I dispute the Neutrality of this section.

According to historian Benny Morris, the period was marked by Palestinian Arab attacks and Jewish defensiveness, increasingly punctuated by Jewish reprisals.[7]:65 Simha Flapan pointed out that attacks by the Irgun and Lehi resulted in Palestinian Arab retaliation and condemnation.[22] Jewish reprisal operations were directed against villages and neighborhoods from which attacks against Jews were believed to have originated.[7]:76

Totally agree. Turning point was [1929 Hebron massacre]. The Arabs tried to ethnically cleanse Jewish refugees. The Jews defended themselves. Every time they were attacked, they fought back and started taking ground off their attackers. The degree of bias in this article is just obscene. 14.200.91.233 (talk) 22:47, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure that you are not biased? Because historically 80% of the population of Arabs was ethnically cleansed. I am surprised that this is not called a the Palestinian Genocide like the Rohingya in Myanmar. Ahm1453 (talk) 11:43, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest making a list of attacks on record. That may remove the author biases — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eshaparvathi (talk • contribs) 13:18, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Benny Morris is a revisionist historian whose perspective is not shared by others. Ilan Pappe documents clearly that the attacks by zionist organisations were offensives with the declared objective of clearing land for Jewish settlement.

Boynamedsue (talk) 08:36, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Morris is one of most respected historians in the field - very well cited. Icewhiz (talk) 08:56, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yet he pushes a particular point of view which minimises the planned aspect of the ethnic cleanising of Arabs from Palestine, often directly contradicted by the words of the participants. The destruction of villages and murders of civilians, were often completely unrelated to the Arab attacks, usually against military convoys, which they were "avenging". The use of the word "retaliation" by zionist groups to describe blowing up houses with children in them, or machine-gunning people at random as they left their houses, was euphemistic.

Boynamedsue (talk) 06:24, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]


this article seems rife with anti-arab racism and pro-apartheid sentiment, wikipedia editors should try harder to eliminate this pernicious hate — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:96A0:1DE0:ED79:3AF5:90D0:BA94 (talk) 22:52, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article: Haaretz, Hagar Shezaf, "Burying the Nakba", 05 July 2019.

Haaretz - Hagar Shezaf - Burying the Nakba, How Israel systematically hides evidence of 1948 expulsion of Arabs, 05 July 2019.

The article links to a translation of a Shai (Shin Bet precursor), Arab Section report dated 30 June 1948: Migration of Eretz Yisrael Arabs between December 1, 1947 and June 1, 1948.

    ←   ZScarpia   15:11, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hagar Shezaf's Haaretz article has just been cited in this edit.     ←   ZScarpia   00:30, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ZScarpia: In conjunction with the report in Haaretz, the report by Akevot is also citable. Actually we should have an article on Akevot and it should enjoy RS status, with or without attribution depending on the nature of the material. Zerotalk 08:00, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Excellent! I'm just wondering how the material should be used.     ←   ZScarpia   09:41, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some way to access the entire Haaretz article? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:18, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Does this work: [1]? Zerotalk 10:48, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Apologies for below. I posted without reading the section above. I'll leave it in any case.

(a) Yehiel Horev launched a project named Malmab which scours archives to secure sensitive documents covering reports of massacres and expulsions of the Palestinian population in 1948. The purpose was,’to undermine the credibility of studies about the history of the refugee problem. In Horev’s view, an allegation made by a researcher that's backed up by an original document is not the same as an allegation that cannot be proved or refuted.’

(b) A contemporary Shai or Israeli intelligence report The Emigration of the Arabs of Palestine, written at the time of the events, in June 1948, one since classified as secret, set forth an analysis of the basic reasons for the exodus of Palestinians, in descending order of importance.

The first reason: “Direct Jewish acts of hostility against Arab places of settlement.” The second reason was the impact of those actions on neighboring villages. Third in importance came “operations by the breakaways,” namely the Irgun and Lehi undergrounds. The fourth reason for the Arab exodus was orders issued by Arab institutions and “gangs” (as the document refers to all Arab fighting groups); fifth was “Jewish 'whispering operations' to induce the Arab inhabitants to flee”; and the sixth factor was “evacuation ultimatums.” cited Hagar Shezaf  'Burying the Nakba: How Israel Systematically Hides Evidence of 1948 Expulsion of Arabs,' Haaretz 5 July, 2019

- Nishidani (talk) 14:10, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Evidently, the whole article requires a rewrite, since we have strong evidence that it is an active policy to classify as secret much of the factual record in archives that might prove deleterious to Zionistr mythology, in order to invalidate any historical research that once had access to such key documentation about expulsion policy, massacres etc.

