Talk:Causes of the 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

UN observers report

My initial reaction to this new section was that it didn't belong. I was convinced that it did belong, but I was not convinced that this 2-sentence passage cited to a primary source within a highly contentious secondary source deserved an entire section. I tried to move it to where this contentious secondary source is discussed, but that too was rejected. So far, that rejection was the first one that I do not admit being in the wrong about for the following reasons:

1. The report is extremely minor in this debate. There are tons of more damning primary sources on both sides of the argument. I do not hope to see an article in which every primary source gets a devoted section containing a one sentence summary of the source and a one sentence damning quotation from the source.
2. The report is not a part of the "Initial positions" of Israeli-Palestinian conflict from the Israelis or the Arabs. It is a part of the UN's position, but that's somewhat of a non sequitur. I'm sure there were hundreds of reports from non-Israeli/Arab organizations. Shall we put a 2 sentence section on an obscure report from the French government on the issue as well? I think the article would be best if we limit the "Initial positions" section to the initial positions of the 2 sides of the conflict only.

In closing, I suggest keeping the material, but putting it in the same section as the rest of the info on Pappe's book. I welcome further discussion. --GHcool (talk) 16:55, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi GH, I thought for a while for a good place to put the material before ending up in the initial positions section. My thinking was that the Israeli/refugee initial positions were conflicting, and the neutral UN observers' report from the time the events were unfolding appears to me a good piece of additional information for readers to set the two positions into perspective. The UN was a stakeholder in the events, since the partition plan was devised and implemented under its auspices and which is why the observers were there in the first place. --Dailycare (talk) 20:19, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, we have dozens of quotations from the time the events were unfolding. I don't think it would serve the article to have dozens of little sections for each one sentence quote. I hope we agree on this point. All of those dozens of quotations are integrated within the article in more or less the same fashion as I attempted to do here.

Secondly, the UN is not known for its neutrality in the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Thirdly, the UN may have seen itself as a "stakeholder in the events" during 1948, but no historian I am aware of finds the partition plan relevant once the 1948 war broke out and certainly not by October of 1948. This is not Israeli spin. This is how both the Arabs and the Israelis saw things once war broke out. --GHcool (talk) 20:57, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

GH, the separate subsection 'UN observers report' is an important contribution to the article, since it articulates the findings of the organization to which Israel is party.--Jim Fitzgerald (talk) 21:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

John Fitzgerald, I suggest reading my post above. I address this point there, but to summarize, I do not mind this information being in the article, I just want it to be in an appropriate place without an entire section dedicated to 1 sentence from a controversial source. --GHcool (talk) 23:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think allegations of UN partiality decades after 1948 are relevant to this discussion (and the article linked to uses Dershowitz as a source for this alleged bias). Since the UN had actual, neutral, observers in the area observing the events, the findings of these observers are in my opinion of first-order importance since the topic of the article is specifically to discuss the cause(s) of the "exodus". --Dailycare (talk) 16:33, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Even if I stipulate that the UN was neutral (which I do not), you still haven't answered my other, more relevant point I made above: should each of the dozens of quotations already quoted in the article have their own 2 sentence subsection? This sets a terrible (and ridiculous) precedent for an article like this thar relies heavily on these types of quotations. I've reserved Pappe's book from the library and look forward to verifying the content. --GHcool (talk) 18:44, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Getting your hands on Pappé's book is a good idea since you're obviously interested in the topic, I heartily recommend you read the entire text. I did address your other point, albeit admittedly not explicitly: I don't think all quotations should be sectioned off (obviously), I did so for the UN reports since I felt they were of first-order importance (like the Israeli and Palestinian positions) as I wrote in my earlier comments. Burying them among less relevant material wouldn't in my view improve the article from its present form --Dailycare (talk) 20:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Would you care to explain the logic underlying the conclusion that the opinion in an obscure UN report taken months after the outbreak of war and dissolve of the partition plan is "of first-order importance?" If, after reading Pappe's book, I discover that he considers this nugget "of first-order importance," I would be shocked. I fear that what is "of first-order importance" to you could be "of last-order importance" to me, and vice versa. Wikipedia has rules against this kind of thing (namely WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH). --GHcool (talk) 20:41, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

GH, I've already explained my thinking on this in my earlier comments. Citing a source is not original research or SYNTH. --Dailycare (talk) 17:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I see. To avoid a double standard, I expect you would accept other opinions from obscure "neutral" reports to be included in the section above. I'll start now. --GHcool (talk) 18:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, maybe UNICPAL will help you to resolve the issue.--Jim Fitzgerald (talk) 19:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I think we got it taken care of. Thanks Jim.  :) --GHcool (talk) 19:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blaming_the_Victims#Broadcasts_Christopher_Hitchens : ""announcements made over the air" by the Arab Higher Committee, had been written from Cyprus by a correspondent who used an uncorroborated Israeli source." Since Childers found no such announcements, we can conclude the claim is a fabrication which doesn't deserve mention. --Dailycare (talk) 20:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Jim, The UNICPAL link doesn't work. I'm also not entirely comfortable with the latest additions to the section formerly titled "UN Reports", since the additions, even after I edited them for NPOV, describe two individual incidents and a poorly sourced slightly bizarre claim by a British diplomat. We know from other sources there were no Arab orders to evacuate Haifa and the Arabs were expelled by the Carmeli Brigade by ex. firing mortars into crowds of civilians and ordering Arabs to leave immediately or be shot. In other words, the Time article isn't very accurate. The information on Ein Karem is interesting, but only in the context of Ein Karem and not the overall attribution of causes to the 1948 exodus which is what we're trying to do in this section of the article. --Dailycare (talk) 20:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Dailycare, here is the fixed link to UNISPAL. I am of an opinion that the section is not balanced. The Time passage, definately, needs to be shortened, it is too long. (the whole article as such seems to overpassed all reasonable encyclopedae type text lenghts) The other two passages also have to be shortened to only 2 sentences, then, I believe, the section will look neutral and balanced. I would recommend you and GHcool consider this option. Other than that I do not see any dispute in principle in this case. cheers --Jim Fitzgerald (talk) 21:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree to shortening the quotations, I can do it once I get around to it. One thing I don't quite agree on is including the Economist claim on announcements over the air for Arabs to quit Haifa. As noted above, this claim originates from an "uncorroborated Israeli source", so having it in a section titled "Reports from people and organizations unaffiliated with Israelis or Arabs" is in my view misleading. I removed it with this reasoning, but it was subsequently restored to the article. Another issue I have with it is that it relates only to Haifa, whereas e.g. the UN reports and initial Israeli and Palestinian positions relate to the country in general. --Dailycare (talk) 19:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

In fact, the paragraph on the Economist claim includes a statement to the effect that the claim hs been called into question. There is currently need for a citation for that claim that I am hoping that somebody with a WP:RS will provide. I'm not sure why there would be a complaint that it only refers to Haifa. By my estimation, roughly 10% of the total number of Arab refugees came from Haifa (roughly 60,000 out of 600,000). The exodus from Haifa is a pretty significant event in the total Palestinian exodus period. --GHcool (talk) 19:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeps, I just now realized the statement is there as I was editing the section, and I added sourcing. However I'm still not sold on the idea we should have the claim there, since we know that 1) it originates from an uncorroborated Israeli source, 2) Childers or others (I bet Israelis have searched for them too) haven't found these broadcasts despite intensive searching, and 3) we know from other sources that the Arabs of Haifa were driven out by the Carmeli Brigade. In other words, we know the claim isn't true. --Dailycare (talk) 19:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

There was recent editing in the UN observers' reports, which I restored to the earlier form. In terms of writing an encyclopedia (as opposed to a collection of citations) it doesn't help the reader to know who was the person who wrote of the reports and which words he chose to use, the content of the reports in themselves is the beef. Sourcing is visible in the reference for the interested reader. If a text is a disjointed list of quotations, it's not very readable and this article should be targeted at persons who haven't read any of the cited sources. GHC, you've received Pappé's book, go ahead and read it ;) --Dailycare (talk) 15:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Here is a relevant citation from WP:NOR: "Carefully summarizing or rephrasing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis—it is good editing. Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by taking material from different reliable sources on the topic and putting those claims on the page in your own words, with each claim attributable to a source that explicitly makes that claim."--Dailycare (talk) 16:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Let's be sure that our readers know that the report Pappe writes about wasn't published. --GHcool (talk) 16:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

What encyclopedic purpose does this information serve? The topic of the article is causes of the exodus, not UN publishing practices. --Dailycare (talk) 18:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the question. You insist on quoting an unpublished report, but also insist on censoring the fact that it was unpublished? Pappe seemed to think this was important. The unstated major premise in the question above is that Pappe was wrong to think this was important. --GHcool (talk) 20:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

