Talk:Nakba/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Categories, portals, and sister projects

• Is everyone fine with the portals? Anything else we can add? -- Maudslay II (talk)

---

• The categories of this subject are centered around Category:1948 Palestinian exodus, we might wanna fix that. This article have that category while it should be the other way around. -- Maudslay II (talk)

---

• How are we gonna link this with other languages? Some talk about Nakba in general, some dosen't have Nakba, some cofuse Nakba with the exodus. -- Maudslay II (talk)

---

• Regarding sis projects, starting with commons, there is a Nakba category but it's linked with Category:1948 Palestinian exodus, so I guess we'll link it here, create a new '1948 Palestinian exodus' category and make Nakba kinda an umberella for other articles? -- Maudslay II (talk)

@Maudslay II: thanks for pointing all this out. I have had a go at tidying it all up. What do you think? Onceinawhile (talk) 21:13, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Scope

Should we determine clearly the scope of this article, and which paragraphs are we gonna write about so we don't contradict other ones? I think this should talk about everything in general, not too specific. -- Maudslay II (talk) 13:16, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Good idea, Once has given his thoughts about it already. I also think its a question of sources and there are plenty of them. If we have well rated sources discussing the nakba in a meta way, then I see no reason material from them cannot be included although we might need to establish a weighting for the different views.Selfstudier (talk) 13:21, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Completely agree. It would be good to build out the separate sections with appropriate weighting. I have been focusing my efforts on building a clear picture in the lead on what Nakba refers to. I think the short description that Self added works very well. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:15, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Having spent the last day reading as many sources as I can, I suggest four primary sections for this article to cover the broad meaning of Nakba:

• Displacement
  • The 48 exodus (1948 Palestinian exodus)
  • The refugees (Palestinian refugees)
  • Ongoing displacement in the occupied territories
• Dispossession / erasure
  • Loss of property (including Israeli_land_and_property_laws#The_'Absentees_Property_Law' and Israeli demolition of Palestinian property)
  • Loss of country
  • Hebraiziation of the geography (Hebraization of Palestinian place names
• Statelessness
  • Palestinian statelessness (History_of_Palestinian_nationality#Creation_of_Israel)
  • Refusal of the right of return ((Palestinian right of return)
• Fracturing of society
  • Creation of the diaspora (Palestinian diaspora
  • West Bank and Gaza split, in the various periods (48-67, 67-07, 07 onwards)

Onceinawhile (talk) 23:11, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedy deleted as being recently created, having no relevant page history and duplicating an existing English Wikipedia topic, because it's a work in progress, not identical by any means to the article it has been asserted to duplicate. That other article is a lengthy survey of the war between Israel and Palestinians: The aim of this article appears to be to provide readers with a synopsis of what the outcome of that complex war meant for Palestinians, and its reverberation in their cultural memory. Of the latter, there is an extensive literature, of poetry and literature which has no place in the Israeli-Palestinian war. I suggest deletion on sight before we see what its author can do over a week or two with the article suggests impatience or dislike, rather than any encyclopedic concern. --Nishidani (talk) 10:58, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

If it really different the author can ask to WP:REFUND.Meantime it seems like exact duplication Shrike (talk) 11:04, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

After we dispense with the current request you may take it to AfD and explain there just how it is an "exact duplication". In the recently closed discussion I mentioned below you were arguing that the name itself was POV and a fork of some other article. It seems you may be casting about for reasons to dispense with this article because you just don't like it.Selfstudier (talk) 11:32, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

• This is a new article, it duplicates 1947–1949 Palestine war that states in the first sentence it is known in Arabic as the Nakba. The 1947–1949 Palestine war article exists for many years, and as Shrike said in an edit summary, this is a POVFORK using the Arab term.--Geshem Bracha (talk) 12:10, 4 April 2021 (UTC) sock

  Sources from 1947–1949 Palestine war state equivalence with the 1948 war.--Geshem Bracha (talk) 16:17, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Extended content
References

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedy deleted as being recently created, having no relevant page history and duplicating an existing English Wikipedia topic. The 1948 Palestinian exodus and 1947–1949 Palestine war are both refered to as simply 'Nakba'. As consensus decided, Nakba has a wider scope, which we are still discussing. --Maudslay II (talk) 15:16, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

There is no such consensus for this article to have a "wider scope', and if the scope ends up encompassing both The 1948 Palestinian exodus and 1947–1949 Palestine war , then this would be a clear fork, and should be deleted. Kenosha Forever (talk) 15:18, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

As others said before, here we decided that Nakba should have its own article. There is a lot of other things about the Nakba that cannot be added in other articles, such as terminology, commemoration and memoricide, and many reliable sources state that 'Nakba' implies a wide scope. -- Maudslay II (talk) 15:29, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

"we" have decided no such thing. There are 3 editors, at least, oppose to this article being about anything other than the term. Kenosha Forever (talk) 15:34, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

• Sources from 1947–1949 Palestine war state equivalence with the 1948 war.--Geshem Bracha (talk) 16:17, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

You used up a lot of space for just two authors...it is trivial to bring sources arguing a wider scope, it is not as cut and dried as you would like, I'm afraid. Start with something simple https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2017/5/23/the-nakba-did-not-start-or-end-in-1948 and scroll down the page to where it says "Is the Nakba over?" the fact that it is even possible to ask this question is enough but there are plenty of other more scholarly sources making the same or similar arguments. You can listen to The Nakba Law and the Ongoing Nakba (Prof. Nadera Shalhoub-Kevorkian is the Lawrence D. Biele Chair in Law at the Faculty of Law-Institute of Criminology and the School of Social Work and Public Welfare at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and the Global Chair in Law at Queen Mary University of London.) or read Passia's "Continuous Nakba" and there are many more.Selfstudier (talk) 16:56, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Extended content
References

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedy deleted as being recently created, having no relevant page history and duplicating an existing English Wikipedia topic, because not a fork, multiple sources define Nakba as not being confined either to the 47/9 war or even to 47/49. Nakba is a term not an event. Note that there is a recently closed discussion on the talk page here about the independent nature of the term, an article Nakba day as well as a Nakba template. Even a simple Google search for the term is conclusive and there are multiple books and scholarly sources about the term, this nomination would seem, if not mischievous at least ill-informed.Selfstudier (talk) 11:10, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

• This is a new article, it duplicates 1947–1949 Palestine war that states in the first sentence it is known in Arabic as the Nakba. The 1947–1949 Palestine war article exists for many years, and as Shrike said in an edit summary, this is a POVFORK using the Arab term.--Geshem Bracha (talk) 12:10, 4 April 2021 (UTC) sock
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakba_Day#Defining_Nakba article existing since 2006, one year prior to 47/49 war article. Note that the commemorative day itself was not set until 1998. "The Israeli–Palestinian conflict has prompted Palestinians like Mahmoud Darwish to describe the Nakba as "an extended present that promises to continue in the future." The scope has been explained and it is not just the 47/49 events. Nor is the article new, strictly speaking, there was a Nakba article in 2005 with an unclear scope that ended up being redirected to Palestinian exodus at that time. The term has evolved in meaning over many years and this is clearly reflected in multiple sources, the 47/49 text needs a minor adjustment to reflect that 47/9 is merely included in the scope.Selfstudier (talk) 12:53, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Sources from 1947–1949 Palestine war state equivalence with the 1948 war.--Geshem Bracha (talk) 16:17, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

      So you have said several times, neither the repetition nor what it says answer the points made.Selfstudier (talk) 18:04, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Extended content
References

Contested deletion (again)

This article should not be speedy deleted as "being recently created, having no relevant page history and duplicating an existing English Wikipedia topic", because it simply does not duplicate an existing article. This article is about the term "nakba", not about the particular historical events it references. The term itself and its various uses is the subject of repeated academic study. Zero^talk 11:34, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

So as you can see [1] , the article's creator completely disagrees with this being about the term rather than the events. Now, shock me and say that in this case, it is a content fork which should be deleted. Kenosha Forever (talk) 20:14, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

• This is a new article, it duplicates 1947–1949 Palestine war that states in the first sentence it is known in Arabic as the Nakba. The 1947–1949 Palestine war article exists for many years, and as Shrike said in an edit summary, this is a POVFORK using the Arab term.--Geshem Bracha (talk) 12:10, 4 April 2021 (UTC) sock

  • Sources from 1947–1949 Palestine war state equivalence with the 1948 war.--Geshem Bracha (talk) 16:17, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

If the article ends up being about the "term", It would be ok. But the recent discussion about "scope", in the section above, does not inspire confidence that this is the direction. Meanwhile, I'll clarify the article itself that it is about the term.Kenosha Forever (talk)

Idk what that even means, your removal of material on this basis is tendentious. I daresay we will get around to discussion of the article content once we have dealt with the speedy deletion request.Selfstudier (talk) 17:12, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

What this means is that it may be possible to have an article about a "term" used to describe certain events - how and when the term was coined and first used and by whom, how it is used today, etc... But what is not going to work is to have an article which covers the events themselves - which are already covered in detail in other articles, and to do so using the terminology favored by one side of a two-sided conflict. There is nothing tendentious about removing material that is already covered in detail in other articles, when the justification for this article, given by other editors is that it is only about the term (see Zero0000,above " This article is about the term "nakba", not about the particular historical events it references. "). Kenosha Forever (talk) 17:45, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

This discussion is about speedy deletion, that's it, you are deleting material, this material, in what will be an unsuccessful attempt to influence the outcome of that discussion.Selfstudier (talk) 18:00, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm deleting material in order to try and salvage this article, by making it conform to what its proponents say is its justification, and what makes it different from other articles which already cover the material I am deleting. If this material is added back in, it will be a content fork, covering material that is already in other articles, and using one-sided terminology, and it will be deleted. Kenosha Forever (talk) 18:08, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

At the risk of repetition, this discussion is about speedy deletion. Your attempt to distract from that notwithstanding.Selfstudier (talk) 18:10, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

And to repeat, there is no attempt at distraction, but rather steps that might save this article from deletion. But you seem hell bent on getting it deleted as a content fork. That's fine with me, too Kenosha Forever (talk) 18:40, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't see anywhere you saying that this article should not be speedy deleted. Are you saying that? No, of course not, you are saying, only if...That's not how it works.Selfstudier (talk) 18:49, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

I stated quote clearly above "If the article ends up being about the "term", It would be ok." I would of course oppose it it being kept if it is expanded in the manner you support, which would make it a content fork using one-sided terminology. That is EXACTLY how it works Kenosha Forever (talk) 18:53, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Third time lucky, you argue for speedy deletion and I will continue to argue for not doing that, unconditionally. Selfstudier (talk) 18:56, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

You are having problem comprehending what I write, but I've no interst in trying to help you more than I have. Kenosha Forever (talk) 19:03, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

No IDHT here, look closer to home.Selfstudier (talk) 19:05, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Extended content
References

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedy deleted as being recently created, having no relevant page history and duplicating an existing English Wikipedia topic, because:

• The Nakba is about the consequences of the various events of 1948 (including both the war and the exodus) and thereafter on the Palestinian people. It can be thought of as a specific subtopic of 1947–1949_Palestine_war#Demographic_consequences, and one with a huge number of high quality sources specifically devoted to it.
• There are a huge number of sources which explain what the Nakba is, a good number of which are footnoted with quotations in this article. In all the discussion so far, the nominator has not mentioned these sources at all.
• From reading the comments above, the nominator appears to have been misled by sources which say that Arabic writings often refer to the war as Al Nakba, from which the nominator has incorrectly implied an inverse relationship. The war was a central component of the Nakba, as was the exodus, but of course that doesn't mean they ARE the Nakba.
• The nominator has recently been identified[2][3] as having an unusual edit history. Specifically, the account amassed just over 550 edits, almost all between Jan and Sept 2020, and then stopped abruptly shortly after achieving extended confirmed status. Then after a six month hiatus of zero edits the user appeared out of the blue at an ANI with a series of comments against User:Nableezy.

Onceinawhile (talk) 22:06, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Pan Arab vs Palestinian

I think the Arab Nationalist Movement (called that in 1958) was Pan Arab nature, on the strictly Palestinian side we have the Palestinian Student Union (Arafat) in the early 50's and General Union of Palestinian Students in 59. Fateh (not Fatah) is 59 as well. Selfstudier (talk) 10:26, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

From what I understand many movements/parties/militias that fought for Palestinian nationalism were ideologically pan-Arab. -- Maudslay II (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:25, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

I keep meaning to do something about Palestinian nationalism eg it says "In 1950 Yasser Arafat founded Ittihad Talabat Filastin." and that's it, lol. That's the Palestinian Student Union I mentioned above, you really need to track Arafat, an interesting question is how was the Nakba commemorated before Nakba day? Selfstudier (talk) 17:04, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

See Baumgarten, Helga. “THe THree FAces/PHases of PAlestinian NAtionalism, 1948–2005.” Journal of Palestine Studies, vol. 34, no. 4, 2005, pp. 25–48. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/jps.2005.34.4.25

The Movement of Arab Nationalists (MAN, harakat al-qaumiyyin al-‘arab) was founded in Beirut in the early 1950s by Palestinian and Arab students and graduates of the American University of Beirut (AUB) who had begun their political activities after the 1948 war in the context of what had been a student cultural organization, al-urwa al-wuthqa. George Habash, then a young Palestinian medical student (from Lydda), was the founder of the movement and headed it throughout its effective existence... The foundational event, or “formative catastrophe,” behind the creation of MAN was the Palestinian nakba of 1948. Most of MAN’s founding members had been students of Constantine Zurayk, the influential AUB history professor... Its ideology was Arab nationalism, its identity was Arab. Because the majority of MAN’s founders were Palestinian Arabs, however, the movement’s identity can be said to have a Palestinian core (albeit completely integrated into the overriding Arab identity, the hegemonic identity of Palestinians in the early period). Thus, when George Habash and his closest associate, Wadih Haddad, moved to Amman to practice medicine after graduating from AUB, they understood the movement they had created as “a Palestinian-Arab political organization.” It was the focus on Palestine that distinguished MAN from the much larger and more influential Ba‘th party, which also had a large Palestinian following.

Onceinawhile (talk) 21:23, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the problem is that the Israeli narrative took advantage of the Pan Arab aspects (‘Abd al-Nasir type especially) to spin the whole there's no such thing as a Palestinian, Palestinians created in 1964, yarn. Not true, Arafat was always there and didn't really trust Arab factions to necessarily act in Palestinian interests. Let me see what I can find in my sources, long time since I looked at them properly.Selfstudier (talk) 21:40, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Khalidi's work is multiply cited in Palestinian nationalism but there is nothing from Ch.8 (p 177 on) The "Disappearance" and Reemergence of Palestinian Identity Rashid Khalidi (1997). Palestinian Identity: The Construction of Modern National Consciousness. Columbia University Press. ISBN 978-0-231-10515-6.

https://in.bgu.ac.il/bgi/DocLib/Pages/events/bima_shemesh/Th%20e%20Palestinian%20Society.pdf p 89 on "It is my argument that the fifties (1949–1959) were not characterized by social and political quiescence, but by the opposite."Selfstudier (talk) 23:15, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Template

What shall be done re the template called Nakba (but titled and used for 48 exodus)? Selfstudier (talk) 12:04, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

I changed the title to 'Nakba' and added exodus in its components. We can use it on every article related to the subject. -- Maudslay II (talk) 13:14, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

We must get rid of one of these two templates: Template:Nakba and Template:Nakbaend. They are literally the same. -- Maudslay II (talk) 13:19, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, they should be merged. I must confess I have never heard about "Nakbaend"? But that template is much more informative. What about deleting Template:Nakba, then moving Template:Nakbaend -> Template:Nakba? Huldra (talk) 22:55, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

I support this. -- Maudslay II (talk) 13:49, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Is this one of those things you are best to get a bot to do it? I would have thought you first want to replace all nakba with nakba end and only then delete nakba else all the linked pages will break.Selfstudier (talk) 15:04, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Not many articles use it anyway. -- Maudslay II (talk) 15:21, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Maybe not, what links here gives the pages it's on? If so, not so many, we can do it manually.Selfstudier (talk) 15:18, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Hum. First one I looked at for nakba was UNWRA but when I go to UNWRA it shows nakbaend there. I think I'm missing something.Selfstudier (talk) 15:29, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Ah! UNWRA has both, a vertical one at the right and a horizontal one at the bottom. So maybe we do need to keep them both after all, lol.Selfstudier (talk) 15:44, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Why? We can removre 'Nakba' wherever it's used, delete 'Nakba' then move 'Nakbaend' to 'Nakba'.

Because they have been designed that way, one for vertical display and other for horizontal. If you try to put a vertical display in a horizontal position or other way about it will mess up the page.Selfstudier (talk) 15:54, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Of course, I should have examined this page first and saved myself some exercise:-)Selfstudier (talk) 16:46, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Additional Sources

Drop them in here for now so they can be easily available and sorted through.

• http://www.badil.org/en/publication/faq.html (Q2.3 What is the Ongoing Nakba? & Q2.4 What does the Ongoing Nakba look like today?) Contrast with the "Continuous Nakba"of Passia.Selfstudier (talk) 23:05, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
• Doctor Nahla Abdo; Nur Masalha, eds. (15 May 2018). An Oral History of the Palestinian Nakba. Zed Books. ISBN 978-1-78699-352-6.Selfstudier (talk) 23:22, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
• Necropolitical Debris: The Dichotomy of Life and DeathNadera Shalhoub-Kevorkian State Crime Journal Vol. 4, No. 1 (Spring 2015), pp. 34-51 (18 pages) "the article argues that the Palestinian Nakba is both a historical event in which the majority of the Palestinian nation was forced into exile, and a larger, ongoing settler colonial structure that continues to mark the everyday lives of Palestinians inside Israel, the Occupied Territories and in exile."Selfstudier (talk) 19:49, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Material by new editor for discussion

An editor not Arbpia permitted to edit has posted the following so I removed it for discussion and agreement.

According to Ilan Pappé, the term is meant to compare with the Holocaust. The term for the Holocaust in Hebrew, Shoah, also means "catastrophe". Various motifs that liken the Nakba to the Holocaust are often used by proponents of the term Nakba.

References

Selfstudier (talk) 17:40, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@ZobarZahavi: Where does Pappé say that? Which page? Selfstudier (talk) 17:52, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I was just looking at the same. I am not convinced that Regthink article is WP:RS, and even if it is, I think the way it has been summarized here is incorrect. I don't think the summary of Pappe's position is correct either.

There is a lot of research on this subject though, most notably the Bashir and Goldberg book, and it has a place in the article.

• Sa'ed Atshan; Katharina Galor (18 May 2020). "TRAUMA, HOLOCAUST, NAKBA". The Moral Triangle: Germans, Israelis, Palestinians. Duke University Press. ISBN 978-1-4780-1201-6.
• Bashir Bashir; Amos Goldberg (2019). The Holocaust and the Nakba: A New Grammar of Trauma and History. Columbia University Press. ISBN 978-0-231-18297-3.
• Yair Auron (4 October 2017). The Holocaust, Rebirth, and the Nakba: Memory and Contemporary Israeli–Arab Relations. Lexington Books. ISBN 978-1-4985-5949-2.
• Yair Auron (1 March 2012). "The Holocaust and Me, the Nakba and Me". Israeli Identities: Jews and Arabs Facing the Self and the Other. Berghahn Books. ISBN 978-0-85745-306-8.
• Stav, Shira. “Nakba and Holocaust: Mechanisms of Comparison and Denial in the Israeli Literary Imagination.” Jewish Social Studies, vol. 18, no. 3, 2012, pp. 85–98. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/10.2979/jewisocistud.18.3.85

But it is a VERY sensitive topic and needs to be handled with care. The drafting above was not good enough yet. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:53, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Italic

Should the title be really in italic? I think the term has became normal in usage and dosen't need to be italic? -- Maudslay II (talk) 13:13, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Foreign words need italics if not commonly used in English. I agree it is well known in academic circles/those in the know but not generally, I wouldn't think.Selfstudier (talk) 13:31, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

MOS:FOREIGNITALIC: :Loanwords or phrases that have been assimilated into and have common use in English, such as praetor, Gestapo, samurai, esprit de corps, e.g., i.e., etc., do not require italicization... Rule of thumb: do not italicize words that appear unitalicized in multiple major English dictionaries... A proper name is usually not italicized..."

Having searched a few online dictionaries per the MOS rule of thumb, Nakba is usually not italicized so should not be here either. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:27, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I removed italicization. If someone wants to make the case for it he is welcome to do so. -- Maudslay II (talk) 15:38, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

1936–1939 Arab revolt in Palestine

Should we consider the 1936–1939 Arab revolt in Palestine to be as part of the Nakba or just a background? Since it was one the first steps in the results of the Nakba? -- Maudslay II (talk) 15:46, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Sources that look back in time for Nakba context are OK as far as they go but I don't think we should describe anything pre 47/8 as part of Nakba.Selfstudier (talk) 16:41, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Categories

Please see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_April_17#Category:Nakba. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:22, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 May 2021

Please remove the following absurd, unverifiable claim from under the Israeli narrative header: Jewish Israelis perceive the 1948 war and its outcome as an equally formative and fundamental event – as an act of justice and redemption for the Jewish people after centuries of historical suffering, and the key step in the "negation of the Diaspora". As a result, the narrative is extremely sensitive to the Israeli identity. 85.64.76.29 (talk) 21:21, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done please read the citation Motti Golani; Adel Manna (2011), p.14 - a quote is given in the footnote which verifies this sentence. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:27, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I didn't say the claim is "unverified", but rather "unverifiable". It doesn't matter if there's a source. Such a claim need to be rephrased in order for the source to be better reflected in its wording. As it stands currently, the claim speaks on behalf of all Jewish Israelis, with no context at all. This is an absurd claim, and such a source can't back it without having the claim rephrased entirely.

I think there could be a simple fix here. Perhaps we can add the word "many" before the words "Jewish Israelis"? Onceinawhile (talk) 05:46, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: If the given source is incorrect, please provide a conflicting reliable source so a better wording can be put in. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:45, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:CONTEXTMATTERS WP:EXTRAORDINARY The need for a better source arises only after the need to remove or tone down the claim... 85.64.76.29 (talk) 19:51, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

This request has been answered satisfactorily, afaics.Selfstudier (talk) 19:55, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Please ignore the above request to remove the claim. Instead, I now request that the section or that sentence would be tagged. As I see it, the most appropriate tag could be one of the following: Template:Misleading, Template:Clarify, and/or Template:Undue weight. 85.64.76.29 (talk) 20:13, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Please propose a way to tone it down. I suggested above the addition of the word "many". If that is not satisfactory, please propose your own amendment. Specific drafting changes are required. Please ensure your proposal sticks to the source given (or another source, if you have one). Onceinawhile (talk) 21:29, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:16, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand why I need to propose ways to tone down the text, if my request is for adding a template tag after the sentence to mark as it problematic. I'll settle down on adding the following after the "Israeli perspectives" heading: Template:Undue weight | section|reason=The sentence "Jewish Israelis perceive the 1948 war and its outcome (...)" makes an extraordinary and provides no context.

