Talk:Nakba/Archive 4

Preemptively creating a chat section of my contextualization edits
I am just proactively creating this section for discussion of my changes. I tied most of the changes to our own articles. I feel that we started our article, here, in media res. I hope that my edits give a neutral background of the situation that led up to the Nakba. -- Bertrc (talk) 00:28, 9 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I reverted a couple of them, hopefully my edit summaries were clear in explaining the reasons. Levivich (talk) 06:55, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for fighting my laziness! References added this time. -- Bertrc  (talk) 16:12, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * (Also, my initial phrasing chained the broader war as coming out of the civil war. This time I just called it the subsequent broader war) -- Bertrc  (talk) 16:16, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Reverted again. I don't mean to be a jerk about it, but there were a number of problems with what you added, quick list:
 * Some of the citations were incomplete to the point of not being verifiable
 * Newspaper reports from 1947-1948 are contemporaneous and thus primary sources, not RSes
 * Recent newspaper articles are still not good sources for history; there is tons of scholarship to use as sources, much of it listed at
 * Why would we cite French translations of English works instead of the English works themselves?
 * O Jerusalem! is like 50+ years old and pre-dates the opening of the archives; too old to be a reliable source for Nakba
 * Karsh 2002 is a 96-page booklet; even if we were to cite Karsh, there are better works by Karsh than this, including more in-depth and more recent works
 * Why cite a Pappe book from 2000 when there are more recent works by Pappe? I'm not sure why we'd cite anything by Pappe about Nakba that was written before 2006 (when he published his landmark work, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine), and he's published a number of books and papers since then, his most recent book I think came out last year.
 * The content failed verification against Morris, Pappe, and even Karsh -- none of them, as far as I can tell, characterize it as "back and forth retaliatory violence" that "escalated" or "increased" in 1947. They characterize it differently. Especially Pappe's more recent works. The other sources at also characterize it differently.
 * It's strange to say "the back and forth violence escalated" when the article doesn't talk about any "back and forth violence" (simply hasn't been added yet)
 * Not sure if you're aware of this, but in Wikipedia's organization, 1948 Palestine war is the parent article of the two phases, which are 1947–1948 civil war in Mandatory Palestine and 1948 Arab–Israeli War. Right now, the Nakba article just links to the parent article.
 * Of course, the Nakba article should be (and will be) expanded to include more detail about the war, including detailing the two parts and probably linking to those two articles. However, that has to be done in a way that's WP:DUE, which means looking at which details are included in multiple sources about Nakba. This is not an article about the '48 war, and details that are DUE for the '48 war articles may not be DUE for the Nakba article (e.g, Lehi mining train tracks; siege of Jerusalem). Everything else in the History section is cited to multiple core sources, intentionally so. Expansions should as well, it's how we know what's DUE. Obviously, pre-48 violence would be DUE, as would the change in violence between 47 and 49. But those details, in order to be stated in WP:WIKIVOICE as they should be, need to be the details that are widely discussed by recent mainstream scholarship about the Nakba (and not just Israeli authors, but all authors). (Of course that's all just, like, my opinion, man; other editors may disagree.) Levivich (talk) 21:32, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Found a place where we can shout out to other editors to look at these changes and opine. I know it has just been a few reverts, but I am a casual, newb.  I just don't know what phrasing or refs would meet your requests.  I need to get others who are more dedicated to (and more energized with) WP to opine:
 * Your point 2 says newspapers are too old, while your point 3 says newspapers are too new.
 * Other points of yours talk about books being too old, or that authors have written later books, or that we cannot quote French translations;
 * I am not aware of any WP article saying "If an author has written a more recent work, don't cite their earlier work" (Does Pappe's later writings contradict their earlier writings?!)
 * Nor is there a "go find the English translation" rule (. . . as far as I know . . .)
 * Yes, "retaliatory" is my word, but I do not think it is an unfair summation of "in response to" and "reprisal".
 * Also, yes, I said "escalated"; I suppose I could have used "increased" but I do not know if you would accept that since you could have just changed it; Honestly, I do not think it is OR to summarize:
 * The execution of a family at the start of a year;
 * Then, over the course of a year, examples such as the murder of people on a bus, attacks in a market place, a workplace mob, etc.
 * Then, by the end of the year, the mining of railroads and the siege of a Jewish enclave.
 * as "escalating violence" (or "increasing")
 * As for undue, it is a couple sentences in one section that is supposed to talk about what was happenning before and a sentence at the start of the next section so that people could start from there, directly, and still have a little context. I do not think a few sentences is undue weight.
 * As it stands, we just start with the Nakba and the ethnic cleansing of Palestinian villagers. The casual reader would see this and not know that violence had already been erupting between militant groups in the lead up -- In fact, I was the casual reader (Led to read this article after somebody claimed things were fine between the groups before the brits pulled out) but, while reading other coverage, I saw that "Oh, there actually was violence between Jewish and Palestinian militants before 1948"
 * I do not think giving that context would be taken as an excuse for the ethnic cleansing by anybody, if that is what is really worrying you.
 * At least, not anybody reasonable! :-D No more so than mentioning we were at war with Japan could reasonably be seen as an excuse for us rounding up Japanese civilians in America and stealing their property.
 * Forgot to sign on 03:28, 12 December 2023 -- Bertrc (talk) 00:26, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * (Disclosure--I do have a COI on this subject, that being my personal opinion)
 * I think that it is absurd not to provide any context on inter-ethnic violence in the region beforehand. The article describes the history of Jewish emigration to Palestine in the 1890's, so why can't it also describe the 1921 Jaffa riots, the 1929 Palestine riots, and the 1936-1939 Arab Revolt? Those all seem much more related to the subject, and provide way more context to the situation than a history of Jewish migration. For comparison, take a look at the article on the Rwanda genocide, which provides copious amounts of information on the history of Rwanda, and this provides a more complete image of the situation leading up to the massacre.
 * As for poor citation style, I'm pretty sure that citations only need to support the thing they're being cited for, so as long as the citation is verifiable, and there are plenty of verifiable citations on the events listed above, then the content should be allowed to stay.
 * AriTheHorsetalk to me! 05:19, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * AriTheHorse, :-D Everybody has that particular COI!   ;-)   As long as you are not quoting your own published book, I think you can make your edits.  Just back them with reliable sources.  -- Bertrc  (talk) 14:32, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah I meant like religion/worldview but I think now even that one is hard to avoid. AriTheHorsetalk to me! 04:16, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * , I re-added my change (and fixed two refs that were displaying incorrectly) Does that meet your view in a balanced way? -- Bertrc (talk) 03:58, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I took a look, it seems fine. AriTheHorsetalk to me! 04:31, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * , Well, no such luck. In spite of your third opinion and your support for the changes, the edit war continues. My edits were blindly reverted (this time, with no comment in this discussion).  I will reraise the request for additional third opinions. -- Bertrc  (talk) 03:24, 25 December 2023
 * 3O request . More than two editors are involved already. You need to look at other ways to resolve your dispute. Polyamorph (talk) 07:59, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * , I would love any recommendations for other ways. How is third opinion different from "Request for Comment" and " Dispute Noticeboard"? (Yes, I really am a wikipedia lightweight)-- Bertrc  (talk) 14:28, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 3OR is an informal process where there is a content dispute between two editors, a third opinion can be provided. It's meant to break deadlock between two users. Once more than two users are involved it is no longer appropriate. If the dispute continues then the dispute resolution noticeboard is probably your next best option if agreement can't be reached on this talk page. If editor conduct is becoming problematic then you can let admins know at WP:ANI or WP:AN/3RR. Polyamorph (talk) 14:51, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * So you're only concerned with Bertrc's citation style and have no objection to the meaning behind his additions?  AriTheHorsetalk to me!  13:13, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * did not give any specifics, this time (I had fixed the ref links that displayed badly; which ones are misrepresented or unreliable? The comment says "see talk" but I only see talk entries added about timeline sections and victim percentages; ie. no comment in this discussion) Levivich disliked my use of "escalating violence", last time.  I used "increasing violence" this time, since "escalating" might imply deliberately hitting back harder; perhaps Levivich considers using "increasing violence" when describing a change from targetted executions to a siege to be OR  . . . I can try using "occurred" -- Bertrc  (talk) 14:28, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The sources that are misrepresented in the content I removed are Pappe, Morris, and Karsh, and the sources that are unreliable are the newspapers, as I said above two weeks ago. (And you didn't fix the refs, although ref formatting is the least of the problems with that content.) Levivich (talk) 16:14, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Not sure how anyone could read my comment above with 10 numbered items and conclude that I am only concerned with citation style. Citation style was just 1 out of the 10 items. The content I removed in this edit is basically the same as the content I had removed two weeks ago, which I explained in detail in my comment above. To recap:
 * "Attacks and counter attacks between Jewish and Palestinian groups increased throughout 1947" fails verification and is contracted by other (frankly, better) RSes (such as those cited in the History section of the article)
 * "By year’s end, the Palestinian leader, Amin al-Husseini was besieging a Jewish enclave in Jerusalem while the Jewish militia, Lehi, was mining train tracks" is not WP:DUE and also poorly sourced
 * "The increasing violence escalated into a civil war" fails verification/is contradicted by other RSes in that same paragraph, and especially should not appear after the sentence "The central facts of the Nakba in 1948 are not disputed" because "increasing violence escalated into a civil war" isn't one of the central facts that is not disputed -- there are a lot of scholars who say it was a preplanned ethnic cleansing, not some natural escalation of preexisting violence
 * Generally, newspapers are not acceptable source for history of the Nakba (except current events of course), especially 1940s newspapers
 * Look at how everything else in that section is sourced -- multiple 21st-century scholarly works by Israeli, Palestinian, and "neither" scholars. These are the kinds of sources to use for summarizing Nakba history. They don't support "both-sides-ism" or "natural escalation" characterizations. Levivich (talk) 16:11, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Dispute resolution request raised. When we are mentioning increasing violence (or even just mentioning that violence existed) I do not believe it is undue weight to mention the mining of train tracks or a blockade and siege of a tens of thousands of Jews in Jerusalem; both of which are documented. -- Bertrc  (talk) 17:03, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @Bertrc, this is coming from someone who has little understanding of the subject and simply stumbled across the issue: You are frustrated that Old newspapers are too old; new newspapers are too new; 20th century authors are not acceptable; earlier works by authors who may have written later works are rejected; don't reference French works, which I get, but that's pretty typical for how we have to assess sources in areas such as this one.
 * What in general we really want to see is the best possible sources: recent peer-reviewed academic works, preferably in their original language (and if that original language is English and accessible, of course definitely in English rather than a translation). Certainly earlier works by authors who may have written later works are rejected is because historians' views change over time. Re:new newspapers are too new applies when these newer (or older, for that matter) newspaper articles are discussing academic works: newspapers interpret things incorrectly, so if we have the academic article, we use that instead of what newspapers are saying. When we're dealing with anything contentious, these best-possible sources are particularly valued.
 * FWIW, we do understand that you are less experienced, we do understand that we have a steep learning curve that can be very frustrating, and we do want to work with you and help you understand why certain sources are preferred. Valereee (talk) 18:56, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure, I would agree that your position is applicable if we were deciding which sources to use.
 * If your position was the true reason/motivation behind the disagreement/reverts, then I would have expected the other editor to have been editing the article with preferred/better sources; I would not have expected a blind revert. I do not see how the existence of better or preferred sources requires the reversion of edits with sufficient sourcing.
 * If there were more reliable sources saying that no significant violence existed in mandatory Palestine before the Nakba, then I would have expected those sources to be referenced. However, there are no sources that I am aware of nor that people have referenced which contradict that there was recurring violence in mandatory Palestine in 1947 before the Nakba. Instead, we have numerous sources describing the violence
 * Instead, we are having somebody blindly reverting changes that have valid sources, rather than having edits that give better/more common sources. -- Bertrc (talk) 23:12, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Hey, @Bertrc, let's stop using the term "blindly reverting", as that is not assuming good faith on the part of the other editors. Let's also stop talking about the "reason/motivation behind" an edit, ditto. Without clear evidence, we don't discuss the motivations of other editors.
