Talk:Pallywood/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Definition of Pallywood

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

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

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

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

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

Therefore

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

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

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

Therefore

• Settlers in Qiryat Arba are "Zionazis."

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

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

'two documented examples

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2006 photographs controversy

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

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

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

Excising The Philadelphia Trumpet

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

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

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

will do.

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

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

• Here is the paragraph that ChrisO wishes to remove:

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

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

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

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

Uhm, do you know anything about the Worldwide Church of God? Nobody is saying the source is fringe because they haven't heard of it. The Trumpet is the magazine of a controversial, cult-like millennial sect. Salon describes reading it as "falling down an evangelical rabbit hole." [1]<eleland/talkedits> 23:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I found a Watchman Expositor profile that describes the PCoG as an "American-born cult" with about 6,000 members - [2]. I have to say it really doesn't sound like a mainstream organisation, and that 300,000 copy circulation figure sounds very fishy; that would be 50 copies per member (!). The page cited for its circulation figures doesn't give any explanation of how those figures are derived, and I strongly suspect that they're counting free-distribution copies of the magazine rather than circulation in the conventional sense of subscriptions or sales. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

• "Keep the Trumpet quote

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

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

Controversial

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

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

Wider use

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

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

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

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

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

International Herald Tribune

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

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

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

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

Telegraph

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

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

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

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

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

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

Back to The Trumpet

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

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

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

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

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

Important to keep this in mind

Talk:Allegations_of_Israeli_apartheid#Pallywood_as_an_example

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

Footnoting

May I please request that we not include unrelated citations in the middle of direct quotes? Apart from being tendentious, this is improper style. CJCurrie (talk) 19:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

What exactly is unrelated about the example? It's both from Jenin and also shows a dropped martyr springing back to life. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

It's unrelated in the sense that it doesn't refer to any words written by Paul Schneidereit. In any event, your last edit includes both a direct misattribution and an obviously inappropriate link that only serves to slant the discussion. I'm sure you'll simply revert me (and accuse me of precipating an edit war) if I remove it again; as such, I'll wait for someone else to do the same. Suffice it to say, however, that your approach to footnoting would not be considered appropriate at any accredited institute of higher learning. CJCurrie (talk) 21:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Opened on WP:3O -- [3] -- for uninvolved opinions.

Note to uninvolved editors: the discussed diff is the following -- [4]. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The citation gives the source for what the quote is saying. It's exactly on point and completely appropriate. The person says that something has happened, and the footnote gives the evidence that it has indeed happened. That's what footnotes are for! -- Zsero (talk) 21:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

That's somewhat correct, although it would be more accurate to say that this particular footnote has been included to verify a journalist's assertion. In other words, it's original research, which is forbidden -- and it should be removed. CJCurrie (talk) 21:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

What original research? It's from a reliable source. Looking for sources is what we're supposed to be doing, right? Or is the encylopaedia supposed to write itself? Talk about tendentious. -- Zsero (talk) 22:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Leaving aside for the moment the question of whether "Israel Insider" is a reliable source, the footnote is still entirely inappropriate. A journalist has made an accusation, and you've included a footnote that seems to verify the accusation. The cited text makes no reference to the journalist's argument. This is a textbook case of original research, and it should be removed as such. CJCurrie (talk) 22:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I have to say CJCurrie is right on this point (and I'm kicking myself a bit at not having spotted this earlier). The israelinsider.com reference is not being used to attribute what the journalist says - it's being used by you to try to assert that what he says is correct. It's not just a violation of WP:NOR, it's also a violation of WP:NPOV, specifically the requirement in WP:NPOV#A simple formulation: "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves." It's simply not our business to try to corroborate or refute anyone's claims. We report claims and any counter-claims; that's all. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not following the argument. The person mentions a certain film he'd have seen without naming it. I don't understand the problem with an (e.g. 'name of vid')^{[ref link]} type addition to help clarify the discussion to the wiki-reader. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The source is not directly related to Schneidereit, so I agree that it is a violation of WP:NOR, but there is no reason not to use it to illustrate what DF Intelligence Officer Colonel Miri Eisen said. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I think this is basic writing clarification (e.g. "e.g. Wired (USA), The Week (India)") and belongs with both instances. The first one would be a primary ref and the second one as an e.g. type clarification. I figure, if we insist that it is somehow controversial to link his statement with the fake funeral (which was filmed in Jenin in April 2002 as part of the attempt to prove the "massacre" claims) that a wiki-link can be made instead of a ref type link. Thoughts? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, let me explain this from the top. The quoted article is a journalist's discussion of what he views as examples of "Pallywood" incidents. He mentions a particular incident which he asserts is an example of a "staged funeral". Zsero wants to assert that the "staged funeral" story is a fact, so he's inserted a reference to a completely separate article about that story in order to demonstrate its supposed factuality. In doing so, he's altered a direct quotation to make it appear that the journalist referenced the israelinsider.com story. This is a straightforward violation of Wikipedia:Verifiability, as it's a falsification of the original source. It's also a violation of WP:NPOV, as it's an attempt to state an opinion as fact. Finally, it's simply not relevant to this article whether the "staged funeral" story is true or not. The article isn't about that story, so there's no need to raise that question. The story is only relevant in that this journalist has cited it in connection with the "Pallywood" conspiracy theory. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

← (ec) (from WP:3O) It is absolutely inappropriate to insert text into a direct quote or otherwise convey the impression that the cited source made statements or drew conclusions not directly attributable to said source. The e.g. link should be removed immediately from its present position. I am unfamiliar with this article and this area in general, but assuming that both are germane reliable sources, it would seem appropriate to include the Israel Insider link in a clearly attributed separate sentence following the Schneidereit quote. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 23:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, though of course that raises the question of whether israelinsider.com is a reliable source. I can't say I've heard of it before, though I note that it has very few links from mainspace articles (see [5]). It seems to be some kind of web-based alternative news site or group blog run by a Tel Aviv "Internet design and development company" (which doesn't exactly raise my confidence in it). I think we'd have to be very cautious about using this, considering WP:V's requirement that we use only "reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." -- ChrisO (talk) 23:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Eldereft, thank you for the 3O. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I have never been able to get a complete picture of Israel Insider's editorial structure. It is owned and operated by Koret Communications, a public relations firm. Their website notes that II "is committed to communicating balanced and accurate information about Israel, relating to her conflicts, and celebrating the successes, innovations and contributions of her people." The site's editor notes that "We are not a newspaper - we have no reporters in the field. We are much more a news magazine, taking the main story of the day and explaining it in English to people, and not only to Jews."[6] Mr. Koret often publishes himself on his site, and he seems to have a definite political agenda. (For example, he claims that Barack Obama is a secret Muslim and Friedman is an antisemite, etc.) So, no, II meets none of WP's standards for reliable sources, despite Jaakobou's constant use of it as an RS. <eleland/talkedits> 00:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

See [7], Israel Insider may not be an RS, but Australian Broadcasting Corporation, is. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, of course, but... huh? What are you saying that ABC piece is reliable for? It doesn't mention Pallywood, fake or staged events, hoaxes, or anything relevant that I can discern. And it's mostly direct interviews with Israeli military sources... why would we want to use that? <eleland/talkedits> 12:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

ChrisO, would you mind fixing this issue and linking the diff here? I tend to believe that if you add a notice about this instance, I'd be able to support whatever version you come up with. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

conservative and pro-Israel advocates

Is this correct? I see other sources as well. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you do, but the cited source (the Jerusalem Post) does specifically and explicitly attribute it to "pro-Israel media-watchdog advocates". I'm afraid characterising its usage on the basis of your own research is classic original research by synthesis. We're not in any position to evaluate its usage for ourselves; all we can do is report how others characterise it. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Mmmm. If one source says that then you attribute it to that source rather than asserting it as a fact. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Fine. I just attempted to add an attribution but got edit conflicted with you putting in exactly the same wording - great minds, eh? ;-) -- ChrisO (talk) 01:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

:) Now, if we can just find other sources that describe Pallywood in different terms, that would be great for NPOV. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment, I'm against the use of "watch-dog" in the lead and prefer earlier and more encyclopedic version of "conservative and pro-Israel". Requesting the involved parties consider this opinion and revert back (or find a better consensus). Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC) p.s. sample for 'conservative' who use the term is Michelle Malkin. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

If we're going to be such sticklers for details and nuances, the quoted source (Jpost) does not actually say that the term is used by "conservative and pro-Israel" advocates. It says something else - that "conservative and pro-Israel" advocates say that the Al durrah incident is an example of what has been dubbed - by unspecified other sources - "Pallywood". NoCal100 (talk) 23:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I did a quick skim of the mainstream sources mentioning the term "Pallywood," and most of them actually attribute the term to Landes alone, rather than to "advocates" or "watchdogs" of any sort. If we want to be über-strict about sourcing, we should attribute "Pallywood" to Landes. I realize that this is a controversial article, which tends to mean that editorial discretion is practically verboten, but can't we all agree that this term is promoted by pro-Israeli advocates and leave it at that? <eleland/talkedits> 16:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

instances of alleged media manipulation

I've noticed the recent diffs, and wanted to suggest a compromise - or at least promote discussion that will, hopefully, resolve the dispute.

Several of the instances referred to as Pallywood, are in the 'alleged' state, but several have either been admitted to as exaggerations and/or fraud (in full or in part), while others were determined as frauds by multiple non-partisan investigations. I believe we can find some neutral phrasing that inserts this situation into the article, without giving undue weight to the unproven allegations. The first re-phrase suggestion that comes to mind is "instances of alleged and, on several instances, addmited(ref,ref) media manipulation".