My point is that the meaning of this article is to convey to readers why the exodus happened, and the non-publication of the report doesn't provide any such information. The reason Pappe mentions that the SecGen failed to publish the report (and that the SC failed to act on it) is that he's critical of the way the UN failed overall to look after the Palestinians, see ex. page 126 in addition to the page we're discussing. This is tangential to what the report said about the reasons of the exodus, i.e. the very topic of this article. --Dailycare (talk) 20:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Lots of stuff in "reliable secondary sources" is originally from unpublished reports. That's normal. I don't know why that should be mentioned in this particular case and not, for example, in regard to the unpublished report of Troutbeck that Karsh claims to be quoting from the British archives. Zero^talk 22:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

If Karsh wrote that Troutbeck's report was unpublished, then I would insist upon including that fact, just as I insist upon including the fact that the report Pappe cites is unpublished. I do not own a copy of the Karsh book so I cannot verify the publication of Troutbeck's report myself. --GHcool (talk) 00:06, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Karsh cites it to a file number in the Public Records Office. I honestly don't know what difference it makes if the original primary source of something is published or not. It means we can't cite it directly, but once a suitable secondary source has cited it, what's the difference? Zero^talk 06:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

If you don't see the difference then you won't stand in the way of including this statement of fact on Wikipedia. I don't know why we're talking about this for so long. --GHcool (talk) 16:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

GH, sorry, but I support Zero and Dailycare stance, there is no obvious point of including that statement. --Jim Fitzgerald (talk) 16:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure if we are discussing this report or not, but anyways pls check... The Progress Report of the United Nations Mediator on Palestine is a UN official record submitted by the United Nations Mediator on Palestine to the Third Session of the General Assembly. It was written and prepared by the UN Mediator Count Folke Bernadotte and was published on September 16, 1948 one day before he was killed by the militant Zionist group Lehi.--Jim Fitzgerald (talk) 18:10, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Jim, it's not the same report since this one originates in September, but I can add a mention of Bernadotte's attribution to the article. --Dailycare (talk) 19:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Progress Report of the UN Mediator on Palestine dated 16 Sept. 1948

Full text of the Progress Report of the United Nations Mediator on Palestine submitted to the SG for transmission to the members of the United Nations. Published 16 September 2009.]

Pls. note that there hundreds of other reports published by UN on Palestine. You can access a comprehensive list and texts of the documents at UN Information System on the Question of Palestine,UNISPAL. --Jim Fitzgerald (talk) 18:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Shmuel Katz - RS?

Let's discuss the question about whether Shmuel Katz is Reliable Source (WP:RS) or not, before the edit war (WP:EW) erupts.--Jim Fitzgerald (talk) 18:23, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Katz was (according to his page here) a member of Irgun's leadership, Irgun being a zionist terrorist organization (according to inter alia Israel). Not using him is not WP:CENSOR, it's WP:RS. I suppose Osama bin Laden has views about the 1948 exodus too, I can even look some up for the interested but I'm not suggesting we add them to this article, just like I'm not suggesting we retain anything sourced to Katz. --Dailycare (talk) 18:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Katz was also (according to his page here) "an Israeli writer, historian and journalist." While his views are controversial, but nobody doubts that he was a historian with a notable reputation. If for nothing else, his views are consistent with the "old historian" interpretation of the Palestinian exodus, and therefore are valuable to the discussion. This article must not be limited only to New Historians.

The comparison to Osama bin Laden is another false analogy on the part of Dailycare. While Katz has worked for an organization some have labeled as "terrorist," that is the only similarity between the two. Bin Laden is not a middle east scholar, author, historian, or journalist. It is questionable whether Katz was directly or even indirectly involved in any of the crimes committed by the Irgun, whereas Bin Laden's guilt is beyond dispute. The comparison between the Israeli historians and Osama Bin Laden is embarrassingly falsifiable at best and offensive and disgusting at worst. --GHcool (talk) 19:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Katz does not have a good reputation as a historian. He has a reputation as an activist and propagandist. Quite a few real historians have explicitly referred to him as an "Irgun propagandist" or words to that effect. Somewhere around Wikipedia is a list of such statements collected during an earlier discussion of Katz; I'll try to find it. In this subject the full range of plausible opinions is available from highly qualified historians writing in their areas of expertise; we don't need professional dissemblers like Katz. (Personally I don't use Pappe or Karsh either.) Zero^talk 01:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

So what's the conclusion, do we remove Katz? IMO he's a perfect example of an extremist source peddling self-serving propaganda. Moreover, we have him repeating the fabricated claim of the arab evacuation orders which no-one has seen, despite intensive searching. From the WP policy above we have three reasons for not using this snippet: firstly, the material is (very) self serving, secondly, it is specifically a claim about a third party and thirdly, as described above we have reason to doubt the authenticity.--Dailycare (talk) 19:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm usually not in favor of an "all or nothing" approach to things like this. I don't think it would be appropriate to move everything cited to Katz, if you're advocating. Perhaps if you list what lines you'd like trimmed (like I did above), we could come to a compromise. --GHcool (talk) 20:59, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Extremist propaganda is not good source, removed it. Jim Fitzgerald ^post 08:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

If we can't source a claim to someone who isn't nearly universally dismissed as an objective source, we shouldn't include it. It isn't only because the source is unreliable, it is also because a claim not made by anyone more in the center is fringe. Incidentally, once before I searched the academic journals to see if Shmuel Katz has any credibility as a source amongst the professionals. I reported then: The only cautious citing of his work that I have ever come across is in relation to his biography of Jabotinsky, which is of interest because Katz was an eyewitness and not because Katz is a respected historian. For example, an article on Jabotinsky by Jan Zouplna in the Journal of Israeli History (Vol 24, March 2005, pp35-63) refers to Katz's biography twice, after noting that "Shmuel Katz’s biography lacks the scholarly merits of Schechtman’s work" (p37). The first reference is to an opinion of Katz that "does not seem plausible", and the second is to note that a fact claimed by Katz seems to be chronological impossible. Zero^talk 14:27, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello,

I didn't follow this discussion.

Please, consider the following :

• S. Katz is not a wp:rs source for the causes of the exodus; that is clear given the date at which he published and given his affiliation.

But :

• S. Katz writings are notorious for what concerns the historiography and what was the initial Israeli official version of the causes of the event.

So, I would suggest not systematically deleting Katz but keeping some quotes and analysis when refering to historiography... If what Katz writes may be false, it will always be true that he wrote what he wrote and that he is notorious. He and some other Israeli historians were the reference historians in Western countries and Israel from 1950 to 1980 and contributed to forging the western collective memory of the exodus. 91.182.231.141 (talk) 05:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

IP has a good point. I removed Katz from the substantive parts of the article, but left him in the "Arab evacuation orders" section, labelled as an "Israeli propagandist" to convey what his main point in the matter has been. --Dailycare (talk) 16:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Let's refrain from engaging in name-calling and censoring information we don't like. --GHcool (talk) 16:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I think labeling Katz a propagandist is useful (since that's what he was) and based on the foregoing discussion we shouldn't use him as source of actual material in the article, since it (or representing him as a normal commentator) violates Wikipedia:RS#Extremist_and_fringe_sources --Dailycare (talk) 17:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

How about labeling him as a historian since that's what he was. --GHcool (talk) 19:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I feel strongly that he shouldn't be labeled a "historian", since that carries an academic, neutral connotation. The man was a terrorist propagandist, I'm OK with having him in the section on "Arab broadcasts" (if that section is to be kept, presented as historiographical information) and labeled as an Israeli propagandist (which is being very kind to him), but I'm not OK with citing his rants about the "transfer idea" (which are contradicted by other, substantially more reliable sources) since that violates WP:RS. --Dailycare (talk) 20:12, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't appreciate the name-calling. Its just not helpful. Katz's relationship with the Irgun is as irrelevant as Rashid Khalidi's relationship with the PLO. I do not insist Khalidi be stricken from this article as an unreliable source. To the contrary, we insist on respecting Khalidi's research just as we insist that respecting Katz's. --GHcool (talk) 22:02, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

