Talk:Ilan Pappé

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ]
(If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
This article has been automatically assessed as Stub-Class by WikiProject Biography because it uses a stub template.
  • If you agree with the assessment, please remove {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page.
  • If you disagree with the assessment, please change it by editing the class parameter of the {{WPBiography}} template, removing {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page, and removing the stub template from the article.
Portal:Israel
 Israel Portal
Ilan Pappé is part of the WikiProject Israel, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Israel articles.
Project Israel To Do (Drop-Down Menu):
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
This article has been automatically assessed as Stub-Class by WikiProject Israel because it uses a stub template.
  • If you agree with the assessment, please remove {{WikiProject Israel}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page.
  • If you disagree with the assessment, please change it by editing the class parameter of the {{WikiProject Israel}} template, removing {{WikiProject Israel}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page, and removing the stub template from the article.
It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality, if possible.
Wikipedians in Israel may be able to help!

Contents

[edit] Communist Party candidate in 1996

I can't find a source for this - lots of pages claiming it, but no actual source. Maybe Israel's electoral office? -- Danny Yee 01:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

He was Number 7 in the Hadash list [2] Abu ali 11:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] errors of fact

Teddy Katz was not the student of Ilan Pappe. --Zerotalk 12:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] disproportionate amount on the Katz affair

This article has a massively disproportionate amount about the Katz affair. -- Danny Yee 00:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Does Ilan Pappé self-identify as a post-Zionist?

In the Post-Zionism article someone has listed Ilan Pappé as a post-Zionist. There was no source listed. There is now a category for post zionists here Category:Post-Zionists. If someone finds a source for this, can you please add the category and describe him as such in the body of the article? Thanks. --Deodar 14:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] occupation not a neutral word

I suggest we either quote him saying that or use a neutral word as "control". "Liberation" is also not neutral. Amoruso 20:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

  • "Liberation" may not be neutral, but "occupation" most certainly is. CJCurrie 20:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
How can occupation be neutral if Israel's official position doesn't see it as occupation ? Occupation is biased more than terrorism. Amoruso 20:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
It is not a matter of opinion, nor simply Pappé's own view. See West Bank: "The West Bank . . is considered by the United Nations Security Council, the United Nations General Assembly, the International Court of Justice and the International Committee of the Red Crossto be under Israeli occupation." RolandR 11:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
It may not be simply Pappe own view, and it may be shared by many other people and organizations, but it is still a POV, and a contested one at that. As Amoruso says, you can either quote Pappe, or use a neutral word. Isarig 15:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
This is absurd. Firstly: it is (whether you like it or not) the word used by "the International community" (for lack of a better expression). Secondly: it is the word Ilan Pappé use himself. Before you reintroduce the word "control": please show me a single instance where Pappé have used it. (Should I take a guess, then I would imagine that the number of people in this world who use the word "control" (instead of "occupation") about the West Bank is possibly smaller than the number of people who use the word "Zionist entity" instead of "Israel".... ) Regards, Huldra 23:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Do take the time to actually read my comments, before knee-jerkignly reverting my edits. I am perfectly fine with quoting Pappe, so if he used that word, let's quote him, making it clear that it is his description. Failing that, we need to use a neutral word. Neutral is not a function of popularity - the fact that many people use the term "Zionist entity" does not make it neutral , and simialrly, the fact that many people use the word "occuaption" does notmake it neutral . thank you for making my case. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Isarig (talk • contribs) 00:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC).
Eh? My point was that you are in the small minority who thinks that "occupation" in not neutral (but that "control" is neutral). (Just as a minority thinks that "Zionist entity" is quite neutral (and that "Israel" isn´t)). "Control" is certainly not neutral, IMO. I am arguing for useing the term most common, but if anybody has the a priori opinion that their opinion is always the neutral one.....well, then I do not quite know how to "get through". But put it this way: if "control" was truely neutral; well, then everybody would have agreed with you. We do not. You say that "Neutral is not a function of popularity"...and then you simply go ahead and define what you agree with as "neutral"! And I ask: what is to stop anybody else from doing the same??. No, Isarig, we do need a better definition of "neutral" than: "Isarig thinks this is neutral so therefore it is." Regards, Huldra 01:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with what I personally think. "Control" is neutral not because I happen to think so but because (a) it is factual - Israel does in fact control those areas, and (b) it does not voice an opinion on the legal status of those areas, which is a matter of considerable dispute, whereas "occupied" does. That's why "Control" (or some other similar word, I am not particularly attached to that one) is more neutral than occupied. (BTW, if you have some reliable statistics on th e number of people who think that "occupied" is neutral, other than your assertion that this is the case, I'd like to see it. ) Isarig 02:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
The only people who object to the word "occupation" are Zionists. Ilan Pappe says that he "opposes the occupation". To say that he "opposes contol" or that he opposes the "Israeli liberation of Judea and Sameria from foreign yoke" is plain silly. Abu ali 10:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
To use the latter phrase ("Israeli liberation of Judea and Sameria from foreign yoke") would indeed be silly - as it would be the opposite POV of what is currently in the article - namely that these are legitimate Israeli territories. And by the same token, to use "occupation" is silly, as it adopts the POV that these are not Israeli territories. We don't take sides on WP, we need to use a neutral word. Isarig 15:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