Thoughts/Suggesions? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 07:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

If the instances have been reliably "admitted" then fair enough - but the key will be what references can be used. They would have to be reliable mainstream sources, not the usual flaky partisan blogs that some have tried to cite here. As for the other POV edits that I reverted, we clearly cannot say "demonstrating that the entire incident was staged by the Palestinians" - that would be taking one side's POV as fact. We need to state Landes' assertions as assertions, not proven facts. Given that Landes' claims are a quintessential conspiracy theory, it's worth mentioning (particularly as we have a reliable source) that they are seen that way (thus the Blum reference). Finally, given that Landes' claims are promoted by one particular side of the commentariat, this is again worth mentioning. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to Landes in particular, although there have been some recent developments on this one, but rather to the general text. I completely agree that blog charges don't amount to anything more than allegations, but we have a few instances of full or partial addmitance of exaggerations/manipulation (the film Jenin, Jenin, for example) and a few where the manipulation was so blatent that it's been proven as such (Tuvia Grossman incident used by Arabs to delegitimize Israel, for example). I agree btw, with the majority of your revert, but I figured that others did have some raw validity hidden within their edit and that we can find some re-phrase that gives a little more weight to the few cases of 'admitted as accurate' allegations. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Those are pretty dubious examples, especially your claim that the Grossman photo was "manipulation ... so blatent that it's been proven as such," but whatever. There's not a whole lot of room for compromise on this central point: everything we include in the article has to have a reliable source connecting it specifically to "Pallywood." Not just general claims about propaganda or media manipulation but P-a-l-l-y-w-o-o-d. Anything else violates WP:NOR and makes this article a dumping ground for every shoddy partisan claim made in some backwoods blog. And that cuts both ways, btw; I could easily write a long footnoted essay about how the "Pallywood" phenomenon compares to other examples of historical negationism, quote examples of bloggers making ridiculous claims about "Pallywood" incidents which were rapidly shown to be 100% false, etc etc, but that wouldn't be appropriate for Wikipedia. <eleland/talkedits> 09:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Please focus on the topic of the thread. i.e. that several of the instances were admitted as exaggerations. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

So "the topic of the thread" is what you assert, and anybody who doesn't agree is off-topic. Lovely. Jaakobou, we will not use information in this article that doesn't A) come from a reliable source B) discuss "Pallywood" specifically. Also, the Grossman photo was not "admitted as exaggeration," nor was "Jenin, Jenin." You're making up the facts as you go along. <eleland/talkedits> 11:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Conservative

Re "conservative" as to David Frum and Michelle Malkin, at least the latter of these is notable as a conservative commentator and likely not notable otherwise, which I think is a reason to replace that word. Unrelatedly, some of these edit summaries seem to be gratuitously insulting other editors; if there are behavioral complaints, these should be raised on the talk page. Mackan79 (talk) 15:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

There are 3 commentators in that section. The 3rd one clearly does not fit, and it is arguable if Frum deserves that label. We do not poison the well in this manner - if people don't know who Malkin or Frum is , they click on their link and read about them. If your "unrelated" comment was a refernce to my edit summary - warning people to stop edit warring in edit summaries is not insulting - the edit warring is. Canadian Monkey (talk) 16:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

From reading the article, it doesn't appear that Schneidereit "applies" the term, as we say in the previous sentence. He seems to discuss how it has been used, along with discussing the related controversies. Considering the sentence at issue gives Frum and Malkin as examples, and we're talking about those who "apply" the term, I think it's accurate and appropriate to note that they're conservative, and that it would be misleading to say the term has been applied generally by commentators. Mackan79 (talk) 18:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Needs updating

With the new judgment against France 2 in the al-Durrah situation, I think Pallywood is in need of some updates. I see a lot of commentary and information about the concept of Pallywood, but very little evidence is given (even though there is A LOT). I also see this article was nominated for deletion before, which is understandable.

anyways, I'm not prepared to edit as my personal bias fails to conceal my neutral hat. Some are better at hiding it than others...so I'll leave it to the skillful and willing.

so yeah! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikifan12345 (talk • contribs) 03:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Disputed tag

This article has been tagged as disputed since March. Is the dispute still active? If not, let's remove the tag. If the dispute is still active though, could someone please articulate exactly which parts are still disputed? Thanks, Elonka 18:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Far from removing the "Neutrality Disputed" tag, it needs a new one "This article contravenes the basis of the project". The obvious problem is that it's a magnet for editors who wish to make nasty ethnically-specific accusations of dishonesty. (This is not general, we manage to have articles on other seriously offensive terms without having this effect). We don't have an article for Jew York Times - but if someone created one, I imagine there'd be a storm of protest and an indef-blocking. (The Hated Google Test gives 78,000 for "Pallywood" and only 11,400 for the antisemitic term - but I doubt if this is a good reflection of their relative prominence).

But the real problem arises directly from the above - attempts to delete this article damaged the editorial process - so much so that the conclusion of the last one has been edit-warred out - and, as with so many other I-P articles, necessary administrative action to protect the editorial process is not happening. (Bizarrely, often the only actions we're seeing are carried out to protect a twisted version of "CIVIL", abuse of which has become a favorite tool of wiki-lawyers).

Here's what the community decided and should have got:"the [article] 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. ... a number of possible article names were suggested, Alleged Palestinian media manipulation [or] Alleged media manipulation in Palestine". PR^talk 08:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

PR, how about just editing the article? You can also tag specific sections or sentences that you have concerns about. If no one addresses the concerns, delete those sections of the article. No one has spoken up here at the talkpage in months, so if no one complains, you're welcome to edit the article yourself. --Elonka 22:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

This article was, by it's nature, always bound to be a honey-pot for the ethnically abusive. The maker of the film of this name (it's not actually a film, never been shown anywhere) is insisting that Palestinians either shot dead one of their own children, or, even more outrageously, made it appear that the kid had been killed. Until administration of the project treats such people with the contempt they deserve, the I-P conflict articles will continue to look like a propaganda sand-box.

In this particular case, we even have a determination that the article name is non-notable and needs to change - but editors who wish to operate to policy know full well the disruptive obstruction they will face. The editor who did this and this, along with the editor who did this and this didn't accidentally breach consensus, they set about to trash it in the full knowledge that anyone trying to stop them would fail, with the eventual certainty of administrative action against them. PR^talk 11:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment: While Palestinian use of children has on occassion been hard to justify, best I'm aware, Mr. Landes did no such thing as to claim the boy is alive or that Mr. Jamal al-Durrah shot his own child. Landes is not the only person to express concerns about the validity of the initial reports and others, such as the 'Three bullets and a dead child' documentary, illustrate a reasonable probability that Palestinians were indeed implicated. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Problems with latest anon edits

Leifern, I don't know how you can possibly claim that "this version is more NPOV than ChrisO." The anonymous editor's changes were sloppy, unsourced and very obvious POV-pushing (deleting sourced content, falsifying quotes to push a POV), as even a brief check should have shown you.

Let's go through the specific problems with it:

• The anon editor has blatantly falsified the quote from the Jerusalem Post in the first paragraph. The Post did not say what the anon has it saying - the anon has simply rewritten this quote to present his own personal opinion as if it was something that the Post had published. Check the cited article if you don't believe me. Forging quotes from cited sources is absolutely not acceptable.

• The claim that Landes "originated" the term is unsourced and probably unsourcable. People tried some time ago on this talk page to determine who had originated the term, but no adequate sources could be found. It's pure original research to claim, without any sourcing, that Landes invented the term.

• Under "wider use of the term", the anon has deleted - without explanation - a quote from the Jerusalem Post; I'm guessing because the anon has a POV problem with it.

• The additions under "Wider use of the term" are wholly unsourced, obviously POV and rather incoherent - notice the unfinished sentence?

• The cited sources in the last edit do in fact corroborate the attribution of the term to "right-wing publications".

Next time, please check whether the changes are actually any good before reverting to them. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment 1: I support ChrisO's note that the changes of material quotes were innapropriate. However, on a content note, there are certainly a few problems which should probably be corrected. I disagree with the mentioning of JPost (in the lead of all places) as if it's the sole authority on explaining the term, and also with the usage of the term watch-dogs. Also, the term right-wing could easily be replaced with 'conservative' and be considered more encyclopedic.

Comment 2: Chris, regardless if you are correct or incorrect with the revert (and I believe you were correct) you really have to stop making personally directed commentary (per "I'm guessing because the anon has a POV problem with it.").

Comment 3: Leifern, I don't understand how you could revert to a version where the quotes from the cited references is changed. You should really not make such an error in the future even if some parts of the changes feel more NPOV.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 06:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC) clarify 06:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Jaakobou, I don't see the JPost as being "the sole authority". If I remember the development of this article correctly, we were looking for a reliable source to define the term and someone found the JPost article, which had a very clear and concise summary definition. Do you think it's inaccurate? As regards the "few problems" you perceive, could you possibly identify what bits you see as problematic, so that we can work out what to do about them?

By the way, I don't think my comment about the anon's "POV problem" was unfair - given the other edits the anon made, it's pretty clear that he removed the JPost quote because he didn't agree with what it said (which obviously isn't a valid reason for removal). In the anon's first edit he also added more personal commentary with a link to a video sharing website that attempts to dump spyware on your PC - fortunately my firewall caught the attempted download. It was a very bad bit of editing all round. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

As an issue of civility, bad editing or not -- and it was indeed bad editing, don't get me wrong -- we should focus on content/edits, not percieved personalities/ideological prefrences.

Content-wise, I would prefer the introduction text toned down a bit per encyclopedic concerns (a more generic descriptive) and we can move the JPost quote to some "definition" or "history" section. I may make a suggestion version later today.