- Nishidani (talk) 14:16, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's a nice Yehiel Horev quote at the top of the Akevot report linked to by Zero: "Even if somebody writes the horse is black, if the horse is not outside the stable, it cannot be proven it is actually black."     ←   ZScarpia   14:29, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For fans of Mondoweiss, one article by Yossi Gurvitz and another by Jonathan Ofir which contain, I think, some additional details: [2][3].     ←   ZScarpia   12:13, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And an editorial from Haaretz: [4].     ←   ZScarpia   12:16, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Details about previous attempts to obscure the Israeli role in creating the exodus:

"The International Diplomacy of Israel's Founders, Deception at the United Nations in the Quest for Palestine" (2016) - John Quigley:

p222:

"In 1961, US President John Kennedy ramped up pressure on Israel to repatriate the displaced Palestine Arabs. Ben Gurion decided to shore up Israel’s story about the exodus in order to blunt this effort at forcing Israel to repatriate. Ben Gurion called a meeting of top officials in his Tel Aviv office.The result of the meeting was the organization of a coterie of researchers at an Israeli think tank to undertake what Ben Gurion called “a serious operation, both in written form and in oral hasbara,” to show that the Arabs were not forced out. One product of that effort was the publication in 1969 of a pamphlet, issued by the Foreign Ministry, then headed by Abba Eban as Foreign Minister. The pamphlet addressed the Deir Yassin incident. The pamphlet sought to justify the Irgun and LEHI."

p222-223:

"In 1979, the Government of Israel took another action to cover up its role in the 1948 Arab exodus. Second only to the Deir Yassin killings,the incident that gained the most notoriety from the 1948 events was the expulsion of theArab populations of Lydda and Ramleh.By 1979,Yitzhak Rabin had served a term as prime minister of Israel and was writing a memoir.In the memoir,Rabin described his activity during 1948,including what he did as a commander at Lydda and Ramleh in July 1948. In that description, Rabin explained how he had implemented Ben Gurion’s order to expel the Lydda and Ramleh Arabs. A Government censorship board vetted Rabin’s draft and made him delete his account of expelling the Lydda and Ramleh Arabs. The deleted sections were obtained by the media. The New York Times published a summary of them. ... The deleted sections gave, in sum, an accurate account of the expulsions from the two Arab towns. These sections did not appear in Rabin’s memoir as published."

p232:

"The Ministry of Foreign Affairs, on its website in recent years, has repeated what Shertok and Eban told the United Nations in 1948. The website, as of 2015, stated with regard to the exodus of Palestine Arabs in 1948,'Many Palestinian Arabs who lived in areas where the fighting took place abandoned their homes, either at the request, of Arab leaders, or due to fear of the fighting and the uncertainty of living under Jewish rule.' 'Israel does not bear any culpability for the creation or the perpetuation of the Palestinian refugee problem,' the Foreign Ministry website stated."

    ←   ZScarpia   09:24, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Benny Morris has weighed in, citing documents on Deir Yassin as examples of things that were once accessible to him but later closed. Zerotalk 07:19, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Time has passed, keep it here, I guess Anziska, S; (2019) The Erasure of the Nakba in Israel's Archives. Journal of Palestine Studies , 49 (1) pp. 64-76. 10.1525/jps.2019.49.1.64 https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10085594/9/Anziska_64.full.pdf Selfstudier (talk) 15:15, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Replace broken link

Hello can someone with enough privilege replace the broken link to "Ruling Palestine, A History of the Legally Sanctioned Jewish-Israeli Seizure of Land and Housing in Palestine." Publishers: COHRE & BADIL, May 2005 from the cohre.org website to this one: http://www.badil.org/phocadownloadpap/Badil_docs/publications/Ruling%20Palestine.pdf

Thanks. It could also be nice to gather the different page citations to this only PDF. Faidherbard (talk) 01:16, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Economic damage": Ben-Gurion's attitude to looting.

I think that Ben-Gurion's position on the looting done by Israeli soldiers and citizens deserves examination.

Material in the "Economic damage" section cites the following article, which comments on a recent study completed by Adam Raz:

Haaretz - Ofer Aderet - Jewish soldiers and civilians looted Arab neighbors' property en masse in '48. The authorities turned a blind eye, 02 October 2020.

