Talk:Nakba

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

More information Project Israel To Do:, This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: ...
Close

Core sources

Works marked with an asterisk (*) are already cited in this Wikipedia article.

21st-century "classics"

Highly-cited (100s of cites) 21st-century books by highly-cited authors (and more-recent works by those same authors):

General

21st-century academically-reviewed books:

21st-century well-cited academic papers/chapters:

Nakba in culture

21st-century academically-reviewed books:

21st-century well-cited academic papers/chapters:

Nakba and genocide studies

21st-century academically-reviewed books:

21st-century well-cited academic papers/chapters:

Nakba denial / Nakba memory

21st-century well-cited academic papers/chapters:

Discussion (core sources)

Additions/subtractions? Levivich (talk) 03:15, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi Levivich, happy to add here - could you explain the objective? There are many more relevant books in the article bibliography, and in google books. Not to mention the various sources in Arabic (e.g. Ma'na an-Nakba). Onceinawhile (talk) 17:01, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
The objective is to identify the major books about Nakba -- the "best" sources. I had missed two books already in the article, which I just added to this list, but I think at this point all the books in the article are on this list. Did I miss any others? In addition to those, there are, listed above, books that should be cited in the article, but aren't. Are there any others? The article relies too much on not-the-best sources: newspaper articles, kind-of-obscure journal papers, etc., which can and ought to be replaced with better sources, like the major books by major scholars in the field. No doubt there are foreign-language books about Nakba as well, but I've only looked at English books. Levivich (talk) 18:14, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
In that case, your list - prioritizing Pappe and Morris - is incorrectly weighted. They are absolutely core to the 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight, which is the story of what the Israelis did to the Palestinians. But the Nakba is a wider topic, about the overall Palestinian collective trauma.
I can bring more sources, but we should iron this difference out first.
Onceinawhile (talk) 20:27, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
I didn't really intend this list to be weighted, except that the "classics" have like 10x or 100x the citations of other books on the list, so I separated them, and then I looked for any more-recent books by the same authors about Palestine, so we can see what if anything they changed or added in their writing about Nakba since they wrote their "classics." The classics, like all classics, are widely-cited, but relatively old. That's why I think it's important to look at newer sources and not just the classics.
I don't necessarily think classics should be given more weight than newer sources. In instances where newer sources say something different than the classics, we need to pay attention to that. We need to determine if the mainstream scholarly views have changed, or if new significant minority views have emerged, or what. One example: did Nakba start and end in 1948, or did it begin before 48, and/or continue after 48? My sense that scholarship has moved on those questions since Pappe 2006 and Masalha 2012, and I'd be keen on looking at how more recent sources describe the timeline of Nakba (and also what Pappe and Masalha have said in more recent writings on the topic, including papers and not just books).
I'm not entirely sure how to handle Morris. My gut instinct is that Morris represents a significant minority view on Nakba (or maybe more specifically, the causes of the Nakba). I see that other scholars discuss Morris's views, particularly in relation to Pappe's, and both Morris and Pappe discuss each other's views, and the Wikipedia article mentions them already. I was going to see how the most recent scholarship handled Morris. It may be one of those cases where Morris is talked about in the article more than used as a source for the article (and maybe same with Pappe).
For now, though, I'm just looking to collect the most in-depth, widely-cited, reputable works about Nakba... i.e., books by scholars reviewed in some academic journal, the more citations the better. That could obviously be expanded to book chapters and journal articles, but I think books is a good place to start because they will have the most depth. Levivich (talk) 21:03, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
You could retitle the "classics" as "highly cited" instead, if people object? It's not a huge issue, and I realise I'm about a year late, but wanted to offer a solution if needed. Lewisguile (talk) 18:48, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
I added some papers that had decent cite counts, reorganized the list by topic, and clarified inclusion criteria. Levivich (talk) 16:08, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Outline

More information Outline ...
Close

Discussion (outline)

A work in progress, but thoughts? Levivich (talk) 22:01, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

