m WPBIO banner fixes + cleanup (Task: 17) using AWB (8413) |
→Naughty Dr Brawer: new section |
||
Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
I think we need a direct quote from citation #3 about his position on the two-state solution for neutrality's sake. Currently, the text speaks on Khalidi's behalf, which is problematic. A direct quote would be better. |
I think we need a direct quote from citation #3 about his position on the two-state solution for neutrality's sake. Currently, the text speaks on Khalidi's behalf, which is problematic. A direct quote would be better. |
||
[[User:Ismee|Ismee]] ([[User talk:Ismee|talk]]) 00:43, 21 November 2010 (UTC) |
[[User:Ismee|Ismee]] ([[User talk:Ismee|talk]]) 00:43, 21 November 2010 (UTC) |
||
== Naughty Dr Brawer == |
|||
The article features the following sentence, alleged to be a quotation from the 1945 Village Statistics. I have checked that it appears exactly like this in the review of Moshe Brawer. |
|||
: The population estimates published here cannot, however, be considered other than rough estimates which in some instances may ultimate be found to differ considerable from the actual figures. (Brawer, ''Israel Affairs'' 1, 1994, p. 340) |
|||
However, the original does not have that sentence at all. Brawer has constructed it by joining two sentences together with some contrary words removed. Note how the deleted words weaken Brawer's case that the source is unreliable: |
|||
: The population estimates published here '''are the result of a very detailed work conducted by the Department of Statistics, by using all the statistical material available on the subject. They''' cannot, however, be considered other than rough estimates which in some instances may ultimate be found to differ considerable from the actual figures. (Village Statistics 1945, Explanatory Note, para A/5) |
|||
This would be unacceptable even with an ellipsis to mark the missing text. Let's say it was an honest mistake; either way we shouldn't repeat distortions. The 1945 survey was not a census and obviously not as accurate as one, but it is the best available except in certain locations and is cited very frequently by scholars. [[User:Zero0000|Zero]]<sup><small>[[User_talk:Zero0000|talk]]</small></sup> 10:49, 10 September 2015 (UTC) |
|||
As a general matter, the report of Brawer's here is too long, and it violates NPOV to present it on its own without any contrary opinions. [[User:Zero0000|Zero]]<sup><small>[[User_talk:Zero0000|talk]]</small></sup> 10:49, 10 September 2015 (UTC) |
Revision as of 10:49, 10 September 2015
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Untitled
To many, Walid Khalidi is a caricature of the Oxford don that he once was: Articulate, erudite, and somewhat eccentric, which in America translates as "absent-minded." How many people have come up to me over the years to ask: "Can this man really be a Palestinian? He seems so British, so Oxonian, so aristocratic." My response is always: "Well, he is an Oxonian and he is aristocratic, and I can assure you that every day Walid Khalidi wakes up a Palestinian." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.180.136.229 (talk) 13:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
needs a criticism section
Khalidi needs a criticism section. Pro-israel historians always have one, so why not the anti-Israel ones?Tallicfan20 (talk) 02:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- I don't know about "anti-Israeli" historians, but articles on pro-Palestinian ones do have criticism sections. This article just happens not to have one presently; if you have reliable criticism sources then by all means add a Criticism section. --Al Ameer son (talk) 03:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
More citations
Let's get some more citations for Khalidi's view of the solution to the conflict for some perspective and balance. Currently there's just one.Ismee (talk) 00:43, 21 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ismee (talk • contribs) 00:39, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
I think we need a direct quote from citation #3 about his position on the two-state solution for neutrality's sake. Currently, the text speaks on Khalidi's behalf, which is problematic. A direct quote would be better. Ismee (talk) 00:43, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Naughty Dr Brawer
The article features the following sentence, alleged to be a quotation from the 1945 Village Statistics. I have checked that it appears exactly like this in the review of Moshe Brawer.
- The population estimates published here cannot, however, be considered other than rough estimates which in some instances may ultimate be found to differ considerable from the actual figures. (Brawer, Israel Affairs 1, 1994, p. 340)
However, the original does not have that sentence at all. Brawer has constructed it by joining two sentences together with some contrary words removed. Note how the deleted words weaken Brawer's case that the source is unreliable:
- The population estimates published here are the result of a very detailed work conducted by the Department of Statistics, by using all the statistical material available on the subject. They cannot, however, be considered other than rough estimates which in some instances may ultimate be found to differ considerable from the actual figures. (Village Statistics 1945, Explanatory Note, para A/5)
This would be unacceptable even with an ellipsis to mark the missing text. Let's say it was an honest mistake; either way we shouldn't repeat distortions. The 1945 survey was not a census and obviously not as accurate as one, but it is the best available except in certain locations and is cited very frequently by scholars. Zerotalk 10:49, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
As a general matter, the report of Brawer's here is too long, and it violates NPOV to present it on its own without any contrary opinions. Zerotalk 10:49, 10 September 2015 (UTC)