Adam Raz comments on Ben-Gurion's attitude: "The pillaging, he maintains, “was tolerated” by leaders in the political and the military arenas, and first and foremost by Ben-Gurion – despite his condemnations in official forums. ... The book shows that there were decision makers who were critical of what was happening in real time, both at the level of the events on the ground and at the political level. They thought that the fact that Ben-Gurion had permitted the looting was intended to create a particular political and social reality, and was a tool in Ben-Gurion’s hands to achieve his purposes. ... Ministers and decision makers, such as the minister of minority affairs, Bechor Shalom-Sheetrit, and Zisling and Kaplan, were critical of the plundering by individuals. In their view, one authority, effective and with concrete power, should have been created to aggregate all the property and see to its distribution and handling. Ben-Gurion objected to this idea and torpedoed it."

From previous reading (probably in books by Tom Segev or Benny Morris), I'd gained the impression that Ben-Gurion was genuinely critical of the looting, largely on the grounds that goods which would have otherwise been taken by the Israeli government (probably through the Custodian of Absentees’ Property) were being stolen. Therefore, it's curious to read a contrary verdict.

    ←   ZScarpia   12:38, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That was standard behavior for Ben-Gurion. Call a spade a spade in private talk, and obstruct efforts to implement a remedy for what was privately deplored or branded as 'poor form'. It's the 'you can't make an omelette without breaking (Palestinian) eggs' approach to making big history. It's quite normal for politicians with a deep sense of history, skewed to their own prejudices, to exhibit such traits. In any case, I think every editor will have read of hundreds of passing mentions of the vast damage in property loss - it continu8es to this day in night raids, and land expropriations, and it is about time to try and write an article that puts the disiecta membra of such dispersed data in sources into one focused article. I'd be happy to do it, if I knew where to begin, but on this particular issue I've never stockpiled a consistent set of notes.Nishidani (talk) 13:01, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Old article: Looting, Looting, and More Looting ImTheIP (talk) 17:22, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have Segev's book so I could cite it directly. Zerotalk 03:18, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 25 March 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. The majority of editors who have weighed in do not support the move as the word "Nakba" often refers to the entire war, which is more broad than this article's scope. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 21:43, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


1948 Palestinian exodus → Nakba – 'Nakba' is more common and simpler than '1948 Palestinian exodus'

Maudslay II (talk) 10:22, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nakba is usually used to describe the exodus. It's way more common, and also used in scientific studies. The term 'exodus', if someone used it, comes secondary after 'Nakba'. I would compare it to saying 'Holocaust' and not '1941–1945 Nazi genocide of jews'. -- Maudslay II (talk) 14:26, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But aside from a few other "sources", the overwhelming consensus is the term 'Holocaust'. Is 'Nakba' really on that same level in terms of consensus? -Biglittlehugesmall65 (Look at me or Talk to me) 14:37, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Biglittlehugesmall65: Just compare these results:


