Talk:Pallywood: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 18:13, 6 February 2008 editG-Dett (talk \| contribs)6,192 edits →Blogs as sources ← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 10:14, 23 December 2024 edit undoScottishFinnishRadish (talk \| contribs)Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators60,723 edits Reverting edit(s) by Zer0time4lies (talk) to rev. 1264174443 by ScottishFinnishRadish: WP:ECR (UV 0.1.6)Tags: Ultraviolet Undo
(555 intermediate revisions by 97 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{talk header}}
	{{WikiProjectBanners
			{{Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement}}
	\|1={{WikiProject Israel}}
	~~\|2=~~{{WikiProject ~~Palestine~~\|class=~~start~~\|~~importance~~=~~Low}}~~		{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=C\|1=
	~~\|3=~~{{WikiProject ~~Journalism~~}}		{{WikiProject Israel\|importance=Mid}}
			{{WikiProject Palestine\|importance=Low}}
			{{WikiProject Journalism \|importance=Low}}
	}}		}}
	{{Troll warning}}
	{{oldafdmulti\|date=February 18, 2007\|votepage=Pallywood\|result='''no consensus, nearly keep'''		{{oldafdmulti\|date=February 18, 2007\|votepage=Pallywood\|result='''no consensus, nearly keep'''
	\|date2=September 9, 2007\|page2=Pallywood (2nd nomination)\|result2='''keep and rename'''\|collapse=yes}}		\|date2=September 9, 2007\|page2=Pallywood (2nd nomination)\|result2='''keep and rename'''\|collapse=yes}}

	''Earlier discussion:''

			== 2021-07 deletion of french language Misplaced Pages article ==
	* ]
	* ]

			A few weeks ago, a very pro-Israel wikipedian asked the deletion of the french language Misplaced Pages article ]. I guess that the motive is obvious. ] (]) 10:18, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
	== Bringing this article in line with ] and ] ==
	] is doing important work right now on the parallel article ]; his overdue improvements there should be a model for us here. Specifically, he's emphasized the important distinction between primary-source material that ''uses'' the term and secondary source-material that ''discusses'' the term itself: "I'm going to have to ruthlessly remove ''any'' sources which are mere example of the terms ''usage'', rather than discussions of the term, per ] and ]." He's also emphasized how the distinction applies on a sentence-by-sentence level within a single source (i.e. a sentence discussing the term is fine, but a sentence that goes on to describe what the "Jewish lobby" does needs to be removed). We should employ something of the same ruthlessness here; it may well mean that the sections on "Media in the Gaza Strip" and "Other examples" will have to be dropped in their entirety.--] (]) 21:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

			== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 November 2023 ==
	:Please don't start with wikilawyering again. Even if you're right, the section to be removed would be the "usage" section, not the material you don't like. ] (]) 00:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
	::Read the post above, and then see ]: '''"To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term."''' This is an article about the neologism "Pallywood." The "usage" section is what's appropriate, per ]; most (but not all) of the other material belongs in ]. We need to remove any sources which are mere example of the terms usage, rather than discussions of the term, per WP:NOR and WP:NEO.--] (]) 01:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

			{{Edit extended-protected\|Pallywood\|answered=yes}}
	: was sensibly motivated, and not by "wikilawyering". The most egregious section, "Media in the Gaza Strip," is a recapitulation of a single piece by a (credible) German journalist which happens to use the term "Pallywood," once. It really has no place here per ]; this article is supposed to be about the term. I'm not sure if reference to Durrah should be excised entirely, since it appears to be the keystone of the whole "Pallywood" opinion and thus important for understanding the term. Removal of the "In his video..." section probably went too far; I would cut out about half of it. Something like
			Please change "say" to "said" in the second line of Other Uses. ] (]) 12:09, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
	<blockquote>In his video, Landes shows ]-related footage, mostly taken by freelance Palestinian video journalists. He believes that systematic media manipulation (which he dubs "Pallywood") dates back to at least the ], and argues that broadcasters are too uncritical of the ''bona fides'' of Palestinian freelance footage.</blockquote>
			:{{done}}<!-- Template:EEp --> Thank you. ] (]) 12:19, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
	:Landes' video is important to understanding the term, but we should avoid giving undue weight to his conclusions, beyond what's necessary to understand what the term "Pallywood" means.
	:The section on Frum should be removed. It's again just an example of usage, and undue weight. A7 (somehow left in before) most certainly should be removed, since it's an extremist, hateful source representing a fringe view. <]/]]> 01:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
	::These are sensible suggested changes; I'll make them now. I left in A7 because it actually discusses the term. I don't know much about it as a source, so I'll leave that to you.--] (]) 01:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

			== Recent references of Pallywood for article update ==
	==The problem of identification==

			If anyone is able to make updates of this article it'd be appreciated. There has been a lot of misinformation spreading on Twitter/X (as well as elsewhere) related to "Pallywood", since the recent 2023 Israel-Hamas conflict, and overall this article seems very outdated. Even if only by about a month or so and lacking further sources.
	Our article currently refers to a statement made by the Israeli network ], but does not inform readers that this network is widely regarded as be one of the most nationalistic media outlets in Israel, with a strong bias toward a specific variety of right-wing, pro-settler ].

			Here are some references, not sure what can be considered reliable or relevant, but it's what is currently available for this fast developing topic.
	While I recognize the need to avoid describing this group in terms that could skew the discussion (a point that was made in a past dispute involving David Frum), I also think it's misleading for us to leave the reader with ''no'' clue as to Arutz Sheva's broader perspective. Could someone suggest a means of resolving this situation? ] (]) 21:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

			Notably ADL & Rolling Stone have labelled this as a conspiracy, which I see is currently touched upon briefly under Controversies and criticism but should probably be based in intro too in my opinion.
	:Unlike ] this article is seeking NPOV by being very short...oh well. In this particular case, Arutz-Sheva is cited for an assertion that they make; and it's pretty clear from the assertion what side they are on in this particular issue. We could preface the statement with something like "Arguing for the acceptance of the term..." to make that abundantly clear. But I think we'll run into well-poisoning accusations if we try to characterize the media outlet further. --] (]) 21:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

			'''Recent fact checks related to Pallwood:'''
	::I don't think this is necessarily true. We often identify authors and media outlets with a brief statement that outlines their experience/credibility/focus/perspective etc. I recognize the need to avoid well-poisoning, but I don't believe that identifying A7 as Religious Zionist or right-wing is inherently problematic (except perhaps insofar as the former label could be interpreted as tainting ''all'' Religious Zionism by association with these crackpots, but that's another matter entirely). ] (]) 21:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

			https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-crisis-actor-israel-hamas-war-false-movie-set-975355588351
	:::They are cited for a very specific allegation, namely the adoption of a term. We're not using them as a source for the prevalence of fake/staged news events, etc. I realize that you think we should qualify a source and certainly buy reasons for doing so in certain cases; but it's a slippery slope, as many would characterize the Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation and BBC as news outlets with a clear and consistent anti-Israeli bias. So unless we want to accept that kind of description every time any of these is cited for any news item that might be construed as critical to Israel; we have to have a very good reason for qualifying Arutz-7 in this case. --] (]) 21:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

			https://fullfact.org/news/gaza-egypt-bodies-protest/
	::::I'm aware of the "slippery slope" argument as well, but I can't help but think there's a greater risk in providing ''no'' qualifying description of this rather extreme source. ] (]) 22:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

			https://fullfact.org/online/halloween-costume-not-gaza-bodybag/
	== More examples needed? ==

			https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-israel-hamas-gaza-crisis-actors-131062994735
	I was surprised to see few actual examples of the phenomenon on the page, e.g., staged scenes such as those publicized in the last few days: and . I don't want to weight the article too much towards recent stories, so perhaps we should compile examples of this, so that the al-Durrah incident isn't the only example. A disinterested party reading this could come to the conclusion that the al-Durrah incident was the only significant example of this phenomenon, when it's just the most widely publicized example. ] (]) 22:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

			'''Articles referencing "Pallywood" a as conspiracy theory:'''
	:This is not an article about allegations of media manipulation or fabrication, but an article about the term "Pallywood". That distinction is important because otherwise the article becomes structurally biased in that it only discusses ''Palestinian'' manipulation & fabrication. Neither source provided uses the term "Pallywood". Examples for the term should be reserved for those cases which are relevant to understanding the term. <]/]]> 22:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

			https://www.logicallyfacts.com/en/analysis/pallywood-how-denial-of-civilian-harm-has-proliferated
	:::Sadly that is apparently '''not''' what the article is about, but rather about media fabrication, the POV title is the result of majority (even if partisan) opinion (see ). Of course consensus changes. --] 20:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

			https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/what-is-pallywood-palestinians-falsely-accused-faking-devastation-1234869765/
	::Eh, no it's not. '''It is, and was always intended to be, about media manipulation and fabrication'''. It's limited in scope the way you describe because of repeated blanking vandalism. --] (]) 03:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
	:::I'll ignore the hysterical claim of vandalism. If you're serious, you need to explain why an article titled with a ]logism is somehow exempt from the relevant guideline; to support an article about a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers ''about'' the term—not books and papers that ''use'' the term. An editor's personal observations and research are insufficient to support use of neologisms because this is analysis and synthesis of primary source material. (])
	:::I'm quoting directly from the guideline, and furthermore, the guideline is only a straightforward application of ] and ]. <]/]]> 03:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
	::::Let's also not forget that ]. It's been apparent from the start that some editors want to use this article to state this "phenomenon" - which may or may not exist - as a fact. If you have a look at of this article you can see what I mean, in the way that he describes highly contentious claims as if they were established facts. You can see the same sort of thing above in Calbaer's comments about the al-Durrah incident - I take it that he's a supporter of the minority POV that it was faked. We need to avoid this kind of one-sidedness; it's a fundamental breach of ]. -- ] (]) 11:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
	:::::ChrisO, if you're going to misrepresent my actions, it would be helpful to your case if you didn't refer to something that directly disproves your point. The version you point to clearly states that the fabrication are "alleged." Nowhere do I make contentious claims out to be factual, and in fact at every turn I have avoided doing that.--] (]) 16:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
	::::::Well, I might have misread your intentions - if so, I apologise. Nonetheless, if you look at the two AfDs on this article you'll see that many editors have supported the retention of the article on purely partisan grounds, i.e. because they believe there's a "phenomenon" and want to assert that on Misplaced Pages. -- ] (]) 22:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::I think that accusations of media fraud in a conflict that is so saturated with media coverage are serious and notable enough that they deserve an article that lays out the basis for the accusations as well as the evidence/arguments against it. Misplaced Pages is not a dictionary, and I've always been open to changing the title to "Charges of news falsification against Israel" or something along those lines. --] (]) 15:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::Beware that what you propose may violate ]. For allegations of media bias as well as arguments against it, please see ]. The ] article should limit itself to describing the film by that name. ← <span style="font-family: serif;"><b>]</b></span><sup> (])</sup> 23:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::::Ehm, no it shouldn't. Look, I know what some editors are trying to do here. They don't like the subject matter, as it embarrasses their strongly held beliefs. So they reduce the meaning of the topic until it's so narrow it's no longer notable. --] (]) 15:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::An equally significant danger is that of ]ing. The same rationale was used to justify the existence of a now-deleted "Barack Obama Muslim rumor" article; in practice, it just turned out to be an unencyclopedic collection of poorly-sourced rumours and conspiracy theories. Such articles are ''inherently'' incapable of being properly encyclopedic. To quote WP:COATRACK, "Often the main tool of a coatrack article is fact picking. Instead of finding a balanced set of information about the subject, a coatrack goes out of its way to find facts that support a particular bias. A common fact picking device is listing great amounts of individual peoples' quotes criticizing of the nominal subject, while expending little or no effort mentioning that the criticism comes from a small fraction of people. That small fraction thus gets a soapbox that is far larger than reality warrants. Even though the facts may be true as such, the proportional volume of the hand-picked facts drowns other information, giving a false impression to the reader." This article had exactly those same problems for a long time, until it was cleaned up (though it's still not ideal); if it was expanded along the lines of Leifern's suggstion, it would end up even worse than it originally was. -- ] (]) 02:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::::Correction: it would end up more disagreeable to your POV than it is. Media fraud is a well-known phenomenon at this point and is getting increasing attention. The fact that the criticism comes from a small number of people is completely irrelevant - the media fraud is documented and persists. Even Charles Enderlin is starting to fess up. --] (]) 15:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
	(unindenting) My POV, as you call it, is simply that we have to follow Misplaced Pages's NPOV and sourcing policies, describe the arguments fairly and neutrally, and not give undue weight to views that have little or no support in reliable sources. The fact that "the criticism comes from a small number of people" is actually ''highly'' relevant, given our ]. It's clear from your comments on Enderlin that you're a supporter of the al-Durrah conspiracy theory, but as I'm sure you're aware (or should be), you can't use Misplaced Pages as a platform to promote your POV, particularly if - as you've just acknowledged - it's the POV of a small minority in the debate. -- ] (]) 08:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
	:Those motivations you claim, ChrisO, are scarcely in evidence in your edits. Such self-righteous proclamations, coupled with personal attacks, and unilateral efforts to gut the article, don't reassure me much. Enderlin has recently commented on other media fraud incidents lately, and I wasn't referring to his al-Durrah story directly or indirectly. I don't have any opinion on what happened with Mohammad al-Durrah, but I think there are a lot of unanswered questions related to the story. The death of a young boy is not a frivolous matter. If you see my comments on the matter on the relevant talk pages, it should be very clear what my view is. I don't know what your measure is of a "small minority" but the al-Durrah controversy and other alleged cases of media fraud are covered by pretty mainstream media outlets. --] (]) 14:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
	::First, I really don't appreciate your personal attacks and constant assumptions of bad faith. I'm not attempting to "gut the article" as you put it - simply, as I've already said, to make sure we follow Misplaced Pages's NPOV and sourcing policies. Second, your revert of my edits - complete with assumed bad faith in the - is very unhelpful and I would strongly advise you against using reverts in that way. To quote ], "Do not revert good faith edits. In other words, try to consider the editor "on the other end." If what one is attempting is a positive contribution to Misplaced Pages, a revert of those contributions is inappropriate unless, and only unless, you as an editor possess firm, substantive, and objective proof to the contrary. Mere disagreement is not such proof. See also ]." Reverting because of ] is not an endorsed editing method. I'll remind you of the sanctions imposed in ], which I've asked to be implemented on this article as well. We need to ensure that ''constructive'' editing takes place on this article in future, in accordance with Misplaced Pages's policies, rather than the sort of aggressive and confrontation reverting that's been typical on articles in this topic area. To quote again: "Generally there are misconceptions that problematic sections of an article or recent changes are the reasons for reverting or deletion. If they contain valid information, these texts should simply be edited and improved accordingly. '''Reverting is not a decision which should be taken lightly.'''"
	::I've therefore restored the edits that you reverted. If you disagree with my changes, let's discuss them here on the talk page, which is what's supposed to happen. To summarise the changes:
	:::1) I've revised the article to focus on the two specific issues mentioned in the lead: Landes' video and the wider user of the term. The previous version had a section about Landes, then a section about other people's use of the term, then another section about Landes. The revised version is more coherent, focusing on Landes first then covering the wider use of the term. The al-Durrah subsection has been shortened, summarised and folded into the Landes section so that it's related specifically to Landes' video. I assume that Liftarn's use of the coatrack tag was related to that subsection; it's certainly not necessary to recap the al-Durrah story in much detail, particularly if we're focusing specifically on its relationship to Landes' video.
	::::The article is not about the term. Was never intended to be about the term, shouldn't be about the term. If this reductionist outlook holds, I see no other recourse than to nominate the article for deletion. --] (]) 22:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::::The article ''isn't'' solely about the term. It never has been. Excluding the lead, something like 60% of it is about Landes' video. I've actually expanded the coverage of this aspect. -- ] (]) 00:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::2) ] is an essential element of NPOV. I've therefore taken out the bit about "Pallywood" being used on Usenet, as it's impossible to see this as being of any significance - it was used once by one completely unknown individual in an obscure newsgroup. It's impossible to relate it to any later usages, so we have no way of assessing its etymological importance. And Usenet is, of course, not a ].
	::::The purpose of the citation was to show that the term had been used before Landes used it. Please read previous discussions on this topic before making such edits, and also read what you delete. --] (]) 22:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::::If the article isn't about the term, what's the need to show that it had been used before Landes used it? We don't know who coined the term, and we have no way of relating that early isolated example on Usenet to any later use of it. It's undue weight on an event of unknown significance, and to be honest it borders on ] to be making such connections without having any reliable sources on which to draw. -- ] (]) 00:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::3) I've changed the line that read "Professor Richard Landes of Boston University is credited with having given the term currency in 2005." Who credited him with this and where? It's not supported in the sources as far as I can see. On the other hand, we can certainly say that he gave the term prominence, because our sources do support that.
	::::No stronger case for one than the other, but I'm sure there's some purpose to it that escapes me. --] (]) 22:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::4) I've added some contextual and definition info from a recent ''Jerusalem Post'' article that (for once) specifically cites and defines the term.
	:::5) I've removed a citation from Honestreporting.com, a Pajamas Media blog. Per ], Pajamas Media isn't generally accepted as a "reliable, third-party, published source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" (to quote ]). It isn't necessary to quote it anyway - the same point is more than adequately covered by the genuinely reliable sources listed. -- ] (]) 00:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

			https://thewire.in/world/fact-check-unedited-footage-debunks-israeli-propaganda-on-shrouded-corpse
	Chris's edits were sensible and in accordance with policy. We should not be relying on sources like "Honest Reporting," which is the website of an advocacy group, or on random Usenet postings from 2002. And we should not be portraying the al-Durra case as if it's widely regarded as "Pallywood" rather than the specific accusation of a specific source. I'm not sure why Leifern is so determined to portray this as vandalism or censorship. Can we just talk about it sensibly and in good faith? <]/]]> 00:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

			https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/nov/11/israel-hamas-fake-news-thrives-on-poorly-regulated-online-platforms
	::Eleland, please read previous discussions on this page. For example, the Usenet reference is simply documenting the first known use of the term, as people were - falsely - asserting that Landes coined the term. Chris's edits clearly altered the meaning of the article, something he knew to be contentious, and he went ahead and did it unilaterally without discussing it here. Then he goes running to admins complaining and crying that I reverted these edits, asking for further discussion instead. --] (]) 22:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

			'''Related to Saleh Aljafarawi aka "Mr Fafo", sometimes referenced to as "Mr Pallywood":'''
	:::As far as I can see, the meaning of the article is just the same as it was before - it still covers Landes' video and it still covers the way the term has been used by others. Apart from the Usenet etymology and some excess detail on the al-Durrah case, almost all of the content that was in your revert is still in the article - it's merely organised slightly differently. There's actually ''more'' original content than there was before, since I've been able to add material from a ''Jerusalem Post'' story that specifically refers to "Pallywood". -- ] (]) 00:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

			https://apnews.com/article/israel-hamas-gaza-misinformation-fact-check-e58f9ab8696309305c3ea2bfb269258e
	:I'd just like to pick up one point Leifern made that I missed in replying. Leifern said, "I don't know what your measure is of a "small minority" but the al-Durrah controversy and other alleged cases of media fraud are covered by pretty mainstream media outlets." On the al-Durrah matter, I've recently done a systematic survey of media and book coverage of the case, using some very comprehensive academic databases, and I've obtained some significant data on who has said what and when. I found only two newspapers (both, probably not coincidentally, owned by the same company) which actively supported the al-Durrah conspiracy theory - a small number of others reported on it but didn't support it. It's clearly a small minority POV as far as media coverage goes. This isn't really the place to discuss it, though; I'll write up the findings on ] in due course. I also found a lot more material on the case which I'll add to the article. -- ] (]) 01:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

			https://www.reuters.com/fact-check/injured-teenager-who-lost-his-leg-misidentified-social-media-2023-10-27/
	== Notification of Arbitration Enforcement ==

			https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2023/11/01/pallywood-gazans-are-falsely-accused-of-staging-injury-and-death-online
	* (original request)
	* ]

			https://www.boomlive.in/fact-check/fake-news-viral-video-man-in-hospital-palestinian-blogger-acting-hospital-unrelated-people-factcheck-23471
	Under the discretionary sanctions imposed at ], this article has been placed on a one-revert rule. Any editor who makes more than one revert (and this revert must be discussed on the talk page) in a 7-day period will be blocked. Please edit cooperatively, and seek consensus and compromise rather than edit-war. <b><i><font color="#FF00FF">~Kylu (]\|]) </font></i></b> 01:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

			Overall it seems like it will be more widely accepted that Pallywood is indeed a conspiracy theory based on it's current usage, even if it's origins are based on some events from past usage. Even if it's too soon for that change until there are more sources available to confirm.
	:Article probation lifted (see ]). -- ''']''' 19:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

			Can return with more sources when they arrive if welcomed. Thanks in advance. ] (]) 22:39, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
	::Absolutely not, and extremely bad form of you to do this unilaterally, Tariqabjotu. The discussion I read was about whether it was appropriate for ChrisO to revert the article to his preferred version before asking for the sanction. There does not seem to be any concern that Kylu acted incorrectly in placing the 1RR limit. If you want this reviewed, apply at ]. ] 02:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

			:Hello, regarding the "Articles referencing "Pallywood" a as conspiracy theory", it's also referenced that way in the fact checks of Associated Press https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-crisis-actor-israel-hamas-war-false-movie-set-975355588351 and Snopes https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/film-crew-footage-gaza/ . --] (]) 22:23, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
	:::Removed again; this article does not need this just yet (see ] and ]). -- ''']''' 22:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
			::There are specific guidelines for ] and ]
			::But yeah, in general, it seems like this is definitely more a conspiracy theory than not (Maybe more like misinformation? I don't think the people who do this accusation actually believe in it). This article definitely seems to give too much credence to the idea that much of media coverage in Palestine is faked. ] (]) 17:01, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

			== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 November 2023 ==
	== Suggested new intro ==

			{{edit extended-protected\|Pallywood\|answered=yes}}
	I'm suggesting the following new intro, which I believe to be more accurate and better explains the topic. (current intro: )
			Change “Needless to say, such episodes don’t instil an abiding trust in subsequent Palestinian claims, at least until they’re verified."” to “Needless to say, such episodes don’t instil an abiding trust in subsequent Palestinian claims, at least until they’re verified." Philip Weiss has echoed the concerns of others that use of the term amounts to “denial of war crimes”. ”

			Citation #17 for edit:
	::'''Pallywood''' (a ] of "]" and "]") is a controversial ] that refers to news events where ] have allegedly staged a crisis for the camera with the intent to portray ] in an unfavorable light. The term, alongside less known others such as ']' and 'Jenin massacre syndrome', is also used to support an accusation towards foreign journalists that they prefer manufactured news and hypes over the facts.<ref>, ]</ref>
			https://mondoweiss.net/2023/10/an-americans-shattered-faith/

			(Reasoning: The “Other Uses” portion of the page includes only conservative Jewish and/or Israeli voices around the use of the term “Pallywood” as well as a quote from Michelle Malkin, who is now widely considered as antisemitic by the community and has been dropped by organizations such as the Young Americans Foundation as a result. It would be valuable to neutrality to include the voice of a Jewish progressive perspective on this section. I have cited the article above, written in 2023 by Philip Weiss of Mondoweiss. Philip Weiss’ name should further be linked to his Misplaced Pages page when mentioned: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/Philip_Weiss) ] (]) 21:42, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
	::The term 'Pallywood' is perhaps best known in connection with an online documentary video, ''Pallywood: According to Palestinian Sources'', which was produced by ] academic ]<ref name=Carvajal>Carvajal, Doreen. , ''International Herald Tribune'', Monday, February 7, 2005.</ref><ref name=Cambanis>Cambanis, Thanassis. "Some Shunning The Palestinian Hard Stance." ''The Boston Globe'', September 6, 2005</ref> The term has also been adopted by a number of political commentators and right-wing bloggers.<ref name=Cambanis/>
			:I've removed this material. It was a largely self-published, with a further permanent dead link to a defunct organisation. ] (]) 06:43, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

			== Mondoweiss ==
	Thoughts, suggestions? <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 10:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

			Is Mondoweiss even a reliable source? Not sure why it's used on this article, when it's surrounded by constant acrimony... ] (]) 09:46, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
	'''comment by Jaakobou:''' possible source for the hype text:
	::, ].
	I'm aware it does not use the term Pallywood, however, it uses 'Jenin Massacre Syndrome' and 'Palestinian "eyewitnesses,"' which seems like a clear part of the topic here. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 11:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

	:~~Thanks~~ ~~for~~ ~~the~~ ~~suggestions,~~ ~~Jaakobou~~ - I've ~~addressed~~ ~~them~~ (~~indirectly~~) ~~below.~~ -- ] (]) 08:21, 3 February ~~2008~~ (UTC)		:usage of mondoweiss is fine. officially, mondoweiss' reliability is listed as "no consensus" (its in ]), and it's recommended that wikipedia editors attribute whatever statements they use, which this article has done. ] (]) 04:28, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
			:FYI, its reliability is now discussed ]. ]<sub>]</sub> 07:53, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

			== Removal of the last two sentences of lead ==
	::It would be better to have some direct address since I hope to have this inserted into the article. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 13:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

			They clearly are not ] and provide a lot more polarized claims in one direction without any criticism. They belong more in the historical section, and should also be placed in context with what others say. ] (]) 17:05, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
	:::Few changes, thoughts? <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 23:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

			:I'm going to go ahead and remove those sentences. ] (]) 05:18, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
	::::'''Note:''' I'm giving this a couple more days for comments and then, unless objections are expressed, inserting it. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 07:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

	== ~~Sticking to the sources~~ ==		== Disinformation ==

			My point was that if a source attributes a certain statement ("Pallywood is disinformation") then we cannot state it in wikivoice. We may include it with attribution if it's notable. ]<sub>]</sub> 20:30, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
	I think it would be a good idea if we had a fresh look at the cited sources to ensure that we're staying as close to them as possible. Since the Jerusalem Post has helpfully defined the term, attributing it to "pro-Israel media-watchdog advocates", I've quoted this directly in the lead. Leifern rightly flagged the "perhaps best known" line as weaselly, so I've gone back to the cited ''Boston Globe'' story, which states: "There has been heated debate in recent years whether the Duras were even struck by Israeli bullets during the gunfight or whether they were instead hit by wild Palestinian gunfire. A campaign led in part by Boston University Professor Richard Landes has sought to portray the Dura case as an example of "Pallywood," or theatrical Palestinian propaganda." I think the last section, which Leifern wants to call "Other alleged examples", is a bit problematic - it won't be helpful to turn the article into a laundry list of miscellaneous claims of media manipulation (which would in any case be a POV fork of ]). We need to stick as closely as possible to the sources; if they've used the term "Pallywood" to refer to an incident, fair enough; if not we can't describe it as an episode of "Pallywood" because we would have no source to make that connection (thus, ] and conceivably ]). We must also make sure that we don't endorse any of the claims made. I've therefore changed "He '''shows''' that systematic media manipulation..." to "He '''argues'''", as the first is an endorsement of his claims - per ], "Assert facts, including facts about opinions — but do not assert the opinions themselves." -- ] (]) 08:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:Media fraud is a notable enough topic to warrant its own article without being an NPOV fork or coatrack, much like "Crushing by Elephants" isn't a POV fork "capital punishment." This goes back to the rather bizarre premise that only media fraud characterized by a credible source as "Pallywood," then it can be mentioned here. The POV-pushing is more likely to come if we omit examples of an accusation because it doesn't include the magic word. --] (]) 12:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

			== Staying unbiased. ==
	::Are you even going to acknowledge that the language in ] exists? "Pallywood" is a partisan neologism with very limited traffic; it is known mainly in the rightwing blogosphere. It is no more appropriate to categorize all accusations related to Palestinian media manipulation as "Pallywood" than it is to create an article "]" including information on all right-wing or fascistic Israeli political parties. <]/]]> 13:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

			{{edit COI\|D\|}}
	:::I have previously gone on record that I am fine with renaming the article. If it's only to be about a term (and I'll just ignore the imaginative assertion that it is "known mainly in the rightwing blogosphere"), then the article should be deleted. --] (]) 13:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
			<!--Don't remove anything above this line.-->

	::::The term has 2,747 Google blog hits and 41 Google News hits. Most of the "news" sources are unreliable; pretty much all the mainstream news coverage is included in this article already. For comparison the term "Zionazi" has 28 Google News hits. "Israeli Occupation Forces" + IOF has 1,630 News hits. Should we start an article "Israeli Occupation Forces?" I doubt that even a redirect to ] would survive, let alone a private playground for pro-Palestinian bloggers in the vein of this crappy article. <]/]]> 13:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

			* '''What I think should be changed''':
	Might I remind everyone here that there is an article entitled ] (which I am currently rewriting ]), and that allegations of pro-Israel/pro-Palestinian or anti-Israel/anti-Palestinian ] belong in ''that'' article? This article should not be renamed, because the documentary ''Pallywood: According to Palestinian Sources...'' should have its own article; however, content pertaining to allegations of bias, in general, which do not appear in the film, should be moved to the ] article. ← <span style="font-family: serif;"><b>]</b></span><sup> (])</sup> 21:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
			Change "to falsely accuse Palestinians for supposedly faking suffering", it is biased to say it's 100% false accusations and that there are not fake videos too.
			* '''Why it should be changed''':
			To stay being ubiased...
			* '''References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button)''':
			https://gazawood.com
			https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/10/11/real-or-fake-verifying-video-evidence-israel-and-palestine
			https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/how-misinformation-about-israel-and-gaza-has-evolved-in-the-yearlong-war
			https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2023/11/14/video-not-proof-of-fake-palestinian-injuries-fact-check/71568997007/

			] (]) 22:29, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
	:Thanks for that reminder, Michael. I was going to make that point myself but you seem to have beaten me to it! It's also worth pointing out that the term "Pallywood" is ''not'' a general synonym for allegations of particular media bias - as Eleland points out, its usage is confined to a specific subcommunity which we consider inherently unreliable as a source - so it wouldn't be appropriate to use it that way. -- ] (]) 22:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
			<!--Don't remove anything below this line-->
			:gazawood is not a reliable source.
			:PBS and USAToday belong in ] article and do not mention pallywood directly.
			:fourth story is suggesting that video "proving" pallywood faking injuries is actually misinfo being spread by pro-Israeli folks. ] (]) 20:56, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
			::Here are more sources to add to the article which support the changes suggested above. I would recommend reviewing the article again either way as it is very clearly politically biased and motivated. ] (]) 05:47, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
			:::Yehuda David - the doctor that operated on Muhammad al-Durrah claims that the deceased's bullet wound which were presented as evidence, are the result of shootout between Palestinians which occured years before the incident, and won the case conducted against him in court.
			:::https://www.makorrishon.co.il/nrg/online/1/ART2/337/398.html
			:::https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4190320,00.html
			:::According to all sources available, Al durrah case is at worst accidental crossfire between IDF and Palestinian forces, in which case it is unclear who shot Al durrah- and at worst a staged deliberate shooting of Al durrah. Either way, unjustified slander against the IDF was made, israel's public image was damaged severely, Bin Laden exploited the film to further his anti-west agenda and it is undoubtedly a case you can call "pallywood".
			:::Al Ahli Hospital explosion - initially reported by multiple media sources, especially pro-palestinians ones such as Al jazeera (who have been proven to be directly related and biased towards hamas) to have been a result of Israeli bombing, when further investigation including by HRW deduced it was not an Israeli bombing.
			:::https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/11/26/gaza-findings-october-17-al-ahli-hospital-explosion
			:::Intentional public misrepresentation of casualty numbers by hamas officials:
			:::https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/gaza-fatality-data-has-become-completely-unreliable
			:::Using images from past/unrelated conflicts to falsly present Palestinian suffering:
			:::https://www.dw.com/en/fact-check-children-used-as-a-propaganda-tool-in-the-israel-gaza-crisis/a-57571541
			:::https://apnews.com/article/israel-hamas-gaza-misinformation-fact-check-e58f9ab8696309305c3ea2bfb269258e
			:::https://observers.france24.com/en/middle-east/20231212-these-photos-of-israelis-mistreating-palestinian-children-aren-t-from-the-latest-conflict
			:::Using A.I. imagery to falsely present Palestinian suffering:
			:::https://www.ynetnews.com/business/article/s1aj0b5qa
			:::The word "derogatory" is subjective and rather unprofessional from what one would expect of a wiki article. No sources needed as no sources were supplied other than one heavily relied on opinion piece, and it's especially irrelevant when you deconstruct the heavy bias of the article towards Palestinian propaganda and misinformation being none-existent. There's no reason to leave it up.
			:::Propaganda and popular support being a leading principle to guerilla groups in assynetric warfare:
			:::https://www.britannica.com/topic/guerrilla-warfare/Origins-of-modern-guerrilla-warfarerces ] (]) 06:00, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
			::::* Makor Rishon is a conservative religious right Israeli newspaper. I have no clue how reliable it is, but looking through the ] archives, it does not seem that reliable.
			::::* The only source that mentions Pallywood is DW. The rest belong in ] article and cannot be used here without ] (You cannot make the leap of actual misinfo during war = Pallywood unless the newspaper says so.)
			::::* DW acknowledges misinfo, but then has a separate section about Pallywood stating "Similar to the widely shared video of makeup artists, there are also real, unaltered images that are shared with the claim that they are "Pallywood productions." Pallywood is a derogatory term used in publications, on the internet, and on social media for images and videos that are said to have been staged by Palestinians in order to present Israel in a bad light. "
			::::] (]) 04:16, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
			:::::Regarding point no.1 - Noted, here are 2 more sources I believe you'll find reliable
			:::::https://m.jpost.com/diplomacy-and-politics/french-court-acquits-israeli-in-al-dura-libel-case
			:::::https://www.haaretz.com/2012-02-16/ty-article/israeli-physician-acquitted-of-libel-against-mohammed-al-duras-father/0000017f-db45-db5a-a57f-db6f7b8e0000 ] (]) 11:44, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
			::::::those sources belong in ] article and are well-represented in there.
			::::::Unless the article specifically talks about "Pallywood", it's synth to include it in here. ] (]) 17:40, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::But it is relevant to specify the following paragraph:
			:::::::"The term came into currency following the killing of Muhammad al-Durrah in 2000 during the Second Intifada, involving a challenge to the veracity of photographic evidence."
			:::::::into:
			:::::::"The term came into currency following the death of Muhammad al-Durrah in 2000 during the Second Intifada, in which Al-Durrah's father accused Israeli forces with false and/or insubstential evidence of delibirately targeting Muhammad in a firefight between violent palestinian rioters and the IDF. This, along with multiple testimonies by several people, primarily Richard Landes, who claimed to have watched the full raw footage of Al Durrah's death which France 2 refused to release to the public, posed a challenge to the veracity of severe and unfounded accusations against the Israeli military."
			:::::::This puts the term into context and sharpens it's definition based in actual events, instead of the dismissive "false accusations" narrative conveyed through the current article.
			:::::::I believe I supplied sources for all the statements made in this edit in previous replies. ] (]) 18:46, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
			:i'll add that last source in.
			:For future reference, unless you have a conflict of interest, use ]. I cannot imagine how someone has a direct conflict of interest with pallywood. ] (]) 20:59, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
			{{reftalk}}

			== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 October 2024 ==
	::Thank you, ]; however, I must disagree with that argument. Unless one can find a source which can demonstrate the frequency with which the term "Pallywood" is used and in which communities, the argument that the Pallywood article should not include allegations due to a lack of notability become rather weak. More importantly, a.) an article already exists on the topic b.) allegations in the Pallywood article present only one side of the allegations, thereby constituting a ] (whereas the ] article presents allegations of bias from both sides), and c.) the article should limit itself to discussing the film, since all uses of the term -- absent sources demonstrating to the contrary -- reference the film. ← <span style="font-family: serif;"><b>]</b></span><sup> (])</sup> 00:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

			{{edit extended-protected\|Pallywood\|answered=yes}}
	:::Having had a look at the sources, it's not strictly accurate to say that "all uses of the term reference the film". I've actually only found a handful of sources so far that specifically mention the film (it blatantly fails the notability criteria of ], for instance). Most of the sources use the term in connection with the political campaign of which the film is a part, i.e. promoting a revisionist (or in Landes' case denialist) view of incidents such as the al-Durrah killing. I've only found two mainstream sources which have actually endorsed the term as a synonym for "media manipulation" - the ''Jerusalem Post'' and ''National Post'' of Canada. Both (probably not coincidentally) were owned at the time by the same proprietor, ] and started to use the term at the same time, albeit infrequently. However, I agree completely that the media coverage article should be the place for general discussion of the "media bias" allegations, and you're quite right that it would be unbalanced to present only one side of the argument. -- ] (]) 08:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
			The term "pallywood" is neither derogatory nor a part of disinformation campaign.

			The article stating so is in itself misinformation, and politically motivated.
	(off-discussion, but on topic) this source, is worth mentioning as a counter opinion/pov:
	- http://www.electronicintifada.net/v2/article5560.shtml
	<b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 10:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

			What should be noted is that as part of asymetrical warfare, propaganda is a tool exploited most by terror organisations who engage in guerrilla warfare, and extreme propaganda promoting mainly anti-western, racist and fundamentalist ideology, along with intense victimhood as the justification for it. Practices used to promote victimhood within terror organisations include: extensive usage of human shields, usage of protected facilities such as hospitals, schools, and religious sites for militaristic purposes, falsly accusing the opposing forces of deliberately targeting protected sites and persons, and filming staged human catastrophies and gore to publish online - sometimes in advertisements seeking donations which eventually reach said terror organisations. ] (]) 12:08, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
	== Right wing bloggers ==

			:declined. no source given. honestly just ] ] (]) 13:00, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
	I recall being reverted whenever I wrote that "right-wing" bloggers were the main force behind the "Pallywood" accusations, and some skepticism about it on this talk page.
			::Sources:
			::As for being a misinformation campaign (and general information about the al-Durrah staged filming which gets minimal attention in your article):
			::Yehuda David - the doctor that operated on Muhammad al-Durrah claims that the deceased's bullet wound which were presented as evidence, are the result of shootout between Palestinians which occured years before the incident, and won the case conducted against him in court.
			:: https://www.makorrishon.co.il/nrg/online/1/ART2/337/398.html
			::https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4190320,00.html
			::According to all sources available, Al durrah case is at worst accidental crossfire between IDF and Palestinian forces, in which case it is unclear who shot Al durrah- and at worst a staged deliberate shooting of Al durrah. Either way, unjustified slander against the IDF was made, israel's public image was damaged severely, Bin Laden exploited the film to further his anti-west agenda and it is undoubtedly a case you can call "pallywood".
			::Al Ahli Hospital explosion - initially reported by multiple media sources, especially pro-palestinians ones such as Al jazeera (who have been proven to be directly related and biased towards hamas) to have been a result of Israeli bombing, when further investigation including by HRW deduced it was not an Israeli bombing.
			::https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/11/26/gaza-findings-october-17-al-ahli-hospital-explosion
			::Intentional public misrepresentation of casualty numbers by hamas officials:
			::https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/gaza-fatality-data-has-become-completely-unreliable
			::Using images from past/unrelated conflicts to falsly present Palestinian suffering:
			::https://www.dw.com/en/fact-check-children-used-as-a-propaganda-tool-in-the-israel-gaza-crisis/a-57571541
			::https://apnews.com/article/israel-hamas-gaza-misinformation-fact-check-e58f9ab8696309305c3ea2bfb269258e
			::https://observers.france24.com/en/middle-east/20231212-these-photos-of-israelis-mistreating-palestinian-children-aren-t-from-the-latest-conflict
			::Using A.I. imagery to falsely present Palestinian suffering:
			::https://www.ynetnews.com/business/article/s1aj0b5qa
			::The word "derogatory" is subjective and rather unprofessional from what one would expect of a wiki article. No sources needed as no sources were supplied other than one heavily relied on opinion piece, and it's especially irrelevant when you deconstruct the heavy bias of the article towards Palestinian propaganda and misinformation being none-existent. There's no reason to leave it up.
			::Propaganda and popular support being a leading principle to guerilla groups in assynetric warfare:
			::https://www.britannica.com/topic/guerrilla-warfare/Origins-of-modern-guerrilla-warfarerces: ] (]) 05:58, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

			== Changes ==
	<blockquote>
	Landes said that within five days of the site's launch, it had been listed on more than 60 blogs, adding that the blogs in support of seconddraft.org were primarily politically conservative.</blockquote>
	Hunt, Molly. "." ''The Daily Collegian'' 2005-5-23

			{{ping\|מתיאל}} I do not understand your edit summary, can you please elaborate? ] (]) 10:11, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
	Hope that clears things up. <]/]]> 04:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

	:~~Just~~ be ~~sure~~ to ~~include~~ the ~~references~~ ~~next~~ to the ~~phrase~~ ~~"right-wing".~~ ← ~~<span~~ ~~style="font-family:~~ ~~serif;"><b>~~]~~</b></span><sup> ~~(])~~</sup>~~ 05:29, 5 ~~February~~ ~~2008~~ (UTC)		:Dear Makeandtoss, Not it is more neutral. Also the term dates back 20 years ago, it didn't start with the current disinformation campaign related to the Gaza war. ] (]) 11:33, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
			::{{ping\|מתיאל}} The France24 source agrees with your statement, it mentions that it was coined 20 years ago. So what is the problem here exactly? Disinformation was mentioned, but not Gaza war in the WP article. ] (]) 11:54, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

			:::{{ping\|מתיאל}} Waiting for your elaboration. ] (]) 17:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
	::Good find, Eleland. I note that it's from his own university's newspaper, so it's obviously an informed source. I suggest that it might be useful to add a paragraph at the end of the "documentary video" section describing responses/reactions to the video. I'll have a look through the sources to see if we can identify specific reactions - David Frum's ''National Post'' piece (cited in the article) comes to mind. The ''Boston Globe'' story also cited in the article describes the video as being part of "A campaign led in part by Boston University Professor Richard Landes" but it would be helpful if we could flesh that out a bit if we can. It might be worth going back to Landes' own website to see what he says about it. -- ] (]) 09:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
			:::Just follow the Gazawood videos, you will see the cynical propaganda that the people in Gaza are making, including use of children. ] (]) 18:11, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

			::::that is not a reliable source and the various info debunking the misinfo on both sides is well represented on both this article and ] ] (]) 18:33, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
	== Blogs as sources ==
			::::I think this continuation of personal commentary is problematic, especially ones calling videos coming out of Gaza as "cynical propaganda", which is disrupting efforts aimed at consensus building. This comes after the user was by an admin to stop these kind of arguments, where they doubled down by of a Palestinian state. {{ping\|ScottishFinnishRadish}} pinging here the notifying admin for their input. ] (]) 08:06, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

			:::::That's sorted. Thanks for the heads up. ] (]) 12:58, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
	I'm afraid we can't use blogs as sources for the statement that "some have dubbed 'Hezbollywood'" - I'll explain why. ] clearly states that self-published sources such as blogs are "self-published sources" and are "largely not acceptable." It goes on to say that self-published sources "should only be used '''in articles about themselves.'''" As you'll note from my bolding, such usage is limited to articles about the blog in question. Hence (for instance) it's legitimate to cite posts from ] in that article, but not as a general reference source on other articles. Since ] is not about any blog, we can't use blog sources in this article. There is also a general presumption against using blogs as reference sources for assertions about third parties (which would rule out blog sourcing for a general statement like "some have dubbbed..." - the third party is the "some" in that line). But if you can find a ], which in this case probably means a mainstream newspaper, please go ahead and add the reference. -- ] (]) 03:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
			::::::Using children is not cynical Propaganda? If you ignore facts by saying "It was debunked" without giving any arguments and try to get somebody blocked, it is not a civilized debate, I'm done with Misplaced Pages, until this antisemitic bias will pass. ] (]) 08:53, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

			:::::::I see you were topic banned. I have no clue what happens if you continue to engage in it like this, so pinging @] ] (]) 13:29, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
	:It looks like at least one RS, a German daily newspaper, reported on bloggers' use of the term: . Also ''Electronic Intifada'' had an article on the "Hezbollywood" slur, EI's a partisan website obviously, but the editors are quoted fairly often in mainstream media for an independent Palestinian view, and have published op-eds in major newspapers like the Financial Times, so I think they're reliable enough for attributed commentary on a partisan issue. <]/]]> 04:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
			:being more neutral by using only sources from twenty years ago to drive the lede… is interesting. there is no reason to suspect recent changes and recent sourcing is particularly more biased than the past.

			:i reverted the bold change. ] (]) 15:14, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
	When it says that blogs should only be used "in articles about themselves," it means that they should not be relied upon except to describe the blog or its positions. I think you are interpreting the statement too literally, by assuming that a blog cannot be relied upon to describe itself or its positions, except in an article specifically about the blog. If a statement says that "at least one blog has used the phrase 'Hezbollywood'", it is perfectly legitimate to reference one such blog as proof that, indeed, at least one blog has used the term. ← <span style="font-family: serif;"><b>]</b></span><sup> (])</sup> 05:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

	'''Comment:''' This article is about a (mostly) web-based neologism that became extremely famous. I'm aware that it 's not the best situation that we haven't found a higher authority reliable source, but clearly the material is true. So, it is expected that, with the desire to build the encyclopedia, editors can try to find better sources/rephrase, not delete the work of others.
	'''ChrisO,''' am I getting this wrong? do you have a reason to believe this information is false? <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 07:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

	:When are you going to acknowledge the distinction between "which I personally like" and "that became extremely famous?" We've been going over this for a ''year'' now, and nobody has shown that this term has penetrated the real world beyond a handful of offhand RS mentions in stories about other topics. Again, look at the ] or ] (IOF) analogy: based on a rough survey of Google Web, News, Blog and Scholar searches, "Zionazi" has approximately the same level of "extreme fame" and "IOF" is considerably better-known. You just keep making the same assertions with the same lack of evidence, and it's exceedingly frustrating. <]/]]> 07:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

	::'''Eleland,'''
	::# I don't see a problem with writing a neutral article about the derogatory terms "Zionazi" and "IOF".. we can also insert "IsraHell" (a Latuff favorite) into that article somewhere.
	::# per ], I don't personally like the term Pallywood, so please make the comments content related rather than user related speculation.
	::# I felt your recent edit (probably) helped resolve the situation.
	::Cheers. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 08:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

	:::Yes, good work (again) Eleland. Jaakobou, in answer to your question, I don't doubt that the information is true, but we have to be scrupulous in sourcing it - we have to be careful to use sources that won't be contentious or are otherwise questionable. -- ] (]) 10:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

	:::If there is no reason to believe the input is false, please use the tags option and not the delete. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 11:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
	ChrisO, which "information" do you not doubt the accuracy of? I guess I don't understand how the question of whether to mention "Hezbollywood" as constituting "similar allegations" hinges on when and how blogs can be cited. Allegations about activities of the media wing of Hezbollah, a Shia militant group and political party in Lebanon, have nothing whatsoever to do with allegations about stringers in the Palestinian occupied territories. The only connection is that both sets of allegations alight with a triumphant cackle upon a stupid and vulgar pun. We may as well write that ''"Similar allegations have been made by other media analysts, particularly after similar assertions of media manipulation (dubbed "Jew York Times" by some) in the context of the Arab-Israeli conflict..."''--] (]) 18:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 10:14, 23 December 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pallywood article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Further information

The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:

Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.

After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.
Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!

This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Israel Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Project Israel To Do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Assess : Rate the Unassessed Israel-related articles and Unknown-importance Israel-related articles.
Cleanup : Cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category and the tool's wiki page.
Collaborate : Participate in WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration.
Copyedit : Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2005
Deletion sorting : Participate in discussions at WikiProject Deletion sorting/Israel.
Expand : Ayala Procaccia, Diamond industry in Israel, Edna Arbel, Levin Kipnis, Rami Kleinstein, Sephardic Haredim, Zman Tel Aviv, Nachum Heiman, Public Defence (Israel), Prisoner of Zion, Trial of Benjamin Netanyahu, Day to Mark the Departure and Expulsion of Jews from the Arab Countries and Iran, Pre-Modern Aliyah
See also Articles needing translation from Hebrew Misplaced Pages.
Geographical coordinates : Add geographic coordinates to Israel articles missing geocoordinate data.
Infobox : Add infoboxes to Israel articles needing infoboxes.
Maintain : See Israel articles needing attention.
Map : See discussion at Module:Location map/data/Israel. Add maps to articles in Misplaced Pages requested maps in Israel.
NPOV : Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries
Photo : Add pictures to articles in Misplaced Pages requested photographs in Israel.
Stubs : See Israel stubs.
Update : Basic Law proposal: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People
Other :
- Translate to Hebrew : David Bar-Hayim, Guy Bavli, and Guy Oseary.

Palestine Low‑importance

	Palestine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Misplaced Pages. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Journalism Low‑importance

	Journalism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

Deletion discussions:
keep and rename, September 9, 2007, see discussion. no consensus, nearly keep, February 18, 2007, see discussion.

2021-07 deletion of french language Misplaced Pages article

A few weeks ago, a very pro-Israel wikipedian asked the deletion of the french language Misplaced Pages article fr:Pallywood. I guess that the motive is obvious. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 10:18, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 November 2023

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please change "say" to "said" in the second line of Other Uses. HerPOV (talk) 12:09, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Done Thank you. Liu1126 (talk) 12:19, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Recent references of Pallywood for article update

If anyone is able to make updates of this article it'd be appreciated. There has been a lot of misinformation spreading on Twitter/X (as well as elsewhere) related to "Pallywood", since the recent 2023 Israel-Hamas conflict, and overall this article seems very outdated. Even if only by about a month or so and lacking further sources.

Here are some references, not sure what can be considered reliable or relevant, but it's what is currently available for this fast developing topic.

Notably ADL & Rolling Stone have labelled this as a conspiracy, which I see is currently touched upon briefly under Controversies and criticism but should probably be based in intro too in my opinion.

Recent fact checks related to Pallwood:

https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-crisis-actor-israel-hamas-war-false-movie-set-975355588351

https://fullfact.org/news/gaza-egypt-bodies-protest/

https://fullfact.org/online/halloween-costume-not-gaza-bodybag/

https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-israel-hamas-gaza-crisis-actors-131062994735

Articles referencing "Pallywood" a as conspiracy theory:

https://www.logicallyfacts.com/en/analysis/pallywood-how-denial-of-civilian-harm-has-proliferated

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/what-is-pallywood-palestinians-falsely-accused-faking-devastation-1234869765/

https://thewire.in/world/fact-check-unedited-footage-debunks-israeli-propaganda-on-shrouded-corpse

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/nov/11/israel-hamas-fake-news-thrives-on-poorly-regulated-online-platforms

Related to Saleh Aljafarawi aka "Mr Fafo", sometimes referenced to as "Mr Pallywood":

https://apnews.com/article/israel-hamas-gaza-misinformation-fact-check-e58f9ab8696309305c3ea2bfb269258e

https://www.reuters.com/fact-check/injured-teenager-who-lost-his-leg-misidentified-social-media-2023-10-27/

https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2023/11/01/pallywood-gazans-are-falsely-accused-of-staging-injury-and-death-online

https://www.boomlive.in/fact-check/fake-news-viral-video-man-in-hospital-palestinian-blogger-acting-hospital-unrelated-people-factcheck-23471

Overall it seems like it will be more widely accepted that Pallywood is indeed a conspiracy theory based on it's current usage, even if it's origins are based on some events from past usage. Even if it's too soon for that change until there are more sources available to confirm.

Can return with more sources when they arrive if welcomed. Thanks in advance. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 22:39, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello, regarding the "Articles referencing "Pallywood" a as conspiracy theory", it's also referenced that way in the fact checks of Associated Press https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-crisis-actor-israel-hamas-war-false-movie-set-975355588351 and Snopes https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/film-crew-footage-gaza/ . --Casra (talk) 22:23, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

There are specific guidelines for Misplaced Pages:Conspiracy theory and Misplaced Pages:Conspiracy Theory Accusations

But yeah, in general, it seems like this is definitely more a conspiracy theory than not (Maybe more like misinformation? I don't think the people who do this accusation actually believe in it). This article definitely seems to give too much credence to the idea that much of media coverage in Palestine is faked. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 17:01, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 November 2023

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change “Needless to say, such episodes don’t instil an abiding trust in subsequent Palestinian claims, at least until they’re verified."” to “Needless to say, such episodes don’t instil an abiding trust in subsequent Palestinian claims, at least until they’re verified." Philip Weiss has echoed the concerns of others that use of the term amounts to “denial of war crimes”. ”

Citation #17 for edit: https://mondoweiss.net/2023/10/an-americans-shattered-faith/

(Reasoning: The “Other Uses” portion of the page includes only conservative Jewish and/or Israeli voices around the use of the term “Pallywood” as well as a quote from Michelle Malkin, who is now widely considered as antisemitic by the community and has been dropped by organizations such as the Young Americans Foundation as a result. It would be valuable to neutrality to include the voice of a Jewish progressive perspective on this section. I have cited the article above, written in 2023 by Philip Weiss of Mondoweiss. Philip Weiss’ name should further be linked to his Misplaced Pages page when mentioned: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/Philip_Weiss) 142.198.100.236 (talk) 21:42, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

I've removed this material. It was a largely self-published, with a further permanent dead link to a defunct organisation. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:43, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Mondoweiss

Is Mondoweiss even a reliable source? Not sure why it's used on this article, when it's surrounded by constant acrimony... AnonMoos (talk) 09:46, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

usage of mondoweiss is fine. officially, mondoweiss' reliability is listed as "no consensus" (its in WP:RSP), and it's recommended that wikipedia editors attribute whatever statements they use, which this article has done. Elehnsherr (talk) 04:28, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

FYI, its reliability is now discussed here. Alaexis_¿question? 07:53, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Removal of the last two sentences of lead

They clearly are not WP:NPOV and provide a lot more polarized claims in one direction without any criticism. They belong more in the historical section, and should also be placed in context with what others say. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 17:05, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and remove those sentences. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 05:18, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Disinformation

My point was that if a source attributes a certain statement ("Pallywood is disinformation") then we cannot state it in wikivoice. We may include it with attribution if it's notable. Alaexis_¿question? 20:30, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Staying unbiased.

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined.

What I think should be changed:

Change "to falsely accuse Palestinians for supposedly faking suffering", it is biased to say it's 100% false accusations and that there are not fake videos too.

Why it should be changed:

To stay being ubiased...

References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

https://gazawood.com https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/10/11/real-or-fake-verifying-video-evidence-israel-and-palestine https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/how-misinformation-about-israel-and-gaza-has-evolved-in-the-yearlong-war https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2023/11/14/video-not-proof-of-fake-palestinian-injuries-fact-check/71568997007/

89.130.90.206 (talk) 22:29, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

gazawood is not a reliable source.

PBS and USAToday belong in Misinformation in the Israel–Hamas war article and do not mention pallywood directly.

fourth story is suggesting that video "proving" pallywood faking injuries is actually misinfo being spread by pro-Israeli folks. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:56, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Here are more sources to add to the article which support the changes suggested above. I would recommend reviewing the article again either way as it is very clearly politically biased and motivated. KikoBit (talk) 05:47, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Yehuda David - the doctor that operated on Muhammad al-Durrah claims that the deceased's bullet wound which were presented as evidence, are the result of shootout between Palestinians which occured years before the incident, and won the case conducted against him in court.

https://www.makorrishon.co.il/nrg/online/1/ART2/337/398.html

https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4190320,00.html

According to all sources available, Al durrah case is at worst accidental crossfire between IDF and Palestinian forces, in which case it is unclear who shot Al durrah- and at worst a staged deliberate shooting of Al durrah. Either way, unjustified slander against the IDF was made, israel's public image was damaged severely, Bin Laden exploited the film to further his anti-west agenda and it is undoubtedly a case you can call "pallywood".

Al Ahli Hospital explosion - initially reported by multiple media sources, especially pro-palestinians ones such as Al jazeera (who have been proven to be directly related and biased towards hamas) to have been a result of Israeli bombing, when further investigation including by HRW deduced it was not an Israeli bombing.

https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/11/26/gaza-findings-october-17-al-ahli-hospital-explosion

Intentional public misrepresentation of casualty numbers by hamas officials:

https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/gaza-fatality-data-has-become-completely-unreliable

Using images from past/unrelated conflicts to falsly present Palestinian suffering:

https://www.dw.com/en/fact-check-children-used-as-a-propaganda-tool-in-the-israel-gaza-crisis/a-57571541

https://apnews.com/article/israel-hamas-gaza-misinformation-fact-check-e58f9ab8696309305c3ea2bfb269258e

https://observers.france24.com/en/middle-east/20231212-these-photos-of-israelis-mistreating-palestinian-children-aren-t-from-the-latest-conflict

Using A.I. imagery to falsely present Palestinian suffering:

https://www.ynetnews.com/business/article/s1aj0b5qa

The word "derogatory" is subjective and rather unprofessional from what one would expect of a wiki article. No sources needed as no sources were supplied other than one heavily relied on opinion piece, and it's especially irrelevant when you deconstruct the heavy bias of the article towards Palestinian propaganda and misinformation being none-existent. There's no reason to leave it up.

Propaganda and popular support being a leading principle to guerilla groups in assynetric warfare:

https://www.britannica.com/topic/guerrilla-warfare/Origins-of-modern-guerrilla-warfarerces KikoBit (talk) 06:00, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Makor Rishon is a conservative religious right Israeli newspaper. I have no clue how reliable it is, but looking through the WP:RSP/N archives, it does not seem that reliable.
The only source that mentions Pallywood is DW. The rest belong in Misinformation in the Israel-Hamas war article and cannot be used here without WP:SYNTH (You cannot make the leap of actual misinfo during war = Pallywood unless the newspaper says so.)
DW acknowledges misinfo, but then has a separate section about Pallywood stating "Similar to the widely shared video of makeup artists, there are also real, unaltered images that are shared with the claim that they are "Pallywood productions." Pallywood is a derogatory term used in publications, on the internet, and on social media for images and videos that are said to have been staged by Palestinians in order to present Israel in a bad light. "

Bluethricecreamman (talk) 04:16, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Regarding point no.1 - Noted, here are 2 more sources I believe you'll find reliable

https://m.jpost.com/diplomacy-and-politics/french-court-acquits-israeli-in-al-dura-libel-case

https://www.haaretz.com/2012-02-16/ty-article/israeli-physician-acquitted-of-libel-against-mohammed-al-duras-father/0000017f-db45-db5a-a57f-db6f7b8e0000 KikoBit (talk) 11:44, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

those sources belong in Killing of Muhammad al-Durrah article and are well-represented in there.

Unless the article specifically talks about "Pallywood", it's synth to include it in here. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 17:40, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

But it is relevant to specify the following paragraph:

"The term came into currency following the killing of Muhammad al-Durrah in 2000 during the Second Intifada, involving a challenge to the veracity of photographic evidence."

into:

"The term came into currency following the death of Muhammad al-Durrah in 2000 during the Second Intifada, in which Al-Durrah's father accused Israeli forces with false and/or insubstential evidence of delibirately targeting Muhammad in a firefight between violent palestinian rioters and the IDF. This, along with multiple testimonies by several people, primarily Richard Landes, who claimed to have watched the full raw footage of Al Durrah's death which France 2 refused to release to the public, posed a challenge to the veracity of severe and unfounded accusations against the Israeli military."

This puts the term into context and sharpens it's definition based in actual events, instead of the dismissive "false accusations" narrative conveyed through the current article.

I believe I supplied sources for all the statements made in this edit in previous replies. 176.230.191.186 (talk) 18:46, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

i'll add that last source in.

For future reference, unless you have a conflict of interest, use WP:EDITREQUEST. I cannot imagine how someone has a direct conflict of interest with pallywood. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:59, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 October 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The term "pallywood" is neither derogatory nor a part of disinformation campaign.

The article stating so is in itself misinformation, and politically motivated.

What should be noted is that as part of asymetrical warfare, propaganda is a tool exploited most by terror organisations who engage in guerrilla warfare, and extreme propaganda promoting mainly anti-western, racist and fundamentalist ideology, along with intense victimhood as the justification for it. Practices used to promote victimhood within terror organisations include: extensive usage of human shields, usage of protected facilities such as hospitals, schools, and religious sites for militaristic purposes, falsly accusing the opposing forces of deliberately targeting protected sites and persons, and filming staged human catastrophies and gore to publish online - sometimes in advertisements seeking donations which eventually reach said terror organisations. KikoBit (talk) 12:08, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

declined. no source given. honestly just WP:FORUM Bluethricecreamman (talk) 13:00, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Sources:

As for being a misinformation campaign (and general information about the al-Durrah staged filming which gets minimal attention in your article):

https://www.makorrishon.co.il/nrg/online/1/ART2/337/398.html

https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4190320,00.html

https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/11/26/gaza-findings-october-17-al-ahli-hospital-explosion

Intentional public misrepresentation of casualty numbers by hamas officials:

https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/gaza-fatality-data-has-become-completely-unreliable

Using images from past/unrelated conflicts to falsly present Palestinian suffering:

https://www.dw.com/en/fact-check-children-used-as-a-propaganda-tool-in-the-israel-gaza-crisis/a-57571541

https://apnews.com/article/israel-hamas-gaza-misinformation-fact-check-e58f9ab8696309305c3ea2bfb269258e

https://observers.france24.com/en/middle-east/20231212-these-photos-of-israelis-mistreating-palestinian-children-aren-t-from-the-latest-conflict

Using A.I. imagery to falsely present Palestinian suffering:

https://www.ynetnews.com/business/article/s1aj0b5qa

Propaganda and popular support being a leading principle to guerilla groups in assynetric warfare:

https://www.britannica.com/topic/guerrilla-warfare/Origins-of-modern-guerrilla-warfarerces: KikoBit (talk) 05:58, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Changes

@מתיאל: I do not understand your edit summary, can you please elaborate? Makeandtoss (talk) 10:11, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Dear Makeandtoss, Not it is more neutral. Also the term dates back 20 years ago, it didn't start with the current disinformation campaign related to the Gaza war. מתיאל (talk) 11:33, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

@מתיאל: The France24 source agrees with your statement, it mentions that it was coined 20 years ago. So what is the problem here exactly? Disinformation was mentioned, but not Gaza war in the WP article. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:54, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

@מתיאל: Waiting for your elaboration. Makeandtoss (talk) 17:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Just follow the Gazawood videos, you will see the cynical propaganda that the people in Gaza are making, including use of children. מתיאל (talk) 18:11, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

that is not a reliable source and the various info debunking the misinfo on both sides is well represented on both this article and Misinformation in the Israel–Hamas war Bluethricecreamman (talk) 18:33, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I think this continuation of personal commentary is problematic, especially ones calling videos coming out of Gaza as "cynical propaganda", which is disrupting efforts aimed at consensus building. This comes after the user was notified by an admin to stop these kind of arguments, where they doubled down by denying the legitimacy of a Palestinian state. @ScottishFinnishRadish: pinging here the notifying admin for their input. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:06, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

That's sorted. Thanks for the heads up. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:58, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Using children is not cynical Propaganda? If you ignore facts by saying "It was debunked" without giving any arguments and try to get somebody blocked, it is not a civilized debate, I'm done with Misplaced Pages, until this antisemitic bias will pass. מתיאל (talk) 08:53, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I see you were topic banned. I have no clue what happens if you continue to engage in it like this, so pinging @ScottishFinnishRadish Bluethricecreamman (talk) 13:29, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

being more neutral by using only sources from twenty years ago to drive the lede… is interesting. there is no reason to suspect recent changes and recent sourcing is particularly more biased than the past.

i reverted the bold change. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:14, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Categories: