Talk:Ilan Pappé/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

errors of fact

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

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)

This is the only place I ever heard of Tantura and Katz - expand the section or give it an article of its own.159.105.80.141 17:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

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. --Zero^talk 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. --Zero^talk 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)

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)

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. --Zero^talk 12:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

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. --Zero^talk 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. --Zero^talk 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. --Zero^talk 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)

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. --Zero^talk 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)".[1] Amoruso 11:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

That article is dated 20/09/2001, not recently. --Zero^talk 14:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes , it's a quote from the article. Amoruso 14:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

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. --Zero^talk 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)

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)

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)

• I'll address you points at the article Talk page. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:54, 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." ([2], 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)

[3] doesn't mention Pappé, and is there to back up the irrelevant issue of who paid Katz's legal fees. [4] 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)

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)

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)

Leaving to the UK because of "harrassment"

• http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1173879227334

--70.48.68.93 21:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Saw a documentary by him recently - public TV. Interesting speaker, but most of what he said ( not the minute details ) is already well known, even by nonspecialists. Only Israelis/Zionists think they were/are/will be the good guys. Actually I doubt they give a damn about being the good guys as long as they win - "good guys" concept is just propaganda/schooling for the mass of followers I suppose.159.105.80.141 11:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

criticism

There should be criticism part about him.I am sure some people have something to say about him.

indeed. criticism parts are common in these articles, and they were removed by POV warriors in the past sadly. Amoruso (talk) 11:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Pappe's admission that he doesn't care for facts (This is a disputed allusion)(Maybe but he said it)

Should be in the intro or a prominent place. Else, the notion that this person is an historian is seriously misleading. Amoruso (talk) 01:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

On Sunday, March 11, the Washington Post published profiles written by Scott Wilson of two Israeli professors: Ilan Pappe and Benny Morris. The profile of Pappe, "A Shared History, A Different Conclusion," did not provide key context about why he is so reviled in Israel.

Ilan Pappe, a history lecturer at the University of Haifa, freely admits that, in his view, facts are irrelevant when it comes to the history of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. "Indeed the struggle is about ideology, not about facts, Who knows what facts are? We try to convince as many people as we can that our interpretation of the facts is the correct one, and we do it because of ideological reasons, not because we are truthseekers," Pappe said in an interview with the French newspaper Le Soir, Nov. 29, 1999.

Elsewhere, Pappe elaborated on his attitude toward historical investigation and academic objectivity: "Historical Narratives . . . when written by historians involved deeply in the subject matter they write about, such as in the case of Israeli historians who write about the Palestine conflict, is motivated also...by a wish to make a point" (History News Network, April 5, 2004.) A more complete collection of Pappe's statements repudiating the value of historical facts is available here.

In light of Pappe's openness about his contemptuous view of scholarship, and his rejection of historical facts in favor of ideology, it is negligent that Scott Wilson's profile of him omits this key context. The piece portrayed the Haifa historian as a "revisionist scholar" who languishes in "nearly complete isolation" in Israel supposedly due to his alleged myth-busting research and political views, in which he opposes the existence of a Jewish state, even within its 1948 boundaries. For example, Wilson quotes without challenge Pappe's absurd allegation that "My research debunked all of the lessons about Israel's creation that I had been raised on." Amoruso (talk) 01:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The passage above, although signed by Amoruso, was not written by him. It was in fact taken verbatim from CAMERA [5]. RolandR (talk) 08:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

No kidding ? It's why I sourced it in the article and if you followed through instead of coming in as a fringe extremist political activist yourself (and therefore should stay out of this artice), you'd know it. Amoruso (talk) 19:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

An accurate presentation of his views then would be that Pappe views certain historians as biased, not that he rejects facts. And this would be better placed in the "Politics" section, not the intro. --MPerel 01:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Amoroso inserted CAMERA's gloss on Pappe's words, "freely admits that, in his view, facts are irrelevant when it comes to the history of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict", as Wikipedia's voice on the subject. But CAMERA is being intentionally obtuse here. In one of the sources CAMERA quotes Pappe says " We believe and hope that this narrative is a loyal reconstruction of what happened..."[6], but CAMERA ignores this. Pappe may be profoundly foolish, but CAMERA nonetheless misrepresents him. Andyvphil (talk) 10:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

CAMERA attributes this comment to "an interview with the French newspaper Le Soir, Nov. 29, 1999". However, Le Soir is a Belgian newspaper, not a French one. And an archive search at their site [7] finds no mention of Pappé on that date: "0 document(s) correspond(ent) à votre requête: articles publiés entre le 29 nov. 1999 et le 29 nov. 1999 et avec le mot 'pappe'." So, without a verifiable url, I am reluctant to accept CAMERA's word that this interview ever even took place, let alone that they have translated it accurately and quoted it in context. As it stands, the alleged quote simply cannot be included in the article. RolandR (talk) 10:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, there is no such language as Belgian, so I'm not inclined to put too much weight on CAMERA calling Le Soir "French". I don't parlez francais but... maybe this one? CAMERA may be quoting a reprint or translation...? You can also ask them. I don't credit their interpretation, but I am unsympathetic to excluding the quote. I don't think they made it up, and as long as it's cited to them and not directly to Le Soir I'm going to be in favor of allowing it in if someone uses it reasonably. Andyvphil (talk) 11:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Your link seems to be to a different article about the New Historians, not to the alleged interview with Pappé. As far as I can see, CAMERA has made this interview up; certainly, they provide no source, and Le Soir's archive does not appear to hold such an interview. I certainly will not ask CAMERA anything -- the onus is on those who would introduce this material to establish that it is true. And the fact that they describe Le Soir as a French (not French-language, or Belgian) newspaper suggests that they have not actually seen the alleged source themselves. RolandR (talk) 11:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

it really is quite amusing to try and deny the existence of the le soir interview, lol. Amoruso (talk) 19:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Particularly since Pappe reproduces it on his own site.[8] And another version is already an External Link to this article.Andyvphil (talk) 22:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The interview on Pappé's own site is not from Le Soir, but MSA News; which is why a search in the Le Soir archive did not find it. But the link he gives [9] doesn't work, and nor does any link to the MSANews site [10]. Nor can I find these using the Internet Archive. The interview on Pappé's own site, provided it is correctly attributed (ie, not to Le Soir), is acceptable; and it makes clear that he is not arguing, as is alleged, that "facts are irrelevant". What he says is "Indeed the struggle is about ideology, not about facts. Who knows what facts are? We try to convince as many people as we can that our interpretation of the facts is the correct one, and we do it because of ideological reasons, not because we are truth-seekers." (emphasis added). "Our interpretation of the facts" -- there is no denial of the relevance of facts, no suggestion of invention or lying, but rather, an explanation -- and not particularly contentious, in my view -- of what all historians, at all times, have tried to do -- to contextualise, to understand, to explain. Given this source, I will continue to remove any claim that Pappé "doesn't care for facts". —Preceding unsigned comment added by RolandR (talk • contribs) 23:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed Andyvphil :) , it is why I found it to be amusing, and I wanted to see if Roland or others will see it themselves, or admit that they have. But all of that is not as nearly as amusing as Roland's statement that because PLAUT IS NOT SAYING "TRUE" THINGS, then he's not WP:RS. :) Amoruso (talk) 00:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

My guess is that Plaut saw it in Le Soir but they don't archive it since they picked it up from a service. Anyway, Plaut is not "saying true things". Not entirely, anyway. Pappe's "Who knows what facts are?" is a truly stupid thing to say (yes, Derrida, etc., blah,blah,blah - obtunded), but he is not saying what Plaut, and then CAMERA channelling Plaut, says he says. As I've already demonstrated. If you can't find a third party commenting on Plaut's or similar misrepresentation the quote I supplied should go in the article. And Plaut's other passing references should also be explicated. But this is a "Criticism" section and Plaut's criticism of Pappe is exactly the subject of this section. Let me say that again: Plaut's comments are the subject of this section, not a source for it! Andyvphil (talk) 01:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your analysis. Amoruso (talk) 02:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

This source/subject distinction does not seem to have much relevance to the issue at hand, which is including Plaut's interpretation of the Le Soir interview. Have reliable secondary sources commented on the primary source's (Plaut's) criticisms? Or is this just something that bounced around the usual right-wing / pro-Israel blogs and advocacy sites?

Keep in mind that WP:BLP requires that criticisms be weighed very carefully in terms of their overall relevance to the subject's notability. Pappe is known for a lot of things, but being criticized by some Business professor isn't one of them. I'm inclined to think the entire section should go. <eleland/talkedits> 03:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Steven Plaut is not "some business professor". If you think he is, file an AfD. Yes, it is widely noted in RS that Pappe is widely criticized. And we can quote examples. Andyvphil (talk) 07:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, of course Pappé's views are controversial, and have attracted criticism and praise, which we should report in proportion. What matters is which criticisms are significant to Pappé's notoriety as a whole, and whether we choose to present them with long direct quotes of the most incendiary language we can find, or conservatively, neutrally, and dispassionately. Check WP:BLP#Criticism, please. For the life of me, I can't understand why some Wikipedians always want to reach for the likes of Plaut, CAMERA, Campus Watch, etc for criticisms of the Israeli left. The Israeli left has plenty of respectable critics. Benny Morris's criticisms, for example, are clearly significant and relevant, and he's a reliable, knowledgeable source. There are plenty of Ha'aretz or Jerusalem Post or Yediot Ahronoth editorials by respected and relevant figures you could use. Why repeat the views of mudslingers and McCarthyites instead? <eleland/talkedits> 16:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

We repeat the views of those whom you consider "mudslingers and McCarthyites" because their "criticisms are significant to Pappé's notoriety as a whole". If you believe Plaut's criticism "represents the views of a tiny minority [and therefor] has no place in the article" then you are deluded. Andyvphil (talk) 07:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, you've said that. Would you care to provide any evidence whatsoever to back that? Or would you rather just insult me? <eleland/talkedits> 08:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Am I missing something here? Since Pappe published the interview with the disputed remarks on his own website, why not quote the remarks in the profile, link to his website and then add a sentence pointing out that these remarks have been seized on by his critics (some of whom appear to have given the wrong source)? Hecht (talk) 11:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The original post is foolish. Pappe is not saying 'I don't care about facts'!

Historians often talk candidly about the nature of 'facts', and how hard it is to prove them. Pappe is saying that people are usually (and in part hence) motivated in life by ideology - and how people's idelogical passion leads them to see only the 'facts' that suite them. These are age-old arguments! Pappe would also be expected to be philosophical in a French newspaper.

The context is French, the meaning is clear!

The 'lessons of Israels creation' that Pappe learnt at school, are based on 'facts' he says he can actually disprove (or 'debunk').

The context is clear. Pappe is clear. --Matt Lewis (talk) 11:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The text { "Indeed the struggle is about ideology, not about facts. Who knows what facts are? We try to convince as many people as we can that our interpretation of the facts is the correct one, and we do it because of ideological reasons..."} is on Pappe's own site right here: An Interview with Ilan Pappe by Baudouin LoosStellarkid (talk) 01:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

In his book,A history of modern Palestine: one land, two peoples. Pappe says "My bias is apparent despite the desire of my peers that I stick to facts and the 'truth' when reconstructing past realities. I view any such construction as vain and presumptuous. .....In short, mine is a subjective approach, often but not always standing for the defeated over the victorious....." pgs. 11-12 [11] History is not about "standing" for one side or the other, being "subjective" or dissing facts and 'truth'. {"Don't bother me with the facts"} Amoruso is absolutely right. Pappe cannot be considered a serious historian! Stellarkid (talk) 01:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Some observations

This needs some substantial editorial work. His reply to Morris for example is paraphrased as follows:-

'he rejects all serious criticism, but admits mistakes of dates, names and numbers, indicates cases in which Morris did the same.'

Need anyone be reminded that 'he rejects all serious criticism' means Pappe refuses to accept serious criticism of his work? Nishidani (talk) 17:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

To me, it came off as a clumsy way of saying, "He disputes all of Morris's more serious allegations", as in, he acknowledges getting a name or date wrong, while denying that his overall line of argument is problematic or shaky. I didn't take it as a blanket statement, although it could be read that way. <eleland/talkedits> 17:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Page protection

It seems RolandR has managed to freeze the Plaut criticisms out of the article by deleting them and then seeking page protection. Andyvphil (talk) 09:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Copied from WP:Requests_for_page_protection:

Ilan Pappé (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

temporary full protection Dispute, To prevent continued re-insertion, in breach of WP:BLP, of second-hand defamatory allegations. These allegations have already been removed as unfounded when attributed to original sources; the attribution to convicted libeller Steven Plaut does not grant them credibility.RolandR (talk) 08:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Fully protected Please come back and request unprotection when the dispute is resolved. Good luck! :) Jmlk17 08:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

disputed Criticism section text:

Prof. Steven Plaut has said about Pappé: "Pappé is a notorious fabricator, someone who claims proudly that facts and truth are of no importance. "Indeed the struggle is about ideology, not about facts, Who knows what facts are? We try to convince as many people as we can that our interpretation of the facts is the correct one, and we do it because of ideological reasons, not because we are truthseekers," the French newspaper Le Soir, has cited Pappe as saying. Even other anti-Zionists have repudiated Pappé as a liar and fabricator. He openly calls for Israel to be exterminated and endorses Hamas. He dedicated one of his "books" to the hope that his children can group up in a world in which there is no Israel. He openly endorses Arab terrorism. He considers Noam Chomsky insufficiently anti-Israel".

It is indisputable that Plaut said these things. eland has characterized him as "an obscure extremist with a penchant for libel", but it seems to me that he's not so "obscure" that the attention Pappe receives from Plaut is not highly "relevant to the subject's notability" and that quoting him neither "overwhelm[s] the article or appear[s] to side with the critics". Check WP:BLP#Criticism, please. The text can be improved by identifying and supplying evaluatory material for each of Plaut's points, but trying to pretend that these criticisms of Pappe are not made is idiotic. Andyvphil (talk) 09:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The fact that Steven Plaut, who "has a long history of attacking, labeling, and targeting left-wing scholars in Israel" [12], and who has been found guilty by an Israeli court of libelling another academic [13], repeats these scurrilous allegations is irrelevant. When the allegations themselves were put in the article, they were deleted as unfounded. The description of Pappé as "a notorious fabricator" is defamatory and potentially libellous; it should nnot be repeated in an article without more serious evidence than the say-so of a hostile polemicist. There does not seem to have been any interview in Le Soir, and the trext cited does not state what Plaut claims it does. No sources are given for the alleged "anti-Zionists" who apparently consider him a liar.

To rely on the word of this notorious smearer in order to insert defamatory and potentially libellous assertions into a Wikipedia article would be foolish in the extreme. RolandR (talk) 09:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's see... Plaut is a "notorious smearer", but when we quote him saying Pappe is a "notorious fabricator" you fear Wikipedia is being defamatory? Is your legal insurance policy paid up? ... But, of course, that is nonsense. We also quote Morris saying "Unfortunately much of what Pappe tries to sell his readers is complete fabrication..." and link to Pappe calling Morris an "abominable racist". In the real world this discussion is not taking place on an elevated plane, and if we pretend it is we are misrepresenting reality. I will insist on this article not misrepresenting reality. Andyvphil (talk) 10:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC) ...and, oh yes, I think it quite probable that the interview was picked up by Le Soir, but Pappe says we shouldn't worry much about details like that. Which is one of Morris' criticisms of Pappe. But there you are. Andyvphil (talk) 10:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Pappé and Morris are both reputable historians, who attempt to interpret the factual evidence. Plaut is a polemicist with no historical training, with a long record of attacking left-wing academics in Israel, who has been convicted of libel in one such case. If you can't see the difference, it suggests you are deliberately closing your eyes.

You think it is "quite probable" that the interview was picked up by Le Soir; but the paper's archive does not contain this, or anything similar. The interview certainly took place; why the insistence on attributing it to Le Soir? And, irrespective of its source, the interview does not establish, despite Plaut's claims, that Pappé argues that "facts and truth are of no importance". —Preceding unsigned comment added by RolandR (talk • contribs) 10:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Andyvphil You seem to ignore an important distinction. Pappé is an historian, subject to peer review by his colleagues. When an eminent historian of Morris's standing makes criticisms of Pappé they rightly find a place on this page. When similar things are said by a smearer, who is not an historian, who has been convicted of libel, and who is known to distort and misreport consistently his opponents' views for publicitarian ends, then they cannot be sourced, especially in a biography of a living person.

Morris is a reliable source for Morris's views on Pappé. Plaut is not a reliable source for Pappé's views on the distinction between 'facts' (the empirical elements of historical analysis) and 'ideology' (the subjective slant by historians which moulds the way the facts adduced are selected and represented). Most readers will not be familiar with the epistemological theories of historical representation which lie behind the distinction Pappé makes. Plaut, apparently exploiting this unfamiliarity, uses Pappé's words to make a caricature that looks as though Pappé admits to 'fabricating' facts, when Pappé's not uncommon view is that the ideological mindset of historians, by selecting only those facts that support their respective preconceptions, inevitably 'fabricate' history. There is a very long and respectable history for this position, and Plaut's trite little gaming of Pappé's remarks intentionally ignores it in order to make Pappé out to be someone like himself, a witting manipulator of records.

I agree therefore with others that we have a rich harvest out there for critics of Pappé who belong to his profession. To drag in a rank outsider like Plaut, with no competence to judge what Pappé is saying, and a strong record for fabricating and distorting other people's words, is to introduce into the page material that is of extremely poor quality, bitchy gossip and smearing.Nishidani (talk) 10:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The Plaut quote is clearly libellous, and it’s not for WP to repeat unsubstantiated libel. Imagine if people used quotes like this for every biography? I’m sure they exist somewhere for most controversial people if you go looking for them! Wikipedia isn't a playground to gang up on someone with all the bullies and fruitcakes you can find! As a rule of thumb - the healthier the quote, the stronger the argument. We must keep to some gentlemanly standards here! --Matt Lewis (talk) 20:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Which part is libel? Andyvphil (talk) 21:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Has Pappe called for Israel to be 'exterminated'? If someone made an attack like Plaut did in the UK, he would be in the dock in no time. You can't use slanderous language like that unless you can seriously back it up. He has painted a horrendous picture of Pappe.' --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Andyvphil asks "Which part is libel?". Well, for a start, the unqualified assertion that "Pappé is a notorious fabricator"; the unsubstantiated statement that " other anti-Zionists" (unspecified) "have repudiated Pappé as a liar"; the false claims that he "openly calls for Israel to be exterminated" and "endorses Arab terrorism". RolandR (talk) 22:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The page is still locked by Wikipedia. Andyvphill has declared that he will always revert the deletion of this quote - making discussion now pointless here. We can't use 'editprotect' at the moment as currently the quote isn't in! What can we do? Can we report him? Shall we cast a vote on consensus (I know Wikipedia prefers other routes)? Where next? It makes a mockery of Wikipedia to let one man stop the show! --Matt Lewis (talk) 10:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

problem of renown ?

I'm not willing to restrict discussion of Pappe to those who belong to his profession. He is a political actor and activist and public figure and his subject is not Sumerian tablets. And what he writes on electronicintefada.net is not subject to peer review by his colleagues and is no more reliable than Plaut. Who isn't, as I've noted from my first comment on this subject, so stop beating that dead strawman. Plaut's criticisms are both typical and also themselves repeated, and would have a place in the Criticism section even if they were entirely false, which they are not. No one is saying you can't supply further rebuttal where appropriate if the other material in the article does not sufficiently serve that purpose. Andyvphil (talk) 11:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, discuss it as much as you like here, but any attempt to shovel in trashing slanders from third-rate sources, as you also tried on the Norman Finkelstein page, will be eliminated. Nothing of what you remark withstands critical scrutiny

(1)That Pappé is a political activitist is sand-in-the-eyes. Plaut is discussing his academic work, and there nothing he says holds water. If you want to cite Plaut on Pappé's non academic work, that would be possible,

(2)That Pappé published on electronicintifada.net a response to Morris which New Republic turned down was an exercise in freedom of reply denied to him by the rag which carried Morris's criticism. I.e. it is an historian replying to an historian writing in a forum which denied him the normal right of reply.

(3)I see you assert that Plaut's criticisms are 'not' 'entirely false', i.e. you endorse them. That is not our function here. Nishidani (talk) 11:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi,

Nishidani, I don't think you can/should assume Andyvphil is pro-israeli. He is far from that.

I think rather that Andyvphil defends the point of view that "anybody" deserves a room.

(I conclude that from the fact he reverted 10 times Alithien who tried to remove Shahak from an article).

So, I guess it is more a question of "liberalism/orthodoxy" than a question of "pro/anti-israel/palestine".

Am I right Andyvphil ? Ceedjee (talk) 19:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Pretty close. But it's not that they deserve a platform so much as it is that it is a reality that they have one. We quote Idi Amin on the Allegations of apartheid page not because he is right (or a historian) but because the article would be remiss in describing its subject if it omitted him. "This source/subject distinction does not seem to have much relevance to the issue at hand", says eleland, but he is simply wrong. A section on criticism of Pappe is remiss if it omits Plaut because, as Amoroso says, ~"Plaut is Plaut"~, i.e. rightly blue-linked as a significant commentator on this subject. You quote Plaut and then, as Hecht said above, add context. And I will not stop at 10 in reverting the deletion of Plaut. Andyvphil (talk) 20:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I have an academic bias, admittedly. If someone gives a paper on Shakespeare and cites Stanley Wells, G.Wilson Knight, A.C. Bradley, Park Honan,Terry Eagleton, Joel Fineman, Stephen Booth, then Mark Twain and Looney, and the de Verean twits on some complex issue, I tend to worry about their sanity in treating on a par with frontline scholarship the fringe lunatic confusions of the latter two, and the obiter dicta of Mark Twain. Encyclopedias, unless in the age of the internet they are to fall prey to the jabber of cant that passes for commentary, and which floods the net, and is accessed far more than the serious scholarship resident in books, easily available in libraries, or on occasion online, are supposed to give comprehensive information incisively on a subject. In most of the 'controversial figures' pages, POV warring over trite tabloid citations sweeps out any attempt to give a precise succint account of the books and articles the Pappés, Finkelsteins and Levys of this world produce. The criticism section outweighs immensely the actual book and article-work of the subject. And thus, if Andyvphil's line is to be adopted, we will have no understanding of what a writer says and thinks on the subject he specializes in (look at this page, nary a glance at Pappé's scholarship), and a huge blaring volume of sound-bites traded over the net-chat business, clipped for polemical showcasing.

In other words, what do you want, ephemera dredged up lazily by a couple of clicks on what the search-engine gives you in an idle hour, or serious matter that is informative instead of being the jetsam of the disinformatsia battles of POVers crowding the net, and wiki in order to convert the uncertain this way or that? Andyvphil 's defense strikes me as a championing of junk. I dislike junk.

This has nothing to do with POV. If I come across a trenchant technical critique of a writer or thinker I admire, I feel enriched, not imperilled. Intelligent disagreement is the mark of all qualitative thought. Plaut's platitudinous tripe's fit for bumf, not for brains, and, since Andyvphil has declared that, notwithstanding a lack of consensus, he ' will not stop at 10 in reverting the deletion of Plaut', he has prejudiced an intelligent discussion in the offing, by declaring before it is underway that he has already determined to push this crap. In saying as much, his bona fides as an interlocutor for this page is in doubt.

Ceedjee. As should be clear from above, I have no problems with those whom you call 'pro-Israeli' editors. My problem is solely with editors who keep assaulting pages with trivia, from wherever they are coming. Nishidani (talk) 22:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

If you think the quality of Pappe's academic work is insufficiently addressed in his article, go ahead and address it, and we will see what we will see. But Plaut is in. I've said why. The only question is how. The dialog starts when you address the real question. Andyvphil (talk) 22:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

@Nishidani. I know you don't have problem with pro-israeli editors. It just sounded from your comments that you thought Andyvphil had a pro-israeli bias. I think the whole matter is rather around the reknown to add somebody comment in an article. You consider as only valuable reknown acquired by scholarship; Andyvphil consider as valuable any pov that is from a "well-known" people.

I have some comments :

• Andyvphil, how do you measure the reknown of somebody ?
• Nishidani, why would a scholar mind be more important than another ?
• Andyvphil, where do you fix the limit ? How do you manage WP:Undue weight ?
• Nishidani, where do you fix the limit ? How do you evaluate the scholarship required to get somebody's mind in an article ?

Ceedjee (talk) 07:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Examples of Andyvphil's determination to edit the text in the way he personally wishes, irrespective of what other editors, even a virtual consensus of editors, may think. A patent violation of the rules.

(1)I will not stop at 10 in reverting the deletion of Plaut.'

(2)'But Plaut is in. I've said why. The only question is how.'Nishidani (talk) 10:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Ceedjee I am not saying non-scholars cannot appear. I am saying that WP:Undue Weight, as well as numerous other considerations, suggests that in dealing with a scholar, academic or thinker, we are obliged to focus primarily on his work, controversial or not, and what his peers, authorities academic or otherwise, say about it. Andyvphil's approach, technically, means that a minor economist from Haifa University, who happens to attack, usually with spittle foaming at his gills, whoever does not toe the ultramontane, and radical Zionist partyline he is enamoured of, must be cited on every page dedicated to academics critical of Israel's policies in the Occupied Territories, or of the standard version of Israel's history. The effect would be to give Plaut a prominence he doesn't deserve, because he is not taken seriously, except as a fringe buffoon among the pullulating pundits of pseuds' corner. What Plaut says, in the passage Andyvphil would introduce, repeats Morris's views, and therefore is pleonastic. I think Morris, Karsh and other critics of Pappé should be given a full airing. I don't think a quarrter-baked monitor of political correctness, with minor notoriety in the Israeli courts and the settlers' propaganda circuits, should be given space unless he comes up with an original and competent piece of criticism. He hasn't. What he does is provide a radical distortion of ideas already in circulation, from Pappé's serious critics, in order to fudge the issues and make Pappé out to be a factually malevolent propagandist for extremism (i.e. someone like himself). If we are to plaster Plaut's name on every page devoted to criticism of Israel, (which is the logical consequence of Andyvphil's procedure) then we are, inadvertently or not, making out a third-rate controversialist has more importance than he actually does. He writes for extremists, is not considered, as far as I can gather, noteworthy in serious scholarship on Israel and its historical relations with Palestinians. What he has to say has been said by far better scholars than he, so that, effectively, Andyvphil's stubborn attachment to giving him a voice constitutes a partisan promotion of a fringe figure. He evidently doesn't do this because he likes Plaut. Rather he does it because he likes noise, and not clarity.Nishidani (talk) 10:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Andyvphil, I think you should answer these questions and we all solve this issue because if it remains unsolved, editwarring will go on. Ceedjee (talk) 10:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Nishidani:"If you want to cite Plaut on Pappé's non academic work, that would be possible...". Plaut:"Even other anti-Zionists have repudiated Pappé as a liar and fabricator. He openly calls for Israel to be exterminated and endorses Hamas. He dedicated one of his 'books' to the hope that his children can group up in a world in which there is no Israel. He openly endorses Arab terrorism. He considers Noam Chomsky insufficiently anti-Israel". Nothing "academic" there. QED. Andyvphil (talk) 12:07, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Btw, Plaut is so non-notable that even Pappe reprints him. Nishidani wants us to be more Catholic than the Pope.[14] Andyvphil (talk) 12:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Andyvphil.

Please, refrain from personal attacks.

This is not a fight to determine who is right or not and in the eventuality somebody make a big mistake, there is no medal at the end. I think nevertheless when 2 pov's are correct, that is some sort of consensus that has to be found.

You didn't answer my questions... Where is your limit to what is acceptable for an encyclopaedia ?

I would like to point out that you found that Pappe quoted Plaut AFTER this quarrel occurred. So being right on the heart on the matter would nevertheless not justify your attitude.

Nishidani : do you agree that if A quotes B, that deserves B to be considered as a WP:RS to talk about A ? Ceedjee (talk) 13:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I can measure the renown of someone by looking at his article, by Googling him, web and book, etc. There's no metric, but Plaut passes. Easily. And I am equally concerned with giving undue weight to Pappe's dubious scholarship.

I am extremely tired of assuming the good faith of those whose blindness to the obvious somehow always fits with their political sympathies. So my patience is pretty thin. But, "Nishidani wants us to be more Catholic than the Pope" is not a personal attack. It's called irony. The subject is his argument, not his person... And Plaut is not a RS. He is a notable critic. His criticism is a significant contribution to Pappe's notoriety. That is the relevant criteria. Per policy. Andyvphil (talk) 13:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

What Nishidani says is that in an encyclopeadia, even if a mind it well known (notorious), it doesn't mean it deserves room or be quoted.

Because wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a "popular review".

I didn't understand the sentence "giving undue weight to Pappe's dubious scholarship". Do you mean it is "dubious" or do you mean it is not "dubious" ?

Ceedjee (talk) 15:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

(1)Even other anti-Zionists have repudiated Pappé as a liar and fabricator. (2)He openly calls for Israel to be exterminated and (3)endorses Hamas. (4)He dedicated one of his 'books' to the hope that his children can group up in a world in which there is no Israel. (5)He openly endorses Arab terrorism. (6) He considers Noam Chomsky insufficiently anti-Israel". Nothing "academic" there. QED

There are 6 assertions here, two of which I am familiar with. When someone, especially with Plaut's notorious record for misrepresentation and smearing, makes several charges about a living person, I think it sensible to check and source those charges to see if they can be substantiated by, in this instance, Pappè's record. Unless there is a minimal attempt to document the actual texts from which Plaut makes his accusations, we are obliged, by Andyvphil's techniques, to give a priority to the accusations of a known smearer over what Pappé may have actually said. I am also familiar with Pappé's views on Hamas, which are not an 'endorsement' of everything Hamas represents. Most of the other remarks are distortions of positions that are more finessed that Plaut makes out. Since this page deals with a living person, what he actually has said should first be substantiated, before we highlight or showcase the way those remarks have been represented/misrepresented by people like Plaut.

'Nota bene.Andyvphil writes: 'And I am equally concerned with giving undue weight to Pappe's dubious scholarship.' This is the third time Andyvphil has declared his deep hostility to Pappé's approach to historical scholarship, and that enmity clearly motivates his use of Plaut. I.e. he is googling up smear-chat in order to 'get at' someone he dislikes who happens to have a wiki page, and makes no bones about his intention to dredge up anything, from any source which vindicates his own prejudices about the person in question. Since this page is on Pappé, there's no question of 'giving undue weight' to Pappé's scholarly work, on the contrary, it is hardly mentioned, probably because editors like Andyvphil are bored by it or are unaware of it. The primary task of a serious editor would be to give due weight to his historical works and polemical articles, and then give due weight to serious critics, of which there are many.Nishidani (talk) 16:44, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Andyvphil writes above of Plaut "His criticism is a significant contribution to Pappe's notoriety". That might be true; but the passage which was inserted in the article was NOT Plaut's own criticism of Pappé; it was his misquotation and distortion of criticism attributed to others. When the specific allegations were put in the article, without the intermediacy of Plaut, they were removed by several editors as unfounded. The fact that Plaut recycles them does not make them any more true, it simply confirms that Plaut is not a reliable source. It's true that he has made these statements, but that does not mean that they should be included in the article. The most that could reasonably be included in the article is a statement such as "Haifa University academic Professor Steven Plaut, a noted right-wing polemicist who has been convicted by an Israeli court of libelling left-wing political scientist Professor Neve Gordon of Beersheba University, has alleged that others, including anti-Zionists, have been critical of Pappé's work." Anything else would give undue weight to the discredited allegations recycled by Plaut. RolandR (talk) 20:15, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Good. If we add RolandR 's "The most that could reasonably be included.." to Nishidani's "If you want to cite Plaut on Pappé's non academic work, that would be possible...", we can, perhaps, start.

And, no, I didn't "googl[e] up smear-chat". I didn't even add Plaut. I'm just resisting his removal on spurious grounds. The only thing I've "googled up" is rebuttal material to defective arguments.

Nishidani notes that much of Plaut's bill of particulars had appeared before on this page and has, after argument, been deleted. That was foolish. It merely ensured that it would reappear in some raw form to be fought over again. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. Any fool can come along and edit it and many do. The way to deal with false or unnuanced but pervasive material is to include it and then debunk it or supply nuance, as appropriate.

Now that I've seen Plaut misconstrue Pappe's inconsistencies I will be more hesitant to accept anything he says about, say, the Syrian economy. And since I've seen Pappe misrepresent Morris' trope about their earlier uneasy companionship I will similarly doubt his representation of the content any other source. That his command of Arabic didn't lead him to question Katz' inventive translations is also significant. And what scholarship is involved in his declaring the PFLP liberation fighters rather than terrorists? The idea that only historians or "political scientists" have standing to respond to him is untenable. Andyvphil (talk) 00:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Andyvphil,

It is true the Pappe misconstructs many things and I think he has many problems with his peers.

But is this really the matter ?

I want to point out that I think I now understand why you agree people such as Plaut, Shahak and... Pappe to be used as sources. Is it because it is unavoidable and rather than to try to "close the door" to some among them, you think it is better to open doors to all of them !

Do I understand you properly ?

I wrote somewhere : "Pappe is not a RS but he is a RS for wikipedia ?" Would you share this mind ?

Ceedjee (talk) 10:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The simplest solution for your problem is to plump Plaut's opinions about Pappè and a baker's dozen of other anti-Zionist Jewish critics on Plaut's page, under a section dedicated to his views. This is Pappé's page, not Plaut's, and the attention you are giving the latter is swamping both the exposition of Pappé's work, and the potential prominence of serious and competent criticism.

p.s.You ask, 'And what scholarship is involved in his declaring the PFLP liberation fighters rather than terrorists?' The same sort of scholarship that led generations of Israeli historians to omit from the biographies of Sharon, Shamir and Begin, and histories of the period, that these figures were, technically, terrorists and not, as the standard myth had/has it, 'liberation fighters.' In any case, this particular issue is not a question of scholarship, but of value judgements. Nishidani (talk) 10:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

This is not "Pappè's page". It is Wikipedia's page, on Pappè, and it has a section named "Criticism", and Plaut goes there even if the same statements are mentioned on Wikipedia's page about Plaut. It is false to assert that other criticisms of Pappè meed go unmentioned because Plaut's are mentioned. Feel free to add all the serious and competent criticism you like. And it is nearly exactly my point that on issues of value judgement scholarly credentials are pretty irrelevant. Andyvphil (talk) 00:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Contextually, 'Pappé's page' means that in Wiki, this is the page devoted to Pappé. Don't waste my time. I'll believe you when I see you spend more time expounding, on various wiki pages devoted to Israel's critics, what these people have actually written and said, and not just scooping up the driftwood of hearsay critical of them. You have, it appears, a native inability to distinguish, trivia from critical insight. Most of what passes for 'criticism' is merely the leached down dregs of one or two secondary sources written by competent critics. You like gossip, I prefer forensic evidence. Let me know if Madonna or Rudy Giuliani also has something critical to say of Pappé.Nishidani (talk) 09:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The page is supposed to be an honest unbiased appraisal of Pappe! Does the quote tie in with that or not? If the quote misleads, is unsubstantiated, or is an obvious falsehood by common consent (which is acceptable by Wikipedia) then it shouldn't be here!

Andyvpill - can you argue a case for the points in this quote that you demand is included? You need to be able to do that, even if you disagree with the case. You misunderstand Wikipedia if you think the quote should be included simply because the guy said it. Whatever Plaut's credentials are (and they seem mixed), the quote must be relevant. So can you argue a case for the actual points in the quote, and show us how it is relevant (in the sense of contributing a reasonable and substantiated appraisal of the article's subject - Pappe)? --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The views of critics should be represented if they are (1) relevant to the subject's notability and (2) can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and (3) so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics; rather, it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone.(numbers added)WP:BLP#Criticism (2) is not in question; (3) is a question of how to present the material, which I have said all along is the only question; (1) does not depend on any case for Plaut's points "contributing [to] a reasonable and substantiated appraisal of the article's subject"; the sole crteria is whether the criticism is relevant to Pappe's "notability", irregardless of the validity of the criticism. If Pappe is notable partly as a useful whipping boy for a significant branch of political thought we should quote an example (Plaut provides a good one) and then treat the material "in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics". Thus when Plaut says Pappe "openly calls for Israel to be exterminated" we should note that he's never said that, but also that his one-state solution is widely expected to result in the oppression of its Jewish minority with a significant and possibly catastrophic death toll. But we don't pretend Plaut didn't say it, or that every point doesn't refer to something. Andyvphil (talk) 20:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

To repeat, since it doesn't seem that you are paying any attention to my argument, Plaut is NOT himself criticising Pappé. Rather, he claims that other, unspecified, people do. In every instance where it has been possible to check Plaut's assertions, they have turned out to be distorted, groundless or simply lies. If an editor added the statement "Even other anti-Zionists have repudiated Pappé as a liar and fabricator", without any reference or verification, it would quite rightly, and probably without dissent, be removed. So why can it be included when attributed to Steven Plaut, who has already been fined by an Israeli court after being found guilty of libelling another left-wing academic?

Nor would I accept a statement such as the one Andyvphil makes above, that a one-state solution "is widely expected to result in the oppression of its Jewish minority with a significant and possibly catastrophic death toll". Without a valid citation, we cannot include this sort of wild remark; and we would need several such citations in order to accept the claim that this is "widely expected". RolandR (talk) 22:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

To repeat, for the benefit of anyone who may be paying attention to this exchange, which you are not, since you are clearly ignoring my argument, it doesn't matter whether the basis of Plaut's criticism of Pappe is some original insight on his part. We are not using Plaut as a RS for the truth of his statements. And of course any statement about the expected result of Pappe's preferred one-state solution will be sourced. You're pounding away at strawmen again. Andyvphil (talk) 23:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Pappe's argument about idiologies creating the facts is starting to ring in my ears! This guy isn't reading our comments properly, and is clearly making up his own rules regarding what constitutes a fair quote. Is there another way around this? --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The rules I quoted are Wikipedia's. Andyvphil (talk) 23:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

AvP, source reliability applies to opinions as well as facts. WP:V does not distinguish between the two, in fact, it notes that "All articles must adhere to Wikipedia's neutrality policy, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view. Tiny-minority views and fringe theories need not be included[.]" Furthermore, "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking ... Questionable sources should only be used in articles about themselves." This would, in my view, exclude the views of a little-known extremist with a reputation for libel. <eleland/talkedits> 00:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Plaut is "significant minority", not "tiny minority". At least as significant as Pappe. And, again, he's not a source. He's the subject of the section. CAMERA and...um, didn't we find this quote on ilanpappe.org?...are the sources. Andyvphil (talk) 00:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

We're going in circles and this is getting ridiculous. Your interpretation would mean that any random self-appointed "critic" is suitable for biographies, just by making the critic "the subject of the section," whatever that means. You're free to interpret the rules however you like, but be aware that your view is very much contrary to established practice. I'll be removing any BLP-violating garbage from the likes of Plaut as soon as I see it, and if you insist on riding this hobby horse further, you're free to request comments or mediation, post at a noticeboard, etc. Hi-ho, Silver. <eleland/talkedits> 01:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)