Template talk:Nakba

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconPalestine Template‑class High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis template is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related articles
TemplateThis template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
HighThis template has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Title change[edit]

The NPOV word for "Nakba" is "1948 Palestinian exodus." I propose that we change the template to Template:1948 Palestinian exodus. --GHcool (talk) 05:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is an ongoing RfC about this at the moment: see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Nakba. Could we discuss it there? If you change the title unilaterally, you'll undo the work I've put into adding it to pages. As for NPOV, there is nothing non-neutral about "Nakba." Would you say "Holocaust" is POV? These are just words historians use to describe discrete events. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 05:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does everything bad that happens to the Palestinians have to be compared to the Holocaust? --GHcool (talk) 06:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Must someone always mention that whenever anyone draws an analogy? Both words are used by historians to describe historical events. It really is time to stop being hysterical about these issues. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 15:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would have been much better to wait until the outcome of the RfC to create the template at all -- especially since the template was not created until after the RfC was opened. SV, I think it would be best if you remove this template from the articles where it has been inserted (more than 20 by last count), and it wouldn't be a bad idea to temporarily user-fy the template itself, and let's have some discussion over both the name and contents of the template, and the larger issue you have raised at the RfC. 6SJ7 (talk) 15:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You need to tell us who drew this to your attention, because you never act alone. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 15:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's pretty clear that this is not a discussion-friendly environment, so I am done commenting on this, on the whole "Nakba" issue, and maybe more than that. I'll just say this: My attention was drawn to it by the post about it at Wikiproject:Palestine. 6SJ7 (talk) 22:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rubbish. Nakba is most definitely not an NPOV word. Suicup (talk) 02:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

POV[edit]

This template is horribly POV. It should be removed from all articles until there is some consensus about what should be contained in it (if anything), and where it should go. As it stands now, it is just anti-Israel propaganda. 6SJ7 (talk) 12:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it POV? These are factual issues. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 12:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whether the Israeli Declaration of Independence should be in a template about a "Catastrophe" is not a factual issue. That is clearly POV, as is putting this template in that article. Words like "massacre" and "ethnic cleansing" also are not "factual issues." And there are issues about whether a number of these items even belong in this template, which creates a POV issue by associating things that shouldn't necessarily be associated, and in some cases that creates a WP:SYNTH issue as well. 6SJ7 (talk) 15:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The word "massacre" when it involves killing scores of unarmed men, women, and children, and when historians use the word "massacre," is indeed a factual issue. I think you're letting POV get in the way of common sense. "Nakba" is just a word that is being used increasingly by historians to describe a series of related events that led to the exodus of 700,000 Palestinians, just as "Holocaust" (also not a positive word in its literal meaning) refers to the killing of six million Jews and other Roma, gays etc. "Nakba" (and its variant spellings) get three million English-language hits on Google, so this is not some minority concept. I wish people would try to be more scholarly about these issues, rather than always reacting in the same old emotional affronted way. I'm surprised to see you do it, 6SJ. You told me not so long ago that you were tired of all the POV pushing too. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 15:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let's discuss the template, and not me, or what you think of my reaction, or other personal comments, shall we? I've said I think the template violates NPOV, and I've said why. You can disagree, but personalizing it is unnecessary and unhelpful. 6SJ7 (talk) 15:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind if I were to move this discussion to the RfC talk page? Others are discussing related issues there. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 15:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a useful template SV. The criticisms above spring from a misunderstanding of NPOV, which requires that all significant views that have been published by reliable sources are represented not that we don't have articles (or templates) that offend particular sensibilities. --Ian Pitchford (talk) 19:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to move. The discussion here is long and convoluted so I had to go back to first principles on this. First, let me clarify that this is not a decision on whether wikipedia should have a nakba template or not but rather on whether this template should be at Nakba or at 1948 Palestinian exodus. The arguments against the term seem weak to me since they seem to depend on either the term being offensive or that the nakba is an umbrella term for events much larger than the exodus of palestinians but that the template covers only article relating to the exodus. Plenty of evidence has been offered for the term being generally acceptable and clearly, as Fuzbaby says, the term is acceptable enough to have a template of its own and whether it covers more than what it is being used for is not germane. Personally, I think that the Nakba and Aliyah are both POVs on 'The Birth of Israel', a much complicated affair, but I have only a rudimentary knowledge about all this and that is beyond the scope of this move request anyway, so .... no consensus to move.--RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 23:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Nakba → Template:1948 Palestinian exodus — The consensus of opinion at the RfC appears to call for this action. GHcool (talk) 23:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even on this issue, what difference does it make? No reader will ever see the name of the template. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter. Wikipedia does not use POV, Arabic, disputed terms in their template names. --GHcool (talk) 23:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a disputed term by historians, which is what matters, and it is no more or less POV than Template:Aliyah, a Hebrew term for something Jews regard as good, and Arabs regard as bad. Make your arguments, by all means, but please don't state your views as fact. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 23:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As explained to SlimVirgin before, "Nakba" cannot reasonably be compared to "Aliyah." The word "Aliyah" does not insult Palestinian Arabs (it means "ascent" and is a reference to the ascent up the hill to Jerusalem). "Nakba," on the other hand, is an Arabic term meaning "catastrophe" and used to describe the founding of the State of Israel. --GHcool (talk) 04:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In my experience most people know that there was a mass refugee movement out of Palestine in 1948, but far fewer English-speakers outside the Muslim communities have much knowledge of Arabic words or know what a nakba is. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Few non-Jews know what "Aliyah" is, but we still have a Template:Aliyah. The point is not what English speakers know, but what English-speaking academics are doing, and they use the word "Nakba" (as do Israeli academics). I am shortly going to create an article about the Nakba, explaining who uses it, who opposes it, what it refers to etc, and this template is meant to be part of it i.e. it will be the lead article in the template. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 06:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It would be wonderful if one could prove that English speaking academics and the English speaking world at large refers to the Palestinian exodus and only the Palestinian exodus (i.e. not including the creation of the State of Israel or the 1947-1948 war) as the Nakba. Unfortunately, this has not been done and I would venture to guess that it cannot be done since the word is not used in the way that SlimVirgin alleges it is. --GHcool (talk) 16:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Nakba
This is discussion continued from User talk:Anthony Appleyard#Nakba.

You can't close or move this, Anthony, because you're involved. Please continue to contribute as an editor, but not as an admin, and undo your move. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 05:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between Nakba and 1948 Palestinian exodus[edit]

See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Nakba
This is discussion continued from User talk:Anthony Appleyard#Nakba.
  • What is the difference between the Nakba and the 1948 Palestinian exodus? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 1948 Palestinian exodus describes those who left in 1948. The Nakba is an entire confluence of events, including the exodus in 1947, 1948, 1949 and later (I believe it also includes the exodus in 1967); the loss of property and homes, the creation of Israel, the wars, the displacement among other Arab nations, the refugee camps: basically the destruction of Palestinian-Arab society. Now, please, with the greatest of respect, you are involved in this, and you're misuing the tools because you added your voice to that of GHCool, and after that you moved it back to his preference. Please move it to where it was when I created the template, and allow people to discuss it. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 05:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony, please move this back until there is consensus to move it to a new title. You're involved. If involved admins were allowed to make moves over objections, I could have moved it myself. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 06:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Okay, the issue here is that I'm currently working offline on a new article about the Nakba, explaining what it is. (I'm doing it offline for now, as I don't have all the books yet, so it's still at the notes stage.) That such an article should be created was the result of a recent RfC on the issue; see here.
This template uses Nakba as an umbrella term — as historians do, including Israeli historians e.g. Independence versus nakba by Yoav Gelber, who is not pro-Palestinian — to discuss all the issues that come under the Nakba heading, and the new Nakba article will be the main article. It will include the 1948 Palestinian exodus, the 1967 exodus, the Arab-Israeli war, the creation of Israel, the Israeli laws that caused the Palestinians to lose their property, the refugee camps, the demographic and psychological effects i.e. the destruction of Palestinian-Arab society.
Calling it "1948 Palestinian exodus" is either going to look very silly, or the title will be used as an excuse by others to start removing certain articles they don't like — by claiming they're not relevant to the inappropriate title they chose in the first place. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 06:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see that SlimVirgin is not interested in responding to my demand that she prove her point with evidence. That's a shame because it seems as though I will be repeating this demand and she will keep avoiding her burden of proof indefinitely.
To respond to Anthony's question, the "Palestinian exodus" refers to the period between late-1947 and until 1949 in which Palestinian Arabs traveled from their homes within the borders of Mandatory Palestine/Israel to the Egyptian occupied Gaza Strip, the Jordanian controlled West Bank, Lebanon, and elsewhere. The causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus are controversial and not important to this conversation. The point of the Palestinian exodus is that it marked the end of the Palestinian Arab majority in what was once called Mandatory Palestine and precipitated the Palestinian refugee problem.
The "Nakba" ("disaster"), on the other hand, is a term used in the Arab world to describe not only the "Palestinian exodus" (as described above), but also the founding of the State of Israel and the survival of the Jews against a genocidal threat by 5 Arab armies in the 1948 war. In the English speaking world, we tend to separate out the three key concepts of 1948: the Palestinian exodus, the founding of Israel, the 1948 war. In the Arabic speaking world, all three of those concepts are contained in one word: "Nakba." For this reason, the term is not precise enough for English Wikipedia and also offensive to those who are glad that a 2nd genocide did not befall the Jews and feel pride at the existence of a Jewish state. --GHcool (talk) 17:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is an extraordinarily POV way of describing it, and not the way historians describe it. There is a phenomenon called "Nakba," just as there is one called "Holocaust." Please look at the shenanigans over the years at the Holocaust article. No one knows what it includes, and I do mean no one. Holocaust scholars define it at the beginning of their papers or books on the issue, and then immediately contradict themselves a few pages later by including material they said wasn't part of it, or not mentioning again material they said was. That doesn't mean we delete the term from Wikipedia as "not precise enough." It means we do our best to capture what the sources say, even when they're annoyingly inconsistent. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 22:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please pay attention to the following excerpts from the leads of these Wikipedia articles:
--GHcool (talk) 17:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "The "Nakba" ("disaster"), on the other hand, is a term used in the Arab world to describe not only the "Palestinian exodus" (as described above), but also the founding of the State of Israel and the survival of the Jews against a genocidal threat by 5 Arab armies in the 1948 war" that is a rather uniquely partisan way of describing it, but the term isnt about "the survival of the Jews against a genocidal threat by 5 Arab armies" but rather the defeat of the those armies that caused massive devastation to the native population where many, many villages were turned to dust and many, many others where completely wiped of any Arab presence. Or, in other words, a catastrophic defeat. You keep making the word about the creation of Israel, but it isnt, its about the loss of Palestine. I have already said elsewhere that I havent seen any proof that this term is used in English for these events more so than other terms, but to keep parroting that this is a NPOV violation because it describes the creation of Israel as a catastrophe is disingenuous. Nableezy (talk) 18:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is not disingenuous. It is the verifiable truth.[1] --GHcool (talk) 18:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, disingenuous as evidenced by that link: "what Arabs call the Nakba, or the catastrophe, the Arabic term used to describe the uprooting of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians with the 1948 creation of the state of Israel", that sentence says that the Nakba is the "uprooting of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians". Nableezy (talk) 19:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? That sentence doesn't appear in the BBC article, but even if it did, it would prove me correct. Here's another: "The Higher Arab Monitoring Committee sent a letter of protest to the Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ... on Saturday in which it warns against the passing of a bill proposal that would outlaw marking the Nakba - the Palestinian day of mourning over the creation of the State of Israel" (emphasis added).[2] --GHcool (talk) 19:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since the BBC website is currently down (at least for me) I am going off a google cache of it. The sentence does appear in that version at least. And it wouldnt surprise me that ynet would write from such a perspective, but you need to recognize that the results of that war are not confined to an Israel-centric viewpoint and that what Israelis see as their survival against the Arabs and the creation of Israel also means to the native Arab population the loss of Palestine. Stop trying to define everything in terms of Israeli terms, there is a whole other viewpoint that you lose when you oversimplify it like that. And there are countless sources that describe the nakba as something other then the creation of Israel (you can start looking here, or if you dont want to go through too many take a look at this one) and more that define "nakba day" as a symbolic marking of the causes of the refugee problems. When you keep saying that this is just a word used to describe the creation of Israel you are incorrect. Nableezy (talk) 19:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, the link Nableezy provided once again proves my point: "The nakba is the experience that has perhaps most defined Palestinian history. For Palestinians, it is not merely a political event—the establishment of the state of Israel ..." (empahsis added). --GHcool (talk) 20:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Its like you are just scanning through looking for the word Israel, but you skipped over "it is not merely a political event" talking about the creation of Israel. Nableezy (talk) 21:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I read it as "it is not merely a political event," meaning that the creation of Israel was only one part of the overall 'catastrophe' that is the Nakba. --GHcool (talk) 21:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But you also left out the rest of the sentence, "the creation of state of Israel on 78 percent of the territory of the Palestine Mandate". There are a lot of qualifications that you are stripping away to say that it is about the creation of the state of Israel. Nableezy (talk) 21:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
GHcool, you're not going to find out what historians say about the Nakba by quoting Wikipedia articles, or looking up random websites, especially not when you're looking up specific words to make your point. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 22:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the quote in whole:

"The nakba is the the experience that has perhaps most defined Palestinian history. For Palestinians, it is not merely a political event—the establishment of the state of Israel on 78 percent of the territory of the Palestine Mandate—or even, primarily, a humanitarian one—the creation of the modern world's most enduring refugee problem" (emphasis added).[3]

Now, to me, this reads as saying that the Palestinian exodus and the creation of Israel were part of an overall historical moment called the "Nakba." Since this template on English Wikipedia deals solely with the Palestinian exodus, it would be foolish, inaccurate, and POV to use the Arabic word "Nakba." --GHcool (talk) 22:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're still not quoting it all! SlimVirgin talk|contribs 22:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SlimVirgin, it is not I who has to WP:PROVEIT. Shifting the burden of proof would not be advisable. I am anxious to hear you either WP:PROVEIT or to give up this argumentum ad nauseum. --GHcool (talk) 22:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's you who wants to move it, so I think you do have to prove your point. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 22:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Must I quote the entire book before somebody sees that the book supports my argument? --GHcool (talk) 22:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, you must be honest and quote the bit that is relevant. All you have done throughout this is quote people selectively, myself included. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 22:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By your own argument, GHcool, as selective as you're being, you're agreeing that Nakba is more than just the 1948 Palestinian exodus. It would therefore make Wikipedia look silly to have a template entitled 1948 Palestinian exodus, which then included articles not related to that. Indeed, people would arrive to remove those articles, arguing they're not relevant to the title, so you seem to be setting the template up for a fall. It needs to be titled what it is: a template about the Nakba. The template's lead article will be about the Nakba too, once I post it. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 22:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli historians' use[edit]

GHcool, if the term is so offensive to Israelis, can you explain why Zionist Israeli historians use it e.g. Yoav Gelber's Independence versus nakba? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 22:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. The title of Gelber's book title places two POV words next to each other as a metaphor for the conflicting narratives. The Israelis see the 1948 events under the umbrella of "Independence" while the Palestinian Arabs see the same events under the umbrella of "Nakba." This is the terminology of the two extreme positions. "Independence vs. Nakba" in the debate over the historical narrative of 1948 has the same ring as "Pro-life vs. pro-choice" in the abortion debate. The NPOV common ground that Wikipedia guidelines insist upon is by calling it the "Palestinian exodus" or something similar that denotes Palestinian migration out of the boundaries of what became Israel. --GHcool (talk) 23:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Avi Shlaim,'s "The New History of 1948 and Palestinian Nakba". SlimVirgin talk|contribs 23:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Shlaim does not define his term in that article. Do you admit that my interpretation of Gelber's title is the correct one? --GHcool (talk) 23:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We can create a list of academics using it (below), and you can tick them all off as not using it properly, not defining it, too left-wing, too pro-Palestinian, not really academics, didn't realize what they were saying, lost their minds, etc. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 23:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(SV) Use of the term by academics and other serious writers[edit]

It's probably worth starting a list of which scholars use the term:

  1. Avi Shlaim (British-Israeli), University of Oxford. "The New History of 1948 and Palestinian Nakba".
  2. Ian S. Lustick (American), University of Pennsylvania. "Negotiating Truth: The Holocaust, Lehavdel, and al-Nakba".
  3. Yoav Gelber (Israeli), University of Haifa. Independence versus nakba?
  4. Ahmad H. Sa'di and Lila Abu-Lughod (Arab and Arab-American), Ben-Gurion University and Columbia University. Nakba: Palestine, 1948, and the Claims of Memory.
  5. Tom Segev (Israeli), Haaretz and visiting professor in various places. "Independence is el-Nakba," Haaretz, March 27, 1998.
  6. Eitan Bronstein (Israeli). "The Nakba in Hebrew: Israeli-Jewish Awareness of the Palestinian Catastrophe and Internal Refugees", in Masalha and Said, Catastrophe Remembered.
  7. Alexander Bligh (Israeli), Jezreel Valley College. The Israeli Palestinians: "The Nakba is not an event that occurred 50 years ago, but an ongoing process ..." (p 176).
  8. Eli Podeh (Israeli), Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Arab-Israeli Conflict in Israeli History Textbooks, 1948-2000. This describes how the issue is taught in Israeli schools: "The teacher's guide for this textbook is more explicit, instructing the teacher to emphasize that " ... when the Jewish forces conquered the mixed cities and Arab villages, Arab Palestinians were expelled on more than one occasion. This is why the Arabs call this period al-nakba (the disaster or holocaust)," p. 109.
  9. Chester Crocker (American), former assistant secretar of state under Reagan. Grasping the Nettle, p. 358: "... the Palestinian narrative of nakba (catastrophe) was initially one of conflict over the issues of justice and the right of Palestinians to return to their homes in what had become the state of Israel ... Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser essentially redefined the narrative ... as an issue of Arab nationalism."
  10. Constantin Zureiq (Syrian), president, University of Damascus. Ma'na al-Nakba (Meaning of the Nakba, 1948) and Meaning of the Nakba Revisited, 1967. "The defeat of the Arabs in Palestine is no simple setback or light, passing evil. It is a disaster in every sense of the word and one of the harshest trials and tribulations with which the Arabs have been afflicted throughout their long history."
  11. Aref al-Aref (Palestinian). Al Naka, 1947-1952.
  12. Nimr al-Khatib (Palestinian). Min Athar al-Nakba (After the Nakba).
  13. Salman Abu-Sitta (Palestinian). The Palestinian Nakba 1948.
  14. Ilan Pappe (Israeli), University of Exeter. "The '48 Nakba & The Zionist Quest for its Completion," and several others e.g. "Nakba Denial and the Peace Process," in The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine.
  15. Michael Prior (Irish), St Mary's College; Desmond Tutu (South African); Naseer Hasan Aruri]]. Speaking the truth: Zionism, Israel and occupation: "Nakba denial is no less painful to Palestinians than is Holocaust denial to Jews."
  16. Roane Carey and Noam Chomsky (American), MIT. The new Intifada: "Israel, as the beneficiary of Palestinian property for fifty-three years and the responsible part for the Nakba, must solely pay the compensation according to Resolution 194 ...," p. 316.
  17. Tamara Cofman Wittes (American) and Omar Dajani (Palestinian-American), United States Institute of Peace. How Israelis and Palestinians negotiate: "The nakba is the experience that has perhaps most defined Palestinian history. For Palestinians, it is not merely a political event—the establishment of the state of Israel on 78 percent of the territory of the Palestine Mandate—or even, primarily, a humanitarian one—the creation of the modern world's most enduring refugee problem. The nakba is of existential significance to Palestinians, representing both the shattering of the Palestinian community in Palestine and the consolidation of a shared national consciousness," p. 42.

Comments[edit]

One may list instances of use of the word "Nakba" until the cows come home. The point is how the term is defined, not if the term is used. I will fully stipulate that the term is used by scholars of the Middle East (although I have a hunch that "Palestinian exodus" or some similar neutral English term is used more often). --GHcool (talk) 23:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't go on hunches. You're the one who proposed the move, so you've the one who needs to provide evidence. I'm adding nationalities of those who use it. Not that it matters to reasonable people, but it seems to matter within this debate (which is part of the problem). SlimVirgin talk|contribs 23:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than making a list of those who use the term, why not make a list of those who use the term as you define it. So far, at least one of the people you list (Gelber) use the term as the Arab world defines it. --GHcool (talk) 00:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't read it, and you don't know how he defines it, or how any of the others do, because you haven't read them either. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 00:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(GHcool) Nakba as the entire 1948 period including Israel's founding[edit]
  1. Ian S. Lustick (American), University of Pennsylvania. "Negotiating Truth: The Holocaust, Lehavdel, and al-Nakba.
  2. Yoav Gelber (Israeli), University of Haifa. Independence versus nakba?
  3. Ahmad H. Sa'di and Lila Abu-Lughod (Arab and Arab-American), Ben-Gurion University and Columbia University. Nakba: Palestine, 1948, and the Claims of Memory.
  4. Eitan Bronstein (Israeli). "The Nakba in Hebrew: Israeli-Jewish Awareness of the Palestinian Catastrophe and Internal Refugees", in Masalha and Said, Catastrophe Remembered.
  5. Alan Dowty (American), University of Notre Dame. "Israel/Palestine."
  6. Nissim Rejwan. "Israel's place in the Middle East".
  7. The Continuum Political Encyclopedia of the Middle East (American/British/Israeli), Contiuum. "Al-Nakba" (p. 627). Ed. Avraham Sela. "[Al-Nakba is the c]ode name used by Arabs for the the 1948 War, underlying its devastating results" (emphasis added).
  8. Tamara Cofman Wittes (American) and Omar Dajani (Palestinian-American), United States Institute of Peace. How Israelis and Palestinians negotiate: "The nakba is the experience that has perhaps most defined Palestinian history. For Palestinians, it is not merely a political event—the establishment of the state of Israel on 78 percent of the territory of the Palestine Mandate—or even, primarily, a humanitarian one—the creation of the modern world's most enduring refugee problem. The nakba is of existential significance to Palestinians, representing both the shattering of the Palestinian community in Palestine and the consolidation of a shared national consciousness," p. 42.
(GHcool)Defined in terms of all of the above plus the modern day plight of the Palestinian refugees[edit]
  1. Alexander Bligh (Israeli), Jezreel Valley College. The Israeli Palestinians: "The Nakba is not an event that occurred 50 years ago, but an ongoing process ..." (p 176).
(GHcool) Nakba as solely the Palestinian exodus[edit]
  1. Eli Podeh (Israeli), Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Arab-Israeli Conflict in Israeli History Textbooks, 1948-2000. This describes how the issue is taught in Israeli schools: "The teacher's guide for this textbook is more explicit, instructing the teacher to emphasize that " ... when the Jewish forces conquered the mixed cities and Arab villages, Arab Palestinians were expelled on more than one occasion. This is why the Arabs call this period al-nakba (the disaster or holocaust)," p. 109.
(GHcool) Undefined[edit]
  1. Avi Shlaim (British-Israeli), University of Oxford. "The New History of 1948 and Palestinian Nakba".
  2. Tom Segev (Israeli), Haaretz and visiting professor in various places. "Independence is el-Nakba," Haaretz, March 27, 1998.
  3. Chester Crocker (American), former assistant secretar of state under Reagan. Grasping the Nettle, p. 358: "... the Palestinian narrative of nakba (catastrophe) was initially one of conflict over the issues of justice and the right of Palestinians to return to their homes in what had become the state of Israel ... Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser essentially redefined the narrative ... as an issue of Arab nationalism."
  4. Constantin Zureiq (Syrian), president, University of Damascus. Ma'na al-Nakba (Meaning of the Nakba, 1948) and Meaning of the Nakba Revisited, 1967. "The defeat of the Arabs in Palestine is no simple setback or light, passing evil. It is a disaster in every sense of the word and one of the harshest trials and tribulations with which the Arabs have been afflicted throughout their long history."
  5. Aref al-Aref (Palestinian). Al Naka, 1947-1952.
  6. Nimr al-Khatib (Palestinian). Min Athar al-Nakba (After the Nakba).
  7. Salman Abu-Sitta (Palestinian). The Palestinian Nakba 1948.
  8. Ilan Pappe (Israeli), University of Exeter. "The '48 Nakba & The Zionist Quest for its Completion," and several others e.g. "Nakba Denial and the Peace Process," in The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine.
  9. Michael Prior (Irish), St Mary's College; Desmond Tutu (South African); Naseer Hasan Aruri]]. Speaking the truth: Zionism, Israel and occupation: "Nakba denial is no less painful to Palestinians than is Holocaust denial to Jews."
  10. Roane Carey and Noam Chomsky (American), MIT. The new Intifada: "Israel, as the beneficiary of Palestinian property for fifty-three years and the responsible part for the Nakba, must solely pay the compensation according to Resolution 194 ...," p. 316.


GHcool's conclusions based on the evidence above[edit]

As the above demonstrates, the overwhelming majority of scholars who define the term in their works consider the term "Nakba" to denote not only the Palestinian exodus, but also the 1948 War and founding of the State of Israel. It appears, based on the evidence, that the definition of the term "Nakba" is too broad to describe what is being discussed in this template. Furthermore, as some of the sources explain, this term is used only by the Arab side. This fact plus the common sense notion that calling a state's founding a "catastrophe" is a POV statement is reason enough to treat the term "Nakba" with the strictest interpretation of WP:NPOV policy. Thus, it is necessary to change the template title to "Template:1948 Palestinian exodus." --GHcool (talk) 04:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You keep shifting the goalposts. Your first argument was that it described the creation of Israel as a bad thing, and therefore we couldn't have it. Then you said it only described the 1948 Palestinian exodus, and therefore we shouldn't have it, because we already had the term "1948 Palestinian exodus." Now your argument is that it's more than just the creation of Israel, and more than just the 1948 Palestinian exodus, and therefore we shouldn't have it because it's too broad. :) SlimVirgin talk|contribs 04:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that if you read my original statement on the RfC, you will see that I am simply restating what I've always been saying from the beginning. No goalposts have been shifted. If I were shifting the goalpost, I would understand the criticism, but since I'm clearly not, I have increased confidence that my argument is sound. --GHcool (talk) 05:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's the problem. You see this as an argument that you're determined to "win," rather than trying to find out more about the Nakba and advance the project. It would help, for example, if you could find your own examples, rather than copying and pasting mine and adding your own uninformed view of what they say, which you can't possibly know, because you've not read them. "Winning" an argument that way is pointless. It's sophistry. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 08:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, I have found sources of my own. Some of the sources on my lists are not on your list. Secondly, of the sources that define the term and some that do not, I have read the relevant passage. Thirdly, its not about "winning" or "losing." Its exactly what you said it is: finding out how the majority of reliable sources define the term Nakba. Based on the evidence above, it appears that the overwhelming majority of reliable sources define it as the entire 1948 period including Israel's founding. I would appreciate it if you would limit your arguments to this point (the definition of the term Nakba as used by the majority of reliable sources) and would advise against ad hominems such as "you're only interested in winning." Ad hominems are sophistry. Sound conclusions based on the available evidence is logical. --GHcool (talk) 17:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The point here is not to find a definition—that will be left to the article, not to a template—but to determine whether the term is used by reliable sources, which it clearly is. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 17:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, definitions matter. The term "World History" is used by reliable sources, but that doesn't mean we should call this article on the Palestinian exodus "Template:World History." The reason is because the term is too broad. Nobody doubts that the Palestinian exodus is a part of what, from the Arab POV, is referred to as the Nakba just as nobody doubts that it is part of world history. The vast majority of sources above confirm that "Nakba" is too broad a term for articles relating solely to the Palestinian exodus. --GHcool (talk) 18:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Aliyah/Nakba usage[edit]

  • "Aliyah" on Google (Hebrew word, allowed on Wikipedia in title and template) = 1,970,000 hits
  • "Nakba" on Google (Arabic word, challenged on Wikipedia in title and template) = 2,500,000 hits, plus Nakbah, Naqba, etc.

SlimVirgin talk|contribs 11:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • outside comment While I personally see a problem with Nakba as a page title to represent the Palestinian exodus, and it appears that the RfC about it is concluding the same, I see no issue with having a template Nakba. This is a seperate issue from naming a page, and clearly the word has a common and scholarly usage, however it is defined. Fuzbaby (talk) 18:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The word Renaissance has for a long time been accepted as an English word. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rethinking this template[edit]

As the scholars above confirm, the term "Nakba" refers to the 1947-1948 period which includes the war, the Palestinian exodus, and the founding of Israel. SlimVirgin wishes to call this template "Template:Nakba" and have it describe the Palestinian exodus while ignoring the other elements in the scholarly definition of the term. I advocated "Template:1948 Palestinian exodus" to resolve this matter on grounds of greater accuracy and NPOV.

Here is a third option: I would be perfectly willing to rename this template as "Template:1948 Arab-Israeli War" and have all of the articles relevant to what the Arabs refer to as the Nakba including the Palestinian exodus and the Israeli declaration of independence. This would broaden the topic, as SlimVirgin seems to request, and it would also maintain the NPOV that Wikipedia insists upon. SlimVirgin, what do you say? --GHcool (talk) 18:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not true at all. I am quite happy to include all the elements of the Nakba in the template. It has only just been created. Feel free to add articles as appropriate. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 11:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is not about the war. It is about the Nakba. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 11:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How about renaming it to "Template:1947-48 Arab-Israeli conflict." That covers the entire "Nakba," but uses an NPOV term. --GHcool (talk) 16:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because that wouldn't include all the elements of the Nakba, and it's not an expression historians use. I think we need start sticking to the vocabulary of scholarship, rather than making up our own. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 17:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SlimVirgin, you're being difficult. I'm trying to work out a compromise. "1947-48 Arab Israeli Conflict" is completely NPOV and accurate. "Nakba" is not. Consider this: "Template:Arab-Israeli conflict during 1947-1948" --GHcool (talk) 17:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of the term[edit]

Perhaps the dispute comes from a difference of opinion on the definition of the term. My understanding, based on the evidence above, is that "the Nakba" (lit. "catastrophe") is the term Arabs use to describe the culmination of events in Mandatory Palestine between roughly the end of 1947 until the end of 1948. This includes (among other things) the 1947-8 civil war, the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, the Israeli declaration of independence, and the Palestinian exodus. In essence it is the "catastrophic" events (from the Arab point of view) that occurred within the Arab-Israeli conflict during 1947-1948. SlimVirgin, do you dispute this definition? If so, how would you define the term? --GHcool (talk) 21:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. you write: "the Nakba" (lit. "catastrophe") while yo know it is THE Nakba (as in ""THE Holocaust, not "a" Holocaust. Last warning for GHcool not taking himself seriously ;-). -DePiep (talk) 19:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zionist political violence[edit]

Would it be appropriate to add this to the template?Research Method 18:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that Zionist political violence is tangential to the Palestinian exodus. It was mostly directed against the British and almost all of it occurred prior to 1948. --GHcool (talk) 18:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image[edit]

@Duvasee: I disagree that your preferred image is better. An image of a group of refugees on the move, while relevant, does not embody the Nakba. The face of the man in the longstanding image, with the sprawling camp behind him that indicates the large-scale nature of what went on are much more potent. If we still disagree, we will involve more editors to help us resolve the dispute. Sincerely —Alalch E. 09:38, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We definitely do, as I still see that the image of a family being expelled from their home is more powerful than a photo of a man in a standard refugee camp, and better represents the Nakba and its root in the 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight; so wider community input would be appreciated. Duvasee (talk) 14:37, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've filed a WP:3O request.
  1. Option A (man and the refugee camp): special:permalink/1184427705
  2. Option B (group of refugees): special:permalink/1184322225
I think it's fair to note that A is the longstanding image.—Alalch E. 22:48, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Summoned here from 3O. The short description of The Nakba is 1948 permanent displacement of Palestinians. "Displacement" is the key word in this summary, which is better represented by Option B. If I were forced to choose one, B is my preference.
But there are also other options. Many sidebars do not have images in them, because the result of having the same image across the entire family of articles that contain the sidebar is not always desirable. What about not having an image in the sidebar template and instead including both images within the article at Nakba, which of this writing does not have any images other than the sidebar and a map in the lead?
Ultimately this isn't a straightforward question and answer. Alalch E.'s comments about communicating the large-scale nature of the the subject are also valid, and editors can be reasonably expected to differ on their preference. Both images appear to meet the basic requirements in MOS:IMAGE and the section MOS:LEADIMAGE, which I think applies reasonably to a sidebar image, too. A RfC to get a broader opinion than just the three of us would be a completely valid response if Alalch E. is not satisfied with my response and reasoning. VQuakr (talk) 23:40, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alalch E., what do you say? Duvasee (talk) 01:06, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm satisfied with VQuakr's response and reasoning, and I agree that image B be used. It would be nice not to use any image in the sidebar, but if we were to do that now, someone in the future is almost guaranteed to add some image because there's a strong tendency to add images to sidebars. Image A can simply be added to the Nakba or some other article. Thanks both. —Alalch E. 12:15, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Nakba&oldid=1219067992"