@Maudslay II: I'm still not entirely convinced because other websites show different proportions that don't point to the overall dominance of the term 'Nakba' when refering to this event.
@Biglittlehugesmall65: No mate, when you are looking for this kind of results you put the word in quotation marks. When you don't, it gives wide results, not the ones you are looking for. We also add -wikipedia to exclude Wikipedia results. So for example, in scholar, if you put "1948 palestinian exodus" without quotation marks it will give you results of articles that two are three of the words are mentioned in the article, and not successively. When you add the quotation marks, the results drop to 300 only. The rest is shown in my previous comment, where I looked up 'Palestinian exodus' with 1948 to give more results, but still the term Nakba is miles ahead. -- Maudslay II (talk) 17:26, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I added above the 'find sources' templates which help in finding those results. -- Maudslay II (talk) 17:30, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Biglittlehugesmall65: Another thing: In the titles of citations, 'exodus' is mentioned 5 times while 'Nakba' 12 times. -- Maudslay II (talk) 20:43, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Maudslay II: I went back you were right that the numbers are smaller, but I feel like they would always be smaller with a phrase like '1948 Palestinian exodus' as opposed to just one word, 'Nakba'. Also, a 12 to 5 margin does not make it seem like the term 'Nakba' is as accepted in the same way that 'Holocaust' is. -Biglittlehugesmall65 (Look at me or Talk to me) 21:00, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Biglittlehugesmall65: You can be sure that every article/book about this subjet would clearly mention the word 'Nakba'. 12 to 5 margin is more than double. I shortened '1948 Palestinian exodus' to 'Palestinian exodus' to reach the maximum results and look at this ratios; 33:1 in google serach, 8:1 in scholar and 91:1 in news. With this huge majority, why wouldn't use the common term used by everyone? -- Maudslay II (talk) 21:15, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Biglittlehugesmall65: Also, it dosen't have to be 'as accepted' as the Holocaust. Based on what are we going to decide that? Regardless, I just gave it as an example. And please strikethrough the search results you posted above, so the reader don't get confused with the correct ones. -- Maudslay II (talk) 21:18, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Maudslay II: I feel like it should be close to as accepted as the Holocaust is because this is a touchy issue for a lot of people. Something like an 8:1 ratio still shows that there might not always be consensus. In all honesty, I think it would be better if someone else were to get involved and give their two cents on this. I don't know if the name of an article can entirely be determined by search result statistsics. -Biglittlehugesmall65 (Look at me or Talk to me) 21:31, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Walrasiad: 'Nakba' is used in the common tone, not only by specialists. But based on the results above, 'Nakba' is way more recognizable than 'exodus'. Also, 'exodus' is confusing because it does not guarantee results about this subject, since it can mean a number of other things, see exodus. All of this exclude the arabic results, which use only 'Nakba' as well. In normal cases, if there was different results, we use the more common one, but here the ratios are 91:1 for 'Nakba'. -- Maudslay II (talk) 09:14, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Another example: it's like saying '1948 Palestinian exodus day' instead of 'Nakba day'. -- Maudslay II (talk) 09:16, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is a highly recognizable and widely used term, in English. There should be an article entitled Nakba. The only question is whether this is the best scope for it. I am going to do some reading to try to understand how the scope of Nakba is usually defined. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:29, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure that I understand some of the arguments above, if WP can have a Nakba day then it can have a Nakba as well assuming that it is the common name, it's certainly more common than the descriptive title we have now (assume there is a discussion somewhere how that was arrived at).Selfstudier (talk) 12:08, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why. One is a festival unknown outside the Palestinian community. That doesn't implicate the title of the main topic. I'd like to urge once again that editors keep in mind that the Wikipedia readers are a general English-speaking audience, most are unfamiliar with Arabic, and most of them do not follow this topic with the same interest you might. So please try to put yourself in their position. The purpose of the article titles is to make it easier for the general public to recognize and access information. Replacing a clear and understandable title with an obscure foreign language term most people are not familiar with and would not recognize does not help access to the article. Walrasiad (talk) 17:39, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was just pointing out that argument evidently did not wash when Nakba day was created and I am certain it won't wash now if indeed Nakba is the common name, search BBC + Nakba, they use it in their titles. I don't see the present title as clear and understandable to the average Joe at all and it is even misleading since it started in 1947 not 1948 (while some would posit that it continues to the present day).Selfstudier (talk) 17:55, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You did not put it in quotations marks. I added the correct and direct links above, use them and see the results. -- Maudslay II (talk) 18:51, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maudslay II, Did you read what I wrote? I explained why we shouldn't use quotation marks Shrike (talk) 18:55, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Shrike, I have just been through the scholar hits in your link without quotation marks. It includes thousands of unrelated content, where the three words are used separately in far flung parts of the article. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:10, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Onceinawhile, Could you please give a few examples Shrike (talk) 19:12, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)I suggest you do your own reading as well. Otherwise this discussion will not be efficient. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:15, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Shrike, I have just been through the scholar hits in your link without quotation marks. It includes thousands of unrelated articles, where the three words are used separately in far flung parts of the articles and have no relation to the topic of this wikipedia page. Quotation marks are necessary to ensure meaningful results; you can add up a few related terms if you like, such as “1948 Palestinian exodus” and “1948 exodus in Palestine”. You will find even with all those added up, Nakba is still far more prevalent. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:10, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nableezy: I didn't yet find a neat discussion of the range of meanings. However, I did find a range of meanings used, from the narrow (the expulsion/exodus of 1948 with its collapse of Palestinian society) to the broad (all events of the 1948 war) to the very broad (the Palestinian experience from 1948 to the present). The narrow meaning is the most common in my very unscientific survey but like you I'm unsure that "Nakba" is a drop-in replacement for the current title. Zerotalk 00:15, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We also have 1949–56 Palestinian exodus and 1967 Palestinian exodus (Naksa) to consider.Selfstudier (talk) 09:11, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Some refs:-
The Evolution of a Founding Myth: The Nakba and Its Fluctuating Meaning
A recent dictionary definition
Aljazeera feature Selfstudier (talk) 11:15, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
al-naksa is the war there too, afaik, not the resulting displacement. nableezy - 20:44, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What does everything think about a new article entitled Nakba, covering the range of meanings? Onceinawhile (talk) 20:17, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also a good idea. Or maybe we move this to Nakba and expand it? There has to be an article about 'Nakba'. -- Maudslay II (talk) 14:18, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not very good at trawling the history, it seems there was a Nakba article and it was merged and redirected in 2005. It was a stub claiming to be about the term and "not about the Nakba itself".Selfstudier (talk) 15:01, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot 1948 Palestinian exodus from Lydda and RamleSelfstudier (talk) 17:10, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh -> Sigh some moreSelfstudier (talk) 17:22, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the is the best solution. We create a new article 'Nakba' and we cover everything about it. -- Maudslay II (talk) 07:07, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Meaning the new article links out to other articles as discrete components of the Nakba while the new article is holistic (exodus(es) + war + other elements)? A repetition of 2005 with insufficient material for the new article wouldn't be good. We ought to be as clear as possible on the intent before proceeding.Selfstudier (talk) 13:40, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, are we agreeing that this RM is not going to proceed? ie Nakba ≠ 48 exodus.Selfstudier (talk) 14:21, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

