Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance/Requests/November 2006/Ian Pitchford

Wikipedian filing request:

• Ian Pitchford (talk · contribs)

Other Wikipedians this pertains to:

• Amoruso (talk · contribs)
• Shamir1 (talk · contribs)

Wikipedia pages this pertains to:

• Palestinian exodus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Have you read the

• Answer: Yes

How would you describe the nature of this dispute? (policy violation, content dispute, personal attack, other)

• Answer: content dispute

What methods of

• Answer: Extensive discussion on the
  WP:RFC
  just filed.

What do you expect to get from

• Answer: Clarification of policy and correct procedures.

Much of the material being added to this page is inconsistent with the scholarly consensus on the causes of the

Comment: Shmuel Katz is a notable writer who has written an extensively quoted peer-reviewed book about the conflict. You can see the number of uses here [1] and mentions in google scholar here [2] You can see an editorial review of Katz here [3]. user:Avraham has already explained to user:Ian_Pitchford that it's all right to quote Katz regardless of this here [4] Katz is quoted in scholary journals [5]The Johns Hopkins University Press...[6][7]: Journal of Palestine Studies, Indiana University Press, Jewish History... Regardless of all this, we have explained already that Katz is used as a secondary source. Nobody ever questioned his myriad of references which he collected. In fact, the same primary sources are used in a myriad of other books and web-site you can see that easily. Ian and his friend have also admitted and argued that Katz based references on the scholar Schectman. Now this scholar is quoted by another person extensively used by Ian Pitchford in the article called Gelber, so what possibly could be the problem here ? In addition, it's difficult to

Comment: Katz has compiled much reliable information, Amoruso's words are correct. It is not Ian Pitchford's job to call him a "propagandist" and just delete it. Also, Ian Pitchford and others have deleted much information that is verifiable. This is information that has nothing to do with Katz. It came from reliable peer-reviewed sources and was removed by him for no reason. None even mentioned on the talk page. This violates Wikipedia's rules in terms of vandalism. --Shamir1 18:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Historical events should not be portrayed in Wikipeida from the viewpoint of notorious propagandists who have spent a lifetime espousing one side of the argument. This is a clear violation of

• According to Amoruso Katz has written an "extensively quoted peer-reviewed book". In fact the book is not
  Faisal-Weizmann Agreement:[12]
  , in the latter example Amoruso also misrepresents what Katz says in his book.
• According to Amoruso "Nobody ever questioned his myriad of references which he collected": Amoruso copies a great deal of material from Katz, but attributes it to the sources Katz mentions and not to Katz's book. This is plagiarism, e.g., [13]. Again this has been pointed out to him ad nauseam: [14].
• Shamir1's comments simply ilustrate that he's not even aware that the material he and Amoruso have been pasting into Wikipedia has been copied from Katz, sources and all. As
  WP:V
  states: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." He can't evade reponsibility for adding this material by claiming that Amoruso and/or Katz supposedly checked it.
• Finally,
  reliable sources
  .

--Ian Pitchford 20:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, according to

Exactly. It makes you wonder doesn't it because Pitchford won't accept any of the sources regardless to where they're sourced. Pitchford simply wants his version and his version only to be displayed. You'd notice that neither I nor Shamir1 never tried to blank out material even though the whole article is based on a fringe opinion of Benny Morris and not on a neutral way - in fact, our sources are only relevant to a section which is INHERHENTLY POV and talks about a THEORY - even though this is not a theory according to these sources but a FACT - the whole article is described from Benny Morris's and Gelber's theory point of view, yet Pitchford doesn't ALLOW sourced and verified information to be placed even in a theory section. Quite extraordinary wikipedia allows this to happen IMO. Amoruso 02:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Indeed we must cite

In short, I respectfully believe that by Pitchford's statement above, it proves he's only trying to blank out Katz for his

WP:RS and I have effectively proven that he is. His peer reviewed book is a most relevant and cited book on the conflicts by scholars and historians like I demonstrated on my statement. Regards, Amoruso 02:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

The problem is that there's no specific conflict of opinions here. Mass material was removed from different sources and different eras. More than 50% of what was removed has nothing to do with Katz at all. Some concerned whole differnet issues altogether. Clearly, if we can describe the actual disagrement then perhaps a mediation will be possible but for that we need to see some

WP:AGF from Pitchford and agree to retrieve all the information that had nothing to do with Katz and was still removed. Then we can ask the mediation perhaps in theory if we can source to Katz, but right now it would seem the question will be "Can we source anything that doesn't fit this user's opinion?" -> you see the problem. Amoruso 05:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

• Finkelstein, Norman G. (2003). Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict, New and Revised Edition. London: Verson.
  ISBN 1-859-84442-1
• Heller, Joseph (1994). The End of Myth: Historians and the Yishuv (1918-1948). In Reshaping the Past: Jewish History and the Historians (pp. 112-138). Oxford University Press.
  ISBN 0-195-09355-0

--Ian Pitchford 17:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Getting back to the issue at hand - the validity of Katz as an historian - I would like to point out that over the years Katz is not mentioned even once by the American Jewish History Journal (search entry), maybe the most respected historical journal on the subject and quarterly published for more than a century. Furtermore, to my knowledge Katz is neither peer-reviewed nor is his work cited by anynone but a group of "followers". Contrary to what was claimed above, in Johns Hopkins University Press's Project Muse, a collection of high-quality peer-reviewed journals from 60 scholarly publishers, Katz's scant presence is primarily related to his political work [20] [21] (Katz was an adviser to Israeli Prime Minister Begin).

However, the main reason why Kats isn't, and shouldn't, be cited as a historian (as opposed to his background as a politician and a participant in certain events) is that he has not done any research on his own; rather, his books are a collection of thoughts and viewpoints, backed up by selective quotes and events.

Much of the same can also be said of the above mentioned Schechtman, whose 1966 book, The Crucial Decade: 1939-1949, was reviewed by the American Jewish History Journal as, while interesting, "with unqualified approval of the Revisionist movement", "does not show more than a few traces of self-disipline", "seems a bit too many of these [mistakes]", and otherwise criticized for citing only publications from certain organizations, the government and press, while ignoring important work by others (AJHQ:56,1-4,pg. 361, available via the entry link above) .

As for the conflict, I concur with Ian Pitchford's description. Amoruso in particular, and to some extent Shamir1, are, based on my experiences, POV warriors of the destructive kind. I see no point in engaging in a who-said-what-when quarrel, but I think the following words from Amoruso sums it up: "All the quotes from Joseph B. Shectman are 100% accurate and verifiable and trust worthy. This is true on all accounts of other historians who happent to belong to a right wing side of a map." [22]. I have also briefly listed examples of Amoruso's edit behaviour, with diffs, on a previous occasion

In a way, this conflict also mirrors what is a major problem at Wikipedia: information from partisans and propagandists is readily available online (and often cited by fellow partisans), while work from scholars and others are increasingly moved to pay-sites or is only available in libraries. - Steve Hart 06:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC) (I forgot to mention, if someone wants to reply to this you will do so below, and not inject your comments into mine (you know who you are) -- Steve Hart 06:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Ok, here is a (proposed) policy on books:

For the most part I agree, but I don't think you will get many takers. -- Steve Hart 06:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On my talk page, Zero wrote he agreed (even if he gave me some name of official israeli historians). On his talk page, Amoruso wrote me that Schetchman and Katz were not propagandists but he agreed to write in a particular section. Shamir1 answered on my page 2 but not about the topic. Nevertheless, I think there could be a compromise if Ian agrees too. Ie : simply writing all these people's points of view in precisely attributing each of them.

Alithien 20:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Let me be perfectly clear: There's no reasoning with these guys. You will have better luck convincing a priest that God doesn't exist. A couple of points:

• There should be no need to confine certain viewpoints to a specific section. That's just a temporary solution. Should such a section be free for a subgroup to do what they please with? To put in anything they want? How large do you think such a section will grow in time? What about Undue Weight?
• Cites should stand and fall on their own merits(!) This conflict is not about Katz, but about how to interpret sources (Katz's not the only one). The talk page of the article in question has one section in particular which is a good read: Quotations, a salutary lesson.
• I certainly agree that Katz can be mentioned by Wikipedia, but as a participant, not as a historian. A similar example can be found in former Israeli Prime Minister Rabin, who, in the unpublished version of his biography, surprisingly told about the forced expulsion of 50.000 Arabs in the town of Lydda. Rabin shouldn't be be quoted as a historian either, but as a participant. However, this means that more than 90% of Katz on Wikipedia must go.

In the end I know this will sort itself out. Amoruso has violated pretty much every policy multiple times, and pissed off hundreds of people, during his 6 months here. One day someone's going to write him up and report him, and he'll be gone. Not even WP's forgiving policy enforcement is going to save him. -- Steve Hart 06:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, everything's quited down here again. Has everything been settled maybe? Do we finally have an agreeable settlement? Or do we still need to discuss that? -

• I provided links which (1) state that Shmuel Katz is historian (2) scholary journals who cite Katz (3) proof that book is notable in the conflict discourse. So I don't feel I need to repeat myself again. As for historian btw, user:Zero0000 himself admitted that historian is not a term one can detremine and didn't object to this title for him.

• I feel it's obvious that this is not about Katz as also written above. It's about certain users wanting to remove the theory that Arab leaders endorsed the flight. Now this is the amazing thing - it's not just a theory. We can write the whole article from that sense yet the article is written from an opposite sense. Saying that only Katz quoted are removed is a false statement. Katz never mentioned the 2006 Hizballah
  WP:RS
  links that were provided and were relevant for example but were removed wholesale together with everything else.

• The article is written, completely from head to start, from Benny Morris' review. Benny Morris has been criticized a LOT. For example by
  WP:POV
  is removed for no reason.

• Katz is not a teacher of history in a faculty - i think that was mentioned in other words. Well guess what,
  WP:RS doesn't require that he will be. Usually those writers from the university are more inclined the left side of the map anyway and we wouldn't want to present only one POV. Now, Efraim Karsh
  agrees with the endorsement "theory" too - he's in the university and he's just one example of many, so what's the problem ?

• Why did we quote Katz in the first place if he's not the issue ? Well, simply because of the reasons I provided above. Katz compiled a respected peer reviewed book about the conflict. That book is full of references. Nobody ever questioned his use of the references. He made no one statement of his indepedent from references so his background or opinions or agenda or whatever is not relevant at ALL. The reason we quoted from his book as secondary source is because : (a) it's
  WP:CITE. I have 3 versions of the book in differnet lanaguage and 2 or 3 differnet editions of it in Hebrew accessed to me on every day basis. (c) the same infomarion appears in web-sites etc but they're not as RS and we quote the origin - one of the main researches done on the subject. We can also quote directly from Schechtman of course. We're not even quoting Joan Peters although the opinion that her book is "discredited" is just an opinion and explained already - others disagree, simply like people agree on Morris' work or not it's also debated. So this is really not the issue. We need to face the fact - are we allowing wikipedia to censor information that doesn't fit with a couple of users' point of views ? I hope not. Amoruso 12:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• As for personal attacks and incivil language directed to me by some users, I choose not to respond in the spirit of wikipedia's honour. Amoruso 12:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• As for compromise, indeed we have no problem to accept the POV of other users and only include the rferenced material which was blanked in its own section - that the "endorsement theory" version. This was actually the case, which proves there was a censoring attempt here. Also that section is also filled with POV attempts to refute this information which is wrong because the whole article is based on the other POV anyway. Statements like "undue weight" in this sense are highly disturbing. In fact, the whole issue is very disturbing because still no excuse was provided for the reasons that fully referenced and verified quotations and information was wholesale removed. None. Amoruso 12:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, this has died down again. Has everyone come to an agreement? -

• I haven't had a big case lately, so I'll take it. Open. -
  Review Me!) 22:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Closed due to lack of activity. -
    Review Me!) 19:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]