"Illegal" is not appropriate, but "occupation" seems fairly straightforwardly descriptive. "Control" is vague and suggests a more indirect influence. -- Danny Yee 11:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

When a state stations its armed forces in a place outside its own territories and controls the operation of the society there, that is occupation. It is a simple case of using the English language correctly. Failing to use the word even when it is the most correct one is a deliberate device of Israeli public relations. I can't see any reason we should obey this dictum when even the Israeli High Court calls it "belligerent occupation". It is not as simple as choosing a neutral word, since any word other than the correct word "occupation" amounts to adopting the Israeli position. "Control" is not enough since control can be exerted from a distance. The word "rule" is slightly better perhaps. Besides, what Pappe protests against is the occupation, even if he is wrong about there being an occupation. --Zerotalk 13:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

But there is a big dispute as to whether or not these territories are in fact "outside" Israel's own. That's the crux of it. See for example the Tibet article - where Chinese forces have been placed, an control society - but it is not called "occupation" because there is an argument that says Tibet was part of China to begin with. I am ok with 'rule' as a substitute for control, as I I said I am not attached to that particular one. And for the 3rd time now, if we want to clarify that this is what Pappe thinks, we can either quote him, or use a phrase similar to "protests what he sees as occupation"
No, there is no serious dispute on that except in the case of the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem. Israel has never claimed to annex the West Bank. What is seriously disputed by some people is whether the West Bank should be annexed to Israel, or whether Israel has a "right" to it. That's a different question. The fact remains that Israel does not at the moment claim to exercise sovereignty over it. --Zerotalk 02:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. When the term is "occupation" there's no question you're a foreign entity there. U.S wants to get out of Iraq one day so it's occupation. Israel sees rights in the area - homeland rights - not foreign rights. Occupation is a word used for foreign entities on someone's country. This is not the case. This is open for future decision. Hence, like you said - Israel does NOT exercise sovereignty over it nor does anyone else - it's a disputed area. Amoruso 02:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
It is an occupation, complete with all the trappings of military rule. And if "occupation" is not a neutral word, it is a very mild one compared to the reality of life in the West Bank. The only people who deny that it is an occupation are zionists . But they want to have their cake and eat it. So they claim the land without giving citizenship to its indiginous inhabitants. Abu ali 15:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
You are certainly welcome to your POV that it is an occupation, but as your own argument above shows - there are other POVs, such as the one that this is a liberation of territories that are rightfully Israeli. This is an encyclopedia, and we don't take sides here. Isarig 15:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes "we" never take sides in the Israeli Arab conflict do we Issar? We just use the veil of neutrality to obliterate any reference to any term not to the liking of Israel's propoganda machine. So the Israeli army (sorry Defence forces) will never occupy, only control. They will never conquer only liberate, never assasinate, only liquidate, never massacre only cleanse, never build walls, only fences (even if they are made of 20m high concrete). Lets not let the facts on the ground confuse us. Lets restrict our language to words accepatble to the Israeli officials. And anyone who thinks otherwise is POV and will be speedily reverted :-) Abu ali 16:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind keeping the word "occupation" if we change every mention of a word militant/member of Hamas to "cold blooded genocide terrorist". So it's your pick. Abu Ali, I'm afraid that it's not a matter of deleting references to a term Israel doesn't like, it's a matter of not choosing terms that are inherhently WP:POV. An Israeli sided word will be "liberation". A control would be NPOV. As for other changes, Efraim Karsh is an historian and assigning him a POV intro is redundant to his wiki article and is wrong. Obiously deleting the word alleged from Tantura is unthinkable, and obviously the attacks had to with the political opinions involved. I think that was it... Amoruso 17:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Huldra asks:"....how come that the *only* ones who think "control" is a neutral word are all ....quite pro-Israeli?"

Answer: Because obviously "occupation" is WP:POV and it refelcts negatively on Israel and positively on Palestinians which is why the *only* ones who don't think "control" is a neutral word are all ....quite pro-palestinian - Again, if the pro Israeli writers would have liked to insert their OWN POV word it would be "liberation". So who's exactly taking a netural take on this and who isn't I wonder. Amoruso 20:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Amoruso; Ok, so we are left with two words ("control" and "occupation"), and in both cases there are people who think the word is biased. Whatever we choose there will be some who are unhappy with the choice (unless they end convinced by the opponents brilliant arguments ;-D ). I will argue for using the word "occupation" for two reasons: It is the word most commonly used internationally. (Did you ever hear the UN..or any other international organization (except openly pro-Zionist/pro-Israeli lobbying groups) talk about "Israeli control over the West Bank"? If so, please give me the ref.!) -Secondly: it is the word Pappé himself use. As for Zero's argument (about correct English), I will not say too much, as I am not a native English speaker -I don't feel too qualified there. Regards, Huldra 21:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
(1) If the U.N uses it, it's irrelevant. There are claims U.N is biased against Israel. Israel usually prefers not to use it which is what's important. Legal Scolars such as Professor Blum explain why it's not an occupation at all. We're not left with 2 words at all, we're still left with the word "liberation' btw. (2)If this is the term Pappe uses, would you agree to use " " to show it's a quotation then (or to say "by what he calls" etc) ? If not, this argument that this is what he uses seems irrelevant too. Amoruso 21:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
First of all, we are not "left with two words" - other words have been suggested (e.g: "rule", and I am open to other suggestions) , and we have the simple solution of actaully quoting Pappe. This has been sugegsted multiple times already. And now one has explained how "control" is biased. Isarig 22:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually, this is not quite correct: see Zeros answer above (on why "control" is biased). Also: I will not get into a discussion about whether UN is biased against Israel..I could have mentioned any international organization (Amnesty, HRW, The International court (Haag)), Now, you show me a single international organization which refer to it as "control"! (Eeeh; organizations specifically set up for supporting/lobbying for Israel does´n count here...). Regards, Huldra 22:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
You need to read more carefully. Zero did not say it was biased (let alone explain why it is allegedly biased) - he said it was not precise enough since you could exert control from a distance. He offered "rule" as an alternative - and I am fine with that. Are you? The latter part of your arguemt is a repetition of the logical fallacy I already pointed out above: The fact that a term is popular does not make it neutral. Isarig 22:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
You write: "The fact that a term is popular does not make it neutral" -and I actually don´t disagree with that. My problem is: how do you define what is neutral? Instead of a purely linguistic definition I have tried a more "heuristic" approach. And please tell me; why is it not an occupation? Are there any non-religious arguments for not calling it an occupation? As for the word "rule"; what do the Palestinians on the West Bank think about it, is the word acceptable to them, do you know? I think the easiest way out of this is probably to find a quote from Pappe... Regards, Huldra 00:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
You may not disagree with that , but your argument is, essentially, that since many use the term (incl. the UN, Amnesty, HRW, The International court , etc..) - we should use it, too. Your approach is not "heuristic" - it is an argumentum ad populum. There are many reasons why some people consider it not to be an occuaption, and User:Amoruso has pointed you to some of them. In essence, they rest on the legal argument that sinc ethe end of the British Mnadate, these territories have never been recognized as the soveriegn territory of any party, and thus they can't be said to be occupied. But all this is beside the point - we are not here to judge the merits of the various POVs - only to acknoledge that there are, in fact multiple POVs here: On is that these are Palestinian territories, occupied by Israel. Another is that these are territories to which Israel holds a legitiamte claim (based on either religion or legal grounds). Using teh trem "occupation" in this contested context is clearly POV. Isarig 01:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Huldra, you're going to have to accept what other users in wikipedia believe. It's not important if someone internationally thinks it or not, it's important whether Israel thinks it or not. This is the reason WP:NPOV exists. It's a conflict. We can't present one side of it. So either choose control/rule or something else and get it over with because we won't be sticking with occupation I'm afraid and that goes for all wikipedia articles and the word is extremely offensive. Like I explained, it's not true it's the correct legal definition. The highest legal scholars believe, some of them, it's not an occupation. See Professor Blume's opinions as authoritary on the subject. Amoruso 22:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Why is it "extremely offensive"? (Hmm, people who find that word "extremely offensive" must be "extremely offended" quite often...) Just FYI: in my part of the world (Scandinavia) I have never heard anybody use any other word than "occupation" (or: "okkupasjon") ..I think most people here would be extremely supprised to hear that some people find the word "extremely offensive". Again; why? regards, Huldra 00:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
This is a very big problem Huldra as it shows how biased Scandivanian media and culture in general is against Israel. This bias is something that runs deeps no doubt. I'm pretty sure though that an american would be surprised to hear that Al Qaeda aren't terrorists for instance or Hamas but these words terrorists are removed all the time for NPOV reasons. If you want to know per your question also above, then it's not an occupation because it's a disputed territory foremost. This area wasn't under the legal rule of any country before and therefore according to International Law it can't be occupied because it belonged to no-one before. Saying it's occupied against the Palestinians who never owned the area to begin with is a bias that determines the end-result of a future negotiation with no justification - it doesn't take into account Jewish areas in the region - before and after 1967, it doesn't take into account Israel's needs and concerns and it doesn't take into account the fact Israel already pulled out of all the population centers in the west bank hence any occupation already ended with the Oslo Accords and later entrances to the cities was made in response to hostilities. That's why. Since you agreed to quote Pappe I think there's no problem anymore... this RolandR refused to before. Amoruso 01:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

It looks like a duck. It walks like a duck. It sounds like a duck. It behaves as it wants, i.e. as a duck. The United Nations Security Council, the United Nations General Assembly, the International Court of Justice and the International Committee of the Red Cross refers to it as a duck. The Israeli High Court calls it a "belligerent duck." The subject of this article, Ilan Pappé, calls it a duck. Most people of the worlds have never even heard it described by any other word than.....duck. But should Wikipedia describe it as a duck? NOOO! That is POV! That is "extremely offensive"! Oh boy. I just say this: a duck is still a duck, even if you call it by another name. Rebranding it "swan" fools nobody in our cynical age, which has seen a thousand rebrandings too many. Good-night for now. Regards, Huldra 02:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

it's not a duck , it's a sensitive issue.

"The United Nations Security Council, the United Nations General Assembly, the International Court of Justice and the International Committee of the Red Cross" : All extremely biased organizations against Israel. Read the respected articles. Israeli high court : False claim. Israel explained that it will refer to it as the Geneva does occupation in terms of humanitarian purpose only - not as a political desgination. Ilan Pappe can call it anyway he wants but then we'll quote that it was he who said this.

Now let's see: UN calls terrorism as terrorism. U.S. European Union. Yet we don't use terrorism with Hamas all the time - we usually use militant. See usually, the term occupation appears in too many wiki articles. One day we can rid it of this POV like one would possibly want to remove the word terrorist from any Hamas related matter. Case proven. Amoruso 02:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

"Rule" seems way worse than occupation to me - it doesn't seem neutral as to legality , which I assume is the biggest concern. -- Danny Yee 11:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Belligerent Occupation

Amoruso claims that the High Court of Israel does not regard the Territories as under Belligerent Occupation (occupatio bellica). Let us see how this claim compares to the words of the High Court itself. The following are official English translations.

  • Case 785/87 (1987): "the Respondent continues to hold the territory by force of belligerent occupation and is subject to the laws of customary international law that apply in war-time."
  • Case 7015/02 (2002): "Judaea and Samaria and the Gaza Strip are effectively one territory subject to one belligerent occupation by one occupying power" ... "The two areas are part of mandatory Palestine. They are subject to a belligerent occupation by the State of Israel."
  • Case 10356/02 (2002): "Israel’s belligerent occupation of the occupied territories is subject to the main norms of customary international law that are enshrined in the Hague Convention."
  • Case 2056/04 (2004): "Since 1967, Israel has been holding the areas of Judea and Samaria [hereinafter – the area] in belligerent occupation."
  • Case 7957/04 (2005): "The Judea and Samaria areas are held by the State of Israel in belligerent occupation."

I've copied some statements which are especially clear and unqualified, but there are plenty of other cases (example 493/81, 1981) where the laws of belligerent occupation are explicitly evoked regarding Israel's legal position in the Territories. One can also see that in all the cases I listed (and it is also true of all the others I looked at) that the state of Israel does not argue before the court against this interprettation.

As for the Geneva Conventions, the issue is not whether the situation is belligerent occupation (which is accepted by both the court and the state) but whether the particular provisions regarding belligerent occupation which appear in the 4th Geneva Convention apply. Several of the judgments listed above state that distinction very careful. The court repeatedly notes this issue and avoids ruling on it. --Zerotalk 12:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Portion of article that needs revision

I'm moving this item here for discussion:

Pappé makes no secret of his political, or ideological agenda. "We are all political, there is no historian in the world who is objective. I am not as interested in what happened as in how people see what's happened".<ref>[http://www.ee.bgu.ac.il/~censor/katz-directory/$99-11-29loos-pappe-interview.htm An Interview of Ilan Pappe By Baudouin Loos, Brussels, 29 November 1999]</ref>

The quotation is valid (though I'm not sure there is enough context). However the sentence before it is editorial and not a summary of what the quotation demonstrates. The word "agenda" is especially unacceptable. Almost all historians would agree with Pappe's first sentence. His second sentence is a summary of his interests as a historian. "How people see what's happened" is a perfectly fine thing for a historian to study and many specialise in that aspect of history. So these two sentences do not support what is being claimed. --Zerotalk 02:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

It's what the source said. I don't really mind the first sentence although it's what the WP:RS said. As for "perfectly fine" obviously it's not... it shows his bias, it shows he cares not for facts but how they can be presented. Amoruso 03:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
The context of his quote is not clear. Does he mean he's interested in observing how different perspectives perceive history, or that he intends to be a history spinner himself? If the latter, I doubt he would admit it, so it's more likely he intended the first meaning. At any rate, unless the context is more clear, I don't think this quote should be used. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 03:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
The interesting thing is that he did mean the latter ! It's a slip and therefore he was criticized for it - it's what made the interview so powerful. I'll add the interview to the external links for now. Amoruso 03:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
First, this interview is translated from French so analysis based on precise choice of words is unsafe. Second, the words "Pappé makes no secret of his political, or ideological agenda." are those of the journalist (or maybe the magazine sub-editor) so they have to be presented as the journalist's opinion, but since almost nobody reading the English encyclopedia has ever heard of Baudouin Loos, why would they be interested in his opinion? Third, there is no reason to believe the words quoted here are a slip. --Zerotalk 10:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
How come you're trying to defend Pappe so vigorously? Cheers, Amoruso 11:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
How come you're trying to vilify Pappe so vigorously? I have removed the offending section as it tells us nothing about Pappe and his ideas, but perhaps too much about the intollerence of his opponents. Abu ali 12:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Please don't remove well sourced criticism again. contrary to what you clam, the criticism tells us much about Pappe's work: 2 notable academics claim that the incidents he writes about in hi sbooks are fabrications. Isarig 16:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
These are not criticisms, they are vitriolic attacks. Abu ali 21:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
No, far from it. They are description sof hois work as fabrications. Isarig 01:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Coming from a former Major in the IDF. Its a bit like a neo nazi denouncing Anna Frank's diary as a forgery. Abu ali 10:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Abu ali, though my personal opinion of Karsh is unprintable, it is not for us to guess motives like that. What you should be doing is looking for a positive review of Pappe's work from someone notable. Then you can add it as balance, which is sorely needed. --Zerotalk 11:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Anything vaguely positive reviews would be reverted by Isarg and Amoruso, so I am not going to waste time on this. Abu ali 11:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gelber

Yoav Gelber and Ilan Pappé have a famous mutual animosity that is just as much to do with personality conflict and university politics as it is to their professional relationship. Anyone at Haifa Univ can tell you stories about it. I can't see any justification for quoting an information-free insult from one of them to the other. --Zerotalk 10:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Anyone who writes a diatribe attacking Pappe work will be quoted at length here. And the more vitriol the better. Because Pappe is an Israeli who dares criticises official policy, and therefore must be delegitimized. Abu ali 10:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
If there's actual criticism of Pappe, it would be appropriate to cite it. In this case, I agree with Zero since the quote says nothing useful, only that Gelber doesn't wish to be in the same room with Pappe. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 10:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
"Gelber recently sent a letter to the head of the social sciences faculty at the university, suggesting that Pappe be fired. Three weeks ago, Gelber sent a message to the university's internal communications network in which he likened Pappe to "Lord Haw-Haw" (William Joyce, who was described by journalist William Shirer as "a leading brawler in Mosley's British Union of Fascists," and who broadcast anti-British propaganda for the Nazis and was hung in London in 1946)".[3] Amoruso 11:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
That article is dated 20/09/2001, not recently. --Zerotalk 14:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes , it's a quote from the article. Amoruso 14:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Praise and critics

There are 2 crititcs (to one of which we also have Pappe's reply) and 16 praises. POV. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 132.72.45.187 (talk) 14:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC).

Yes, it has gotten real silly. Some of these people are even repeated. The praise should be reduced to 2 or 3 of the most eminent. I suggest Falk, Shohat, Shammas. --Zerotalk 09:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
The whole section reads like a series of dust jacket blurbs. I thought this was an encyclopedia article. --Rrburke(talk) 01:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clean-up

The article starts with a weasel-worded leader, has a few very short sections that really need to be amalgamated, and than an immense and peculiar section of brief quotations that reads like a publsher's puff (except that there are a few critical quotations too). The last section surely needs to be shortened and turned into proper prose. There are also stylistic and MoS problems with the text.

I've started on some of the work, but the last section is a big job, and better left to people who know the subject better than I do. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, part of the problem with the last section was that most of it was repeated. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Latest edits

I'm afraid that your extensive edits introduced numerous formatting errors and infelicities (for example, you changed properly formatted references to anonymous in-text links). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any errors or infelicities; I didn't think the references were formatted very well, but if you disagree, by all means change the in-text links back to references. Truthprofessor 14:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, I suppose that you wouldn't, or you wouldn't have made them in the first place. Part of the problem is that you haven't taken the time to familiarise yourself with Wikipedia policies and guidelines; it's not a free for all here, I'm afraid.
Take the lead: "He is considered one of the Israeli New Historians who are strongly critical of the history of Zionism." Not only did you remove the {{fact}} template (without supplying a citation), but the original was more neutrally expressed; you've gone from "who have re-examined the history of Israel and Zionism" to "who are strongly critical of the history of Zionism", without explanation or citation.
Being "on the list of Hadash, Israel's Communist Party" is obscure, where "on the Hadash list" isn't (the latter is a standard English locution for being on a list of candidates, while your version simply states that he's on some list...).
You changed the neutral: "He was involved in a controversy over an M.A. thesis by Teddy Katz about an alleged massacre in 1948 in the Palestinian village of Tantura." to the much less neutral "Ilan Pappé publicly supported an M.A. thesis by Teddy Katz alleging that Israeli troops committed a massacre in 1948 in the Palestinian village of Tantura. In December 2000, as defendant in a libel case, Katz retracted his allegations about the massacre, but then he retracted his retraction." In fact that whole paragraph goes on to become even more negative about him, with no indication that there's an alternative view.
The same problems occur in the rest of your edits; they're not making the article more but less NPoV, as well as degrading the quality of presentation. Please stop reverting. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

In reply:

1. That Ilan Pappé is one of the New Historians is Israel/Palestine 101! It no more requires a citation than the statement that Edward Said was a Palestinian-American professor. Same with the "strongly critical" clause: that's the whole point of the New Historians, that they are critics of the traditional Zionist narrative! These are hardly debatable statements.

2. How about "on the candidate list of Hadash, Israel's Communist Party"? That would satisfy the concern you express, although it wouldn't satisfy those (and I'm sure you're not one of them) who don't want to mention that Pappé was a candidate for Israel's Communist Party.

3. The original Tantura sentence was not so much neutral as vacuous. As for my replacement - is it untrue? Did Pappé not publicly support the Katz thesis? Did Katz not retract his massacre claim and then retract the retraction? These are simply facts. What's the "alternative view" - that Pappé publicly opposed Katz, that Katz wasn't sued for libel, that he didn't retract his retraction, that an ex-PA minister didn't pay his fees, that his thesis wasn't disqualified for alleged research fraud?

4. But my only other edits consisted of giving equal weight to critics and supporters, and tidying up the links. Previously this entry contained two critics (with Pappé's replies) and a dozen dust jacket blurbs. NPOV? Truthprofessor 02:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

  1. You need to read and understand our policy on giving sources. It is not enough to say "anyone who knows anything about this subject would know this, so I don't have to give a citation." The article will be read (and, indeed, edited) by people who don't know the subject. Indeed, that's the point of an encyclopædia. To say to the reader: "I'll not tell you this, because you ought to know it already, you ignoramus." isn't good style.
  2. As Hadash is linked, it doesn't seem to me to be essential to explain it, though it's not a problem. Your comment betrays your partisanship, though, which is significant. I'm not editing here from a partisan position (I'd never heard of him before I came across this article, and am not desperately interested in him); I'm approaching this disinterestedly and dispassionately. Your passion and partisanship do, however, lead me to view your edits and claims with extra caution.
  3. Again, your understanding of what an article should be doing is faulty, as is your understanding of the role of editors. I'm not here to do research in order to offer a defence of this man; I'm just looking at the article, and seeing a neutral mention of a controversy removed in favour of a very negative account. The citations that you gave either didn't mention Pappé, or didn't meet our standards for sources (we don't accept blogs, message boards, etc.).
  4. The issue of the critics and defences section has been raised, and I'd already done a lot of tidying. My own view is that it should be removed altogether, as it's not in keeping with an encyclopædia article. I think now that I'll be bold and do so now. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
(Sigh) With the very greatest of respect, is it wise for you to rewrite this page if you know nothing about the subject? (We're all ignorant about certain things, which is why I, for example, don't rewrite entries on phenomenology or molecular biology.) Certainly your objections have no basis in any of the Wikipedia policies you mention, admin status notwithstanding.
1. Take the WP:CITE policy. This states: "All material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a source." My description of the New Historians is not in the least controversial (and their admirers wouldn't consider it in any way pejorative), as is obvious from the New Historians entry to which that sentence linked.
2. If the CP reference isn't a problem (and it's plainly true) then why do you keep removing it? Is it "passion and partisanship" to mention an undisputed fact? Is it "passion and partisanship" to object when you delete that undisputed fact (when I took care to stress that I do not suspect your motives for doing so)?
3. Originally you hinted that the "errors and infelicities" in my edits included failing to offer an "alternative view" of the Tantura affair. Since I had offered a list of facts (with citations), I asked you to explain what "alternative view" you had in mind. Now you admit that you don't know anything about the article you're rewriting yet complain that I offer a "very negative" account. But I didn't offer my POV. I offered a list of facts (with one negative comment from a historian, which I'm moving to the Criticism section). Either the factual claims are true and complete, in which case they should be left undisturbed, or they are are untrue, in which case they should be corrected, or they are true but incomplete, in which case editors who know something about the subject can augment them.
As for my Tantura citations, you say that these "either didn't mention Pappé, or didn't meet our standards for sources (we don't accept blogs, message boards, etc.)." I gave four citations. All but one mention Pappé. None are blogs. The first two are relevant reports from a major Israeli newspaper. The third is a page providing every single relevant newspaper report, journal article, legal document, etc. The fourth is a relevant public statement by a prominent Israeli historian who was a participant in the affair (to repeat: I'm moving this to the Criticism section).
4. Originally you worried that by giving equal attention to critics and supporters I was violating WP:NPOV. Apparently you've reconsidered: now you're worried that discussion of critics/supporters isn't in keeping with an encyclopaedia entry. Scores, if not hundreds, of Wikipedia BLPs mention the relevant controversies. I agree that these sections shouldn't be limited to quotations. Extra content would be welcome. Hopefully editors who know something about the subject will add it.
As before, I'm adding this to the main entry's discussion page so that all editors can see the issues in dispute between us, and comment if they wish.
Truthprofessor 21:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

In no particular order:

  1. I try to take people who write "(sigh)" seriously, I really do.
  2. You seem unable to make up your mind as to whether I don't know about this issue (in which case you make the anti-Wikipedia claim that I shouldn't be editing it) or am operating under some hidden aganda (which you define in terms of your own agenda).
  3. The quotations section looked messay, was unencyclopædic, and was out of keeping with other Wikipedia articles. There's no doubt room for a section that summarises genuine arguments for and against, but this wasn't it.
  4. The lead: what is said as part of an article on the New Historians doesn't remain NPoV when wrnched out of context and stuck in another article. That supporters of the new Historians wouldn't object to it is irrelevant.
    How is it POV to state that the New Historians hold controversial views? what is the context available in their article's lead which makes it NPOV to say that, but which is missing here? Isarig 22:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
    Because it's a change from saying that they have actually examined something to their merely having opinions — from doing the work of historians to being people with political views. I've edited it to include both; I hope that thta's an acceptable version. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. Perhaps you could provide the quotations that back up your claim from the citations that you give; having looked at the documents linked to, I couldn't see any. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear User:Mel Etitis:

I'll have to leave your latest rv for a while, since I'm in danger of violating WP:3RR, and since you're an admin I'm sure you wouldn't dream of putting me in that position. But I would like to remind you of WP:CIV, and refer you back to your nasty opening comment.

You yourself admitted that you don't know the first thing about this subject. I merely repeated your own admission. I stressed that I was not attributing any hidden agenda to you. I didn't say you shouldn't edit this article, I said you shouldn't rewrite it based on alleged knowledge (of unspecified "alternative views" of Tantura, etc.) that you obviously lack.

The criticism/praise sections are messy, but the solution is to add serious discussion in order to improve them, not to delete them. There's no "out of context" wrenching from the New Historians article, as any reader of that article can see.

On Tantura, I wrote that Pappe publicly backed Katz who had alleged a massacre, that Katz was sued for libel and retracted his claims then retracted the retraction, that his legal fee was paid by an ex-PA minister, and that the thesis was disqualified for research fraud. Quotations from the links I gave:

"Pappe was also at Katz's side during the public scandal engendered by the thesis. Recently he made an effort to prove that indeed there had been a massacre at Tantura..." (link 2)
"Alexandroni veterans filed a libel suit. During the trial, which was widely covered in Israel and aroused interest abroad, Katz retracted some of the main points in the chapter on Tantura. But immediately thereafter, he changed his mind and went back to maintaining his original claims." (link 2)
"Former Palestinian Authority minister Feisal Husseini paid $8,000 for the legal defense of historian Teddy Katz..." (link 1)
"In light of the court case, the university reexamined the paper and ordered Katz to correct the significant discrepancies between the oral history cassettes he recorded and his transcriptions. Finding his modified work unsatisfactory, the university took the paper off its library shelves and asked other Israeli universities to do likewise." ([4], listed at link 3 - the original Hebrew documents and reports are also there)

I'd like to point out that your grounds for rv'ing my edits have shifted repeatedly. You complained that my Hadash edit was unclear about the candidate list, and then, when I modifed it accordingly, insisted that you had no problem with the CP reference but rv'ed it anyway. You hinted that you knew of some "alternative view" on Tantura, then admitted that you knew nothing about the subject but asserted that a simple list of facts was "very negative," hence POV. You claimed that my Tantura citations didn't mention Pappe and were taken from blogs., etc., then, when I pointed out that they did mention Pappe and came from authoritative sources, you gingerly accused me of lying about their contents, which I did not. You accused me of POV for giving equal attention to Pappe's critics and supporters, then abandoned that claim and deleted the whole section because it was "messy," having previously restored the quotations in their original "messy" but unbalanced state. I respect your obvious dedication as an admin, but please stop offering baseless objections, shifting your ground, and inadvertently tempting knowledgeable editors to violate WP:3RR. Truthprofessor 23:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[5] doesn't mention Pappé, and is there to back up the irrelevant issue of who paid Katz's legal fees. [6] is the only one that provides backing (though I must say, it doesn't read like disinterested, dispassionate journalism to me, but let that pass); this is the one that I missed somehow, for which I apologise (the last link is to a directory listing of near-anonymous file names). It still seems to me that the paragraph that you inserted was somewhat PoV (why the reference to Katz' legal fees, for example?), but I've inserted what I hope is an acceptable version. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 00:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I can't see what the original mark Katz's thesis received has to do with Pappé, nor what degree he received. perhaps an article on Katz should be created, and the details moved there. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

As you originally edited it, the article suggested that Katz did not receive an MA, which is not the case. So I edited it to include this fact, and put in a reference to the detailed account by Zalman Amit in Counterpunch. The fact that the University originally awarded Katz an exceptionally high mark for the thesis, and then under pressure rejected it, is relevant to Pappé's support for Katz, and should be noted. I did not want to increase this part of the article on Pappe significantly, and agree that an article on Katz or Tantura would be in order (there is a very brief and unsourced account in Alexandroni Brigade). RolandR 15:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I'd thought of the latter point, but wasn't sure that it justified the inclusion; still, fair enough. I missed the fomer point completely, for some reason. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mel Etitis, what an improvement

I only just noticed *after* I reverted the latest bad set of edits how much better the article looks now after your rewrite. Thank you for removing the poorly done "Criticism and Praises" section, for one thing, which had really degraded the article. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 09:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Protection

I've protected the article for a while, as it's clearly under attack by someone who's using throwaway vandalism-accounts. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 21:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

semi-protect than, and block users.--BMF81 08:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../i/l/a/Talk%7EIlan_Papp%C3%A9_8996.html"