Talk:Pallywood/Archive 1

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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A and B can be joined together in an article in order to advance position C. However, that would be an example of an unpublished synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and it constitutes original research.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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: POV pushing

message: 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)
thread_title:  News fabrication also here 

message: 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)
thread_title: Frontpagemag article

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Conservative and neo-conservative" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: 3RR

message: (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)
thread_title: Question for Jayjg