This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Nakba denial article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 21 October 2023. The result of the discussion was keep with a caveat. |
![]() | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | It is requested that an image or photograph of Nakba denial be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
![]() | A fact from Nakba denial appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 12 January 2024 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
The article doesn't even come close to passing NPOV. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 14:29, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
@ Ad Orientem, Marokwitz, DIYeditor, and Homerethegreat: - regarding NPOV problems (1) are there any specific reliable sources explicitly discussing Nakba denial that are missing from the article? Or, (2) is there any misrepresentation of reliable sources already in the article? starship .paint ( RUN) 07:30, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: I have reviewed the article. I cannot see the deleted article from the 2011 AfD but this article appears to be acurate based on the references. It appears from the previous AfD that the article was called out as synth and OR; I do not see that issue in this article. Well done, thanks for the article.
Lightburst ( talk) 15:26, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
@ Horse Eye's Back: I've added a some more news-y stuff (May 2023 legislative development) to the bare bones academic structure (and in addition to the 2011 legislative development) - hopefully this helps clarify that this is a topic with not just academic, but real world currency. I've also added a number of external links, including several from Middle East relations or research institutes, i.e. [1] [2] [3] that should help clarify how this is a very real topic in public discourse. Some of these external links may be viable sources in their own right, but I haven't really sorted through them yet. My priority at this initial stage was on creating a basis for the topic from peer-reviewed content. Iskandar323 ( talk) 19:39, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
Per this. Otherwise it is not clear quote is being quoted. The reader should not be left to deduce whether it is the next citation's author who is being quoted, someone that author is quoting themselves, or some other of the many uses of quotation marks. See MOS:QUOTEPOV and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Not understanding this and edit warring over this by Iskandar323 and Trilletrollet is mystifying as I don't see how any editor of Wikipedia could not realize quotes could not be used in the fashion they had been in this article, which blurs the line between Wikipedia's voice and the quote. —DIYeditor ( talk) 20:14, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
@ DIYeditor: You've edit warred without discussion and argued that "City Journal is a notable paper, has a track record of bringing facts to light, and is not listed on perennial sources. The Sol Stern is a notable person and is reliable for an opposing point of view in an editorial and actually has published (widely cited) this very field of Middle Eastern issues and history. What would you prefer to represent opposing points of view?" But City Journal isn't a paper at all, are you getting it confused with the Wall Street Journal published in the same city? Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 21:29, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
I found the following sources which can be used to further develop the page content:
"Although Israel's strategy of control, erasure of memory and Nakba denial, through the combination of military rule, repression, fear, segmentation and patronage, looked fairly effective in the 1950s, today it looks as though Israel's efforts at encouraging the Palestinian citizens to embrace the Zionist ideological discourse of 1948 have largely ended in failure."[4], P.31
-- Mhhossein talk 19:38, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
The result was: promoted by
AirshipJungleman29
talk
17:08, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
Created by Iskandar323 ( talk), Alalch E. ( talk), Freedom4U ( talk) and Starship.paint ( talk). Nominated by Iskandar323 ( talk) at 09:02, 27 October 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Nakba denial; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
specific reliable sources explicitly discussing Nakba denial that are missing from the articleor present examples of
misrepresentation of reliable sources already in the article. You did not respond. Again, I invite you to do so. Otherwise, it seems that your opposition is not based in reliable sources. starship .paint ( RUN) 01:52, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
we have analysed the narrative of the Nakba and it is inaccurate or distorted", that may also remedy the supposed biased selection. Are there such sources? starship .paint ( RUN) 12:21, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
Palestinians ... loss of homeland ... Palestinian tragedy that turned most of the Palestinian Arabs ... into refugees [...] Nakba is a concept that is present on a daily basis for all Palestinians in one way or another. In some ways, the Nakba of 1948 is still going on today. [...] This Palestinian recovery from the events of the Nakba ...Thus, I don't see how the article is still violating NPOV. We have been adding the sources presented, and the above one does not seem to be that out of line with what we are writing here. starship .paint ( RUN) 16:25, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
Comment It appears to me to be prone to bias. I have raised a point regarding neutrality in the article page, however other editors dismissed my objections and removed the pov label. I did not pursue course because I personally felt quite attacked there and at other places for having tried to present objections. However I still believe the current version does not follow NPOV and the DYK options presented are also problematic. Indeed the Nakba lead seems to be one sided and when one may try to add information for example on what some call the "Nakba law" is and is about and it's purposes; it is dismissed for not including the word denial. The text presented on the law is I believe is misinforming since it only presents a single viewpoint. I think it is best first to resolve the different issues, address some of the issues above, possibly rename the article or have a deep discussion regarding this, though personally it has been taxing to deal with the page. Kind regards. Homerethegreat ( talk) 20:18, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure we need three articles for this topic. (Though @
Levivich: I did read your thoughtful take on that.) Incorporates inappropriate epithets characterizations and one-sided presentation of issues treated more thoughtfully in both
1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight and
Nakba. POV language, stereotyping, generalization, and implied scholarly consensus around what are not consensus views, are embedded pretty uniformly throughout. The article also takes care not to indicate that any of these views are the least bit controversial. I couldn't see a way to improve it w/o a lot of work.
