This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sean.hoyland (talk | contribs) at 06:46, 19 January 2012 (→Troublesome revert). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 06:46, 19 January 2012 by Sean.hoyland (talk | contribs) (→Troublesome revert)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
 | Palestine B‑class Top‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 Archives | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Edit to lead
Hi, I deleted some sourced material from the lead, the reasons being that the stuff wasn't discussed at all in the article, and also the information seems to not be correct. Have a look at this, which describes indictments against leading Nazis in Nurenberg in 1945-6, which predates the 1948-9. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 15:44, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- Have a look at this which describes how the Allies transferred German population as part of the Potsdam agreement. I'm reverting your edit. Also the one that inaccurately describes what UNGA 194 talks about. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:54, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- No, it is really quite unacceptable to start off with an unchallenged, fringe, opinion implying that it was legal for Israel to expel Palestinians. Israel itself did not even make such a claim. We might as well find an opinion that Arabs were legally entitled to solve the problem by sending the Jews back to Europe; that would be about the same degree of acceptable. Zero 08:11, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Unless I'm missing something really obvious, if someone like Eyal Benvensiti says something like "It should be stressed that, in that period, the transfer of populations in consequence of political changes was not considered to be wrong according to international law" regarding the Palestinian exodus, there really is no reason not to include it in this article. Are you objecting to the material in general or only to its placement? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:29, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with NNMG there is no reason not to include it.Its properly sourced and according to wiki policies.--Shrike (talk) 09:10, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- It leaves unsaid who is transferred and by who. Internationally agreed exchanges were once considered ok, but forced expulsion of a population by a state acting alone is another matter. As someone else mentioned, Nazis were convicted of that at Nuremburg, and it is quite easy to find sources about that. Another thing, the partition resolution said that each citizen of Palestine was entitled to be a citizen of the state (Jewish State or Arab State) in which they resided. So a forced transfer would have violated that explicitly. Zero 09:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Btw, it wasn't Eyal Benvenisti who wrote it, but Yaffa Zilbershats. Another problem is that these few sentences are extracted from a larger article which in total gives a much more complex picture. She claims that forcible expulsion of populations is illegal, but the expelling state has no obligation to let the expellees return. A fringe opinion. I can imagine a more fair account of Zilbershats' article would fit in a section that surveys legal opinion on these questions, but it is not acceptable to quote a few sentences and claim it as a fact. Zero 09:20, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Incidentally, the Potsdam Agreement that allowed the forced transfer of ethnic Germans was made before the Nuremberg trials began, so they aren't an example of the Nuremberg judgements not applying. (On the other hand, if one wanted to see the affair as an example of the victors prosecuting the losers for something they were willing to do themselves, that might view might have some basis.) Zero 10:14, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- It should also be pointed out, IMO, that the Blackwell source says that the expulsions of Germans in the aftermath of WWII were seen as punitive, and that some historians consider them genocidal. Blackwell also mentions that the Geneva conventions of 1949 invalidate expulsions. BTW, NMMNG, what would in your view be a better way to describe resolution 194 here? --Dailycare (talk) 10:45, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Morris and Masalha wrote widely about the idea of transfer and referred to those of the twenties between Greece and Turkey and the one suggested by the Peel commission report. I haven't checked if this was in the article but that should be stressed a way or the other.
- As Zero0000 points out here above, a transfer through military expulsion is not the same as a negociated transfer as a peace agreement but it is also true that at the time population transfer was " in the air" (as Morris said) and was also morally less badly connoted than today.
- 87.66.168.201 (talk) 11:08, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- It should also be pointed out, IMO, that the Blackwell source says that the expulsions of Germans in the aftermath of WWII were seen as punitive, and that some historians consider them genocidal. Blackwell also mentions that the Geneva conventions of 1949 invalidate expulsions. BTW, NMMNG, what would in your view be a better way to describe resolution 194 here? --Dailycare (talk) 10:45, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- No, it is really quite unacceptable to start off with an unchallenged, fringe, opinion implying that it was legal for Israel to expel Palestinians. Israel itself did not even make such a claim. We might as well find an opinion that Arabs were legally entitled to solve the problem by sending the Jews back to Europe; that would be about the same degree of acceptable. Zero 08:11, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- UNGA Res 194, under which the Palestinians claim refugee status and rights, was adopted 11th Dec 1948. UNRWA was established in Dec 1949. It is IMPOSSIBLE for UNGA res 194 to be based on the UNRWA definition of a refugee. No matter how many Secondary Sources say otherwise, they are not reliable on the point ... talknic (talk) 14:59, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
This interview with a UNRWA spokesperson is worth citing with regard to the descendants issue. Zero 04:19, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Legal Definition of Palestinian refugees UNHCR / UNRWA
"Although there is no accepted definition of who can be considered a Palestinian refugee for legal purposes, UNRWA defines them as "persons whose normal place of residence was Palestine between June 1946 and May 1948, who lost both their homes and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 Arab-Israeli conflict". UNRWA's definition of a refugee also covers the descendants of persons who became refugees in 1948. This comes in contrast to the standard definition of refugee as defined by UNHCR"
This is incorrect and misleading. The term “Palestine refugees” has never explicitly been defined by the UN General Assembly because there was no reason why it should. Refugee was defined before the UN came into existence and; UNGA Res 194 under which the Palestinians claim RoR was written before UNRWA came into existence and; It is not "in contrast to the standard definition of refugee as defined by UNHCR". The UNRWA definition has a different purpose as suggested by the title of UNRWA, United Nations Relief and Works Agency (see **)
(sorry about the length) The UNHCR considers two groups of Palestinian refugees fall within the scope of the 1951 Convention. "Note on the Applicability of Article 1D of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees to Palestinian Refugees. B. PALESTINIAN REFUGEES WITHIN THE SCOPE OF ARTICLE 1D OF THE 1951 CONVENTION.
3. Given the wording, historical context and purpose of Article 1D of the 1951 Convention, certain Palestinian refugees fall within the scope of that Article because: (i) they have the characteristics of refugees as defined in Article 1A of the 1951 Convention; (ii) their position has not been definitively settled in accordance with relevant resolutions of the UN General Assembly; and (iii) alternative arrangements have been made for such refugees to receive assistance or protection from organs or agencies of the United Nations other than UNHCR.
4. The following groups of Palestinian refugees fall within the scope of Article 1D of the 1951 Convention: a) Palestinians who are “Palestine refugees” within the sense of UN General Assembly Resolution 194 (III) of 11 December 1948 and subsequent UN General Assembly Resolutions,3 and who, as a result of the 1948 Arab-Israeli conflict, were displaced from that part of Mandate Palestine which became Israel, and who have been unable to return there; b) Palestinians not falling within paragraph (a) above who are “displaced persons” within the sense of UN General Assembly Resolution 2252 (ES-V) of 4 July 1967 and subsequent UN General Assembly resolutions,5 and who, as a result of the 1967 Arab-Israeli conflict, have been displaced from the Palestinian territory occupied by Israel since 1967 and have been unable to return there.
6 Included within the above groups are not only persons displaced at the time of the 1948 and 1967 hostilities, but also the descendants of such persons.
7 On the other hand, persons falling within Articles 1C, 1E or 1F of the 1951 Convention do not fall within the scope of Article 1D, even if they remain “Palestine refugees” or “displaced persons” whose position is yet to be definitively settled in accordance with the relevant UN General Assembly resolutions.
5. Palestinians not falling within the scope of Article 1D who, owing to a wellfounded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, are outside the Palestinian territory occupied by Israel since 1967 and are unable or, owing to such fear, are unwilling to return there, qualify as refugees under Article 1A(2) of the 1951 Convention."
Furthermore under the 1951 convention "D. This Convention shall not apply to persons who are at present receiving from organs or agencies of the United Nations other than the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees protection or assistance. When such protection or assistance has ceased for any reason, without the position of such persons being definitively settled in accordance with the relevant resolutions adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations, these persons shall ipso facto be entitled to the benefits of this Convention. "
(**) The UNRWA definition does not cover final status
Q) Is UNRWA involved in the Middle East peace negotiations and in the discussions on a solution to the refugee issue?
A) No. UNRWA is a humanitarian agency and its mandate defines its role as one of providing services to the refugees.it defines those needing assistance under its mandate as "persons whose normal place of residence was Palestine between June 1946 and May 1948, who lost both their homes and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 Arab-Israeli conflict". UNRWA's definition of a refugee also covers the descendants of persons who became refugees in 1948
In the interests of clarity this should be addressed accordingly ... talknic (talk) 19:00, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
- Primary Source Document: (enabling interested editors to find reliable sources on the matter of Refugee Status) UNITED NATIONS CONCILIATION COMMISSION FOR PALESTINE. DEFINITION OF A "REFUGEE" UNDER PARAGRAPH 11 OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION OF 11 DECEMBER 1948
Are to be considered as refugees under paragraph 11 of the General Assembly resolution of 11 December 1948 persons of Arab origin who, after 29 November 1947, left territory at present under the control of the Israel authorities and who were Palestinian citizens at that date.
Are also to be considered as refugees under the said paragraph stateless persons of Arab origin who after 29 November 1947 left the aforementioned territory where they had been settled up to that date. Article 2
The following shall be considered as covered by the provisions of Article 1 above: 1. Persons of Arab origin who left the said territory after 6 August 1924 and before 29 November 1947 and who at that latter date were Palestinian citizens;
2. Persons of Arab origin who left the territory in question before 6 August 1924 and who, having opted for Palestinian citizenship, retained that citizenship up to 29 November 1947
- No registered interest in dialogue of 8 October 2011 - Implemented change accordingly ... talknic (talk) 17:29, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Since your addition was pedantic and pointy, I reverted it. If you'd like to edit constructively, please do so. Don't add phrases and sentences to the encyclopedia such as "Not applicable to UNGA res 194" and "The UNRWA definition was not the basis for United Nations General Assembly Resolution 194, which was adopted Dec 11th 1949, 12 months prior to UNRWA's establishment." If you have something to add, please add it in the affirmative. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz /Stalk 21:21, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
- Malik Shabazz - A) It was already on the Talk page. NO ONE took it up.
- B) WP:ROWN
- C) Start explaining how it was 1. not constructive or 2. pedantic/pointy
- D) It's chronologically impossible for UNGA Res 194 to be based on the UNRWA figure.
- E) self revert... thx ... talknic (talk) 21:54, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
- No thanks. An encyclopedia article isn't the place to debate the meaning of "refugee" and who defined it when. If you want to write in declarative sentences, go ahead. If you want to write a rebuttal, use the Talk page or start a blog. — Malik Shabazz /Stalk 22:01, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
- Malik Shabazz - Er this IS the Talk Page. The Talk page IS the place to debate it. No one did, despite being given the opportunity. I gave Verifiable Secondary Sources in a valid edit, with a very detailed explanation on Talk before I made the edit and justification for the edit in the summary. Challenge it via policy or self revert ... talknic (talk) 22:09, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
- I won't undo my revert because what you wrote was a rebuttal inside the article. If you'd like to have another go at it, please do so. — Malik Shabazz /Stalk 22:16, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
- Malik Shabazz - This alleged "rebuttal inside the article". Care to point it out? Thx If not, self revert, because thus far you have given no valid reason for reverting WP:ROWN, you haven't challenged sources, nor have you attempted to answer reasonable questions here ... talknic (talk) 22:29, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
NOTE: The revert is to a completely un-sourced paragraph in complete contradiction to WP:VERIFY and which readers could easily take to mean the UNRWA figure is the basis of the Palestinians claims under UNGA Res 194 ... talknic (talk) 02:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
This UNRWA vs UNHCR stuff is mostly nonsense. First, it is simply false that UNHCR does not extend the definition of refugee to dependents. It is not explicitly mentioned in the 1951 convention but is normal practice and specified by the UNHCR's operating manual. See here. Clause 184: "If the head of a family meets the criteria of the definition, his dependants are normally granted refugee status according to the principle of family unity." Second, if you look at the professional literature on the issue you will see that the main concern is around the other way. Until a few years ago, many Palestinian refugees were excluded from both UNRWA and UNHCR assistance because they are excluded from UNHCR by the convention and yet they live in places UNRWA doesn't operate. I think this anomaly is now fixed. Zero 02:55, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
- Zero -- OK got the 1st point re - dependents, though there is a caveat in respect to being born in a country that grants automatic citizenship.
