Talk:Ahed Tamimi/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

"pro-Israel"

The description "pro-Israel" introduced in two places by Icewhiz (one in the lead) is unacceptable pov-pushing. The passionate criticism comes mostly from the pro-occupation camp (including those who claim to be against the occupation but actually aren't), and does not include most of the large group of people who believe that ending the occupation would be in Israel's best interest. This conflation of "pro-Israel" with "pro-occupation", with its intentional implication "anti-occupation implies anti-Israel", does not belong here. Zero^talk 23:43, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Based on your "pro-occupation" comment, quite ironic that you're complaining about POV-pushing. And you're an admin!? #smdh Plot Spoiler (talk) 23:54, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

He was elected admin long time ago when pov pushing advocates had far less of a chance to advance themselves here on wp. "So no point you havah herea".--TMCk (talk) 00:06, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

This is consistent with English sources. FWIW Zero is correct in this case that there is a relatively small, yet vocal, group of radical left wing (in Israeli political terms) Israelis that oppose mainstream Israeli politics. (Palestinians as well are not a monoblock in this regard - however those in favor of so called (in Palestinian discourse) "collaboration" are fewer still. pro-occupatiin would be incorrrect here - the mainstream, 2 state, Israeli left is also opposed here. There is also non Israeli support for the mainstream Israeli position.Icewhiz (talk) 04:57, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

References

Let me rewrite some of that:

there is a relatively small, yet vocal, group of radical left wing Israelis that oppose the mainstream Israeli occupation of Palestine.

All of these epithets are stupid, mainstream in what regard? Nishidani (talk) 17:30, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Factual inaccuracies and misrepresentation of sources

@Al-Andalusi:

1. this diff - the source does not support that "she was detained by Israeli authorities for slapping an Israeli soldier during an raid on her home in a video that went viral." - you are making a mess of the rather polemic source you are choosing to source from (despite sourcing in the body) - of two separate events. One is the viral video - which involved two soldiers (not one as you modified to) outside of her house. The second - is her arrest that occurred in an overnight raid a few days later (and in which she did not slap anyone on film).
2. in this diff - you are possibly (source unclear) confusing the incident with her cousin (who was on/behind the wall when allegedly hit by a rubber bullet) and the viral video. The viral video was shot in the walkway in front of the house. This is clearly evident from the video itself (you can see the road behind the soldiers) - and from every description of the event.
3. Riots, in which stones and other objects are hurled, are generally called riots - not protests - this language is present in most non-polemic sources.Icewhiz (talk) 17:18, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Al-Andalusi please revert your recent edits. Inaccurate statements will not help our cause in creating a neutral article.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:35, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

1. I realize that the source got the timing wrong, but what we currently have in the lede is correct. Any activity surrounding her home is a "raid" on her home. A raid is not necessarily the one where she got arrested in. The lede content does not say that it resulted in an arrest, hence it clearly refers to the first event.
2. So? the part I added is in a paragraph describing the events involving the cousin (first event as you call it), and not the video. I think 2 soldiers were involved in both events, and you are confusing both. Also, this is a claim made by her father, so hardly "inaccurate", because you "saw" the video.
3. This framing of Palestinian protests against the occupation as a criminal affair is a common theme in Zionist representations of these events. Goes back to the days of the British. I've seen strange insistence from you elsewhere, and now here, to replace "protests" with "riots". Also with your "riots", there is typically no mention of them beginning as largely peaceful protests and then transitioning to "riots" (as you call them).

@TheGracefulSlick:, I disagree. Pls see my reply. Al-Andalusi (talk) 18:02, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

In this diff, the source calls the first events a "raid". Al-Andalusi (talk) 18:21, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Al-Andalusi you don't need an over-the-top effort to make the soldiers look bad -- they do it themselves. A riot did indeed break out; soldiers entered the house to stop stone-throwers. We aren't saying they are right or wrong, just stating what sources tell us. I'm afraid if you add bullshit or half-truths to the article, you will encourage others to add their own bullshit to counter it (like the POV paragraph Shrike and friends insist on). Please revert and discuss the changes here so we can work it out.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:23, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but what parts are BS? It is indeed possible that two soldiers had jumped the wall of their backyard before the video was captured, and recording started after they were already forced out to the main road. Al-Andalusi (talk) 18:34, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Al-Andalusi according to who? You? Like I said, you don't need to go over the top to make them look bad. Shooting a child is bad enough and sources support that they did that. To answer your question, yes it is possible but the majority of sources do not support that scenario. I understand there is an effort to distort facts for Palestinians but that should give you incentive to be better then those editors, not worse.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:46, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

According to her father. It's not up to you to judge the validity of the statements. Al-Andalusi (talk) 20:50, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Use of "riots" is attributed to Israeli authorities

I partially agree with the edits. Indeed, the word “riot” appears in the coverage on Tamimi, but it’s generally attributed to the Israeli authorities. Here’s a sampling (emphasis mine):

• [1] The Independent: “Tamimi threw stones at them [the soldiers], threatened them, obstructed them in fulfilling their duty, took part in riots and incited others to take part in them,” the military said on its public affairs Twitter account.
• [2] Haaretz: The accused [Tamimi] was a dominant factor in the riot and persuaded those around her to throw rocks, states the indictment. Separately: “Prosecutors also claim streaming the incident on Facebook Live was incitement to violence.” (!) So essentially using social media as an activist is a criminal offence - ?
• [3] Jerusalem Post: The army said Tamimi had participated in a “violent riot” in which 200 Palestinians threw stones at soldiers. According to the IDF, some of the stones were thrown from Tamimi’s home with the family’s consent, and soldiers removed “all the rioters from the house,” guarding it to prevent anyone else from entering.
• [4] BBC: The girl - identified by her family as Ahed Tamimi, 16 - is accused of assault and taking part in a violent riot. (…)"Several Palestinians entered a nearby home and continued throwing rocks at soldiers from inside the home with its occupants' consent," the military said. "Forces removed the rioters from the home and remained standing in the entrance in order to prevent further entry. Later, several Palestinian women came out to face the soldiers in order to incite provocation."
• [5] DW: "Tamimi threw stones at them (the soldiers), threatened them, obstructed them in fulfilling their duty, took part in riots and incited others to take part in them," the military said.
• [6] ABC News: Ahed was suspected of "assaulting an IDF soldier and officer" and participating "in a violent riot last Friday,” the Israeli army told ABC News in a statement. Army officials said the only reason they were there was because "rioters" had been throwing stones from the Tamimi house. The army stayed at the entrance to make sure no one else entered and that's when "several Palestinians exited the house and began to violently provoke the soldiers."

Based on the above, I don’t believe that describing the incident as a riot in Wikipedia’s voice is appropriate at this time. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:49, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• I had less issue with replacing "riot" with protest and your points here show why. Either attribute riots to the Israeli authorities or, preferably, describe when it became more violent -- which, in my opinion, we already accomplished.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:20, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• Separately, "soldiers removed 'all the rioters from the house,' guarding it to prevent anyone else from entering" sounds like a raid to me. I.e. the viral video was shot in the aftermath of / during a raid. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:23, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• At the very least it would be grossly inappropriate to describe violent rioting as "protests" in Wikipedia's voice (which would be a BLP policy violation vs. the Israelis involved) - this would have to be attributed to whomever is calling the stonethrowing activities a "prostest" while mentioning the authorities statement that these were riots. As far as "during a raid" - this is not used by neutral sources to describe this, and the video was shot afterwards - the soldiers had already left the premises, and they were approached by the Tamimis and not the other way around.Icewhiz (talk) 20:17, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

There is not a skerrick of doubt that the use of the word 'riot' via newspaper feedback from IDF reports recycled in 'mainstream' sources is not neutral, but espouses the POV of the 'belligerent occupying power'. I, for just one, been editing and arguing that for a decade. This is particularly true when we have neutral words like 'protests'/'demonstrations'. We do not use 'riot' as the default term, as editors do invariably when Palestinians protest against the occupation, at Protests against Donald Trump, in some of which the protests broke out into rioting. This is particularly so of events in the West Bank where a number of village engage in regular Friday protests,(Nabi Saleh, Kafr Qaddum,Bil'in, Ni'lin etc.,that are put down as 'riots' by the intervention of IDF units. According to the First Additional Protocol (IAP) to the Geneva Conventions (1977), the right to resist an occupation resulting from an armed conflict is recognized. To make an assertion that the use of 'protest' to describe legitimate opposition to armed dispossession of one's lands or housing constitutes a WP:BLP policy violation vs. the Israelis' ranks as one of the most farcical constructions on both reality and Wikipedia policy I've had the opportunity to read here. It means that neutral language itself is a violation of the rights of the Israeli soldiers (and sometimes settlers).Nishidani (talk) 18:04, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

And yet most western mainline reporting covers the Israeli statements as well, which is a strong that lack of coverage by us is a NPOV issue. Regarding Protocol I (not ratified by Israel or the US we should note) - you could argue that the rioting was lawful perhaps (I'm not even sure of that) - yet it would still be a riot if it involved violent public disorder. Regarding BLP - while corporations may be people legally, but for Wikipedia BLP purpose, Israeli soldiers and settlers are people - and BLP (when they are alive) applies to them as well and to statements made on Wikipedia in regards to them. This is particularly true when they are alleged to have acted violently against others which may be construed as a crime by some (Per Nishidani - possibly even a violation of the Geneva convention) - WP:BLPCRIME would apply to most Israeli soldiers and settlers, who are not WELLKNOWN, and they should be presume innocent on Wikipedia unless convicted.Icewhiz (talk) 20:49, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the Israeli authorities describe the events leading up to the slapping video as a “riot” and a “violent riot”. And so do you on this talk page, in exactly the same language, notwithstanding your BLP concerns about other people in the situation :-) :

• it would be grossly inappropriate to describe violent rioting as "protests"...
• you could argue that the rioting was lawful…
• I do think we should point out that this riot is "weekly thing"… – and not an “alleged riot”?

In any case, Wikipedia is not a publishing platform for state propaganda. We go by what independent RS say; they do not describe the incident, in their own words, as a riot that I have seen. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:12, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Use of "protests" / "protesters" is common

Here's sample coverage using the word "protests" / "protesters". [7] Jerusalem Post:

• Palestinian protesters clashed with Israeli soldiers in the village of Nabi Saleh in the West Bank on Saturday at a demonstration calling for the release of a 16-year-old Palestinian girl who was indicted this month for assaulting an Israeli soldier. ("Clashed", not "rioted").
• The incident for which the teenager, Ahed Tamimi, was charged, has made her a hero for Palestinians and was seen as humiliating by right-wing Israelis. Palestinians threw stones at the soldiers who responded by firing tear gas grenades to disperse the crowd at the protests on Saturday. 

[8] The Independent:

• Israel's hard-charging prosecution of a 16-year-old Palestinian girl who slapped and kicked two Israeli soldiers has trained a spotlight on her activist family and its role in what Palestinians call “popular resistance,” the near-weekly protests against Israeli occupation staged in several West Bank villages.
• Since 2009, villagers have protested the seizure of some of their land and a spring for a nearby Israeli settlement, with demonstrations often ending in clashes between Palestinian stone-throwers and Israeli soldiers firing tear gas, rubber bullets or live rounds. (Note: “demonstrations ending in clashes”, similar language to what the Wiki article currently uses).
• Bassem Tamimi was an activist in the first Palestinian uprising, which was largely driven by stone-throwing protests and helped produce interim Israeli-Palestinian deals in the mid-1990s.” (Again, no “riots”. Etc. Note that the word “protest” / “protesters” appears 6 times in the article, while the word “riot”/”rioters” none at all.)

Both outlets use the word “protesters” so I don’t see any BLP violation in Wikipedia doing the same. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:08, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Your first source refers to events a week later. At the very least we need to state the violent nature of these "protests" and "clashes" and that they have beeen described as riots by the Israelies - to do otherwise would be a BLP violation towards Israeli soldiers who are claiming self defense in responding to violent attacks on them which are described in the article (particularly as we are describing the cousin who was allegedly shot by a rubber bullet).Icewhiz (talk) 21:27, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't see any BLP violations towards Israeli soldiers, so I don't really understand the concern there. My point was that even when stone-throwing is involved, the events are still described by the media as "protests", not "riots", let alone violent riots. You mentioned whomever is calling the stonethrowing activities a "prostest" -- I gave examples of the media describing stone-throwing activities as "protests". K.e.coffman (talk) 21:41, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Shooting rioters is distinctly, in a legal sense, a separate issue from shooting protesters. The first is a legal action, the second could be see as an unlawful act by the individuals involved, possibly even a war crime. These are BLPs, and stating the circumstances of the situation they were involved in, as they described it, is due for a BLP.Icewhiz (talk) 22:02, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Is there a rule where all reported actions by Israelis towards Palestinians must be framed to seem legal? Do we really have to accept and repeat all Israeli propaganda? Do we even have to use the words "allegedly shot by a rubbet bullet" on this talk page when it would be more accurate to say "shot in the face with a rubber coated bullet"? Of 19 (talk) 17:41, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

There are two sides to the story. Most Western mainline reporting is covering the Israeli view as well which is a clear indication that NPOV requires us to do so as well. Regardless, regarding whom, by whom, why, and how was allegedly shot - if you are relying on the statements of connected, involved, POVish eyewitnesses - then you wither have to say allegedly or attribute the statement.Icewhiz (talk) 20:40, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

[9] CBS News:

• Bassem Tamimi said that minutes earlier, soldiers had fired a rubber bullet from close range at 15-year-old Mohammed Tamimi, a cousin of Ahed and a frequent guest in the Tamimi home. Rubber-coated bullets are commonly used to disperse crowds. While considered nonlethal, they nonetheless can be dangerous. The teen remained in intensive care Wednesday after surgeons removed the bullet that had entered from his mouth and lodged in his brain, said officials at Ramallah's Istishari Hospital. The patient was alert after extensive surgery and would likely recover, they said.

I don’t think there’s any doubt that the boy had been shot, unless the hospital is lying about removing the bullet, which seems unlikely. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:16, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

There always seems to be a dozen stories whenever the regular shooting of a Palestinian child is actually reported in western media. Call me bias, but when I see Palestinian children shot and Israeli troops are the only armed people nearby, my first thought isn't that it's fake or a mystery worthy of Agatha Christie.

NPOV doesn't require us to write from our echo chamber, nay the opposite.

That those who identify with the target of the protests seek to vilify the protests by labeling them as riots (and to justify violence against the protesters) is no surprise. But as wikipedia does not identify with any side we should call protesters that and nothing more. Of 19 (talk) 01:42, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

There is isn't any doubt that the youth in question was hospitalized. As for everything else - it is mainly sourced to Bassem Tamimi and other family members. Details of the surgery are sourced to a hospital in Ramallah - this is better than the Tamimi family, however there have been several reliability issues (in regards to conflict related information) with the Palestinian ministry of health previously - as you see, the source you are quoting is deliberately attributing both the circumstances (to Bassem Tamimi) and the medical care (to the hospital officials) and not stating this in its own voice.Icewhiz (talk) 08:31, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Fixing the "Life" section

I think we can all agree there are some lengthy, needless quotes that need to be addressed. Aside from a solid first paragraph, the rest of the section is a mess. This may sound drastic but I propose we remove the second and fourth paragraphs. Readers don't gain any insight from quotes that describe what she wears, and I already described her cause -- Palestinian autonomy -- further in the article without overwhelming blocks of quotes.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:53, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree its read like WP:puffery we also have to get rid of some low quality sources like blogs(timesofisrael) and polemics(mondoweiss)--Shrike (talk) 09:33, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

The use of Mondoweiss's reportage on the Palestinian side is not 'polemics' and the RSN board has on several occasions accepted it. The article in question consisted of an interview, and while there's not that much there that warrants inclusion, it is fair to use sources like Mondoweiss which take the trouble to examine the inside story of Palestinians. Generally this article needs reformulating to cover the Tamimi family since there is extensive reportage of them in this context for some 10 years or more, and to single out one daughter's activism is rather pointless. In the meantime, before that is fixed, the proper approach would be to do a background section focusing on that family's activism, to enable one to contextualize the girl's behavior in the two or three incidents covered.Nishidani (talk) 18:12, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

There was never consensus to use such fringe source--Shrike (talk) 08:20, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Bullshit.Nishidani (talk) 11:17, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

We can certainly use Mondoweiss if we balance the bias by using Arutz Sheva.Icewhiz (talk) 11:32, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Could you kindly take a break from Wikipedia for the time required to read closely and carefully our core policy pages. It is plain just from the last few comments that you don't grasp WP:BLP, nor WP:RS. That is just one further absurd remark cluttering a work page. RS are not determined by bartering or trade-offs. Nishidani (talk) 11:44, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

A RS (Mondoweiss possibly may be a RS - borderline either way) can still be WP:BIASED, in which case editorial discretion is required.Icewhiz (talk) 12:09, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Virtually all sources on the I/P conflict are biased, from the Jerusalem Post to Haaretz, to Mondoweiss. Editorial discretion means foraging for the telling factual details, or opinions per attribution, (scumsheets excluded of course) Nishidani (talk) 18:14, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

...and there are presently 420 links to Mondoweiss on en.wp, see link, while there are 3,239 links to Arutz Sheva, see link, ie 7-8 times as many, Huldra (talk) 21:04, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Arutz7 is larger and wider than Mondoweiss and serves as the mainstream media for the growing settler population - often being the best source available for settler related news. Mondoweiss on the other hand is mainly editorial with little original on the ground reporting - it is mainly useful when they run English articles teanslared fron a non-English source.Icewhiz (talk) 21:17, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I suggest you drop using words like 'mainstream' in the sense of 'fringe with a large following. It's even more bizarre than saying the actions of anonymous soldiers occupying a foreign country cannot be described withoutr delicate consideration for them as 'living persons' (while they shoot the occupied).Nishidani (talk) 08:55, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I would not say it is a mainstream source in general, it is for localities such as Beit El, Ofra, Ariel (city), or Kiryat Arba (where their readership share is high) - for sourcing settler opinion or local in-depth coverage of these sort of localities it is sometimes useful. The soldiers described in this article are not anonymous - the identity of the company commander and his radio operator in the 2017 incident, as well as the identity of the soldier in the 2015 incident are known - they are not anonymous due to their appearance in these videos with Tamimi.Icewhiz (talk) 11:02, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Arutz Sheva caters to a special interest group, whose status in international law is that of an illegal usurper of another people's land. Mondoweiss is not a special interest group: it has no payback for covering the occupation of the West Bank, no personal return. Both have POVs, just as does the New York Times or any other mainstream media group, but technically, mainstream newspapers are obliged to give the appearance at least of covering all angles. A7 regularly hosts discredited journos like Giulio Meotti, sacked by serious newspapers for faking his 'research' by outright plagiarism: it regularly posts conspiracy crap about Obama; it regularly pushes the (conspiracy) view Yigal Amir did not shoot Yitzhak Rabin: it spins the Vatican's political accord with the PLO as a combined Catholic-Arab attempt to expel the Jews from Jerusalem; it hosts Manfred Gerstenfeld, touted as 'the world's foremost expert on anti-Semitism,' simply on the strength of a bizarrely ignorant quip by Anshel Pfeffer, otherwise notorious for his ethnic profiling of all Norwegians as 'a barbaric and unintelligent people', or for accusing Germany of engaging in a 'conspiracy of silence' about criminality among Muslim immigrants. One reads Arutz Sheva to get paranoid adrenaline thrill kicks about the great conspiracy abroad against settlers, Israelis, Jews. nothing else. Nothing of that ethnic-targeting tripe is supported by Mondoweiss.Nishidani (talk) 12:13, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Birth date

"[T]he Israel Prison Service told JewishPress.com on Monday that their computer records show Tamimi’s birth date is January 31, 2001, which makes her 16 years and 11 months old."Oceanflynn (talk) 04:04, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

References

Following that quote from The Jewish Press article there is a hyperlink to "Turkish PM eats breakfast with Palestinian girl who challenged Israeli troops" http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/turkish-pm-eats-breakfast-with-palestinian-girl-who-challenged-israeli-troops-37955 dated 30.12.12 based on "Palestine's "brave girl" Tamimi sits on world's agenda" http://aa.com.tr/en/turkey/palestines-brave-girl-tamimi-sits-on-worlds-agenda/290450 dated 30.12.12 which mentions 13-year-old Tamimi. Mcljlm (talk) 12:26, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Multiple reports, on websites and in newspapers, reported her as being 13 years old in December 2012. http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/turkish-pm-eats-breakfast-with-palestinian-girl-who-challenged-israeli-troops-37955. http://blog.camera.org/archives/2012/12/more_accolades_for_young_pales.html http://vestnikkavkaza.net/articles/society/35545.html https://www.hidayatullah.com/berita/internasional/read/2013/01/03/4183/gadis-kecil-yang-meninju-tentara-zionis-sarapan-dengan-erdogan.html. It seems unanimous that she was 13 in December of 2012. At that point in time, there was nothing to be gained by anyone lying about her age. Conversely, there is now much to be gained, by the Tamimi family, and by the Palestinian Authority, by lying now to make her seem younger than she really is. By claiming that she is still a minor, they have sparked international outrage. Based on the evidence, any statements about her being 16 should be be stated as claims, not as facts. PA Math Prof (talk) 21:19, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I have seen her reported currenntly as 17 in many reports. It is all in the realm of inconsistent rounding/truncing.Icewhiz (talk) 21:35, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

She born in 1999 according to 2012 Turkish articles on the award. Sokuya (talk) 22:14, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

My apologies, I am *very* new to Talk pages and to the etiquette and technical language around them, so please correct me if I misstep. I fear I may already have done that by writing what i thought was an entry on the Talk page, but seems to be an actual Edit request, when this conversation has clearly already existed and i should have entered my contributions and thoughts here. So, just for clarity and thoroughness, i will paste what I wrote there and let someone more knowledgeable than I about process tell me which is the better place for it.

Ahed's birthdate (and resultant age) either needs clearer citation than the ABC News article, which does not give clear evidence of that birthdate, or needs editing to acknowledge the ambiguity/lack of clarity around her actual age. Given that her age has been reported as various, and contradictory, ages over the years and that her status as a minor is a key element of the current discussion over her treatment by Israeli authorities, such specificity or acknowledgement of ambiguity seems proper. Her birthday of Jan 31 is reasonably supported by a Twitter post. However, two sources that would seem to support the existence of ambiguity around her birth year are these websites, which are supportive of the Palestinian cause and seem to have personal contact with the Tamimi family. By their calculations, assuming a Jan 31 birthday, her age would be 19 and...19 (this last page has Arabic characters in the URL, which don't seem to be copying properly here. I'm not sure how to include that link). So updating her age to 19, to reflect those 2 sources, or acknowledging the inconsistencies would seem appropriate.

Boundandheard (talk) 16:00, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

POV editing and "Pallywood" (Part 2!)

I once again needed to revert a large body of editing which is either POV, poorly-written, or both. Avoid turning the article into a he-said, she-said; an army rebuttal or "clarification" isn't required for every possible instance. We also already had alengthy discussion about these "Pallywood" allegations and their relevance (of lack thereof) to Tamimi. I have discussed this term -- and other edits -- extensively with editors, and concluded these racially-charged insults and attempts to dehumanize Tamimi are not appropriate for a neutral BLP; rather clear consensus above also supports this. Icewhiz, because your edits have been challenged by several editors multiple times, I recommend you reaccess your approach and come to the talk page more often to propose edits.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:22, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

1. If you continue to revert sourced content - to wapo, nyt, bbc, etc. No less - who have no problem writing Pallywood in their articles (as it is not a "racially-charged insult" - but rather a political stmt describing the videos) - with absolutely no policy rationale - beyond unsourced IDONTLIKE - then we shall open a RfC on this. We have not concluded anything in the discussion above regarding pallywood - and several editors have objected to your removal of sourced content.
2. Regarding Israeli army stmts - in every single instance we describe matters from a Palestinian viewpoint regarding interactions with the army - the army response is due - otherwise we have a NPOV issue as well as BLP issues regarding the army personnel involved. NPOV requires we describe all sides to the issue - and as the IDF response is being covered widely in RS - per WEIGHT it should be here as well.Icewhiz (talk) 19:18, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

You mean two other editors supported your insistence on "Pallywood". Five (that is three more in case you did not realize) -- myself, Huldra, K.e.coffman, Nishidani, and Zero0000 -- objected and I assume Al-Andalusi would object as well. Or do we not count? You need consensus to include material when it is challenged by several editors, sorry to say.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:24, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

One can use the Pallywood meme once, I'd think, in a short summary statement, no more. Israeli military courts have had a 97-99% conviction rate, a record equaled only by the classic voting for the supremos in Bulgarian elections. To make up for the lack of facts, and challenge the IDF based reports and, in camera secret reports by the Shin Bet, B'tselem several years ago handed out large numbers of handcams, teaching Palestinians in fraught areas how to use them, and advising them to film immediately, anytime 'incidents' began to take place. That has become deeply embarrassing, because videos are raw documentation of what, up until that point, was known only through hearsay and official reports. We now have universal coverage by smartphone users of incidents around the world: I don't see anyone suggesting this too is some Bullshit scenario set up and staged for some end. Wer have the Pallywood meme uniquely for the I/P conflict, which essentially states that rumours of Palestinians being beaten or shot in a 50 year occupation are based on staged provocations by tens of thousands of tutored actors intent on humiliating Israel's occupational dignity, and purity of arms. 27-29,000 youths suffered fractures during beatings in the first intifada, but we only had a couple of videos as proof in the good old days. In these circumstances, we are obliged to get to the known facts, (as reported by both sides) describe them sequentially, and that is not hard to do. The rest is just a spin-binge, and, though one can mention the fact in a summary statement in 'Evaluations', just threshing out the details, incident by incident, allows the readership to make its own mind up, rather than be sucked into a cluttered hodgepodge of 'statements' (which by the way, notoriously for those who follow the news feeds, change by the hour, as words have to cope with new video evidence).Nishidani (talk) 20:46, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

(ec) WP:VOTEing is not a substitute for discussion. In this case, you have not advanced a policy based rationale (IDONTLIKE / unsourced claims of slurs) for exclusion of this specific mayerial (previously there was objection to Oren, or to a section standalone (though I will note the article had an evaluations section added today)... It seems that your unsourced arguement of the day is that Pallywood should be excluded as offensive - despite mainstream outlets using it widely). The section being discussed here follows the language in the Washington Post, which generally avoids offensive language, and mentions Pallywood in a single sentence:

In 2015 she was filmed biting and striking a masked Israeli soldier who was apprehending her brother for throwing stones. Supporters of Israel described the videos as "Pallywood propaganda", while Arab media described the soldier filmed as a "coward".Icewhiz (talk) 20:57, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

It is common practice for the media to place unacceptable labels like "terrorist" or "Pallywood" into quotations when reporting the opinions of others. I think we all must realize that we come from various nations, some where racism and loaded-language is normal, though I hope we can all agree to rise to the highest standards and not use words that are offensive to others even if we don't understand or care why they are offensive to others. Of 19 (talk) 22:51, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

As you might see in "illegal_alien" Fairly recent NPOV/n discussion on The use of the term "illegal alien" per WP:NOTCENSORED, WP:WEIGHT (and possibly a few other policies) - we generally do not ban words that are used by WP:RS - and we follow the sources. And in "illegal alien" there was a stronger case for banning the term on Wikipedia in that the editorial boards of some respected outlets (e.g. NYT, WaPo) decided (in their style guides / editorial policy) to avoid using the term while other outlets did not decide to do so. In this case, we have NYT, WaPo, and others using the term, in an attributed fashion, without any issue. Changing the terminology used (in a widespread fashion over half a decade at least by many speakers) to something else (per an editor's own POV and OR regarding equivalence (which would seem to be false - as the same editor is claiming that one is pejorative and the other is not) - would misrepresent the criticism leveled at Tamimi's videos, which is a NPOV issue (as well as a BLP issue regarding Israelis captured on said videos).Icewhiz (talk) 08:35, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, like the NYT and WaPo, we should only use offensive terms like Judea and Samaria, Pallywood, and terrorist when there is no possible alternative, the text in question is vital to the article, and their usage must be attributed to the offensive term user. Of 19 (talk) 23:01, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

The Graceful Slick is basically correct. Anyone in the forefront of news will become an icon for their group, which doesn't warrant us, however, brandishing 'Pallywood' as an important figure for reporting such things. It is a mockery of the idea that, like the rest of humanity, Palestinians have a right to represent themselves as beings other than actors staging fake news, which is what that word strongly claims. It is a toxic smear that prejudices the neutral description of events, and no matter how widely reported by the lazy mainstream, is simply meme reproduction. It would be justified were there evidence of a clear case of setting up an incident. You don't have to set up incidents in these places: soldiers stopping, checking, rousting people out of their beds at midnight, shooting, arresting, demolishing, and spraying people with chemical 'shit' constitute the daily round of events even before one moves. Since it's attested, one should note, as I said, the usage of the term also regarding here, in the Evaluation section that will note that she is viewed as a 'poster child' or Pallywood actress. or icon etc. But to go beyond that mention of media spin, is to play the game of manipulation. In America for some months, even a 'pass' at a woman has, with some justification, become synonymous with harassment. In Palestine, if you as much as show you are pissed off with being robbed and caged on a daily basis, you get put on trial and suffer media exposure as a faker, and actress (by the same US press that has massive reflex reportage of any complaint of harassment of women). People never 'connect' the dots. Nishidani (talk) 09:08, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

References

I'd repiped Pallywood in the lead, unaware of this talk (till the reversion). Just seemed the clearest article for what we're trying to explain. But if it's frowned upon, that's fine by me. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:23, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

@InedibleHulk: - while objected to, no calid policy concerns raised to not include the Pallywood claim which has been repeated, including in titles and bylines, in several mainstream RS. This will probably end in an RfC.Icewhiz (talk) 19:33, 6 February 2018 (UTC) Also note - there has been no agreement on the talk page not to use the term - this would misrepresent the talk page here.Icewhiz (talk) 19:36, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I only meant to imply it was frowned upon, not necessarily generally or universally. If it's pissing anyone off, I'm leaving it alone. I might watch the RfC dispassionately, but that's about it. May the best side win! InedibleHulk (talk) 19:55, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:LABEL

I watched the video in the article that is cited above: "This viral video of an Israeli soldier trying to arrest a Palestinian boy says a lot". It's definitely not staged -- unless the Palestinians "provoked" a heavily-armed soldier into chasing the boy, putting him in a headlock and pushing his head into a rock. As the soldier departs, not being in any danger, he throws a tear-gas grenade at the villagers and the press.

"Pallywood" is mentioned once, in passing: "Some Israel supporters have described the videos of the clashes as "Pallywood propaganda" and have dubbed Ahed 'Shirley Temper'." Note that WaPo refers to "the videos of the clashes" in general, not to Ahed specifically. The video was also described as follows:

• A left-leaning Israeli daily newspaper, in an editorial, called the skirmish video “a perfect picture of the occupation.” “An army that fights children and chases them as they flee is an army that has lost its conscience,” Haaretz wrote.

For balance, why don't we also include this description:

• "Horrifying Viral Video Shows IDF Soldier Beaten by Mob of Palestinian Women, Children"? Etc.

Yet, the portion hand-picked from the article was the passing mention of "Pallywood". In any case, not every attempt [by state propaganda] to denigrate the subject belongs in a BLP. To include Pallywood, we should see an RS discussion of how Ahed's videos are examples of this phenomenon and who analysed them and how, and not just some people think that she is a Pallywood actress.

Also, please see WP:ONUS: "verifiability does not guarantee inclusion". There are such things as WP:LABEL, WP:UNDUE and WP:CHERRY-picked. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:34, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: no calid policy concerns raised -- please see above: I've listed several guidelines. There's been no response to my comment. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:36, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

You addressed a single source, when this critique of the videos has been repeated in several - dozens of times at least in mainstream Western media (and more than once in WaPo). I guess next time I propose text here we will have to go the WP:OVERCITE route - instead of just sourcing to one good source.Icewhiz (talk) 20:01, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Where the "Pallywood" label comes from

I’ve seen vague language on this Talk page such as The association of Ahed Tamimi and Pallywood is long standing and This association with "Pallywood" is covered in RS harking back to 2013. However, it was unclear from the sources cited in the initial addition who and how made this association, apart from Oren. This is a critical missing link preventing the application of this contentious label. Sample:

• CNN (one of the sources used): Ahed has been called "Shirley Temper" because of her long ginger curls, and has been accused of starring in carefully choreographed "Pallywood" videos, a dismissive characterization of protests considered staged for the camera. The proposed language for the article was equally vague: “Supporters of Israel described the videos as ‘Pallywood propaganda’…”

I wanted to find out who and how made this connection. Here are some sources that I found:

• Jerusalem Post: “Right-wing Israelis have charged that these videos, which they call Pallywood, are carefully orchestrated cinematography.”

• Washington Post: Israelis call her ‘Shirley Temper’ and say she epitomizes ‘Pallywood,’ or Palestinian propaganda attempts to discredit Israel. (…) Her regular spots in such videos have garnered her the nickname “Shirley Temper” from pro-Israel bloggers. ah, that’s who. They, like the Israeli police, say her actions are staged and a clear attempt to create a negative image of Israel. The term “Pallywood” is used to describe Palestinians attempts to win the public relations war against Israel by manipulating the media. (“Pro-Israel bloggers” links to "Shirley Temper Arrested" from israellycool.com).

• Washington Post: Some Israel supporters have described the videos of the clashes as "Pallywood propaganda" and have dubbed Ahed “Shirley Temper.” Shirley Temper links to israellycool again (Shirley Temper's Name Splashed Across Daily Mail/).

• Sky.com, citing Michael Oren: "Now, you've heard of Bollywood and you've heard of Hollywood, this is what we refer to as Pallywood, and these incidents are paid for, they are making money out of this in order to manipulate and deceive you, the press."

• International Business Times: A picture of an Israeli soldier head-locking a 12-year-old Palestinian boy has gone viral as the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) accused the boy's family of being "Pallywood stars" to stoke anti-Israel sentiments. The Israeli soldier, who was injured in the incident, was attempting to arrest the boy in Nabi Saleh.
• Etc.

I also found this article that sheds some light on why and how these labels (Shirley Temper, Pallywood) came about in the attempt, as the author puts it, to “demonise minors”. His explanation makes sense to me, given the above:

Israel's 'Eric Garner Moment' Entrenches Its Habit of Victim-blaming

Haaretz, by Asher Schechter, Sep 02, 2015:

Sometimes, an event attracts so much negative international attention that it gets the public mobilized. Israelis analyze videos and photos, obsess over details, and generally act as self-appointed public defenders whose job is to exonerate Israel of blame and put the world (especially the media) on trial. (…)Nabi Saleh is turning out to be [such an event]. Right-wing bloggers and activists have been poring over photos and videos, scrutinizing every detail of the Tamimi childrens’ resumes, and formulating theories to explain how and why a soldier with a headlock on a child was the innocent victim of a global smear campaign. 

Ahed Tamimi, who is seen biting the soldier's hand, is not just any other Palestinian teenager, the bloggers discovered. She is quite the professional provocateur. Videos and images have surfaced in which Tamimi is seen taunting and confronting Israeli soldiers. In some, she is only 10 years old.  

Moreover, Tamimi, they also discovered, comes from activist stock, her parents being two well-known Palestinian activists. That was enough to brand her a "Pallywood star", a term coined by historian Richard Landes to describe anti-Israel propaganda disguised as news, and accuse her of ambushing the soldier for publicity. In blogs and in the media, she was portrayed as violent and dangerous and was given the nickname Shirley Temper, as if she and her brother were the Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen of Pallyhood Hills. (“Pallywood star” links to Daily Mail)

And thus the bloggers, right-wingers and most of the Israeli media dismissed the images from Nabi Saleh as a deliberate Palestinian attempt to manipulate the media and present IDF soldiers as thugs. The girl honored by Erdogan strikes again! proclaimed Channel 20 in reference to a courage award given to her by the president of Turkey. 

The fact that whether or not provoked, the soldier did resort to violence, is immaterial to Israels defenders. What’s important is that an innocent Israeli soldier fell victim to a shrewd, manipulative plot. 

In summary, WP:LABEL requires that we avoid value-laden labels, unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. We can’t really attribute “Pallywood” to CNN and WaPo and say that they describe Tamimi as Shirley Temper, etc., because they don’t – not in their own words. They repeat the labels but are careful to distance themselves. And wouldn't one agree that Michael Oren, the IDF, and right-wing Israeli bloggers are not RS when it comes to labelling someone a Pallywood actress?

We could state that “According to the IDF, Michael Oren, and right-wing Israeli bloggers, Tamimi is part of staged Pallywood videos aimed at discrediting Israel”, but it would be akin to saying “According to Donald Trump (c. 2012) and other birthers, Obama was born in Kenya”. Yes, birtherism was widely covered, but it’s not part of Obama’s bio. So WP:WEIGHT comes into play. That’s my thinking on the subject at this point. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:47, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Not quite the same enough. Obama did a lot of notable things after reportedly being born somewhere or another. Tamimi basically just does this sort of thing, for some reason or another. So, proportionately, more lead room should naturally be devoted to analysis of the thing she's noted for than when people talk shit about a man for something he had no absolutely no control over as a fetus. At least we know she's aware of her surroundings when she acts/behaves/whatever in public. Counts for something in a bio. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:03, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

You can add Ben-Dror Yemini to the list (a journalist - not a bloger) - the Haaretz piece you quoted at length attributes this to and most of the Israeli media dismissed the images from Nabi Saleh as a deliberate comparison... most of the Israeli media (please note that Ha'aretz's political editorial line is different from most Israeli media and does not reflect it - taking a pro-Palestinian line). Unlike the birther theory - the notion that these videos have been staged has not been refuted. Oren is a mainstream figure of note. Placing the response of those the videos are directed against is DUE - just as we say in People's Protection Units that Turkey considers YPG a terrorist organization. There are two sides here, and placing the Israeli response is required for NPOV, as well as possibly BLP concerns regarding IDF soldiers who appear in the videos. We currently describe the Tamimi viewpoint at length - regarding actions vs. the IDF, we do not describe the viewpoint from the IDF.Icewhiz (talk) 05:18, 7 February 2018 (UTC)