@Maudslay II, Biglittlehugesmall65, Selfstudier, Nableezy, Zero0000, Carwil, and Walrasiad: please see new article Nakba. The more I have read the more clear it is that the term Nakba is used not just for the exodus or the war, but for the disappearance of "Palestine" and the destruction of Palestinian society. There are a huge number of good sources exploring the concept of the Nakba; I have only scratched the surface so far. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:04, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 May 2021

Grammar:

This sentence (paragraph 3 of intro) is incorrect:

The causes are also a subject of fundamental disagreement between historians.

("Between" implies "two." I'm sure there are more than two points of view here.)

It should read:

"The causes are also a subject of fundamental disagreement among historians." Laurence R. Hunt, Kenora, Canada 01:18, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done Run n Fly (talk) 06:00, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect map

There are many inaccuracy in the map presented.I will just name few of dozens.

  1. ) Nazareth Ilit is presented as predominately Arab town with Jewish minority. Nof Hagalil has almost 80% non Arab population.
  2. Half of Ramle is coloured as being predominately Arab, only less than 10% of city territory and (23% of population) has Arab majority.
  3. Ajami is not fully Arab neighborhood as it was presented. The population is mixed.
  4. Eilat never had a depopulated Arab village in its territory. Umm Al-Rashrash was a police station, not a village
  5. Many Jewish neighborhoods in East Jerusalem are left out, some Arab are duplicated like Beit Safafa.
  6. Many Jewish settlement's in Samaria are left out from map.
  7. Dozens of Jewish villages in Sharon are left out from map.
  8. Haifa map also does not reflect actual demographic situation.
  9. At least 30 Jewish towns and villages in Gaza envelope are left out.
  10. Beer Sheva has no Arab majority neighborhood, not even one with significant Arab population as presented. The extended Jewish population of old city is above 95%. The Arab population of the city is 2.6% and is not concentrated in particular area.
  11. Regba is colored as an Arab village. Al Shajk Danun lies to the east, not south of Nahariya and it is not connected to city.
  12. There is no Jewish settlement within the city of Nablus, as presented
  13. The city of Jenin has also no Jewish settlements within.
  14. There is no Bahai settlement or town in Israel. Bahai shrine in Akko is not a populated area.

Tritomex (talk) 00:48, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Map of the location of the depopulated locations, overlaid on today's demographic and political map
This section's factual accuracy is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please help to ensure that disputed statements are reliably sourced. (July 2021) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

This map is uploaded by @BasilLeaf: based on the original work of @Bolter21: so I would like to have their input here before we remove this map. I find it odd that you would first tag it (fine) and then remove it (not so fine).Selfstudier (talk) 09:17, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When inaccuracies are fixed, sourcing for the maps given and if there is consensus for its inclusion, I will myself if needed reinstall that.Tritomex (talk) 08:13, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I will wait for those other editors to respond to your unsourced assertions.Selfstudier (talk) 08:39, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The map itself should be sourced. A demographic map of Israel and Palestine is something that is needed long time for multiple purposes but until now I didnt find any with reliable sourcing Tritomex (talk) 08:57, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am the creator of that map. Thank you for your comments, giving me a chance to discuss the process of creation of this map. Actually that map is part of a series. There's a version that's solely modern demographics, and another that's solely depopulated Palestinian localities.