Cheers, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC) better, 09:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Definition section

I'm thinking it would help make the introduction more encyclopedic if we construct a "Definition" sub-section where we accumulate possible definitions from the more reliable sources (JPOST, and others if they exist). Thoughts/Suggestions? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Misrepresenting sources

I'm not impressed by IronDuke's latest attempts to rewrite the intro. G-Dett is quite right to point out - as has been pointed out many times before - that this term is not in general usage. You will find only a handful of references to it in reliable sources, as opposed to the online ravings of far-right bloggers. That being so, we need to define who uses the term, and the cited Jerusalem Post article provides a concise definition and description which is reflected faithfully in the article. I'm having trouble understanding what IronDuke meant in his revert summary: "Still well-poisoning, ad hominem style -- also, inaccurate". Is IronDuke assuming that the JPost is poisoning its own well, or directing "ad hominems" against itself? (One assumes that it's "pro-Israel", right?) IronDuke also hasn't explained what he considers "inaccurate" about the JPost's definition. To be honest, though, I don't think it's appropriate for him to substitute his personal POV for that of a reliable, mainstream published source - that's original research by definition. The current description is source-based and a faithful reflection of the source cited at the end of the line. IronDuke's preferred version is not, and for that reason it's unsatisfactory. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Chris, that I am wounded by your failure to be impressed with my edits should come as no surprise. You've done your best to educate me, and yet I remain obdurate. Levity aside, how is it that I know it's well poisoning? Because poeple with an axe to grind insist on sticking it back in. JPost is a fine source, it just isn't the only source, and shouldn't be cited in the lead as though its opinion were the only one. Or do you maintain that it is only "pro-Israel media-watchdog advocates" that use the term? IronDuke 04:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

This isn't about "having an axe to grind" - it's about basic factual accuracy. We're bound by the rules of verifiability and the prohibition on original research. As I've pointed out, the term is not in general use: you won't find it in dictionaries and it appears only to have appeared a handful of times in mainstream sources - not surprising given the overt ethnic/racial overtones in the term. It's very misleading to imply that it has any widespread mainstream usage. Now, it may well be used by sources other than "pro-Israel media-watchdog advocates", but do you have any source to state that? Because otherwise you're getting into original research. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm confused now (easily done, I know). Are you saying that you don't know whether sources which are not "pro-Israel media-watchdog advocates" use the term? IronDuke 22:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm saying that we don't have any sources to say that anyone other than "pro-Israel media-watchdog advocates" use the term. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

But we ourselves use sources, in the article, which are not "pro-Israel media-watchdog advocates", yes? Or is everyone a pro-Israel media-watchdog advocate until proven otherwise? IronDuke 01:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Recent changes

There was a solid consensus for use of the Hezbollywood term and certainly the "has been used" terminology is false. Unless you have some source saying this neologism is no longer under use, then this link shows a good number of sources which use the term within the last month alone. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Jaakobou, is there a single source that describes this ethnic slur as a neologism? "Neologism" connotes widespread use; marginal use of an ethnic slur among a handful of fringe figures in a bitter nationalist dispute does not meet this standard. "Ipod" is a neologism; marginal words and phrases like "Pallywood" and "Jew York Times" are not. Nor does the fact that the ethnic slur in question has become fashionable among a small, intensely nationalist coterie of Wikipedians make it a neologism.

If you're about to ask – no I don't know of a source off-hand that describes these ethnic slurs (Pallywood, Jew York Times, jewspapers, etc.) as ethnic slurs. Which is why I'm not currently adding that information to the article.

Is there "solid consensus" that "Hezbollywood" should be treated as synonymous with "Pallywood" in the lead?

"Has been used" in English is not past tense, although newcomers to the language sometimes think it is. It's what's known as present perfect. The present perfect "keeps the subject in a present state of reference or in a present state of mind." "Was used" would mean the slur is no longer in use. "Is used" by contrast would mean it's found a pretty stable and accepted place in the lexicon. "Has been used" describes its current status of the slur while leaving its ultimate fate open, which is why it's ideal in this context.

When someone says "Angelina Jolie has been seen at all the A-list parties lately," they don't mean her moment in the sun is over. Quite the contrary.

On a related, English-as-a-second-language note, why are you still treating "claims" and "incidents" as synonymous? And why are you presenting claims from op-eds in the lead as straight-up facts, and emphasizing phrases you like from them by putting them in italics? [8]--G-Dett (talk) 21:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

G-Dett, giving examples antisemitic words to make a point about Pallywood being an ethnic slur is in extremely bad taste. I think you should strike out the relevant examples and their context to avoid a personal confrontation with other editors. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:05, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Ynhockey, that wasn't a POINT. Those are analogous slurs used in exactly the same way as "Pallywood." Thankfully no nationalist editors are currently trying to promote them to the status of "terms" or "neologisms." Let's try to keep it that way, and in the process let's not lose sight of the fact that that's exactly what's going on with "Pallywood."

Incidentally, the fact that "Pallywood" is an ethnic slur and "Hezbollywood" isn't is precisely why I don't see the logic of treating them synonymously. Hezbollah is an organized political party and militant movement, and like any such movement (or state for that matter) they have a media/propaganda wing. Allegations have been made against that propaganda department and an epithet has been coined. The same could be done for Israeli "hasbara."

The idea behind "Pallywood" is completely different. The culprit is not any organized office of propaganda, just stringers and so on who are ethnically Palestinian. It's simply the idea that mainstream news sources are depending on photographs, footage, and so on produced by Palestinians, who lie and falsify things. It is exactly the same idea as the old mid-century slur about "jewspapers," and those who used that slur made exactly the same arguments: the New York Times and other papers were owned by Jews, many journalists were Jewish and therefore their accounts couldn't be trusted, and so on. And there are still marginal cranks who talk about the "Jew York Times," and make the same "critique," if you can use that word for this kind of crap.

I appreciate your suggestion, but no I won't strike anything in my post, and I respectfully disagree with your distinction between ethnic slurs directed at Jews and those directed at Arabs.--G-Dett (talk) 22:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's not forget that the first half of the term, "Pally" is itself an ethnic slur - there are plenty of examples of bloggers ranting about "Pallys" or "Pallies" (see e.g. [9]), a term comparable to (say) "Pakis" or "Dagos". "Pallywood" is a very clear allusion to such slurs - it's not even a dog whistle, it's out there in the open. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't believe you're justifying G-Dett's behavior. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

To quote a great Jewish philosopher, "first take the plank out of your own eye". G-Dett is right to highlight the parallel. Elliot Oring (Engaging Humor, p. 44) highlights the use that racist groups make of "humorous" terms such as "Jewspaper", "Jewsmedia" and so on to make assertions about supposed Jewish control of the press. "Pallywood" is in exactly the same vein - it's an overt ethnic slur intended to make assertions that all Arabs are congenital liars. (Why is it used to refer to the Lebanese when they're not even Palestinians?) The sensible thing to do, if sensible people were in the driving seat in this wretched conflict, would be for both sides to say "all ethnic slurs are equally bad". Unfortunately we seem to be in a situation where both sides seek to appeal to overt racism and religious hatred - anti-semitism and Islamophobia alike - to gain allies. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:03, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I understood your justification for this beforehand but I still can't believe it. You'll pardon the personal tone but from where I'm sitting, there seems to be some parallel with your actions and the time when Eleland was calling a Jewish editor "Nazi" and "goose stepper". This is disgraceful.

p.s. in case it were not clear, this article is titled 'Pallywood'; not 'insert Jewish pejorative here'. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Jaakobou, we are discussing a number of related ethnic slurs. You on the other hand are not only discussing but employing and promoting one of the ethnic slurs in question, making it very difficult to take all your gasping outrage – "I can't believe it," "disgraceful," etc. etc. – very seriously.--G-Dett (talk) 18:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

G-Dett hasn't called anyone names. She's merely pointed out - as have I - that the term has overt pejorative racial/ethnic aspects, and that it's used in a very similar way to anti-semitic slurs. Those are just statements of the obvious, frankly. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Remember, comment on content, not the contributor. Lets avoid anything that might be mistaken for an attack or an accusation, as that will just inflame things. Prodego ^talk 00:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Break

It's unacceptable to delete the direct quotation from the Jerusalem Post that attributes the term. Let me repeat what I posted above, which has apparently been overlooked by Jaakobou: We need to define who uses the term. It's deceptive and misleading to imply that the term is in general usage. Plainly it's not, other than in certain blogs. The cited Jerusalem Post article provides a concise definition and description which is reflected faithfully in the article. The current description is source-based and a faithful reflection of the cited source. No good reason has been advanced for deleting the JPost's description, and I note that none of the people trying to delete it have bothered to explain their reasons here. Also, I noticed that Jaakobou had introduced a quote from IsraelInsider. This is not a reliable source; it's a self-published "social blogzine" according its publisher (see WP:RSN#IsraelInsider). Self-published opinion pieces from an apparently rather fringe website should not be used as sources. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

ChrisO, I've replied on the relevant forum. G-Dett, your examples are provocative and completely out of order and it would do you well to scale back when asked to do so nicely. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 02:06, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

p.s. G-Dett, please provide a source to support the assertion that ""Neologism" connotes widespread use". Thanks. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 02:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

p.p.s. I've found DEPRICATED SOURCE with some type of definition that words better for me than the current "neologism" one. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 02:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

p.p.p.s. it would seem that, like Landes and Pallywood, Israel Insider take some of the credit for Hezbollywood.[10] I'd be happy with a sincere attempt to add this new information. Thanks! Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 02:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC) +some source for the German speakers among us. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 02:19, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Nationmaster is a very old copy of Wikipedia and the page you've highlighted is a copy of an article that you wrote that was deleted back in 2006 (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hizbollywood). As for Israelinsider, we can't use it as a source - it's a self-published group blog. Please address the points I've raised on the reliable sources noticeboard. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Jaakobou, I don't need a source telling you what a neologism is; you need a source telling us that "Pallywood" is a neologism. WP:V and WP:RS don't require that every single element of talk-page debate be sourced, but they do require that everything in the article itself be sourced.--G-Dett (talk) 18:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

There are other sources in the article, such as the Mackenzie Institute, who use the term, and do not fit the JP definition. It's ok to mention that definition, and attribute it to the specific JP article, but it is improper to imply that these are the only people who use it. NoCal100 (talk) 05:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

If it's "OK to mention that definition", why did you remove it? I've restored it and added "among others" to cover any situations such as the one you cite. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

"...by a number of academics..."

Who are the academics that use this ethnic slur? I know that Berko and Erez put it in quotes and mention that others use it, but this isn't the same thing.--G-Dett (talk) 02:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't know the answer to that one but Mr. Dry Bones has written a piece that seems notable enough for the article. [11] Any takers? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

'Any takers?' Is this a joke?

Jaakobou, can you please explain your criteria for a good source for the purposes of this article? --G-Dett (talk) 17:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

As far as I am in concern, notable blogs such as hotair, little green footballs, and yes, Mr. Dry Bones (who is published on several mainstream news papers), or notable groups such as CAMERA, or honestreporting as well as PajamasMedia are valid sources for this meme.

