Nakba denial

[rnu]

Nakba denial (T-H-L) was created by Iskandar323 (T-C-L) at 11:34.
It was tagged for POV by Ad Orientem (T-C-L) at 14:27.
It was tagged for notability by Horse Eye's Back (T-C-L) at 15:31.

[FelinaLavandula]

I’ve been pretty plugged in to the Palestinian liberation movement for a long time and I’ve never heard this phrase before…

[rnu]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... kba_denial

[Midsize Jake]

I'm guessing they'll have to call it "Nakba revisionism" or "Nakba distortionism" before the pro-Netanyahu Wikipedians would even consider letting something like this go unchallenged.

Just to drop a bit of tangential ancient history somewhere, there's a historian, Tom Holland (author) (T-H-L), who (along with a few other modern historians) has suggested that if we look at the Romans' war against Judea and subsequent administrative creation of Palestine during the Flavian dynasty in a more accurate context, we can conclude that much of what we're seeing even to this day can ultimately be blamed on Emperor Nero's personal vanity.

When Nero went to Greece in 67 CE in order to compete in the Olympic Games and various other competitions, all of which were rigged for him to win, he was so pleased with the experience he exempted all of Greece from Roman taxes. In order to make up the huge shortfall that created, Imperial provincial governors raised taxes everywhere else, but especially in Judea because the Judeans didn't accept the Roman pantheon and therefore didn't tithe to any pagan gods. That made them unpopular with the Romans, and therefore, easy targets.

Holland claims that the Judeo-Roman wars that followed had relatively little to with religious persecution beyond that, and instead were little more than a well-organized and widespread tax revolt against the Empire, which led to the defeat of the Judeans and an attempted genocide against them (at least by the modern definition). But unlike the Carthaginians before them, the Jews didn't simply disappear, because their national identity was wrapped up in a religion that had scriptures and rituals and various other things that gave them an ethnic cohesion the Carthaginians lacked, and which couldn't be eliminated by military conquest and administrative cruelty alone.

Anyway, I just thought that was interesting.

[eppur si muove]

There were already more Jews living outside Judea than inside it by the time that Jesus. Babylon and Egypt were major centres of Jewish culture.

[Lyallpuri]

I'm guessing they'll have to call it "Nakba revisionism" or "Nakba distortionism" before the pro-Netanyahu Wikipedians would even consider letting something like this go unchallenged.

Just to drop a bit of tangential ancient history somewhere, there's a historian, Tom Holland (author) (T-H-L), who (along with a few other modern historians) has suggested that if we look at the Romans' war against Judea and subsequent administrative creation of Palestine during the Flavian dynasty in a more accurate context, we can conclude that much of what we're seeing even to this day can ultimately be blamed on Emperor Nero's personal vanity.

When Nero went to Greece in 67 CE in order to compete in the Olympic Games and various other competitions, all of which were rigged for him to win, he was so pleased with the experience he exempted all of Greece from Roman taxes. In order to make up the huge shortfall that created, Imperial provincial governors raised taxes everywhere else, but especially in Judea because the Judeans didn't accept the Roman pantheon and therefore didn't tithe to any pagan gods. That made them unpopular with the Romans, and therefore, easy targets.

Holland claims that the Judeo-Roman wars that followed had relatively little to with religious persecution beyond that, and instead were little more than a well-organized and widespread tax revolt against the Empire, which led to the defeat of the Judeans and an attempted genocide against them (at least by the modern definition). But unlike the Carthaginians before them, the Jews didn't simply disappear, because their national identity was wrapped up in a religion that had scriptures and rituals and various other things that gave them an ethnic cohesion the Carthaginians lacked, and which couldn't be eliminated by military conquest and administrative cruelty alone.

Anyway, I just thought that was interesting.

I suppose one could also argue that the ancient split between Proto-Dené-Yeneseian speakers in eastern Siberia, such that one group migrated across the Bering Strait to form the Athabaskan peoples of North America while the other returned to central and western Siberia, has a lot to do with most (if not all) of the conflicts in the contemporary Muslim world, but that would be almost equally useless (no offense) in terms of the ability to actually use the information towards a better understanding of the situation.

[orangepi]

I can't remember seeing POV-pushing this blatant on Wikipedia ever (outside of "trans issues").

This Nur Masalha (T-H-L) character does not seem like an authoritative figure for a bold claim in Wikipedia-voice like "The denial of the Nakba is central to Zionist narratives of 1948". But, since he has been published in Japan, the POV-pushers have declared him infallible.

[Midsize Jake]

...that would be almost equally useless (no offense) in terms of the ability to actually use the information towards a better understanding of the situation.

It wouldn't be to improve people's understanding of the situation, but rather to get a few of them to think about how easily just one hyper-narcissistic and vainglorious fool, placed in a position of sufficient power, can kick off a conflict lasting millennia — for no good reason at all. Ideally, those few might be led to wonder if maybe they're being just as foolish themselves for continuing the conflict.

Obviously that sort of thing never helps much in practice, because a "few" aren't enough to cause a decisive shift in a large-scale conflict. Maybe it's worth trying anyway since it doesn't really cost anything, but as you've implied, it's mostly just a way for armchair-historian types like myself to needlessly pontificate.

[eppur si muove]

I can't remember seeing POV-pushing this blatant on Wikipedia ever (outside of "trans issues").

This Nur Masalha (T-H-L) character does not seem like an authoritative figure for a bold claim in Wikipedia-voice like "The denial of the Nakba is central to Zionist narratives of 1948". But, since he has been published in Japan, the POV-pushers have declared him infallible.

This level of half truth POV-pushing should really be confined to Wikipedia. "[P]ublished in Japan"?!?. He's published by Bloomsbury and in assorted peer-review journals. He's a (semi-retired) senior academic who has had positions at SOAS and elsewhere.

[FelinaLavandula]

So what do you guys think? I think some elements might be mergeable to Nakba (T-H-L), but DIYeditor (T-C-L) threatened to take Iskandar323 (T-C-L) to ANI over this so maybe we’ll get an indef or two before the content dispute is settled.

[FelinaLavandula]

Now at AfD (no votes yet):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... kba_denial

[utbc]

Pretty unanimous deletes so far. And unsurprising rationales.

Am I completely misremembering, or did Levivich once upon a time make a big deal of it when some suggested he had a POV about Israel-Palestine?

[Boing! said Zebedee]

Am I completely misremembering, or did Levivich once upon a time make a big deal of it when some suggested he had a POV about Israel-Palestine?

He got very upset when I once suggested he had.

[eppur si muove]

Am I completely misremembering, or did Levivich once upon a time make a big deal of it when some suggested he had a POV about Israel-Palestine?

He got very upset when I once suggested he had.

It's one of those irregular verbs.

• I'm fixing Wikipedia,
• You keep trying to right great wrongs on the internet [sighs and shakes head despairingly].
• They're a POV-pusher.

[rnu]

Is anyone familiar with Marokwitz (T-C-L)? I'm trying to figure out whether he is a dishonest POV pusher or completely delusional.

Delete. The 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 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.

Let's be clear: 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) 14:20, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

[Midsize Jake]

Is anyone familiar with Marokwitz (T-C-L)? I'm trying to figure out whether he is a dishonest POV pusher or completely delusional.

Based on his contributions history, I'd say it's pretty clear that he/she (though let's face it, it's almost certainly "he") is from Israel, and that his neutrality regarding the current situation is dubious at best. But to be fair, "dishonest" isn't usually the right word when the person really believes what they're writing or saying. So I'd probably take the compromise route and call him a "completely delusional POV pusher."

[nableezy]

I can't remember seeing POV-pushing this blatant on Wikipedia ever (outside of "trans issues").

This Nur Masalha (T-H-L) character does not seem like an authoritative figure for a bold claim in Wikipedia-voice like "The denial of the Nakba is central to Zionist narratives of 1948". But, since he has been published in Japan, the POV-pushers have declared him infallible.

This level of half truth POV-pushing should really be confined to Wikipedia. "[P]ublished in Japan"?!?. He's published by Bloomsbury and in assorted peer-review journals. He's a (semi-retired) senior academic who has had positions at SOAS and elsewhere.

It’s just another in a line of attempts to completely remove Palestinian voices. It’s not enough there are barely any Palestinians editors, none of whom edit in the conflict topic area, it’s not enough that there are rarely any Palestinian sources used, we can’t even use the former editor of Holy Land Studies (Edinburgh University Press), his name sounds funny to me so let’s pretend he has no expertise. And using him is so obviously POV pushing that it doesn’t even need to be explained.

