Jump to content

Talk:1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Fiveby (talk | contribs) at 16:13, 14 September 2024 (→No). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Denialism present in article

It seems that there is some Nakba denial present in this article which does not belong.

Specifically:

1. At the beginning of a paragraph about depopulated Palestinian settlements, there is the sentence: "Yoav Gelber wrote that the Arab Liberation Army embarked on a systematic evacuation of non-combatants from several frontier villages in order to turn them into military strongholds." This is WP:FRINGE and undue for inclusion. Gelber is an Old Historian (in contrast with the New Historians and of the work cited, Palestine 1948: War, Escape, and the Emergence of the Palestinian Refugee Problem (2001/2006[2nd edition]), I looked for reviews and found one [here https://www-cambridge-org.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/16849DA444A9A17EF768C33919FE897C/stamped-S0020743802004075a.pdf/yoav-gelber-palestine-1948-war-escape-and-the-emergence-of-the-palestinian-refugee-problem-portland-ore-sussex-academic-press-2001-pp-410-dollar7950-cloth.pdf] which is quite critical of the work, stating that "Palestine 1948 is a book to be examined by scholars of the period with interest but to be used, if at all, by those who are unfamiliar with the subject with extreme caution." (emphasis mine), that it is "of use to scholars who can evaluate it against other materials. Still, the reader must beware. Gelber's approach to history does not usually allow for discussion of the revisionist views he rejects.", and that "Gelber argues the nationalist version of Israeli history of 1948". If there are no other reliable sources to support the statement that "Arab Liberation Army embarked on a systematic evacuation of non-combatants from several frontier villages in order to turn them into military strongholds." then we oughtn't include it, per WP:FRINGE.

2. In a paragraph describing that "the events of the Nakba were by that point [that is, by the year 2010] "widely described" as involving ethnic cleansing", there follows that "Not all historians accept this characterization. Efraim Karsh is among the few historians who still consider that most of the Arabs who fled left of their own accord or were pressured to leave by their fellow Arabs, despite Israeli attempts to convince them to stay." The ideas here cited to Karsh are plain denialism. We should be presenting these views only in the context of Nakba denial or not presenting them at all per WP:FRINGE: "A Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is. [...] If discussed in an article about a mainstream idea, a theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight."

3. The lead paragraph beginning "The causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus are also a subject of fundamental disagreement among historians." needs to be altered significantly. For one, there only has been legitimate debate among historians, but today there no longer is. Second, the denialist factors listed should be removed, and indeed the inline citations supporting the dubious causes are quite weak here - "disinclination to live under Jewish control" is cited inline to two books which are not even about the 1948 war, and "Arab evacuation orders" is a known myth with its inline citation to Pittsburgh Press May 1948 (terrible source) and to a proper academic work which I can't access but which I can see includes as a footnote "In 1960–61 Walid Khalidi also investigated the BBC and FBIS radio transcripts recorded throughout the 1948 war to look for evidence of Arab evacuation orders but was unable to locate any at all.". This paragraph should be rewritten to state there is significant public and political debate, and should mention Nakba denial as that is cleary for for the lead anyway, but it should not give the impression that there isn't consensus in present day scholarship about the causes of the 1948 Palestinian expulsion. This lead paragraph also does not reflect the body as the dubious causes presented are (rightfully) not covered in the article. (Also note that the page causes of the 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight is itself very poorly written and replete with denialism and "Old History" and is not to be used as a source).

-IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:31, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your assessment. Regarding your first point, the review criticised Gelber's book for omitting various important aspects of the conflict, but not for inaccuracies
It's a normal scholarly discussion. The reviewer believes that the book provides an incomplete picture of the events and suggests that it shouldn't be the only book an uninformed reader should read about this topic. This is irrelevant for this article which uses multiple books by New Historians and others as sources.
I'll respond to the other points later. Alaexis¿question? 21:04, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"not for inaccuracies"? - "No work by an Arab scholar in Arabic is cited, because, as noted, Arab scholars have not been interested in the subject in a serious historical manner.[Summarising/describing Gelber's view] Anyone who peruses the bibliography of Eugene Rogan and Avi Shalim's edited volume The War for Palestine: Rewriting the History of 1948 (Cambridge, 2001) will see how false Gelber's assertion is." IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:02, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The assertion he deems false is "Arab scholars have not been interested in the subject in a serious historical manner". How is it related to the way Gelber's book is used here? Alaexis¿question? 14:36, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see you've restored [1] "Yoav Gelber wrote that the Arab Liberation Army embarked on a systematic evacuation of non-combatants from several frontier villages in order to turn them into military strongholds.[1]" stating only "no arguments have been presented why this statement is untrue".
Since we have an RS which cautions against the use of this work of Gelber, stating it is "of use to scholars who can evaluate it against other materials", and since this material is given such prominence at the beginning of a paragraph about the depopulation of Palestinian villages, I think it is reasonable to ask for another RS that can corroborate this claim of Gelber's. Especially since the claim resembles (and may even be) the myth that Arab evacuation orders were a significant cause of the exodus. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 02:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, otherwise WP:ONUS (no consensus for usage, per discussions here) and WP:WEIGHT (single source, and Gelber as a primary source for his own views) apply – there are your arguments. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:32, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gelber's claim has been corroborated by Benny Morris in "The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited". On page 175, he points out how in April 1948,
the ALA ordered the inhabitants of Fureidis, south of Haifa, to evacuate their women and children, ‘and make ready to evacuate [the village] completely’. A few kilometres to the north, the women and children of Tira were evacuated with the help of the Arab Legion to Neuherrdorf, near Haifa, and later to Jordan. Similarly, dependents had been evac- uated from Khirbet as Sarkas, near Hadera (to Baqa al Gharbiya and Jatt). The women and children of Qannir were evacuated starting 22 April on ‘orders from on high’. In early May, Umm al Zinat was reported empty of women and children. North of Haifa, Kabri was completely evacuated. A few days earlier, the Arab communities around Rosh Pina, in Eastern Galilee, were ordered to evacuate their women and children, the men staying to guard the sites.
He continues to document the many examples of evacuations on Arab orders on p.176-178. Amayorov (talk) 18:06, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Assume this is all true, how many persons are we talking about? Selfstudier (talk) 18:08, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's hard to tell, but Morris says that "all villagers in the Nazareth area", "all the villages between Haifa and Tel Aviv", Coastal Plain villages, neighborhoods bordering the Jewish areas in Jerusalem, were depopulated on orders from the general Arab headquarters or ALA. There was also apparently an evacuation order to Arabs living along the Palestine-Syrian border.
Here are some of the examples he gives: Shu'fat, Beit Hanina, al Jib, Judeira, Bir Nabala, Rafat, Dahi, Nein, Tampra, Kafr Misr, al Tira, Taiyiba, Na'ura, Nuqeib, ‘Arab al Satariyya, Beit Dajan, Kafr Manda, Majd al Kurum, Dimra, 'Illut, ‘Arab Mazarib, ‘Arab Sa‘ida, Ma’lul, Mujeidil, Beisan, Qastal, Qalandiya, some Jerusalem neighborhoods (Sheikh Jarrah, Wadi Joz, Musrara, Qatamon, Musara, Beit Hanina and others), Ma'dhar, Hadatha, 'Ulam, Sirin. Amayorov (talk) 18:49, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So Morris only corroborates that some villages sent their women and children away (a sensible precaution in hindsight) and stayed on to watch over/guard their property. That is quite a different nuance from Gelber's "military strongholds" – without even asking how turning a rural village into a "stronghold" is even achieved. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:51, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oftentimes, such as in Ma'lul and Mujeidil, the ALA ordered evacuation "apparently to make room for incoming ALA contingents and in preparation for anticipated offensive operations." In other places, such as in Beit Dajan, the inhabitants left at the same time as armed irregulars moved in. Morris gives other examples too. So there is, indeed, evidence in support of Gelber's claims. Amayorov (talk) 19:00, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Be careful that you don't confuse assertions by Morris with "evidence" – even Morris uses caveats like "apparently" when he writes. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:38, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm simply responding to a above request for further corroboration:
I think it is reasonable to ask for another RS that can corroborate this claim of Gelber's.
Amayorov (talk) 19:46, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And I'm merely cautioning on the use of the term "evidence", and the dangers of being loose-lipped with it. Corroborating statements are just those. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:50, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1. Perhaps this could be modified based on Morris 2004? His gives a somewhat more balanced view on this. There is no evidence that the Arab states and the AHC wanted a mass exodus or issued blanket orders or appeals to flee. At the same time, the AHC and the Arab states often encouraged villagers (and, in some places, townspeople) to send their women, children and old people out of harm’s way. Local political and military leaders also ordered some villages to evacuate in order to forestall their (treacherous) acceptance of Jewish rule. In certain areas (around Jerusalem, and along the Syrian border), the Arab states ordered villages to uproot for strategic reasons.
2. I agree that this view of Karsh is on the extreme side. He's still a notable historian and I think it's okay to mention his view with proper framing/attribution. In general I wouldn't be opposed to replacing more extreme sources like Karsh with more moderate ones like Anita Shapira, except that Shapira would be too moderate to be considered part of an "Israeli narrative". Maybe the article can be restructured, but the current "two opposing narratives" structure calls for including less moderate voices such as Karsh.
3. While there's no (serious) debate today that expulsions occurred and were substantial, there is plenty of debate about the role of local commanders vs Zionist leaders, as well as the extent of flight and the reasons for it.
— xDanielx T/C\R 21:55, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by "the role of local commanders vs Zionist leaders."? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:49, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Taking Ben-Gurion as an example (perhaps the most important one), there is some lack of clarity over whether he explicitly ordered any expulsions. Yitzhak Rabin signed an expulsion order for Lydda, but gave two conflicting accounts about whether it was based on an explicit order by Ben-Gurion. With that potential exception, Ben-Gurion didn't give any explicit expulsion orders, although Morris argues he was "projecting a message of transfer".
Others have emphasized the role of local commanders acting based on military rather than political objectives: At the local level, commanders wanted to remove from the war zone a population that might aid the enemy. Nor did they want to have to deal with the needs of an occupied civilian population, preferring to remove it. (Shapira summarizing Kleiman). — xDanielx T/C\R 03:13, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Both versions of Rabin's account have BG ordering the expulsion of the inhabitants. The difference may only be due to Bar Zohar. Also, we should be aware of an issue around temporary evacuation of non-combatants, which is a normal feature of wars. Zionist propagandists claim that such evacuations are evidence of "they left at their leaders' orders", while failing to mention that the Jewish side also evacuated non-combatants from the front line. A large number of them, in fact. Zerotalk 04:30, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re your lede changes, I think expulsions and violence, and the fear thereof, were the primary causes may be reasonable, since in a way everything stemmed from violence/war of fear thereof. That said, I still feel the sources you added don't back this very clearly or directly. They're just not making it very clear which particular analyses they're rejecting. Clearly they reject certain extreme views like Karsh's, but beyond that they seem unclear, e.g. does chased out include those who left in 1947 in anticipation of fighting?
Consider the bit you removed, the demoralizing impact of wealthier classes fleeing. The sources you added don't mention this (purported) factor, so it's not clear if they reject it in some way. According to Morris, No one [...] disputes the fact that much of the Arab middle and upper classes fled Palestine.
I'm not sure this is the right place to mention Nakba denial, since the term is generally used for more fringe views (like the ahistorical view that the land was largely empty), not so much for more plausible analyses that are the focus of the article.
Also, why unlink causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus? — xDanielx T/C\R 05:40, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unlinked causes of the 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight since it is a terriblly written article. This article analyzes the causes much better than that article.
"The demoralizing impact of wealthier classes fleeing" can probably be readded, although that's maybe more a part of the flight than a cause of it.
Nakba denial seems pretty clear due for the lead.
- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:39, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Causes of the 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight is currently assessed as B-class. I'm aware of your views on it but not sure they're widely shared. Even if there was consensus that it's a terrible article, MOS:L doesn't mention that as a consideration for linking. — xDanielx T/C\R 21:48, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't feel strongly about it being linked or not. And I intend to fix that article in the near future anyway. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:00, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This stuff might be less active denialism so much as just crappily dated. 2001 is very dated at this point, and 2010 is not exactly young. If there are later sources stating how consensus has changed, or abjectly contradicting these older sources, then we can obviate them. This isn't a historiography. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:27, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changes