The idea that this is being put up for DYK given the issues above (which were recently raised in the deletion discussion) suggests that the free reign to present a less-balanced narrative here is being swiftly leveraged to give those particular views more visibility. That seems a reason to try to merge into Nakba for context, even though it would be a sizeable section in that article. – SJ + 02:34, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
inappropriate epithets- this is quite worrying but I couldn't identify what you were referring to. Are you able to give an example of this? Concrete examples of
POV language, stereotyping, generalizationwould also be appreciated. Given the article begins "According to some historians and academics..." and the preponderance of attributed quotations, I don't understand how you see an
implied scholarly consensus.
There is more in most paragraphs, mainly pulling out one of various competing narratives (from the language used in other articles, or in potential sources), dropping all nuanced context, and writing it as though that's the understood shared narrative about a nuance-free event; or caricaturing the work of a large group over an extended period of time with a simple negative gloss. Just compare the language used here to language used to describe the exact same events and discourse on other older articles. – SJ + 05:01, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
@
Alalch E. and
Sj: - both on you agree on the structural problem of omitting reliable sources who essentially state: "What happened and is happening to the Palestinians, and which some call the 'Nakba', was not and is not their Nakba, it was and is something else", ... non-Nakba-affirming scholarship ... the trueness of the Nakba notion, such as by calling it a distortion, as not-seeing-the-whole-picture, etc
. Could you present evidence here (or point to me where in the
Nakba article) that reliable sources are doing so?
starship
.paint (
RUN)
07:45, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
A 'disputed' tag was recently readded and removed. A sense in which this article remains disputed is that there's no shared meaning around what the phrase means; making an article for it that does not address this ambiguity (and immediately promoting it into navboxes) suggests a clarity and reification as a persistant noun [and not an action that might be described as 'becoming more or less prominent in certain discourse'] that it may not have.
Example: Very few people use the phrase 'jewish nakba law'. Please stop re-adding it here. I removed the following quote which is a particularly fringe view; whatever is meant by this sentence has nothing in common with the other definitions of 'denial' presented by the rest of the article.
Academics Yasmeen Abu-Laban and Abigail B. Bakan, writing in The Political Quarterly, argue that this law was an example of "aggressive [Nakba] denial" which is "aimed at blurring and confusing the memorialising" of the Palestinian Nakba.
– SJ + 10:48, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
there's no shared meaning around what the phrase means- according to who? According to you?
a particularly fringe view- ditto, according to who? Based on what metric of fringe, and what sources?
In this context, many Jews, in Israel and abroad, employ various strategies to deny the Palestinian catastrophe. In 2011, for example, the Israeli parliament passed the “Nakba Law,” which among other things authorized the Ministry of Finance to refrain from funding Israeli institutions that commemorate the Nakba. Many, perhaps most Jews in Israel, claim that the Nakba is not an event at all.It doesn't use the phrase "Jewish Nakba Law" but it does say that the Nakba Law is an example of Nakba denial. Levivich ( talk) 04:13, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
It is hard to overestimate the centrality of Nakba denial in Israel ...Levivich ( talk) 07:03, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
Can someone delete the first paragraph of the first section/heading. It's a reduplication of the article's introductory paragraph. IOHANNVSVERVS ( talk) 01:10, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
I understand that given the nature of the topic itself it will be nearly impossible to avoid Palestinian-leaning POV issues, but at the least we should be avoiding sentences like: "The denial of the Nakba is a core component to Zionist narratives of 1948 and was largely facilitated by early Israeli historiography" when citing one source that claims that the denial is becoming a core component of Zionist narratives, and using a second source written by Nur Masalha who is obviously not a BALANCED author who you can simply quotes as fact. Dazzling4 ( talk) 23:03, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
Nur Masalha is the author of many books on Palestine-Israel, including Theologies of Liberation in Palestine-Israel: Indigenous, Contextual, and Postcolonial Perspectives (2014), Palestine: A Four Thousand Year History (2018), The Zionist Bible: Biblical Precedent, Colonialism and the Erasure of Memory (2013), The Palestine Nakba: Decolonising History, Narrating the Subaltern, Reclaiming Memory (January 2012), The Bible and Zionism: Invented Traditions, Archaeology and Post-Colonialism in Palestine-Israel (2007), Catastrophe Remembered (2005), A Land Without a People (1997), Expulsion of the Palestinians: The Concept of "Transfer" in Zionist Political Thought, 1882–1948 (1992), Imperial Israel and the Palestinians: The Politics of Expansion (2000) and The Politics of Denial: Israel and the Palestinian Refugee Problem (2003).