[tarantino]

Is anyone familiar with Marokwitz (T-C-L)

Marokwitz is also known as Gilabrand (T-C-L), although I don't think he's told anyone that.

[nableezy]

Marokwitz is also known as Gilabrand (T-C-L), although I don't think he's told anyone that.

That would seriously surprise me but I can’t say I remember you being wrong so that would likewise surprise me.

[tarantino]

Files that both accounts have uploaded have the same real name in the EXIF data. He's also created and edited articles for companies he's worked for with both accounts.

Edit to add: He also worked for Unit 8200 (T-H-L).

[Alalch Emis]

meanwhile at nakba... diff

[Zoll]

Every day, I wake up, and every day Wikipedia just keeps getting absurder.

[orangepi]

The bait-and-switch between "Nakba denial is the refusal to promote the narrative of Palestinian scholars" and "Nakba denial is the claim that no Palestinians ever lived in Israel" is quite rich in ideology.

The bait-and-switch between "Scholars discuss this as a topic so we must cover it" and "Scholars discuss this as a topic so we must treat their POV as the whole truth" is quite rich in violating NPOV policy.

But when it's about ideology, there's no point going in to more detail, is there?

[orangepi]

Also, considering that the Nakba (T-H-L) article has two sections entitled "Opposition to the notion of Nakba in Israel" and "Nakba denial" (and is only 54kB including references), is there any honest argument that this "has" to be a separate article due to content size?

[Alalch Emis]

That's what I'm arguing in the AfD, but it's more interesting to talk about the POV stuff.

[nableezy]

The bait-and-switch between "Nakba denial is the refusal to promote the narrative of Palestinian scholars" and "Nakba denial is the claim that no Palestinians ever lived in Israel" is quite rich in ideology.

The bait-and-switch between "Scholars discuss this as a topic so we must cover it" and "Scholars discuss this as a topic so we must treat their POV as the whole truth" is quite rich in violating NPOV policy.

But when it's about ideology, there's no point going in to more detail, is there?

First you just straight up lie about a source, now you are lying about the argument made by others? If the article is lacking other perspectives people should add them.

[orangepi]

The bait-and-switch between "Nakba denial is the refusal to promote the narrative of Palestinian scholars" and "Nakba denial is the claim that no Palestinians ever lived in Israel" is quite rich in ideology.

The bait-and-switch between "Scholars discuss this as a topic so we must cover it" and "Scholars discuss this as a topic so we must treat their POV as the whole truth" is quite rich in violating NPOV policy.

But when it's about ideology, there's no point going in to more detail, is there?

First you just straight up lie about a source, now you are lying about the argument made by others? If the article is lacking other perspectives people should add them.

As I said, no point going into detail with people like you.

[nableezy]

As I said, no point going into detail with people like you.

I assume you mean honest people who don’t make it a habit to lie, especially on things that are exceedingly easy to prove as lies. Toodles

[Alalch Emis]

Meanwhile at the "Nakba denial and Sol Stern on the Nakba" article: diff

[AndyTheGrump]

Meanwhile at the "Nakba denial and Sol Stern on the Nakba" article: diff

Oh joy. Victim blaming at its very finest...

[FelinaLavandula]

Not to mention a ridiculous UNDUE problem.

[AndyTheGrump]

How about we sing a Psalm, to lighten the mood...

By the rivers of Babylon we sat and wept
when we remembered Zion.
There on the poplars
we hung our harps,
for there our captors asked us for songs,
our tormentors demanded songs of joy;
they said, “Sing us one of the songs of Zion!”

How can we sing the songs of the Lord
while in a foreign land?
If I forget you, Jerusalem,
may my right hand forget its skill.
May my tongue cling to the roof of my mouth
if I do not remember you,
if I do not consider Jerusalem
my highest joy.

Remember, Lord, what the Edomites did
on the day Jerusalem fell.
“Tear it down,” they cried,
“tear it down to its foundations!”
Daughter Babylon, doomed to destruction,
happy is the one who repays you
according to what you have done to us.
Happy is the one who seizes your infants
and dashes them against the rocks.

[spp]

Is anyone familiar with Marokwitz (T-C-L)

Marokwitz is also known as Gilabrand (T-C-L), although I don't think he's told anyone that.

And Gilabrand was just indeffed for breaching their topic ban.

[orangepi]

The Nakba denial article now starts with one of those compromise sentences only Wikipedians could love: "According to some historians and academics, there exists a form of historical negationism that pertains to the 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight."

The rest of the article now reads less like a polemic and more like a literature review. Which still shouldn't be a stand-alone Wikipedia article, but consensus won't be with me.

[Alalch Emis]

I wrote that sentence!

[rnu]

The rest of the article now reads [...] like a literature review.

That's neutrality Wikipedia style.

[Hemiauchenia]

Another new article (though arguably significantly worse): Nazism in Palestinian society (T-H-L), written almost entirely by a non ECP editor, and then moved into mainspace by an editor who gamed their ECP.

[Midsize Jake]

Another new article (though arguably significantly worse): Nazism in Palestinian society (T-H-L), written almost entirely by a non ECP editor, and then moved into mainspace by an editor who gamed their ECP.

Yikes, that's pretty bad, even by Wikipedia standards. Thankfully it looks like Mr. Radish moved it back though, so hopefully the world is safe for another day or two.

[Hemiauchenia]

Another new article (though arguably significantly worse): Nazism in Palestinian society (T-H-L), written almost entirely by a non ECP editor, and then moved into mainspace by an editor who gamed their ECP.

Yikes, that's pretty bad, even by Wikipedia standards. Thankfully it looks like Mr. Radish moved it back though, so hopefully the world is safe for another day or two.

Tamzin has now deleted the draft, so all of the supposed "Palestinian Nazis" can rest easy that they aren't going to be exposed.

[Paragon Deku]

The bait-and-switch between "Nakba denial is the refusal to promote the narrative of Palestinian scholars" and "Nakba denial is the claim that no Palestinians ever lived in Israel" is quite rich in ideology.

The bait-and-switch between "Scholars discuss this as a topic so we must cover it" and "Scholars discuss this as a topic so we must treat their POV as the whole truth" is quite rich in violating NPOV policy.

But when it's about ideology, there's no point going in to more detail, is there?

First you just straight up lie about a source, now you are lying about the argument made by others? If the article is lacking other perspectives people should add them.

As I said, no point going into detail with people like you.

Woof.

[Zoloft]

Another new article (though arguably significantly worse): Nazism in Palestinian society (T-H-L), written almost entirely by a non ECP editor, and then moved into mainspace by an editor who gamed their ECP.

Yikes, that's pretty bad, even by Wikipedia standards. Thankfully it looks like Mr. Radish moved it back though, so hopefully the world is safe for another day or two.

Tamzin has now deleted the draft, so all of the supposed "Palestinian Nazis" can rest easy that they aren't going to be exposed.

Give it a few more years of 'the community' being alienated from the WMF and we'll be running Wikipedia from this forum (which I would like to state is NOT one of its goals).

[Vigilant]

Another new article (though arguably significantly worse): Nazism in Palestinian society (T-H-L), written almost entirely by a non ECP editor, and then moved into mainspace by an editor who gamed their ECP.

Yikes, that's pretty bad, even by Wikipedia standards. Thankfully it looks like Mr. Radish moved it back though, so hopefully the world is safe for another day or two.

Tamzin has now deleted the draft, so all of the supposed "Palestinian Nazis" can rest easy that they aren't going to be exposed.

Give it a few more years of 'the community' being alienated from the WMF and we'll be running Wikipedia from this forum (which I would like to state is NOT one of its goals).

I will be a merciful deity!

[L-H]

The sources of this so-called article are ridiculous and i must presume that it was written by people who would be inconvenienced by blowing themselfes up.

[Midsize Jake]

The sources of this so-called article are ridiculous and i must presume that it was written by people who would be inconvenienced by blowing themselfes up.

Sure, and I do agree that some of the sources are highly questionable... but as far as the writers are concerned, when you think about it, you're describing the vast majority of people, no? Unless you meant to type "would not be inconvenienced" there, in which case you could conceivably be accused of "Islamophobia."

