Screen stalker (talk | contribs) Forgot to add this when I archived. |
Screen stalker (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 48: | Line 48: | ||
OK. The case for trimming the tangental parts of the "Yishuv aims" and "Preparation" subsections has been firmly established. I've decided to take a crack at the implementation. Feel free to discuss here. <br> |
OK. The case for trimming the tangental parts of the "Yishuv aims" and "Preparation" subsections has been firmly established. I've decided to take a crack at the implementation. Feel free to discuss here. <br> |
||
I deleted everything that occurred prior to 1947 and shortened some of the quotations for redundancy. I still don't think its all relevant. The unstated major premise is that the the Yishuv had the means to bring about the exodus, therefore the exodus was planned the whole time. This is an [[argument from final consequences]] and a [[logical fallacy]], but this is a problem I have with all the "master plan" advocates and I suppose we are obligated to include all significant points of view, even if some of those points of view are severely flawed in their application of the [[historical method]]. --[[User:GHcool|GHcool]] ([[User talk:GHcool|talk]]) 17:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC) |
I deleted everything that occurred prior to 1947 and shortened some of the quotations for redundancy. I still don't think its all relevant. The unstated major premise is that the the Yishuv had the means to bring about the exodus, therefore the exodus was planned the whole time. This is an [[argument from final consequences]] and a [[logical fallacy]], but this is a problem I have with all the "master plan" advocates and I suppose we are obligated to include all significant points of view, even if some of those points of view are severely flawed in their application of the [[historical method]]. --[[User:GHcool|GHcool]] ([[User talk:GHcool|talk]]) 17:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC) |
||
:[[User:GHcool|GHcool]], you never fail to impress. [[User:Screen stalker|Screen stalker]] ([[User talk:Screen stalker|talk]]) 23:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 23:39, 26 February 2008
Palestine Start‑class Mid‑importance | ||||||||||
|
| |||
---|---|---|---|
Archive 1, Archive 2, Archive 3, Archive 4 |
Importance tags
I reverted the removal of the importance tags. I was the person to add them originally. While I accept that the Yishuv's pre-1948 goals and planning for a future autonomous Jewish state are important topics for historical analysis, I (and other here) found this topic to be highly tangential to the topic of the causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus. This article should be reserved for discussions of the direct and immediate causes for the exodus, not for things that may have happened decades prior to it.
This is not just an anti-Israel/pro-Israel issue of neutrality. This is an issue of does this even belong here or not. It certainly belongs somewhere, but not here. Perhaps the time has come for us all to work out what from these sections do and do not belong in the "causes of ..." article. My first suggestion would be to throw out everything that took place prior to 1947. --GHcool (talk) 00:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- Well said, GHcool. Allow me to add that I am not opposed to adding causes that are not immediate, provided that they are causes of the exodus (as opposed to explanations, discussions, analyses, articulations, descriptions, etc.) Screen stalker (talk) 01:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- Pappe has written a book about the causes of the exodus, and he finds these elements important. Thus the inclusion is warrented by a reliable source.
- We already discussed this earlier: [1]. --JaapBoBo (talk) 07:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- The issue wasn't resolved then. Now is as good a time as any to resolve the issue, I suppose.
- I have read neither "The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine" nor "The Palestinian Exodus of 1948," but if the titles are representative of the articles Pappe wrote, then JaapBoBo's claim that "Pappe has written a book about the causes of the exodus" is a false premise. Pappe wrote an article about the entire exodus, not just the causes of the exodus. The bits quoted from "Ethnic Cleansing" and "Palestinian Exodus" may be unrelated to the immediate causes, and in fact, they are.
- Furthermore, Pappe is not the only scholar quoted in these sections. Morris and Flapan are cited with quotes tangential to the immediate causes of the exodus wrenched out of their research. --GHcool (talk) 07:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- I don't understand why we need to shove square pegs into round holes. These sections don't explain the causes of the exodus, so why do we need them in the article? Surely no one thinks this article is too short. Screen stalker (talk) 18:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Pappe gives the master plan as the cause of the ethnic cleansing. The "master plan" did not emerge out of a vacuum, but was related to certain Zionist aims. Also it's implementation was made easier by certain preparations the Zionists had taken. Pappe describes these as integral parts of the causes. --JaapBoBo (talk) 15:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- We discussed before that the whole article should be re-structured.
- I felt quite lonely for that discussion.
- Yishuv's aims is only part of the 1948 palestinian exodus in Pappe's theory given for the other historians, there was no aim of expulsion before July or even no aim of expulsion at all.
- Ceedjee (talk) 16:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- @ JaapBoBo, it is one thing to make a passing reference to the fact that the Yishuv had made preparations for war, which made alleged expulsion easier. It is another thing altogether to create multiple sections devoted to this issue and to pack them full of different pieces of evidence. I would be in favor of making a short reference explaining the argument that you just made. But, as you'll notice, it only took you one paragraph to make that argument.
- @ Ceedjee, I am increasingly inclined to agree with you that the article simply needs to be entirely rewritten. Unfortunately, I feel that it will be years before we get consensus for any particular format. Screen stalker (talk) 16:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yes. Unfortunately. Ceedjee (talk) 08:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- @Ceedjee: Pappe certainly does not think that the master plan existed only in July 1948. That's your opinion.
- JaapBoBo. This is not what I wrote here above.
- Pappe claims the ethnic cleansing started as soos as Dec'47. It is written in chap.2.
- (and I hope Pappe is proud of his students here and there)
- The hypothesis of Pappe IS JUST ONE and so the article should not be structured too much around this. Yishuv's aims are only relevant in Pappe's picture.
- Regards, Ceedjee (talk) 08:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- @ScreenStalker, GHcool: I don't see anything irrelevant in these section, nor something from sources that don't support the 'master plan' (except for Morris, but if I remember well that part was added by Screeenstalker). Pappe, Flapan and Walid Khalidi support the master plan. --JaapBoBo (talk) 23:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- You forgot Finkelstein, Masalha and Vidal. But Karsh, Teveth, Gelber, Tal and Laurens, doesn't support this.
- Why do you systematically forget this. You are tiring.
- Ceedjee (talk) 08:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- @ScreenStalker: I have no experience with archiving talk pages, but could you take a look at the archive of this talk page? I believe something went wrong the last time because I don't see a fourth archive page. Thx! --JaapBoBo (talk) 23:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- JaapBoBo, we are aware that you think the master plan is relevant to the "causes of" article. I believe I speak for all of us here when I say that we agree with you on this point. Furthermore, I think I speak for all of us when I say that a discussion of the causes of the Palestinian exodus no longer has enough relevance for this Wikipedia article beyond a certain point in history. For most of us here, that point would be roughly around November 1947, when the UN Partition Plan was accepted and the 1948 Palestinian exodus was in the genesis of being caused. For you, JaapBoBo, that point seems to exist some time in the 1930s or even beyond, before the Palestinian exodus was even a military or political possibility.
- The difference between Pappe's book and our Wikipedia article is that Pappe's book is the length of a book and our Wikipedia article is 134 kb (and should be shorter). Pappe not only has all the space he wants, he also has the liberty and obligation to give his readers his view on the entire background of the Arab-Israeli conflict. We don't have that kind of open ended liberty over space and content in this article and so we're going to have to resort to only writing about the specific topic denoted by the article's title. Thank you. --GHcool (talk) 00:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Pappe gives the master plan as the cause of the ethnic cleansing. The "master plan" did not emerge out of a vacuum, but was related to certain Zionist aims. Also it's implementation was made easier by certain preparations the Zionists had taken. Pappe describes these as integral parts of the causes. --JaapBoBo (talk) 15:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- I don't understand why we need to shove square pegs into round holes. These sections don't explain the causes of the exodus, so why do we need them in the article? Surely no one thinks this article is too short. Screen stalker (talk) 18:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Implementation
OK. The case for trimming the tangental parts of the "Yishuv aims" and "Preparation" subsections has been firmly established. I've decided to take a crack at the implementation. Feel free to discuss here.
I deleted everything that occurred prior to 1947 and shortened some of the quotations for redundancy. I still don't think its all relevant. The unstated major premise is that the the Yishuv had the means to bring about the exodus, therefore the exodus was planned the whole time. This is an argument from final consequences and a logical fallacy, but this is a problem I have with all the "master plan" advocates and I suppose we are obligated to include all significant points of view, even if some of those points of view are severely flawed in their application of the historical method. --GHcool (talk) 17:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- GHcool, you never fail to impress. Screen stalker (talk) 23:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)