyclopedic topic. In the meantime let's consider Liftarn's proposal on its merits, and not conflate it with the AfD, which is over now.--G-Dett 21:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

this topic is too large not to have it's own article. sure, we should mention it on the other article, but a complete merger would remove the entire issueof false reportig by palestinians, which is a real subject of discussion considering the body of cases.. to e frank, i'm thinking this article can probably e expanded enough so that each of it's own topics can have their own articles (some already do). Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• no merge This topic is encyclopediac on its own, and a merge would not be giving fair representation to the notability of the concept. Sefringle^Talk 01:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• No merge. The clear AfD consensus was that the article should be kept, not reduced to a small rant and stuffed into a larger article. This is a notable topic which doesn't deserve that treatment. No problem with including a summary and link in the Media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict article, as is regular practice. — xDanielx ^T/_C 05:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

If we remove all the undue weight to the home video and the unreliable sources and so on all we get left is a stub and that would be better merged into the main article. // Liftarn

• No merge. The article is about media manipulation, not about media coverage. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• No merge, and I am very concerned about marked tendency among some editors to support anything that buries this quite notable topic. --Leifern 03:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• No merge. Were any reasons even given for a merge? In any event, merging this will probably result in "Here's why some say Israel lies; here's why others say Palestinians lie." This topic is worth its own article and exposition. Calbaer 06:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• no merge per Jossi Bigglove^talk 20:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Alternative proposal

I'd like to propose an alternative that might be more acceptable in terms of retaining and restructuring this article. Whatever happens, this article is going to have to be rewritten to fit the new title. There is a risk that it will end up overlapping with Media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Instead of merging it into Media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict#Incidents of controversial media reporting, which I presume is Liftarn's proposal, I propose that we do a reverse merger. We can reduce that section to a summary pointing back to this article, and expand this article to cover (some of) the issues covered in that section. This article would remain but would provide a general overview of the various incidents in which media manipulation has been alleged, e.g. Jenin, al-Durrah, PATV etc. -- ChrisO 07:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

seems fine in my opinion. however, i haven't checked how large is the info on the other article and it should not be totally expunged from it... btw, why does this article have the title "in the palestinian territories" and not "by palestinians"? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Both articles seems very unbalanced since they hardly mention pro-Israel media manipulation. Work to be done. // Liftarn

I'm no expert in the subject but from a fairly cursory reading of Media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict I'd suggest a complete rewrite. It's poorly written, unfocused, rambling, makes unsourced assertions (some of which were tagged 6 months ago!) and I'm not sure about some of the sources. And as you say, it seems to focus entirely on the Palestinian side. I'm sure there's something that can be said about Israeli media coverage of the conflict, given the broad range of Israeli media sources. -- ChrisO 23:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

There is MEMRI who have been accused of selective bias. For instance "MEMRI's intent is to find the worst possible quotes from the Muslim world and disseminate them as widely as possible." and there is more to be found by just looking around in existing articles. // Liftarn

I would oppose such a merger. This article is specifically about documented media manipulation and should remain as is. Why was it moved from Pallywood? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I am also against a merger. This topic is an interesting, important, notable, and current one and very much deserves a wikipedia article. Let's let the article live, it has been through two AFDs up to now, and improve it rather than trying to get rid of it. let's keep it balanced and NPOV. OK? Bigglove^talk 20:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The result was moved back to Pallywood Yahel Guhan 05:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose unilateral move

Also: the closing admin changed the name of the article unilaterally and without consensus. AfD closers need to evaluate if to keep or delete, and can make suggestions about renaming wihc neditors can take into account, but without making these moves himself. I will ask the closing admin to undo the move, about which there is no consensus. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The move strikes me as a reasonable compromise between the two positions and well within the closing administrator's discretion. As you ought to know by now after the allegations of apartheid fiasco, AfDs aren't votes and don't require consensus to conclude (policy, rather than consensus, is what counts). Rather than treat it as some sort of zero sum game, why not accept it, move on and put your energies into improving the article rather than re-fighting the AfD? -- ChrisO 23:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not fighting the AfD, as the AfD was a keep. I am complaining about a move about which there was no discussion or consensus. I have asked the closing admin to undo the move, rather than undoing the move myself. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

AfDs are designed to gauge editor's consensus regarding keeping or deleting of articles in Wikipedia. Discussions about name changes are at the discretion of involved editors, and discussed in this talk page to gauge consensus for such. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

If you're that convinced of your position, take it to DRV. But I can guarantee you'll get the same response that I've just given you above. -- ChrisO 23:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review is to ask the community about undoing a deletion,; the article was not deleted, so DRV is not needed. As I said, I have asked the admin to undo the move and allow interested editors to gain consensus about a new name for this article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Not so. From WP:DRV: "Wikipedia:Deletion review considers disputed deletions and disputed decisions made in deletion-related discussions." -- ChrisO 23:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

And please, if you could, do not guarantee me anything. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

You'll probably think I'm flattering myself, but I suspect that - based on your performance in the allegations of apartheid affair - I have a somewhat better appreciation of where the balance of policy lies. As I said, go to DRV and see what the response you get there is, but don't be surprised if others tell you what I've told you. -- ChrisO 23:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to get into a pissing contest about behavior relating to the whole allegations of apartheid issue, but I have to say I was very amused by your conceit, ChrisO. --Leifern 14:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

(ed conf) I would appreciate if you take that back, Chris. I am not bringing up here your behavior at that fracas, as is not pertinent to this discussion. I do not think that you have the right, or the standing, to claim to have a better understanding of policy that anyone. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. -- ChrisO 00:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, sure, Chris. You indeed are flattering yourself in an obvious case of bias blind spot ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• I agree that this should be moved back to Pallywood, because I don't think the status quo resolution makes a lot of sense. The closer granted that Pallywood was notable, which was roughly the consensus of the AfD. Sometimes notable topics are best incorporated into other articles, but while I previously thought that was a good option I've changed my opinion. This article just isn't about media manipulation in Palestine -- more than anything it's about a neologism, a historian, a website, a video, and all the connections and events tying them together. Modifying this article to conform to the new title appropriately would be too much like writing a new article. This article isn't small/trivial and I don't think Pallywood should be crammed into a section of another topic. Doing so would also make most of the "See also" and "Further reading" contents overly narrow and thus not useful. Not to mention that such an arrangement would make for an awkward structure -- a bit like stuffing Oracle Corporation into Database. — xDanielx ^T/_C 23:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Support move back to Pallywood. This is what the official name of the topic is, and the article would need rewriting under the current title. Pallywood is the best and most notable name. Sefringle^Talk 00:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a move vote, and you're not going to be able to override the results of an AfD that way. As I've said above, if you're convinced that the decision was wrong then you must take it up on WP:DRV, which is where "disputed decisions made in deletion-related discussions" are to be discussed. If you want to make your case, make it there and convince the wider community that the closing admin was wrong. An echo chamber of partisans isn't the venue for doing that. -- ChrisO 00:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Nope. DRV, is not the venue to discuss this issue. This page is. The closing admin's move to a different name is outside of the scope of an AfD closing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

You missed: This includes appeals to restore pages that have been deleted as well as appeals to delete pages which were not deleted after a prior discussion, nothing else. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I didn't miss that. "Includes" is different from "comprises". "Includes" merely indicates that the subjects listed are part of a larger category, which may include topic not enumerated in the list; "comprises" means that the subjects listed are that larger category. Wording matters. :-) -- ChrisO 00:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

What is it with the cross-posting? Look, I have made a request from the closing admin, and will comment after his response. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

This affair really does not belong on DRV, since it is outside the scope of AfD. Of course naming issues can be discussed on AfD, just as one can discuss how to improve an article on an AfD (whether retention is contingent on improvement or not). One can also talk about the weather on AfD. Let's follow our deletion policy:

Pages with an incorrect name can simply be renamed via page movement procedure. Disputes over the name are discussed on the talk page, or listed at requested moves.

This is a long-standing precedent, and one which I would have excepted ChrisO to be familiar with. Sometimes closing admins will make use of regular editorial options at the time of closure; that does not make their actions, which can be performed by any editor, part of the AfD. Especially when the said actions were discussed by only 3 editors who did not reach an agreement themselves. — xDanielx ^T/_C 06:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• comment this is what I said in when closing the AfD The conclusion is the content should be kept, the term Pallywood should also be addressed within the article, the film/video should also be covered but neither has enough to be the focus of a stand-alone article even when combined. This was the solution that was building as the discussion progressed a number of possible article names were suggested, Alleged Palestinian media manipulation is the most concise suggestion. This does have a POV outlook as such I've moved the article to a more neutral Alleged media manipulation in Palestine, ultimately its naming is up to article editors to discuss on the article talk page and it still holds true. Gnangarra 14:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Gnan, I'm sure what you did was well meant, and I happen to agree with your reasoning. But one thing I've learned from this topic is that change and consensus is very slow at finding acceptance, and usually follows inevitable bickering, recriminations, etc. I would advise you and any admin to be very careful about trying to cut through what surely seems like nonsense and being decisive. It almost always backfires, as secondary bickering and recriminations ensue.--Leifern 14:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Given that garra says that ultimately its naming is up to article editors to discuss on the article talk page I will undo the move so that the naming of the article can be discussed and agreed upon as per the AfD closing. There is no consensus for the new name assigned by Garra. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• comment The name of the article is more of a topic for the talk page discussion than the AFD discussion, which was keep vs. delete. I think that the closing admin gave this some very conisdered thought and acted in good faith. He/she really tried to do the right thing and I appreciate it. HOWEVER, I think the name of the article should not have been changed without discssion on that specific point. I agree with changing it back until more discussion can take place. Bigglove^talk 20:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Unilaterally overturning the decision of a closing admin in an AfD is not a good idea. Since Jossi hasn't bothered to take it to DRV, despite requests from both myself and Gnangarra, I will. Please leave the title alone until the wider community can have some input. -- ChrisO 23:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Gangarra did not ask for a DRV. I am not overturning an AfD decision, as the Gangarra himself stated that the name should be discussed and agreed upon in talk, and AfDs closers cannot override consensus about names of articles. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Please note that the closing admin said above that there should be discussion of the title on the talk page, and wouldn't a DRV discussion be a little strange when the article was not deleted? I don't disagree with leaving the title as it is pending that discussion, and ultimately after some thought may even agree that the new title or another new title is preferable to "Pallywood", but the above comment about "unilaterally overturning the decsion of a closing admin...is not a good idea" feels a little like a threat. ChrisO acted in good faith when he brought an AFD on this article. The closing admin made a well-considered judgement when he closed and renamed. Jossi felt like he was doing the right thing when he renamed the article back to the original title and opened a discussion. We all have in common editing Wikipedia. Could we consider lightening up and trying to get along rather than taking such an adversarial tone? (going on Wikibreak for a few days) Bigglove^talk 23:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually I didn't bring the AfD - I believe that was G-Dett. Unfortunately, due to the intense partisanship that cripples our Middle East-related articles, this isn't a matter that can be dealt with by an argument between entrenched partisans and political activists. DRV exists to review "disputed decisions made in deletion-related discussions" (see para 2 of WP:DRV) and it's therefore the most appropriate forum to discuss the matter. -- ChrisO 23:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

you did bring the first one on Pallywood, however, that was what I was talking about. Sorry to be unclear. My point was, it doesn't have to be an argument and I'm not assuming that everone here sees things in black and white. Anyway, I don't expect to change your mind since you seem to see this in highly adversarial terms. Bigglove^talk 01:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

entrenched partisans and political activists??? Who that would be, ChrisO? Nevertheless, DRV as argued abundantly above, is not a recourse in this case. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you are getting into dangerous territory, ChrisO. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no consensus for such a move, and it is not within the power of an AfD closer to decide what name to give to an article, as well explained by the admin that closed the AfD. Let editors discuss what name to give to this article, if to merge, etc. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I've raised the matter at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 September 21 and I've raised the issue of your conduct at WP:AN/I. Your actions here have been very inadvisable. -- ChrisO 00:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I stand by my actions and "my conduct" both of which have been to preserve due process, and encourage editors' consensus as to the future of the material in this article, either under a different name, or merged elsewhere. As for your opinion of my actions, you surely are entitled to it, but you missed to state that it is your opinion choosing to assert that as a fact instead, a thing that you tend to do quite often. You are not an arbiter, and I do not appreciate that kind of attitude. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposals for renaming

Proposals for renaming this article can be discussed here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• Alleged media manipulation in the Palestinian territories -- suggested in AfD —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jossi (talk • contribs) 23:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• The Palestinian media manipulation industry. let's skip the neologism and call it like it is. anyone seen the film? (and other films^sample) anybody read some articles made in the arab world about palestinian media? forget the neologism, just call it by it's name... we can add segments about Tomorrow's Pioneers (and similar) and of Arafat asking some mexican/spanish female reporter "you have proof for this?" when she asks him about child suicide camps (and much more). Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 05:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Sensible suggestions please. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Article naming for why your proposed name is unsuitable: "A neutral article title is very important because it ensures that the article topic is placed in the proper context. Therefore, encyclopedic article titles are expected to exhibit the highest degree of neutrality. The article might cover the same material but with less emotive words, or might cover broader material which helps ensure a neutral view (for example, renaming "Criticisms of drugs" to "Societal views on drugs"). Neutral titles encourage multiple viewpoints and responsible article writing." -- ChrisO 08:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• Harry Potter's magic at work in the media industry. Any takers? :) — xDanielx ^T/_C 06:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• Media controversies in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict -- my personal favoured option. It would avoid the term "Palestinian territories", which some dislike; it would avoid the "allegations" meme, which we know is problematic; and it would be less susceptible to definitional arguments than the ill-defined term "media manipulation". We know a controversy when we see one but what exactly is "media manipulation", what does it constitute and how do we tell if a specific incident is an example of it? I can foresee arguments over whether specific incidents should be cited as examples. We can avoid that by referring to "controversies" rather than "manipulation" - everyone can agree that a particular issue is controversial, but it's obviously going to be disputable as to whether it's an example of "manipulation". -- ChrisO 08:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

That does not work, as this article is related to Palestinian media and not to Israeli media. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Also note that it is not about a controversy generically, but about a media manipulation controversy. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Why is it not about Israeli media, or for that matter any other media? What's the reason for confining it exclusively to the media of one side in the conflict? -- ChrisO 20:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Because this is what the material in the article is about. If and when material is found about manipulation of media in Israel, it can be discussed then. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

A sampling of sources on Israeli media manipulation:

Media Monitoring Project - Keshev

Leaked document exposes pro-Israel lobby's manipulation of US public, also at Democracy Now

Israeli Manipulation of Terms

The Three Monkeys of the Israeli Media

Obviously, such allegations do exist. Indeed, if you are at all familiar with the Israeli media censorship regime which requires that any published or broadcast information related to "security" be passed by the censors prior to publication, the question of whether or not there is Israeli media manipulation would not even be posed. It's a given. The title of this article should be as ChrisO suggested, particularly if we are at all interested in WP:NPOV. Tiamut 11:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps an acceptable compromise might be to have Media controversies in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as an overview article, then Palestinian media coverage controversies and Israeli media coverage controversies as sub-articles. Though having said that, I'm not so sure that the latter two article names are really precise enough. I assume that the focus of the article(s) is specifically about media coverage of the conflict, not about any and all media controversies in general. A title like Palestinian media controversies in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict could meet that objective. -- ChrisO 12:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I do not see an article on Israeli media controversies. If there was one, your proposal would have made some sense, but there is no such an article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the suggestion is that one be created, there being no shortage of material.--G-Dett 14:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

• • Palestinian made media controversies - let's not mix some israeli translation errors with an industry that produces hate, suicide bombers, and staged footage for all to chant "death to Israel, UK, Denmark and America" over. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Could you possibly at least pretend that you're willing to respect NPOV? -- ChrisO 20:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• Palestinian media manipulation controversy ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I like the above title. It avoids "palestinian territories", which ChrisO says some dislike, it avoids "alleged" replacing with the the accurate "controversy", and it fits the topic of the artice quite nicely. It seems more NPOV than some of the other titles. Bigglove^talk 19:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

support - i can live with it. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, why just Palestinian? Is there no controversy at all over the Israeli or international media? -- ChrisO 20:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The article is about manipulation of the media by Palestinian cameramen and journalists. If there is material for manipulation of media by Israeli sources, French sources or others, these can be added to their own article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. It is important for the article's name to reflect the contents of the article. Bigglove^talk 20:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but what was wrong with "alleged"? Are there any confirmed instances of Palestinians staging events, doctoring photos, etc.? That's not a rhetorical question; I just don't know of any.--G-Dett 20:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, what they said. We could broaden George W Bush to The Bush family, since he isn't the only Bush. But that would be a different article. — xDanielx ^T/_C 23:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The proposed name is consistent with names such as 2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict_photographs_controversies ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The doctoring of photos from the Lebanon war was confirmed. Again, are there any confirmed instances of Palestinians staging events, doctoring photos, etc.?--G-Dett 21:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Could you also possibly address the concern I raised earlier, that the term "media manipulation" is ill-defined? I believe it's also POV: comparing it with your example above, everyone agrees that there was a conflict involving Israel and Lebanon in 2006. However, the existence of "Palestinian media manipulation" is (as G-Dett has indicated) disputed. I'd suggest Palestinian media coverage controversies to (a) avoid disputes over the term "manipulation" and (b) for accuracy - wouldn't it be true to say that there are multiple controversial episodes, not one single controversy? -- ChrisO 21:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I would not oppose that, and would hope you make similar arguments at other articles that start with "Allegations of", if you know what I mean.... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, do you mean that you wouldn't oppose Palestinian media coverage controversies? As I've already said elsewhere, I don't think Allegations of Israeli apartheid (which I presume is what you're referring to) has the right name, but I'm not going to get dragged into that debate... -- ChrisO 22:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I said that I will not oppose Palestinian media coverage controversies, and would expect that you use the same argument for all "Allegations of" articles. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks for that clarification - I wasn't sure whether you were responding to me or G-Dett. As for the other "allegations of" articles, I've already said elsewhere that I don't think that framing is an appropriate one, but I also don't think there's a one size fits all solution to the issue - each article needs to be addressed on its own merits (or lack of them). But that's a separate issue and one which I don't intend to get into here. -- ChrisO 23:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

My argument, ChrisO, is that it is not a separate issue. An article framed under an "Allegations of" title is de facto forfeiting NPOV. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that's wrong, Jossi. Provided it's properly used, "allegations" is not a weasel word; it just means an assertion of fact that has yet to be definitively proven or disproved. Does 2006 allegations of corruption in English football run afoul of NPOV, suggesting to the reader that in fact there's no such corruption? Of course not. A number of bloggers and a medieval history professor have asserted that Palestinians stage and direct their "tragedies" in order to dupe the international media. None of the various mainstream media organs alleged to have been "duped," however, have retracted any stories (to my knowledge), and it is they – not the blogs – that are reliable sources by WP standards. Nor, to my knowledge, has any other investigation verified the assertions. Some reliable sources have reported the assertion, but none has endorsed it. Isn't "allegations" the right word for this? See Alleged plot against Ratu Iloilo, 2000, Allegations of war crimes in the 2006 Lebanon War, George W. Bush insider trading allegations, etc.--G-Dett 23:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I recognise your argument, it's just that unless I missed something above I didn't think we were trying to resolve the "allegations of" meme at the same time as working out a better name for this article. Best to concentrate on one thing at a time, surely. :-) -- ChrisO 23:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

(ec) I personally see nothing wrong with "Pallywood". I would have no objection to keeping the quotation marks in the title or adding (phrase) or (term) to the title, but when I have tried that in the past in other contexts, it has never gone over very well. Some people think these kinds of names are against the rules, although the rules around here seem to change every few minutes. 6SJ7 22:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to wait and hear from other editors, just to make sure that I'm right that there are no confirmed instances of Palestinians staging events, doctoring photos, etc. If I am right, then "alleged" or "allegations" would be very appropriate. "Allegations" is a much abused word on Wikipedia, but when the topic is a set of as-yet-unconfirmed assertions of fact (as opposed to a controversial metaphor applied to facts that are not in dispute), "allegations" is exactly the right word, and no other word I know of is better.--G-Dett 22:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Mmmmm.... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I read five m's in a row as quizzical skepticism :). My guess is you're thinking of Allegations of Israeli apartheid, and thinking that damn G-Dett talks out of both sides of her mouth. Might you be forgetting that my opposition to that title, expressed consistently in scores of posts, has always been that it misuses the word "allegations," not that it equivocates or whitewashes or is weaselly or whatever? Indeed, I've even suggested my openness to other "scare quote" equivalents, even though we're not supposed to be doing that, because ultimately I'm more annoyed by solecisms than double standards. I've also pointed out the irony that the rhetorical intentions behind titling it "Allegations of Israeli apartheid" rather backfire: it makes what are mere analogies sound like formal charges (!). This is even more of a problem in Allegations of state terrorism by the United States, because in that case there actually have been formal charges, but those charges aren't for the most part what the article's about.--G-Dett 22:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

You read me correctly, and I stand corrected :) — Let's find appropriate names for all these articles that start with "Allegations of", shall we? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• Pallywood (neologism). This at least clarifies that the article is not about the film industry but about a particular view or phrase.Bless sins 02:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Hm, I think you've hit upon what might be a good solution to NPOV concerns. Parts of the article aren't directly related to the neologism, but perhaps a neutral title is more important than a comprehensive title. — xDanielx ^T/_C 03:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Is this article a POV fork?

I just discovered this article, and while I appreciate the notability of its subject, I am concerned about its neutrality. All the more so given that it appears there is a growing consensus to move it to 'Allegations of Palestinian media manipulation' or something similar. Is it just me, or does that title sound an awful lot like a POV fork of Media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Is there any reason why the information in this article can't be merged into that article?

I note that this merger was suggested above, and the suggestion was opposed by claims that those proposing a merger were trying to 'bury' the information here, which I think is unfair (and anti-good faith.) The information here is encyclopaedic and belongs on Wikipedia; but it doesn't necessarily need an article of its own, particularly when such an article would appear like an attempt to write about 'Media Manipulation in the I-P Conflict' from only one side's POV.

If this was merged into Media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, or something similar, the 'Pallywood' article could still be kept as a redirect to the appropriate section. All the information would still be there, but the overall situation would be more NPOV than the current one. Any comments? Terraxos 17:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

This article should exist in its own right, especially as a case is now in front of the french courts and the article is likely to gather more refs and information. There could be a section in the other article eventually with a callout to this article. Bigglove^talk 00:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, as per Wikipedia:Content forking#Article spinouts - "Summary style" articles. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

You are of course correct; this article is a naked POV fork. This latest French court case relates to Media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and not to an unrecognized and offensive term invented by a medieval historian and embraced by the right-wing blogosphere. A term invented and promoted by blind and ignorant partisans to describe their fantasies should not be treated as a valid theory worthy of consideration; if Wikipedia must document the use of the term, fine; but that's no excuse to adopt these fringe theories from unreliable sources as our own. We have clear policies about these kind of things, specifically, we're not to write articles highlighting one side of a controversial issue. Israel's release of fraudulent "rocket launcher loaded into Palestinian ambulance!" footage, for example, or its sick manufacture of a telegenic "national trauma" over the Gaza evacuations, are prime examples of media manipulation, but these won't make it into "Pallywood" which is constructed to ignore such cases. < eleland // talkedits > 05:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree that this article is non-notable and, in its current form, is a POV-fork.--Burgas00 10:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks exactly like a POV-fork to me. PR^talk 08:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I favour a merger in this case. this article should be converted into a redirect.Bless sins 03:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I would just point out that the article has just survived a second AfD, and that a merge discussion after the AfD resulted in "no merge". 6SJ7 03:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know it resulted in a keep. The rest was up for debate. // Liftarn

True. And as far as I recall, merging was proposed by a number of editors as a way of solving the issue. This is clearly a POV fork, exposing only one side of a two sided issue, using a non-notable and derogative name. This information can be presented just as accurately on the main article.--Burgas00 08:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

What is the other side of the issue? Would it be too much trouble to bring in some concrete examples and cite refs? Bigglove^talk 20:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The other side would be pro-Israel media manipulation and forgeries. MEMRI is an example. // Liftarn

I don’t actually think anyone seriously argues that MEMRI makes forgeries - biased and selective, yes - outright lies no. Anyway, you want to write Pallywood and MEMRI into one big monster article? Sounds like a very bad idea to me.

In any case I disagree. The other side of the issue of media-manipulation, is "non-media-manipulation". The article of course should also leave space for that. But there’s really no need to bring MEMRI, Israel, USA or the price of beans in China into it. There are other articles for that. Rune X2 09:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, they've been accused of outright lies in the case of the Hamas mickey-martyr-mouse thing by Britan Whitaker, a British journalist with a Master's in Arabic language. ([46]) There was also some controversy over their translation of a key point in a bin Laden speech; he said "Every state [ay-wilayah] that does not toy with our security has automatically guaranteed its own security", and MEMRI promulgated the theory that "ay-wilayah" meant "U.S. state", and that bin Laden was saying he won't attack areas of the US that voted for John Kerry. This was the tape which came in the "home stretch" of the 2004 presidential election. There was also an interview with the Mufti of Egypt where questions and answers were heavily edited to turn a specific statement about the occupation of East Jerusalem into a general anti-semitic denunciation of "the Jews", and a Georgetown professor who alleges that MEMRI repeatedly changed "Zionism" to "the Jews". Of course these charges must be judged on their merits, but the charges do exist. <eleland/talkedits> 13:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

MEMRI is "media-manipulation" par excellence, since the "extremist" articles it finds come exclusively from Arabic sources. We know there is some very, very extreme material coming from the settlers eg support of Baruch, behaviour in Hebron. Have a look at this. If we were getting access to translations of this other material, then MEMRI's concentration on "one side" might be perfectly understandable. When we're not getting it, then MEMRI's highly professional, well-funded concentration on Arabic would be media-manipulation, even if it was "innocent". PR^talk 21:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course the point that this may not be the best place to discuss it is well taken, and being a tolerant fellow, I don't get too upset about MEMRI's selective translations, but it has on one occasion done something that would be considered fraud in academia or elsewhere - they editted a Lebanese TV station's interview with Norman Finkelstein, clearly to make it look like he was a holocaust denier. Finkelstein somewhat confusingly details the incident in three articles on his website, but his case is ironclad - no translation was involved, just scissors. Was fighting to keep it in that article a while back, but lacked energy and time. John Z 22:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

OK this is off topic but F's accusation is a strawman. The holocaust denial was in the reporter's introduction to the interview. Finkelstein left that part out. <<-armon->> 09:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The topic of this article is the manufacturing of fake news by Palestinian journalists, fauxography with a video camera. When you bring MEMRI in, you are comparing apples to oranges. MEMRI doesn't manufacture anything, they TRANSLATE it. And I'm pretty sure there is a Wikipedia article on MEMRI where this stuff could be discussed, but this isn't the page for it. Bigglove^talk 23:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

MEMRI is credibly accused of manufacturing news and then sending it to media all over the world. That's media manipulation in anyone's language. Even if the translations were all accurate, just the selection of the articles (by advantage to Israel) makes it's behaviour manipulative. PR^talk 08:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The topic is allegations of manufacturing of fake news. Such allegations, many of which seem to be baseless, are expressed by political pundits supporting one side of the palestinian-israeli conflict. This article exists as separate from the main article, so as to operate as a POV fork. There is no question on it having to be merged.--Burgas00 09:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• I think the issue was reasonably addressed in the AfD. I don't think using Pallywood as an article title really constitutes an endorsement of those who support the allegations behind the term. I suppose one could say that the article is most directly about the neologism Pallywood, though it is heavily related to a handful of other things (SecondDraft, Richard Landes, allegations of Palestinian media manipulation, etc.). If it would satisfy some concerns, we could put scare quotes around "Pallywood" in the title, though some might see that as unencyclopedic and/or possibly POV-pushing itself. — xDanielx ^T/_C 03:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Scare quotes don't comply with Wikipedia's conventions on article naming, so whatever else we do, that isn't an option. -- ChrisO 07:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

PR, I feel you are trolling here when you make wildly incorrect comments such as the above about MEMRI being "credibly accused" of "manufacturing news". Bigglove^talk 21:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Trolling?! You wrote, "The topic of this article is the manufacturing of fake news by Palestinian journalists, fauxography with a video camera. When you bring MEMRI in, you are comparing apples to oranges. MEMRI doesn't manufacture anything, they TRANSLATE it," and PR responded to that. Though I think all sides could ease up on the hyperbole, I do note that where you point to the "manufacturing of fake news" as if it were an accepted fact, PR talks about MEMRI being "credibly accused." He's distinguishing, that is, between allegations and established facts; you might consider following his lead in that regard.--G-Dett 22:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I'll only follow someone's lead when they actually back up their statements with refs, which PR hasn't done, and when they stick to the topic of the article, which he/she hasn't done either. This article is about claims of fauxography; sorry if I didn't say, "claims". Nothing is proven. And please also stop taking out sourced relevant material. It is not cool. Bigglove^talk 01:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't say you're sorry for not saying "claims"; say you're sorry for throwing charges of "trolling" around irresponsibly and hypocritically. Regarding material drawn from sources that don't discuss "pallywood," see WP:SYN.--G-Dett 11:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Look, I actually thought she was trolling, and I apologized for what I thought it was appropriate to appologize for. There is no reason for calling me hypocritical or irresponsible. I am being compltely straightforward. Bigglove^talk 23:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe there was any reason to accuse me of trolling (it wouldn't surprise me if WP policy has something to say on the subject). MEMRI is credibly accused of manufacturing news, as when it seeks to present Finkelstein as a Holocaust Denier. Finkelstein's own words are much more credible when he says: "MEMRI is a main arm of Israeli propaganda. Although widely used in the mainstream media as a source of information on the Arab world, it is as trustworthy as Julius Streicher's Der Sturmer was on the Jewish world. ... Streicher was sentenced to death at Nuremberg.".

Meanwhile, Finkelstein's actual scholarship and views of the Holocaust sparkle with insight eg "Finally, I emphatically believe that the Nazi holocaust should be studied. ... In The Holocaust Industry I attempt to represent my parents' legacy. The main lesson they imparted is that we should always compare. To make out moral distinctions between "our" suffering and "theirs" is itself a moral travesty. "Do not compare" is the mantra of moral blackmailers."

Only the 1995 words of Miles Lerman, Chairperson, United States Holocaust Memorial Council, ring out as strikingly as Finkelstein's: "Auschwitz teaches us that we cannot remain indifferent, that we cannot look the other way when atrocities take place, that we must always be ready to speak out against evil no matter where it takes place and no matter who the victims are". PR^talk 09:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

This may be a difference in interpretation of Finkelstein's position, but this is very different than creating an event like al-dura and filming it and then distributing it as propagnda to a world audience (if this is what actually happened). As such, it is off topic, and your long persverance on this is disruptive. In addition, you probably shouldn't be posting stuff from partisan blogs, even on a talk page. Bigglove^talk 14:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Is this a joke? This whole article is built on partisan blogs; it's about a word coined by a partisan blog and picked up by other partisan bloggers. Take away partisan blogs and the whole silly thing evaporates; unlike the scandal over doctored photos from Lebanon, no examples of Palestinian media fabrications have been confirmed, and no respectable journalists refer to the allegations as "pallywood," anyway, because respectable journalists tend to avoid ethnic slurs.

Finkelstein and MEMRI don't have a "difference of interpretation" with regards to his position, whatever that would mean; rather, MEMRI doctored a filmed interview and accompanying transcript, deleting every instance where he affirms the reality and horror of the Holocaust, in order to misrepresent him as a Holocaust denier. That particular fabrication has been repeated as fact by a number of media sources, including the New Republic 's Marty Peretz, the ADL, FrontPageMagazine, Phyllis Chesler, and the Washington Post. When the Post realized they'd been duped, they published a retraction; the other bozos and charlatans in that list did not.--G-Dett 17:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not familiar with any of this on Finklestein, but it is off topic for this article, and long discussions of this topic would be better had on the appropriate page. I do think they are so tangential as to be disruptive here. I disagree with your opinion of this article, and the matter is only gaining in notablity as it is again before the French courts and Israel has issued a statement saying that the IDF was not responsible for the death of the boy. I would prefer another title as noted above to "pallywood". Why do you have to call people bozos and charlans? It is really not necessary and it just degrades the quality of the Wikipedia environment. Bigglove^talk 18:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not see how demonstrable/demonstrated media fabrications are "off-topic" for this article. Sorry about the "bozos and charlatans." I can see that that little cherry bomb didn't improve the atmosphere here. :) I would remind you that "pallywood" isn't before the French courts; quality mainstream sources, legal institutions, and literate individuals generally, don't use ethnic slurs to describe controversies about the authenticity of media claims. If this article is to retain its current title, its mandate is very narrow – the film, and the neologism/protologism/blog-slang whatever. Because it's fantastically unprofessional, juvenile, and offensive to use an ethnic slur for an alleged media-manipulation phenomenon; there are neutral words for these things, and we don't take our nomenclatorial cues from the fringes of the blogosphere.

If the topic is faux news, or "fauxography" or whatever you wish to call it, then we need an appropriate name, and obviously things like MEMRI's doctoring of source material, not to mention the out-and-out fabrications of Peretz, the ADL, Chesler, et al, belong.--G-Dett 23:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Bigglove - MEMRI "manufactured news" in order to slur an "opponent" as I proved to you (another said their action "would be considered fraud in academia or elsewhere"). I'm confident there are other occasions they've "manufactured news" to slur nations (the atrocious translation of Amhednijad's 'wipe regime from the pages of history' is an example of this being done by someone). Their whole well-funded existence is predicated on slurring ethnicities (Palestinians and Arabs).

Discussions such as this about the reliability of sources are not "trolling" - nor is my response "disruptive" since you challenged me to back up my statement. It is most disturbing you should think either of these things - accusations of this kind suggest flaws in your judgemment, an inability to recognise "Reliable Sources" (as well as being a breach of WP:NPA). PR^talk 08:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

G-Dett - I cannot see the fundamental difference between speaking/writing of "Palestinian Duplicity" (an example chosen from a CAMERA article title) and speaking/writing of "Jewish duplicity". Ethnic slurs have no place anywhere in civilised discourse or in the encyclopedia. PR^talk 08:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

G-Dett, thanks for the apology, but the talk page comment about "out and out fabrications" doesn't really help. Neither does your removal of sourced relevant material from the article (recent news reports concerning the french court requesting that the complete footage of the al-dura affair be released). I won't edit war with you, but this does concern the topic of the article and I don't believe your removal was justified. PR--I can't respond to everything you are saying, because I feel it is tangential to the topic of the article and don't wnt to get entangled in unproductive disputes with you, but re: the phrase you are talking about, here is the official Iranian translation [47] which is identical to MEMRI's. Bigglove^talk 14:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Bigglove, it really is very simple. If the purview of this article is to be expanded to include disputes about authenticity, distortion, fabrication, etc. in media coverage of Israel-Palestine (including the case now before the French courts), then it needs a serious, professional, encyclopedic, NPOV title. As long as the title of this article is an ethnic slur the use of which is all but completely confined to what you call "partisan blogs," then its mandate will be very narrow: it will cover the online video and the blogslang, and that's it. Someone might plausibly create an article called Jew York Times to cover the history and currency of that sneering phrase, but if the resulting article were expanded to include things like Chomsky's propaganda model, Walt and Mearsheimer's critique of mainstream media coverage and the "Israel lobby," the New York Times 's ombudsman's report on media bias with regards to the I/P conflict, and so on, the title would have to be changed. It would be absurd for Wikipedia to cover such debates under the heading of Jew York Times, just as it is absurd for Wikipedia to cover things like the al-Dura controversy and other alleged media-manipulation disputes under the heading of Pallywood. Frankly, I am astonished that we are even discussing this.--G-Dett 15:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Look, I agree with you that the title could be improved, but I disagree that this justifies removing material from RS that is directly relevant to concerns raised by the film of the same name. I'm not sure there is consensus for your deletion, but I won't put it back, since you seem quite committed to having it not appear in the article for the reasons you mention above. Also, please note that the title can be seen not as an ethnic slur, but as a play on "Bollywood". I know this is not your perception, but I'm putting it out there as an alternative take on the matter. Bigglove^talk 15:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

And "Jew York Times" is a play on "New York Times"; it's still a slur. It's very different from "Hezbollywood," which plays on the name of a political party, not an ethnic group. But the point isn't whether you and I can agree on what's offensive; the point is that this is not mainstream terminology for alleged media distortions in the I/P conflict. Any article on a tendentious, controversial, or marginal phrase is – necessarily – narrowly circumscribed in its mandate; sources must deal with the phrase itself. That's just how it works; otherwise Wikipedia would be endorsing the tendentious vocabulary. Allegations of Israeli apartheid does not give the history of the Israeli occupation, or the carving up of the West Bank into "cantons," or general debates about second-class citizenship within Israel; it gives the history of the apartheid analogy – and that's it. Same deal with Islamofascism; the article covers the history of the term's use and the controversies surrounding it – not a general history of religious authoritarianism in the Arab world. This is the precedent in Wikipedia, and it's a simple, clear, and beneficial one.

There is an article devoted to the al-Dura controversy, and Media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has a section on alleged distortions and fabrications. The case before the French courts can be amply covered in both places. Any expansion of this article's mandate should coincide with a title change; I would welcome both.--G-Dett 16:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd have thought "Pallywood" and "Jew York Times" were both ethnic slurs. I'm terribly relieved you're not justifying an article on the latter and only using it as an example of what would be totally unacceptable, rejected by most every single regular editor in the project. PR^talk 20:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course "Jew York Times" is a slur. Now, the question of whether an article about that slur would be appropriate is a separate question, and one that would depend entirely on the notability of the slur, which in turn would depend on how extensively it's been covered by secondary sources. And it doesn't follow that if an article on Pallywood is justified, an article on Jew York Times would be justified. Even if one thinks (as I do) that these are equally offensive and vulgar slurs, it doesn't follow that they are equally notable.

My point was only that even if a depth of secondary-source material supported the creation of an article on the slur Jew York Times, it would never be acceptable to expand that article's purview to cover general issues of pro-Israel media bias. It would always only be about the slur – its history, currency, and so on. Same deal with Pallywood.--G-Dett 21:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with GDett here. We'll avoid all sorts of sterile arguments if we keep strictly on topic. <<-armon->> 10:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I personally do not agree that Pallywood is an ethnic slur comparable to "Jew York Times". It is a malicious (yet strictly political) accusation which aims at discrediting all media reporting unfavorable to Israel coming from the occupied territories, but it is not an ethnic slur. Jew York Times is clearly antisemitic and racist.--Burgas00 00:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, I think it clearly is an ethnic slur. If you look at the context in which it's used (basically by mouth-breathing bloggers) you'll see that they customarily use the term "pallies" as a racist term comparable to "kikes" or "wops" (see [48] for literally tens of thousands of examples). The "Pally" in "Pallywood" isn't simply a contraction of "Palestinian"; it's an overt usage of a racially derogatory term, and it's clearly understood as such by the bloggers who use it. -- ChrisO 10:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you think Landes intended it as such? In any case, unless we have a RS cite discussing the term as racist, this is OT. <<-armon->> 10:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I find it difficult to believe that Landes wasn't aware of the way the term was being used. As for finding an RS cite, I'm no expert in this subject area, so I'll have to leave that question to someone more knowledgeable about the sources. If we can find an RS that argues that the term is racist, we should certainly cite it. -- ChrisO 10:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I think we are blowing this out of proportion. Americans have a tendency to contract words which are foreign or hard to pronounce and this is not necessarily a slur. I remember George W Bush controversially referring to the Pakistanis as "Pakis" in a speech a few years back. The term is quite offensive in the UK but Bush did not use it in this way. Pallywood is a clear reference to Hollywood and Bollywood. Looking for an ethnic slur in the name is a wrong way of attacking the existence of this article.--Burgas00 16:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

It's certainly possible to use these diminutives without intending to be offensive - but you're treading on very dangerous ground, because most other use of them is unpleasant. Think Japs or Chinks or whatever Phillipinos are called. (Bush's statements are a prize example of what you don't want to follow, he makes personal remarks to eg reporters at press conferences and then laughs it off). Make no mistake, groups that have suffered brutal and racist treatment think name-calling is another big part of the same thing. "Pallywood" is bound to come across as racism to many of the abused, just another reason we should not be using it. PR^talk 22:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

If Bush had said something like "Pakispeech," meaning lies and fabrications, I think we'd be looking at an ethnic slur. If you have some examples of Americans with a neutral or positive view of Palestinians calling them "Pallies" merely out of their habit of contracting foreign words, I'd like to see them. Context is everything, of course. I have friends and family who refer affectionately to "Jew York City," meaning something like Gotta love this place – do we feel at home here or what? "Jew York Times," I think we'll agree, has rather a different semantic grain. Apparently we don't agree, however, that the latter is remarkably similar to "Pallywood," in that it sneeringly suggests an ethnic group's inordinate influence over what we think of as neutral news, and does so through a cheap pun. But this is all beside the point – a sterile debate, as Armon says. The point is that "Pallywood" is not the recognized and widely accepted term for this alleged phenomenon; it's a slang word used by some (mostly bloggers) and eschewed by others (most reliable sources). Which doesn't mean the article shouldn't exist. What it means is that the article has to be about the term itself – when and among whom did it gain currency, who if anyone objects to it and why, etc. Detailed treatment of the alleged media distortions and fabrications sometimes referred to by this slang word should be handled elsewhere, following the model of articles like Allegations of Israeli apartheid, Islamofascism, and Jewish lobby.

To be very clear, I didn't and wouldn't nominate this (or any other) article on the argument that it's a slur. The only issues for me in any deletion debate are notability and POV-gerrymanders. I still think a small section on the slang word "pallywood" within a more comprehensive article on media controversies in the I/P conflict would be a better way to go; and this opinion of mine is reinforced every time someone tries to expand this article to cover things other than the term or the video. But as long as this article stays on its narrow topic, and doesn't try to promote the word by using it as if it were an accepted term, then I am not at war with it.--G-Dett 19:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Holocaust = myth? Pallywood = reality?

This filth of an "article" is akin to websites that describe the Holocaust as a "myth" that never took place, even if half assed sources can be provided, doesn't mean that it's true. The sources cited here make a mockery of the very definition of integrity.

Muhammad Al-Durra's case is one blatant example. Who ever put up this article has no single decent bone in their body. Hypocrites like you cry foul and start your "anti-Semitic" smearing campaign, but the filth of an article that this is doesn’t bother you one bit. You're truly the lowest of the low and no different than the demonic Middle Eastern leaders you vilify so often. Kettle meet pots, shit meet crap.

http://www.shovrimshtika.org/index_e.asp —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.76.34.176 (talk • contribs) 11:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

comment - Muhammad al-Dura could be THE shining example after the 27 minute tapes are released, hopefully by this october, to public. i suggest you keep an open mind and go over the references in the al-dura article, including the "three bullets and a dead child" film. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Would it be in order to use what the sources say and not participate in this blatant original research? I'd have thought it highly unlikely that more footage will do anything to clarify this case. (Particularily since Israel bulldozed the spot a day after the incident, making it impossible to analyze where the bullets had come from). PR^talk 09:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

nothing i've said amonts to original research - the tapes will hopefully be made public y late october and it could shed quite a lot of light despite your doubts. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

It would really be quite jolly if we could abide by WP:POLICY and stick to what the sources actually say. The sources (as best I can recall) state that Israel destroyed all the physical evidence the day after the killing. PR^talk 21:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

you have a reference you wish to add to this soapbox? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Holocaust denial – even if everything to do with "Pallywood" could be shown to be incorrect, the article would still have its place on Wikipedia, to describe the term and usage. Rune X2 14:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Question for you - do you believe that ethnic slurs should ever appear in the project? Do you consider the word "Pallywood" to be an ethnic slur, or could it cause offence by appearing to be an ethnic slur? PR^talk 09:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Lets tone down the rhetoric a bit. The reason I am against this article is the equivalent of why I would be an article on Israeli manipulation. It is a POV fork of a contentious topic, is a non notable concept and adds nothing that cannot be included on the main article on media coverage of the Israeli Palestinian conflict.--Burgas00 16:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Is there much on that in rs? Bigglove^talk 20:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Removed merge tag

I've removed to merge tag because a) there's obviously no consensus to merge it, and b) this article has already survived two afds. Rather than bicker further about it, or attempting to get rid of it by other means, I suggest that everyone just make sure that the article a) conforms to NPOV (even though it's a POV term) and b) that it sticks to the topic. Sources must discuss "Pallywood". <<-armon->> 09:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Well the result of the second afd was that all the neologism pov-pushing stuff should be moved to another article, but it appears that that was reverted. Catchpole 19:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the closing admin renamed it, didn't merged it -but as you can see above, that was a controversial decision. Personally, I'm not opposed to renaming it, but I would point out that with the exception of Pallywood (neologism), all of the suggestions so far change the scope of the article. Maybe that's not a problem, but we'll need to get consensus on what the scope should be. <<-armon->> 23:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Fake funeral is a load of rubbish

This article no longer mentions the "fake funeral" (except in the clip from Landes, obviously I can't take it out of there, however mischievous it is).

I've not checked all the sources for the claim about the video from the drone, but I saw another one offered, this time from the Chicago Sun-Times. It doesn't say "it's a fake funeral", it says "Palestinians accused of holding fake funeral".

