Talk:Ilan Pappé/Archive 2

Same issue on other pages
Just two cents worth here to observe that this is yet another in the long list of pages where anyone who criticises Israeli policy - especially from an Israeli or Jewish perspective - suddenly, thanks to the efforts of some editors here, ends up with a Wikipedia page that has about three lines on who they are and what they do, and then about ten times as much in a "Criticisms" section largely devoted to random quotes from often random political opponents about why they don't like them. See also, until recently, Gideon Levy. Noam Chomsky of course has the privilege of having a whole "criticisms" page devoted to him. Oddly, this doesn't seem to be such a problem for pro-Israeli activists and writers like Alan Dershowitz. --Nickhh (talk) 13:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think your observations are right on target. To the lists of scholars that are getting the special flak treatment of late, we could add Rashid Khalidi and Joseph Massad. The purpose of it all seems in large part to intimidate people before they give the author a fair reading. For me the priority for a biographical article about a scholar is to explicate the themes underlying their work.BernardL (talk) 23:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Copy-edit while page is protected
Protecting admin, if you take a look at the end of the "criticism" section, the sentence beginning "Pappé says Karsh..." ought to be outside of the block-quote by Karsh.--G-Dett (talk) 22:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * While you're at it: the word 'subjetivity', in the same section, ought to be corrected to 'subjectivity'. Terraxos (talk) 03:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * This could be added. Pappé is one of the signatories to a One State petition. The One State Declaration November 29, 2007Nishidani (talk) 18:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Request for two edits by admin
editprotected Cgingold (talk) 22:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Udated link for Pappé speaking in Amsterdam on "The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine" - http://flashpoints.net/archive/archive-2007-May-all.html#2007-05-28
 * ✅. —Random832 16:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Addition of Category:Anti-Zionism
 * question: Is this related to the dispute? —Random832 16:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * They don't appear to be. One, which you have already implemented, is a simple correction of a URL. The other is the addition of a non-contentious category, which I think would be accepted by editors on both "sides" of the dispute. RolandR (talk) 16:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I unprotected the page, so you can make these changes yourself. I hope that everyone will avoid edit warring, and use discussion to resolve any remaining dispute. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 19:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for two edits by admin
editprotected
 * 1) I uploaded 2 photos of dr. Ilan that can be used in the article to wikimedia commons, they are under the names (Dr. Ilan Pappé1.JPG) and (Dr. Ilan Pappé1.JPG).
 * 2) another thing that I have some quotes from his lecture in Manchester Metropolitan University in 17 of Jan 2008 that I hope that I can add. --Wisamzaqoot (talk) 23:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I lowered the page to semiprotected. Any account four days old or older can edit now. If the previous vandalism resumes, unfortunately, the page may need to be protected again. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 05:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Pappé's counter-criticism of Morris
I have removed comments about Morris by Pappé which make a number of very serious allegations. 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 in the article. Jayjg (talk) 05:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Nothing in this edit makes sense, unless the intent is to damage Pappé's reputation by silencing him, and allowing unilateral peer criticism in, while denying the right of authorial reply and self-defence: it alters the page in a way that violates the intent of WP:BLP, and the erased text, in my opinion, shall have to be restored to achieve WP:NPOV. The reasons why I shall restore the material despite User:Jayjg's open threat of sanctions if anyone challenges him on this will follow my summary of his points:-


 * (a) User:Jayjg cites WP:BLP on the importance of high quality sources about living persons required by Wiki.
 * (b)The source removed is not a 'high quality source' because it comes from the Electronic Intifada, after it failed to be accepted by a 'high quality source', The New Republic.
 * (c)User:Jayjg justifies this as an 'admin' action, covering his idiosyncratic judgement with formal sanctions, creating an automatic block on challenges to what is not an administrative action but a highly subjective reading of rules that, on my understanding, simply do not apply to this case.


 * (a) WP:BLP is designed to protect living persons from having the Wiki articles devoted to them cluttered with innuendoes, hearsay, slurs, and gossip from cheap unreliable sources. In the present case, two living people are concerned. The material User:Jayjg removed is not defamatory of either Benny Morris or Ilan Pappé. It is material by Pappé defending himself against charges made by Morris. It is no more defamatory of Morris than the remarks made over their respectives pages by Efraim Karsh Anita Shapira, Norman Finkelstein, and many others on Morris, charges aired, with Morris's replies, on the Benny Morris wiki page (See below, for more instances). On those pages, and on the page dedicated to Benny Morris, editors have allowed the respective debates (Finkelstein vs. Alan Dershowitz is another example) to be aired, so that both critic and accused are given equal space. Jayjg's edit has destroyed this equilbrium, subjectively to defend Morris, objectively to allow Morris to criticise Pappé while denying Pappé on his own page, a right of reply.


 * (b)The New Republic turned down Pappé's reply to Morris' critique. The New Republic is not constrained by Wiki rules to give equal voice to all. It is a reliable source, but partisan, and in this case, denied Pappé its venue, as a reliable source, to defend himself against Morris's article. It has an editorial right to publish material critical of people. It does not have a duty to publish replies. It has a POV. Pappé was denied the right of reply, and therefore gave his answer, originally written for the The New Republic, to the Electronic Intifada, where no one could deny him the right to address Morris's criticisms. The source is not Electronic Intifada, except in the most technical sense (venue), the source for the remarks User:Jayjg elides is Ilan Pappé, the object of this article. Whatever venue Ilan Pappé chooses to print his opinions in, opinions Wiki is required to record on the Wiki Ilan Pappé page thoroughly and neutrally, is not for Wiki to decide, allowing some remarks, denying others. This innovation, implicit in User:Jayjg 's present practice, would make Wikipedia rules, thus twisted, the judge and arbitor of what can, or cannot be represented by a writer speaking about his views. The innovation translates into the following practical advice: You want your views to be fully represented on Wiki, Prof.Pappé? Then before you publish them, only choose venues we Wiki amateurs approve of. Folly.


 * (c)Thus User:Jayjg's judgement is not in line with administration guidelines and those who cannot follow his obscure and confused reasoning should not bear the sanctions of those guidelines in restoring the text.


 * The objective effect of User:Jayjg's edit is to allow the Wiki Ilan Pappé page to host Benny Morris's criticism of Pappé, but deny it Ilan Pappé's own reply, creating a POV, Morris's, which harms Pappé. The edit therefore unbalances the page, making it a venue for violations of WP:BLP, since criticism of Pappé is retained on the grounds of WP:RS, while Pappé's own specific reply to that criticism is suppressed as violating WP:RS. User:Jayjg was wrong, furthermorer then, to adduce WP:BLP as the grounds for the removal, since (a) his objection is WP:RS, while, properly read in this context, WP:BLP would support its retention, since Morris's material attacks Pappé, and User:Jayjg's edit denies Pappé on technical WP:S grounds,a right of reply on the very page Wiki dedicates to him.
 * Since the substance of Jayjg's edit relies on WP:RS, History News Network hosts the same letter by Pappé at Ilan Pappe, 'Benny Morris's Lies About My Book,' History News Network 4 May 2004. This new source will therefore be substituted for the one User:Jayjg objects to.


 * ANNEX: A brief comparative list of material on Wiki which does not violate WP:BLP, but simply registers what scholars say about each other, in exactly the same way the remarks Pappé makes on Morris and which User:Jayjg objects to, register Pappé's responses. If one elides this kind of matter, no article can be written, since these living persons are all controversialists.


 * Efraim Karsh calls Morris a fabricator. Morris accuses Karsh of lying. SeeBenny Morris Violation of WP:BLP?


 * Anita Shapira says Morris 'maliciously maligned' Karsh.SeeBenny Morris Violation of WP:BLP?


 * Morris says:'Norman Finkelstein is a notorious distorter of facts' (source Camera, no more or less WP:RS than Electronic Intifada). See Norman Finkelstein Violation of WP:BLP?


 * Norman Finkelstein branded Alan Dershowitz's book a 'collection of fraud, falsification, plagiarism, and nonsense'. Violation of WP:BLP?


 * Alan Dershowitz claims Finkelstein is an 'Holocaust denier, revisionist, trivializer or minimizer'. Dershowitz-Finkelstein affairViolation of WP:BLP?


 * Ian Lustik charaterised Karsh's remarks as full of 'howlers, contradictions and distortions' see Efraim Karsh. Violation of WP:BLP?


 * Efraim Karsh accuses Avi Shlaim of systematically distorting archival evidence (note 1 Efraim Karsh) Violation of WP:BLP?


 * Avi Shlaim replies branding Karsh's work as reflecting a ' totalitarian conception of history' (note 2 'idem) Violation of WP:BLP?


 * Steven Plaut considers Neve Gordon a person who promotes the destruction of Israel, and a self-hating Jew. Violation of WP:BLP?


 * I'll wait for discussion, and if not substantive and forthcoming, will restore the passage User:Jayjg objected to, with the Reliable Source at Electronic Intifada changed to the same material posted at Ilan Pappe, 'Benny Morris's Lies About My Book,' History News Network 4 May 2004. Nishidani (talk) 12:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Electronic Intifada is not a reliable source for anything, much less WP:BLP. Use reliable sources. Jayjg (talk) 02:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Jayjg, regardless of your point of view about Electronic Intifada, it is here nothing but a place where Ilan Pappé put his response. If Ilan Pappe sent his response via email will you argue that hotmail is not a reliable source of information? the point here is that Ilan Pappé is the real source. Jayjg your argument can be taken in consideration if we are talking about a material written by Electronic Intifada itself, which is clearly not the case here.--Wisamzaqoot (talk) 19:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Whether a source is reliable or not is ultimately something to determined case by case for the specific fact at issue. If Electronic Intifada had just published Pappe yesterday there might be some question as to whether Pappe had written it and it might be necessary to evaluate whether EI was a RS for that fact. But it is inconceivable at this remove in time that Pappe would not have said something by now had the EI article not been his work or if it had been otherwise distorted. EI is therefor a RS for this fact. And Jayg ought to be desysopped for attempted intimidation, threatening admin sanctions, in a content dispute. Andyvphil (talk) 13:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Andyvphil No one need take that edit bluff seriously. With that stuff, from now on in, perhaps just 'Nice try. I've reverted' is sufficient. By the way,Wisamzaqoot, that quote from the Manchester lecture, if retained, should be given a link. It is also, plagued with grammatical errors, as are other quotes from Pappe. Nishidani (talk) 15:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for posting the link to Pappé's reply, so the reader can make up his own mind.
 * Pappé's basic criticism seems to be that Morris doesn't use Palestinian sources, can't even read Arabic and therefore his version of "history" is one-sided and incomplete, even without ideological motives. This argument provides context to the quotes in the "Criticism" section that accuse Pappé of "inventions" and "fabrications" - Pappé's sources are unacceptable to his critics. This should be explained in the article, otherwise the quotes merely stand as slander. 88.217.78.20 (talk) 11:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * clearly "ElectronicIntifada" is in not a reliable source Zeq (talk) 11:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

It is ridiculous for editors to decide which venue is or is not reliable for someone to voice his opinions. There is a difference between discussing the difference between the reliability of reporting on Electronic Intifada, and the issue that whether or not Ilan Pappe actually wrote the Ben Morris response on Electronic Intifada. If you have any doubts whether Ilan Pappe actually wrote that article, all you need to do to verify it is contact Ilan Pappe himself, who will most definitely confirm that he both wrote the article on Electronic Intifada and that the contents of the article are exactly as he wrote and are unchanged. Jayjg was clearly expressing abuse of his privileges by threatening counter edits and failing to understand the fundamental difference between reporting reliability and blatant forgery. If anyone has any evidence of any complaints made by Ilan Pappe contesting the fact that the article posted on Electronic Intifada is not his article, then they should post such evidence here. Furthermore, Electronic Intifada had no history whatsoever of posting articles under false names in the past which would cast doubt as to whether or not this article was written by Ilan Pappe. Therefore, the counter claims made by Ilan Pappe against Ben Morris should remain to keep the NPOV. (Medfreak (talk) 14:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC))

I wanted to update the link to Ilan's website, which used to be www.ilanpappe.org and is now www.ilanpappe.com, but I am prevented from doing so. Why is this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lordofrevision (talk • contribs) 18:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Because of constant abusive vandalism, this article has been semi-protected, so that anonymous or newly registered editors cannot amend it; see semi-protection for a fuller explanation. I have corrected one of the links (to the one state/two state article); if you know of others, let me know and I can correct them too-- make sure to check the current URL, it is not just a matter of substituting .com for .org! Or you could simply wait a few days, or make a number of edits to non-protected articles, and then you will be able to edit this one. RolandR (talk) 20:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Seth J. Frantzman
I once removed the link because it tells us about Mr Frantzman's grandfather, and just notes the said Frantzman works for a Tucson newspaper and is a Republican supporter of GWB. There is nothingb substantial about Frantzman's record as an informed student of Middle Eastern history. By linking in this fashion, the reader is told where Frantzman is coming from, and the question also arises, 'Is quoting him worth the candle'?, given serious and informed critics of Pappé abound without scraping the (gun-)barrel. I won't touch the text unless some consensus on this, and indeed personally find such material innocuous in its naivity, and self-defeating. But is the link adequate?Nishidani (talk) 18:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Both sides
will find here things they may want to quote: - what I found intersting is that Pappe admit that he wanted to have a boycoot on israel similar to that of south africa. This have always been the dream of those who calim "israeli apartheid". Zeq (talk) 11:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Interview in German far-right-newspaper
Hi there, recently, Pappe gave an Interview to the National_Zeitung, one of Germany's largest newspapers of the far-right/neonazi-wing.

http://www.dsz-verlag.de/Artikel_08/NZ13_4.html

Maybe it's interesting, that Pappe's views are compatible to those of neonazi anti-zionists.

best regards, 92.78.10.38 (talk) 21:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * See Ilan's statement on the interview with National Zeitung


 * "Dear Friends,


 * "As a point of clarification, it came to my notice that among the many interviews I gave while being in Germany one of them was copied to the National Zeitung. Had I known that I would appear in this newspaper, I would have not agreed to do that. I do not blame that paper, but myself from not inquiring to whom I am giving press conferences and interviews. I would like to stress that my ideology and moral stance are in total contradiction to what this newspaper represent and the unfortunate appearance in it has nothing to associate myself or the cause of Palestine with the paper and the political party behind it."  RolandR (talk) 22:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

yes, I know his statement, but though, it is interesting that his views are compatible with those of German Neonazis, who are normally not known for their love for jews. I think, the point is not that Pappe did not know which kind of newspaper it was, but the fact, that he and the neonazis from the National-Zeitung share the same views on Israel.

best regards, 92.78.10.38 (talk) 22:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Forgot this: maybe the interview should be mentioned as well as Pappe's statement? br 92.78.10.38 (talk) 22:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

One last note on Pappe's statement: he states that the interview "was copied" - but infact, he spoke himself with the interviewer from the "National-Zeitung". 92.78.10.38 (talk) 22:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC) What did he say, or is it just the slur you want to concentrate on??

And why does Gilabrand always want to vandalise the article??

And why does she want Ilan Pappe changed to Pappé with circumflex is she after damaging the link?Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 21:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

you asked, what Pappe was saying in his interview with the Neo-Nazis from the National-Zeitung. It's mainly:

- His newest book was reviewed badly because the "elite" in Germany is "influenced by pro-Israel-Historicans"

- the foundation of Israel was the ultimate crime

- the "regime which oppresses all of palestine" must be abolished, because "Israel is not part of the civilized world"

All in all, it's not too hard to guess why German Neo-Nazis appreciate Ilan Pappe's views.

best regards,

88.74.152.4 (talk) 23:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Grammar
The article has for a long time stated "Pappé is considered one of Israel's "New Historians," who reject the Israeli narrative and hold controversial views of Israeli history and Zionism." For some reason, over the past couple of days Ashley kennedy3 has replaced this, three times so far, with the grammatically incorrect "Pappé is considered one of Israel's "New Historians," who reject the Israeli narrative and holds controversial views of Israeli history and Zionism". He has explained this with the edit summary "Hold view, Holds views plural". This is clearly nonsense. We don't say "he hold an apple", "they holds apples". The verb agrees in number with the subject of the sentence (in this case, "New Historians"), not with the object ("views"). So whether the sentence referred to "views" or "a view" which was held, the correct verb form would still be "hold". Please the correct grammar alone, and focus on the content of the article. RolandR (talk) 15:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Weaseling wiki
I support Gilabrand's edit, because Benny Morris was a New Historian but changed ideas, hence the questioning of a phrasing that makes out all New Historians are 'controversial'. But the big problem here, as in so many other texts, is the universal (per wiki) 'controversial' applied as a loaded euphemism for 'anti-Zionist'. Any historian, writer, professor or thinker who is to be construed as saying anything not in line with an ostensible Zionist perspective or Israeli consensus on the past is called 'controversial'. It is the epithet of preferred choice by editors to mark out a critic of Israel. But within the fields in which all these critics work, most historians challenge each other incessantly, Efraim Karsh is as 'controversial' as Benny Morris. The 'controversial' (read anti-Zionist narrative) scholars think that many of the pro-Zionist scholars in their midst entertain views that they controvert, and therefore they too are 'controversial'. The epithet should be chucked out. It's as useless as tits on a tadpole.Nishidani (talk) 17:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Pappé is considered one of Israel's "New Historians," who rejects the Israeli narrative and holds controversial views of Israeli history and Zionism.

Pappé rejects but not all "new historians" do. Had the "new historians" formed a club then yes, however the "new historians " have only been dubbed with that epitaph by the "old retiring historians". Benny Morris has not rejected the Zionist view at all, if anything he takes it to a whole new level as in, War crimes "800 dead.....peanuts". Tom Segev could hardly be counted as an anti-Zionist. each of the "new historians" have their own POV on the "official" line but do they all reject the "Israeli narrative"....No, how can they. They are Israeli. Sorry but the sentence is only applicable to one of the "new historians" and that is Pappé...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 20:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * After you publish a book on your theories of who belongs to the category of Israeli new historians and who doesn't, you can add it. At the moment, it is OR and will be deleted.--Gilabrand (talk) 20:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

As it is factually incorrect to say that all "new historian" reject the "Israeli narrative" may I suggest taking the reference to "new historians" out as "new historians" are referenced further in the article.Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 20:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "New Historians" is a label that lumps together a certain group of historians who take a critical view of Zionist narratives. There are differences between them, as there are between all people. Labels are never a perfect fit, and personally, I don't believe in them. But Wikipedia editors can't decide for themselves that applying this label to the historians for whom the term was invented " is factually incorrect." --Gilabrand (talk) 21:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Then I suggest you define who "they" are before trying to put words in their mouths and backing it up with references of where they can be quoted from in their rejection of the "Israeli narrative", because all you're doing at the moment is putting in POV. The term was given by others and not one that Ilan Pappe, Tom Segev, Benny Morris, Simha Flapan or Avi Shlaim joined a club to get. How big is this club does Anita Shapira fit or Gershon Shafir? How about Meron Benvenisti. Do they all reject the "Israeli narrative", if so please define "Israeli narrative". So far neither the extent of the group that you are tying the sentence to no "Israeli narrative" has been defined. At the moment you are implying that Israeli documents are rejecting the "Israeli narrative". If Anita Shapira or Gershon Shafir decide that they may be described as "New Historians but they have not rejected/challenge the "Israeli narrative" are you going to pay the libel bill?...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 22:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Typo
"He ignores context and draws far broader conclusions than evicence allows by cherry-picking some reports and ignoring other sources entirely."

