Talk:Pallywood/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Moving on. Media in the Gaza Strip?

Um, what's this doing here?--G-Dett 21:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe SlimVirgin answered the question somewhere above. It's relevant to the article to outline the possible causes of Pallywood, among other things. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 21:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Isn't this an example of original research, though? Does any reliable source actually link the pay rates for Palestinian cameramen to the alleged (let's get our terminology right here) incidents of media manipulation? -- ChrisO 21:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

You don't need to have a source saying that salaries have to do with Pallywood in order to put the info in the article. The fact that they do have higher salaries (as long as that is sourced) means that WP:OR is not violated. As you can see, the article does not mention any direct link between that and Pallywood, it simply presents the facts, in a proper WP:NOR and WP:NPOV manner. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 21:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I stand ready to be corrected by anyone who speaks German, but from what I can gather from the discussion above, the original article insinuates – but doesn't say – that Palestinian photojournalists are not to be trusted because of their salaries. What I can't understand is how someone thought it would be good NPOV practice for us to simply adopt that insinuation for our own article. Not even attribute it, just adopt it.--G-Dett 22:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

It's called Poisoning the well and is unacceptable in the encyclopaedia. "Poisoning the well is a logical fallacy where adverse information about someone is pre-emptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing everything that person is about to say. Poisoning the well is a special case of argumentum ad hominem." PalestineRemembered 22:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The definition does seem to fit this circumstance, if that's how the German article is being used. If someone is explicitly making the link, we should say so: "so-and-so argues that Palestinian photojournalists are not to be trusted because of their salaries". But insinuating a link is plainly not compliant with NPOV. I suggest we should take this section out, unless a reliable source making a direct connection can be found. -- ChrisO 22:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The article doesn't say that as such; it discusses the concept of Pallywood, discusses that the international media relies on Palestinian cameramen for images from these areas, and discusses what a sought-after position it is for financial reasons as well as political. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

That is a reliable source making a direct connection, Chris. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Then we need an in-line cite at the very least. Whatever its context in the original article, in our article right now it functions as insinuation.--G-Dett 22:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

What connection is this reliable source making? And what point are we making by relaying it so prominently, at the very head of the article?--G-Dett 23:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

It sounds more like an indirect connection to me. If I understand you correctly, the article is saying in separate places that (to paraphrase) "Palestinian cameramen fake footage" and "Palestinian cameramen are paid a lot of money relative to their peers". But does it say "Palestinian cameramen fake footage because they are paid a lot of money relative to their peers"? If it doesn't, we're merely repeating someone else's insinuation. If it does, we need to cite and attribute that explicitly. -- ChrisO 23:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

There is an inline citation. The source discusses that Palestinian cameramen are used exclusively rather than the networks sending in their own people; that it's a lucrative position for Palestinians; and that the reliance on local freelance cameramen has led to allegations of Pallywood. I don't see a problem here. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

It plainly doesn't make the connection directly. It states an apparent fact: "To work as a cameraman for western media is considered to be one of the most lucrative jobs in the Palestinian areas. Some earn up to $250 in a day. Some Palestinian extended families do not even earn as much in a half year." Then it goes on to describe alleged incidents of faked incidents, and finally it discusses the term "Pallywood". At no point does it make a direct connection: it states a fact, then an allegation, and leaves the reader to make the connection. That's plainly an insinuation. BTW, for the non-German readers, see the rough but understandable Google translation of the German article at [1] . -- ChrisO 23:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The source discusses the issue in relation to the topic. That it's discussed in relation to the topic means it passes muster in terms of the NOR policy, which explicitly addresses this point. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Could you point out where NOR addresses this point? Actually the problem with this section seems to me to be with NPOV, not NOR (specifically WP:NPOV#Attributing and substantiating biased statements). Repeating an insinuation would seem to violate at least the spirit of this policy and probably the letter too. -- ChrisO 23:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Slim, why did you revert me without comment? Why don't you want a contextualizing quote from the article? It's all that makes sense of the information showcased in this section.--G-Dett 23:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I should have known when I got an edit conflict that it would be G-Dett. I'd not looked at G-Dett's contributions since I last escaped from a talk page s/he was disrupting, but I see things haven't changed much: still only 299 edits to the encyclopedia, but around 1200 to user and article talk. [2] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

G-Dett, your "quote" didn't provide any context regarding "Pallywood"; it seemed quite obviously intended to make an entirely different point. In any event, it's highly dubious at best to try to present "quotations" in English from a German language original. Best to just summarize the author's points, as is done. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense, Jay. First of all, it's not my quote, but the journalist's. Secondly, it does indeed provide context for "Pallywood," unlike your "summary," which provides irrelevant insinuations. Thirdly, if you want me to provide the original German, I'll do so. If you wish to avoid foreign-language sources, I quite understand and we'll delete the source entirely. --G-Dett 01:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, the quotation doesn't seem to be about Pallywood at all, and its best not to invent quotations from foreign language sources, but instead paraphrase their contents. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The quotation from the source may well not be about Pallywood, but you're insisting we keep a section that isn't about Pallywood either, but about Palestinian cameramen's earning potential. The only connection made with Pallywood is that it is in an article that later talks about the term. I think we should be very wary of including things because, even though it doesn't make any explicit links, we think there is some subtext in the original article. Down that road original research and 'textual analysis' lies. For what it's worth, reading the article I can't see any implication that their earning potential leads to fabrication, although it is difficult to see why else it is there, perhaps just adding context. --Coroebus 09:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

You're accusing me of "inventing" the quote, Jay?--G-Dett 02:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I am certain the author was not speaking English. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

"Translate" is the word you're looking for. "Invent" sounds like you're doubting my honesty, and your glibness in using it raises serious questions about your own.--G-Dett 02:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

When you put it in quotes like that, you are implying that he actually said that. It is an invented quote. Also, please avoid further violations of WP:CIVIL. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any useful purpose to posting ad hominems. I don't know and I don't particularly care what edits G-Dett has made elsewhere; (s)he has made some useful points here. Let's deal with that rather than casting aspersions, please. -- ChrisO 23:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I also disagree, and there is a point here, Chris. G-Dett makes a habit of this, and it won't be entertained here, at least not by me. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Pardon me, Slim, but the habit I see here is your resorting to unprovoked personal attacks when faced with a content question you have no good answer to.--G-Dett 23:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind her aspersions, never have, but I would like an answer to my question.--G-Dett 23:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Avoid unnecessary edit war

Sorry, I hit return accidentally. My edit summary should read: "don't edit-war, don't delete the only part of the paragraph that makes it relevant, don't violate WP:SYN, and don't resort to personal attacks and blind reverts as a means of avoiding discussion of content."--G-Dett 01:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I already explained the reason the quote doesn't belong above. It's hard to understand someone who edit-wars with the edit summary "don't edit war"; kind of a "do as I say, not as I do" approach. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, no. Review the edit history here and on the mainspace. I introduced an issue here, regarding an entire section of the article that had no direct bearing on the subject matter, and appeared to have been inserted for the purposes of insinuation. My concerns were echoed by other editors, one of whom suggested deleting the section in question. I agree that the section is self-evidently bogus as it stands now, but instead of risking a confrontational edit, I have the original article translated in order to find out if the author had a larger point with an explicit (as opposed to sleazily insinuating) connection to "Pallywood." I found one, and added that to the article, thereby preserving everything of the existing paragraph and doing what I could (within the constraints of WP:NOR) to make it relevant and legitimate. This was speedily reverted by Slim, with a testy but irrelevant rhetorical question in lieu of a proper edit summary. I added some of the deleted material, with alterations to make it more acceptable, and accompanied by a cordial edit summary of my own. This was reverted without explanation by Slim, who followed up her blind revert with an irrelevant and wholly gratuitous personal attack on the talk page, which you then echoed. Slim then followed this with more hasty and indefensible edits to the mainspace, in which she tried to compensate for the insinuating pointlessness of the material from the German article by synthesizing it with another article by the populizer of the phrase "Pallywood." I fixed the problem but again took pains to preserve everything Slim wanted, and to explain my edit in detail. I was again snap-reverted, with a testy insult and rhetorical question. So no, Jay, in short, this isn't a case of calling the kettle black. It's just another case of disruptive behavior from Slim. I'm loath to do it, but I'm thinking of reporting this as an ongoing case of harassment, since that is what it seems to be. I would much prefer, however, to just work together, come what may, to clean up the problematic section. Thanks, --G-Dett 02:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

In what way is your pseudo-quote relevant to the notion of Pallywood? Please be explicit. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Cut the snideness, ask a serious question and you'll get a serious answer. --G-Dett 02:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a serious question, and not at all snide; please do not continue violating WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF, and instead answer the question. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Stop calling in policies about civil behaviour every five minutes, the insults started flying way up this page, and look like they started with SlimVirgin. It is childish to get into slanging matches with people then trying to hide behind WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF when they respond in kind. --Coroebus 09:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

This is far worse than asking someone to observe the civility policies, and clearly shows your bias in these matters. Based on that comment, I'll be ignoring yours from now on; I'm sure you appreciate why. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh boo hoo. This is what pissed me off in the first place, winding people up then coming over all hurt when you get any grief back yourself. It hardly shows my bias that I don't like the way you have tag-team edit warred with G-Dett and then got her blocked for 3RR. My bias is that I don't like the odd partisan POV pushing that goes on in Israel-Palestine related articles, as nicely evidenced by attempts to have al-Aqsa intifada renamed Second intifida, not necessarily a bad name change (they're pretty much interchangeable) but the motivation is utterly bizarre and based on an extreme minority viewpoint. I'm here to try and keep you lot honest I'm afraid, if I offend you in the process, c'est la vie, you're a big boy and I'm sure you'll get over it. --Coroebus 20:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

"You lot." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Yep, the coterie of editors pushing (to a greater or lesser extent) partisan views on these articles. What did you think I meant? --Coroebus 20:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Coincidentally, I recently had e-mail from another editor recently on the problems afflicting our Middle Eastern articles. I'm sure (s)he won't mind me quoting: "If you spend any time at these articles, you'll quickly learn who these [disruptive] editors are. They come from both sides of the dispute, and they're united in the common purpose of discrediting each other: their sole purpose appears to be to get as much material which supports their point of view into the article, and to find specious justifications for keeping opposing points of view out. There is also a good deal of system-gaming, 3rr tag-teaming and bad-faith WP:ANI reporting." I can see what my correspondent means, and it's something which many admins and at least two arbitrators that I know are concerned about. There's a venomous atmosphere on these articles. Slim, you're not the only offender, but when you attack editors without apparent provocation (as in [3]) you're only adding to the general atmosphere of hostility. I don't know what your history with G-Dett is, but that was unnecessary. I wish all of you would just quit the endless sniping and get on with improving Wikipedia instead of bashing each other. -- ChrisO 20:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Chris, I apologize if you feel that I contributed to a poor atmosphere by pointing out G-Dett's contributions pattern, but unusually I want to argue that it's justified in this case. My history with him or her is that I've had to take several articles off my watchlist because G-Dett has arrived on the talk page to abuse other editors, leave long-winded descriptions of who-said-what (which are invariably inaccurate as well as pointless), and in general contribute to an atmosphere that causes many sensible editors to leave the page. If this were accompanied by a magnificent editing record, I'd overlook it as a personality quirk. But it's accompanied by almost no editing experience at all. Most of what G-Dett does on Wikipedia is cause talk pages to ignite. That's what I was pointing out. SlimVirgin ^(talk)

Slim Virgin's description of G-Dett render her unrecognizable. G-Dett is well-known for diffusing tensions at the Israeli apartheid talk page, and has been thanked for her good humor there on more than one occasion, and even by those that don't share her opinion. I noticed SlimVirgin's comments above and was quite surprised that she chose to make them again here. The inappropriateness of these kinds of comments was already pointed out to her. For example, from archive 20 there:

G-Dett, at the risk of repeating myself, someone who has made only 214 edits to articles, but 825 to article, user, and project talk, most of which involve insulting people, is coming pretty close to the definition of a troll. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I welcome any and all comments on my talk page, including gratuitous insults, personal harassment, and fan mail from your old friend Kiyosaki the crank. So feel free to post comments of this sort there, Slim, and in the meantime use article talk pages for their intended purpose, content discussion. Thanks.--G-Dett 16:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

G-Dett engages in extensive talk so as to build consensus. This is a wise practice considering that she edits at articles where such an approach defuses tensions and helps to reach amicable compromises. That you cite her editing article to talk page ratio as "evidence" that she is a troll is a violation of WP:AGF, WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. It is also bad taste and goes against community consensus where in administrative reviews, it is often noted that a good article to talk page ratio is 1:10. G-Dett has never attacked anyone during the time I have had the good fortune of editing articles with her. You should apologize for your comments. Tiamut 15:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Tiamut 09:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

When you invoke WP:CIVIL at this point, Jay, it is in manifestly bad faith, as well as being a rather obvious example of trolling on your part. I think rather than feed, I'll put in a request for comment, and work on stimulating the energies of this page's serious editors.--G-Dett 02:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, I don't see any violation of WP:SYN, and it's hard to see why the article would twice need to say that Landes popularized the term Pallywood, except perhaps as poisoning the well, particularly as the source itself describes Landes as "a professor at Boston University." Jayjg ^(talk) 02:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Disputed sentence

I can't see the problem with this sentence:

Working as a cameraman for the Western media is regarded as one of the most lucrative jobs in the Palestinian areas, Schmitz writes, with some cameramen in the area earning up to $250 U.S. per day, as much as some Palestinian families might earn in six months.

It is mentioned by a reliable source, so it passes WP:V. It is mention by the source in relation to Pallywood, and he actually uses that word, so it passes WP:NOR. It gives the reader a backdrop against which to understand the article, namely that the Western media relies on freelancers in that area; that they can earn a lot of money compared to what they might be used to, making it financially as well as politically lucrative; and that the reliance on this freelance work has led to allegations that the usual journalistic standards are being undermined.

I've asked this question before, but no one would answer it. I'd ask that those opposing this material answer it honestly.

Would you still be opposing this if you learned that CNN, ABC and the other networks were relying exclusively on Israeli Jewish cameramen for images out of the West Bank and Gaza Strip? That the cameramen were working unsupervised. That they were earning in one day as much as other Israeli families earn in six months. That their material was going on air without being checked for accuracy. That these were the only images the networks regularly had access to from that area, because they won't send in their own cameramen.

If that were the situation, the people who are now opposing this article would be guarding it like mother bears with their cubs, and I can only imagine how long and detailed it would be. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Slim, you mean an article on "the Jewish media"? The Jew York Times, say?[4] [5] [6] [7] If such a thing existed, and were being carefully tended to and stocked with insinuations like this one, I promise you I'd be doing what I'm doing here – popping off those cubs one by one, mother bear be damned.--G-Dett 18:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Well you'd get to keep all the above paragraph about Israeli Jewish cameramen (as long as they were sourced) except the bit about pay, unless your source actually made some kind of point about their pay being relevant. Look at the bit G-Dett keeps putting in, "Schmitz stresses that media pictures of hopelessness in the Gaza Strip are taken primarily by Palestinians", I don't see what the relevance of that line is, but it is in the source, and the source talks about "Pallywood", yet we are able to resist including it. Your justification for including the line about pay is that there is therefore a financial incentive for Palestinian cameramen to fabricate footage, that is entirely OR on your part, and the source makes no such allegation, whether you think it is in the subtext or not. It is just this kind of odd guilt-by-association and snide linguistic sheenanigans that makes the articles on these topics read so badly. If there is a source that explicitly makes the connection between pay and fabrication find it and include it, otherwise this is OR. --Coroebus 08:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd want to keep most of the article if the cameramen were Israeli Jews, but for some of the editors on this page, even that isn't the case; they'd prefer to see it deleted entirely, because it's the wrong POV.

As for the money thing, you're projecting your own OR here. There's no suggestion (that I recall) in the source that there's distortion for money; nor is there in our article, so I don't know where you're taking the insinuation from. I don't see it myself. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Well then what are we trying to say by referencing the pay (other than setting some background context, which is all I can see in the article)? What is the connection between pay and Pallwyood, both generally, and in the article? --Coroebus 09:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

First this: "It gives the reader a backdrop against which to understand the article, namely that the Western media relies on freelancers in that area; that they can earn a lot of money compared to what they might be used to, making it financially as well as politically lucrative; and that the reliance on this freelance work has led to allegations that the usual journalistic standards are being undermined." (emphasis added)

Then this: "There's no suggestion (that I recall) in the source that there's distortion for money; nor is there in our article, so I don't know where you're taking the insinuation from. I don't see it myself."

'Nuff said. --G-Dett 21:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The dilemma we are in is that the information about Palestinian salaries by itself is merely insinuating (“it gives the reader a backdrop against which to understand the article,” as Slim delicately puts it); on the other hand to paraphrase the German journalist’s unspoken suggestion would run afoul of OR.[8] There is of course the option of leaving it out altogether, but given the personal and ideological tensions involving editors and administrators on this page, I opted instead the other night to have the Schmitz article translated by a native speaker, to see if Schmitz makes his point more explicitly and less insinuatingly in the article itself. If he did, my reasoning went, we could quote him making his point, retain the information about Palestinian salaries (which appears to be important to key editors here, for reasons not clearly articulated), and resolve the outstanding NPOV issue, all the while steering well clear of OR. And sure enough, the original has just such a statement: “The pictures of hopelessness in the Gaza Strip are taken primarily by Palestinians” (or variously translated, "the images of the hopeless world of the Gaza strip are taken primarily by Palestinians"). I am not taking this out of context, or patching it in from some other part of the article. It arises in the very section from which the information about salaries is culled. In fact, it’s right there sandwiched in the middle of it. The following three-paragraph extract is translated but otherwise unchanged from the original:

Harbed works for the Arab television production company Ramattan News Agency. The agency has offices in Ramallah in the West Bank, and in Gaza city, the capital of the Gaza Strip.

The major international broadcasters CNN and ABC, wire services such as Reuters and Associated press, and German television agencies work almost exclusively with Palestinian cameramen when reporting from the Gaza Strip.

The pictures of the hopeless world of the Gaza Strip are taken primarily by Palestinians. Working as a cameraman for the Western media is regarded as one of the most lucrative jobs in the Palestinian areas. Some make up to $250 a day, as much as many Palestinian extended families earn in half a year.

As you can see, the quote about "pictures of hopelessness" (or "images of the hopeless world") was in fact excised from the original material when it was first inserted into the article. Slim and Jay have successfully tag-edit-warred to maintain that excision – that is, to retain everything from the second and third Shmitz paragraphs except the topic sentence of the third.