@ Dazzling4: Agreed that sentence doesn't belong as it stands, and bears editing + qualification. (Even if, in the context of a Masalha passage, it has been written elsewhere.) We should reference the 1948 Arab–Israeli War by its local name, not a year; the use of direct articles is inappropriately specific, and the last clause overlocalizes to Israeli historians a broader trend. Masalha is a fine source, used properly, but balancing sources are always welcome.
As discussed here previously, a challenge for any article like this about a less-mainstream concept is that people using the phrase (here "Nakba denial", which many historians who have written about changing narratives about Palestinian expulsion and flight during the war do not use) tend to be on one end of a spectrum, and those on the other end use different terms, perhaps not even recognizing a new phrase enough to rebut its definition and usage, making search harder. Statements from a couple such sources shouldn't be presented as fact, although you might imagine qualifying with "Scholars who use the term X say...". Compare how this topic is already addressed in the expulsion and flight and New Historians pages. – SJ + 10:19, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Lede should be cleared from refs, while statements that exist only in lede should be moved to body and refed there and then extrapolated into lede as short version without refs. ౪ Santa ౪ 99° 10:05, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
I can't figure out what's wrong with it, why the sfn link isn't linking to the reference. If anyone else figures it out, please tell me :-) Levivich ( talk) 03:59, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
|ref = none
prevented linking.
Hameltion (
talk |
contribs)
16:33, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
There remain three areas of POV: with the framing, the allegations, and the legislation section.
– SJ + 20:44, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
Specific examples: in Historiography, Lentin's summarization of Sa'di's list of three 'strategies of denial' should be a paragraph, and only the first strategy is something generally referred to under the banner of denial. One of Sa'di's statements is an odd characterization of Gur-Ze'ev's work, where the latter is not generally characterized by denial at all and more notable than Sa'di's work on I-P relations. An example of the sort of balanced source missing from this article is the GZ/Pappé collab on "Beyond the Destruction of the Other’s Collective Memory" [7]. Not referencing the latter, while giving three paragraphs to the former, isn't a good weight distribution. More generally, there is a whole line of scholarship about collective memory that expressly talks about memory, recognition, [re]framing, and the evolution of collective understanding [including everything from denial to acknowledgement and emphasis to revisionist explanations], but intentionally focuses on terms that can serve as umbrellas over the entire cycle of reframing across two or more parties [so: does not focus on a monopole term such as 'Nakba denial'], which is underrepresented here; Bashir-Goldberg the only example. – SJ + 20:23, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
@
Sj: - reading the issues you have raised, I infer one theme (to quote you: non-notable claims by people who do use the term, often to apply to things that are not historical negations of anything ... many of the allegations are about other things ... neither referenced or claimed any contested historical facts, nor was a denial of anything
) The theme is that you seem to have a view of what Nakba denial is, like negationism or denial, and if scholarly sources discuss something that is not negationism or denial, it is simply not Nakba denial and should be removed. I disagree with this approach, we should be building our article from the scholarly sources, Nakba denial is what our academic sources says it is. We should not be imposing our own views to argue against scholarly sources, instead we should use other scholarly sources. Separately, I thank you for providing the source of GZ/Pappé. I have read the source and while it does discuss Nakba denial and I will include it in this article, I find that that is not the main focus of the source, which focuses far more on Palestinian Mainstream Responses to the Holocaust Memory
(including Palestinians' Holocaust denial) and what can be done to avoid the Destruction of the Other’s Collective Memory
.
starship
.paint (
RUN)
02:15, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
At present, the lead doesn't actually say what Nakba denial is. It characterises Nakba denial (a form of historical negationism pertaining to the 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight). So, in plain English, Nakba denial is a form of 'denying the truth' concerning Palestinian flight in 1948. … Errr … that doesn't tell me much about what truth(s) about Palestinian flight in 1948 is/are/were being denied?
Next para starts "Some historians claim that the denial of the Nakba has become a core component of Zionist narratives" - so this denial is central to Zionist narratives, but again what denial? The 'About' at the head of the page is even more vague "An analysis of the discourse around the Nakba" … any particular analysis or kind of discourse?
Most similar articles about forms of denial start with very clear statements about the subject - Holocaust denial is obviously the archetypal example, but Armenia, Bosnia and other subjects follow a similar pattern: Holocaust denial is an antisemitic conspiracy theory that asserts that the Nazi genocide of Jews, known as the Holocaust, is a myth, fabrication, or exaggeration. So after a brief characterisation (antisemitic conspiracy theory) we are told clearly that claiming the holocaust didn't happen, was faked, or is exaggerated is what holocaust denial is - clear.
That page then continues: Holocaust denial involves making one or more of the following false claims: it then lists main kinds of false claims about the holocaust.
