Jim Fitzgerald (talk | contribs) |
No More Mr Nice Guy (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 176: | Line 176: | ||
These edits should be reverted. [[User:No More Mr Nice Guy|No More Mr Nice Guy]] ([[User talk:No More Mr Nice Guy|talk]]) 19:52, 13 November 2010 (UTC) |
These edits should be reverted. [[User:No More Mr Nice Guy|No More Mr Nice Guy]] ([[User talk:No More Mr Nice Guy|talk]]) 19:52, 13 November 2010 (UTC) |
||
:I am addressing your comments right now (today), some of which I find substantiated.--<span style="font-family: tahoma;"> [[User:Jim Fitzgerald|<span style="color:blue">Jim</span><span style="color:#009000"> Fitzgerald</span>]] [[User_talk:Jim Fitzgerald|<span style="color:blue"><sup>post</sup></span>]]</span> 08:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC) |
:I am addressing your comments right now (today), some of which I find substantiated.--<span style="font-family: tahoma;"> [[User:Jim Fitzgerald|<span style="color:blue">Jim</span><span style="color:#009000"> Fitzgerald</span>]] [[User_talk:Jim Fitzgerald|<span style="color:blue"><sup>post</sup></span>]]</span> 08:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC) |
||
::So far today you have: |
|||
::*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jewish_exodus_from_Arab_and_Muslim_lands&diff=396670364&oldid=396595770] commented out sourced information so it is not displayed to the reader and labeled a historian as "Pro-Zionist". |
|||
::*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jewish_exodus_from_Arab_and_Muslim_lands&diff=396674588&oldid=396670364] added a source (I'm not sure about its reliability) that doesn't say only Jews involved in the Lavon affair left Egypt, while the text you added yesterday to the article does. |
|||
::*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jewish_exodus_from_Arab_and_Muslim_lands&diff=396680135&oldid=396674588] added a self published source as a reference, not exactly sure for what. |
|||
::All this combined with your edits yesterday is quite unacceptable and obviously tendentious. I'd like to remind you this article is under ARBPIA sanctions. [[User:No More Mr Nice Guy|No More Mr Nice Guy]] ([[User talk:No More Mr Nice Guy|talk]]) 11:13, 14 November 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 11:13, 14 November 2010
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 45 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
heavy bias
At anonymous below... Yes it's biased because, it doesn't talk *enough* about my own Jewish family members who were kicked out of Iraq and Yemen, not to mention the habit of some of the Muslim populous in these lands kidnapping Jewish women as "wives" at the time. This article could go much further into the subjugation of Jews and dhimmi laws. I didn't write the page but I've been linking to it a lot and sometimes in forums that are Iranian or anti-Israel. *So, please expect a lot of those people trying to delete this or modify it.* To the person below- If you have Israeli friends who left Arab lands and are not refugees then invite them to correct this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.237.243.199 (talk) 06:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
This article is heavily biased and is clearly written by Jews in accordance with the Jewish victimhood narrative in an attempt to draw a parallel between the fate of European Jews and Arab Jews and between Nazi Germany and Arab states. It is frequently used as a political weapon by Israel apologists to try to justify the ethnic cleansing of Palestine. The word Exodus by itself is derived from Jewish slavery narrative and is there to invoke empathy for Jewish sufferings and a feeling of persecution. In short, this article needs a more even-handed rewrite with less political agenda, less Jewish victimhood and more objective facts. As a side note, I have met plenty of Israeli Jews who immigrated from Arab countries. Not a single one claims to have been a refugee or having been expelled. They immigrated out of religious beliefs and many were ardent Zionists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.148.239.49 (talk) 19:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Some of the comments here that are critical of this article show themselves to be biased and even antisemitic. The use of the term exodus is completely cultural appropriate given the way many Jews, particularly religious Jews view their history. One cannot simply disregard this account on the basis of anecdotal 'evidence' and informal discussion with "Israeli Jews". That is also not a source that should be used by wikipedia and if someone wants to use it to delete this article then the standards for sources needs to be completely thrown out the window. The original article does show some bias, but the comments here and in the other comments related to this article are even more bias. If you are interested in learning about the Jews of the Arab world I suggest you do some reading of sources, in addition to informal conversations. Here are some places to start: Zafrani, Haïm. Two thousand years of Jewish life in Morocco. New York: Sephardic House in association with KTAV Pub. House, Jersey City, NJ, 2005. Stillman, Norman A. The Jews of Arab Lands. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1979. ———. The Jews of Arab Lands in Modern Times. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1981. Laskier, Michael M. North African Jewry in the Twentieth Century The Jews of Morocco, Tunisia and Algeria. New York: New York University Press, 1994. Gerber, Jane S. Jewish society in Fez 1450-1700 : studies in communal and economic life. Leiden: Brill, 1980. Tobi, Joseph. The Jews of Yemen: studies in their history and culture. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Keourie, Elie. "The Break Between Muslims and Jews in Iraq." In Jews Among Arabs Contacts and Boundaries, edited by Mark R. Cohen and Abraham L. Udovich, 21-64. Darwin Press: Princeton, 1986.
There were complex push and pull factors in the exodus of Jews from Arab lands. A desire to return to Zion was one pull factor and a desire to not return to the dhimma status of pre-colonial times was another. In addition, Jews did lose property and were attacked. Jews lost citizenship in Egypt, Libya and Iraq and there were attacks against Jews in countries throughout the Arab World. In general the situation for non-Arabs and non-Muslims was and isn't exactly one of tolerance. While the tone is indeed polemical vis a vis the Arab Israeli conflict, the basic facts in this article are correct. Bizbuzzeman (talk) 03:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC) --Bizbuzzeman (talk) 03:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
I completely agree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenkinsear (talk • contribs) 18:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
-jenkinsear —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenkinsear (talk • contribs) 18:19, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
complete rewrite
I have begun doing this. A compilation of useful sources might be helpful. There is a lot fo unreliable material i this article and we need to tighten it up aand improve it.
Given your dubious writing/spelling skills and the fact that this re-write hasn't occurred, I think it would be best to completely re-write this article. Frankly I feel it should have a tone of being another Jewish propaganda event.
If no re-write is complete within a month, I will delete the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.217.129 (talk) 18:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
It is time to completely delete this exercise in Jewish propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.217.129 (talk) 19:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
- Delete this article? Who the hell do you think you are? You don't even sign your comments! Can an admin please lock this article? TFighterPilot (talk) 12:14, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
The term(s) "Jewish exodus" was modified to "Jewish emigration and expulsion" to remove the religious tone and Jewish exceptionalism behind the word "exodus." Further, to more accurately reflect that which common sense surmises: that many Jews would voluntarily return to country made for them. The newness of this article (this subject didn't exist on the Internet or in any scholarly publications 5 years ago) suggests political reasons are at play in the creation of this issue some 60 years after it happened.
Further, the article's title should be changed to "Jewish emigration and expulsion" for reasons stated previously. The Fifth Column (talk) 10:41, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- Spare us your "Jewish exceptionalism" bullshit.
- If you want to change the article name, start an RfC.
- The first sentence of the article is in compliance with WP:LEAD. Do not change it again without discussion.
- This article is under WP:ARBPIA discretionary sanctions. Disruptive editing will get you banned. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Title of the Article is PC
In some cases it was a voluntary "exodus," such as those from Morocco, but from others, such as Jews from Egypt, it was an outright expulsion and robbery. Elsewhere, such as in Meshad in modern Iran, the Jews were so badly oppressed that they simply fled. The title of the article should be "Jewish Exodus and Expulsion..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.111.71.197 (talk) 08:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Jews were not 'indigenous' outside Israel Is wrong to write jews were 'indigenous' in countries BEFORE arab date conquest. The diaspora shows any country reached by jews expelled from Judea by romans was populated before they arrived. In helenistic Egypt lived a jew community before Diaspora and even had its own Temple located at Leontopolis. Before jews, others peoples lived and settled in North Africa, Spain, Arabia, Persia, Syrya, Bizantyum, Yemen, etc. Jews were forever the last ones to arrive in any place. But more: biblics jews never lived in Neguev desert, and ethiepic jews never lived in Israel and so never were 'diaspored' from it for anyone. Etnics 'arabs' are not far from Egypt fatherland or Saudi Arabia borders, even 'caliphat' was located once in Damascus and once in Bagdad or Cordoba (al Andalus in Spain). 'Muslimizing' people who were not 'arab' make easy Islam to do a fast run from Medina to Poitiers in France in less than 100 years, but is a so 'european ethnocentric point of view' mistake to think 'arabs were defated at Poitiers' indeed the defated ones were a mixed troop of ancien spanishs and berberes tribes. So in anyway author can't state something as 'jews were the fist inhabitants...' indeed jews outside Israel never founded any state or kingdom in circa 3,000 years of jew history. Its atonishing why not, when in ancien times were so easy to found a state from nothing more than ashes and by refugees as Rome, Carthagus, Venetia, Genova, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.201.84.254 (talk) 13:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
You have made a valid point and I will correct the text, though your historical points are inaccurate. There have been Jewish states outside of Israel: the kingdom of the Khazars in modern day Azerbaijan and there was a Jewish Berber state in North Africa (http://www.whoosh.org/issue85/klossner6.html). Many Jews especially in areas that were formerly part of the Roman Empire are also descended from converts. I guess the term indigenous people is problematic.
Telaviv1 (talk) 09:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- how does one decide indigenity indeed? are Turkish cypriots indigenous? for the most part, jews have had thousands of years of history in these places, well enough to be considered indigenous for all practical purposes. 85.64.221.163 (talk) 20:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Basically Jews are indigenous everywhere round the Mediterranean, including in Europe but I remvoed the term as it is not really relevant to the issue. Telaviv1 (talk) 20:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
- It is very relevant as this term is heavily used in discussions about refugee status and inferred rights due to indigenity. 85.64.221.163 (talk) 18:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
- The phrase "Next year in Jerusalem" is commonly used by Zionists to prove that Israel was the ancestral home of the Jews. It would be difficult for the same people to simultaneously argue they're indigenous somewhere (or anywhere) else. I'd be confident Telaviv1 is a Zionist and wonder what Conflict of Interest he has. 86.157.128.63 (talk) 17:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Emigration, not "exodus"
- I have read tons of books about Middle East history, and I never saw anything called "Jewish exodus from Arab lands". Can you please name me JUST ONE neutral (non-Zionist, non-Israeli, non-Jewish) source which mention it? Of course not. Name of article mentioning "exodus" is just one-sided political propaganda with purpose to justify Palestinian exodus by equalize it with Jewish emigration. Although all scholars agree they were isolated causes of forced emigration (mostly after Israeli-Arab wars), NONE of them call all Jewish emigration by terms of "exodus", "ethnic cleansing" or anything similar. Emigration from Arab lands is similar to Jewish emigration from SSSR (Russia and Ukraine), because no one forced them to move to Israel; it was their free will. Please note ALL references, external sources and bibliography refers to - Israeli and Jewish authors. Sounds neutral to you? It's like writing an article about War in Yugoslavia with using exclusivity only Serbian (or Croatian) source. --93.142.157.143 (talk) 19:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- Even if I ignore all your fabrications, the Palestinian Arabs got the exact same title. TFighterPilot (talk) 09:08, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
"neutral non-zionist, non-Jewish, non-Israeli". Doesn't that strike you as a problematic- possibly racist - statement? I suggest you name your sources before asking others to do so (the article provides sources). The Biblical exodus was voluntary - You may recall that Moses was demanding that the Israelites be allowed to leave, so the term would appear appropriate. Finally what is a "voluntary departure"? One could argue that most Palestinian-Arabs left voluntarily, the question is why they reached that decision. I agree that there is a debatable issue regarding the use of the word "ethnic cleansing" but that would apply to the Palestinians too. The article makes it clear that the situation varied from country to country. In some cases at least it was not a simple departure. Telaviv1 (talk) 19:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
The role of Israel/Jewish agencies
I think this is an important issue must be cleared in the article. What is the role of such agencies in forcing, supporting or encouraging the Arab Jewish to leave to Israel. Akatsha (talk) 16:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)akatsha
Settle the emigration:exodus issue once and for all.
It seems the antisemite brigade has mobbed up this article, just because some minor difference or definition it can't be made into "emigration" bring up all the sources that say otherwise and are reasonable and sum the policies that caused the effect .
for what I am concerned this is a similar phenomena to what happened earlier in poland on steroids , motivated by the same means the americans were in WWII when they put restrictions on the japanese and blended with traditional antisemitism you can read authentic examples of here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shiftadot (talk • contribs) 07:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Jewish Populations of non-Arab Muslim Countries: 1948 and 2001
What does the "Jewish Populations of non-Arab Muslim Countries" have to do with the article "Jewish exodus from Arab lands"? a jewish diaspora article or something of that sort will be more appropriate but it is completely irrelevant to this article. unless of course you want to add "Jewish Populations of non-Arab Christian Countries" too. 122.167.178.244 (talk)
- Perhaps then the article should be renamed Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim lands, or something along those lines. Regardless, it makes little sense to remove relevant sourced content because it doesn't jive 100% with the article name.I'll presently reinsert the content, pending further discussion.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
- I would suggest "Jewish exodus from Arab-Muslim lands." Thus it includes all the Arab states as well as Iran, Afghanistan, etc. Plot Spoiler (talk) 01:52, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
- I concur. Iran's Jewish population has shrunk by 2/3 since the revolution. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:24, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
- Why the conflation with Arab=Muslim? It doesn't. You'll find George Habash and Michel Aoun as arabs too. It doesnt jive at all with this article because it comes of Islamophobic. Likewise if this conflation were endure then firstly Lebanon would not fit b/c in 1948 its demograhpics were different and a list for christian countried should certainly be included. What are the jewish populations of spain, france, germany, russia, holland, etc, etc now as opposed 1948. (also exodus doesnt by definition mean 1948. talk of a jewish exodus "from arab lands" can go further back into history too. Im not advocating merging the 2, however its certainly some food for thought.) (Lihaas (talk) 08:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
- The population of these countries would go to their respective articles, as it is unrelated to this one. Also, Wikipedia talk page is not the place to shout around, there are plenty of political forums on the internet for just that. TFighterPilot (talk) 19:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
- I would suggest "Jewish exodus from Arab-Muslim lands." Thus it includes all the Arab states as well as Iran, Afghanistan, etc. Plot Spoiler (talk) 01:52, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Umm, whose shouting around politically. Fair enough though, if they should go to their respective countried when why is Muslim-Arab conflated? the political aspect is the conflation of the two on a page that clearly doesnt preclude it. How can you say i was being political when the article itself clearly takes political sides to lump 'em all together? There's nothign scientific/encylclopaedic/anthropoligic(??) about this as it stand now.(Lihaas (talk) 05:44, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
- The article states facts. If there are any facts in the article that you disagree with, bring them forward. TFighterPilot (talk) 06:44, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
- Why would put the two together? Because they're all part of the same phenomenon. The exodus of Jews from Arab-Muslim lands in the Middle East region in the span of a few decades. And Arab nationalism is essentially indivisible from Islam -- there are a scant number of Christians involved in the movement but overall they have been marginalized and increasingly oppressed. Plot Spoiler (talk) 14:30, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
- as the post above suggests keep politics out of it. this is not a web log to show opinion. whether x or y is repressed is not the question, you are free to start an article about christian oppression in the arab lands if you so please.
- if you feel they are related then add a "see also" link (which is the point of having a see also link). furthermore you will find the jewish population of Lebanon actually grew in the immediate aftermath of 1948. where are the parallels then? the exodus you talk about as a consequence of 1948 also has parallels with the jews leaving russia, moldova, ethiopia, etc, etc. and "essentially indivisible" doesnt constitute cited authority and fact, it constitutes the opinion of wikipedia editors.
- as to tightpilot ascertation that this constitutes facts, no one is arguing with the facts. the debate is the relevance to this article, and your arguement is completely off base.
- More importantly, if there are WP:RS calling this an exodus it is not up to wikipedia to create news and label it an exodus (especially in the light of this being a loaded world with biblical connotations on the Exodus.Lihaas (talk) 22:59, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
- its been almost 10 days since the topic was replied to. is there no one that has objections to it? Consensus can't wait forever.Lihaas (talk) 06:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- There is no consensus to change it. Plot Spoiler (talk) 13:20, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- Well, to come to agreement, theres the suggestion to move the title page then (by 2) so the above mentioned Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim lands is more appropiate.Lihaas (talk) 15:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- Why would put the two together? Because they're all part of the same phenomenon. The exodus of Jews from Arab-Muslim lands in the Middle East region in the span of a few decades. And Arab nationalism is essentially indivisible from Islam -- there are a scant number of Christians involved in the movement but overall they have been marginalized and increasingly oppressed. Plot Spoiler (talk) 14:30, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
External links
WP:EL wikipedia is not a repository of links so the list must be cut. I've put a tag and removed some, if someone thinks i removed the wrong one then feel free to replace it but the list is still to long.
- If a link can be merged into the article as a reference it should be (and many can be). Also there are links that reiterate the same topic from different sources, so as this is not a colelction of links choosing one is plenty good. Lihaas (talk) 15:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Nonsense
This article is full of wrong information. For example, the Arabs Lebanon, Syria, Palestine, cannot be Anti Semitic, since they are Semitic people. Exodus? What Exodus! They left by their own will for the most part. This article is really bad for the credibility of Wikipedia. thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.42.159.210 (talk) 07:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- Right and wrong is a subjective definition, and denies the basic pillars of wikipedia. All relevant views (credible ones) must be brought, and the reader should decide himself what is right and what is not. By denying some information and overwriting another wikipedia loses all credibility, completely in opposite to your claim.Greyshark09 (talk) 16:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
"anti-zionist" writers
Is Uri Avnery an "anti-Zionist"? Is Wilbur Crane Eveland? Unless a reliable source is provided for each of the people this article labels as "anti-Zionist" that term must be removed per WP:BLP. Additionally, why is it that users who routinely remove the label "pro-Israel" from organizations such as AIPAC as "well-poisoning" add this label here? Is it not "well-poisoning" here? nableezy - 16:10, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that calling someone an "anti-Zionist" is a BLP violation, but since most of those names didn't have sources supporting them, I removed them. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- You removed a name for which there is a source, namely Eveland. Also, the other names are backed by Moshe Gat in The Jewish exodus from Iraq (page 178, footnote 64). nableezy - 18:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- I did not remove Eveland, he was in the next sentence. Not sure why we need him twice. There are some other problems with this list:
- Who's Marion Wolfsohn and why is their opinion notable?
- Since Hirsh is sourced to Gat, shouldn't we note that?
- Gat is critical of Avneri et al, since we're using him as a source, again, shouldn't his opinion be noted? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:53, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, I did not notice that Eveland was in the next sentence. You are right, he isnt needed twice, ill clean that up. How would you like to note that Avnery and Hirst are sourced to Gat besides the reference saying it sourced to Gat? Is Gat's work not already included in that section, or do you just want to include the specific criticism by Gat of the others? I dont know who Wolfson is, but Gat apparently does and saw that view as being worthy of inclusion in that book. Notability does not determine content, WP:N applies to whether or not articles should exist, not what goes in them. That said, I dont particularly care if Wolfsohn is removed. nableezy - 19:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- I'll make a note of the fact notability does not determine content. This issue comes up a lot. Anyway, the wording of this whole paragraph is problematic. Who says these people share Giladi's position? That's OR. It's particularly strange since his writing is from a later date. Giladi himself is not an expert on these matters and it seems his opinions were self-pusblished. The whole paragraph needs work, it looks like it was lifted verbatim from the Naeim Giladi article.
- I suggest something along the lines of Avneri and Hirst say it's Israel who done it, while Gat says the evidence doesn't support that claim and that and Avneri doesn't know what he's talking about. CIA officer Eveland also thinks it's Israel.
- Could use some refining. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:23, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- I haven't looked closely into the details of this dispute, but just a few notes on policy.
- 1. Calling someone an anti-Zionist without a source that calls them an anti-Zionist is clearly a BLP violation. Such statements must be removed until a source is found that supports them.
- 2. Similarly it is clearly against policy to say that two or more writers agree with each other unless a source says that they agree. It is not acceptable for a Wikipedia editor to look at the writing of two or more writers, conclude that they agree, and put that conclusion in a Wikipedia article. This is a clear violation of WP:OR. If the writers are still living, it also may violate WP:BLP.
- 3. Although nableezy is correct that WP:N applies only to the existence of articles, not their content, Wikipedia has another policy on undue weight, part of our neutral point of view policy, that does apply to content. It says, among other things, that some sources are so minor that they do not merit being mentioned at all. Since Marion Wolfsohn seems not to be notable enough to have an article of his own, it's quite possible that a successful argument could be made that mentioning his views could violate that policy (but I haven't looked into it closely enough to form an opinion of my own on the question).
- I hope this clarifies the relevant policies. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 20:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- I have now added a source, Philip Mendes of Latrobe University, who mentions all of the anti-Zionist sources, so labels them, and says that they share the same opinion on the Baghdad bombings. I don't consider this the last word on the matter, but it's a beginning. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 01:00, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- There is no definition of "anti-Zionist" that would allow Uri Avnery to be called an anti-Zionist. I dont feel this mention of a "number of anti-Zionist authors" and the grouping of Avnery and Eveland and the others can be used to call these living people "anti-Zionist". I also fail to see why these people should be labeled at all. We dont preface any mention of a Zionist author with the word "Zionist". nableezy - 02:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- I have now added a source, Philip Mendes of Latrobe University, who mentions all of the anti-Zionist sources, so labels them, and says that they share the same opinion on the Baghdad bombings. I don't consider this the last word on the matter, but it's a beginning. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 01:00, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- I did not remove Eveland, he was in the next sentence. Not sure why we need him twice. There are some other problems with this list:
- You removed a name for which there is a source, namely Eveland. Also, the other names are backed by Moshe Gat in The Jewish exodus from Iraq (page 178, footnote 64). nableezy - 18:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Here are a couple more sources - Morris about a committee that checked the allegations and Segev saying that evidence in the archives gives the impression that Mossad agents and their handlers didn't know who was responsible. I suggest we tighten the whole thing up into one paragraph describing both views (I don't think we need a long list of "me too"s) which can be used in the other 2-3 articles that have this exact same information.
I don't care if we use "anti-Zionist" or not. I do think we should stick to RS, which Giladi for one doesn't seem to be. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- That sounds like a plan. We dont need to go into too much depth, we do have an article about this. Would you like to propose a draft paragraph? nableezy - 14:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- I agree that my edit is far from a solution, hopefully one small step in the right direction. I think it would be better if those writers currently described as anti-Zionist are clarified as being anti-Zionist according to Mendes. I mainly wanted to make clear that the list actually came from a source, a source that's clearly identified in several other articles that have a near-identical paragraph. I think wee ought to be clear that there are two prevailing theories about who did the bombings and that the advocates of both theories are seen by their opponents as having an agenda. Agreed? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 22:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- I'm alarmed that anyone should be thinking of labelling writers at all in this article. It's a history article and has to be written up from the works of historians. If historians differ then both views must be given, but we really ought not to attach labels to our sources. And if writers aren't being used as sources in the article then it isn't relevant to mention them. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:01, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- I agree that my edit is far from a solution, hopefully one small step in the right direction. I think it would be better if those writers currently described as anti-Zionist are clarified as being anti-Zionist according to Mendes. I mainly wanted to make clear that the list actually came from a source, a source that's clearly identified in several other articles that have a near-identical paragraph. I think wee ought to be clear that there are two prevailing theories about who did the bombings and that the advocates of both theories are seen by their opponents as having an agenda. Agreed? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 22:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Jim Fitzgerald's edits
Jim Fitzgerald made a number of edits to the article today. Most of them are problematic. When some were removed, he restored them without discussion.
- [1] adds that only Jews "affiliated with zionism or suspected in espionage against their home countries" were expelled from Egypt and Libya, without a source. There are other unsoruced claims in this edit.
- [2] labels JCPA as "pro-Israel" and World Organization of Jews from Arab Countries as "pro-Zionist" again without a source and not explaining why either is necessary.
- [3] uses the "Historical Boy's Clothing" site as a source. Obviously not WP:RS. This also contradicts sourced information lower in the article.
- [4] added that "The Jews from Arab states vociferously reject the idea that they fled Arab lands as refugees..." this generalization is not supported by the source. And even if it was, the source is an opinion piece by an activist and should be attributed. Also, correct information from the op-ed was already summarized in the article, as we shall see below.
- [5] added a quote from a primary source about a statement made in 1947 that any injustice against the Palestinians will "disturb the harmony" with the Jews. Linking that to the Jews leaving without a secondary source saying so is WP:OR
- [6] removed summary of op-ed discussed above and expanded with quotes. WP:UNDUE.
- [7] added a quote from Tom Segev. While the information is relevant and properly sourced, it repeats the summary of the situation two paragraphs above. Not sure if this is necessary.
These edits should be reverted. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:52, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- I am addressing your comments right now (today), some of which I find substantiated.-- Jim Fitzgerald post 08:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- So far today you have:
- [8] commented out sourced information so it is not displayed to the reader and labeled a historian as "Pro-Zionist".
- [9] added a source (I'm not sure about its reliability) that doesn't say only Jews involved in the Lavon affair left Egypt, while the text you added yesterday to the article does.
- [10] added a self published source as a reference, not exactly sure for what.
- All this combined with your edits yesterday is quite unacceptable and obviously tendentious. I'd like to remind you this article is under ARBPIA sanctions. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:13, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- So far today you have: