Template:Did you know nominations/Nakba denial
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 17:08, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Nakba denial
- ... that the denial of the Nakba is central to Zionist narratives of 1948 and was largely facilitated by Israeli historiography up until the late 1980s? Source: Mori, Mariko (July 2009). "Zionism and the Nakba: The Mainstream Narrative, the Oppressed Narratives, and the Israeli Collective Memory. Kyoto Bulletin of Islamic Area Studies.
- ALT1: ... that there exists a form of historical negationism pertaining to the 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight known as Nakba denial? Source: Nassar, Maha (2023). "Exodus, Nakba Denialism, and the Mobilization of Anti-Arab Racism". Critical Sociology.
- ALT2: ... that Nakba denial has been described as still prevalent in both Israeli and US discourse and linked to various tropes associated with anti-Arab racism? Source: Nassar, Maha (2023). "Exodus, Nakba Denialism, and the Mobilization of Anti-Arab Racism". Critical Sociology.
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Doman (Khoikhoi)
Created by Iskandar323 (talk), Alalch E. (talk), Freedom4U (talk) and Starship.paint (talk). Nominated by Iskandar323 (talk) at 09:02, 27 October 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Nakba denial; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
- Comment not review this article was nominated for deletion on 21 October here, so per WP:DYKCOMPLETE the nomination needs to go on hold until the deletion discussion is concluded. TSventon (talk) 09:32, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
@Iskandar323: I moved a citation to support the hook under "In Zionist and Israeli statehood narratives". It is tough article to maintain neutrality but I think the article is as neutral as it can be. The QPQ is done and the article is new enough and long enough, being nominated 7 days after creation. The article is referenced and uses the correct inline citations. I find ALT1 is the most interesting. I do not find evidence of plagiarism. I am unsure if the statement in ALT1 needs to be attributed "According to some historians and academics". Article appears stable now, and the only edits I see for the last two days are fussing with minor details. Lightburst (talk) 23:02, 3 November 2023 (UTC)- Comment this article still has significant neutrality and POV issues; it makes extensive use of less-neutral language (the first proposed hook is an example) and provides none of the balancing context of Nakba, itself already by definition a particular POV of 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight. If the article is stable it may be because people are tired. – SJ + 03:12, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
as long as there's a dispute tag on the article, it's on hold; if the article hedges to "some historians and academics", the hook should too. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:42, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Theleekycauldron: - the POV tag has been removed by another editor, and before that I solicited for reliable sources to prove POV issues but I haven't heard any response. I think reviewer-approved ALT1 is uncontroversial enough to not require hedging. starship.paint (RUN) 03:36, 24 November 2023 (UTC)I don
- Comment this article was recently discussed in NPOV noticeboard Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_107#Nakba_denial and I personally feel the concerns were not handled. terms 'Nakba' and 'Israeli Independence' represent two competing narratives of the same historical events surrounding the founding of the State of Israel in 1948. Each term encapsulates deeply held beliefs and interpretations that are important to different communities. 'Nakba'—Arabic for 'catastrophe'—is the lens through which many Palestinians view the mass displacement and loss that accompanied the 1948 war. Conversely, 'Israeli Independence' symbolizes a monumental achievement for the Jewish people, marking the establishment of a sovereign state after centuries of persecution.
- Labeling the Israeli perspective as "Nakba Denial" unequivocally violates Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View (WP:NPOV) policy. This term "denial" is not merely descriptive; it's prescriptive, dictating how the narrative should be interpreted rather than offering a balanced viewpoint. By embedding an accusation within the label itself, the discourse is preemptively skewed, stifling any potential for nuanced discussion. The term 'Nakba Denial' not only accuses one side of refusing to recognize a historical event or human suffering but also inherently delegitimizes any competing narratives. Once such a term is introduced into an encyclopedic context, it doesn't merely tilt the balance; it obliterates it. Readers are not presented with a spectrum of perspectives to form their own conclusions; instead, they are led down a pre-defined path that reaffirms existing biases. Marokwitz (talk) 18:57, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Marokwitz: I do not think your opinions have not been validated by the various community discussions - including an AfD. We have a variety of "denial" articles including Denial of atrocities against Indigenous peoples and Denial of the genocide of Serbs in the Independent State of Croatia. And of course Holocaust denial. You say that the word Nakba signifies a deeply held belief and interpretation: but it is in the same way the word "Holocaust" is a deeply held belief and interpretation of events. I am in no way trying to compare or imply that the holocaust is the same as Nakba - just comparing the words as both convey catastrophe. The RS supports the term "Nakba denial" and the article is notable and encyclopedic based on community discussions. I think that we are left with an WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument so we should proceed: the article has met our requirements for DYK. Lightburst (talk) 17:56, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Marokwitz: on 21 November [1], I invited you on to present
