Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Nakba

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
See also Template talk:1948 Palestinian exodus#Requested move.

RfC question[edit]

  • Should the word "Nakba" be used on Wikipedia to describe the exodus of Palestinians from their homes in Palestine, in connection with the creation of the state of Israel?

Statement by SlimVirgin[edit]

I've created this page as a central location to discuss this issue, rather than it being raised in various places amid edit wars, and so on, which has been the situation to date.

This is about how to refer on Wikipedia to the exodus of Palestinian refugees from their homes, mostly in 1947 and 1948, as a result of the creation of the state of Israel. Arabs call it "the Nakba" (Al Nakba), which means "the catastrophe." The word is used by historians and other scholars to refer to the entire process of expulsion and flight (before, during, and after the various wars). It gets over two million hits on Google. (Actually, it's three million hits if you search for "nakba OR naqba OR nakbah").

The term is strongly disliked in Israel, for reasons I don't fully understand; it is only recently that the Israeli government allowed it to appear in schoolbooks, and then only for Arab students, according to Time. [1] The term also seems to be almost taboo on Wikipedia. I won't supply diffs, as this RfC is not intended to point the finger, but suffice to say there have been attempts to remove any mention of it, both from articles and their titles. Very few articles currently link to it. [2]

The result of this is confusion in articles about Palestinian issues that refer to the Nakba. Lists of emptied villages are created, but aren't allowed to use the Nakba term, so they're called "Lists of villages depopulated during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War," at which point someone adds Jewish villages to the list, so the subject matter is effectively changed; or changes it to "during the Arab-Israeli conflict," so that villages from later years are added, and the issue is confused even further. Attempts to correct it are met with edit wars, merges, page moves, and sockpuppets moving in. Again, I won't go over the history here, as the point of this is not to assign blame, but to resolve the issue. The bottom line is that anyone coming to Wikipedia looking for clear information about what happened to the Palestinians in 1948 has a hard time finding the right material.

To resolve this, this is a proposal that the term "Nakba" ("the Nakba," "Al Nakba," Al-Nakba") be regarded as a legitimate term in Wikipedia articles and titles to describe the exodus of Palestinians from their homes during the creation of the state of Israel. In addition, it is a proposal to move:

To clarify, this is the pages I'm proposing we move:

And any others that make sense. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 22:34, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Editors endorsing this proposal[edit]

  1. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 22:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. 1948 Palestinian Exodus -> al-Nakba but not the remaining. Ceedjee - 21 June 2009.

Statement by User:Number 57[edit]

I was under the impression that the phrase "Nakba" actually referred to the 1948 Arab-Israeli War in general, not a specific part (the exodus). This is certainly what is stated in the first sentence of that article "The 1948 Arab–Israeli War, known by the Israelis as the War of Independence (מלחמת העצמאות, מלחמת הקוממיות) and War of Liberation (מלחמת השחרור), and by Palestinians as the Catastrophe (Arabic: al Nakba, النكبة ), was the first in a series of wars fought between the newly declared State of Israel and its Arab neighbours in the long-running Arab-Israeli conflict." In addition, the phrase "al-Nakba" on the Arabic wikipedia is a redirect to the article that is interwiki'd to the 1948 Arab-Israeli War rather than the exodus article.

If this is the case, then the abovementioned moves seem inappropriate. пﮟოьεԻ 57 22:58, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:DePiep[edit]

I think the title (whatever it will contain) should include the definite article "Al-". I understand it has the same meaning as in English: compare "bike" and "the bike". Spelling to be decided. So I propose "Al-Nakba", not "Nakba", anywhere for this subject. -DePiep (talk) 23:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On spelling: having read comments it should be "al-Nakba" (lowercase first a). Thechnically Wikipedia can handle this. -DePiep (talk) 00:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Editors endorsing this view[edit]

  1. I'm fine with that. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 00:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Ok with al-Nakba, not Al-Nakba. Ceedjee
  3. Either have it say the or al, but Ceedjee is right, al shouldnt be capitalized Nableezy (talk) 18:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. If you are going to use an arabic term it should be used with the proper article. Sounds like it should be al-Nakba, but I am no expert on Arabic. SADADS (talk) 03:01, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:IronDuke[edit]

I don't think we should refer to the events in question with the word "Nakba" for 2 reasons, 1) An English equivalent exists, per our MoS and 2) I wouldn't advocate calling the article "Arab displacement during the Israeli War of Independence," as that would privilege the Israeli view, much as "Nakba" privileges the Palestinian. IronDuke 19:39, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Editors endorsing this view[edit]

  1. I agree for these and other reasons, perhaps to be the subject of a later statement. 6SJ7 (talk) 11:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sums it up very well. пﮟოьεԻ 57 16:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by USer:Ceedjee[edit]

1948 xxxxx War[edit]

Most scholars, from all point of views, refer to the fights that occured between 30 november 1947 and mid of 1949 as the "Palestine War" or the "War for Palestine". See here a very wide panel of opinions from most recent sources :

  • Yoav Gelber, Palestine 1948, Sussex Academic Press, Brighton, 2006, ISBN 1845190750
  • Efraim Karsh, The Arab-Israeli Conflict: The Palestine War 1948, Osprey publishing, 2002.
  • Walid Khalidi, Selected Documents on the 1948 Palestine War, Journal of Palestine Studies, 27(3), 79, 1998.
  • Eugene Rogan & Avi Shlaim, The War for Palestine - Rewriting the history of 1948, Cambridge University Press, 2001.
  • David Tal, War in Palestine, 1948. Strategy and Diplomacy, Routledge, 2004.

The use of the wordings : Arab-Israeli war to refer to events before 14 May 1948 is wrong because Israel didn't exist yet and pov-ed because it doens't take into account that the Palestinians, who had nationalist claims out of the Arab for more than 30 years. We should fit to the choices of scholars, particularly when there is a consensus between them, which could seem impossible to imagine and so, when we refer to this war globally, we should talk about the 1948 Palestine War.

al-Nakba[edit]

From the Palestinian point of view, these events are associated to a catastrophe because of the exodus, its terrible consequence and because of the failure of their nationalist aspirations. When referring, not globally to the war, but to the exodus itself, the choice of the words in scholar references is more widden :

  • There is a 50/50 between first both main choices : Nakba and Exodus.
  • Anyway, important references use other words : Morris talks about the 'Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem' (referring to the consequence) and others such as Pappé, Masallha, ... refer to -what they see as- the main cause of the events : 'the Ethnic cleansing' and/or 'The expulsion of the Palestinians'. There is also Yoav Gelber who points out in his title 2 other causes considered by scholars : 'War, Escape and the Emergence of the Palestinian Refugee Problem'.

About the move[edit]

As pointed out here above, there is no consensus between historians about the causes of these events. If the choice between 1948 Arab Israeli War and 1948 Palestine War is very easy to fix (except on wikipedia :-), the choice between 1948 Palestinian exodus and al-Nakba is more complex.

I don't think the choice between al-Nakba and 1948 Palestinian exodus is an important issue for NPoV because none of these choices favors one cause or the other. The debate is about the causes, not the events themselves. So both choices are NPoV and both choices are widely used by scholars. In such circumstances, I personnaly prefer favorizing the words chosen by the 'victims' and so would suggest to move * 1948 Palestinian Exodus * to * al-Nakba * (not Al-Nakba !).

For the list and the template, my mind is different. I think both should be deleted because it is useless and unencyclopaedic to give a list of villages without giving a context and explaining the issue. I may personnaly put ~30 of them maximum on a map and I have been studying this topic for 3 years. What could a 'normal' reader do with such a list ? It is far more relevant to state that 400 villages were depopulated and explain where, how and when. Therefore, an article should replace the list. These lists sound to my ears some sort of material gathered for a trial for people who don't want to understand deeply a problem but want to know who to lapidate. Next step would be : List of Israeli officeers during the 1948 Palestine War followed by List of Israeli officeers during al-Nakba. So, I would personnaly suggest to move * List * of villages depopulated during the 1948 Palestine War to * an article *, with the same philosophy as Killings and massacres during the 1948 Palestine War that was formely a list.

user:Ceedjee 09:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Editors endorsing this proposal[edit]

  1. Nableezy (talk) 09:24, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I support moving 1948 Palestinian exodus, though it will have to be Nakba or Al-Nakba, because I believe the software automatically capitalizes. But I don't support turning the lists into articles. I think there is a place in this series of articles for a list and a template, so that people can get a quick overview of the names, numbers, and areas, which you'd never get from an article. I also think we should create a Nabka template to link all the material. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 21:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I strongly endorse this proposal, since the term "exodus" is being misused here – the Biblical exodus being a desired outcome, quite the opposite of the Palestinian case. The name should be "al-Nakba", not "Al-Nakba". --NSH001 (talk) 11:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC) Note to Slim: there is a template {{lowercase title}} which can be used to overcome the limitations of the software (see, for example, bell hooks). --NSH001 (talk) 11:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC) - We are not supposed to discuss here. Especially since anti-votes are not allowed. Please use the talk-page. -DePiep (talk) 00:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:GHcool[edit]

Firstly, I'd like it to be known that I personally have a great deal of sympathy for Palestinian refugees and I hope that they can find peace. I am not a "Nakba denier." It is a terrible thing to have to leave your home during wartime.

Nevertheless, the term "Nakba" is problematic because Arabs often use the term not only to refer to the 1948 Palestinian exodus, but also to the creation of the State of Israel. This is where the term becomes fuzzy and violates WP:NPOV. A large number of people would take offense to the notion that the creation of the State of Israel was a "catastrophe." For those people, the creation of the State of Israel was exactly the opposite: a modern day miracle.

This is not a matter of whitewashing history. This is a matter of using precise terms. For this reason, I must insist that the template be labeled precisely and accurately as "1948 Palestinian exodus" and not get carried away by using the poorly defined "Nakba." --GHcool (talk) 06:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: It has come to my attention that at least one editor believes that the referral of the creation of the State of Israel to the Nakba is a Zionist canard. I'd like to remind those who deny the existence of this definition within the anti-Israel community that the commemoration of Nakba Day takes place annually on May 15, one day after the Yom Ha'atzmaut (on the Gregorian calendar).[3] A march on Nakba Day this year in Acre "mourn[ed] the creation of the State of Israel."[4] --GHcool (talk) 17:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Editors endorsing this view[edit]

  1. Yes, and this is also why the "Nakba template" (which was created yesterday) should not have been placed on the article Declaration of Independence (Israel), where it has already been the subject of a small flurry of reverts. And see also Template talk:Nakba. 6SJ7 (talk) 12:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)Arguments on the talkpage, please. -DePiep (talk) 00:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. GHCool is correct, but this is not the only reason why the name Nakba is problematic. I will post a statement as well. —Ynhockey (Talk) 19:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Nableezy[edit]

I am not entirely sure whether or not the title of the articles should be al-Nakba (I would think "The Nakba" would be preferable). My thinking is that this is an Arabic word for a set of events and consequences, and while I do not know what would the equivalent English name for those events and consequences is (my own OR says it is the 48 war and what immediately preceded it and followed it), I would like to see some more scholarly sources using the phrase in English. But if a choice is to be made between Al Nakba, al Nakba, and The Nakba as the title for these articles I would prefer, in order The Nakba, al Nakba, then Al Nakba (and if we are using Google, this would be a better link). The POV arguments are not particularly compelling to me, if this is the word scholars use then this is the word Wikipedia should use. The Holocaust name reply also isn't compelling either, as that is clearly an English word used by scholars (and everybody) for the name of the events it describes.

(addition): To be clear, the name should be Nakba only if it can be shown that a substantial majority of RSs use that as the name for these events in English, barring that I dont think it should be used.

Editors endorsing this view[edit]

  1. Nableezy (talk) 04:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Gatoclass[edit]

I'm afraid I just can't bring myself to endorse this proposal. It seems to me that to start using the word "Nakba" in article titles would be to frame the events in question from a Palestinian POV, which would violate NPOV.

Furthermore, I'm with Ironduke when he says we should stick to plain English titles. "Nakba" is a word that is going to be quite unfamiliar to many people and the end result will be to mystify articles relating to the topic. "1947-48 Palestinian exodus" may not have the same ring to it but at least its meaning is clear. Gatoclass (talk) 05:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Editors endorsing this view[edit]

  1. Gatoclass (talk) 14:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. GHcool (talk) 16:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. User:Historicist Two reasons, Reason one. This is an English encyclopedia. I personally moved {Aron Kodesh) to Torah Ark and (Mezquita, Cordoba) to Great Mosque of Cordoba (aside:a magically wonderful building) for this reason. Reason two as per Gatoclass is that the word "Nakba" in article titles would be to frame the events in question from a Palestinian POV, which would violate NPOV.Historicist (talk) 19:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Al Ameer son (talk) 19:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC) I know fully well what al-Nakba means (I speak Arabic though), but I think we will be taking it a step too far to have the term be officially used on Wikipedia to describe the exodus which was indeed a catastrophe for the Palestinians, but not so much for the Israelis therefore we would be taking the former's side. Al Ameer son (talk) 19:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Ynhockey (Talk) 19:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I'm generally against non-English article titles in the English Wikipedia, other than for proper names and as redirects. Nakba should be a redirect. See also Shoah and Hasbara, which are redirects. (We need to look at Hafrada again.) --John Nagle (talk) 20:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. пﮟოьεԻ 57 20:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Fuzbaby As a casual reader of this material and not an involved party, my impression is that the word supports one side's point of view of a complex series of disputed events; I think mentioning that it is called that by Palestinians in an article body is fine, though.Fuzbaby (talk) 23:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. I am not as familiar with the subject matter as many users here but it is discouraging to see editors attempting to use a clearly emotional and single party title at the expensive of neutrality. It makes perfect sense to include the qualities and opinions of "Nabka" in regards to the Palestinians but the template must be neutral. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Looking through RfCs, I agree, the term is inherently pov. This position is most in line with wiki policy on npov. Gtadoc (talk) 21:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ynhockey[edit]

There are three very good reasons why this move would be a very bad idea. Two of them have already been touched upon: One is that Nakba is simply not English, and it's not widely-recognized in the English-speaking world (per Gatoclass). More on this at Wikipedia:Use English. The other is the ambiguity—for many, the Nakba is a term for Israeli independence and the war as a whole (per GHCool and Number 57); it is obvious that we should avoid ambiguous titles.

The third issue is NPOV—some editors here, including the initiator of this RfC, seem to believe that source policies like WP:RS automatically override WP:NPOV, a core non-negotiable policy of Wikipedia. It is well known that Nakba is the word preferred by one side of the conflict; similar to how one side prefers Judea and Samaria over West Bank, and Etzel over Irgun. I'll put it simply: Wikipedia would automatically be taking a side by making this move. Taking sides is against the principles of Wikipedia and WP:NPOV. How anyone can claim otherwise is beyond me.

Don't think Nakba is preferred by one side? Do a Google search. The first 50 hits, other than Wikipedia, are websites that fit in one (or more) of the following categories: 1) Arabic, 2) Fringe anti-Israel sites like StopTheWall, IfAmericansKnew, etc., 3) Sites that use Nakba in a different context than the one that is intended here. In fact, it is decidedly disturbing that Wikipedia is among those websites on the first search result page, but that's not for this discussion.

Editors endorsing this view[edit]

  1. GHcool (talk) 21:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. User:HistoricistHistoricist (talk) 23:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC) I do not normally edit in this area, but "Nakba" (however transliterated from Arabic) is not a familiar word to me. The events of 1948 were indeed a "catastrophe" for the Palestinians, and I have heard that translation used. It would be appropriate to have a short article explaining the term and its context, but inappropriate to have a great tree of articles, categories etc built on it. The existence of the Palestinian POV on this is encyclopaedic. This is suibaly dealt with the the 1948 Palestinian exodus, which is a redirect from Nakba. This all seems appropriate for the English WP. I would according suggest no change. WP has suffered greatly from those pushing POV issues by theri edits, and the Palestine/Israel conflict is a case in point. Having reached a NPOV position we should stick to it. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 04:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Hemlock Martinis[edit]

As a history major, I like to jokingly bemoan the decline of proper names for historical events. Late 2000s recession sounds a little stale: why not call it the Second Great Depression or the Great Recession? (I'm talking of course about this from the historian's perspective, not the Wikipedia editors' perspective) Of course, flashy and exciting names tend to gloss over historical reality. The Hundred Years' War is a powerful and evocative image but to be honest is a terribly inaccurate title, since the event comprised of multiple smaller wars over the span of 116 years. Why do we still call it the Hundred Years War then? Because everyone knows what you're talking about.

"1948 Palestinian exodus" is an adequate and neutral name for the event in question, which was an exodus of Palestinians that took place in 1948. It lacks a certain dramatic flair, thus allowing it to fit in perfectly with the rest of our mindlessly stilted titles. Changing that title to any other is unnecessary.

However, Nakba seems to be notable in its own right. I suggest a separate article for the term instead of a mere redirect, covering its meaning, origins, etymology, notable instances in which it is used and Israeli opposition to its usage. This way we can both cover the term in an encyclopedic manner while still preserving our NPOV title for the actual event.

Editors endorsing this view[edit]

  1. Support. I'd be willing to accept this as a compromise. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 06:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Al Ameer son Not a bad idea. I think we should discuss more on this. --Al Ameer son (talk) 17:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. Let's do this. --GHcool (talk) 17:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Nableezy (talk) 17:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. This is the right approach. --Ian Pitchford (talk) 20:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. I agree that the phrase is notable enough in its own right.--FormerIP (talk) 23:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Historicist[edit]

I fear that such an article would soon become one more instance of the parallel universes that have developed in the Eastern Mediterranean region of Wikipedia. By this I mean that it would soon develop into another of the paired articles we have spawned, and they are far from NPOV. See for example Kafr Bir'im and Kfar Bar'am, two articles about the same village that barely mention the other's existence, or Silwan and City of David or Shechem and Nablus. It is as though we settle disputes by approving alternate realities, an Arab narrative and a Jewish narrative, one article pretending that Jews have never lived in a place, the other ignoring the Arabs who live there now. It doesn't do our credibility as an encyclopedia any good. (I assumeeveryone saw the rcent New York Times article on how untrustworthy Wikipedia is on the Middle East) I suggest that we handle things on the model of Temple Mount, with a good faith attempt to give due weight to the names used by all parties, everyone's history, and the points of view of all parties in a single article.Historicist (talk) 19:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Editors endorsing this view[edit]

  1. User:Historicist
  2. User:Wikifan12345
  3. I have noticed this trend as well, although I don't have enough time to go through all these articles (many of which are quite big and developed) to try and merge them, or fight with other editors who are opposed to merging. No reason to create another one. —Ynhockey (Talk) 06:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to use the talk page for discussion[edit]

Signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement, and threaded replies, should be directed to this page's discussion page.

I do not understand the last sentence. Which "the talk" page? And: "instead" of what? (Glad I know already that discussion=talk. Who doesn't?) -DePiep (talk) 23:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clarified. It's just a standard instruction from the RfC template. :) SlimVirgin talk|contribs 01:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you (it looked like and automated statement). So I react to User:Number 57 overthere. -DePiep (talk) 01:19, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Nakba&oldid=1142569750"