Corrected evicence to evidence. (Medfreak (talk) 13:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC))

Far-left
Do sources outside Israel describe him as far-left?

Also, if you want to include the massacre issue in the lead, the sentence has to be worded neutrally, and must be accurate. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 19:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Last time I checked, there's nothing wrong with reliable sources in Israel. Besides, most of the coverage he has received has been in the Middle East. He isn't much notable otherwise. We'll have a real difficult time finding descriptions of Pappe in the Korean Times. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 19:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * He has received coverage elsewhere e.g. Guardian, W/Post. If he's only considered far-left in Israel, we shouldn't use it in the lead. It's also a bit of an odd thing to have in the first paragraph. No one serious would care whether he's far left; all that matters is his work. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 19:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Since a Google search for "Ilan Pappe" gives 208,000 hits, while one for "אילן פפה" gives only 13,800 and one for "إيلان بابي" just 2430, you will find it hard to prove that "most of the coverage he has received has been in the Middle East". He is very well known in the west, for his research and publications on Israeli and Palestinian history, for his criticism of Israel, and for his support for the academic boycott. His support for Teddy Katz, however, has received lirrle coverage. RolandR (talk) 19:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The Washington Post says it all: "Ilan Pappe's ideological journey has taken him to the far shore of Israel's political gulf and nearly complete isolation." And this was even before the Katz scandal. Come to think about it, the Washington Post's description might better describe an "extreme left wing" then a "far left wing". -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 20:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * That source doesn't say he's extreme left either; and what do you see as the difference between extreme left and far left. And why would it matter enough for the first paragraph of the lead anyway? Please bear in mind that this is a BLP -- anything remotely contentious must be extremely well-sourced -- and the source must actually say what we publish. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 21:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I hope you're not going to demand that the source say they words "far left". The description given by the Washington Post, as outlined above, fits perfectly into the "extreme left" description. How he is considered politically is something that is most prevalent to hie lede, especially since he's a political activist. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 21:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment:
 * Katz as a name is not the issue despite the issues surrounding the event being notable enough to be added into the biography. It could possibly be conservatively written somewhere in the lead, but the initial version was too aggressive in tone for an encyclopedic lead. Certainly with the word "massacre" lumped in there.
 * Warm regards,  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  19:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment 2: the assertion that Pappe is far-left is by far not exceptional considering he's advocating a boycott on Israeli academy for his anti-Zionist ideology. In that context, BLP would work if there was an attempt to phrase the issue in hyperbole but if the phrasing is conservatively written and is also sourced, then there shouldn't be any BLP issues.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  21:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Use of poorly defined judgemental phrases like "far left" should be limited to opinions of named persons. Such a classification can never be an objective fact because there is no agreement on what it means. It can only ever be an opinion; we should say whose opinion. Zerotalk 04:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Reliable source
I've posted a question on the RS noticeboard about whether Ilan Pappe counts as a reliable source for Wikipedia within the terms of the sourcing policy. Any input would be appreciated at Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. Cheers, SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 20:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Recent edit moved down here :
 * The text { "Indeed the struggle is about ideology, not about facts. Who knows what facts are? We try to convince as many people as we can that our interpretation of the facts is the correct one, and we do it because of ideological reasons..."} is on Pappe's own site right here: An Interview with Ilan Pappe by Baudouin LoosStellarkid (talk) 01:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * In his book,A history of modern Palestine: one land, two peoples. Pappe says   "My bias is apparent despite the desire of my peers that I stick to facts and the 'truth' when reconstructing past realities.  I view any such construction as vain and presumptuous.  .....In short, mine is a subjective approach, often but not always standing for the defeated over the victorious....." pgs. 11-12    History is not about "standing" for one side or the other, being "subjective" or dissing facts and 'truth'. {"Don't bother me with the facts"} Amoruso is absolutely right.  Pappe cannot be considered a serious historian!  Stellarkid (talk) 01:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 81.244.176.173 (talk) 13:26, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Added historical revisionist
to his labels. It is informative, and there is plenty of evidence that he is thus referred, even on his own site ilanpappe.com. I put up some three sources, but there are plenty more. I believe that this label gives more information to the reader, and can't see anything wrong with it. Anyway, I put it up and letting people know here. Stellarkid (talk) 03:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Communist Party candidate in 1996
I can't find a source for this - lots of pages claiming it, but no actual source. Maybe Israel's electoral office? -- Danny Yee 01:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * He was Number 7 in the Hadash list Abu ali 11:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * but this was for the 1999 elections according to this source (and my own memory). the page itself doesn't show the date but if you go to you'll see its the 15th knessent election which was in 1999. I've corrected the article (still can't believe it stayed that way for 2 years. --Histolo2 (talk) 18:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * He was number eight on the combined Hadash-Balad list in 1996 . RolandR (talk) 00:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Sentence on his Hadash membership in the lead
"Formerly a senior member of the Hadash, Pappé ran, in 1999, for one of the three seats of the Hadash in the Knesset election, finishing 7th.

RolandR you state that the above sentence is "Untrue, unsourced and very badly written", reverting it without further explanation. I currently fail to see your argument. Our haaretz citation says that Pappe is a senior member of Hadash (בשבוע שעבר הודיע ד"ר אילן פפה, גם הוא חבר הנהלת חד"ש, כי לא יתמודד בבחירות הפנימיות). The Knesset source says he finished 7th in the 1999 elections for Hadash (which we know had three seats up for grabs). And pending further explanation, your opinions on prose style remain subjective. Feel free to re-write it, but again which part of the sentence is unsupported? Thankyou. Avaya1 (talk) 23:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Knesset elections
Avaya1 is repeatedly adding a badly written, inaccurate and unsourced statement regarding Pappé's involvement in the 1996 Knesset election. I rephrased this, using sourced and accurate information, but this too has been reverted.

Pappé was a candidate on the Hadash slate in 1996 and 1999, in eighth and seventh place respectively. Standing on this slate, in a clearly unrealistic position, does not make him a "politician" -- it is a gesture of support for a political party by a public figure. This does not make him a "senior member of the Communist party leadership",. He did not "run for one of the three seats of Hadash in the Knesset, finishing seventh" -- he was number seven on the Hadash list of 120 for the 120 seats in the Knesset, when the party won three seats.


 * Haaretz states that he is/was in a management position at Hadash (I removed all the stuff about communism in the latest edit, which you reverted). No sources (hitherto presented) say that his run for election was merely a gesture - maybe it was, but that's speculation. In 1999, Hadash won three (out of the total of 120) seats in the Knesset. Pappe ran for a seat, coming 7th. And it was 1999, not 1996. Avaya1 (talk) 23:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The information is sourced to "Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, August 1999, pages 99 to 103", with no url given, even though the the WMEA archives all of its material -- suggesting that this is at best second-hand research. The page cited can be found at. This does not contain any of the facts alleged in the article; it is a page of letters to the editor, with one letter from a reader correcting a previous, apparently incorrect, WMEA article on the election. This letter, which actually contradicts some of the "facts" which Avaya1 has tried to insert into the article, cannot really be accepted as a reliable source.

I have now reverted this three times today, and I have tried to introduce a briefer, more accurate, properly sourced and better written statement. I hope other editors can also take this up, and help control the spread of inaccuracies and misinformation. RolandR (talk) 23:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * And Hadash did not "have three seats up for grabs". In 1996 it was running in a coalition with Balad for election, in Israel's strictly proportional list system. Nobody could know how many seats the list would win; eventually, they won five, of which four were from Hadash and one from Balad. In 1999, running alone, Hadash won three seats. But it was clear that Pappé did not, and could not, expect to win a seat on either occasion -- unless the Israeli electorate had collectively come to their senses and voted in massive numbers for these lists. It is, at best, misleading to present Pappé as an aspiring parliamentarian. RolandR (talk) 23:38, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hadash won 3 seats in 1999 (after they split from Balad) - the coalition with Balad had 5 seats in 1996, so winning 3 seats was within reasonable expectation. Pappé was only four places from getting a seat. Maybe you're right that he didn't have serious parliamentary aspirations, but it is surely not our job to make such speculations (WP:OR). If someone runs for Knesset, that is notable enough to go in their wikipedia lead. Avaya1 (talk) 23:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that a letter's page was perhaps not a reliable source (and also superfluous). Some earlier edits were inaccurate (you can see where I wrote "oops" in the edit summary), I was editing in a piece-meal fashion. (Although the letter only notes that he is a member of Hadash, that is now the sub-clause the citation is supporting). My latest edit is accurate as far as I can tell Avaya1 (talk) 23:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Could you post your source material here on the talk page, with a translation if it's in Hebrew? It's important not to add experimental edits to biographies of living persons, and to use only the best sources. See WP:BLP for more information. Cheers, SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 05:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The final sentence of the source is relevant (http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasite/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=235340&contrassID=2&subContrassID=0&sbSubContrassID=0) Quote: בשבוע שעבר הודיע ד"ר אילן פפה, גם הוא חבר הנהלת חד"ש, כי לא יתמודד בבחירות הפנימיות.


 * "It was stated last week that Dr. Ilan Pappe, who is also one of the members of the management of Hadash, would not run in [ed: this year's] internal elections."


 * My last revision was therefore uncontroversial and fully supported. Note that the source we have for his running in the knesset is 1999, as mentioned above (the fifteenth election was 1999). Best Avaya1 (talk) 21:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * This article is undated; and, because of the odd way in which Haaretz organises its archive, I haven't been able to establish when it was published. However, the first sentence refers to forthcoming elections to the 16th Knesset, so this would place the article towards the end of 2002. I would translate the relevant sentence as "Last week Dr Ilan Pappé, another member of the Hadash leadership, announced that he would not take part in the primaries". Pappé was on the Hadash list both in 1996 (in eighth place) and 1999 (in seventh place). Your edit to the article is clumsily phrased, and also misrepresents the way in wwhich Israeli elections work, soi I have rephrased it, while maintaining the agreed facts. RolandR (talk) 22:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok - I'm glad we could resolve this. Thanks Avaya1 (talk) 15:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I have now located a page on the Israeli Democracy Institute site (Hebrew only) which links to the complete electoral lists of all parties in all Knesset elections. This confirms that Pappé was indeed in eighth place in 1996 and seventh in 1999. This is a very useful resource, which should prevent any dispute about the facts (though not, of course, about their interpretation) in the future. RolandR (talk) 17:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Revert at Criticism section
RolandR reverted one of my edits under the criticism section:

"Pappe's works have been criticized as 'anti-Israel,' that his 'career has been devoted almost exclusively to turning out articles and books that demonize Israel and Zionism,' and that he 'openly calls for Israel’s annihilation.' Meyrav Wurmser agrees, saying 'For ...Pappe, it seems, all means are justified in the struggle to defame Zionism and Israel.'"

on the grounds that "These are propagandists, not reliable sources for criticism." I beg to differ. These are RS:  Wurmser is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, has a doctorate from George Washington University and has taught at Johns Hopkins and the US Naval Academy  and other prestigious institutions. She is also a cofounder of MEMRI.

Plaut is on the faculty at University of Haifa (same as where Pappe taught) has a doctorate Princeton. His writings have been published in The Jewish Press, Front Page Magazine and he is on the board at the Middle East Quarterly and others. He has authored a book and has taught at Oberlin College, the Technion, UC Berkeley, UC Irvine, Central European University, Tel Aviv University and other places. These may not be historiographers like Pappe, but they are qualified to discuss and critique his work. Stellarkid (talk) 17:15, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Steven Plaut is a far-right propagandist and professor of business studies, who has a long record of attacking and denouncing critics -- especiually Jewish critics -- of Israel. In at least one case, he has been found guilty by an Israeli court of libelling an adversary. His prejudiced views should never be used in a Wikipedia biography. Meyrav Wurmser is a leading neo-conservative and a professional pro-Israel propagandist. Her comments, too, should not be considered reliable material in a biography. These comments are ad hominem smears, not notable criticism. RolandR (talk) 14:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Official Website Gone
I've removed the link to Pappe's official website since the page that is there now is quite clear not - it's a page of ads. Does anyone know if there ever was an official site at this link? If so, where is it hosted now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.161.29 (talk) 10:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Pappé or Pappe?
Why is his name spelled here Pappé when his published works give it as Pappe, with no accent? Is it a French name? If his family were German Jews that seems unlikely. Or is it an attempt to render a Hebrew name phonetically? Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 12:35, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Because that is how he himself spells his name in English, even if his publishers often do not. RolandR (talk) 12:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

p. 23, in "The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine"
In several articles, , (which I have just removed ) claim that Pappe write the following on p. 23: David Ben-Gurion wrote the following: “The Arabs will have to go, but one needs an opportune moment for making it happen, such as a war.”

This is not correct. In his book, Pappe writes, p.23:"David Ben-Gurion himself, writing to his son in 1937, appeared convinced that this was the only course open to ZIonism: 'The Arabs will have to go', but one needs an opportune moment for making it happen, such as a war."

Note that Pappe only quotes the first 6 words as a direct quote, while the above articles makes it out that the whole sentence is a quote. As for the rest: "but one needs an opportune moment for making it happen, such as a war," this is in agreement with what how others have described Ben-Gurions opinions at the time, (see eg Morris, 2004, p. 46-48; this was after the Peel Commission first put the concept of forcible transfer on the table.) Cheers, Huldra (talk) 14:18, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't have a copy of Pappe's book in front of me, so I will take Huldra's word that the quotation does not encompass the latter part of Ben-Gurion's alleged quote. However, I just checked the original of the Journal of Palestine Studies article (also referenced in the sources cited), and there the Ben-Gurion quotation is rendered as "The Arabs will have to go, but one needs an opportune moment for making it happen, such as a war." (Ilan Pappe, The 1948 Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, 36 J. Palestine Stud. 6, 9 (2006)) I'll shortly update the article so it only references the JPS article.
 * Schraubd (talk) 20:11, 13 November 2011 (UTC)schraubd


 * My copy of Pappé's book (2007, reprinted 2008 (twice)), p.23, has: Ben-Gurion himself, writing to his son in 1937, appeared convinced that this was the only course of action open to Zionism: 'The Arabs will have to go, but one needs an opportune moment for making it happen, such as a war.' Note there is no close quote marking off the first six words. Maybe Huldra has a later edition, where the quote is clarified? However the sources used to attack Pappé appear dubious to me, certainly highly partisan and not suitable for use without attribution. Is anyone able to check the sources provided by Pappé (Ben Gurion's Diary, 12 July 1937, and New Judea August-September 1937) or at least provide better sources? --NSH001 (talk) 22:22, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, I have just uploaded the page to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pappe23.jpg but it might be deleted soon as a copyright-violation (as my Khalidi-scan was here) And my Pappe-book, (which is hard-back, & I bought in April 2009: just checked with my account) has copyright Ilan Pappe 2006, and "Reprinted 2007 (twice)" ....so it is printed sometime between 2007 and 2009. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 23:04, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * And Schraubd: you have just violated WP:1RR . Please self-revert, thank you, Huldra (talk) 23:14, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec)I appear to have the same (paperback) edition as NSH, and Huldra's scan is clearly different from my edition. There is clearly a disparity of evidence and sources here, and since none of the sources adduced apears to be reliable, certainly not for such a serious allegation, I suggest that the passage be removed pending further clarification. Charging a living academic with fabrication of sources is a serious matter, and needs solid evidence. RolandR (talk) 23:18, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Huldra, for the scan. I agree with Roland that the claim should be removed unless solid sources can be provided to support such a charge. --NSH001 (talk) 23:35, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm willing to defer on the question of the reliability of the Jewish Ledger and CiF Watch sources, but I do think that the filmmaker's own press release qualifies as a reliable source for the actions of the filmmaker. And the quote is present as alleged in the JPS article (I don't know how to upload material, but the piece is on JSTOR and can be checked). Hence, I propose that the claim be reworked so it only references the filmmaker's retraction and the director's explanation that he could not verify the existence of the quote (which is a weaker claim than that Pappe fabricated sources), since that is well-grounded, and cite to the JPS article, since there is no controversy (to my knowledge) as to the quote's presence in that work. My last edit (which was not a revert) was an attempt to reach a consensus position between Huldra's observation that the quote may not be present as alleged in the book, and the quote's presence as alleged in the JPS article. But I will defer to more experienced editors on how best to incorporate this information. 50.129.98.151 (talk) 01:49, 14 November 2011 (UTC)schraubd
 * CIFwatch is just some sort of blog and obviously fails WP:RS. Jewish Ledger might possibly make the grade, but from there we learn that it is CAMERA making the claim. If Jewish Ledger is cited, then they should be cited as source for the claim made by CAMERA.  In general, this is one claim against another.  Despite my generally low opinion of Pappe's reliability, he is obviously better qualified than CAMERA and it would be a travesty to state, on the basis of CAMERA's claim, that he is wrong.  (I.e., it can only be stated that CAMERA claims he is wrong.)  I'm not impressed by the mention of electronic copies of Ben Gurion's diary either, since Jewish Ledger does not specify that the original diary entry was produced (which would have required a visit to Sede Boker) rather than the edited and sanitized published version. Zerotalk 11:55, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I seem to have the same edition as Huldra, with the quotation marks only around the first six words. About the JPS article, it has the longer quoted sentence and an incorrect citation to a book of Smith (I checked Smith's book).  I just noticed that in Pappe's book this citation to Smith is used earlier on the same page for something else (it is [38] whereas the right one is [40]).  All this looks like careless editing, and all historians make mistakes like this.  Claiming it as proof of dishonesty is the sort of thing CAMERA does but I don't know why we need to cooperate with them. Zerotalk 00:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Here is the source about the letter

http://books.google.co.il/books?id=HycCD6HdBfoC&pg=PA267&dq=Ben-Gurion+letter+to+amos+arabs&hl=iw&sa=X&ei=EUF4T-PZMYq60QW0qvXDDQ&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Ben-Gurion%20letter%20to%20amos%20arabs&f=false

What I addad
The below was not liked. If someone wants to chop this down and add it, be my guest. ~ Iloveandrea (talk) 18:41, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