I'm curious to why reliable information is being rejected here; It certainly doesn't seem to fall within the purpose of the project.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC) +add link 20:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Dry Bones is a cartoonist. The "piece" of his Jaakobou is linking to is a post on his personal Blogspot.com blog, wherein he explains "the stories behind the cartoons." Here are his musings on "Pallywood," which Jaakobou wants to add to this article:

Do the Palestinians fabricate photographs and news footage? You bet they do! It's part of their propaganda war against us. Look at this photograph of the frightened Palestinian boy that has become an icon for the anti-Israel movement. Could this news footage image of 12 year-old Mohammed Al Durah and his dad(reproduced everywhere) be a Pallywood fake? I don't know. Second Draft presents the evidence and examines the possibilities.

In other words, not only is Jaakobou's source non-notable and non-reliable, but he's saying nothing at all. Jaakobou is simply scouring the web looking for sources that use the ethnic slur he's trying to promote, so that the article will seem more substantial and the slur's currency more established.

IronDuke's playing a similar game when he finds two scholars who mention "Pallywood" – once, in quotes, in a footnote saying that others use it, followed by a link to the "Second Draft" blog – and then uses that to have the article claim that the term "has been used by academics". It's pretty shameless.

The following (hypothetical) rewrite of the lead is more accurate than what we've got:

Pallywood, a portmanteau of "Pally" (an ethnic slur for Palestinians) and "Hollywood", is a slang-word with currency among a small coterie of right-wing bloggers and conspiracy theorists, who argue that freelance journalists and photographers of Arab descent tend to be fabricators whose hoaxes have been accepted and disseminated by a gullible or biased Western media. Its use has been noted by two academics, several journalists, and one cartoonist.

--G-Dett (talk) 21:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Mind you avoid things like "IronDuke's playing a similar game" or "Jaakobou is simply scouring the web looking for sources that use the ethnic slur he's trying to promote". Assume good faith please. Prodego ^talk 22:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Coinage?

Pallywood is a coinage? That doesn't even make sense. I refrained from commenting on the content of this article in this recent dipute, but this is going too far. I mean, now we're trying to pervert the English language for absolutely no reason? Why? The definition for "neologism", a new word, meaning, usage or phrase seems to apply perfectly for Pallywood, and I can't see any good reason for using grammatically-incorrect wording instead. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Coinage, noun...5. an invented or newly created word or phrase: “Ecdysiast” is a coinage of H. L. Mencken.

That's from Random House Unabridged, but you'll find it in any decent dictionary, from these online compiler jobbies all the way up to the OED.

No grammatical incorrectness here, thank you very much.

There is a shade of difference between neologisms and coinages, in that the latter are more casual, clever, and transient. As Random House's Mencken example suggests.

A neologism, by contrast, is "a word or phrase which is new to the language" (OED). New as they are, neologisms are part of the language, and you will find them in the dictionary. Irrational exuberance is a neologism. So is Islamophobia; as is Islamofascism. So is "neoconservative" in its current sense. But words like "Pallywood" and "Jewspapers" are simply coinages.--G-Dett (talk) 22:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The word is correct, the usage in this case is not. The idea is to say The word X is a coinage of Y, as the example in dictionary.com suggests, not The word X is a coinage. Additionally, there's absolutely nothing in any definition of the word neologism that suggests that the term must be universally accepted/able, and that appendage to the supposed definition seems to be your coinage, I'm sorry, invention. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 23:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

You seem to have forgotten that "Pallywood" is a coinage of Richard Landes, so the semantic problem you're inventing wouldn't apply even if it were true. Which it is not, of course. It's absolutely fine to say such-and-such is a coinage without saying whose.

There is actually a literature on morphology and word-formation, if it comes to that. As Laurie Bauer (Morphological Productivity) writes, "a neologism is a word which becomes part of the norm of the language." All coined terms are coinages; some go on to become neologisms. Bauer in fact identifies exactly the problem we're facing – at what point does a newly coined word become a neologism? – and suggests avoiding it by using the term "coinage," which she points out is "neutral" as to what the word's "eventual status will be in a language." No darling, I wasn't making that up. :) --G-Dett (talk) 23:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

You just proved my point. Laurie Bauer herself admits that there are definitions of the word "neologism" that contradict what she said, and herself uses only one meaning which she believes is the most relevant (p. 39). Moreover, she does not give an example of how the word coinage should be used so even if we were to consider her book as our Bible here, there is no indication that the word coinage is appropriate here (grammatically). Moreover, it is implied on the same page by Bauer that the word coinage is in itself a neologism. Let's avoid using grammatically-incorrect and confusing structures and instead improve the article. If you feel so strongly that neologism is inappropriate here, there are other alternatives, such as the very simple "term", "word" or "new word". For example:

Pallywood is a term coined by Richard Landes and used by pro-Israeli groups and individuals to describe what they regard as ... etc.

-- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 00:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand a word of what you've just written regarding Bauer and grammar and neologisms, and I don't think you do either, but your suggestion for rewriting the first sentence sounds fine.--G-Dett (talk) 00:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually it's not. We've had this debate before, a long time ago - the article used to say that Landes coined the term but nobody could find a source for that. The cited source certainly doesn't say it. The attribution to Landes had to be removed as it was unsourced original research. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Does that warrant a blanket revert? I don't remember the discussion you refer to, but the main issue raised here is using the word 'coinage', not the statement about Richard Landes. Please address the concerns on talk before making blanket reverts. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 10:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Ynhockey, I don't think anyone except you is questioning the word "coinage." Not Websters, not the Oxford English Dictionary, not the morphologist Laurie Bauer, whom you've completely misread...--G-Dett (talk) 12:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually ChrisO just blanket-reverted without addressing the concerns about the word, so let's wait for more opinions. Meanwhile, I suggest restoring the version we agreed on because, as you correctly noted, The Jerusalem Post and other secondary sources say that Landes coined the term. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 20:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you quite sure of that, Chris? The way I recall it, the Jerusalem Post had described the word as a coinage of Landes', and Landes himself described having coined it, but SlimVirgin and Jayjg searched around in old usenet threads and found an anonymous poster who wrote something like "first Hollywood, then Bollywood...now Pallywood?", a post which Slim and Jay then used to counter the claims of secondary sources and Landes himself. I explained that (a) Usenet threads were not reliable sources; (b) using primary sources to counter secondary sources was classic original research; and (c) that "Pallywood" in the Usenet thread was actually a nonce word, not a term. You may well imagine the talk-page merry-go-round which ensued; if you cannot imagine it, I'll dig it up for you. :) --G-Dett (talk) 12:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Another source

Found here.
Cheers, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

That's Melanie Phillips' blog. She is generally regarded as a fringe commentator - frequently referred to as "Mad Mel" by other UK media outlets. I suspect the source would probably fail WP:RS on several counts. -- ChrisO (talk) 04:16, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

It appears on The Spectator's website, and she is a noted commentator in this field. Looks pretty solid to me, but I'm open to more thoughts. (PS: Other media outlets (such as?) may smear her, but I'd be very careful about throwing stuff like that around on talk pages.) IronDuke 04:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

She is a biased observer but, to be frank, the UK media is biased in its own self as well. There's even a documentary about this that I saw a while back. I think it was called 'No Excuses For Terror' or something similar. Anyhoo, I do agree that her arguments cannot be stated as "facts" but should be noted as "Mellanie Phillips argued/noted/stated/commentated that...". I hope that solves the WP:RS concerns.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC) added note about documentary. 09:00, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

There's no point in posting a source which by your own admittance is biased. With your line of thought every yahoo who's spoken about Israel/Palestine should be posted except with the inclusion of "Mr. X stated....". Not to mention your little insertion is pointless as it'll be referenced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.131.222 (talk) 08:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The issue is notability and Melanie Phillips passes this test IMHO. Cetainly, not every yahoo should have their bloggings written into the article, but this case fits the basic criteria for this article.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Melanie Phillips is an extremist, eg seeking to defend a notorious case of using a 13-year old Palestinian boy as a human shield with "... we see a child sitting on the bonnet of an IDF jeep with his hand chained to the windshield - which is most likely to have been done to stop him from running away rather than using him as a human shield" (picture is here - it's not even his hand, it's his upper arm). It is difficult to understand why a low-circulation magazine prints this, but it's unlikely a reputable site like Wikipedia would wish to be associated with material so offensive, defending a practice that is prima-facie illegal. IP86.158.184.158 (talk) 15:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Removal of sources coming from the US media

With the blatant pro-Israel bias coming from nearly all US media outlets I think this article should refrain from using articles coming from the US. Kind of wide but there are plenty of other places like Canada, Australia, etc who have a much better track record. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.131.222 (talk) 07:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

You're, of course, kidding right? "Pro-Israel bias coming from nearly all US media outlets.." what? If you want to play that game then I could say that there shouldn't be any articles from Russia, Europe, most of Asia...you get the point. They have a heavily anti-Israel bias. More so than any bias from US media. Mind you, most of those nations have a less free press. Meaning in many of those countries there are laws that decide what can be put on the air and are subject to government censorship. Ridiculous... 68.18.25.74 (talk) 10:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Richard Landes's credibility is questionable

Here's quote from the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs in an interview with Richard Landes:

The main goal of modern Jihadism - a cataclysmic apocalyptic movement - is Islam's dominance over the world. It makes millennial claims, promising that once Islam rules everywhere, there will be world peace.

I seriously doubt jihad will lead to the apocalypse.

"The second Palestinian uprising can be considered the moment when Islamic apocalyptic discourse, which had evolved rapidly since 1980, went public."

And now the Palestinian intifada or rebellion according to wikipedia, is actually an apocalyptic event.

He reeks of propanganda with his apocalypse nonsense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.131.222 (talk) 08:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

It's, sadly, a quite notable opinion that's not entirely rejected by numerous Islamic groups. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Article assessment for WP Israel

Pallywood is a high priority for Wikipedia Israel. Israel's image in the world is shaped by this kind of propaganda. An article about it is crucial for understanding the dynamics of the conflict.--Gilabrand (talk) 10:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I have to respectfully disagree. It's not an insignificant issue, of course, but there are many more pressing matters regarding Israel. Changed it to Mid, hope that's a compromise people can live with. IronDuke 00:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I can live with that. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 00:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Wording in the lede

I have restored the long-standing introduction, while also making it clear that not all pro-Israel media watchdogs use this term. Can others suggest why the long-standing wording should be changed? CJCurrie (talk) 00:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. Find a source to make your change and stop edit warring. Find a source please -- you know how to read edit summaries, don't act like you invented the wheel and are not the one introducing a personal opinion into the lead. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with CJCurrie. The original lead should be retained absent actual reasons to change it. 83.111.100.10 (talk) 21:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

That was not the "original" and you require a source to make that change. Whoever you are. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:20, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I see that Jaakobou has implied that I'm using a sockpuppet. My response to this statement, and to his latest revert more generally, can be found here: [12]. CJCurrie (talk) 06:24, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

"[S]ome pro-Israeli media watchdog advocates" is an incorrect presentation and is also a poor choice of words. You're selecting a sub-group of the far larger group people of those who use the term (e.g. Zionist neocon blogsphere, Elders of Zion, Palestinian Authority, Right wing Israelis, Settlers) and you need a source. That is simple Wikipedia guideline for controversial statements -- and this is one of those. Catfish? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 01:06, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

p.s. tell your two alter-egos in the Arab peninsula to stop making reverts for you. Please.

This is what the source we're using for the lede actually says:

But pro-Israel media-watchdog advocates have gone further, arguing that the footage is a prime example of what has been dubbed "Pallywood" - media manipulation, distortion and outright fraud by the Palestinians (and other Arabs, such as the Reuters photographer caught faking photos during the Second Lebanon War), designed to win the public relations war against Israel.

Based on this (and other reasons that I've already mentioned), I think it's entirely appropriate for us to indicate that the term is used by pro-Israel media watchdog advocates. I've added the qualifier "some" because I don't think it's appropriate for us to indicate that all pro-Israel media watchdog advocates find this (racist) term appropriate. CJCurrie (talk) 02:32, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Sonia has made a clear improvement to the initial insertion. Thank you for your efforts! Still, the initial phrasing -- "some pro-Israeli media watchdog advocates" -- is still in there and is of poor choice even if we accept a special notability for this group, which I tend not to do. I'm not sure on how sources (i.e. not a single source) notate this issue. As such, I've decided to do the work I asked you to do for your change and have come up with these results in my first 3 sources...

1. Book by David Pratt (historian) - mentions only professor Richard Landes as the source.
2. Book by Cindy D. Ness (anthropologist) - does not outline a special group of users. Side note: I like her concise definition (per "phenomenon of manufacturing documentation about the conflict", "staged by local organizations to acquire sympathy and support from the outside world") better than the current quoted phrasing.
3. Book by Anna Geifman (historian) - uses the term on her own account.

After this short review I'm even more convinced that introduction of a certain group into the definition is incorrect. Moreso, when the current phrasing suggests the people behind the term represent watchdog organizations and are not free thinking individuals and proper researchers.

See also:

WP:MOSBEGIN for the concept of opening with a clear definition.

Wikipedia:NOTFORUM#FORUM for understanding why it is of poor form to brand the article's title as 'racist' when that personal perspective is not supported by sources.

p.s. I can see how the group of 'pro-Israeli media-watchdog' can be used further down, but sources do not support its disproportionate use in the definition.

Best regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Jaakobou, of the three sources you've identified, two simply make use of Richard Landes's work (Ness's book has a link to Landes's film), while the third is from a "terrorism expert" based in Israel whose doctoral thesis was supervised by Daniel Pipes. Beyond which, I don't think that looking for works that make passing reference to the term is the best way to find acceptable wording for the introduction.

Incidentally, you'll note that I haven't branded the term as racist in the article space.

I'm okay with User:Sonia's adjusted wording. If you're willing to accept it as well, then this content dispute can finally be at an end. CJCurrie (talk) 00:09, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Whether we like it or not, all three are valid wiki-sources and were only presented to strengthen my belief that pointing out a single group in the definition itself is a poor choice that goes against policy. Best I am aware, the only notable person/origin/user for the term is -- as was already presented in the article -- Richard Landes. I'm open to a wider review of sources that support the alleged notability of the group you wish to insert in the definition but we can't define the term in accordance to your personal preference when there is no foundation to define it in this manner. I am not against mention of this group later down, but they cannot be singled out like this in the definition, even with the thoughtful rephrase attempt. If you want this to remain you must show some definition related notability through sources. This was my initial request to you and after doing a shallow source-hunting (first viable 3 sources I found) my initial perspective was only strenghtened that you were incorrect in this instance.

p.s. Wikipedia:NOTFORUM#FORUM helps us avoid soapboxing from either side of the political spectrum which, in turn, helps promote collaboration and better articles.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Jaakobou, this is Wikilawyering. There are only a limited number of credible sources that use this term at all; the fact that you've found a few sources that use the term in passing does nothing to change the fact that it's been used primarily by pro-Israel media watchdogs (and some other pro-Israel commentators). For us to imply that the term has widespread usage is (i) incorrect and (ii) not supported by any sources. I suspect we'll have to take this to mediation, if you're not willing to accept any sort of compromise on this front.

Btw, my views about the nature of this term (I believe it to be racist) were applicable solely toward my decision to add the word "some" as a qualifer, which usage was consistent with both Wikipedia policy and basic common sense. CJCurrie (talk) 23:54, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Addendum Here's what some published sources have said about term "Pallywood":

France 2 has stuck by its story. But pro- Israeli commentators argue that this is finally independent proof of ``Pallywood, the purported Palestinian-Hollywoodesque manufacture of news footage to further the cause, despite its fiction. We may never know the whole truth. (New Zealand Herald, 20 August 2008)

Some Israelis and their supporters have suggested for years that video that might attract sympathy for Palestinians living under Israeli occupation is routinely staged and dismissed such scenes as "Pallywood" productions. (Robert Mackey, NYT Blogs, 5 August 2010)

Since Hajj's work was discredited, the right-wing blogosphere has shifted into high gear, seeking out other potential instances of photo manipulation. Many are examining images from Qana, the site of an Israeli bombing last week where at least 28 civilians were killed. Others are digging into events in Gaza, claiming images from that Israeli-Palestinian conflict have been staged or edited for the cameras. Right-wing bloggers have dubbed that "Pallywood." (Toronto Star, 9 August 2006)

CJCurrie (talk) 00:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Disputed wording the lede

Persons newly arrived at this discussion should note that there is currently a dispute as to the proper wording of the lede. I am prepared to accept the following wording:

Pallywood, a portmanteau of "Palestinian" and "Hollywood", is a coinage that has been used by some pro-Israeli media watchdog advocates, among others, to describe alleged "media manipulation, distortion and outright fraud by the Palestinians and other Arabs ... designed to win the public relations war against Israel." The incidents of the Muhammad al-Durrah tapes and the 2006 Lebanon War photographs controversies (dubbed "Hizbollywood" or "Hezbollywood")ref name="tagesspiegel"'Im Zweifel für den Zweifel,' Der Tagesspiegel 2006-08-09]/ref are notable events which have been cited as examples.ref name="jp071012"'Caught in the Mohammad al-Dura crossfire, by Calev Ben-David, The Jerusalem Post, October 12, 2007:
: But pro-Israel media-watchdog advocates have gone further, arguing that the footage is a prime example of what has been dubbed "Pallywood" - media manipulation, distortion and outright fraud by the Palestinians (and other Arabs, such as the Reuters photographer caught faking photos during the Second Lebanon War), designed to win the public relations war against Israel./ref

Others have proposed this wording:

Pallywood, a portmanteau of "Palestinian" and "Hollywood", is a coinage used to describe alleged cases of "media manipulation, distortion and outright fraud by the Palestinians and other Arabs ... designed to win the public relations war against Israel." The incidents of the Muhammad al-Durrah tapes and the 2006 Lebanon War photographs controversies (dubbed "Hizbollywood" or "Hezbollywood")ref name="tagesspiegel"'Im Zweifel für den Zweifel,' Der Tagesspiegel 2006-08-09]/ref are notable events which have been cited as examples.ref name="jp071012"'Caught in the Mohammad al-Dura crossfire, by Calev Ben-David, The Jerusalem Post, October 12, 2007:
: But pro-Israel media-watchdog advocates have gone further, arguing that the footage is a prime example of what has been dubbed "Pallywood" - media manipulation, distortion and outright fraud by the Palestinians (and other Arabs, such as the Reuters photographer caught faking photos during the Second Lebanon War), designed to win the public relations war against Israel./ref

I believe that the second wording is inappropriate in that it implies a greater currency for the term than actually exists. The term "Pallywood" is not widely used, and it is important for us to clarify within the lede that the term's usage is generally limited to a particular position within the Israel-Palestine dispute. Secondary sources (such as they exist) are clear on the term's framework. (I could add that passing references to the term within a few published studies are not sufficient evidence of wider usage.)

I believe that the term "Pallywood" is racist but I have not edited the article from this vantage point, except in that I added the word "some" before the phrase "pro-Israel media watchdog advocates" so as not to imply that all such advocates make use of the term. This action was not in any way inconsistent with Wikipedia policy.

I am open to compromise but I do not believe the second wording is at all acceptable. Comments and respectful dialogue are welcome. CJCurrie (talk) 00:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I can see your point about the second version suggesting it is of wide-usage when it is not. Give me a little while to think about a compromise suggestion. Considering your added sources, I'm conflicted on how to mention the groups which I see as most notable -- i.e. pro-Israel advocates and media analysts. Another alternative, which is probably better -- as I'm interested in maintaining the idea of a clear 'definition' -- is to rephrase the usage part of the definition wich something such as 'which is sometimes used in the context of "manufactured news"'. I'm open to suggestions here but I do hope you understand why I believe focusing on "media-watchdog [organizations] advocates" in the definition is undue.

p.s. let's drop the word racist from the discussion. You don't see me throwing around my personal beliefs about Palestinian media. The point, which is supported by policy, is to help promote positive dialogue. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 07:19, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

If you're willing to present a reasonable compromise suggestion, then I'm willing to consider it fairly. Thanks for taking my arguments into account. CJCurrie (talk) 07:27, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I completely disagree with the notion that "Pallywood" is not wide-used. google search on this terms gives 149,000 valid results. I have to agree that I am new here , and already find it hard to believe "pro-palestinian" activists good faith. the problem is not with this term or another , the problem is well orchestrated Nazi like disinformation and misinformation efforts for which WP became another arina. --Jonathango 20:50, 1 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JonathanGo (talk • contribs)

Describing wikipedia editors as engaging in a "well orchestrated Nazi like disinformation and misinformation efforts" really undermines your claims about "good faith" Poyani (talk) 23:24, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

What's the point of adding the name in Arabic and Hebrew script?

What's the point of adding the name in Arabic and Hebrew script? It's not even an Arabic nor a Hebrew word. The Arabic and the Hebrew words are not translation, they are merely transcription of the English word. Additionally, the phrase is English and rarely if ever used outside of English language. I removed the Arabic-Hebrew transcription and they were re-added! --Mahmudmasri (talk) 18:57, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

That the phrase is rarely used outside of English language does not necessitate its exclusion. My view is that the more information provided, the better. This is a policy disagreement as opposed to a content one and I am amenable to being disproved.
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 20:45, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

So the JIDF exists and the best Israelis can do is...

Say that Pro-Israel, Anti-Palestinian people say that a mythical group called "Pallywood" exists?

So the JIDF article has a variety of direct sources that objectively show the JIDF to exist as an organization. Yet this article can't even present evidence of "Pallywood" exists but just sites Israeli propaganda saying people say it exists. Where's the evidence it does exist? I'm pretty sure anecdotal claims from people who aren't reliable sources doesn't justify an article.

I nominate this for deletion. 124.148.98.14 (talk) 06:56, 10 May 2014 (UTC) Sutter Cane

A particularly ugly ethnic slur

Isnt it time something was done about this particlarly ugly racial slur?

http://972mag.com/a-particularly-ugly-ethnic-slur-pallywood/98824/

Arabic

In my very crude attempt at seeing if the Arabic word used here is actually an Arabic word (باليوود) meaning what this article says it means, the closest Arabic word I can find is بوليوود which is Bollywood. Is this just a Wikipedia editor's attempt at transliterating an English word into Arabic when it has no usage in Arabic? And if so, why shouldnt it be removed? nableezy - 08:26, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I have no knowledge of Arabic, but if the Arabic word for Bollywood is indeed used for Pallywood, it was not done by a Wikipedia editor. --Qualitatis (talk) 13:56, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Yesterday I was distracted by the Argentinian sock, active on this and other pages, hiding behind IP's. It was added here. The Arabic word should contain at least part of the word Palestine (فلسطين‎) or Palestinian (لفلسطينيون), and have RS. --Qualitatis (talk) 08:42, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Seems to be completely made up, a transliteration but not an actual Arabic word and I can find no evidence that those Arabic characters actually refer to the topic of this article, and as such Ive deleted it. nableezy - 23:21, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

"by some pro-Israeli media critics"

The Jpost article says - For years, pro-Israel media watchdogs have beseeched the government to take a more pro-active approach in refuting 'Pallywood' tactics. this is very different than the text I've remove and doesn't support it. 60 minutes isn't 'pro-Israeli media critics' and the term can be found on endless neutral sources. Settleman (talk) 16:36, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh, please tell me who? Btw, the sources in this "article" are incredibly shitty, one right-wing blog after the other. It is fascinating to see people edit to keep this in, while at the very same time striving to keep, say Electronic Intifada out of Wikipedia. The logic is doing triple backwards summersaults.... Huldra (talk) 21:22, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

::I don't see how the two related but I agree that some source are questionable thought some just support the sentence "The term has been applied beyond the Muhammad al-Durrah case in a number of publications,[17][dead link][18] and by conservative commentators such as David Frum,[19] Michelle Malkin[20] and Melanie Phillips.[21]" where it is IMO sufficient though might be OR. Settleman (talk) 11:29, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Ugh, all of them count as pro-Israeli. 2804:7F7:D180:F6C2:0:0:0:1 (talk) 16:17, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Pallywood. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060716004659/http://www.canada.com:80/nationalpost/news/issuesideas/story.html?id=48fc4069-cf42-4dbd-ab0e-857ad6142ec3 to http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/issuesideas/story.html?id=48fc4069-cf42-4dbd-ab0e-857ad6142ec3
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070812112532/http://www.mackenzieinstitute.com:80/2006/lies-footage-0706.htm to http://www.mackenzieinstitute.com/2006/lies-footage-0706.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:40, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

ali gharib

he's been published on this topic by any number of reliable sources. And it really isnt in contention that Frum challenged these pics. What exactly is the problem here? nableezy - 05:36, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Pallywood. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110708085133/http://www.reclaimthemedia.org/journalistic_practice/and_now_its_reutersgate to http://www.reclaimthemedia.org/journalistic_practice/and_now_its_reutersgate

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:02, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Pallywood. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110708033433/http://docstalk.blogspot.com/2008/03/ruthie-blum-interviews-richard-landes.html to http://docstalk.blogspot.com/2008/03/ruthie-blum-interviews-richard-landes.html
• Added archive DEPRICATED SOURCE to DEPRICATED SOURCE

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:08, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pallywood. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.upjf.org/actualiees-upjf/article-13447-145-7-al-dura-shooting-pallycood-production-paul-schneidereit.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070705214803/http://www.seconddraft.org/streaming/aldurah.wmv to http://www.seconddraft.org/streaming/aldurah.wmv

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:21, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Pallywood. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170128143900/https://books.google.co.il/books?id=dITcBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA165 to https://books.google.co.il/books?id=dITcBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA165
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060111212821/http://www.seconddraft.org/history_pallywood.php to http://www.seconddraft.org/history_pallywood.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:02, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Extremely racist propaganda term?

This question has been raised before on this talkpage, but how is it that this blatantly and extremely racist slur against Palestinians is allowed to be presented in the Wikipedia article as if it something legitimate? Imagine if the equally racist and strickingly similar sneering phrase "Holohoax" was written about in the same way on Wikipedia;

This article: Pallywood, a portmanteau of "Palestinian" and "Hollywood", is a coinage used to describe alleged media manipulation, distortion or fraud by the Palestinians and other Arabs designed to win the public relations war against Israel.

Imagine if instead: Holohoax, a portmanteau of "Holocaust" and "Hoax", is a coinage used to describe alleged media manipulation, distortion or fraud by the Israelis and other Jews designed to win the public relations war against Palestine.

From this article we are supposed to believe that the Palestinians and Arabs in general are shifty liars whose testimony cannot be trusted. Why? Because some far-right American Jewish loon Richard Landes said so and has created this racist neologism. IMO, the article needs to be merged with Landes article, since it is his creation. Claíomh Solais (talk) 02:57, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

The term is in much wider use than Landes. Holohoax would be seen as Holocaust dennial. Pallywood is no more racist or offensive than the widely used Bollywood (which was the inspiration for the name JIRC).Icewhiz (talk) 06:43, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

"Pallywood is no more racist or offensive than the widely used Bollywood" Lol, Icewhiz, this is complete rubbish. So why do you say it?? (Explanations to the extremely dim witted: AFAIK, everyone in the Bollywood business are happy to say they are in the Bollywood business. Nobody accused of committing Pallywoodism would agree to that word, it is solely used by their adversaries.) Huldra (talk) 20:50, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

So? They would have undoubtedly denied had the COMMONNAME been "staged video incidents by Palestinians".Icewhiz (talk) 20:59, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Huh?? So how can you compare the (offensive) name of Pallywood with the (inoffensive) name of Bollywood? Huldra (talk) 21:06, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

The problem is not with the name - it is not a slur.Icewhiz (talk) 21:13, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

It is a slur, if those it is meant to denote thinks so. (What about, say using the n-word...telling everyone you mean absolutely no harm with it...and you can use the n-word, as you absolutely do not mean it as a slur?) Huldra (talk) 21:24, 28 April 2018 (UTC).

Also, you say that " Holohoax would be seen as Holocaust dennial." (something I agree with). But how can you not see that "Pallywood" can be see as denial of wrongs committed against the Palestinians? Huldra (talk) 21:19, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Lets be clear, Holohoax is an offensive term used by Holocaust deniers, and bringing it up here in an apperantly different context is highly disturbing and offensive. Using Pallywood to describe videos which have been allegedly staged is fairly factual if said videos have actually been staged. The comparison here is utterly false.Icewhiz (talk) 04:09, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I had never even heard of "Holohoax", until I read about it a few days ago on this page, but I have no problem understanding that it is seen as offensive. What I absolutely cannot understand, however, is that someone can think that "Pallywood" is as inoffensive as "Bollywood"...And "allegedly staged" is the keyword here...it could also be seen as a blatant attempt to invalidate any wrongs done against Palestinians, Huldra (talk) 21:09, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

It is undeniable a racist slur[13], but to say so in the article we need reliable sources saying to. // Liftarn (talk) 09:01, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

To be entirely honest it is quite mysterious to me how this is racist (i.e. hostile to a perceived "race" of various peoples on the basis of alleged inferiority). Racism is a very serious problem in the world and it doesn't help to lob the word without a clear justification for why something is racist in the proper definition of the word. Politically pejorative, yes. But it is not "undeniably" a racist or even an ethnic slur. --Calthinus (talk) 18:57, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Facebook sometimes delete nazi propaganda so they have been nicknamed "Jewbook" by some nazis. You see no racism in that term? // Liftarn (talk) 11:46, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

This is not a reasonable analogy. Deb (talk) 07:47, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Not exactly as "book" is a neutral term, but the idea is the same. They both point out an specific ethnicity as false and sneaky. // 09:09, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Pallywood refers specifically to (allegedy staged) video clips - not to anything else.Icewhiz (talk) 09:41, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

It specificly says Palestinians do it. It's a bit like the term "rapefugees". // Liftarn (talk) 11:03, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

