Talk:Benny Morris/Archive 1

Graded a B-class
Needs more info on his life, versus his views. The quotes section needs to be trimmed. And if it's possible to put some sort of objective assessment of how accepted his work is among various academic populations (which it might not be), that would be very helpful. Kalkin 21:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Palestinians were also a politicized, armed community which was committed to fighting against Israel? Really?
I've added "Citation needed" because I don't recall Benny Morris talking about or implying "politicized, armed community". As best I recall, attacks on the Zionists were largely criminal in nature. Even when "organised" opposition arrived (in 1936, less so in 1948), the individuals regularily robbed the Arabs they were staying amongst. PalestineRemembered 17:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

POV edits by 24.60.142.49
POV edits (see Diff), but some worthwhile material for the article. Points: Hopefully these changes improve the article... Charles Stewart 13:47, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * It is obviously POV to regard Karsh's attack on Morris as "proven", etc.
 * The link provided http://emperors-clothes.com/docs/karsh-morris.htm is broken. I've tried the usual google trickery to find it but with no success (eg. no hits for inurl:karsh-morris).  Shame it's not possible to contact 24.60.142.49 to find out.
 * I've added a link to Finkelstein's criticism of Morris that I've been meaning to add for a while.
 * Most of the content of this article is a series of quotes, which is not really Wikipedia house style. I've put these in a separate section.


 * The emperors-clothes article, in which Karsh is said to have attacked Morris, is probably the one currently at . The article referenced there is probably this one: . There's no "evidence" in either article, and I can't imagine anyone would take them very seriously. However, if you drill down still further, you finally get to this:, which is not by Karsh but by Jared Israel. So emperor-clothes is actually quoting themselves! The "ME Forum" article appears to contain some meat - but it's published in Arutz Sheva, a source one would have to call "very biased". Next to the article is written: "Jared Israel is the Editor of the Emperor's New Clothes website, dedicated to fully documented investigative journalism". PalestineRemembered 19:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Basic information
Hey, I miss som basics here, like; WHEN was he born? Also, some more background (e.g. where was he educated (before Cambridge)) would have been nice. If anyone can contribute on these points it would be appriciated. Thanks! Huldra 03:48, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

-Also; what year did he recieve his doctorate from Cambridge? Ok, he is currently professor at Ben-Gurion, -but what about his academic posts before this? -In general: as the article stands now it is a (very interesting! IMO) insight into his point of view, but I really miss the basic (& I assume: undisputed!) information/facts that should be a part of any dictionary entry on a person. I hope somebody out there can contribute on this. Regards, Huldra 18:12, 15 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I've seen an allegation somewhere in here that "Benny Morris was proved to have lied in court". I can find no evidence whatsoever for this, and I imagine it's just another smear from the Zionists (even though Morris is one of their own!).
 * However, on the wider point of his personal details, it is quite possible that he has to be very careful (like me). I'm almost tempted to take his picture off this article.
 * PalestineRemembered 16:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Untitled
There is sort of a contradiction in the article: First it states that Morris showed that "700,000 Palestinians who fled from their homes in 1947 were not dispelled with premeditation on the part of the Israelis [...] " ; but then the excerpts from the interview show that he changed his mind about this (atrocities part of conscious strategy). When and why did he change his mind? Since it's such a crucial question, it would be great to have more info on this. pir 22:43, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Good observation. First, as both Norman Finkelstein and Edward Said have pointed out, he appears to not been willing to come to this conclusion in the first edition of The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem despite the fact the evidence suggested it. Second, he appears to have found additional material that was previously unavailable to confirm that in fact that expulsion was in fact premeditated. Indeed the article should be updated to reflect this. -- Viajero 22:59, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * great, thanks for the info. - pir 02:05, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't know how valuable a response will be two years later, but the gist of his argument is this: yes: there was considerable discussion in Zionist (and other) circles of "transfer" (whether voluntary or compulsory) of Arab populations, before the outbreak of the war; but no: there was no "plan". The actual expulsions were not part of a comprehensive preexisting plan, but arose by and large ad hoc out of the military situation as it evolved during the course of the war.  So, essentially, while many Zionist leaders recognized that the presence of large Arab populations would imperil Israel's ability to exist as a Jewish state, and "transfer" was regarded as desirable, there was no Zionist consensus about whether it needed to be accomplished or, among those who advocated "transfer," how it ought to be accomplished: by purchasing of Arab lands, or by agreements reached with neighboring Arab states to accept transferees, or by outright expropriation and forcible expulsion and so forth.  When expulsion did take place -- and arguing that most refugees were actually driven out was what was novel, at least for an Israeli historian, about The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem -- it was not part of a comprehensive strategy but grew out of events  -- often, for instance, as local retaliation for attacks on Yishuv interests.  For example, a Yishuv convoy or Jewish civilians are attacked on a road, and the Haganah (or, often, the Irgun or the IPA) attacks the village from which the attack came and drives out its inhabitants.


 * In short, there was a widespread desire to have Arab populations move elsewhere, but that desire had not hardened into policy (not because it wouldn't have, but because circumstances overtook would-be policymakers), and in the absence of a policy, there certainly was no plan. So, essentially there is no contradiction between saying that Arab populations were driven out and that driving them out was not part of a comprehensive plan.


 * I should add that I'm not making any representations about the truth of these claims -- I mean only that this is the crux of Morris' argument. Hope this is useful, if not to the original posters, then to others who might edit this article.  --Rrburke 19:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't object to anything you've said - in fact I agree with near enough every word of it. The Zionists of 1948 didn't set out to ethnically cleanse a considerable swathe of Palestine (not least because it would have impacted most of their own 2nd-class workers, neighbours etc).
 * But the whole Zionist enterprise was based on this expulsion. There are too many clips to know where to start, they include David Ben-Gurion, the "dove" whose reputation they fought to protect for so long.
 * Have you seen what Morris says "For decades the Zionists tried to camouflage their real aspirations, for fear of angering the authorities and the Arabs. They were, however, certain of their aims and of the means needed to achieve them. Internal correspondence amongst the olim from the very beginning of the Zionist enterprise leaves little room for doubt". The letters he quotes come from 1882, almost 125 years ago.
 * PalestineRemembered 18:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

From the Haa'retz interview:


 * [interviewer:]They perpetrated ethnic cleansing.


 * "There are circumstances in history that justify ethnic cleansing. I know that this term is completely negative in the discourse of the 21st century, but when the choice is between ethnic cleansing and genocide - the annihilation of your people - I prefer ethnic cleansing."


 * And that was the situation in 1948?


 * "That was the situation. That is what Zionism faced. A Jewish state would not have come into being without the uprooting of 700,000 Palestinians. Therefore it was necessary to uproot them. There was no choice but to expel that population. It was necessary to cleanse the hinterland and cleanse the border areas and cleanse the main roads. It was necessary to cleanse the villages from which our convoys and our settlements were fired on."


 * The term `to cleanse' is terrible.


 * "I know it doesn't sound nice but that's the term they used at the time. I adopted it from all the 1948 documents in which I am immersed."


 * -- Viajero 18:36, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

loss of faith in Oslo: left wing or right wing?

44% of all Israelis support the Oslo Accords in any form....Benny Morris is among the 29% that have changed their position from support the Accords to not support the Accords. The center of Israeli society has moved from supporting to not supporting. Furthermore 80% of all Israelis believe that the IDF has successfully dealt with the violence militarily. 

Does Benny Morris self-identify as a post-Zionist?
In the Post-Zionism article someone has listed Benny Morris 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 14:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I recently read an article where he described himself as a former Post-Zionist. Perhaps we should create a new catagory for him of post-post-zionists. Abu ali 21:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Lead statement is misleading and unfit.
The lead of this article states that "Benny Morris (born in 1948) is an Israeli historian and unofficial leader of the New Historians, a group of scholars who dispute the mainstream historical view of the origins of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict." This is clearly not the case, Morris (and other Israeli historians) have managed to investigate the birth of Israel, and have drawn attention to the fact (amongst others) that the natives were ethnically cleansed (95% according to a source Morris finds in the IDF archives), along with many other accounts that bear witness to atrocities. But Morris is not "the leader" of these historians, he is simply the most prominent. Furthermore, he doesn't "dispute the mainstream historical view", he (and others) wrote the first credible "mainstream historical view", or were at least the first to get their work into general acceptance. It is time that the Wikipedia Benny Morris article is written in a fashion that properly recognises the work he has done. There is no excuse for marginalising him in the fashion that this article apparently seeks to do. The only people (as best I know) still seriously disputing his results are deniers and defenders of the Stern Gang. PalestineRemembered 16:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Pappe
I keep getting my posts undone in the 'Criticism of Morris' section: the reasons given are patently wrong. 'Original Research' was the last reason, which is absurd since I simply cite a paper from the respected Journal of Palestine Studies. This is hardly me coming up with my own unpublished research to pass off as 'Criticism of Morris'. I had a look at the 'Original Research' definition (I'm new to Wikipedia): "That is, any facts, opinions, interpretations, definitions, and arguments published by Wikipedia must already have been published by a reliable publication in relation to the topic of the article."

MUST HAVE ALREADY BEEN PUBLISHED BY A RELIABLE PUBLICATION TO THE TOPIC OF THE ARTICLE: The Journal of Palestine certainly counts as a reliable publication and EXPLICITLY mentions Morris. One of the people who undoes my changes was threatened with a ban because of posting defamatory material against the person I cite, Ilan Pappe. 86.145.179.1 01:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * First of all The Journal of Palestine is not WP:RS it publishes one sided perspective on the conflict. Second there is already criticism in the article by  the left so adding criticism from Pappe we breaking WP:NPOVShrike 21:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The Journal of Palestine Studies from University of California Press Journals is a peer-reviewed publication and is WP:RS. It is quite a lot better than, for instance, most newspaper accounts. Here's what JSTOR say about it "Since 1971, the Journal of Palestine Studies (JPS) has been the leading quarterly devoted exclusively to the Arab-Israeli conflict and Palestinian affairs. JPS provides an international forum for study of the region and peaceful resolution to the conflict. Comprehensive analysis of current developments in the peace process as well as a range of articles from the latest historical scholarship to coverage of cultural and societal trends, are included in JPS. In-depth feature articles by respected writers and behind-the-scenes interviews are supplemented by a wealth of concise documentation. Each issue of the Journal of Palestine Studies also carries book reviews, documents and source material, a chronology and a bibliography of periodical literature. There is also a settlement monitor assessing Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip." PalestineRemembered 16:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Quotes section
This section is pretty much a plain copyvio from the Haaretz interview and not even fair use (which in itself would've been removed anyway) and has no place in the article. Yonatan talk 15:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

"unofficial leader"
This is a fairly odd phrase, unreferenced and seemingly unencyclopedic. I would not object to calling Morris the "most prominent" of the New Historians, I just have a hard time imagining Avi Shlaim or someone sitting around thinking "Hmm, what should I do... better call Benny Morris, my unofficial leader"... y'know? &lt; el eland  // talk edits  &gt; 12:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Morris hard comments about Shlaim
If Morris published hard comments about Shlaim and if they are from a reliable source (which is the case), there is no reason we do not keep them. Why should there be any kind of censureship about what he wrote ? User Talk:81.244.46.93 21:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

This edit gives the mind of Benny Morris (one of the most famous new historians) about Avi Shlaim (another one of the most famous new historians). Both are well-known and the information is perfectly sourced. It is relevant to see what these people think about each other. More, I don't see what could be "delicate" about this information (the purpose of BLP policy). You are influenced by your own judgements and scales of values. This edit shows the influence of politics in the debate between the new historians, nothing more. User:81.240.222.112 07:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see the purpose of these hard words. Why not just mention that in Morris's opinion Avi Shlaim's analysis is anti-Israeli? --JaapBoBo 18:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I could see that until 1995 Shlaim appreciated Morris very much.
 * I don't know exactly what happened between 1995 and 2003 so that Shlaim and Morris quarrelled and what Morris refers to when he attacks Shlaim. It must be linked to 2nd Intifada but I don't know what exactly.
 * Nevertheless that is important to understand that Morris doesn't just claim that Shlaim is pro-palestinian or anti-israeli. Morris was 58 years old when he wrote that. He is adult and responsible. He is subtle enough to make the differences.
 * I think it is important to underline that these people left the academic level when they started to talk about their pairs after that time.
 * If one could consider that you can still comment with objectivity a pair's work when you state he is anti-israeli or pro-palestinian, everybody will understand reader must take his distances when the words "racist" (Pappé about Morris) or "pro-islamic" (Morris about Shlaim) fall...
 * Alithien 07:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Pappé's comments about Morris
The comments about Morris given in this diff make a number of very serious allegations, including racism. WP:BLP is quite clear about this: "Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space." "ElectronicIntifada" is in no way a reliable source, particularly for material that the New Republic refused to publish. The removal of this information is an admin action. Don't restore unless you have a better sources and a strong consensus for it remaining here. Jayjg (talk) 05:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no serious contention that Pappe didn't write it and published it on "ElectronicIntifada" because NR wouldn't (which you conceed, for crying out loud). It is not in that sense "contentious material" (and that is the sense in which the sentence you quote - and the immediately preceeding sentence and ref, which you omit - uses the word; just follow the refs) and "ElectronicIntifada" is not in that sense a "questionable" source. "Get it right". Pappe wrote it? We're sure? We attribute it to him? It's clearly his opinion, not a factual claim in Wikipedia's voice? OK, passes that test.


 * So, where do we go to get you desysopped for abuse of admin status in a content dispute? Andyvphil (talk) 09:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll go ahead and apply the same standards to Morris' comments about Ilan Pappé. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 08:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * POINTy action, reverted. Hasn't Pappe's response to Morris drawn 3rd pty attention in RS coverage of their conflict? Go find it, then tell Jayg where to stick his POV-driven deletion. Andyvphil (talk) 09:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * This shouldn't be an issue now that the comments have been sourced to Ha'aretz, but for the record, I don't think they needed to be. I agree that WP:BLP is clear:
 * The views of critics should be represented if they are relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and 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.
 * The relevant source here is not Electronic Intifada, but Ilan Pappe, who is a notable scholar of Israeli history. WP:V notes that even:
 * Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.
 * ... and of course this is not self-published material.
 * On a side note, The New Republic is a strange source to pick as an example of reliability in contrast to EI. TNR has a notable recent history of publishing fabrications, and an equal bias on the question of Israel/Palestine.
 * Kalkin (talk) 15:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * BLP: Self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source for controversial, derogatory, or otherwise unverifiable material about a living person other than the publisher or author of the material. I hope that's sufficiently clear. Jayjg (talk) 02:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no controversy here. Nobody claims Pappe didn't dare to throw these personnal attacks at Morris's face. Even Pappe himself. And these attacks are notorious. I have references to them in a book written by a French historian.
 * Whatever, the source is now Ha'aretz. And this closes the case.
 * As soon as a scholar will write a long and detailled answer and analysis of Pappe's behaviour and lack of the minimum deontology, I will be the first to add the material at the right place. But this is not the case today. They decided to ignore him but don't even make publicity of this. He has just become personna non grata among academic Israeli scholars. I could write a WP:OR that proves that Pappé falsify some of his studies in exagerating some events, forgetting others and biaising situations. But I am not a scholar and that closes that case too. There is nothing wikipedia can do, yet but waiting for former Pappé peers do their job.
 * Ceedjee (talk) 06:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree on your conclusion but not fully on the argumentation.
 * The information here is (hopefully not) : "Benny Morris is racist".
 * The information is : "Ilan Pappé claimed that Benny Morris is racist".
 * So, the source is not Pappé (who is not a WP:RS concerning Morris's alleged racism (is he psychologist or psychiatrist ?)
 * The information is the claim and it is so well-known that Electronic-Intifada is a source and Ha'aretz an even better one.
 * Note that the answers are also on Ilan Pappé's article, I think. Ceedjee (talk) 17:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You're right, but I would think the notability of the criticism would be established by sourcing it to Pappe, not by sourcing it to EI, no? Kalkin (talk) 18:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. You are right. This information is notorious because it comes from Ilan Pappe, a former colleague and historian who works on exactly the same topic as Benny Morris does.
 * Ceedjee (talk) 19:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * DKalk has it exactly right. The "fact" for which we need a RS is not that BM is a "racist", but the notorious fact that IP insisted on calling him names. And I'm I'm reasonably sure Jayg knew perfectly well that this is not a controversial fact -- J's all over this subject area on WP. His bad faith deletion of material he simply doesn't like to see, with its implied threat of blocking anyone who reverted him, is really unacceptable. Andyvphil (talk) 20:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Dkalk has it exactly wrong. Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space. Electronic Intifada is not a reliable source. Period. Jayjg (talk) 02:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no controversy here. Nobody claims Pappe didn't dare to throw these personnal attacks at Morris's face. Even Pappe himself. And these attacks are notorious. I have references to them in a book written by a French historian.
 * Whatever, the source is now Ha'aretz. And this closes the case.
 * As soon as a scholar will write a long and detailled answer and analysis of Pappe's behaviour and lack of the minimum deontology, I will be the first to add the material at the right place. But this is not the case today. They decided to ignore him but don't even make publicity of this. He has just become personna non grata among academic Israeli scholars. I could write a WP:OR that proves that Pappé falsify some of his studies in exagerating some events, forgetting others and biaising situations. But I am not a scholar and that closes that case too. There is nothing wikipedia can do, yet but waiting for former Pappé peers do their job.
 * Ceedjee (talk) 06:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't know about the broader issues here, but I think it's quite clear that Jayjg was throwing his weight around, using implied threats of admin action against anyone who opposed his fairly ludicrous interpretation of WP:BLP. The chance that the highest-profile Palestinian website in the world, that the Jerusalem Post calls a "Palestinian CNN," would fabricate and falsely attribute statements to a prominent Israeli academic and get away with it is effectively zero. EI is hosted and incorporated in the United States, well within the reach of libel lawyers. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 20:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Abuse of WP:BLP is an established pattern of Jay's; the addition of "Admin action" muscle to the abuse is new, so far as I know. It may make sense to contact him directly and if necessary file an RfC for admin abuse.--G-Dett (talk) 22:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * G-Dett, your recent comments on this issue seem to be claiming that Israel Shahak falls under WP:BLP, and that therefore there is some inconsistency in my actions. While Benny Morris is quite alive, Shahak is not. The "LP" in BLP stands for Living People. And, regarding "established patterns", abuse of WP:CIVIL is an established pattern of yours: Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles/Evidence; please desist. Jayjg (talk) 02:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You are fond of typing WP:CIVIL talismanically; I see nothing in that policy that precludes plain dealing with serial policy abuse on the part of admins.--G-Dett (talk) 04:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Guys. I suggest you keep cool... There is nothing harmful and there is no need to threat each other.
 * I think there is a wide consensus for leaving the article the personnal attacks performed by these scholars toward each other. Ceedjee (talk) 06:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * G-Dett, it's hard to deal with things that are imaginary. Please restrict your comments to article content, rather than continually commenting on other editors. Jayjg (talk) 03:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Original Research sentence?
In the current revision, the subsection "Efraim Karsh" under the section "Criticism of Morris's work" seems to read well except for one sentence near the end. It contains paragraphs of Efraim Karsh (or Anita Shapira) criticising Morris, interspersed with paragraphs of Morris' countercriticisms, all with relevant quotes and citations. However, the second last paragraph, a "Morris paragraph" if you will, reads like this: The next (and final) paragraph, a "Karsh/Shapira" paragraph, then says: The last sentence of the second last paragraph seems out of place. For a start, is is on the end of a "Morris paragraph", and is clearly not part of Morris' criticism of Karsh. Secondly, as it stands, it appears to simply be an original research argument, attempting to justify Karsh's criticisms and to invalidate Morris' response. This is because, apart from its obviously favourable slant towards Karsh, it is merely stated as a fact, rather than an explanation Karsh has himself given for (presumably) dealing with "only four pages of Birth". Did Karsh in fact make such an argument in response to Morris' comments? If so, a relevant and properly cited quote should be placed at the start of the next paragraph, saying "Karsh responded to this by saying [insert relevant quote]...", with the next sentence saying "Furthermore, Shapira criticized...". If no such response can be found, the sentence should simply be reomved. Juwe (talk) 15:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Later Morris gave more details,[reference] saying that Karsh "belabor[s] minor points while completely ignoring, and hiding from his readers, the main pieces of evidence" and argued that "In Fabricating, Karsh, while claiming to have 'demolished' the whole oeuvre, in fact deal[t] with only four pages of Birth. These pages tried to show that the Zionist leadership during 1937-38 supported a 'transfer solution' to the prospective Jewish state's 'Arab problem.'" Karsh's point is that if some part of Morris's evidence is falsified or distorted, then there is reason to suspect the whole of the work.
 * Shapira criticized Morris's answer to Karsh, writing that "[w]hoever dares to oppose or to criticize the pronouncements of these self-styled iconoclasts is savagely maligned." [reference]


 * Given that there has been no reply/amendment to the article, I have removed the sentence. Juwe (talk) 08:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Michael Palumbo
I'm itching to RfC this, but first let's see what editors here have to say. I removed a subsection devoted to criticism of Morris by one Michael Palumbo in his book Imperial Israel, claiming that Palumbo is not notable. Nishidani immediately reverted me claiming that my removal was "abusivie" (sic), and that both the author and the book are notable. Now, there are some undistinguished academics who gain some measure of notability by voicing controversial views on the Arab-Israeli conflict, entering feuds, etc., but Palumbo doesn't seem to be one of them. A Google search found that there are quite a few Michael Palumbos: a photographer, businessmen, athletes, random guys on Facebook. I couldn't find the author, though. The first academic is #13, a professor of music at Weber State University in Ogden, Utah. Is he our man? I kinda doubt it. Is our guy a, say, a professor of Middle Eastern history? No way to tell. The book, titled "Imperial Israel" also fares badly in a Google search for "imperial israel" (did you know there's a hotel in Tel Aviv with that name?). Other books and articles appear before it, and I could find no reviews of the book, not even in the nutty blogs where you can usually find these things. But the search does yield a link to the book's page on Amazon, where we find that the publisher is Bloomsbury Publishing, "an independent, London-based publishing house known for literary novels." Unfortunately the folks at Amazon couldn't be bothered to provide any more info, such as an image of the book's cover, by which we could judge it. Nishidani's claim that the work is cited in Nakba: Palestine, 1948, and the Claims of Memory, an unabashedly partisan but reliable source, is unimpressive. If it turns out that this one RS is actually relying on him for information, that would be a (weak) argument in favor of his reliability, but would not establish any notability. I think that Benny Morris, love him or loathe him, deserves better than having an entire subsection of the article on him being devoted to criticism by someone nobody's ever heard of. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 17:39, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * 'I'm itching to RfC this'. Go ahead. If you have to google, and don't even know who Palumbo is in Palestinian studies, even Morris replies to him, then you should not be editing this or related pages. Googling is not a substitute for knowing the literature on a subject. I have 20 academic sources from University Presses, citing his works. When the RfC opens, I'll present them there. Otherwise, don't waste our time.Nishidani (talk) 18:46, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, second time you've resorted to ad hominem, and the discussion has only just started. I notice that you have chosen not to present any actual arguments or evidence for your perception that Palumbo is notable. If you choose to do so in the future, I think that one source by Palumbo from a university press could be more persuasive than 20 sources referring to him. But it's up to you how you present your arguments. In the meantime I'll wait for editors who have something substantive to say here. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 19:08, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I present no arguments, because (a) your opinion that Palumbo is not notable reflects an ignorance of Michael Palumbo's work, and the use extensively made by it by ranking scholars on Israeli-Palestinian history (b)it seems to be a practice in here for people to drift about and require of editors lengthy debates about the ABC of the subject (c) this (b) is discourteous, for people should have the decency to inform themselves, rather than edit, and expect others to enlighten them at length on their gross mistakes. When I see some trace of an attempt to acquire the basic lineaments of knowledge about the historiography, I will take you seriously. In the meantime, I repeat. Do not delete well sourced and reliably sourced information from a recognized historian from wiki articles. It is a violation of policy.Nishidani (talk) 19:24, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * ...and there's the third ad hominem, plus an acknowledgement that you have not presented any arguments or evidence for your position, nor do you plan to do so in this discussion. I remind you I am practicing WP:BRD, that you are not adhering to the BRD model, that you have falsely implied that I violated policy, and that you are violating WP:FOC. I opened this discussion to address the issue of whether Palumbo is notable. Since you have failed to contribute anything substantive to the discussion, I guess your role here is done. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 20:19, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You have only asserted a falsehood, in your edit summary, that Palumbo is 'not notable'. All regular editors of this article, many of them deeply knowledgeable I/P area students and admirers of Benny Morris, like Ceedjee, have never challenged this. You do. Therefore you are required to prove why the consensus over the last year on his relevance is based on a collective hallucination, seen through by someone who hasn't troubled to inform himself of the subject. I refuse to waste my time doing your work. Take this as ad hominem. Take it to court. Cite the wiki rule book. But before doing so, put aside the wiki rule book, and read a book pertinent to Benny Morris, read Benny Morris on Palumbo, or study Michael Palumbo's citational record in academic literature. That I am required even to say this is absurd.Nishidani (talk) 20:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Nishidani is claiming that other editors support his position and have substantive reasons for doing so. If any of you editors out there do, please jump in and discuss your reasons. That's what I opened this discussion for. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This "scholar" has written a total of one book. Mentioning him as a critic of Benny Morris may be acceptable, but there is no justification for giving his views lengthy exposure.--Gilabrand (talk) 04:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've restored what you deleted, in violation of policy. Palumbo has written two books on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Jalapenos did not known who he was, and deleted. You castrated his text not knowing much either. Please do you homework before editing out material experienced readers are familiar with.Nishidani (talk) 09:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know what policy you are referring to. Michael Palumbo is not notable, as stated above. He is a fly-by-night "scholar" who has written a single book. I have done my "homework." If anything, it is your snooty responses above which are against policy. Since when are you the authority on how much another editor knows? --Gilabrand (talk) 09:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * 'Not notable, as stated above' I.e. you who know little, and Jalapenos who knows nothing, 'state'. Such statements are void of meaning. They are opinions, and ones that happen to be false. If he was not notable, why is his work frequently cited in academic books from university presses?


 * That is twice you have repeated a falsehood, which means you haven't done your homework. You said one book, and it was two. So your judgement was based on ignorance of a most elementary fact, which means you, like Jalapenos on this a 'fly-by-night editor, should not be editing this sectionMichael Palumbo What Happened to Palestine? The Revisionists Revisited, Americans for Middle East Understanding The Link - Volume 23, Issue 4 September - October  1990 PP.1.10. It's against policy to remove reliably sourced material. A small sample of books citing his two works:


 * His The Palestinian Catastrophe, (1987) publisher Faber and Faber


 * Robert I. Rotberg, Israeli and Palestinian narratives of conflict: history's double helix, Indiana University Press, 2006


 * Eugène L. Rogan, Avi Shlaim, The War for Palestine: Rewriting the History of 1948, 2nd.ed.Cambridge University Press, 2007


 * Cheryl Rubenberg,The Palestinians: in search of a just peace, Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2003


 * Rashid Khalidi, The iron cage: the story of the Palestinian struggle for statehood, Beacon Press, 2006


 * Benny Morris, Making Israel, University of Michigan Press, 2007


 * John Quigley, Flight into the maelstrom: Soviet immigration to Israel and Middle East peace, Ithaca Press, 1997


 * John B. Quigley, Palestine and Israel: a challenge to justice, Duke University Press, 1990


 * Ghada Karmi, Jerusalem Today: What Future for the Peace Process?,Ithaca Press, 1997


 * Norman G. Finkelstein, Image and reality of the Israel-Palestine conflict, Verso, 2nd ed. 2003


 * Tomis Kapitan (ed.) Philosophical perspectives on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, M.E. Sharpe', 1997


 * Kenneth Cragg,The Arab Christian: A History in the Middle East,Westminster John Knox Press, 1991


 * Rebecca L. Torstrick, The Limits of Coexistence: Identity Politics in Israel, University of Michigan Press, 2000


 * Susan Slyomovics, The Object of Memory: Arab and Jew Narrate the Palestinian Village,University of Pennsylvania Press, 1998


 * Michael Palumbo's Imperial Israel, Bloomsbury 1990, 1992 rev ed.


