Jump to content

Talk:1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight/Archive 14

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16→Archive 20

"Second phase" section: unsupported claims

"Karsh concludes that there was no Jewish grand design to force this departure, nor was there a psychological 'blitz', but that on the contrary, both the Haifa Jewish leadership, including Mayor Shabtai Levy, and the Hagana went to great lengths to convince the Arabs to stay, to no avail."[66][67]

The police report cited does not support that statement.

From the report:

"An appeal has been made to the Arabs by the Jews to reopen their shops and businesses in order to relieve the difficulties of feeding the Arab population."

I would hardly call that "going to great lengths," or even "contrary" to forcing a departure. It sounds like they wanted just enough Arabs to stay behind to mitigate a food crisis. I think the sentence should be kept, but removing the claims that aren't supported by the sources.

"Karsh concludes that there was no Jewish grand design to force this departure, and that in fact the Haifa Jewish leadership tried to convince some Arabs to stay, to no avail." — Preceding unsigned comment added by TimSallinger (talk • contribs) 14:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

This article in Haaretz is about the Haganah's part in the Haifa exodus. Zerotalk 14:14, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

"Palestinian refugees and their descendants are estimated to number ..... how many?

From our article "Palestinian refugees and their descendants are estimated to number more than 7 million people.[23]"

we quote ^ Illan Pappe: The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine "more than 7 million" no page number.

yet, the following Palestinian & other sources say

Request some discussion as to how to change the above line to more honestly reflect the varying statements and opinions out there. Thank you. Snakeswithfeet (talk) 18:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

you can just take a number from a neutral source of information, also not all palestinians who don't live in israel are refugees, some of them left in themselves to other countries — Preceding unsigned comment added by Someone35 (talk • contribs) 12:38, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 17:01, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Correct reference now inserted. RolandR (talk) 18:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 17:01, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I fixed this problem with this edit.   — Jeff G.  ツ 16:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 17:01, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Correct reference now inserted. RolandR (talk) 18:20, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

  • http://ipsnewsite.mysite4now.com/enakba/exodus/Erskine%20Childers,%20Walid%20Khalidi,%20Jon%20Kimche,%20et%20al.pdf
    • In Haifa on 2011-03-22 19:05:11, Socket Error: 'A connection attempt failed because the connected party did not properly respond after a period of time, or established connection failed because connected host has failed to respond'
    • In Haifa on 2011-04-13 04:43:04, Socket Error: 'A connection attempt failed because the connected party did not properly respond after a period of time, or established connection failed because connected host has failed to respond'
    • In Haifa on 2011-04-22 14:45:50, Socket Error: 'A connection attempt failed because the connected party did not properly respond after a period of time, or established connection failed because connected host has failed to respond'
    • In 1948 Palestinian exodus on 2011-05-25 03:23:14, Socket Error: 'A connection attempt failed because the connected party did not properly respond after a period of time, or established connection failed because connected host has failed to respond'
    • In 1948 Palestinian exodus on 2011-06-04 17:01:14, Socket Error: 'A connection attempt failed because the connected party did not properly respond after a period of time, or established connection failed because connected host has failed to respond'

--JeffGBot (talk) 17:01, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Correct reference now inserted. RolandR (talk) 18:24, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 17:01, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I fixed this problem with this edit.   — Jeff G.  ツ 16:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 17:01, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Correct reference now inserted. RolandR (talk) 18:29, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 17:02, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I fixed this problem with this edit.   — Jeff G.  ツ 16:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 17:02, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I fixed this problem with this edit.   — Jeff G.  ツ 16:33, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 17:02, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I fixed this problem with this edit.   — Jeff G.  ツ 16:33, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 17:02, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I fixed this problem with this edit.   — Jeff G.  ツ 16:33, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

It would be much easier to check and correct these links if you could indicate exactly where they are in the article. RolandR (talk) 17:17, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

It's a bot. You might suggest that improvement to User:Jeff G., who runs the bot. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 17:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
I already have done so. RolandR (talk) 17:55, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
That discussion is at User talk:Jeff G.#Dead_links.   — Jeff G.  ツ 16:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Benny Morris quote

I edited as follows, under Changes after the Advent of the New Historians:

"Israel opened up part of its archives in the 1980s for investigation by historians. This coincided with the emergence of various Israeli historians, called New Historians, who favored a more critical analysis of Israel's history. The most famous scholar of this group, Benny Morris, originally concluded that Jewish military attacks were the main direct cause of the exodus, followed by Arab fear due to the fall of a nearby town, Arab fear of impending attack, and expulsions. Later, he revised his conclusions to note that it was not Jewish military attacks, but the war which was launched by the Arabs themselves, that was the major cause of the Arab exodus.[1]"

This reflects Morris' most current book on the topic and also keeps the conclusion of the existing paragraph.

It was reverted with a reference to a line later on that page which loses the context. The entire paragraph reads as follows: "Shertok, of course, was right: the refugee problem was created by the war-- which the Arabs had launched (though the Arabs would argue, then and subsequently, that the Zionist influx was, since its beginning and act of aggression and that the Arab launch of the 1947-1948 war was merely an act of self-defense). And it was that war that propelled most of those displaced out of their houses and into refugeedom. Most fled when their villages and towns came under Jewish attack or out of fear of future attack."

Of course any refugee is fleeing attack or fear of future attack. That's what war is. They're not fleeing attacks or fear of future attacks by their OWN side.

Morris is quite clear. The previous paragraph begins : "As it turned out, it was Palestinian Arab society that was smashed, not the Yishuv. The war created the Palestinian refugee problem."

Morris made this point quite clearly in interviews around the time of publication of this book.

If I am referring to what Benny Morris is writing, then I will want to use his words. Many voices that applauded Morris' previous work were upset at 1948. And the converse is also true. So relying on what he concluded in a previous work and not updating it ignores what he wrote.

Drmikeh49 (talk) 06:16, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I think you didn't read his book about the Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem (Revisited). He already stated that the exodus was a result (a by-product) of war, as in 1948. An History of the First Arab Israeli War. Note that his point is not that the Palestinian Arabs were not expelled. It is rather that, as in any war, there were expulsions manu militari and massacres. Another of his points is also that, the "crime", if any, would rather be that they were prevented to come back. 81.247.1.155 (talk) 18:29, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct, I have not yet read that one. Nonetheless, if the article is to quote a "New Historian", as such, on his opinion, isn't it appropriate to use his most recent conclusions, rather than ones from a previous work that has been superseded? It is no longer correct to say that Morris believes that "Jewish military attacks were the main cause of the exodus".

Drmikeh49 (talk) 00:10, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm still having trouble understanding your point. Morris says in plain English that "Most [Arabs] fled when their villages and towns came under Jewish attack or out of fear of future attack." Are you asking us to pretend the words don't mean what they say? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:46, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
@Drmikeh49.
His conclusions didn't change. Read pages 407 and 408 before quoting a sentence p 410 a little bit out of his context.
Eg, p.408 : "an atmosphere of what would later be called an ethnic cleansing prevailed [at some times]"...
Around 1/2 fled and around 1/2 were expelled; there was no open or general policy of expulsion among Zionists; flights occured mainly when Haganah attacked and those who didn't flee were expelled...
81.247.84.166 (talk) 11:27, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit to lead

Hi, I deleted some sourced material from the lead, the reasons being that the stuff wasn't discussed at all in the article, and also the information seems to not be correct. Have a look at this, which describes indictments against leading Nazis in Nurenberg in 1945-6, which predates the 1948-9. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 15:44, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Have a look at this which describes how the Allies transferred German population as part of the Potsdam agreement. I'm reverting your edit. Also the one that inaccurately describes what UNGA 194 talks about. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:54, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
No, it is really quite unacceptable to start off with an unchallenged, fringe, opinion implying that it was legal for Israel to expel Palestinians. Israel itself did not even make such a claim. We might as well find an opinion that Arabs were legally entitled to solve the problem by sending the Jews back to Europe; that would be about the same degree of acceptable. Zerotalk 08:11, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Unless I'm missing something really obvious, if someone like Eyal Benvensiti says something like "It should be stressed that, in that period, the transfer of populations in consequence of political changes was not considered to be wrong according to international law" regarding the Palestinian exodus, there really is no reason not to include it in this article. Are you objecting to the material in general or only to its placement? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:29, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
I agree with NNMG there is no reason not to include it.Its properly sourced and according to wiki policies.--Shrike (talk) 09:10, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
It leaves unsaid who is transferred and by who. Internationally agreed exchanges were once considered ok, but forced expulsion of a population by a state acting alone is another matter. As someone else mentioned, Nazis were convicted of that at Nuremburg, and it is quite easy to find sources about that. Another thing, the partition resolution said that each citizen of Palestine was entitled to be a citizen of the state (Jewish State or Arab State) in which they resided. So a forced transfer would have violated that explicitly. Zerotalk 09:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Btw, it wasn't Eyal Benvenisti who wrote it, but Yaffa Zilbershats. Another problem is that these few sentences are extracted from a larger article which in total gives a much more complex picture. She claims that forcible expulsion of populations is illegal, but the expelling state has no obligation to let the expellees return. A fringe opinion. I can imagine a more fair account of Zilbershats' article would fit in a section that surveys legal opinion on these questions, but it is not acceptable to quote a few sentences and claim it as a fact. Zerotalk 09:20, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Incidentally, the Potsdam Agreement that allowed the forced transfer of ethnic Germans was made before the Nuremberg trials began, so they aren't an example of the Nuremberg judgements not applying. (On the other hand, if one wanted to see the affair as an example of the victors prosecuting the losers for something they were willing to do themselves, that might view might have some basis.) Zerotalk 10:14, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
It should also be pointed out, IMO, that the Blackwell source says that the expulsions of Germans in the aftermath of WWII were seen as punitive, and that some historians consider them genocidal. Blackwell also mentions that the Geneva conventions of 1949 invalidate expulsions. BTW, NMMNG, what would in your view be a better way to describe resolution 194 here? --Dailycare (talk) 10:45, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Morris and Masalha wrote widely about the idea of transfer and referred to those of the twenties between Greece and Turkey and the one suggested by the Peel commission report. I haven't checked if this was in the article but that should be stressed a way or the other.
As Zero0000 points out here above, a transfer through military expulsion is not the same as a negociated transfer as a peace agreement but it is also true that at the time population transfer was "[a dream] in the air" (as Morris said) and was also morally less badly connoted than today.
87.66.168.201 (talk) 11:08, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
UNGA Res 194, under which the Palestinians claim refugee status and rights, was adopted 11th Dec 1948. UNRWA was established in Dec 1949. It is IMPOSSIBLE for UNGA res 194 to be based on the UNRWA definition of a refugee. No matter how many Secondary Sources say otherwise, they are not reliable on the point ... talknic (talk) 14:59, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

This interview with a UNRWA spokesperson is worth citing with regard to the descendants issue. Zerotalk 04:19, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Current (unsourced) [1] states;

"Although there is no accepted definition of who can be considered a Palestinian refugee for legal purposes, UNRWA defines them as "persons whose normal place of residence was Palestine between June 1946 and May 1948, who lost both their homes and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 Arab-Israeli conflict". UNRWA's definition of a refugee also covers the descendants of persons who became refugees in 1948. This comes in contrast to the standard definition of refugee as defined by UNHCR"

This is incorrect and misleading. The term “Palestine refugees” has never explicitly been defined by the UN General Assembly because there was no reason why it should. Refugee was defined before the UN came into existence [2] and; UNGA Res 194 under which the Palestinians claim RoR was written before UNRWA came into existence and; It is not "in contrast to the standard definition of refugee as defined by UNHCR". The UNRWA definition has a different purpose as suggested by the title of UNRWA, United Nations Relief and Works Agency (see **)

(sorry about the length) The UNHCR considers two groups of Palestinian refugees fall within the scope of the 1951 Convention. [3] "Note on the Applicability of Article 1D of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees to Palestinian Refugees. B. PALESTINIAN REFUGEES WITHIN THE SCOPE OF ARTICLE 1D OF THE 1951 CONVENTION.

3. Given the wording, historical context and purpose of Article 1D of the 1951 Convention, certain Palestinian refugees fall within the scope of that Article because: (i) they have the characteristics of refugees as defined in Article 1A of the 1951 Convention; (ii) their position has not been definitively settled in accordance with relevant resolutions of the UN General Assembly; and (iii) alternative arrangements have been made for such refugees to receive assistance or protection from organs or agencies of the United Nations other than UNHCR.

4. The following groups of Palestinian refugees fall within the scope of Article 1D of the 1951 Convention: a) Palestinians who are “Palestine refugees” within the sense of UN General Assembly Resolution 194 (III) of 11 December 1948 and subsequent UN General Assembly Resolutions,3 and who, as a result of the 1948 Arab-Israeli conflict, were displaced from that part of Mandate Palestine which became Israel, and who have been unable to return there; b) Palestinians not falling within paragraph (a) above who are “displaced persons” within the sense of UN General Assembly Resolution 2252 (ES-V) of 4 July 1967 and subsequent UN General Assembly resolutions,5 and who, as a result of the 1967 Arab-Israeli conflict, have been displaced from the Palestinian territory occupied by Israel since 1967 and have been unable to return there.

6 Included within the above groups are not only persons displaced at the time of the 1948 and 1967 hostilities, but also the descendants of such persons.

7 On the other hand, persons falling within Articles 1C, 1E or 1F of the 1951 Convention do not fall within the scope of Article 1D, even if they remain “Palestine refugees” or “displaced persons” whose position is yet to be definitively settled in accordance with the relevant UN General Assembly resolutions.

5. Palestinians not falling within the scope of Article 1D who, owing to a wellfounded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, are outside the Palestinian territory occupied by Israel since 1967 and are unable or, owing to such fear, are unwilling to return there, qualify as refugees under Article 1A(2) of the 1951 Convention."

Furthermore under the 1951 convention "D. This Convention shall not apply to persons who are at present receiving from organs or agencies of the United Nations other than the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees protection or assistance. When such protection or assistance has ceased for any reason, without the position of such persons being definitively settled in accordance with the relevant resolutions adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations, these persons shall ipso facto be entitled to the benefits of this Convention. " [4]

(**) The UNRWA definition[5] does not cover final status

Q) Is UNRWA involved in the Middle East peace negotiations and in the discussions on a solution to the refugee issue?

A) No. UNRWA is a humanitarian agency and its mandate defines its role as one of providing services to the refugees.it defines those needing assistance under its mandate as "persons whose normal place of residence was Palestine between June 1946 and May 1948, who lost both their homes and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 Arab-Israeli conflict". UNRWA's definition of a refugee also covers the descendants of persons who became refugees in 1948

In the interests of clarity this should be addressed accordingly ... talknic (talk) 19:00, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Primary Source Document: (enabling interested editors to find reliable sources on the matter of Refugee Status) UNITED NATIONS CONCILIATION COMMISSION FOR PALESTINE. DEFINITION OF A "REFUGEE" UNDER PARAGRAPH 11 OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION OF 11 DECEMBER 1948 [6]

Are to be considered as refugees under paragraph 11 of the General Assembly resolution of 11 December 1948 persons of Arab origin who, after 29 November 1947, left territory at present under the control of the Israel authorities and who were Palestinian citizens at that date.

Are also to be considered as refugees under the said paragraph stateless persons of Arab origin who after 29 November 1947 left the aforementioned territory where they had been settled up to that date. Article 2

The following shall be considered as covered by the provisions of Article 1 above: 1. Persons of Arab origin who left the said territory after 6 August 1924 and before 29 November 1947 and who at that latter date were Palestinian citizens;

2. Persons of Arab origin who left the territory in question before 6 August 1924 and who, having opted for Palestinian citizenship, retained that citizenship up to 29 November 1947

... talknic (talk) 15:17, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
No registered interest in dialogue of 8 October 2011 - Implemented change accordingly ... talknic (talk) 17:29, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Since your addition was pedantic and pointy, I reverted it. If you'd like to edit constructively, please do so. Don't add phrases and sentences to the encyclopedia such as "Not applicable to UNGA res 194" and "The UNRWA definition was not the basis for United Nations General Assembly Resolution 194, which was adopted Dec 11th 1949, 12 months prior to UNRWA's establishment." If you have something to add, please add it in the affirmative. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:21, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Malik Shabazz - A) It was already on the Talk page. NO ONE took it up.
B) WP:ROWN
C) Start explaining how it was 1. not constructive or 2. pedantic/pointy
D) It's chronologically impossible for UNGA Res 194 to be based on the UNRWA figure.
E) self revert... thx ... talknic (talk) 21:54, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
No thanks. An encyclopedia article isn't the place to debate the meaning of "refugee" and who defined it when. If you want to write in declarative sentences, go ahead. If you want to write a rebuttal, use the Talk page or start a blog. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:01, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Malik Shabazz - Er this IS the Talk Page. The Talk page IS the place to debate it. No one did, despite being given the opportunity. I gave Verifiable Secondary Sources in a valid edit, with a very detailed explanation on Talk before I made the edit and justification for the edit in the summary. Challenge it via policy or self revert ... talknic (talk) 22:09, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
I won't undo my revert because what you wrote was a rebuttal inside the article. If you'd like to have another go at it, please do so. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:16, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Malik Shabazz - This alleged "rebuttal inside the article". Care to point it out? Thx If not, self revert, because thus far you have given no valid reason for reverting WP:ROWN, you haven't challenged sources, nor have you attempted to answer reasonable questions here ... talknic (talk) 22:29, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