Anyway, based on voting activity during the last 2 days, it looks like they'll probably keep the Nakba Denial (T-H-L) article, possibly based on a "no consensus" close or whatever-they-call-it. Whether that ends up being good or bad remains to be seen — I suspect that if the Israelis do launch their threatened (promised?) ground assault on Gaza, there will probably be an uptick in pro-Palestinian sympathy, even in the United States — and articles like this might be linked to and read quite a bit more than they would be otherwise. Then again, it's Wikipedia, and it doesn't involve pop culture, so it's hard to say if anyone will care one way or the other.

[Zoll]

The sources of this so-called article are ridiculous and i must presume that it was written by people who would be inconvenienced by blowing themselfes up.

Sure, and I do agree that some of the sources are highly questionable... but as far as the writers are concerned, when you think about it, you're describing the vast majority of people, no? Unless you meant to type "would not be inconvenienced" there, in which case you could conceivably be accused of "Islamophobia."

Anyway, based on voting activity during the last 2 days, it looks like they'll probably keep the Nakba Denial (T-H-L) article, possibly based on a "no consensus" close or whatever-they-call-it. Whether that ends up being good or bad remains to be seen — I suspect that if the Israelis do launch their threatened (promised?) ground assault on Gaza, there will probably be an uptick in pro-Palestinian sympathy, even in the United States — and articles like this might be linked to and read quite a bit more than they would be otherwise. Then again, it's Wikipedia, and it doesn't involve pop culture, so it's hard to say if anyone will care one way or the other.

Non consensus, who would've guessed?

[Midsize Jake]

Non consensus, who would've guessed?

To be fair, current voting is something like 31/11/3, so it's more than two-thirds in favor of keeping it, which is "right on the cusp," if I'm not mistaken. And if the term "Nakba denial" gets used more heavily (especially in the media), then the dicey-sourcing situation should improve over time, even if the article itself ends up being a continual "battleground" in the WP-editing sense.

Also, it looks like most of the obvious typos and grammatical errors have been fixed, leaving them with just the newly-added ones to deal with — right now they've got "...not culpable insofar it did..." in there, and "alongside works, such as" and this sentence, which has at least one-too-many commas as well as what's almost certainly a (rather confusing) typo:

Katz, a postgraduate researcher, was sued by the Alexandroni Brigade, and, in the ensuing legal tussle, half of this legal defense urged him to defend his work and bring forward Palestinian witnesses to speak about the massacre.

Assuming that's supposed to read "his legal defense," what was the other half of his legal defense doing? Do they mean his legal defense team, or his legal defense "strategy," or what? We don't know. And then there's Lisa Strömbom, who is described as a capital-P "Political scientist," which I guess is better than just being a mere political scientist. And so on. But again, to be fair, these kinds of errors are typical in newly-created, high-traffic Wikipedia articles. Also, all other Wikipedia articles.

[nableezy]

Closed as keep, not even no consensus. Given that at the end all the delete votes were basically "This isnt true and I dont care how many sources say it is", makes sense.

[rnu]

Delete. Nakba denial is not really a thing. The 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight are real, as are the debates around that. Often supporters of Israel put an accent on the flight, and discount the expulsion. Supporters of the Palestinian people often the other way around. It's a debate and in the extreme historical revisionism. Centered on the expulsion and flight, i.e the root article. Nakba is already subjective: how the Palestinians experienced these events and carry (these) on since. Still worthy of an article. The idea behind Nakba denial is an effort at Holocaust relativization through false equivalency. It can be and is already mentioned in the Nakba article that isn't very long. The substential debate and narratives are already mentioned under 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight#Palestinian and Israeli narratives. gidonb (talk) 00:01, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
(Emphasis added)

I don't think Gidonb (T-C-L) knows what "denial" means.

[rnu]

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?

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.
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.

I made a new thread instead of posting this at CFdJ - Clusterfucque du jour because this could lead to a longer discussion that would derail that thread. If that doesn't happen it can be moved there.

[Snooper]

Tribalism is the original sin for mankind. Everything else stems from that. It's used to attack Jews just as it's used to defend the nastier parts of mid-century real-politik like the Nakba, which I don't think was intended to be a genocide but had the ultimate effect of one, the systematic destruction of a culture.

The fact that we can't all agree on a baseline of shared understanding is probably the most depressing part. People get so wrapped up by which side they're on.