In 2012, the Journal of Palestine Studies was forced to translate and publish a 1937 letter of David Ben-Gurion after the pressure group CAMERA reported an error made in a journal article written by Pappé. In his article, Pappé had written, "Ben-Gurion, for example, wrote in a letter to his son in 1937, 'The Arabs will have to go, but one needs an opportune moment for making it happen, such as a war, citing pages 167–68 of David Smith's 2004 Palestine and the Arab-Israeli Conflict. After checking Smith's book for the quote, CAMERA noticed that there had been an error in citation, and wrote to JPS saying so: "the quote attributed to Ben-Gurion does not appear in the citation provided." The JPS verified this, but in doing so highlighted something that CAMERA had not: "In checking the passage as printed in JPS against the corresponding passage in Pappé's hardcover edition, however, we discovered a yet more serious error in the JPS text, notably in the phrase highlighted below. Although CAMERA in its website posting of 4 November 2011("Ilan Pappé, Check Your Sources") presents the Ben-Gurion quotes in both versions as being the same, in fact a misplaced quotation mark had significantly changed the meanings. "Ben-Gurion himself, writing to his son in 1937, appeared convinced that this was the only course of action open to Zionism: "The Arabs will have to go," but one needs an opportune moment for making it happen, such as a war." Thus, the corrected punctuation in the latter version distinguishes between Ben-Gurion's own words and Pappé’s paraphrase of the gist of the Zionist leader's thinking on transfer, an essential distinction that does not exist in the JPS article. It is worth noting that in its correspondence with us, CAMERA made no mention of the substantive error arising from the misplaced quotation marks in JPS, which we ourselves are highlighting in the interests of accuracy."

The JPS, for its part, does not mention that the paperback version of Pappé's book, certainly at least the 2011 reprint, uses (p. 23) the quote with the same mark positioning as the JPS article—"The Arabs will have to go, but one needs an opportune moment for making it happen, such as a war." The paperback provides different sources to the Smith citation used in the journal article, though: "Ben-Gurion's Diary, 12 July 1937, and in New Judea, August–September 1937, p. 220."

Having uncovered these citation errors and discrepancies, the journal decided to go the final step and have the entirety of Ben-Gurion's letter translated into English. The translated letter confirms that, regardless of citation errors, the underlying interpretation of the letter provided by Pappé's article and book was sound. In the letter to his son, Ben-Gurion is quite clear: "We must expel Arabs and take their place."

Iloveandrea - massive revisions and such, May 2012
andrea - i appreciate your working on this. thanks. please note that many of the links i removed were removed not because of RS issues, but because the links are dead, and no other info is out there. his own website hasn't worked in a long time, for example. so, when re-adding my deletes, please check carefully. i will wait until you finish your work, and then review it and make any comments after that. thanks again. Soosim (talk) 05:11, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Hey, Soosim. I see the IPS article got kept! Anyway, all this article is RS now, and I completely eliminated all mention of his old personal webpage. For once, I really have tried to keep it NPOV, but my chosen means to achieving it has left the article suffering from rather clipped prose. Perhaps it's the best that can be hoped for? You'll see that it now just mentions that Pappé is criticised by X, Y, and Z, and that Pappé has "replied". All critical sources are the same as before, so there's been no culling of an opportunity to find out what the criticisms are, and I also added a few extra cites. All dead links were revivified too. ~ Iloveandrea (talk) 01:29, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Article from London-based investigate journalist Asa Winstanley further dealing with the 1937 letter debate, info should be included here
http://www.asawinstanley.com/ (website of the author)

http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/asa-winstanley/old-will-die-and-young-will-forget-did-ben-gurion-say-it

(The relevant section of this article, now quoted)

Quote-

Without getting into the entire dispute, it suffices for our purposes to note that CAMERA’s argument against this quotation’s accuracy was faintly ridiculous.

The Journal of Palestine Studies published a typed transcript of the entire original Ben-Gurion letter to his son in Hebrew, along with their own English translation – the first time the entire letter had been made available in English. But CAMERA managed to obtain a copy of the hand-written original, publishing a small portion of it.

CAMERA’s explaining away of a clearly-worded sentence written in Ben-Gurion’s own hand frankly verges on conspiracy theory.

CAMERA points out that, immediately before the line “We must expel Arabs and take their place” there are another few lines that have been crossed out. CAMERA then argues that part of the lines immediately before “We must expel…” '''were “mistakenly erased” by unknown persons. They claim''' the crossed-out passage is an “integral part of the sentence.”

When added to the surviving sentence, they claim, the real meaning was precisely the opposite – “We do not want to and we do not have to expel Arabs and take their place”!

(Interestingly, CAMERA consults the very same Zionist historian-politician already mentioned in this post to back up their strange theory – Michael Bar-Zohar).

But this is pure speculation.

I asked two professional Hebrew translators and a linguist for their opinions. Each considered the evidence independently. All three dismissed CAMERA’s theory.

end quote.

The original documents from JPS as well

http://palestine-studies.org/files/hebrelett.pdf

http://palestine-studies.org/files/lettertran.pdf

Info to include.Vikingsfan8 (talk) 09:13, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Ethnicity
Why does the info box say that his ethnicity is German? Shouldn't Jewish or Ashkenazi Jew be more appropriate?

187.193.58.95 (talk) 04:12, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you have sources for that?--Shrike (talk) 06:51, 22 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Ok, I couldn't find anything that specifically said he was an Ashkenazi Jew but this and even this one that's already sourced in the article say he was born to German Jews (and German Jews are Ashkenazi) fleeing persecution from the Nazis (in the second one it even says both sides of his family suffered deaths due to the Holocaust) not that he was born to an ethnic German family that arrived in Israel. So I propose his ethnicity to be changed to Jewish only (or Ashkenazi Jew) from German. 187.193.58.95 (talk) 23:34, 22 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I've never understood, and don't much like, the "ethnicity" field of infoboxes. But anyway it is a triviality to source that Pappé is Jewish and that value was edit-warred out only recently. Try Here for example. Zerotalk 09:34, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Teddy Katz's Mark
At present a sentence referring to the mark that Teddy Katz received from Haifa University remains unclear. It reads "The assessment of the revised thesis was highly mixed, but overall it was failed.[12][16]". The first half of the sentence is weasel worded, or at least needs elucidation. The reference used to back up this sentence (16) makes it clear that the mark received was the result of averaging highly divergent marks, something the article states is "most unusual" and "dubious". The fact that an unusual process was applied is an important detail, not simply the fact that the marks were "highly mixed" (actually highly divergent). I would propose, on the basis of the reference given, "The assessment of the revised thesis by markers was highly divergent, but overall it was failed on the basis of the unusual step averaging divergent marks. This process produced a result of 74%, 1% below the pass mark". That's what it says in the source cited. It might be wrong, but then a new citation is needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slmiller6 (talk • contribs) 13:19, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

A big chunk of the "Katz Controversy" text is being copied and pasted by "Hasbara trolls" - I find hundreds of references to it on Google - so yes, arguments and references therein should be carefully scrutinized.GXIndiana (talk) 20:53, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 May 2016
Under "articles": "Calling a Spade a Spade: The 1948 Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine", article in al-Majdal Magazine (Spring 2006). [retrieved 17 May 2007]. Broken -> correct link: http://www.badil.org/en/component/k2/item/957-calling-a-spade-a-spadethe-1948-ethnic-cleansing-of-palestine.html

MrVertigo (talk) 16:00, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done clpo13(talk) 16:16, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Adding a title
Please, is it possible to add this book in the bibliography :

The Arab Jews : History of a Forgotten People, I.B. Tauris, 2012. Thank you --90.35.93.209 (talk) 21:52, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * User:90.35.93.209: I cannot find any book by that name, either on abebooks.com, or on books.google.com. Do you have any links, pointing to it? Huldra (talk) 21:59, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Ilan Pappé. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101228215610/http://palestine-studies.org/journals.aspx?id=4227&jid=1&href=fulltext to http://www.palestine-studies.org/journals.aspx?id=4227&jid=1&href=fulltext
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927211224/http://arts.independent.co.uk/books/reviews/article2008026.ece to http://arts.independent.co.uk/books/reviews/article2008026.ece
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929210406/http://skynews-clips.videoloungetv.com/public/skynews/latest/IsraelDebate_181006_0900.wmv to http://skynews-clips.videoloungetv.com/public/skynews/latest/IsraelDebate_181006_0900.wmv
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080608110928/http://www.counterpunch.org/barat06062008.html to http://www.counterpunch.org/barat06062008.html

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) 23:23, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Ilan Pappé. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120526143627/http://www.idi.org.il/elections_and_parties/Documents/%D7%A8%D7%A9%D7%99%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%AA%20%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%A2%D7%9E%D7%93%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%A8%D7%A9%D7%99%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%AA%20%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%A2%D7%9E%D7%93%D7%99%D7%9D%2014/%D7%9B%D7%A0%D7%A1%D7%AA%2014-%20%D7%97%D7%93%D7%A9.pdf to http://www.idi.org.il/elections_and_parties/Documents/%D7%A8%D7%A9%D7%99%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%AA%20%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%A2%D7%9E%D7%93%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%A8%D7%A9%D7%99%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%AA%20%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%A2%D7%9E%D7%93%D7%99%D7%9D%2014/%D7%9B%D7%A0%D7%A1%D7%AA%2014-%20%D7%97%D7%93%D7%A9.pdf
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20070815173724/http://www.oneworld-publications.com/ethnic/advance_praise.htm to http://www.oneworld-publications.com/ethnic/advance_praise.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140523230250/http://www.palestine-studies.org/files/2006%20Pappe%20article.pdf to http://www.palestine-studies.org/files/2006%20Pappe%20article.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130510233959/http://www.palestine-studies.org/files/correct_JPSresponds.pdf to http://www.palestine-studies.org/files/correct_JPSresponds.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080331231457/http://flashpoints.net/archive/archive-2007-May-all.html to http://flashpoints.net/archive/archive-2007-May-all.html

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) 19:37, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Change the location of Ilan's Employment
It makes more sense for Ilan to be listed as at the Institute of Arab and Islamic Studies (IAIS). This is also at the University of Exeter, but is more specific than the College of Social Sciences and International Studies (CSSIS), since the IAIS is a highly autonomous department within CSSIS with its own structure, and which uses CSSIS' name as a formality and for admin purposes.

https://socialsciences.exeter.ac.uk/iais/staff/pappe/ - as you can see, he's listed at the IAIS. Innovative Username (talk) 23:27, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Removed
I removed this paragraph:

In 2012, the Journal of Palestine Studies (JPS) translated and published the 1937 Ben-Gurion letter after the pro-Israel media monitoring group CAMERA reported an error in an article that Pappé wrote for the JPS after CAMERA informed them that a quote in the article had been incorrectly attributed to Ben-Gurion. Nonetheless, the JPS stated that the translated letter confirmed that, regardless of Pappé's citation errors, the underlying interpretation of the letter provided by Pappé's article and book was sound. CAMERA countered by providing the original, handwritten letter by Ben-Gurion, and charged not only that the pertinent phrase had been incorrectly translated, but that the article also incorrectly interpreted the context of the letter.


 * AFAIK, this is a re-hash of what was discussed Talk:Ilan_Pappé/Archive_2..then it was taken out, (but somehow crept in again)
 * Is CAMERA an acceptable source in a BLP? Me thinks not, Huldra (talk) 22:14, 9 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Correct to your first statement and no to the second. This is all dubious stuff from an unreliable source. Zerotalk 05:43, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

NPOV in the introduction section
In this section:

"Pappé is one of Israel's New Historians who, since the release of pertinent British and Israeli government documents in the early 1980s, have been rewriting the history of Israel's creation in 1948, and the corresponding expulsion or flight of 700,000 Palestinians in the same year. He has written that the expulsions were not decided on an ad hoc basis, as other historians have argued, but constituted the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, in accordance with Plan Dalet, drawn up in 1947 by Israel's future leaders.[7] He blames the creation of Israel for the lack of peace in the Middle East, arguing that Zionism is more dangerous than Islamic militancy, and has called for an international boycott of Israeli academics.[8][9]"

There is a clear failure of NPOV. Terms such as "rewriting history" with a hyperlink to revisionism or implications such as "as other historians have argued" suggest an inherent misdirection or that there is not academic debate around the subject, but rather an established agreement which Pappe intentionally subverts for political reasons. I would appreciate if this could be addressed.

Retuu (talk) 13:20, 28 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I do not think that your interpretation is correct. The section is saying that there is an established historical interpretation which Pappe and other New Historians are challenging. That is common in historical studies and does not mean that either side is necessarily right. See the New Historians page for more on this. However, by all means propose specific changes on this page if you wish. Jontel (talk) 14:27, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

"rape took place in every village"
Is a claim that can't be disproven, but perhaps be contradicted (as one can contradict anything, something that is occassioanlly called 'denial'). What can be done is to point out that the claim lacks evidence or that there is problems with the evidence. 196.25.221.94 (talk) 06:11, 23 December 2022 (UTC)