Talk:Martin van Creveld

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

bomb European capitals[edit]

Is the only "source" for this the rense.com article? Because rense is, by wiki's own word, a conspiracy, hoax, and Holocaust denial propagating site run by a crank. This should be removed, unless a reliable source for this allegation can be found, in which case it should be replaced. Y.

Sorry, I know Martin van Creveld. I am credited in one of his books. The link that was given is a complete misrepresentation of his views. I replaced it with another link. Danny 21:29 Feb 18, 2003 (UTC)

I was also concerned about the source of that new Martin Van Creveld article on the IAP site "quoting" him saying "we could destroy all European capitals". Im not as certain about its validity as you are. "Does "more reliable" sources, however, mean sanitized sources? And wouldnt the act of sanitizing news sources be propagandist? -PackardGoose

ps. I hadnt noticed that you commented here. Ill have to take your word about that article - it does seem like a highly irresponsible position to take. -PackardGoose

The quote in the history doesn't make much sense either. He said they could hit most European capitals, even Rome -- isn't Rome one of the closest capitals to Israel? If Rome is the furthest extent, then they probably couldn't hit much outside of the Balkans and Hungary and Romania -- hardly most. Tuf-Kat

Actually, van Crefeld is quite an outspoken advocate of the peace camp in Israel. Like I said, I worked with him on a project about ten years ago and I've followed his career to some degree. He is not an advocate of "transfer" or any ridiculous plan to bomb Europe. In fact, I never ever heard anyone advocate that, and I've followed the Israeli extreme right quite extensively. Danny

Well, I'm glad someone's on top of this, because we cant simply blot out a potentially valid newsourse like the IAP on the basis of a few mis-stated reports. Who doesnt omplex get it completely wrong on a regular basis.. The site didnt bother to host that article itself anyway... suspicious. Be well done 'Vert

Thanks for all your work, I got to this article because of the "Bomb European Capitals" quote, and to my surprise it's clarified in this talk page Marty4286 21:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am not sure what is being said in the source, I think it is being taken out of context at the least. At any rate it is it not a primary source? I think it should be deleted unless an other source can be found.KAM 23:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have been looking, but cannot find a primary source for this quote. Many online sites refer to "an interview published in Jerusalem", without specifying a source. Some sources credit the interview to Ferry Biedermann, and claim that it was published in "the prominent Dutch magazine Elsevier" on 31 January 2003. As far as I know, Elsevier is a publisher, not a magazine; and I can find no trace of this interview on their website. Without a primary source, it is difficult to know whether the interview ever actually took place, let alone whether this is an accurate and in-context extract; it certainly seems at variance with van Creveld's expressed views elsewhere.
I should add, though this is obviously not an acceptable source, that an Israeli friend of mine reports that a mutual friend spoke to van Creveld, who denied ever giving such an interview. I will see if I can clarify this. Meanwhile, although I do not propose at present to remove the section, I may do so in the future if I establish that it is indeed false or misleading. If someone can find a reliable primary source, that should be substituted for the current secondary one. RolandR 18:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Last year, it seems, nobody has been able to trace the original source. I have experienced the same difficulties as reported by RolandR. I have found numerous websites with translations of the interview (reportedly from Dutch), in English and in German, most of them referring (without date or holding data) to Elsevier and the interviewer: Ferry Biedermann. I can tell you that Elsevier is not only a (former) publisher, but also a wellknown Dutch weekly magazine (decent right wing; Martin van Creveld could very well have been interviewed by the magazine, as being a provocative and anti-utopian mind) that is up till now being published every week by Reed Elsevier. Ferry Biedermann has contributed to the magazine in 2002 and 2003, that much is certain. Because the publisher has not digitalized the back issues of the magazine and I could not find content tables either, I have posted the question to the magazine's helpdesk and will let you know the answer. Theobald Tiger (talk) 12:27, 29 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Elsevier's helpdesk has sent me a copy (pdf-scan of the original pages) of the interview. The interview appeared in Elsevier 2002, no. 17, p.52-53 (27 April 2002). The interviewer is Ferry Biedermann. The English translation is correct. The context is a piece of speculation on the part of Van Creveld. The subject is the Intifadah and the Israeli response as a blind alley and the possibility that Ariel Sharon aims at a more radical approach. To adstruct his case Van Creveld hints at the power of the Israeli army (2nd or 3d in the world), the determination of Sharon (he never acts impromptu and he has always a plan) and the justified determination of Israel to survive at all cost. Theobald Tiger (talk) 09:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Issue closed. Theobald Tiger (talk) 15:00, 6 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Iran would be crazy[edit]

Not sure the quote about Iran and Nuclear Weapons is useful information. John Pilger's quote is different than the one in the International Herald Tribune, but he provides no reference. Stephanwehner

book reference[edit]

Where's a reference to The Rise and Decline of the State ?

In the new published works section. - BT 18:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Removal of section due to BLP concerns[edit]

I removed the following section of material:

Controversial Statements and Views

As a teacher at Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Van Creveld became also known and widely criticized for his controversial views on women. In 2000, for instance, he stated that the majority of women do not learn anything in class; they only sit and warm up the chair. Between 2000 and 2006 he taught several research seminars with controversial titles, such as "The History of the Privileged Sex" (that is, of women). In the core of his misogynistic philosophy stands a notion that in the modern society women abuse their privileges against men. The men, on the other hand, are badly underprivileged and deprived of their basic rights. He also believes that women tend to be one of the main causes of all wars in history. The controversy was resolved in 2007, when a group of female students, former and present, filed a petition against Van Creveld, to be submitted to the university authorities. As a result, Van Creveld was deprived of his tenure and forced to retire. His overall attitude toward women is expressed and summarized in his Men, women and war (2001).

because it was not supported by references. I don't know one way or the other whether the material is true or not, but my understanding of the BLP guidelines is that material such as this needs to be firmly supported by citation. I'm going to leave a note on the talk page of the IP editor who posted it to inform them of this edit. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 23:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An attempt was made to re-post this material, with citations in Hebrew, and then with an English translation of the title of the citation only, but I removed them -- citations need to be in English. I've done my own search on Google, using various search terms, and have found nothing that corroborates this material. The same is true of the site for the English language version of Haaretz - nothing at all. Same for the website of Hebrew University, not even a press release on this subject. Indeed, HU lists MVC as an active member of the faculty, which rather contradicts the assertion that he was forced to retire. I've contacted Professor Van Creveld for his thoughts on the material. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 03:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Profesor van Creveld has responded to my inquiry:

Finally, is true that I am now retired, but not for the reasons indicated. Nobody deprived me of my tenure. After 36 years, I simply felt that preferred to devote myself entirely to research, as I am doing right now.

Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 08:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi,
Not to restart a dead discussion, just to elucidate where the rumours may have originated:
http://www.dialoginternational.com/dialog_international/2011/11/martin-van-creveld-and-academic-freedom-in-germany.html
"Actually the military historian Martin van Creveld was supposed to spend three months conducting research and lecturing at the University's Interdisciplinary Research Center for History and Culture (/at U of Trier; my add. T /). But now the university has dismissed the scholar - under pressure from the students /.../"
T 88.89.219.147 (talk) 17:56, 9 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008[edit]

Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 17:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regarding The Transformation of War[edit]

It is no longer on the Chief of Staff of the US Army's reading list. Recommed deletion of the sentence that states it is the only book by a foreigner on the list. However, he does have another book on logistics on the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.196.198.111 (talk) 01:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 03:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

German entry in list with published works[edit]

Is there a good reason for the German entry in the list with published works?

  • (in German)Kampfkraft : militärische Organisation und militärische Leistung, 1939-1945, Freiburg : Verlag Rombach, 1989, ISBN 3-7930-0189-X

As far as I am aware Kampfkraft is a translation of Fighting Power and as such it is the only translation - among many in several languages - included in the list. Theobald Tiger (talk) 13:23, 28 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If so, why not go ahead and remove it? Ed Fitzgerald t / c 08:25, 29 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done. (Feeling uneasy in a foreign Wikipedia domain I needed some encouragement. Thank you for that!) Theobald Tiger (talk) 09:05, 29 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The only non-American on officers reading list?[edit]

The only non-American on officers reading list? The CSA reading list also features Sun Tsu and Von Clausewitz, which are not Americans. User:81.165.16.155 14:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The remark is correct. Sun-Tsu and Clausewitz added. Theobald Tiger (talk) 17:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Van Creveld remark re: defense of Israel[edit]

In a September 2003 interview in Elsevier (Dutch weekly) on Israel and the dangers it faces from Iran, the Palestinians and world opinion van Creveld stated:

We possess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets and can launch them at targets in all directions, perhaps even at Rome. Most European capitals are targets for our air force…. We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that that will happen before Israel goes under.[4]

4.41.149|78.14.41.149]] (talk) 16:39, 22 March 2010 (UTC) change for readability -DePiep (talk) 01:19, 2 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is not true, please read this http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/2010/03/12/martin-van-creveld-victim-of-intellectual-fraud/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.14.41.149 (talk) 16:39, 22 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have a PDF scan of the original interview which contains the contended quotation. The interview appeared in Elsevier 2002, no. 17, p.52-53 (27 April 2002). The interviewer is Ferry Biedermann. The English translation of the quote (the interview was published in Dutch) is correct. The context of the quote is given above (under the heading bomb European capitals). I am prepared to send a copy of the PDF scans upon request. Theobald Tiger (talk) 07:56, 3 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can you just upload them somewhere or post a link to where we can get them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.217.44.6 (talk) 05:00, 4 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, since the interview was published under copyright restrictions, I am not allowed to do so. If you want to have a copy of the interview (in Dutch) you have to send me an email. If you create an account, you'll find a link on my (empty) Userpage. Theobald Tiger (talk) 08:36, 7 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Arabist"[edit]

An editor wants to remove the description of "Arabist" from Jason Pack in this article. Since a "chemist" studies chemistry, a "physicist" studies physics, an "Arabist" studies the Arab world. Why would this editor want this description removed? BMK (talk) 04:38, 19 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

BMK, the second definition of "Arabist" is highly political, the second definition is someone who is seen or viewed as pro-Arab or biased towards Arabs; that's why I removed it. In the US discourse, "Arabist" is usually employed negatively to refer to someone who is biased towards Arabs; it is often used on people who haven't studied the Arabic language or culture. Here's one source, another one.George Al-Shami (talk) 04:46, 19 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's the second definition, not the primary one -- but if you have a word for "someone who studies the Arab world" which you think is less politicized than "Arabist", then replace "Arabist: with it. If you don't, then leave it in, because it tells us something about the man's field of study. BMK (talk) 04:51, 19 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, here's an article on this. The first paragraph sums it up succinctly; "Arabists are not like other area specialists, at least not in the popular imagination. If one refers to an Africanist or a Latin Americanist, the image evoked is that of someone who has specialized in the history, languages and cultures of these regions and who has spent some time there. No pejorative connotations would automatically come to mind. With Arabists, however, there is a more sinister implication: anyone who has taken the time to master Arabic, or who has lived for long in the Arab world, must be anti-Israeli, struck by the disease of "clientitis," a bit romantic. Like the old China hands in the 1950s, they are widely viewed with suspicion.".George Al-Shami (talk)
Sorry, but this is just another example of the Euphemism treadmill. "Orientalist" fell into disfavor with Edward Said, now "Arabist" is being deep-sixed by those with an axe to grind. (Here on Wikipedia, we call them "POV editors".) If you have no replacement, then "Arabist" it is. BMK (talk) 05:07, 19 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will look for a neutral (NPOV) one as I am familiarize myself more with the person in question's work. BMK, it's very sad that you continue to assume bad faith in other people's edits that are not your own. As I said before, in US discourse the "Arabist" term is employed in a pejorative sense. Objecting to a highly politicized term that does not comply with Wikipedia's NPOV guideline, does not make an editor a POV pusher.George Al-Shami (talk) 05:17, 19 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Think of it this way, if the term weren't pejorative, then the scholars themselves would employ it readily to describe themselves, but that's rarely the case. In his own Oxford page he talks about his "research" and in other outlets they refer to him as a "Mid-East researcher".George Al-Shami (talk) 05:28, 19 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please spare me your bullshit about how "very sad" I am, it carries no weight coming from you. Just find a politically-correct adjective that's acceptable to you to replace "Arabist" and replace it -- or not. BMK (talk) 05:54, 19 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Again! with this abrasive and unproductive language, this is shocking coming from a seasoned editor; I have never encountered this type of language from an experienced editor, nor from an ip editor for that matter. Please reread what I said; I said that it's sad that you are quick to assume bad faith in other people's edits, I never said that you were sad. I'm sorry we can discuss, but this type of language is unacceptable. George Al-Shami (talk) 01:09, 20 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If I take a look at his personal webpage on the website of the University of Cambridge and his Libya Analysis-webpage and his Al Jazeera-webpage, Pack is both a historian of the Middle-East, and a writer about the history and the current affairs of the Middle-East, with emphasis on Libya. To call him an Arabist could better be avoided, as an Arabist is a specialist in the Arab language/literature/written culture in the first place, and an ideological position in the Arab-Jewish conflict in the second place. Theobald Tiger (talk) 08:09, 20 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for your input.George Al-Shami (talk) 20:18, 21 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Martin van Creveld. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Martin van Creveld. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:46, 28 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]