 * Nur Masalha, Imperial Israel and the Palestinians: The Politics of Expansion‎, Pluto Press, 2000


 * Mordechai Bar-On, In pursuit of peace: a history of the Israeli peace movement, US Institute of Peace Press, 1996


 * James Ron, Frontiers and ghettos: state violence in Serbia and Israel, University of California Press, 2003


 * Rory Miller, Divided Against Zion: Anti-Zionist Opposition in Britain to a Jewish State in Palestine, 1945-1948,Routledge, 2000


 * Roza El-Eini, Mandated landscape: British imperial rule in Palestine, 1929-1948,Routledge, 2006


 * Avner Falk, Fratricide in the Holy Land: a psychoanalytic view of the Arab-Israeli conflict, Terrace Books, 2004Nishidani (talk) 10:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry Nishdani, but you are mistaken. This second "piece" is an article, not a book. Please do your homework. You can dance the jig, but I will continue to work on this and other articles in the interest of making them readable, truthful and balanced. --Gilabrand (talk) 10:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I accept your 'sorry', but you don't appear to be worried that you are wrong. Delighted rather, and in your total nescience, rather triumphant at your ability not to read what I or sources say. To recap this absurd little duet exercise in wasting one's time.
 * Jalapenos didn't know who Michael Palumbo was, and deleted the whole section.
 * Reverted, he still couldn't google information that comes up to anyone in 2 minutes.
 * He demanded a responsive thread be made out of his incapacity to do his homework.
 * You step in and say Palumbo is a not-notable somebody with only one book to his discredit.
 * When told there were two books by him (others on other archives) on the Palestinian area, you refused to acknowledge the correction.
 * I drew your attention to the two books, by referencing a lecture he gave at an Exeter University conference.
 * You apparently neither read the link, nor checked my source list above which provided the titles to his two books, but hastily replied saying I was dancing a jig. The truth is, your little jig's up. For you mistook the link, asserting now that the link is an article, not a book. Well, of course, it is an article, an article which lists, if you read it the two books, 'The Palestinian Catastrophe' (1987, 233 pages) and 'Imperial Israel' (1990, 340 pages) that form part of Palumbo's publishing record as an historian. How an article citing two books that total 560 odd pages of research can be mistaken for one of those books is beyond my capacity to understand, except if I assume willed ignorance or an otiose indifference to checking links and data willinglòy provided by one's interlocutor. Nishidani (talk) 15:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If these sources check out, they can establish that Palumbo is at least taken seriously as a member of the academic community researching this field. They cannot establish that Palumbo is at all notable or distinguished in the field (unless the more credible sources among them say something like "the eminent historian Michael Palumbo"). So in my opinion this reference list, meticulous as it is, does not contribute much to the discussion. Nevertheless, I will check them next time I have some time to spare at a library. This will take a few days. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 12:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The only hypothesis I can elaborate to account for the extraordinary obtusity you both show is this, that you intend to waste editors' time by a pettifogging war of attrition by deliberate misprisions, twisting of logic and feigned dumbness.
 * On logic. I am asked to prove he is notable. I provide 18 academic sources from serious university presses, because both of you are too lazy to check this for yourselves. Reply? If the sources do cite Palumbo, they establish he is taken seriously as a researcher in the field.
 * But they cannot show he is notable or distinguished in the field.
 * Tacit premise - one can be widely cited in an academic field, and yet not be notable.
 * Conclusion. In doing your homework for you, responding to your request, I provided the necessary proof which, however, is immaterial because you then redefine the word 'notability' in a peculiar way for English usage. It now is pushed to mean 'distinguished'. This is, I beleieve, part of the 'shifting the goalposts' strategy when you lose an argument, so common in I/P threads.
 * One is notable as a source if one has been frequently noted in reliable sources.
 * I've had enough of this water torture. Neither of you is editing in good faith. You are POV warriors looking for excuses for slanting the encyclopedia along doctrinal lines, and nothing I or other serious editors do will stop the apparent wikilawyering. Goodbye. Don't apologize to me. Excuse your behaviour before this encyclopedia, which is not supposed to be written by POV warriors making reckless edits based on an insouciance to sources, reading sources and reading what fellow editors argue Nishidani (talk) 15:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * What a sniveling reply by someone who goes around badmouthing others and reverting edits but adding nothing of substance apart from clever repartee. If anyone has improved this article, I have. Instead of babbling like an old fool, I have brought in material, rearranged it to make sense, and fixed up some of the atrocious English. You should again self-ban yourself for name-calling and assuming bad faith in others. --Gilabrand (talk) 16:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Since Nishidani has exited this discussion in a puff of hostility, I'm going to RfC this before I check his sources, today if I get the chance. He did actually say something substantive in his last comment, which I suppose deserves to be refuted even in his absence, namely that Palumbo's being cited 20 times in scholarly literature proves that he's notable. I still have to check his sources, but as I said before, it's really grasping at straws in any case. As anyone in academia knows, even the very least notable academics can expect to be cited a few dozen times in their career, which is why a laundry list of scholarly citations is simply not a good way to establish an academic's notability; you would literally have to list thousands of citations to prove it that way. When an academic really is notable, there are several easy ways to prove it: declaration by reliable sources that she is notable, employment by an influential university, receipt of prestigious prizes, authorship of best-selling books, a large internet presence, etc. It is the absence of all these things that led me to the conclusion that Palumbo is not notable in the first place. Anyhoo, anyone else have anything to add before the RfC? Jalapenos do exist (talk) 16:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

