| 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. |
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:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, 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.
|
 | This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
2021-07 deletion of french language Wikipedia article
editA few weeks ago, a very pro-Israel wikipedian asked the deletion of the french language Wikipedia 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
edit | 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
editIf 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as elsewhere) related to "Pallywood", since the recent 2023 Israel-Hamas conflict, and overall this article seems very outdated.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://thewire.in/world/fact-check-unedited-footage-debunks-israeli-propaganda-on-shrouded-corpse
Related to Saleh Aljafarawi aka "Mr Fafo", sometimes referenced to as "Mr Pallywood":
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 Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory and Wikipedia: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
edit| | 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."[16]” to “Needless to say, such episodes don’t instil an abiding trust in subsequent Palestinian claims, at least until they’re verified."[16] Philip Weiss has echoed the concerns of others that use of the term amounts to “denial of war crimes”. [17] ”
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 Wikipedia page when mentioned: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/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
editIs 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
editThey 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
editMy 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.
edit | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. [see below] |
- 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)
- 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)
- 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
edit| | 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):
- 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) 05:58, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
Changes
edit@מתיאל: I do not understand your edit summary, can you please elaborate? [1] 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 Wikipedia, 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)
- 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 Wikipedia, until this antisemitic bias will pass. מתיאל (talk) 08:53, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- That's sorted. Thanks for the heads up. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:58, 17 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)
- 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)