Talk:The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Palestine (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic :Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

notability criteria?[edit]

Define notability criteria that this book needs to meet? Yamanam (talk) 17:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

they are listed at Wikipedia:Notability (books) NoCal100 (talk) 18:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion doesn't apply here[edit]

Dror, stop whatever you are doing, read Wikipedia:Notability (books) it says: failing to satisfy notability guidelines is not a criterion for speedy deletion. Yamanam (talk) 18:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

A Prod is not a speedy deletion. You can remove the prod tag, but you should attempt to show the notability - otherwise it will just go to WP:AFD NoCal100 (talk) 18:31, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Ilan Pappe, through his book The Ethnic Cleanisn of Palestine, has made a significant contribution to peace.

A review of Ilan Pappe, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine

I think this makes the book notable. I am in the process of obtaining more reliable sources. Yamanam (talk) 19:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Yamanam, take a look at some of the books in Category:Books about the Arab-Israeli conflict which may help you in establishing notability for this book. Regards, Chesdovi (talk) 18:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you Chesdovi, I appreciate it. Yamanam (talk) 13:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Impressive[edit]

No one need read the book now that it has been thoroughly written out here. Every nuance included. A terrific book review for a magazine such as Counterpunch but is this really appropriate here? Do other books (particularly those concerning the Arab-Israeli conflict) go into such detail? I notice that equivalent books on the other side, (shall we say From Time Immemorial are three-quarters criticism, yet this book which alleges ethnic cleansing has only one voice of criticism. There are two voices in the criticism section that constitute positive "criticism"! While that does not reflect reality, the bigger question is is this type of review appropriate for WP, impressive though it might be? Thanks for any input. Stellarkid (talk) 17:17, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I am wondering if this article violates WP:NOR

Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, arguments, or conclusions.

in terms of a synthesis or analysis that "serves to advance a position"? Stellarkid (talk) 17:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

There is an overreliance on a primary source (in this article the actual book is the primary source and it should be based on reviews in secondary sources), but synthesis means combining multiple sources to advance an argument. This article does not do that. nableezy - 02:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
I was thinking more of analysis really, rather than synthesis. But you are certainly right that there is over-reliance on a primary source at the least. Stellarkid (talk) 03:13, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Unnecessary disambiguator[edit]

In articles on books, films, and similar works, Wikipedia always follows the name of the work in question. A disambiguator is only necessary if there is more than one work with the same title. One particular editor's opinion on whether or not the title is "misleading" is irrelevant here. (If an editor thinks the title is misleading, then he or she is welcome to find reliable sources saying so, and add information to the article based on those sources.) See also MOS:DAB and WP:DISAMBIG.

Accordingly I have removed the unnecessary disambiguator "(book)" from the title of this article.

--NSH001 (talk) 11:05, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

70 notes from Pappè's book[edit]

I wonder if there are similar cases on WP..--79.56.178.36 (talk) 06:19, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

The whole synopsis section should be trimmed to one or two paragraphs, but unfortunately I don't have time to do it, nor do I have the book to make sure that what I write is accurate. If you can trim the section, I will fully support you in your efforts. —Ynhockey (Talk) 14:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
I will edit this article by deleting all of the chapter sections. This is an encyclopedia article about a book. The article should therefore be about the book in general, not a chapter-and-verse restatement of its contents. The article still needs more secondary source material. —Anomalocaris (talk) 05:06, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
I have reverted you, as such a large change can't be made without discussion. As for the point about extensive summmary of content, see for example Night (book), a featured article which does exactly that. --NSH001 (talk) 07:31, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I do not understand why this article is narrating each chapter of the book, almost without any secondary source material. Also this article is much longer than it should be.. The content of the book should be summered in one-two section, without extensive notes and chapter by chapter narration.Tritomex (talk) 07:53, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The synopsis is a WP:OR even if summarizing a book can hardly be done a different way.
I don't think the lead is too long but the synospis is too long. Pluto2012 (talk) 11:58, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Should the "Synopsis" section be concised to 500 words? (an help desk advice)[edit]

According to an help desk advice the "Synopsis" section should be concised to 500 words, Anyone volunteers? Ykantor (talk) 17:58, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

agree that it should be shortened, but I am not going to be the volunteer at this time. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:07, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. Please go ahead and do it. --Frederico1234 (talk) 19:10, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
The relevant guidance is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Books/Non-fiction article, which does not state a specific length. A good example, which I have referred to before on this page, is Night (book), a featured article. That article summarises the book at some length, but to a much higher standard of writing than in the present article. The "500 words" is misleading and in any case taken from an inapplicable guideline. Some additional third-party secondary sources would be useful, but it is inevitable that a synopsis will cite mostly the original work. For comparison, Night uses 27 references for (its equivalent of) the synopsis, of which 19 are to the primary source (the book). --NSH001 (talk) 21:07, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

From Publishers Weekly Starred Review. In his latest work, renowned Israeli author and academic Pappe (A History of Modern Palestine) does not mince words, doing Jimmy Carter one better (or worse, depending on one's point of view) by accusing Israel of ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity beginning in the 1948 war for independence, and continuing through the present. Focusing primarily on Plan D (Dalet, in Hebrew), conceived on March 10, 1948, Pappe demonstrates how ethnic cleansing was not a circumstance of war, but rather a deliberate goal of combat for early Israeli military units led by David Ben-Gurion, whom Pappe labels the "architect of ethnic cleansing." The forced expulsion of 800,000 Palestinians between 1948-49, Pappe argues, was part of a long-standing Zionist plan to manufacture an ethnically pure Jewish state. Framing his argument with accepted international and UN definitions of ethnic cleansing, Pappe follows with an excruciatingly detailed account of Israeli military involvement in the demolition and depopulation of hundreds of villages, and the expulsion of hundreds of thousands of Arab inhabitants. An accessible, learned resource, this volume provides important inroads into the historical antecedents of today's conflict, but its conclusions will not be easy for everyone to stomach: Pappe argues that the ethnic cleansing of Palestine continues today, and calls for the unconditional return of all Palestinian refugees and an end to the Israeli occupation. Without question, Pappe's account will provoke ire from many readers; importantly, it will spark discussion as well. Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. --This text refers to the Hardcover edition. Review "Ground breaking research into a well kept Israeli secret. A classic of historical scholarship on a taboo subject by one of Israel's foremost New Historians." -- Ghada Karmi - Institute of Arab and Islamic Studies, University of Exeter, England, UK

"Ilan Pappe is Israel's bravest, most principled, most incisive historian." -- John Pilger - author, journalist, and filmmaker

"Leading Israeli historian Ilan Pappe delves into his country's bloodied past in search of answers in the present." -- Morning Star, 25 April, 2008

Ground breaking research into a well kept Israeli secret. A classic of historical scholarship on a taboo subject by one of Israel's foremost New Historians. -- Ghada Karmi - Institute of Arab and Islamic Studies,

Ilan Pappe is Israel's bravest, most principled, most incisive historian. -- John Pilger - author, journalist, and filmmaker

Pappe has opened up an important new line of inquiry into the vast and fateful subject of the Palestinian refugees. His book is rewarding in other ways. It has at times an elegiac, even sentimental, character, recalling the lost, obliterated life of the Palestinian Arabs and imagining or regretting what Pappe believes could have been a better land of Palestine. -- Times Literary Supplement, 04/26/2007 See all Editorial Reviews — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tabaun1 (talkcontribs) 18:43, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Reception section[edit]

"Reception" section is not neutral since it does only feature criticism and lack criticism of neutral authors in the first place, instead it features only criticism by dedicated ideological opponents of illan pappe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.225.220.104 (talkcontribs)

Agreed. I have added a disputed tag. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:16, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Are there positive reception of his book from wp:rs ? Pluto2012 (talk) 07:20, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
I'd repeat the Pluto2012's question. Nobody prevents to add them. --Igorp_lj (talk) 21:56, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I thouroughly agree. Particularly troubling is that criticism comes from "New Historians". From the "new historians" wiki: The New Historians (Hebrew: ההיסטוריונים החדשים‎, HaHistoryonim HaHadashim) are a loosely-defined group of Israeli historians who have challenged traditional versions of Israeli history Read: FRINGE. This so called "criticism" has more to do with the zionist jew agenda, and is not only non-neutral, but it is fringe. I don't know why, but I expect better from the Wikipedia community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.52.180.114 (talk) 23:48, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

96.52.180.114 It seems me that you haven't paid attention that both Pappe and Morris are New Historians. :) --Igorp_lj (talk) 21:56, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
92.225.220.104, Oncenawhile, why do you not consider those authors as neutral ones? --Igorp_lj (talk) 21:56, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
WP:CHERRYPICKING. See the other side, for example: [1], [2], [3]. Oncenawhile (talk) 14:37, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Ok, if you've already checked them as RS, can you add these refs to the article? --Igorp_lj (talk) 20:02, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
I have added some reviews from peer-reviewed journals. Hopefully this improves the balance situation. InverseHypercube (talk) 07:54, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

controversed?[edit]

Not a word. "controverted" might perhaps be what was meant, but I'm not going to touch this area. Shenme (talk) 04:09, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Categories of criticism[edit]

Possible categorisations of this book include:

  • Category:Books critical of Israel
  • Category:Books critical of Zionism

either or both depending on content.
I personally interpret the categories as follows:

  • the first category as relating to criticisms of actions of the state of Israel
  • the second category as relating to criticisms of support for the existence of a Jewish homeland.

The book was originally placed in "Category:Books critical of Zionism" and I made the contested decision to move it to "Category:Books critical of Israel". There are "see also" links between the two category pages.
How would the book best be categorised? Gregkaye (talk) 00:18, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Both categories fit this book but I don't agree with your second definition. Pluto2012 (talk) 07:21, 21 September 2014 (UTC)