This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I have not been able to find a source per WP:RS who refer to Katz as a historian. On Google I found that "historian samuel katz" returns 1 hit, "historian shmuel katz" returns 1 hit, while "historian benny morris" returns 24.000 hits. Searches on alternative strings return similar results. Therefore, I have removed "historian" leaving "writer". Since you seem certain he's a historian you probably have a source somewhere? If you will refer to that source I'll be happy to reinstate it. -- Steve Hart 19:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
There is no formal definition of "historian" so the fact that he wrote a few books that have the form of history and one (the last one on Jabotinsky) that has received some favorable notice from historians means that I don't object to him being called a historian here. What I object to is him being cited as a source for the circa-1948 period without noting that at the time he was the Irgun's chief propagandist. -- Zero talk 03:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Shmuel Katz would appear to have a strong interest in denial. He associated with the most militant parts of Zionism from the age of 16 (in South Africa). He joined one of the groups that forced (with bombings) the British to abandon the Mandate and leave in 1948. (In fact, he was their propagandist). While his personal accounts would surely make valuable history, it is less clear that he's a fit person to debunk the myths of others. It would seem reasonable to call him "highly opinionated" and even seeking confrontation. From his biography he was briefly a public relations consultant to then Prime Minister Menachem Begin. He quit in Jan 1978, apparently because of differences with the Cabinet over the peace agreement with Egypt signed the following year.
Separate from Katz's controversial claims about the population of Palestine, he claims "the Arab refugees were not driven from Palestine by anyone. The vast majority left, whether of their own free will or at the orders or exhortations of their leaders". This claim was long made by defenders of Israel, but it's now been fairly throughly debunked. eg [6] and [7]. It would be wrong to suggest that all the refugees were beaten, robbed and threatened in this fashion - but they knew what awaited them. Indeed, some examples were even more sudden and extreme eg Golda Meir in Haifa, 6th May 1948 ("Palestinian Refuge problem revisited" Benny Morris p.310), "...... there were houses where the coffee and pita bread were left on the table, and could not avoid thinking that this, indeed, had been the picture in many Jewish towns (ie in Europe in WW2)"
(I attempted to insert these paragraphs in the wrong place (review of Battleground), and was told "(rv WP:POV insertions. All WP:OR without any references. The discussion whether Katz is correct of not is of course irrelevant unless a WP:RS discusses katz directly, which was done already)" ..... and I sort of understand. However, I'd have thought the above was highly relevant any time Katz is referenced)
Regarding a recent edit on the entry battleground and other edits I noticed you made, I think you misunderstand these policies. The question whether Katz is correct or not is irrelevant (wikipedia is about WP:V not truth). Any citations have to concern Katz's book directly and not the questions or topics he raises. Also, any claim has to be referenced to WP:RS and to maintain WP:NPOV. Finaly, your personal conclusions juxtoposing his biography with his conclusions and its implications are original research and are not suitable. Thank you. Amoruso 14:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Please also understand that wikipedia is not a discussion board. The debunked discredited site you borrowed your nickname from (?) "palestineremembered.com" really has nothing to do with Shmuel Katz. The fact it disagrees with his very researched facts because of a politically motivated issue, is not relevant to wikipedia. I will assume WP:AGF on your part, then I can assure you Katz has many references that prove his facts to the fullest extent. Somebody's opinion over his book is relevant if he's notable, somebody's opinion over the issues concerned are not. Amoruso 15:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
you say "rm him being an irgun commander" but that's not true - it says it right in the next paragraph with refs. I don't know what's the purpose of adding even more refs to the article and changing orders of sentences and changing the NY Times definition of spokesman to propaganda and adding all sort of OR and irrelevant info by people who didn't write books or articles about Katz but just mentioned him in passing except POV'ing. Let's leave those weird changes out, everything about this person is told in the article already. There are so many silly changes here like adding "revisionist youth movement" to beitar when there's a wikilink to it. Very strange. Seriously, this attempt of WP:POV by user:Ian Pitchford is bordering on some obssession I've never seen before. He simply has a fixation on the word revisionist, perhaps he thinks it has bad connotations and will smear Katz in some way I dunno, it's just strange. And why on Earth is it relevant his opinion about Dayan out of all people by this writer that "notes it"? and why other sourced material was removed for these changes...like this removed:"historian and jouranlist from amazon" or "Another project for which Katz dedicated many years of his life is the two volume biography of Jabotinsky of 1792 pages, entitled "Lone Wolf, A Biography of Valadimir (Ze'ev) Jabotinsky." - which brings us to this indeed.... How anal can it be to add "of whom he was a loyal adherent" in the opening sentence of a guy's biography? all very very strange. Amoruso 05:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I couldn't help noticing Shmuel Katz's credentials are being established by hits in Google Scholar (among other things). I must say he gets a rather poor hit rate for a supposedly reputable historian. I'm a mere PhD student, and a few of my journal and conference papers get more citations than Katz's books. I wouldn't call myself a "scientist". Is there any other evidence, except for a bookstore review? Has he been an invited speaker in a reputable conference? Has he published in reputable journals? Can anyone write a book about the past and call himself a "historian"?-- Doron 00:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
What do you mean by credentials Doron ? He's not a faculty member or something of that sort. He's a writer who wrote books about history after a lot of research and quoted scholars and other sources in his books. Nothing wrong about that. The article doesn't say he's a scholar, it does say he's a historian which is true - you don't need specific university status for that. User:Zero0000 once said this about Katz: "There is no formal definition of "historian" so the fact that he wrote a few books that have the form of history and one (the last one on Jabotinsky) that has received some favorable notice from historians means that I don't object to him being called a historian" Amoruso 20:31, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
1. In Palestinian exodus, Katz is cited as claiming that
"the Arab refugees were not driven from Palestine by anyone. The vast majority left, whether of their own free will or at the orders or exhortations of their leaders, always with the same reassurance-that their departure would help in the war against Israel. The Arabs are the only declared refugees who became refugees not by the action of their enemies or because of well-grounded fear of their enemies, but by the initiative of their own leaders."
This is not reporting a fact, this is Katz's own opinion on a hotly-contested issue in the history of the conflict. If you quote his opinion, you may as well quote anybody's opinion.
2. I'm sorry, but where was it agreed that he is an authority on Jabotinsky and Etzel? By whom was he cited?
3. I don't know where you got the idea that I think only left-wingers are fit to be historians. In the academic world, there are very clear criteria for academic recognition. Many controversial researchers manage to get their work published and cited. Even the bible code got published in a respected statistical journal (with almost 70 cites in Google Scholar for the article and the subsequent book, by the way). So once again, how do we know Katz knows about 1948 more than Douglas Adams knows about the galaxy? What are his credentials?
4. A low hit rate at Google scholar doesn't prove anything, but the burden of proof is on you, you have to prove Katz is notable.-- Doron 21:58, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 04:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
The UK National Archives files on him repeatedly call him "Samuel Lejb Katz" and "Samuel Lajb Katz". Do we have another source for that? Zero talk 13:40, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
"Psychological Warfare in the Arab-Israeli Conflict" (2014), R. Schleifer, p22: "Etzel was a small, underground movement whose headquarters was staffed with a few dozen fully employed members backed by a few thousand volunteer reservists, but the organization gave the impression of being widely supported by the Jewish public through the huge number of notices it posted on billboards and its intense propaganda campaign overseas. One of the leading hasbara activists was Shmuel Katz from South Africa. In a one-room Tel Aviv flat, Katz single-handedly set up a news service—the Irgun Press—that posted daily news updates on Etzel activity." ← ZScarpia 21:14, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I have not been able to find a source per WP:RS who refer to Katz as a historian. On Google I found that "historian samuel katz" returns 1 hit, "historian shmuel katz" returns 1 hit, while "historian benny morris" returns 24.000 hits. Searches on alternative strings return similar results. Therefore, I have removed "historian" leaving "writer". Since you seem certain he's a historian you probably have a source somewhere? If you will refer to that source I'll be happy to reinstate it. -- Steve Hart 19:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
There is no formal definition of "historian" so the fact that he wrote a few books that have the form of history and one (the last one on Jabotinsky) that has received some favorable notice from historians means that I don't object to him being called a historian here. What I object to is him being cited as a source for the circa-1948 period without noting that at the time he was the Irgun's chief propagandist. -- Zero talk 03:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Shmuel Katz would appear to have a strong interest in denial. He associated with the most militant parts of Zionism from the age of 16 (in South Africa). He joined one of the groups that forced (with bombings) the British to abandon the Mandate and leave in 1948. (In fact, he was their propagandist). While his personal accounts would surely make valuable history, it is less clear that he's a fit person to debunk the myths of others. It would seem reasonable to call him "highly opinionated" and even seeking confrontation. From his biography he was briefly a public relations consultant to then Prime Minister Menachem Begin. He quit in Jan 1978, apparently because of differences with the Cabinet over the peace agreement with Egypt signed the following year.
Separate from Katz's controversial claims about the population of Palestine, he claims "the Arab refugees were not driven from Palestine by anyone. The vast majority left, whether of their own free will or at the orders or exhortations of their leaders". This claim was long made by defenders of Israel, but it's now been fairly throughly debunked. eg [6] and [7]. It would be wrong to suggest that all the refugees were beaten, robbed and threatened in this fashion - but they knew what awaited them. Indeed, some examples were even more sudden and extreme eg Golda Meir in Haifa, 6th May 1948 ("Palestinian Refuge problem revisited" Benny Morris p.310), "...... there were houses where the coffee and pita bread were left on the table, and could not avoid thinking that this, indeed, had been the picture in many Jewish towns (ie in Europe in WW2)"
(I attempted to insert these paragraphs in the wrong place (review of Battleground), and was told "(rv WP:POV insertions. All WP:OR without any references. The discussion whether Katz is correct of not is of course irrelevant unless a WP:RS discusses katz directly, which was done already)" ..... and I sort of understand. However, I'd have thought the above was highly relevant any time Katz is referenced)
Regarding a recent edit on the entry battleground and other edits I noticed you made, I think you misunderstand these policies. The question whether Katz is correct or not is irrelevant (wikipedia is about WP:V not truth). Any citations have to concern Katz's book directly and not the questions or topics he raises. Also, any claim has to be referenced to WP:RS and to maintain WP:NPOV. Finaly, your personal conclusions juxtoposing his biography with his conclusions and its implications are original research and are not suitable. Thank you. Amoruso 14:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Please also understand that wikipedia is not a discussion board. The debunked discredited site you borrowed your nickname from (?) "palestineremembered.com" really has nothing to do with Shmuel Katz. The fact it disagrees with his very researched facts because of a politically motivated issue, is not relevant to wikipedia. I will assume WP:AGF on your part, then I can assure you Katz has many references that prove his facts to the fullest extent. Somebody's opinion over his book is relevant if he's notable, somebody's opinion over the issues concerned are not. Amoruso 15:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
you say "rm him being an irgun commander" but that's not true - it says it right in the next paragraph with refs. I don't know what's the purpose of adding even more refs to the article and changing orders of sentences and changing the NY Times definition of spokesman to propaganda and adding all sort of OR and irrelevant info by people who didn't write books or articles about Katz but just mentioned him in passing except POV'ing. Let's leave those weird changes out, everything about this person is told in the article already. There are so many silly changes here like adding "revisionist youth movement" to beitar when there's a wikilink to it. Very strange. Seriously, this attempt of WP:POV by user:Ian Pitchford is bordering on some obssession I've never seen before. He simply has a fixation on the word revisionist, perhaps he thinks it has bad connotations and will smear Katz in some way I dunno, it's just strange. And why on Earth is it relevant his opinion about Dayan out of all people by this writer that "notes it"? and why other sourced material was removed for these changes...like this removed:"historian and jouranlist from amazon" or "Another project for which Katz dedicated many years of his life is the two volume biography of Jabotinsky of 1792 pages, entitled "Lone Wolf, A Biography of Valadimir (Ze'ev) Jabotinsky." - which brings us to this indeed.... How anal can it be to add "of whom he was a loyal adherent" in the opening sentence of a guy's biography? all very very strange. Amoruso 05:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I couldn't help noticing Shmuel Katz's credentials are being established by hits in Google Scholar (among other things). I must say he gets a rather poor hit rate for a supposedly reputable historian. I'm a mere PhD student, and a few of my journal and conference papers get more citations than Katz's books. I wouldn't call myself a "scientist". Is there any other evidence, except for a bookstore review? Has he been an invited speaker in a reputable conference? Has he published in reputable journals? Can anyone write a book about the past and call himself a "historian"?-- Doron 00:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
What do you mean by credentials Doron ? He's not a faculty member or something of that sort. He's a writer who wrote books about history after a lot of research and quoted scholars and other sources in his books. Nothing wrong about that. The article doesn't say he's a scholar, it does say he's a historian which is true - you don't need specific university status for that. User:Zero0000 once said this about Katz: "There is no formal definition of "historian" so the fact that he wrote a few books that have the form of history and one (the last one on Jabotinsky) that has received some favorable notice from historians means that I don't object to him being called a historian" Amoruso 20:31, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
1. In Palestinian exodus, Katz is cited as claiming that
"the Arab refugees were not driven from Palestine by anyone. The vast majority left, whether of their own free will or at the orders or exhortations of their leaders, always with the same reassurance-that their departure would help in the war against Israel. The Arabs are the only declared refugees who became refugees not by the action of their enemies or because of well-grounded fear of their enemies, but by the initiative of their own leaders."
This is not reporting a fact, this is Katz's own opinion on a hotly-contested issue in the history of the conflict. If you quote his opinion, you may as well quote anybody's opinion.
2. I'm sorry, but where was it agreed that he is an authority on Jabotinsky and Etzel? By whom was he cited?
3. I don't know where you got the idea that I think only left-wingers are fit to be historians. In the academic world, there are very clear criteria for academic recognition. Many controversial researchers manage to get their work published and cited. Even the bible code got published in a respected statistical journal (with almost 70 cites in Google Scholar for the article and the subsequent book, by the way). So once again, how do we know Katz knows about 1948 more than Douglas Adams knows about the galaxy? What are his credentials?
4. A low hit rate at Google scholar doesn't prove anything, but the burden of proof is on you, you have to prove Katz is notable.-- Doron 21:58, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 04:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
The UK National Archives files on him repeatedly call him "Samuel Lejb Katz" and "Samuel Lajb Katz". Do we have another source for that? Zero talk 13:40, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
"Psychological Warfare in the Arab-Israeli Conflict" (2014), R. Schleifer, p22: "Etzel was a small, underground movement whose headquarters was staffed with a few dozen fully employed members backed by a few thousand volunteer reservists, but the organization gave the impression of being widely supported by the Jewish public through the huge number of notices it posted on billboards and its intense propaganda campaign overseas. One of the leading hasbara activists was Shmuel Katz from South Africa. In a one-room Tel Aviv flat, Katz single-handedly set up a news service—the Irgun Press—that posted daily news updates on Etzel activity." ← ZScarpia 21:14, 8 July 2019 (UTC)