Talk:David Cesarani

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Undue weight[edit]

At least 7 editors (JPTINS3000, Brewcrewer, Ip 184.107.140.234, Ip 188.138.72.121, Ip 120.136.44.9, MilitantLiberal and myself) have objected to the inclusion of a cherry picked quote from an interview Cesarani once gave , on the grounds of undeu weight. Could the editoers who insist on adding this seemingly random quote from a lenghthy interview show (a) how this is consistent with WP:WEIGHT and (b) that they have consensus for its inclusion . Red Stone Arsenal (talk) 14:45, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At least 2 of those are the same person, both blocked as socks of a banned account. It isnt a random quote, it is the subject of the article discussing his experiences. nableezy - 15:10, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct, "random" was a poor choice of words, I was trying to be nice. The quote was not randomly picked. Those 40 words were deliberately chosen from a 1400+ word interview because they cast Israel in a particularly poor light - which is the POV that the editors who keep on inserting this cherry-picked quote like to push. Why that quote, and not "Denying the right of Israel to exist begs some serious questions."? Or "some Arab towns, especially in southern Galilee, have welcomed the wall as a means of preventing Palestinians entering Israeli towns and adding to the unemployment and instability."? Both are also "the subject of the article discussing his experiences." and are surely just as relevant? Red Stone Arsenal (talk) 15:26, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is stopping you from adding additional material where it relevant. The quote you have repeatedly removed however is relevant to the section it is in. nableezy - 17:50, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia's intent is not to replicate all available print or online material. Just beacuse soemthing was printed somewhere does not autoamtically qualify it for inclusion in an article . Can you explain how that 40-word quote, which is not about the article's topic (Cesarani), or the things he's most notbale for (reaseatch on the Holocaust), is consistent with WP:UNDUE? ALternatively, would you object to me replacing that quote with the equally relevant quote about the separtion wall, and if so, why? Red Stone Arsenal (talk) 18:10, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would object to you removing the quote, full stop. A number of other editors have likewise objected. A single quote is not a replication of all available print or online material. nableezy - 18:29, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
what kind of game are you playing? I complain about that quote being cherry-picked, you repsond , "add the others" and when I say that will result in duplication of the quoted sources you say "it's only one quote". Do you have a policy-based explanation for why that quote needs to be included, when multiple editors have objected to it on the grounds of WP:UNDUE? Red Stone Arsenal (talk) 23:12, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple others? I see two registered accounts and multiple sockpuppets. More than that has supported it on the grounds that it does not violate UNDUE, is verifiable, and is relevant. nableezy - 15:56, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I saw this listed at the Third Opinion project, but this is not a Third Opinion under the auspices of that project. Though I'm a regular volunteer there, I'm here just wearing my "regular editor" hat and not my "3O Wikipedian" hat this time. This is kind of a tough one. If you read the quote in the context of the article from which it was taken, it is clearly relevant in the context used there, that is, Cesarani's perspective, insight, and experience as a Jewish historian and his desire to avoid history built on half-truths. Taken out of that context and used as it is here in a wholly different context (only and simply his history as a youth) it is almost wholly irrelevant in that sole context and is clearly objectionable as giving undue weight to a single incident out of his youth. Taken out of its original context, it could be read as an example of Israeli perfidy but to allow it to do so would violate the original research policy by implying something about Israeli society as a whole or Israeli officials that it simply does not say. It begins "We were always told that ...". To that question, one must ask "Told by whom?" To presume any specific answer to that question is original research. Similarly, one must ask, "Why was that falsehood told?" Again, to presume any specific answer to that question is original research. Why? It could have been told to them by a person who was just another member of the kibbutz, but who had arrived there before them and seemed to have been informed about the history of the area, but who was actually enamored with romantic origins for old ruins and who was just as clueless about the actual origins of the ruins as was Cesarani. Does the quote seem to imply it was told more authoritatively than that? Yes, but it neither says it nor implies it so strongly that another explanation is not possible. To presume either one being necessarily correct is original research and to allow it to be used in a way that implies that is improper. In my opinion, if no one cares to bother to do the drafting that would be needed to put it into proper context, then it ought to be removed because it is clearly improper in the context in which it is now used. However, there is a problem that it has been in the article, in the context in which it is currently used, since the first creation of the article in 2005. The fact that it is there and has survived prior attempts to remove it suggests fairly strongly that it is there by implied consensus and I am loath to say that it ought to actually be removed over Nableezy's objection without a clear consensus to do so. Unless Nableezy withdraws that objection after seeing what I've said here, I'd suggest that Red Stone Arsenal withdraw his 3O request (unless some other 3O volunteer removes it due to what I'm saying here pursuant to the Third Opinion Paradox) and start a Request for Comments (a RfC would be improper so long as the 3O request is pending). Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:03, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but honestly I dont think this should have been listed at 3O anyway. Two other editors have also returned the material to the article, and their views also should be taken into account. nableezy - 16:33, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The number of editors for 3O is, like determination of consensus, usually determined by the number of editors involved in the talk page discussion, not the number of editors who have merely edited the article. But whether or not it should have been at 3O is really besides the point, isn't it, since I didn't join in here as a Third Opinion Wikipedian? The real question is whether or not the quote deserves to be in the article, at least in the way that it is there now. You've not articulated a reason that it should other than (a) it's relevant and (b) it's old and (c) there are a lot of folks who support it. None of those address the benefit of its inclusion in any substantial way. But you don't have to address it: (b) is enough to keep it in for the time being if you object to its removal, but I really cannot see it surviving a RFC or perhaps even a trip to a more substantial form of content dispute resolution, though I've been surprised before. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:48, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I do object to its removal. nableezy - 20:36, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

3O Response: Remove. Clearly a cherry-picked and POV snippet from the interview. The source is not about DC's general early life, or about his overall experience in the kibbutz. DC supplied the instance (about the ruins) as an illustration of how the politics in the region are subtle, skewed, complex, etc. Including this item in that article section, even if written fairly straightforwardly, is POV. It can go in to explain DC's views, in that section, but with much greater caution to ensure it is in the context of his overall views, as The Guardian article as done. To be clear, I say remove the entire sentence in that early life section. – S. Rich (talk) 20:34, 10 August 2013 (UTC) .[reply]

Thanks, but again there were a large number of users who supported the material, and there is now quite a few other quotes used. nableezy - 20:25, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And Ive now moved it to his views section, where those other views are also included. nableezy - 20:30, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh how magnanimous you are in your attempts to game the system. The consensus and the third opinion are clear. Your insertion of some inane detail here relating to the 1967 Palestinian exodus in some random BLP just further confirms your status as one of the worst single issue POV warriors on Wikipedia. Yawn. Plot Spoiler (talk) 20:32, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Says the man removing such sources as Seymour Hersch in the New Yorker. How sweet. nableezy - 20:37, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And try to read next time, there isnt any inane detail about the 1948 Palestinian exodus in this BLP. But truth hasnt ever been your strongest suit, now has it? nableezy - 20:38, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, truth from the avowed supporter of designated terrorist organizations. Round of applause. Plot Spoiler (talk) 20:48, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me? You want to back that up? And nice of you to silently change your comment after its been responded to. Honesty, that must have a different meaning for you. nableezy - 20:50, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That lovely userbox of yours and your frustration with this "alleged consensus" [1].Plot Spoiler (talk) 21:12, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As usual, you run your mouth, or fingers, more than you should. The userbox means what it says, not what you or any other random person on the internet think it means. Toddles, nableezy - 23:51, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you insist editing against a consensus, Nableezy? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 05:13, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me? But the 30 said it shouldnt be in that section, I moved it to his views, where a number of other views are included. You also removed material that is directly relevant to the other comments in that section. Explain that edit. nableezy - 15:24, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not pointing fingers at anyone in particular by posting the ARBPIA template here, but there seems to be a lot of discussion about edits rather than editors and a very slow motion EW on this point. We all need to be careful here and focus more on working this out than reverting and casting aspersions. Nableezy, if you feel there is a consensus here, why not ask at WP:AN for a consensus evaluation rather than just continuing to revert? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:16, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I dont feel there is a consensus, which is why the long-standing material should be retained until there is consensus to remove it. And AgadaUrbanit's long standing grudge caused him to remove other edits that corrected issues in the article, for no apparent reason. nableezy - 15:24, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can you prove there's not consensus as opposed to just feeling there's not consensus? Plot Spoiler (talk) 15:58, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How about somebody explains to me why the only views that Cesarani has that are apparently allowed to be included are ones supportive of Israel, and anything the least bit critical is systematically expunged from the article, including sentences in the interview that immediately precede what is included in the article. How is it that his view on the wall being a problem when it expropriates land from Palestinians is removed but the quote on it being welcomed by some Arabs within the Green Line is included. In what world is that "neutral"? nableezy - 15:30, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Untrue. The issue at hand is that you're edit-warring against the consensus to include some inane detail on his kibbutz experience and you're now somehow labeling this as reflecting his views on the Arab-Israeli conflict. Put whatever well-sourced, notable critiques he has of Israel and its policies. That's a separate matter altogether. But overall, this further underlines your troubling record of WP:Tendentious editing by turning a low-level BLP into a vehicle to promote certain views. Plot Spoiler (talk) 15:58, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Untrue? Are you capable of reading? Look at the diff Sherlock. nableezy - 16:00, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My name's not Shirley. Plot Spoiler (talk) 16:02, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But can you read? Look at the diff. Everything remotely critical of Israel is removed, anything that is pro-Israel is retained. I know thats what you think is the natural order of things, but we supposedly have rules against such editing. nableezy - 16:07, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would revise it myself but 1RR... sorry buddy. Plot Spoiler (talk) 16:16, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)It is quite clear, from the original Guardian interview in which he made this comment, that the event was one key to Cesarani's understanding of Jewish and Middle East history. The repeated removal, against a long-established consensus, acts to deprive Wikipedia readers of this insight into Cesarani's intellectual development. AgadaUrbanit has not even attempted to offer a justification for also removing Cesarani's comment about the deleterious effect of the West Bank wall on Jewish-Palestinian relations. i am therefore about to replace the relevant comments in the article. RolandR (talk) 16:18, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And this kind of WP:Canvassing to RolandR is unacceptable Nableezy. Seriously [2]. Plot Spoiler (talk) 16:20, 14 August 2013 (UTC)\[reply]
It isnt canvassing genius, Roland's been involved in this article. That he, unlike you and Agada, doesnt troll through my contributions doesnt make it so he shouldnt know what is going on. nableezy - 17:51, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That was a fully acceptable courtesy notification, since I had previously edited this article, and had been involved in earlier disputes over this very statement. Indeed, I had first located and cited the source for the statement.
Incidentally, I note that of the seven editors cited by Red Stone Arsenal as opposing inclusion of the statement, two are blocked sockpuppets, while the three IPs share an interesting edit similarity with blocked serial sockpuppeteer Ledenierhomme. This is hardly convincing evidence of a consensus for removal. RolandR (talk) 16:33, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RolandR: "It is quite clear, from the original Guardian interview in which he made this comment, that the event was one key to Cesarani's understanding of Jewish and Middle East history. " If I understand correctly which quote is being discussed here (David Cesarani#Views on the Israeli-Arab conflict paragraph 3, the Kibbutz quote,) the article does not explain this, and the quote seems disconnected. (Indeed, that entire section seems disconnected. Why are his views relevant? Why are they here? What impact do they have?) OSborn arfcontribs. 16:46, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Uhh PlotSpoiler, you are well aware that you dont have a consensus for your change. Showing up every once in a while to see if you can slide it past is rather annoying. You want to remove it then open an RFC. nableezy - 20:28, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why the usual crowd want this removed. It tells to Cesarani's credit syntactically. 'we were told' indicates his suceptibility as a young man to a kind of Zionist blindness. 'I discovered' indicates the mature understanding of the same Zionist, who however doesn't let the national myths blur a clear sighted understanding of real history. Cesarani in this shows both honesty and scruple, and it puts him in a good light, rightly so.Nishidani (talk) 21:01, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this Arsenal chap is simply eager to remove the quote. Reasons have been put forward for keeping it, he has been offered the opportunity to add a quote of his own for balance, and still he just wants it removed. The goals posts are moved after each of his reasons for removing it are addressed. That is how I see it. --BowlAndSpoon (talk) 20:59, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I opened a request for a third opinion, to avoid the usual, predictable responses from people who are heavily involved in editing articles related to the Israeli-Arab conflict. ALL THREE uninvolved editors who responded and gave a 3rd opinion (@OSborn:, @Srich32977:, @TransporterMan:) agreed it was an a cherry picked quote given undue weight. Inclusion requires consensus, and there is none for this material, quite the opposite. Red Stone Arsenal (talk) 23:33, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The objection is that it is cherrypicked, then. On why this word is stupid and abused see here. Anyone reading pp.73ff of that article, in the edit and source just introduced, can find several facts about his career from the 70s onwards, which are missing from this article so far, and add them. One writes articles by addition, not subtraction. In simple terms, if you persist in thinking this is cherrypicked, then built up around it other cites from Cesarani which expand on his experiences on the kibbutz and as a Zionist, which are provided on the page link I have now introduced.Nishidani (talk) 21:26, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Sean for adding several reliable sources that saw fit to include this specific quote in their obituary of Cesarani. nableezy - 18:28, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on David Cesarani. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:08, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on David Cesarani. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:31, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on David Cesarani. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:26, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:David_Cesarani&oldid=1206601042"