Talk:Ilan Pappé

---

NPOV in the introduction section

In this section:

"Pappé is one of Israel's New Historians who, since the release of pertinent British and Israeli government documents in the early 1980s, have been rewriting the history of Israel's creation in 1948, and the corresponding expulsion or flight of 700,000 Palestinians in the same year. He has written that the expulsions were not decided on an ad hoc basis, as other historians have argued, but constituted the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, in accordance with Plan Dalet, drawn up in 1947 by Israel's future leaders.[7] He blames the creation of Israel for the lack of peace in the Middle East, arguing that Zionism is more dangerous than Islamic militancy, and has called for an international boycott of Israeli academics.[8][9]"

There is a clear failure of NPOV. Terms such as "rewriting history" with a hyperlink to revisionism or implications such as "as other historians have argued" suggest an inherent misdirection or that there is not academic debate around the subject, but rather an established agreement which Pappe intentionally subverts for political reasons. I would appreciate if this could be addressed.

Retuu (talk) 13:20, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

I do not think that your interpretation is correct. The section is saying that there is an established historical interpretation which Pappe and other New Historians are challenging. That is common in historical studies and does not mean that either side is necessarily right. See the New Historians page for more on this. However, by all means propose specific changes on this page if you wish. Jontel (talk) 14:27, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

"rape took place in every village"

Is a claim that can't be disproven, but perhaps be contradicted (as one can contradict anything, something that is occassioanlly called 'denial'). What can be done is to point out that the claim lacks evidence or that there is problems with the evidence. 196.25.221.94 (talk) 06:11, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Changing a published work reference

I write here to note that I replaced The Bureaucracy of Evil in Published work because I can't find reference to it as a standalone book, but I did find that there's a chapter with the same name in The Biggest Prison on Earth, also published by Oneworld. Please let me know if I'm remiss!

– spida-tarbell ❀ (talk) (contribs) 23:33, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

RAM

Professor Ram is a sociologist, so there is no ability to analyze the truth of a historical article, only to analyze a sociological signal. That's why I deleted it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by שמי (2023) (talk • contribs) 23:20, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

It's a book review, not a response to the claims of the book. It was published in a peer-reviewed journal, so they clearly think that Professor Ram's opinion of the book is notable. ... discospinster _talk 23:25, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I believe that the content from EI can stay, regardless of the reliability or depreciation of the source, does someone disagree?

While EI is obviously controversial and currently depreciated per RFC: Electronic Intifada? I believe that all content sourced here is acceptable due to ABOUTSELF, unless a better source is found. Does someone disagree? FortunateSons (talk) 11:14, 28 January 2024 (UTC)