RfC on Michael Palumbo subsection
Should there be a subsection consisting of criticism by Michael Palumbo? Jalapenos do exist (talk) 09:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes - either that or a more general section on criticism of Morris' reliance on Israeli archive material. In Birth Morris admits that he made limited use of Arab materials (page 4), that the IDFA, HA and ISA have not declassified "sensitive" materials and that the Israeli intelligence archives are still closed (page 5). Ian Pitchford (talk) 17:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * That type of criticism is already presented at length in the Finkelstein & Masalha section. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 17:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * And Finkelstein and Masalha cite Palumbo, whose work influenced them. He got there first, and you want him wiped off the page as if his independent archival work were not important for scholars who followed in his wake?Nishidani (talk) 18:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Only a few paragraphs above you called me a bad faith POV warrior (amid a slew of other insults). I am no longer interested in discussing anything with you, nor do I expect that such a discussion could achieve much in terms of improving Wikipedia. If you really believe the things you wrote, you should feel the same way about me. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There are two methods here. One says wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which, to be edited to quality, requires study, and in studying to note things like the fact that Finkelstein and Masalha draw on Michael Palumbo's two books, and therefore he has both exercised an influence, and established a priority in developing criticisms of, as here, Benny Morris. Therefore, in terms of method, to remove Palumbo while keeping the other two, is irrational. You didn't see this, you didn't know who he was, you didn't know that Finklelstein and Masalha owe their insights to his work, and therefore your deletion, and this RfC was to no purpose. The other method is to transform editing into a psychological game, upping the intemperate language by talking about a 'slew of insults' etc., instead of doing the proper thing. You deleted properly sourced information because you hadn't done your homework, and do not know what commitment to an encyclopedia entails. So enough of this farce. The next time round, read up on the subject before making a major edit, and try to understand what informed collegial editing requires. The whole page is badly formatted, since many critics draw on each other. It requires reordering not by name (which is repetitive) but by theme, with each critic's work drawn on to illustrate their development of these critiques. Secondly, a large number of Israeli critics of Benny Morris are ignored. Nothing is said of them. There is something to research. Thank you. Nishidani (talk) 11:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes- or option mentioned above. He's certain a PhD expert whose written a book, so he should get as much weight as others mentioned. I fixed his sectioning so it was not bigger than others.CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. It is for example quoted in this article published in making Israel, a book edited by Benny Morris himself. Ceedjee (talk) 09:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, you've got me reasonably convinced. Avi Shlaim, a distinguished historian, cites the Link article containing Palumbo's criticism as a relevant piece in the context of the evaluation of Benny Morris's ideas. Hence, the Link article is reliable and somewhat notable in this context, despite appearing in a non-academic publication, and Palumbo's notability in general doesn't even have to be established. It's not so important that the type of criticism regarding which Shlaim cited Palumbo is not the same type as that quoted in the Palumbo subsection of the article. From my point of view the discussion is over, and I accept the status quo. I still think the whole criticism section is too long, and the Palumbo subsection is a lot of space for a single review, but you've convinced me there's nothing egregious about it. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 20:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Karsh examples needed
Amid all the harsh words Karsh has written about Morris, and which we repeat here, we don't give even one example of what Karsh is calling a "lie" or "distortion." I think we ought to, because Karsh's examples are not (in my view) as strong or unambiguous as his words imply. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 23:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * They are, actually. If you read the article, you can see tons of important things Morris leaves out in sentences which make big differences, things Morris doesn't put in which omits, read Karsh and you'll see he is right.Tallicfan20 (talk) 07:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Blatant POV throughout this article
Absolutely clear agenda pushing to a ridiculous degree. Cleaning up. Drsmoo (talk) 05:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Apparently you think mass deletion is "cleaning up", but it isn't. Kindly desist. Zerotalk 13:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Link removal and question
A link was removed by another user who called it vandalism and his argument was that the bot removed it. I find that a stupid reason. Bots don't have brains but humans can review and correct bots. I also read the guide lines and see nothing in it that that doesn't comply with the link I added. This is a mainstream media debate on Cross file between Dr. Morris and Dr. Frankenstein--it is not spam, but a relevant and important source of information from a legitimate and reliable source. I'd like others views. The one person who is bullying me and threatening me is a disgrace to Wikipedia as he seems to be a follower of brainless bots! haha Btw, the link is here:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTWxfdVHJWU&feature=channel67.169.68.203 (talk) 21:49, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Formatting
What is going on here? The formatting is all messy and narrow. I've never seen this before, can someone fix it? Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:07, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * ✅ Done (someone didn't close a blockquote properly in the previous section) --NSH001 (talk) 19:26, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

False claim
Gilabrand added: "A 2011 Haaretz article on the historiography of the Arab exodus from Haifa in 1948 offers examples of selective quoting." citing this. No such thing is claimed in that article, and the placement of this sentence in the article is deceptive. The most critical thing it says about Morris is that when he wrote "The three-inch mortars 'opened up on the market square [where there was] a great crowd ... a great panic took hold." he elided the words "when the shelling started and shells fell into it [the crowd]". For some reason (the two versions seem almost identical to me) the writer calls Morris' summary "very much a partial description". So there are not "examples of selective quoting" but one example where the writer thought Morris was too soft on the Haganah. This is the opposite of what a casual reader of the sentence will think is being claimed. Zerotalk 12:34, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The article gives multiple examples. I will quote them explicitly in the article if that is what is required. ~ Iloveandrea (talk) 00:46, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Example 1: "Here is his account of the events of April 22 (note the words which Morris omitted and replaced by an ellipsis )" Example 2: "(A truncated version of this quote also appears in '1948' - reduced to 'completely indiscriminate and revolting ... fire,' the ellipsis replacing the words 'machine gun.' )" Thus the use of the word 'examples', plural, is justified, as is the characterisation of 'selective' ("omitted", "truncated"). ~ Iloveandrea (talk) 00:53, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * What you are doing is original research. Consider the words you put into the article: "tendentiously, selectively quoting sources", which Gilabrand softened to "offers examples of selective quoting". Both of these claim that there is an accusation and present it as true.  But you aren't allowed to present an accusation as true, you are only allowed to present it as the opinion of someone.  But then, exactly what is the accusation?  The phrase "selective quoting" refers to a practice of choosing parts of a quotation in order to distort or conceal its meaning.  It is an accusation of professional misconduct, but there is no such accusation regarding Morris in the cited article, only in your understanding of it.  Since the author does not label the omission of the word machine-gun from the statement "completely indiscriminate and revolting machine gun fire" as anything more than an omission, you aren't allowed to label it either.  Actually every historian simplifies and summarizes quotations, and Morris correctly added an ellipsis where words were omitted. Fogelman thinks that Morris presented too gentle a picture of the Hagana attack on Haifa, and in particular of the shelling of the market, and he may be right but this is a disagreement over emphasis, not an accusation of misconduct as you want to present it.  Also, I wonder if you realise that the way you placed your sentence made it look like support for Ephraim Karsh?  If anything, it is the opposite charge to what Karsh makes. Zerotalk 03:58, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "What you are doing is original research." There is no original research, none at all. The whole section is called Praise and criticism, with part of the two opening paragraphs to do with criticism of Morris's use of sources. That is why I chose to place my addition there. The addition itself is simply an Israeli article that offers critical commentary on Morris's use of sources—admittedly the usage documents Morris's "partial" (to use the articles own word) sanitising of the attack on Haifa, which perhaps explains your not liking its inclusion. I have explained the accurate terminology I used to summarise the contents of the source ("selectively", "examples"); you have chosen to completely ignore this explanation. The other editor who softened what I wrote saw no fundamental problem with my characterisation of the source. Surely you're not suggesting that an article that explicitly cites an "omission" and "truncation" by Morris is inaccurately described as offering examples of "selective" quotation? I'd be very interested in seeing an instance of selective quotation that does not consist of omission/truncation—perhaps you can provide one? You have turned the straightforward inclusion of a summary of the contents of a relevant Israeli source into something otherwise. "I wonder if you realise..." A fair point, I just tacked it on at the end. It will be easy to remedy. ~ Iloveandrea (talk) 05:08, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "Selective quotation" is not just a phrase referring to choosing what to quote, it is an accusation of misconduct that Fogelman does not explicitly make of Morris. It isn't just Fogelman's writing style, as you see that he writes that Segal and Tadmor "presented selectively and one-sidedly, in order to support a predetermined narrative".  Fogelman does not level this charge at Morris, but you do. This is the  biography of a living person, you need to be extremely careful with your wording.  If you keep your report to what Fogelman actually writes, and present it as the opinion of Fogelman, I wouldn't be objecting.  You asked "I'd be very interested in seeing an instance of selective quotation that does not consist of omission/truncation" but that is the wrong way around.  There are lots of examples of omission and truncation that are not "selective quotation" in the accusatory sense.  Incomplete reporting of quotations is normal and there is nothing wrong with it if it is done properly. Zerotalk 05:27, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No. We need to be quite clear: it is you, not I, who is distorting the source. Let me quote the opening of the article: "despite strong evidence to support Arab claims, Israeli historians remain economical with the truth." That is the context of the entire article, right there, laid out explicitly. Could not be any clearer. The article is about Israeli historians who are economical with the truth (something negative); Benny Morris is an Israeli historian, and he is mentioned explicitly in the article. The manner in which Morris is "economical with the truth", as the author explains, is via his use of omission and truncation of quotes—in other words, by "selectively quoting". In this context, and so none of this back-to-front business, the use of the term is entirely, 100% accurate. Morris stands accused of being economical with the truth; his use of omission and truncation are explained. In such a context, "selective quotation", with its negative connotations, is 100% accurate, as the other editor agreed. It is very difficult to argue with someone on this matter who refuses to accept what the authors of the article themselves say explicitly right at the outset. ~ Iloveandrea (talk) 05:53, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but you can't just take a newspaper subheading (which is typically not even written by the journalist but by a sub-editor) and apply it to everyone named in the article! You have to read the whole thing and consider its structure. The article is about a pamphlet published by Im Tirtzu, whose authors claimed to be basing their work on Karsh and Morris. In attacking that pamphlet, Fogelman quotes Morris for an entirely different version of the Haifa story (one that is not even mentioned by the Im Tirtzu pamphlet, and this is the point Fogelman is making and you are missing).  Then, after citing Morris against the pamphlet, Fogelman says that even Morris' version is inadequate. This is criticism but it is far milder than the criticism directed at Im Tirtzu. Zerotalk 09:47, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Your current version, "Morris' use of selective quotation to partially sanitize" is even worse as it directly imputes Morris' motives in your voice. This is a very clear violation of WP:BLP. You have to cite opinions as opinions, and they had better be opinions expressed by the source.  You fail on both counts. Zerotalk 09:55, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * In any case this information are unrelevant. Even what a journalist of Ha'aretz thinks about Benny Morris's work is unrelevant. There are enough scholars who analysed and commented his work. Only these are relevant in the current context. 81.247.207.143 (talk) 18:04, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The section is called Praise and criticism. The criticism appeared in Israel's leading newspaper. Look at Ilan Pappé's page: even CAMERA, a lobby group, is a legitimate source of criticism for Pappé, for god's sake. You will cope with mainstream Israeli sourcing. ~ Iloveandrea (talk) 23:52, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that the way articles are written lack coherence.
 * Two comments :
 * Morris's work was widely used by other scholars as reference, commented and critized. On the other side Pappé's work was mainly commented by activists and less by scholars except for what concerns his first works
 * Praise and criticism section should be cut into two parts : reception of the work by activists and politicians *and* praise and criticism by scholars. Most care should be taken to these last analysis because they can be assumed to be more neutral. Teveth, Karsh and Finkelstein criticism of Morris's work as well as praise or nuanced analysis of most scholars should be detailled in this article but not what a journalist reports more than 20 years after the pubilication of the work.
 * 81.247.213.48 (talk) 06:00, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I attributed the article summary to the author, but not its headline. You still say, however, that even the summary is "typically not . . . written by the journalist". I confess ignorance of more than the most basic understanding of standard practice for newspaper editing (not ever having read anything about it, nor ever having worked for a newspaper), but do you have a source for that? Otherwise it is true purely because some guy on Wikipedia says so. Quite aside from this diversionary focus on attribution, there remains the fact that it is the article's summary. If you claim that it is an inaccurate summary, I shall ask on what possible basis—perhaps personal correspondence with Fogelman? We'll see anyway that it is quite accurate. Let's move on to the historians talked about in the article summary. Three are duly mentioned in the article by name: Karsh, Morris, Gelber. So let's note that, as the article summary forewarns us, Fogelman is not solely attacking the pamphlet; the latter is his entrée for a wider discussion of a cluster of Israeli historians. Indeed, neither the pamphlet nor its authors are mentioned in the second half of the article, certainly not in the section called Silence of the historians. And why would they be? The pamphlet's authors are journalists, not historians. For the umpteenth time, this article is not simply about the pamphlet, as the article's summary makes perfectly clear. "Your current version, 'Morris' use of selective quotation to partially sanitize' is even worse as it directly imputes Morris' motives in your voice." It is not my voice that imputes him, but Fogelman's article. The words are an accurate summary of Fogelman's point regarding Morris's "partial" telling of events via "omission" and "truncation". Fogelman explicitly draws the reader's attention to the fact that words are omitted and explicitly asks the reader to mark the words that he avoids using: "note the words which Morris omitted and replaced by an ellipsis". Upon inspection, the reader duly notes that the words "shells fell into it" were omitted ("it" being "the crowd"). With this omission, Morris's account avoids explicitly mentioning that the shells were not merely directed towards to the market square where there was a crowd, but that they actually hit the crowd. This cloak of ambiguity is one of Morris's way of being "economical with the truth", to quote the article. To emphasise the point about the omitted words, Fogeyman next quotes Ehud Almog: "We were ordered to shell the market when there was a large crowd there." Thus Fogeyman's point about the "omission" is two-fold: firstly, Morris is explicitly accused of a tendentious "omission" by introducing a sanitising ambiguity to a source that contains none; secondly, he is implicitly accused of not using material from other sources that confirm his cited source's unambiguous statement about the Haganah's actions that day. For the second part, let's be explicit: "the testimony of Zadok Eshel . . . is backed up by that of Ehud Almog". Next take the "truncation": "A truncated version of this quote also appears in 1948—reduced to 'completely indiscriminate and revolting . . . fire. Upon inspection, the reader duly notes that the words "machine gun fire and sniping on women and children" are omitted. Thus not only are the particularly emotive targets of women and children removed from Morris's "partial" retelling, but the particular sort of weapons fire directed at them is too. Both machine gunning and sniping require line-of-sight targeting, much more immediate, precise and deliberate than any up-and-over mortar fire directed towards the market square. These are Morris's sanitising omissions, and Fogelman explicitly calls the reader's attention to them. I have gained a very partial feeling for how nauseating it must be for Jews to deal with Holocaust deniers. ~ Iloveandrea (talk) 23:49, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm away from home and not able to edit much. When I return in a few days I'll check whether you have deleted your personal insult before filing a report against you. Zerotalk 11:29, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * " 'Morris' use of selective quotation to partially sanitize' is even worse as it directly imputes Morris' motives in your voice." It is not my voice that imputes him, but Fogelman's article".
 * You are right but who is Fogelman to give weight to one criticism of Morris that was reported only by Karsh and that nobody else ever mentionned. Where is the consensus among historians about these alleged fake quotes ? You have a secondary source ( a journalist ) but of poor quality ( it is a topic concerning history and Morris is an historian ). Anyway, this problem of fake quotes is real and notorious. So you should directly quote Karsh and Morris's answers about this. That would be better than just reporting a journalist about this.
 * If other scholars consider that he omitted some words in his quotes for other reasons, that should be mentionned too but only if it comes from scholars.
 * 81.247.213.48 (talk) 06:00, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Haaretz article Survival of the Fittest (in footnote 5)
Both articles can be found here: http://www.haaretz.com/survival-of-the-fittest-1.61345 http://www.haaretz.com/survival-of-the-fittest-cont-1.61341

146.60.74.94 (talk) 11:00, 7 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: I'm not sure what you're proposing here. The footnote gives links to them in web archives, which is good because such links are far less prone to Link rot. --Stfg (talk) 14:52, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Section: Political Views
This section only addresses for 90+% Morris' post-2002 political views, so the title is misleading and/or cherry-picking. Since many commentators refer to the "Morris Conversion", I would like to change the title accordingly. Erictheenquirer (talk) 13:01, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 09:27, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 one external links on Benny Morris. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=380986&contrassID=2
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=380984
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.counterpunch.org/shavit01162004.html
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5j0sy4bPE?url=http%3A%2F%2Fjeffweintraub.blogspot.com%2F2008%2F02%2Fbenny-morris-on-fact-fiction-propaganda.html to http://jeffweintraub.blogspot.com/2008/02/benny-morris-on-fact-fiction-propaganda.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100611160807/http://www.press.umich.edu/titleDetailLookInside.do?id=149007 to http://www.press.umich.edu/titleDetailLookInside.do?id=149007
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100612000022/http://www.polisci.upenn.edu/faculty/bios/Pubs/survivalreview.pdf to http://www.polisci.upenn.edu/faculty/bios/Pubs/survivalreview.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100331123841/http://www.ameu.org:80/uploads/vol23_issue4_1990.pdf to http://www.ameu.org/uploads/vol23_issue4_1990.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100331123841/http://www.ameu.org:80/uploads/vol23_issue4_1990.pdf to http://www.ameu.org/uploads/vol23_issue4_1990.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100331123841/http://www.ameu.org:80/uploads/vol23_issue4_1990.pdf to http://www.ameu.org/uploads/vol23_issue4_1990.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090115093026/http://www.claremont.org:80/publications/crb/id.1566/article_detail.asp to http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.1566/article_detail.asp
 * Added tag to http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1167467762531&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090214023710/http://www.jewishliteraryreview.com:80/post/2008/06/Benny-Morris-First-Arab-Israeli-War.aspx to http://www.jewishliteraryreview.com/post/2008/06/Benny-Morris-First-Arab-Israeli-War.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090305225045/http://site404.mysite4now.com/ipsnewsite/enakba/debates/Morris,%20Response%20to%20Finklestein%20and%20Masalha.pdf to http://site404.mysite4now.com/ipsnewsite/enakba/debates/Morris,%20Response%20to%20Finklestein%20and%20Masalha.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:59, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Benny Morris. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.counterpunch.org/shavit01162004.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150905211958/https://pjc.georgetown.edu/research to https://pjc.georgetown.edu/research
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.1566/article_detail.asp
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.jewishliteraryreview.com/post/2008/06/Benny-Morris-First-Arab-Israeli-War.aspx
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://site404.mysite4now.com/ipsnewsite/enakba/debates/Morris%2C%20Response%20to%20Finklestein%20and%20Masalha.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:54, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

This is an "bad" article... or at least a bad section.
The section on "Political views" begins with the sentence "Critics allege that Morris's first book ... is biased." The section is above the book, so a first time reader doesn't even doesn't know about the book or its significance. The section is too long, and needs to be broken down.

Good articles go like this: See: Abby Martin Slavery-slasher (talk) 03:03, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Praise and Criticism?
The Praise and Criticism section is 5% praise and 95% criticism. It's silly to pretend the section is balanced - it should be re-titled Criticism, and the single line of praise be moved up-page. Fig (talk) 15:43, 7 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Or we could add more praise or controversy? Ben Azura (talk) 15:46, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed, he is a well respected historian, I'm sure we can find more sources supporting that. Even then I think the praise should go in a separate section. That would be more consistent with other, similar wikipedia pages. DMH43 (talk) 21:07, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Removal of Ilan Pappe's comments due to WP:RS
@Amigao you removed a citation of an article by Ilan Pappe in electronic intifada. The section cites the article to source Ilan's comments. RS doesnt seem to apply here even if you consider electronic intifada unreliable. Even then, Ilan Pappe is a highly respected historian. I propose we reintroduce the citation. DMH43 (talk) 19:45, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Undo Dovidroths revert
Dovidroth reverted my addition when my EC was revoked. I suggest we undo the revert since my original change improved the article. My EC status has been restored. DMH43 (talk) 21:08, 1 January 2024 (UTC)


 * It might be worth noting that Dovidroth has been banned from the Palestine/Israel Conflict topic for 90 days: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dovidroth#Notice_that_you_are_now_subject_to_an_arbitration_enforcement_sanction
 * this is @Dovidroth's revert DMH43 (talk) 17:01, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The specific proposed additions:
 * Avi Shlaim, retired professor of international relations at the University of Oxford, and himself a New Historian, writes that Morris investigated the 1948 exodus of the Palestinians "as carefully, dispassionately, and objectively as it is ever likely to be", and that The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem is an "outstandingly original, scholarly, and important contribution" to the study of the issue. Shlaim writes that many of Morris's critics cling to the tenets of "Old History", the idea of an Israel born untarnished, a David fighting the Arab Goliath. He argues that these ideas are simply false, created not by historians but by the participants in the 1948 war, who wrote about the events they had taken part in without the benefit of access to Israeli government archives, which were first opened up in the early 1980s.
 * Morris has also been criticized for being reluctant to accept the implications of the evidence he presents in his work. A particular example being his analysis of the root of the conflict which he has stated is that "they [the Arabs] didn't want the Jews to be here [Israel]", while his book Righteous Victims states: "The fear of territorial displacement and dispossession was to be the chief motor of Arab antagonism to Zionism down to 1948 (and indeed after 1967 as well)."
 * and criticisms from baruch kimmerling:
 * In an article in HNN, Baruch Kimmerling discusses an interview with Benny Morris in which Morris states:"if he was already engaged in expulsion, maybe he should have done a complete job. I know that this stuns the Arabs and the liberals and the politically correct types. But my feeling is that this place would be quieter and know less suffering if the matter had been resolved once and for all. If Ben-Gurion had carried out a large expulsion and cleaned the whole country - the whole Land of Israel, as far as the Jordan River. It may yet turn out that this was his fatal mistake. If he had carried out a full expulsion - rather than a partial one - he would have stabilized the State of Israel for generations... Even the great American democracy could not have been created without the annihilation of the Indians. There are cases in which the overall, final good justifies harsh and cruel acts that are committed in the course of history."Kimmerling criticizes this analysis of Morris as misunderstanding the impact of the refugee problem on the current conflict, and the magnitude of an even larger refugee population.
 * DMH43 (talk) 19:48, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * This is now done DMH43 (talk) 17:06, 15 January 2024 (UTC)