For a variety of reasons, it almost certainly isn't possible to be as comprehensive as the Holocaust denial article here, and I presume the main topic here is something like "denying Zionist responsibility for the Nakba", rather than asserting that nobody left in 1948, or nobody was expelled in 1948, but at present the topic is implied but isn't really defined AFAI can see. Pincrete ( talk) 13:50, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
I am concerned regarding the neutrality of the article. Seems to be presenting some pretty serious POV related issues that do not show enough of the Israeli perspective.
In particular is the discourse around the mention of the Nakba Law "In 2011, Israel enacted a law colloquially referred to as the Nakba Law that authorized the withholding of state funds from organizations that commemorate Israel's Independence Day as a day of mourning."
This is not a manifestation of Nakba denial; instead, it involves withholding financial support from organizations that observe Israel's Independence Day as a day of mourning, without necessarily rejecting historical facts.
Furthermore the lead fails to summarize the Israeli view point as I said above. Failing to reveal the different perspectives is in violation of WP:LEAD. Homerethegreat ( talk) 14:53, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
Minister of Finance is authorized to withhold transfer of state funds, if the primary goal of the funds spent was to do one of the following:
- Denying the existence of the State of Israel as a Jewish and Democratic State
- Incitement of racism, violence, or terrorism
- Supporting armed conflict or acts of terror, of an enemy state or a terror organization, against the State of Israel
- Referring to the Israeli Independence Day or the founding day of the country as a day of mourning
- An act of vandalism or physical debasement of the flag or symbols of the state
Guys if you start claiming that Nakba Law isn't part of Nakba denial, you will probably end up TBANed from this topic area for POV pushing. This isn't even a question. More broadly, NPOV isn't about presenting the Israeli POV or Palestinian POV -- those are not the two POVs that need to be balanced. It's about accurately presenting the POV of RSes, not of two sides to a conflict. Any suggestion that RSes say that Nakba Law is not part of Nakba denial is a huge misrepresentation of those sources.
Have you read enough scholarship about Nakba denial to be able to participate here? That's up to you to do. Newspapers aren't scholarship, and there's lots of scholarship already cited in this article. Neither of your comments talks about any scholarship, which makes me wonder whether (a) you've read the scholarship cited in this article but are not mentioning what scholars say, or (b) you've not read the scholarship. Both are seriously disruptive. Also, this has been discussed here before, but you're not mentioning the earlier discussions, and the sources earlier discussed. Again, makes me wonder if it's an A or B situation.
Be careful because I am not the only editor whose patience is running out. If you want to talk about Nakba denial, you'd better have read some history books about Nakba denial, or you're wasting other editors' time.
I strongly suggest you amend your comments to start citing to scholarship that supports your argument, or else drop it. Levivich ( talk) 15:58, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
No two things are exactly the same, but being exactly the same has never been the criterion for inclusion in an article. Denying that the Nakba happened and punishing those who commemorate it are so closely related that it would be a big surprise if no sources connected them. Suppression of history and denial of history are two sides of the same coin. All that is required for inclusion is a reliable source which makes the connection. Zero talk 02:28, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
In this context, many Jews, in Israel and abroad, employ various strategies to deny the Palestinian catastrophe. In 2011, for example, the Israeli parliament passed the “Nakba Law,” which among other things authorized the Ministry of Finance to refrain from funding Israeli institutions that commemorate the Nakba.Nakba Law is literally the first example given of Nakba denial. Levivich ( talk) 19:09, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
Is there any relevant reliable source out there that can improve the NPOV of this article? I do not see any being raised in this section by editors claiming bias. Is there any relevant reliable source that pertains to the orange tag at Nakba_denial#In_Israeli_historiography? starship .paint ( RUN) 21:59, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
Someone with more time than myself might consider adding the role of groups like Im Tirzu in Nakba denial. Their pamphlet "Nakba Bullshit" published a few years ago is a perfect example, with all the old canards. Zero talk 03:13, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
If there are plenty of citations calling this historical negationism, then it should be easy to fill in the citation needed. I couldn’t find many via internet search. Wafflefrites ( talk) 19:39, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
As of right now, Nakba denial is vaguely described as "historical denialism" as opposed to what it really is - a racist conspiracy theory promoted by Zionist political groups. The article for Holocaust denial describes it as an "antisemitic conspiracy theory" - similar terms should be used for Nakba denial, as it is an anti-Palestinian conspiracy theory. Additionally, the Holocaust denial lede paragraph also describes the most popular forms of Holocaust denialism - a similar format should be employed in this article. Etsaloto ( talk) 23:33, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Pappe, Ilan (2024) [2013]. "Chapter 2: The State of Denial: The Nakba in the Israeli Zionist Landscape". In Loewenstein, Antony; Moor, Ahmed (eds.). After Zionism: One State for Israel and Palestine (New ed.). Saqi Books. ISBN 978-0-86356-739-1.