If there are WP:RS that use the term "Pallywood," there is nothing wrong with using it. This is an encyclopaedia. If there are WP:RS that use the term "Holohoax," there is nothing wrong with using it, and I'd suggest any interested parties create such a page if the sources warrant it. XavierItzm (talk) 17:21, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

The Pallywood/Bollywood analogy (hence ok) is a misplaced comparison. Bollywood refers to a genre of films made in a city, whereas Pallywood refers to an ethnic group's self-representation of their suffering. Wikipedia has an exceptional and exceptional high tolerance for allowing propaganda smears to hold water in pages dealing with Palestinians. It is the automatic reply (Beitunia killings, Hebron execution, Muhammad al-Durrah incident) of officials, politicians and the like whenever Israeli soldiers are caught on film doing their daily job of shooting unarmed protesters. The IDF film or have audio records of combat soldiers at these scenes (Iman Darweesh Al Hams) on much of these incidents but to my knowledge never release the footnote to challenge what independent videos show.Nishidani (talk) 09:54, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

• Inappropriate discussion. Wikipedia does not coin terms, we write articles about terms that exist. Consider Coolie, Blackface, Dutch courage, Dhimmi, and all of the words for Gaijin and Ferengi. But an encyclopedia is not the place to conduct a campaign to change a word on the grounds that you WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:55, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

  Wrong target. Those are explanation of terms, not racist attributions to an ethnic group of mendacious self-representation. I'm not for the deletion of this article. But it should be subject to very close scrutiny and editing to ensure that the intrinsic ethnic smearing it conveys is clear to the reader.Nishidani (talk) 12:10, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

• Note that this article is similarly an "explanation of (a) term." It begins "Pallywood, a portmanteau of.." and explores the origin and meaning of this phrase.

• Pallywood is a portmanteau in a category with words like Islamophobia, Anglophile, Orientalism, Philhellenism, Judeophobe, Judeophile, or, if you will, with Zionism, Anti-Zionism and Bollywood. Portmanteaus regularly incorporate the names of peoples and countries. The things they describe vary, but the terms themselves are by no means "intrinsic ethnic smearing". Certainly not in a case where it is the political actions of a group that are criticized. Political criticism of the actions of a polity does not equate to ethnic smearing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:25, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Those other words are not portmanteaus, they also don't contain ethnic slurs in their names. Freedom789 (talk) 19:43, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

But it's not a neutral term. It's more in the line of "rapefugees", "Jew York Times", "JewBook", et.c. // Liftarn (talk) 12:49, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

The former two are well known antisemitic canards. "rapefugees" refers to the refugees themselves. Pallywood - refers specifically to video clips, not to people. This is similar, if at all, to "Russian fake news".Icewhiz (talk) 12:55, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

And Pallywood is an antisemitic canard, never proven. 'Political criticism of the actions of a polity does not equate to ethnic smearing' is silly because Pallywood is the standard defensive meme used by extremists to discount visual evidence of one's state's violence against an occupied people. Your argument that 'Pallywood' refers to 'the actions of a polity' is counterfactual, since it has always been used as a Chinese whisper or dismissive smear re filmed incidents whose unreliability has never been demonstrated. The use of Pallywood to put it over that:-

The Islamic Fundamentalist PR machine, of which “Pallywood” is a part, is eroding confidence in the West, destroying it from within without even a major military victory and potentially dooming freedom and democracy along with Western civilization.(Coleman E. Shear, Landes Discusses Pallywood Theory The Dartmouth Review 17 December 2010)

is to assert that any filmed actions of violence done to Palestinians is part of a massive terroristic PR machine hellbent on saying rumours of being occupied, shot at, wounded or beaten up are hoaxes. In any argument of this kind, the neutral observer making a judgement must, as Liftarn properly notes, apply the same criteria used to dismiss, say Palestinian complaints of being smeared, to attempts to smear, in this case, Jews.Nishidani (talk) 14:00, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree that either a more neutral title should be used or the article should be merged with Media coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict. The current title implies that the term is factual when it is actually contested. Freedom789 (talk) 18:14, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

As is standard with contested terms, the article includes a "Criticism" section. This is how we deal with contested terms. Note that Category:Political terminology and Category:Political neologisms contain many similarly contested terms. E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:56, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

The criticism section is a problem, not a solution. See Wikipedia:Criticism "In most cases separate sections devoted to criticism, controversies, or the like should be avoided in an article because these sections call undue attention to negative viewpoints. Articles should present positive and negative viewpoints from reliable sources fairly, proportionately, and without bias."

A more neutral title should be found or the article should be merged into Media coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Freedom789 (talk) 19:00, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Many of these viral videos (and photos) do not reach the media - they are activist generated and usually only get to the media if they are viral enough - after the initial web buzz. So this is not media coverage. Pallywood would also only seem to cover those that have been allegedly staged or edited, not all media.Icewhiz (talk) 19:03, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Film and video is a media by definition (as is social media) so allegations that there are fabricated videos fits in an article on media and the conflict and in fact the Media coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict article already covers the Pallywood allegation. As well, even if no one picks up these videos they are allegedly made for the purpose of being picked up by the mass media. Freedom789 (talk) 19:17, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Not in the new media world (and that article covers news media, not new media) - a facebook video or youtube video with 1 million views is often all one is interested in achieving.Icewhiz (talk) 19:27, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Can you suggest a neutral article name then? Allegations of staged videos in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freedom789 (talk • contribs) 19:38, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Per COMMONNAME it would seem to me everyone making the allegation (on a specific video) is saying pallywood - while those rejecting attribute or add a so called, but it seems to me pallywood has caught on much more than "staged video".Icewhiz (talk) 19:45, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Like "Israeli apartheid" then? Freedom789 (talk) 20:04, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Quite. Except that Israeli apartheid now is a redirect to Israel and the apartheid analogy. I suggest we move Pallywood to Allegations of staged videos in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. (And "Israeli apartheid" gets 270,000 google hits, while "Pallywood" gets 203,000. You cannot argue pr WP:COMMONNAME for Pallywood, and not argue pr COMMONNAME for "Israeli apartheid".) Huldra (talk) 20:36, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Pallywood is a name on itself. This is not an article about "Allegations of staged videos in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict" in general.--יניב הורון (talk) 20:55, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

All opf the cases show the same pattern. Some striking case of Israeli military misbehaviour goes viral: Israeli spokesmen or activists raise suspicions that it can't be true, since Palestinians manipulate the evidence; tertiary bodies investigating tend to throw doubt on the Israeli media spin. In this last regard the Beitunia killings are an egregious example. If you followed the hour by hour bulletins put out by the IDF and duly reported in Israeli newspapers, they kept changing throughout the day after reporters challenged them, or added new details. It was a desperate attempt to spin and manage the news flow, that failed. The same occurred in the Gaza Beach explosion incident: the facts came out, the IDF kept casting doubt, denying it had anything to do with it, then backtracked and backflipped then reasserted no involvement while foreign observing bodies and reporters showed the flimsiness of the official versions. The IDF gave up in the end, refusing to join in an international investigation. Nonetheless the Landes of this world keep citing such cases as 'Pallywood' though no instance exists of the phenomenon. Nishidani (talk) 20:52, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I recall that I (years ago) watched carefully Landes original film....and I didn't see what the narrater of that film saw, at all! It is noted here. (Yeah, all OR, I know...). But people can look....and make up their own opinion. (And not just act like sheep), Huldra (talk) 21:11, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh, it is not as one sided as that. E.g. [14] Gazan youths are shown rushing a seemingly injured youth toward safety on a stretcher through clouds of smoke and dust. Toward the end of the clip, however, the youth appears to fall off or get off the stretcher, and then gets to his feet, now seeming quite unharmed..Icewhiz (talk) 21:15, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

At least 431 people injured in one day...according to that Israeli source. I cannot even start to imaging the confusion and the stress. What a video (shot, and released by the Israelis?) purports to show in that confusion, I wouldn't try to speculate. (But timesofisrael.com can....) Huldra (talk) 21:44, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

The IDF's reportage is as reliable as that of Iranian state news agencies (See Finkelstein's 2017 book on media manipulation in the 2014 Gaza war). By the way, after Netanyahoo's fake staging of his fake iranian exposé last week,which was laughed off the pages of most serious newspapers out of sheer embarrasment at the fraudulence of his photo proofs, no one came up with some (out)Landesish parallel, 'Israelywood'.Nishidani (talk) 21:52, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

The move suggestion by Huldra is improper. The term exists as per numerous WP:RS and Wikipedia is not in the business of fixing perceived WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. XavierItzm (talk) 21:40, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Israeli apartheid exists as per numerous WP:RS...do you want to move Israel and the apartheid analogy back to Israeli apartheid, then? Huldra (talk) 21:44, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Why do you keep insisting on that comparison? If you want to change something in Israel and the apartheid analogy, go to the talk page of that article and open a discussion to change the title. It has nothing to do with Pallywood.--יניב הורון (talk) 21:49, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

I am trying to get people to think....about treating other people the way themselves insists on being treated. Is that to much to ask? Huldra (talk) 21:52, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it's ridiculous and probably falls into WP:POINT.--יניב הורון (talk) 21:54, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Hypocrisy and double standard are still not Wikipedia policies, AFAIK, Huldra (talk) 22:02, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh, don't make me talk about double standards, Huldra...--יניב הורון (talk) 22:10, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

It matters because if Wikipedia is to be neutral then it has to treat both sides of the conflict equally. You can't allow pejorative terms used by people on one side to be used as article names but disallow pejorative terms used on the other side by− arguing those terms are biased. If "Israeli apartheid" can't be an article title because using that article means Wikipedia is taking sides then Pallywood has to be disallowed. On the other hand, if Pallywood needs to be used under COMMONNAME then the same applies to Israeli Apartheid. What applies to one article has to apply to the other otherwise there is an evident bias. Freedom789 (talk) 22:08, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Generally these disputes linger on talk pages because we do not do enough work on the article itself. It is not as clear as it should be that all of the examples that were raised to document 'Pallywood' fell flat on their faces, and found no independent corroboration by non-involved investigations. Rather than argue, one should raise each major example (a) who first said it and then document (b) what was the investigative outcome, which invariably was negative.Nishidani (talk) 08:28, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

One problem is the "criticism" section is at the bottom which means most people won't read it. Better to integrate the "criticisms" throughout the article and balance out the lede do that it is clearer that the "Pallywood" term is pejorative and the claims are dubious. Freedom789 (talk) 10:11, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, technically, we can't and shouldn't take sides, but isolating the several instances in which this has been raised as an accusation, with an outline of the charge's originator(s) in each case, and then a neutral summary of how the independent reception of each assertion spun out, is the way to go. I.e. Beitunia Killings under one heading, with Michael Oren and the IDF spin, and then the rebuttals which followed. Kutzik's piece is a very good example of deconstructing the nonsense. As tor the lead, one only states there what sources say. So one needs to find strong RS that challenge it as pejorative and a dubious claim. Nishidani (talk) 10:18, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Lead is pretty small, this is more than enough.--יניב הורון (talk) 17:59, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Recent edit

Preserving the material here by providing this link. I removed the section "Nabi Salih weekly protests" as WP:UNDUE. Similar content has been removed from Bassem Tamimi & Ahed Tamimi pages. See for example: Talk:Ahed_Tamimi#"Pallywood".

It also comes across as WP:COATRACK as attempting to give weight to the material. For example: "British journalist Peter Beaumont describes the weekly protests in Nabi Salih led by Bassem Tamimi and described by many Israelis as "Pallywood"..." --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:16, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

A misleading description. Suggest that editors take a look at this analysis of the weekly demonstration of led by the Tamimi family by Peter Beaumont and Anshel Pfeffer that was published by The Guardian, Beaumont works for The Guardian as a foreign correspondent. Both Pfeffer and Beaumont are directly discussins Pallywood. Here:British journalist Peter Beaumont describes the weekly protests in Nabi Salih led by Bassem Tamimi and described by many Israelis as "Pallywood," as a means by the Palestinian activists in the asymmetrical Arab/Israeli conflict "leverage... social media" by producing "compelling" images.[12] Beaumont quotes Israel journalist Anshel Pfeffer who wrote about the Tamimi-led weekly demonstrations, "Whatever you think of the Palestinian national struggle, you don't get to choose the other side's weapons. The people of Nabi Saleh, with the help of foreign volunteers, put on the weekly show for the media because it's compelling, it works."[12] I believe that this considered, expert analysis belongs in the article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:13, 9 May 2018 (UTC) I apologize for linking to proquest (a paywalled archive), K.e.coffman was perhaps not able to read the articles before deleting the text.

• Here is the Guardian article by Beaumont, in which he quotes Pfeffer, Nabi Saleh images illustrate changing asymmetry of Israeli-Palestinian conflict and here: A Picture of a Headlock That's Worth a Thousand Words from Pfeffer's paper, Haaretz. Note that both Pfeffer and Beaumont are specifically analyzing "Pallywood" in depth and at length.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:22, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Jeezus! So Pfeffer thinks that when one half of a small village's population (305 out of 6000+) has been shot over the last several years, their refusal to back down means that they are just being theatrical. Well, what are the IDF fuckers hospitalizing them every other week just the bored audience compelled to witness this pathetic comedy?Nishidani (talk) 20:56, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

To delete analysis offered by two notable journalists published in The Guardian and Haaretz requires a policy-based justification.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:07, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Indeed - and these are not op-eds, but rather articles in these newspapers. I'll also note that being hit by a rubber bullet which is (almost always) a Non-lethal weapon is not the normal definition of shot.Icewhiz (talk) 14:03, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

The Guardian & Haaretz

Re: Note that both Pfeffer and Beaumont are specifically analyzing "Pallywood" in depth and at length, I don’t see it this way. Pfeffer’s commentary, as quoted by Beaumont, does not include references to “Pallywood”. Here’s what the Guardian article says [15]:

Perhaps one of the most interesting commentaries was supplied by Anshel Pfeffer, whose editorial in Haaretz condemned the image of Israeli soldiers chasing children: (...) “It’s no longer a tactical mistake, it’s a national headlock in which an entire army, and behind it a nation, remains in a state of denial that there are military solutions to the conflict.” He dismissed suggestions that the images might be less powerful with suspicions of a degree of orchestration. “Whatever you think of the Palestinian national struggle, you don’t get to choose the other side’s weapons. The people of Nabi Saleh, with the help of foreign volunteers, put on the weekly show for the media because it’s compelling, it works. Anyway, if the only issue here was one of appearances, then why is the IDF providing extras every week for the show?”

The word “Pallywood” appears in the article once, in this context:

A pro-Palestinian website painted the Tamimi mother and daughter as “determined lionesses”; Israeli ones as manipulative “Pallywood” frauds playing for the cameras.

That’s why this content came across as coatrack and synthesis: "British journalist Peter Beaumont describes the weekly protests in Nabi Salih led by Bassem Tamimi and described by many Israelis as "Pallywood"..." etc. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:10, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

• But Pfeffer article in Haaretz, to which linked above, does refer to Pallywood. More to the point, both articles are serious men giving serious, INDEPTH consideration to the weekly filmed demonstrations at Nabi Saleh, they are analyzing the question of the extent to which these demonstratins are a kind of performance, and, unsurprisingly ], since The Guardian and Haaretz are as far left as mainstream, responsible gets on the Israeli Arab conflict, they frame it as a sort of weapon of the weak, available to the side without sovereignty. But you have given no policy-based grounds for deleting it again.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:46, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

• Re: they frame it as a sort of weapon of the weak, available to the side without sovereignty, they discuss the demonstrations, not "Pallywood". There's no in-depth coverage of the latter in The Guardian's article. The word is mentioned once, in passing. Likewise for the Haaretz piece, where the word "Pallywood" appears one time:

Right-wing apologists of course have been quick to brand this as another “Pallywood” production and pointed out that the Palestinian family are known “troublemakers” who routinely stage such scenes.

Again, the text as added to the article was WP:COATRACK & WP:SYNTH and / or uncritically representing the POV of what the Haaretz piece terms "right-wing apologists". K.e.coffman (talk) 00:50, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

They are referring to it as "weekly show for the media" throughout, and acknowledge that such a show is called Pallywood by some.Icewhiz (talk) 04:36, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: I removed the content again; it's been rejected from the Ahed Tamimi article and does not appear in Nabi_Salih#Weekly_protests. This looks like an attempt to shoehorn it here. Preserving here by providing this link. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:35, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

• I will note that while it is not in the present stable version of the Tamimi article - it has not been "rejected" by any formal process (and opinions in discussion were quite divided). The relevance of coverage of Nabi Saleh as Pallywood is, quite obviously, of greater relevance (in terms of DUE/UNDUE) to the Pallywood article than other articles.Icewhiz (talk) 03:27, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

• That's why it looks like this content is being shoehorned in here. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:01, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

3rd attempt

The language is wp:weasel; consider:

• The Nabi Salih protests have been described as "Pallywood",[29][30][31][32][33] with various members of the Tamimi Family mentioned as "Pallywood stars".[34][6][35] Allegations of Palestinian media manipulation in the 2018 Gaza border protests[36] were in some instances referred to as "Pallywood".[37]

Preserving here by providing this link. Given that this is the 3rd attempt to insert this text, I really do not find these additions to be suitable. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:33, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

If there is some problem with the text you can fix it and the wholesale deletion because one phrase is not acceptable.--Shrike (talk) 06:00, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Trimming this / toning it down might be a way forward for a compromise for this sourced content that might need balancing. Some of the tags can be easily rectified (e.g. Oren and Pallywood stars - though I think it has been quite a few others who said this as well).Icewhiz (talk) 07:14, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

@Shrike: This rv wholesale deletion is not a suitable rationale for a revert. The content fails WP:NPOV; it is not true to sources, either, which say:

Right-wing apologists of course have been quick to brand this as another “Pallywood” production and pointed out that the Palestinian family are known “troublemakers” who routinely stage such scenes. A Picture of a Headlock That's Worth a Thousand Words from Haaretz.

The content as you reverted amounts to uncritically reproducing right-wing propaganda, which is not appropriate on Wiki and is possibly a BLP violation. Would you consider self-reverting? --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:48, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I have removed Haaretz source.There are plenty of other sources that describe it as Pollywood.There a left-wing propaganda like 972 sources that is blog and should be removed as it WP:SPS and author is not notable.--Shrike (talk) 06:29, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Shrike, sorry, that's not how it works. You cannot remove a source that calls the subject in question a product of "right-wing apologia" and then claim that the rest of the content is just fine. Please propose a neutral version before reverting again. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:34, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Its only one source out of many per WP:DUE we don't have to include it specifically source with certain political stance --Shrike (talk) 06:02, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Category

I removed the recently added Category:News media manipulation as non-defining; see WP:CATDEF. For this category to be applicable, the lead of the article would state that "Pallywood is a media manupulation technique", not that it's an "alleged tactic". In any case, this descpiptor has been applied by "right-wing apologists" (per Haaretz), so it's not appropriate to replicate such propaganda here. Please let me know if there are any concerns. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:34, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I disagree. whether or not the allegations of 'Pallywood' are true (and some clearly are), it is obvious that the defining feature the phenomena is news media manipulation. Attack Ramon (talk) 16:01, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

+1 on Attack Ramon. The alleged conduct is media manipulation. In some cases the allegations has perhaps been falsely made (as is the case with other types of media manipulation!) - and in others there was some merit. Regardless, what this article describes is media manipulation.Icewhiz (talk) 21:23, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Recent edit to the lead

@Staszek Lem: re: this edit -- the article is under 1RR, with the provision that If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours of the first revert made to their edit. Please self-revert. --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:25, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Done. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:51, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

NPOV lead

The lead as currently written portrays a neologism describing a concept that is not widely accepted as something that is true as though it were. That violates NPOV. nableezy - 15:21, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

(It was regarding my version, self-reverted) It does not matter that the subject is true or exists in real life. We have articles, e.g., about hoaxes. Wikipedia articles about concepts, not about terms. Therefore, per MOS:FIRST the definition in the lede wi written as

"Someting is ..."

and not

"Something is a term describing ..."

Staszek Lem (talk) 19:45, 25 September 2018 (UTC)