Jump to content

Talk:Ilan Pappé

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

Controversial?

[edit]

This was recently added

His views have been described as controversial.[by whom?][1][2][3][failed verification][4][failed verification][5]

Two of the sources fail verification because WP:HEADLINES only, leaves the Jerusalem Post which starts of "Controverisal Israeli historian...", YNET, which starts off "Controversial historian..." and JewishNews "controversial anti-Zionist authors Ilan Pappe and Noam Chomsky..". None of them say His views are controversial, they just assert that he is controversial without explanation, and these sources are not great and as well biased. Seems undue POV pushing, are there no decent sources that say his views are controversial? Selfstudier (talk) 15:10, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's also, IMO, just kind of a dumb thing for a Wikipedia article to say about anybody. What does "controversial" mean? Who isn't "controversial"? Levivich (talk) 17:03, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, not an encyclopedic thing to say and it is more the subject matter he deals with that is controversial. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 02:09, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Far Left historian Ilan Pappe says he is good friends with Haniyeh". The Jerusalem Post | JPost.com. 2007-02-13. Retrieved 2024-05-16.
  2. ^ Negev, Ayelet (2008-03-15). "Ilan Pappe: I'm not a traitor". Ynetnews. Retrieved 2024-05-16.
  3. ^ "Controversial historian to quit Israel for UK". The Jerusalem Post | JPost.com. 2007-04-01. Retrieved 2024-05-16.
  4. ^ "Controversial historian up for Wingate prize". www.thejc.com. Retrieved 2024-05-16.
  5. ^ Harpin, Lee. "Waterstones denies claims of anti-Israel bias in book display at flagship store". www.jewishnews.co.uk. Retrieved 2024-05-16.

Selfstudier (talk) 15:10, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recent change

[edit]

I removed the following from the lede: "He has blamed Israel's existence 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.[1][2]"

I don't believe this is either accurate or due for the lede. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 02:18, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced the text with "A strong critic of Zionism and the State of Israel, Pappé has called for an international boycott of Israeli academics." IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 02:23, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Wilson, Scott (11 March 2007). "A Shared History, a Different Conclusion". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on 15 June 2019. Retrieved 17 May 2012.
  2. ^ Lynfield, Ben (12 May 2005). "British Boycott Riles Israeli Academics". The Christian Science Monitor. Archived from the original on 24 July 2019. Retrieved 17 May 2012.

Conflict of interest

[edit]

In January 2022, Alon Schwarz's film Tantura was shown at the 2022 Sundance Film Festival World Cinema Documentary Competition. In it, former Israeli soldiers admitted that a massacre took place in 1948 at Tantura. One former combat soldier stated: "They silenced it. The victims of the massacre were buried under what is today the Dor Beach parking lot, in an area measuring 35×4 meters." Adam Raz commented in Haaretz that there had been a public debate about the issue, with Yoav Gelber trying to discredit Katz's thesis, while Pappé defended the thesis. Raz said: "With the appearance of the testimony in Schwarz's film, the debate would seem to be decided."

Raz's Haaretz article discloses that his employer contributed to Schwarz's film, so there is a conflict of interest. The final sentence, Raz's commentary on his employer-contributed film, should be struck. WP:BOLD implementing now. Discuss it here if you disagree. (I'll save the reference) Scharb (talk) 23:10, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What it actually says is "The Akevot Institute assisted the filmmaker (without remuneration)." That isnt a COI for Raz. nableezy - 20:59, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's important that the source article includes that disclosure, @Nableezy.
It is in the best interest of his employer to speak positively or promotionally about a film to which his co-workers (if not he himself) contributed research. Scharb (talk) 04:04, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

last revert

[edit]

