Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pallywood


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was no consensus, nearly keep; not that it matters anyway, because both end up with the same result. -  Daniel.Bryant  11:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Pallywood

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Neologism coined for political purposes by a number of bloggers, but no evidence of widespread mainstream use. This is an exact parallel to and, two more politically loaded neologisms coined by the same people, which were deleted or redirected back in August and December 2006 respectively. (See Articles for deletion/Fauxtography and the subsequent deletion review; also Articles for deletion/Hizbollywood). The subject matter of the article is already addressed by Media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and the article itself amounts to little more than a poorly sourced dicdef. Our content policies disallow this sort of article - see Avoid neologisms. -- ChrisO 20:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks to everyone who's contributed to this discussion. I thought I'd respond to some of the points that have been raised.


 * It appears that the term "Pallywood" comes from a short amateur film by a Richard Landes. It's self-produced and distributed from this page on a website by an anonymous person or organisation (see http://www.seconddraft.org/about_us.php ). The website is patently not a reliable source. The film doesn't meet any of the criteria listed in Notability (films) - I've not found any reviews of it from reliable sources, though it's mentioned in a university newspaper at.
 * The term itself is a neologism. WP:NEO applies: "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."
 * Jjay cites some sources at . Of the 26 items listed, many appear to be blogs; some are press releases; some aren't even in English; and the only one which actually defines the term (as opposed to merely using it) seems to be a Toronto Star article of Aug. 31, 2006 which says: "Right-wing bloggers have dubbed that [alleged media manipulation] "Pallywood.""
 * As Chrislk02 has pointed out, the vast majority of the article's content is someone's OR. If the OR, non-RS and non-notable content is removed from the article, there is literally nothing left to keep.


 * In short, the article is plainly unsalvageable. -- ChrisO 21:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete as per nomination. -- ChrisO 20:11, 18 February 2007
 * KEEP, in fact, i think Hezbollywood should not have been deleted either but obviously some people don't appreciate it when they get caught lying. evidence for widespread use can be easily found if one was to not act naive and blind at the same time... also there is barely any relation to the world wide scandal from the battle of jenin controversy and the footage from the second intifada and the 2006 israel-hizbullah conflict. Jaakobou 20:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 52 videos on youtube have the word in it's description tags and more than five of them are the original video while even people who are anti-israel use the term to get more popularity for their videos YouTube Search for Pallywood Jaakobou 09:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep -- MouseWarrior 00:17, 19 February 2007]]
 * Keep, this refers to a specific phenomenon and is therefore not a neologism, and the term is increasing - 201,000 Google hits, and even if you disqualify the term in combination with "landes" or "documentary," it gets over 150,000 hits. --Leifern 00:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Original research. Tazmaniacs 23:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? Everything in there is cited. --Leifern 00:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - I did some analysis on the refereces
 * no reference to palywood
 * Article titled "Jenin Jenin Film-Maker Admits Fraud," about the very phenomenon Pallywood describes
 * Does it mention pallywood? no, it dosent. making the leap is orignial research
 * 1 reference to pallywood
 * Article about the court case related to allegations that the Mohamad al-Dura death was staged.
 * Does it mention pallywood? no, it dosent. making the leap is orignial research
 * no reference to pallywood
 * I agree, only passing relevance, though Landes, of course, created the film that led to the term
 * extensive content on pallywood
 * OK...
 * no refernces to pallywood
 * No, but it does discuss staged events for the benefit of media coverage
 * Does it mention pallywood? no, it dosent. making the leap is orignial research
 * just a mention that it is the name of an article by Richard Landes
 * Another article about allegations that the Mohamad al-Dura death was staged.
 * The only reference in this article to pallywood is in reference to richard landes article or what not. There is no other mention of it at all and any connectionts to pally wood (other than it is an article by Richard Landes) would be orignial research.
 * no references to pallywood
 * No, but lots of examples of fabricated quotes that are the exact equivalence of the Pallywood phenomenon
 * Again, no reference to pallywood and making the connection is orignial research
 * no references to palywood
 * No, but extensive coverage of Jenin, Jenin, the film that is alleged to be a hoax
 * Again, no reference to pallywood and making the connection is orignial research
 * no references to pallywood
 * About a staged funeral, caught on film, in which the dead person gets off the stretcher and walks away.
 * Again, no mention of pallywood and any jumps that make the associate are orignial research on the part of the creating editor

It appears that only a few of the references have anything to do with pallywood, and from what I can find it is mostly related to an article or something created by a professor Richard Landes. Overall, it mostly appears to be originial research and ,my nomination is delete. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 01:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * So, except for one case (about Richard Landes) all of your examples actually disprove the case you are trying to make. These are all about largely dissimilar media events that are alleged to be hoaxes and fabrications. The irony is breathtaking - you engage in fabrication to prove that there is no fabrication, and then label the view opposite of yours as "original research." --Leifern 14:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * What I am saying is that the numerous articles that have no mention of pallywood constitue originial research. Sure, they may be involved with what the article is talking about, but the connection is made by the wikipedia editor, not the author of the article.  This is orignial research on the part of the editor who makes the leap.  If the articles contained something explaning pallywood and its connection, then it would not be. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * In retrospect, upon google search, i think that fauxtography and pallywood (200,000 hits) should stay while hizbollywood should have gone (only 500 finds on google) - the reasoning to remove because people title the subject matter "pallywood" and don't repeat that word inside the article is quite silly in my own opinion - here's a sample article:
 * Chris's, it would seem that by your definitions a movie/phenomenon becomes notable only if a reviewer continues to repeat the title name inside the review about the movie... personally, i think the movie becomes notable if people talk about the movie, about scenes from the movie and they share that movie on the net in quantity... here's yet another sample of "original research" - Jaakobou 15:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I am slighly confused as to what you mean when you say, "the reasoning to remove because people title the subject matter "pallywood" and don't repeat that word inside the article is quite silly in my own opinion". There are many articles on a topic that may or may not relate to pallywood.  That is not for you or I to decide in the context of the article.  A majority of articles used as sources may describe something similar to pallywood etc etc.  The fact is, they DO NOT MENTION IT, and it is therefore orignial research to make the conecntion yourself. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The fact is, that most people reffering to admitted fake photography and alleged fake photography by palestinians is using the term in some way or another as a descrpitive term to "the pallywood movie industry". either in the tag words of his article or in the actual text body. your "rant" about original research is on it's own some type of manipulation and feels like you cannot admit that the term is indeed prominent enough to get it's own atricle... please explain to me for example why you feel that the movie "jenin jenin" does not fall under the term "admitted stagings"... i'm pointing this out because your representation on the subject matter as if this article must have the word "pallywood" inside it is POV at best and Attempted Vandalism at worst. Jaakobou 16:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * yOU CLAIM, "that most people reffering to admitted fake photography and alleged fake photography by palestinians is using the term in some way or another as a descrpitive term to "the pallywood movie industry"". If this were true, the sources above would mention it.  However you dice it, making the conncetion yourself is orignial research.  Sure, it may be black and white in your eyes but, then again if we all wrote what we thought was black and white wikipedia would be filled with innacurate POV articles.  I am not disputing that the content is not valid or the concept is not real, I however am challening the name that has been created and this article.  There are actually arguments here that the content is already included in other articles and this is just a neoligism.  I agree with this because none of the news stories above mention the term and the leap is made that each of these stories or incidents is related to pallywood when the only connection was made by a wikipedia editor. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * source above is an article about admitted staging about jenin (see: jenin massacre), the term is therefore not needed in the article where muhamad bakri admits his complicity in fraud since his is a single production within' the industry. i guess we shall remain without an agreement but i tend to think it's either because you don't know the subject matter or for other less noble reasons. Jaakobou 18:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

←You are free to challenge the reason why I am arguing this. I assure you, I have no WP:COI in this matter. The simple fact is, the connection between the term pallywood and most of the references above (considering the term is not in the article) is originial research, plain and simple. I am not arguing the validity of the content, it may be true, I am arguing that the term pallywood is neologism that does not warrant inclusion in wikipedia. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * (Resetting indent) The term "Pallywood" refers to allegations that news events are staged for the benefit of the Palestinian side in the conflict, and then reported as "real" news. All the references illustrate this, whether or not they invoke the term "Pallywood." There is no question "Pallywood" refers to this phenomenon, and no question that the references discuss it. The connection is self-evident, so the OR accusation is unjustified. --Leifern 02:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I agree with Chris' reasoning for the article being WP:OR but regardless, I don't think that a lack of good references is a good reason to delete an article. How about you give the editors some time to produce good references that satisfy all parties and then re-nominate it? From my experience, the term is notable (and google supports that). Yonatan (contribs/talk) 19:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I respect everybodys opinions, and the term may be somewhat notable. Should there be sources that are added that make the conenction in the source, I would not adverse to changing my Oppose nom to a Support.  However, I still stand by the fact that making the leap that the articles are related to the phenomenon without an assertion of such in the article is orignial research.  I can describe a boy to you.  You may see a tall, muscular figure that appears to be a boy and you automatically assume it is the boy.  If the person comes to you and says they are a boy, that is a different story.  However, until such an assertion is made, it is realy just a guess or you making the connection in your head, which is what orignial research is. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * In that case, anyone on wikipedia who hasn't been quoted as saying he is a boy (or the fact that he is a boy hasn't been said about him) cannot be described as a boy in every article. I do not see that as the case on wikipedia, although I'm more than happy to be enlightened. Yonatan (contribs/talk) 19:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess the boy example is a much more simplified version for the sake of demonstrating what I mean. I have attempted to explain why it is originial research but nobody seems to understand that, unless the article claims that it is related to pallywood, you, the writer, make the connection.  Will you not agree with that?  That 7 out of the 9 articles listed above make no mention of the term pallywood?  They may describe a phenomenon similar or exactly the same as pallywood however, you are making that connection.  That is why it is WP:OR, if any of those articles stated something like, "this incident, related to the pallywoodmovement was blah blah and blah", I would have no problem at all. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * So out sounds like you have no quarrel with an article about the (alleged) phenomenon, but only with whether the term Pallywood is the right short-hand term for the phenomenon? In that case, you should vote to rename it, possibly with a redirect, no? --Leifern 21:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Very well put. As proto states below, a Redirect to Media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would not be innapropriate in my mind.  This article seems to contain much of the information on the topic without the neologistic term pallywood being used. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No, as someone else pointed out, the alleged staging of news events is notable enough to deserve its own article, rather than being buried in another one, which is probably what at least some who vote Delete here are hoping for. --Leifern 20:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete, pretty clearly fails WP:NEO. --Dhartung | Talk 05:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete pper nom and Chrislk02's excellent references. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 05:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, based on what Chrislk02 says and nom. Glad that people are actually checking references.Park3r 07:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 52 videos on youtube have the word in it's description tags and more than five of them are the original video while even people who are anti-israel use the term to get more popularity for their videos YouTube Search for Pallywood Jaakobou 09:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * We all know how reliable you-tube is! But really, you tube does not count as a quality source. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * As it turns out, Chris's reference-checking rather strengthens the case for keeping the article. --Leifern 14:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep but clean up. The phenomenon is notable. ←Humus sapiens ну? 12:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Why is it notable? But noone's arguing that, the notable aspects of the article are already covered at Media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Proto   ►  12:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, leave a redirect to Media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict where the substantial non-neologism part of this article is already covered in greater depth and detail. Proto   ►  12:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * huge difference between "biased media coverage" (worldwide) and between "staged scenes and acting" (by palestinains) - a.k.a. Pallywood. Jaakobou 13:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * keep movie by that name is notable zionist propaganda. Paul T. Evans 14:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NEO, possible redirect as future editorial judgement. We don't need this. Guy (Help!) 23:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Google News gives 26 hits including the International Herald Tribune and the Toronto Star. That can justify the article. . --JJay 00:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Leifern and JJay --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€  04:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Leifern etc., though perhaps with a clearer focus on the term and its usage, with the overlap with Media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict minimised.  Tewfik Talk 09:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep noteable subject even if the name sounds stupid. Kuratowski&#39;s Ghost 12:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, but only about the movie. // Liftarn
 * Keep politically motivated AFD Elizmr 18:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as per my comment above. Yonatan (contribs/talk) 19:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomOo7565 19:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, clearly notable. 6SJ7 02:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, definately notable. --Djsasso 05:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * keep - the vote from IP 190.40.122.25 is me... sorry, i forgot to log in. Thomasbraun321 07:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - The above user's only contributions are an edit to Talk:Lebanon and a keep comment in this AFD and should therefore not be counted (note: this comment comes from someone who supports keeping this article). Yonatan (contribs/talk) 11:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, Chrislk02's list of how one jump too many has been made says a lot. If anything an article entitle "Pallywood" should be about the documentary, not the five or so incidents that might relate things that may also have been done in it. I have no objections to seeing Dr Landes' words quoted about the documentary and his crediting with having coined the term by actually producing the documentary that bears that word as it's title - once I'm reliably informed in the article about what the documentary actually is.--Alf melmac 20:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Alf, please see my new comments at the top of this discussion. It appears that the film totally fails to meet Notability (films). -- ChrisO 21:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, if that has consensus, then ignore my "if anything...." comment suggesting such an article be written after deletion then. Thanks--Alf melmac 13:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, notable and documented. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 18:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Notable how, documented how? I see a lot of assertions being made by people voting to keep, but few seem to be providing any basis for their votes. -- ChrisO 20:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect to Media_coverage_of_the_Israeli-Palestinian_conflict. All non-notable, non-technical neologisms on Wikipedia should be merged into their associated parent articles. There actually is a need for a separate article that discusses the media phenomenon of staged events, but this isn't the correct title. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 22:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable, sources are fine. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.