Talk:Pallywood/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

NPOV

This is an article about an alleged practice from the Palestinian side of the "propaganda war," not about Israeli media policy and allegations about it. Also, Landes does more than "suggest" that the Pallywood phenomenon goes back to the 1982 Lebanon war - he claims or asserts it, and depending on your point of view, proves it. Also, I am not sure that "alleging" in front of each bulletpoint rather than as an introduction to it does anything at all.

What we should avoid is the tendency to sneak in pissing contests into this article, as we often see elsewhere on this subject. In my view, this article should be kept short so that the reader can see what the term means and decide whether it has any merit; there are separate articles on the media war itself. --Leifern 11:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely about the need to keep pissing contests out of articles, and I am striving to stay as neutral as I can be. I also agree that "asserting" is probably a better word than "suggesting" for RL: I was trying to use a word that sounded less strident, to keep POV out of it.

But nobody's "sneaking in" anything here: WP edits are all visible if you mark the page on your watchlist, and I labelled my edit clearly. I see that you've removed my edit that the term "Pallywood" is used only by some supporters of the State of Israel, which us puzzling. All mentions I can find of the word by Google search is of people who clearly identify themselves as pro-Israel; it's a loaded term by design, a joking comparison of journalism with Hollywood. So I think the edit should be reverted.

Also, I think subtle POV is introduced by only focussing on Palestinian spin, and not Israeli spin. It implies that Israel doesn't also habitually manage news video footage, which is incorrect.

This topic should really be a new section in the existing entry for Media_coverage_of_the_Israeli-Palestinian_conflict. Focussing only on the spin of one side in this particular media war is POV, whether intended or not. --Virago 13:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I think allegations of media spin or falsification should be substantiated - the burden of proof should be on those who make them, and whether or not they are "pro-Israel" or "pro-Palestinian" is irrelevant - as per the ad hominem argument. As a now excised sentence makes clear, one could make a credible case that Pallywood hurts the Palestinians as much as it hurts the Israelis. By the same token, we don't get neutrality by simply writing that "if one party does it, the other is probably equally culpable of doing something equally bad." --Leifern 15:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Are you seriously suggesting that the Israeli govt doesn't engage in fakery and spin on news video footage? They must be the only govt on earth opting out.  :)

Before I go digging out the links, please give me an idea of what sort of proof would convince you that that Israelis have repeatedly engaged in the same practice.

You wrote: "and whether or not they are "pro-Israel" or "pro-Palestinian" is irrelevant - as per the ad hominem argument."

It's definitely relevant here, because by calling fake & spun video from the P-I conflict "Pallywood", Dr. Landes (and by consequence this new Wiki page) is implying that this practice is unique to the Palestinians. As he has openly declared his bias, he can't be considered to be making a verifiable observation: he's simply asserting an interesting opinion with no attempt made to hide his bias. The only two WP pages that link here use it in exactly this sense:

• Media_coverage_of_the_Israeli-Palestinian_conflict "Outright forgery - video footage, quotes, and other items are fabricated to bias the presentation. See Pallywood for such allegations."
• Muhammad_al-Durrah "I came to the realization that Palestinian cameramen, especially when there are no Westerners around, engage in the systematic staging of action scenes," (Landes) said, calling the footage "Pallywood cinema".

This article as it stands is therefore presently unverifiable, primarily based as it is on repetition of an openly POV statement from a historian. I'd be happy to work with you to try to edit it into a useful and non-POV article, and I hope you'll read my tone here as one of respectful disagreement, and not picking a fight. Thanks, --Virago 17:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Well, Landes makes available lots of raw footage and reports from supposedly independent observers. As I said, I think he has the burden of proof here, but I think it should be up to the reader to determine whether he meets it or not. I am not suggesting that the Israeli government is beyond criticism, but by the same token I wouldn't want to treat it as a foregone conclusion that they fabricate video footage, etc. If there are websites that seek to prove such conduct by Israelis, we should link to it just as this one links to Brandes's website. I am not suggesting that we stick such allegations under a chair, but this article is about one type of alleged Palestinian manipulation that has gotten a term. As such, I think it should be short and clearly put in the right context, with links to make it easy for readers to get a more complete story. --Leifern 19:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure wether it's important or not, but among Norwegian tourists visiting Israel (these religious trips) there's a story of a well-know Norwegian reporter asking an Arab* if he could gather some young boys for stonethrowing, as it was months since his last "dramatic" report from Israel. It's a couple of years ago, but this cleraly states that some wesetern reporters dosen't hesistate to create the news they want.

