Talk:Shmuel Katz (politician)

Katz as a historian

I have not been able to find a source per WP:RS who refer to Katz as a historian. On Google I found that "historian samuel katz" returns 1 hit, "historian shmuel katz" returns 1 hit, while "historian benny morris" returns 24.000 hits. Searches on alternative strings return similar results. Therefore, I have removed "historian" leaving "writer". Since you seem certain he's a historian you probably have a source somewhere? If you will refer to that source I'll be happy to reinstate it. -- Steve Hart 19:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

your google skills need work.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1569800421/ref=nosim/002-4808670-4079245?n=283155

Amoruso 21:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

benny morris creates more hits using the narrow formulae, because Katz is ALSO a historian while morris is ONLY the famous post zionist historian. This is called an "ish eshkolot" in hebrew which translates to : "scholar, erudite person, cultured person, well-read person". Amoruso 21:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

This is wikipedia: verifiability, not truth per WP:V. If he is a historian I'm sure you can point to a source besides a bookstore saying he is so. Does he have any credentials as a historian? Education? I note that Google Scholar only returns 1 book citation for his main work "Battleground" [1] , which is unusal for a book endorsed by prominent politicians. -- Steve Hart 21:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Amazon writes as follows in the editorial review :

Editorial Reviews

From Library Journal

Historian and journalist Katz has written a lengthy and detailed life of Jabotinsky (1880-1940), an outstanding and controversial figure in the Zionist movement of the 1920s and 1930s. He was a leader of Revisionism, which opposed the policies of the mainstream Zionist group led by Chaim Weitzman and David Ben-Gurion, later to become president and prime minister, respectively, of the state of Israel. Jabotinsky was also a prolific journalist, novelist, poet, and linguist, and Katz treats these aspects of Jabotinsky's work fully. This attempt at completeness often obscures the main thrust of Jabotinsky's efforts?the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine. Although Katz avows a determination to be fair to Jabotinsky's contemporary critics and opponents, this is clearly the work of an ardent admirer. Recommended for academic libraries with large collections on Zionism and the state of Israel. Harry Frumerman, formerly with Hunter Coll., CUNY

Copyright 1996 Reed Business Information, Inc.

Google scholar :

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22battleground%22+%2B+samuel+katz&hl=en&lr=&start=0&sa=N

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=%22battleground%22+%2B+shmuel+katz&btnG=Search

I see numerous references, also in french and german. This is only for this book, excluding the hebrew version of course and his other books . Writers like J. Bowyer Bell cite Katz in their books about the conflicts. As for education - university of Johannesburg and the Hebrew Universiry. Amoruso 22:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

-- [notification: reply above reformatted for readability + section title created]

I was asking for Katz's credentials or education. Can you cite those please? As for your links:

• Library Journal, is, AFAIK, a private publication aimed towards libraries, not a scholarly publication. They write reviews and sell them, just like AllMusic. (Even if it would qualify as a source, a second source is necessary to verify that the reviewer didn't slip). But as I said, I'm looking for a scholarly source, see [2] and [3] .
• Your Google searches are misleading. Instead of searching for "battleground" + samuel katz like you did, you should be searching battleground + "samuel katz" and you get an entirely different result: [4] . There are many people named Katz and many named Samuel, and there's even more than one named "Samuel Katz". However, I'm looking for citations of his books. If you click on the link above and look at first hit (Battleground), you'll see the number of citations for that hit below the title. Click on that link, and you'll see who has cited his book (look for "BOOK" next to the title to find book citations). I'm sure there are others not in the database, but all in all there seems to be few.

As I'm sure you understand, we cannot call somebody "historian" without verification in an encyclopedia any more than we can call somebody "professor". -- Steve Hart 23:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't claiming that the whole search I listed was this Shmuel Katz. I simply noted that there was more than 1 reference. And you proved it (note the results both for samuel and shmuel, much more than "1" reference It seems 12. As for number of cites on battleground, it says 5. it also says it appears in the uli and 551 times in web search). ALso doesn't include hebrew references of course which are abundant). I think that covers it. Isn't Google Scholar for spotting scholars ? Well it just did. As for credentials, he has degrees from the universties I listed. Amoruso 23:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

that 551 websearch provides so many references (random citations here):

http://peace.heebz.com/war.html

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/001508.php

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27625

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=7390

http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=12246

Yes, there are 5 citations for his main book, only one of them is a book citation. (this is the link in my second post in case you didn't notice). Book citations indicate reputation and quality, and in absence of a scholarly source a high number of citations could do. However, I see there's a similar discusion going on elsewhere, so I'm going to leave it at that. Have a good night's sleep. -- Steve Hart 00:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that the fact Google Scholar Beta (no hebrew versions?) found this one book, it is of any significane, having read many that are citing Katz. This test doesn't seem very useful either since also with benny morris's book, usually only one citation is a book. With Khalidi's book All the remains, there are no books which cite it [5] Thank you, you too. Amoruso 01:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

There is no formal definition of "historian" so the fact that he wrote a few books that have the form of history and one (the last one on Jabotinsky) that has received some favorable notice from historians means that I don't object to him being called a historian here. What I object to is him being cited as a source for the circa-1948 period without noting that at the time he was the Irgun's chief propagandist. --Zero^talk 03:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

your objection is noted. Katz is a respected historian. Indeed he belongs to the right wing of the map so he might be less cited than Morris. See Efraim's Kishon "The Race" to understand why. Amoruso 09:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I see no evidence for your claim that Katz is a "respected historian". It would be odd, when he started his writing career as a propagandist, and was a member of an alleged terrorist gang. His apparent admiration for Jabotinsky would also exclude him in most people's eyes. PalestineRemembered 19:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The fact his book is cited in google scholar and that he has the credentials from the university in South Africa and Jerusalem is the fact. Those most people sound interesting. Amoruso 20:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Scholarship and reliability of Katz. Self-interest, denial and at least one serious and major error

Shmuel Katz would appear to have a strong interest in denial. He associated with the most militant parts of Zionism from the age of 16 (in South Africa). He joined one of the groups that forced (with bombings) the British to abandon the Mandate and leave in 1948. (In fact, he was their propagandist). While his personal accounts would surely make valuable history, it is less clear that he's a fit person to debunk the myths of others. It would seem reasonable to call him "highly opinionated" and even seeking confrontation. From his biography he was briefly a public relations consultant to then Prime Minister Menachem Begin. He quit in Jan 1978, apparently because of differences with the Cabinet over the peace agreement with Egypt signed the following year.

Separate from Katz's controversial claims about the population of Palestine, he claims "the Arab refugees were not driven from Palestine by anyone. The vast majority left, whether of their own free will or at the orders or exhortations of their leaders". This claim was long made by defenders of Israel, but it's now been fairly throughly debunked. eg [6] and [7]. It would be wrong to suggest that all the refugees were beaten, robbed and threatened in this fashion - but they knew what awaited them. Indeed, some examples were even more sudden and extreme eg Golda Meir in Haifa, 6th May 1948 ("Palestinian Refuge problem revisited" Benny Morris p.310), "...... there were houses where the coffee and pita bread were left on the table, and could not avoid thinking that this, indeed, had been the picture in many Jewish towns (ie in Europe in WW2)"

(I attempted to insert these paragraphs in the wrong place (review of Battleground), and was told "(rv WP:POV insertions. All WP:OR without any references. The discussion whether Katz is correct of not is of course irrelevant unless a WP:RS discusses katz directly, which was done already)" ..... and I sort of understand. However, I'd have thought the above was highly relevant any time Katz is referenced)

Explaining again why it's out of place, like I wrote in your user page :WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:NPOV

Regarding a recent edit on the entry battleground and other edits I noticed you made, I think you misunderstand these policies. The question whether Katz is correct or not is irrelevant (wikipedia is about WP:V not truth). Any citations have to concern Katz's book directly and not the questions or topics he raises. Also, any claim has to be referenced to WP:RS and to maintain WP:NPOV. Finaly, your personal conclusions juxtoposing his biography with his conclusions and its implications are original research and are not suitable. Thank you. Amoruso 14:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Please also understand that wikipedia is not a discussion board. The debunked discredited site you borrowed your nickname from (?) "palestineremembered.com" really has nothing to do with Shmuel Katz. The fact it disagrees with his very researched facts because of a politically motivated issue, is not relevant to wikipedia. I will assume WP:AGF on your part, then I can assure you Katz has many references that prove his facts to the fullest extent. Somebody's opinion over his book is relevant if he's notable, somebody's opinion over the issues concerned are not. Amoruso 15:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

You say "I can assure you Katz has many references that prove his facts to the fullest extent." .... when I'd have thought that, on the flight of the Palestinians, he's most definitely, provably wrong by WP:RS. He was a propagandist in 1948 (we're told) and again in 1977/78, and he helped perpetrate quite a nasty propaganda lie for some 50 years.

Nor can I understant why you've opened a discussion on "palestineRemembered.com" and claimed that it's debunked and discredited. The links to the pages in Benny Morris are actual photographs of the pages. Ample other evidence for what's claimed. PalestineRemembered 17:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Katz telling of the palestinian exodus is not debunked at all, and it's collaborated by arabic, palestinian and other sources. Benny Morris agrees with part of it and not all, but that's his opinion. Many scholars agree with what Katz saying including many palestinian and arab leaders. The nasty propoganda lie is indeed the one that blames Jews for the Palestinians exiting in order to help the Arab armies to destory Israel. Amoruso 17:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Katz's version of the "Palestinian Exodus" is totally debunked. His words are nasty denial. Finkelstein says "Israel Defense Forces (IDF) Intelligence Branch Report, 'The Emigration of the Arabs of Palestine in the Period 1/12/1947-1/9/1948', makes no mention of a general appeal by the Arab leadership ordering Palestinians to flee their homes and puts at 5% the figure of Arabs who fled because of Arab commanders". Benny Morris puts it higher, "but no more than 10%". And this is fighters moving into villages and taking them over, supposedly prepared for a fight, it's not "orders from the AHC".

Furthermore, not only is Katz's claim wrong, but it's completely irrelevant. If your "community leader" ordered you out of your home (and you complied, which is pretty unlikely), it would still be outrageous to stop you returning to it. PalestineRemembered 20:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Katz is definitely not wrong. What you're saying has been totally debunked already. Even Morris says that the Arab Higher Committee ordered the evacuation of "several dozen villages, as well as the removal of dependents from dozens more” in April-July 1948. "The invading Arab armies also occasionally ordered whole villages to depart, so as not to be in their way" (The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited, MA: Cambridge University Press, 2004, p. 592). Jordan's King Abdullah, writing in his memoirs, blamed Palestinian leaders for the refugee problem: "The tragedy of the Palestinians was that most of their leaders had paralyzed them with false and unsubstantiated promises that they were not alone; that 80 million Arabs and 400 million Muslims would instantly and miraculously come to their rescue." etc etc. And of course it wouldn't be outrageous at all to deny those who left the land in order to help advancing armies commit genocide in your people to return for another "attempt of genocide", while more than double refugees escaped from the arab lands to Israel. Amoruso 10:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be defending ethnic cleansing. A small proportion of villages seem to have been emptied because of instructions from the Arab side (by all the serious accounts that I'm aware of, Morris being the most accessible and perhaps most careful). But it makes no difference - even if all of them had been emptied in this fashion, the case you're trying to make would still be a clear piece of Zionist propaganda. Acceptable to nobody else. It's particularily un-arguable now that we've bombed Serbia out of Kosovo and prosecuted Milosevic. PalestineRemembered 19:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Since the Arabs of Palestine fled by their own will in the purpose of coming back after all Jews were cleansed of the planet, it's perfectly moral to accept the population transfer of Jews from Arab lands (double the number of Palestinian refugees) and Arabs of Palestine to Arab lands. Population transfers have been the solution preferred in many conflicts and usually the refugees settle in their new country and live in peace later on. Nothing wrong about that. Anyway, it's not the place for this discussion. Amoruso 19:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

We have highly credible figures that only some 5% or 10% of the Palestinian Exodus was due to orders from Arab leaders.

We have highly credible accounts of Palestinians being massacred and beaten from their homes.

We know about ethnic cleansing, we know why we bombed Serbia and what we prosecuted Milosevic for.

We're pretty disgusted when people like Katz attempt to cover for their crimes by lying about them.

PalestineRemembered 19:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

"We are the Borg"? Amoruso 20:15, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Nielswik

you say "rm him being an irgun commander" but that's not true - it says it right in the next paragraph with refs. I don't know what's the purpose of adding even more refs to the article and changing orders of sentences and changing the NY Times definition of spokesman to propaganda and adding all sort of OR and irrelevant info by people who didn't write books or articles about Katz but just mentioned him in passing except POV'ing. Let's leave those weird changes out, everything about this person is told in the article already. There are so many silly changes here like adding "revisionist youth movement" to beitar when there's a wikilink to it. Very strange. Seriously, this attempt of WP:POV by user:Ian Pitchford is bordering on some obssession I've never seen before. He simply has a fixation on the word revisionist, perhaps he thinks it has bad connotations and will smear Katz in some way I dunno, it's just strange. And why on Earth is it relevant his opinion about Dayan out of all people by this writer that "notes it"? and why other sourced material was removed for these changes...like this removed:"historian and jouranlist from amazon" or "Another project for which Katz dedicated many years of his life is the two volume biography of Jabotinsky of 1792 pages, entitled "Lone Wolf, A Biography of Valadimir (Ze'ev) Jabotinsky." - which brings us to this indeed.... How anal can it be to add "of whom he was a loyal adherent" in the opening sentence of a guy's biography? all very very strange.Amoruso 05:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm beginning to think that you are Katz, Amoruso. You seem to have a great aversion to facts about him appearing anywhere, whilst at the same time you are busy incorporating his opinions as fact into as many Wikipedia articles as possible. --Ian Pitchford 23:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Please review WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. Comment on edits, not editors. Isarig 23:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Please review WP:V Isarig. --Ian Pitchford 18:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I have. We have here a book by an historian, published by a mainstream publisher. It meets WP:V. Isarig 19:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Please provide evidence that this is a book by a historian. --Ian Pitchford 19:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I hoe you are not implying this is not a book, and this Talk page is full of citations for Katz as an Historian. Please stop this nonsense and your personal campaign to discredit Katz. Isarig 19:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Your pompous tone is inappropriate. You cannot add material to this encyclopedia from a source you haven't read. It's also perfectly obvious that you know nothing about Katz and I suggest you stop making disruptive edits on behalf of another editor. I'm still minded to seek a ban against you for your disgraceful behaviour at Palestinian political violence. --Ian Pitchford 21:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I have placed one final warning on your Talk page, for repeated personal attacks such as the one above. That is your final warning. Threatening editors with bans over content disputes is disgraceful. Cease and desist immediately form your disruptive behavior. Isarig 21:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Very well. I will raise your edits with the ArbCom. --Ian Pitchford 21:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to see evidence that Katz is a historian and evidence that you have read the book. --Ian Pitchford 20:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Evidence that Katz is a historian is available, as I wrote, all over this discussion page - take the time to read it. I don't t have to read a book for it to meet WP:V.You are cautioned again to stop violating WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA Isarig 21:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Regardless, thanks for the compliment. Please don't insert your fanatic hatred of Katz though in this page again Ian Pitchford. Your edits are not contributing to the article. Please read Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. Your edits to this article have a pattern of displaying a bias. It makes no relevance if you found a mention of Katz somewhere even if is sourced while it adds nothing to the article and is a gross violation of undue weight and even non encyclopedic or verified material like you did, and by doing so you remove other WP:RS which already convey the point. You're not allowed to make any such changes and damage to the article without consensus and using talk first. You also incidentally blanked out sourced material from NY times, Amazon, a review of Lone Wolf it seems, and other sourced material. Do that again and be reported for your misbehaviour. Thank you. Amoruso 01:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Please do not remove verifiable information from this article again Amoruso. It isn't Wikipedia's role to present a view of Katz consistent with your bias. --Ian Pitchford 18:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Pitchford, you've been warned in the past for this behaviour. Amoruso 04:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Scholar

I couldn't help noticing Shmuel Katz's credentials are being established by hits in Google Scholar (among other things). I must say he gets a rather poor hit rate for a supposedly reputable historian. I'm a mere PhD student, and a few of my journal and conference papers get more citations than Katz's books. I wouldn't call myself a "scientist". Is there any other evidence, except for a bookstore review? Has he been an invited speaker in a reputable conference? Has he published in reputable journals? Can anyone write a book about the past and call himself a "historian"?--Doron 00:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Doron, you are quite right. He does not have any of the formal qualifications or objective achievements that are normally required. To the best of my knowledge he has never published anything in a peer-reviewed scholarly book or journal. As I noted elsewhere [8], Katz's book on Jabotinsky is cited sometimes, but not supportively. --Zero^talk 01:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by credentials Doron ? He's not a faculty member or something of that sort. He's a writer who wrote books about history after a lot of research and quoted scholars and other sources in his books. Nothing wrong about that. The article doesn't say he's a scholar, it does say he's a historian which is true - you don't need specific university status for that. User:Zero0000 once said this about Katz: "There is no formal definition of "historian" so the fact that he wrote a few books that have the form of history and one (the last one on Jabotinsky) that has received some favorable notice from historians means that I don't object to him being called a historian" Amoruso 20:31, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Anyone can publish a book about the past, factual or fictional, and to get such a low hit rate on Google Scholar means that this author is not regarded as an authority on the subject. This wouldn't bother me so much if he wasn't quoted in the Palestinian exodus article. So once again, please tell us why Katz is an authority on the subject, worthy of reference? Does anybody else cite him? Does anybody invite him to talk in academic conferences? Has any of his work been peer-reviewed?--Doron 21:08, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

So many questions - very confusing. Firstly, he's not cited as "authority on subject". In the book there is a collection of facts. The facts are referenced, there are hundreds of referenced and a bibilography in the end of the book as well. It's not HIS opinion, he just reports them. So we're not citing him - if you're talking about Battleground that is. Books about Etzel for instance are cited because of his accounts, and books about Zabotinsky are also referenced because he IS regarded as authority on Zabo's life and accounts. Is he cited ? yes, we showed he's cited before. A lot. Some people think that WP:RS should mean only those left-wing professors working in the universities or so, but that's not a requirement. You can be cited even if you're not teaching a history course in the Haifa University, and it can be just as serious and interesting. The number of hits on google scholar are completely irrlevant. Amoruso 21:13, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

1. In Palestinian exodus, Katz is cited as claiming that

"the Arab refugees were not driven from Palestine by anyone. The vast majority left, whether of their own free will or at the orders or exhortations of their leaders, always with the same reassurance-that their departure would help in the war against Israel. The Arabs are the only declared refugees who became refugees not by the action of their enemies or because of well-grounded fear of their enemies, but by the initiative of their own leaders."

This is not reporting a fact, this is Katz's own opinion on a hotly-contested issue in the history of the conflict. If you quote his opinion, you may as well quote anybody's opinion.

Like I said, this is true, but it's not what's contested there. There's no problem in quoting people's opinions and this is not what "bothered people" - what "bothered" is the hard evidence he presented, he can have a short commentary on the hard evidence which are fully referenced quotes. There's no problem in citing anyone's opinion as long as it's notable and referenced and presented as he said it - this is what was done. He's notable - see GOOGLE, and it's quoted as what he said. It wasn't the issue anyway. Amoruso 22:57, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Why quote his opinion? Why not quote my opinion? If there are reputable scholars that say what he's saying, then quote them; if there are none, then this opinion is of no consequence.--Doron 23:20, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

His opinion is noteable in conflict issues and have been endorsed by prominent figures such as Moshe Shamir and Menachem Begin and others. Obviously it's relevant for "israeli claims" sections. Amoruso 21:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

2. I'm sorry, but where was it agreed that he is an authority on Jabotinsky and Etzel? By whom was he cited?

Several books were written about Jabotinsky but none as extensive as his works. Many citations were brought, any discussion of jabotinsky today has references to Katz usually because it's a huge project with 3 volumes - he spent his life researching this person. And he wrote accounts of his time in etzel which are also quoted. Amoruso 22:57, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Fine. Then tell us where was he quoted, and by whom.--Doron 23:20, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

3. I don't know where you got the idea that I think only left-wingers are fit to be historians. In the academic world, there are very clear criteria for academic recognition. Many controversial researchers manage to get their work published and cited. Even the bible code got published in a respected statistical journal (with almost 70 cites in Google Scholar for the article and the subsequent book, by the way). So once again, how do we know Katz knows about 1948 more than Douglas Adams knows about the galaxy? What are his credentials?

Douglas Adamas wrote a fictional book. So it's not relevant. Again, this "credentials" claim is not relevant. There's no academic faculty member requirement here. Amoruso 22:57, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say he has to be a faculty member, I said the academic community has to recognize him as someone who knows what he's saying (e.g., by citing him, by inviting him to talk, by publishing his work after review). Bill Gates is not a faculty member , but nobody (not even his numerous enemies) would dispute his notability.--Doron 23:20, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

4. A low hit rate at Google scholar doesn't prove anything, but the burden of proof is on you, you have to prove Katz is notable.--Doron 21:58, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, see "google". Amoruso 22:57, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Google, I see. Well, Britney Spears' opinion on the Iraq War gets 3,200,000 hits, do you think it belongs in that article? Is that the only indication of his notability that you can come up with?--Doron 23:20, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I will not be drawn into some childish debate. You can read a bit on the man and his books and its references by following links, educate yourself, and also read the past discussions on this page, the Battleground page, the Palestinian exodus page and the others. If I understand correctly, your problem is that he's called "Historian" on this article ? If that's the case, then you can see that user:Zero0000 agrees that historian is not a well defined term and that there's no problem with this. The term "historian" is sourced to the book review as a good reference. So I think that this settles it. Please don't use this talk page for things not related to the article. Btw, it's not too difficult to find the facts about Jabotinksy [9] Days of fire [10][11] and the others [12]. Of course if you think like others that people like Mitchell Bard, Joan Peters, Alyssa A. Lappen are automatically discredited then he will have less references, but there's no reason to think that anymore than there's to accept the harsh criticism over Morris or Pappe etc. Again, whether he serves in the Haifa or Tel Aviv university or not are irrelevant for the purpose of WP:RS - if the argument is well cited and informative it's relevant and valid. If you feel this is because the Palestinian exodus issue, then you should ask yourself why Efraim Karsh thinks exactly the same - the arab endorsement theory, no problem with it at all. But again, I don't see any relevance. Cheers. Amoruso 01:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

As for Jabotinsky, you have nothing to complain about. You obviously do not know what academic recognition means, if these are the references you provide. The only reference that's worth anything is the first one, and I admit it appears to be an academic endorsement of the book (though a rather weak one, who is this Paul Radensky?), so I'll settle for this. When you water down one relevant link with several other irrelevant links, you can't complain that you are not taken seriously.

As for 1948, I'll move the debate to that page.--Doron 10:15, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

None of the links were irrelevant, it's just a drop in the sea anyway. You should take other wikipedia users seriously in general, see WP:CIVIL. Amoruso 21:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

None of the links, except for the one I noted, proved anything about his authority as a historian whatsoever. As for WP:CIVIL, it was you who said "I will not be drawn into some childish debate". Do you think I am drawing you into a childish debate?--Doron 21:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

You started this header by the irrelevant Scholar claim and now you're weakly and unconvcingly arguing for the word historian which has no formal definition for here. The links, vast amount of them, all provide proof. Amoruso 21:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Google Scholar, as much as it doesn't prove anything, is much more relevant than any of the links you provided (except, perhaps, for the one). But nevermind, I've already dropped my argument against him being considered a notable source about Jabotinsky and Etzel.--Doron 21:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I've yet to see anything by Katz that looks like a WP:RS. All I see is material such as this, which nobody would ever think came from a historian, it's just blatant, unreferenced POV-pushing. Hardly surprising, when Katz's career was made as a propagandist.

Katz, Shmuel (1973) Battleground: Fact and Fantasy in Palestine , p.36 ISBN 0933503032 "....... The economic interest of the individual Arab in the perpetuation of the refugee problem and of his free keep is backed by the accumulating vested interest of UNRWA itself to keep itself in being and to expand. The United Nations Relief and Works Agency is thought of as some Olympian, philanthropic body directed and operated by a band of dedicated humanitarians, devoted exclusively to the task of helping suffering refugees. The fact is that the organisation consists of some 11,000 officials of whom all but a handful are Arabs who are themselves inscribed on the rolls as "refugees." They perform the field work; they, that is, hand out the relief. The remaining handful consists of some 120 Americans and Europeans who man the organisation’s central offices. Since UNRWA itself is thus a source of livelihood for some 50,000 people, no one connected with it has the slightest interest in seeing its task end or in protesting the fraud and deception it has perpetuated for over twenty years. The myth continues to live and to thrive, feeding on itself." PalestineRemembered 20:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 04:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

His name

The UK National Archives files on him repeatedly call him "Samuel Lejb Katz" and "Samuel Lajb Katz". Do we have another source for that? Zero^talk 13:40, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Irgun Press (News Service)

"Psychological Warfare in the Arab-Israeli Conflict" (2014), R. Schleifer, p22: "Etzel was a small, underground movement whose headquarters was staffed with a few dozen fully employed members backed by a few thousand volunteer reservists, but the organization gave the impression of being widely supported by the Jewish public through the huge number of notices it posted on billboards and its intense propaganda campaign overseas. One of the leading hasbara activists was Shmuel Katz from South Africa. In a one-room Tel Aviv flat, Katz single-handedly set up a news service—the Irgun Press—that posted daily news updates on Etzel activity."     ←   ZScarpia   21:14, 8 July 2019 (UTC)