Talk:Pallywood

This page is subject to the extended confirmed restriction related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Removing the word "falsely"

I feel like using the word "falsely" to describe the word Pallywood is a bit misleading in itself, and may not be through with Wikipedia's NPOV.

Many Pallywood claims have been debunked, but the term still applies to any propaganda content during the war coming from Gaza itself or Pro-Palestine accounts worldwide. Furthermore, there are cases of Hamas or civilians using staged performances to gather support for monetary purposes. BaconAnim4te (talk) 21:48, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Multiple people (including me) have tried to remove it/removed it -- because it is clearly not in line with NPOV -- and a select number of editors are consistently adding it back. I would appreciate you sharing your thoughts at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#'Pallywood' Aesurias (talk) 21:52, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

They cannot. Per WP:ARBECR they can only do editrequests in the topic area. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 21:53, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Ah I just saw their edit contributions, makes sense. You are also free to add to the topic to give your own perspective, but I cannot see how the word isn't an issue Aesurias (talk) 21:55, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

• The sources in the article are high-quality and say it's used to advance false accusations; nobody has presented any WP:RSes saying otherwise. We have to go by what the sources say, even if some people disagree. --Aquillion (talk) 16:26, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

  No doubt it is use to advance false accusations. Perhaps thus far only false accusations. But is it used to advance false accusations by definition? If Israeli PR came across a single genuine incident of a faked Palestinian video, would they refrain from using the word Pallywood because that term is only used to make false accusations? That is the implication of the lede to me, as it stands. LastDodo (talk) 09:34, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

  That speculation is beyond our remit. If, so far, all examples are false then all examples are false. Simple as. Simonm223 (talk) 10:50, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

  It seems to me its a bit like defining 'UFO' or 'flying saucer' as 'things that people falsely think are alien spaceships'. Perhaps every known example of a sighting can be shown to be something other than an alien craft, but nonetheless we do not define the terms such that they could not apply to a genuine sighting. LastDodo (talk) 11:42, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

  We generally do, on Wikipedia, treat UFOs as being things people falsely think are alien spaceships - certainly Wikipedia does not indulge in UFO conspiracy theories. We likewise should not indulge in this conspiracy theory. Simonm223 (talk) 11:45, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

  The question is not how the concept is 'treated', but how it is defined in the lede. Neither UFOs or flying saucers are defined in the lede of their respective articles as never being alien spacecraft, such that, if found to be real, we would have to change that definition. Even the lede of the article on ghosts does not define the term as a non-existent being. Instead, and I believe we should follow that article's example, we are told later in the lede that 'The overwhelming consensus of science is that there is no proof that ghosts exist.' Likewise the UFO article lede states that 'After decades of promotion of such ideas by believers and in popular media, the kind of evidence required to solidly support such claims has not been forthcoming.' I would remove the word 'falsely' and add a sentence much like those examples. LastDodo (talk) 14:30, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

  No, I'm sorry but while it's technically true that "all reliable sources" could be defined as "the vast majority" this is merely trying to throw some doubt toward the falsity of a racist conspiracy theory. Ghosts are not a racist conspiracy theory so the comparison to ghosts is not apropos. Simonm223 (talk) 14:59, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

  That is a non-sequitur. The UFO/flying saucer/ghosts examples demonstrate that the fact that as far as we know something does not exist, is not sufficient to define it as not existing. If ghosts were found to exist, would the term 'ghosts' be correctly applied to them? Yes. Because ghosts are not defined as non-existent. If genuine instances of Palestinian video fakery were found to exist, would the term Pallywood be correctly applied? I say yes. Are you contending the answer is 'no'? LastDodo (talk) 08:44, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

  Very much agree, and there are genuine instances of 'Pallywood', they just aren't reported on. The media don't report this, because simply staging a video, though morally wrong and manipulative, isn't really news. But if Palestinians are falsely accused of staging a video, of course there will be interest. Aesurias (talk) 08:55, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

  I'm sorry but it's not Wikipedia's job to correct for media blind spots that way. We follow the sources. If sources do not exist we don't adjust for the absence of sources to satisfy an editor's instinct that things are being missed. Simonm223 (talk) 12:06, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Addition of NPOV tag

I believe this article has significant issues with POV, I have added a tag. Multiple editors have raised this issue before on the talk page.

The use of the word 'falsely' into the lead paragraph to try discredit the entire concept of Pallywood, despite protest from various editors spanning months, is a major issue. More than that, I believe the article insufficiently addresses the accusations behind the term and gives undue weight to fake Pallywood accusations while ignoring proven ones.

Specific phrasing issues that should be removed or reworded

- Description as a 'conspiracy theory'

- "Derogatory label used to describe supposed media manipulation by Palestinians"

- "...attempts to discredit Palestinians by claiming that they are exaggerating or faking their casualties"

- "...uses out-of-context videos of cafés and restaurants to insinuate that the Gaza Strip famine is a hoax" (What context could possibly be provided? The Pallywood accounts don't take anything out of context, they just show videos of restaurants with food. All it means is that some parts of Gaza have food)

The article also:

- Uses 'alleged' for Hamas' actions, but not for anything Israel has done

- Gives undue weight to false Pallywood accusations while discounting the times that Pallywood creators have disproven viral content

- Mention of Saleh Aljafarawi, a recently-deceased member of Hamas (article fails to mention his open connection to the group), who was also a crisis actor (he was killed by a rival clan in Gaza as part of action they are taking against Hamas) Aesurias (talk) 22:14, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Please identify specific sources you believe are unreliable, mischaracterzied or absent. Neutrality isn't based on vibes. Simonm223 (talk) 22:16, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

The issue is primarily the phrasing of the article -- some things aren't explicitly supported by the sources.

If you ask though, I think there is an excessive reliance on openly left-wing/pro-Palestine sources like +972, Mondoweiss, Arab News, and Slate Aesurias (talk) 22:20, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Source Bias is not a WP:NPOV problem. Believe it or not leftist sources can be reliable. Simonm223 (talk) 22:22, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm a leftist so yes I'm well aware. The issue is that the article is only focusing on one perspective, and is only discussing disproven Pallywood claims. Aesurias (talk) 22:25, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Please supply reliable sources, otherwise your complaints are non-actionable. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 22:26, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Precisely. If you have evidence a source is being misrepresented or is inaccurate to the point of unreliability please present that evidence. If you have other sources that contradict the WP narrative please present them. If you have neither of these things there's nothing to action. Simonm223 (talk) 16:30, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

• If you believe there are high-quality sources saying that some Pallywood claims are not disproven, you have to actually present those sources. Keep in mind that the best sources in the article are high-quality academic papers, so you'd need something of similar quality if you want to present them with equal weight. --Aquillion (talk) 16:36, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

For all additional complaints/queries raised by other editors who feel there are NPOV issues:

- Talk:Pallywood#Disinformation

- Talk:Pallywood#Removing the word "falsely"

- Talk:Pallywood#The term is not a conspiracy theory or disinformation

- Talk:Pallywood#Used to falsely accuse

- Talk:Pallywood#"Disinformation campaign" appears to be unsupported by sources

- Talk:Pallywood#Edit request 29 May 2025

- Talk:Pallywood#Removal of the last two sentences of lead Aesurias (talk) 22:17, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

You're just presenting that you disagree with the article but aren't referencing any reliable sources which disagree with the article. How is Pallywood not a conspiracy theory? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:21, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

As the issues listed here are either too vague to be actionable or are objections to reliably sourced content without supplying any reliable sources to dispute them, as well as the tag being added in breach of WP:1RR, as they've been made aware I'm removing it. Despite repeatedly being asked to support their position, they have not substantiated their claims outside of linking to previous unsubstantiated complaints on this page. Until you can actually support your objections, it appears that you WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 01:20, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

First sentence of lede

The word "falsely" seems out of place here. I skimmed some of the sources, and they don't to me seem to convey that the term would *not* be used if the accusations were true. If so, the sources don't currently support the current definition. Can someone point me to which source says that the term is limited to false accusations? Or add one? Ornilnas (talk) 05:39, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Jones, Marc Owen (2025). "Evidencing alethocide: Israel's war on truth in Gaza". Third World Quarterly. 0: 1–18. doi:10.1080/01436597.2025.2462791. ISSN 0143-6597. “The so-called 'Pallywood' narrative – a derogatory term suggesting that Palestinians stage scenes of suffering for propaganda purposes – has been a recurring theme in disinformation campaigns against Gaza.”

Derfner, Larry (13 November 2014). "Day of catastrophe for 'Pallywood' conspiracy theorists". +972 Magazine. Archived from the original on 20 July 2024. Retrieved 20 July 2024. “These and countless other right-wingers have popularized the idea that whenever a video shows Israelis battering or killing Arabs without cause, the video is a fake, either staged or doctored.” IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 06:19, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. Neither of those suggest the term would not be used if the accusations were true. "a derogatory term suggesting that Palestinians stage scenes of suffering for propaganda purposes" sort of implies all the accusations are false, which is different. The second quote doesn't imply either point. Ornilnas (talk) 07:07, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Not sure I understand what you're saying here. Note this was also discussed recently here. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 07:11, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

The two quotes you gave support the definition "Pallywood is a derogatory term used to accuse Palestinians of staging scenes of suffering and civilian death". The word "falsely" adds an implication which is not supported by those quotes. I have looked quickly through the previous discussion, and I couldn't see any clear consensus. If my specific question has already been convincingly answered, I didn't see it. Ornilnas (talk) 07:27, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

I still don't see how any of the sources support the wording "falsely". If there are sources that say such staging never takes place, they can support a separate statement saying so. The current definition is very oddly worded, and not supported by the sources. Ornilnas (talk) 04:16, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

its a conspiracy theory/disinformation campaign to dismiss palestinian suffering, and most sourcing describes it as disinfo. i would oppose any removal of the current wording. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 04:20, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

It is already described as a conspiracy theory and disinformation. Removing the world "falsely" would not affect that. The word only makes the definition seem very odd. It implies "Pallywood" is only used when the accusations are false -- not if any were true. It does not imply all the accusations are false. In fact, it could easily be read the opposite way -- that some of the accusations *are* true, but that "Pallywood" is not used in those circumstances. Again, the current wording is just odd, confusing, and not supported by the sources. Ornilnas (talk) 12:10, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Pallywood (a portmanteau of "Palestine" and "Hollywood") is a derogatory term used to falsely accuse Palestinians of staging scenes of suffering and civilian death in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict.

the first sentence is plenty clear, does not include conspiracy thoery or disinformation. and the accusations are considered false by reliable sourcing. and muddying the water by suggesting some of the accusations are true is WP:OR and WP:FALSEBALANCE.

I would not consider any change from statusquo, and consider the first sentence ok as is. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 15:57, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

It is described as a conspiracy theory and disinformation in the second sentence. If you think that should be part of the first sentence instead, feel free to rewrite it. But that is a separate issue. The word "falsely" does not convey either of those meanings effectively. Like I said, it does not even clearly convey that all the accusations are false. So if the goal with this sentence is to convey that (which you seem to think), it fails at that. If all the accusations are false, the lede should say "All these accusations are false." We can discuss whether such a sentence should be added. Either way, the current sentence *does not convey that*. Like I said, it can be interpreted to mean *the opposite*. It is obviously an unnatural way to define a term like this. Ornilnas (talk) 18:13, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

we are at impasse. either post on NPOVN, or start an RFC. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 18:31, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

If you have arguments for why the sentence should contain "falsely", just present them. You are not engaging with my arguments. I sincerely do not understand why this word was included in the first place, or why removing it is being contested. You can start an RFC if you want. I will try to understand the issue as best I can on the Talk-page, and then make changes to the language as necessary. Ornilnas (talk) 19:01, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

These has been discussed before with the result being an implicit consensus to keep the word "falsely". Do you have any sources where Pallywood is described as being some times true? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:04, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

I do not perceive the above discussions as having read a consensus at all. More importantly, they did not at all resolve the issue of why the word "falsely" is appropriate in the first place. Again, adding the word "falsely" to the sentence is not a good way to convey the meaning that all the accusations are false. If we want to say that categorically, we should write it explicitly in a sentence. If there are other reasons for using that word, please present them. And I do not claim that sources describing some accusations are true would mean that we should remove the world "falsely", just like I don't think sources describing some accusations as false means we should keep it. The sources we have do describe some accusations as false; but they do not support the claim that the word "Pallywood" is only used to describe false accusations. And if they did, and we wanted to say that clearly, the current wording does not convey that effectively. Ornilnas (talk) 19:11, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

It doesn't appear you've read the sources cited in this article. We have sourced calling it a conspiracy theory and disinformation.

Also we have: "Israel-Hamas war misinformation is everywhere. Here are the facts". Associated Press. 2 November 2023. Archived from the original on 3 November 2023. Retrieved 24 April 2024. In recent weeks, social media users have repeatedly misrepresented videos to falsely accuse Palestinians of being "crisis actors" in the war, as part of a conspiracy theory dubbed "Pallywood." IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:16, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

1) It is described as a conspiracy theory and disinformation in the second sentence. That has nothing to do with the word "falsely". 2) I agree that "Pallywood" is used to falsely accuse. Is that all you want to convey with the word? Because to me, it seems to convey that "Pallywood" is ONLY used to falsely accuse. Is that what you want to convey with the word "falsely"? Can you be clear about this? Ornilnas (talk) 19:22, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

You're simply wrong about point 1 and I don't understand you question in point 2. We're going in circles at this point. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:34, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

1) The second sentence currently states: "It has been described as a conspiracy theory and a prominent element of Israeli disinformation in the conflict."

2) Should "falsely" be included because a) some accusations are false, or because b) all accusations are false? Ornilnas (talk) 20:00, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't find this to be productive and I don't have a response to this. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:12, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Right. The problem is that nobody has even explained why the word "falsely" is there. I have explained how the sentence will be better without it. I still do not understand how you and others think it is better with it. What is the difference in meaning with and without? You do not have to participate in this particular discussion, but if it is not explained to me, I will improve the sentence. Ornilnas (talk) 21:55, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

if you do, we will revert as per WP:BRD.

consider WP:DROPIT, or ask for more editors on WP:NPOVN, or with a WP:RFC. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 21:56, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

I am trying to have the "discuss" part of this cycle. Neither of you are seriously trying to articulate your reasoning. You can't just say "we're at an impasse, and therefore the status quo stays". An RFC is overblown for this single word, but feel free to call one. I would prefer it if you just explained what meaning the sentence would have without the word, and how that is different from the meaning of the current sentence. Ornilnas (talk) 22:10, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

nobody needs to WP:SATISFY you if your arguments aren't satisfactory. in such cases, the policy reverts to whatever consensus is.

If you want to debate this further, consider NPOVN or an RFC, but the consensus from past discussion and in this talk section is against you. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 22:25, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

You do need more convincing arguments then me, yes. You have, in my view, presented essentially no arguments of substance. There is no clear consensus from the previous discussion that I can see. Feel free to show me where it is. If you think this belongs on the NPOV noticeboard, please do post it there. I will continue the discussion for now, and change the language if nobody engages with actual arguments. Ornilnas (talk) 22:39, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

You would be edit warring to do so. Nothing wrong with asking other editors for their input if you feel strongly about this. That would be the best way to proceed. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:51, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

All of that applies equally to you. If you think that is the best way to proceed, go ahead. Until then, please engage in the discussion of the actual issue (not only the process). Ornilnas (talk) 23:04, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

One way of putting the problem is as a question. I asked this earlier and got no answer. If genuine instances of Palestinian video fakery were found to exist, would the term Pallywood be correctly applied? If the answer is 'yes', the current definition is wrong. This may help:

Person 1: Did you hear? Reputable news sources have found a genuine case of a Palestinian faking an atrocity video!

Person 2: Wow, so Pallywood is real after all.

Person 1: Incorrect. The term 'Pallywood' is only used when making a false accusation.

Under the definition currently being used in this article, Person 1 is correct. But are they correct? LastDodo (talk) 12:44, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

"If genuine instances of Palestinian video fakery were found to exist, would the term Pallywood be correctly applied?" I don't think so, although I suppose it would depend on the number of instances. But I believe the whole idea of the Pallywood conspiracy theory is that the alleged fakery is widespread.

For comparison, blood libel would still be a false conspiracy theory even if a single Jewish person were to engage in some sort of ritual murder.

I think in your example Person 1 would be correct. I believe Pallywood implies/refers to the idea that there is an "industry" of fake Palestinian suffering videos which is comparable to some extent to the Hollywood film industry or to the Bollywood film industry. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:16, 21 November 2025 (UTC) (Edited 23:23, 21 November 2025 (UTC))

See also another example from a recently added source: Koltai, Kolina (2023-12-08). "Images of Syrian Civil War Take on a Second Life in Gaza Conflict". Bellingcat. Retrieved 2025-11-26. Indeed, there is the precedent of the decades-old 'Pallywood' conspiracy theory which alleges that Palestinians regularly stage images of civilian suffering. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 01:12, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Looking at the quotes from the cited sources in this thread, it seems to be that Pallywood accuses "Palestinians" collectively. Repeating some portions of the sources quoted above: "the idea that whenever a video shows Israelis battering or killing Arabs without cause, the video is a fake, either staged or doctored", "falsely accuse Palestinians of being "crisis actors"", "a derogatory term suggesting that Palestinians stage scenes of suffering for propaganda purposes". IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:21, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

If that is the case (I won't take a position on that), the conversation would be like this:

Person 1: Did you hear? Reputable news sources have found that there is a secret Palestinian operation going back years which has faked dozens of atrocity videoes!

Person 2: Wow, so Pallywood is real after all.

Person 1: Incorrect. The term 'Pallywood' is only used when making a false accusation.

Again, under the definition currently being used in this article, Person 1 is correct. But are they?

Once again I draw the parallel to ghosts or UFO visitations. They might not exist, but they are not defined as not existing, such that if they were found to exist, the terms 'ghosts' or 'UFO visitation' would not apply. LastDodo (talk) 14:31, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

You are making the opposite of the point you think you're making. Given that reputable sources have not found that there is a secret Palestinian operation going back etc etc, and given that we generally try not to hedge articles against theoretical occurrences or accept unchallenged all notions this is an excellent reason to continue to use the term "falsely" as currently written. We have articles on Ghosts and Unidentified flying objects and in both of them we make it clear that as we currently know, there is no hard evidence of either. Smallangryplanet (talk) 14:55, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

In neither case are those defined as not existing such that if they were found to exist, we could not use the term in question. For example in the Ghosts article it begins saying In folklore, a ghost is the soul or spirit of a dead person or non-human animal that is believed by some people to be able to appear to the living. Later in the lede it then says The overwhelming consensus of science is that there is no proof that ghosts exist. That I believe is also what should happen here.

If ghosts were found to exist, then, given the meaning of the word 'ghosts', would that term still apply to those newly discovered entities? Yes. If Pallywood were found to exist, would it still be called Pallywood? Yes. That means we cannot define it as not existing. To put the word 'falsely' in the definition is to claim that if a Pallywood operation were found to exist, the term 'Pallywood' would not be correctly applied to that operation. LastDodo (talk) 11:58, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

It is to claim that if a Pallywood-style operation were discovered, then Israeli propaganda would not use the term 'Pallywood' to describe it, or if they did, would be widely told that they are using the term 'Pallywood' incorrectly, because Pallywood is only to be used when making a false accusation. Plausible? LastDodo (talk) 12:01, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Your argument is essentially "but if it were real then it wouldn't be false". Wikipedia is based on what reliable sources say, not on what they could say or would say in an alternate hypothetical reality.

I'll reiterate the Associated Press quotation: In recent weeks, social media users have repeatedly misrepresented videos to falsely accuse Palestinians of being "crisis actors" in the war, as part of a conspiracy theory dubbed "Pallywood." IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 12:17, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Also, there is no need for us to speculate about "if a Pallywood-style operation were discovered". If that were to happen then we would just follow what the sources would say in response to that. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 12:23, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

No that is not my argument. If you do not understand what I am saying then ask me to clarify, but please do not strawman me.

If Pallywood is a term '...used to falsely accuse Palestinians of staging scenes of suffering..' then it cannot be used to 'correctly accuse Palestinians of staging scenes of suffering...' That means if a real Pallywood-style operation were discovered, the term would not be correctly used to describe that operation. Israeli propaganda would not use the term, or of they did, be told they are wrong to do so. 'No Mr. Netanyahu, the term Pallywood cannot be used to describe this Palestinian PR operation, that term is only used to make false accusations'. Of course this is ridiculous, but it flows from the definition currently used. LastDodo (talk) 17:39, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Are you saying that 1) Wikipedia would not be edited immediately in the circumstance an actual Pallywood operation was discovered and 2) that Israeli propaganda use the English Wikipedia as a style guide? Smallangryplanet (talk) 19:36, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

1) No. 2) I have no advice to Israeli propaganda. I tire of 'you're saying [stupid thing]' comments.

Do you think Israeli propaganda would refer to a real Pallywood-style operation as Pallywood? LastDodo (talk) 15:30, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Then there's no reason to change the current wording because it describes the world as it currently exists. If you're this passionate about changing this one word I think you've gotta take it to an RfC otherwise we're going to be going around in circles forever. Smallangryplanet (talk) 15:47, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

If Pallywood were found to exist, would it still be called Pallywood? Yes. That means we cannot define it as not existing.

We're not defining it as not existing. We're saying that the term (which exists to describe a false accusation) is used to make a false accusation. We're not saying "In all possible futures there is no possibility of there ever being a Pallywood", just as we don't say "In all possible futures there is no possibility of ghosts being real."

At any rate this is not how words work - Wikipedia does not set immutable and eternal definitions for concepts. If Pallywood is discovered, then all we have to do is edit the article. The same is true of if we find ghosts are real or a first contact scenario occurs. (If you're interested in both of these things happening sort of at once, I recommend Peter F. Hamilton's The Reality Dysfunction.) Smallangryplanet (talk) 12:31, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

'which exists to describe a false accusation'. No it doesn't. It is used by those making the accusation.

'If Pallywood is discovered, then all we have to do is edit the article'. Here is the first line from Ghosts: In folklore, a ghost is the soul or spirit of a dead person or non-human animal that is believed by some people to be able to appear to the living.

Notice the absence of defining them as non-existent. LastDodo (talk) 17:44, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

'which exists to describe a false accusation'. No it doesn't. It is used by those making the accusation.

Just because people use the term does not mean it cannot be false. Some people do believe Pallywood to exist. They are, according to reliable sources, incorrect. Thus: in the world we live in today, it is a term used to falsely accuse. Smallangryplanet (talk) 19:34, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Do you think Israeli propaganda would refer to a real Pallywood-style operation as Pallywood? LastDodo (talk) 15:30, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Whether I think that or not has no bearing on what reliable sources say about the term currently today. Smallangryplanet (talk) 15:44, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

<- FYI, this thread was opened at roughly the same time as a matching Reddit thread. Sean.hoyland (talk) 13:01, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

WP:ISATERMFOR

If I understand correctly, the topic of the article is the false allegation of a phenomenon, not the word. Thus, the opening sentence of the article violates WP:ISATERMFOR. I tried to rectify that, but my edit was reverted. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:49, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

For a concept that cannot be accurately or neutrally affirmed (such as chick lit, gay agenda, or deep state), an appropriate introductory sentence may include the phrase "refers to" or otherwise mention the topic's name rather than use it (see use–mention distinction).

this may apply. additionally it’s a neologism so starting with the definition also helps User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 23:50, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

For the article about the phenomena its probably Misinformation in the Gaza war User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 23:58, 6 April 2026 (UTC)