 * If a subject, especially a contentious one, has been heavily addressed in recent peer-reviewed academic sources, those are always going to be the sources we are looking for. Those are the sources that are sufficient for contentious topics, where there is disagreement over content and there's a need to persuade other editors. Valereee (talk) 23:31, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 1. I have been "editing the article with preferred/better sources" for a few months now. 2. To take one example: the content I removed, was sourced to, among other sources, a 2000 French translation of some book by Ilan Pappe. I can't figure out which Pappe book was translated. But  at p. 118 says:  The content "increase throughout 1947" is contradicted by the source "first outburst of intra-communal violence" happening on 30 Nov 1947. The source "Slow deterioration into a widespread civil war in the next few months" isn't really the same characterization as the content "increasing violence escalated into a civil war." This fails verification. Levivich (talk) 00:07, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * BTW the prior page of that same book, p. 117, says this: This is not a characterization of "Attacks and counter attacks between Jewish and Palestinian groups increased throughout 1947" that "escalated into a civil war," but rather of a pre-planned expulsion, which is sort of Ilan Pappe's entire thesis, that the Nakba was The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine. Levivich (talk) 00:14, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Cool to see we can access it digitally. How did you track that down?  I can check if I can find digital copies of the other sources:
 * The Arab–Israeli Conflict – The Palestine War 1948, 2002 by Efraim Karsh
 * The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited, 2003, by Benny Morris
 * (Both are the English versions)
 * -- Bertrc (talk) 00:33, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay, I think I found some on-line copies of Benny Morris' "Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Crisis Revisited" from 2004, although it is images, rather than cut-and-pasteable text (Did you transcribe all that?! Or is there a way to get the text?):
 * https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Birth_of_the_Palestinian_Refugee_Pro/uM_kFX6edX8C?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA65&printsec=frontcover
 * https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Birth_of_the_Palestinian_Refugee_Pro/uM_kFX6edX8C?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA139&printsec=frontcover
 * Morris talks about retaliation, repeatedly, but that is not particularly material. Would you feel the following phrasing is supported by the sources:
 * Prior to 1948
 * Attacks between Jewish and Palestinian groups began in late 1947.
 * 1948
 * The central facts of the Nakba in 1948 are not disputed. The violence in late 1947 deteriorated into a civil war. During this and the subsequent regional war, approximately 750,000 Palestinians—over 80% of the population in what would become Israel—were expelled or fled from their homes and became refugees in neighboring states. Bertrc  (talk) 01:07, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Click on the "Pappe 2022" link in my comment, which should take you to the citation up above at . At the end of the citation is another link, "TWL link," which will take you to Pappe 2022 at WP:TWL; all editors have access to it for free.
 * I don't think Karsh 2002 is a great source for the reasons I said above, but that book, at page 10 says: . Does not support "increased throughout 1947." The citation in the content I removed was to page 30. I see nothing on page 30 that supports that. But page 29 says And page 34 says, which is what Pappe says, too.
 * Morris 2004 and Morris 2008 both describe the Fajja bus attack as the first violence of the war; I don't see anything in either that supports "increased throughout 1947."
 * Do you have these sources? Levivich (talk) 01:13, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * In my latest suggested text, I did not use the word "increasing". I do say it "deteriorated into civil war" but that was from the Pappe snippet you provided.  -- Bertrc  (talk) 01:18, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Do you have the sources that were cited in your edits? Levivich (talk) 01:23, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Well . . . yeah . . . at least I think so . . . The references you and I mentioned above:
 * https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Birth_of_the_Palestinian_Refugee_Pro/uM_kFX6edX8C?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA65&printsec=frontcover
 * https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Birth_of_the_Palestinian_Refugee_Pro/uM_kFX6edX8C?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA139&printsec=frontcover
 * https://www.google.com/books/edition/A_History_of_Modern_Palestine/rrttEAAAQBAJ?gbpv=1&pg=PA118
 * seem to support the edits I am proposing:
 * Prior to 1948 section
 * Attacks between Jewish and Palestinian groups began in late 1947.
 * 1948 section
 * The central facts of the Nakba in 1948 are not disputed. The violence in late 1947 deteriorated into a civil war. During this and the subsequent regional war, approximately 750,000 Palestinians—over 80% of the population in what would become Israel—were expelled or fled from their homes and became refugees in neighboring states
 * (Note: I haven't actually made those edits, yet. I am proposing them here, before I add them) -- Bertrc  (talk) 01:30, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Are you working from Google previews, or do you actually have the books? Morris 2008, page 76, says the civil war began at 8:20 am on 30 Nov 1947, that's not accurately summarized by "the violence in late 1947 deteriorated into a civil war." Levivich (talk) 01:45, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I was pulling the phrase "civil war" from Pappe. I was simply using Morris as an additional source for the start of violence. Would you want to simply say:
 * During the civil and subsequent regional war, approximately 750,000 Palestinians—over 80% of the population in what would become Israel—were expelled or fled from their homes and became refugees in neighboring states
 * Personally, I feel that would imply that it was purely the wars that drove the Nakba, which I think is inaccurate, as it discounts a lot of targetted attacks on Palestinians that was independent of the wars. However, I fully admit that that is just my opinion (which is why I didn't phrase it like that)
 * * sigh* I honestly don't know what phrasing you think would be appropriate and/or if you simply do not think any mention of contextual violence should be included. As I have said, I am a wikipedia lightweight; I do wish you would either make an edit attempt or say that contextual violence should not be mentioned. As it is, I feel like trying to guess your position or preference is like trying to solve the halting problem (Yes, I know that solving the halting problem is impossible  :-D    )  -- Bertrc  (talk) 02:12, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't know what phrasing I think would be appropriate because while I've read enough to know your edits failed verification, I haven't yet read enough about violence in Nov 1947 to really have an opinion about what's exactly WP:DUE and what the WP:NPOV summary of it would be. That's why I didn't add anything to the article about it yet. When I get to it, I'll get to it.
 * We've now thoroughly explored how the content I removed failed verification, and I'm going go back to what I was doing, and I think you should pick another article to work on, one where you have access to the best sources for the topic, which does not seem to be the case here. Levivich (talk) 02:33, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I guess you are right. I am a bit too much of a dilettante with wikipedia.  I cannot bring myself to commit to it sufficiently and nobody else seems to care enough to chime in on the subject.  The article is all yours. -- Bertrc  (talk) 02:40, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * We've now thoroughly explored how the content I removed failed verification, and I'm going go back to what I was doing, and I think you should pick another article to work on, one where you have access to the best sources for the topic, which does not seem to be the case here. Levivich (talk) 02:33, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I guess you are right. I am a bit too much of a dilettante with wikipedia.  I cannot bring myself to commit to it sufficiently and nobody else seems to care enough to chime in on the subject.  The article is all yours. -- Bertrc  (talk) 02:40, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

typo
the second paragraph of the 'Terminology' section includes a quote in rather clumsy english, beginning "How Can I call it but Nakba?" could someone at least change the C in 'Can' to a lower case c, and perhaps clean up the sentence a little. thank you Potholehotline (talk) 03:06, 12 January 2024 (UTC)


 * The quotation is verbatim from the source, even with the capital-C "Can." I fixed that and made a copyedit that hopefully explains what the author meant by that sentence. Levivich (talk) 04:17, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Who started the 1948 war?
In the history section, the article states: "In 1947, in the wake of World War II and the Holocaust, the United Nations partitioned Mandatory Palestine, leading to the 1948 Palestine war and the creation of the State of Israel". It seems relevant to me to mention that it was the Arab armies who started this war. ShaiGoldman18 (talk) 18:31, 26 December 2023 (UTC)


 * That's not what the sources say. I think you're confusing (what Wikipedia calls) the 1948 Palestine war with (what Wikipedia calls) the 1948 Arab–Israeli War, which is the second part of the 1948 Palestine war. For either one, "who started it" is a very complex issue and RSes do not agree on one answer, which is why I phrased that sentence in a way that avoids stating in Wikipedia's voice who was responsible for starting it. Levivich (talk) 18:45, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I could be misreading, but both of the Wikipedia articles you linked describe the Arab armies invading/attacking Israel as the first offensive move of the war ShaiGoldman18 (talk) 19:56, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Aside from WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source, where in the article 1948 Palestine war does it say Arab armies made the first offensive move of the 1948 Palestine war? Levivich (talk) 20:43, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I see now that I was extrapolating from "Partition was accepted by the Jewish leadership, but rejected by Palestinian Arab leaders and the Arab states." But you are right that this doesn't quite say what I said it said. ShaiGoldman18 (talk) 20:45, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * According to Britannica’s page https://www.britannica.com/event/Arab-Israeli-wars
 * ” Clashes broke out almost immediately between Jews and Arabs in Palestine, beginning with the Arab ambush of a bus carrying Jewish passengers from Netanya to Jerusalem on November 30. “ Wafflefrites (talk) 06:47, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Britannica is wrong. The bus ambush was a response to the Shubaki family assassination, which took place a few days prior to the UN vote. There had been no Jewish-Arab violence for months beforehand. The “clashes broke out after the vote” is a propaganda narrative intended to blame “Arab rejectionism” for the war. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:59, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for responding, I appreciate it. But respectfully, it says on Britannica that “ On November 29, 1947, the United Nations (UN) voted to partition the British mandate of Palestine” and the Shubaki family assassination was on November 19, 1947, ten days before the UN vote.
 * But yes, I understand there were retaliatory massacres and atrocities committed by both sides just like in the Greco-Turkish War (1919–1922). Wafflefrites (talk) 07:09, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * This was just discussed in another thread above; see Morris 2008 p. 76 for details. Levivich (talk) 07:28, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * From that page, technically, Morris does call the bus ambush casualties “The first dead of the 1947 war.” But he does acknowledge that majority view is that the bus ambush was driven by a desire to avenge. Morris also states, “there was also a clear, organized Palestinian Arab response to the UN resolution.” On Dec. 1, it was a strike, and on Dec. 2, it was “a large Arab mob, armed with clubs and knives” led by two AHC officials. Morris then proceeds to write that the mob eventually turned back after wounding some people and encountering the Haganah “But the war had begun”. Wafflefrites (talk) 08:24, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Hopefully we can all agree from this that the narrative line "the Arabs started the civil war because they rejected the UN vote" is a gross misrepresentation.
 * That line is used by propagandists to "blame" Palestinians for "starting" the conflict. "If only they hadn't been so antisemitic, they could have had a Dubai on the Mediterranean!" Onceinawhile (talk) 08:32, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * That’s not how I see it, I see it “if only they could have predicted the future and accepted the plan, they could have had a larger territory.” Instead neighboring Arab states were involved (with the exception of Jordan) and went to war with Israel, and the war increased Israel’s territory.
 * Also it would not have been a Dubai. The Jewish state had a “more advanced agricultural and industrial position” In the 1920s they built roads, irrigated and ameliorated land. The Shaw Commission acknowledged that Jewish development "has conferred material benefits upon Palestine in which the Arab people share.” https://archive.unu.edu/unupress/unupbooks/80859e/80859E05.htm Wafflefrites (talk) 15:11, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * We are straying away from the question posed in this section. Which I think has been answered. Selfstudier (talk) 15:13, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It is however a good reminder that our articles on the 1948 war are not clear enough on these points. Another example just now - Wafflefrites's 15:11 comment shows they weren't aware of the status prior to the Arab armies stepping in (hundreds of thousands of Arabs expelled, and the Jewish military well over the partition plan lines with e.g. Jaffa and West Jerusalem taken over). Onceinawhile (talk) 15:33, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, at least partly that can be improved by expanding this article to include debunked Nakba myths, probably in the Nakba denial section. Levivich (talk) 16:22, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The way you frame the question is biased. In fact, what happened is that within a few days of winning the 29 Nov 1947 UN vote on the partition of Palestine, Jewish terrorists launched a massive wave of terrorist atrocities. There were terrorist atrocities committed by both sides, but the terrorist Jews killed about three times as many civilians from 2 Dec 1947 onwards. For example, see War Office file 275/109, Public Record Office, London, as quoted in The Encyclopaedia of the Palestine Problem, by Issa Nakhleh, chapter 6, just a small sample:
 * '2 DECEMBER 1947: Khisas village. 1 Arab civilian shot dead by Jewish Gaffir from Beit Hillel approximately 1200 hours. TJFF Huleh patrols increased. WO 275/46
 * 3 DECEMBER 1947... Morning 3 December. Several Arab shops in Harcarmel Street Mashiya Quarter of Jaffa set on fire by Jews.
 * 031500B 14 year old Arab boy shot from passing Jewish taxi in Yazur village MR 131169 on main road Jaffa- Jerusalem.
 * 031630B Arab boy seriously injured by shot fired from Jewish bus passing through Al Qubab village MR 145 15 1 on main road Jaffa-Jerusalem.
 * 3 DECEMBER 1947: Jews set fire to Arab Garage in Commercial Centre. Two Arabs shot near Zion Gate. WO 261/571
 * 4 DECEMBER 1947: 30 Jews attacked an orange grove Alkheiriya 133160, threw hand grenades and fired shots. 1 Arab slightly wounded. WO 261/571
 * 5 DECEMBER 1947: At 1000 hours, two Palestine policemen escorting Arab curfew breakers in Tel Aviv set upon and stabbed by Jews. 2 Palestine policemen seriously injured. 1 Jew slightly injured. WO 261/571
 * 6 DECEMBER 1947: At 0915 hours Jewish youths attacked three Arabs in Halutz Street, Haifa. Police dispersed crowd. 1 Arab dead. WO 261/571
 * 6 DECEMBER 1947: At 1000 hours gang of Jews killed an Arab in Hashomer Street, Haifa. 1 Arab killed. WO 261/571
 * 6 DECEMBER 1947: 1 Infantry Division, at 1550 hours, the occupants of a PU travelling down Hassan Bey Road, Tel Aviv, threw a bomb into an Arab shop which caught fire. Some casualties, number unknown. They then opened fire at a Police armoured car which gave chase and caught the PU in the Agro Bank Road. One Jewish occupant of the PU was seriously wounded, the remaining five escaped. One pistol, 3 Sten magazines and some gun cotton were found in the PU. WO 261/571
 * 6 DECEMBER 1947. At 1550 hours bomb thrown in Arab shop in Hassan Bey Road from car which was chased and captured by Police. Car contained one Jew, seriously injured, a pistol, Sten mags and gun cotton. 2 Arabs killed. 5 Arabs injured. WO 261/571
 * 6 DECEMBER 1947... At Yemen Steps a party of Jews directed automatic fire and threw a grenade at Arabs. One Arab was seriously wounded in the stomach... At Bab Silsileh, on the borders of the Jewish Quarter, Old City, a hand grenade was thrown from the Jewish Quarter into an Arab house. The following casualties resulted: one Arab dead, two Arabs seriously injured and one Arab injured (not seriously). WO 275/64
 * 9 DECEMBER 1947: At 2330 hours, Jews entered Arab village Paratiya 12111173 and blew up one house. WO 261/571
 * 9 DECEMBER 1947: Jews damaged Christian Arab houses Herzl Street. WO 261/571
 * 10 DECEMBER 1947... At 0615 on 11 December, a Jewish lorry opened fire on a group of Arabs at Balad El Sheikh, killing two. At 1330 hours an Arab bus was blown up by a bomb thrown from a passing car, and 5 Arabs were killed and 21 injured. Late that night Jews dressed in Military uniforms and travelling in a jeep and 15 cwt truck attacked At Tira village causing considerable damage and killing 12 Arabs. Another attack against the Military, this time on the Mountain road, caused the death of a Corporal. WO 275/46
 * 11 DECEMBER 1947: 1320 hours, Jews in taxi on Bat Gallim Haifa road threw bombs and injured 3 youths. WO 261/571
 * 11 DECEMBER 1947: 1335 hours, bomb thrown under Arab bus Kingsway, Haifa. 4 Arabs killed, and 12 injured. WO 261/57 1
 * 11 DECEMBER 1947: 1945 hours, engagement between Jews and Arabs on Mount Scopus-Nablus road Jerusalem at Shufat. Under cover of fire Jews entered village dressed as soldiers and police and tried to blow up houses. 2 unexploded grenades and some dynamite later found in village by Palestine Police. WO 26l/57l
 * 11 DECEMBER 1947: 2245 hours, party of Jews wearing military type uniform attacked at Tirya 14802410. 1 house destroyed, and 5 houses damaged. 12 Arabs killed and 6 Arabs injured. 15 cwt and jeep used in attack made with grenades and LA fire. WO 26 1 /57 1
 * 11 DECEMBER 1947: Grenades thrown in Ramle during night and automatic fire directed at a garage by Jews in a taxi. WO 261/57 1
 * 12 DECEMBER 1947: 6 AB Division, at 2245 hours, 1 1 December, party of Jews wearing military-type uniforms attacked the Northwest corner of Mount Tira at 14802410. Some of the party came down from hills on foot, while some came in a 15 cwt truck and a jeep along the main road. They attacked six houses with grenades and small arms fire. One house completely destroyed and others damaged. Known casualties - Arabs - 12 killed and 6 injured. WO 261/571
 * 12 DECEMBER 1947: 252 FS Sec., 12 December. At 0900 hours, Jews threw grenades at a garage behind Rex Cinema, Jerusalem. Casualties: 2 Arabs injured. WO 275/64
 * 12 DECEMBER 1947: Incident between Jews and Lebanese at approximately 1400 hours. 1 grenade thrown by Jews wounding 1 Lebanese civilian. Both parties withdrew. No further casualties. WO 275/46
 * 12 DECEMBER 1947: Arab shot in Orah Cinema Gabriel Street, Haifa. WO 261/57 1
 * 13 DECEMBER 1947: 1220 hours, bombs thrown and small arms fire directed at Arab crowd from Jewish taxi near Damascus Gate, Jerusalem. Killed - 4 Arabs and 1 Jew. Wounded - 15 Arabs and 2 British constables. Crowd killed 1 Jew, slightly injured 2 British constables trying to keep order. Taxi and owner arrested; 3 other occupants escaped. WO 261/571
 * 13 DECEMBER 1947: Five armed Jews using Black Fargo tender attacked Cafe King George Avenue, Jaffa. Cafe and other buildings extensively damaged. 6 Arabs killed. 15 Arabs seriously wounded. 21 Arabs wounded. Tender had been stolen in Petah Tiqva at 1300 hours. WO 261/571
 * 13 DECEMBER 1947: 1 Infantry Division, 13 December. Sound of heavy explosion at Al Yehudia village 139159. Bombs were thrown by attackers followed by heavy Small Arms fire. Arabs report attack carried out by 4 truck loads of Jews reported to be wearing K.D. Coldm Gds emergency platoon, sent to scene found police armoured car being fired upon. Casualties: 6 Arabs killed, one Arab seriously wounded and 12 Arabs wounded. Firing ceased 1520 hours. WO 275/64
 * 13 DECEMBER 1947: Four truck loads armed Jews dressed in KD attacked Al Yehudiya 139159 with bombs and small arms fire. 6 Arabs killed, 15 Arabs seriously wounded and 21 Arabs slightly wounded. Police armoured car fired on. Order restored on appearance Coldm Gds emergency police. WO 261/571
 * 13 DECEMBER 1947: Two Arabs wounded in Manshiya Quarter, Tel Aviv, during afternoon. WO 261/571
 * 13 DECEMBER 1947: G (Int), 13 December. Bombs were thrown at stationary buses at Damascus Gate, Jerusalem, from car containing Jew who also opened up Small Arms fire on the crowd. Casualties probably higher than previously estimated. One Jew manhandled and killed by crowd. Car containing Jews apprehended. WO 275164
 * 14 DECEMBER 1947: 01 30 hours Jews attacked Arabs in Tel Arish Quarter on Tel Aviv J Jaffa bdy. Troops called to scene and order restored. WO 261/571
 * 14 DECEMBER 1947: 0320 hours bombs thrown at Arab cinema, Haifa. WO 261/571
 * 14 DECEMBER 1947: At approximately 0700 hours 3 Jews fired on Arab bus 199213. Bus stopped, passengers ordered out. Bus then set on fire. Total casualties 3 Arabs wounded, one seriously. Additional patrols by TJFF and 3rd Hussars. WO 275/46
 * 14 DECEMBER 1947: 6 AB Division, at 0700 hours, at 199213,3 Jews stopped a civilian bus. They fired several rounds into bus and ordered passengers out. They then set fire to the bus and escaped in a taxi. Casualties - 1 Arab seriously wounded, one Arab slightly injured. Arab reaction is expected. Half squadron TJFF and 1 Troop of 3 H have proceeded to Beisan. WO 261/571
 * 14 DECEMBER 1947: 0700 hours Jews stopped civilian bus area Beisan 199213. They fired several shots into bus then ordered passengers out, set fire to bus and escaped in taxi. 1 Arab seriously injured. 1 Arab slightly injured. WO 261/571'
 * The Arab nations launched a humanitarian intervention to halt the genocide after the Brits just walked away it on 14 May 1948. MathewMunro (talk) 03:21, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * This list should start with Shubaki family assassination. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:59, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Ongoing Nakba
Should the sentence in the lead "the ongoing persecution and displacement of Palestinians" be made into a wikilink to ongoing Nakba?, and the sentence "Some consider the Nakba to be an ongoing phenomenon" be removed?

- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:54, 16 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Yup. Levivich (talk) 20:02, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Not supported with evidence “Zionists said yes to the plan, with plans to take more”
The sentence, as provided above, is subjective, and has no evidence to support it. Mayazauberman1 (talk) 05:55, 21 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Not sure how the sentence could be "subjective".
 * And it's very well sourced. Check the footnote at the end of the sentence (which even highlights the relevant quotations from the sources).
 * IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 09:16, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * https://imgur.com/a/9QTiSI2
 * - IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 09:24, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok, thank you 2A06:C701:752A:9400:B9C3:16BC:2B33:F1CC (talk) 11:47, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 January 2024
The text: violent displacement and dispossession of the Palestinian people, along with the destruction of their society, culture, identity, political rights, and national aspirations.

Is incorrect and doesn’t represent the meaning of the word Naqba, as was coined by Zureiq. The term now became everything but the real meaning which is the DEFEAT of the Arab armies. This is done to hide the real meaning because of “honor” or “disgrace” related issues.

Mr. Zureiq in his 1948 book, The Meaning of the Disaster, said, “The defeat of the Arabs in Palestine is not a small downfall – naksa … It is a catastrophe – nakba – in every sense of the word.”

Either add the original meaning, or change the false added narrative. Sprmni (talk) 02:46, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * - This article isn't about the Nakba as it was understood in 1948, it's about the Nakba as it is understood today. The meaning of the word has changed over the years. The evolution of the term, and Zureiq's work, are covered in the (incomplete) section . Levivich (talk) 03:06, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Nakba times and types
I was thinking about reorganizing the (and thus the article) a bit and would like to solicit feedback. All labels below are my own shorthand; I'm not suggesting we use those labels in article space (nor that every bullet point should be a whole subsection; some just a paragraph, case-by-case). Here is how I envision the logical organization and grouping/division of time periods of the Nakba, and types or components of Nakba:


 * 1881-1947: pre-Nakba
 * 1881-1922: Ottoman Palestine period
 * pre-1881: pre-Zionist era (pre-1881)
 * 1881-1904: early Zionist era, from First Aliyah to Second Aliyah
 * 1904-1917: pre-Balfour era, from Second Aliyah to Balfour Declaration
 * 1917-1922: post-Balfour era, from Balfour to the establishment of Mandatory Palestine
 * 1922-1947: Mandatory Palestine period
 * 1922-1929: early Mandate era, from establishment of Mandatory Palestine to 1929 Palestine riots/Hope Simpson Enquiry/Passfield white paper
 * 1929-1936: Simpson era, from Hope Simpson Enquiry to 1936–1939 Arab revolt in Palestine
 * 1936-1939: Revolt era
 * 1939-1947: WWII era, including post-WWII until partition
 * 1947-1949: the 1948 Nakba period
 * Feb 1947-Nov 1947: from announcement of end of Mandate until Resolution 181
 * Nov 1947-April 1948: from Resolution 181 to Plan Dalet
 * April-May 14 1948: from Plan Dalet to end of Mandate/Israeli declaration of independence/Arab League invasion whatever
 * May 15-July 1948: from Arab League whatever to second truce
 * July-October 1948: the ceasefire months
 * October-December 1948: final battles
 * January 1949-July 1949: armistice negotiations
 * 1949-present: ongoing Nakba
 * 1949-1967: military governance period
 * 1949-1956: from armistices to Suez Crisis
 * 1956-1967: from Suez Crisis to Six-Day War
 * 1967-1987: Naksa period
 * 1967-1982: from Six-Day War to Sabra and Shatila massacre
 * 1982-1987: from Sabra and Shatila to First Intifada
 * 1987-2000: First Intifada period
 * 1987-1993: pre-Oslo Accords
 * 1993-2000: post-Oslo
 * 2000-present: Second Intifada period
 * 2000-2005: from Second Intifada to the Gaza withdrawal and blockade
 * 2005-2023: this is where it gets tough, is this one period? The Gaza Wars period?
 * 2023-present: 2023 Gaza war (it's my outline I can call it what I want) definitely demarcates a new period in the history of the Nakba, right? This is the "2023 Nakba period"? Given that at this point the number of dead and displaced are as high or higher than 1948, that makes it a lvl-1 bullet point in this outline, right?


 * Expulsion-flight Nakba: the "traditional" Nakba that is commonly and incorrectly believed to be the only type or component of Nakba
 * Violent Nakba: massacres and other violence
 * Return Nakba: preventing those who were expelled/fled from returning
 * Bulldozer Nakba: destruction of Palestinian homes, villages, etc.
 * Infiltrator Nakba: could also be categorized under "violent Nakba"
 * Economic Nakba: economic losses or economic harms
 * Land Nakba: loss of land
 * Employment Nakba: what Wolfe calls "Conquest of Labor," plus employment restrictions in military governance period and in occupied territories
 * Looting Nakba: looting of Palestinian tangible property (looting of homes, business, etc.)
 * Bank Nakba: appropriation of Palestinian bank accounts (and sometimes the banks themselves)
 * Social Nakba: loss of societies, aka "fragmentation" or "scattering" a community/society, diving them, preventing them from physically gathering and/or communicating
 * Cultural Nakba: loss of culture
 * Antiquities Nakba: looting and destruction of antiquities
 * Archaeological Nakba: looting, destruction, or misappropriation of archaeological sites
 * Name Nakba: loss of identity; removing Palestinian names from maps, history books, etc.; renaming places with Hebrew names; aka "memoricide"
 * Political Nakba: loss of political rights and freedoms
 * State Nakba: loss/prevention of Palestinian state and national aspirations generally
 * Rights Nakba: laws giving Palestinians less rights than others
 * Election Nakba: undue election interference
 * Nakba denial
 * Forest Nakba: reforestation
 * Archives Nakba: destroying or sealing documents that evidence Nakba
 * Nakba myths: aka propaganda
 * Textbook Nakba: revision in education curriculum
 * Nakba Law

What do people think of this organization? Anything missing, or shouldn't be listed, or described/grouped wrong? Thanks in advance, Levivich (talk) 19:55, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Categories
Per WP:CATPOV, Categorization must also maintain a neutral point of view. Categorizations appear on article pages without annotations or referencing to justify or explain their addition; editors should be conscious of the need to maintain a neutral point of view when creating categories or adding them to articles. Categorizations should generally be uncontroversial; if the category's topic is likely to spark controversy, then a list article (which can be annotated and referenced) is probably more appropriate. For example, a politician (not convicted of any crime) should not be added to a category of notable criminals.

Given that we don't even include the claim that this was a genocide attributed, let alone in Wikivoice which is what would be required to meet CATPOV, it's not appropriate to include these categories. Please self-revert. BilledMammal (talk) 03:13, 3 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Where does CATPOV require that it be in wikivoice? LegalSmeagolian (talk) 03:33, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Categorizations appear on article pages without annotations or referencing to justify or explain their addition; editors should be conscious of the need to maintain a neutral point of view when creating categories or adding them to articles. BilledMammal (talk) 03:40, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Your recent addition appears to be WP:UNDUE for the lede - it's not even mentioned in the body, and I'm not convinced that two historians holding a debate is WP:DUE there either. BilledMammal (talk) 03:49, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Ethnic cleansing
Ethnic cleansing claim is supported by dozens of source while the dispute of it is only sourced by Benny Morris, which he even argues was only a partial ethnic cleansing. Seems like we are giving the disputing narrative undue weight as a fringe point of view. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:07, 3 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Agreed. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 12:49, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I think we should say it in wikivoice. "The Nakba is the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians" is what I think the first sentence of this article should be, based on the sentence in the body that lists all the scholars who've said that, which, IMO, shows that this is the mainstream view. It's a more succinct and clear explanation of what the word means than the current first sentence (which, again IMO, is basically a definition of "ethnic cleansing"... "violent displacement," etc.). Levivich (talk) 13:54, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * True, especially your last sentence. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:38, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed BilledMammal (talk) 10:38, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Skitash (talk) 14:26, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The use of quotes in the opening paragraph is inappropriate. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:07, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Is that some sort of policy or guideline? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 11:10, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * You have my permission to remove the quotation marks if you're concerned about 1RR. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 13:00, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * MOS:OPEN: "The first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific." Please remove it yourself since indeed would be a violation of 1RR currently for me. It is not 1RR to revert oneself however. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:45, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * How's this? - IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 09:59, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Looks good, thanks. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:32, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed. إيان (talk) 12:55, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 March 2024
Change the reference of the Nakba as ethnic cleansing, in the very first line, when it was a defeat in war. Calling it ethnic cleansing is biased and partisan. 68.162.150.51 (talk) 17:16, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Levivich (talk) 18:22, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Infiltrators (1949-1967)
Hi everyone. My last addition to the article was a few lines about "infiltrators" during the 1948 Nakba. I had gathered sources/quotes for additions about "infiltrators" after the war (1949-1967) but haven't had a chance to summarize these sources/quotes into a prose addition, and RL is getting the best of me and I might not get back to this for a month or more. So in case anyone wants to pick up where I left off and add some content about post-1948 "infiltrators," here is are my potential footnotes for that addition:

INFILTRATORS 1949-1955

































INFILTRATORS 1956-1967





So if anybody wants to read all of that and summarize it, thanks :-) Levivich (talk) 23:45, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Death toll recent edit
This recent edit added that "at least 15,000 Arabs had been killed."

This information (the death toll) is much needed but I doubt these sources are sufficient. This should be discussed. @ThePaganUK. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:25, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

@User:IOHANNVSVERVS Will do some digging and add more refs shortly. Cheers.ThePaganUK (talk) 11:16, 9 April 2024 (UTC)


 * That would be great! Still need better ones but also the sources already provided are not as bad as I first thought. Thanks for your contribution(s). IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:30, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

It seems like the 15,000 number refers to total Arab dead in the 1948 Palestine war, including Arab League soldiers. See this discussion. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:15, 13 April 2024 (UTC)


 * FWIW the AJ articles says explicitly "About 15,000 Palestinians were killed in a series of mass atrocities, including dozens of massacres." The Relifweb source similarly says "During the Nakba, around 531 villages were totally destroyed, and some 15,000 Palestinians were killed by Zionist militias, who between 1947 and 1949 committed at least 70 massacres against Palestinians." Their source for that figure is this article published by the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics. It seems these are referring to massacre deaths and not combat casualties. Levivich (talk) 03:43, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm too busy to look into this now, but thanks for this info and I will say that I feel it's reasonable to restore this, though I'd personally like to see it attributed. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:42, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Typo
“The term is also used to described” should be “The term is also used to describe” but I can’t change it cuz page is protected 129.22.21.195 (talk) 03:50, 24 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Fixed, thank you. Levivich (talk) 04:32, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Ethnic cleansing (2)
There is ongoing debate among historians and analysts regarding how to characterize what happened during the Nakba. Labeling it 'ethnic cleansing' is a loaded term risking bias. We're better off depicting it as a displacement event while fully sourcing the range of perspectives - to avoid inflaming this controversial topic. Our role is capturing views accurately, not taking sides. OliveTree39 (talk) 15:27, 3 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Personal opinions are irrelevant, in order to justify the tag, provide the sources disputing the characterization and sourcing given in the article. Selfstudier (talk) 15:36, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I removed the NPOV tag applied to the entire article. If a tag is insisted on please use 'disputed inline'. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 16:59, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Also note that this was discussed above . IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 17:24, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Ethic cleansing is a straightforward description of events, as attested in scholarship. The debate is whether the characterization of "genocide" might also be readily applied. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:35, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "ethnic cleansing" = "capturing views accurately" per the sources cited. Levivich (talk) 22:11, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

with reference the added disputed tag, please explain why this has been added and with reference to reliable sources, as you were asked for previously. Thank you. Selfstudier (talk) 12:19, 4 April 2024 (UTC)


 * The term "ethnic cleansing" in regard to the Nakba is disputed by various scholars and commentators for several reasons. There is a Wikipedia article that discusses this exact controversy of the use of the term "ethnic cleansing" (see: Causes of the 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight), including many relevant views.
 * It is a historical fact that in some cases Palestinians were expelled from the villages, but that's far from being the only reason for the events of 1948. Several historians, for example, say that the Palestinians were encouraged to remain and live as citizens within Israel. However, the Arab population decided to leave, motivated either by a reluctance to coexist with Jewish residents or by the anticipation of an Arab military triumph that would decisively defeat the Zionist forces.
 * The article's intro, as it appears right now, gives undue weight to the views of scholars such as Nur Masalha and Walid Khalidi. But, for example, Philip Mendes, an Australian professor, said that "... it was an absolute fact that the Palestinian Arabs departed in 1948 at the behest of their own leaders, and that Israel desperately attempted to persuade them to stay." Historians Anita Shapira and Shabtai Teveth say that "the sporadic talk among Zionist leaders of ‘transfer’ was mere pipe-dreaming and was never undertaken systematically or seriously".
 * To sum up, this controversy in versions is constantly discussed among among historians, journalists, and commentators, therefore making the term a disputed topic. OliveTree39 (talk) 15:37, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Just because there is a lot of historical denialism regarding this topic doesn't mean there is a serious dispute among the WP:BESTSOURCES on this matter. A lot of what you've cited for example has been thoroughly debunked. For example the idea that "the sporadic talk among Zionist leaders of ‘transfer’ was mere pipe-dreaming and was never undertaken systematically or seriously" - see Transfer Committee. And the idea that "it was an absolute fact that the Palestinian Arabs departed in 1948 at the behest of their own leaders, and that Israel desperately attempted to persuade them to stay." is just nonsense. Levivich below gives a good explanation and I'd recommend you read this article by Ilan Pappé which goes into more detail over the various disputes and the state of recent scholarship. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 16:06, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I echo IOHANN's statement. It is just as likely to encounter Nakba revisionism and denialism as it is to encounter revisionisms of various historical tragedies. Regarding the Mendes claim: "The BBC monitored all Middle Eastern broadcasts throughout 1948. The records, and companion ones by a United States monitoring unit, can be seen at the British Museum. There was not a single order or appeal, or suggestion about evacuation from Palestine, from any Arab radio station, inside or outside Palestine, in 1948. There is a repeated monitored record of Arab appeals, even flat orders, to the civilians of Palestine to stay put" (Hadawi 1979, citing Childers). Abu-Sitta 2010 noted that only 5/530 communities were displaced due to precautions-- 0.9433962264150943% of Palestinian communities. Khalidi 2005 reviewed archival materials from the Arab League, and found that the AHC urged govts to deny entry to Palestinians, stop renewing residency to abroad Palestinians, and violently sending back refugees. Nakba denial is very easily debunked.  Gerald WL  10:33, 5 April 2024 (UTC)


 * That's barely half a point and largely based on the single quotation from Mendes. Please don't just come to this topic half-cocked and cherrypick some obscure no-name scholars in the field, because that isn't going to be the start of a productive conversation. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:54, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Let me copy over to this page what the body of the article currently says about "ethnic cleansing":

For those counting along, that's 24 different bona-fide scholars (17 wiki-notable), all 21st century peer-reviewed academic works. On top of those 24, there are 7 other scholars (in 21st c. peer-reviewed academic works) that don't use the term in their own voice, but recognize that the term is widely used by scholars. A total of 31 21st-century peer-reviewed academic works saying it's ethnic cleansing. And they come from Palestinian, Israeli and non-Palestinian, non-Israeli scholars.

OliveTree, what you have posted so far to rebut this is: These sources do not demonstrate any significant modern dispute among scholars about this. You'd need to bring like dozens of 21st century peer reviewed academic works in order to show that the 31 works cited in the Wikipedia article right now do not represent the mainstream view. Levivich (talk) 16:01, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Morris, already covered, he's a famous outlier
 * 1980 Steven Glazer paper was written before the Israeli archives were opened -- that's not just outdated, it's obsolete
 * 2000 speech by Phillip Mendes, a professor of social work, which is not peer reviewed, is old, and obscure

Should we have an RFC on this to be thorough? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 16:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Unless there is an intractable dispute and no consensus, an RFC is a massive waste of community time. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:53, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree, I don't see enough disagreement amongst editors to justify an RfC. Maybe a FAQ but idk how effective those are (other than to be able to say "see FAQ #2" in response to "why does the article say..." questions). Levivich (talk) 17:32, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi,
 * Thanks for your reply. But i still don't fully understand, even the UN refers to the Nakba as a mass displacement and dispossession of Palestinians (If fair or not) and not "ethnic cleansing", a very harsh and unequivocal claim. Wikipedia is supposed to be a neutral information platform, and to use the term "ethnic cleansing" as an opening line is un-neutral. I think it would respect Wikipedia viewers more if the opening line was neutral, representing all opinions and views, tell the story and the events and the term "ethnic cleansing" can be put in the articles body as a point of view, such as "some scholars view the events as....". OliveTree39 (talk) 08:10, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * RS classify it as that and more than that is not needed, personal opinions notwithstanding. Challenge the consensus here via an RFC if desired. Selfstudier (talk) 10:08, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The UN is not an RS for this because it's not scholarship. Levivich (talk) 13:17, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It's worth remembering that "ethnic cleansing" is a relatively modern term, becoming popular in English only in the 1990s. The archetypal event was the Ethnic cleansing in the Bosnian War. Perhaps OliveTree39 could explain what is it about the Bosnian case that they consider more "harsh" than the Nakba. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:49, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "mass displacement and dispossession" is ethnic cleansing, almost by definition. Look at the quoted definitions in the ethnic cleansing article and tell me Im' wrong. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  04:04, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Buidhe: that's a blocked sock now, fyi. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:59, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Palestinian vs. Israeli scholars?
The article says, "The Nakba is described as ethnic cleansing by many scholars, including Palestinian scholars .... Israeli scholars... " while I would agree to separate it based on citizenship status rather than by ethnicity (so we don't have Arab vs. Jewish scholars), by that standard some of the Palestinians are misclassified because they are Israeli citizens rather than citizens of Palestine. Perhaps this could be clarified by rewriting, such as separating Israeli-Jews from Palestinian or Palestinian descent—I think Khalidi is a US citizen for example. Or perhaps I'm just splitting hairs here. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  04:32, 29 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Those labels were arbitrarily chosen by me without a lot of thought or research. Basically, it's people whose Wikipedia pages identified them as "Palestinian" (including variations like Palestinian-American), people whose Wikipedia pages identified them as "Israeli," and "other". No objection from me to changing the organization or labeling, I'm sure it can be improved, except I'm not sure about assuming all the Israeli scholars are Jewish (maybe that's pedantic of me?). What I was going for was to take the long list of names and organize it by "one side," "the other side," and "neither side," so the reader would have an understanding that it's not all scholars from just one side or the other. Levivich (talk) 04:59, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I can understand this approach but imo (especially when it comes to non-Zionist Jews—whether Israeli citizens or not—and Palestinian citizens of Israel) splitting it into different "sides" can be misleading or reductive. If someone supports equal rights for all people in Israel/Palestine under the framework of a one or two state solution which "side" are they on? (t &#183; c)  buidhe  05:06, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * That's a good point about misleading or reductive, and reinforcing the stereotype that there are two sides. Maybe it would be better to put them in alphabetical order. Normally I don't like long list sentences like this, but I feel like in this particular instance do we need to spell out how many different scholars say the same thing? Note that when I added that list, the article didn't say in wikivoice that it was an ethnic cleansing. Now that it does, perhaps that list is no longer needed, or can be moved to a footnote or something? Levivich (talk) 05:51, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It might be better to say that the list includes both Israelis and Palestinians, and I agree that it might be better as a footnote. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  08:05, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Emptying of cities
Any sources elaborating on the emptying of coastal cities? This is also an integral part of the Nakba. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:58, 6 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Refs 8 and 66 have sources for Acre, Haifa, and Jaffa, and I'm sure there are others out there, probably some in the various sub-articles. Levivich (talk) 19:46, 6 May 2024 (UTC)