User talk:JaapBoBo

1948 Arab Israeli War

Thank you for your collaboration on the article.
I made some remarks on the talk page. Could you come and give your mind there ?
Thank you, Alithien 08:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Tantura massacre

FYI : [1] Alithien 11:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi JaapBoBo,

Testimonies found the internet, it is even worse that testimonies fabricated by Katz.

I don't know what happened at Tantura but the fact that Gelber would be "right wing" and Pappé "left wing" is not relevant.

They are assumed to be historians. The question is rather to know who is not and who makes politics.

Here is Benny Morris analysis : [2].

More, both Gelber and Morris describe the numerous massacres (9) that arose during Operation Hiram without denying them and Gelber even describe the activities of Tsahal after the first truce as an ethnic cleansing.

Alithien 06:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it should be removed; the evidence that it happened or not seems to be in the balance

--JaapBoBo 22:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

1948 war

Hello JaapBobo,
I would like to invite you to take more care of the different points of view that may exist on a topic.
What you have written here : [3] is sourced but you should be aware there are many different points of views on the topic among scholars.
In introducing a "controversed" material as a fact, you generate internal problems in wikipedia.
I understand after reading you "user page" you are intersted by the topic of the 1948 Palestine War.
After reading Pappé, I would suggest you read also other historians to get a wider picture of the matter.
Good continuation (and thank you for the grammatical corrections you made to my additions in the article concerning the causes).
Regards, Alithien 15:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello JaapBobo,

I share your mind about the three guys except maybe about Pappé but it is not the point : they are all recognised historians on the matter.

Note they are other historians that worked on that topic like Avi Shlaim, Tom Segev, Efraim Karsh or Walid Khalidi and even many others too...

I have nothing against adding information from Pappé but when an information is controversed, I think it is very important to point out it is controversed rather than to write as if it would be a fact agreed by all.

I mean :

Rather than : in february 48, zionists authorities planned the ethnic cleaning<source:Pappé>, I think Pappé finds clues that he considers indicate in ... but other historians such as ... and ... don't share his mind but didn't find any clue that...

Regards, Alithien 06:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

You are engineer ? Believe what you like but if you want to know who is really neutral or not, proceed like I did and try to gather all the events that arose at that time : [4] Alithien 10:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Causes 1948 exodus

Thx for your contribution to this article. Actually I think this item is not agreed upon by historians: Before the first truce (July 1948) mass flights were mainly the result of the war, both offensives of the Israeli army and the action of irregulars. Around half of the total number of refugees left in this period. Many historians do think large parts of the early exodus were premeditated.--JaapBoBo 10:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, I'm lost - what are you trying to say? That large parts of the early exodus was EoF? Or that there was "transfer" gong on well before 15 May 1948?

Interesting that the scales fell from your eyes when you started to examine the creation of Israel. You would be even more horrified if you look back further, there were immigrants travelling to Palestine in 1881/1882 and, right from the beginning, they intended to arm themselves and seize the land from the people who lived there. PalestineRemembered 21:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Karsh reliable?

You led us to a statement from Karsh: "[Morris] argues that lack of an official policy made little difference, since "thinking about the possibilities of transfer in the 1930s and 1940s had prepared and conditioned hearts and minds for its implementation in the course of 1948." Morris cites no evidence to support this claim nor could he, for there was never any Zionist attempt to inculcate the "transfer" idea in the hearts and minds of Jews. He could find no evidence of any press campaign, radio broadcasts, public rallies, or political gatherings, for none existed."[5]

That sure doesn't match what Morris claims elsewhere - eg "Righteous Victims" p143. David Ben-Gurion, August 7th 1937, address the 20th Zionist Congress in Zurich. Text from CZA S5-1543, original texts of the speeches: "We must look carefully at the question of whether transfer is possible, necessary, moral and useful. We do not want to dispossess, [but] transfer of populations occured before now, in the [Jezreel] Valley, in the Sharon [that is, the coastal plain] and in other places. You are no doubt aware of the JNF's activities in this regard. Now a transfer of completely different scope will have to be carried out. In many parts of the country new settlement will not be possible without transfering the Arab fellahin ...... it is important that this plan comes from the commission and not from us".

Which of these can be right - or is Karsh guilty of trickery, ignoring these statements because they're in front of a "private" audience? There are other statements concerning seizing the land from the natives, going right back to 1881/82. PalestineRemembered 07:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the contradiction here. Transfer was not publicly advocated by the Zionists, but it was discussed and supported in closed meetings. Karsh probably doesn't lie, because then people wouldn't take him serious any more (in science circles), but he does present things with a big bias. --JaapBoBo 19:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm ..... when Karsh says "never any Zionist attempt to inculcate the "transfer" idea in the hearts and minds of Jews" it sounds to me like a pretty cynical play on words. If they didn't "inculcate the idea of transfer" then it was only because the idea of transfer was already deeply inculcated. PalestineRemembered 19:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you're right. In fact Finkelstein describes just that in the first chapter of 'image and reality of the israel-palestine conflict'. Finkelstein argues that transferist thinking is close to the core of Zionist thinking. Zionism claims for the Jews a prevalent right to Israel, their historical homeland, and accedes the Arabs only rights as incidental residents. --JaapBoBo 19:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I have that book and found it difficult to read. I can remember how full it seemed to be of really good comparisons, but not remember it mentioning that one. But, now you mention it, I'm sure he's right on that link! PalestineRemembered 20:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

JaapBoBo - Your comment caused me to pick up Finkelstein "Beyond Chutzpah" again, and wonder why I put it down. Finkelstein says that the ADL is the equivalent of the Communist Party, except the ADL is beholden to Mother-Israel, while the CPUSA was beholden to Mother-Russia. No wonder the ADL hate him! PR^talk(New Sig for PalstinRembred) 18:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know what ADL means. According to Wikipedia it is the Arabic word for justice. Rather ironic, because from you I get the impression that it's some Jewish pressure group in the USA??? From Finkelstein I only read the first three chapters of 'Myth ...', but, his intellect is very impressing. I like his writing. And I found out he's totally right about Morris. He says in 'Birth ...' Morris's conclusions are skewed compared to the evidence he gives, and above that he blurs conclusions that are bad for Israel. In Birth Revisited I found this: On page 65 Morris states 'Strategically speaking the period December 1947 - March 1948 was marked by Arab initiatives and attacks and Jewish defensiveness increasingly punctuated by Jewish reprisals'. On the next page he states 'At the same time, the IZL and LHI [Irgun and Lehi], acting independently, beginning already in early December 1947, reverted to their 1937-1939 strategy of placing bombs in crowded markets and bus stops. The Arabs retaliated by exploding bombs of their own in Jewish population centres in February and March ...'. As to who started the attacks and who retaliated the second citation, specifying facts, asserts the opposite of the first citation, specifying a conclusion. Nice he? --JaapBoBo 19:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

ADL is the "Anti-Defamation League", the people who were sued for and lost a defamation law-suit for $10 million. (Actually, I shouldn't say that, the story I've seen on this suggested that the ADL had been right, and the judgement against them was perverse).

I'm disappointed with Morris too, because I have the same impression as you, the Yishuv was heavily armed and raring for a fight. But Morris sort of tells us the same thing - here is Righteous Victims p 139 "That night passed in the Yishuv's towns and settlements in noisy public rejoicing. ... The young poured into the streets and danced and celebrated around bonfires through the night. ... some, like Yosef Nahmani ... "in my heart," he told his diary, "there was joy mixed with sadness ... that we lost half the country, Judea and Samaria, and, in addition, that we [would] have [in our state] 400,000 Arabs." ... Ben-Gurion ... "I could not dance, I could not sing that night. I looked at them so happy dancing, and I could only think that they were all going to war." ... Not far from each celebrating Jewish throng was an Arab village or neighborhood where the mood was grim. What the Palestinians had most feared had now come to pass. The initial reactions were spontaneous and explosive, and apparently unorganized. On the morning of November 30 a band of Arabs ambushed a bus near Kfar Syrkin, killing five Jews and wounding several others. Twenty-five minutes later they let loose at a second bus, killing two more people. It is unclear whether the ambushes were triggered by the passage of the UN resolution or by a desire to avenge an earlier LHI raid, which had left five Arabs dead". PR^talk(New Sig for PalstinRembred) 19:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

When you have time, read this : [6]. Of course this is a direct "primary source". You can have an idea of the GLOBAL situation in Palestine at that time. That could be better than performing -like the Finkelstein- textual analysis of Morris's works to try to understand what happened and concludes he "lies" if there are contradictions you are unable to understand when you know nothing on the context. Alithien 18:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

1948 War

You seem to have a deep understanding of wikipedia policy.
Good.
How did you learn this ?
Did you edit under another name ? Which one ?

If you ask me what should be added in the section related to Yishuv objectives, it is :

• whether you don't know the material and so you don't know the topic
• or you don't want to write this and try to push pov.
• maybe there is a third explanation.

What is the exact one ? Alithien 08:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Comments were already made on the talk page of the article. You will see there how to improve this but this is only a beginning.
By the way, you claim there is no policy that orders you to write for the enemy. Perfect, there is no policy that prevents me reverting material non neutral.
You don't want to be constructive. That is a pity it is your choice. Alithien 15:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

My user page

Dear JaapBoBo:
Please don't write comments to me on my user page. I hope you will use my talk page for this purpose in the future.
To answer your question, I did not delete any footnotes on purpose. --GHcool 23:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear JaapBoBo,
All pov's flag I added were properly justified.
I have explained to you patiently and many times the reasons why most of you edits were pov's.
You behaviour didn't change and I have no choice that adding flags when required.
Alithien 08:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi. There must be a misunderstanding somewhere. They were all justified. Alithien 16:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP

You clearly doesn't understand that rule. Now it is enough. It is sourced and from Morris himself. Take a break and respect wikipedia policies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.244.46.93 (talk) 21:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[7]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.244.46.93 (talk) 21:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Editors should exercisae refraint:

Wikipedia also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, editors should exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability. Material from third-party primary sources should not be used unless it has first been published by a reliable secondary source

This is a clear example of such a case because the citation ads about zero content to the article. Please remove it. --JaapBoBo 15:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

There is no link between what you quote and this edit.

This edit gives the mind of Benny Morris (one of the most famous new historians) about Avi Shlaim (another one of the most famous new historians). Both are well-known and the information is perfectly sourced. It is relevant to see what these people think about each other.

More, I don't see what could be "delicate" about this information (the purpose of BLP policy). You are influenced by your own judgements and scales of values. This edit shows the influence of politics in the debate between the new historians, nothing more.

Rise of violence

Hello JaapBoBo,
I added this comment on the talk page of the article about the civil war. Could you please give your mind. Alithien 07:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi JaapBoBo,

Thank you for the Palumbo article. I don't have much about him and I had not that one.

I do not say (and it is important the article would not make readers think) that what happened between dec47 and mar48 in the mixed towns is of the responsability of the palestinians. As it is important people should not think it is the responsability of any other.

I don't write this because I would be whether pro-israeli, pro-palestinian or defender of a third way in between where I would like to state nobody is guilty.

I write this because our historians do not agree on the events of that period.

Eg, Yoav Gelber writes (Palestine 1948, p.24) that these famous 3 attacks "marked a new evolution of the [civil] war" (I must check precise wordings) to which british soldiers participated and to which IZL and LHI retaliated in organised 5 simulatenous attacks against british soliders...

Don't think it is not reliable because he would be poved. If you want to go further to understand the mess of 1948, you will understand that all these historians -without exceptions- are pov-ed and that if they all are reliable, they all introduced matters a pov-ed way.

The problem is that we cannot judge by ourselves who is and who is not because if they are pov-ed we are also and we cannot do anything BUT reporting their claims pov or not.

To come back on the matter :

• Morris is reliable, but when Morris writes the "intention" of the arab was retaliation, do you think he got this from a document (he doesn't read arabic...) or do you think he just gives his mind (?) or, -as I think- he just has when he writes a book to link facts between themselves and use words. When he writes p.66 in his book "retaliation" it doesn't have the same meaning as when you add retaliation in the article.
• I put two attacks in the summary of the "rise of violence". These are examples. In the first one, IZL throw a bomb - Arab retaliate - Palmach and Haganah retaliates. In the second example, Arab throw bombs - Lehi retaliates on British and later on arabs.
• If we add concerning the 2nd attack that IZL started first, we would picture the events as if IZL started all the mess, which is blaming one side and which the gathering of all events and of all minds do not show.
• I suggested before that you gather all the events as I did here, chronologically. You answered that unfortunately you didn't understand French, that I can -of cours- understand. If you could read French, you will see that it was a step by step process with numerous attacks from all sides. If you prefer, we could write that the first large scale attack were performed by Salameh soldiers who attacked Tel-Aviv neighbourhood... But what would it bring to the article or to a synthesis ? Nothing.

Alithien 06:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

nb: I go and see why I added the [also].

Isn't it true the first major scale attack was made by Arabs (8 dec) ?

Isn't true that several times Morris writes that the Arabs started the war ?

Isn't true that writing the "first bomb attack came from Irgun" is not relevant and is even desinformation if the other points are not given ?

Alithien 12:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Hakim Paragraph

Hello, JaapBoBo.

I noticed that you reverted my edit on the Hakim paragraph in Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus. Please be so kind as to explain your reasons on the discussion devoted to this removal. I know it's tempting to start a new section for discussion, but let's try to stick to the old one. New sections are springing up like crazy and most of them are just continuations of already ongoing discussions. Screen stalker 12:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

You are right in saying that there was no agreement on the discussion page, but the discussion went cold. If you want to keep it, you must defend that decision. Screen stalker 00:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your flexibility on this issue. I will remove the paragraph, and if PR takes serious objection to that, he will surely revert and continue discussion. Screen stalker 22:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Morris p.60 and transfer

Hi JaapBoBo,
my question and comments here : [8]
Alithien 09:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I answered to your comments.

I didn't answer to your PS which is maybe more personal comments.

I don't mind discussing this but then we should maybe create a page somewhere else for this discussion, where we could gather arguments and facts from different sources. Alithien 10:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Amin al-Husseini

I am confident you would prefer my version rather than the new one some wants to introduce on that article. Your minds and collaboration there would be welcome. Alithien 10:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

user page

There is a wikipedia policy somewhere that forbids that. I personnally don't mind but some contributors could complain. I suggest your write this here User:JaapBoBo/Critics of Morris (workpage). So that, you cannot be criticized.
NB: In example 2, Morris refers mainly to the Jihad al-Muqadas blockage of Jerusalem and to the arrival of Arab Liberation Army troops. It is less a question of bias than a question of not explaining again and again what is well known. Contextualisation, like for ex.1. Alithien 16:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC).

A question about ex.3 : how many heavy mortars do you think the Haganah and the Irgun had in 1948 ?

A question about ex.4 : how many massacres did he reveal to be accused to have hidden one... in a footnote ?

Alithien 16:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Ex.5

I am happy you finally wrote this. I was expecting this.

If Ilan Pappé, the making of the Arab-Israeli conflict : 1947-1951 is an acceptable reference for you, the answer about what Morris refers to is p.76.

After you read this chapter, you can try to find why I haven't added this in the article I wrote about the 1947-1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine in the rise of violence.

How is it possible I would have forgot that the "Arab started the war" when even Pappé states this ? And a critic of "Pro-Israeli text analyst" who does not know the context would have been that Morris didn't develop the events that prove that the Arab started the war.

Alithien 13:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Shapira answer to Morris about Karsh

Morris writes than Karsh uses unreliable sources and Shapira argues his analysis is not fair giving more details about Karsh sources. AS YOU KNOW, the only arguments of Morris critics was about these footnotes and you deleted only the answer of Shapira concerning them.
So, I reverted you.
Alithien 07:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

In the article, Morris put foward 2 points. Shapira answers to these 2 points. I don't see how to make shorter. If you have a fair suggestion I am open to this. I suggest you write this in the talk page. I will not discuss with you the cleverness of her cricits. Read them again. If you are not open to understand their pov, you should refrain from editing wikipedia.

Morris refers to her in the "Birth ... revisited" p.6 and footnote p.8 and he refers to her work at different other places. I don't have "land and power" and I cannot develop her own critics but if Morris take cares to refers to her, it means she is relevant. Alithien 07:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Your proposal is better. I modify with that philosophy. Alithien 10:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: this "some say" is weasel-wording

If the references are in the text, hundreds of lines farther down without any hyperlink, then it won't kill anybody to copy two or three author names and/or references up there too. pedro gonnet - talk - 26.10.2007 13:03

Request for mediation accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus. For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 08:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Hi JaapBoBo - I don't understand how other editors can contribute to the "arguments" presented at this mediation. Do you want suggestions here, at the Discussion page of the mediation, or on the TalkPage of the article? Or are you happy without a helping hand on the tiller? PR^talk 09:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I see you read Uris's book - did you see what Finkelstein says about it? (In a footnote, the way a real scholar treats something that is not central to his theme):

[4. Putting aside its apologetics for Zionism, the sheer racism of Uris's blockbuster bears recalling. The Arabs, their villages, their homes-to the last, they're "stinking" or engulfed in "overwhelming stench" and "vile odors." Arab men just "lay around" all day "listless"-that is, when they're not hatching "some typical double-dealing scheme which seemed perfectly legitimate to the Arab," or resorting to "the unscrupulous ethics of the Arab ... the fantastic reasoning that condoned every crime short of murder," or "becom[ing] hysterical at the slightest provocation." As for Palestine itself before the Jews worked wonders, it was "worthless desert in the south end and eroded in the middle and swamp up north"; "a land of festering, stagnated swamps and eroded hills and rock-filled fields and unfertile earth caused by a thousand years of Arab and Turkish neglect. ... There was little song or laughter or joy in Arab life.... In this atmosphere, cunning, treachery, murder, feuds and jealousies became a way of life. The cruel realities that had gone into forming the Arab character puzzled outsiders. Cruelty from brother to brother was common." Truth be told, not much has changed in official Zionist propaganda (Leon Uris, Exodus [New York, r9591> pp. 181, 213, 216, 227, 228, 229, 253, 334> 352-53).] PR^talk 20:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes I read Uris about 15 years ago. First I believed it, but there was something nagging: it's simply not logical. So I decided to read more about it. The more one reads about it, the more clear the dark side of Zionism becomes. And more than half of the books are written by Jews: Morris, Finkelstein, Pappé, Hannah Arendt, Sternhell etc... I think many non-Jews are afraid to write about it out of fear of being labelled an anti-semite. --JaapBoBo 23:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

There's been really serious harassment of anyone who dares to try and set the record straight. The good news is that, finally, the horror of what we've done is coming home to even the core supporters of Israel - here is Norman Finkelstein again "Fewer than half of American Jews under the age of 35 feel that Israel's destruction would be a 'personal tragedy.'" - see this. No wonder some people want Finkelstein excluded as an RS, his logical thinking and writing is simply devastating their cause. More than that, it seems that even main-stream Israelis are now breaking the hearts of the Israel Lobby - see this. PR^talk 23:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Aims of Zionism

• FYI

You could have expected this...
This is the "Bible". Alithien 15:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

My edits

I just neutralize and makes this fit to the debate.
You made 3 reverts. The 4th will be reported. Alithien 08:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

C. 1948 Palestinian exodus RfM

I have taken on Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus and have begun the mediation by calling for opening statements (on the mediation's talk page). Please add your opening statement when you get the chance and, if you haven't done so already, please put the page on your watchlist so you're kept abreast of what's going on at the mediation. -- tariqabjotu 07:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Disappointed

I am very disappointed in your recent edits. I understand your desire to revert my edits, but would not have expected even you to remove tags indicating controversy over sections, while at the same time calling my edits vandalism. Refusing to allow sections in which do not have consensus is not vandalism. Forcing them in while refusing to acknowledge that there is no consensus for them is.

I expect that you will avoid such edits in the future. Screen stalker 14:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, if it wasn't intentional that it's quite alright. I suppose I owe you an apology, then, for loosing my cool. It has been happening to me a lot more recently than I would like for it to. Screen stalker 20:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

FYI[2]

• [9]

That was not clear and is extremely relevant information. Note that Arab Liberation Army was better equipped and that there were more than 7000 irregulars fighting but this is a detail given the Arab Liberation Army didn't really support the Palestinians. Alithien 16:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh... And I permit myself to replace Jew by men. ;-)

There is no accusation from my side but it was worth pointing out on a talk page. I am sure that if Finkelstein had been a Zionist, he would not have missed that and would have written a full book about a alleged Pappé antisemitism. Alithien 16:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Agressivity

Hi,
I notice that I am more and more agressive towards you.
This is not acceptable.
The reason is that you may be a clever guy but you are upsetting by editing all these articles only with reading one side, sometimes extremly poored source and not having a global vision of the matter.
Note there are worse than you, on what could be called the other side.
Good continuation nevertheless. Alithien 22:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Alithien,

Maybe sometimes I am a bit swift with my changes and sometimes I'm a bit agressive towards you. It not always easy to stay cool.

On the whole I think your criticism does make my comtributions better and probably also they other way around. Besides, like you, I'm always open for good arguments and will change my edits accordingly. I hope we can find consensus. --JaapBoBo 22:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I also added Morris' four waves analysis, so you can't say I'm one-sided. --JaapBoBo 22:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

You need to stop reverting so frequently on History of Israel. Please also check your e-mail.Bless sins (talk) 20:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for self-reverting. I know you are correct in your struggle, and I support you as well. But you need to have patience. I wish you the best of luck for the future.Bless sins (talk) 21:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Personnal attacks

• [10]

Nobody is to blame ? What on earth do you mean ?
You are kindly asked to respect wp policy and to discuss on talk pages until consensus are reached.
Ceedjee (talk) 12:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

48 army sizes

I see no reason to doubt the figures given by Tal. He gives a period for his figures while the figures you cite don't say to which period they refer. Perhaps you could check your sources to see where they get their figures from? That is to say what sources they cite? This might help see how reliable they are.

A lot of Palestinian fighters were peasants and I doubt that anyone really knows how many of them were involved, while Jewish forces were clearly growing all the time as they inducted people and immigrants arrived. i think it makes sense to inform the reader that these figures are not reliable and that different opinions exist.

Telaviv1 (talk) 13:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Telaviv1"

Biltmore

I inserted a link to the Biltmore statement in the text, if you follow the link you can see the paragraph numbers. Telaviv1 (talk) 08:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

One-side pov

You systematically enter only one side pov in the articles. Sometimes you also introduce quotes that make believe that the authors think the contrary of what they really think (eg for Teveth recently or for Morris some time ago). Many editors complain you desequilibrate articles in over-detailling some pov.
For all these reasons, I ask you to discuss any change you would like to add to an article and wait for comments before proceeding to modification.
Ceedjee (talk) 11:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

December 2007

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Zionism. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Oxymoron⁸³ 14:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

JaapBoBo. I point out you refused to discuss your modifications and engage editwar, hiding your pov pushing behind 3RR as proven by your last comment on that page.

Ceedjee (talk) 14:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

CfD: Category:Israeli-Palestinian conflict issues

Hi. please help! The category Category:Israeli-Palestinian conflict issues has been nominated for deletion. this is a category which is meant to be simply a conveneient non-partisan gathering-place for all entries which are general overviews of various issues, as opposed to being related to a specific event or location.

The discussion is located at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 December 21#Category:Israeli-Palestinian conflict issues. This category is beneficial to all of us who habitually edit these articles, regardless of whether we may be more affiliated with Israeli concerns or Palestinian concerns. The category's deletion is being advocated by editors who rarely edit any articles on this topic, and have little involvement in this topic at Wikipedia.

Your help would be greatly appreciated. please go to this category's discussion entry, and express your opinion. Hopefully, you will be willing to advocate keeping this category. thanks for your help. Thanks, Sm8900 --207.10.186.39 (talk) 14:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

thanks for your help. please try to help spread the word. thanks. --207.10.186.39 (talk) 16:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Rivalry and Musa Qazzim

I made a suggestion to modify the paragraph about the rivalry and answered your questions. Ceedjee (talk) 14:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

rfm

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Palestinian people, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Mediation on Finkelstein

Dear PR, can you please refrain from making edits on TariqAbjotu's and the mediation page during the mediation. I think it's better if we handle it with the three of us. If you have suggestions you can always put them on my talk page. Thx!!! --JaapBoBo (talk) 20:50, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I've not touched the mediation page (other than to remove interference by others). And I'll abide by the mediators request that I don't add anything else to his TalkPage. However, contacting him is entirely proper - indeed necessary. The mediator needs reminding there is cheating going on, and it's not possible for you to point that out.

Meanwhile, it'd be atrocious if the mediation was carried out in secret - how could we be expected to comply with anything that appeared in weeks or months from such a system? We've seen repeated attempts to stall the mediation, and that must not be allowed to happen. Everything that happens must be in public. PR^talk 21:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Ceedjee just wrote on Talk:Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus, "[I]f we don't agree with the result of the mediation, we can ask for another mediation just after this one." Do you agree with this attitude? Would you say that the mediation we are currently engaged in the "last step" toward a compromise, or would you say that this is the first of potentially many steps in clearing the obstacles in shaping the article the way you feel it to be shaped? I would appreciate an honest answer before I spend any more time and energy in this mediation. Thanks. --GHcool (talk) 21:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

This whole business has been dragged out to a ridiculous extent already - consensus was known to have been reached almost precisely 3 months ago on this very topic, Norman Finkelstein was perfectly acceptable as a scholar. The evidence so far produced at the mediation is hugely in favour of the same conclusion - and this while other material, thoroughly non-scholarly has been edit-warred back into the article. Schechtmman's writings make those of David Irving look positively balanced and reasonable.

However, it would appear that the progress of your mediation so far has been over-sighted and disappeared, as if someone wishes to conceal the excellent job you've done.

And from various comments, it would appear that not only is your mediation to be made secret (making it impossible for the likes of me to have any respect for the conclusion reached), but that some editors are determined they're not going to abide by it anyway! I wonder at what point administrators will step in and block those who cheat in discusssion and seek to enter falsehoods into articles? PR^talk 23:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

1920 Palestine riots et Khalidi

I don't have the Iron Cage from Khalidi but I understand you have this book.
I think there Khalidi may talk about the events of Jerusalem in 1920.
I would need some pro-arab pov's, particularly details on the precise "charges" versus Jews/Zionists.
Would you mind checking if there are some and detailling them (on my talk page) ?
Thank you, Ceedjee (talk) 13:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you anyway.

If found this that could interest you : [11]

Ceedjee (talk) 13:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

1948 Exodus mediation

I am writing to you with regards to the 1948 Palestinian exodus mediation underway. I understand that nerves have been rubbed raw by outside attempts to "influence" the threeway mediation; in an effort to avoid exacerbating that I'm posting an identical message on the individual talk pages of Tariq, Ghcool, and JaapBoBo, and nothing at the mediation page itself. I am sorry if this is late in the game, but I've only now become aware that there was a dispute over Finkelstein's status as an RS. I'd like to clarify a few misstatements that have been made about his work and career, and – with your forebearance – make a few brief remarks about the policy issues at stake here. While I appreciate (and applaud) your goal of narrowly circumscribing the scope of this mediation, the fact is that any decision you come to will have broader implications. These should be weighed and understood.

Briefly, regarding Finkelstein:

1. Ghcool is correct that his research consists primarily of secondary sources. Tariq's clarification about the distinctions between primary and secondary sources is well-taken, but it is true that most of Finkelstein's scholarship consists of what he calls "forensic scholarship" – that is, critical evaluation of the sources, methodologies, and conclusions of other works of scholarship. He doesn't, that is, do much in the way of original archival research (the Holocaust Industry being a notable exception, with its investigation into reparations lawsuits and so on). It is not clear to me why Ghcool finds this a disqualifying factor in his status as a reliable source; generally speaking, "secondary scholarship" of this sort is regarded as a very worthy enterprise in academia. At any rate, it would certainly seem to have no bearing on the present dispute, which is about whether Finkelstein's claims about the centrality of "transfer" to "Zionist thinking" can be included in this article. The relevant criterion here is Finkelstein's interpretive competence, not his background as an archival or documentary scholar in the Benny Morris mold.
2. The mediation discussion thus far has tended, unfortunately, to conflate Finkelstein's employment status (in the wake of his highly politicized tenure battle at DePaul) with his status as a scholar. These are entirely separate issues, and only the latter properly has any bearing on his status as an RS in Wikipedia. His status as a scholar is established by his track record of high-profile peer-review publications (his most recent book was published by one of the most prestigious university presses in the world, the University of California at Berkeley's), and the high regard for his work among eminent scholars in his own field, such as political scientists Ian Lustick and John Mearsheimer; and in related historical fields, such as Holocaust historian Raul Hilberg (author of the three-volume Destruction of the European Jews and the so-called "Dean of Holocaust studies"), the historian of nations and nationalism Eric Hobsbawm, Middle East historian Avi Shlaim, and the Talmudic scholar Daniel Boyarin.
3. These endorsements should be contrasted with the criticisms Ghcool cites, which come from a popular (i.e. non-peer-review) book by celebrity defense attorney Alan Dershowitz, an internal memorandum from a once-urban-planning professor and now-faculty-dean at DePaul University (Chuck Suchar), and a phone interview with Benny Morris posted on CAMERA's website.
4. With this distinction between Finkelstein's employment status and his scholarly status in mind, a few remarks need to be made about the former. Ghcool describes Finkelstein "quitting in a huff because DePaul denied him a tenure position." This is false. In fact, DePaul cancelled Finkelstein's classes days before the fall semester began, reneging on the customary and contractually stipulated obligation to grant a final year of teaching to a professor denied tenure. Facing mounting disgust among DePaul faculty over the administration's breach of good faith in the Finkelstein matter, growing student protests, a vowed hunger strike by Finkelstein himself, and formal action from the American Association of University Professors for the breach of contract, DePaul negotiated a private settlement with Finkelstein.
5. Ghcool writes that he "agrees with most of the academics" in Middle East studies in finding Finkelstein "an unreliable source at best and a malicious one at worst." It's hard to know what he's referring to. The Middle East Studies Association of America in fact publicly expressed dismay at the denial of tenure to Finkelstein, and made clear they believed the decision was the result of undue outside political pressure from non-specialists like Dershowitz. It's also worth noting that Finkelstein's tenure bid was endorsed by a strong majority of the scholars in DePaul's political science department, who considered Dershowitz's 50-page submission at length and rejected it. A good portion of his submission consisted of "Top Ten" lists of things said about Finkelstein, compiled by Dershowitz's students, including – I'm not kidding here – “he's poison, he's a disgusting self-hating Jew, he's something you find under a rock” (Leon Wieseltier) and "Mr. Finkelstein is full of shit" (Elan Steinberg). The committee didn't know what to do with Dershowitz's compilation of obscenities ("it must be noted that the materials presented as evidence vary wildly in terms of quality, tone and subject matter," their report drolly remarks), but they methodically rejected every piece of the "evidence of academic misconduct" written up by Dershowitz himself (including what Ghcool calls the "whole chapter [of The Case for Peace] that criticizes Finkelstein and 2 of his buddies," which Dershowitz included in his dossier). They noted that none of it addressed Finkelstein's scholarship at all, and instead drew on oral statements (a Q & A session, a C-SPAN interview) which involved material "apparently rendered from memory in an imperfect or summative fashion" – and even so, the committee found that "Dershowitz's charges were almost entirely of a hair-splitting sort, where differences of interpretation and reading seem endemic." With a strong endorsement from the political science department, and glowing support from both solicited external reviewers (senior political scientists from Harvard and the University of Chicago) Finkelstein's tenure bid then received unanimous support from the College Personnel Committee – only then to get a thumbs-down from Chuck Suchar, the aforementioned urban planner, and eventually a rejection from the president of DePaul. The important thing to realize is that at no point in the tenure process was Finkelstein's excellence as a scholar and a teacher challenged by scholars in his or related fields. Hence the consternation of the Middle East Studies Association of America and the American Association of University Professors regarding the political sabotage of the tenure process.

Now, regarding the implications of this mediation for Wikipedia. Two things seem very clear to me. First of all, it strikes me as wholly inappropriate to be invoking tenure as an editorial criteria here. To repeat, Finkelstein's status as a reliable source is a function of his scholarly status, not his employment status. Ironically, his scholarly status was bolstered by the tenure debacle, due to the stark contrast, in the din of controversy, between the support for his work among experts and the denigration of his work among demagogues: while people like Sean Hannity and Alan Dershowitz and Steve Emerson were calling him a "neo-Nazi," the foremost historian of the Holocaust and one of the most eminent historians ever (who holds, it should be noted, political views of Israel very different from Finkelstein's) was praising Finkelstein's “acuity of vision and analytical power,” and going on the air to say that “his place in the whole history of writing history is assured."

Finally, I think the players in this mediation effort – all three of whom I enormously respect – need to strike a more delicate balance between making editorial judgments about how much weight to accord different scholars (and different kinds of scholarship) in a given article, which is good and necessary, and forming a sort of ad hoc academic peer review committee to evaluate Finkelstein's scholarship, which would be presumptious and indefensible. It is not for Wikipedians to say that peer-reviewed scholarship published by eminent academic presses is "unreliable." It is for Wikipedians to say that this or that view of Finkelstein's (about, say, "transferist thinking") is relevant/not-relevant here and why; or that it's been contradicted elsewhere by scholar X, or that as a political scientist Finkelstein's claims should be accorded less weight than those of an archival historian like Morris; and so on.

Thanks to all three of you for your time and attention. I wish you the best of luck in your continued mediation, and await the results in a spirit of eager and optimistic expectation.--G-Dett (talk) 23:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I've replied on my talk page.--G-Dett (talk) 01:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

From user talk:JzG

("Reverted your vandalism on 'Zionist attitudes toward the Palestinian Arabs")

You said: If you think there is some truth in your edit comment (this was a POV fork, incomplete, inaccurate, slanted, drawn fomr a very small number of individual sources and violates numeorus policies especially WP:NPOV), please specify it on the talk page, so we can discuss it and improve the article. --JaapBoBo (talk) 10:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

It is not, ever, acceptable to call a good faith edit by a long-standing member of the community "vandalism". It is incivil. See Wikipedia:Vandalism for the actual definition. Guy (Help!) 10:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, maybe if you have good arguments it could be considered as a good faith edit. So let's see if you have arguments and whether they have any substance. --JaapBoBo (talk) 10:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

All edits are to be considered good faith in the absence of evidence to the contrary, but yes, I have arguments. And next time you start flinging accusations of vandalism, it would be prudent to spend a few moments looking at the target and checking if, say, they are an admin who has been editing Wikipedia since 2004, because that kind of crap goes down like a lead balloon. Feel free to reply here, I am watching this page. Guy (Help!) 11:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, so why did you not consider my edits on Zionist attitudes toward the Palestinian Arabs as good faith edits? You didn't bother to ask my opinion.

If you have arguments, please give them on the talk page of Zionist attitudes toward the Palestinian Arabs. Thx.--JaapBoBo (talk) 11:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I do consider them good faith, simply misguided. Guy (Help!) 12:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

That is very arrogant! --JaapBoBo (talk) 12:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

As Metallica sings 'Arrogance amd ignorance go hand in hand'. Your lack of arguments shows your ignorance. --JaapBoBo (talk) 12:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Is that hole deep enough yet, or do you want a bigger spade? Guy (Help!) 12:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

ZatPA

Hi, I hope it will not be deleted. For the title, that is indeed a problem that the word atttitude doesn't appear. That is also an issue if the article would only deal with events after 1917, you are right. Maybe it could be solved with a section Background ? Ceedjee (talk) 11:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
+ FYI : User:JaapBoBo/draft. Ceedjee (talk) 13:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

What do you think about : Relationships between Zionists and Palestinan Arabs before 1948 ? Ceedjee (talk) 09:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Neutralisation

Hi, a second mind would be welcome here to neutralize the background of this article : [12] (I wrote the background).
Feel free to correct in the core of the article and then to give comments on the talk page, if any.
Regards, Ceedjee (talk) 21:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Thx ! I have to go : good night Ceedjee (talk) 21:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your reading and corrections !

I think most of your modifications are appropriated. And let's say that in this article, I agree with your modifications on the causes's background. I will try to finish the background here and then I will read your summary of the myths. I didn't read this book and I am convinced there are important and interesting facts, analysis and pov's I have to read there.

I don't know if you see what was done with History of the Palestinian people.

I don't share their mind but it would be a tiring discussion to handle this with jossi.

Regards, Ceedjee (talk) 09:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

History of Zionism

What you did is WP:POINT but above all is a little childish and does not reflect your quality as editor of wp !
Above all after the support you got on History of the Palestinian talk page.
Please, don't frustrate others by your actions because you are frustrated by others actions. That will lead to nowhere.
I started reading your article about Sternhell's book. I already made some comments. I find this very good but I don't have finished it yet.
Regards, Ceedjee (talk) 09:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi JaapBoBo,

Thank you for your answer.

Indeed I read the talk page. I know there is WP:AGF but I think this is a policy that should be accompagnied by WP:TCoA : Take Care of Apparences :-)

Concerning Sternhel's book. I will pursue my reading. Ceedjee (talk) 07:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

I was not suggesting books to CO'48 ! I was explaining him why 1948 Palestine War is more accurate than 1948 Arab-Israeli War in giving him rerefences of extremely pro-Israeli pov's on the matter whereas the 1st choice could seem pro-Palestinian biased. Could you please explain him about that instead of introducing me as a biased editor. Thx... Ceedjee (talk) 21:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

FYI

I just noted a new article, Hebrew labor. I thought you might be interested, since it is similar to ‘Jewish labor’, already (and only) noted in Zionist and Palestinian Arab attitudes before 1948. Personally, I prefer 'Jewish labour', because that is the English language spelling at the time. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 15:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

That is a good point and OK with me, although I am somewhat worried about OR claims in relating the two. Also, please take a look at my recent post at WP:IPCOLL. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 06:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Paper

Hi JaapBoBo,
would you mind emailing me your paper ? I am interested to read this even more that it was published in HLS and given that Nur Masalha reviewed this ! Many thank, Noisetier (talk) 05:59, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Asian 10,000 Challenge invite

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Asia/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge and Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like South East Asia, Japan/China or India etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. At some stage we hope to run some contests to benefit Asian content, a destubathon perhaps, aimed at reducing the stub count would be a good place to start, based on the current Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon which has produced near 200 articles in just three days. If you would like to see this happening for Asia, and see potential in this attracting more interest and editors for the country/countries you work on please sign up and being contributing to the challenge! This is a way we can target every country of Asia, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant! Thank you. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 04:53, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Women in Red World Contest

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

Wikipedia Wars and the Israel-Palestine conflict...please fill out my survey?

Hello :) I am writing my MA dissertation on Wikipedia Wars and the Israel-Palestine conflict, and I noticed that you have contributed to those pages. My dissertation will look at the process of collaborative knowledge production on the Israel-Palestine conflict, and the effect it has on bias in the articles. This will involve understanding the profiles and motivations of editors, contention/controversy and dispute resolution in the talk pages, and bias in the final article.

For more information, you can check out my meta-wiki research page or my user page, where I will be posting my findings when I am done.

I would greatly appreciate if you could take 5 minutes to fill out this quick survey before 8 August 2021.

Participation in this survey is entirely voluntary and anonymous. There are no foreseeable risks nor benefits to you associated with this project.

Thanks so much,

Sarah Sanbar

Sarabnas ^{I'm researching Wikipedia} _Questions? 20:31, 20 July 2021 (UTC)