Nakba denial

[L-H]

Is Islamist propaganda covered by the Code of Conduct in any way?

[AndyTheGrump]

Is Islamist propaganda covered by the Code of Conduct in any way?

Should it be? Why should Islamist propaganda be treated any differently than any other?

[eppur si muove]

Is Islamist propaganda covered by the Code of Conduct in any way?

How does this question relate to the thread?

[nableezy]

My takeaway from the parts of the discussion that I read is that either the objections are justified, in which case the author(s) of the article should be permanently topic banned if not indeffed, or they are unjustified, in which case the people raising them should be permanently topic banned if not indeffed.

Im actually really interested in which of these you think is true.

[L-H]

Is Islamist propaganda covered by the Code of Conduct in any way?

How does this question relate to the thread?

The article in question would be a good example.

[nableezy]

Is Islamist propaganda covered by the Code of Conduct in any way?

How does this question relate to the thread?

The article in question would be a good example.

Do you know what the words "Islamist" and "propaganda" mean?

[ArmasRebane]

When it came up in the other thread and looking at it I ended up at the "it shouldn't be its own article" thing. The direct comparisons to Holocaust denial are I think a bit specious too, because it doesn't seem like the issue is people saying it didn't happen altogether (and if they are, it's only in the very specific framing of the Nakba.) The main article is less than 3000 words, it didn't need to be spun out, which just creates another front for people to fight POV wars from (and that standing advice goes for most similar disputes on Wikipedia.)

[eppur si muove]

Is Islamist propaganda covered by the Code of Conduct in any way?

How does this question relate to the thread?

The article in question would be a good example.

The use of the term "Nakba" to describe the mass movement of Palestinians in 1948 out of what became the State of Israel seems to have started with Constantin Zureiq (T-H-L), a Christian and an Arab nationalist. The use of the term "Nakba denial" seems to have started with Steve Niva who seems to be a white American and his name is not suggestive of his being Muslim, let alone Islamist. Some of the authors mentioned in the article have what look to be Muslim names but the New Historians get a mention too and they definitely are Jewish. So, which elements of the article are distinctively Islamist as opposed to things that Palestinian or Arab nationalists and those sympathetic to them or critical of Israel might say?

[Alalch Emis]

Is Islamist propaganda covered by the Code of Conduct in any way?

How does this question relate to the thread?

The article in question would be a good example.

I got a credit for this DYK and I wrote the hook. I'm not an Islamist. I had left some thoughts about the article in this comment: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... 1183403858

I really want to hear more from you about how the article is Islamist propaganda.

[Zoll]

After a lot of fighting including the article talk page, a deletion discussion, a NPOV discussion and a DYK discussion Nakba denial (T-H-L) is at DYK today:

... that Nakba denial (T-H-L) is a form of historical negationism pertaining to the 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight?

Aren't hooks supposed to be interesting? This hook is basically a definition, and the term "Nakba denial" is autological by itself.

The description of the article is also:

Historical negationism pertaining to the 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight and its effects

[rnu]

[...]
Aren't hooks supposed to be interesting? This hook is basically a definition, and the term "Nakba denial" is autological by itself.
[...]

They're also supposed to be true. With DYK boring but true is always a win.

[rnu]

OK, so this is kind of embarrassing. When I created this thread I remembered that the article had been mentioned here before and that I commented, but somehow I thought it was a few comments in a thread about some other Palestine/Israel issue. When I just used search I had to realize that not only is there an entire thread about the article, I started it.

[Zoloft]

OK, so this is kind of embarrassing. When I created this thread I remembered that the article had been mentioned here before and that I commented, but somehow I thought it was a few comments in a thread about some other Palestine/Israel issue. When I just used search I had to realize that not only is there an entire thread about the article, I started it.

Want me to merge the two topics (threads)?

[rnu]

OK, so this is kind of embarrassing. When I created this thread I remembered that the article had been mentioned here before and that I commented, but somehow I thought it was a few comments in a thread about some other Palestine/Israel issue. When I just used search I had to realize that not only is there an entire thread about the article, I started it.

Want me to merge the two topics (threads)?

I think that would make sense. Thanks!

[rnu]

My takeaway from the parts of the discussion that I read is that either the objections are justified, in which case the author(s) of the article should be permanently topic banned if not indeffed, or they are unjustified, in which case the people raising them should be permanently topic banned if not indeffed.

Im actually really interested in which of these you think is true.

I deliberately formulated it in the form of a Constructive dilemma (T-H-L). Because no matter which side is right, no rational good faith observer can look at the article and the surrounding discussions and not come to the conclusion that several people need to be removed from the topic area at an absolute minimum.
That being said, didn't I give it away with this?

If you don't know what Nakba denial is you can either read the article for a description or the comments by Marokwitz (T-C-L) and some others if you want to see it in practice.

I didn't read all of the discussions in their entirety, so I can't rule out that there are editors involved in the article or supportive of it in the discussions that should be (topic) banned, but there are definitely people on the attack side that need to be removed.
Now, as a German with an interest in history and historiography it's rather natural that this is the kind of thing where I have some background. E.g. I took a seminar about historiography of Nazi Germany at university (including topics like the uniqueness of the Holocaust/Shoah, historization of Nazi Germany, the Historikerstreit, the "clean Wehrmacht" myth, the discussion about intentionalism vs functionalism, etc.*)
It is completely compatible to acknowledge the Nakba and accept Israel. There is no good reason for Israelis to deny the Nakba. I am German, should I feel attacked by people talking about the Holocaust/Shoah? Of course not, not least of all because I was born long after the war. I had nothing to do with it, I couldn't.

In my experience there are three reasons why people deny past atrocities even if they themselves had nothing to do with them and don't have any good reason to deny them.
1. A mixture of extreme nationalism and a national inferiority complex (which is one of the sources of the nationalism). (I think examples of this are the right wings in Poland, Turkey and Serbia.)
2. An inability or unwillingness to take responsibility for past actions of a state or organization you are involved in. (The prime example is the Catholic Church.)
3. Support for the actions/events in the past and for continuing/repeating them in the present/future while realizing that openly admitting this would invoke backlash. (Examples are Holocaust deniers, US Republicans and right wing Zionists.)

* There are articles or article sections about all of these on enwiki, but I am not linking any because my experience is that articles on this topic area are biased and incredibly low quality. I didn't make it beyond the lead of the article on the Historikerstreit because I realized that the low quality of the article would piss me off and that if I kept reading I would have spent the rest of the month trying to clean up the mess almost certainly facing backlash by POV pushers.

[nableezy]

Because no matter which side is right, no rational good faith observer can look at the article and the surrounding discussions and not come to the conclusion that several people need to be removed from the topic area at an absolute minimum.

100%

That being said, didn't I give it away with this?

If you don't know what Nakba denial is you can either read the article for a description or the comments by Marokwitz (T-C-L) and some others if you want to see it in practice.

I didn't read all of the discussions in their entirety, so I can't rule out that there are editors involved in the article or supportive of it in the discussions that should be (topic) banned, but there are definitely people on the attack side that need to be removed.

Without getting too deep into the philosophical why is denialism a thing and instead going back to the overarching theme of this forum, Wikipedia and its faults, but I think this is where the focus on civility misses the mark. Marokwitz is undoubtedly a paragon of politeness and civility. He does not edit war, he does not get heated, he does not sock, he does not purposely misrepresent sources, and while I obviously have my own viewpoints and biases, and no doubt any number of people here and Wikipedia would say the same about me, but the way he edits is, again in my view, pernicious to the goals of Wikipedia. He is a model Wikipedian in all the behavioural policies, but he skews articles away from the balance of sources. He does it consistently, and he isnt even the worst. But because there is no way of demonstrating that in 500 words it is effectively completely unsanctionable. But being impolite in response to that is sanctionable.

Icewhiz was the same, I once tried to show how he would make opposing arguments depending on POV and it got a big fat nothing at AE. If you are polite you can be a propagandist is the rule for Wikipedia.

[rnu]

Because no matter which side is right, no rational good faith observer can look at the article and the surrounding discussions and not come to the conclusion that several people need to be removed from the topic area at an absolute minimum.

100%

That being said, didn't I give it away with this?

If you don't know what Nakba denial is you can either read the article for a description or the comments by Marokwitz (T-C-L) and some others if you want to see it in practice.

I didn't read all of the discussions in their entirety, so I can't rule out that there are editors involved in the article or supportive of it in the discussions that should be (topic) banned, but there are definitely people on the attack side that need to be removed.

Without getting too deep into the philosophical why is denialism a thing and instead going back to the overarching theme of this forum, Wikipedia and its faults, but I think this is where the focus on civility misses the mark. Marokwitz is undoubtedly a paragon of politeness and civility. He does not edit war, he does not get heated, he does not sock, he does not purposely misrepresent sources, and while I obviously have my own viewpoints and biases, and no doubt any number of people here and Wikipedia would say the same about me, but the way he edits is, again in my view, pernicious to the goals of Wikipedia. He is a model Wikipedian in all the behavioural policies, but he skews articles away from the balance of sources. He does it consistently, and he isnt even the worst. But because there is no way of demonstrating that in 500 words it is effectively completely unsanctionable. But being impolite in response to that is sanctionable.

Icewhiz was the same, I once tried to show how he would make opposing arguments depending on POV and it got a big fat nothing at AE. If you are polite you can be a propagandist is the rule for Wikipedia.

I think the "why" of denialism is relevant here, because the form that is at work here is by far the most pernicious and dangerous one because it (implicitly) endorses ongoing and future atrocities.
Btw. are you aware of User:Marokwitz/Muslim_Zionism (T-H-L)? It's been sitting in Marokwitz' userspace since 2010 "for draft purposes".