This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 7 |
I have analysed the size of the content of the article and come up with the following sizes of readable content:
Wikipedia advises a optimum size between 30 and 50 kB (see [ [1]]). So, I would propose to branch of two new articles called:
Maybe we can wait some time, but I think somewhere in the near future we have to do something.
Anyone wants to comment?
-- JaapBoBo 21:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Let me propose another possibility, branching of three articles with neutral names:
I hope you all find these names neutral. With regard to the transfer idea I would like to add that it's existence seems undisputed (even Karh doesn't deny the transfer idea, but says it was forced upon the Yishuv by the Peel commission), and that I would like a referral to the 1948 exodus in the title of such an article. -- JaapBoBo 09:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
In another section of the discussion I saw people start talking about a restructuring of the article. The sturcture right now is indeed liable to improvement. However, I don't think we can save much space though, so we'd still end up with a long article. Therefore I think forking of is still a good idea (of course adequate summaries should stay in the article):
What would be left in the article are the more direct causes and circumstances of the exodus. Morris' view and the two stage theory have a similar sturcture in common (e.g. Gelber divides the first stage also in phases similar to Morris). Probably also the 'ethnic cleansing' section could be combined with these. The remaining two sections ('Arab fears' and 'psychological warfare') could either remain, or be integrated into the 'waves'. -- JaapBoBo 16:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I think we should take Schechtmans opinions out of the article. Particularly I am referrring to this part in the section 'Palestinian Arab fears':
In the Western world fighting is carried on by the organized military; the civilian population, even when conquered, is comparatively safe. Arab warfare against the Jews in Palestine, however, had always been marked by indiscriminate killing, mutilating, raping, looting and pillaging. This 1947-48 attack on the Jewish community was more savage than ever. Until the Arab armies invaded Israel on the very day of its birth, May 15, 1948, no quarter whatsoever had ever been given to a Jew who fell into Arab hands. Wounded and dead alike were mutilated. Every member of the Jewish community was regarded as an enemy to be mercilessly destroyed. [...]
[T]he Arab population of Palestine anticipated nothing less than massacres in retaliation if the Jews were victorious. Measuring the Jewish reaction by their own standards, they simply could not imagine that the Jews would not reply in kind what they had suffered at Arab hands. And this fear played a significant role in the Arab flight. [1]
Reasons:
If there is any truth in the passage it shouldn't be hard to find a more objective and reliable source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JaapBoBo ( talk • contribs) 19:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I say we remove the passage! -- JaapBoBo 18:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I fully agree Schechtman is biaised and it is not difficult to show that all scholars(*) today agree with that.
(*) except Karsh.
I fully agree that any doubt that would make believe arabs exodus would have been due to "arab calls" is not welcome !
But I think we should not delete the material because I think it is important to point out what was the official israeli explanation - who developed this - why - how long it survived - what were its consequences - who first claimed it was not right - who still use this today...
Schechtman is quoted by Childers, Glazer, Flahan, Morris and Pappé (I assume others) and Glazer in 1980 summarized all the arguments why the Israeli versions was not reliable and he cites Schechtman, Kohn, Kimche and Syrkin as the israeli historians who developed the famous theory.
This is an important information.
nb: note that such section would be particularly not "pleasant" for pro-israeli-biaised readers.
Alithien
19:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
We've discussed this before. You can't just brand every source that doesn't agree with you. Schechtman is a historian, like it or not. Screen stalker 14:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Dear JaapBoBo,
Please do not remove Schechtman without consensus just because you don't like him. I sympathize with your plight because I don't like some of the other people quoted in this article. Instead of removing a notable scholar despite the prevailing opinion that he should not be removed, perhaps it would be more mature to simply accept that not everybody agrees with your point of view. Thank you. --
GHcool
18:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Besides the issue of Schechtmans reliability I have other problems with this citation of Schechtman.
Combining the unreliability of Schechtman and the exceptionality of his claims I don't think this should be in the article. -- JaapBoBo 20:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
JaapBoBo's last post on Finkelstein:
GHCool's response to JaapBoBo's last post on Finkelstein:
The rest of the chapter is devoted to criticism of actual scholarly misconduct and intimidation that I'm happy to quote here, but fear that it wouldn't make much of a dent since I've brought up the same points in earlier arguments and they didn't change anybody's minds before. Dershowitz isn't the only critic of Finkelstein. Dershowitz cites criticisms by Peter Novik (author of The Holocaust in American Life) and Leon Wieseltier and others. Since The Case For Peace was published, there has been even more criticism of Finkelstein, which I would be happy to find upon request. -- GHcool 06:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)"Finkelstein is a transient academic who describes himself as 'in exile' at DePaul University because he has been-by his own account-'thrown out of every school in New York.' [There is a footnote to a July 1, 2003 article in the Irish Times. The Case For Peace was written years before Finkelstein's denial of tenure and resignation from DePaul.] The former chairman of the political science department at one such college told me that Finkelstein was fired for 'incompetence,' 'mental instability' and 'abuse' of students with politics different from his own."
Lets look at the text with Finkelstein reference that I want to include:
Now I don't think the Dershovitz claims say anything at all about the reliability of this text (all kind of vague accusations, it makes me rather wonder what kind of chap Dershovitz is). So, in case you cannot offer anything better and conforming to wikipedia policy to exclude this text I will put it in. -- JaapBoBo 21:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
We should apply Wikipedia policy to every referenced text to be included in the article. In that sense I agree with GHCool that we should treat every author the same way, i.e. with the same standards. The evaluation must be made for every individual case, so I don't want to connect GHCools admittance of Finkelstein to my admittance of whatever source GHCool want's to use. But GHCool, you can rely on me to apply the same standards to all sources. -- JaapBoBo 20:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
As to GHCool arguments:
It's not a vague text, but instead it's quite clear. Finkelstein is also not a layman on this subject. He wrote his PhD thesis, 'From the Jewish Question to the Jewish State', on it, which was endorsed by Princeton University. So actually he is an expert on this matter! He also has excellent credentials. DePaul has acknowledged that he is a good teacher and a productive scientist. GHCool has brought accusations by the Zionist lobby, but nothing against his reliability. If Finkelstein were unreliable I would expect the Zionist lobby to have shown it to us by now, but they haven't. In Wikipedia policy I can find nothing against him that would prohibit him from being included as a source. -- JaapBoBo 20:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I just read chapter 1, pages 12-16 and Chapter 3, pages 51-68 of Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict by Norman G. Finkelstein (1995 edition). The first thing I noticed was that it was published by Verso Books, a far left publishing house not known for the academic standards that one would expect from Osprey Publishing (Karsh's publisher), Cambridge University Press (Morris's publisher), or even John Wiley & Sons (Alan Dershowitz's publisher). Just as I expected, all of the arguments that Norman Finkelstein (hereby abbreviated to "NF") brings up are from selected secondary sources. He never quotes primary sources unless they are the same quoted in a secondary source. This leads me to think that NF has never examined any primary sources for himself and perhaps does not know how to read or speak Arabic or Hebrew (the "Acknowledgements" page supports this hypothesis).
NF takes the illogical stance that anything that a Zionist leader or publication has ever said "cannot be trusted" unless, of course, that Zionist leader or publication is saying something damning to the pro-Israel argument. NF is correct in saying that official Zionist documents must be evaluated with a critical eye, but it is downright arrogant to say that Morris doesn't know or didn't practice this basic tenent of the historical method. Other things I found were instances of creating false dichotomies (pg. 58), putting words into Morris's mouth (59-60, 62), comparisons of the Palestinian exodus to the Holocaust (59), conclusions that do not follow from NF's stated premises (60), oddly placing events that happened in the 1920s and 1930s in the context of the 1948 Palestinian exodus (12-16), treating the Zionists (and especially Ben-Gurion) as though they were a homogeneous group of fascists (15), and what seems to me to be purely inventing things out of thin air or at least talking about something he doesn't really understand (176, footnote 18).
Anyway, my opinion of NF has not changed. Everything I've read by him begs the question. His scholarship amounts to, "I know Israel is bad, now let's see if I can prove it," when the correct attitude, the attitude Morris and other serious historians have taken, is publish whatever conclusion all of the evidence lead to. To me, NF's criticism of Morris is like a D student in algebra class telling a calculus professor that he doesn't do derivatives correctly. He doesn't walk the walk and, in the opinion of most experts in the field and the tenure committee at DePaul University, he doesn't talk the talk. I do not recommend him to be in this article unless we allow any other "questionable" sources such as Alan Dershowitz and Joan Peters. -- GHcool 06:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
sterling qualities for which Finkelstein has become famous: erudition, originality, spark, meticulous attention to detail, intellectual integrity, courage, and formidable forensic skills."–Avi Shlaim, Professor of International Relations, Oxford University [ [3]] -- JaapBoBo 19:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Whether or not Finkelstein's commentary here merits inclusion I'm not sure, since it would depend on whether or not he has something unique to say in regards to this particular issue, and I'm not sure he does. In regards to F.'s status as a reliable source however, there should be no argument about that. F. most certainly qualifies. He is one of the most high-profile scholars on the Arab-Israeli question, he has received plaudits from other greatly respected experts in the field (see Schlaim's endorsement above, or that of Raul Hilberg who supported his work and said he would be "vindicated" by history), and he has written best selling books on the conflict that have been praised both inside and outside academia and translated into multiple languages. His book A Nation on Trial was named a notable book for 1998 by the New York Times. His latest book "Beyond Chutzpah" was published by the University of California Press after perhaps the most thorough peer review of any book on the conflict ever. These achievements demonstrate that he is unquestionably a reliable source in Wikipedia terms.
In spite of this however, some pro-Israeli editors have seized upon his recent denial of tenure as a rationale for trying to exclude him as a source on the grounds that this failure has somehow discredited his scholarship. This is simply not the case. DePaul did not question the quality of his scholarship. In fact, it endorsed him as "a prolific writer and outstanding teacher". F. was denied tenure only because someone didn't like his attitude. But there is nothing in Wiki policies that disqualify sources on the basis of some alleged flaws of personality. It's only the reliability of their scholarship that matters, and F. has no shortage of endorsements in that regard. Gatoclass 03:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I suggest that instead of stating : I agree and arguing or I don't agree and arguing, we should deal with proposals in stating : I see the following advances and the following disadvantages to your proposal. We should modify this that way bla bla bla.
Because with wp process, a "I don't agree" just block everything, whatever the arguments that follow that mind...
Alithien
10:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
This Schechtman quote has really led to a controversy. In my view we should consider the text to be included and it's reliability. The text is given here ([ [7]]), together with comments from contemporary neutral historians who say this book of Schechtman, on which the quote is based, is more or less a work of propaganda. Childers found the reported facts in the book unreliable. Furthermore, the claims in the text are also quite extreme (as I pointed out here: [ [8]]) and clearly bogus.
We should not include such extreme claims from a source that is considered unreliable. If somebody wants to include these claims he or she should find a more reliable source. -- JaapBoBo 21:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps not, but I notice you have reinserted Schechtman's diatribe back into the article on several occasions, while at the same time you have been removing references to Finkelstein (which, as it happens, misrepresented his position, but that's another issue).
If Schechtman qualifies as a reliable source, then Finkelstein certainly does. But this quote from Schechtman is inappropriate in any case. As WP:RS states, exceptional claims require exceptional evidence. Schechtman's claim that "no quarter whatsoever had ever been given to a Jew who fell into Arab hands" is not merely an exceptional claim, it is demonstrably untrue. During the 1929 Hebron riots, for example, Israeli historian Tom Segev states that two thirds of the Jewish community were hidden from Arab marauders from the countryside by their Arab neighbours. There is no excuse for inserting demonstrable falsehoods into Wikipedia articles. Gatoclass 04:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
May I suggest we ask an admin to block the article in the current version and that editors collaborate on the redaction of a better article. This is to respect everybody sensitivity on this matter and not to be distracted in the work by "controversed" or "non-consensual" edits.
THEN, we archive all these discussions and we build here, step by step, the article.
I will see the following phases.
1. Discussion of the structure
2. Agreement on the main arguments to be added in each section of the structure with the source where we can find the material referring to this and also the relative approximate weight to be given to each of them.
3. Writing
Alithien
07:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Pedro just added the following to the article: "Schechtman, a historian discredited by Childers [footnote 169] and Glazer [footnote 170] for misquoting his sources, argues in his book ..."
Can't we all agree that pretty much every historian in this article has been discredited for some form of misconduct or another by pretty much every other historian quoted in this article? Is the mud slinging really necessary? I always assumed that this article was meant to publicize the research of the historians and if one wants to see the information on the reputations of any given historian, they would have to click their Wikipedia link and read their article. I assumed most people here woula agree with this view, but Pedro reverted me when I deleted his mud slinging. I propose we keep on topic and delete things like "X discredited Y and Y discredited Z, etc, etc." Or, alternatively, we can apply the mud slinging to all of the historians cited here, but that would just make the article much less pleasant to read. -- GHcool 17:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree that "discredited by" is POV. In regards to the general question however, the real issue is whether a writer who has no credentials in the field, whose work is recognized as unqualifiedly partisan, whose research has been attacked as fraudulent, and whose works are all 30 or 40 years old and never reprinted, should be quoted at all in this article. I submit that there is no reason whatever why we should be quoting such a source, particularly when we have an abundance of recent scholarship from much better credentialed writers to draw from. We are supposed to use quality sources wherever possible, Schechtman fails the bar on practically every count. Gatoclass 00:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
There are really only two alternatives: (1) the "everybody is discredited by everybody" alternative in which we sling mud at all the historians quoted in this article, or (2) the "let the research speak for itself" alternative in which everybody is presented as a reliable source for their own specific point of view and let our readers choose what to believe based on their own intelligence and experience. I had originally thought we would all agree that Choice #2 was the better choice, but maybe I'm wrong. Shall we start applying Choice #1 to all the historians or shouldn't we? -- GHcool 00:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Everyone has a political agenda. Finkelstein has drawn extra flak not because he has a political agenda, but because he personalizes the debate by setting out to expose other scholars for fraudulent or flawed research. Thus he has made enemies. But not one of his detractors has ever been able to point to a single example of bad scholarship on his part, in spite of all their accusations.
As for Walter Laqueur, I think you're kidding yourself Alithien if you're reading him to get a non-partisan view. He's about as pro-Israeli as they come. So it doesn't suprise me at all to hear of him quoting generously from a partisan like Schechtman. Gatoclass 17:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
The fact that Schechtman is an "old" source does not make him any less reliable. All else being equal, I would take a source that wrote at the time of the exodus over one who wrote about it 50 years later any day. Screen stalker 16:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Some restructuring seems necesarry. On the one hand the article is becoming quite long, on the other hand its structure right now is not satisfactory. Let me give some thoughts:
-- JaapBoBo 21:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I apologize for editing here before reading the whole section. It is very long, and I am quite pooped.
But, at any rate, this is my two cents: splitting the article is a terrible idea. "Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus" is already very specific. Getting as specific as the individual causes is more than the average reader can bear.
Try to recall back to when you first began reading Wikipedia. Didn't it drive you crazy how all you wanted was to find out something about, let's say, water desalination, and you had to read half of the water desalination article only to find out you had to follow a link to another article... and then another link to another article... and sometimes another link... and so on. I see this going as far as "Dispute over the validity of Karsh's criticism of the transfer theory."
What I'm trying to say is that the average reader wants to look something up and find it, not trek on an endless journey of searching for the answer. Screen stalker 18:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
The point that Morris believes that the Zionists considered the "transfer idea" as an available option is made way too many times. One paragraph (or blockquote) would drive the point home. Do we really need all of the following?
"According to Morris, while not discounting other reasons for the exodus, the 'transfer principle' theory suggests that this prevalent 'attitude of transfer' is what made it easy for the Jewish population to accept it and for local Haganah and IDF commanders to resort to various means of expelling the Arab population."
By 1948, transfer was in the air. The transfer thinking that preceded the war contributed to the denouement by conditioning the Jewish population, political parties, military organisations and military and civilian leadership for what transpired. Thinking about the possibilities of transfer in the 1930s and 1940s had prepared and conditioned hearts and minds for its implementation in the course of 1948 so that, as it occurred, few voiced protest or doubt; it was accepted as inevitable and natural by the bulk of the Jewish population."
"The nexus between thought and action was not so much a matter of 'predetermination' and preplanning as of a mind-set that accepted transfer as a legitimate solution. Once that 'transfer' got under way, of its own accord, in late 1947-early 1948 (Arabs fled mainly out of fear of bombs and bullets), the Zionist leadership, guided by Ben-Gurion, was predisposed to nudge the process along, occasionally with the help of expulsions."
Seriously, can't we agree on a general rule that every one point made by the same author deserves only one paragraph for the sake of WP:Undue weight, reducing redundancy, and making an already lengthy article just a little bit shorter? I propose we keep the first one because it is the most succinct and makes the point well and is NPOV and we remove the two ugly and redundant blockquotes. -- GHcool 01:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
If nobody disgrees, I will synthesize the summary (#1) and the blockquote from "Review of Fabricating ..." (#3) some time tomorrow and delete the blockquote from The Birth ... Revisited (#2) completely. -- GHcool 21:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi Pedro,
Before making another proposal, don't you think that :
Alithien 10:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, I don't know about the "political debate" bit. It sounds like it could turn into a farce, with all the various historians criticising each other. The reader would probably end up feeling either totally confused or distrustful of them all. Gatoclass 15:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm not excited about this one. It looks like more trouble than its worth and will create articles that are even longer than the current ones already are. It might even be impossible to make and create redundencies upon redundencies. -- GHcool 17:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree. Unfortunately, JBB and GH seem to thnk JBB's approach is better. Personally, I think that even if this proposal of yours is not adopted, we should not adopt JBB's because it's a recipe for chaos. Structure is absolutely vital to the quality of an article, if one gets the structure right, the rest tends to fall into place. Without an appropriate structure it's only a matter of time before the article becomes an unreadable mess. So I think it's important we get this right. Gatoclass 10:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
If we keep the articles separated I'd propose three sections. The first being the second from Alithien, but with some changes. This seems to follow the historical development of the 'debate'. I'd say this should include only summaries of the pov's, because the events I are described in the 'exodus' article and I would describe 'direct causes' and policies in a second and third section. In the second section on 'direct causes' (i.e. event-related causes) we might combine the three sections ('Morris' four waves', 'two stage analysis' and 'Descriptions of the exodus as caused by ethnic cleansing'.) into e.g three subsections 'direct causes of 1st wave', 'direct causes of 2nd wave' and direct causes of 3rd and 4th waves. In a third section I would discuss the role of leaders and policies.
The remaining sections (i.e. Palestinian fears and psychological warfare) could be integrated into the 'direct causes' and/or the 'role of ... leaders' sections.
--
JaapBoBo
12:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Quite frankly I don't see much difference between this proposal and the article we have now, which is already seen as problematic. It looks to me like a recipe for the kind of repetitions that already bloat the current version, so I'm afraid I'm not too keen on this proposal. Gatoclass 15:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I like this proposal. -- GHcool 17:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
To avoid misunderstanting. By historiographic debate on the cause of the 1948 exodus, I meant the current debate that followed Morris publications : between Finkelstein/Karsh/Gelber/Pappé etc.
JaapBoBo, I still don't see how you can justify to cut all current theories/analysis in two families : the one that concerns the role of the arab leaders (which is pov if we talked about traditionnal israeli one) and the one that concerns the role of the yishuv leaders (which is controversed).
I understand there are two debates :
Could you clarify what you don't understand in what I mean or what I don't understand in what you mean ? Alithien 13:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
With all due respect to JaapBoBo - who I'm sure has made a fine contribution to this page - this proposal of his is just not going to work. It's simply not logical, and it is just a recipe for duplicating the same material over and over in each section. In fact it looks pretty much what we've got now which everyone seems to agree is not satisfactory.
Let me just see if I can quickly outline some of the problems I see.
1. historical debate on causes of the exodus (should contain only summaries, mainly referring to the weight different pov's/historians attribute to certain causes, not elaboration of these causes; elaboration is done in sections 2 and 3)
1.1 Traditional versions
1.2 Opening of Israeli and British archives and the 'New historians' (New historians is not only Morris, but also Flapan and Pappé; furthermore I don't consider Flapan and Pappé 'nuances in comparison to Morris')
1.3 Further historiographic debate on the causes (why should we add a political debate section?)
2. direct causes
2.1 direct causes of 1st wave
2.2 direct causes of 2nd wave
2.3 direct causes of 3rd and 4th wave
3. role of Yishuv and Arab leaders
3.1 Arab leaders' endorsement of flight
3.1.1 Criticism
3.3 Transfer idea
3.3.1 criticism
3.4 Master plan
3.4.1 criticism
So in 1. we've got "debate on the causes". In 2. we've got causes again, but of each separate wave. This section is just begging for a repeat of the differences of opinion from 1. Then as if that weren't bad enough, we've then got 3. which discusses "role of leaders", when it's obvious that the role of leaders will already have been discussed in 1. and 2. The same goes for "transfer idea" and "master plan". We are basically going to end up with five different sections which all go over much the same ground. It's a recipe for a complete mess, much like the mess we have now.
Alithien's proposal is far more logical in my opinion. It clearly separates the events in themselves from discussion of the causes, and then it introduces the development of the debate over causes step by step in a chronological sequence, which is not only the most logical way to do it, but is also a method which avoids potential squabbles over undue weight. Then at the end we get consequences of the exodus. I mean, apart from my quibble about the political section I mentioned in a previous post, what's not to like about this structure? I can't see any good reason why we shouldn't adopt it. Gatoclass 18:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
After reading Gatoclass's crticisms of "Proposed structure 2" written on 18:18, 27 October 2007, I've changed my mind about my support of that proposal. I remember a while ago JaapBoBo proposed something similar to "Proposed structure 2," but not exactly the same. I've made my own proposal based on JaapBoBo's earlier proposal with some of my own ideas mixed in ...
-- GHcool 22:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
What do you think about that ? Alithien 10:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I would like to synthesize LAurens analysis:
Globally he also considers that the 'intentionnalism' thesis is untenable in the global context of the events and lack historical methodology. He emphasizes that if the events the 'intentionnalists' put forward are true, they are mainly gathered because they have an a priori reading of the events. To comply with their analysis, the protagonists should have had a global consciouness of all the consequences of the project they promoted. Laurens considers that this "complot theory", on such a long period of time, could not have been planned, even by a Ben Gurion. In an 'intentionalist' approach, he claims, events must be read without a priori and each action must be considered without assuming it will lead to where we know a posteriori it lead but it must be considered in its context and in taking into account where the actor thought it would lead. With this appropriate approach, Laurens considers that the documentation gathered by Morris gives another picture to the events where the mutual fears of Arabs and Jewish in the other side intentions (Arabs feared to be expelled by Zionists and fought zionism because of that while zionists feared arab would prevent them by force to build their state and so make all they can to win the war, which produced the exodus) and in the fact that Palestine was not able to absorb both populations (he describes the situation as a Zero-sum conflict) lead to the exodus.
To:
Laurens also criticises the 'lack of historical methodology' in the analysis of the 'intentionalists'. Laurens says that this "complot theory", on such a long period of time, could not have been planned, even by a Ben Gurion. He also says that an appropriate analysis of the documentation gathered by Morris shows that the exodus was caused by Arabs fears of being expelled, by Zionist fears of being prevented by Arab use of force to build their state and by the fact that Palestine was not able to absorb both populations.
I think the first text is needlessly unclear. The second text is an accurate summary of the first. -- JaapBoBo 09:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
can be synthesised as
can be synthesised as
This extra paragraph should not be where it is now.
In a 1958 publication, Don Peretz rejected both the Israeli and Palestinian explanations of the exodus. Peretz suggested that the exodus could be attributed to "deeper social causes of upheaval within the Palestine Arab community" such as the breakdown of all governing structures. According to him, "The community became easy prey to rumor and exaggerated atrocity stories. The psychological preparation for mass flight was complete. The hysteria fed upon the growing number of Jewish military victories. With most Arab leaders then outside the country, British officials no longer in evidence, and the disappearance of the Arab press, there remained no authoritative voice to inspire confidence among the Arab masses and to check their flight. As might be expected in such circumstances, the flight gathered momentum until it carried away nearly the whole of the Palestine Arab community"[6]
Reasons:
It would be better placed in the 'fear' section. -- JaapBoBo 10:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
JaapBoBo suggested in an edit summary, correctly in my view, to "keep the outline an outline, i.e. without complete descriptions of minor pov's." [12] The attitude is a noble one, but the implementation deserves more discussion. JaapBoBo's edit excludes Peretz's and Gabbay's critical analysis from the "Initial positions and criticisms" while keeping Glazer's. The edit is arbitrary at best and presents a double standard at worst. I did not revert JaapBoBo's edit, but I did follow the logic of JaapBoBo's edit summary to its conclusion with this edit. I hope everybody here can agree that this is fair. -- GHcool 19:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
'I've deleted the criticism section while keeping a reference to Childers' research in a footnote so as to not upstage the Israeli position in the Israeli position section'. section.' GHcool
I just noticed User:Paul kuiper NL's . I approve of it. I consider the matter closed (unless Paul kuiper NL's version is reverted or otherwise tampered with). -- GHcool 02:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
we have this(source is a clear anti-zionist): [13] to explain us about Zionism, and here: [14] (part of an on-going edit-war) the words of the arab countries to explain why they started a war against israel)
These edits are not encyclopedic, they are pure propaganda. People with strong views to one direction should be balanced by those with the opposing views ( WP:NPOV)). Otherwise what is the difference between Wikipedia and a hate site?
Since we have a 5-6 anti-zionist editors and only 1-2 on the other side this is not going to change…. Zeq 10:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Gatocalss and GH: Maybe I did not explain my self too well. I appologize. What I see here is a problem and let me explain (in order to improve the artice):
For, exmaple a pro-zionist source like mazada2000 is not a WP:RS source.
see [ [15]] -- JaapBoBo 16:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Alithien, but I think I should point out that I don't conceive of the article as relating only to the Palestinian exodus. The "transfer" idea goes right back as far as Theodor Herzl, and is still apparent today in for example the proposal of the Israeli Deputy PM Avigdor Lieberman to do a territorial swap with the Palestinians in order to effect a population transfer. Of course it wasn't just the Zionists, but also the British who proposed it at one stage. So this is an idea that has been proposed many times in many different ways, it has a long and varied history and I think it would make a very interesting article if dealt with appropriately. Gatoclass 11:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I just don't agree with this approach at all. You are going to end up with an account that's in bits and pieces all over the place. None of this is necessary, and it's just going to make a maze for readers to try and negotiate. We should strive to keep things as simple and elegant as possible. There's no justification whatever for "roles of leaders" articles in my view, and splitting "Palestinian exodus" into "Causes of" and "Results of" is equally inappropriate. You could probably get rid of half of this article and not lose any vital information, that's the sort of approach we should be taking. Gatoclass 14:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
The Transfer Idea and the 1948 palestinian exodus would more fit titles used by scholars and is more neutral. - Alithien
I don't think it *is* necessarily more neutral. And to my way of thinking, it's only natural to trace the idea right up to the present day. If the argument is that such would constitue "original research", my guess is that sources can be found which would make the connection for us.
BTW, I seem to recall that Tom Segev had something to say about the development of the "transfer" idea in One Palestine, Complete. I could be wrong about that as it's a while since I read it, but he might be an additional POV we could add to a "transfer" article. Segev is a pretty moderate voice in general.
a synthetic and not too long article explaining the matter and the controversies on the topic and not simply gathering quotes or trying to prove anything would be welcome. But this is too soon for that. - Alithien
As I think I said, it's a topic that would require sensitivity. I simply proposed it because I noticed there is already quite a bit on the topic here that in my opinion does not need such thorough treatment, and which could easily be lifted out and used as the basis for a new article. I'm talking about the following section:
2 The "Transfer idea"
2.1 Origins of the ‘Transfer Idea’
2.2 The Peel Commission's plan and the Yishuv's reaction
2.3 The ‘Transfer Idea’ during 1947 - 1949
2.4 Criticisms of the ‘Transfer Idea’
Do we really need all the above in this article? Seems to me it's a rather obvious candidate for splitting. But I'm not proposing it be done tomorrow, you are quite correct to say such an article would need to be carefully planned, we could hardly just shovel the above into a new page and call it an article. Gatoclass 05:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I think it is a "fair" title.
I would remove Flahan from this section. He doesn't precisely talk about 'Ethnic cleansing'. I think this description can be considered as Pappé's analysis.
NB: I wrote in the past that Gelber saw an ethnic cleansing in the events after july 1948 but this is not right. This is what I had deduced after reading him but he never uses the word.
Alithien
19:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
This should be entitled. 'History of pre 1982 theories concerning the causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus', since it is basically that, a confused narrative of various theories floated about before the relevant archives began to be opened up. All this old material is interesting historically, but has almost zero value nowadays, particularly in the wake of Morris's work. Nishidani 19:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I've just made a few illustrative edits to show how so much of this debate is already present in Erskine Childers (1961), and that this author by author or theme by theme summary is just immensely tiresome repetition or reworking of points made in 1961, and then documented with intense focus by Morris. There seems a general acknowledgement here that something has gone deeply wrong, and before our friend Alithien beats us to it with the detailed Morris-based account he is now promising for the French page of Wikipedia, we should try and at least draw up possible designs for systematizing the disiecta membra of the pages as it stands into a coherent (a) narrative of events (for which Morris is fundamental) and (b) narrative of the history of how those events developed. Aux armes, mes wikiens! Nishidani 19:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
The text under this heading reads:
“ | In the first decades after the exodus two diametrically opposed schools of analysis could be distinguished. In the words of Erskine Childers [8]: ‘Israel claims that the Arabs left because they were ordered to, and deliberately incited into panic, by their own leaders who wanted the field cleared for the 1948 war’, while ‘The Arabs charge that their people were evicted at bayonet-point and by panic deliberately incited by the Zionists.’ | ” |
Isn't it a bit disingenuous to quote Childers on the "Israeli position" when he in fact demonstrated that it was all hock and bollocks? If nobody objects, I will rephrase the paragraph. Cheers, pedro gonnet - talk - 07.11.2007 09:10
@ Pedro Gonnet, please explain what exactly you find 'disingenuous' about it, and what alternative you propose. Thanks. Paul kuiper NL 23:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Editor | Yes or No to Finkelstein | Comment |
---|---|---|
GHcool | No to NF, unless we allow any other author that does not meet the standards of Morris and Karsh to be cited in the article. | "Consider a hypothetical scholar, an assistant professor named
Joe Shmoe who teaches political science at a university somewhere in the United States. Shmoe wrote a book with a hundred footnotes but never looked at any primary documents, was fired from several universities, and was recently denied tenure because his scholarship did not meet the standards of the university he worked at. Should Shmoe be included in this article? I suggest that he should not. If Finkelstein is accepted in this article, then so should Joe Shmoe. I just don't want to hear complaints later if Joe Shmoe's research is favorable to the Israeli
historiography." 21:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
I accuse Finkelstein of only one thing: not being as highly reguarded, nor have read the same primary sources in their original languages, as Morris and Karsh. 21:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC) |
JaapBoBo | Yes to NF | "appears that Finkelstein is more reliable than either Schecht or Katz. ... nothing against the content of finkelstein's books!" 20:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC) |
Tiamut | Yes to NF | "I'm unfamiliar with the work of Schect and Katz, but Norman Finkelstein is certainly a reputable and well-known scholar with a specialty on Palestine-Israel" 21:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC) |
Pedro Gonnet | Yes to NF | Historian Pappé giving "Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Confilct a positive review ("This book is a very important contribution to the ongoing debate about the writing of the conflict's history in Palestine and Israel"). 13:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC) |
PR | Yes to NF | |
Alithien | Yes to NF | Let's not be naieve. We cannot put Finkelstein on the same level as other historians who studied the exodus. It is not a topic he studied deeply. He "only" gave his mind about other works." 14:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC) |
Screen stalker | Maybe to NF | Let's be consistent. If we include sources that aren't credible, then let's always include them. If we always exclude them, then let's always exclude them. |
Since no attempt has even been made to undermine Finkelstein's scholarship/reliability I propose we act by consensus and use his work in this article as we see fit (but I'm happy to wait 4 days if that preferable). PR talk 18:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
...
Did anybody change his or her opinion, or should third party advice be sought? 129.125.35.249 ( talk) 09:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm cool with including Finklesein. But, like GHcool, I think that we should be consistent. If we include Finklestein, there should be no one questioning the reliability of pro-EoF, anti-transfer or other similar sources. You can't hold both sides of the same long stick: either we include questionable sources or we don't. Take your pick and stick to it. Either way is fine with me. Screen stalker 21:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Three authors/historians/sources are in the frame to be rejected as "unfit" to be quoted in this article. I've attempted to rate the claims with a "+1", "0" or "-1" in the last column. This is a work in progress, if you have evidence against Finkelstein or in favour of Katz or Schechtman, or feel I've mis-marked some items, then please put it in/correct it.
Author | Accusation made against them | Reporting source(s) | Notes | + or - |
Finkelstein, Norman | Poor work | ?? | (No information - one sacking due to outside pressure). | 0 |
Making accusations | ?? | Alan Dershowitz accused of mis-using citations - Finkelstein must have part of a point since the Dershowitz practise would not meet our Wikipedia citation guideline. | +0.5 | |
Making accusations | ?? | Alan Dershowitz accused of plagiarism - withdrawn from print but not retracted (?). | 0 | |
Making accusations | ?? | Alan Dershowitz accused of using very unreliable sources - Finkelstein likely proven correct. | +1 | |
Making accusations | ?? | Joan Peters - multiple flaws, Finkelstein likely proven correct. | +1 | |
Schechtman, Joseph | Falsification | Book 'The Arab Refugee Problem' "Until the Arab armies invaded Israel on the very day of its birth, May 15, 1948, no quarter whatsoever had ever been given to a Jew who fell into Arab hands." | -1 | |
Falsification | ?? | Historians like Khalidi, Gelber and Morris have found that the "Arab evacuation orders" story is false and most probably constructed by Schechtman himself. | -1 | |
Incitement against ethnicities | Book 'The Arab Refugee Problem' "Until the Arab armies invaded Israel on the very day of its birth, May 15, 1948, no quarter whatsoever had ever been given to a Jew who fell into Arab hands." and labelling the entire Palestinian people as suffering from "Fear Psychosis" - disease of the mind. | -1 | ||
Conflict of interest | ?? | Schechtman wrote a report arguing for compulsory transfer of the Arab population (which he doesn't mention in his books). | -1 | |
Conflict of interest | ?? | Schechtman is alleged to have invented the EoF with 2 pamphlets written in 1949. | -1 | |
Non-academic | No dispute | -1 | ||
Katz, Shmuel | Non-historical writing. | From 'Battleground' - "The economic interest of the individual Arab in the perpetuation of the refugee problem and of his free keep is backed by the accumulating vested interest of UNRWA itself to keep itself in being and to expand." " | -1 | |
Other unscholarly behaviour | Propagandist | From the the Shmuel Katz WP article - "he was one of the seven members of the high command of the Irgun, as well as a spokesman of the organization." | -1 | |
Non-academic | No dispute | -1 |
I see big differences between these guys as regards their credentials and credibility. Only one of them is an academic, and the "reliability/scholarship" accusations against the others are of significance and credibility. PR talk) 19:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Pappé's explanation of Yishuv aims is not neutral (not to mention the fact that he would hardly know what Yishuv aims were, because he was neither a member of the Yishuv nor a mind reader). It's not even presented neutrally:
"The Yishuv did make some kind of deal with king Abdullah of Jordan, the Yishuv acceding the West Bank to Jordan and Jordan promissing not to interfere when the Yishuv grabbed the rest of Palestine. Demographically the Yishuv aimed at a Jewish state with a large Jewish majority, to be achieved by the ethnic cleansing of a large part of the Palestinians from the Yishuv’s territory under the cover of a war."
"Grabbed" is not a neutral word to describe land acquisition. "Ethnic cleansing" is an exceptional claim. This would require exceptional evidence. The wording does not make it clear that this is all alleged by Pappé and not to be taken as fact. Even the deal between Israel and Abdullah is called "some kind of deal," a phrase which is intended to ridicule and minimize it, so as to imply that the Yishuv did not really arrive at an agreement with Abdullah. This whole section is a poster child of propaganda. I'm not even going to bother reading who put it in the article because, honestly, I don't want to know. Hmf...
But my biggest concern is that this is included not because it is constructive to the article, but because people want to bash Israel. Yishuv aims were not causes of the Palestinian exodus. The failure of Arab leadership, economic collapse, tribulations of war, expulsion by Arab leaders, expulsion by Jewish leaders, fear of attack, etc. can all be debated as causes of the exodus. The reasons why the Yishuv allegedly engaged in ethnic cleansing are not causes of the exodus. Screen stalker 19:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I am going to delete this section once more. If it is added again without significant revision for the better I will add every Yishuv aim relevant to the subject, and I won't want to hear anyone telling me that they are irrelevant unless they agree to remove this section altogether. Screen stalker 21:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 7 |
I have analysed the size of the content of the article and come up with the following sizes of readable content:
Wikipedia advises a optimum size between 30 and 50 kB (see [ [1]]). So, I would propose to branch of two new articles called:
Maybe we can wait some time, but I think somewhere in the near future we have to do something.
Anyone wants to comment?
-- JaapBoBo 21:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Let me propose another possibility, branching of three articles with neutral names:
I hope you all find these names neutral. With regard to the transfer idea I would like to add that it's existence seems undisputed (even Karh doesn't deny the transfer idea, but says it was forced upon the Yishuv by the Peel commission), and that I would like a referral to the 1948 exodus in the title of such an article. -- JaapBoBo 09:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
In another section of the discussion I saw people start talking about a restructuring of the article. The sturcture right now is indeed liable to improvement. However, I don't think we can save much space though, so we'd still end up with a long article. Therefore I think forking of is still a good idea (of course adequate summaries should stay in the article):
What would be left in the article are the more direct causes and circumstances of the exodus. Morris' view and the two stage theory have a similar sturcture in common (e.g. Gelber divides the first stage also in phases similar to Morris). Probably also the 'ethnic cleansing' section could be combined with these. The remaining two sections ('Arab fears' and 'psychological warfare') could either remain, or be integrated into the 'waves'. -- JaapBoBo 16:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I think we should take Schechtmans opinions out of the article. Particularly I am referrring to this part in the section 'Palestinian Arab fears':
In the Western world fighting is carried on by the organized military; the civilian population, even when conquered, is comparatively safe. Arab warfare against the Jews in Palestine, however, had always been marked by indiscriminate killing, mutilating, raping, looting and pillaging. This 1947-48 attack on the Jewish community was more savage than ever. Until the Arab armies invaded Israel on the very day of its birth, May 15, 1948, no quarter whatsoever had ever been given to a Jew who fell into Arab hands. Wounded and dead alike were mutilated. Every member of the Jewish community was regarded as an enemy to be mercilessly destroyed. [...]
[T]he Arab population of Palestine anticipated nothing less than massacres in retaliation if the Jews were victorious. Measuring the Jewish reaction by their own standards, they simply could not imagine that the Jews would not reply in kind what they had suffered at Arab hands. And this fear played a significant role in the Arab flight. [1]
Reasons:
If there is any truth in the passage it shouldn't be hard to find a more objective and reliable source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JaapBoBo ( talk • contribs) 19:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I say we remove the passage! -- JaapBoBo 18:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I fully agree Schechtman is biaised and it is not difficult to show that all scholars(*) today agree with that.
(*) except Karsh.
I fully agree that any doubt that would make believe arabs exodus would have been due to "arab calls" is not welcome !
But I think we should not delete the material because I think it is important to point out what was the official israeli explanation - who developed this - why - how long it survived - what were its consequences - who first claimed it was not right - who still use this today...
Schechtman is quoted by Childers, Glazer, Flahan, Morris and Pappé (I assume others) and Glazer in 1980 summarized all the arguments why the Israeli versions was not reliable and he cites Schechtman, Kohn, Kimche and Syrkin as the israeli historians who developed the famous theory.
This is an important information.
nb: note that such section would be particularly not "pleasant" for pro-israeli-biaised readers.
Alithien
19:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
We've discussed this before. You can't just brand every source that doesn't agree with you. Schechtman is a historian, like it or not. Screen stalker 14:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Dear JaapBoBo,
Please do not remove Schechtman without consensus just because you don't like him. I sympathize with your plight because I don't like some of the other people quoted in this article. Instead of removing a notable scholar despite the prevailing opinion that he should not be removed, perhaps it would be more mature to simply accept that not everybody agrees with your point of view. Thank you. --
GHcool
18:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Besides the issue of Schechtmans reliability I have other problems with this citation of Schechtman.
Combining the unreliability of Schechtman and the exceptionality of his claims I don't think this should be in the article. -- JaapBoBo 20:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
JaapBoBo's last post on Finkelstein:
GHCool's response to JaapBoBo's last post on Finkelstein:
The rest of the chapter is devoted to criticism of actual scholarly misconduct and intimidation that I'm happy to quote here, but fear that it wouldn't make much of a dent since I've brought up the same points in earlier arguments and they didn't change anybody's minds before. Dershowitz isn't the only critic of Finkelstein. Dershowitz cites criticisms by Peter Novik (author of The Holocaust in American Life) and Leon Wieseltier and others. Since The Case For Peace was published, there has been even more criticism of Finkelstein, which I would be happy to find upon request. -- GHcool 06:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)"Finkelstein is a transient academic who describes himself as 'in exile' at DePaul University because he has been-by his own account-'thrown out of every school in New York.' [There is a footnote to a July 1, 2003 article in the Irish Times. The Case For Peace was written years before Finkelstein's denial of tenure and resignation from DePaul.] The former chairman of the political science department at one such college told me that Finkelstein was fired for 'incompetence,' 'mental instability' and 'abuse' of students with politics different from his own."
Lets look at the text with Finkelstein reference that I want to include:
Now I don't think the Dershovitz claims say anything at all about the reliability of this text (all kind of vague accusations, it makes me rather wonder what kind of chap Dershovitz is). So, in case you cannot offer anything better and conforming to wikipedia policy to exclude this text I will put it in. -- JaapBoBo 21:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
We should apply Wikipedia policy to every referenced text to be included in the article. In that sense I agree with GHCool that we should treat every author the same way, i.e. with the same standards. The evaluation must be made for every individual case, so I don't want to connect GHCools admittance of Finkelstein to my admittance of whatever source GHCool want's to use. But GHCool, you can rely on me to apply the same standards to all sources. -- JaapBoBo 20:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
As to GHCool arguments:
It's not a vague text, but instead it's quite clear. Finkelstein is also not a layman on this subject. He wrote his PhD thesis, 'From the Jewish Question to the Jewish State', on it, which was endorsed by Princeton University. So actually he is an expert on this matter! He also has excellent credentials. DePaul has acknowledged that he is a good teacher and a productive scientist. GHCool has brought accusations by the Zionist lobby, but nothing against his reliability. If Finkelstein were unreliable I would expect the Zionist lobby to have shown it to us by now, but they haven't. In Wikipedia policy I can find nothing against him that would prohibit him from being included as a source. -- JaapBoBo 20:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I just read chapter 1, pages 12-16 and Chapter 3, pages 51-68 of Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict by Norman G. Finkelstein (1995 edition). The first thing I noticed was that it was published by Verso Books, a far left publishing house not known for the academic standards that one would expect from Osprey Publishing (Karsh's publisher), Cambridge University Press (Morris's publisher), or even John Wiley & Sons (Alan Dershowitz's publisher). Just as I expected, all of the arguments that Norman Finkelstein (hereby abbreviated to "NF") brings up are from selected secondary sources. He never quotes primary sources unless they are the same quoted in a secondary source. This leads me to think that NF has never examined any primary sources for himself and perhaps does not know how to read or speak Arabic or Hebrew (the "Acknowledgements" page supports this hypothesis).
NF takes the illogical stance that anything that a Zionist leader or publication has ever said "cannot be trusted" unless, of course, that Zionist leader or publication is saying something damning to the pro-Israel argument. NF is correct in saying that official Zionist documents must be evaluated with a critical eye, but it is downright arrogant to say that Morris doesn't know or didn't practice this basic tenent of the historical method. Other things I found were instances of creating false dichotomies (pg. 58), putting words into Morris's mouth (59-60, 62), comparisons of the Palestinian exodus to the Holocaust (59), conclusions that do not follow from NF's stated premises (60), oddly placing events that happened in the 1920s and 1930s in the context of the 1948 Palestinian exodus (12-16), treating the Zionists (and especially Ben-Gurion) as though they were a homogeneous group of fascists (15), and what seems to me to be purely inventing things out of thin air or at least talking about something he doesn't really understand (176, footnote 18).
Anyway, my opinion of NF has not changed. Everything I've read by him begs the question. His scholarship amounts to, "I know Israel is bad, now let's see if I can prove it," when the correct attitude, the attitude Morris and other serious historians have taken, is publish whatever conclusion all of the evidence lead to. To me, NF's criticism of Morris is like a D student in algebra class telling a calculus professor that he doesn't do derivatives correctly. He doesn't walk the walk and, in the opinion of most experts in the field and the tenure committee at DePaul University, he doesn't talk the talk. I do not recommend him to be in this article unless we allow any other "questionable" sources such as Alan Dershowitz and Joan Peters. -- GHcool 06:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
sterling qualities for which Finkelstein has become famous: erudition, originality, spark, meticulous attention to detail, intellectual integrity, courage, and formidable forensic skills."–Avi Shlaim, Professor of International Relations, Oxford University [ [3]] -- JaapBoBo 19:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Whether or not Finkelstein's commentary here merits inclusion I'm not sure, since it would depend on whether or not he has something unique to say in regards to this particular issue, and I'm not sure he does. In regards to F.'s status as a reliable source however, there should be no argument about that. F. most certainly qualifies. He is one of the most high-profile scholars on the Arab-Israeli question, he has received plaudits from other greatly respected experts in the field (see Schlaim's endorsement above, or that of Raul Hilberg who supported his work and said he would be "vindicated" by history), and he has written best selling books on the conflict that have been praised both inside and outside academia and translated into multiple languages. His book A Nation on Trial was named a notable book for 1998 by the New York Times. His latest book "Beyond Chutzpah" was published by the University of California Press after perhaps the most thorough peer review of any book on the conflict ever. These achievements demonstrate that he is unquestionably a reliable source in Wikipedia terms.
In spite of this however, some pro-Israeli editors have seized upon his recent denial of tenure as a rationale for trying to exclude him as a source on the grounds that this failure has somehow discredited his scholarship. This is simply not the case. DePaul did not question the quality of his scholarship. In fact, it endorsed him as "a prolific writer and outstanding teacher". F. was denied tenure only because someone didn't like his attitude. But there is nothing in Wiki policies that disqualify sources on the basis of some alleged flaws of personality. It's only the reliability of their scholarship that matters, and F. has no shortage of endorsements in that regard. Gatoclass 03:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I suggest that instead of stating : I agree and arguing or I don't agree and arguing, we should deal with proposals in stating : I see the following advances and the following disadvantages to your proposal. We should modify this that way bla bla bla.
Because with wp process, a "I don't agree" just block everything, whatever the arguments that follow that mind...
Alithien
10:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
This Schechtman quote has really led to a controversy. In my view we should consider the text to be included and it's reliability. The text is given here ([ [7]]), together with comments from contemporary neutral historians who say this book of Schechtman, on which the quote is based, is more or less a work of propaganda. Childers found the reported facts in the book unreliable. Furthermore, the claims in the text are also quite extreme (as I pointed out here: [ [8]]) and clearly bogus.
We should not include such extreme claims from a source that is considered unreliable. If somebody wants to include these claims he or she should find a more reliable source. -- JaapBoBo 21:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps not, but I notice you have reinserted Schechtman's diatribe back into the article on several occasions, while at the same time you have been removing references to Finkelstein (which, as it happens, misrepresented his position, but that's another issue).
If Schechtman qualifies as a reliable source, then Finkelstein certainly does. But this quote from Schechtman is inappropriate in any case. As WP:RS states, exceptional claims require exceptional evidence. Schechtman's claim that "no quarter whatsoever had ever been given to a Jew who fell into Arab hands" is not merely an exceptional claim, it is demonstrably untrue. During the 1929 Hebron riots, for example, Israeli historian Tom Segev states that two thirds of the Jewish community were hidden from Arab marauders from the countryside by their Arab neighbours. There is no excuse for inserting demonstrable falsehoods into Wikipedia articles. Gatoclass 04:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
May I suggest we ask an admin to block the article in the current version and that editors collaborate on the redaction of a better article. This is to respect everybody sensitivity on this matter and not to be distracted in the work by "controversed" or "non-consensual" edits.
THEN, we archive all these discussions and we build here, step by step, the article.
I will see the following phases.
1. Discussion of the structure
2. Agreement on the main arguments to be added in each section of the structure with the source where we can find the material referring to this and also the relative approximate weight to be given to each of them.
3. Writing
Alithien
07:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Pedro just added the following to the article: "Schechtman, a historian discredited by Childers [footnote 169] and Glazer [footnote 170] for misquoting his sources, argues in his book ..."
Can't we all agree that pretty much every historian in this article has been discredited for some form of misconduct or another by pretty much every other historian quoted in this article? Is the mud slinging really necessary? I always assumed that this article was meant to publicize the research of the historians and if one wants to see the information on the reputations of any given historian, they would have to click their Wikipedia link and read their article. I assumed most people here woula agree with this view, but Pedro reverted me when I deleted his mud slinging. I propose we keep on topic and delete things like "X discredited Y and Y discredited Z, etc, etc." Or, alternatively, we can apply the mud slinging to all of the historians cited here, but that would just make the article much less pleasant to read. -- GHcool 17:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree that "discredited by" is POV. In regards to the general question however, the real issue is whether a writer who has no credentials in the field, whose work is recognized as unqualifiedly partisan, whose research has been attacked as fraudulent, and whose works are all 30 or 40 years old and never reprinted, should be quoted at all in this article. I submit that there is no reason whatever why we should be quoting such a source, particularly when we have an abundance of recent scholarship from much better credentialed writers to draw from. We are supposed to use quality sources wherever possible, Schechtman fails the bar on practically every count. Gatoclass 00:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
There are really only two alternatives: (1) the "everybody is discredited by everybody" alternative in which we sling mud at all the historians quoted in this article, or (2) the "let the research speak for itself" alternative in which everybody is presented as a reliable source for their own specific point of view and let our readers choose what to believe based on their own intelligence and experience. I had originally thought we would all agree that Choice #2 was the better choice, but maybe I'm wrong. Shall we start applying Choice #1 to all the historians or shouldn't we? -- GHcool 00:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Everyone has a political agenda. Finkelstein has drawn extra flak not because he has a political agenda, but because he personalizes the debate by setting out to expose other scholars for fraudulent or flawed research. Thus he has made enemies. But not one of his detractors has ever been able to point to a single example of bad scholarship on his part, in spite of all their accusations.
As for Walter Laqueur, I think you're kidding yourself Alithien if you're reading him to get a non-partisan view. He's about as pro-Israeli as they come. So it doesn't suprise me at all to hear of him quoting generously from a partisan like Schechtman. Gatoclass 17:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
The fact that Schechtman is an "old" source does not make him any less reliable. All else being equal, I would take a source that wrote at the time of the exodus over one who wrote about it 50 years later any day. Screen stalker 16:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Some restructuring seems necesarry. On the one hand the article is becoming quite long, on the other hand its structure right now is not satisfactory. Let me give some thoughts:
-- JaapBoBo 21:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I apologize for editing here before reading the whole section. It is very long, and I am quite pooped.
But, at any rate, this is my two cents: splitting the article is a terrible idea. "Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus" is already very specific. Getting as specific as the individual causes is more than the average reader can bear.
Try to recall back to when you first began reading Wikipedia. Didn't it drive you crazy how all you wanted was to find out something about, let's say, water desalination, and you had to read half of the water desalination article only to find out you had to follow a link to another article... and then another link to another article... and sometimes another link... and so on. I see this going as far as "Dispute over the validity of Karsh's criticism of the transfer theory."
What I'm trying to say is that the average reader wants to look something up and find it, not trek on an endless journey of searching for the answer. Screen stalker 18:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
The point that Morris believes that the Zionists considered the "transfer idea" as an available option is made way too many times. One paragraph (or blockquote) would drive the point home. Do we really need all of the following?
"According to Morris, while not discounting other reasons for the exodus, the 'transfer principle' theory suggests that this prevalent 'attitude of transfer' is what made it easy for the Jewish population to accept it and for local Haganah and IDF commanders to resort to various means of expelling the Arab population."
By 1948, transfer was in the air. The transfer thinking that preceded the war contributed to the denouement by conditioning the Jewish population, political parties, military organisations and military and civilian leadership for what transpired. Thinking about the possibilities of transfer in the 1930s and 1940s had prepared and conditioned hearts and minds for its implementation in the course of 1948 so that, as it occurred, few voiced protest or doubt; it was accepted as inevitable and natural by the bulk of the Jewish population."
"The nexus between thought and action was not so much a matter of 'predetermination' and preplanning as of a mind-set that accepted transfer as a legitimate solution. Once that 'transfer' got under way, of its own accord, in late 1947-early 1948 (Arabs fled mainly out of fear of bombs and bullets), the Zionist leadership, guided by Ben-Gurion, was predisposed to nudge the process along, occasionally with the help of expulsions."
Seriously, can't we agree on a general rule that every one point made by the same author deserves only one paragraph for the sake of WP:Undue weight, reducing redundancy, and making an already lengthy article just a little bit shorter? I propose we keep the first one because it is the most succinct and makes the point well and is NPOV and we remove the two ugly and redundant blockquotes. -- GHcool 01:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
If nobody disgrees, I will synthesize the summary (#1) and the blockquote from "Review of Fabricating ..." (#3) some time tomorrow and delete the blockquote from The Birth ... Revisited (#2) completely. -- GHcool 21:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi Pedro,
Before making another proposal, don't you think that :
Alithien 10:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, I don't know about the "political debate" bit. It sounds like it could turn into a farce, with all the various historians criticising each other. The reader would probably end up feeling either totally confused or distrustful of them all. Gatoclass 15:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm not excited about this one. It looks like more trouble than its worth and will create articles that are even longer than the current ones already are. It might even be impossible to make and create redundencies upon redundencies. -- GHcool 17:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree. Unfortunately, JBB and GH seem to thnk JBB's approach is better. Personally, I think that even if this proposal of yours is not adopted, we should not adopt JBB's because it's a recipe for chaos. Structure is absolutely vital to the quality of an article, if one gets the structure right, the rest tends to fall into place. Without an appropriate structure it's only a matter of time before the article becomes an unreadable mess. So I think it's important we get this right. Gatoclass 10:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
If we keep the articles separated I'd propose three sections. The first being the second from Alithien, but with some changes. This seems to follow the historical development of the 'debate'. I'd say this should include only summaries of the pov's, because the events I are described in the 'exodus' article and I would describe 'direct causes' and policies in a second and third section. In the second section on 'direct causes' (i.e. event-related causes) we might combine the three sections ('Morris' four waves', 'two stage analysis' and 'Descriptions of the exodus as caused by ethnic cleansing'.) into e.g three subsections 'direct causes of 1st wave', 'direct causes of 2nd wave' and direct causes of 3rd and 4th waves. In a third section I would discuss the role of leaders and policies.
The remaining sections (i.e. Palestinian fears and psychological warfare) could be integrated into the 'direct causes' and/or the 'role of ... leaders' sections.
--
JaapBoBo
12:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Quite frankly I don't see much difference between this proposal and the article we have now, which is already seen as problematic. It looks to me like a recipe for the kind of repetitions that already bloat the current version, so I'm afraid I'm not too keen on this proposal. Gatoclass 15:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I like this proposal. -- GHcool 17:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
To avoid misunderstanting. By historiographic debate on the cause of the 1948 exodus, I meant the current debate that followed Morris publications : between Finkelstein/Karsh/Gelber/Pappé etc.
JaapBoBo, I still don't see how you can justify to cut all current theories/analysis in two families : the one that concerns the role of the arab leaders (which is pov if we talked about traditionnal israeli one) and the one that concerns the role of the yishuv leaders (which is controversed).
I understand there are two debates :
Could you clarify what you don't understand in what I mean or what I don't understand in what you mean ? Alithien 13:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
With all due respect to JaapBoBo - who I'm sure has made a fine contribution to this page - this proposal of his is just not going to work. It's simply not logical, and it is just a recipe for duplicating the same material over and over in each section. In fact it looks pretty much what we've got now which everyone seems to agree is not satisfactory.
Let me just see if I can quickly outline some of the problems I see.
1. historical debate on causes of the exodus (should contain only summaries, mainly referring to the weight different pov's/historians attribute to certain causes, not elaboration of these causes; elaboration is done in sections 2 and 3)
1.1 Traditional versions
1.2 Opening of Israeli and British archives and the 'New historians' (New historians is not only Morris, but also Flapan and Pappé; furthermore I don't consider Flapan and Pappé 'nuances in comparison to Morris')
1.3 Further historiographic debate on the causes (why should we add a political debate section?)
2. direct causes
2.1 direct causes of 1st wave
2.2 direct causes of 2nd wave
2.3 direct causes of 3rd and 4th wave
3. role of Yishuv and Arab leaders
3.1 Arab leaders' endorsement of flight
3.1.1 Criticism
3.3 Transfer idea
3.3.1 criticism
3.4 Master plan
3.4.1 criticism
So in 1. we've got "debate on the causes". In 2. we've got causes again, but of each separate wave. This section is just begging for a repeat of the differences of opinion from 1. Then as if that weren't bad enough, we've then got 3. which discusses "role of leaders", when it's obvious that the role of leaders will already have been discussed in 1. and 2. The same goes for "transfer idea" and "master plan". We are basically going to end up with five different sections which all go over much the same ground. It's a recipe for a complete mess, much like the mess we have now.
Alithien's proposal is far more logical in my opinion. It clearly separates the events in themselves from discussion of the causes, and then it introduces the development of the debate over causes step by step in a chronological sequence, which is not only the most logical way to do it, but is also a method which avoids potential squabbles over undue weight. Then at the end we get consequences of the exodus. I mean, apart from my quibble about the political section I mentioned in a previous post, what's not to like about this structure? I can't see any good reason why we shouldn't adopt it. Gatoclass 18:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
After reading Gatoclass's crticisms of "Proposed structure 2" written on 18:18, 27 October 2007, I've changed my mind about my support of that proposal. I remember a while ago JaapBoBo proposed something similar to "Proposed structure 2," but not exactly the same. I've made my own proposal based on JaapBoBo's earlier proposal with some of my own ideas mixed in ...
-- GHcool 22:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
What do you think about that ? Alithien 10:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I would like to synthesize LAurens analysis:
Globally he also considers that the 'intentionnalism' thesis is untenable in the global context of the events and lack historical methodology. He emphasizes that if the events the 'intentionnalists' put forward are true, they are mainly gathered because they have an a priori reading of the events. To comply with their analysis, the protagonists should have had a global consciouness of all the consequences of the project they promoted. Laurens considers that this "complot theory", on such a long period of time, could not have been planned, even by a Ben Gurion. In an 'intentionalist' approach, he claims, events must be read without a priori and each action must be considered without assuming it will lead to where we know a posteriori it lead but it must be considered in its context and in taking into account where the actor thought it would lead. With this appropriate approach, Laurens considers that the documentation gathered by Morris gives another picture to the events where the mutual fears of Arabs and Jewish in the other side intentions (Arabs feared to be expelled by Zionists and fought zionism because of that while zionists feared arab would prevent them by force to build their state and so make all they can to win the war, which produced the exodus) and in the fact that Palestine was not able to absorb both populations (he describes the situation as a Zero-sum conflict) lead to the exodus.
To:
Laurens also criticises the 'lack of historical methodology' in the analysis of the 'intentionalists'. Laurens says that this "complot theory", on such a long period of time, could not have been planned, even by a Ben Gurion. He also says that an appropriate analysis of the documentation gathered by Morris shows that the exodus was caused by Arabs fears of being expelled, by Zionist fears of being prevented by Arab use of force to build their state and by the fact that Palestine was not able to absorb both populations.
I think the first text is needlessly unclear. The second text is an accurate summary of the first. -- JaapBoBo 09:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
can be synthesised as
can be synthesised as
This extra paragraph should not be where it is now.
In a 1958 publication, Don Peretz rejected both the Israeli and Palestinian explanations of the exodus. Peretz suggested that the exodus could be attributed to "deeper social causes of upheaval within the Palestine Arab community" such as the breakdown of all governing structures. According to him, "The community became easy prey to rumor and exaggerated atrocity stories. The psychological preparation for mass flight was complete. The hysteria fed upon the growing number of Jewish military victories. With most Arab leaders then outside the country, British officials no longer in evidence, and the disappearance of the Arab press, there remained no authoritative voice to inspire confidence among the Arab masses and to check their flight. As might be expected in such circumstances, the flight gathered momentum until it carried away nearly the whole of the Palestine Arab community"[6]
Reasons:
It would be better placed in the 'fear' section. -- JaapBoBo 10:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
JaapBoBo suggested in an edit summary, correctly in my view, to "keep the outline an outline, i.e. without complete descriptions of minor pov's." [12] The attitude is a noble one, but the implementation deserves more discussion. JaapBoBo's edit excludes Peretz's and Gabbay's critical analysis from the "Initial positions and criticisms" while keeping Glazer's. The edit is arbitrary at best and presents a double standard at worst. I did not revert JaapBoBo's edit, but I did follow the logic of JaapBoBo's edit summary to its conclusion with this edit. I hope everybody here can agree that this is fair. -- GHcool 19:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
'I've deleted the criticism section while keeping a reference to Childers' research in a footnote so as to not upstage the Israeli position in the Israeli position section'. section.' GHcool
I just noticed User:Paul kuiper NL's . I approve of it. I consider the matter closed (unless Paul kuiper NL's version is reverted or otherwise tampered with). -- GHcool 02:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
we have this(source is a clear anti-zionist): [13] to explain us about Zionism, and here: [14] (part of an on-going edit-war) the words of the arab countries to explain why they started a war against israel)
These edits are not encyclopedic, they are pure propaganda. People with strong views to one direction should be balanced by those with the opposing views ( WP:NPOV)). Otherwise what is the difference between Wikipedia and a hate site?
Since we have a 5-6 anti-zionist editors and only 1-2 on the other side this is not going to change…. Zeq 10:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Gatocalss and GH: Maybe I did not explain my self too well. I appologize. What I see here is a problem and let me explain (in order to improve the artice):
For, exmaple a pro-zionist source like mazada2000 is not a WP:RS source.
see [ [15]] -- JaapBoBo 16:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Alithien, but I think I should point out that I don't conceive of the article as relating only to the Palestinian exodus. The "transfer" idea goes right back as far as Theodor Herzl, and is still apparent today in for example the proposal of the Israeli Deputy PM Avigdor Lieberman to do a territorial swap with the Palestinians in order to effect a population transfer. Of course it wasn't just the Zionists, but also the British who proposed it at one stage. So this is an idea that has been proposed many times in many different ways, it has a long and varied history and I think it would make a very interesting article if dealt with appropriately. Gatoclass 11:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I just don't agree with this approach at all. You are going to end up with an account that's in bits and pieces all over the place. None of this is necessary, and it's just going to make a maze for readers to try and negotiate. We should strive to keep things as simple and elegant as possible. There's no justification whatever for "roles of leaders" articles in my view, and splitting "Palestinian exodus" into "Causes of" and "Results of" is equally inappropriate. You could probably get rid of half of this article and not lose any vital information, that's the sort of approach we should be taking. Gatoclass 14:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
The Transfer Idea and the 1948 palestinian exodus would more fit titles used by scholars and is more neutral. - Alithien
I don't think it *is* necessarily more neutral. And to my way of thinking, it's only natural to trace the idea right up to the present day. If the argument is that such would constitue "original research", my guess is that sources can be found which would make the connection for us.
BTW, I seem to recall that Tom Segev had something to say about the development of the "transfer" idea in One Palestine, Complete. I could be wrong about that as it's a while since I read it, but he might be an additional POV we could add to a "transfer" article. Segev is a pretty moderate voice in general.
a synthetic and not too long article explaining the matter and the controversies on the topic and not simply gathering quotes or trying to prove anything would be welcome. But this is too soon for that. - Alithien
As I think I said, it's a topic that would require sensitivity. I simply proposed it because I noticed there is already quite a bit on the topic here that in my opinion does not need such thorough treatment, and which could easily be lifted out and used as the basis for a new article. I'm talking about the following section:
2 The "Transfer idea"
2.1 Origins of the ‘Transfer Idea’
2.2 The Peel Commission's plan and the Yishuv's reaction
2.3 The ‘Transfer Idea’ during 1947 - 1949
2.4 Criticisms of the ‘Transfer Idea’
Do we really need all the above in this article? Seems to me it's a rather obvious candidate for splitting. But I'm not proposing it be done tomorrow, you are quite correct to say such an article would need to be carefully planned, we could hardly just shovel the above into a new page and call it an article. Gatoclass 05:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I think it is a "fair" title.
I would remove Flahan from this section. He doesn't precisely talk about 'Ethnic cleansing'. I think this description can be considered as Pappé's analysis.
NB: I wrote in the past that Gelber saw an ethnic cleansing in the events after july 1948 but this is not right. This is what I had deduced after reading him but he never uses the word.
Alithien
19:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
This should be entitled. 'History of pre 1982 theories concerning the causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus', since it is basically that, a confused narrative of various theories floated about before the relevant archives began to be opened up. All this old material is interesting historically, but has almost zero value nowadays, particularly in the wake of Morris's work. Nishidani 19:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I've just made a few illustrative edits to show how so much of this debate is already present in Erskine Childers (1961), and that this author by author or theme by theme summary is just immensely tiresome repetition or reworking of points made in 1961, and then documented with intense focus by Morris. There seems a general acknowledgement here that something has gone deeply wrong, and before our friend Alithien beats us to it with the detailed Morris-based account he is now promising for the French page of Wikipedia, we should try and at least draw up possible designs for systematizing the disiecta membra of the pages as it stands into a coherent (a) narrative of events (for which Morris is fundamental) and (b) narrative of the history of how those events developed. Aux armes, mes wikiens! Nishidani 19:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
The text under this heading reads:
“ | In the first decades after the exodus two diametrically opposed schools of analysis could be distinguished. In the words of Erskine Childers [8]: ‘Israel claims that the Arabs left because they were ordered to, and deliberately incited into panic, by their own leaders who wanted the field cleared for the 1948 war’, while ‘The Arabs charge that their people were evicted at bayonet-point and by panic deliberately incited by the Zionists.’ | ” |
Isn't it a bit disingenuous to quote Childers on the "Israeli position" when he in fact demonstrated that it was all hock and bollocks? If nobody objects, I will rephrase the paragraph. Cheers, pedro gonnet - talk - 07.11.2007 09:10
@ Pedro Gonnet, please explain what exactly you find 'disingenuous' about it, and what alternative you propose. Thanks. Paul kuiper NL 23:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Editor | Yes or No to Finkelstein | Comment |
---|---|---|
GHcool | No to NF, unless we allow any other author that does not meet the standards of Morris and Karsh to be cited in the article. | "Consider a hypothetical scholar, an assistant professor named
Joe Shmoe who teaches political science at a university somewhere in the United States. Shmoe wrote a book with a hundred footnotes but never looked at any primary documents, was fired from several universities, and was recently denied tenure because his scholarship did not meet the standards of the university he worked at. Should Shmoe be included in this article? I suggest that he should not. If Finkelstein is accepted in this article, then so should Joe Shmoe. I just don't want to hear complaints later if Joe Shmoe's research is favorable to the Israeli
historiography." 21:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
I accuse Finkelstein of only one thing: not being as highly reguarded, nor have read the same primary sources in their original languages, as Morris and Karsh. 21:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC) |
JaapBoBo | Yes to NF | "appears that Finkelstein is more reliable than either Schecht or Katz. ... nothing against the content of finkelstein's books!" 20:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC) |
Tiamut | Yes to NF | "I'm unfamiliar with the work of Schect and Katz, but Norman Finkelstein is certainly a reputable and well-known scholar with a specialty on Palestine-Israel" 21:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC) |
Pedro Gonnet | Yes to NF | Historian Pappé giving "Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Confilct a positive review ("This book is a very important contribution to the ongoing debate about the writing of the conflict's history in Palestine and Israel"). 13:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC) |
PR | Yes to NF | |
Alithien | Yes to NF | Let's not be naieve. We cannot put Finkelstein on the same level as other historians who studied the exodus. It is not a topic he studied deeply. He "only" gave his mind about other works." 14:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC) |
Screen stalker | Maybe to NF | Let's be consistent. If we include sources that aren't credible, then let's always include them. If we always exclude them, then let's always exclude them. |
Since no attempt has even been made to undermine Finkelstein's scholarship/reliability I propose we act by consensus and use his work in this article as we see fit (but I'm happy to wait 4 days if that preferable). PR talk 18:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
...
Did anybody change his or her opinion, or should third party advice be sought? 129.125.35.249 ( talk) 09:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm cool with including Finklesein. But, like GHcool, I think that we should be consistent. If we include Finklestein, there should be no one questioning the reliability of pro-EoF, anti-transfer or other similar sources. You can't hold both sides of the same long stick: either we include questionable sources or we don't. Take your pick and stick to it. Either way is fine with me. Screen stalker 21:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Three authors/historians/sources are in the frame to be rejected as "unfit" to be quoted in this article. I've attempted to rate the claims with a "+1", "0" or "-1" in the last column. This is a work in progress, if you have evidence against Finkelstein or in favour of Katz or Schechtman, or feel I've mis-marked some items, then please put it in/correct it.
Author | Accusation made against them | Reporting source(s) | Notes | + or - |
Finkelstein, Norman | Poor work | ?? | (No information - one sacking due to outside pressure). | 0 |
Making accusations | ?? | Alan Dershowitz accused of mis-using citations - Finkelstein must have part of a point since the Dershowitz practise would not meet our Wikipedia citation guideline. | +0.5 | |
Making accusations | ?? | Alan Dershowitz accused of plagiarism - withdrawn from print but not retracted (?). | 0 | |
Making accusations | ?? | Alan Dershowitz accused of using very unreliable sources - Finkelstein likely proven correct. | +1 | |
Making accusations | ?? | Joan Peters - multiple flaws, Finkelstein likely proven correct. | +1 | |
Schechtman, Joseph | Falsification | Book 'The Arab Refugee Problem' "Until the Arab armies invaded Israel on the very day of its birth, May 15, 1948, no quarter whatsoever had ever been given to a Jew who fell into Arab hands." | -1 | |
Falsification | ?? | Historians like Khalidi, Gelber and Morris have found that the "Arab evacuation orders" story is false and most probably constructed by Schechtman himself. | -1 | |
Incitement against ethnicities | Book 'The Arab Refugee Problem' "Until the Arab armies invaded Israel on the very day of its birth, May 15, 1948, no quarter whatsoever had ever been given to a Jew who fell into Arab hands." and labelling the entire Palestinian people as suffering from "Fear Psychosis" - disease of the mind. | -1 | ||
Conflict of interest | ?? | Schechtman wrote a report arguing for compulsory transfer of the Arab population (which he doesn't mention in his books). | -1 | |
Conflict of interest | ?? | Schechtman is alleged to have invented the EoF with 2 pamphlets written in 1949. | -1 | |
Non-academic | No dispute | -1 | ||
Katz, Shmuel | Non-historical writing. | From 'Battleground' - "The economic interest of the individual Arab in the perpetuation of the refugee problem and of his free keep is backed by the accumulating vested interest of UNRWA itself to keep itself in being and to expand." " | -1 | |
Other unscholarly behaviour | Propagandist | From the the Shmuel Katz WP article - "he was one of the seven members of the high command of the Irgun, as well as a spokesman of the organization." | -1 | |
Non-academic | No dispute | -1 |
I see big differences between these guys as regards their credentials and credibility. Only one of them is an academic, and the "reliability/scholarship" accusations against the others are of significance and credibility. PR talk) 19:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Pappé's explanation of Yishuv aims is not neutral (not to mention the fact that he would hardly know what Yishuv aims were, because he was neither a member of the Yishuv nor a mind reader). It's not even presented neutrally:
"The Yishuv did make some kind of deal with king Abdullah of Jordan, the Yishuv acceding the West Bank to Jordan and Jordan promissing not to interfere when the Yishuv grabbed the rest of Palestine. Demographically the Yishuv aimed at a Jewish state with a large Jewish majority, to be achieved by the ethnic cleansing of a large part of the Palestinians from the Yishuv’s territory under the cover of a war."
"Grabbed" is not a neutral word to describe land acquisition. "Ethnic cleansing" is an exceptional claim. This would require exceptional evidence. The wording does not make it clear that this is all alleged by Pappé and not to be taken as fact. Even the deal between Israel and Abdullah is called "some kind of deal," a phrase which is intended to ridicule and minimize it, so as to imply that the Yishuv did not really arrive at an agreement with Abdullah. This whole section is a poster child of propaganda. I'm not even going to bother reading who put it in the article because, honestly, I don't want to know. Hmf...
But my biggest concern is that this is included not because it is constructive to the article, but because people want to bash Israel. Yishuv aims were not causes of the Palestinian exodus. The failure of Arab leadership, economic collapse, tribulations of war, expulsion by Arab leaders, expulsion by Jewish leaders, fear of attack, etc. can all be debated as causes of the exodus. The reasons why the Yishuv allegedly engaged in ethnic cleansing are not causes of the exodus. Screen stalker 19:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I am going to delete this section once more. If it is added again without significant revision for the better I will add every Yishuv aim relevant to the subject, and I won't want to hear anyone telling me that they are irrelevant unless they agree to remove this section altogether. Screen stalker 21:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)