Talk:Pallywood/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

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. ([1]) 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 [2] 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 [3] 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

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.[4] 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: [5], [6], [7], [8], and [9].--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 [10] 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) - [11]. 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 [12].

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 [13] 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)