Provide a source that disputes the current text and source. Just saying you dont like what the article says and what its source says doesnt mean much around here. nableezy - 02:57, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

That's just shifting the burden of proof. I've already explained why I don't need to explain, and have linked to the relevant Wikipedia guidelines and policies. My request is entirely clear and focused. 85.64.76.29 (talk) 04:50, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

The burden of proof is 100% on you. The current text is well sourced. We do not add tags just because someone doesn’t agree with what the source says. So you have two choices:

(1) If you think the article wording doesn’t accurately reflect the source, propose amended wording.

(2) If you don’t agree with the source, you need to bring another reliable source which supports your belief.

Onceinawhile (talk) 07:52, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

I have added a couple of words to the text to try to address the points above. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:56, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, at the time, I hadn't noticed that the edit that added the entire paragraph was pretty fresh (May 16), so you were still working on the article. And although I still think there's room for improvement here, you did improve the phrasing by a little bit, so thank you. I think I'll leave it at that for now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.64.76.29 (talk) 19:37, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

References

Then known as Palestine

@Editor2020 and Shrike: thanks both for your edits so far. One edit you both made is changing ...then known as Palestine... to ...then known as Mandatory Palestine.... Please could you explain your thinking here? My thinking is that it was not then known as "Mandatory Palestine" – that is how academic historians refer to it today – at the time of the Nakba (and in common language today) it was just "Palestine". Onceinawhile (talk) 06:25, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Quite true. Even the descriptive form "mandatory Palestine" with small "m" was very rare. It just wasn't used in that way. The earliest I could find for "Mandatory Palestine" was in the Palestine Post of December 1948. NYT didn't use it until at least 1954 (I stopped searching), the Jewish Telgraphic Agency didn't use it until 1954, and The Times didn't use it until 1956. The purpose of "Mandatory Palestine" was (and is) to distinguish the pre-1948 borders from the post-1948 borders, and before 1948 there was no such motivation. Before 1948, it had an official name, namely "Palestine". Zero^talk 08:09, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

It's not just borders that changed, mandatory Palestine was a territory under a British mandate. The mandate ended. There's no continuous entity that was known as "Palestine" before and after the war, the distinction is not just a question of borders, it's actually necessary to communicate effectively. Daniel J. Hakimi (talk) 03:46, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

We write an encyclopedia article so we should use precise terms. The entity was called mandatory Palestine and that's how we should use it --Shrike (talk) 10:35, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

No it wasn't, so we shouldn't. Zero^talk 10:41, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Some ideas

I think the paragraph

"The Nakba (Arabic: النكبة‎, romanized: an-Nakbah, lit. '"disaster", "catastrophe", or "cataclysm"'),[1] also known as the Palestinian Catastrophe, was the destruction of Palestinian society and homeland in 1948, and the permanent displacement of a majority of the Palestinian people.[2][3] The term is also used to describe the ongoing persecution, displacement, and occupation of the Palestinians, both in the occupied West Bank and the Gaza Strip, as well as in Palestinian refugee camps throughout the region" should be modified to

"The Nakba (Arabic: النكبة‎, romanized: an-Nakbah, lit. '"disaster", "catastrophe", or "cataclysm"'),[1] also known as the Palestinian Catastrophe, is a concept used in the Palestinian narrative to explain the destruction of Palestinian society and homeland in 1948, and the permanent displacement of a majority of the Palestinian people.[2][3] The term is also used to describe the ongoing persecution, displacement, and occupation of the Palestinians, both in the occupied West Bank and the Gaza Strip, as well as in Palestinian refugee camps throughout the region".

This article is to explain the Arab concept of a two-sided conflict, and it should be shown in this way. Attempt to impose either Palestinian or Israeli narrative as the standard narrative that would be beyond all challenge would be wrong.

Yeah, sure. Great. 'Narrative' reflects the silly journalistic vogue for recasting anything searingly factual as, in our sophisticated times, just a subjective point of view of some party or group underwriting their personal 'take' on a tragedy. Everything is perspectivized, so that someone embarrassed by certain facts, can take comfort that this is just a POV. My mother's death is not a concept. It is a lived reality, whatever 'narrative' I might make of it. Make a thought experiment and try writing in parallel, instead of the Holocaust lead's words:

The Holocaust, also known as the Shoah,(efn|Hebrew: השואה, HaShoah, "the catastrophe") was the genocide of European Jews during World War II.

Something like

The Holocaust, also known as the Shoah (HaShoah, "the catastrophe"}} is a concept used in the Jewish narrative to explain the destruction of the European Jews between 1941 and 1945 etc.</blcckquote>

That's the kind of revision you suggest for Palestinians for their catastrophe (without conflating their dimensions which are decidedly different). Where's the improvement? Nowhere. To the contrary the rewrite is deeply distasteful. Such an 'improvement' in Italian idiom would be called an example of 'the earnings of Maria Dickhead' ( I guadagni di Maria Cazzetta - no gain at all.Nishidani (talk) 13:55, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. The wording I used above is indeed inappropriate to many of the people. Still, I always believe that all articles about Israeli-Palestinian conflict must show both narratives properly when both two narratives are significant. The conflict is a vicious cycle between Israel and Palestinians, and it must be shown with perspectives from both sides. This article’s section about Israeli narrative is too short, and should be expanded, as what Israelis think about the issue is a significant topic to be shown and discussed. Geoffrey Zhehao Li (talk) 14:38, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Israeli narrative part

This article is intended to discuss the displacement of Palestinian people and destruction of Palestinian society as a result of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. I believe that the Israeli narrative part is too short for an article that is supposed to offer an explanation of a historical event strongly contested by two sides, and it should be expanded to discuss how Israelis respond to the Palestinian narrative, for this is no less valuable than the part that explains the consequences of Nakba on Palestinians.

Bring some sources and we will take a look at that. This also appears to be repeating what you just wrote above?Selfstudier (talk) 15:07, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I simply think that the section is too short and does not explain the complex opinion Jewish Israelis have about the Palestinian exodus of 1948. The corresponding article from the article about the exodus itself(while this one is about all aspects considered part of Nakba by Palestinians), 1948_Palestinian_exodus#Israeli_narratives, shows a much more detailed explanation of how Israelis see the event. 15:14, 22 July 2021 (UTC)Geoffrey Zhehao Li (talk)

This isn't a forum for personal opinions, if you have sources and want to make some change in the article, let's see them.Selfstudier (talk) 15:17, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

23 edits, six on this talk page, and immediately here from Hurrem Sultan? Hmmm. Nishidani (talk) 16:49, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

One may see a range of ideas of what Israelis and pro-Israel individuals think of the event from various Times of Israel blog posts in this link https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/search/?q=Nakba The original section is from an academic article by an Israeli-Arab, but in this case non-Academic source is necessary. Geoffrey Zhehao Li (talk) 23:41, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

And also https://www.google.com.hk/search?q=Nakba+day+site%3A+https%3A%2F%2Fjpost.com%2Fopinion&client=safari&channel=iphone_bm&ei=0QL6YLeXCIf8wQOXgYnQDA

Geoffrey Zhehao Li (talk) 23:46, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

E.g.Lifta, to cite one of 700 'incidents' in 1947-48. 'The spaces between the houses are untended, overgrown with sabras of course. A Palestinian family from Zur Baher, a village on Jerusalem’s southeastern outskirts, has come here this week, to the ruins of this village on the city’s northern edge, to pick the fruit of these cactuses for Eid al-Adha, the Feast of Sacrifice; they use the traditional stick with an empty tin can attached at one end for the task. A day earlier, Jews mourned the Temple, which was also an abattoir, destroyed 2,000 years ago. Those same Jews are forbidding their Palestinian neighbors from mourning the destruction of their home 73 years ago, and chastise them for wallowing in their catastrophe. (Gideon Levy, Alex Levac, The Saddest Village in Israel Haaretz 23 July 2021)Nishidani (talk) 09:07, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

What you mention above is a small part of the diverse narratives one may see about Nakba on Israeli media, and a not-that-mainstream one. The links I have shown above reflect better what Israelis in general see the issue. The Israeli narrative part should be expanded based on the Israeli opinions from the links previously posted here. Both the opinion from Gideon Levy you just mentioned and more mainstream Israelis from the links I show above can be shown in the expanded section of the Israeli narrative section.

Some examples of the common Israeli narrative about Nakba one may see from Israelis and pro-Israeli individuals may include discussion of Jewish displacements from the Arab lands and other events of displacement of entire ethnic groups, , seeing the event as a result of Arab rejectionism , or seeing it as a hostile narrative towards Israeli independence, but also some talks of reconciliation and acceptance of the Palestinian suffering as part of the greater historical event . All of these opinions, ranging from rejection to acceptance of the Arab narrative, should be reflected in the expanded section about Israeli narrative. The existing section, which is based on an academic description of Israeli narrative, is inadequate, we must agree with this. 14:45, 23 July 2021 (UTC)Geoffrey Zhehao Li (talk)

References

Can't see an actual edit request here.Selfstudier (talk) 14:53, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

You can't edit here. I note you mention, when I cited an eyewitness Palestinian account, reflecting direct experience, of what the nakba meant for him, and others in Lifta, that you replied that the testimony was 'not-that-mainstream', and followed up with what evidently you think is 'mainstream' evidence. I.e. two blogs, one indeed by some chap from Indiana who opines about Gush Etzion as a nakba, another an opinion piece by Ben-Dror Yemini, who was born in a nation, was never displaced and tells us that Palestinian celebrations of the nakba were silly, for the Germans had one (they are not occupied, and have a nation); the Poles had one (they are not occupied and have a nation); ; the Hindus had a nakba (they are not occupied and have a nation ); the Jews had one (they are not occupied and have a nation). The Palestinian one is piffle: the ‘smallest of them all’. I.e. how outrageous it is for 'them' to exercise their memories of grief when we and the world have suffered far more than they have at our hands. Want editors here to mention that outlook?

You don't know blogs are not used and mere opinions about an historical event by op-ed artists don't form the material for history, unless you want us to write up the numerous examples of dismissive contempt by such writers for events where Palestinians do exactly as Israelis do, commemorate Tisha B'av, Yom HaShoah, Yom HaZikaron,Jerusalem Day, Yom Ha'atzmaut, Yom l-Tziyon HaYetziah V'HaGerush Shel HaYehudim M'Artzot Erev Um'Iran, Yom HaAliyah, etc.etc.etc. Most of those pieces find it distasteful that Palestinians also memorialize their tragedies and travails.

You are the fourth editor I've noted this year to turn up, make a dozen edits elsewhere, and then, instead of earning the right to edit the I/P area, jump in quickly urgently to belabor the talk page asking those who have done their homework to edit on your behalf. So, don't ask others to work for you. Earn your entry into the encyclopedia, and in the meantime study its methods: blogs are not usable; overviews of something can't be made by stacking up a list of occasional press articles but rather by reading the secondary scholarly literature, like Meira Weiss (1997), Mooli Brog (2003), Avner Ben-Amos (2003) Dalia Ofer (2000, 2013) etc.etc.etc. Nishidani (talk) 15:46, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I apologise for trying to add things based on my mistaken idea that more sources and narratives are automatically better. Still I think that it would be good to add “being associated with the very legitimacy of the State of Israel” after “ As a result, the narrative is extremely sensitive to the Israeli identity.” as the source this wiki cites. Geoffrey Zhehao Li (talk) 01:24, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for reminding about what’s acceptable for editing for Wikipedia. I will be more careful for requesting source-based edits on this topic in the future. Geoffrey Zhehao Li (talk) 01:37, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

"Palestinian society"

At the time of the war "Palestine" was a Zionist name. The destruction was of the status quo in Palestinian Arab society, i.e. Arab hegemony in Israel. This must be made clear in the summary. Mind flux (talk) 15:15, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Who taught you this garbage? Onceinawhile (talk) 19:51, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Your ignorance is boundless. https://www.google.com/search?q=palestine+poster+1930s+1940s&tbm=isch The summary also needs to make starkly clear the https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_exodus_from_Arab_and_Muslim_countries of the same conflict during which more of the Jewish minority, not in percentage but gross numbers, was purged by the continent-spanning Arab empire. Mind flux (talk) 07:25, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Please make an WP:EDITREQ in proper format (change X to Y) and provide references to back up each desired change. Thank you.Selfstudier (talk) 10:00, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Also we must avoid two things here: (1) Whataboutism – a propaganda technique to misdirect attention; (2) misrepresentations of human suffering – see the One Million Plan to understand an important reason (among others) for what happened. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:08, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Article lead

I read the article lead and what stood out to me as strange is the absence of an explanation as to who caused the 'Nakba' and why it was caused. Shouldn't the article explain that the Yishuv and the subsequent Israeli state were responsible and were motivated by Zionism? Or at least provide some sort of explanation. As the article stands now, it appears that the 'Nakba' just spontaneously happened for no reason and was done by no body. Reflecktor (talk) 17:05, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Same as previous comment, if you believe the article ought to contain some statement then suggest that in form change X to Y and provide suitable sources. Thanks. Selfstudier (talk) 17:54, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 November 2021

This page is just a more biased version of the existing https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Palestinian_exodus page and should be merged back but here are suggested changes to the summary in case the page stays up:

The Nakba (Arabic: النكبة‎, romanized: an-Nakbah, lit. '"disaster," "catastrophe," or "cataclysm") was the destruction of Arab society as it existed in British Mandatory Palestine in 1948, and the displacement of the majority of the Arabs of the territory that became Israel upon its independence. This displaced population and other citizens of Mandatory Palestine who did not become Israelis came to be known as the Palestinian people. The term Nakba is also used to describe ongoing persecution, displacement, and occupation of claimed lands of the Palestinians in Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip, as well as in Palestinian refugee camps throughout the region.

The foundational events of the Nakba took place during and shortly after the 1947–1949 Palestine war, including 78% of Mandatory Palestine being declared as Israel, the exodus of 700,000 Palestinians, the related depopulation and destruction of over 500 Palestinian villages and subsequent geographical erasure, the denial of a Palestinian right of return, the creation of UNRWA and a population of "permanent refugees," and the "shattering of Palestinian society." These events were part of the broader Arab–Israeli conflict in the aftermath of World War II, which included the exodus from Arab and Muslim countries of 850,000 Jews. Mind flux (talk) 06:55, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Please identify and explain the individual changes you are proposing, and provide sources for each. There appear to be many different changes proposed in here, so it is difficult to discuss unless they are broken out with explanation and sources for each. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:26, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:13, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

these are basic factual corrections and context which are already stated in the existing sources. Mind flux (talk) 00:41, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

It looks like anti-Palestinian propaganda to me:

• Deleting the word Palestinian and replacing with Arab
• Adding "from the territory that became Israel upon its independence", eliding the military conquest of much more land than had been agreed at the UN
• Adding "came to be known as the Palestinian people", denying their Palestinian identity prior to the war
• Adding "of claimed land", implying something other than actual legal ownership
• Adding quotation marks around refugees
• Juxtaposing it with another tragedy which took place in a completely different way, over a completely different time period, and with a completely different set of motivating forces. In a similar way, I would oppose mentioning the Nakba in the lead of The Holocaust page.

Onceinawhile (talk) 06:56, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

eliding? feel free to add the entirety of the war to the summary yourself. the existing description erroneously states it was a majority of palestinians who were displaced. because out of racism it's trying to avoid mentioning the existence jews and israel, a central party to the conflict.

"claimed land" avoids taking sides in an unsettled political conflict, something the current version IS doing.

the jews and others of mandatory palestine who would became israeli were exactly as palestinian as those who split into another jurisdiction after the war. in fact arabs tended to resent the name as it was popularized by the zionist movement and legitimized by the british occupation. https://www.timesofisrael.com/watch-palestines-1939-soccer-team/ you are the one erasing identities. Mind flux (talk) 07:59, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree to all the points raised by Mind Flux this article clearly doesn't meet our polices of WP:NPOV Shrike (talk) 08:06, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Your first and last points suggest a total lack of understanding of Palestinian identity. It was the Yishuv who fought to replace the term Palestine with Eretz Israel during the Mandate, and the Palestinian Arabs whose most popular published newspaper was called Filastin. Or I can point you to some high quality academic sources if you like.

There is no dispute about who owned what land. Creating uncertainty by adding words like "claimed" against undisputed facts is what taking sides looks like. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:17, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

the newspaper was founded after the world zionist congress had been established for over a decade. the name palestine was not in popular use locally either officially or colloquially prior to the british era. https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/map-of-ottoman-administrative-districts-1915

& the claim in question is regarding a state's territory, not property ownership. disjointed response on a separate topic betraying ignorance of both. Mind flux (talk) 09:50, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Your text says "claimed lands of the Palestinians" – that wording refers to land owned by people, not a state’s territory.

On usage of the term, you are simply wrong:

• Gerber, Haim (2008). "The term "Palestine"". Remembering and Imagining Palestine: Identity and Nationalism from the Crusades to the Present. pp. 48–53. ISBN 978-0-230-53701-9.
• Khalidi, Rashid (1997), Palestinian Identity: The Construction of Modern National Consciousness, Columbia University Press, ISBN 978-0-231-52174-1
• Foster, Zachary (November 2017). The Invention of Palestine (thesis). Princeton University. ISBN 978-0-355-48023-8. Docket 10634618. Retrieved 9 February 2018.
• Masalha, Nur (15 August 2018). Palestine: A Four Thousand Year History. Zed Books, Limited. ISBN 978-1-78699-273-4.

Onceinawhile (talk) 10:22, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

"occupation of claimed lands" refers to national territory unequivocally. if you want to change the phrasing to explicitly state e.g. hamas as the claimant then go for it.

none of these sources discuss a nation or ethnicity "palestine" existing in the 1800s ce. connections palestinians may have to ancient philistines or the land are not the issue here. the divergence between arab gazans as palestinians and jews in haifa as israelis occurred in the war this page is about and it is crucial context. Mind flux (talk) 10:43, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

During the Mandate period "Palestinian" was a formal citizenship recognised by law. By 1948, only about 10% of Palestinian citizens were Jews. It isn't wrong to call the majority of Palestinian citizens "Arabs", because that's what they were, but the "Palestinians didn't exist" canard is historically false. Zero^talk 11:04, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

palestinian citizenship as such, prior to israel's independence, was granted for under 30 years, under british rule. the destruction referred to by the term "nakba" is of the centuries-older arab culture in that land, by no means to the destruction of the palestinian mandate which was ostensibly a zionist project. nothing to do with saying someone "didn't exist." Mind flux (talk) 11:31, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I see claims ("the palestinian mandate which was ostensibly a zionist project" & "destruction referred to by the term "nakba" is of the centuries-older arab culture in that land") but no sources to go with them.Selfstudier (talk) 13:26, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

every single source on this topic refers to these basic facts because the jewish-arab conflict over zionism is the context in which every single event of the nakba occurred. it's obvious on its face that the arabs who were rioting against the british and resented them for promising jews a homeland in what was arab territory were mourning their own loss, not the end of british rule.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1936%E2%80%931939_Arab_revolt_in_Palestine

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farhud

https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2018/4/10/how-britain-destroyed-the-palestinian-homeland

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/11/2/palestinians-mark-104-years-since-balfour-declaration

https://pij.org/articles/1155/nakba-and-independence

https://www.amazon.com/Palestine-Across-Millennia-Educational-Revolutions/dp/0755642953

https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/israel-middle-east/articles/emotional-nakba

https://jfedsrq.org/crconnect-section/did-jews-take-israel-away-from-palestinians

my purpose in the edit is a simple clarification, this discussion isn't necessary. Mind flux (talk) 14:09, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

"came to be known as the Palestinian people" is a denial of prior existence. Zero^talk 13:40, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

the distinction of the modern population known as palestinians from jews and other arabs involves, to the minute and to the man, -the topic of this article-. denying the very special meaning living in eretz israel held for palestinian arabs for centuries prior to the war is not the point. perhaps "are the modern-day Palestinians" is more clear phrasing? Mind flux (talk) 14:48, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

What underlies this type of rhetoric is usually a misunderstanding of what “Arab” and “Arab culture” means. Listen to Albanian music, or eat Greek food – you will see a striking similarity to Palestinian culture. “Arab” primarily means Arabic-speaking, and the cultural aspects come from their geographic location. And the Arabic language itself is just an evolution of the Aramaic that preceded it, particularly so in the Levantine dialects.

So the “centuries-older arab culture in that land” was not something imported from the Arabian Desert. It was a local culture, developed through the entire civilized history of the Palestine region and its surrounding areas.

Onceinawhile (talk) 14:09, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

completely absurd, you're claiming the jews who were at war with the arabs in the topic this page is about are arabs. also completely irrelevant, my point was that "nakba" mourns arab culture as it existed prior to the mass aliyot. the obvious history and present of arab conquest imperialism and oppression of minorities do not have to be mentioned. does that allay your concerns? Mind flux (talk) 14:15, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

What is absurd is a person with 200+ edits since 2006 continually ignoring the polite corrections by several editors to their misprisions about that area. What Onceinawhile said was not that Jews were Arabs, but that 'Arabs' in Palestine were Arabized, just as the traditional Jewish (Musta'arabi Jews) and Samaritan communities were. Nishidani (talk) 14:27, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

again, your (disturbing and racist) claim that the jews who caused the "nakba" were "arabized" is not even relevant to the discussion. Mind flux (talk) 14:54, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

That you call me a 'racist' on the basis of an incompetent grasp of English, which imagines me as engaging in a paradoxical assertion that the nakba was caused by Arabized Zionists, suggests to me you are on the wrong page. Please desist. There is no point arguing if one's interlocutor is apparently unfamiliar with the language used in the discussion.Nishidani (talk) 15:19, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

wow bro major misprision alert.Mind flux (talk) 15:40, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I return to my initial commentary, change requested in form X to Y with a source for each requested change. So far you have not achieved any consensus for anything so I would suggesting keeping it simple and going stepwise. Else wait till you have 500 edits and try editing the article directly.Selfstudier (talk) 14:59, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

every claim in my suggested edit is sourced and only one of us is fluent in english. Mind flux (talk) 15:04, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

As I said you have achieved no consensus for anything up to now so maybe try another approach. As regards fluency in English see WP:CIR.Selfstudier (talk) 15:08, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Mind flux, I was interested in your comment about people who lived in 19th century Palestine. You seem to be suggesting that Arabic-speaking Jews in Palestine were not Arabs, but Arabic-speaking Christians in Palestine and Arabic-speaking Muslims in Palestine were Arabs. What logic leads you to this fascinating conclusion? Onceinawhile (talk) 15:18, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

are you claiming arab muslims speaking arabic arent arabs? are you going to refer to an issue in the text of my edit suggestion at some point? should i mention arameans in the nakba summary? seems excessive Mind flux (talk) 15:36, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

You did not answer my question, so I assume you don’t have an answer for it.

I am trying to show you that the word Arab is primarily a language-based identity, which some sub-groups have chosen to eschew in modern times. It is not primordial, and it does not tell you anything about a person’s descent from the 7th-century Islamic conquests. Once you start to understand what an Arab is and what an Arab is not, you will begin to understand what a Palestinian is. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:00, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

no i dont claim the majority of arabic speaking christians are arabs. and again for about the 4th time that isnt relevant to my point which was similar to yours, to explain that the common culture which already existed prior to the palestinian mandate was the issue at hand in summarizing the meaning of nakba. stop spamming me. Mind flux (talk) 16:10, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

OK great, so do you now understand why your proposals to delete the word Palestinian and replace it with Arab, and to add "came to be known as the Palestinian people", will not be implemented? Onceinawhile (talk) 17:24, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

no you were discussing the opposite of that and supporting my point at the same time. do you find the phrasing "are the modern-day Palestinians" to be more clear? Mind flux (talk) 21:10, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I dont see any reason to consider any of these changes given they are lacking in any argument found in any source. Actual sources however support the material as written. Examples:

• Bashir, Bashir; Goldberg, Amos, eds. (2018). The Holocaust and the Nakba: A New Grammar of Trauma and History. Religion, Culture, and Public Life. Columbia University Press. pp. 30–31. ISBN 978-0-231-54448-1. For the Palestinians, the Nakba is not merely about their defeat, their ethnic cleansing from Palestine,2 and the loss of their homeland, nor even about having become a people living predominantly as refugees outside their land and as a fragmented minority living under occupation in their own land. The Nakba also represents the destruction of hundreds of villages and urban neighborhoods, along with the cultural, economic, political, and social fabric of the Palestinian people. It is the violent and irreparable disruption of the modern development of Palestinian culture, society, and national consciousness
• Sa'di, A.H.; Abu-Lughod, L. (2007). Nakba: Palestine, 1948, and the Claims of Memory. Cultures of History. Columbia University Press. p. 3. ISBN 978-0-231-50970-1. For Palestinians, the 1948 War led indeed to a "catastrophe." A society disintegrated, a people dispersed, and a complex and historically changing but taken for granted communal life was ended violently. The Nakba has thus become, both in Palestinian memory and history, the demarcation line between two qualitatively opposing periods. After 1948, the lives of the Palestinians at the individual, community, and national level were dramatically and irreversibly changed.
• Masalha, N. (2012). The Palestine Nakba: Decolonising History, Narrating the Subaltern, Reclaiming Memory. Zed Books. pp. 1, 3. ISBN 978-1-84813-973-2. 1948 was the year of the Palestine Nakba (Catastrophe), the up­rooting of the Palestinians and the dismemberment and deArabisation of historic Palestine. ... The Nakba is the turning point in the modern history of Palestine — that year over 500 villages and towns and a whole country and its people disappeared from international maps and dictionaries. This sudden shattering of Palestinian society (Falah 1996: 256–85; Abu-Lughod 1971: 139–63; Hadawi 1967; Khalidi 1992a; Kamen 1987: 453–95; Masalha 1992, 2003, 2005) is what made the Nakba a key date for the Palestinian people — a year of traumatic rupture in the continuity of historical space and time in Palestinian history (Masalha 2005; Sa'di and Abu-Lughod 2007; Matar 2011: 12). {{cite book}}: soft hyphen character in |quote= at position 63 (help)

As no sources for any change has been offered, I dont really see why anybody is wasting their time on this. Provide reliable sources to support your change is the answer to the edit request. Until such sources are provided there is literally nothing to talk about here. nableezy - 22:17, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

as i already stated, every claim is already sourced in the existing article as i only made clarifying changes to the phrasing. i also included others in this talk section. here are more. by the way all of your cited quotations are exactly concordant with my suggested edit. please specify a claim that is lacking sufficient sourcing. https://www.unrwa.org/newsroom/photos/flight-1948 https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/05/the-meaning-of-nakba-israel-palestine-1948-gaza/560294/ https://apnews.com/article/west-bank-gaza-strip-middle-east-demographics-israel-89c662b833d84ebca18eba5c1d7fad7b https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/state-of-israel-proclaimed https://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/foreignpolicy/peace/guide/pages/why%20was%20-independent%20palestine-%20never%20created%20in%201.aspx https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-11104284 https://rli.blogs.sas.ac.uk/2021/07/20/refugee-ever-after-why-are-we-letting-palestinians-become-the-worlds-permanent-refugees/ https://www.alliancemagazine.org/feature/permanent-refugees-mobilizing-palestinian-diaspora-philanthropy/ Mind flux (talk) 23:13, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

The onus is on you to provide sourcing for the edits you want to make, not on other editors to "..specify a claim that is lacking sufficient sourcing." You haven't done so in any sensible fashion and until you do, there is nothing more to discuss.Selfstudier (talk) 11:52, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

What about these sources support that it was the destruction of Palestinian society is unclear to you? I get that you dislike the word Palestinian, but the sources say what they say, sorry. Your vague wave to some random websites, including the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs as though Wikipedia were a hasbara project, doesnt really change that. nableezy - 15:03, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

hey cool cant link to jews. really mysterious motives you guys have. Mind flux (talk) 06:01, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Like Amos Goldberg? Believe I linked to him already. Oh, you mean the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Yeah, mysterious motives you got there. nableezy - 19:59, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

The ignorance of the comments here has hit a new low. Jewish scholars have been amongst the best and most powerful writers on this conflict ever since it began a century ago. Reliability and ethnicity have no relation. The English website of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs is a propaganda website – we cannot use it as a source on the Nakba, whether it is written by Jews, Palestinians or Martians. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:43, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

So's an Op-Ed by the Secretary General of the Palestine Liberation Organization. You don't seem to have an issue of using that - and in the lead! Inf-in MD (talk) 20:33, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Thats the defense for calling somebody a racist for objecting to the MFA? nableezy - 20:43, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

No, quite obviously not. It is simply pointing out the double standards being used with regards to sources. Inf-in MD (talk) 21:54, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I have no objection to its removal. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:14, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Take it out and see if anybody calls you a racist. Then you can claim a double standard. nableezy - 23:24, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Just did. Inf-in MD (talk) 23:50, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Maybe watch the blp vios in edit summaries tho mkay? nableezy - 16:34, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Majority of Palestinians displaced

Since this was questioned, see below the population stats from the 1947 Partition Plan:

Territory	Arab and other population	% Arab and other	Jewish population	% Jewish	Total population
Arab State	725,000	99%	10,000	1%	735,000
Jewish State	407,000	45%	498,000	55%	905,000
International	105,000	51%	100,000	49%	205,000
Total	1,237,000	67%	608,000	33%	1,845,000
Data from the Report of UNSCOP: 3 September 1947: CHAPTER 4: A COMMENTARY ON PARTITION

Of course, the territory which became Israel was much larger than the proposed “Jewish state” and many more Palestinians were displaced. Per List of estimates of the Palestinian refugee flight of 1948 most estimates are around 700,000 – 800,000.

Even on the low end of the spectrum, that is a clear majority of the 1948 Palestinian population. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:37, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

700,000 is not a majority of 1,845,000. https://www.google.com/search?q=700000%2F1845000 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.53.15 (talk) 18:06, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

But it is a majority of 1,237,000, which was the Arab population. Inf-in MD (talk) 21:54, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Are you going to correct this major "error" in the first sentence of your article?.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.53.15 (talk) 21:53, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Ive clarified the link. nableezy - 22:23, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

"[D]estruction of Palestinian society and homeland" still implies that "Palestinian" means only Arabs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.53.15 (talk) 06:18, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

The displacement of a minority of residents of Mandatory Palestine during Israel's founding by an indigenous Palestinian people does not constitute "the destruction of Palestinian society and homeland;" this phrasing is nonsensical.

The sentence as such is a reference specifically to Arab Palestinian society and Arab Palestinian homeland, or rather society as it existed in Mandatory Palestine.

The phrase "ongoing persecution, displacement, and occupation of the Palestinians, both in the occupied West Bank and the Gaza Strip, as well as in Palestinian refugee camps throughout the region" is nonsensical. A reference to a people being occupied as such implies that Saudi Arabia, without holding land claimed for a Palestinian state, persecutes "occupied Palestinians" while Israel doesn't bear mentioning.

The intended meaning is "ongoing persecution and displacement of the Arab Palestinians in Israel, the occupied West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and Palestinian refugee camps throughout the region." (N.b. a reference to Arab Israelis, who hold no Palestinian citizenship or refugee status, as "Palestinians" requires differentiating them as "Arab Palestinians" lest it be a reference to the large percentage of Israeli Jews who also descend from residents of Mandatory Palestine.)

Mods please correct these gross errors sitting in the summary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.53.15 (talk) 12:04, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Figures for destinations of the displaced?

In what numbers did the 700k displaced move elsewhere? As in: How many ended up in Lebanon, Syria, the West Bank, East Jerusalem, Jordan, Gaza, and Egypt respectively?

These figures have to be somewhere – like the earliest reliable UNRWA counts – and the 700k itself has to be based on something similar, after all.

However, that part seems completely missing from the various Wikipedia articles so far. -- 84.188.166.3 (talk) 12:48, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

See Palestinian_refugee_camps#Population_statistics. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:52, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

That's a start, thanks, but only shows 1950+ when 700k had already become 900k+. Also, it offers no breakdown for EJ/WB/Jordan. -- 84.188.166.3 (talk) 23:01, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

How about List_of_estimates_of_the_Palestinian_refugee_flight_of_1948#Estimates_of_total_number_of_people_who_registered_as_refugees. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:08, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

? I've been talking about a detailed breakdown of the initial 700k, that last link doesn't contain any? -- 2003:C0:1710:383B:BD16:AD3D:9F22:73BD (talk) 01:49, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I have been trying to help. Now it is your turn. Find the information you want to see, and we can add it to these articles. Onceinawhile (talk) 05:43, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Italics for nakba

Should the Arabic term nakba be italicised? Editor2020 (talk) 08:31, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

No, because 'Nakba' is the normalised term in the English language for the Palestianian description of their expulsion. This is indicated by the lack of an English language equivalent or alternative to the name. While it can loosely be translated as 'catastrophe' - that term, in of itself, does not describe the 'Nakba', which has its own self-contained meaning in English. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:05, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Working on a related article

Draft:The Holocaust and the Nakba (t · c) buidhe 07:29, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:1948 Palestinian exodus which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 12:31, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

"Symbolic Key" in the opening paragraph leads to gallery of keys

While I understand what is the key that is referenced, but sadly I cant edit myself (not power editor or w/e), so I can't help extend it. I think just linking to gallery of photos of the keys is not really explaining anything to anyone. Just for the record, AFAIK, usually the key means a key of the house that the refugee kept. Someone might wanna clarify/extend that part, maybe create an article for that key? Maybe this key already has a known term and an article? --Benderbr (talk) 09:43, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Benderbr: thanks for this. I have been thinking about doing this for a while. On the basis of your impetus I have just made a start - see the new article Palestinian key. If you have time to help build it out further that would be great. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:33, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I know of it. Can't contribute much. Thank you so much for clearing this up, this will help others who aren't "in the know". Benderbr (talk) 10:40, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Keys as a symbol.

It feels like there might be enough online to create an article for the Symbolic Keys rather than a link to a category of images. Would there be a better place to suggest this? I don't have nearly enough experience with this topic to create such an article. (Yes, I've been on Wikipedia for a decade, but working in this area is different...)Naraht (talk) 14:33, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

@Naraht see bottom discussion, someone did it :) you can contribute to the new article Palestinian key Benderbr (talk) 11:48, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

NPOV tag

Article has been tagged POV, required now are specific statements as to what is POV and how to rectify any deficiency (sources required) Note that this article went through DYK review and passed the NPOV test in May 2021 so it will be interesting to see these new arguments. Selfstudier (talk) 18:02, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

WP:FORK

Is it just me or this article is a WP:FORK of 1948 Palestinian exodus after a failed RfC to change article's title? It's written in a horrific POV style ("persecution", etc) and whenever someone adds some basic attribution it gets reverted. Maybe it should be merged or simply deleted. Could someone take a look? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.142.166.34 (talk) 09:42, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

No, it is not a fork as they are not the same subject. nableezy - 14:17, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree. This is an all-around terrible article. I wanted to make some changes but those got reverted. I was planning on opening a discussion here on this, might still do that, but now leaning more towards opening a case for deletion. RM (Be my friend) 07:32, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Feel free, but the sources obviously support the existence of this article. Im sorry your efforts to align this article with your personal viewpoints are opposed. nableezy - 14:17, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

This article probably violates Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, as it doesn’t explain the causes (the rejection of the peace offer by the Arabs), as well as using inflammatory words like persecution. Folks who dismiss the complexity of the conflict may take pride in this, bc it promotes the Black-or-White point of view (only one side is bad). Archway (talk) 15:01, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Oh really? The failure of 66% of the population to concede to 30% of the population 56% of the land (and 90% of its infrastructure) to migrants was the cause of the nakba? Go read Ben-Gurion's speeches ca.1938.Nishidani (talk) 15:41, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

For the record, they wouldn't accept partition and a Jewish state on ANY border, regardless of percentages (not to mention most of the proposed Jewish state was a desert). I know it doesn't suit your victimhood narrative, but it's important to get the facts straight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a01:73c0:502:6c33::177f:d48b (talk) 20:23, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

For the record, that is entirely your imagination, and its important not to let random people on the internet bluster about facts they dont know jack about. nableezy - 21:55, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

NPOV is a matter of sourcing, not opinion. Selfstudier (talk) 15:23, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Blaming the Nakba on the Palestinians is as offensive as blaming the Holocaust on the Jews. It is unacceptable. There is clear proof that both of these tragedies were planned by the perpetrators. Obfuscation via victim blaming has no place in a reputable publication.

Having said which, this article was carefully written to avoid the topic of causation. See this detailed explanation here. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:22, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

We're getting into a political debate here. This really shouldn't be a back-and-forth. Regardless of your personal viewpoints, Wikipedia needs to be neutral. This article fails horribly at that. The main case for deletion isn't even that, it's the fact that this article is superfluous, but the fact is that we can't have articles so blatantly slanted towards a single point of view. As much as you may not like it the Israeli POV must be given weight too. RM (Be my friend) 17:31, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

That isnt what NPOV means, it does not mean giving a false balance to an "Israeli POV", NPOV means giving proportional weight to viewpoints as they appear in reliable sources. Your attempt to shoehorn in outdated propaganda is not that. nableezy - 18:16, 2 September 2022 (UTC)