specific reliable sources explicitly discussing Nakba denial that are missing from the article
or present examples ofmisrepresentation of reliable sources already in the article
. You did not respond. Again, I invite you to do so. Otherwise, it seems that your opposition is not based in reliable sources. starship.paint (RUN) 01:52, 3 December 2023 (UTC)- I believe there is some confusion. My objection isn't based on the lack of sources, but rather on the inherently and fundamentally non-neutral framing of the topic, which precludes the inclusion of sources that don't use the term 'denial' to describe the phenomenon. This results in unavoidable bias in the selection of sources. Marokwitz (talk) 07:29, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
- If sources do not even mention the term 'denial', even with a view to dismissing the notion, then they are clearly not engaging with the substance of the topic. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:58, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
- See WP:NDESC. The term "denial" is judgmental, delegitimizing other viewpoints that may be equally valid. Consequently, the framing of the topic in this manner is not neutral, leading to a biased selection of sources that view Israel's narrative as a form of 'denial' of historical facts. Marokwitz (talk) 08:31, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Marokwitz: - Lightburst has mentioned the existence of multiple "denial" article titles on Wikipedia, starting with Holocaust denial, not mentioned but also existing is Denial of Kurds by Turkey, Denial of the virgin birth of Jesus, Temple denial, Holodomor denial, Bosnian genocide denial (Good Article), and Armenian genocide denial (Featured Article). It seems that the term "denial", while judgmental, is not automatically disqualifying for articles. On the other hand, if you have reliable sources that say something along the lines of "
we have analysed the narrative of the Nakba and it is inaccurate or distorted
", that may also remedy the supposed biased selection. Are there such sources? starship.paint (RUN) 12:21, 3 December 2023 (UTC)- Denial of the virgin birth of Jesus is a good example. It should be renamed to Debate Over the Virgin Birth of Jesus for neutrality. The current name is akin to naming the Atheism article "Denial of God's Existence." Regarding series of genocide denial articles, specifically Holocaust Denial, both terms involve a rejection of historical narratives. However, Holocaust denial is a WP:FRINGE and widely criminalized position, as it rejects a globally acknowledged genocide. In contrast, "Nakba denial" primarily refers to contesting the intentions or responsible party behind the Palestinian exodus (not its actual existence), a debate that is part of the broader Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This debate is not between a fringe position and a globally accepted one but has two sides actively debated by reliable sources and respectable academics. According to WP:NPOV, neutrality requires that articles fairly represent all significant viewpoints published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources. However, this is made impossible by the current naming. The same is not true for "Holocaust denial" since, per the same policy, "Views held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views." Reliable sources and academics denying the Holocaust fall into that category. Marokwitz (talk) 06:29, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Marokwitz: - again, you are bringing a lot of assertions to the table (which may be true, or false), but no sources to back your claim regarding the Nakba. I've repeatedly asked you for sources, but nothing. starship.paint (RUN) 00:15, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
- I an not sure why sources are needed here as I'm making nothing more than obvious assertion that Nakba denial is judgmental term against a particular non-fringe viewpoint. For example, Michael R. Fischbach defines Nakba denial as a "Nakba counternarrative", and see also "Golani, Motti; Manna, Adel (2011). Two Sides of the Coin: Independence and Nakba, 1948: Two Narratives of the 1948 War and its Outcome." The point is that Nakba and the Israeli national narrative are two counternarratives, and labeling one as "Nakba denial" creates a POV fork of Nakba that discourages or prevents inclusions of reliable sources that don't use judgmental language. Marokwitz (talk) 08:43, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
- Fischbach source has already been added to the article, and quite extensively. I've now added Golani & Manna to the article, though I can't read the entire source, it seems rather sympathetic to the Nakba. Some parts which I did not add to this article but were in the source:
Palestinians ... loss of homeland ... Palestinian tragedy that turned most of the Palestinian Arabs ... into refugees [...] Nakba is a concept that is present on a daily basis for all Palestinians in one way or another. In some ways, the Nakba of 1948 is still going on today. [...] This Palestinian recovery from the events of the Nakba ...
Thus, I don't see how the article is still violating NPOV. We have been adding the sources presented, and the above one does not seem to be that out of line with what we are writing here. starship.paint (RUN) 16:25, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- Fischbach source has already been added to the article, and quite extensively. I've now added Golani & Manna to the article, though I can't read the entire source, it seems rather sympathetic to the Nakba. Some parts which I did not add to this article but were in the source:
- I an not sure why sources are needed here as I'm making nothing more than obvious assertion that Nakba denial is judgmental term against a particular non-fringe viewpoint. For example, Michael R. Fischbach defines Nakba denial as a "Nakba counternarrative", and see also "Golani, Motti; Manna, Adel (2011). Two Sides of the Coin: Independence and Nakba, 1948: Two Narratives of the 1948 War and its Outcome." The point is that Nakba and the Israeli national narrative are two counternarratives, and labeling one as "Nakba denial" creates a POV fork of Nakba that discourages or prevents inclusions of reliable sources that don't use judgmental language. Marokwitz (talk) 08:43, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Marokwitz: - again, you are bringing a lot of assertions to the table (which may be true, or false), but no sources to back your claim regarding the Nakba. I've repeatedly asked you for sources, but nothing. starship.paint (RUN) 00:15, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
- Denial of the virgin birth of Jesus is a good example. It should be renamed to Debate Over the Virgin Birth of Jesus for neutrality. The current name is akin to naming the Atheism article "Denial of God's Existence." Regarding series of genocide denial articles, specifically Holocaust Denial, both terms involve a rejection of historical narratives. However, Holocaust denial is a WP:FRINGE and widely criminalized position, as it rejects a globally acknowledged genocide. In contrast, "Nakba denial" primarily refers to contesting the intentions or responsible party behind the Palestinian exodus (not its actual existence), a debate that is part of the broader Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This debate is not between a fringe position and a globally accepted one but has two sides actively debated by reliable sources and respectable academics. According to WP:NPOV, neutrality requires that articles fairly represent all significant viewpoints published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources. However, this is made impossible by the current naming. The same is not true for "Holocaust denial" since, per the same policy, "Views held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views." Reliable sources and academics denying the Holocaust fall into that category. Marokwitz (talk) 06:29, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Marokwitz: - Lightburst has mentioned the existence of multiple "denial" article titles on Wikipedia, starting with Holocaust denial, not mentioned but also existing is Denial of Kurds by Turkey, Denial of the virgin birth of Jesus, Temple denial, Holodomor denial, Bosnian genocide denial (Good Article), and Armenian genocide denial (Featured Article). It seems that the term "denial", while judgmental, is not automatically disqualifying for articles. On the other hand, if you have reliable sources that say something along the lines of "
- See WP:NDESC. The term "denial" is judgmental, delegitimizing other viewpoints that may be equally valid. Consequently, the framing of the topic in this manner is not neutral, leading to a biased selection of sources that view Israel's narrative as a form of 'denial' of historical facts. Marokwitz (talk) 08:31, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
- If sources do not even mention the term 'denial', even with a view to dismissing the notion, then they are clearly not engaging with the substance of the topic. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:58, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
- I believe there is some confusion. My objection isn't based on the lack of sources, but rather on the inherently and fundamentally non-neutral framing of the topic, which precludes the inclusion of sources that don't use the term 'denial' to describe the phenomenon. This results in unavoidable bias in the selection of sources. Marokwitz (talk) 07:29, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
- Comment ALT0 is unacceptably non-neutral. ALT2 is objectively true, and good. Zanahary (talk) 07:06, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Iskandar323, Alalch E., Freedom4U, and Starship.paint: What is the status of this neutrality tag? If this topic is too contentious, should we withdraw this nomination and re-nominate it for DYK if it achieves GA status? Z1720 (talk) 18:49, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- There's not a currently extent tag? Iskandar323 (talk) 20:04, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Iskandar323: There's an orange NPOV banner at the top of the "In Israeli historiography" section. Z1720 (talk) 20:08, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- Ah ok, had missed the lingering level-3 section one. Iskandar323 (talk) 22:34, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Iskandar323: There's an orange NPOV banner at the top of the "In Israeli historiography" section. Z1720 (talk) 20:08, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- There's not a currently extent tag? Iskandar323 (talk) 20:04, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Iskandar323, Alalch E., Freedom4U, and Starship.paint: What is the status of this neutrality tag? If this topic is too contentious, should we withdraw this nomination and re-nominate it for DYK if it achieves GA status? Z1720 (talk) 18:49, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
Comment It appears to me to be prone to bias. I have raised a point regarding neutrality in the article page, however other editors dismissed my objections and removed the pov label. I did not pursue course because I personally felt quite attacked there and at other places for having tried to present objections. However I still believe the current version does not follow NPOV and the DYK options presented are also problematic. Indeed the Nakba lead seems to be one sided and when one may try to add information for example on what some call the "Nakba law" is and is about and it's purposes; it is dismissed for not including the word denial. The text presented on the law is I believe is misinforming since it only presents a single viewpoint. I think it is best first to resolve the different issues, address some of the issues above, possibly rename the article or have a deep discussion regarding this, though personally it has been taxing to deal with the page. Kind regards. Homerethegreat (talk) 20:18, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Homerethegreat: - please provide relevant reliable sources to substantiate your objections. starship.paint (RUN) 21:51, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Homerethegreat: - if you think an article is not neutral, you need to add content from reliable sources to balance per WP:BALASP. Or if it is the tone or title you think is not neutral, then please see WP:POVNAMING and bring alternatives to modify the title or make edits to the tone to make it more factual, nonjudgmental, avoiding stating opinions as fact. I don’t know enough about these topics to know if they are neutral or not.Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 22:50, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
At this moment there are no NPOV tags on the article. starship.paint (RUN) 22:40, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Lightburst: as the original reviewer, can you indicate if this is re-approved? Z1720 (talk) 01:48, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Z1720: Thanks, I think we are good until someone hangs another maintenance tag. We do have 46% Earwig but I think it is quotes and titles and not CLOP. I still like ALT1 and will leave it to a promotor to decide if it needs attribution. Lightburst (talk) 01:59, 4 January 2024 (UTC)