Talk:1948 Palestinian exodus/Archive 10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11

Abandonned, evacuated and destroyed Palestinian localities

I don't think this section is neutral.
I don't talk about the numbers (that are factualà but about the "comments" on the numbers that are "oriented".
I think how to keep the info in neutralizing this. Alithien 17:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry what do you mean when you refer to "the comments on the numbers that are oriented"? As you can see, that table is taken from Abu Sitta and is cited as such. If you have data from another author I suggest you provide it in order to justify the POV tag, otherwise I will consider it is just not justified. Cheers. --Jorditxei 18:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
The comments made by Khalidi just below the tables are not neutral and are oriented. If numbers are analysed they should be analysed by different sources and as long as it will not be done this section will not be neutral. In fact, below these numbers, the whole Morris books should be copied, as well as Gelber if they had to be analysed.
As it is written, the numbers/table tries to enforce some of Khalidi's thesis; which is not neutral.
The fact to put Plan Dalet / fr:Plan Daleth as a milestone is not neutral. First the milestone was not Plan Dalet but rather Operation Nachshon / fr:Opération Nahshon and more generally the Haganah offensive that mark this event but Plan Dalet is a text that was written far before
I don't mind the names of villages and cities. It was more for the esteatic.

May I suggest you read this article (I wrote alone in French and that 2 contributors here translated). It is a featured article on wp:fr : 1947-1948 Civil War in Palestine - fr:Guerre civile en Palestine de 1947-1948.
I also suggest you read fr:Plan Daleth.
Alithien 18:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes but the point is that you have already deleted that and I haven't added so why you keep the POV tag? What are the exact reasons to keep that tag, this is my question. You deleted the Khalidi phrase and the Plan Dalet "name", nobody has added that again, what else motivates the POV tag then? That is my question. Cheers. --Jorditxei 18:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I answered on your talk page.
I still think the comments currently are not neutral because the analyses of the numbers is only the Khalidi's one. (one side -> one pov -> POV flag).
It is hard work to correct this. I think about a solution but don't have any except removing all comments. Alithien 07:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Let me see if I understand you, the text which has caused the POV tag is this one:

According to COHRE and BADIL, Morris’s list of affected localities, the shortest of the three, includes towns but excludes other localities cited by Khalidi and/or Abu Sitta (sorry but, is this wrong? why is POV?). The six sources compared in Khalidi’s study have in common 296 of the villages listed as destroyed and/or depopulated. Sixty other villages are cited in all but one source (is this wrong? where is the POV? This is just a description of the study). Of the total of 418 localities cited in Khalidi, 292 (70 percent) were completely destroyed and 90 (22 percent) “largely destroyed”. He also notes that other sources refer to an additional 151 localities that are omitted from his study for various reasons (for example, major cities and towns that were depopulated, as well as some Bedouin encampments and villages ‘vacated’ before the start of hostilities)(once again, is this wrong? No, its just an analysis of the figures, how can this be POV? Do you have another study that says that "the other sources refer to 100 instead of 151 localities? Why is this POV?). Abu Sitta’s list, which is the most comprehensive, includes tribes in Beersheba that lost lands; most of these were omitted from Khalidi’s work (once again, is this wrong? Do you have a source that says that tribes in Beersheba were not omitted from Khalidi's work?)

If you don't have any of these sources contradicting any part of the text, then the inclusion of the POV tag is not justified. Moreover, read please: "According to COHRE and BADIL". The mere fact that the text cites one author does not justify the POV tag, it would justify it if you had another source which contradicted that author and which was not included in the text. But you don't have such source or at least have not talked about that source here. Therefore, the point here is not that Khalidi's word should not be included but rather that you have to provide a source that contradicts him and include it that's all. Provide your source please. Cheers.--Jorditxei 11:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


Since this is something ppl hear about on a day to day basis, I think it's important to get some facts straight.

1) Half this article is based and referenced on a heavily biased and controversial book by Benny Morris

2) Irgun was never declared a terrorist organazition by any international standards, nor did they make repeated bomb attacks as the article suggests. The bombing in the King David Hotel was done by a rogue faction within the group, and once the plan was uncovered there was an attempt within the Irgun to evacuate the people, however, the British authorities did not take the warning seriously and intervened.

3) Same goes for the Lehi orginization. The only orginizations in the area that target "crowded places such as bus stops, shopping centres and markets" is the recent Hamas and Islamic Jihad.

4) All Jewish orginizations at that period of time had a very strict code of conduct, since Judasim places such a high value on life (as opposed to modern day organizations supporting suicide bombers). Any supposed retributions to Arab attacks would violate this code. This is not to say that these instances did not occur. But it is to say that these were instances, and were done by rogue groups and not part of some Zionist Campaign, as the writer would have us believe.

Whoever101 19:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)but hey, whoever. 101.

Except that Morris's book is indeed biased (pro-Israeli) I think your claims are wrong. --JaapBoBo 15:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

As the term terrorist was not used in international law saying that Irgun was never declared a terrorist organazition by any international standards is disingenuous....The wanted posters and price on their heads of Irgun and Lehi members reflect the norm of the time for dealing with international terrorists...both Irgun and Lehi carried out Terrorist activities outside of Palestine (bombing campaign in the UK and assassination in Egypt) and inside Palestine (bombing indiscriminate targets and assassination of Palestinian Arabs, British and Jews)....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 09:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Glazer deletion

Glazer is a reliable source. He refers to three authors, whom he calls 'propagandist writers'. So, one might write in this article e.g Glazer refers to Sacher, Syrkin and Schechtman as propagandist writers who ignore expulsions in their writings. However that doesn't seem very relevant for the article. To use citations here that Glazer used to show their fault seems really strange to me. --JaapBoBo 13:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Why isn't this article called Nakba?

I'm sure this has been argued over extensively on talk, so sorry for bringing it up again. But why is this article titled with a custom-made phrase that almost nobody uses, instead of the term which every Palestinian and Arabic speaker uses, which is used in Israel (although the right-wing condemns it), and which is widely used in English sources? My impression is that we use the most widely used term for an event, even if it's slightly non-neutral or disfavored by a particular side. Witness Six-Day War and Yom Kippur War, for example. <eleland/talkedits> 16:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The name of this article is particularly clumsy and (I didn't think) had any currency anywhere. To my astonishment, Google finds a full 666 references for "1948 Palestinian Exodus" (although many of them simply point straight back to us here!). Nakba gets 366,000 references. I think that's over 99.8% to Nakba, under 0.2% to "1948 Palestinian Exodus". I've been through the archives and, although the word Nakba is used quite regularily, nobody has proposed changing the name of the article before. PRtalk 16:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure this article use to be called Nakba. I think part of the .2% found that Nakba was POV.Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 11:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about the political implications of the word choice, but Nakba isn't well known to English speakers not connected with this region and history. So someone looking to Wikipedia to find out why there are Palestinian refugees wouldn't know to click on an article labelled "Palestinian Nakba". (talk) 15:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I searched "nakba" and was directed here. That worked for me. User:labellesanslebete 13:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Citation style

This article needs to be clearly and once and for all put into footnotes or parenthetical citations. I think footnotes seem to be the more common so I started moving some... but, we need adherence to a style. If we use parenthetical references then footnotes hsould be reserved for asides and other comments, not sourcing. (talk) 14:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was 1948 Palestinian exodusNakba — Per Talk:1948 Palestinian exodus#Why isn't this article called Nakba?SaberExcalibur! 19:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Support per my comments below. Nakba is much more widely used than 1948 Palestinian exodus (about a 10 to 1 ratio in a google book search, establishing its wide currency among scholars). Per wikipedia naming guidelines which denote use of the most common name, the title of this article should be Nakba. Tiamuttalk 17:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. The phrase is known in English (as the citations on the first links make explicit), whereas "1948 Palestinian exodus" is virtually unknown. It is not, as the article begins, a phrase used by Palestinians, but one that is in widespread currency. Lev Lafayette (talk) 23:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Use of English is generally preferred, especially when the term is not terribly well-known by many English speakers. Zoporific 23:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


  • al-Naqba must be a redirect to this article, because only Palestinians refer to the event as the al-Naqba and the title 1948 Palestinian exodus is clear and neutral and used by most historians and all parties involved. I don't think this issue deserves a discussion. Ceedjee (talk) 17:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I support the proposed move. Per Wikipedia naming guidelines, a foreign language word can be used if it is commonly used in English. A google book search of "1948 Palestinian exodus" only garners 6 hits [1], whereas "Nakba" garners 674 hits [2]. In other words, Nakba is used by scholars 10 to 1 over "1948 Palestinian exodus". It is the most common term used to refer to the events of 1948 among scholars. Tiamuttalk 17:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC) Compare too, Google scholar searches for "Palestinian exodus" (without 1948) 293 hits and "Nakba" 1,260 hits. Tiamuttalk 17:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC) Also of interest for the companion article to this one 1967 Palestinian exodus is that Naksa gets623 hits] while 1967 Palestinian exodus only gets 10 hits. The same change being proposed here, should be made there as well. Tiamuttalk 17:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
In fact "Palestinian exodus" + 1948 gets 299 hits.
That is a point that both these motors gets more results for Nakba/Naqba than for Palestinian exodus but I would be intersted to see this sorted only to get scholars' article and books refering to the events and to the title of these books/articles. Ceedjee (talk) 23:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Reading the google hits pointed out by Tiamut, I think indeed wp:policy should use these titles. My last and only concern would be that it would sound non neutral to people reading the title and they would have an a-priori concering these articles but I don't think this is relevant. So ok, for the move. Ceedjee (talk) 08:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Islam's armies committing genocide

I changed this text: The 1948 Palestinian exodus refers to the the prevention of Islam's armies from committing genocide ... to a more neutral version. The text is original research (see WP:OR). Besides that its not neutral (see WP:NPOV). --JaapBoBo (talk) 16:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

lol. Of course. No need to justify this in the talk page.
I think you should not have done so for the quietness of this article. Ceedjee (talk) 17:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I have put this back. That was the more correct version. The goal of the "Pan-Arabist" armies was the complete destruction of the State of Israel, nothing more and nothing less, as proclaimed by the leaders of the states involved in the attack. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1948remembered (talkcontribs) 16:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

When the exodus took place

The exodus didn't take place during and after the 1948 Arab-Israeli War.
It took place :

I don't mind much what is chosen if it is correct. Ceedjee (talk) 17:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I suggest to use the 4th formulation. Ceedjee (talk) 17:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree on the second and forth forumula too, one must bear in mind that the state of israel was not established when the exodus started(and thus the exodus is not a result of a war between two(or more) states), also the palestinians don't consider the events of the last six months of british mandate a civil war, nor do the israilies consider the fights were against palestinian population.--Mayz (talk) 13:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Expulsions were still happening up to 1956 (Suez Crisis), Galilee expulsions, Majdal expulsions 1950

30th March 1951: Israeli police (illegally evacuated) the Arab inhabitants of the village of Baqqara, numbering, with the neighbouring refugees living in the same village, about 980. The village of Baqqara is situated within the demilitarised zone on the western side of the Jordan River in the Huleh area. It goes without saying that such an action is a flagrant violation of article V, paragraph 2 of the General Armistice Agreement, which stipulates that no hindrance to the restoration of normal civilian life by the inhabitants could be allowed in the demilitarised zone.

17th August 1950: Majdal’s inhabitants are served with an expulsion order (The Palestinians were held in a confined area since 1948) and the first group of them were taken on trucks to the Gaza Strip. Majdal is renamed Ashkelon by the Israelis. As regards the expulsion of civilian Arabs from Majdal and other areas, Egypt had accepted them on humanitarian grounds as they would otherwise have been exposed to "torture and death". That however did not mean their voluntary movement. Furthermore, testimony of the expelled Arabs and reports of the Mixed Armistice Commission clearly showed that they had been forcibly expelled.!OpenDocument

I don't see much mention of the post War expulsions?Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 23:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Removed obviously biased and racist section

I have removed the obviously biased and racist "results of the exodus" section, which completely ignores the fact that the ARAB states of Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Iraq took over the allocated "Palestinian" lands, that these states and other ARAB states such as Saudi Arabia have passed laws denying Palestinians (no matter how long they live there) the right to have jobs or become citizens, and ignores completely the rest of the treatment of Palestinians by the ARAB governments while trying to vilify the Israeli government which has done much more in recognizing the rights of Palestinians than any ARAB state.

Do not put it back until you can do some HONEST and UNBIASED research. I removed this whole section because it makes a joke of your vaunted "NPOV" policy to leave it standing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1948remembered (talkcontribs) 16:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. The way to go about discussing how to improve an article is by being specific about the problems in a given text. Sourced material cannot be summarily deleted by other editors without engaging in substantive discussion that aims to improve the text in question. You are more than welcome to add information from other sources whose POVs you feel are lacking representation, per WP:NPOV. You cannot however, blank material from an article that has been added by other good-faith editors, over and over again, while ignoring their requests to discuss. Thank you. Tiamuttalk 16:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for writing but as the contributions of a racist who whines on their page about "Israeli Apartheid" show plainly that you obviously have no intention of writing an unbiased article. Thank you drive through enjoy your bacon and buh-bye. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1948remembered (talkcontribs) 23:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:NPA. You certainly read and understood WP:VANDALISM quickly, even filing a report right away. Quite an accomplishment for a new user. Let's hope that we have the same success in internalizing this one, okay? Tiamuttalk 00:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Went to WP:HELP to find out how to report racist vandalism, that was the page it led me to. MOP says that was incorrect so I asked him the CORRECT place to report racists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1948remembered (talkcontribs) 14:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Bit of POV being displayed by 1948remembered

completely ignores the fact that the ARAB states of Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Iraq took over the allocated "Palestinian" lands.

statements like that ignores the fact that Israel invaded a good section of the area set aside for a Palestinian State. As we are dealing with up to 1953 whether Palestinians have jobs in other Arabic speaking countries is also immaterial.Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 17:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Real funny

Looks like they've been at it again - ban anyone who comes in and disagrees with the jew-hating posters who made the article... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how refering to people as "jew-hating posters" is constructive in any ways. In fact it shows you have an opposite bias that could prevent your point of voiew from being taken seriously. --FreeThoughts (talk) 06:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The Nakba's role in the Palestinian narrative

It is stated in the article "The term "Nakba" was coined by Constantin Zureiq, a professor of history at the American University of Beirut, in his 1948 book Ma'na al-Nakba (The Meaning of the Disaster)." I have read in other places that the term was used by George Antonius in his 1938 book 'The Arab Awakening' where he wrote "The year 1920 has an evil name in Arab annals: it is referred to as the Year of the Catastrophe (Am al-Nakba). It saw the first armed risings that occurred in protest against the post-War settlement imposed by the Allies on the Arab countries. In that year, serious outbreaks took place in Syria, Palestine, and Iraq.” Perhaps the article here means "The word 'Nakba' was first used with reference to these events (surrounding the creation of Israel) by" or something like that, but perhaps some notion of its prior use in terms of a national catastrophe will help put in context its use in discussions of Palestinian identity. Richardson mcphillips (talk) 18:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Good reference

this can be used here. Imad marie (talk) 07:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

New review

Review of Benny Morris; might be useful for a source of neutral summaries rather than quotemining from his book, not that I am implying for a moment that anyone here might do something of that sort. --Relata refero (disp.) 07:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


Left a note for User:Pedrito regarding his reversion, but no answer yet. I have reinstated my edit for discussion at the talk page. I would prefer some discussion before a deletion of cited material. Thanks, Kaisershatner (talk) 14:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it took me 12 minutes to see your question and reply, and I was following WP:BRD. The material in question has been inserted, removed and discussed a number of times (you will probably find it in the archives). It definitely does not belong in the lead, but could be added as a sub-section at the end of 1948 Palestinian exodus#Results of the Exodus, if you have good sources making the link between both events.
Cheers, pedrito - talk - 16.05.2008 14:33
Hi Pedrito. I think to follow BRD you might have left a note at the talk page regarding your view, but in any case, now that we are here I am glad to discuss the matter. I will review the archives before further comment so as not to retread the same ground. Thanks for your fast reply. Kaisershatner (talk) 14:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Pedrito, upon reviewing the archives I see this has arisen at least since 2005. I can understand the arguments against direct comparison in the lede of the Jewish exodus from Arab lands to the Palestinian 1948 exodus that is the subject of this article (I think the most compelling is that the expulsion/migration of Jews was not caused by the Palestinians per se and this article is about Palestinians, also there is some merit in the timing argument, with the Nakba a more specific event compared with the Jewish exodus). So I think I can see the logic in amending my addition to the lede, but isn't there some middle ground between no mention at all and the mention I have added? I ask because it seems to me to be a vital part of the historical context - I don't think it would be neutral to mention Muslim exodus from India without describing Hindu exodus from Pakistan, as an example. Maybe simply a see also, or link in the lede to the article on the Jewish exodus? Your thoughts? Kaisershatner (talk) 14:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
As I have mentioned above, you might consider adding a sub-section to 1948 Palestinian exodus#Results of the Exodus regarding the Jewish exodus if you can find sources that put it in that context. Otherwise, until now we only had the link under "See also".
Cheers and thanks, pedrito - talk - 16.05.2008 14:57
Again, this does not belong in the lead. If you want to include it in the article, place it under 1948 Palestinian exodus#Results of the Exodus. Cheers, pedrito - talk - 19.05.2008 10:30

Flight No. Exodus Yes.

The term of use for the headings is erroneous. Flight no, the use of the term flight is POV.

Exodus is a neutral term. Uri Milstein, Benny Morris, Avi Shlaim, Rogan, Ilan Pappe, Finkelstein, Tom Segev, Walid Khalidi, all have examples of forced expulsion.

as Benny Morris in 'The War for Palestine' edited by Eugene Rogan and Avi Shlaim, on page 38 puts it:-

"Above all let me reiterate, the refugee problem was caused by attacks by Jewish forces on Arab villages and towns and by the inhabitants' fears of such attacks, compounded by expulsions, atrocities and rumour of atrocities - and by the crucial Cabinet decision in June 1948 to bar a refugee return"

The term 'Flight' does not cover being bused to the Jordanian Armistice line and forcibly sent across under a volley of shots. The term flight does not cover expulsion orders issued by Moshe Carmel. The term 'flight' has to go from the headings it is not correct nor an accurate reflection of events..Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 12:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Title Incorrect, Should only read as Palestinian Exodus

As the Nakba was from 1948 up to 1953 the title is clearly incorrect. it is a bit of denial in putting that the Nakba down as occurring in only 1 year. Even the sections give a bit of a clue that 1948 should be omitted from the title.Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 17:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The reason is that there was the 1967 Palestinian exodus.
Most of the exodus occured in 1948, so I don't agree with you.
See The Palestinian Exodus in 1948 of Steven Glazer published in Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 9, No. 4 (Summer, 1980), pp. 96-118.
I think this proves the title is reliable and neutral enough.
Ceedjee (talk) 16:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

And this exodus finished when? last real exodus was 1956 under the cover of the Suez Crisis. So the title should be 1948 to 1956 Exodus.....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 23:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

No. There are wp:rs sources that talk about 1948. Ceedjee (talk) 07:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

So we retitle this one as "The exodus part one (1948)" and have the sequels? "The exodus part two (1949)", "The exodus part three (1950)", "The exodus part four (1951)", "The exodus part five (1952)", "The exodus part six (1953)", "The exodus part seven (1954)", "The exodus part eight (1955)", "The exodus part nine (1956)". That should be interesting....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 17:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

An exodus refers to the expulsions of civilians during a period of war.
The 1948 Palestinian exodus refers, for all scholars, to the exodus that occured during the 1948 Palestine War.
What you want to add could go in Palestinian refugee.
You could also write an article about this IF you find a WP:RS SECONDARY source that talks about that particular topic.
Maybe 1949 - The 1st Israelis by Tom Segev does.
Ceedjee (talk) 12:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The exodus/expulsions still continued up to the forced expulsion in 1956, there were other expulsions after that but that is for other articles. The title is obviously completely incorrect and POV.....All the sources never give a final date to the expulsions so it is incorrect to apply a date to the tittle....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 21:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

This article talks about the exodus that occured during the war.
Not about Palestinians, not about expulsions.
All the sources : which ones ? It would not be the first you have problem in reading them...
I have already given you this reference : The Palestinian Exodus in 1948 of Steven Glazer published in Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 9, No. 4 (Summer, 1980), pp. 96-118.
Which is much used in the article. Ceedjee (talk) 06:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Israel claims

‘Israel claims that the Arabs left because they were ordered to,

Israel makes no such claim. Supporters of Israel may argue that Arabs left because they were ordered to. But Israel makes no such claim. Israel just denies the right of return.Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 23:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree again.
The official Israeli explanation is still' that they were ordered to left. I can bring a reference from Benny Morris, 1948 but I am quite sure Pappe says the same in his book.
Ceedjee (talk) 16:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Exactly my point Benny makes the claim, Uri makes the claim. Are they the Israeli Government..No...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 23:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Benny Morris and historians report the claim of the Israeli government at the time. Ceedjee (talk) 07:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Another recent article

Efraim Karsh in Commentary: summarising his recent thinking on the subject. Fairly useful. --Relata refero (disp.) 07:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Efraim Karsh is still living in the fifties along with the work he cites. Uri Milstein has done an upgrade on the "War of Independence" which takes into account Archive material released in the 80s. taking into account that many Diaries, Cabinet protocols and Haganah/IDF material are now available I think it is time that Efraim Karsh retired.Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 19:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Nonetheless and despite your opinion, he is still considered a respected historian. he is still active in publications. i'd be happier if the article showed more of his opinion as well, in particular because it cites so many sources from the group he's opposing, for neutrality reasons. also, i think it would be better if you refrained from using this talk page as a soapbox. (talk) 11:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I think too it is time Efraim Karsh retires. The problem is that we are assumed to quote reliable sources and give all points of views : WP:NPOV.
Else we will have to agree Ilan Pappe is not an historian but a novel writer (humor) ;-) Ceedjee (talk) 16:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

1992 deportation

I removed this :

===Sixth Phase Deportations===

The Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People (CEIRPP) at its 194th meeting held on 21 January 1993 strongly condemned the mass deportation of over 400 Palestinians from the occupied Palestinian territory by Israel, the occupying Power, on 17 December 1992.[1]. This has nothing to deal with the '48 exodus. I remind this articles deal with the exodus that occured due or in relation with the '48 war. There is another article named 1967 Palestinian exodus. More, the events of '92 has nothing to deal with an exodus. They didn't occur during a war. Ceedjee (talk) 20:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Neither did the Majdal expulsion. Yet they both occurred...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 23:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Early Versions of Exodus

Why is one editor rather leary about the "new historians" being the first to call the exodus planned?...Sorry to have to inform them but the discussion about was it or wasn't it a planned expulsion occurred 30 years prior advent of the "new historians"... Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 11:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