I am at a loss as to their reasons for taking such a peculiar position. After two unexplained reverts the objection was voiced that I shouldn't directly quote from a foreign-language source. With that hurdle cleared as quickly as it was conjured, both Slim and Jay are now claiming that the excised sentence is “not relevant to the notion of Pallywood." I find this claim unconvincing, even bizarre. The sentence in question – again, "The pictures of hopelessness in the Gaza Strip are taken primarily by Palestinians" – is obviously relevant. The full title of the very film that gave this term currency (or coined it, according to many) is "Pallywood: According to Palestinian sources..." and a screenshot of this suggestive phrase is what we've selected as our image to illustrate the subject of our article. So the disputed quotation is obviously relevant. What is not obviously relevant is information about the salaries of Palestinian photojournalists; it might fairly be said, in fact, that the only self-evidently relevant sentence in the entire paragraph is the one that Slim and Jay insist on excising.

Again, I'm at a loss. It's easy to conclude that their objection to the excised sentence is merely personal and visceral, motivated by the fact that it was I who restored it. The other possibility is a little more troubling. The very thing that I and others are objecting to about the Schmitz material as it's currently presented – that it's weirdly oblique and insinuating, rather than direct in its implications – may be precisely what appeals to the Wikipedians who have edited it in this way. In any case, if there are serious reasons for the seemingly tendentious way the Schmitz material has been edited and presented, I'd like to hear them. If there are not, then the section should be fixed accordingly. --G-Dett 12:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with your point about the "weirdly oblique and insinuating" nature of the material. Its relevance is clearly that it implies a motive for the alleged media manipulation - i.e. fake footage, get $$$. Otherwise, why include it? The problem is that Schmitz never actually comes out and makes this connection. He states the salary issue as a fact, then makes an allegation about media manipulation, but leaves the reader to connect the two. -- ChrisO 08:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The sentence of Schmitz's that was snipped out of this passage comes very close to making this connection, which is why I tried to restore it the other night. It would be better not to have this pointless insinuation at all, of course, but if Slim and Jay are going to insist on retaining it then I will insist that the snipped-out sentence – the topic sentence of the paragraph in question, after all – be restored. In that sentence, at least, Schmitz is at his most straight-forward about what he's suggesting. Including it would improve our paragraph considerably: we'd be citing the insinuation to its source, as it were, rather than coyly relaying it. Slim's reasoning that any chunk of prose taken from an RS article on a given topic meets WP:V and can therefore just be forklifted into a Wikipedia article on said topic is specious. If she holds fast to that reasoning, however, then she can have no conceivable objection to restoring the sentence that's been black-penned out (at first through a quiet snip of editorial scissors and then through a nasty edit war).

If there's no interest in this compromise, then I'll join others in pushing for deletion of the entire paragraph as irrelevant and at best insinuating. --G-Dett 11:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

If it's background context or motive, it's still relevant. If Schmitz isn't explicit either way, neither should we be. Let the reader decide. <<-armon->> 14:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

At this point, Schmitz is more explicit than we are, because we've snipped out a key sentence of his from the passage we're using.--G-Dett 15:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Unless there is some reason to dispute that salary issue is accurate, there's no good reason to remove it. I think the reason that Schmitz wasn't explicit is because it's unclear if and when the reports become "distorted". What we can say, it that there is a good motive for freelancers to provide marketable footage. The lengthy objections and deletions of the paragraph is looking to me like an attempt to hide an uncomfortable truth which is germane to the topic. <<-armon->> 22:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Attempt to hide? Come on, Armon. The salary stuff can go in – as long as Schmitz's main point is not excised, leaving us to do the insinuating. Though I stress that I think Coroebus's version is much better.--G-Dett 22:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

What I reverted was the deletion of the paragraph. <<-armon->> 02:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Compromise re disputed section

Coroebus's version (which I've restored) actually seems like the best yet suggested.--G-Dett 16:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I am pleased to see the movement towards compromise. Out of curiosity, Jay, can you say where you find "intended to portray" in "Die Bilder von der hoffnungslosen Welt im Gaza-Streifen"?--G-Dett 23:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I think "Schmitz states that the images portraying suffering in Gaza" is closest to sense of the original in context. <<-armon->> 02:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I personally don't see the need for this line, but if we're going to include it surely the translation is Die (the) Bilder (pictures) von (of) der (the) hoffnungslosen (hopeless) Welt (world) im (in) Gaza-Streifen ((the) Gaza Strip) werden (are) in erster Linie (primarily) von (by) Palästinensern (Palestinians) gemacht (made): "The pictures of the hopeless world in the Gaza Strip are made primarily by Palestinians." (my German is piss poor so I may not have the "werden in erster Linie...gemacht" bit quite right) --Coroebus 15:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for butting in, folks, but the emphasis in the disputed sentence (take this from a German speaker) is on "the Palestinians". Translation is always interpretation, and the thing that Schmitz leaves unsaid is who else takes pictures and what worldview those pictures portray. My shot at a translation would be: "It is primarily the Palestinians that take the pictures of a world of hopelessness in the Gaza Strip." Dr Zak 15:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Obviously Dr Zak has the authority as a native speaker, but this translation doesn't make for very idiomatic English, and in terms of sense and emphasis I don't see a significant difference between it and Armon's translation. And after all this is paraphrase; we're not doing direct quotation. Armon's translation strikes me as the best.--G-Dett 17:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

No worries. Perhaps you guys might want to include the sentence in question in the footnote so anyone with a knowledge of German can compare the paraphrase against the original. I guess what I'm saying is that people here on the page and the author of the piece in the Süddeutsche have a thesis that they want to get across and won't quite spell out. Dr Zak 17:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

You got that right.--G-Dett 17:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

"images indented to portray suffering". Would like to point out again my opposition to both the money references (for the reasons spelled out above - i.e. it is not relevant) and the 'images of suffering' reference (I don't see what it adds, or even what it is supposed to convey), and particularly the addition of the word 'portray' to this line when it does not appear in the original German, nor any translations that have been provided, I can only assume it is supposed to modify the extra line to skew it to benefit a particular POV (again). Oh yeah, and ha ha, "indented to portray"?! --Coroebus 18:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

"used by online debaters for several years"

The sentence "The term 'Pallywood' was used by online debaters for several years[5] before being popularized in 2005 by Richard Landes" appears to be OR. The source given for it is a usenet-style internet forum thread, in which one particant says of Jenin footage:

First Hollywood, then Bollywood, and now...Pallywood! Has a certain ring to it.

First of all, neither usenet forums nor their anonymous participants are RS's. Secondly, we're using this as primary source material, rather than secondary source material. Thirdly: even if the thread were an admissible RS, it doesn't support the sentence in our article. The forum member in question believes he's coining a phrase ("has a certain ring to it"), not using one already extant, and there's no evidence anyone picked up on his "coinage." Even if we were to find such evidence in another usenet forum, we'd be back to the problem of making OR conclusions based on non-RS primary source material.

Meanwhile, there are multiple sources crediting Landes for having coined the term:

1. "Landes claimed many scenes of violence against Palestinians are staged and coined the term "Pallywood" to describe the industry that produces this footage." [9]
2. "Tom Paine interviews Richard Landes. Richard is responsible for the video works Al Durah and Pallywood and it was he who coined the term Pallywood." [10]
3. "Coined by our fellow sub rosa blogger Richard Landes of Augean Stables, "Pallywood" refers to "the staging of scenes by Palestinian journalists in order to present the Palestinians as hapless victims of Israeli aggression." [11]
4. "Richard is a most enjoyable fellow in person, though not unfamiliar with hyperbole. But in this case (excuse the pun) he may well be correct that it will become something very big. The trials involve blogging (a topic of media fixation) and Pallywood, Richard's own term. Falsified and staged media photography received far more exposure than ever during this summer's war in Lebanon. 'Pallywood' has arrived as a word."[12]

Landes himself claims credit for having come up with the term:

1. "Many people have written me about the rushes from Talal abu Rahmeh. It was viewing them for the first time that inspired the term 'Pallywood.'" [13]
2. "The joke was on us all – the responsible media, the trusting public, the “scoop”-hungry journalists who rummaged through these cheap scenes, looking for something they could use in the evening’s broadcast. That’s when the term Pallywood first occurred to me." [14]

When this came up before, Slim wrote:

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.[15]

Apparently the result of that discussion was our present edit. But this makes no sense at all. We are dismissing what five reliable sources (including Landes himself) say unequivocally about the origins of the term, and instead claiming that the term "was used by online debaters for several years" – a speculation based on very doubtful evidence from a non-RS primary-source usenet thread, coupled with what Slim says she's sure must be true. And all in the name of WP:NOR.

Verifiability, not truth, as everyone here knows. But it should be added that the two in this case have not even been shown to be at odds. When it comes to linguistic coinages, if a tree falls in the forest and nobody hears it, it didn't happen. --G-Dett 21:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I've raised that point before, funnily enough people seemed to have something vested in that particular piece of OR and opposed its removal. --Coroebus 22:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've read the discussion above, and the matter seems to have been dropped rather than concluded. In terms of policy, though, this is pretty cut-and-dried.--G-Dett 22:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Shall I remove the offending sentence or will one of you? Tiamut 23:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the text should credit Landes for coining the term, and give all six sources. I thought I would wait to hear back here first, but if you want to do it now be my guest. The evidence for the edit couldn't be clearer.--G-Dett 23:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I only count one RS, and the rest are blogs. Is this the only evidence we have of term being used before Landes? It would definably be OR if we credited Rob Hansen (the usenet poster) with coining it, but if there's evidence that it's been used before Landes, then we want to keep the article accurate and we don't want to give Landes undue credit. I had a similar discussion regarding Fisking here -but that wasn't really resolved either. We could remain agnostic on who actually coined the term, and state what appears to be an undisputed fact: The term 'Pallywood' was popularized in 2005 by Richard Landes. <<-armon->> 23:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

How is this the "undisputed fact"? We have three sources saying he "coined" it, another saying it's "Richard's own term," and two cited instances of Landes himself describing when the term first "came to me," and recalling the experience that first "inspired the term." We have no reliable sources saying he "popularized" it, and that locution strongly implies that the term had some currency before him – an entirely unsourced speculation. Why don't we do here what we usually do in Wikipedia, and present what the sources say? Why in this one case should we be "agnostic" about what they say, and strong insinuate the opposite?--G-Dett 23:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Interesting -- the person being replied to in the post is a Joel Rosenberg, but not that Joel Rosenberg, rather a firearms trainer in Minnesota of the same name.[16] -- Kendrick7^talk 00:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

If you'll excuse me for engaging in a bit of OR myself, I suspect that what we have here is an example of reinvention. There's no evidence that Landes was influenced by an earlier coinage of the expression, and the expression itself is sufficiently obvious ("Palestinian" + "Hollywood") that I'm sure it's occurred to multiple people, independently, at multiple times. What we can say for sure is that Landes popularised the term, but it's impossible to say who actually first used it. -- ChrisO 00:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The reliable source in this case is Google Groups, who certifies that this message was posted on a usenet group at a certain date. So endeth this discussion (and yet another attempt at gutting this article). --Leifern 00:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Why don't we just say that the term is credited to Landes? Popularized implies its popular or well-known (which it is not) and that it existed and was used with the same meaning and intent prior to its usage by Landes (and we have no reliable source to prove that). Tiamut 00:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

That's a fair point, Tiamut. Let's do that. Leifern, I was under the impression that Google Groups is not generally regarded as a reliable source. And please cut out the insinuations of bad faith - they're not helping anyone. -- ChrisO 00:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. Improvements on the formulation are welcome, but I think it's much more in line with the sources cited in the article now. Tiamut 00:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. "Attributed" is probably best.

As for Armon's objection that he can "only count one RS, and the rest are blogs" – this article is about a term whose currency is almost entirely confined to the blogosphere. One of the blogs he's saying isn't an RS (www.theaugeanstables.com) is Landes' own blog, and a sister blog to www.seconddraft.org, a blog that's given us three of our sixteen total cites for this article. If we removed all blogs (and the usenet thread) from our bibliography, we'd have only eleven cites left. Of these, only nine are taken from mainstream media outlets. These nine appear to exhaust all mainstream media attention to "Pallywood," and all of them mention the term in close connection to Landes (and to the blogosphere, for that matter). --G-Dett 00:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)--G-Dett 00:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit coflict)Landes appears to be wrong that he used the term first. I think ChrisO is right and that it's a case of reinvention. Anyway, I don't have a problem with "The coining of the term "Pallywood" has been attributed to Richard Landes of Boston University". <<-armon->> 00:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Leifern, talking candidly, what do you have against removing that OR reference to the term being used for years? I don't think its retention or removal serve any particular POV, and it really is a clear policy violation. I mean, I don't care about it being kept particularly, but why do you feel so strongly about it? --Coroebus 10:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, re-reading WP:ATT I think it is allowable. See here:

Edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge.

Google groups is a primary source, but it's perfectly reliable for what we said, and anyone can check it. I don't think anyone here disputed that the post exists and pre-dated Landes. <<-armon->> 12:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually it wasn't reliable (or even accurate) for what we said, so I've changed what we say. I would only point out what an extraordinary path we're taking in this case. In an article with only 16 cites, we have six cites saying Landes coined the term. Someone's trolled the internet to find primary-source material to contradict this, and all that can be found is a single fleeting moment in a usenet thread. Wikipedians then insert the usenet thread as a "source," and write their own speculative conclusions based on what it shows. It is about as classic, textbook a case of OR as can be found, although I've reduced the problem somewhat by at least limiting our comment to what the source actually shows.--G-Dett 13:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Notability

(Different issue so I refactored -<<-armon->>)

Which, of course, takes us back to the original question I raised a while back: if only nine media sources have referred to "Pallywood", how notable is it really? We seem to be spending a lot of time debating something to which the media has given negligible attention. -- ChrisO 00:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It seems that its we editors here at Wikipedia who are in fact popularizing the use of the term via this entry. Tiamut 00:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The AfD on it was keep. <<-armon->> 00:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

It was a nice try, though. BTW, I still get 126,000 Google hits for "Pallywood". On the other hand, I only get 629 Google hits for "hafrada"; now that's an original research dicdef begging to be deleted. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

You wish the article Hafrada (Separation) didn't exist, (indeed you tried to gut it when it was located at Hafrada but your objections have been and are most spurious. 35+ sources and counting (and none of them are from blogs). found another two books that use the term and define it. Any books on Pallywood? Tiamut 10:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I thought we needed peer reviewed sources for "POV pejorative political terms"? --Coroebus 08:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The chart of comparative casuistry Coroebus points to is pretty devastating.--G-Dett 13:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The AfD was actually no consensus (see the top of this page!), and the reason why you find so many Google hits for it is because of a campaign among partisan bloggers which, let's face it, is what's also behind the creation and retention of this article. I don't believe we're in the business of documenting every blogosphere meme, especially when it's virtually ignored by reliable sources. -- ChrisO 07:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Seventeen sources for such a short article is actually quite a lot, and they include the International Herald Tribune, Boston Globe, Daily Telegraph, Toronto Star, National Post, Los Angeles Times, and New York Times, so it's hard to know what you mean. I also wish you'd stop the insulting rhetoric about a campaign being behind the creation and retention of this article. Just because you personally don't like something doesn't mean it's evil. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it is six unique articles (see above), but I would argue that as we seem to have decided that this article is not about the term 'Pallywood', but about the phenomenon so dubbed (see above), then we should be more discerning in our choice of title (compare and contrast the fight to change al-Aqsa Intifada to Second Intifada because the former title is too POV!) --Coroebus 10:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Pallywood (pejorative term). There's absolutely no reason why this article shouldnt be moved there. Hornplease 19:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually I can think of a few reasons. First of all, there's nothing else Pallywood can refer to, therefore using Pallywood (whatever) as an article title is against Wikipedia's naming conventions. Also 'pejorative term' automatically assumes a side. How about having an article named Israeli Apartheid (pejorative term)? Not good. Thirdly, as long as 'Pallywood' is included in the title, there's absolutely no good reason to move this article anywhere. If you suggested a different move though, like to 'Allegations of Palestinian media manipulation', I might support. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 19:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no objection whatever to Israel apartheid (pejorative term), though I concede your broader point. In any case, Allegations of Palestinian media manipulation, with Pallywood as a redirect, seems perfectly appropriate to me. Hornplease 19:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that Pallywood (pejorative term) would be appropriate because this article is (apparently) not supposed to be about the term 'Pallywood', but about Palestinian media manipulation. The suggestion to move to Allegations of Palestinian media manipulation on the other hand I would support (perhaps keeping a quick and not too detailed explanation of what 'Pallywood' the term is supposed to mean). --Coroebus 20:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I think Pallywood is fine if the article stays focused on use of that term for allegedly staged or doctored photos or footage. If it expands into an article on Allegations of Palestinian media manipulation more generally, then of course it should be renamed. "Allegations," mind you, is a word with a very specific meaning, and shouldn't be used by us as a mere weasel-word or substitute for scare quotes, as it has been in at least one article and its various phony spinoffs.--G-Dett 21:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Latest reverts

I'm struggling to understand Jay's latest reverts.[17][18]

1. In the first, Jay's "copy edit" seems designed to give a reader the impression that sources show some currency for the term before 2005. What the primary-source material tracked down and interpreted by Wikipedians (in flagrant violation of WP:NOR) actually shows is that one non-notable usenet forum member once typed "Pallywood" in 2002 and promptly congratulated himself for his cleverness ("has a certain ring to it"), though no one else – not even on his usenet forum, much less the wide world – seems to have paid him any attention or picked up on his brainstorm. Let me be very clear: using this usenet thread as grounds for our speculations is indisputably OR. I can't see the justification for violating a core rule in this way, but if Jay (who is usually quite vigilant about this) is going to insist upon a waiver just this once, then our (lamentably OR) text needs to be absolutely clear, not coy and calculating, about what our primary-source material shows and what the reader will find if she follows the link.

2. Jay's second revert removes "alleged" from the following sentence:

He [Landes] believes that this type of alleged media manipulation dates back to at least the war in Lebanon in 1982.

Jay reasons in his edit summary that "[Landes] doesn't believe it is 'alleged', he believes it *is* media manipulation. Double qualifier made the sentence meaningless." I think this is a basic question of grammar, and that Jay is mistaken. There is a difference between "believes in" and "believes that." Grammatically and idiomatically, the phrase "believes that" applies only to the main verb of the clause it controls, which in this case is "dates back." In the architecture of this sentence, Landes' "belief" has to do with the dating of the phenomenon, not the existence of the phenomenon. Adding the word "alleged" does not make the sentence meaningless, it makes it more precise.

Any sentence of the sort So-and-so believes that phenomenon X dates back to 19__, where the very existence of phenomenon X is in dispute, is begging the question.

Which is better: "Desmond Tutu believes that this type of apartheid policy in the West Bank dates back to 1967" or "Desmond Tutu believes that this type of alleged apartheid policy in the West Bank dates back to 1967"? Jay insists that the first is preferable, and the second is meaningless. I disagree.--G-Dett 14:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Landes doesn't believe it is "alleged" manipulation, be believes it is actual manipulation. Regarding the Pallywood reference, your wording made unwarranted assumptions, that it was used only once. We don't know that it was used only once, but we do know it was used as early as 2002. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

"Believes that" doesn't apply to what the manipulation "is," it applies to when it dates to. This is a grammatical error on your part. Please read talk posts before reverting; your post does not respond to mine.--G-Dett 15:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

You may believe it to be the case, but in fact your wording is at best ambiguous. Please do not make further uncivil suggestions and insinuations regarding what I have or haven't read. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not what I "believe to be the case"; it's an elementary question of grammar, about which you are mistaken.

Regarding WP:CIVIL. Your first "response" gave no indication whatsoever that you'd read my post; in fact, it made a great show of ignoring it. It was not uncivil of me to point this out. Editors are supposed to look to policies like WP:CIVIL for guidance in editing disputes. They're not there to be used as weapons against other editors. When they're used in this way, the result often exceeds mere hypocrisy, and crosses over into a deep cynicism and even contempt for the policies themselves, which in turn poisons the atmosphere of good faith. Try to watch that.--G-Dett 17:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Really, just comment on article content, not on editors. The rest is just one WP:CIVIL violation after another. It's the continuous WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF violations that poison the Talk: page. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you (and other editors here) understand very well what the problem is with using WP:CIVIL as an aggressive weapon. Respect for that policy precludes taking seriously such abusive invocations of it.--G-Dett 18:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

No, WP:CIVIL is simply policy, and a good one. Please follow it from now on; it will lower the temperature on the Talk: page, and assist in collegial editing. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

It is indeed simple policy, and good policy, and as I've said, respect for that good policy precludes taking seriously abusive invocations of it. You have made something of a habit of using it as a weapon to bludgeon editors you're busy provoking, while giving no thought to how it might apply to your own behavior. The problem has been noted. Please reflect graciously on it, instead of deliberately exacerbating it in an effort to make a point, get last licks in, etc.--G-Dett 19:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, please focus on article content, not other editors. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

What content issue were you focusing on when you started this shoving match, Jay? WP:CIVIL is undermined, not strengthened, when it's invoked cynically and abusively. Try to address the problem, Jay, instead of repeating and perpetuating it.--G-Dett 19:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Jay, move on. Nothing to see. Point made. Don't disrupt the conversation further. Hornplease 19:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

My wording made no assumptions; rather it gave the narrowest and most accurate reading of the source material. The larger question is, why are you insisting on an OR-waiver in this case?--G-Dett 15:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Your "narrow and most accurate reading" makes an unwarranted implication, my wording does not. And the larger question is, why would you assume that I would respond to leading questions? Jayjg ^(talk) 16:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you actually maintaining that our use of the primary-source usenet thread doesn't violate WP:NOR? Here is what you're simultaneously arguing over at New antisemitism: "But the only reason you want to include direct citations to these articles is because you disagree with Taguieff's conclusions; that's the very essence of original research, constructing a counter-argument using primary sources."[19]

Can you please articulate, very explicitly, what your principles are for cases like this? Thanks.--G-Dett 17:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't insert the source, I just made sure the wording surrounding it was neutral. Do you not think the term was used in 2002? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

By the way, Landes used the term before 2005, and he was quoted in the press as doing so. Here's a copy of an article in French from November 2004. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Just another example of the double standards Jayjg employs in implementing policy - one set of easy-breezy rules when the POV expressed is in agreement with his own and another set of draconian laws when the POV expressed opposes his own. Assuming good faith is becoming totally impossible, having seen his edits and comments here and how they compare to the impossible standards for reliability invoked by him at Allegations of Israeli apartheid, Sabeel, Palestinian people and Hafrada (check the history and archive). Tiamut 14:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Please comment on article content, not other editors, and avoid further violations of WP:CIVIL. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm commenting on policies and how they are implemented here versus other articles. Since you were the one to revert an edit that was made with the input of many other editors, who used policy arguments to make their case, I've noted the hypocrisy in your edit. Tiamut 15:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, please avoid further violations of WP:CIVIL; it's a serious policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I am conforming to WP:CIVIL. Do your edits conform with WP:NPOV?Tiamut 16:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Commenting about editors, calling them hypocrites, etc., does not conform with WP:CIVIL. Do you have a specific question about article content, not other editors? Jayjg ^(talk) 16:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I do. Why are we including original research? How is a usenet source which does not pass WP:RS establish that the term was in use? Tiamut 16:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are saying; do you dispute that the term was used in 2002? Is the link provided phony? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

"But the only reason you want to include direct citations to these articles is because you disagree with Taguieff's conclusions; that's the very essence of original research, constructing a counter-argument using primary sources."Comment by Jayjg, April 27.

I think you are quite sure of what Tiamut is saying, Jay, because it's something you've said time and again. --G-Dett 17:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you explain your point? Because I'm not getting it. Do you agree or not that the term was used in 2002? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

My point is Tiamut's point, and her point is one you've articulated on many, many occasions, perhaps most succinctly ten days ago: "that's the very essence of original research, constructing a counter-argument using primary sources."Comment by Jayjg, April 27.--G-Dett 18:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Um, what is the "argument" and what is the "counter-argument", though? And can you please answer the simple question; do you agree or not that the term was used in 2002? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The "argument" is what six sources, including Landes himself, say: that Landes coined the term. The "counterargument" is that "the term 'Pallywood' was used by online debaters for several years before being popularized in 2005 by Richard Landes," or in your latest attempt to insinuate the term's previous currency, "had been used as early as 2002." I take it you know what the "primary source" is in this case, but perhaps I should take nothing for granted.

In answer to your last question. By looking at the non-RS primary source usenet thread you've provided, I can determine that the word "Pallywood" was typed once by a forum member in 2002, who believed he was the first to do so and indeed may well have been. This is a perfectly legitimate way to produce a droll anecdote – Hey, did you know that some guy on usenet "coined" Pallywood three years before Landes did? I'm serious, I swear, it's on this random thread, I'll send you the link, if it hasn't gone dead yet. Reminds me of the proverbial tree falling in the forest...if a person "coins" a word and not a single soul picks it up from him, did he really coin it? Anyway, what's the deal with that Landes guy these days? I hear he's running a couple of blogs and is still flogging his 18-minute film, etc. etc. – but on Wikipedia, it's called "original research," and is, as you know and have emphasized on countless occasions, forbidden.--G-Dett 19:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

So the issue is that you want to say its creation was attributed to him, and you don't want to mention that it was used earlier by at least one other person, even though you know that to be the case. Is that it? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I've seen it argued quite a few times on wikipedia that NOR, RS, etc. mean that things acknowledged to be false by the editors themselves should be included because an RS says so (and obviously vice versa). --Coroebus 19:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm just asking a question; it should be easy enough to answer. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I gather Jay's conceded the point about WP:NOR, naturally enough, since it was his point to begin with:"that's the very essence of original research, constructing a counter-argument using primary sources."Comment by Jayjg, April 27.

As to whether I'm willing to waive the WP:NOR rule in this case, as Jay is requesting, I am – provided that the phrasing of the OR he puts in isn't designed to insinuate (or leave open to the misinterpretation) that there are sourced indications that the word was in circulation (at all) before Landes put it in circulation. This is the problem with saying that "the term...had been used as early as 2002." It is deliberately ambiguous and even insinuating. A nonce word is one thing, a term another. The OR issues are clear, and I'm happy they've finally been acknowledged (though not in as forthright a manner as could have been hoped for). If editors want to let readers know that a usenet forum member once used "Pallywood" as a nonce word in 2002, before Landes' film coined it as a term in 2005, and want a get-out-WP:NOR-free pass from me to do it, consider my permission granted.--G-Dett 19:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I have neither conceded anything, nor requested anything. Please don't put words in my mouth. Instead, re-read my comments: "So the issue is that you want to say its creation was attributed to him, and you don't want to mention that it was used earlier by at least one other person, even though you know that to be the case. Is that it?" Just answer the question, thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Your question indeed amounts to a concession, of course,and at any rate it's been amply answered. Again: No. You have my permission (I can't speak for other editors) to break the WP:NOR rule just this once, so long as you don't use that permission to insert something that misleads the reader about what your non-RS primary source shows. For more details, read my previous post again, or for the first time, as the case may be. --G-Dett 19:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, I haven't conceded anything, nor have I requested anything. I'm just trying to understand your point, but your answer wasn't really relevant to my question. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Be more specific.--G-Dett 20:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you or don't you want the article to mention the fact that the term "Pallywood" was used before Landes used it? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I've answered that question several times, and in copious detail. Please read the posts more carefully. There are obvious WP:NOR and WP:RS issues, which you've so far refused even to address. And there is your own argument to reckon with – "that's the very essence of original research, constructing a counter-argument using primary sources" – which you have yet to do. Even if we waive these obvious policy issues just this once, there is the question of just what your primary-source material shows (and this, of course, is why primary-source material can cause such problems in the first place). Nevertheless, I'm willing in this case to see these policies violated by you just this once, so long as the OR you insert confines itself to the baldest statement of what you've found in your non-RS primary source (that "Pallywood" was used once by a usenet forum member in 2002), and does not insinuate that the word was a "term" (i.e., had any currency) before Landes's film coined it.--G-Dett 20:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Moved to left
G-Dett, if you just answered Jay's question with a 'yes' or a 'no', I think it would be much easier on other editors as well (such as myself) who want to know what your position on this is. Having read all your replies, I have not yet been able to find a coherent answer to Jay's question. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 20:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Ynhockey, with respect, I think my answer was very clear. But why don't you summarize what you think my position is, from what I've written. If you're off, I'll right you, and if it's apparent that I've somehow sown confusion where I thought I was being direct, methodical, and exhaustive, then I'll take added pains to clarify.--G-Dett 21:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

G-Dett, the burden of explanation lies with the person who wants to make their position count. With respect, I have better things to do than re-read this entire conversation in an effort to fish out your answer to Jay's question. Your position from what I gather is that you oppose the link's inclusion. The question is why. Consensus is not reached by 'voting' (i.e. each user's overall position counts as one 'vote' until you see what is supported); it is reached by discussion (a debate, if you will), which you have mostly managed to avoid, a part of which is asking the other side questions which would be tough to answer. I think it's fair that you answer Jay's questions before he answers yours because he asked first (as in any other debate). -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 21:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

You needn't "gather" anything about my opinion, Ynhockney, and you certainly don't need to fish it out. It's already been fished, killed, cleaned, fileted, sauteed and served to you. What I can't do is chew and swallow for you; you'll need to do that. My opinion has been reiterated several times, in versions both concise and detailed, in order to be easily digestible by all – regardless of individual taste, appetite, or capacity. The nice plus for anyone who chooses to debate me is that they get such clear and methodical answers to their questions, in multiple iterations if they need, want, or demand that. This kindness is not always reciprocated, however. I have yet to receive any answers at all to the following questions: 1) Is a usenet forum a reliable source? 2) Why is it the "the very essence of original research, constructing a counter-argument using primary sources" in some cases, but not this one? 3) Is a nonce word the same as a "term"? Is it not misleading to point to a usenet forum member's playful nonce word as a "use of a term"? Does the sentence, "The term 'Pallywood' had been used as early as 2002," not a) conflate terms and nonce words, and b) strongly suggest to the reader that this one-off nonce word is the tip of the iceberg, an indication of likely broader currency?

Any sort of answer to these questions would be most welcome.--G-Dett 21:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The answers to all these questions can be found in 2 of my comments, a few comments down. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

You eat your fish, I'll do the hunting and gathering. But how about giving me a hint as to where I'll find the answer to #2? I'm looking high and low for it. Thanks, --G-Dett 22:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I think G-Dett is saying she finds this to be a violation of policy. I agree. It's OR and a usenet group is not an reliable source. There is no secondary reliable source that attributes the use of Pallywood to anyone but Landes. Tiamut 20:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand the whole point of having the usenet link. Basically it proves that the term was used before Landes coined it. It does not prove, or set to prove, anything else except that fact. As long as it is not disputed that it's indeed pre-Landes, it does not have to qualify as WP:RS because the content of the linked page is not relevant. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 20:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

In other words, precisely what Jay defines as original research and rules out accordingly: "that's the very essence of original research, constructing a counter-argument using primary sources."Comment by Jayjg, April 27.--G-Dett 21:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Please note also the distinction between a nonce word and a "term." And take care what conclusions you draw from this non-RS primary source. You write, "Basically it proves that the term was used before Landes coined it." No it doesn't. It proves that "Pallywood" was used at a nonce word once in 2002 by a usenet forum member. I have made very clear that if you want to include that fact, even though doing so violates WP:NOR certainly and WP:RS probably, you have my go-ahead.--G-Dett 21:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Uh, the article as it stands now doesn't even define Pallywood as a "term" but as a neologism (which is similar to a nonce word in many ways). Many will argue that it is actually a nonce word even now (i.e. used by Landes for some particular staged photos, but is not relevant to media manipulation - in fact, we've had this discussion several times on this very talk page). If that still makes the article notable, then so is the usage in 2002. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 21:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Nonce words, neologisms, and "terms" are related but they are not interchangeable. Nonce words are made up on the spot by the user, "invented" (as it were) every time they're used; the usenet forum member's 'coining' of "Pallywood" is an obvious example of this ("First Hollywood, then Bollywood, and now...Pallywood! Has a certain ring to it"). Neologisms are much more stable: a word gets invested with stable semantic content by a community of users. Neologisms however can be mere fads; when their use becomes even more stable and deeply rooted, they become terms, which the OED defines as "a word or phrase used in a definite or precise sense in some particular subject, as a science or art; a technical expression (more fully term of art)". "Pallywood" as coined by Landes is a neologism that might be becoming a term. Clearly Landes would like it to. Clearly some Wikipedians would also like it to, which is why they are reaching for specious genealogies, combing through the nether reaches of the internet, looking for any glimmer of evidence that the word had some heritage and enjoyed some currency before Landes. What they've found is primary-source evidence of one instance of 'Pallywood' as a nonce word in a non-RS usenet thread. To answer Jay's and now your question for the nth time,I won't object to inserting this meager, desiccated little finding into our article (WP:NOR be damned), so long as the formulation citing it adds nothing to the bald fact, either by way of explicit claims ("The term 'Pallywood' was used by online debaters for several years") or by way of suggestion ("The term "Pallywood" had been used as early as 2002"). Bald fact: "Pallywood" was used once as a nonce word in a usenet thread in 2002. Throw it in there, just like that, if you're dying for it. And then we can go back to the usual Wikipedia protocols – WP:NOR, WP:RS, etc. --G-Dett 22:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

You may be right that the 2002 cite was a nonce word, but that involves analysis we aren't allowed to do. All we can say is that someone used it in 2002. <<-armon->> 03:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, what we're not allowed to do is use the usenet source at all. Usenet threads are not RS's, and as Jay has pointed out, it's the very essence of OR to use primary sources to argue against secondary sources. What I've suggested is a compromise, in order to incorporate material that – though it doesn't meet Wikipedia's standards – is important to several editors here. If no satisfactory compromise can be found, of course, then the usenet material will simply have to go, and we'll stick with what the sources say – that Landes coined the term.--G-Dett 12:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you guys still arguing about this? It's really a minor point. Also, please recall that articles are edited based on policy, not based on what other editors say. If you're willing to accept my direction in all editing matters, then feel free to quote me as an authority; otherwise, please stick to discussing article content, not other editors. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Does that mean you agree it should be taken out? Hornplease 23:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I never really cared about it one way or the other. On the one hand, it's clear that the term was used at least once (and in the exact same sense) before Landes popularized it. It's also clear that the French press quoted Landes himself using the term before 2005. On the other hand, some editors here appear to be objecting to mentioning that fact, on purely technical grounds. If they honestly feel that removing the information - which they all acknowledge is factually correct - somehow benefits Wikipedia, then who am I to stand in their way? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure who "some editors" refers to, but I've made clear repeatedly (both here and on the mainspace) that I don't object to mentioning the 2002 use on grounds technical or otherwise.--G-Dett 02:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Arb section break

(edit conflict)Do we even need to mention when the word was coined, or whether it has been attributed to Landes at all? Couldn't we just say "it was popularised by..." and leave it at that? Or, if we really really must talk about origins, since we have no RS on the topic (or at least, none that accord with what we seem to accept is the 'truth'), we could say that, regarding the origin of the word it has been attributed to Landes (cite), that Landes claims he invented it (cite), but that its use has been recorded before Landes (e.g. (cite)). --Coroebus 21:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Coroebus, how is what you suggest any different than how it reads now? "The term "Pallywood" had been used as early as 2002, [5] but Richard Landes of Boston University is usually credited with having given the term currency in 2005, with his 18-minute documentary film Pallywood: According to Palestinian Sources.[4]" -or was your suggestion before that edit? <<-armon->> 03:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Well obviously the first suggestion differs by not having the reference to its origins at all. The second suggestion includes Landes's own claim to have originated it (which only seems fair if we're going to say he didn't via OR), and doesn't emphasise the 2002 date, or have the "as early as" phraseology, which I think we ought to avoid so that we don't credit a google groups posting with originating the term. --Coroebus 09:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

OK well I've reverted to that version for now. What do others think of Coroebus' second suggestion, along the lines of: the origin of the word has been attributed to Landes (cite), that Landes claims he invented it (cite), but that its use has been recorded before Landes (e.g. (cite))? <<-armon->> 12:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Which source established that its use has been recorded before Landes - a primary source from a google usenet forum. Is this a reliable source per Wikipolicy? WP:ATT states quite clearly: 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. How is the inclusion of this information justifiable under Wikipedia policies? Tiamut 12:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Tiamut is right about policy, of course. We'll be bending WP:RS in this case, as well as breaking WP:NOR outright by using primary-source material to stage a counterargument (the "very essence of original research," as Jay pointed out). I'm open to compromise, though surely the burden of compromise lies with those asking that policy be waived in this case. That said, I'd be willing to go with the gist of Armon's formulation, slightly altered as follows: the origin of the term has been attributed to Landes (cite), and Landes claims he invented it (cite), but its use as a nonce word has been recorded on at least one occasion before Landes' film. (e.g. (cite))--G-Dett 13:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I've actually been looking at a similar situation on Separation of Church and State, where Thomas Jefferson is credited with popularizing the phrase, although others also used it before him. What's generally said there is that the phrase is traced to him or that he popularized it, without reference to whether it may have been used earlier. This seems to go with what Coroebus is saying, that perhaps the additional comment just isn't necessary. Mackan79 13:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I've read this discussion through and tried to understand it - and as best I can tell, the 2002 reference does not belong. The WP:RS sources say that Landes invented/popularized the word in 2005. Finding (one) earlier use of the word in 2002 on the Usenet and inserting it into the article is indeed "the very essence of original research, constructing a counter-argument using primary sources." PalestineRemembered 17:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

You're right on the technical question, of course, but this was a compromise. "Pallywood" as a portmanteau is not a terribly original brainstorm, and we know that it occurred to one puckish usenet member in 2002, three years before Landes coined it as a term. After various attempts to build on this bit of trivia, editors have accepted the current edit, which if it bends WP:RS at least no longer implies a dubious genealogy from the one isolated nonce use to the later coinage of the term. It's fine with me as a compromise, and I think everyone here's tired of the subject, but if you have unanswered objections you could put in an RfC.--G-Dett 17:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I dropped "usually". There are no sources which credit anyone else. <<-armon->> 21:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Attributing statements

I see there's a fresh dispute about whether to note the conservative political leanings of Arutz Sheva and the Mackenzie Institute. Fortunately we have some good advice from Jayjg which we can use to guide us:

The article seems to focus on the fact that non-notables like student demonstrators use the term, but fails to note its prevalent use among neo-Nazis and anti-Semites such as David Duke and Jew Watch. I've rectified that. Let's make sure we give the reader the complete picture of the phrase's use. (Talk:Israeli apartheid/Archive 3#Other uses ignored).

As Jayjg is well known for his promotion of neutral wording, reliable referencing and consistency between articles, I suggest that this article should do what's done in Allegations of Israeli apartheid#Overview and note the political leanings of the proponents of the term. -- ChrisO 11:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I support CJ's edits and concur with ChrisO's post. I say "concur" not "agree" because I don't actually think Jay's post from AOIA is relevant. (In that case the question of well-poisoning arose not because of how Duke and Jew Watch were identified, but because such marginal figures were being cited as notable support for a concept in the first place – a clear violation of WP:UNDUE.)

Armon's concerns about well-poisoning in the present case are not frivolous by any means. It's just that they should be balanced with the need to supply basic information about a subject. The term "Pallywood" does not have broad currency, and its use is quite clearly confined to the right-wing blogosphere and to conservative commentators very sympathetic to Israel. If we're going to give the final word (as CJ points out) to people claiming, among other things, that "Pallywood" has become "a household word," then their political orientation is necessary context, and coyly withholding it violates WP:NPOV. Political orientation is crucial to use of the term "Pallywood." If there were an article on the Jew York Times ([20], [21]) or The Daily Tel Aviv (cf [22], [23]), it would be important to identify the political orientation of sources who use those terms – all the more so if those sources were quoted making large claims about wide currency (i.e. "household term"). The same principle clearly applies here.--G-Dett 14:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

ChrisO, while I appreciate your acknowledgment that I am well-known for promotion of neutral wording and reliable referencing, I must point out that articles are edited based on policy, not one what you imagine other editors believe or do, or based on out-of-context quotations of what they have said on other articles. In the future, please confine your Talk: page comments to discussions of article content (this article), not discussion of other editors. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm wondering how legitimate it is to go around labeling all or most of the sources that use Pallywood as "conservative." The editors who are doing this would never allow sources elsewhere to be constantly labeled left-wing. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't generally subscribe to the whole one dimensional representation of the political spectrum, but having grown up in a U.S. state where the liberals are really conservatives, and having moved back to my birthplace, where the the conservatives are really liberals (or at least have to pretend), I can testify that these labels are extremely subjective. Humus must have told me a dozen times that Haaretz is a "liberal" paper, and while I'm sure that's true relative to other Israeli media, it ain't exactly Indymedia, ya know? -- Kendrick7^talk 04:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we should just re-name the articles in question; you know, neoconservative political commentator David Frum, conservative Israeli news channel Arutz Sheva, Mackenzie Institute, a conservative Canadian organization. That way we can ensure uniformity in all Wikipedia articles that refer to them. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, I'm wondering why the MacKenzie institute is described as an "organization" rather than a "think-tank", and why the editors here believe it is "conservative"? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm a little bemused by all this hand-wringing. No one's suggesting that this or that source should be "constantly labeled" right-wing or left-wing or whatever. The question is whether we should be straightforward or weirdly coy about who uses the term "Pallywood" and in what context. The article on Wage slavery tells us that the term "is generally associated with socialist criticisms of capitalism, but has also been expressed by some proponents of liberalism, like Henry George ([1]), Silvio Gesell and Thomas Paine ([2]), as well as the Distributist school of thought within the Roman Catholic Church. Criticism of capitalism on these grounds is connected to the belief that one should have freedom to work without a boss or obligation," and the article is better for this bit of contextualizing. It's similarly helpful to learn from Chickenhawk (politics) that "those who use the term are generally but not always on the political left; most factions or individuals labeled "chickenhawks" are members of the U.S. Republican Party." I like that limousine liberal tells me that the term is "a populist epithet." This is emphatically not tantamount to identifying the sources in question everywhere and always as "critics of capitalism," or "leftists," or "populists"; that's a total red herring. Political context is crucial to the use of terms and phrases like wage slavery, limousine liberal, chickenhawk, and Pallywood. Pallywood would do well to emulate the commonsensical and un-neurotic directness of these articles.--G-Dett 16:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Is the claim that those who use the term "Chickenhawk" are usually on the left sourced, or is it original research? Are those who use the term throughout the article labelled as "Left-wing commentator", "Left-wing politician", etc.? Pallywood would do well to follow Wikipedia policy, as should all other articles. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Is there a policy that CJ's edit violates? Please be specific.--G-Dett 17:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPOV ("representing fairly and without bias all significant views) and possibly WP:NOR, depending on whether or not he has sources for his claims. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm puzzled as to how describing a conservative Canadian organization as a conservative Canadian organization can be said to violate NPOV. CJCurrie 03:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Poisoning the well is a well-known tactic used to bias the reader. Would you mind answering the questions listed above? I'll repeat them here. Why do you refer to the the MacKenzie institute is as an "organization" rather than a "think-tank", and why do you believe it is "conservative"? Why is the original research regarding which blogs Landes believes support seconddraft.org relevant to this topic? Also, why do you belive ArutzSheva is "conservative", and why do you label David Frum "neo-conservative"? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

(i) I can't see how describing a conservative organization as conservative constitutes "poisoning the well" either (since you seem to have dropped the charge that it's NPOV), (ii) I would have no objection to replacing "organization" with "think-tank" (my change on this front was more benign than you imagine), (iii) I'm familiar with the MacKenzie Institute, and can assume you that there will be little difficulty verifying its conservative orientation, (iv) I'm not involved in the blogs issue, (v) perhaps you'd prefer we describe Arutz Sheva as "religious Zionist", per its Wikipedia entry, (vi) the fact that he wrote a book with Richard Perle would seem to validate the label, although I don't believe that particular change was mine in any event. CJCurrie 03:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

(i) You misunderstand; poisoning the well is a violation of WP:NPOV, which states views must be presented fairly and without bias. Poisoning the well is intended to induce bias. (ii) O.K. (iii) Excellent; please do so. (iv) It seems part of a series of edits intended to make the argument that "Pallywood" and "right-wing" are indelibly linked. (v) A link to the Arutz Sheva article is all that is required. (vi) See (iv). Jayjg ^(talk) 04:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

(i) I still don't see how describing a conservative organization as conservative constitutes bias, (iv) I could just as easily respond: why are we highlighting the views of two rather marginal conservative organizations (Arutz Sheva and the Mackenzie Institute) to begin with? CJCurrie 04:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

(i) Continue re-reading poisoning the well as many times as it takes to assimilate its contents. The fact that every source using the term is described as "conservative", and a digressive original research statement about conservatives supporting seconddraft.org is inserted, is telling. (iii) Please provide the references. (iv) A more relevant question would be why do we have articles quoting groups like Sabeel, and why do we even have articles like Alliance of Concerned Jewish Canadians? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

(i) I didn't make the digressive statement you're referenced, but I'll note that virtually every source mentioned on this page actually is conservative, (iii) patience, Jay, (iv) I'm glad to see we're staying on-topic. CJCurrie 05:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Poisoning the well applies if stating the political affiliation of the institute in questionwould a. predispose the reader to doubt any assertion and b. unrelated to the assertion that is being made. In this case, the Mackenzie Institute is conservative, and as far as I can tell the fact that this word is part of a specific political divide, rather than a generally used term, is quite an encylopaedic bit of information; and further, this article is, I understand, about the term and not the phenomenon. As G-Dett says above, the chickenhawk article, etc. etc. Is there some reason why you feel, in an article about the term, that this information is irrelevant?

If you feel Sabeel is being quoted somewhere inappropriately, I strongly doubt that anyone will object to removing the quote. I don't see it, however, as a reply to CJC's point. Hornplease 09:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, we don't have any sources commenting on the MI's "conservatism". It's unclear what the label is supposed to mean anyway. <<-armon->> 14:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the Mackenzie Institute newsletter is a great source anyway. I think if we're going to include these little approving quotes in the article we need to set some context as to who someone is - and that may involve referencing their political orientation if that's an overwhelming aspect of their notability and stance(see here for a similar view being forwarded in our favourite comparison article - let's see which way things go in each one). I see that Jay doesn't want anyone to make the point that 'Pallywood' is a conservative term, but it is isn't it? That seems to be what Landes himself says, as well as other sources (i.e remember the discussion about whether we should say it was used by bloggers, or 'right wing bloggers' which was what the source actually said) --Coroebus 08:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Despite Landes himself being on the "left", his opinion was that the term had gained more traction among the "right" and that has been noted in the article. That, and the fact that the sources have their own articles means there's no good reason to editorialize. If the reader wants to dismiss the sources on the basis of their political orientation, real or imagined, the reader can, without our help. The Mackenzie Institute is a perfectly good source for this article as it's well within the area they study. <<-armon->> 12:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

If this was a report from the Mackenzie Institute I might agree that it was a reasonable source, but this is their (monthly?) newsletter, hardly a study, more like a pretty non-notable blog or minor magazine, and we seem to be trying to use it as a source for who uses the term, which I would think rather requires better sources than that (and of course, if anyone included the well sourced claim of "right-wing bloggers" it would be reverted within seconds). Also, the quote we use is weird, it makes more sense in context: "The Palestinians...have since demonstrated a long history of posing for the cameras...and the cynical "Pallywood" nickname from once-deceived journalists for PA news services becomes understandable."

How about this? The Mackenzie Institute has written that given "a long history of posing for the cameras...the cynical "Pallywood" nickname from once-deceived journalists for PA news services becomes understandable." <<-armon->> 14:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Reads better, but like I say, I don't think it ought to be there at all. --Coroebus 14:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't find your "newsletter" objection to be very strong. It's an "official" publication of the org, and despite the attempts to marginalize it, it's respected -see sidebar on this page. <<-armon->> 14:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

This is not research from said thinktank, it is a newsletter, like the newsletters from various other organisations, and it is only an aside in said newsletter, serving no purpose in our article (particularly as a direct quote). I think it is down this road that messy POV-fest articles like Allegations of Israeli Apartheid lie. --Coroebus 14:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Armon, if you're trying to prove the Mackenzie Institute is a respected organization, it might be best to show proof that doesn't come from the Mackenzie Institute itself. I still think this is a pretty marginal source. CJCurrie 22:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Armon pointed to a page in which the Mackenzie Institute appears to be quoting others, not itself. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes: selectively quoting others for its own promotion. CJCurrie 23:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, you'd expect them to quote compliments, not insults, wouldn't you? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd also expect more objective evidence of the group's status as a respected group. For the present discussion, I mean. CJCurrie 01:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Such as... Jayjg ^(talk) 02:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

By the way, it does seem to get regularly quoted in the Canadian press: [24] Jayjg ^(talk) 03:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

CJCurrie, for starters, can you produce reliable sources indicating that Frum is a neoconservative, and that Arutz7 is "conservative"? Then at least we'll know if the well-poisoning also violates WP:V on top of WP:NPOV. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) I don't believe "well-poisoning" is an applicable description. See Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles#Attribute assertions, which advises that the potential bias of the source be identified in neutral terms. I'm not familiar with Arutz7 but according to a Google Books search, it "propagates ... the right wing's position" (Shlomo Deshen, "Religion in the Israeli Discourse on the Arab-Jewish Conflict", p. 117 in Ernest Krausz, Studies of Israeli Society. Transaction Publishers, 1980. ISBN 156000178X) and is "strongly associated with the ideology of the national-religious right-wing of Israeli politics". (Motti Regev, Edwin Seroussi, Popular Music and National Culture in Israel, p. 271. University of California Press, 2004. ISBN 0520236521) There are several more references of a similar nature. David Frum is described as a neoconservative in numerous publications. Rather than list them all, here's two links: [25], [26]. Amusingly, it seems he was even awarded the title of "Neoconservative of the Year" in 2003! [27]. As for the Mackenzie Institute, it's described by Murray Dobbin as being one of a number of conservative Canadian think-tanks and campaigning groups (Murray Dobbin, Preston Manning and the Reform Party, p. 101. James Lorimer & Company, 1991. ISBN 1550283596) although most sources merely call it a "think tank specialising in terrorism and security issues" or words to similar effect. -- ChrisO 07:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

hyperbolic language

i'm not overly contesting the edit, i just need some type of minor explanation to why this edit makes for better english. personally, i feel the previous phrasing is easier to follow as it gives the ending part an extended level of doubt beyond the other allegations that are more solid and plausible. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

See also section

I removed Bagdad Bob per relevance. --Tom 18:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I also removed the Battle of Jenin but left the other Jenin article related to propaganda. Anyways, --Tom 17:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Tom, the article about the battle of jenin has advanced leaps and bounds since august 3, and personally i feel the link belongs here considering the event was only notable due to fairly blatant massacre accusations made in the media (btw, the video of the fake funeral is from that jenin battle). please go over the article and let me know what you think. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 01:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jaakobou, the Battle of Jenin is already linked above the See also section so why include it again. I think I left the Jenin, Jenin link in originally. I would rather see less links in the See also section than more and have them specifically related to propaganda rather than inclusion of events, ect. Anyways, it seems that others have stepped in so I will defer to others. Cheers, --Tom 13:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

i'd appreciate some serious reasoning given to this repeated removal of notes from the see also section.^{[28], [29], [30]} Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 01:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that's the right starting point for discussion. What criteria are being used for the inclusion of "see also" links? -- ChrisO 13:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

(1) i believe you're not part of this revert discussion. (2) What criteria are being used for the removal of "see also" links? (don't ask silly questions, there is clear relevance of topics here - they are included in order to expand the knowledge of the encyclopedia reader). Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Jaakobou, anybody can comment here, and its not a silly question. Chris, I would refer to this, thanks. --Tom 22:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Jaakobou, you've missed the point I was making. Obviously it's not a good idea to link indiscriminately to other articles. In choosing to link to particular articles, you obviously have some reason to choose the articles in question. What is that reason? What are the criteria you're using for inclusion? Why those articles and not others? -- ChrisO 23:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

if you have others that you think are fitting, feel free to bring them in the debate. otherwise, all the information is at your footsteps if you just bother to go over it. p.s. i'm not interested in rhetorical debate at this point in time. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not remotely rhetorical. If you and the other editors can agree on a common set of criteria for linking, it'll avoid revert wars in the future. So, what are your criteria? -- ChrisO 23:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

is that an admission that you revert war regardless of the material being relevant or not relevant as long as there is no set of rules? to be frank, it would seem that you are only interested in polemics over the advancement of the article... if you are objecting to the addition, make your objection noted properly rather than divulge in meaningless babble over some non existent set of rules that will be ignored as soon as two other users get interested in the article. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Why are you accusing me of revert warring when I haven't touched the article for months? I'm trying to find some common ground to end this disagreement between you and Tiamut, Kitrus and Threeafterthree, not between you and me. Are you refusing to negotiate in good faith? -- ChrisO 00:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

i will talk with the people involved, not with someone making demands for policy statements or he'll war revert. to the point, i will not waste my time on a pseudo agreement with you that will not be honored with the other editors. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 01:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

arguments for inclusion and/or removal

Without an argument for the inclusion of these links, I stand by my revert of your additions. Tiamat 10:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Tiamut, the argument for the inclusion of the Jenin, Jenin film into the article about Pallywood, is that same as with the article's designation (i.e news events... staged by Palestinian... to portray Israel in an unfavorable light), the film was produced in order to do just that and is regarded as a well noted example that even received it's own counter film. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

If this is the case, and there is a reliable source that makes a connection between Jenin Jenin and Pallywood, why isn't it mentioned in the article? Tiamat 13:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

are you saying we either have it on the article or have it nowhere? i assumed that the "see also" section had a purpose. can you explain this purpose to me if not to include material that expands the knowledge of readers? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Pallywood is a neologism and the article should treat it as such. The entries under "See Also" are meant to relate to this neologism, not "confirm" it. By putting Jenin Jenin their, immediate suspicion is cast on the film.--Kitrus 07:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

could you please explain, i don't follow your logic here, are you saying that this film was not "staged by palestinains... portray israel in an unfavorable light" ? have you read the article ? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:40, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

If a reliable source claims that Jenin, Jenin is an example of Pallywood then you can definitely discuss this in the article. You cannot however, placeJenin, Jenin in the see also section as though it were an uncontested example of Pallywood. Please incorporate any such material into the article itself if you find it relevant and provide the proper NPOV contextualization. Tiamat 12:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

there you go "criticism that the film was rife with false, propagandistic charges about Israeli actions during the army’s April 2002 incursion into the Jenin refugee camp." now please revert your change. p.s. if you need further examples, you can try reading the article. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Sources with a strong bias (like CAMERA) are by definition not reliable. // Liftarn

Jaakabou, let's try this again. I have no problem with you discussing this article from CAMERA in the body of the text, as long as the opinion about Jenin, Jenin is attributed to CAMERA and they are properly described as a pro-Israel advocacy organization. What I do object to is placing Jenin, Jenin in the "See also" section without any contextualization which implies that Jenin, Jenin is an undisputed example of Pallywood which cannot be established with the sources that we have. Please try to understand this distinction. Tiamut 15:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

a fairly reasonable point Tiamut (despite the supreme court's decision), i agree to this assessment with this one.. will fix it sometime in the future. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Hezbollywood

On the same basis I've removed the links to the Lebanon controversies. Matters relating to Lebanon are by definition not part of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, so can hardly be described as "examples of Pallywood". -- ChrisO 16:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

see Hezbollywood. certainly fits in the see also section. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

It's obviously related. It's the same claim of media manipulation in the same conflict. <<-armon->> 00:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Chris is right though, we shouldn't link to the article as "Hezbollywood". <<-armon->> 08:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

requesting clarifications

could someone please explain the process behind this edit? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

If you have a copy of the 2003 L.A. Times article allegedly cited, please restore it and accept my sincere apologies. If you do not, then I believe it's all self-explanatory in the edit summary and comment. It is likely that this article was never published by the L.A. Times, although the confusion is understandable since the author is an L.A. Times columnist. See LA Times archive search. Eleland 20:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Eleland's right, the policy is WP:CITE#HOW "say where you got it". <<-armon->> 23:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)