Talk:Pallywood
NPOV
This is an article about an alleged practice from the Palestinian side of the "propaganda war," not about Israeli media policy and allegations about it. Also, Landes does more than "suggest" that the Pallywood phenomenon goes back to the 1982 Lebanon war - he claims or asserts it, and depending on your point of view, proves it. Also, I am not sure that "alleging" in front of each bulletpoint rather than as an introduction to it does anything at all.
What we should avoid is the tendency to sneak in pissing contests into this article, as we often see elsewhere on this subject. In my view, this article should be kept short so that the reader can see what the term means and decide whether it has any merit; there are separate articles on the media war itself. --Leifern 11:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
- I agree completely about the need to keep pissing contests out of articles, and I am striving to stay as neutral as I can be. I also agree that "asserting" is probably a better word than "suggesting" for RL: I was trying to use a word that sounded less strident, to keep POV out of it.
- But nobody's "sneaking in" anything here: WP edits are all visible if you mark the page on your watchlist, and I labelled my edit clearly. I see that you've removed my edit that the term "Pallywood" is used only by some supporters of the State of Israel, which us puzzling. All mentions I can find of the word by Google search is of people who clearly identify themselves as pro-Israel; it's a loaded term by design, a joking comparison of journalism with Hollywood. So I think the edit should be reverted.
- Also, I think subtle POV is introduced by only focussing on Palestinian spin, and not Israeli spin. It implies that Israel doesn't also habitually manage news video footage, which is incorrect.
- This topic should really be a new section in the existing entry for Media_coverage_of_the_Israeli-Palestinian_conflict. Focussing only on the spin of one side in this particular media war is POV, whether intended or not. --Virago 13:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
- I think allegations of media spin or falsification should be substantiated - the burden of proof should be on those who make them, and whether or not they are "pro-Israel" or "pro-Palestinian" is irrelevant - as per the ad hominem argument. As a now excised sentence makes clear, one could make a credible case that Pallywood hurts the Palestinians as much as it hurts the Israelis. By the same token, we don't get neutrality by simply writing that "if one party does it, the other is probably equally culpable of doing something equally bad." --Leifern 15:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
- Are you seriously suggesting that the Israeli govt doesn't engage in fakery and spin on news video footage? They must be the only govt on earth opting out. :)
- Before I go digging out the links, please give me an idea of what sort of proof would convince you that that Israelis have repeatedly engaged in the same practice.
- You wrote: "and whether or not they are "pro-Israel" or "pro-Palestinian" is irrelevant - as per the ad hominem argument."
- It's definitely relevant here, because by calling fake & spun video from the P-I conflict "Pallywood", Dr. Landes (and by consequence this new Wiki page) is implying that this practice is unique to the Palestinians. As he has openly declared his bias, he can't be considered to be making a verifiable observation: he's simply asserting an interesting opinion with no attempt made to hide his bias. The only two WP pages that link here use it in exactly this sense:
- Media_coverage_of_the_Israeli-Palestinian_conflict "Outright forgery - video footage, quotes, and other items are fabricated to bias the presentation. See Pallywood for such allegations."
- Muhammad_al-Durrah "I came to the realization that Palestinian cameramen, especially when there are no Westerners around, engage in the systematic staging of action scenes," (Landes) said, calling the footage "Pallywood cinema".
- This article as it stands is therefore presently unverifiable, primarily based as it is on repetition of an openly POV statement from a historian. I'd be happy to work with you to try to edit it into a useful and non-POV article, and I hope you'll read my tone here as one of respectful disagreement, and not picking a fight. Thanks, --Virago 17:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
(Reset indent) Well, Landes makes available lots of raw footage and reports from supposedly independent observers. As I said, I think he has the burden of proof here, but I think it should be up to the reader to determine whether he meets it or not. I am not suggesting that the Israeli government is beyond criticism, but by the same token I wouldn't want to treat it as a foregone conclusion that they fabricate video footage, etc. If there are websites that seek to prove such conduct by Israelis, we should link to it just as this one links to Brandes's website. I am not suggesting that we stick such allegations under a chair, but this article is about one type of alleged Palestinian manipulation that has gotten a term. As such, I think it should be short and clearly put in the right context, with links to make it easy for readers to get a more complete story. --Leifern 19:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure wether it's important or not, but among Norwegian tourists visiting Israel (these religious trips) there's a story of a well-know Norwegian reporter asking an Arab* if he could gather some young boys for stonethrowing, as it was months since his last "dramatic" report from Israel. It's a couple of years ago, but this cleraly states that some wesetern reporters dosen't hesistate to create the news they want.
- He works and live in Jerusalem, and is married to a Norwegian women and this couple is well-know among those travelling with Christian groups , but not with the reporters, and thats how the story emerged.--84.202.94.88 15:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree that alleged seems inappropriate given the evidence is available. There is video footage of "dead" rising again off their bier on their way to their funeral, for example. And we are beyond "spin." We have entered the world in which events are staged with actors for the camera. 2nd draft has footage in which a director is seen discussing and coaching his new actor for her appearance. They speak about her actual delivery at the hospital and the health of her baby even as she is coached to claim her baby died because she gave birth at checkpoint. This has also been seen in the recent war in Lebanon.
Used by....
I don't think you can substantiate that those who use the term "Pallywood" do it because they somehow are against the Palestinian cause. For example, I am surely in favor of Palestinian human rights, economic development, political independence, cultural expression, etc., but I use the term to describe a phenomenon that should be unacceptable in any free society, no matter who it benefits or hurts. It is reprehensible for anyone who is interested in the truth, as it should be. Obviously, one can debate the merits of the allegations, which is why Landes et al make a huge effort to document them; but trying to discredit them by speculating about the allegiance of those who make them is an ad hominem that has no place here. --Leifern 12:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
- Reasons for saying anything can't be proven, but I can't find the term used by anyone who can be described as leaning towards the Palestinians, and of the openly anti-Palestinian sources on the web the term is not universally used. Can you provide any examples of the word "Pallywood" being used in a neutral account of the conflict? Failing that, we must conclude that its use is restricted to a subset of openly non-neutral critics of the Palestinian media. Reverting edit. --Virago 8 January 2006 (UTC)
- Please sign talk contributions. You have the burden of proof, not me, on who the people are who are making these allegations. I don't want to get into a revert war here, but the article should be terse and describe the term, explain what its basis, and avoid editorial asides. I can make a very strong case that the Pallywood phenomenon damages the Palestinians more than the Israelis and benefits absolutely nobody. --Leifern 12:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
- Apologies for omitting signature. The term was coined by somebody who openly declares a bias, and is used only by people who likewise openly declare their bias. It's not universally used, and is intentionally derogatory. Therefore to avoid bringing in POV, its limited use must be explicitly stated in order to understand the term properly. --Virago 12:59, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
- Please sign talk contributions. You have the burden of proof, not me, on who the people are who are making these allegations. I don't want to get into a revert war here, but the article should be terse and describe the term, explain what its basis, and avoid editorial asides. I can make a very strong case that the Pallywood phenomenon damages the Palestinians more than the Israelis and benefits absolutely nobody. --Leifern 12:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
- Reasons for saying anything can't be proven, but I can't find the term used by anyone who can be described as leaning towards the Palestinians, and of the openly anti-Palestinian sources on the web the term is not universally used. Can you provide any examples of the word "Pallywood" being used in a neutral account of the conflict? Failing that, we must conclude that its use is restricted to a subset of openly non-neutral critics of the Palestinian media. Reverting edit. --Virago 8 January 2006 (UTC)
POV
POV tag added following yet another revert. Let's try to find our way to a compromise without revert wars please. Thanks. --Virago 13:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
- I suppose we need to distinguish between the phenomenon - which, if true, is an affront to the free press anywhere; and the use of the term, which as we agree is a derogatory epithet. I do not thing that we can say that those who coined it are against the Palestinian cause. It is probably safe to say that they want Israeli policy toward Palestinians to be presented in a factual, fair, and unbiased light, but I wouldn't hope that places them in any particular camp. If asked if they want Palestinian policy to be placed in a factual, fair, and unbiased light, they'd probably say they want that too.Leifern
- Well you do have a point that the wording is "epithet", not "phenomenon". I don't believe that Landes is anti-Palestinian, in fact it was Ynhockey (who claims to be an Israeli in the IDF) who changed "supporters of the State of Israel" to "opponents of the Palestinian cause", which is not accurate IMO. Neither description is precise enough really- just a fact of life in an issue this complex.
- As far as all people in the pro-Israel and pro-Palestine debate camps wanting policy to be placed in a factual, fair, and unbiased light, well, in every conflict there are people and groups who want propaganda & dogma, not balance. As far as I'm aware I don't favor either group in the conflict: I'm just a Wikipedia fan trying to improve it. But we're never objective about our own latent prejudices.
- Anyway, fair point. POV tag removed. PS: Remember to sign your contributions. :) --Virago 13:51, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
- I wrote that they would "say" that they would want that - of course, all propagandists will promise that they aren't promoting propaganda, merely the truth. --Leifern 14:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
- I also want all info regarding the conflict to be presented in a fair, factual and unbiased manner. I changed the 'supporters of the State of Israel' for 2 main reasons: The fact that the opposite ('opponents of the State of Israel') would mean people who don't recognize its right to exist, making the phrase offensive to Israelis; and the ambiguity of the sentence (it can mean supporting Israel's right to exist, or it can mean supporting the Israeli government policies, or a bunch of other things). In the end it's not really important to me how the sentence is worded as long as it's not offensive to either side. -- Ynhockey 15:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Adoption of the term
I changed the wording a bit on the general use of the term "Pallywood" and removed the citation needed. A google search on the term yields 199,000 hits, of which only a minority refer to the film. I think it's safe to say that the term's usage is expanded beyond the film that coined it. --Leifern 14:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
- Makes sense. Here are a couple of examples that seemed convincing enough to me: [1], [2], [3]. While I am not familiar with these sources and not sure about their reliability, the term seems to have been widely adopted. OTOH, I'd like to see where does the assertion that "pallywood" is a well-defined term come from. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ну? 20:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
This was posted on my (Kosmopolis') talk page by Ynhockey:
Hi, please stop removing definitions of Pallywood which were not invented by Landes himself. While Landes may have been referring specifically to Palestinians, the term has since then gained widespread use regarding non-Palestinian Arab media manipulation as well, notably Adnan Hajj. Even a simple Google search reveals that many websites refer to Adnan Hajj's photos as Pallywood (or in some cases Hezbollywood, a derived term). Yes it's true that the name Pallywood itself implies the Palestinians, like many words it grew out of its original meaning into something broader. There is no proof whatsoever that Pallywood now refers exclusively to Palestinian media manipulation. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 17:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- My response:
- Ynhockey, you are saying yourself that Dr. Landes refers specifically to Palestinians. End of story! A "simple Google search reveals" nothing, only that there are people like you who have the same ill-founded understanding of "Pallywood". Pallywood is a well-defined term and has always been. You are free to start a new topic "Hezbollywood" for that particular neologism, but please don't mix up well-defined terms and bend their definitions to what you perceive them to be. Thanks. Kosmopolis 19:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC) Addendum for Humus sapiens: The assertion that "Pallywood" is well-defined comes from the definition given by the guy who invented this neologism, namely Dr. Landes. He explicitly says [4]: "The term "Pallywood" refers to the staging of scenes by Palestinian journalists in order to present the Palestinians as hapless victims of Israeli aggression." So why would one include e.g. a claim by the International Committee of the Red Cross in the "Pallywood" context? Is the ICRC a Palestinian organization? Or is it a subsidiary of Hezbollah? Even if the ambulance strike is a hoax, was the IRCR's intention to present the Palestinians as hapless victims of Israeli aggression? If Iran put out a news report today, claiming that the Iranian Red Cross was attacked by Israel, would that also be "Pallywood", or rather "Iranywood"? Where do you draw the line? You see, you make the terrible mistake of indiscriminately putting down every report by whatever party that could be perceived as staged/faked and/or deliberately anti-Israel as "Pallywood". We *must* stick to the original definition, even more so because it is a neologism. There is a good reason that traditional encyclopedias wait for years before they accept neologisms as lemmata.
- Another post from my talk page:
- Sorry for butting in here (this discussion might be better if moved to Talk:Pallywood), but I'll just note that Pallywood probably should only refer to Palestinians, but that it is indeed used for other performances. Perhaps the entire article should be merged into Media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? --GunnarRene 21:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- I strongly support GunnarRene's proposal. Kosmopolis 21:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- I'd just like to clarify that Wikipedia must reflect reality as it can be verified (i.e. actual use of the term) and not just what it should mean. The originator of the term does not have a monopoly on defintion, although his usage should be have heavy weight. I support my own proposal, by the way :-) --GunnarRene 21:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- I strongly support GunnarRene's proposal. Kosmopolis 21:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)