| Revision as of 09:56, 27 November 2006 editAmoruso (talk | contribs)13,357 edits →Discussion:← Previous edit | Revision as of 09:56, 27 November 2006 edit undoAmoruso (talk | contribs)13,357 editsm →Discussion:Next edit → | ||
| Line 33: | Line 33: | ||
| <!-- Your Advocate will discuss the case with you in this section. --> | <!-- Your Advocate will discuss the case with you in this section. --> | ||
| '''Comment''': ] is a notable writer who has written an extensively quoted peer-reviewed book about the conflict. You can see the number of uses here and mentions in google scholar here You can see an editorial review of Katz here . ] has already explained to ] that it's all right to quote Katz regardless of this here | '''Comment''': ] is a notable writer who has written an extensively quoted peer-reviewed book about the conflict. You can see the number of uses here and mentions in google scholar here You can see an editorial review of Katz here . ] has already explained to ] that it's all right to quote Katz regardless of this here | ||
| Katz is quoted in scholary journals : 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 book and web-site you can see that easily. They 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 ] since Ian Pitchford has removed whole chunks of material that weren't quoted to Katz at all and also contemporary quotes regarding Hezbollah and a whole lot of different things - see here Mind you, he provided no edit summary for these mass removals unwarranted of materials and he used popups in order to do it. Seems clear sources should be restored in their full as we don't want to represent only one ] in the article which if you see is surprisngly or not the consequence of this removal..... ] 09:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | 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 book and web-site you can see that easily. They 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 ] since Ian Pitchford has removed whole chunks of material that weren't quoted to Katz at all and also contemporary quotes regarding Hezbollah and a whole lot of different things - see here Mind you, he provided no edit summary for these mass removals unwarranted of materials and he used popups in order to do it. Seems clear sources should be restored in their full as we don't want to represent only one ] in the article which if you see is surprisngly or not the consequence of this removal..... ] 09:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 09:56, 27 November 2006
Wikipedian filing request:
Other Wikipedians this pertains to:
Misplaced Pages pages this pertains to:
Questions:
Have you read the AMA FAQ?
- Answer: Yes
How would you describe the nature of this dispute? (policy violation, content dispute, personal attack, other)
- Answer: content dispute
What methods of Dispute Resolution have you tried so far? If you can, please provide wikilinks so that the Advocate looking over this case can see what you have done.
What do you expect to get from Advocacy?
- Answer: Clarification of policy and correct procedures.
Summary:
Much of the material being added to this page is inconsistent with the scholarly consensus on the causes of the Palestinian exodus and is sourced to a book by a Revisionist politician Shmuel Katz who was involved in the exodus as an Irgun propagandist and member of the high command. I believe that the use of this material is a clear violation of WP:V and brings Misplaced Pages into serious disrepute.
Discussion:
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 and mentions in google scholar here You can see an editorial review of Katz here . user:Avraham has already explained to user:Ian_Pitchford that it's all right to quote Katz regardless of this here Katz is quoted in scholary journals The Johns Hopkins University Press...: 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 book and web-site you can see that easily. They 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 WP:AGF since Ian Pitchford has removed whole chunks of material that weren't quoted to Katz at all and also contemporary quotes regarding Hezbollah and a whole lot of different things - see here Mind you, he provided no edit summary for these mass removals unwarranted of materials and he used popups in order to do it. Seems clear sources should be restored in their full as we don't want to represent only one WP:POV in the article which if you see is surprisngly or not the consequence of this removal..... Amoruso 09:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Followup:
When the case is finished, please take a minute to fill out the following survey:
Did you find the Advocacy process useful?
- Answer:
Did your Advocate handle your case in an appropriate manner?
- Answer:
On a scale of 1 (worst) to 5 (best), how polite was your Advocate?
- Answer:
On a scale of 1 to 5, how effective do you feel your Advocate was in solving the problem?
- Answer:
On a scale of 1 to 5, how effective do you feel the Advocacy process is altogether?
- Answer:
If there were one thing that you would like to see different in the Advocacy process, what would it be?
- Answer:
If you were to deal with this dispute again, what would you do differently, if anything?
- Answer:
AMA Information
Case Status: Template:AMA case status
Advocate Status:
- I haven't had a big case lately, so I'll take it. Open. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 22:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)