No. This was not a discussion.
Khalidi didn't really give arguments and facts at the time.
Later, Childers refuted the thesis of the broadcasts and Gabay gave other explanations.
Please, read WP:Be civil. Ceedjee (talk) 15:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
There was a discussion that appeared in the spectator. After the Childers article.
The archives were not open at the time Khalidi's writing.
Childers looked in BBC listening post and David Cairns looked into CIA listening post and both found no order or orders but they did find many Israeli threats.
That is civil....
the POV that the "New Historians" were the first to come up with a deliberate expulsion theory was quite stark. The new historians are saying nothing new.Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 16:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
The New historian didn't come with "a deliberate expulsion theory".
The picture is far more complex. And what they say is new.
Among New historians, only Pappé, recently, and sometimes in contradiction with his former book published in 1992, explained the whole exodus was deliberate and the result of a plan.
New historians explain that parts of the exodus were due to deliberate expulsions (typically at Lydda and Ramle and during Yoav operation)for which it is not possible to claim it was ordered by yishuv leaders (ie Ben Gurion) and they also claim the Yishuv didn't enter the war with a plan of deliberate expulsion.
Ceedjee (talk) 09:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Boy, does the article look bad

Benny Morris is quoted in the lead, for pure bias of course, even though he's a New Historian and should at least be balanced by a pragmatic historian or a traditional historian. And the quote is actually from a book by Shlaim , and not a direct quote. Who chose that? Unbelievable. Amoruso (talk) 23:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The quote is not from Shlaim, it is from an article of Benny Morris, himself, published in that book :-)
But indeed, such a quote should not be in the lead, even if Morris is "right in the middle" in all the theories around these events.
And this article could be improved. Ceedjee (talk) 07:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes it should include include everything up to 1956 as there was no accrual end to the policy of expulsion....... To make it more accurate as you suggested Ceedjee. This means that the tittle is false. Especially as reference work shows this. Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 11:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

To make the title accurate 1949 should also be included as per Ceedjees suggestion that it should be accurate....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 17:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

No. The lead already refers to the 1948 Arab-Israeli war.
And if 1949 should be added, it would certainly not be by the way you proceeded in linking to the WP:OR article as you did.
Ceedjee (talk) 17:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Funny : Pappe, Ilan The 1948 Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine in Journal of Palestine Studies, 36, no. 1 (Aut.06): 6-20.
in the personnal website of Ashley where he gathers copyrighted material illegally...
-> HERE <-
Ceedjee (talk) 19:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Amoruso reverts

here and here.

Ok, I left the lead as it should be -- the discussion above seems to be ongoing.

Do you have any reasonable argument for removing the rest of the correctly sourced and completely neutral edits by User:Ashley kennedy3?

Cheers, pedrito - talk - 03.07.2008 13:04

yes. (1) First, it's his task to have consencus on the material before inserting it, not mine. (2) this POV biased false sentence "where consequently, most depopulations took place. " was replaced with the more accurate sentence in existence for no reason. (3) Attacking Karsh's study like it's a fact was made in pov manner, and citing refuted source in unbalanced form. Amoruso (talk) 13:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Ok, removing correctly sourced material without any comment other than "rv pov changes" can be considered vandalism. If you've got a reason to revert something, you should state it clearly.
I have just seen you edit regarding Karsh's study and appreciate your balancing of the wording without removing the material wholesale.
As for the edits in the second phase, I fixed up the wording, but it's essentially what Morris says.
Cheers and thanks, pedrito - talk - 03.07.2008 13:20
Thank you as well. Amoruso (talk) 15:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually some historian claim that there were orders given but no orders have ever been produced no orders were broadcast so your correction is entirely incorrect but I will put it right for you....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 18:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


Then it is pretty obvious that the tittle is incorrect.....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 21:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

As the exodus continued in 1949 and even up to 1956 the tittle is inaccurate. As per Ceedjees suggestion the tittle should be changed to reflect the documented events....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 17:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I never suggested to change the title. On the contrary. Why do you mispresent what I said and why don't you take into account material given to you.
An exodus refers to the "migration" of population during a period of war.
This article deals with the exodus taht occurred during the 1948 War.
don't modify the lead any more. Ceedjee (talk) 17:32, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

No it doesn't Ceedjee, please go and read a dictionary... You did say that the tittle should be accurate, at the moment the title is inaccurate...So as per your previous talk the tittle should change....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 19:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The title it accurate. All this has been explained to you.
The 1948 Arab-Israeli War took place from 15 May 1948 to July 1949 !
So, there is no need to add 1949 in the lead.
Ceedjee (talk) 19:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The cease fire occurred in 1949 not the end of the war. The tittle is inaccurate. The main fighting occurred in 1948 to march 1949, the exodus continued up to 1956....As per documented History....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 19:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The armistice was not the end of the war ??? What do you mean ?
What would be the definition of the word exodus according to you ?
Ceedjee (talk) 19:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Exodus means going out.....Look it up, no war is involved. The Jewish Exodus from Egypt for example no war, just leaving one place going to another.

exodus noun (exoduses) 1 a mass departure of people. 2 (Exodus) the departure of the Israelites from Egypt, probably in the 13c BC. ETYMOLOGY: 17c; Anglo-Saxon in sense 2: Latin, from Greek exodos, from ex out + hodos way. [3]

Technically a state of war still existed, the armistice agreements were a truce, not a peace deal.....Egypt was first in the 79, three decades later.[4]

...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 22:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, there is no notion of war required for that word. I have been mislead by the fact in France, the exodus refers mainly to the events of 1940 when civilians fled in frond of the Germans.
  • But there is a notion of mass expulsion
  • And you require a wp:rs secondary source that talk about an exodus between 1949 and 1956
  • how many Palestinians "went out" between 1949 and 1956 ?
  • what is this wp:rs secondary source.
Ceedjee (talk) 08:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Benny puts the post war figure to 1950 as 20,000 plus 20,000 Bedouin. The 1950 to 1956 is very subjective...15,000 and upwards.... if "returnees" are counted much higher..but there again the main returnees were from across borders but also some were from internal and the counting was not exactly accurate....In the period the UN figures went haywire up one year, down the next and then back up to 900,000...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 11:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Morris is a wp:rs secondary source. So that's ok.
But UN numbers are not acceptable. Because scholars, (eg Morris !) disagree with them and explain why they were inflated.
This is not acceptable from you to claim Morris analysis is wrong based on UN numbers, even if other scholars would disagree with him. The analysis of all scholars have to be given, with their due weight. And given you don't like Morris, I remind you Efraim Karsh is also a scholar.
Ceedjee (talk) 08:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Ilan Pappe is a scholar so is Avi Shlaim, Tom Segev, ...Efraim Karsh is a propagandist.

As nobody has worked on the figures of refugees from the period, Benny Included, all numbers are guesses. and I have not changed Benny's figures for 1949-1950 Benny has 30,000 to 40,000. You on the other hand had changed Benny's figures.....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 11:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Yes. They are guesses.
  • I don't know where I would have changed anything.
Benny worked on the problem of their number. See the "Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem revisited", Annex I - The Number of Palestinian Refugees, pp.602-604. He gives the different point of view and he explain and argues his own analysis about the numbers.
Your choice of 900,000 is the Arab official number. The consensus up to now among contributors on wp have always agreed to use the 700,000-750,000 range. Morris fixes it at 700,000. :Ceedjee (talk) 11:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

You changed them in 1949-1956 where you used Benny lowest figure fore for Palestinians alone and used it for a combined total of Palestinians and Negeb Bedouin where Benny had already given a combined total....

Could you please show the diff ? Ceedjee (talk) 14:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Ceedjee when have I used a figure of 900,000???...Please stop with making things up...

10 lines here above. Ceedjee (talk) 14:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Psychological Warfare

as to the incidence of psychological war fare in reasons for the exodus... You are disingenuous. As psychological war fare played quite a big part in the reasons a good example from both points of view was used one Israeli one Palestinian and in reasons for a bit part sentence is hardly due weight.

All I can see in this article is guns bullets and forced expulsions..Yet the main cause has been missed almost entirely. The main cause was fear, unarmed civilians running away of which psychological warfare was a large part.....

It is a fact that in war and conflict civilians run...This article completely ignores that part...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 14:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

You use 900,000 here above just before accusing me of not using good numbers.
Stop making fun of me.
As written in the edit summary, the effect of the psychological warfare is already explained in the causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus. And if you write : "As psychological war fare played quite a big part in the reasons", you agree it is there it's right place.
Please, read what is written to you.
Ceedjee (talk) 14:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
to be precise : -> HERE <-.

Change the article header? NPOV?

Since the term "Palestinian" could mean anyone from the region, perhaps this article (since it seems to be mostly about Arab movement at the time) should have a different header?

Furthermore, I'm not sure if this article has the NPOV since I see no mention of Jews who emigrated to the region from Arab lands (as they were kicked out, etc.) Many issues with this entire article, especially since it seems to cite sources from the left (like Benny Morris.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Einsteindonut (talkcontribs) 11:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

There is an article named Jewish exodus from Arab lands and the topic is given a few words in 1948 Arab-Israeli War#Demographic Outcome.
Benny Morris is not "from the left" and whatever, he is a wp:rs sources. If there are other pov's coming from other wp:rs sources, they are welcome. Ceedjee (talk) 12:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up on the other articles. However, Morris absolutely is from the left. What about changing the header to 1948 "Arab" Exodus? Many people from the region are and were considered "Palestinian" - though this article is focused on Arabs. --Einsteindonut (talk) 14:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

It was suggested here above that the article header should be changed to al-Nakba because it is the name the most widely used to talk about these events.
In number 2, come "1948 Palestinian Exodus" or "Palestinian Exodus of 1948" which are the English titles the most used by scholars to talk about the events.
We have to follow them per WP:OR.
Note I understand your point. I assume you mean there were ~ 2,000,000 Palestinians in 1948 : 1,200,000 Arabs but also 600,000 Jews : the Arabs were not the only Palestinians. You are right. I don't know why but scholars don't usually refer (I think I only see this written once) to the Jewish as Palestinians. They usually talk about the Yishuv on one side and the Arab Palestinians on the other side. The Yishuv being described as "the Jewish community of Palestine" but not the "Jewish Palestinians".
Ceedjee (talk) 15:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

"Exodus" vs. "Migration" - "Palestinians" vs. "Arabs from the Region of Palestine." NPOV issues?

I believe the use of "exodus" shows an extremely biased POV. It is a religiously and politically loaded term. It was not an "exodus" of people, but rather, a migration. Furthermore, "Palestinians" is a term which could mean anyone from the general region of Palestine. This article is focused not on ALL Palestinians, but rather, those of Arab descent. --Einsteindonut (talk) 17:59, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
As a general rule on Wikipedia we use the most common term for an incident (especially as used by reliable sources). "1948 Palestinian exodus" gets about 5,700 hits on Google, your alternative name gets about 2.
I must also disagree with you that "exodus" is "religiously and politically loaded". Exodus is an English term that has a common meaning which is applied in countless contexts, not just to the original Hebrew exodus. Apart from which, your alternative "migration", is at best a euphemism for what many scholars have termed a campaign of ethnic cleansing, which I don't believe would be at all acceptable to the other side of the debate.
You are correct BTW that "Palestinians" is not quite accurate given that Jews were also Palestinians during some of this period, but since everyone knows what is meant it's basically just a shorthand way of saying "Palestinian Arabs". Gatoclass (talk) 18:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Right, but the term "Palestinian" with regard to the Arabs from that region is a non-neutral term, but rather, a politically loaded term. There's nothing which makes them a distinct people or nation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Einsteindonut (talkcontribs) 02:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi Einsteindonut,
You may have been told this but it is not true.
The Palestinian nationalism feeling has birthed during and after the 1920 riots. And there was already a wider one in the ottoman empire but that call for a syrian unity under which Palestine would have been a southern province.
You can find this explained in Walter Laqueur, History of Zionism or Howard Sachar, A History of Israel. I don't think they are the best sources for this issue but I give both these exemples because these are pro-Israeli scholars. Ceedjee (talk) 08:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Actually, this is untrue. "Palestinian" nationalism came about in the 1960's. Citing what you deem to be "pro-Israel" sources is hardly convincing. There is nothing that makes a "Palestinian" Arab any different from any other Arab. Even Arafat was born in EGYPT. --Einsteindonut (talk) 10:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Well. What is your source per WP:RS ?
Ceedjee (talk) 18:03, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, I don't think the birth place of persons is determining , as almost all of the Israeli prime ministers are born in other countries as well , but anyway , the known term of "Palestinian" can be used in the article because it is the common English word for them . --Alborz Fallah (talk) 18:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The phrase "Nakba" being used for the Exodus of Palestinian Arabs

Firstly, I want to apologize. I deleted some content because I did not realize that there is a "Talk Page" to discuss such moves. Secondly, I want to discuss this page frequently using "Nakba" to refer to the Exodus of the Palestinian Arabs from Israel. Nakba Day refers to "Day of Catastrophe - the anniversary of the creation of Israel in 1948." [5] Nakba ... Day is the Arab anniversary of the creation of the state of Israel. [6]. I believe that Nakba should not be referenced in the article except to possibly start the conversation. As in "The Exodus of the Palestinian Arabs started at the time of 'Nakba', what the Arabs call the anniversary of the Creation of the State of Israel". Anyone? Shachna1979 (talk) 04:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

the word Nakba is currently only used in the lead and in the section about the Palestinian narrative of the events. That is the minimum to fit with WP:NPoV. More, here above, it was discussed and even chosen to move the article from 1948 Palestinian exodus to Naqba. see #requested move.
Nakba doesn't refer to the anniversary of the state of Israel. It refers to the exodus, ie, seen in a palestinian perspective, the catastrophe of having 700-750k people out of 900k that fled the war or were expelled from their home in the territory that has become the state of Israel. See eg Yoav Gelber, Nakba versus independence, published in hebrew. Ceedjee (talk) 06:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Alternative Term: Exodus / Ethnic Cleaning

The —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

question - this topic in arabic?

hi, i am curious - does anyone know arabic enough to translate this subject from the arab version of wikipedia? i am extremely curious to know how they cover this topic, and what is or is not included in their version. thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yedatal (talkcontribs) 10:25, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

First paragraph extremely POV

The Palestian Exodus involved the organized and deliberate removal of Palestians from their native homes and villages. Villages were shelled, civilians shot, and other acts of terrorism committed. Threatening pamplets were also distributed causing widespread fear among the population. In all hundreds of thousands of people were forcibly removed from their homes in fear of their own lives, through the threat of violence directly or indirectly. To this day the displaced Palestians remain barred from their homeland. This remains a pivotal issue in modern Palestine, as Islamic nations do not respect Israel for the crimes committed in the establishment of its borders.

I doubt this is a valid and neutral introduction. It does not give a voice to the Israeli people and seems to be an obvious vehicle for the Palestinian cause. I'm not arguing its merit, rather its neutrality. I'm not an expert and don't feel comfortable editing it yet unless no one else volunteers, but I'm considering adding a neutrality tag to the article. Cheers! Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:11, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I have modified the introduction and have removed the tag you had added.
It is more factual now.
Ceedjee (talk) 08:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
taken from edit summary : "eah i have to disagree. the intro in addition to the body is still POV (not denying it's truth), especially when the intro doesnt reflect the all facts involved (i.e, not all palestinians were forced, circumstances not mentioned either." (by wikifan12345)
It is written "during the war" and "they fled or were expelled".
ie, the "circumstances" and the fact "not all palestinians were forced".
The details are in the core of the article, not the lead (see : wp:LEDE).
Ceedjee (talk) 10:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
I have just asked to user:GHcool who agrees this is NPov : [7] Ceedjee (talk) 18:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Both my answers are 10 days long. Is there any comment ? Ceedjee (talk) 19:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

NPOV tag

I have removed the NPOV tag as the dispute has grown stagnant, and the section in question (the lede) appears neutral. If the ispute arises again please contact me before adding the NPOV tag back.Drew Smith 05:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Soon to be illegal in Israel?

In May 2009, Yisrael Beitenu announced that it would propose laws banning Israeli Arabs from marking the anniversary of the Palestinian Nakba with a jail term of up to 3 years for violators. [2] [8] Factsontheground (talk) 12:57, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


" While Gelber claims that the Arab Liberation Army embarked on a systematic evacuation of non-combatants from several frontier villages in order to turn them into military strongholds."

Hello my good Wikipedians! Having read about the just-above-mentioned pending law, I came here to expand my mind and guess what I found? This sentence sounds like it originally had a refutation of this "Gelber" fellow - and either the original author's mind wandered or it was lost in some edit or other. I won't fix it myself, though... you brave advocates of neutrality and truth will have to do that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

First use of term "Nakba"

[9] "How 'Nakba' Proves There's No Palestinian Nation" by Steven Plaut, The Jewish Press, 30 April 2009

In his book, The Arab Awakening, published in 1938, anti-Zionist George Antonius claims the first use of the word "nakba" (catastrophe) referred to the fear of Arab people during the 1920 riots that they would be cut off from their homeland of Syria by the French Mandate. They were protesting being labeled residents of Arab Palestine.

"On page 312 of The Arab Awakening, Antonius writes, "The year 1920 has an evil name in Arab annals: it is referred to as the Year of the Catastrophe (Am al-Nakba). It saw the first armed risings that occurred in protest against the post-War settlement imposed by the Allies on the Arab countries. In that year, serious outbreaks took place in Syria, Palestine, and Iraq." "

This article is pro-Israel in its viewpoint; but I think it deserves some consideration because it is a rare mention of a pre-1948 Nakba. "The Arab Awakening" was used by British universities as a text book. (Labellesanslebete (talk) 18:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC))

Gallery of Photos of Palestinians Exodus

In the section "Gallery of Photos of Palestinians Exodus", two photos of a school for refugees is too many. One picture of this should be enough. Better grammar for the title of this section would be "Gallery of Photos of Palestinian Exodus". I removed the plural of Palestinian. (Labellesanslebete (talk) 18:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC))


Is there a reason this isn't called Nakba, or The Nakba? The term gets 2.3 million hits, and seems to have entered the English language. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 21:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually I think Nakba should be a separate article rather than the redirect it is now. It's about so much more than the events of 1948. --Ian Pitchford (talk) 21:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
It would be good if we could sort this issue out, because the current situation is quite confusing. We have lists of depopulated villages, some including Jewish villages, some within the Arab-Israeli conflict, some the 1948 Palestine War, with the titles being frequently changed or merged. We have Palestinian villages that have entries in their own right (which is fine), but with no narrative linkage, and sometimes no linkage at all, to the Israeli towns that they became, so that the impression is left that village A simply disappeared, and town B simply appeared from nowhere.
If we had an article on Al-Nakba, would this become a subsection of it, or would you want to see this as a separate article? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 22:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I see it used to be called Nakba, then it was moved, and there was a vote on this page to retain the Nakba title. There are lots of lists that are related to it - List of Arab villages and towns depopulated during the 1948 Palestine War, for example, but people keep moving it, or adding Jewish villages, or doing whatever to confuse the issue. It would be good if we could get it all clarified. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 21:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
It seems there is an effort to make the word disappear from Wikipedia e.g. [10] SlimVirgin talk|contribs 21:49, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Nakba. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 22:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
My opinion was formed partly as a result of reading Nakba: Palestine, 1948, and the Claims of Memory - the Nakba is at the heart of Palestinian identity and historiography. It's no longer about particular historical events - if it ever was. --Ian Pitchford (talk) 19:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Lead needs to be re-worked for neutrality.

The reliance on Nur-eldeen Masalha and Elias Khoury as the only sources for all of the information is suspect and violates neutrality and undue laws. They are both strong pro-Palestinian advocates, so it is rather bizarre to choose them over the many more moderate and objective historians. Either that, or their views should be reduced and paired with countering historical analysis. I believe we should revert to the February 15 lead and rewrite from there. I think that is a fair start. I honestly prefer the brief intro and then letting the pertinent sections cite x information. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

You forgot Yoav Stern, the third source in the lead. I can't see anything contentious in the lead that would need multiple sources, but if you think we do, you could always look for them and add them. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 00:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Not good enough. We need to revert the obvious POV lead to its original neutral state. The current version is relatively new and is more or less a month old. I will gladly rework the lead and reduce the reliance on partisan references but I don't feel like engaging in POV war. As an admin, I would hope you see how the lead violates neutrality laws. I'm sure you would be upset if we got rid of the pro-Palestinian references and relied solely comparable Israeli nationalist historians. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't look at whether sources are Israeli or Palestinian, or pro-this or anti-that. I look to see whether they're historians who specialize, or writers otherwise publishing in good publications. I can't see any POV in the lead, in the sense that it's factual and wouldn't, I think, be disputed by an academic historian. There may be something missing that should be added, and if so, please do, so long as the source is good. Or something that needs to be expressed differently, in which case please say what exactly, and why. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 01:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry virgin, but I find it hard to believe you decided on two clearly partisan and activist historians in pool of hundreds of more moderate experts. No offense. And I'm being very specific: reduce the lead to its original neutral state and together we can rewrite the intro that reflects an objective and fair POV.

I meant to add this: before we proceed, it's worth stressing that "neutral" on Wikipedia does not mean that everyone reading it has to like it, or that all views are treated equally. It means we express all majority and significant-minority POVs that have been published by reliable sources, roughly in relation to how prevalent those views are in those sources. Reliable sources in this context will tend to mean historians specializing in this area. I wouldn't rule others out (e.g. statesmen, governments), but the article should be structured around what is accepted as accurate within academia. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 01:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. The current lead relies solely on pro-Palestinian historians. I'm sure you personally consider this superior in terms of reliability but for neutrality sakes we can certainly do a whole lot better. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Wikifan, you tend to arrive at pages claiming POV, and insisting others do things, or revert to an earlier version, but you yourself never look for sources, or create content, at least not that I've seen. Other editors have expressed the same concern to you. As I said above, if you have good sources and content, please produce it, but don't remove other people's. And if I tell you that I pay no need to the nationality or POV of an historian, that is the truth. Please don't cast doubt on that. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 02:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
No need to attack. I am being very specific and regardless of whatever history you misconstrue the current lead does not meet neutrality standards. You may not pay attention to nationality or POV, but I certainly do. If you are willingly refusing to recognize the occupation of a journalist or historian then that seriously compromises the reliability of the article. We have 2 clearly partisan experts without any balance. These edits are very new and were not accompanied by talk collaboration or rationale. If you dispute this please be explicit. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:45, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Dear all,
You are wise to take care about neutrality but the lead is neutral.
You can keep it the way it is currently. (talk) 05:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
I plan on re-working the lead and using moderate historians unless Slim would like to add anything. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  1. ^ UN Doc A/47/874 S/25136 of 21 January 1993 Letter dated 21 January 1993 from the Chairman of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People to the Secretary-General
  2. ^ "Lieberman's party proposes ban on Arab Nakba". Haaretz. 2009-05-15. Check date values in: |date= (help)