Talk:Efraim Karsh

Review of Karsh's books

JSTOR has a few reviews of Karsh's books from academic journals. Not sure that they have direct hyperlinks, though.

- - - -
- - - 

- This place is some piece of work. Every entry CONTINUALLY changed to the Arabist/PC point of view. I just cited a quote attributed to Morris from your FORMER wiki entry in which he ADMITS Karsh was correct. Still Cached on Wiki Backup: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ip7QlqXXk2YJ:en.cyclopio.com/Efraim%2520Karsh+%22My+treatment+of+transfer+thinking+before+1948+was,+indeed,+Superficial%22&cd=38&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com

".....In reviews of Fabricating Israeli History, Benny Morris was Forced to Concede certain Refutations made by Karsh: "Karsh has a point. My treatment of transfer thinking before 1948 was, indeed, Superficial... He is probably Right in Rejecting the Transfer interpretation I suggested in 'The Birth' to a sentence in [a speech by Ben-Gurion on December 3, 1947].[11]. - Karsh appears to be correct in charging that I stretched the evidence to make my point."[12].

Of course, all quotes now point him Denying Karsh's charges. So tell me Chimpsky's.. what happened to the quoted section? It hurts the Chimpsky/Wiki view and some Arabists objected? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.66.225.227 (talk) 04:43, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

What does the above mean? Would you care to repost in ordinary English? Itsmejudith (talk) 17:47, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The section on the "Reception" of Karsh's book sounds like a blatant sales pitch. I wonder if it was copied from the publisher's website? Karsh has clearly generation positive and negative criticisim. I advocate that the excessive quoting in this section be reduced, but leave the references.Jemiljan (talk) 05:43, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Cole section

Isarig (talk · contribs) is censoring Cole's direct response to Karsh's criticism of Cole's blog, using the bogus reason that Cole's blog is not a WP:RS. (Ironically, he is at the same time insisting that a blog comment be included on the Cole page). I understand his point but I think it is invalid here - Karsh's article is called "Cole's bad blog," it is about Cole's blog, and Cole replies specifically to Karsh's arguments on his blog. Cole is a reputable source, and his blog is widely cited in the mainstream media, and this section of the Karsh article is specifically about Cole's blog. To erase Cole's response to Karsh's criticism of his blog just because the response appears on that blog smacks of censorship.--csloat 23:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

You are making it very hard for me to WP:AGF when you repeatedly misrepresent my positions and actions. So from the top: People are not WP, by definiton. Sources which publish people's opinions can be either RS or non-RS. When Cole is cited in Salon, or testifies before congress, those comments are in a WP:RS and can be reproduced here. When Cole rants on his personal, self-published, on-line partisan blog, those comments are not published by a WP:RS and have no place here. So, when Karsh criticizes Cole in TNR, those comments, being published by a WP:RS can be presented here. If TNR decided to publish a letter to them by Cole making the same arguments, it may be published here. But so long as they only palce they appear is on the blog - they're out. If you don't like it - take it up with WP:RS. And as a final point - the comment I'm insisting on keeping at Views and controversies concerning Juan Cole appears in Middle East Quarterly, a RS, not a blog. Isarig 23:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

First, read WP:RS, especially the part about self-published sources like blogs. I will quote relevant parts below. Second, Karsh is commenting specifically about Cole's blog - the title of the article is "Cole's bad blog." Clearly we have broached the topic of the blog here; to deny the blogger a response because it wasn't published in TNR is bogus. Third, WP:RS is a guideline, not a rule, and the page specifically says at the top that "it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." This is clearly the occasional exception.

Now, looking specifically at the section of WP:RS in question here, we read first:

Exceptions to this may be when a well-known, professional researcher writing within their field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications, and they are writing under their own name or known pen-name and not anonymously. [emph in orig]

Clearly, Cole fits this criteria; he is well-published, and he is writing in his field of expertise (in fact, he is writing about his blog, which is what the Karsh article was about!) For Isarig to wave around WP:RS as a cut and dried rule is wikilawyering; it is very obvious that the blog response to Karsh's criticism of the blog is both relevant and notable in this context.

Next, we read that:

Material from self-published sources, whether published online or as a book or pamphlet, may be used as sources of information about themselves in articles about themselves, so long as there is no reasonable doubt about who wrote it

Clearly, this condition is met as well; Cole's blog is a more than reasonable source of information about Cole's blog. These conditions are each presented as sufficient rather than necessary conditions for the inclusion of a blog citation and this particular citation from this particular blog meets both conditions.

Your final point - which is an aside that is neither here nor there - the source cited is the "sand box blog," so yuou are wrong that it was not published in a blog. However, you are right that the sandbox blog is quoted in MEQ; I had not noticed that originally, so I withdraw my aside about the irony here.--csloat 00:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Let me address the follwoignpoints in order

'to deny the blogger a response because it wasn't published in TNR is bogus' - no, it is not. There's a reason why WP:RS was written - self published sourced have no editorial oversight, while RS do. If Cole makes his arguments in a letter to the editors of TNR and they publish it - we know that someone has found these arguments , at a minimum, to be non-libelious, for example. We can't say the same for Cole's rant on his personal blog. If we make an exception here, we're making an end-run around WP:RS which renders it meaningless. You may think that "This is clearly the occasional exception", but I disagree.

It's ok, per 'professional researcher writing within their field of expertise' - no, criticism of Karsh and of WP editors is not Cole's field of expertise. Nor are antisemitism, nor neoconservative politics. These are the subjects of Karsh's criticism of Cole, and the topics of his repsonse. The only thing which , passably, may be considered "his field of expertise" is information related to his academic record. If you want to limit the Cole rebuttal to the sentence that says "Cole responded to Karsh, first noting his "extensive" publications on the twentieth century Middle East, including articles "in refereed academic venues on the Taliban, on September 11, the Ayatollahs of Iraq and democracy, on the historiography of the Muslim Brotherhood, on the Salafi leader Rashid Rida and many other twentieth century and twenty-first century subjects." - I'll be ok with it.

It's ok, per "sources of information about themselves " - do read the full sentence, , which ends "in articles about themselves". This article is not about COle or his blog, it is about Karsh. That's why we can't use the Cole quote here, but can use it in the Cole article, or the C&V article. Isarig 00:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, those arguments don't wash. Read WP:RS. It's not a "rule", it's a guideline, and in this case it is clear that Cole's arguments on his blog are directly relevant to Karsh's arguments about his blog. You're just wikilawyering (and doing a poor job of it) to make a weak case. If you want to remove the section on Cole from this page, fine, but if it's going to be here then the response should not be censored. Your claim that TNR publishing something makes it non-libelous is feeble. What is libelous that Cole said? If you have a question about something we can discuss it. TNR publishing Karsh's words does not guarantee that they are non-libelous. The only way to determine that is to sue someone for libel and see who wins in court. As for your second claim, you are doing a terrible job of trying to make a red herring out of this. The issue here is Cole's blog (again, that's the title of the article by Karsh! To pretend otherwise is laughable). Cole is responding to Karsh's criticism of his blog. The only reason for censoring it is you don't think Karsh is right but you want to hide the response so that maybe others will think he is right. Again, it's just feeble. Give it up. As for your final point, you're right this article is about Karsh, but the section in question is about Cole and his blog in particular. Cheers!--csloat 05:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Rather than endlessly debating these points, I'll follow your suggestion and remove the section entirely. It is a sideshow to Karsh's main controversies. Isarig 19:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

ISArIG, Isarig always always wikilawyering, i actually went to law school and practice law but avoid legal phrases, as they advised us in law school, and try to communicate using plain english and common sense. I've often wondered what you do for a living? Cole is kind to Karsh compared to Benny Morris, isn't he? Take Care! Will314159 18:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

What I do for a living is, not to put too fine a point on it, none of your business. This is not about me, but about Karsh. As you can see from the above exchange, the suggestion to remove the Cole section was not mine, but csloat's (I mistakingly named CSTAR in my edit summary). I agreed with that suggestion. If you want to make a case for why this sideshow, consisting of single article Karsh wrote is notable enough to take 1/2 of the Karsh biography. let's hear it. Isarig 19:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

ISRIG: quit wikilawyering. I adopt CSLOAT's logic IN TOTO. I will repeat it for you:

• Sorry, those arguments don't wash. Read WP:RS. It's not a "rule", it's a guideline, and in this case it is clear that Cole's arguments on his blog are directly relevant to Karsh's arguments about his blog. You're just wikilawyering (and doing a poor job of it) to make a weak case. If you want to remove the section on Cole from this page, fine, but if it's going to be here then the response should not be censored. Your claim that TNR publishing something makes it non-libelous is feeble. What is libelous that Cole said? If you have a question about something we can discuss it. TNR publishing Karsh's words does not guarantee that they are non-libelous. The only way to determine that is to sue someone for libel and see who wins in court. As for your second claim, you are doing a terrible job of trying to make a red herring out of this. The issue here is Cole's blog (again, that's the title of the article by Karsh! To pretend otherwise is laughable). Cole is responding to Karsh's criticism of his blog. The only reason for censoring it is you don't think Karsh is right but you want to hide the response so that maybe others will think he is right. Again, it's just feeble. Give it up. Cheers Will314159 21:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I am glad you claim to adopt csloat IN TOTO (your emphasis). Allow me to draw your attention to the following csloat comment: " If you want to remove the section on Cole from this page, fine". This is a sideshow, irrelevant to Karsh's notability. I do no twant it in, and csloat agrees wit h it being out. If you wnat to make a case for this section to be in - let's hear it. Isarig 04:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I adopt his reasoning but not his sentiment. Just reasons of reciprocity. Karsh appears on Cole, Cole appears on Karsh. Cole is not as deragatory to him as Benny Morris. Cheers. Will314159 14:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

You don't get it. I don't object to Cole because he's derogatpry. I object to him because he made his comments on a blog, which is not a WP:RS, and more importantly, because he's a trivial side show. Karsh's disagreement with the so-called "new historians", of which Morris is one, is what made Karsh notable. It is an academic debate, among researchers of Modern Israeli history, conducted for the most part in peer-reviewed journals and published books - that's what makes it notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. Cole's response to Karsh's criticism of him was delivered in a personal blog, which does not meet the encyclopedia's requirements, and Cole is not a subject matter expert in the area he was criticized on. If you want to avoid having what you and csloat describe as an "unfair" situation , where one critic (Karsh) gets his say (because it was published in TNR, a WP:RS), but Cole can't reply becuase his response was in a non-WP:RS source, I'm fine with keeping this side show out of the article. Isarig 15:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

ISARIG, u r wrong on WP:RS. It's aim is so we can rely on the source of facts. It is not directed at OPINIONS. In fact blogs make verifying the sources of opinions even easier. Especially when the source is juancole.com. It's a very elementary point but you don't get it. I feel for you. Cheers. Will314159 18:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I know you strongly believe this horseshit, since you've been repeating it endlessly. But it is not supported by the actual text of WP:RS, where no distinction is made between blogs as sources of fact vs. blogs as sources of opinions. Blogs are out, period (except very limited situations, of which the Cole blog is not one). That being said, the main point is not WP:RS, but the non-notable nature of the Cole sideshow to the Karsh biography. Isarig 20:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

WHEN a discussion descends to scatalogical (shxt) language it usually means one of the proponents is being very hardheaded. your interpretation of the rules as others have pointed out is idiosyncratic. Cheers. Will314159 13:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I disagree with your analysis. Iti is just as often that a discussion descends to scatalogical language because that's all one of the proponents is capable of. Second, my interpretation of the rules is supported by the direct text of WP:RS. Your invention, that it does not apply to opinions, is nowehere to be found there. Isarig 14:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Hadith

While I have not read Karsh's book "Islamic Imperialism," I have noticed that several columnists, including Max Boot, Suzanne Fields and Shulamit Reinharz (wife of the President of Brandeis University) have repeated Karsh's assertion that the words "I was ordered to fight all men" are to be found in Muhammad's farewell address. This is not their source. Karsh himself, months after the publication of the book, has continued to repeat this attribution, for example in his review of a book by Karen Armstrong. These are the opening words of "Islamic Imperialism." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.163.100.73 (talk • contribs) 13:51, 3 November 2006

The introduction of the book begins as such:
"I was ordered to fight all men until they 'There is no god but Allah.'"
Prphet Muhammad's farewell address, March 632
I can't find anything in the notes section of the book find where Karsh sources this quote (or the others attributed to Saladdin, Ayatollah Khomeini, and Osama bin Laden that follow). The first citation is marked a paragraph down. Also, Islamic Imperialism is currently being distributed as "compliments of [t]he Institute on Religion & Democracy," as noted on the title page of the book. The book also lists its subject headings as: "1. Islam--History. 2. Islamic Empire--History. 3. Imperialism--History. 4. Jihad." --Rezashah 16:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I've found it at here in this version, here again. It is Volume 4, Book 52, Number 196 of the Sahih Bukhari, narrated by Abu Huraira. Here is another whole translation of the hadith with the line

Allah 's Apostle said, I have been ordered to fight with the people till they say, 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah,

Tallicfan20 (talk) 05:25, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Conflict / Islamic history

It is a grave ovesimplification to call the received wisdom of Middle Eastern studies to be that Muslims are victims. That's far from the case with most scholars and even where they are considered victims it's time and location bounded. It needs to be cleaned up and sourced. gren グレン 11:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

That's quite correct, but I believe the problem is with Karsh's simplistic representation of the received wisdom of Middle Eastern studies rather than with the reality. csloat 21:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Fixed by attributing the POV to Karsh. How "correct" he is, is beside the point. <<-armon->> 21:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Well done. csloat 21:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The section inserted by an anon[1] is unsourced and reads like an attack piece. I wonder why it was not removed immediately per WP:BLP. Beit Or 21:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if I'd say it read like an attack piece, but it was unsourced, so we do need to do better. <<-armon->> 21:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to the version before your edits. Regardless, this discussion of one book overwhelms the articles and is, still, unsourced. Beit Or 22:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

A quick search turns up that the section was at least partly based on the "dust jacket" description of the book [2]. <<-armon->> 22:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

It's from two books, and it reads nothing like an attack. At all. The idea that there are BLP violations in there is quite absurd. But I agree it could be more specifically sourced, and dust jacket info really isn't all that useful, so I won't be restoring it. csloat 22:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Karsh - NPOV

It is time that Karsh view will be presentd side by side to Morrises/kahalidi view in Nakba Zeq 07:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

'New Historians' section

Compleate and uther noncence! If your only contact with the new historians are thru Karsh's work, you might think so, but thats just because you only seen one side of the debate.

Karsh is usualy seen as a goof outside of the US, the New Historians is very well established in Israel and the rest of the world today, they wouldn't be if historians took Karsh seriously.

I am the one writing the section above, but I have not removed any link (in fact I haven't edited the article at all), so you must have confused me with someone else who edited the article.

Neither did I say that he was a goof what I said was that he is "usualy seen as a goof outside of the US", mayby the word "goof" was a little strong but Karsh is not taken seriously among historians outside of the US and especialy not in Israel.

And who are you to claim that the new historians are the ones driven by political agenda? Benny Morris is a devoted zionist who sees the palestinians as islamic fundamentalists. The new historians just reelevated some asumed facts in Israeli history and saw that they were not supported by the facts, Karash on the other hand started his attack on the new historians in a extremly right-winged magazine published by an organization founded by Daniel Pipes(!). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.227.182.96 (talk) 22:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I think a point worth mentioning here is that the source for Yezid Sayigh is Karsh's reply itself, and it can't be found anywhere else. Anyone can point the primary source for the criticism? I also think it's worth mentioning that despite the criticism, Karsh authored the 'Israel' chapter in Sayigh's and Shlaim's "The Cold War and The Middle East", and they seem to have changed their opinion on him only after "Fabricating Israel History" release. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pjwerneck (talk • contribs) 22:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Ian Lustick did not debunk Karsh's claims. Quite the opposite.

"Political scientist Ian Lustick describes Karsh's writing in Fabricating Israeli History as malevolent and the nature of his analysis as erratic and sloppy. The book, he wrote, is ripe with 'howlers, contradictions and distortions'.[16] Lustick points to six instances in which Karsh gives quotes that say the very opposite of what Karsh tells his readers they say. One example he gives is of a statement made by Golda Meir that Karsh alludes to in support of his argument that there was never an agreement between Abdullah of Transjordan and the Zionist leadership. In the quote itself, Meir explicitly writes about an agreement: 'The meeting [in November 1947] was conducted on the basis that there was an arrangement and an understanding as to what both of us wanted and that our interests did not collide'.[17]"

Sorry, but this article seems to be trumpeting Mr. Lustick's incorrect assertion that Golda Meir did indeed make an agreement with King Abdullah, but exactly the OPPOSITE is the case. Meir's quote in fact indicates that the meeting was convened between the two sides precisely because both sides were aware that there was a lack of agreement and a conflict of interest.

Jacob Davidson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.68.95.65 (talk) 02:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Lustick could have made a mistake, but not on this one. It's generally understood that Golda Meir visited Abdullah and arranged that Jordan (commanded by Glubb) would not try to over-run any part of Palestine set aside for the Jews. Which is what happened. It's all in Shlaim, "Collusion Across the Jordan". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.188.168 (talk) 19:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Inappropriate material

This section violated WP:COATRACK WP:BLP From WP:Coatrack#"But it's true!", An article might have a disproportionately large "criticism" section, giving the impression that the nominal subject is hotly contested by many people, when in fact the criticism is merely selected opinions and the section creates an artificial controversy. This, too, gives the reader a false impression about reality even though the details may be true.Historicist (talk) 14:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

You are 100% right this violates WP:UNDUE, esp. wikipedia:BLP#Criticism_and_praise . Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and look out for biased or malicious content. The criticism section should be cut in half, eliminating the least academic and WP:RS material. The boxes in both sections are really unnecessary as well. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Morris in "praise" section

Two items removed from "praise section":

• In reviews of Fabricating Israeli History, Benny Morris (professor of history at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev in Be'er Sheva, Israel) acknowledges certain refutations made by Karsh:

Karsh has a point. My treatment of transfer thinking before 1948 was, indeed, superficial...He is probably right in rejecting the transfer interpretation I suggested in The Birth to a sentence in [a speech by Ben-Gurion on December 3, 1947].<ref>''The Times Literary Supplement'', [[November 28]], [[1997]]</ref>.

--- This is very misleading. In fact Morris in that source writes "I have begun to probe pre-1948 Zionist thinking on transfer, and the evidence so far unearthed and published, of which Karsh is well aware, has only strengthened my original conclusion - that the Zionist leadership devoted much time and thought to the subject and consensually accepted a transfer solution to the Arab problem (though it preferred, for good diplomatic and political reasons, not to publicize this)." In other words Morris totally rejects Karsh's position on this issue. Zero^talk 07:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

• Karsh appears to be correct in charging that I stretched the evidence to make my point.<ref>''Refabricating 1948 p. 83''</ref>.

--- This is not adequately sourced. We can't cite Karsh merely claiming that his arch-enemy wrote something. Where did Morris write that and can we verify it? And what's the context? Is Morris actually admitting that he got something wrong or only that he could have made a better case? Zero^talk 07:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, here is what Morris wrote (Journal of Palestine Studies, vol 27, iss 2, 1998, p83-84): "Indeed, in one instance (pp. 61-68) involving a statement by Ben-Gurion in his speech to the Mapai Central Committee on 3 December 1947 (Karsh wrongly gives the date as 13 December), Karsh appears to be correct in charging that I "stretched" the evidence to make my point. The original transcript of the speech indicates that Ben-Gurion was not referring to "transfer" when he said that the new Jewish state must "think like a state" (though, equally, he does not seem to have been referring to the need to bring to Palestine one and a half million Jewish immigrants immediately, as Karsh asserts)." Zero^talk 08:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Sources in the Praise section

Currently there are 7 bits of praise listed in the Praise section. All of them are cited to the same document. This amount of copying from the same source is probably a copyright violation, but I'll leave that issue for now. More importantly, what is that source? It has the title "Professor Eframin Karsh; Mediterranean Studies, School of Humanities; Reviews of his authored books". No author is clearly indicated and the use of "his" suggests Karsh might not be the author. Probably it is the work of some secretary or research student, but since the document is hosted on the server of Karsh's department we can assume that at least it has his approval. So we can judge it according to the rules about self-published sources. The criteria which must be met include:

1. the material is not unduly self-serving

2. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity

Looking at the document, we see that it is a carefully selected collection of positive sentences extracted from a large number of reviews, without a single negative remark to be found. There is no pretense at balance whatever. In other words, it is purely self-serving. As for authenticity, the nature of the document is clearly seen by an example I mentioned above. One of the "reviews" given is this:

"Karsh has a point. My treatment of transfer thinking before 1948 was, indeed, superficial". - Benny Morris, Times Literary Supplement.

Anyone with the patience to track down the source (TLS, Nov 28, 1997) will find that Morris was being sarcastic. Morris writes that when he examined the matter in more depth his opinion got stronger than before! So Karsh's selection of 14 words distorted the original source. So much for "authenticity".

So, in summary, the document fails two of the criteria for validity as a source. As well as that, it is itself very poorly sourced. There is never more than a publication name given, never any dates, volume numbers, page numbers or urls that are needed for verification. Compare this to the Criticism section, where every item has a precise location given.

The solution is very simple. Select some examples from the document, find the original sources, and quote them! Zero^talk 07:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Zero you are libeling Karsh, as the praise is on the official website of him and his college, which is a prestigious university in the UK, one of the most. Using common sense, if he just made up the praise, he would be in a lot of trouble or fired or even sued. Second, the reason that source is used a lot is because given that not everything ever written is on the internet, and that it would be a reasonable assumption for reasons I just mentioned for every review in that website to be authentic, it is the only internet source we can find. Tho I'm pretty sure if you consulted the people and sources directly, you'd find it. Also, the quotes used on this page for praise are clearly praise or positive about the book in some way and in context. The Benny Morris quote in Karsh's paper of reviews is clearly given to make a point not to imply Morris completely changed his mind, and notice that isn't in the praise section here. But it still was said. Karsh knows that Morris wasn't fully praising him, Karsh responded to Morris numerous times, you know. You seem to be clearly trying to discredit someone you don't like, even tho none of your accusations hold water. The quotes are not fake, there is no reason to believe they are, and the ones in praise are worthy of being there. The website is a reliable source. But you can email Efraim Karsh if you really want to know. Tallicfan20 (talk) 07:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I am sure that most of what is in the document is genuine. As I wrote, to meet all the requirements of Wikipedia's policies, all you have to do is to quote from the originals with proper citations. You are lucky to have so many leads to follow. Zero^talk 08:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Karsh's site is not Wikipedia. You accused what is in it of not being "authentic" when it has never been proven otherwise. We'd probably know if a university professor at a top school did such a thing. There is every reason to treat his site as a reliable source for the reasons I mentioned. After all, many things cited on Wikipedia anyway use secondary sources themselves.Tallicfan20 (talk) 08:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

It might be valuable to split the "Praise" section of Karsh's article into general Islamic and/or historical work (which is probably well regarded and perhaps even "non-controversial") from praise of his Israel/Palestine work. The latter is the part of Karsh's output that is (misleadingly) high-lighted in the lede of the article and is highly controversial. Yet, judging by Karsh's own bio, the praise is mostly so lukewarm as to be practically worthless (eg Itamar Rabinovich, former Israel ambassador, Robert Fulford and Professor J. C. Hurewitz). Only the late "Haaretz's Yoram Bronowski" (briefly and non-notably their literary critic) claims that "Fabricating Israeli History" is valuable. (Incidentally, it is obviously not acceptable to recycle cherry-picked phrases from Karsh's own bio, we must be able to see the context from which those quotes were plucked). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.188.168 (talk) 09:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Lukewarm praise? That's not what I see. I would prefer we focus more on the criticism section because all of it is simply name-calling and loaded adjectives. Certainly more intellectual criticisms exist? I.e, focusing on a specific passage or related to the praise section? Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

FGaulty indentation is another indication of WP:DE, disruptive editing. Karsh's praises, sourced only to his bio, are astonishly thin. But then his I/P work is riddled with counter-scholarly assertions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.188.168 (talk) 19:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Using Karsh himself as the real source of almost everything in the "praise" section is unacceptable. Everything there needs to be cited to a third-party source, just as the rules say. Here is an example of why that rules are important:

Amir Taheri, journalist in the Sunday Telegraph praised Islamic Imperialism:

“Anyone interested in the debate about the place of Islam in the modern world should read this book … Karsh offers a new approach. He rejects the condescending approach of the apologists and the hateful passion of the Islamophobes. Instead he presents Islam as a rival for Western civilization in what is, after all, a contest for shaping of mankind.

These words were correctly extracted from The Sunday Telegraph, 21 May 2006. But later in the same article, Taheri writes:

"Karsh is less convincing when he moves from history to theological and/or philosophical issues. For example, he speaks of 'Islam's wholesale incorporation of Hellenistic culture and science', something that did not happen, and sees it as the genesis of Islamic politics and jurisprudence. He also states that Islam was attractive to people it conquered because in it 'ethnic and tribal origins counted for nothing'. But three of the Prophet's immediate successors were his fathers-in-law while the fourth was his son-in-law. The Umayyad Caliphate, the first Islamic empire, was dominated by the Quraish while the Abbasids claimed descent from the Prophet's uncle, and the Fatimids, who ruled Egypt, from the Prophet's daughter. Karsh's assertion that Islam replaced absolutist rule by pluralism is also debatable."

So this article could just as easy be mined for the "criticism" section. Of course Karsh's extract avoids these criticisms, which is what we should expect in a self-serving self-published source (explicitly forbidden by WP:RS). That's why we can't use it. This is a notice that everything sourced to Karsh's summary is going to be deleted unless it is adorned with proper citations. I'll even help by putting a proper reference on the first one. Zero^talk 07:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

One of the obvious problems with using Karsh's own summary is that the source cheates. Morris is quoted as saying "Karsh has a point. My treatment of transfer thinking before 1948 was, indeed, superficial". Whereas in fact, far from admitting fault, Morris proceeds to defend himself by saying that, when he examines the "transfer thinking" in more depth he finds, that what he wrote in the book about the refugees was actually an understatement. Ethnic cleansing was actually a bigger part of Zionist thinking than what he'd claimed of it. Morris may be right or may be wrong, but the use that's been made of this clip, in the source that Okedem insists on using, is deeply dishonest. 86.159.70.117 (talk) 20:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

There was some good information inserted before which read as follows. It was accused of being a copyright violation, though I can't find it anywhere. Surely a cut down version would be very useful?

Islamic History

Rejecting the received wisdom in the field of Middle Eastern and Islamic studies, which views "empire" and "imperialism" as categories that apply exclusively to the European powers and, more recently, to the United States, and which regards Muslims, whether in the Middle East or elsewhere, as the long-suffering victims of the West's aggressive encroachments, Karsh argues that the Middle East's experience is the culmination of long existing indigenous trends, passions, and patterns of behavior, first and foremost the region’s millenarian imperial tradition. External influences, however potent, have played only a secondary role, constituting neither the primary force behind the Middle East’s political development nor the main cause of its notorious volatility.

Karsh first developed this argument in Empires of the Sand: the Struggle for Mastery in the Middle East 1789-1923 (Harvard University Press, 1999)- a comprehensive reinterpretation of the origins of the modern Middle East that denies primacy to Western imperialism and attributes equal responsibility to regional powers. Refuting the orthodox belief in a longstanding European design on the Middle East culminating in the destruction of the Ottoman Empire, as well as the notion that the European powers broke the Middle East's political unity by carving artificial states out of the defunct entity, Empires of the Sand also lays to rest the popular myth of "Perfidious Albion" by proving that it was Britain's Arab war allies who duped the largest empire on earth into backing the "Great Arab Revolt," rather than the other way round.

In Islamic Imperialism: A History (Yale University Press, 2006) Karsh carries this argument much further. He shows that not only was the birth of Islam inextricably linked with empire, but that, unlike Christianity, Islam has retained its imperial ambitions to the present day. From the Prophet Muhammad to the Ottomans, the story of Islam has been the story of the rise and fall of an often astonishing imperial aggressiveness and, no less important, of never quiescent imperial dreams. Even as these dreams have repeatedly frustrated any possibility for the peaceful social and political development of the Arab-Muslim world, they have given rise to no less repeated fantasies of revenge and restoration and to murderous efforts to transform fantasy into fact. The last great Muslim empire may have been destroyed and the caliphate left vacant, but the dream of regional and world domination has remained very much alive. If, today, America is reviled in the Muslim world, it is not because of its specific policies but because, as the preeminent world power, it blocks the final realization of this same age-old dream of regaining the "lost glory" of the caliphate and establsihing the worldwide community of believers (or umma).

In Karsh's view, this vision is not confined to a tiny extremist fringe. This was starkly evidenced by the overwhelming support for the 9/11 attacks throughout the Arab and Islamic worlds, in the admiring evocations of Osama bin Laden's murderous acts during the crisis over the Danish cartoons (2006), and in such recent findings as the poll indicating significant reservoirs of sympathy among Muslims in Britain for the "feelings and motives" of the suicide bombers who attacked London in July 2005. In the historical imagination of many Muslims and Arabs, bin Laden represents nothing short of the new incarnation of Saladin, defeater of the Crusaders and conqueror of Jerusalem. In this sense, the House of Islam’s war for world mastery is a traditional, indeed venerable, quest that is far from over.

I don't know what the rules say but a version of this would surely be more useful to readers than even the improved praise and criticism sections. 86.159.70.117 (talk) 11:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Revisionist Movement in Zionism?

Hi guys, I'm reading one of Professor Karsh's books at the moment and visited this page to find out more about him. Please could somebody create a page explaining the above phrase, used in this paragraph?

According to Howard Sachar, he is "the preeminent scholar-spokesman of the Revisionist (politically-rightist) Movement in Zionism

I've got a vague idea of what it means, but a link would be very useful. Thanks. Msepryor (talk) 10:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

See Revisionist Zionism. Zero^talk 12:53, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Efraim Karsh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929210406/http://skynews-clips.videoloungetv.com/public/skynews/latest/IsraelDebate_181006_0900.wmv to http://skynews-clips.videoloungetv.com/public/skynews/latest/IsraelDebate_181006_0900.wmv

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Efraim Karsh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140305011139/http://www.kcl.ac.uk/artshums/depts/mems/people/staff/associates/karsh/articles/ArafatLives1.pdf to http://www.kcl.ac.uk/artshums/depts/mems/people/staff/associates/karsh/articles/ArafatLives1.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140305011842/http://www.kcl.ac.uk/artshums/depts/mems/people/staff/associates/karsh/articles/IsraelsArabsvIsrael1.doc to http://www.kcl.ac.uk/artshums/depts/mems/people/staff/associates/karsh/articles/IsraelsArabsvIsrael1.doc
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140305005704/http://www.kcl.ac.uk/artshums/depts/mems/people/staff/associates/karsh/articles/WerethePalestiniansExpelled.pdf to http://www.kcl.ac.uk/artshums/depts/mems/people/staff/associates/karsh/articles/WerethePalestiniansExpelled.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:07, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Daniel Pipes

@Debresser: Pipe's reference is self-published. Al-Andalusi (talk) 23:12, 7 November 2018 (UTC) Also, it looks like a couple of edits violate 1RR. Kindly revert. Al-Andalusi (talk) 23:14, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

A self-published book by a renowned professor of history is not a bad source! If you think so, then you don't understand WP:SELFPUBLISH, where it says: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". Which is precisely what I said.

I think you need to review WP:1RR. I reverted a few things. Not he same thing twice. That is counted as one revert. Debresser (talk) 23:19, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Please also take my kind reminder on your talkpage to heart. Debresser (talk) 23:21, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. Prove that Pipes is an "established expert" on the subject matter. Pipes is not a mainstream scholar, that I can tell you. Al-Andalusi (talk) 23:45, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Would google scholar help(for mainstream scholar?).[3] Daniel Pipes bio. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:54, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Pipes is an academic historian - his attributed opinion does not necessary require publication, however neither of the two reviews were self published - we were linking to a freely available copy on Pipes homepage - however both were published - as is clearly evident in the linked pages. Icewhiz (talk) 07:03, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

A personal website is a "self-published source" in WP's lingo. Pipes is a historian no doubt, but you haven't shown anything that establishes his reception/credentials among the scholarly community. We do know that the scholarly community has avoided him since he became an avowed counter-jihadist. A 10-year old discussion on the RS board cautions against citing him. I imagine that things have only gotten worse since then. Al-Andalusi (talk) 14:30, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Not reliable for what?He is reliable for his own words. --Shrike (talk) 14:41, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Reliability is not the question, due weight is. For the section on Empires of Sand I think the balance of weight is about right, an acolyte lavishing praise while the general view of the academic community is given its due weight. For Palestine Betrayed it seems a bit off. That could be resolved by trimming Pipes or adding more from the rather large volume of negative reviews that work received. Oh, and Daniel Pipes is not "renowned", thats just funny. nableezy - 16:44, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

The funniest thing here is the belief that praise from Daniel Pipes is a good thing to have. I say leave it in. Zero^talk 01:44, 10 November 2018 (UTC)