However, Rashid Khalidi is a highly qualified academic with a DPhil from Oxford, who publishes in the best peer-reviewed journals and university presses, and is frequently cited by other respected historians. Katz dropped out of university after one year and was never known as more than a writer of popular polemics. Even the very adulatory biography at www.eretzisraelforever.org says that his business was propaganda. When even his friends call him a propagandist, why should we argue? Zero^talk 04:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

www.eretzisraelforever.org is not the first place I would check for facts about Israeli historians. Funny, I wouldn't expect Zero to check there either. I don't know much about Katz's academic career, but there's nothing in WP:RS that says we only must quote people with some arbitrary number of credentials. Anyway, I'm glad we can all agree that ties to alleged terrorist organizations are not a necessarily factor in determining whether someone is an RS. --GHcool (talk) 07:11, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there is an agreement that we can use terrorist sources. As mentioned before, there are in WP:RS reasons for not using Katz, who was one of Irgun's leaders. He may be OK in Conservapedia, but not here. --Dailycare (talk) 22:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I have read a book from Katz and I would not call his a propagandist. That is poved and impossible to source from a wp:rs. More, I even disagree with this because what he writes, given the information he had access to is logical and he uses numerous primary sources to justify his analysis. He is no more or no less biaised as Pappé today and I don't see how we could write Pappé is a propagandist. The issue should be solved differently in respecting both NPoV and the fact that a scholar in 1950 can nevertheless not be set-up at the same place as a scholar today (given the second has access to far more information than the first one.) 81.244.46.116 (talk) 17:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Someone who dropped out of university can't be called a "scholar". Zero^talk 14:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Zero0000, are you talking about Pappé ? ;-) 81.244.173.82 (talk) 15:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Zero, that's a rather silly thing to say. Scholarship denotes the act of studying or the expertise in a subject. Katz fits the definition without any doubt. --GHcool (talk) 17:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I partly agree with you. It is technically possible for a person without formal education to become accepted as a scholar by virtue of their knowledge and the respect they receive from other scholars. A test is whether they publish in the scholarly literature (peer-reviewed journals and university imprints) and are trusted as a source by other scholars. But as I noted above, Katz never published a single word in the scholarly literature and the few scant mentions of Katz' work that appear there are not positive. I could agree to calling him a "historian" just because he wrote some books that have the appearance of history books, but "scholar" is quite out of the question. Zero^talk 04:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) My view is still that using Katz is against WP:RS as discussed above, so whether he's called a propagandist, terrorist, extremist or something else shouldn't make any difference --Dailycare (talk) 12:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Dailycare. Katz's book Battleground certainly does contain all of the usual propaganda claims that have been systematically debunked, primarily by Israeli historians, over the years, e.g, "seven states invaded Israel", "refugees left of their own free will or on Arab orders", "Jews tried to prevent the Arab flight", "hundreds of thousands of Arab immigrants moved to Palestine", etc, etc. Shmuel Katz and Isi Leibler were the Joan Peters and Alan Dershowitz of the 60s and 70s. I love to read this stuff but don't expect to find it in an encyclopedia, even Wikipedia. --Ian Pitchford (talk) 13:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Unconvincing again. Your arguments amount to "I don't like what he has to say, therefore he is not an RS" or "What Katz says is contradicted by other RS's, therefore Katz is not an RS." That is not how WP:RS works. I suggest re-reading the guideline. --GHcool (talk) 20:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Here are a few sources that characterize Katz: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/Skatz.html says "a member of the Irgun General Headquarters. Focused on propaganda and overseas contacts. " http://www.eretzisraelforever.org/Katz/Katz_ViewArticle.asp?sAction=view&iArticleId=-724285934 says "director of the Irgun’s English-language propaganda.". A terrorist group's propaganda chief is about as close to extremist source as per WP:RS as I can imagine. In the page now we have him cited drawing conclusions about the topic, which further seem rather self-serving. --Dailycare (talk) 16:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Since you repeated what you said on 2 September, I'll repeat what I've said on 2 September:

I don't appreciate the name-calling. Its just not helpful. Katz's relationship with the Irgun is as irrelevant as Rashid Khalidi's relationship with the PLO. I do not insist Khalidi be stricken from this article as an unreliable source. To the contrary, we insist on respecting Khalidi's research just as we insist that respecting Katz's.

--GHcool (talk) 18:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree I repeated what I said on Sept. 2, since now I introduced sources describing Katz as an Irgun propagandist which I didn't do on Sept. 2. Rashid Khalidi isn't currently used in this article, so your point concerning him is moot. What isn't helpful, in my opinion, is that WP:RS isn't being applied. --Dailycare (talk) 19:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I stand corrected. I thought it was Rashid Khalidi, but it was really Walid. My point still stands though. There are plenty of nasty things one could say about the Irgun, but the claim that every person once affiliated with the Irgun is unreliable is ludicrous. Furthermore, the sources cited to Katz were written in the 1970s and 1980s, way after the Irgun no longer existed. It cannot be reasonably asserted that Katz's research cited in this article is Irgun propaganda. --GHcool (talk) 21:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

GHcool, can you give an example of anyone who writes books from the pro-Zionist viewpoint who you would consider to not be a reliable source? Zero^talk 02:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the purpose of the question. Is it to trick me into saying something stupid like "All Zionists are reliable" or "[Unreliable Zionist name here] is reliable?" I'm not falling for it. I will say one thing though: www.eretzisraelforever.org is an unreliable Zionist source, yet it seems to be quoted above by Dailycare as though it were reliable. Let's stay on topic, shall we? --GHcool (talk) 05:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The purpose of WP:RS is to impose some sort of minimum standard on sources. I was curious to know where you think the limit is, since if Katz is in there can't be many out. Would you accept someone who was for a long time the PLOs official propagandist and is so described even by the most biased Palestinian web sites? I wouldn't. Zero^talk 08:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Obviously, it depends on the circumstance, but as the PLO is still in operation, it isn't a fair comparison. I would, however, accept a book published in the 1980s written by a historian who was once the official something-or-other of the Arab Higher Committee in 1948. --GHcool (talk) 17:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:RS says: "Fringe and extremist sources must not be used to obscure or describe the mainstream view". Fringe sources are described as "Organizations and individuals that express views that are widely acknowledged by reliable sources as fringe, pseudo-academic,[3] or extremist" and pseudo-scientific as "Examples of such views include certain forms of revisionist history". If Katz doesn't meet these criteria then who does? I agree with the point above that if Katz is "in", there aren't many sources "out" --Dailycare (talk) 20:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Is Katz "widely acknowledged by reliable sources as fringe, pseudo-academic,[3] or extremist?" I acknowledge that Katz is not the greatest scholar in the history of the world, but is he a "revisionist historian" (i.e. a denier)? I doubt it. --GHcool (talk) 21:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)See the entry in this discussion timestamped 14:27, 1 September 2009 (UTC). The Times obituary of him is titled "Samuel Katz: ideologue of right-wing Zionism" and begins "A leader of the Jewish militia force that bombed Jerusalem’s King David Hotel in 1946, Samuel Katz went on to become one of the most prominent figures to claim that since the late 1970s the Israeli Right had become too soft." --Dailycare (talk) 20:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I made a compromise edit in the text by removing one of the two instances where Katz is used in the text. Judging from GH's previous reply, it appears that he will agree that using Katz twice in the article would at least be WP:UNDUE. --Dailycare (talk) 20:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

This is acceptable to me per WP:Undue weight, however, I remain convinced that Katz satisfies all relevant requirements of WP:RS. I consider the matter closed. --GHcool (talk) 05:26, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Troutbeck

We can't have Karsh's Troutbeck quotation by itself since it does not give a balanced account of Troutbeck's opinion. For example, he also wrote around the same time that Israel was a "gangster state" with "an utterly unscrupulous set of leaders" and in another memo he wrote "the initial difficulty of persuading the Arabs of Palestine to leave their homes has been overcome by Jewish terrorism and Arab panic". Both quotations are easy to source. We can add all three quotations to the article, but I suggest we use none of them. We do not have a source that addresses the overall question of Troutbeck's opinion about the Palestinian exodus, but only some isolated words selected out of many thousands. These words suggest his opinion was complex and nuanced. Zero^talk 00:05, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Order of explanations

There are seven explanations of the exodus put forth by this article. The "Arab leaders' endorsement of flight" explanation, which is a prominent explanation on this subject, and which is the only position adopted by mainstream Israeli sources (except the new historians, if you can call them mainstream) has been placed at the very end of this article.

As I currently see the article, the first six explanations listed (chronologically) all involve some variation of "The Jews instigated Arab flight." Of course there are more intricacies than that, but that's the gist of it. The Arab leaders explanation is the is the only position that disputes that claim, and it deserves to mentioned at a reasonable place in this very long article, so that this viewpoint is truly represented.