New edition of this book came out in January of this year, which includes a chapter by Pappe about Nakba denial. I won't have time to get into this myself for a while, but I have the ebook and if anyone wants to borrow it, hit me up on my talk page. Levivich ( talk) 00:59, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Nakba denial article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 21 October 2023. The result of the discussion was keep with a caveat. |
![]() | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | It is requested that an image or photograph of Nakba denial be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
![]() | A fact from Nakba denial appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 12 January 2024 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
The article doesn't even come close to passing NPOV. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 14:29, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
@ Ad Orientem, Marokwitz, DIYeditor, and Homerethegreat: - regarding NPOV problems (1) are there any specific reliable sources explicitly discussing Nakba denial that are missing from the article? Or, (2) is there any misrepresentation of reliable sources already in the article? starship .paint ( RUN) 07:30, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: I have reviewed the article. I cannot see the deleted article from the 2011 AfD but this article appears to be acurate based on the references. It appears from the previous AfD that the article was called out as synth and OR; I do not see that issue in this article. Well done, thanks for the article.
Lightburst ( talk) 15:26, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
@ Horse Eye's Back: I've added a some more news-y stuff (May 2023 legislative development) to the bare bones academic structure (and in addition to the 2011 legislative development) - hopefully this helps clarify that this is a topic with not just academic, but real world currency. I've also added a number of external links, including several from Middle East relations or research institutes, i.e. [1] [2] [3] that should help clarify how this is a very real topic in public discourse. Some of these external links may be viable sources in their own right, but I haven't really sorted through them yet. My priority at this initial stage was on creating a basis for the topic from peer-reviewed content. Iskandar323 ( talk) 19:39, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
Per this. Otherwise it is not clear quote is being quoted. The reader should not be left to deduce whether it is the next citation's author who is being quoted, someone that author is quoting themselves, or some other of the many uses of quotation marks. See MOS:QUOTEPOV and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Not understanding this and edit warring over this by Iskandar323 and Trilletrollet is mystifying as I don't see how any editor of Wikipedia could not realize quotes could not be used in the fashion they had been in this article, which blurs the line between Wikipedia's voice and the quote. —DIYeditor ( talk) 20:14, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
@ DIYeditor: You've edit warred without discussion and argued that "City Journal is a notable paper, has a track record of bringing facts to light, and is not listed on perennial sources. The Sol Stern is a notable person and is reliable for an opposing point of view in an editorial and actually has published (widely cited) this very field of Middle Eastern issues and history. What would you prefer to represent opposing points of view?" But City Journal isn't a paper at all, are you getting it confused with the Wall Street Journal published in the same city? Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 21:29, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
I found the following sources which can be used to further develop the page content:
"Although Israel's strategy of control, erasure of memory and Nakba denial, through the combination of military rule, repression, fear, segmentation and patronage, looked fairly effective in the 1950s, today it looks as though Israel's efforts at encouraging the Palestinian citizens to embrace the Zionist ideological discourse of 1948 have largely ended in failure."[4], P.31
-- Mhhossein talk 19:38, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
The result was: promoted by
AirshipJungleman29
talk
17:08, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
Created by Iskandar323 ( talk), Alalch E. ( talk), Freedom4U ( talk) and Starship.paint ( talk). Nominated by Iskandar323 ( talk) at 09:02, 27 October 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Nakba denial; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
specific reliable sources explicitly discussing Nakba denial that are missing from the articleor present examples of
misrepresentation of reliable sources already in the article. You did not respond. Again, I invite you to do so. Otherwise, it seems that your opposition is not based in reliable sources. starship .paint ( RUN) 01:52, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
we have analysed the narrative of the Nakba and it is inaccurate or distorted", that may also remedy the supposed biased selection. Are there such sources? starship .paint ( RUN) 12:21, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
Palestinians ... loss of homeland ... Palestinian tragedy that turned most of the Palestinian Arabs ... into refugees [...] Nakba is a concept that is present on a daily basis for all Palestinians in one way or another. In some ways, the Nakba of 1948 is still going on today. [...] This Palestinian recovery from the events of the Nakba ...Thus, I don't see how the article is still violating NPOV. We have been adding the sources presented, and the above one does not seem to be that out of line with what we are writing here. starship .paint ( RUN) 16:25, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
Comment It appears to me to be prone to bias. I have raised a point regarding neutrality in the article page, however other editors dismissed my objections and removed the pov label. I did not pursue course because I personally felt quite attacked there and at other places for having tried to present objections. However I still believe the current version does not follow NPOV and the DYK options presented are also problematic. Indeed the Nakba lead seems to be one sided and when one may try to add information for example on what some call the "Nakba law" is and is about and it's purposes; it is dismissed for not including the word denial. The text presented on the law is I believe is misinforming since it only presents a single viewpoint. I think it is best first to resolve the different issues, address some of the issues above, possibly rename the article or have a deep discussion regarding this, though personally it has been taxing to deal with the page. Kind regards. Homerethegreat ( talk) 20:18, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure we need three articles for this topic. (Though @
Levivich: I did read your thoughtful take on that.) Incorporates inappropriate epithets characterizations and one-sided presentation of issues treated more thoughtfully in both
1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight and
Nakba. POV language, stereotyping, generalization, and implied scholarly consensus around what are not consensus views, are embedded pretty uniformly throughout. The article also takes care not to indicate that any of these views are the least bit controversial. I couldn't see a way to improve it w/o a lot of work.
The idea that this is being put up for DYK given the issues above (which were recently raised in the deletion discussion) suggests that the free reign to present a less-balanced narrative here is being swiftly leveraged to give those particular views more visibility. That seems a reason to try to merge into Nakba for context, even though it would be a sizeable section in that article. – SJ + 02:34, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
inappropriate epithets- this is quite worrying but I couldn't identify what you were referring to. Are you able to give an example of this? Concrete examples of
POV language, stereotyping, generalizationwould also be appreciated. Given the article begins "According to some historians and academics..." and the preponderance of attributed quotations, I don't understand how you see an
implied scholarly consensus.
There is more in most paragraphs, mainly pulling out one of various competing narratives (from the language used in other articles, or in potential sources), dropping all nuanced context, and writing it as though that's the understood shared narrative about a nuance-free event; or caricaturing the work of a large group over an extended period of time with a simple negative gloss. Just compare the language used here to language used to describe the exact same events and discourse on other older articles. – SJ + 05:01, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
@
Alalch E. and
Sj: - both on you agree on the structural problem of omitting reliable sources who essentially state: "What happened and is happening to the Palestinians, and which some call the 'Nakba', was not and is not their Nakba, it was and is something else", ... non-Nakba-affirming scholarship ... the trueness of the Nakba notion, such as by calling it a distortion, as not-seeing-the-whole-picture, etc
. Could you present evidence here (or point to me where in the
Nakba article) that reliable sources are doing so?
starship
.paint (
RUN)
07:45, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
A 'disputed' tag was recently readded and removed. A sense in which this article remains disputed is that there's no shared meaning around what the phrase means; making an article for it that does not address this ambiguity (and immediately promoting it into navboxes) suggests a clarity and reification as a persistant noun [and not an action that might be described as 'becoming more or less prominent in certain discourse'] that it may not have.
Example: Very few people use the phrase 'jewish nakba law'. Please stop re-adding it here. I removed the following quote which is a particularly fringe view; whatever is meant by this sentence has nothing in common with the other definitions of 'denial' presented by the rest of the article.
Academics Yasmeen Abu-Laban and Abigail B. Bakan, writing in The Political Quarterly, argue that this law was an example of "aggressive [Nakba] denial" which is "aimed at blurring and confusing the memorialising" of the Palestinian Nakba.
– SJ + 10:48, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
there's no shared meaning around what the phrase means- according to who? According to you?
a particularly fringe view- ditto, according to who? Based on what metric of fringe, and what sources?
In this context, many Jews, in Israel and abroad, employ various strategies to deny the Palestinian catastrophe. In 2011, for example, the Israeli parliament passed the “Nakba Law,” which among other things authorized the Ministry of Finance to refrain from funding Israeli institutions that commemorate the Nakba. Many, perhaps most Jews in Israel, claim that the Nakba is not an event at all.It doesn't use the phrase "Jewish Nakba Law" but it does say that the Nakba Law is an example of Nakba denial. Levivich ( talk) 04:13, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
It is hard to overestimate the centrality of Nakba denial in Israel ...Levivich ( talk) 07:03, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
Can someone delete the first paragraph of the first section/heading. It's a reduplication of the article's introductory paragraph. IOHANNVSVERVS ( talk) 01:10, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
I understand that given the nature of the topic itself it will be nearly impossible to avoid Palestinian-leaning POV issues, but at the least we should be avoiding sentences like: "The denial of the Nakba is a core component to Zionist narratives of 1948 and was largely facilitated by early Israeli historiography" when citing one source that claims that the denial is becoming a core component of Zionist narratives, and using a second source written by Nur Masalha who is obviously not a BALANCED author who you can simply quotes as fact. Dazzling4 ( talk) 23:03, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
Nur Masalha is the author of many books on Palestine-Israel, including Theologies of Liberation in Palestine-Israel: Indigenous, Contextual, and Postcolonial Perspectives (2014), Palestine: A Four Thousand Year History (2018), The Zionist Bible: Biblical Precedent, Colonialism and the Erasure of Memory (2013), The Palestine Nakba: Decolonising History, Narrating the Subaltern, Reclaiming Memory (January 2012), The Bible and Zionism: Invented Traditions, Archaeology and Post-Colonialism in Palestine-Israel (2007), Catastrophe Remembered (2005), A Land Without a People (1997), Expulsion of the Palestinians: The Concept of "Transfer" in Zionist Political Thought, 1882–1948 (1992), Imperial Israel and the Palestinians: The Politics of Expansion (2000) and The Politics of Denial: Israel and the Palestinian Refugee Problem (2003).
@ Dazzling4: Agreed that sentence doesn't belong as it stands, and bears editing + qualification. (Even if, in the context of a Masalha passage, it has been written elsewhere.) We should reference the 1948 Arab–Israeli War by its local name, not a year; the use of direct articles is inappropriately specific, and the last clause overlocalizes to Israeli historians a broader trend. Masalha is a fine source, used properly, but balancing sources are always welcome.
As discussed here previously, a challenge for any article like this about a less-mainstream concept is that people using the phrase (here "Nakba denial", which many historians who have written about changing narratives about Palestinian expulsion and flight during the war do not use) tend to be on one end of a spectrum, and those on the other end use different terms, perhaps not even recognizing a new phrase enough to rebut its definition and usage, making search harder. Statements from a couple such sources shouldn't be presented as fact, although you might imagine qualifying with "Scholars who use the term X say...". Compare how this topic is already addressed in the expulsion and flight and New Historians pages. – SJ + 10:19, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Lede should be cleared from refs, while statements that exist only in lede should be moved to body and refed there and then extrapolated into lede as short version without refs. ౪ Santa ౪ 99° 10:05, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
I can't figure out what's wrong with it, why the sfn link isn't linking to the reference. If anyone else figures it out, please tell me :-) Levivich ( talk) 03:59, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
|ref = none
prevented linking.
Hameltion (
talk |
contribs)
16:33, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
There remain three areas of POV: with the framing, the allegations, and the legislation section.
– SJ + 20:44, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
Specific examples: in Historiography, Lentin's summarization of Sa'di's list of three 'strategies of denial' should be a paragraph, and only the first strategy is something generally referred to under the banner of denial. One of Sa'di's statements is an odd characterization of Gur-Ze'ev's work, where the latter is not generally characterized by denial at all and more notable than Sa'di's work on I-P relations. An example of the sort of balanced source missing from this article is the GZ/Pappé collab on "Beyond the Destruction of the Other’s Collective Memory" [7]. Not referencing the latter, while giving three paragraphs to the former, isn't a good weight distribution. More generally, there is a whole line of scholarship about collective memory that expressly talks about memory, recognition, [re]framing, and the evolution of collective understanding [including everything from denial to acknowledgement and emphasis to revisionist explanations], but intentionally focuses on terms that can serve as umbrellas over the entire cycle of reframing across two or more parties [so: does not focus on a monopole term such as 'Nakba denial'], which is underrepresented here; Bashir-Goldberg the only example. – SJ + 20:23, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
@
Sj: - reading the issues you have raised, I infer one theme (to quote you: non-notable claims by people who do use the term, often to apply to things that are not historical negations of anything ... many of the allegations are about other things ... neither referenced or claimed any contested historical facts, nor was a denial of anything
) The theme is that you seem to have a view of what Nakba denial is, like negationism or denial, and if scholarly sources discuss something that is not negationism or denial, it is simply not Nakba denial and should be removed. I disagree with this approach, we should be building our article from the scholarly sources, Nakba denial is what our academic sources says it is. We should not be imposing our own views to argue against scholarly sources, instead we should use other scholarly sources. Separately, I thank you for providing the source of GZ/Pappé. I have read the source and while it does discuss Nakba denial and I will include it in this article, I find that that is not the main focus of the source, which focuses far more on Palestinian Mainstream Responses to the Holocaust Memory
(including Palestinians' Holocaust denial) and what can be done to avoid the Destruction of the Other’s Collective Memory
.
starship
.paint (
RUN)
02:15, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
At present, the lead doesn't actually say what Nakba denial is. It characterises Nakba denial (a form of historical negationism pertaining to the 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight). So, in plain English, Nakba denial is a form of 'denying the truth' concerning Palestinian flight in 1948. … Errr … that doesn't tell me much about what truth(s) about Palestinian flight in 1948 is/are/were being denied?
Next para starts "Some historians claim that the denial of the Nakba has become a core component of Zionist narratives" - so this denial is central to Zionist narratives, but again what denial? The 'About' at the head of the page is even more vague "An analysis of the discourse around the Nakba" … any particular analysis or kind of discourse?
Most similar articles about forms of denial start with very clear statements about the subject - Holocaust denial is obviously the archetypal example, but Armenia, Bosnia and other subjects follow a similar pattern: Holocaust denial is an antisemitic conspiracy theory that asserts that the Nazi genocide of Jews, known as the Holocaust, is a myth, fabrication, or exaggeration. So after a brief characterisation (antisemitic conspiracy theory) we are told clearly that claiming the holocaust didn't happen, was faked, or is exaggerated is what holocaust denial is - clear.
That page then continues: Holocaust denial involves making one or more of the following false claims: it then lists main kinds of false claims about the holocaust.