And their distrust of the explanation is not difficult to understand - the perpetrators of the attack on Jenin are speaking obvious rubbish, perhaps with intent to avoid the very credible charges of war-crimes against them. Since when have Palestinian funerals (or any one elses funerals) been carried out with the "dead bodies" on open display, not wrapped up? Why do they need a "practice" funeral - why experiment in this fashion with a completely new (and hopelessly unsatisfactory) way of carrying a body? It must be clear to all that these are kids playing. It has to be kids, no adult would allow themselves to be dropped on the ground and then return to carry on with the "game". No fair-minded person would ever mistake this for a funeral - how long before we stop jeering at the Palestinians and start jeering at those who, like Landes, try and claim it's supposed to be a funeral? PR^talk 11:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

PR, this may be veering too far from discussing the content of the article, but I would not rush to conclude that every culture holds funerals with the corpse concealed -- although Muslims are particular about it. I see no reason to assume the group had to be children. But I agree with you that the behavior was bizarre, and should be treated as such -- not as normative "Palestinian" behavior. Could it have been a hysterical response to conditions in Jenin at the time? Who knows? When context is missing, the interpretation of an event often says more about the interpreter than about the event. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 06:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Frum

GHCool's compromise looks good to me. I agree he's better known for his former job, but he's known for both and there's no well-poisoning (positive or negative) in either formulation.--G-Dett 20:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Can someone please explain why it's crucially important that his former job is mentioned? <<-armon->> 05:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

OK well I guess that's a "no". Please stop reinserting the dog whistle in order to poison the well. Frum writing economic speeches for Bush is irrelevant to this subject. <<-armon->> 11:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

He did more than write economic speeches; he's usually credited as having originated the phrase "axis of evil". CJCurrie 22:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, "axis of hatred". But in any case, it's irrelevant. It's more important to remove bias. <<-armon->> 01:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

It isn't "biased" to indicate that David Frum worked for George W. Bush. CJCurrie 02:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

If you really want to go down that route, Armon, everything Frum's done is irrelevant to this subject.--G-Dett 03:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

It's surely notable that he was a speech-writer for the president of the United States. smb 11:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Which is why it's in the David Frum article. <<-armon->> 23:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I think "journalist" and/or "historian" and/or "political commentator", which are all things Frum currently is, are vastly superior to an out-of-date job description. IronDuke 03:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The only purpose it serves is to attempt to discredit him by referencing a past role. It has zero bearing on the reference to him in this article. Newtman (talk) 05:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Landes

So the entire premise of the article, it's main thrust, relies on one work by Richard Landes? This is the kind of credibility Wikipedia has now days, NONE. You guys maintain this article in the excuse that the word deserves definition, yet your "Fair and Balanced" Fox News-like quip falls on its face. More propaganda on Wikipedia. Stephen Colbert was right all along.

How else is Israel going to claim it's a civilized nation in light of its long history of crimes against humanity? I'm going to include Israel in the list of "terrorist states". Let's see how you tools like that.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.76.34.176 (talk) November 11, 2007 14:36 (UTC)

Well, I'd urge you not to do that, but it will be reverted in short order anyway.

This is an absolutely terrible article which should have been deleted long ago; it clearly fails any kind of test based on our own policies. But a clique of editors just loves it, and we do operate on consensus ("wikiality"), so there's a limited amount we can do about it. If you check the text on this talk page, you can follow the sad story. <eleland/talkedits> 05:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

al-Durrah

It should be obvious to most readers that the current edit is a justification of the "al-Durrah event was staged" POV. (Moreover, I'll reiterate that we only need to include a short version of events on this page). CJCurrie (talk) 03:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Well I removed the German TV stuff -that probably should be in the main article discussing the issue. The rest is on topic and it is short. I removed the pointy tag -it's not POV simply because your uncited editorializing is removed. <<-armon->> (talk) 05:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

We simply do not need to repeat the stories in this article. Just link to them, note that Landes has commented on them, and leave it at that. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Thorsten Schmitz

Eleland, I see that you've removed the Schmitz article on the grounds that it doesn't mention Pallywood.[49] Though this is true of the quoted passage, the Schmitz article does discuss "Pallywood" in its conclusion:

There is nothing new about Palestinians publishing falsified or fabricated pictures during the Middle-East war. Since the airing of a 60 Minutes investigative report, the term “Pallywood,” modeled after the Hollywood film industry, has been used by the media. In the report, for example, there are Palestinians from the early days of the Intifada who are carrying a dead person. One of those carrying the dead stumbles, and the supposed corpse falls to the ground – and springs back onto the stretcher, lies down, and mimics a dead person.

What is remarkable about this, of course, is that the "60 Minutes investigative report" Schmitz airily refers to here doesn't exist. He watched the same amateur video that spawned this stupid article, which opens with a few moments from a 60 Minutes report that Landes uses as his foil. Landes' inclusion of 60 Minutes' trademark tick-tick-tick lead-in confused the hapless Schmitz, whose intellectual sentries and BS-detectors were all apparently sunk into – and snoozing in – their respective beanbags in the dimly lit recesses of his dimly lit mind. Given that Schmitz's piece is about how supposedly professional journalists aren't sufficiently vetting material provided to them by freelancers and amateurs, his performance here is really remarkable. It is to irony what caviar is to eggs.

What this does to Schmitz's "reliability" per Wikipedia policy I'll leave to the lawyers.

Note, however, that his lazy confirmation bias/asleep-at-the-switch piece of puffery has made its contaminating way into editorial discussions, fooling at least three Wikipedians – one a major contributor to and proponent of this article until her semi-retirement in recent months – into thinking that "Pallywood" was a phenomenon major enough to be covered by 60 Minutes: [50], [51], [52], [53], and [54].--G-Dett 22:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

• Oh fsck, I missed the second page - the source does obviously mention Pallywood. It may be suitable for inclusion, however, there is no reason we should be providing such a painstakingly detailed summary of a single editorial by a writer of questionable renown (and obviously questionable competence, as you've shown). This article cannot and must not devolve into a discussion of media coverage in the Israel-Palestine wars; that would make it an inherent POV fork, equivalent to Views of Richard Landes and his buddies on media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Supposedly, we're writing about the film and the term, so what somebody thinks about hiring and vetting of Palestinian stringers in Gaza doesn't belong here. <eleland/talkedits> 00:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The stuff you're blanking is both cited AND attributed to the source who's opinion it is. Obviously the subject is controversial and obviously there are strong POVs involved -however, that doesn't entitle you to blank stuff you don't agree with. See WP:TIGERS: "Wikipedia's articles are no place for strong views. Or rather, we feel about strong views the way that a natural history museum feels about tigers. We admire them and want our visitors to see how fierce and clever they are, so we stuff them and mount them for close inspection. We put up all sorts of carefully worded signs to get people to appreciate them as much as we do." That is what we're doing here. <<-armon->> 01:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Please spare me your condescension, Armon. Address my actual arguments rather than my perceived state of mind.

Version [55] has tiger claws all over it; it bestows extensive weight upon fawning praise from commentators of unknown renown and dubious credibility. Their lines of argument are reviewed in close detail, even when they are talking about I-P media coverage generally, rather than the term "Pallywood" specifically. It's a POV fork and shockingly non-neutral.

A discussion of the hiring, vetting, and verification of Gazan "stringers", not to mention their wage levels, does not belong in an article about a YouTube editorial / partisan neologism. It may belong in an article about media coverage in the I-P conflict generally, depending on the significance and reliability of the source. The same applies to speculation about the "eagerness of much of the world media to be deceived", the "long [Palestinian] history of posing for the cameras", etc.

If this article is about a term - and it only squeaked through AfD by that argument - then it must limit itself to discussion of the term. It should only discuss allegations of media manipulation to the extent necessary to follow the essential thesis behind the term. An article about the term, say, "Zionist entity", would be far remiss in delving into a discussion of the moral legitimacy of Israel or the origins of the Palestinian refugee problem. That would be an attempt to end-run around neutral discussion of Zionism and the 1947-1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine. The same problem applies here. <eleland/talkedits> 02:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Coatrack

We are still devoting a lot of space to discussion of media coverage, much more than is necessary to define the term Pallywood and discuss its history, adoption, etc. Whoever Thorsten Schmitz is, the fact that he recommended the video / term "Pallywood" after discussing media in the Gaza Strip does not mean that we can take the opportunity to dump an extended summary of his views on "media in the Gaza Strip" into the article. Nor is it clear to me what David Frum's opinion of a non-notable film has to do with discussion of the term which it coined. The discussion of al-Durrah is probably too long, as well, and it seems to make the claim that Richard Landes testified at the libel trial, which is not in the cited source — and plainly ridiculous, unless he was vacationing in Netzarim Junction that day and happened to witness the event, or perhaps an expert witness on medieval history was vitally needed to come to a judgment? <eleland/talkedits> 00:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The article has been basically stable for while now (OK, except for CJCurrie's dog whistle ;). You can re-read the talk page for the full discussing about what was a wasn't included. The stuff you're objecting to establishes the term's notability and explains what it's about. There's no real justification to gut the article. <<-armon->> (talk) 01:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

For full disclosure, I think this article fails our notability policy, and that will be made clearer once coatracky / irrelevant material is cut. Anyway, would'nt replacing the current extended summary of Schmitz on Gazan media with (say) "Journalist Thorsten Schmitz linked the term to foreign media practices in the Gaza Strip" establish the term's notability to exactly the same extent, while avoiding issues of POV forking? <eleland/talkedits> 02:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Why are Schmitz's comments notable? Is he a significant commentator on Middle Eastern issues? If one journalist says something in one article, why is this so significant that it needs to be discussed at length here? -- ChrisO (talk) 03:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Apparently Schmitz is Israel correspondent for Sueddeutsche Zeitung (sp) which might make him significant enough to mention in passing. I do not see the need for an extended summary of his views on Gazan video stringers, though. And nobody seems to want to defend it except in specific terms, although there's a lot of "Editor X is a POV pusher", "version Y stayed for three weeks without edits", "we already discussed this" type diversionary tactics apparent. <eleland/talkedits> 20:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

note to disruptive editors

please refrain from making edits which you would later be unable to defend.

use the talk page, and try to improve the article rather than censor it - WP:NOT, WP:NPOV.

if you're having difficulties resolving disputes, i suggest going through WP:DR processes. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Jaakobou, not sure if "distruptive" editors will take this advice, since by their very nature, they are about distrupting :) Anyways, always best to try to reach some consensus here. Cheers, --Tom (talk) 14:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

i'd be happy to listen to justifications for censoring arutz sheva. i'm sure it will make for an interesting smear campaign. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 04:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Isn't Arutz Sheva something of an extreme/fringe source (I've seen references describing it as far-right)? In which case, I would think WP:UNDUE would apply. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

not quite. they are no more extreme than the guardian and are considered a reliable source for the statement made in the article. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

So the mouthpiece of Israel's extreme rightwing religous settler movement, centered around a pirate radio station which is banned in Israel, with its long reputation for producing outright fraudulent "news", is equivalent to the Guardian how? <eleland/talkedits> 15:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

despite starting out in pirate fashion, they are currently neither pirate nor banned. please try to maintain WP:NPOV and avoid weasel terms.

p.s. sorry to burst your bubble, but the guardian is complicit in a nice number of poor judgments, mistakes and biased writings also.

"Israel simply has no right to exist" by Faisal Bodi, The Guardian.

cordially. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

They're neither pirate nor banned because they didn't resume broadcasting after the last time they were shut down. Currently they have only Internet streams. And nothing you've said about the Guardian makes any sense whatsoever. Cordially, go away. <eleland/talkedits> 20:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Video vs documentary

Per the back and forth amoung editors on the article page. Is there a souce that calls it a documentary? Thanks,--Tom (talk) 14:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

here's one (other than the source seconddraft site) - [56]. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 04:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Jaakobou, there are sources calling it a documentary and sources calling it a video. But while "documentary" makes debatable implications, "video" is unambiguously factual. The source you've given uses "documentary" occasionally as shorthand, but its preferred term is "internet documentary". Would it be OK if we referred to Pallywood as an "Internet documentary" the first time we mention it, and a "video" everywhere else? <eleland/talkedits> 05:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

the word video does not cancel out the word documentary. please explain why the word documentary is unfitting to describe a video only using live-recorded videos of real life situations. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Because it's full of lies. <eleland/talkedits> 15:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

i think you should recuse yourself from editing this article per WP:COI if you cannot contain your POV, trying to create an NPOV article in a collaborative fashion. imagine an editor trying to remove the word "documentary" from each and every film that supports arab palestinian narratives using your own justification. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for source Jaakobou. I would go with "internet documentary" and add that source to the article if not already included and maybe even put it in quotations since it does appear to be different from the "traditional" documentary that most users are farmilar with. As the article points out, anybody now a days can produce this kind of material and post it to the web. Anyways, --Tom 16:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

i never heard noticed the term "internet documentary", can't say i support it. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC) small edit on 11:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

It is how the souce you provided above refers to these videos as. --Tom 21:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I really need some kind of "hall of fame" for these moments. <eleland/talkedits> 23:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Downplaying Pallywood's notability

Sorry I'm a bit late to the whole video vs. documentary discussion (I think it should be mentioned at least once that it's a documentary, but IMO this is not the main issue with the section), but reading the entire 'origin of the term' section, it seems (to a reader who doesn't know) that it's just some amateur video clip (18 minute) drafted by some IDF-sympathizer. However, this cannot be farther from the case, and we all know that Pallywood: According to Palestinian sources is extremely popular, often referred to, and most importantly, has appeared on high-profile television like 60 Minutes. The fact that none of this is mentioned in the article leaves the average reader assuming that it's just a random kiddy video (I could make a video about the conflict which lasts 18 minutes...), and does not do justice to Landes's work. I suggest the following wording for the 2nd paragraph (and don't mind if it's labeled 'video' in the first) - changes in bold:

In his short documentary, which was featured on 60 Minutes, Landes shows Arab-Israeli conflict-related footage, mostly taken by freelance Palestinian video journalists.

-- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 08:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

A few questions: "extremely popular" among who? "Widely referred to" by who? (I note the small number of quoted sources in the article). "High profile television like 60 Minutes" - more exactly, one brief appearance on 60 Minutes; what other high profile TV shows has it appeared on? I think you may be overstating the notability of the video here. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with ChrisO and also reply it really doesn't matter what "we all know that" according to Ynhockey. What we should "label" this material by Landes is what reliable sources call it. I have seen it refered to so far as an "internet documentary". This seems to be a reasonable compromise so far. Why is that objectionable? Thanks, --Tom 13:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

We should certainly adhere to what reliable sources say, rather than inventing our own descriptions. I think "internet documentary" is perfectly adequate - it's important to note that unlike other polemical films (The Great Global Warming Swindle comes to mind) this particular one has been exclusively distributed online by its author (as far as I know) rather than by mainstream media. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not against the term internet documentary, which is at least a minimal declaration of notability, although, again, minimal. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 21:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

That's only appropriate, since it has minimal notability in the first place... -- ChrisO (talk) 08:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

When did Pallywood appear on 60 Minutes? Please tell me you still aren't making the mistake we discussed months ago on this page, which conflates Landes' critique of a 60 minutes piece, starting with the tick-tick-tick lead in, with an actual 60 minutes piece...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eleland (talk • contribs) 16:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, good point, I'd forgotten that. Let's lay this canard to rest, shall we? -- ChrisO (talk) 20:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

It says "online documentary" at the moment -that or "internet" is accurate. <<-armon->> (talk) 08:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

utilising different camera angles vs. He has stated that he used

per this edit [57].

i would appreciate some community opinions on this conflict. personally, i feel there is no need to inject an "he claims" regarding the different camera angles.

i find it

1. implies dishonesty on Richard Landes.
2. considering the material in the 18 min vid, i would doubt anyone has shown certain portions of it which are non-photogenic and/or clearly faked.

so basically, i'm supporting "my" version per the Duck test. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that on this point, Eleland and company are in the right. Landes states that he is showing something that the media hasn't shown. We only have his word for this, and we're not in any position to corroborate or disprove his statement (nor should we try - that would be impermissible original research). We therefore cannot imply, as your version does, that Landes' assertion is correct. As neutral reporters, we can only state that Landes makes that particular assertion. Saying that "He has stated that he used camera angles different from those used in footage broadcast by the mass media" meets this objective. We're not casting any doubt on his honesty by doing so; we're only reporting his assertion neutrally, without supporting or opposing it, as required by the neutral point of view policy. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

ChrisO's thinking on this is in line with my own. "He has stated that..." casts absolutely no implication on the truth or falsehood of his statements, wheras "...but utilising..." explicitly accepts Landes' word on a controversial question. It's also worth asking how Landes knows that his footage was never broadcast by media outlets - not to mention where he got it from if it wasn't. <eleland/talkedits> 23:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

on point, there is nothing controversial and no need to play with 'he says' words "for neutrality's sake". Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm responding to this post solely to prevent you from claiming that you've achieved consensus or haven't been refuted (as you are wont to do). Since you haven't actually made an argument of any sort or even said anything coherent, I've nothing to refute. <eleland/talkedits> 20:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Jaakobou, it's a fundamental requirement of NPOV. See WP:ASF: "Assert facts, including facts about opinions — but do not assert the opinions themselves." It's not simply a question of whether Landes' statement is controversial or correct. It's his own personal assertion of fact, which we can't (and shouldn't) try to verify for ourselves; as such, NPOV requires that we report it, not endorse it. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

the statement is not controversial and it is also not an opinion. should we add 'he says' if someone mentions the earth circles the sun? do you believe it is possible that ANY news media "reported" these scenes while showing the full images from "the person shooting into the hole in the wall" scenario? or the one where a militant with a rifle is giving out orders? or the person on the ground using his cell phone? do i really need to open a content RfC to this? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 03:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

It's an uncorroborated assertion. We can't operate on the basis of what we "believe", because that would be both original research and a violation of NPOV, which requires that we report such assertions neutrally, rather than endorsing or refuting them. If you don't understand that, I suggest that you go back to WP:NPOV and re-read it. There's no need for a content RfC, since (to quote the first para of the policy) "NPOV is absolute and non-negotiable." -- ChrisO (talk) 07:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Chris is right -and it works both ways. It's not our job to confirm Landes any more than it being our job to discredit him. <<-armon->> (talk) 08:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

i still think it's undue, but i'll allow it for the sake of compromise. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

David Frum

Um, OK, I'm not super passionate about this or anything, but...given that CJ's asked this fair question about seventy times and the only response he gets is lockstep edit-warring, I thought I'd....well, I guess I thought I'd ask a seventy-first time. How the !$?! does it violate NPOV/poison-the-well/blow-a-dog-whistle/whatever to identify Frum by how he's most often identified, with the description most likely to elicit recognition on the part of readers? "David Frum"+"political commentator" gets ~1700 Google hits, "David Frum"+ speechwriter+Bush gets ~51,000. Frum's job as speechwriter is the very first thing you learn from David Frum. Compare that lead to the lead over at William Safire, whose career arc resembles Frum's – except that the order of notability is exactly reversed.

Seriously, guys, WTF? Do you even know what poisoning the well is? It would poison the well to let slip that he coined "axis of evil." It would poison the well to whisper to readers that he dresses in Batman underoos at the weekend and toilet-papers the homes of Democratic congressmen. It does not poison the well to follow the lead of CNN, or the American Enterprise Institute (where Frum has been made an honorary fellow) to identify him with what makes him identifiable – that he worked for the president of the United freakin' States of America.--G-Dett (talk) 18:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

writing 'right-wing' political commentator might be acceptable as not poisoning the well. however, the addition of GWB as a former employer seems redundant and with ill intentions. a quick look at this bio [58] shows that there's plenty of other information that could be added to validate his opinion rather than smear it with a name of a controversial US leader. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

How about "David Frum, father of three, has described Landes' work as an exposé of political propaganda."

You're right that there's great stuff in that bio. I especially like that its author thought it was a good thing to mention Frum's prominence in Richard Posner's study of the decline of intellectual seriousness in American punditry. Wow, talk about poisoning the well.

By the way, Jaakobou, did you know that one can poison the well by trying to "validate his opinion"? Yeah, look it up. It swings both ways.--G-Dett (talk) 19:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I've got it! "David Frum, husband, Fellow, father, Federalist, has described Landes' work as an exposé of political propaganda."--G-Dett (talk) 19:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm getting irritated by the edit war too, but the relevance argument goes both ways: why is it relevant to mention Frum's former employment? -- ChrisO (talk) 21:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, how does his former employment as a speechwriter have any relevance to his quote in this article? Believe me, I'm not the biggest fan of this guy's past work and I'm not out to defend him, but explain the relevance. Newtman (talk) 21:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think his former employment has any relevance at all, but it does seem to be how he's conventionally identified – even when he's providing political commentary. Oddly enough, it's Jaakobou's suggestion – "right-wing political commentator" – which strikes me as well-poisoning, because we are telling the reader how to interpret Frum's endorsement of Landes. Whereas "former speechwriter" just seems to identify him, nothing more. I'm not being coy here; I know Bush is controversial, etc., but I don't see having been a speechwriter for him or any other politician as some sort of blot. Certainly the fact that Safire wrote for Nixon made nobody blush, not even Safire himself.

Anyway, this really doesn't matter. I was expressing my disgust with an edit-war by participating in it, and for that piece of hypocrisy and illogic I apologize.--G-Dett (talk) 21:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I can understand (somewhat) the concerns about relevance, but does anyone seriously believe the identification violates WP:NPOV? CJCurrie (talk) 02:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems to be based on the assumption that because GWB is controversial, mentioning of an individual's affiliation with GWB is a way of damaging their credibility. That assumption seems to be (a) very questionable in the first place and (b) a major violation of NPOV in its own right. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Have to agree with Chris here. What Frum is currently doing is far more relevant. If he had made his Pallywood remarks while working for Bush... it still would be better to identify him by what he's doing now, but at least it would make a bit more sense. IronDuke 15:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Based on your reply, I'm assuming you're actually disagreeing with Chris? Newtman (talk) 21:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear, in my haste to agree with everything Chris says, I seem to have misread his statement, thanks for pointing it out, Newtman. I guess I got confused by his statement above that he didn't see the relevance of indicating Frum's former employment here, which I of course agree with. I don't think, FWIW, that it's all that hard to believe that tying Frum to a president with approval ratings at or near record lows could be construed as an attempt to damage Frum's credibility. IronDuke 21:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

chris has made two comments. first, he agreed with my suggestion that former employment is not that important, "the relevance argument goes both ways: why is it relevant to mention Frum's former employment?" (ChrisO 21:12, 17 December 2007), but then noted his general feelings regarding GWB saying "it would be a WP:NPOV violation not to like him". per "That assumption seems to be (a) very questionable in the first place and (b) a major violation of NPOV in its own right." (ChrisO 21:12, 08:25, 18 December 2007).

going over chris's comments, you can understand that he agrees that it is irrelevant, but does not agree that it's because of a smear issue. IronDuke seems to agree with the first part of Chris's statements.. and disagree on the second, same as I do. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm, uh, shocked that this would be your reaction. In any event, there's a simple answer to Chris' first question: it's relevant because Frum is best known for his work with GWB. CJCurrie (talk) 01:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

He served under Bush from Jan 2001 - Feb 2002, barely longer than a year. He has done a fair amount since, including mainly editorial columns. He has 5 books under his belt. He speak for the American Enterprise Institute, an influential conservative think tank. I think it's dubious to single him out for his 13 month tenure as one of many speechwriters for Bush. Newtman (talk) 02:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

And that's not the capacity in which he is writing now. If he cured cancer ten years ago, then switched to writing about history/politics, etc., would we write former "cancer researcher David Frum says X, Y, and Z about Pallywood?" (The answer is "No", for those keeping score at home.) IronDuke 02:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Pallywood, at 3:05:

I was looking at this video, and I found a few things which didn´t add up -about the shooting at the Junction (about 2-4 minutes into the film.)

Firstly, the narrator seems very doubtful about whether there actually is any shooting there, he says: "we see three men, apparently under fire" ---stressing "apparently". But look carefully at the footage around 3:04- 3:05 ...just what is that "explosion" of dust in the upper right-hand corner at 3:05....if not a bullet hitting the ground? Can anybody find another explanation of that "mini-dust- explosion"?

Secondly; It looks to me as the man being shot must have been hit from behind (look at around 2:40)

The narrator says (at around 3:25) that "he was supposedly hit on the right side of the right leg", showing a still picture (at 3:27-3:31, with a red ring around it) of the man grabbing hard exactly at the right side of his right leg.

It seems as if the narrator assumes that if you are shot, then you grab hard *exactly* at the area where you have been shot! But is that correct? I have (thankfully!) never been shot, but when I have hurt myself badly, (say burned, or hit/fallen on a part of my body,) then the last thing in the world I would do would be to grab exactly on *top* of the injured body-part. I would grab hard beside the injured area (....and scream..)

And...if you look at that 3:27 - 3:31 shot of the back side of his right leg you *can* in fact see a dark spot on his trousers (quite far up, in the "fleshy" part (or whatever you call it)). (If that dark spot is blood, a reflection/shadow, or just dirty trousers: I have no idea.)

The film then goes on to show another still picture ((3:34-3:36) with a red ring around it, of the *front* side of the leg, while the voice says: "we see no trace of blood on that side of his right leg". No indeed. Actually, what we see is that there is no trace of blood at the place where the man grabbed himself.

Thirdly; Then, (around 3:40++) the voice says: "the medics load him on the supposedly injured leg ...without sign of protest from the casualty himself" --> Well, I can hardly see on which side he is loaded onto the stretcher, much less any expression on his face. Can *anybody* see his expression? Honestly? Or rather, can anybody see his face at all? (The narrator must obviously have access to a much better video than I (we?) do...)

Yes, yes; I *know* this all constitutes OR... but to me it sounds as if the narrator say things which, at a closer examination, just isn't supported by the film. Regards, Huldra (talk) 10:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that interesting perspective, though (as I'm glad you recognise!) obviously we can't use it in the article. I think the explanation for what you've noticed is simple enough. The narrator, who I presume is Landes himself, has a preconceived view of "the truth" and interprets everything he sees, including any ambiguous elements, as supporting his preconceived version of events. It's exactly the same phenomenon as with those 9/11 conspiracy theory videos where the "9/11 Truth" brigade interpret everything they see as support for their conspiracy theory. It's not surprising that we should see the same thing with "Pallywood"; conspiracy theorists have similar pathologies. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:14, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we should make our own interpretation of these kinds of materials, but numerous experts have looked at the available evidence and have serious misgivings about the authenticity of what the film is supposed to show. ChrisO, it is so tempting to respond in kind to your ridiculous slurs, but I'll refrain, as it would take too much space and not serve any purpose. --Leifern (talk) 16:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, you're certainly right that others apart from Landes have subscribed to the conspiracy theory; you have to feel sorry for the French judge who had to sit through hours of testimony by a parade of cranks and obsessives. But that doesn't tell us anything more than that there's a "Pallywood" equivalent to the 9/11 Truth Movement. "Pallywood" the video is basically a significantly less notable equivalent of Loose Change. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

And if you look at the Palestinian's leg, you can see a cylindrical silver "pod", which was most likely used to receive a remote guidance signal... <eleland/talkedits> 21:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

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 [59]). 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)