• He works and live in Jerusalem, and is married to a Norwegian women and this couple is well-know among those travelling with Christian groups , but not with the reporters, and thats how the story emerged.--84.202.94.88 15:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that alleged seems inappropriate given the evidence is available. There is video footage of "dead" rising again off their bier on their way to their funeral, for example. And we are beyond "spin." We have entered the world in which events are staged with actors for the camera. 2nd draft has footage in which a director is seen discussing and coaching his new actor for her appearance. They speak about her actual delivery at the hospital and the health of her baby even as she is coached to claim her baby died because she gave birth at checkpoint. This has also been seen in the recent war in Lebanon.

Used by....

I don't think you can substantiate that those who use the term "Pallywood" do it because they somehow are against the Palestinian cause. For example, I am surely in favor of Palestinian human rights, economic development, political independence, cultural expression, etc., but I use the term to describe a phenomenon that should be unacceptable in any free society, no matter who it benefits or hurts. It is reprehensible for anyone who is interested in the truth, as it should be. Obviously, one can debate the merits of the allegations, which is why Landes et al make a huge effort to document them; but trying to discredit them by speculating about the allegiance of those who make them is an ad hominem that has no place here. --Leifern 12:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Reasons for saying anything can't be proven, but I can't find the term used by anyone who can be described as leaning towards the Palestinians, and of the openly anti-Palestinian sources on the web the term is not universally used. Can you provide any examples of the word "Pallywood" being used in a neutral account of the conflict? Failing that, we must conclude that its use is restricted to a subset of openly non-neutral critics of the Palestinian media. Reverting edit. --Virago 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Please sign talk contributions. You have the burden of proof, not me, on who the people are who are making these allegations. I don't want to get into a revert war here, but the article should be terse and describe the term, explain what its basis, and avoid editorial asides. I can make a very strong case that the Pallywood phenomenon damages the Palestinians more than the Israelis and benefits absolutely nobody. --Leifern 12:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Apologies for omitting signature. The term was coined by somebody who openly declares a bias, and is used only by people who likewise openly declare their bias. It's not universally used, and is intentionally derogatory. Therefore to avoid bringing in POV, its limited use must be explicitly stated in order to understand the term properly. --Virago 12:59, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

POV

POV tag added following yet another revert. Let's try to find our way to a compromise without revert wars please. Thanks. --Virago 13:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I suppose we need to distinguish between the phenomenon - which, if true, is an affront to the free press anywhere; and the use of the term, which as we agree is a derogatory epithet. I do not thing that we can say that those who coined it are against the Palestinian cause. It is probably safe to say that they want Israeli policy toward Palestinians to be presented in a factual, fair, and unbiased light, but I wouldn't hope that places them in any particular camp. If asked if they want Palestinian policy to be placed in a factual, fair, and unbiased light, they'd probably say they want that too.Leifern

Well you do have a point that the wording is "epithet", not "phenomenon". I don't believe that Landes is anti-Palestinian, in fact it was Ynhockey (who claims to be an Israeli in the IDF) who changed "supporters of the State of Israel" to "opponents of the Palestinian cause", which is not accurate IMO. Neither description is precise enough really- just a fact of life in an issue this complex.

As far as all people in the pro-Israel and pro-Palestine debate camps wanting policy to be placed in a factual, fair, and unbiased light, well, in every conflict there are people and groups who want propaganda & dogma, not balance. As far as I'm aware I don't favor either group in the conflict: I'm just a Wikipedia fan trying to improve it. But we're never objective about our own latent prejudices.