  1. Nazareth Ilit is presented as predominately Arab town with Jewish minority. Nof Hagalil has almost 80% non Arab population.
    • Shaded green/blue indicates mixed, not "predominantly Arab".
    • My general rule of thumb was that any percentage between 25% and 75% warrants colouring a locality as mixed.
    • My source was Israel 2019 Census, Link Here for excel file of Town breakdown. According to this, Nof HaGalil's population is 29% Arab. So ... I coloured it as mixed.
  2. Half of Ramle is coloured as being predominately Arab, only less than 10% of city territory and (23% of population) has Arab majority.
  3. Ajami is not fully Arab neighborhood as it was presented. The population is mixed.
    • same source as above.
    • I applied the same general rule of thumb (Between 25% and 75% being "mixed") here as well.
  4. Eilat never had a depopulated Arab village in its territory. Umm Al-Rashrash was a police station, not a village
    • Fair, umm Rashrash, and most of Negeb places were dificult to make a decision for, as majority of pre-48 population was counted by clan and not by where they lived, and they were nomadic. Zochrot indicates that the population of Umm Rashrash in 1948 was 50. Zochrot Umm Al-Rashrash
  5. Many Jewish neighborhoods in East Jerusalem are left out, some Arab are duplicated like Beit Safafa.
    • True, I did not include places like the Jewish Quarter or Shimeon Tzedek in E Jerusalem. These were not part of the scope of this map. The map is called "Map of Palestinian Nakba". This specific map is focused on 1948 and 1967 depopulation of Palestinian localities. It is also because of this, that I did not include Syrian villages depopulated in 1967 in the Golan on this map either. I could expand the scope as a new map that does indeed show East Jerusalem, Gaza Strip, Gush Etzion, Golan Heights, and so on and so forth, but it was not what this map is covering.
    • that dot is showing Al-Maliha/Malha, not Beit Safafa.
  6. Many Jewish settlement's in Samaria are left out from map.
    • If you're referring to the evacuated settlements in 2006, again was not part of the scope of this map. But I can create a new map. Not sure how we'd distinguish between localities whose population were forcibly expelled by a hostile belligerent, and localities whose population were evacuated in the 2006 "disengagement" process.
  7. Dozens of Jewish villages in Sharon are left out from map.
    • I'm sorry, I don't think I'm familiar with these specific localities, you do need to teach me.
  8. Haifa map also does not reflect actual demographic situation.
    • Same source as Ramla and Jaffa.
  9. At least 30 Jewish towns and villages in Gaza envelope are left out.
    • Not sure if referring to 1948 or 2006. Either way, again, not part of the scope of this map, but I can create a new map.
  10. Beer Sheva has no Arab majority neighborhood, not even one with significant Arab population as presented. The extended Jewish population of old city is above 95%. The Arab population of the city is 2.6% and is not concentrated in particular area.
    • Again, hatched indicates "mixed", and not "majority". And Beersheva was based on some personal research and such that I did, finding out that most of the Palestinian population of the city live in Gimel neighbourhood. Not as solid of a finding as Akka, Haifa, Jaffa, Ramla, etc.
  11. Regba is colored as an Arab village. Al Shajk Danun lies to the east, not south of Nahariya and it is not connected to city.
    • That's not Regba, that's village of Mazra'a, sandwiched between Moshav Regba and Kibbutz Evron.
  12. There is no Jewish settlement within the city of Nablus, as presented
    • I am not showing "Jewish Israeli settlement" within city of Nablus, those are purple lines indicating the boundaries around Palestinian refugee camp within the city.
  13. The city of Jenin has also no Jewish settlements within.
    • I am not showing "Jewish Israeli settlement" within city of Jenin, those are purple lines indicating the boundaries around Palestinian refugee camp within the city.
  14. There is no Bahai settlement or town in Israel. Bahai shrine in Akko is not a populated area.
    • I know, the Baha'i areas are a unique exception showing land use as opposed to population and demographic, since both the Akka and the Haifa sites are of global significance for the Baha'i community.

BasilLeaf (talk) 17:56, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the map is fine, and the answers by BasilLeaf to be fairly conclusive in answering the objections. nableezy - 21:51, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a while. Can someone else confirm that the issue has been resolved and questions have been addressed? BasilLeaf (talk) 04:59, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The original objector has had time to comment further and has not done so, appears resolved, no? How do we arrange it so that the query and response are kept as a record?Selfstudier (talk) 10:21, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would say right here, but with a text and icon indicating that the issue has been resolved? BasilLeaf (talk) 20:02, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 30 March 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not Moved - The low level of engagement in this discussion is surprising given the controversial nature of the subject matter. This is listed as an RM but is equally a proposed merge. After two relistings we have two !voters who have raised concerns (if not forthright opposition) regarding the move and no !votes in favour. Another has raised concerns but neither opposes nor supports. The opposition seems well-reasoned - essentially that the subject matter of each page is not identical so it is not a duplication, and that a separate page for the exodus is justified. For the avoidance of doubt my "not moved" here is basically "no consensus leaning towards consensus not to move". Given the relatively low engagement there does not seem much point in allowing this discussion to continue but please feel free to get in touch if you would like another re-list. (non-admin closure) FOARP (talk) 11:08, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1948 Palestinian exodus → Nakba – (+ a merger of content from Nakba to here) -- I'm re-proposing this move mainly on the basis of WP:COMMONNAME, but also for reasons of recognizability, naturalness, concision and consistency. I also don't believe that, in the span of 7 days, this really got a fair and sufficiently in-depth hearing in the the previous, 25 March 2021 discussion above (though that talk is well worth reading in advance for context).

First off, there is no doubt that 'Nakba' is an overwhelmingly dominant term relative to '1948 Palestinian exodus'. Ngrams shows it dwarfing the competition, as does Google Scholar, which shows 18,000 hits for Nakba relative to exactly 400 hits for "1948 Palestinian exodus" as an explicit term. One additional point that also appears to have been missed in the previous discussion is that a significant bulk of these "1948 Palestinian exodus" mentions also relate back to a single academic, one ‪Dr. Rafi Nets-Zehngut‬.

Next, even if there was to be a suitably neutral, descriptive title that was better than Nakba, "1948 Palestinian exodus" would be a poor fit. In terms of neutrality, "Exodus" is both quite euphemistic (WP:EUPHEMISM) and semantically loaded. It leans towards the notion of a voluntary mass departure, when both involuntary departure and departure in the face of psychological terror or under the duress of not wanting to be caught up in conflict played significant roles (hence Palestinian 'refugees', not 'emigrants') ... and that's without even touching on the religious undertones.

In terms of descriptiveness, you get more Google Scholar returns (29,000) for terminology such as '1948 Palestinian displacement -"exodus" ' than you do searching for '1948 Palestinian exodus -"displacement" ' (24,000 hits, again bloated by a lot of Dr. Nets-Zehngut‬ repeats), meaning that even based on descriptive merit alone, '1948 Palestinian exodus' is not exactly a winner.

And then finally we have the points that Nakba is more recognizable, natural, concise and consistent with, say, pages such as Nakba Day. The main argument AGAINST "Nakba" appears to be from the perspective of precision, in that the term has an evolving set of meanings, including, but not limited to, the metaphorical destruction of Palestinian society. Given how intertwined Palestinian identity is with the land, however, the physical displacement and this sense of societal erasure are not really separate phenomena. And this (along with the material currently on the modest, extant Nakba page) is exactly what should be folded into the 'Results of the Palestinian exodus" section on the current page. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:04, 30 March 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 21:22, 6 April 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 18:43, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 April 4#Category:Nakba and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 April 17#Category:Nakba are also relevant and Commons has their way of doing things. Selfstudier (talk) 12:49, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Selfstudier: Category:1948 Palestinian exodus has become a particularly odd creature, with the 1947-1949 war becoming embedded under the '1948 exodus'. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:32, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would be quite interested to see the reaction in catland if this merge were to go through. I don't object to it as such although there is a not insignificant body of opinion that the Nakba continues, now that time and circumstance allows this to be said. That could be dealt with in the renamed article, I guess. Selfstudier (talk) 10:44, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Palestine has been notified of this discussion. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 21:22, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Israel has been notified of this discussion. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 21:23, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Human rights has been notified of this discussion. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 21:24, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject International relations has been notified of this discussion. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 21:25, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per Selfstudier, my concern is that the word Nakba is frequently used to describe an ongoing event. The topic of this article was the foundational moment, but arguably it wasn’t the "exodus" (which I agree is the wrong word) which was the problem (as it is normal in times of war for civilians to move outside of a conflict zone – see Ukraine now), the real problem was the Israeli decision to ignore these people’s human rights and slam the door behind them. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:47, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Technical note: the Nakba article has substantial edit history that we need to keep. One way is to merge this article into the Nakba one. Another is to first move Nakba to a page with trivial history like Palestinian Catastrophe. Then, move this article to Nakba. Lastly, do the merge so the content is at Nakba. This second way results in this article's history under Nakba, and Nakba's history at Palestinian Catastrophe. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 00:50, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 May 2022

Please mention in the first text that Nakba day is a day where the Jewish Melissa attachment around 600 Palestinian Arab villages and expelled 1 m and 200k were kicked from their lands and then the begging of Israel. 2A02:3035:816:7F9E:7515:6BC7:8D24:AE94 (talk) 22:51, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:54, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 8 August 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

result:
Not moved per consensus garnered below. Thanks and kudos to editors for your input; good health to all! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 19:14, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1948 Palestinian exodus → 1948 Palestinian expulsion – the current title represents a failure of NPOV - the descriptive terminology for this event fall across a wide spectrum, ranging from exodus to expulsion to forced expulsion and on to ethnic cleansing - with 'exodus' being the favoured terminology of those trying to minimize it, and 'ethnic cleansing' that of those trying to maximize it. "Expulsion" seems like a middle ground that acknowledges the non-voluntary nature of these population movements in a way that exodus (which is borderline euphemism) fails to do, but without heaping on the opprobrium. It also wins the numbers game. "1948 Palestinian expulsion" drums up 322,000 hits to the 260,000 hits of 1948 Palestinian exodus. On Google Scholar, expulsion wins by some 38,800 hits to exodus' 31,600 hits. While "1948 Palestinian exodus" superficially appears to pop up quite a lot on Google Scholar as a set phrase, almost every mention is in association with a single academic: Dr Nets‐Zehngut - if we remove these entries, it appear very little as a set phrase. Hits for the expulsion wording actually increase to 42,400 hits with Nets‐Zehngut removed - not sure how that works. Anyway, what is clear is that there is little numerical support in the literature for the POV use of "exodus" as favoured by Yoav Gelber, Benny Morris and others, over less euphemistic middle-ground alternatives. Expulsion, on the other hand, is favoured by the likes of Nur Masalha, but also draws in academics without a stake in the conflict, such as Rosemarie Esber, as well as mainstream media usage, see here in Haaretz (making it a far more inclusive and ecumenical umbrella term), while still falling a long way shy of the far-side-of-the-spectrum terminology used by the likes of Ilan Pappé in The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:59, 8 August 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 03:18, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think youre going to be able to establish a common name for either of these, these are descriptive names. As far as numbers, try "expulsion of Palestinians". Im with Zero rn, I dont know if I favor this or not. Expulsion does include those that were barred from returning (ie nearly all of them), so it does work for the most part. nableezy - 15:18, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Still about 73% as many sources[10][11] (added the year to filter out other events). François Robere (talk) 16:13, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah but I think that demonstrates that neither is a "common name". These are both descriptive titles. Youll note I havent supported the proposal fyi, im still considering it. I think whether exodus or expulsion is more commonly used to be very important in deciding which the title should use but thats a function of WP:DUE not WP:COMMONNAME, as with descriptive titles we are obliged to consider neutrality. But neither being a common name make the search with quotation marks less useful. Search for example 1948 Palestinian exodus and 1948 Palestinian expulsion without quotes and youll start to see that expulsion may be used more often within sources, if not in the exact sequence youre searching for. Add the sources using "expelled" and ... .nableezy - 17:56, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As Nableezy notes, it's not a name, and certainly not a common name either way; both are descriptive titles. The principle point I have raised is about NPOV and that the terminology of "exodus" is far from NPOV - it is quite clearly, if you take the sources one by one, the framing of a single viewpoint. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:01, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Exodus is about departure, not removal. You dont discuss the exodus of the Native Americans from wide swaths of the United States either, it was removal, displacement, ethnic cleansing, and so on. nableezy - 21:03, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Andrewa, Im a little confused by this vote, expulsion and flight is way more widely used in reliable sources than exodus. For example there are double the results on google books for 1948 expulsion Palestinians than 1948 exodus Palestinians. If we are going by reliable sources than exodus is minority, and euphemistic, term. nableezy - 15:09, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe. But the nomination is based on a POV. That is my main point. The popularity of one term or the other seems to depend on exactly which search is done and which sources are preferred. So I don't think a case to be moved has been made. Andrewa (talk) 16:44, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, so if Im reading this right your position is that the nomination is not a valid reason to move, but not opposed to the suggested (or any other) title on principle? I dont agree with that entirely, as descriptive titles also are required to abide by NPOV as opposed to common names, but are you opposed to a move based on Number57's suggested title above? We can make a new request and rehash this again, but if we can find a consensus per OTHEROPTIONS I think that would save a whole lot of headaches. nableezy - 16:50, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. And if we can sort through and discard the various attempts to cherry-pick sources above, and come to a view on a genuine common name argument, that would as you suggest be a good result. Not easy, and I'd suggest we should wait until the dust settles on this RM first. Andrewa (talk) 17:12, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Comment. zero sources to claim that every Palestinian who left was forced out, many chose to leave rather than live under Israeli control, the same way many Jews left Arab nations after the war rather than be oppressed by them. Bill Williams 12:50, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Love what you did there with Israeli rule being 'control', Arab rule being 'oppression' - I have full confidence that you thought through this evenhandedly. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:59, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You already voted. nableezy - 13:49, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Categories