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.
|
This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary. |
|
The link provided is the result of a Google book search. It shows that Shapira's book does indeed contain that phrase - so you may include material from the page of her book that actually discusses the phrase. That discussion is limited, as far as I can tell, to stating that it was a common phrase among Zionists at the end of the 19th century, and that it was used as a form of legitimization of their claim on the land, alleging no competing claims. The fact that a 464-page book briefly mentions the phrase, once, on one page (42) is not a license to present other ideas from that book, which do not refer to the phrase, as if they are related to that discussion. (To the extent those ideas are even in that book - I could not, for example, find the phrase "Australian outback" anywhere in the book, using Google, nor the term "steamship").
Canadian Monkey (
talk) 00:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
She doesn’t cite examples to back up the claim it was common, and neither does any other source, so there’s absolutely no point in repeating it multiple times throughout the article. Undue weight. — Scharb ( talk) 18:39, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
@— Scharb This article is under ARBPIA restrictions. Nishidani ( talk) 16:03, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
This edit by an anon has removed a claim that the phrase encapsulated a Zionist desire that Palestinian Arabs would go elsewhere. The reference to Garfinkle was also removed. The page linked by the remaining reference doesn't seem to support the go elsewhere claim. Does Garfinkle?-- Peter cohen ( talk) 16:35, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
As argued correctly above, parts of this article rely too heavily on the opinion of Diana Muir, who has no apparent qualification in the area (see her wiki page) and published only on the propaganda site of Daniel Pipes. I think we can use her usage examples (but check them if possible), but quoting her opinions about what they meant is not acceptable. Zero talk 11:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Take this sentence:
"In 1914 Chaim Weizmann, referenced this phrase in a speech criticizing the wrongheaded ideas of other Zionists, presumably a veiled reference to Zangwill who had left the movement.[4]"
The source given is Muirs article. There is absolutely nothing in Muirs article about Weizmann making a veiled reference to Zangwill. So this comment is pure POV. Here is what Muir says about Weizmann:
"In 1914, Chaim Weizmann referred to the phrase as descriptive of attitudes common in the early days of the movement."
"He was speaking to encourage a Zionist club in Paris shortly after the killing of a Zionist pioneer by Arabs in the fields of Kibbutz Degania Alef in November 1913."
Just found this:
Zero talk 07:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
And this:
Zero talk 14:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
I have two clear recollections about this phrase, but no sources, so no inclination to add to the article. I describe them in as much detail as I can in hopes someone else might find sources.
1) Growing up in Binghamton, New York, circa 1960, this phrase was used in a positive light in my Jewish sunday school classes at Temple Concorde under Rabbi Schagrin. I seem to recall it emblazoned on a book about Israel used in these classes. Only later did I come to realize this as a horrendous phrase, whatever the interpretation. This could be a sign that this phrase was in wide use in the US at a certain period in Jewish education (but I have no specific knowledge whether it was used in other temples).
2) When I mentioned this recollection to an Israeli coworker, he was quite familiar with the phrase and had a different rationalization of than any presented in the article: that it referred specifically to Tel Aviv, which he claimed really was un-inhabited at the time (I have no knowledge whether this was the case or not).
Pallen ( talk) 03:31, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Lassner&Troen's explanation of what "without a people" means is not at all the same as Garfinkle's. While Garfinkle claims it is about national identity, Lassner&Troen explain it as "Palestine was a sparsely settled and economically underdeveloped country from the perspective of Western observers who compared it both with other countries and with Palestine's own distant past." They didn't believe it had no population at all, but they believed the population was well below what it could be. That's what Keith, Shaftesbury and Zangwill, to name a few, thought too. We need to provide Garfinkle's viewpoint of course, but we shouldn't present it as "the" explanation since it is only Garfinkle's opinion. And we shouldn't insert Garfinkle's premises into the text in various places like the lead so as to construct his argument for him. Zero talk 13:53, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Can you explain why you took out Meir's assertion that Der Judenstaadt DID contain mention of Arabs? Source four is a link to a reputable publication that has Meir saying that Khalidi is wrong and sources his misconception to the book Land and Power: The Zionist Recourse to Force, 1881-1948
So we have a trustworthy and verifiable expert saying "Khalidi's statement is wrong." Now, that doesn't mean you have to take out Khalidi's comments. As I understand it, Mr. Zero, you very much like polemics. But if you want Khalidi's accusation, its fair to balance it with Meir's counter, since Hertzl is dead.
So, let's not have Interpretation of the phrase by scholars be nothing but a chance for academia to infere that long-dead Zionists were racist. Modinyr ( talk) 22:53, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
So, you admit that hertzl makes reference to the native inhabitants? Done. It doesn't matter if you find the reference to be a brush-off. The statement "Herzl never even mentioning the Arabs" is an untrue assertion. The rest of the quote can stay. I'm glad we agree on this issue. Modinyr ( talk) 19:53, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
The sources should use or mention the phrase per WP:OR " sources ... that are directly related to the topic of the article"-- Shrike ( talk) 16:33, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Post-Crusader Palestine’s population experienced a profound stagnation 600+ years, prior to a significant population boom in the mid-late 19th century. (see: Demographic history of Palestine (region)).
It’s likely that the population of the entire region did not exceed 350,000 people at the time of the writing of that quote (as opposed to the population of the region at the time of most of the critical responses, when the population had far exceeded 1.9 million people).
Not saying this as grounds to delegitimize criticism against the quote and its subsequent usage, but the context of the population of Palestine at the time (which historically had hosted populations upwards of 1 million during the late Roman period) is not without merit. Should find a place somewhere in this article. Mistamystery ( talk) 16:11, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
In response to a recent removal:
The phrase derives from a paraphrase of a statement made by Christian clergyman and Restorationist Rev. Alexander Keith, D.D.. Following an expedition to Ottoman Palestine in 1839, Keith published a retrospective of his journey - Land of Israel - in 1843. [1]Citing familiarity with Roman Judea-era population estimates by Josephus , Volney, and Tacitus that placed first century Jewish and Samaritan populations in the millions [2], Keith noted upon "the scantling of a population left in the land...which in times more ancient had been thickly studded with cities." [3](Ottoman Palestine's total population was estimated to have been under 340,000 in 1839 [4])
This is hardly a “juxtaposition of quotations from different parts of the book to create a story” (and an edit less than an hour after the change was made does not make a convincing argument that editor in question has read enough of Keith to make that assertion.)
There is no synth made here, and the context given to the quote is wholly appropriate. Keith did not generate the phrase in question in a vacuum. He visited Palestine under the mindset (and a significant amount of research) that it used to be populated by a significantly larger population than what he found there. The book is replete with these arguments.
I’ll wait for the next edit before attempting to work the above back in, but I do not think the removal of my edit was remotely warranted and requires a more considerate and thorough discussion and explanation before just ripping out a well researched addition. Mistamystery ( talk) 09:15, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
References
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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.
|
This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary. |
|
The link provided is the result of a Google book search. It shows that Shapira's book does indeed contain that phrase - so you may include material from the page of her book that actually discusses the phrase. That discussion is limited, as far as I can tell, to stating that it was a common phrase among Zionists at the end of the 19th century, and that it was used as a form of legitimization of their claim on the land, alleging no competing claims. The fact that a 464-page book briefly mentions the phrase, once, on one page (42) is not a license to present other ideas from that book, which do not refer to the phrase, as if they are related to that discussion. (To the extent those ideas are even in that book - I could not, for example, find the phrase "Australian outback" anywhere in the book, using Google, nor the term "steamship").
Canadian Monkey (
talk) 00:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
She doesn’t cite examples to back up the claim it was common, and neither does any other source, so there’s absolutely no point in repeating it multiple times throughout the article. Undue weight. — Scharb ( talk) 18:39, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
@— Scharb This article is under ARBPIA restrictions. Nishidani ( talk) 16:03, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
This edit by an anon has removed a claim that the phrase encapsulated a Zionist desire that Palestinian Arabs would go elsewhere. The reference to Garfinkle was also removed. The page linked by the remaining reference doesn't seem to support the go elsewhere claim. Does Garfinkle?-- Peter cohen ( talk) 16:35, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
As argued correctly above, parts of this article rely too heavily on the opinion of Diana Muir, who has no apparent qualification in the area (see her wiki page) and published only on the propaganda site of Daniel Pipes. I think we can use her usage examples (but check them if possible), but quoting her opinions about what they meant is not acceptable. Zero talk 11:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Take this sentence:
"In 1914 Chaim Weizmann, referenced this phrase in a speech criticizing the wrongheaded ideas of other Zionists, presumably a veiled reference to Zangwill who had left the movement.[4]"
The source given is Muirs article. There is absolutely nothing in Muirs article about Weizmann making a veiled reference to Zangwill. So this comment is pure POV. Here is what Muir says about Weizmann:
"In 1914, Chaim Weizmann referred to the phrase as descriptive of attitudes common in the early days of the movement."
"He was speaking to encourage a Zionist club in Paris shortly after the killing of a Zionist pioneer by Arabs in the fields of Kibbutz Degania Alef in November 1913."
Just found this:
Zero talk 07:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
And this:
Zero talk 14:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
I have two clear recollections about this phrase, but no sources, so no inclination to add to the article. I describe them in as much detail as I can in hopes someone else might find sources.
1) Growing up in Binghamton, New York, circa 1960, this phrase was used in a positive light in my Jewish sunday school classes at Temple Concorde under Rabbi Schagrin. I seem to recall it emblazoned on a book about Israel used in these classes. Only later did I come to realize this as a horrendous phrase, whatever the interpretation. This could be a sign that this phrase was in wide use in the US at a certain period in Jewish education (but I have no specific knowledge whether it was used in other temples).
2) When I mentioned this recollection to an Israeli coworker, he was quite familiar with the phrase and had a different rationalization of than any presented in the article: that it referred specifically to Tel Aviv, which he claimed really was un-inhabited at the time (I have no knowledge whether this was the case or not).
Pallen ( talk) 03:31, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Lassner&Troen's explanation of what "without a people" means is not at all the same as Garfinkle's. While Garfinkle claims it is about national identity, Lassner&Troen explain it as "Palestine was a sparsely settled and economically underdeveloped country from the perspective of Western observers who compared it both with other countries and with Palestine's own distant past." They didn't believe it had no population at all, but they believed the population was well below what it could be. That's what Keith, Shaftesbury and Zangwill, to name a few, thought too. We need to provide Garfinkle's viewpoint of course, but we shouldn't present it as "the" explanation since it is only Garfinkle's opinion. And we shouldn't insert Garfinkle's premises into the text in various places like the lead so as to construct his argument for him. Zero talk 13:53, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Can you explain why you took out Meir's assertion that Der Judenstaadt DID contain mention of Arabs? Source four is a link to a reputable publication that has Meir saying that Khalidi is wrong and sources his misconception to the book Land and Power: The Zionist Recourse to Force, 1881-1948
So we have a trustworthy and verifiable expert saying "Khalidi's statement is wrong." Now, that doesn't mean you have to take out Khalidi's comments. As I understand it, Mr. Zero, you very much like polemics. But if you want Khalidi's accusation, its fair to balance it with Meir's counter, since Hertzl is dead.
So, let's not have Interpretation of the phrase by scholars be nothing but a chance for academia to infere that long-dead Zionists were racist. Modinyr ( talk) 22:53, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
So, you admit that hertzl makes reference to the native inhabitants? Done. It doesn't matter if you find the reference to be a brush-off. The statement "Herzl never even mentioning the Arabs" is an untrue assertion. The rest of the quote can stay. I'm glad we agree on this issue. Modinyr ( talk) 19:53, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
The sources should use or mention the phrase per WP:OR " sources ... that are directly related to the topic of the article"-- Shrike ( talk) 16:33, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Post-Crusader Palestine’s population experienced a profound stagnation 600+ years, prior to a significant population boom in the mid-late 19th century. (see: Demographic history of Palestine (region)).
It’s likely that the population of the entire region did not exceed 350,000 people at the time of the writing of that quote (as opposed to the population of the region at the time of most of the critical responses, when the population had far exceeded 1.9 million people).
Not saying this as grounds to delegitimize criticism against the quote and its subsequent usage, but the context of the population of Palestine at the time (which historically had hosted populations upwards of 1 million during the late Roman period) is not without merit. Should find a place somewhere in this article. Mistamystery ( talk) 16:11, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
In response to a recent removal:
The phrase derives from a paraphrase of a statement made by Christian clergyman and Restorationist Rev. Alexander Keith, D.D.. Following an expedition to Ottoman Palestine in 1839, Keith published a retrospective of his journey - Land of Israel - in 1843. [1]Citing familiarity with Roman Judea-era population estimates by Josephus , Volney, and Tacitus that placed first century Jewish and Samaritan populations in the millions [2], Keith noted upon "the scantling of a population left in the land...which in times more ancient had been thickly studded with cities." [3](Ottoman Palestine's total population was estimated to have been under 340,000 in 1839 [4])
This is hardly a “juxtaposition of quotations from different parts of the book to create a story” (and an edit less than an hour after the change was made does not make a convincing argument that editor in question has read enough of Keith to make that assertion.)
There is no synth made here, and the context given to the quote is wholly appropriate. Keith did not generate the phrase in question in a vacuum. He visited Palestine under the mindset (and a significant amount of research) that it used to be populated by a significantly larger population than what he found there. The book is replete with these arguments.
I’ll wait for the next edit before attempting to work the above back in, but I do not think the removal of my edit was remotely warranted and requires a more considerate and thorough discussion and explanation before just ripping out a well researched addition. Mistamystery ( talk) 09:15, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
References