Talk:Pallywood/Archive 2

message: Chris, why do you say Landes originated the term (not sure that's very good English)? SlimVirgin (talk) 23:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't worry, I'll forgive the grammar. ;-) You have a good point... Landes himself isn't very enlightening (see ). I've found an isolated example of the term being used in 2002 (). The first mention of the term in connection with Landes that I've been able to find is here, in French ( ). I suspect that the term may have been invented on multiple occasions - it's not exactly original to portmanteau-ise Hollywood with something else (compare Nollywood, Tollywood and Kollywood for examples). But the first reliable usage of the term that I've been able to find is Landes himself. I think Leifern's current version of the "origins" section is fair enough - we don't really have enough evidence to tie it directly to Landes, but he certainly seems to have been the chief populariser of the term. -- ChrisO 23:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel that we're adding OR to the article by trying to guess where it was first used. I know that it's been used by ME commentators for many years, but where we'd find that written down, I don't know. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, take a look at this, from Boston U's own internal newspaper:  It says specifically "Landes claimed many scenes of violence against Palestinians are staged and coined the term "Pallywood" to describe the industry that produces this footage." Since it's obviously sourced to Landes himself (who's interviewed in the article) I think we have our reliable source. -- ChrisO 00:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Chris, you're continuing to revert.  Any undoing of another editor's work is a revert; see WP:3RR. By all means, add material, but please don't keep undoing my edits. Would you mind putting that material back where it was? We shouldn't start with Landes as though he invented the term, because he clearly didn't. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Umm, no, that's not a revert. I'm not undoing your edit, I'm simply changing its order in the paragraph. 100% of your words are still in the article - nothing whatsoever has been removed. Regarding starting with Landes, it seems the logical thing to do given that Landes' usage of the term is basically what the entire article is about. I suppose I could live with it being at the start of the paragraph though. -- ChrisO 00:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Any undoing of another editor's work counts toward 3RR. Please read the policy. I added that material to the beginning of the section for a reason, namely that I wanted it to be there, and you've moved it. You keep wanting to draw attention to Landes as the first user, the first popularizer, whatever, and I think that's OR or, at best, not entirely clear. All I'm asking is that you add material without undoing what I've written, and I'll try to do the same for you. In that way, we can cooperate, instead of editing in conflict. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (I can't believe I'm having to do this.) Please go and look at http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Undo : "To reverse the effects of an action." Your edit was not reversed. 3RR does not prohibit amending an edit (unless "undoing" has suddenly acquired a meaning which isn't in the dictionary). Claiming that an amendment which kept 100% of your text intact - moving it down two lines - was a "reversion" is just silly. -- ChrisO 01:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Chris, what's your source for "Although Professor Richard Landes of Boston University has often been credited with coining the term ..." You gave only one example, the Molly Hunt article. Also, why start with "although," when you can simply start with what came first? Starting with "although" is you trying to build the case that Landes is the first usage that matters; it's OR. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Google for "pallywood landes coined". You'll find quite a lot of people crediting Landes, although from the look of it quite a few of them seem to be quoting the Molly Hunt article. As for Landes being "the first usage that matters", haven't we already effectively stated that (or at least Leifern has) with the line about Landes popularizing it? Popularizers do tend to be the first important users of a concept, surely? And I note that Jayjg seems to agree with my view given his latest edit to the article (). -- ChrisO 01:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Originating Pallywood?

message: here. Thanks. --Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 17:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No one seems to be talking about this article specifically.  I should like to point out that I intend to edit this article as an entry on a neologism (which arguably doesn't really need its own entry) and if we want an article about media manipulation/fabrication in the Arab/Palestinian-Israeli conflicts then we need to have a separate article with a much more neutral name (such as "Allegations of..." or "Media Manipulation in the Arab-Israeli Conflict").  Currently Media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (which could probably deal with this sufficiently) redirects here, which is inappropriate. --Coroebus 20:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I din't make myself clear, I meant that the Media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict article links to here for coverage of media falsifications, which is innappropriate. --Coroebus 11:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note: Please see the village pump policy discussion regarding the title of this article 

message: Here's the relevant section for future reference:
Since Hajj's work was discredited, the right-wing blogosphere has shifted into high gear, seeking out other potential instances of photo manipulation. Many are examining images from Qana, the site of an Israeli bombing last week where at least 28 civilians were killed. Others are digging into events in Gaza, claiming images from that Israeli-Palestinian conflict have been staged or edited for the cameras. Right-wing bloggers have dubbed that "Pallywood." --Coroebus 20:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Toronto Star Article 

message: Relevant section:
It is against this backdrop that the Dura family initially embraced its high-profile role. French television broadcast a now-iconic image of young Mohammed cowering in his father's arms before he was shot dead on Sept. 30, 2000. His father carries the scars of eight bullets that struck him, and his right hand is a ball of gnarled fingers he can't move.
There has been heated debate in recent years whether the Duras were even struck by Israeli bullets during the gunfight or whether they were instead hit by wild Palestinian gunfire. A campaign led in part by Boston University Professor Richard Landes has sought to portray the Dura case as an example of "Pallywood," or theatrical Palestinian propaganda.
But there's no question that Mohammed became the most famous "martyr" of the intifadah. His image was issued on postage stamps in Arab countries, and Algeria sponsored an international poetry festival in his memory.
 --Coroebus 22:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boston Globe Article 

message: I have shown that Jenin Jenin is also associated with Pallywood, and you have still chosen to revert, asking to 'include the source that makes the connection', even though it is not at all relevant to the sentence being sourced. It however relevant to the first source, and who has heard of a source for a source?
I think the issue here is not individual sources, but users trying to do anything in order to portray Pallywood as a term used exclusively by fringe extreme-right movements. Assuming you are not such a user Coroebus, please state valid reasons for removing a perfectly legitimate source.
-- Ynhockey (Talk) 13:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The alleged examples section already implies that Jenin Jenin is an example of Pallywood, while Richard Landes clearly makes the connection on his website. Including pages from Richard Landes's website (Second Draft.org) in the article's body is somewhat silly considering it's the first external link under 'further reading'. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 14:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Coroebus's [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pallywood&diff=115777440&oldid=115776625 revert]

message: What is this article about?  As I've said here there seems to be a conflict as to what different editors think this article is about.  It is titled "Pallywood" and says: 
The term Pallywood, a portmanteau of Palestinian and Hollywood, is used to refer to the alleged staging of news events by Palestinian and other cameramen to portray Israel in an unfavorable light.
Which suggests to me, and others, that the article is about the word "Pallywood" in a similar manner to Allegations of Israeli Apartheid being about the allegations.  Other seem to think that the article is about "staging of news events by Palestinian and other cameramen to portray Israel in an unfavorable light" per se.  If the latter is the case I would propose that the use of such a partisan neologism is unencyclopedic and that the article should be merged into Media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or renamed to something like Allegations of media manipulation in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.  How about a poll?
=== Vote 1, What is this article about? ===
* This article is about the term "Pallywood" only, and not events that may have been described as "Pallywood".
: Support --Coroebus 14:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: cf. Hafrada.--Coroebus 22:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

text: Reject - The term is nothing without the events the term describes.  --GHcool 21:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue was not mentioning RS references to X as "Pallywood", but rather to extensive discussion of X outside of the context of it being called "pallywood" (see below about "that may be reasonably described as "Pallywood" even if they have not verifiably been so described"). --Coroebus 21:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

text: Support - I don't know what "describable as such" means. Surely we can mention the fact that some RS used this term, if any. ←Humus sapiens ну? 20:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Describable as such is intended to mean that it may not be referred to as "Pallywood" but meets the general description (i.e. media fabrication in the context of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict) --Coroebus 21:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

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

text: Support --Coroebus 14:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Although I'd probably keep the "Pallywood" article (about the word only - pretty similar to the current article) even though, as a neologism this is against Wikipedia policy, because I think it is actually a useful service we can provide giving the meaning of new words and some context about their use. --Coroebus 22:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Reject - it's a distinct phenomenon from the coverage itself. --Leifern 01:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case you might want to consider adding your vote above ("Pallywood") or below ("Allegations of media manipulation in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict" or something similar). --Coroebus 12:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

text: Reject - two different, if related topics, TewfikTalk 19:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

text: I can't even parse the question. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The idea was that the three options (stay called "Pallywood", merge into [[Media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, or rename to something less POV, would cover all possible viewpoints - unfortunately everyone has voted support/oppose instead of picking one of the three options so it obviously wasn't that clear. --Coroebus 18:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

text: Reject Clear POV. It is not alleged. Calling things alleged is a way of discrediting facts.--Sefringle 03:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See Allegations of Israeli Apartheid.  In this case the incidents mentioned in the article are all controversial (Sabra and Shatila massacre, Temple Mount, Muhammad al-Dura, Battle of Jenin) and we would really be pushing the bounds to claim that they are unequivocal examples of Palestinian media fabrication!. --Coroebus 09:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Reject - two different, if related topics, TewfikTalk 19:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

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

text: As noted before, I'm okay with a different title, as long as Pallywood redirects to it. --Leifern 01:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. -- ChrisO 11:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Reject - currently, there's no better name for media fabrications produced by palestinains - the titls (allegations of) "media fabrications by palestianins to villify israel" would be a ridiculous and poor replacement for the current informative and well representing title to the phenomenon. for now, i suggest we keep this title in refrence to "controversial palestinian productions produced in order to villify israel". Jaakobou 21:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You probably didn't mean to put this here, meant to be under "Renamed Allegations of media manipulation in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (or something similar)"? --Coroebus 09:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification as to what this article is about 

message: * This article is about the term "Pallywood" only, and not events that may have been described as "Pallywood".
: Support --Coroebus 14:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: cf. Hafrada.--Coroebus 22:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

text: Reject - The term is nothing without the events the term describes.  --GHcool 21:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue was not mentioning RS references to X as "Pallywood", but rather to extensive discussion of X outside of the context of it being called "pallywood" (see below about "that may be reasonably described as "Pallywood" even if they have not verifiably been so described"). --Coroebus 21:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

text: Support - this is obviously key to discussion of the term (perhaps with PinchasC's caveat). TewfikTalk 19:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vote 1, What is this article about? 

message: * Called "Pallywood"
: Support - I don't know what "describable as such" means. Surely we can mention the fact that some RS used this term, if any. ←Humus sapiens ну? 20:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Describable as such is intended to mean that it may not be referred to as "Pallywood" but meets the general description (i.e. media fabrication in the context of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict) --Coroebus 21:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

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

text: Support --Coroebus 14:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Although I'd probably keep the "Pallywood" article (about the word only - pretty similar to the current article) even though, as a neologism this is against Wikipedia policy, because I think it is actually a useful service we can provide giving the meaning of new words and some context about their use. --Coroebus 22:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Reject - it's a distinct phenomenon from the coverage itself. --Leifern 01:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case you might want to consider adding your vote above ("Pallywood") or below ("Allegations of media manipulation in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict" or something similar). --Coroebus 12:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

text: Reject - two different, if related topics, TewfikTalk 19:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

text: I can't even parse the question. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The idea was that the three options (stay called "Pallywood", merge into [[Media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, or rename to something less POV, would cover all possible viewpoints - unfortunately everyone has voted support/oppose instead of picking one of the three options so it obviously wasn't that clear. --Coroebus 18:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

text: Reject Clear POV. It is not alleged. Calling things alleged is a way of discrediting facts.--Sefringle 03:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See Allegations of Israeli Apartheid.  In this case the incidents mentioned in the article are all controversial (Sabra and Shatila massacre, Temple Mount, Muhammad al-Dura, Battle of Jenin) and we would really be pushing the bounds to claim that they are unequivocal examples of Palestinian media fabrication!. --Coroebus 09:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Reject - two different, if related topics, TewfikTalk 19:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

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

text: As noted before, I'm okay with a different title, as long as Pallywood redirects to it. --Leifern 01:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. -- ChrisO 11:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Reject - currently, there's no better name for media fabrications produced by palestinains - the titls (allegations of) "media fabrications by palestianins to villify israel" would be a ridiculous and poor replacement for the current informative and well representing title to the phenomenon. for now, i suggest we keep this title in refrence to "controversial palestinian productions produced in order to villify israel". Jaakobou 21:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You probably didn't mean to put this here, meant to be under "Renamed Allegations of media manipulation in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (or something similar)"? --Coroebus 09:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vote 2, If this article was to be declared about the phenomenon of "Pallywood", including events describable as such, should it be 

message: From Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. "To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term."
I am concerned that this article is not built on reliable secondary sources about the term. Catchpole 08:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See also my detailed comments under #Notability questions above. I'm still waiting for a reply from the article's supporters. -- ChrisO 08:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Strictly speaking the handful of reliable sources that have mentioned the term are not using it but talking about it (see the Lexis Nexis newspaper hits I mention here. --Coroebus 09:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Catchpole, you have crossed the line into bad behavior now. This has been discussed ad nauseum, and it should be clear that this is not a dictionary entry, but an article about the phenomenon of staged and fraudulent media events. This is without question a notable topic within the broader issue. Your efforts to first redefine the topic to something ridiculously narrow and then disqualify it based on your new and novel interpretation have no place here. --Leifern 11:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've raised four specific concerns at #Notability questions. You haven't addressed any of them. Why? -- ChrisO 14:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

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

text: It is clearly not without question. A herd of bloggers posting "Pallywood" on each other's blogs is not inherently notable. Catchpole 17:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: what is clearly not without question is that wikipedia is supposed to give an explanation and examples on the very known term (150,000+ google hits) when someone looks for it. the "notability" questioning is ridiculous. Jaakobou 17:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't work like that - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate source of information. We've never relied on the number of Google hits to establish notability, and if you read WP:NOTABLE you'll see that a crude metric like that isn't included. Let me give you a comparable example. I've seen the term "Bushco" used on left-leaning blogs as a slang term for the George W. Bush administration. A Google search for "Bushco" shows 910,000 results, the vast majority of which are from anti-Bush bloggers. But the term doesn't seem to be used to refer to the Bush administration anywhere other than on blogs; consequently it's not notable, we don't have an article on it, and I'd never support the creation of one. "Pallywood" is in exactly the same category - in fact your evidence suggests that it's even less notable than "Bushco". -- ChrisO 23:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

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

text: Comment: Google searching is useful for establishing lack of notability, but much less notability.  However, I would like to note that "Pallywood -blog" on Google renders 21,000 results, meaning a vast majority of those might well be 155,000 hits are blogging or related activities.  But this is not my main complaint - please do not remove any tags until after discussion has been completed, unless it is in bad faith - and this is not bad faith.  This is a legitimate concern with a legitimate policy.  x42bn6 Talk 00:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Play the ball not the man. Feel free to supply reliable sources discussing Pallywood. The AfD discussion was closed as no consensus.Catchpole 17:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And that means "keep." SlimVirgin (talk) 17:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The ball here is whether or WP:NEO applies. You claim it applies here, yet edit in violation of it elsewhere. Which is it to be? Please state your viewpoints explicitly, so we know how seriously to take your alleged concern. Jayjg (talk) 17:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we please stay on the subject of this article? Are either of you going to address the questions at Talk:Pallywood#Notability questions? -- ChrisO 18:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Notability concerns

message: If a user removes the Noteability tag before this discusion above is concluded I will block them for edit waring. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 01:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ...Which would be 1) overturned as baseless and 2) made with a conflict of interest. This certainly looks notable and deserving of an entry to me. Picaroon 01:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you could add your comments on the Talk:Pallywood#Notability questions above, in that case. We have an endless parade of people saying "this is notable" but never saying why other than "it gets Google hits".. Let's get the why on the record. -- ChrisO 01:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: With pleasure. Picaroon 02:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Betacommand, you've restored the tag twice, so you can't take admin action in relation to this article for awhile. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Note

message: Friday, which bits do you think are OR? SlimVirgin (talk) 17:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind, I just thought it might be a better description of the concerns people had.  Didn't want to seem like I was ignoring talk page discussion.  I don't have much opinion on the content issue.  Friday (talk) 18:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, fair enough. I've removed it because everything looks as though it's pretty well-sourced now. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: OR

message: The subject is clearly notable, but it's already addressed in considerable detail at Media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Why is this a separate article rather than a subsection of the "Media coverage" article? -- ChrisO 00:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also think - in fairness to media organizations, reporters, etc., who are accused of being biased in their presentation of news from the region - that there is a difference between reporting facts in a biased way, and engaging in fraud for propaganda purposes. In other words, this topic isn't primarily about "coverage" - it's about propaganda of the worst possible kind. --Leifern 19:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alleged media manipulation in general

message: from the "media coverage" acticle:
Outright forgery - video footage, quotes, and other items are fabricated to bias the presentation. See Pallywood for such allegations.
for the umpteenth time: "media coverage" is too wide an article (as it should include worldwide media) to give a broad perspective account to palestianian produced stagings intended to villify israel or the term pallywood and it's common usage... i'd perhaps be supportive in a basic description (similar to the way History of Israel is written inside Israel) under a title of "Palestinain Produced Hate-Art against Israel" or "palestinian media manipulations and productions", but that would not negate the way the Pallywood article is currently written. Jaakobou 19:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also think - in fairness to media organizations, reporters, etc., who are accused of being biased in their presentation of news from the region - that there is a difference between reporting facts in a biased way, and engaging in fraud for propaganda purposes. In other words, this topic isn't primarily about "coverage" - it's about propaganda of the worst possible kind. --Leifern 19:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Responses to this question

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

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

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

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

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: The results of our discussions about what this article is actually about seem to be that it is about the phenomenon of "Pallywood", including those events that may be reasonably described as "Pallywood" even if they have not verifiably been so described and (through the negative approach of voting against any alternative) that it should be Called "Pallywood".  Now I completely disagree with what seems like the victory of partisan politics over consistency, but so be it.  
In which case, the article itself does not seem to represent what most people think it is supposed to be about, in particular, it reads as being about the word "Pallywood", and Landes's film in particular.  So I've very roughly cut the article up a bit here as a sandbox to reflect the sort of structure I think it should have.  Please comment/contribute. --Coroebus 16:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that replacing every section with one line really follows from the discussion above. I'm not sure what your vision was, but you may want to reread the Talk. Cheers, TewfikTalk 06:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: it's not "horrible", but it's lacking and i don't see a reason to exchange it with the current better version. Jaakobou 10:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Each section is currently lacking because the current article has so little that is actually on the subject.  If we are going to say the article is notable because it is about Palestinian propaganda the text should be about that - not the "strawman" topics above of Landes' film and the word itself. --Coroebus 20:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: it's getting tiresome to debate what's in and what's out in such a  manner, i thought we've gotten some type of consensus and i believe any further conversation should wait until this article (and the general subject) is further contributed to considering the hangup caused by all the recent two month(!) long debate. Jaakobou 11:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I think it is useful to have a general structure we can all agree on - after all much of teh argument was on what the article was actually about - it seems silly to then decide that we don't care what state teh article is in - for instance, I would want to expand on the 'examples' section since that is what the article is essentially about, whereas we currently focus excessively on Landes and his film.  --Coroebus 14:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: if you want to expand on something, go ahead and do it... or at least write it first on the talk page if you're uncertain about it's validity in the article. Jaakobou 10:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sandbox 

message: This section says "citation needed."  Indeed.  But can someone explain how this would qualify as an example of "pallywood"?--G-Dett 21:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I simply expanded the examples of pallywood previously in the article.  If a reference cannot be found then it should go. --Coroebus 21:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text: In that the massacre had little to do with Israel, and was not conducted by Israel, but was still portrayed by the media as an Israeli action, failing to mention the Lebanese militias who actually committed the massacre. It doesn't necessarily satisfy our definition of (news events alleged to have been staged by Palestinian and other cameramen to portray Israel in an unfavorable light), but it is indeed a perversion of a real event (not staged) to portray Israel in an unfavorable light. Granted, I don't mind if you remove the section (I didn't add it anyway), but the above is probably the rationale used for adding it originally. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 21:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are there people editing this article who believe the term "Pallywood" should include any media coverage alleged by some to be biased against Israel?  Whether or not the coverage is Palestinian, and whether or not it allegedly involves staging?--G-Dett 21:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and they'll probably be by in a minute to revert you. --Coroebus 21:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone's going to revert-war over unsourced material not directly related to the article topic?--G-Dett 21:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hard to believe, but there it is. The story of this article's development has been one long series of violations of WP:SOAP. -- ChrisO 21:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe you've mistaken this article for Allegations of Israeli apartheid. Jayjg (talk) 23:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that would be WP:POINT, like your creation of all the "Allegations of x apartheid" articles. But we won't get onto that topic here. -- ChrisO 23:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your sentence is unclear, and I believe I created only one of the seven "Allegations of apartheid" articles, so your claim is false as well. And if you don't want to get into something here, then don't, instead of doing the opposite. Jayjg (talk) 23:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sabra and Shatila?!