For a variety of reasons, it almost certainly isn't possible to be as comprehensive as the Holocaust denial article here, and I presume the main topic here is something like "denying Zionist responsibility for the Nakba", rather than asserting that nobody left in 1948, or nobody was expelled in 1948, but at present the topic is implied but isn't really defined AFAI can see. Pincrete ( talk) 13:50, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
I am concerned regarding the neutrality of the article. Seems to be presenting some pretty serious POV related issues that do not show enough of the Israeli perspective.
In particular is the discourse around the mention of the Nakba Law "In 2011, Israel enacted a law colloquially referred to as the Nakba Law that authorized the withholding of state funds from organizations that commemorate Israel's Independence Day as a day of mourning."
This is not a manifestation of Nakba denial; instead, it involves withholding financial support from organizations that observe Israel's Independence Day as a day of mourning, without necessarily rejecting historical facts.
Furthermore the lead fails to summarize the Israeli view point as I said above. Failing to reveal the different perspectives is in violation of WP:LEAD. Homerethegreat ( talk) 14:53, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
Minister of Finance is authorized to withhold transfer of state funds, if the primary goal of the funds spent was to do one of the following:
- Denying the existence of the State of Israel as a Jewish and Democratic State
- Incitement of racism, violence, or terrorism
- Supporting armed conflict or acts of terror, of an enemy state or a terror organization, against the State of Israel
- Referring to the Israeli Independence Day or the founding day of the country as a day of mourning
- An act of vandalism or physical debasement of the flag or symbols of the state
Guys if you start claiming that Nakba Law isn't part of Nakba denial, you will probably end up TBANed from this topic area for POV pushing. This isn't even a question. More broadly, NPOV isn't about presenting the Israeli POV or Palestinian POV -- those are not the two POVs that need to be balanced. It's about accurately presenting the POV of RSes, not of two sides to a conflict. Any suggestion that RSes say that Nakba Law is not part of Nakba denial is a huge misrepresentation of those sources.
Have you read enough scholarship about Nakba denial to be able to participate here? That's up to you to do. Newspapers aren't scholarship, and there's lots of scholarship already cited in this article. Neither of your comments talks about any scholarship, which makes me wonder whether (a) you've read the scholarship cited in this article but are not mentioning what scholars say, or (b) you've not read the scholarship. Both are seriously disruptive. Also, this has been discussed here before, but you're not mentioning the earlier discussions, and the sources earlier discussed. Again, makes me wonder if it's an A or B situation.
Be careful because I am not the only editor whose patience is running out. If you want to talk about Nakba denial, you'd better have read some history books about Nakba denial, or you're wasting other editors' time.
I strongly suggest you amend your comments to start citing to scholarship that supports your argument, or else drop it. Levivich ( talk) 15:58, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
No two things are exactly the same, but being exactly the same has never been the criterion for inclusion in an article. Denying that the Nakba happened and punishing those who commemorate it are so closely related that it would be a big surprise if no sources connected them. Suppression of history and denial of history are two sides of the same coin. All that is required for inclusion is a reliable source which makes the connection. Zero talk 02:28, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
In this context, many Jews, in Israel and abroad, employ various strategies to deny the Palestinian catastrophe. In 2011, for example, the Israeli parliament passed the “Nakba Law,” which among other things authorized the Ministry of Finance to refrain from funding Israeli institutions that commemorate the Nakba.Nakba Law is literally the first example given of Nakba denial. Levivich ( talk) 19:09, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
Is there any relevant reliable source out there that can improve the NPOV of this article? I do not see any being raised in this section by editors claiming bias. Is there any relevant reliable source that pertains to the orange tag at Nakba_denial#In_Israeli_historiography? starship .paint ( RUN) 21:59, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
Someone with more time than myself might consider adding the role of groups like Im Tirzu in Nakba denial. Their pamphlet "Nakba Bullshit" published a few years ago is a perfect example, with all the old canards. Zero talk 03:13, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
If there are plenty of citations calling this historical negationism, then it should be easy to fill in the citation needed. I couldn’t find many via internet search. Wafflefrites ( talk) 19:39, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
As of right now, Nakba denial is vaguely described as "historical denialism" as opposed to what it really is - a racist conspiracy theory promoted by Zionist political groups. The article for Holocaust denial describes it as an "antisemitic conspiracy theory" - similar terms should be used for Nakba denial, as it is an anti-Palestinian conspiracy theory. Additionally, the Holocaust denial lede paragraph also describes the most popular forms of Holocaust denialism - a similar format should be employed in this article. Etsaloto ( talk) 23:33, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Pappe, Ilan (2024) [2013]. "Chapter 2: The State of Denial: The Nakba in the Israeli Zionist Landscape". In Loewenstein, Antony; Moor, Ahmed (eds.). After Zionism: One State for Israel and Palestine (New ed.). Saqi Books. ISBN 978-0-86356-739-1.
New edition of this book came out in January of this year, which includes a chapter by Pappe about Nakba denial. I won't have time to get into this myself for a while, but I have the ebook and if anyone wants to borrow it, hit me up on my talk page. Levivich ( talk) 00:59, 22 April 2024 (UTC)