Talk:Al Naqba

My understanding is that this is the Palestinian term for the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. Why doesn't it just redirect there? As should the Israeli War for Independence. Tokerboy

Go ahead Al Naqba is already referred in 1948 Arab-Israeli War. Ericd 00:24 Feb 9, 2003 (UTC)

Here was the article:
 * Al Naqba (Arabic: disaster, catastrophe), is a collective term for the events of 1947-48 in Palestine. As a result of Zionist efforts, many Palestinians perished. The survivors were deprived of their homeland, turning them into refugees. A just solution is yet to be found.


 * A ray of hope appeared during the 1990s, with the Oslo Accords. However, the Israeli side choose to pursue settlements in the West Bank and Gaza rather than peace, and the move towards reconciliation failed. The Palestinians have, in spite of their sufferings, maintained that only a political solution is possible.


 * Compare to: Deir Yassin, Holocaust.

Now, Sv, a little lesson in NPOV: Part of NPOV is specifying whose point of view a view is, another part is providing different points of view (clearly labeled). Modemac's redirect accomplished this quite nicely: the title of the article 1948 Arab-Israeli War is NPOV because it does not take the view of Israeli's or Palestinians. The content of the article is NPOV because it provides both points of view -- it states that Israeli's call this war the "War of Independence," and Palestinians call it "Al Naqba." If people think that article should provide more Arab POV, that is fine as long as it is clearlyidentified as someone's point of view, and accurate.

But the above article is full of editorializing and lack of specificity as to POV. I do believe an article on this topic is possible, but the above text is simply not NPOV. Work on it if you want to before putting it back in. In the meantime, the redirect is in no way biased towards Jews, Israelis, or Zionists. Slrubenstein

The redirects are OK to me. 1948 Arab-Israeli War is OK. I would have refused. "War of Independence" is POV, independsance with the Arabs the British ?. It doesn't reflect the facts. Ericd 02:03 Feb 9, 2003 (UTC)