First, the change to the bit on Tantura, in which Scharb says that Israeli troops "asserted", not admitted, the source repeatedly gives greater credence to the admissions than "assert". The source says for example "Now, at the age of 90 and up, a number of combat soldiers from the Israel Defense Forces’ brigade have admitted that a massacre did indeed take place in 1948 at Tantura". Next, Scharb says that "Pappé's qualified support for" the Hamas attacks of 2023, when the source says "Prof Pappé stressed that he “condemned” these attacks “now more than ever before”" That Pappe condemned the attacks was also remove. Nowhere does the source say that Pappe supported the attack, and that os a straightforward BLP violation. Next, Pappé's unexplained dismissal of evidence is editorializing. As that revert was made on BLP grounds, Ill just remind anyone who wanted to re-revert of WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE. nableezy - 21:03, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pappe said he admired the "courage" of the Hamas fighters who stormed the military bases. That isn't support? He said he supported one part but not the other? Isn't that qualified support?
By the way, the ones who stormed the military bases also committed warcrimes, including shooting the corpses in the groin to deface them.[1]
It doesn't really make sense that Haaretz uses the word "admitted" other than its bent towards clickbait wordchoice and headlines, which should not be emulated to remain encyclopedic. The guy is accusing someone else of doing something, not admitting to anything himself. And there is legitimate criticism of the decades-later-interview as evidential history.
This broaches the third element in Pappe’s historiographical approach: his faith that oral testimony is valuable and valid, and that historians should base their narratives also on the testimony and the memory of witnesses, even decades after the event.[2]
'Unexplained dismissal of evidence' is supported by the source, it is not editorializing.
Take the well-known story about Haj Amin's visit to the German consulate in Jerusalem shortly after the Nazis came to power. According to the consul's report, the mufti boasted that he could "get the Muslims, not just in Palestine but all over the Arab world, to support Nazi Germany." He appealed to Hitler "to impose a ban on the Jews of Germany, but not the kind that would make them move to Palestine." Without bringing the slightest proof, Pappe opines that "most of the report sounds like a fabrication." Scharb (talk) 04:21, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the source does not say Pappe supported something then you are misrepresenting the source in claiming he did, especially given the source flat out says he condemned it. That is a straightforward BLP violation. Next, Haaretz is a reliable source, and it reports these things as admissions by people who were there. Your downplaying that is again a distortion of the cited source. Finally, yes it is editorializing, we already say he does not provide evidence, you are upping that to make a judgment in our narrative voice. nableezy - 05:37, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He didn't condemn the attacks, he condemned the "excesses" while praising the "courage" of Hamas.
Haaretz uses the word "admit," but other RSP do not, such as NYT. NYT does not use the word "admit" or "admission" anywhere and describes it much more neutrally, with the word "said". NYT also doesn't fail to mention the later objections to the film by the nonogenarian interviewees and their families.[3]
Contrast the "admission" (at least one soldier was seen shooting multiple prisoners of war, who wasn't acting under orders) to the outrageous depiction in Katz's retracted thesis: Katz described a systematic Nazi-style slaughter of groups of young men shot and dumped into trenches dug by other Arabs who were themselves subsequently shot, while the village’s women and children sat on a beach a few yards away.
May I remind you that BLP should also apply to the veterans? After all, Katz's thesis was retracted not for political reasons but because he straight up fabricated quotes and failed to meet academic standards.[4] Scharb (talk) 23:36, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Scharb: He didn't condemn the attacks. The source: Prof Pappé stressed that he “condemned” these attacks “now more than ever before”. Haaretz is a perfectly reliable source, your complaints about it being prone to clickbait wordchoice and headlines is completely evidence-free. Beyond that, the NYT says much more than "said", and they also support what you call an "outraegous depiction", reporting that In the film, Mr. Diamant recalled one soldier using a machine gun to kill captured men as they sat inside a barbed-wire enclosure, and remembered others chasing after villagers with a flame thrower and raping a woman. (That's a recalled and remembered). As far as BLP should also apply to the veterans, no person is named or specifically alleged to have done anything, and all we are doing is relaying what reliable sources have said about them. The difference between that and your edits about Pappe is that you are *not* accurately relaying what the source says, you are in fact removing what the source says and adding your spin to make claims it does not make. nableezy - 21:03, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and your source is somebody repeating the debunked claim that they had seen babies decapitated. Maybe don’t use sources that have since been established to be completely made up? nableezy - 05:46, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Quote what you're referring to. Scharb (talk) 23:41, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I misread had seen bodies decapitated as had seen babies decapitated. All the same, that source doesnt once mention Pappe, so I have no idea what relevance it has to this discussion. nableezy - 21:03, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ BBC: Hamas committed numerous warcrimes on October 7
  2. ^ https://newrepublic.com/article/61715/politics-other-means-0
  3. ^ https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/11/world/israeli-palestinian-mass-grave-tantura.html
  4. ^ Morris Ilan Pappe: One of the World's Sloppiest Historians TNR

Recent addition

[edit]

Is this recent edit [1] reasonable? Seems like it violates NPOV and is more of a criticism of Pappe than anything encyclopedic.

@AhmedElMohamedi. Also your edit was not minor so please don't mark such edits as minor in the future and provide an edit summary. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:03, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the view on Pappe that was added, is by no means universal. One cannot say that "isn't supported by historians and geneticists", and then add one -or more- articles (as there are plenty who agree with Pappe). I have moved the section to the end of the section, and added "some" (historians and geneticists etc), The language presently is clumsy, though, and I'm not sure all the opinions cited are notable,
And yeah: that addition was no "minor" edit Huldra (talk) 20:20, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What would you describe as being a "minor" edit? I didn't write a whole Encyclopedia. Also, it's not supported by "some" geneticists.
Most jewish groups share genetic ties and differ from their host populations. This conclusion is supported by the majority of geneticists. AhmedElMohamedi (talk) 21:48, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Help:Minor edit. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:49, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
? I added information to the criticism part, where's the problem? His point of view is not supported AhmedElMohamedi (talk) 21:37, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted the content you added. None of the sources are critiquing Ilan Pappe, you're synthesizing the sources. And your citation to support Ilan's view is to a Youtube video interview. We use reliable sources to determine what is due for inclusion. We have no RS saying this is the view of Ilan or that it a significant view of his. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:46, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The YouTube source was already cited in this article. The sources prove that his view is simply wrong and it's important to point it out. AhmedElMohamedi (talk) 21:49, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
None of the sources establish that this is a significant view of Ilan, and the Youtube video is a primary source. Just because you've identified something Pappe said that was wrong doesn't mean you can add it Wikipedia. Like I said, we use reliable sources to determine what is due for inclusion. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:51, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And to clarify further, we use secondary sources to determine what is due for inclusion. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:53, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Just because you've identified something Pappe said that was wrong doesn't mean you can add it Wikipedia."
  • Wikipedia is supposed to be a neutral source and statements like "jews are just a religious group" are wrong. It's our job to provide information and balance article's out with neutrality. In this case, Praise and criticism equally.
AhmedElMohamedi (talk) 22:01, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Except in this case you're the one doing the criticism. You're citing sources but you're the one saying "Ilan Pappe's view on x is wrong." That's original research. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:36, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is "some geneticist", ie I doubt that Eran Elhaik agrees. And I should have noted, a source from 1915 did not disagree (or agree, for that matter) with Pappe! Huldra (talk) 21:59, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like Eran's study has some major flaws AhmedElMohamedi (talk) 22:09, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Genetic studies on jews and Khazar hypothesis of Ashkenazi ancestry covers this issue. One biased study doesn't disprove countless others AhmedElMohamedi (talk) 22:15, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not get off topic. This article is about Ilan Pappe. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:19, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well yes, exactly. His viewpoint that jews are just a religious group is wrong, that's why I added sources that speak against that claim. The genetic perspective is relatively clear AhmedElMohamedi (talk) 22:23, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're doing WP:SYNTH/WP:OR. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:28, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm adding criticism to his claims. What would you do? AhmedElMohamedi (talk) 22:32, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We have to follow what the sources say, as simple as that. If reliable secondary sources don't mention this claim of Pappe then Wikipedia won't mention it either. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:38, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but the sources clearly indicate that he's wrong. I understand that you want sources that specifically talk about Pappé and his claims about jewish peoplehood, but no source ever will mention anything else than his work on Israeli history. The only way is to cite actual studies on that topic, not directly related to Pappé. AhmedElMohamedi (talk) 22:52, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you understand the Wikipedia concepts of WP:SYNTH and original research? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:54, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes AhmedElMohamedi (talk) 22:54, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if some of the sources I've cited aren't correct, please tell me which ones you find to be problematic. AhmedElMohamedi (talk) 23:04, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You added sources such as Brandeis and Palmer, from more than 100 years(!) ago. Obviously, they didn't mention Pappe. Did your other sources mention Pappe? If not, they cannot be used here (as people who disagree with Pappe), Huldra (talk) 22:42, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the only source i added. As I said, they don't directly mention him. They cover the topic Pappé is making statements on. AhmedElMohamedi (talk) 22:53, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"They cover the topic Pappé is making statements on" is basically the definition of WP:SYNTH/WP:OR Huldra (talk) 23:04, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What else do you expect? There won't be articles specifically talking about jewish ancestry because Pappé made statements on that topic. AhmedElMohamedi (talk) 23:07, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"There won't be articles specifically talking about jewish ancestry because Pappé made statements on that topic." Then it won't be mentioned on Wikipedia either. That's what following the sources means. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:09, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then what's the point in citing a YouTube video? AhmedElMohamedi (talk) 23:11, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good question. Again, I'll direct you to read about when primary sources are to be used on Wikipedia. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:12, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. AhmedElMohamedi (talk) 23:13, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note the part about "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:13, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you understand why your addition was original research / synth? @AhmedElMohamedi. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 13:02, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@AhmedElMohamedi, I think that part of the problem is that our article largely relies on news sources, and you seem to be doing the same. There is no shortage of academic writing about Pappé, and the sources are usually better than news sources, so it would be better to use those. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:26, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Noted AhmedElMohamedi (talk) 22:51, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ilan_Pappé&oldid=1283752846"