Anyway, fair point. POV tag removed. PS: Remember to sign your contributions. :) --Virago 13:51, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I wrote that they would "say" that they would want that - of course, all propagandists will promise that they aren't promoting propaganda, merely the truth. --Leifern 14:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I also want all info regarding the conflict to be presented in a fair, factual and unbiased manner. I changed the 'supporters of the State of Israel' for 2 main reasons: The fact that the opposite ('opponents of the State of Israel') would mean people who don't recognize its right to exist, making the phrase offensive to Israelis; and the ambiguity of the sentence (it can mean supporting Israel's right to exist, or it can mean supporting the Israeli government policies, or a bunch of other things). In the end it's not really important to me how the sentence is worded as long as it's not offensive to either side. -- Ynhockey 15:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Adoption of the term

I changed the wording a bit on the general use of the term "Pallywood" and removed the citation needed. A google search on the term yields 199,000 hits, of which only a minority refer to the film. I think it's safe to say that the term's usage is expanded beyond the film that coined it. --Leifern 14:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Makes sense. Here are a couple of examples that seemed convincing enough to me: [1], [2], [3]. While I am not familiar with these sources and not sure about their reliability, the term seems to have been widely adopted. OTOH, I'd like to see where does the assertion that "pallywood" is a well-defined term come from. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 20:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

This was posted on my (Kosmopolis') talk page by Ynhockey:

Hi, please stop removing definitions of Pallywood which were not invented by Landes himself. While Landes may have been referring specifically to Palestinians, the term has since then gained widespread use regarding non-Palestinian Arab media manipulation as well, notably Adnan Hajj. Even a simple Google search reveals that many websites refer to Adnan Hajj's photos as Pallywood (or in some cases Hezbollywood, a derived term). Yes it's true that the name Pallywood itself implies the Palestinians, like many words it grew out of its original meaning into something broader. There is no proof whatsoever that Pallywood now refers exclusively to Palestinian media manipulation. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 17:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

My response:

Ynhockey, you are saying yourself that Dr. Landes refers specifically to Palestinians. End of story! A "simple Google search reveals" nothing, only that there are people like you who have the same ill-founded understanding of "Pallywood". Pallywood is a well-defined term and has always been. You are free to start a new topic "Hezbollywood" for that particular neologism, but please don't mix up well-defined terms and bend their definitions to what you perceive them to be. Thanks. Kosmopolis 19:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC) Addendum for Humus sapiens: The assertion that "Pallywood" is well-defined comes from the definition given by the guy who invented this neologism, namely Dr. Landes. He explicitly says [4]: "The term "Pallywood" refers to the staging of scenes by Palestinian journalists in order to present the Palestinians as hapless victims of Israeli aggression." So why would one include e.g. a claim by the International Committee of the Red Cross in the "Pallywood" context? Is the ICRC a Palestinian organization? Or is it a subsidiary of Hezbollah? Even if the ambulance strike is a hoax, was the IRCR's intention to present the Palestinians as hapless victims of Israeli aggression? If Iran put out a news report today, claiming that the Iranian Red Cross was attacked by Israel, would that also be "Pallywood", or rather "Iranywood"? Where do you draw the line? You see, you make the terrible mistake of indiscriminately putting down every report by whatever party that could be perceived as staged/faked and/or deliberately anti-Israel as "Pallywood". We *must* stick to the original definition, even more so because it is a neologism. There is a good reason that traditional encyclopedias wait for years before they accept neologisms as lemmata.

Another post from my talk page:

Sorry for butting in here (this discussion might be better if moved to Talk:Pallywood), but I'll just note that Pallywood probably should only refer to Palestinians, but that it is indeed used for other performances. Perhaps the entire article should be merged into Media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? --GunnarRene 21:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I strongly support GunnarRene's proposal. Kosmopolis 21:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd just like to clarify that Wikipedia must reflect reality as it can be verified (i.e. actual use of the term) and not just what it should mean. The originator of the term does not have a monopoly on defintion, although his usage should be have heavy weight. I support my own proposal, by the way :-) --GunnarRene 21:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

GunnarRene, the problem of verifiability is exactly the reason why I think that the term should be here either according to the original definition or not at all, at least not while it is totally unstable. Kosmopolis 22:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

We can agree to disagree but let me propose a compromise, hopefully acceptable to all. Let's reflect the "original definition" and note (with refs of course) that this word is/was used in a wider context. We should reflect reality based on reliable sources and it's not up to us to decide what should or should not happen. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