- In respect to the timeline of the second point... benefits of the UNHCR were afforded A) ipso facto in the 1951 convention "D. ...yadda... When such protection or assistance has ceased for any reason, without the position of such persons being definitively settled in accordance with the relevant resolutions adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations, these persons shall ipso facto be entitled to the benefits of this Convention." and; B) by definition here ... talknic (talk) 04:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
- There is a difference between theory (which in any case is ambiguous) and practice. This article discusses it, and this is an academic article on it. There is more but I'm running out of time for now. Zero 04:36, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) talknic, I'm reverting to your edit because I don't have the interest in debating with you over its quality. Please take a step back and re-read it. It needs fixing. — Malik Shabazz /Stalk 03:04, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
- Malik Shabazz - OK ... talknic (talk) 03:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Things to cite:
- This interview with a UNRWA spokesperson addresses the descendants issue.
- This document is advertised by UNRWA as its current eligibility criteria.
- UNHCR statement on the application of the convention to Palestinians.
Zero 04:26, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
- Thx ... talknic (talk) 08:39, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Ilan Pappe
Ilan Pappe is a partisan and is perhaps one of Israel's most extreme critics. His views & theories have been debunked by most mainstream historians including Benny Morris and Leslie Stein. Of Ilan Pappe, Benny Morris stated that nothing in Pappe's book can be accepted as fact. I propose that Pappe's views and opinions be removed from this article. In the alternative, where he is used as a source, there should be attribution as well as a qualification concerning his well-known anti-Israel bias. I can not believe that this article would utilize such a discredited and partisan source.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:12, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- Can you point to something in this article that he has written that is outright false? What things in the article that are cited to Pappe has Morris debunked? Finally, since when did Leslie Stein become a "mainstream" historian? -asad (talk) 18:10, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- And since when Pappe become "mainstream" historian? His book is clearly unreliable agenda driven source.--Shrike (talk) 19:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- When I did I claim Pappe was mainstream? -asad (talk) 19:21, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- And since when Pappe become "mainstream" historian? His book is clearly unreliable agenda driven source.--Shrike (talk) 19:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Troublesome revert
"Ethnic cleansing" as some would have us believe occurred during the war implies that the act was illegal. In light of the legality implications, I fail to see why this well sourced edit was reverted. The edit is certainly relevant to the issue at hand as it touches on both precedent and legal implications. The edit should be restored.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 04:04, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- The edit was of dubious relevance to this article; it is your own synthesis that it relates to this. And two of your sources are of extremely dubious reliability. Meanwhile, you have restored a contentious and contested edit, relying heavily on Leslie Stein's The Making of Modern Israel. Since this is not a book that most of us possess, it wiould help if you could quote the actual section from the book, in order that other editors can assess its use and relevance to the edit you have introduced. RolandR (talk) 09:09, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- Stein's book is an RS, widely circulated and readily available. You can easily pick it up in your local library and if they don't have it, you can have them order it for you or you can buy it. Roland, you're not fooling anyone with these requests. The "I don't have the book and therefore it doesn't count" tactic is reprehensible. Your revert has resulted in the removal of multiple RS's simply because it doesn't conform to your POV. I suggest you self-revert, though judging by your past behavior, I know what to expect from you.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 19:53, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- Agreed, not a good basis for a revert. The source is reliable, well known and referenced often. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 20:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- We had a discussion that touched on this issue a while ago, the point there was that since leading Nazis were indicted in Nurenberg for these population transfers, it isn't quite correct to say that they were considered to be OK at the time. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:36, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- Roland, claiming that we all don't have a book in our library is not collaborative and quite POV/OR. --Shuki (talk) 20:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- Daily, your knee-jerk support for Roland's revert and POV push (which involved reversions of multiple Reliable sources) only serves to confirm that you haven't even bothered reading the discussion or edits, one of which involved supplying a source for a citation request.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:45, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- Roland, claiming that we all don't have a book in our library is not collaborative and quite POV/OR. --Shuki (talk) 20:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- We had a discussion that touched on this issue a while ago, the point there was that since leading Nazis were indicted in Nurenberg for these population transfers, it isn't quite correct to say that they were considered to be OK at the time. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:36, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- Agreed, not a good basis for a revert. The source is reliable, well known and referenced often. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 20:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Roland you state Since this is not a book that most of us possess. How do you know that most of us don't possess it? Did you do a canvass? Or conduct a poll? I don't possess Ilan Pappe's book nor do I possess anything written by Rahid Khalidi. Does that give me card blanche to revert? Absolutely not! I get off my butt and do some leg work and research.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:51, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- The guideline states: "If your source is not available online, it should be available in reputable libraries, archives, or collections. If a citation without an external link is challenged as unavailable, any of the following is sufficient to show the material to be reasonably available (though not necessarily reliable): providing an ISBN or OCLC number; linking to an established Misplaced Pages article about the source (the work, its author, or its publisher); or directly quoting the material on the talk page, briefly and in context." So there is nothing untoward or against policy in my requesting that you provide this info; it is you who have failed to meet the requirements. Considering that you have previously been accused of "misrepresenting sources", I would have thought that you would welcome the opportunity to cite a full reference, in order to remove any unfair suspicions. Certainly, whenever I have been requested to provide relevant text from a book which I have cited, in order to verify my interpretation, I have done so willingly, without uncivilly attacking other editors for making such a request. Please cite the text from Stein which backs up your apparently POV edits. RolandR (talk) 21:34, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- Jiujitsuguy, what I said was "it isn't quite correct to say that they were considered to be OK at the time", with "them" being forced population transfers, not that I completely support everything about RR's edit. Concerning the book, it's polite to temporarily upload a scanned page or type a snippet of text verbatim for the benefit of editors that don't have access to a source. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 21:12, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Daily, you say "undue weight" for a "theory" about well known and well sourced argument in the conflict? Trying to silence one side is not NPOV. The material is facual as refernced. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 21:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- Okay Roland, I will scan all the cited pages tonight (hopefully) and email them to you as attachments and you can see for yourself. Satisfied?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:43, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- Any of the following is sufficient to show the material to be reasonably available (though not necessarily reliable): providing an ISBN ISBN 978-0-7456-4466-0 --Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:48, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- And see also--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:53, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- This is an article about the Palestinian exodus, not Palestinian rhetoric. Proposing to include that text in the lead gives the reader the impression that someone's guilt and shame are so overbearing that they have to resort to saying someting like (an as ingenious as) "they did it too!". Now that I think about this, this is essentially about rhetoric voiced by some Palestinian leaders, which Zionist historians have interpreted in the way I described. Should we then include in the lead also rhetoric from Zionist leaders where they dwell on their plans to expel the Arabs? That is, after all, more relevant to the Palestinian exodus, i.e. this article. For the record, I support the longstanding version of the lead. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 21:56, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- Morris' criticism of Pappe is scathing and unforgiving. He basically calls the guy everything from dishonest to a sloppy historian. Other mainstream historians have concurred with this assessment. I read Morris (1948) from cover to cover. Nowhere in his book does he adopt anything close to what Pappe says occurred. According to Morris, there was no master plan of expulsion. There were instances of expulsion to be sure but many of these occurred during the heat of battle and in response to hostile actions and I intend to provide sourced examples. Pappe is Israel's harshest critic and he dismisses every Arab atrocity during the war while magnifying 100 fold alleged Israeli transgressions. The problem with this article is that it is predominated by Pappe and his ilk and balance needs to be restored.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 22:15, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- This is an article about the Palestinian exodus, not Palestinian rhetoric. Proposing to include that text in the lead gives the reader the impression that someone's guilt and shame are so overbearing that they have to resort to saying someting like (an as ingenious as) "they did it too!". Now that I think about this, this is essentially about rhetoric voiced by some Palestinian leaders, which Zionist historians have interpreted in the way I described. Should we then include in the lead also rhetoric from Zionist leaders where they dwell on their plans to expel the Arabs? That is, after all, more relevant to the Palestinian exodus, i.e. this article. For the record, I support the longstanding version of the lead. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 21:56, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- And see also--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:53, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- Any of the following is sufficient to show the material to be reasonably available (though not necessarily reliable): providing an ISBN ISBN 978-0-7456-4466-0 --Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:48, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- Okay Roland, I will scan all the cited pages tonight (hopefully) and email them to you as attachments and you can see for yourself. Satisfied?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:43, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
The Morris info balances the otherwise one sided view of the long standing lead version. No encyclopedia article is the property of its subject that only supportive information can be used in it. Articles on the settlements have been saturated with legal statements on the wider conflict in both the lead and body sections with bombastic titles and repetitive statements of illegality. Far more in proportion than this one sentence here. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 22:32, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- I could not agree more with Netzer. The settlement articles are rife with SYNTH and POV and violate a slew of Misplaced Pages policies. An alleged "consensus" was shoved down our throats when in fact, there was nothing even close to consensus. I fully intend to open a discussion on that matter when I have the time with the aim of restoring NPOV and complying with policy.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 22:50, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I quite gather what the relevance of Morris' criticism of Pappe is to this page, which again is about the Nakba. We already have statements to the effect that some historians don't agree with the ethnic cleansing idea. Morris' work for its part has been criticised as an attempt to whitewash the ethnic cleansing. We have statements from Zionist leaders saying the number of Arabs in the proposed Jewish state was unacceptable, and we have information of their plans to evict the Arabs to make the number more acceptable (=smaller), and we have the fact that a few hundred thousand had already been evicted before the 1948 war began, and we have the fact that the Arabs subsequently had their citizenship revoked and return to their homes denied, while Jewish people were granted "return". And now we have someone who thinks it's a good idea to put in the lead a claim that the Arabs were ethnically cleansing the area because some of them had made inflammatory comments! --Dailycare (talk) 10:28, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- As seen by many historians, the Nakba is exaggerated beyond compare in order to deflect attention from Arab nations' attempts for ethnic cleansing of the region prevalent in many declarations by dominant military and political leaders. It violates encyclopedic objectivity to omit this information on the basis of protecting the article's subject. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 12:51, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- Netzer, this material just plain doesn't belong in the lede. Material noting that certain historians rejected the accusation of ethnic cleansing is reasonable, but not stuff like this.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:06, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- Do you have some proof that ethnic cleansing idea is proponent one and not the other way around?--Shrike (talk) 19:02, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I have no idea what you are asking.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:31, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- Do you have some proof that ethnic cleansing idea is proponent one and not the other way around?--Shrike (talk) 19:02, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- Netzer, this material just plain doesn't belong in the lede. Material noting that certain historians rejected the accusation of ethnic cleansing is reasonable, but not stuff like this.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:06, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- As seen by many historians, the Nakba is exaggerated beyond compare in order to deflect attention from Arab nations' attempts for ethnic cleansing of the region prevalent in many declarations by dominant military and political leaders. It violates encyclopedic objectivity to omit this information on the basis of protecting the article's subject. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 12:51, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
It would be helpful to have relevant quotes from the source as a point of reference for this discussion. Beyond that, though, if there's an excessive reliance on Pappe in the article, as User:Jiujitsuguy's argued above, that's something that should be counterbalanced with other perspectives – e.g. Leslie Stein, if he's determined to be relevant in this context.—Biosketch (talk) 23:41, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- Would someone care to substantiate the claim about Pappe? -asad (talk) 00:01, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- Balancing the article by providing historians who disagree is a lot different from what is going on here. Throwing material into the lede to say "No, you are the ones who wanted ethnic cleaning!" is a basic case of WP:UNDUE. It has no relevance in this article except to cast aspersions on the other side. Even though the evidence for deliberate expulsion based on ethnicity is so obvious that Benny Morris' change of heart only involved justifying it as a necessary military response, it is at least argued by other significant historians that there was no deliberate expulsion at all so that is reasonable to mention more in the lede.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
If someone forwards the scan of the cited pages I will put them in google docs so everyone can see them. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:58, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
The contentious information is :
- Some historians have argued that if anyone was seeking the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, it was the Arabs who were seeking to ethnically cleanse the region of its Jewish population. They point toward the ever-increasing vitriolic rhetoric espoused by various Arab leaders and commanders in connection with their plans for the Jews of Palestine.
Source is wp:rs but more, this is not totally speculative. It is true that the wording could be neutralized : the sentence : if anyone was seeking the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, it was the Arabs is pejorative. Ethnic cleaning could also be replaced by exterminate. But the information that some historians argue (this part is important !) that Arab wanted to exterminate the Jews is true. Benny Morris in his last book 1948, Efraim Karsh in Palestine Betrayed, Zvi Elpeleg in his biography of the Mufti, Klaus-Michael Mallmann in Nazi Palestine argue this. To be perfectly NPoV, the arguments they use to justify this and the arguments given by others against this should be introduced too. Eg, Yoav Gelber wrote that it is speculative (and not scientific) to try to give the aims of the Arabs given we don't have access to Arab sources of the period ; Benny Morris support the idea that Islam is antisemite ; Karsh choses some quotes (and forget others) such as the fake Azzam one, ... 87.66.170.243 (talk) 10:13, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I already made such an edit for more neutral tone but that was also removed. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 13:19, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
- Since you say the source is reliable for this statement it means you can see the source. So, please quote the pertinent parts of the source on p73-74. Thanks. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
- There may be a misunderstanding. I don't have the source. I say this author and this book is WP:RS. I didn't WP:V this but that is another issue. I assume somebody did. If not, that must be removed of course. What I write is that what this author says is not nosense at all. To clarify : it is contentious to state that the Arabs wanted to exterminate the Jews in '48 but it is not contentious to state that some historians argue that. 91.180.49.186 (talk) 08:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- I think the violence the Arabs perpetrated against the Jews is relevant to mention in the article, although I don't know if it's one of the main points concerning the "exodus" and thus relevant to mention in the lead. It should be presented in context and comparison, for example to Jewish military organization that involved conscription, a large-scale arms buildup and central planning which were absent on the Arab side. Concerning the "debate" on whether ethnic cleansing took place, it's a bit academic in light of orders we have in writing from Ben Gurion instructing his forces to "cleanse" areas of Arabs. Sure, some people did publish saying that ethnic cleansing didn't take place and it's OK to mention that, but there isn't a real contest as to which is the predominant narrative. --Dailycare (talk) 12:59, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
- The one sentence in the lede that JJG inserted (with my edit that toned it down for neutrality) maintains the "predominant" version as only one sentence out of several paragraphs. The lede should be a summary of the entire picture, not so heavily weighed to one side as it is now. Arguments here seem more like being resistant to encyclopedic balance because some editors don't like hearing the other side. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 13:19, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
- No, what matters is whether the source supports the statement and whether the source is considered to be reliable. So, at the very least we need to see what the source says while the general discussion about the source continues at RSN. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
- The one sentence in the lede that JJG inserted (with my edit that toned it down for neutrality) maintains the "predominant" version as only one sentence out of several paragraphs. The lede should be a summary of the entire picture, not so heavily weighed to one side as it is now. Arguments here seem more like being resistant to encyclopedic balance because some editors don't like hearing the other side. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 13:19, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
- Agreed. But objections here were also about undue weight, which is the only issue my comment responded to. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 16:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
- What goes in the lead is also governed by WP:LEAD, in other words it should be one of the key points about the article. Making that one of the key points is undue. Mentining the Arab violence in the article body is OK along the lines above. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
- Agreed. But objections here were also about undue weight, which is the only issue my comment responded to. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 16:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
- Undue weight would be giving attention in the lede to an "I didn't do that, but you did" retort that, as far as I can tell, is not even included in the body of the article.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- All comments here above are right :
- about WP:V : that should be done. Of course. (But as I pointed out here above, we all know that as written, some historians argue -wrongly or not- that the Arab aims was to exterminate/destroy Yishuv. Others and sometimes the same also argue that Jews performed an ethnic cleaning.
- about WP:RS : it is obviously WP:RS even if this author is not well known
- about WP:UNDUE : I think this is undue:weight for the lede but not for the article.
- about WP:NPOV : that is not an easy work. It is not interesting and neutral to read that ThisAuthor claims That. It is more important to give his arguments to justify this claim.
- 91.180.49.186 (talk) 08:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- All comments here above are right :
<- Has anyone sent/received the scans of pages 73-74 in the source yet ? Sean.hoyland - talk 06:46, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Categories: