Talk:Nakba/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Citations in first sentence

Looking at this article after commenting at AE and seeing this RfC i am confused about the usage of citations in the first sentence. I know it is common practice to add references to multiple works for a contentions label, but doing so can make it unclear to the reader as to what exactly the citations are meant to support. Some kind of explanatory footnote would be useful.
I thin the most common and neutral definition of nakba is along the line of the events of 1948 which lead to the displacement of Palestinians. What i am searching for is a citation which supports the particular definition given by the article. fiveby(zero) 15:16, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps a better way to think about this is that strictly speaking, citations are not actually required in the lead, which is supposed to be a summary of what is in the body. So is the explanation that you are looking for in the body? (btw, I would hesitate to say that the Nakba is susceptible to a "definition" as such. Nor would I regard it as as a "label" either). Selfstudier (talk) 15:24, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree, except the 'label' i was referring to was 'ethnic cleansing', not 'nakba' . I don't find the explanation explicitly within the body, but of course in Pappe's preface:

In other words, I want to make the case for the paradigm of ethnic cleansing and use it to replace the paradigm of war as the basis for scholarly research of, and the public debate about, 1948...To some, this approach—adopting the paradigm of ethnic cleansing as the a priori basis for the narrative of 1948—may from the outset look as an indictment. In many ways it is indeed my own J’Accuse against the politicians who devised, and the generals who perpetrated, the ethnic cleansing... am not aware that anyone has ever tried this approach before. The two official historical narratives that compete over the story of what happened in Palestine in 1948 both ignore the concept of ethnic cleansing. While the Zionist/Israeli version claims that the local population left ‘voluntarily’, the Palestinians talk about the ‘catastrophe’, the Nakba, that befell them, which in some ways is also an elusive term as it refers more to the disaster itself rather than to who or what caused it. The term Nakba was adopted, for understandable reasons, as an attempt to counter the moral weight of the Jewish Holocaust (Shoa), but in leaving out the actor, it may in a sense have contributed to the continuing denial by the world of the ethnic cleansing of Palestine in 1948 and after.

As a reader, if i see the claim that Nakba "is the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians" and a citation to The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine i can understand the basis and why you are saying that. I might not find the statement neutral, but understand. In the body i find the described as ethnic cleansing by many scholars... and Other scholars, such as...disagree not very helpful, Penslar in Nakba#cite_note-122 marginally helpful. I would also hesitate to say that Nakba is susceptible to a definition, but authors do give definitions and "is the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians" is the one that has been chosen here.fiveby(zero) 17:30, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

If the described as ethnic cleansing by many scholars... line in the body that lists like 30 scholars with a footnote quotation from each of them is not very helpful, and the Penslar quote ("Derek Penslar recently stated that pro-Israelis needed to catch up with the past 30 years of academic scholarship that has accepted the ‘vast bulk of findings’ by the New Historians regarding the Nakba. He said: '... It was ethnic cleansing'") is marginally helpful, what would be very helpful?

Just to drill down on this a little:

The body sentence says The Nakba is described as ethnic cleansing by many scholars,[122] ... and that ref 122 includes the Penslar quote, plus a cite to Lentin that says "non-Zionist scholars" (that's the vast majority of scholars) describe it as ethnic cleansing, one from Milshtein saying "the majority of Palestinian writers" describe it that way, one from Ram saying the same about Israeli historians, and several other cites besides. Does this not adequately support the sentence "The Nakba is described as ethnic cleansing by many scholars"?

It continues, ... including Palestinian scholars such as Saleh Abd al-Jawad,[123] ..., and the quote in ref 123 is Israeli historiography has adopted a denial of the Nakba, a negation of the breadth of ethnic cleansing perpetrated in Palestine. Does this not adequately support that Saleh Abd al-Jawad describes the Nakba as an ethnic cleansing?

Went through these like this one by one in the archived discussion Daniel linked below. Levivich (talk) 17:51, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

what exactly the citations are meant to support They're meant to support the sentence being cited? What i am searching for is a citation which supports the particular definition given by the article. That would be citations #1 and #2? I'm clearly confused by your question. Levivich (talk) 15:38, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Ok, the first, "Anti-Palestinian Racism and Racial Gaslighting" The Nakba—Arabic for catastrophe—is the term used to capture the events of 1948 which led to over 80 per cent of the Palestinian population being violently forced to flee, and becoming stateless refugees in and outside historic Palestine. Need we go through them? fiveby(zero) 17:53, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

That's the first citation in ref #2, Abu-Laban & Bakan 2022, pp. 511-512:

[p. 511] The Nakba—Arabic for catastrophe—is the term used to capture the events of 1948 which led to over 80 per cent of the Palestinian population being violently forced to flee, and becoming stateless refugees in and outside historic Palestine. The Nakba is also a marker in what Abu-Luhod and Sa’di call ‘Palestinian time’. This is because in Palestinian collective memory ‘after 1948’ marks a dramatic disintegration of a society and a way of life ... [p. 512] For Palestinians, occupation, land usurpation, displacement and being forced to live as refugees have continued from 1948 until present times. The Nakba has in effect been an ongoing continuity of trauma."

Cited to source this in the lead:

... violent displacement and dispossession of land, property, and belongings, along with the destruction of their society and the suppression of their culture, identity, political rights, and national aspirations.

Hopefully the highlighting helps clarify which parts of the source support which parts of the sentence. You'll find more quotes at Talk:Nakba/Archive 3#Nakba definition. The line has been discussed/tweaked since then; the last time I recall is Talk:Nakba/Archive 5#wording in lede. Levivich (talk) 18:05, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I see, but hardly necessary i would think and confusing placement for the reader. Wouldn't common practice in writing and WP guidelines encourage you to place these citations within the "Components" section?

The citation i asked for tho was the one which gives license to prefer:

...is the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians...

over the more common as above

...term used to capture the events of 1948...

fiveby(zero) 19:29, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

The citation (ref #2) is in the #Components section. Common practice is not to have cites in the lead, but because this lead is repeatedly questioned, this lead has cites. See Self's comment below about that, the hope to one day remove them. The citation for "ethnic cleansing" is Ref #1 (which is the same set of citations in the "described as ethnic cleansing by many scholars" line in the body). I don't think any citation gives "license to prefer." That would be Wikipedia policies and guidelines, most of all WP:NPOV, but also MOS:FIRST. "Ethnic cleansing" is the most succinct way to introduce and summarize "Nakba," at least in my opinion. Levivich (talk) 19:35, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

See also this archived discussion from a few weeks ago, where I argue that only a few of these references clearly support the content. The bulk of them are loosely related, but either give a broader definition of the Nakba or don't define it at all. Several don't even mention the Nakba.

WP:V isn't a numbers game; these reference bombs with loosely-related materials just make it more difficult for both readers and editors to determine whether the content is actually well-supported. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 16:27, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I guess one could just read the article? How many people actually read the refs? Is there something wrong with a broader "definition"? (I would say "description" personally). If there is a reference that is not contributing to the description, then remove it with an explanation.(btw, V is a numbers game, that is exactly how we determine things like commonname and what the balance of sources say). Selfstudier (talk) 16:43, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

The point is that those who do examine the references (whether readers or editors) would be better served by a few of the most relevant sources, rather than a long list of loosely related ones. Those who ignore references won't be affected either way.

WP:EXTRAORDINARY claims require "multiple" sources, but beyond that WP:V doesn't encourage large quantities, and 25 is clearly excessive. I can try to prune some of the less relevant ones, but it would be best if editors also stop adding to the WP:REFCLUTTER. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 18:25, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

In principle, I agree, this kind of overcite usually comes about when the material is contested, as is happening here, again. Once that sort of thing dies down, a normal article development would no longer require that many citations in the lead, in fact none would be preferable, with the necessary simply in the article body. Selfstudier (talk) 18:30, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

+1. Levivich (talk) 18:42, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Not only do they all mention the Nakba, but they're all drawn from works that are directly about the Nakba, and they all directly support what they're citing. None are "loosely related." I debunked your claims with quotes, for every source one by one, in the discussion you linked. For example, I mirthfully remember the one where you said that the foreword to Nakba and Survival, which said "they resisted the wave of ethnic cleansing that transformed Palestine in 1948 and that persists to this day," you disputed that this was a reference to the Nakba. Levivich (talk) 17:18, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

The question was not whether the Nakba involved ethnic cleansing, but whether it's defined as ethnic cleansing, as in The Nakba is the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians .... Such excerpts that don't even use the word Nakba, let alone define it, don't support such a definition, at least not to the standard WP:V requires (support the material clearly and directly). — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 19:03, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Your objection is to the word "is"? We could write "includes" instead". Or are you disputing the use of the term altogether? Selfstudier (talk) 19:12, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't have an objection to the lead saying the Nakba "involves" the ethnic cleansing rather than "is" the ethnic cleansing, but I don't think any of the sources define Nakba, I think they describe it. Wikipedia is not a dictionary; leads are not definitions, and the lead sentence does not necessarily define the topic. MOS:FIRST: The first sentence should introduce the topic, and tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is, and often when or where ... If its subject is definable, then the first sentence should give a concise definition ... I don't think this subject is definable, and I think the lead sentence introduces the subject and says what, where, and when it is. Do you have a suggestion for a different lead sentence? Levivich (talk) 19:13, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I think a broad definition along the lines of what fiveby mentioned, or along the lines of The Nakba refers to the displacement and dispossession of Palestinians ..., could be a good first sentence. I'd suggest mentioning ethnic cleansing in the second sentence. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 19:36, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:REFERS advises against doing that. This isn't an article about the word "Nakba," it's an article about the Nakba. For example, an alternative title for this article might be "Ethnic cleansing of Palestine." It's not an article about a word used to describe this (ongoing) event, it's an article about the event itself. Levivich (talk) 19:50, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

We might say a way of introducing the topic to readers or outlining the scope rather than 'definition'. I'd think the most common ways of doing this are along the lines of:

• events of 1948 which led to the displacement...
• displacement of Palestinians during 1948...
• Palestinian narrative of...

and we could look at sources to determine if that is correct if needed. There will be many tertiary sources involved, and i think as Selfstudier has alluded these can lack nuance and not fully capture the scope of the article. But their task is the same as the WP article and the introduction here should be modeled on the way they commonly do things and not create some novel construction.

I think 'narrative', while appropriate in certain contexts, is dismissive of some of the scholarship concerned. The first two problems with incorporating Ongoing Nakba, which for some reason is a separate article. fiveby(zero) 15:50, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Why do you think those are the most common ways of doing this? None of those seem common to me at all, and I showed my work at Talk:Nakba/Archive 3#Nakba definition. The sources listed there don't support "narrative" or "displacement" or "events of 1948". More to the point: do you dispute that mainstream academic consensus is that the Nakba is an ethnic cleansing? If so, based on what--which sources says it wasn't an ethnic cleansing? If not, then why remove it from the first sentence, is it not the most succinct way to introduce the topic? Wouldn't removing "ethnic cleansing" from the intro be "burying the lead"? Levivich (talk) 16:14, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

al-Nakba noun the Palestinian term for the events of 1948, when many Palestinians were displaced by the creation of the new state of Israel

— Oxford Dictionary of English

among others. Which of course we would never cite, but offered above that we could go through these, including the one you quoted above:

The Nakba—Arabic for catastrophe—is the term used to capture the events of 1948 which led to...

Of course not [to removal of ethnic cleansing], but it is in the same manner as the events of the Bosnian war were ethnic cleansing, a verdict or classification, not defining what the topic is. I have never said to remove ethnic cleansing, but my complaint about the "many scholars say...some disagree" language in the body is that it does not explain much which the reader should know: why it has been classified as such; i think that would call for expansion within the article. Frankly i am surprised at your arguments, and to continue then the question i asked is still outstanding, the refrain on WP is "follow the sources", per BURDEN what is your source? fiveby(zero) 16:32, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

The answer to "why has it been classified as ethnic cleansing" seems a little obvious? Ethnic cleansing is the systematic forced removal of ethnic, racial, or religious groups from a given area, with the intent of making the society ethnically homogeneous (to use Wikipedia's description of it). The Nakba is classified as an "ethnic cleansing" because it is the systematic forced removal of Palestinians from Israel with the intent of making Israel an ethnically homogenous (specifically: Jewish) society. As this article says, the goal of Zionist settlement of Palestine was to obtain as much land, with as many Jews, and as few Arabs, as possible. When the Yishuv used systematic force to accomplish that goal, they engaged in ethnic cleansing. That said, certainly the body could be expanded to explain in more detail why scholars consider it an ethnic cleansing, and the historiography section could certainly be expanded to explain in more detail how scholars came to this consensus.

As for what is my source: what is my source for what? (I assume you're not asking me what is the source for "ethnic cleansing" or what is the source for the lead sentence, since both are cited in the article?) Levivich (talk) 17:31, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

As i would have thought would be very clear by now a source which defines nakba in the same way you do: The Nakba is the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians.

Nakba A term meaning ‘catastrophe’, used to denote the expulsion of up to 700,000 Palestinians before, during, and after the Arab–Israeli War of 1948. The period of the Nakba refers to events that took place between December 1947 and January 1949 and is subject to fierce controversy and contestation in Israeli and Arab narratives. Numerous reasons account for the exodus of large elements of the Palestinian population of what became the State of Israel in May 1948, including military defeat, paramilitary activities, Israeli expulsion orders, and Arab evacuation orders.

— Oxford Dictionary of Politics in the Middle East

as an example. Tertiary sources not necessary but helpful, i think everyone is on the same page as to their limitations and problems with the above should be obvious. But not a list of sources which merely discuss ethnic cleansing in relation to nakba. I think if you are going to go against the grain of all these sources, published authors in respectable works, it is incumbent on you to provide sources which clearly support[s] the material as presented in the article. You don't get to claim, as you are seemingly doing here that those which state "events of 1948" or similar are just plain wrong and you know better. fiveby(zero) 20:56, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

(You keep using that word "define" despite our previous discussion about how that is not what we are doing here.) I don't know how much clearer you want than, e.g., Penslar, "It was an ethnic cleansing." There are like 30 sources in the article that describe the Nakba as ethnic cleansing. Levivich (talk) 02:00, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

The very archive talkpage section you authored and point to above is "Nakba definition", and in that section your conclusion is the violent displacement and dispossession of Palestinians, and the destruction of their society, culture, identity, political rights, and national aspirations with nothing about 'ethnic cleansing'. I've quoted two dictionaries above and would think that when one wishes to know the definition of a term a first step might be to look in a dictionary. MOS:FIRST says:

if its subject is definable, then the first sentence should give a concise definition: where possible, one that puts the article in context for the nonspecialist. Similarly, if the title is a specialized term, provide the context as early as possible.

Those show at least that it is possible, and the very article text: The Nakba is the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians would seem to indicate that you are comfortable with a definition, just not the one given in the majority of sources. Now i've fully acknowledged a hesitation about definitions, lack of nuance and not capturing the full scope, the limitations of tertiary sources, etc., but that does not give license to fully depart from how most sources describe the topic.

Penslar is quoted through Rashed, Short, and Docker; and that source is taking issue with Penslar in that he mistakenly interprets the concept of genocide, which is the argument of their paper, probably best illustrated with the quote: Did Zionist Israel perpetrate in the Nakba of 1948 genocide against Palestinian society? Is it still perpetrating genocide, incrementally but relentlessly, on the Palestinian people? Penslar is "Israel studies professor: 1948 really was ethnic cleansing, not genocide" an article in The Jewish Chronicle, remarks filtered through a journalist. Did Zionist Israel perpetrate in the Nakba of 1948 genocide or ethnic cleansing. That something was perpetrated in the nakba does not mean that is what the nakba is. fiveby(zero) 03:29, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand what your argument is, but I'll leave at this: "is the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians through their violent displacement and dispossession of land, property, and belongings, along with the destruction of their society and the suppression of their culture, identity, political rights, and national aspirations" is the best summary of the sources in refs 1 and 2, and the best introduction to the topic, that I've read so far. For the various reasons I've explained above, I think it's better than "is the events of 1948," "is the displacement," "is a narrative...", "is a term for ...", or "refers to...". Levivich (talk) 03:57, 23 August 2024 (UTC)