This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is requested that a photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
At least 7 editors (JPTINS3000, Brewcrewer, Ip 184.107.140.234, Ip 188.138.72.121, Ip 120.136.44.9, MilitantLiberal and myself) have objected to the inclusion of a cherry picked quote from an interview Cesarani once gave , on the grounds of undeu weight. Could the editoers who insist on adding this seemingly random quote from a lenghthy interview show (a) how this is consistent with WP:WEIGHT and (b) that they have consensus for its inclusion . Red Stone Arsenal ( talk) 14:45, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I saw this listed at the Third Opinion project, but this is not a Third Opinion under the auspices of that project. Though I'm a regular volunteer there, I'm here just wearing my "regular editor" hat and not my "3O Wikipedian" hat this time. This is kind of a tough one. If you read the quote in the context of the article from which it was taken, it is clearly relevant in the context used there, that is, Cesarani's perspective, insight, and experience as a Jewish historian and his desire to avoid history built on half-truths. Taken out of that context and used as it is here in a wholly different context (only and simply his history as a youth) it is almost wholly irrelevant in that sole context and is clearly objectionable as giving undue weight to a single incident out of his youth. Taken out of its original context, it could be read as an example of Israeli perfidy but to allow it to do so would violate the original research policy by implying something about Israeli society as a whole or Israeli officials that it simply does not say. It begins "We were always told that ...". To that question, one must ask "Told by whom?" To presume any specific answer to that question is original research. Similarly, one must ask, "Why was that falsehood told?" Again, to presume any specific answer to that question is original research. Why? It could have been told to them by a person who was just another member of the kibbutz, but who had arrived there before them and seemed to have been informed about the history of the area, but who was actually enamored with romantic origins for old ruins and who was just as clueless about the actual origins of the ruins as was Cesarani. Does the quote seem to imply it was told more authoritatively than that? Yes, but it neither says it nor implies it so strongly that another explanation is not possible. To presume either one being necessarily correct is original research and to allow it to be used in a way that implies that is improper. In my opinion, if no one cares to bother to do the drafting that would be needed to put it into proper context, then it ought to be removed because it is clearly improper in the context in which it is now used. However, there is a problem that it has been in the article, in the context in which it is currently used, since the first creation of the article in 2005. The fact that it is there and has survived prior attempts to remove it suggests fairly strongly that it is there by implied consensus and I am loath to say that it ought to actually be removed over Nableezy's objection without a clear consensus to do so. Unless Nableezy withdraws that objection after seeing what I've said here, I'd suggest that Red Stone Arsenal withdraw his 3O request (unless some other 3O volunteer removes it due to what I'm saying here pursuant to the Third Opinion Paradox) and start a Request for Comments (a RfC would be improper so long as the 3O request is pending). Regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 16:03, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
3O Response: Remove. Clearly a cherry-picked and POV snippet from the interview. The source is not about DC's general early life, or about his overall experience in the kibbutz. DC supplied the instance (about the ruins) as an illustration of how the politics in the region are subtle, skewed, complex, etc. Including this item in that article section, even if written fairly straightforwardly, is POV. It can go in to explain DC's views, in that section, but with much greater caution to ensure it is in the context of his overall views, as The Guardian article as done. To be clear, I say remove the entire sentence in that early life section. – S. Rich ( talk) 20:34, 10 August 2013 (UTC) .
I'm not pointing fingers at anyone in particular by posting the ARBPIA template here, but there seems to be a lot of discussion about edits rather than editors and a very slow motion EW on this point. We all need to be careful here and focus more on working this out than reverting and casting aspersions. Nableezy, if you feel there is a consensus here, why not ask at WP:AN for a consensus evaluation rather than just continuing to revert? Regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 13:16, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
How about somebody explains to me why the only views that Cesarani has that are apparently allowed to be included are ones supportive of Israel, and anything the least bit critical is systematically expunged from the article, including sentences in the interview that immediately precede what is included in the article. How is it that his view on the wall being a problem when it expropriates land from Palestinians is removed but the quote on it being welcomed by some Arabs within the Green Line is included. In what world is that "neutral"? nableezy - 15:30, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
RolandR: "It is quite clear, from the original Guardian interview in which he made this comment, that the event was one key to Cesarani's understanding of Jewish and Middle East history. " If I understand correctly which quote is being discussed here ( David Cesarani#Views on the Israeli-Arab conflict paragraph 3, the Kibbutz quote,) the article does not explain this, and the quote seems disconnected. (Indeed, that entire section seems disconnected. Why are his views relevant? Why are they here? What impact do they have?) OSborn arf contribs. 16:46, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Uhh PlotSpoiler, you are well aware that you dont have a consensus for your change. Showing up every once in a while to see if you can slide it past is rather annoying. You want to remove it then open an RFC. nableezy - 20:28, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
I agree that this Arsenal chap is simply eager to remove the quote. Reasons have been put forward for keeping it, he has been offered the opportunity to add a quote of his own for balance, and still he just wants it removed. The goals posts are moved after each of his reasons for removing it are addressed. That is how I see it. -- BowlAndSpoon ( talk) 20:59, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Sean for adding several reliable sources that saw fit to include this specific quote in their obituary of Cesarani. nableezy - 18:28, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
David Cesarani. Please take a moment to review
my edit. You may add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 17:08, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on David Cesarani. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:31, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on David Cesarani. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:26, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is requested that a photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
At least 7 editors (JPTINS3000, Brewcrewer, Ip 184.107.140.234, Ip 188.138.72.121, Ip 120.136.44.9, MilitantLiberal and myself) have objected to the inclusion of a cherry picked quote from an interview Cesarani once gave , on the grounds of undeu weight. Could the editoers who insist on adding this seemingly random quote from a lenghthy interview show (a) how this is consistent with WP:WEIGHT and (b) that they have consensus for its inclusion . Red Stone Arsenal ( talk) 14:45, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I saw this listed at the Third Opinion project, but this is not a Third Opinion under the auspices of that project. Though I'm a regular volunteer there, I'm here just wearing my "regular editor" hat and not my "3O Wikipedian" hat this time. This is kind of a tough one. If you read the quote in the context of the article from which it was taken, it is clearly relevant in the context used there, that is, Cesarani's perspective, insight, and experience as a Jewish historian and his desire to avoid history built on half-truths. Taken out of that context and used as it is here in a wholly different context (only and simply his history as a youth) it is almost wholly irrelevant in that sole context and is clearly objectionable as giving undue weight to a single incident out of his youth. Taken out of its original context, it could be read as an example of Israeli perfidy but to allow it to do so would violate the original research policy by implying something about Israeli society as a whole or Israeli officials that it simply does not say. It begins "We were always told that ...". To that question, one must ask "Told by whom?" To presume any specific answer to that question is original research. Similarly, one must ask, "Why was that falsehood told?" Again, to presume any specific answer to that question is original research. Why? It could have been told to them by a person who was just another member of the kibbutz, but who had arrived there before them and seemed to have been informed about the history of the area, but who was actually enamored with romantic origins for old ruins and who was just as clueless about the actual origins of the ruins as was Cesarani. Does the quote seem to imply it was told more authoritatively than that? Yes, but it neither says it nor implies it so strongly that another explanation is not possible. To presume either one being necessarily correct is original research and to allow it to be used in a way that implies that is improper. In my opinion, if no one cares to bother to do the drafting that would be needed to put it into proper context, then it ought to be removed because it is clearly improper in the context in which it is now used. However, there is a problem that it has been in the article, in the context in which it is currently used, since the first creation of the article in 2005. The fact that it is there and has survived prior attempts to remove it suggests fairly strongly that it is there by implied consensus and I am loath to say that it ought to actually be removed over Nableezy's objection without a clear consensus to do so. Unless Nableezy withdraws that objection after seeing what I've said here, I'd suggest that Red Stone Arsenal withdraw his 3O request (unless some other 3O volunteer removes it due to what I'm saying here pursuant to the Third Opinion Paradox) and start a Request for Comments (a RfC would be improper so long as the 3O request is pending). Regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 16:03, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
3O Response: Remove. Clearly a cherry-picked and POV snippet from the interview. The source is not about DC's general early life, or about his overall experience in the kibbutz. DC supplied the instance (about the ruins) as an illustration of how the politics in the region are subtle, skewed, complex, etc. Including this item in that article section, even if written fairly straightforwardly, is POV. It can go in to explain DC's views, in that section, but with much greater caution to ensure it is in the context of his overall views, as The Guardian article as done. To be clear, I say remove the entire sentence in that early life section. – S. Rich ( talk) 20:34, 10 August 2013 (UTC) .
I'm not pointing fingers at anyone in particular by posting the ARBPIA template here, but there seems to be a lot of discussion about edits rather than editors and a very slow motion EW on this point. We all need to be careful here and focus more on working this out than reverting and casting aspersions. Nableezy, if you feel there is a consensus here, why not ask at WP:AN for a consensus evaluation rather than just continuing to revert? Regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 13:16, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
How about somebody explains to me why the only views that Cesarani has that are apparently allowed to be included are ones supportive of Israel, and anything the least bit critical is systematically expunged from the article, including sentences in the interview that immediately precede what is included in the article. How is it that his view on the wall being a problem when it expropriates land from Palestinians is removed but the quote on it being welcomed by some Arabs within the Green Line is included. In what world is that "neutral"? nableezy - 15:30, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
RolandR: "It is quite clear, from the original Guardian interview in which he made this comment, that the event was one key to Cesarani's understanding of Jewish and Middle East history. " If I understand correctly which quote is being discussed here ( David Cesarani#Views on the Israeli-Arab conflict paragraph 3, the Kibbutz quote,) the article does not explain this, and the quote seems disconnected. (Indeed, that entire section seems disconnected. Why are his views relevant? Why are they here? What impact do they have?) OSborn arf contribs. 16:46, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Uhh PlotSpoiler, you are well aware that you dont have a consensus for your change. Showing up every once in a while to see if you can slide it past is rather annoying. You want to remove it then open an RFC. nableezy - 20:28, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
I agree that this Arsenal chap is simply eager to remove the quote. Reasons have been put forward for keeping it, he has been offered the opportunity to add a quote of his own for balance, and still he just wants it removed. The goals posts are moved after each of his reasons for removing it are addressed. That is how I see it. -- BowlAndSpoon ( talk) 20:59, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Sean for adding several reliable sources that saw fit to include this specific quote in their obituary of Cesarani. nableezy - 18:28, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
David Cesarani. Please take a moment to review
my edit. You may add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 17:08, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on David Cesarani. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:31, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on David Cesarani. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:26, 26 December 2017 (UTC)