What you're saying is true, but I say merge it with Media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict lest this becomes a content fork/POV fork.--GunnarRene 23:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Humus, I appreciate your trying to resolve the issue, but I would like to point out that your approach is bound to result in a WP:OR mess. Not only do you "provide or presume new definitions of pre-existing terms" (which is done already, implicitly), but also I cannot see which reputable source you would use to back up your claim that the term is was/used in a wider context? A Google search? An arbitrary number of blog posts? I say stick to the Pal in "Pallywood". Why do you think the Red Cross incident (hoax or not) is an example for it? Again, I am afraid you make the terrible mistake of indiscriminately putting down every report by whatever party that could be perceived as staged/faked and/or deliberately anti-Israel as "Pallywood". Don't do it. GunnarRene's proposal is a clear-cut solution. Kosmopolis 01:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I said nothing about merging and it is not what is discussed in this section. Back to the subject:

1. There is no formal definition (Landes doesn't own the term)
2. The semantics of the term is evolving as we speak
3. I didn't mention the Red Cross or Google search
4. Please explain how reliable sources and refs are "bound to result in a WP:OR mess" ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

In case you did not notice, GunnarRene *has* already proposed a merge. I reaffirmed it below. Back to the subject:

1. So you admit to using the term for whatever fits your own definition? That's not exactly encyclopedic, isn't it? You may notice that it is even less encyclopedic to try and guess which definition stands at the current moment.
2. Please provide reliable sources for your claims that "the semantics is evolving", allegedly in the broad and imprecise direction you suspect them to.
3. The Red Cross incident is included in the article as an example. I removed it. You included it, again. Why do you think it is an example for "Pallywood"? Is the ICRC a Palestinian organisation?
4. Which reputable and reliable sources (other than some random blog posts of the kind you already provided) would you use to back up your claim that the term is was/used in a wider context? Bear in mind that you "provide or presume new definitions of pre-existing terms", which is part of the definition of WP:OR.

Kosmopolis 02:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't have my "own definition". BTW, there is plenty of Palestinians in Lebanon, so maybe this whole "Adoption of the term" argument is a moot point.

About ICRC: we are talking about an ambulance, and not about ICRC headquarters in Geneva. Your "Is the ICRC a Palestinian organisation?" is a strawman. Do you know for sure that there was no Palestinian related to this incident?

The 3 sources above are a result of a quick search. As I said, they are good enough to illustrate a point at talk. I'll try to look for better ones, it may take some time. No need to jump yet. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 03:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The three sources are neither reliable nor reputable, it is a random bunch of biased weblogs linking to the Landes video and associating the events in Lebanon to what Landes presents. I guess you will not find anything else. About ICRC: Forget the strawman, I did not expect an answer to that question. I do expect an answer to why you think the incident is an example. I will stand by Landes' definition: "The term "Pallywood" refers to the staging of scenes by Palestinian journalists in order to present the Palestinians as hapless victims of Israeli aggression." Nothing more, nothing less. No Arab conspiracy, no ICRC, no Hezbollah staging. You make the terrible mistake (like those bloggers you quote) of indiscriminately labeling every report by whatever party that could be perceived as staged/faked and/or deliberately anti-Israel as "Pallywood". I hope you realize the difference. Kosmopolis 04:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify: whatever we write should be supported by reliable and verifiable sources. Let's try not to make this personal. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, "whatever we write should be supported by reliable and verifiable sources". Unfortunately, the three sources you quote are neither reliable nor reputable. Based on that fact, I will remove the "examples" from the lists as long as you do not provide a reliable source that supports the claim that the Hezbollah related incidents are examples for "Pallywood". Kosmopolis 15:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I just think it's fascinating how people get very busy editing Israel-related articles on Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur.... If people use it, they use it. I think only disreputable people call the separation barrier an "apartheid wall," but I don't think I'd get anywhere making that an argument for deleting any reference to it. --Leifern 23:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I will remove the "examples" from the lists as long as you do not provide a reliable source that supports the claim that the Hezbollah related incidents are examples for "Pallywood". "Apartheid wall" vs. "Separation barrier" or other Israel-related articles are irrelevant in this context. Please stick to the topic. Kosmopolis 09:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

You're begging the question, Kosmopolis. The term Pallywood relates to attempts at discrediting Israel by faking news reports, through photographs, staged events, etc., etc. Like everything else, it's a term to describe documented events, and it is just silly to ask for evidence from "reliable sources" that the meaning of the term has expanded to include also this. I don't know if it really matters - there are plenty of other articles on the fraudulent news reporting from Lebanon as well, but it would be naive to think that Hizballah didn't learn from Fatah and Hamas how to fool the Western media.--Leifern 12:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Your arguments suggest that you have a strong POV. Keep in mind that you arbitrarily declare some actions as Pallywood and others not, based on either your own liking (see WP:NPOV), your own findings (see WP:OR) or on what some random bloggers seem to associate with the term (see WP:RS). You distort the meaning by totally disregarding who is doing the alleged faking. I ask you again, if Iranian media put out a report today, claiming that Israel attacked the Iranian Red Cross, would that also be "Pallywood"? Since your re-definition mentions "Arab cameramen", would you expand it to "Arab and Persian cameramen"? If the Russians did it, what would that be? Also, please don't label my edits as "attempts at burying" information and consider reviewing WP:AGF. I have brought forward clear arguments, and besides numbers from Google searches, your own feelings of "think[ing] it's safe to say that the term's usage is expanded beyond the film", you haven't brought up anything convincing, yet. Thanks. Kosmopolis 13:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Let me know when you're done with your pissing contest so we can get on with editing the article.--Leifern 13:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Please see WP:NPA. Thanks. Kosmopolis 17:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Kosmopolis, your self-righteousness does you little service. You were the one who accused me of having a POV, threw in some wikilawyering, and accused me arbitrary editing, put words in my mouth, and not paying attention to what I actually wrote. There are no personal attacks involved in characterizing actions, and your accusations had devolved to petty bickering (aka pissing contests) which I had no interest in engaging in. --Leifern 17:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Merge proposal

As per GunnarRene, I officially propose merging this article into Media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The term is a neologism whose context, scope and usage is related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Kosmopolis 02:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The link in the template points to Talk:Media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but since the discussion is here...

I don't see a good reason to merge, on the contrary: I see good reasons to keep them apart. The article Media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a full-fledged article about all kinds of media. There is so much ground to cover there and the topic is so contentious that at some point it was significantly reduced and rewritten. While the phenomenon of "Pallywood" is partly related to media coverage, to a large degree it is a development in cinematography to be listed and analyzed individually. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 03:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Humus here; Pallywood is a unique term and concept. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I also agree with Humus. And I'll add my prediction that more will come to light to make this a pretty meaty article over time. --Leifern 13:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Your prediction is probably right, but untill then I say we merge it into the relevant articles and then split again when that information becomes available. Subsidiary choice: Move Pallywood to Israeli-Paliestinian conflict media hoaxes or Arab-Israeli conflict media hoaxes, or indeed a daughter article of Hoax --GunnarRene 14:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

That is not where I headed. The topic is notable enough in itself and should not be buried. --Leifern 14:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Although Adnan Hajj photographs controversy, 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict photographs controversies, Pallywood, and Media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict cover similar areas, each covers a different phenomenon. It might be okay to have even broader topics (Media coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict, Arab-Israeli conflict media hoaxes) and do merges from there, but, as of now, I think these four categories are sufficiently different, and the proposed merges would make for two weak articles instead of four strong ones. Calbaer 15:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

They should be covered and analyzed individually and separately. Although they are somewhat related, they are different issues/titles. --Shamir1 18:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Notability questions

I'd like to return to an issue that came up during the recent AfD discussion: the question of notability. Several of the contributors to the discussion asserted that the subject of the article was notable, but without explaining why. I'm still not convinced that is notable. I'm open to persuasion, though, so I'd like to ask other contributors for their thoughts.

I think there are possibly four angles to the subject matter of the article, each one of which raises some questions:

1) The general issue of alleged media manipulation. The subject is clearly notable, but it's already addressed in considerable detail at Media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Why is this a separate article rather than a subsection of the "Media coverage" article?

2) The neologism "Pallywood". I'm not convinced that this neologism is notable. As the references show, it's barely been mentioned by the mainstream media. It's certainly not being used regularly by any media source that I can find, and only certain partisan bloggers seem to be using it regularly. If the use of a term is almost entirely confined to non-notable, non-reliable sources, is that term really notable?

I have had a look for mainstream mentions of "Pallywood", particularly with regard to whether it is an acceptable title for an article about allegations of media manipulation (see poll below). Google scholar throws up one reference (Steinberg) but the mention is in an endnote to Second Draft ("Nidra Poller, ‘Myth, Fact, and the al-Dura Affair’, Commentary, September 2005; see also

http://seconddraft.org/streaming/pallywood.wmv."), and a Lexis Nexis search finds 17 references in English language news:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Should probably also point out WP:NEO:

Support for article contents, including the use and meaning of neologisms, must come from reliable sources. Wikipedia is a tertiary source that includes material on the basis of verifiability, not truth. To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term. (Note that Wiktionary is not considered to be a reliable source for this purpose.)

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

An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs and books that use the term) are insufficient to support use of (or articles on) neologisms because this is analysis and synthesis of primary source material (which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy). To paraphrase Wikipedia:Attribution: If you have research to support the inclusion of a term in the corpus of knowledge that is Wikipedia, the best approach is to arrange to have your results published in a peer-reviewed journal or reputable news outlet and then document your work in an appropriately non-partisan manner.

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

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

3) Richard Landes' film "Pallywood". This definitely seems to fail notability requirements. It's really only a personally authored video essay (only 17 minutes long, I gather). I've never seen it reviewed in any reliable source, it has no IMDB entry, it's purely self-distributed, etc. The fact that it's entirely a self-published work raises questions about whether we should be citing it in the first place (see also point 4). What makes it notable?

4) Richard Landes' political views. "Pallywood" the film is essentially a vehicle for Landes' personal political views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Landes is a medieval historian; he's not an expert on the I-P conflict, he's never published any academic papers or books on it, as far as I know he's not written newspaper articles about it and his self-published material appears not to have been quoted by any mainstream sources that I've come across. His own user page at Boston University makes no mention of his Middle Eastern activism [5]. In short, it appears to be an entirely private endeavour, separate from anything he's doing academically. Clearly this falls well outside the scope set out by WP:ATT: "Where a well-known, professional researcher, writing within his or her field of expertise has produced self-published material, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as his or her work has been previously published by reliable, third-party publications" (my bolding). Why are Landes' personal views notable, given that he's acting in a personal capacity outside his field of expertise and doesn't seem to be regarded by mainstream sources as an expert (or even a reliable source) on Middle Eastern affairs?

I think there's a strong rationale for saying that Landes' film and political views aren't notable, but as I said, I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise. What do the rest of you think? -- ChrisO 00:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reliable sourcing

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

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

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

3. [Updated] Seconddraft.org is not a reliable source. There's absolutely no indication of who's behind it (see http://www.seconddraft.org/about_us.php ). Richard Landes is mentioned, but not in terms of actually running or owning the website. According to [6], the website is a personal self-published project by Richard Landes (although I note that it doesn't attribute its authorship!). WP:SELFPUB: "A self-published source is material that has been published by the author, or whose publisher is a vanity press, a web-hosting service, or other organization that provides little or no editorial oversight. Personal websites and messages either on USENET or on Internet bulletin boards are considered self-published. With self-published sources, no one stands between the author and publication; the material may not be subject to any form of fact-checking, legal scrutiny, or peer review. Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published and then claim to be an expert in a certain field; visiting a stranger's personal website is often the online equivalent of reading an unattributed flyer on a lamp post. For that reason, self-published material is largely not acceptable." None of the subsequent exceptions seem to be met either.

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

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

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

[Added] Looking into this further, I found [7] which gives some background into Landes' work on the I-P issue - it's very clear that this is a personal political project, not something to do with his area of expertise. It's clearly outside the boundaries set by WP:SELFPUB. -- ChrisO 12:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

POV pushing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

POV edits

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Avoiding an edit war

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

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

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

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

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

ChrisO:

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

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

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

News fabrication also here

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

By some

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Frontpagemag article

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

Alleged examples

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

.......... To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term.

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

.......... An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs and books that use the term) are insufficient to support use of (or articles on) neologisms because this is analysis and synthesis of primary source material (which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy)".

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

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

"Conservative and neo-conservative"

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

3RR

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

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

Question for Jayjg

(copied to Jayjg's talk page)

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

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

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

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