👍 Like nableezy - 23:19, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
The current structure is nothing to particularly write home about, so yeah, like. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:49, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
Hired. ) Selfstudier (talk) 12:02, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
Thanks! Levivich (talk) 01:14, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm adding to the outline links to other articles, and sub-topics (where I'm not aware of an article to link), that I think are WP:DUE per the sources listed in each outline section. Please speak up if you think anything should be added or removed. Also, as the outline will be changing, just note that folks' approval/disapproval at any given point in time may no longer apply to a later, changed version of the outline. Levivich (talk) 01:14, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I think this outline is missing coverage of notable opposing narratives, namely the Israeli national narrative which is currently covered in the section 'Opposition to the notion of Nakba'. Marokwitz (talk) 10:46, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
I expect that'll be covered in historiography and memory section; I haven't gotten to expanding those parts of the outline yet (and probably won't for a while, still on the history section right now). Levivich (talk) 22:45, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I've added article links to the history section in the outline above. If anyone thinks there are other articles that should be linked in the history section of the Nakba article, or that we shouldn't be linking to something that is listed in the outline, please let me know. Levivich (talk) 20:53, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I've added a very small bare-bones start to the History section of the article, and struck through the links on the outline that are now in the article. My plan is to expand the history section until all the links in the outline are in the article, then move on to the other sections. I may move some links to other parts of the outline and reorganize the outline a bit as I go. Levivich (talk) 05:59, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Casualties

Casualties doesn’t just mean deaths it also includes injured, captured and missing. Salvation Front (talk) 15:28, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

See WP:EDITXY for how to write an edit request. Sean.hoyland (talk) 15:40, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

BIOLOGICAL WARFARE!

The links to supposed biological warfare are flimsy. For example, a controversial historian citing a company commander after his death, or a field execution of four Israeli soldiers by the Egyptian army.

So it's undue to try to sneak "ISRAEL WAS DOING WARCRIME BIOLOGICAL WARFARE" in, especially without explanation. I'm not opposed to mentioning it, but this page already suffers from sensationalism.ItsRainingCatsAndDogsAndMen (talk) 02:58, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

What exactly would you like to see changed? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 06:41, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
"Israel began engaging in biological warfare in April and poisoned the water supplies of certain towns and villages. In May, one such operation caused a typhoid epidemic in Acre; the Egyptians foiled another attempt in Gaza."
According to the sources, that's speculation. The Egyptian "foiled attempt" was them capturing four Israeli soldiers and giving them a show trial. Acre did have a (according to the sources) minor typhoid outbreak but there is no proof Israel did it. What is proven is that Israel was researching biological weapons, both for offense and defense (Egypt and Iraq have both used biological weapons in war, and Syria is suspected to have).
Some people are convinced Syria used chemical weapons, but all we know for sure is that Syria had them. Same is true for Israel. So the above sentence should be removed. It doesn't seem worthwhile to mention a program that had no significant affect on the war or the Nakba.ItsRainingCatsAndDogsAndMen (talk) 09:39, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Your summary is not correct. Morris and Kedar proved the reality of these events with documents from the Israeli archives and interviews with participants. Not just speculation. Zerotalk 10:32, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
From the Morris/Kedar study.
"Interview with Dr Uri Milstein, 2020, who had interviewed Pundaq sometime in the 1980s. According to Milstein, Pundaq took him to the spot near Kabri where he had poured the bacteria into the water channel after he had received them from Dayan. In his memoirs, Shuʿal Qeravot, 1919–2005 [The warrior fox, 1919–2005], ed. E. Stark (n.p., 2006), Pundaq does not mention the incident. Interviewed in 1993 by Sarah Leibowitz-Dar, he angrily responded: ‘Why are you looking now for problems relating to forty-five years ago. I never did any such thing in my life. I do not know anything about this. What will you gain by publishing this even if it …’ and at this point, mid-sentence, he clammed up."
So it's based on one guy's claim about another guy's claim, who denied the first guy's claim. That's flimsy. Morris and Kedar make note of it, as they also do the Egyptian show trial. Them mentioning it doesn't mean they are certain its true.
The article about the research program (that's the part that's proven) should note these rumors, but I don't see why the Nakba article should mention it.ItsRainingCatsAndDogsAndMen (talk) 07:37, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Also, I don't think Moshe Dayan was even there. Why would a general go give a secret weapon to a lowly captain in a different unit in a different part of the conflict?ItsRainingCatsAndDogsAndMen (talk) 10:00, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
On Wikipedia we follow the sources. We don't try to second-guess them or do our own analysis of them. Especially not by selecting a little of what they wrote and ignoring the rest. M&K cite many official documents that the bacteria were delivered at various locations, and their interpretation of the evidence is what matters for us. Zerotalk 10:31, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
There is a whole article on the subject listing several high quality, reliable sources: Operation Cast Thy Bread. Its well established history. Tiamut (talk) 10:43, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
You need to read the Morris/Kedar article in its entirety. All Israeli documents are about the research program, which had both offensive and defensive parts (it was known at the time Egypt and Syria had nerve gas). There is nothing beyond hearsay about their use. M/K mention the Milstein claim and how it is denied by the officer who supposedly said it. See the quote from the notes of the M/K article that I quoted above.
There were British and UN investigations of the typhoid outbreak in Acre and both of them specifically said they found no evidence of biological weapons.ItsRainingCatsAndDogsAndMen (talk) 11:47, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
It's you who needs to read more carefully.

On 17 May the Negev Brigade reported: ‘A Cast Thy Bread operation was carried out south of Halsa [Halutza]’. On 9 June the brigade reported that its 8th Battalion had carried out ‘a Cast thy Bread operation in the Beersheba area’. Two days later, Sarig reported that Cast Thy Bread ‘operations’ had successfully been carried out in the Beersheba area.

All of these actual operations are cited to original Israeli military reports. And that's just a fraction of the evidence. But you need to reread my previous comment, which is straight-up Wikipedia policy. You aren't going to convince anyone to violate that policy so you should drop the stick. Zerotalk 01:05, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
I won't reply here any more, go to the other talk page. Zerotalk 01:13, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Etymology

Although the translation is given, this page would benefit from a recounting of the term's usage: who coined it for this use, when/how it was popularized, etc. This is what I came to the page to find out, and was surprised it wasn't here. Le dragon (talk) 16:59, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

You should try: Webman, Esther (2009). "The Evolution of a Founding Myth: The Nakba and Its Fluctuating Meaning". In Litvak, M. (ed.). Palestinian Collective Memory and National Identity. WPLibrary link and not be surprised at all that you did not find what you are looking for here. fiveby(zero) 18:14, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
Worth being aware of Esther Webman's positionality as it concerns this topic area. إيان (talk) 20:55, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
@إيان:, re: [your etymology edit, did you see the existing Nakba#Terminology section? fiveby(zero) 22:09, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
My bad! Usually terminology sections precede other sections. إيان (talk) 22:12, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
I've synthesized the two sections and brought up the terminology section, which is usually at the beginning of an article. إيان (talk) 22:17, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 March 2026

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Request for NPOV Adjustments regarding Indigenous Presence and Arab Aggression

I would like to suggest the following edits to ensure a more neutral and historically comprehensive perspective:

1. **Regarding Jewish Indigeneity:** Change "The Jewish community grew through immigration" to "The conflict involved the **indigenous Jewish population**, which had maintained a **continuous, 3,000-year presence** in the land, alongside returning refugees."

  • Reasoning: Omitting the continuous presence of the "Old Yishuv" (Jerusalem, Hebron, Safed) frames the population as entirely external, which is historically inaccurate.

2. **Regarding Pre-1948 Persecution:** Add context about the **1929 Hebron Massacre** and **Dhimmi status**.

  • Reasoning: Jewish defense in 1948 was a response to a long history of second-class status and local ethnic violence, not an unprovoked movement.

3. **Regarding the 1948 Invasion Intent:** Note that the Arab League's goal was publicly stated as **extermination**.

  • Source: Secretary-General Azzam Pasha's 1948 declaration: "This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre."

4. **Regarding the "Population Swap":** Add that the displacement of 700,000 Palestinians occurred alongside the **expulsion of 850,000 Jews** from Arab lands.

  • Reasoning: This provides the full demographic context of the 1948 war as a regional population displacement rather than a localized one.

~2026-16493-38 (talk) 07:02, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Not done. These are controversial and complex changes without any sources cited. A few of them are also absurd such as the first request that we remove mention of Jewish/Zionist immigration. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 08:11, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
"I appreciate your feedback on the complexity of these topics. To address the lack of citations, I am proposing specific, high-quality academic sources (WP:RS) to bring the article into NPOV balance:
Indigenous Presence: According to Sachar (2007, ISBN: 978-0375711329), the Jewish population included an indigenous 'Old Yishuv' that pre-dated modern immigration. I suggest adding this for demographic accuracy.
Context of Conflict: To understand the motivations of 1948, we should include the history of inter-communal violence (e.g., the 1929 Hebron Massacre) and the existential rhetoric of the Arab League (Azzam Pasha, 1948), as documented in Morris (2008, ISBN: 978-0300151121, p. 187).
Regional Displacement: Per WP:BALANCE, the displacement of Palestinians should be contextualized alongside the displacement of 850,000 Jews from Arab lands (Shulewitz, 1999, ISBN: 978-0304700783).
These edits do not remove the history of immigration but provide the necessary regional and indigenous context required for a neutral encyclopedic entry." ~2026-16644-41 (talk) 17:20, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
These proposed changes would need discussion and consensus. This is not appropriate for an edit request. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 18:11, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI