 | This article was nominated for deletion on 12 November 2023. The result of the discussion was keep. |
 | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
yeor
editI dont think that really merits mention here, we dont need to use crap sources to provide "balance". nableezy - 16:05, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Nableezy: any objection to merging this article into Palestinian nationalism? Onceinawhile (talk) 16:07, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
- Like it or not, Ye'or's book informs (without any cogent analysis of 'information') a lot of the clichés and festering polemics that flow through mainstream media accounts. If I have any expertise it is in 'morology', how nonsense, if bruited about insistently, inflects or underpins arguments and attitudes that occur in the mainstream. Unless you read this background - sure, it's airheaded bullshit- you can't grasp what hasbara is about, or why irrational emotionalism (the kind of thing this kind of urgent stirring of the stereotypes seeding hostility creates) persuades even 'normal people' to embrace ridiculous ideas. In my field, everybody knew a motherlode of nonsense interleaved standard discourse, but they ignored it, skipping the pages, yawning 'oh, that stuff', in order to get to the 'gist' or 'grist' of an argument. All I did was focus on the nonsense, and explain the function it had within the premises of mainstream scholarship. I don't think either of you are aware of this cognitive alliance, which is certainly not restricted to the I/P area.
- You don't get anywhere ignoring a discourse that is recurrent, because it looks, on the face of it, stupid. Had the Democrats taken with high strategic seriousness Richard Hofstadter's seminal study The Paranoid Style in American Politics, we wouldn't have the mess of contemporary politics, there or elsewhere, which for decades pretending that this cast of manipulation of popular opinion by hysterical mongering about plots, conspiracies, or threats, was just an obvious rhetorical ploy. BY's books are profoundly stupid, but influential. Twitter and Facebook sites that, on the basis of a leaked transcript of Hillary Clinton's emails, deduced that she and the Democratic Washington elite were engaged in a global pedophilia racket, all this deduced from mention of eating 'CP' (Cheese pizza). Some lunatic read that as a code for Child Pornography. Well,90 million people clicked on those pages 'like' and some screwballs got guns, went to Washington and shot up the pizza place named, 'to save America's children'. The same with anti-Vaxxers, the same with the ballistic exaggeration of a global anti-Semitism new wave that even dethroned Corbyn and wrecked the Labour Party. 87% of British Jews were convinced by an hysterical newspaper campaign that they were unsafe in GB, whereas the best informed sociological analysis of British attitudes, at the same time, were saying that party was just behind the Social Democrats as the least anti-Semitic political formation in the country, far below the Conservative party and the Brexit mob. Bullshit scaremongering trumped reality. Absurdity has an impact, and you don't turn your back on it because anyone with a 'normal' cognitive ability to thresh hearsay from facts wouldn't fall for it.
- As to merging, this will be too large for that. You can link it as a 'main article' somewhere in Palestinian nationalism. For it is not stricto sensu about Palestinian nationalism, but the way varieties of thinking about Palestinian identity are wrung through the ideological washer by polemical twits to construe it as some malevolent, devious attack on Jews or Israel.Nishidani (talk) 16:36, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
- It isnt about liking it, Yeor's book simply is not a reliable source and as such we should not be using it. If theres some reliable source discussing the views of Yeor then cite that. As to a merge, no, do not want that. This is just a start and it is about the terminology, which is its own topic and the parent article would be too large to include it in. nableezy - 20:18, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
- This is a reading issue. I am not using Bat's batty book as a reliable source for facts. Indeed, I cite secondary literature on it showing she gets her key fact wrong. I am citing it for her views, which, unfortunately, are notable because they are constantly recycled in RS and elsewhere. Stupid theories, if influential, should be glossed. I read a lot of this crap (Oriana Fallaci legitimized it in Italy and one can detect her influence in numerous talk shows, articles and even books, even when she is not mentioned). People shouldn't be obliged to read bullshit. They should be helped to be recognize it, so that they can see it where it is otherwise not apparent. I can't make anything of the poignancy of the contrast between Bat Ye'or and Edward Said: Both grew up in Egypt, he as a dispossessed refugee per the nakba, she an exile after the Suez Crisis. She lamented the dissolution of Egypt's impressive Jewish community, felt she was a victim of Muslim intolerance (the fact that Israel's creation and subversive activities in Egypt 1948-56 were in part responsible is lost on her), and her warrant was to vindicate Israel. The Israel that caused Said's loss of his Palestinian identity. Said grew up where Jews, Christians and Muslims coexisted, and spent his life arguing for that in I/Pland. Bat learnt to hate the Arab world, and blindly support a state which crushed Muslims in Palestine: Said used Palestinianism to try to accommodate the two visions, Zionist and Arab nationalism. No one notes that in sources, but the juxtaposition lends itself to grasping it. Nishidani (talk) 11:14, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
- It isnt about liking it, Yeor's book simply is not a reliable source and as such we should not be using it. If theres some reliable source discussing the views of Yeor then cite that. As to a merge, no, do not want that. This is just a start and it is about the terminology, which is its own topic and the parent article would be too large to include it in. nableezy - 20:18, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
- If a non-RS views' are recycled in RS then use those RS (with attribution) to source the non-RS views. If no RS ever quote the non-RS then wikipedia should also not quote the non-RS.VR talk 04:24, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
- Bat Ye'or is widely quoted in books. I would never cite her books for any historical statement. I cite her works for her views, which should be known because they are picked up or reflected all over the place in polemics. She has zero credibility as an historian, but that doesn't interest me. There is such a discipline as the study of ideology and indeed historicizing ideology (Hayden White) etc. I cite her assertions about the origins of Palestinianism and then add a competent source noting that she was completely wrong in her claims. Nishidani (talk) 10:09, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
- The true scandal of nableezy and nishidani will one day be written as a PhD dissertation/s and then books eventually.
- You're winning for now, but the truth will always be victorious in the end, and the truth will have all the secondary and primary sources that academic peer reviewed criteria will require, though it won't make it into Wikipedia 😉.
- The wikipedia article on the Shaikh massacre is a hilarious example, but that's just a tip of the iceberg.
- And no, my name is not David Collier. 172.58.231.160 (talk) 10:02, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
- Bat Ye'or is widely quoted in books. I would never cite her books for any historical statement. I cite her works for her views, which should be known because they are picked up or reflected all over the place in polemics. She has zero credibility as an historian, but that doesn't interest me. There is such a discipline as the study of ideology and indeed historicizing ideology (Hayden White) etc. I cite her assertions about the origins of Palestinianism and then add a competent source noting that she was completely wrong in her claims. Nishidani (talk) 10:09, 6 December 2021 (UTC)