Thoughts? Saepe Fidelis (talk) 19:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Go ahead and put it first. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

First? Really? I'll try that, and we'll see what happens. Generally, seems like you edit every article I come across. I applaud your Wikisavvy. Miss you on the Gaza flotilla raid article. Cheers, Saepe Fidelis (talk) 21:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I followed you here. Glad I did. A big chunk of Karsh's Fabricating Israeli History deals with the idea of transfer, and he specifically addresses arguments made by Morris and Flappan. When I have some time I'll add information from it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Endorsement vs. Orders

There seems to be a contradiction in the article. In the Criticism of the endorsement of flight section, it says no more than 5% of the exodus was caused by Arab endorsement of flight. In the orders section, it gives the same figure for orders. Given that the latter is encompassed by the former, but does not exhaust it, it seems reasonable that this statistic speaks of one or the other (I would assume the latter). I don't have access to the sources in order to check this. Does anyone else? Saepe Fidelis (talk) 19:47, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you're right in that the figure probably does refer to "orders", the two seem to be used interchangably to an extent in the text. Reading the text though, this contradiction appears minor as the "non-order endorsement" driver seems to be very limited as there are indications that the Arabs encouraged the Palestinians to stay put and not leave. --Dailycare (talk) 20:38, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

That certainly isn't the argument put forward by the section. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 07:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Ein Karem "quotation"

I removed this:

In the case of the village of Ein Karem, William O. Douglas recorded that "the villagers were told by the Arab leaders to leave. It apparently was a strategy of mass evacuation, whether or not necessary as a military or public safety measure." From eyewitness accounts, Douglas found that this, along with fear of Jewish attack, was a key reason for the exodus from Ein Karem.<ref name = Douglas>''Strange Lands and Friendly People'', William O. Douglas, Harper & Brothers (New York), pp. 265-6.</ref>

Reasons:

• There were several hundred villages involved in this exodus and no case is made to give this particular one prominence. Actually, since the claimed explanation is different from the vast majority of other villages, presenting just this one is misleading.
• The quotation is unacceptably cut. Note that in the original text the sentence starts "Second, " which prompts us to look what was "First". Here it is: "First, there was the massacre ...at Deir Yassin in 1948 when men, women and children... The massacre struck terror in the hearts of villagers throughout the region. 'Some thought all of us in Ein Karem might also be killed some night', one old lady said..." So the quotation as presented is rather a severe distortion.

Zero^talk 11:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

First, I'll say that I didn't add this text. I simply moved it from the Reports from people and organizations unaffiliated with Israelis or Arabs section (which, for the record, is a section that I don't think needs to exist) to the Claims that support that the flight was instigated by Arab leaders section. It appears to be a piece of text that has long been a part of this article. When I moved it, and you deleted it, I placed it back in its original position so we could discuss. I therefore find the comment, contained in your edit summary, that, "the procedure is to discuss disputed text before inserting it" innappropriate.

Please link me to where you see the full text, if there is a link. The orders to leave Ein Karem are significant in two ways: first, the account thereof represents a neutral source confirming endoresement of flight by Arab leaders; second, Morris claims there were no orders to leave Ein Karem, and this source contradicts that flat out. Thus, it puts a big hole in the arguments minimizing the importance of Arab orders to evacuate, and Arab endoresement in general.

The impact of the Deir Yassin massacre is paraphrased in the original text, which makes reference to "fear of Jewish attack." Here there is no need to detail the massacre in full, as it is referenced heavily in other parts of the article. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 12:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

You can read the relevant pages of the book at books.google.com, maybe this link will work (search for "Karem"). I apologize for assuming this is your text. In any case, it is being presented as evidence of the "Arab orders" claim when in fact the book explicitly gives fear as the main motivation. I also question the reliability of this book, which is just a popular travelogue and definitely not a history book. The author describes Deir Yassin quite inaccurately for example (says only one person survived, which everyone knows is untrue). Zero^talk 00:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC) OK, I edited the text to more accurately report the source. I'm still concerned that adding one small village will motivate other editors to add more small villages until there is a complete mess. Zero^talk 00:39, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

It's been my expeprience on this subject that very little information is preserved of individual villages, so I am not afraid of a flood of village accounts, particularly given that this quotation has been in the article Since Time Immemorial, if you'll indulge a pun.

While Douglas is not a reliable source, for example, on Deir Yassin, he is a reliable source on the first-hand accounts and encounters he had. He is a credible public figure not directly involved in the conflict, and thus has the credentials to present this quotation.

As far as the claim that Deir Yassin was a greater cause for the Ein Karem exodus, I don't see any indication that the order in which he mentions the causes reflects their imortance, and this is an important point, as the wording you have adopted seems to imply fear was a greater motivation than orders to leave. The bearing of this quotation on the "Endorsement of flight" theory is much greater than its bearing on any of the transfer theories, as Morris and the others included Ein Karem in the list of villages that fled due to panic (incited or otherwise), whereas they were unable to find in the archives the effect of Arab evacuation orders. I certainly think it is important to mention the fear factor, but not as you have done. Perhaps it is also worth mentioning, as the book points out, that Ein Karem never came under attack by the Israelis.

For the time being, can we agree this reference is better placed in the "Endorsement of flight" section than in this section? In fact, thinking "bigger-picture," can we agree that all three of the paragraphs in this section can be dispursed to other sections, and this section deleted altogether? Saepe Fidelis (talk) 07:14, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The wording I adopted used "first" and "second" in imitation of the source, so any implication (or lack of) is not mine. I agree that the article is somewhat disjointed and that those three paragraphs could be dispersed. I don't agree to add any more information on Ein Karim, it is just one small village with its own article. Zero^talk 13:13, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

While discussion is ongoing, I will go ahead and restore the old language. Once we reach consensus, we can change it.

I think the use of "first" and "second" doesn't adequately reflect the character of the source. The source uses this verbiage as sign-posting. In the article, it does not appear to be used that way; it appears to indicate a hierarchy of causation. I find it misleading. We could get around this problem by quoting directly from the book, but that would add unnecessary volume, and also I think that style of writing is already overused in the article. Thoughts? Saepe Fidelis (talk) 21:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Junk quotations

Multiple times in the past 7 years people have tried to insert the standard set of "quotations" that were collected in the 1948-1952 period by people like Joseph Schechtman, who was paid by the US Zionist organization to collect them. Almost all of them are untraceable or misleading, and just because they are recopied (often in mangled form) by modern polemicists too lazy to check for themselves it is not acceptable to use them. Also, since Schechtman was a paid agent, nothing sourced to him should be used without attributing it as a claim made by the Zionist organizations. There are thousands of things that can be extracted from old newspapers, giving all sorts of opinions. The very least we should demand from a quotation is that we know who it is making the claim; otherwise why are they more worth quoting than my Aunt Mabel (who has a thing or two to say about it)? A fine example is "Habib Issa", who does not exist at all except for this quotation from a Christian newspaper hostile to the Palestinians. And we don't even have a name for who wrote the "Kul-Shay" sentences, if anyone; Schechtman doesn't say. Look at the following, all of which can be easily checked by anyone and except for the third (permitted as a news report) are quoted from known public figures. It would be easy to find many more like these, should I add them?

• "I don't suggest that we should trample on others' rights, but one must call a spade a spade: Zionism and rights don't always go hand-in-hand. The very establishment of this state is an affront to the Arabs' rights. Arabs lived in Jaffa. They didn't leave; they were expelled. We went into the villages and said 'Get out.' And they got out. Yes, it's important for me and others that this state be a democratic one, but you still have to consider the difference between ourselves and the other countries and remember that democracy is not an end in itself but rather an instrument. Zionism takes precedence over everything." -- Limor Livnat, member of the Likud Central Committee, quoted in Tikkun, Sep/Oct 1991, p14.
• "In the month preceding the end of the Mandate, the Jewish Agency decided to undertake a difficult mission as a prelude to taking over the Arab cities before the evacuation of British forces and the dispersal of their Arab population. The Jewish Agency came to an agreement with us that we should execute these arrangements, while they would repudiate everything we did and pretend that we were dissident elements, as they used to do when we fought the British. So we struck hard and put terror into the hearts of the Arabs. Thus we accomplished the expulsion of the Arab population from the areas assigned to the Jewish state." Menachem Begin, former leader of Irgun, quoted in The Middle East Journal, Vol 3, No. 4 (1949) pp381-382.
• "They have been mortaring Jaffa heavily most of to-day, wounding a large number of Arabs, and causing an exodus which had already begun during the last few days to be accelerated by sea and by road." (The Times, April 26, 1948)

Zero^talk 01:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you stop edit warring to remove something that's been in the article for months, stop threatening to add quotes to make a POINT, and take Schechtman to RS/N if you have a problem with him. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:49, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you stop defending material that is obviously unacceptable. You might also decide to reply to my explanation. Zero^talk 09:05, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

If Schechtman was indeed working for one side or the other, we can attribute his claims.

But this is pointless. I see the band of roving reverters is now doing your edit warring for you. This information has been in the article for months but suddenly an editor with 30 edits and another with a few hundred feel it has to go. Lovely. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

This stuff has been deleted from Wikipedia multiple times in multiple articles. It only lasted so long in this article because I didn't notice it before now. Zero^talk 14:42, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

It has been here for months and now people who have never edited this article or participated in the discussion are edit warring to remove it. One of them has 30 edits. You're an admin. Do you think this is how things are supposed to work around here? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

No, ideally it should never have been added and, barring that, should have been removed earlier. If anyone tries to insert some of the standard phony "Zionist quotations" I will delete those too (it has happened). The anti-Palestinian position is adequately represented by the sources like Karsh which satisfy the letter of WP:RS. Incidentally, I have known about the above Begin quotation for several years but never tried to insert it because I am uneasy about its genuineness, even though it was quoted in an academic journal. (And, as a aside, the fact that it isn't on 1000 web pages shows the inadequacy of the Arab propaganda machine compared to the Israeli one.) I think the quality bar for insertion should be raised all over the i/p domain of WP. Zero^talk 15:08, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Be that as it may, if something has been in an article for a while, and you remove it and get reverted, BRD applies. There should be a discussion not editors edit warring without even pretending to participate in the discussion. Ideally, you'd tell these two editors who happen to share your POV to stop edit warring and use the talk page. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

There can be no excuse for adding junk, which is everything from Schectman. 80.40.225.228 (talk) 16:21, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The place to decide if Schechtman is junk is RS/N, not here based on the word of one named editor and one IP. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:56, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe someone involved should raise the Schechtman issue on RS/N? --Dailycare (talk) 18:07, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The reliability of Schechtman is only a part of the issue, and perhaps not even the main issue. I don't doubt that "Habib Issa" really wrote in Al-Hoda and I have a much longer alleged extract of his article (though checking the translation would be interesting). The main issue is WP:UNDUE. Since there are thousands of things we could quote from people with clear roles and motivations, why are we quoting someone who is totally unknown? Nobody, including Schechtman, has ever identified Habib Issa. In fact we have no idea who he is except that on this day he was allegedly writing in a Christian Lebanese newspaper published in New York. Was he writing from personal knowledge? Did he have a personal connection to the events? Was he politically connected? Actually we don't have a clue. So even if the source is 100% reliable (which it isn't) this quotation doesn't belong here. To NMMNGL: so far you have not given a reason for retaining this quotation. Zero^talk 02:27, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

The POV that some Arabs blame the Arab leadership for the Palestinians leaving is a significant one, and these quotes support that POV. I don't mind replacing the actual quotes with some paraphrasing though. Shechtman reported that blah blah works for me. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:53, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Revisionist Joseph Schechtman, working for the US Zionist organization [easily sourced], wrote that an otherwise unknown writer in a NY newspaper of the Christian Lebanese community (known for its hostility to the Palestinian refugees in Lebanon and its sympathy for Zionism [easily sourced]) claimed a few years afterwards that Azzam Pasha had said X. When all the known facts are on display this looks really weak. Readers are going to think "if this is the best evidence available, there can't be much to it". Zero^talk 01:29, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Then let the readers think what they may. All the information is presented and the readers judge for themselves what is weak and what is strong. We do not censor. Thanks. --GHcool (talk) 05:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

We do censor. Not for censorious reasons, but because selection of limited material from the vast amount available is the first task of the encyclopedia writer. (The second task is presentation.) This particular item scores very poorly in terms of reliability, informative value and evidentiary value. The only use it has ever been put to is propaganda, which we are not supposed to do here. Clearly WP:UNDUE, probably WP:FRINGE as well. Zero^talk 06:21, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not UNDUE or FRINGE, it's cited all over the place. His political activism has no bearing on our ability to use him here (see: Finklestein, Pappe). No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

It is FRINGE because there is no other source that makes this claim about Azzam. The very reason for the wide currency of this weak evidence is that there isn't any other. As for activist sources, I wouldn't use Finklestein or Pappe either if it was up to me, even though they are correct most of the time. I won't apologise for having high standards. Zero^talk 10:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

While I'm duly impressed by your high standards and have made note of your opinions on Finkelstein and Pappe (not that I couldn't guess that's what you'd think), the fact remains that this information is widely cited by many RS and can not be excluded based on FRINGE.

Do you want to try to paraphrase into something everyone can live with? Go to RS/N? Leave it like it is? I'm open to all those options. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

In the first place, we must analyze the different quotes separately. We can't categorically strike-out all Shechtmen quotes based on the Issa argument. What we can do is cite the report to the newspaper, instead of the author. That's pretty standards (and it's even more standard that no one should know who Habib Issa was 60+ years later, since he was just a journalist).

As for who he worked for and why he published, this isn't material per WP:POV. The Israeli side of the argument must be represented. And I don't buy the WP:UNDUE argument either. The vast majority of this article is dedicated to a variety of arguments involving transfer and fear mongering, whereas the distribution of causes is an issue over which there is not consensus, and in fact it is clear that various causes all played into the exodus, sometimes in the affairs of a single family. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 11:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

We are not permitted to cite the material directly to the newspapers unless we examine the newspapers, see WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. The actual source we have is Schechtman, a Revisionist Zionist who was working for the American branch of the Jewish Agency (this is documented in a book of Rafael Medoff). Since Schechtman was not a third party source, his claims need to be presented as the claims of an interested party, not merely cited to him. As for his reliability, a good example is his claimed "quotation" of Azzam Pasha in May 1948, which already appeared in a Jewish Agency memorandum of Feb 1948. Finally, if one side of an argument has fewer good sources, that's the way it is—it is not an excuse for using poor sources. Zero^talk 12:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand what the quotation issue is supposed to prove. We have Schechtamn citing one interview from May as the source, and we have a Jewish Agency memo citing a slightly different version of the quote to a Feb interview. Is it implausible that Pasha used the same soundbite on more than one occasion? If we have one source quoting Bush as saying "read my lips:no new taxes" and citing it to the New Hampshire primary, and another source citing it to his acceptance speech in the New Orleans GOP convention several month later, do we conclude that the second source is unreliable? HupHollandHup (talk) 13:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The only difference is that one has "This will be.." and the other has "The war will be..", otherwise they are precisely identical. Meanwhile the original has been found, stay tuned. Zero^talk 01:24, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Accusations fly back and forth between academics on this subject. The fact that Shechtman was "found" to have Zionist connections doesn't make it true. And even if it did, that does not automatically make his book biased. Besides which, the quote by Khalidi against Shechtman I think adequately addresses the question of his bias.

Let's be honest here in acknowledging that none of these academics are "neutral." Everybody's research is funded by someone in the area. And to start listing who funds whom is slippery slope we must avoid. By the very introduction of Arab endoresement of flight as an Israeli position, you cover the issue of the bias of the section.

That aside, you are misenterpreting WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. Say where you found it refers to how you quote a source in the references, not how you introduce it in-text.

As far as the question of which side has more reliable source, that's really a pretty crude breakdown. We're quoting six different historically-revisionist theories that read something to the effect of, "The Jews kicked the Arabs out of Mandatory Palestine". There are nuanced differences, which are worth noting, but the argument is basically over the order and character of transfer, the extent of physical involvement versus fear-mongering, etc. The evidence they draw upon overlaps heavily, and points in different directions. The evidence to the contrary points in a single direction, and that's why it gets a smaller section. It also hasn't been as adequately developed as "theory" in the sense that Morris' was, because the explanation is far simpler, and doesn't require heavy analysis. I would name a few other reasons, but my soapbox would grow too large. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 19:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Schechtman wasn't "found" to be anything, he was one of the two founders of the New Zionist Organization, together with Ze'ev Jabotinsky. Later (when he wrote this book) he was a member of the executive of the World Zionist Organization. None of this was ever secret. It is a different matter from just having political bias, which everyone does. If Benny Morris wrote his book as a paid assignment for the PLO and was a member the Fatah central committee, do you think we wouldn't mention it when we quote him? The core policy WP:V says "Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources..." Schechtman was not a third-party source, we have an obligation to note that. The essay WP:Third-party sources may help. Zero^talk 00:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

No one in this conflict is a third party. Morris, for instance, is an avowed left-winger. Everybody's chosen sides, though not everyone admits it.

You don't appear to understand the concept of "third-party". It is not the same as unbiased. You are right that nearly everyone in this debate supports one of the main teams, but Schechtman was a member of one team not just a supporter. Zero^talk 01:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

A slightly more important question is who was behind the book. If Schechtman wore one hat, which was founding the NZO, and another, which was publishing a book, the two hats might well be unrelated. But you earlier alleged his book was funded by Zionist sources. I'm not familiar with this claim. Please explain. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 07:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Schechtman was employed by the American branch of the Jewish Agency, at the instruction of Moshe Sharett, to write literature in support of Israel's position wrt the refugees. Schechtman's work was supervised by the Israeli ambassadors to the US and the UN. This is documented in several places including a book of Medoff (I will add this information with citations to Schechtman's article when I find the time). Initially he wrote anonymously and his work appeared under the Jewish Agency or "Israel Information Office" banner in 1949 and 1950, but in 1952 he published it under his own name as "The Arab Refugee Problem". He writes in the introduction that his book is the third edition of the work (the first and second being the 1949 and 1950 anonymous works). Zero^talk 01:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I admit I haven't yet read the preceding discussion closely, but I would like to make a couple of points about these "junk" quotes.

Firstly, I don't know if Schechtman was a paid shill for Zionism or not, as Zero asserts, although he's clearly a partisan source by virtue of his political appointments. But as if that wasn't enough, Schechtman's scholarship is ancient by I-P conflict standards. There is far more information available now about this period than was available in Schechtman's time.

Secondly, in regard to the quotes allegedly from Arab papers, even if these quotes are accurate, they are just opinions from obscure, possibly ill-informed or politically motivated journalists of the day. How can they possibly be considered reliable, or compare in reliability to scholarly works by modern historians? They are utterly trivial as sources. There is just no excuse for their inclusion here. Gatoclass (talk) 18:02, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Right. Zero^talk 01:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Given the information above, I would find naming Schechtman as a Zionist source quite acceptable.

As far as the argument regarding the age of source, this would be a valid position if Schechtman were making an argument from silence which was later disproven. He is presenting evidence available at the time when he was writing. And in that respect, writing close to the time in which the events took place is an advantage, not a weakness.

As far as the quality of his sources, I agree they're not gold-standard. But this problem stems from a number of issues, not least of which is the incredible censorship in the Arab world of "inconvenient" information, and the ability to maintain tight lips by sowing fear. If better-sourced quotes to the same effect appear, I will be happy to replace these ones. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 17:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Your comment about political manipulation in the Arab media just underlines the point about the unreliability of these sources. They should not be in the article. Gatoclass (talk) 15:41, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Childers' argument from silence

I made a small change to the introduction to the Arab endorsement of flight section, and it currently reads as follows:

The first explanation published of what caused the 1948 Palestinian exodus was that the Arab political and military leaders within Palestine and in surrounding countries actually told Arab civilians in Palestine to leave their homes so as to avoid any casualties of war with the expectation that they would return to their homes once the Arab armies destroyed the Yishuv. According to Childers, no radio broadcasts or Arab newspapers with such orders were subsequently found to this day. To the contrary, he says orders were issued for the Palestinians to stay in their homes.

This argument by Childers is repeated later on in the section, in greater detail. I have a problem with this phraseology, not only because it's an argument from silence, but also because there was not silence. If we are to use this, we should write something to the effect of, "According to Childers, no radio broadcasts or Arab newspapers with such orders were subsequently found to this day, although some have been found and are mentioned below."

My problems with the inclusion of this source are as follows:

1. This is an argument from silence.
   1. I absolutely reject that he could have reviewed every relevant article and radio broadcast. He can't claim to have missed nothing. His argument is that he couldn't find evidence, therefore there is none, and that absence of evidence constitutes evidence of absence.
   2. Four innocent-looking words, monitored by the BBC. These words constitute the qualifier for those media sources that Childers researched. We don't know what portion of these media were monitored by the BBC. Could be 95%, could be 5%.
2. There is no silence. The article quotes several quotations that Childers says don't exist, and quotes sources such as Glazer and Gabbay that refer to others. Childer's claim that there's no evidence that "quotes from or even refers to such orders." Doesn't hold water.
3. Childers' work is outdated, and was disproved by later researchers. I'll cut him some slack for not knowing about the articles he claimed didn't exist. He published in 1971, before Schechtman, Morris, Glazer, Gabbay, Pappe and Flappan. New evidence has now emerged that proves him wrong. He may have been right at the time of publication, but we now know better (which may explain #2 above).
4. Childers' argument from silence is mentioned three times in this section, at very great length, in clear violation of WP:UNDUE. I don't think it should be mentioned at all, but at the very least, it needs to be consolidated. I'd appreciate other editors' help in figuring out how to consolidate as we move forward on discussion as to whether this belongs in the article at all.

Thank you to all, Saepe Fidelis (talk) 20:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. Thanks Saepe Fidelis.  :) --GHcool (talk) 23:15, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Nope, this is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Also your chronology is all wrong. Schechtman and Gabbay both came before Childers. Incidentally the BBC transcripts are the most extensive compilation of broadcast records that exist. I have them. Every few days there was an issue about 60-100 pages long containing translations and summaries of a large number of radio stations outside Europe (there is another series covering Europe). The middle east part of it has typically 3-10 pages per day. Of course it doesn't include everything, that's impossible, but it includes an awful lot. Zero^talk 00:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

That's my point. 3-10 pages every few days is not enough to outright exclude the existance of these publications. A single publication to the opposite is enough to disprove Childers' point. And Schechtman found at least one such a publication, besides the fact that we have countless other sources making explicit references to them. My mistake on misdating Schechtman and Gabbay. Thank you for pointing that out. The dating of the others is valid, though.

Your point on WP:OR and WP:SYNTH is one that did come to my mind. How do we treat sources that are flat-out wrong on a question of fact? Is it synthesis to say they're wrong? This is a particularly valid question when the argument is an argument from silence, as this type of argument can be easily disproven. Later sources might debunk older sources, or the source might have been wrong in the first place (here it seems both are true). But Childers was simply wrong; there's no questions about it. So what do we do? It's not reasonable for us to say that no articles to the effect of X were ever found, and then quote one, and quote several sources that reference countless others.

Might you share some information that would help me find these BBC reports? I'm curious to read them.

We really have our work cut out for us on this one, so I suggest we take it one step at a time. Let's, for the time being, agree that Childers belongs in the article. Surely, we agree he's being given undue weight, as his one argument is being mentioned three times and at great length in a single short section, and once besides. As we consolidate references to him, the important questions, as I see them are:

1. Which references to this argument do we keep? There are four in the entire article:
   1. Under Criticism of traditional positions: "In 1961 Erskine Childers ... Palestine to stay put."
   2. Under The "Arab leaders' endorsement of flight" explanation: "According to Childers, ... in their homes."
   3. Under Criticisms of the "endorsement of flight" explanation: "Erskine Childers checked ... fabricating complete lies."
   4. Under Arab evacuation orders: "Erskine Childers, another ... to stay put." A similar argument from silence is made by Morris immediately following.
2. What on earth do with do with the sources (which, BTW, currently violate WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT)? Respectively, the sources are:
   1. Source is an op-ed quoted in a self-published source.
   2. Source is an op-ed quoted in a self-published source, same as #1 above.
   3. Source is a book cited in another book (reasonable enough).
   4. Source is an article (presumably op-ed?) quoted in a question and answer section of the The Center for Arab Culture and Dialogue website. Seriously?
3. Do we quote Childers, or do we paraphrase?
4. How do we relate his work to the rest of the article, so that there is some explanation to the reader as to why we're quoting this guy who says no articles were ever found, and then we quote some articles?

Cheers, Saepe Fidelis (talk) 07:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Childers says that the BCC transcripts, and a similar CIA compilation do not support the Arab orders thesis and in fact support the opposite. As far as I am aware, that claim has never been disproved. Childers is wrong in saying that "all" radio transmissions are included in these transcripts, but his overall thesis has stood up pretty well. Nobody, not Schechtman or anyone else, has discovered a general call from any Arab leader for the Palestinians to leave Palestine. Regarding the BBC material, my library has it in the form of shelves full of microfilm. It would be great if it was on the web somewhere, but I doubt it. Zero^talk 08:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Does it have an ISBN or similar information that I could use to look for it in my library?

Let's set aside, only for the moment, the issue of whether Childers is worth including in the article at all. Can we first agree that the four references to this argument must be consolidated into one? Saepe Fidelis (talk) 09:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Things that old don't have ISBNs. The specifications for the relevant series are: Caversham Park [England] : Monitoring Service of the British Broadcasting Corporation, [1947-1949]; Summary of world broadcasts. Part III, No. 1 (29 May 1947)-no. 99 (21 Apr. 1949). The title and division into regions varied over the years. You might try "BBC Monitoring Service" as an author. I'll look at the Childers citations soon. Zero^talk 10:32, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. As far as the other question I posed in my last edit, are we in agreement? Assuming we are, do you have any suggestions on how to proceed with trimming down Childers' argument? Saepe Fidelis (talk) 13:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and consolidated the references. If there is objection, please revert and discuss. Right now, I've got to do some cleanup of odd wording resulting from the consolidation. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 10:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the cleanup was easier than I thought it would be; I just had to change the wording a little on one Morris citation.

But I came across something interesting while making these edits. At several places in the "Arab endorsement" section, we're actually making the "wordless wish" argument. A few are unavoidable, but I submit that at least one should be removed, as its relevance to this section is minuscule, and it is already mentioned elsewhere: "His point is taken by Glazer (1980, p. 101), who writes that not only did Arab radio stations appeal to the inhabitants not to leave, but also Zionist radio stations urged the population to flee, by exaggerating the course of battle, and, in some cases, x complete lies."

There is also an entire paragraph dedicate to the rebuttal of an argument which is never made: "According to Glazer (1980, p. 105), among those who ... have been in the hands of the common Palestinian." This is a straw man argument. It refutes a fringe theory which is never mentioned. I move to remove it. Thoughts? Saepe Fidelis (talk) 10:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Please stop making major changes without consensus. Allow time for busy editors to consider it carefully. The quote from Glazer is relevant and concise, I don't agree with its removal. Zero^talk 10:58, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Zero, as I'm sure you know, my edit was in good faith. Per the be bold policy (and per personal experience), making changes has a magical way of drawing people back into dormant discussion. Besides, I would not have felt so comfortable making this change were it not for the fact that in the more than ten edits by three editors, no one objected to consolidating the Childers references, which are obviously repetitive, in violation of WP:Undue. That aside, are we on the same page as far as consolidating Childers?

As far as the Glazer quote, it might be concise, but surely we agree that it is not actually a refutation of the endorsement explanation, but an expoundement of the "wordless wish" or even transfer explanations?

What are your thoughts about the other paragraph? Saepe Fidelis (talk) 16:17, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Source cleanup

The article currently uses about a bajillion different styles of citations when citing different pages from the same book. The one that is most correct and most concise is, Glazer, p. 38. (made up the reference). I've started converting references to this style, and ask other editors to help. It's a pretty monstrous job. There's almost 200 references. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 14:04, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I should add a lot of the fully-cited links are poorly constructed. Everything's out of order, some crucial information is missing, capitalization is awful, etc. I ask for help on fixing that, too. This is why kids today can't cite things right... because they go to Wikipedia, and Wikipedia doesn't cite things right. Well, there are a lot of other reasons, too... Saepe Fidelis (talk) 14:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I've been using the MLA style for my citations. --GHcool (talk) 15:36, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Refresh my memory as to what that looks like when you abbreviate. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 15:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Official MLA format looks like this: Glazer 38. Personally, I prefer your version (Glazer, p. 38) and have been using that format in Wikipedia. --GHcool (talk) 15:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not much bothered by the format used, as long as it is consistent and fairly efficient. Mentioning title, publication year and author first initial every time a source is cited is overkill.

Also, we need to cut out all the "Ibid" references, and replace them with ones that won't go bad if someone rearranges or adds/removes sources. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 20:09, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

No, no, no. You mix clean-up and censorship of reliable sources.

Focus on only one action. I suggest the clean-up and then we can discuss about the material to remove.

Noisetier (talk) 11:21, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Noisetier, thank you for your contribution to this article and the discussion surrounding it. From your edit and comments I gather that you did not read the comments above, nor looked carefully at the edits I made. By "cleanup" I meant changing the format in which information was cited so that it would be consistent, not changing the actual information cited. Removal of sourced information occurred per the discussion above, in which you did not participate. You'll notice, I hope, that the purpose of this removal was to consolidate a reference that repeats itself four times, though its scholarly weight merits one mention at most. This is not "censorship," as you put it. You'll further note, I hope, that in the more than week of discussion between three editors, two editors have spoken in favor of this consolidation, and one has participated in the surrounding discussion, but has said nothing regarding consolidating the references.

Your edit restored the text in question, but also undid a lot of controversy-free, constructive source cleanup in the article. I will now revert your edit, so as to restore both. If you feel compelled to restore the redundant references to Childers, please make sure you do not undo any additional edits along with them. They took me a lot of time, and they're not the least bit controversial (I would hope). And, at any rate, I haven't heard any objection from you or anyone else (as of yet) regarding the removal of three of the four Childers references, and consolidating into a single quote. If you are objected (are you?), please discuss above. Cheers, Saepe Fidelis (talk) 14:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

section "Claims by Arab sources that support that the flight was instigated by Arab leaders"

At least two of the items in this section do not correspond to the section heading.

• Contemporary Jordanian politician Anwar Nusseibeh believed that the fault for the exodus and military loss was with the Arab commanders: "the commanders of the local army thought in terms of the revolt against the British in the 1930s. The rebels had often retreated to the mountains .... But the Jews were fighting for complete domination, so the fighters had erred in withdrawing from the villages instead of defending them […]."

— This says nothing at all about Arab commanders instigating the flight. It only refers to the "fighters" withdrawing from the villages as in the 1930s (when villages were never evacuated by the residents). Furthermore the source (Segev) does not make the interpretation given here. Therefore this is gone by virtue of WP:NOR.

• Mahmoud Abbas, at the time Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority, would later recall: "The Arab armies entered Palestine to protect the Palestinians from the Zionist tyranny but, instead, they abandoned them, forced them to emigrate and to leave their homeland, and threw them into prisons similar to the ghettos in which the Jews used to live."

— This is cited to a book by Sundquist who cites it to the totally unreliable Myths and Facts. Given that Sundquist is not an expert on this subject (the book is about Blacks and Jews in contemporary America) the actual source is the one by which it should be judged. Therefore it is gone by virtue of WP:RS. Moreover, even if it is accurately translated from the Arabic (dubious) and has adequate context (even more dubious), what it means is that the Palestinians were forced to flee from the Jews because the Arab armies insufficiently defended them. This also is entirely different from instigating the flight.

Zero^talk 09:42, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Your request regarding the Jordanian source seems reasonable. Your request regarding Abbas does not. Thanks. --GHcool (talk) 18:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

How do we know that Myths and Facts is unreliable? If there are reliable sources characterizing it as a unreliable then Zero's point would seem solid to me. --Dailycare (talk) 19:35, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I can provide strong statements to that effect from book reviews, but this particular case is more straightforward. Neither Sundquist not Myths&Facts describe this as a claim that the flight was instigated by Arab leaders. Describing it as such in our article, or even including it in an article about causes of the exodus without a better reason, is a clear case of original research. Zero^talk 03:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't like the way in which books are "assassinated" in this article with the use of reviews. Anyone can write a review, and they don't add up to much. I agree that the source as it currently appears is weak. Given how much leniency sources such as Childers enjoyed for such a long time, I think we should take the time to find a RS, rather than simply removing the citation altogether. Your claim on the possible misrepresentation is interesting, but not quite watertight. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 15:18, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

"Myths and Facts" is an unreliable source but regardless, Zero's point that the quote doesn't actually support the claim is valid. Gatoclass (talk) 15:34, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

"forced them to emigrate and to leave their homeland" isn't relevant? Saepe Fidelis (talk) 07:42, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

No, because it's not at all clear what he was referring to. For example, he says the Arab armies "abandoned" the Palestinians, so he may well have been referring to the abandonment as the reason they were "forced to leave their homes". Since we can't be sure what he meant, using this statement as support for the claim that "the flight was instigated by Arab leaders" is OR. Gatoclass (talk) 07:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

One should of course be very suspicious about a claim by a totally unreliable source (Myths&Facts) that a leading Palestinian contradicted the standard Palestinian narrative, and suspicious to the point of disbelief that the official journal of the PLO (Falastin a-Thaura) would publish it. The original Arabic is unavailable, nor any context. I'm reminded of the al-Azm quote, which is often presented as "it is we who forced them to leave it". The Arabic word translated as "forced" more correctly means "constrained" so we properly give the translation as "it is we who constrained them to leave it". In more eloquent English it would be "it is we who left them no choice but to leave it". The most likely meaning of Abbas' words is that the Palestinians had no choice but to flee from the "Zionist tyranny" since the Arab armies "abandoned" them. This is just a theory, but neither Myths&Facts nor Sunquist provide any other theory. That is the basic point here: presenting an interpretation not supported by the sources is Original Research. Zero^talk 11:24, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

A book by Eric J. Sundquist easily meets our WP:V policy. His source is probably irrelevant.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:38, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

@Gatoclass. You deem Myths and facts "unreliable" but propagandists like Khalidi and Pappe are reliable? If Myths and Facts is excluded then all material referenced to Khalidi and Pappe should be excluded, fair enough?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 19:23, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Obviously this original research is not acceptable. Ian Pitchford (talk) 21:00, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Mahmoud Abbas, The leader of the PLO and himself a refugee from Safed confirming the traditional Israeli narrative of the causes for the Palestinian exodus? Quite an exceptional claim. Is Myths & Facts an exceptionally good source for this exceptional claim? I think not. --Frederico1234 (talk) 04:54, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

the fact that the Arab leadership is atleast partly to blame for the Arab departure from Israel during 48 is in no way a red-flag claim. this is quite the mainstream narrative.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:12, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

The section title is "Claims by Arab sources that support that the flight was instigated by Arab leaders". This claim is the traditional Israeli explanation for the cause of the Palestinian exodus. Abbas is listed in support of that claim. That is indeed an exceptional claim. --Frederico1234 (talk) 07:04, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

again, the fact that the Arab leadership was atleast partly to blame for the flight is well documented and accepted by all. denying the very existence of such a claim is extreme. further claiming that a respected leader would never make any sort of statement inconsistent with revisionist history is a joke, besides for being non-compliant with our wp:v policy.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:55, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Even though the lack of a good source is sufficient reason to delete this "quotation", an even more clear reason is that it is Original Research. Abbas' alleged words are not obviously an example of "Claims by Arab sources that support that the flight was instigated by Arab leaders" and neither Sunquist nor the real source M&F say that they are. So there is in fact no source at all, good or bad, which supports this interpretation. Zero^talk 10:26, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Abbas may not use the word "instigated", but the quote is clearly relevant to the passage. Whether M&F is an RS is moot, if Sunquist, a clear-cut RS says the same thing. Refusing to accept Sunquist because you don't like his source is a step that is wholly inconsistent with our WP:V policy.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:09, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

"Clearly relevant to the passage" is not an argument, you need to do better. I'll be clearer: the most reasonable interpretation of Abbas' words is entirely different from what the section title suggests, and you have no source claiming otherwise. Zero^talk 06:28, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

just saying it's "not an argument" is clearly an inferior argument. would you care to elaborate on why it is not relevant to the subject matter? a section name is not set in stone, so it should not be an impediment to the inclusion of relevant verified content. would you like to suggest a name modification for the section? --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:39, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

You also missed this from WP:RS: "No source is universally reliable. Each source must be carefully weighed in the context of an article to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source." In this case someone with acknowledged expertise in one area copied something from a junk source about another area. It fits the rules precisely. Zero^talk 06:36, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

you haven't come up with one even non RS that contradicts the Abbas statement. It's just a bunch of Wikipedia editors who think that Abbas did not say it. I'm sorry, but that's just not how we make content decision here at this encyclopedia.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:41, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I voice concurrence with Brewcrewer sound argument. Moreover, the book is published by Harvard University Press and you can't get better than that.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:10, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

The author is not an expert in the field. The source he use is a highly partisan source. The quote is not found in any other scholarly work. You can get a lot better than that. --Frederico1234 (talk) 19:17, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I found a book (link) which claims to have a picture of the original quote from the PLO journal. If anyone who knows arabic could translate it then that would be great. --Frederico1234 (talk) 19:36, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

@Frederico. "The author is not an expert in the field?" Of all the comments thus far relating to this particular debate, yours is perhaps the most asinine lame. Do you think that Harvard University Press would seek to publish drivel from a layman? And do you consider yourse/lf an "expert?" By whose authority do you, Frederico, determine who is, and who is not, an expert--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 23:43, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

This personal attack is on your charge sheet. Keep it up. Zero^talk 01:26, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have phrased it differently but the point still stands that Sundquist wrote a thoroughly researched book on the subject, that went through a vetting process and was subjected to peer review and was published by the prestigious Harvard University Press. And Frederico decides on his own that the author is not an “expert!?” By what standard did he make this determination? What other authors has he spoken to on the subject? What research has he done and what methodology has he employed? His statement is one of the weakest arguments I’ve ever encountered for or against inclusion of an edit.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:00, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

In what way is Sundquist an expert in a relevant field of research? Is he a historian? No, he is not. Is he an expert in the study of the Arabic language? No, he is not. So in what way is he an expert? True, he is a professor in english literature. But that's hardly relevant here. --Frederico1234 (talk) 17:50, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Frederico, can you match these credentials?[1] Are you even in a position to make an assessment as to who is or who is not an expert? The inescapable fact is that Eric Sundquist is a well-known and accomplished author, researcher and academic and the fact that the book in question was published by Harvard University Press speaks volumes of his work.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:15, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

No, I can not match his credentials. As seen by his resume, he is both an academic and a researcher. The link you provided also clearly shows that he is indeed an accomplished author.

But he does not have a PhD in history nor is he working on acquiring one. Therefore, he's not an expert in history. --Frederico1234 (talk) 18:42, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

His credentials are irrelevant anyway since he does not say that Abbas confirmed that flight was instigated by Arab leaders! You can't get around this obvious fact, if a source doesn't say what you want it to say the credentials of the author don't matter either way. Zero^talk 23:48, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

"The Arab armies entered Palestine to protect the Palestinians from the Zionist tyranny but, instead, they abandoned them, forced them to emigrate and to leave their homeland, and threw them into prisons." That sentence speaks for itself. The Arab armies forced the Palestinians out. Look at the plain meanings of the words. Your argument is truly without merit unless I'm missing something.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 00:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but you are not reading it in context. Jiujitsuguy comes to my house with a gun and I call the police, who promise to come but instead abandon me and I'm forced to run away. Of course I'm going to write "the police forced me to leave", that's a normal way to accuse someone I'm mad at. What Abbas said is a common part of the Palestinian narrative and not even unusual. They blame the Arab states for not making a proper effort to defend them, so that they were forced to flee from the "Zionist tyranny". Zero^talk 10:57, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with your interpretation. "Forced" implies coercion. Anyway, we're not in the business of interpreting other people's words around here. I suggest taking this to one of the boards. Your pick. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:55, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

"Forced" doesn't imply coercion, it implies lack of choice. "The police forced me to flee by not showing up" is perfectly normal English. And don't forget this is translated from another language by a hostile translator; you can't analyze it as words written by a native English speaker. While you are at it, can you suggest why the PLO official journal would publish a statement admitting that its very reason for existence is a lie? Some sort of insanity? Not even the wildest Zionist propagandist claimed that the Arab armies actually drove out the Palestinians. And what about the contradiction between "abandoned them" and "forced them to leave"? These are opposites under your interpretation but fit perfectly under mine. However, I agree with you that it is not our job to interpret other peoples' words; that's why it is OR to present this with an interpretation not given by the source. Zero^talk 12:30, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Zero. I think that you're the one who is engaging in a little too much OR. I am looking at the plain meaning of the word whereas you are attempting to interpret it. "Forced" means forced. If Abbas meant something else, he would have utilized different language. But he chose his words carefully and deliberately chose the word "Forced." You can't get around it.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

How do you know what language he used? Did you read the Arabic original? My interpretation is reasonable and matches the both the text and the circumstances. Yours fits the text but under the circumstances (publication by the PLO's official journal) is impossible. Zero^talk 22:42, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I usually don't agree with Zero, but I think he/she has a point here. Abbas was using "forced" in the same way I might say that an unlucky businessman was "forced" into bankruptcy. No external agent with a gun "forced" him to declare bankruptcy, just as no external agent with a gun "forced" most Palestinian Arabs to leave their homes. The lack of options is the key point. --GHcool (talk) 21:26, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

It isn't up to us to go into Abbas's head to figure out what he meant by "forced," and to do so would be OR. As No More Mr Nice Guy stated, forced implies coercion. There is nothing voluntary about it. In the absence of any contrary evidence implying otherwise, we must utilize the plain meaning of the word. And Frederico, it would do you good to utilize the Talk page more often rather than relying on the arguments of others to legitimize your endless reverts. I find it interesting how you jump from one argument to another. First you argue that Eric Sundquist should be precluded as a source because he doesn't have a PhD in history and when that argument tailspins, you carpetbag on Zero's argument.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 01:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

And one more thing Frederico. The subject edit has been around for quite some time. The burden is on you to establish consensus for its removal and you don't have it.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)