NOTE: The revert is to a completely un-sourced paragraph in complete contradiction to WP:VERIFY and which readers could easily take to mean the UNRWA figure is the basis of the Palestinians claims under UNGA Res 194 ... talknic (talk) 02:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

This UNRWA vs UNHCR stuff is mostly nonsense. First, it is simply false that UNHCR does not extend the definition of refugee to dependents. It is not explicitly mentioned in the 1951 convention but is normal practice and specified by the UNHCR's operating manual. See here. Clause 184: "If the head of a family meets the criteria of the definition, his dependants are normally granted refugee status according to the principle of family unity." Second, if you look at the professional literature on the issue you will see that the main concern is around the other way. Until a few years ago, many Palestinian refugees were excluded from both UNRWA and UNHCR assistance because they are excluded from UNHCR by the convention and yet they live in places UNRWA doesn't operate. I think this anomaly is now fixed. Zerotalk 02:55, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Zero -- OK got the 1st point re - dependents, though there is a caveat in respect to being born in a country that grants automatic citizenship.
In respect to the timeline of the second point... benefits of the UNHCR were afforded A) ipso facto in the 1951 convention [7] "D. ...yadda... When such protection or assistance has ceased for any reason, without the position of such persons being definitively settled in accordance with the relevant resolutions adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations, these persons shall ipso facto be entitled to the benefits of this Convention." and; B) by definition here ... talknic (talk) 04:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
There is a difference between theory (which in any case is ambiguous) and practice. This article discusses it, and this is an academic article on it. There is more but I'm running out of time for now. Zerotalk 04:36, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) talknic, I'm reverting to your edit because I don't have the interest in debating with you over its quality. Please take a step back and re-read it. It needs fixing. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:04, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Malik Shabazz - OK ... talknic (talk) 03:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Things to cite:

  • This interview with a UNRWA spokesperson addresses the descendants issue.
  • This document is advertised by UNRWA as its current eligibility criteria.
  • UNHCR statement on the application of the convention to Palestinians.

Zerotalk 04:26, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Thx ... talknic (talk) 08:39, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Ilan Pappe

Ilan Pappe is a partisan and is perhaps one of Israel's most extreme critics. His views & theories have been debunked by most mainstream historians including Benny Morris and Leslie Stein. Of Ilan Pappe, Benny Morris stated that nothing in Pappe's book can be accepted as fact. I propose that Pappe's views and opinions be removed from this article. In the alternative, where he is used as a source, there should be attribution as well as a qualification concerning his well-known anti-Israel bias. I can not believe that this article would utilize such a discredited and partisan source.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:12, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Can you point to something in this article that he has written that is outright false? What things in the article that are cited to Pappe has Morris debunked? Finally, since when did Leslie Stein become a "mainstream" historian? -asad (talk) 18:10, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
And since when Pappe become "mainstream" historian? His book is clearly unreliable agenda driven source.--Shrike (talk) 19:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
When I did I claim Pappe was mainstream? -asad (talk) 19:21, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Troublesome revert

"Ethnic cleansing" as some would have us believe occurred during the war implies that the act was illegal. In light of the legality implications, I fail to see why this well sourced edit was reverted. The edit is certainly relevant to the issue at hand as it touches on both precedent and legal implications. The edit should be restored.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 04:04, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

The edit was of dubious relevance to this article; it is your own synthesis that it relates to this. And two of your sources are of extremely dubious reliability. Meanwhile, you have restored[8] a contentious and contested edit, relying heavily on Leslie Stein's The Making of Modern Israel. Since this is not a book that most of us possess, it wiould help if you could quote the actual section from the book, in order that other editors can assess its use and relevance to the edit you have introduced. RolandR (talk) 09:09, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Stein's book is an RS, widely circulated and readily available. You can easily pick it up in your local library and if they don't have it, you can have them order it for you or you can buy it. Roland, you're not fooling anyone with these requests. The "I don't have the book and therefore it doesn't count" tactic is reprehensible. Your revert has resulted in the removal of multiple RS's simply because it doesn't conform to your POV. I suggest you self-revert, though judging by your past behavior, I know what to expect from you.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 19:53, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Agreed, not a good basis for a revert. The source is reliable, well known and referenced often. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 20:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
We had a discussion that touched on this issue a while ago, the point there was that since leading Nazis were indicted in Nurenberg for these population transfers, it isn't quite correct to say that they were considered to be OK at the time. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:36, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Roland, claiming that we all don't have a book in our library is not collaborative and quite POV/OR. --Shuki (talk) 20:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Daily, your knee-jerk support for Roland's revert and POV push (which involved reversions of multiple Reliable sources) only serves to confirm that you haven't even bothered reading the discussion or edits, one of which involved supplying a source for a citation request.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:45, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Roland you state Since this is not a book that most of us possess. How do you know that most of us don't possess it? Did you do a canvass? Or conduct a poll? I don't possess Ilan Pappe's book nor do I possess anything written by Rahid Khalidi. Does that give me card blanche to revert? Absolutely not! I get off my butt and do some leg work and research.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:51, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

The guideline states: "If your source is not available online, it should be available in reputable libraries, archives, or collections. If a citation without an external link is challenged as unavailable, any of the following is sufficient to show the material to be reasonably available (though not necessarily reliable): providing an ISBN or OCLC number; linking to an established Wikipedia article about the source (the work, its author, or its publisher); or directly quoting the material on the talk page, briefly and in context." So there is nothing untoward or against policy in my requesting that you provide this info; it is you who have failed to meet the requirements. Considering that you have previously been accused of "misrepresenting sources", I would have thought that you would welcome the opportunity to cite a full reference, in order to remove any unfair suspicions. Certainly, whenever I have been requested to provide relevant text from a book which I have cited, in order to verify my interpretation, I have done so willingly, without uncivilly attacking other editors for making such a request. Please cite the text from Stein which backs up your apparently POV edits. RolandR (talk) 21:34, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Jiujitsuguy, what I said was "it isn't quite correct to say that they were considered to be OK at the time", with "them" being forced population transfers, not that I completely support everything about RR's edit. Concerning the book, it's polite to temporarily upload a scanned page or type a snippet of text verbatim for the benefit of editors that don't have access to a source. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 21:12, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Daily, you say "undue weight" for a "theory" about well known and well sourced argument in the conflict? Trying to silence one side is not NPOV. The material is facual as refernced. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 21:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay Roland, I will scan all the cited pages tonight (hopefully) and email them to you as attachments and you can see for yourself. Satisfied?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:43, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Any of the following is sufficient to show the material to be reasonably available (though not necessarily reliable): providing an ISBN ISBN 978-0-7456-4466-0 --Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:48, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
And see also[9]--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:53, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
This is an article about the Palestinian exodus, not Palestinian rhetoric. Proposing to include that text in the lead gives the reader the impression that someone's guilt and shame are so overbearing that they have to resort to saying someting like (an as ingenious as) "they did it too!". Now that I think about this, this is essentially about rhetoric voiced by some Palestinian leaders, which Zionist historians have interpreted in the way I described. Should we then include in the lead also rhetoric from Zionist leaders where they dwell on their plans to expel the Arabs? That is, after all, more relevant to the Palestinian exodus, i.e. this article. For the record, I support the longstanding version of the lead. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 21:56, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Morris' criticism of Pappe is scathing and unforgiving. He basically calls the guy everything from dishonest to a sloppy historian. Other mainstream historians have concurred with this assessment. I read Morris (1948) from cover to cover. Nowhere in his book does he adopt anything close to what Pappe says occurred. According to Morris, there was no master plan of expulsion. There were instances of expulsion to be sure but many of these occurred during the heat of battle and in response to hostile actions and I intend to provide sourced examples. Pappe is Israel's harshest critic and he dismisses every Arab atrocity during the war while magnifying 100 fold alleged Israeli transgressions. The problem with this article is that it is predominated by Pappe and his ilk and balance needs to be restored.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 22:15, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

The Morris info balances the otherwise one sided view of the long standing lead version. No encyclopedia article is the property of its subject that only supportive information can be used in it. Articles on the settlements have been saturated with legal statements on the wider conflict in both the lead and body sections with bombastic titles and repetitive statements of illegality. Far more in proportion than this one sentence here. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 22:32, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I could not agree more with Netzer. The settlement articles are rife with SYNTH and POV and violate a slew of Wikipedia policies. An alleged "consensus" was shoved down our throats when in fact, there was nothing even close to consensus. I fully intend to open a discussion on that matter when I have the time with the aim of restoring NPOV and complying with policy.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 22:50, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure I quite gather what the relevance of Morris' criticism of Pappe is to this page, which again is about the Nakba. We already have statements to the effect that some historians don't agree with the ethnic cleansing idea. Morris' work for its part has been criticised as an attempt to whitewash the ethnic cleansing. We have statements from Zionist leaders saying the number of Arabs in the proposed Jewish state was unacceptable, and we have information of their plans to evict the Arabs to make the number more acceptable (=smaller), and we have the fact that a few hundred thousand had already been evicted before the 1948 war began, and we have the fact that the Arabs subsequently had their citizenship revoked and return to their homes denied, while Jewish people were granted "return". And now we have someone who thinks it's a good idea to put in the lead a claim that the Arabs were ethnically cleansing the area because some of them had made inflammatory comments! --Dailycare (talk) 10:28, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
As seen by many historians, the Nakba is exaggerated beyond compare in order to deflect attention from Arab nations' attempts for ethnic cleansing of the region prevalent in many declarations by dominant military and political leaders. It violates encyclopedic objectivity to omit this information on the basis of protecting the article's subject. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 12:51, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Netzer, this material just plain doesn't belong in the lede. Material noting that certain historians rejected the accusation of ethnic cleansing is reasonable, but not stuff like this.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:06, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Do you have some proof that ethnic cleansing idea is proponent one and not the other way around?--Shrike (talk) 19:02, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, but I have no idea what you are asking.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:31, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

It would be helpful to have relevant quotes from the source as a point of reference for this discussion. Beyond that, though, if there's an excessive reliance on Pappe in the article, as User:Jiujitsuguy's argued above, that's something that should be counterbalanced with other perspectives – e.g. Leslie Stein, if he's determined to be relevant in this context.—Biosketch (talk) 23:41, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Would someone care to substantiate the claim about Pappe? -asad (talk) 00:01, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Balancing the article by providing historians who disagree is a lot different from what is going on here. Throwing material into the lede to say "No, you are the ones who wanted ethnic cleaning!" is a basic case of WP:UNDUE. It has no relevance in this article except to cast aspersions on the other side. Even though the evidence for deliberate expulsion based on ethnicity is so obvious that Benny Morris' change of heart only involved justifying it as a necessary military response, it is at least argued by other significant historians that there was no deliberate expulsion at all so that is reasonable to mention more in the lede.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

If someone forwards the scan of the cited pages I will put them in google docs so everyone can see them. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:58, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

The contentious information is :

Some historians have argued that if anyone was seeking the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, it was the Arabs who were seeking to ethnically cleanse the region of its Jewish population.[2] They point toward the ever-increasing vitriolic rhetoric espoused by various Arab leaders and commanders in connection with their plans for the Jews of Palestine.[2]

Source is wp:rs but more, this is not totally speculative. It is true that the wording could be neutralized : the sentence : if anyone was seeking the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, it was the Arabs is pejorative. Ethnic cleaning could also be replaced by exterminate. But the information that some historians argue (this part is important !) that Arab [and some of their leaders] wanted to exterminate the Jews is true. Benny Morris in his last book 1948, Efraim Karsh in Palestine Betrayed, Zvi Elpeleg in his biography of the Mufti, Klaus-Michael Mallmann in Nazi Palestine argue this. To be perfectly NPoV, the arguments they use to justify this and the arguments given by others against this should be introduced too. Eg, Yoav Gelber wrote that it is speculative (and not scientific) to try to give the aims of the Arabs given we don't have access to Arab sources of the period ; Benny Morris support the idea that Islam is antisemite ; Karsh choses some quotes (and forget others) such as the fake Azzam one, ... 87.66.170.243 (talk) 10:13, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I already made such an edit for more neutral tone but that was also removed. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 13:19, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Since you say the source is reliable for this statement it means you can see the source. So, please quote the pertinent parts of the source on p73-74. Thanks. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
There may be a misunderstanding. I don't have the source. I say this author and this book is WP:RS. I didn't WP:V this but that is another issue. I assume somebody did. If not, that must be removed of course. What I write is that what this author says is not nosense at all. To clarify : it is contentious to state that the Arabs wanted to exterminate the Jews in '48 but it is not contentious to state that some historians argue that. 91.180.49.186 (talk) 08:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
I think the violence the Arabs perpetrated against the Jews is relevant to mention in the article, although I don't know if it's one of the main points concerning the "exodus" and thus relevant to mention in the lead. It should be presented in context and comparison, for example to Jewish military organization that involved conscription, a large-scale arms buildup and central planning which were absent on the Arab side. Concerning the "debate" on whether ethnic cleansing took place, it's a bit academic in light of orders we have in writing from Ben Gurion instructing his forces to "cleanse" areas of Arabs. Sure, some people did publish saying that ethnic cleansing didn't take place and it's OK to mention that, but there isn't a real contest as to which is the predominant narrative. --Dailycare (talk) 12:59, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
The one sentence in the lede that JJG inserted (with my edit that toned it down for neutrality) maintains the "predominant" version as only one sentence out of several paragraphs. The lede should be a summary of the entire picture, not so heavily weighed to one side as it is now. Arguments here seem more like being resistant to encyclopedic balance because some editors don't like hearing the other side. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 13:19, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
No, what matters is whether the source supports the statement and whether the source is considered to be reliable. So, at the very least we need to see what the source says while the general discussion about the source continues at RSN. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. But objections here were also about undue weight, which is the only issue my comment responded to. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 16:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
What goes in the lead is also governed by WP:LEAD, in other words it should be one of the key points about the article. Making that one of the key points is undue. Mentining the Arab violence in the article body is OK along the lines above. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Undue weight would be giving attention in the lede to an "I didn't do that, but you did" retort that, as far as I can tell, is not even included in the body of the article.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
All comments here above are right :
  • about WP:V : that should be done. Of course. (But as I pointed out here above, we all know that as written, some historians argue -wrongly or not- that the Arab aims was to exterminate/destroy Yishuv. Others and sometimes the same also argue that Jews performed an ethnic cleaning.
  • about WP:RS : it is obviously WP:RS even if this author is not well known
  • about WP:UNDUE : I think this is undue:weight for the lede but not for the article.
  • about WP:NPOV : that is not an easy work. It is not interesting and neutral to read that ThisAuthor claims That. It is more important to give his arguments to justify this claim.
91.180.49.186 (talk) 08:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

<- Has anyone sent/received the scans of pages 73-74 in the source yet ? Sean.hoyland - talk 06:46, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

No, despite the undertaking above, I have not received any scans. The book is not available in any library local to me, so I have been unable to confirm the accuracy of the citation. The separate question of the reliability of the source is still under discussion at WP:RS/N. RolandR (talk) 08:13, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
6.45 us$ + free shipping in the US... 81.247.196.174 (talk) 10:20, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Tantura

This sentence looks like it could do with some work: 'The village of Tantura was not given the option of surrender and the initial report spoke of dozens of villagers killed, with 300 adult male prisoners and 200 women and children.' While it has a citation, the current formulation implies a massacre but I understand this is something of a fringe view [10]. Does anyone know what current views on this are? Has the initial report been superceded? BothHandsBlack (talk) 21:32, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Having looked into the sources a bit, there is much that is problematic here. Morris 2004 does not say that the initial report spoke of dozens of villagers killed; that statment is in his own voice with the report only being cited for the prisoners. Now, there is a problem here as in a more extensive discussion of Tantura written later in 2004 [11] Morris does quote the initial report directly as claiming 'about 20' dead. So if we stick with using this report as our source we should say 'about 20' rather than 'dozens'. However, it is also clear that Morris himself thinks the report is inaccurate and that atrocities do appear to have ocurred. In the more detailed article he gives a lower bound figure of 70-75 dead and sources this to the Alexandroni veterans who took the town (although he questions whether the figure is really that low). So, what gets priority - the primary source or Morris' own analysis based on that source and others?

There is also a problem with whether the town was given the opportunity to surrender. The passage from the 2004 book says no, although the context there is somewhat limited and the book also provides a primary source which claims that the village was offered the chance of surrendering (n. 664). The article, however, says that the village elders turned down the opportunity too surrender under pressure from militants, although it also repeats the claim that Israeli commanders didn't want Tantura to surrender. I assume in this case the material in the later, more detailed article would get priority over that in the book? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BothHandsBlack (talk • contribs) 09:43, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Ilan Pappé has also written extensively about the Tantura massacre.[3] [4] His conclusion is that "some 200 unarmed Tantura villagers, mostly young men, were shot dead after the village had surrendered following the onslaught of Haganah troops." [5] RolandR (talk) 11:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

The whole Katz thing looks like a bit of a minefield. Having read Morris' piece on the subject I have to say it looks like the institutional reactions were somewhat suspect but I doubt there is anything to be gained from going down that road. As things stand, is Pappe alone on this or is there a significant body of literature also agreeing with the basics of Katz's view? BothHandsBlack (talk) 12:30, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Senior Le Monde editor Sylvain Cypel looked at the Tantura issue in depth in his book Walled: Israeli Society at an Impasse. His conclusion was "Regardless of the methodological faults of Katz's work, in view of the testimony of some thirty Palestinian survivors and the initial confessions of seven former Palmakh soldiers, all of which are in agreement; in view of Chief of Staff Dori's message and the reply he gave; in view of the veterans' refusal to go after Ilan Pappe; and in view of the report of the university's internal board of inquiry, we may hold with a relatively small margin of error that an elite Israeli battalion did indeed commit a massacre, or a 'large-scale killing', of civilians on May 23, 1948, in the village of Tantura. Moreover, this is the unanimous opinion of all those who have examined the dossier with no preconcieved bias."[6] RolandR (talk) 12:49, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
I think that Samuel Katz has come up at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard before. My opinion is that, though he could be used as a notable source, having been a senior Irgun member, he shouldn't be being used as a reliable source. In my experience, his work is full of sloppy writing and outright errors (for example, he managed to contradict what Begin said in his autobiography even though Katz translated it into English). It's probably as well to remember that Katz was in charge of PR/propaganda for the Irgun as well, later, as (I think) the Likud Party (where he fell out with Begin because he thought that Begin was too far to the left politically).     ←   ZScarpia   16:29, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
You misunderstand, ZScarpia. We're not talking here about the politician and propagandist Shmuel Katz, but the PhD student Teddy Katz, whose thesis on the massacre at Tantura was the source of heated controversy. RolandR (talk) 16:35, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Oh ... pardon me! The only Katz I could find currently referred to in the article is Samuel Katz. Though, as I've just realised, he's listed in the Bibliography section rather than being used as a reliable source.     ←   ZScarpia   21:17, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Yoav Gelber writes about 50 fighters that were killed in the battle over the village [[12]]

That link doesn't work. But please don't pretend that Gelber is an objective, uninvolved historian. He was a member of the right-wing Tzomet party headed by Rafael Eitan, and was described by Tom Segev as "known for his right-wing views"[13] RolandR (talk) 16:11, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
As opposed to Pappe, whom you quote approvingly above, despite the fact that he was a leader of the Communist Hadash party, and was described by Karsh as "an unabashed "relativist" for whom historical research is a backward-looking projection of political attitudes and agendas regardless of actual facts". Can we drop these hypocritical doubel standards? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.204.165.25 (talk) 17:13, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
1)Hadash is not the Communist Party; it is the Democratic Feont for Peace and Equality, in which the CP played a leading, but by no means exclusive, role.
2) Pappé was never a "leader" of the CP or Hadash; he was a candidate on their parliamentary list (in a position which virtually guaranteed that he would not be elected).
3) Pappé's political leanings are well known, and referred to above. I was simply adding a corrective, for anyone who mistakenly assumed that Pappé was an ideologue and Gelber objective. They are both eminent academic historians, and should be treated equally. Whether this means that both should be cited without descriptives and disclaimers, or that both should be located politically, is secondary. I have no double standards here, RolandR (talk) 20:24, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
You quoted Pappe approvingly, without any descriptive or disclaimer, but when someone quoted Gelber, you hastily pointed out his ideological leanings. You are not fooling anyone, so it is best to drop this facade. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.204.165.25 (talk) 23:21, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the sources. The contrast between the two exemplifies the difficulties here. Given that there is conflict amongst reliable sources on this question, how do we move forward? I think it's clear that the current sentence is not ok but given that this article is about the 1948 exodus, do we really need to have much detail here? If the question of options to surrender is muddled in the sources then why not just leave that out? And as far as deaths go, perhaps either give a range or not mention any specific figure and instead say that the number is controversial and direct the reader to the Tantura article and the discussion there (which looks as if it needs a bit of work itself)? BothHandsBlack (talk) 16:13, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
There is an easy solution we should attribute the sources though I have some concern about Pappe that say he doesn't care about a truth and he has a bias so its hard to accept him as WP:RS.Anyhow I ask you to put any proposed version on talk fist.--Shrike (talk) 16:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
My concern with putting something up that specifies the sources for the different interpretations is that this amount of detail would be out of place in the current article. The current passage reads as follows: 'On the night of 22–23 May 1948, one week and one day after the declaration of Independence of the State of Israel, the coastal village of Tantura was attacked and occupied by the 33rd Battalion of the Alexandroni Brigade of the Haganah. The village of Tantura was not given the option of surrender and the initial report spoke of dozens of villagers killed, with 300 adult male prisoners and 200 women and children.' I would prefer to replace it with something along the lines of: 'On the night of 22–23 May 1948, one week and one day after the declaration of Independence of the State of Israel, the coastal village of Tantura was attacked and occupied by the 33rd Battalion of the Alexandroni Brigade of the Haganah. The initial report spoke of 300 adult males and 200 women and children taken prisoner.' Now,it might be argued that deaths are also relevant to the article insofar as they indicate a form of pressure on the population, so if someone wants to insist that something about the mortality levels goes in then I would suggest adding the following onto the end: 'The number of deaths that occured as a consequence of the fall of the village has been the subject of much controversy, with figures ranging from 20 to 250 [with references].' however, I think the problem with this is that a) such a short sentence doesn't really represent the range of opinion very well, but b) anything longer would be disproportionate for this article. BothHandsBlack (talk) 17:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
We could also add that the nature of the killed is disputed too because its not clear if they were combatants or civilians.--Shrike (talk) 17:21, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Who is WP:RS ?

The Tantura events can be described on wiki on the basis of these 3 sources directly dedicated to the topic :

Most -if not all of the- scholars who wrote on the topic of Tantura refer to these 3 authors and no deeper investigation in the archives or oral sources have been performed since the events that followed Katz controversy. In the academic part of the debate, Gelber is opposed to Pappé and Morris comes as an arbitre. It is useless to bring any other unless it reports all these 3 analysis on the topic, which would prove this [tertiary] source is neutral.

Everybody can have his own feelings about who is a bad/good or neutral/biaised historian among Pappé/Gelber/Morris but that is not relevant for us. In the current situation, WP:NPOV just asks us to report all 3 analysis because these are the 3 relevant ones on the topic. If the debate reaches a conclusion in the academic world, it will be time to take this into account at that moment but there lacks new material.

91.180.137.10 (talk) 07:18, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that Pappe is personally involved in the Katz controversy. It's not just a matter of political leanings. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 07:54, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
I think this is all getting a bit beside the point. The main question is whether this article needs anything on the question of deaths, given that it is about population movements. Do any of these scholars make the case that the deaths in Tantura had any effect on the Palestinian exodus? It is certainly not the case that the residents were driven out by the deaths as their movements are attributed to different factors (expulsion), so what are the grounds for bringing up the issues involved in the Katz controversy? BothHandsBlack (talk) 08:18, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
That is true. The point, that both Pappé and Morris argue, though with different emphases, is that the massacres (Tantura was far from the only one, and many others were better known) were at the very least a major contributory factor in the flight of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians. Evewn if Tantura is not noted or discussed in the article, it is necessary to discuss, in some detail, the effect on Palestinians of the massacres and reports of massacres. To omit this would certainly give a distorted picture of the events. RolandR (talk) 08:54, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Gelber argues too that the massacres had an impact on the exodus. In his book about the '48 war, he even mentions the 'Lydda massacre' as the worst of the war (whereas traditionnal Israeli historiography and still Avraham Sela deny this.) If I remember well, Morris says that the 'massacres or the fear of such massacres' were a major contributory factor in the flight. And as far as I know, there is no controversy about this. All historians agree on the impact of these massacres.
What is controversial is about the fact that these massacres were committed on purpose (or not) to produce a flight or if they occured like in any war (or not) and also their extent (number of massacres ; if they were battles and/or massacres).
All this could be written in this article, in Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus and in killings and massacres during the 1948 Palestine War. There are a few words about this topic there.
91.180.137.10 (talk) 13:02, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. This article should certainly mention the issue of "massacres or the fear of such massacres" and perhaps it would be easier not going into the Tantura case specifically. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:23, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
I also agree that the massacres were relevant to the "exodus". Jewish forces ran loudspeaker vans in Jerusalem's Arab areas saying that "Deir Yassin's fate will be yours unless you flee" (or something to that effect) (source) so the massacres were deliberately used to drive the Arabs out. --Dailycare (talk) 21:03, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The Deir Yassin massacre already gets mentioned in this article in both the body and the lead, whilst the wider topic of massacres gets dealt with in the 'Causes' article. Do we need anything else here? Possibly a sentence in the 'Debates on Causes' section if there is debate on the issue? If so, does someone who knows about the topic want to knock up a line on this? Alternatively, I can just abridge something from the 'Causes' article and insert it as a placeholder. As long as this is dealt with adequately does anyone have a problem with me removing the stuff on deaths and surrender options from the Tantura passage? BothHandsBlack (talk) 21:26, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

A summary of the causes article with a {{main}} template per TEMPLATE:Main should do the trick. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:41, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
I just noticed the "Debate on the causes of the Palestinian exodus" already has the link. I don't think that section is well written or gives a reader who knows nothing about the issues a good picture of the debate. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:28, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps best to change it to a 'Causes' section that just parallels the causes article and then integrate the debate stuff into that rather than filtering everything through the prism of the scholarly debate (which seems far less important to the article than the causes the debate is about)BothHandsBlack (talk) 15:31, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
I doubt you'll be able to avoid the debate since even some of the facts are in dispute, not to mention the reasons and consequences of these disputed facts. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:22, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The consensus at the Reliable Sources noticeboard, after four weeks discussion, is that Stein is not a reliable source ("Stein doesn't really try to hide his partisan orientation", "the book is troublesome in the sense, that he is at times overtly Zionistic and thus in his judgments often very one sided and apologetic", "Stein has no training or academic credentials in history...[a]nd he's not done historical research himself to produce this book", "Don't use, it doesn't represent the standards of historical scholarship"). So I intend to remove the contentious edits based solely on his book. If editors wish to restore the claims, they should find a reliable source to back this. RolandR (talk) 23:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you honestly claim that's a fair representation of the discussion at RS/N? Seriously? You're quoting mainly from one very involved editor. I don't see the consensus you claim. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:47, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
No, I am quoting three uninvolved editors: OhioStandard,[14] 91.180.49.186[15] and Fifelfoo.[16] I see no uninvolved editors claiming that it is a reliable source. RolandR (talk) 01:10, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
OhioStandard is involved. He's a self-proclaimed partisan. The IP isn't saying the book shouldn't be used. In fact, if you read his whole post not just that review, I think he's saying the book can be used. Fifelfoo is indeed uninvolved and says the book shouldn't be used. Where's the consensus? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
There is no agreement on WP:RS/N on this matter.Please revert yourself--Shrike (talk) 10:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  1. ^ Morris, Benny. 1948. Yale University Press, 2008, p. 410
  2. ^ a b Stein, Leslie, The Making of Modern Israel 1948-1967, Polity Press (Cambridge 2009), pp. 73-74
  3. ^ Pappé, Ilan (2006). The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine. Oxford: Oneworld. p. passim; esp 133-7. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
  4. ^ Pappé, Ilan (Spring 2001). "The Tantura Case in Israel: The Katz Research and Trial". The Journal of Palestine Studies. 30 (3). {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
  5. ^ Pappé, Ilan. "The Tantura Case in Israel: The Katz Research and Trial". Institute for Palestine Studies. Retrieved 22 January 2012.
  6. ^ Cypel, Sylvain (2006). Walled: Israeli Society at an Impasse. New York: Other Press. pp. 37–8. ISBN 978-1-59051-210-4. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1948_Palestinian_expulsion_and_flight/Archive_14&oldid=1145228699"