I made an edit implementing many changes here and was blanket reverted simply due to "there is a discussion in progress". I made many changes and it's not reasonable to simply revert them all. For instance I added sources and removed cleary bad sources. Please provide the actual reason why any changes are being disputed. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:23, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If there's a proper discussion ongoing here, I haven't noticed it. I certainly haven't noticed any serious objections to tamping down the weight of a dated old historian source. I agree that the blanket revert was inappropriate, if not borderline disruptive. Very poor form. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:56, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It also isn't ideal to make major controversial changes to the lede when there's an active discussion that hasn't had much time to develop yet, and with concerns that haven't been addressed. — xDanielx T/C\R 21:05, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a little hard to assess your post above given its lack of supporting links, but if there's something that's off about an edit, common practice is to collegiately tweak it. Better for actual headway. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:23, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reverting many edits across distinct subjects is invariably POV in my experience, or more charitably, lazy. Selfstudier (talk) 11:01, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ (Gelber, p. 79)

Ethnic cleansing

In the lead, there is an equivocating line that says: "The expulsion of the Palestinians has since been described by some historians as ethnic cleansing, while others dispute this charge." The ethnic cleansing sources are newer; the denial sources are older. Somewhat ludicrously, Benny Morris sources are used to support both. However, his 2021 admission of the ethnic cleansing drastically supercedes his 2008 denial. The other two denial sources, from 2002 and 2005, obviously precede Pappé's The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine and the last two decades of scholarship. The question that begs is: are there any current sources that still deny the ethnic cleansing? Iskandar323 (talk) 16:11, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, this should be rewritten to express that the ethnic cleansing view is the mainstream or majority view and that the denial thereof is a fringe or minority view. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:14, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Morris interview where he implicitly acknowledges ethnic cleansing was from 2004, no? Looks like the archive date was 2021.
I don't think Morris has ever denied that ethnic cleansing occurred, so he should probably be removed from that list of references. That said, it's his view that there was no top-down Zionist plan for systematic ethnic cleansing. He also tends to use less loaded language like "expulsions". — xDanielx T/C\R 21:23, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes. Archive date. Erk. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:51, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lede

"The causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus remain a significantly controversial topic in public and political discourse, with a prominent amount of denialism regarding the responsibility of Israeli/Yishuv forces, although most scholarship today acknowledges that expulsions and violence, and the fear thereof, were the primary causes."

This should be rephrased, where the last part of the sentence, the scholarship is the focus of the paragraph, and not the (unfounded) controversy. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:29, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recent changes

Made changes to lead here though I botched the edit summary.

@Iskandar323 this addresses your concerns per your talk page entry "Ethnic cleansing" and @Makeandtoss this addresses your concerns per your talk page entry "Lede".

- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

👍 Iskandar323 (talk) 20:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I meant to say that the paragraph should start with "Most scholarship today..."
Anyway, the lede could be further improved: first paragraph with a general description, second with the main components and then the chronological details, third paragraph on the scholarship, fourth paragraph on the legacy.
This is my suggestion:

In the 1948 Palestine war, more than 700,000 Palestinian Arabs – about half of Mandatory Palestine's predominantly Arab population – were expelled or fled from their homes, at first by Zionist paramilitaries, and after the establishment of Israel, by its military. The expulsion and flight was a central component of the fracturing, dispossession, and displacement of Palestinian society, known as the Nakba.

About 250,000–300,000 Palestinians fled or were expelled during the 1947–1948 civil war in Mandatory Palestine, before the termination of the British Mandate on 14 May 1948. By the end of the 1948 Palestine war, dozens of massacres targeting Arabs were conducted by Israeli military forces and between 400 and 600 Palestinian villages were destroyed. Village wells were poisoned in a biological warfare programme and properties were looted to prevent Palestinian refugees from returning. Other sites were subject to Hebraization of Palestinian place names. The precise number of Palestinian refugees, many of whom settled in Palestinian refugee camps in neighboring states, is uncertain, although the number is around 700,000, being approximately 80 percent of the Palestinian Arab inhabitants of what became Israel.

Most scholarship today agrees that expulsions and violence, and the fear thereof, were the primary causes for the displacement. Factors involved in the exodus include direct expulsions by Israeli forces, destruction of Arab villages, psychological warfare including terrorism, massacres such as the widely publicized Deir Yassin massacre which caused many to flee out of fear, typhoid epidemics in some areas caused by Israeli well-poisoning, and the collapse of Palestinian leadership including the demoralizing impact of wealthier classes fleeing. The expulsion of the Palestinians has been described by most historians as ethnic cleansing, while a minority disputes this characterization. Denialism regarding the responsibility of Israeli/Yishuv forces in the displacement of Palestinians, and discourse about the causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus continue to generate controversy.

A series of land and property laws were later passed by the first Israeli government that prevented displaced Palestinians from returning to their homes or claiming their property. They and many of their descendants remain refugees. The existence of the so-called Law of Return allowing for immigration and naturalization of any Jewish person and their family to Israel, while a Palestinian right of return has been denied, has been cited as an evidence for the charge that Israel practices apartheid. The status of the refugees, and in particular whether Israel will allow them the right to return to their homes, or compensate them, are key issues in the ongoing Israeli–Palestinian conflict.

Makeandtoss (talk) 11:23, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also I think moving the quotes to the body while keeping in-line refs will make the lede easier to edit and work with. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:26, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, is there even a reason why we have this article which seems to be covered by Nakba? Makeandtoss (talk) 12:04, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's more in-depth on the expulsions specifically, as opposed to all of the other aspects of the Nakba page. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:52, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. And any thoughts on the proposed changes above? Makeandtoss (talk) 08:49, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a little hard to inspect the proposed changes like that. If any small changes can be made incrementally in separately explained edits, and any bigger changes discussed more specifically, that might be better. I have no idea what past RFCs might inform the current form of the lead. Good idea to take a look. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:13, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the fact "orders from the Arab leadership" should be mentioned as a factor to the Arab exodus. In addition to Yoav Gelber, this is corroborated by Benny Morris as being a factor in Haifa (see the subsection below), as well as in a host of other settlements.
Morris says that "all villagers in the Nazareth area", "all the villages between Haifa and Tel Aviv", Coastal Plain villages, neighborhoods bordering the Jewish areas in Jerusalem, were depopulated on orders from the general Arab headquarters or ALA. There was also apparently an evacuation order to Arabs living along the Palestine-Syrian border.
Here are some of the examples he gives: Shu'fat, Beit Hanina, al Jib, Judeira, Bir Nabala, Rafat, Dahi, Nein, Tampra, Kafr Misr, al Tira, Taiyiba, Na'ura, Nuqeib, ‘Arab al Satariyya, Beit Dajan, Kafr Manda, Majd al Kurum, Dimra, 'Illut, ‘Arab Mazarib, ‘Arab Sa‘ida, Ma’lul, Mujeidil, Beisan, Qastal, Qalandiya, some Jerusalem neighborhoods (Sheikh Jarrah, Wadi Joz, Musrara, Qatamon, Musara, Beit Hanina and others), Ma'dhar, Hadatha, 'Ulam, Sirin.
Therefore, while not the main factor as the Israeli scholarship originally claimed, it was definitely a factor, at least according to some (influential) scholars.
My suggestion is to change the sentence "Most scholarship today" to
Most scholarship today agrees that expulsions and violence, and the fear thereof, along with occasional orders from the Arab leadership, were the primary causes for the displacement.
Amayorov (talk) 20:04, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you planning to reference some historians that actually provide any opposing views and balance to Gelber and Morris at any point? Iskandar323 (talk) 20:12, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do all the statements in the article provide references to 3+ influential scholars? Is that an official rule now? Amayorov (talk) 20:23, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not my point. You appreciate that Gelber and Morris are both on the same side of a wide scholarly divide, yes? Iskandar323 (talk) 21:18, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First, most sentences in the lead section are sources from a single, Arab or pro-Palestinian, scholar, such as Pappé, Nur, Khalidi, Ghanim.
Second, I don't agree that Morris and Gelber are "on the same side". Morris has revealed plenty of unsavoury information about Israel: e.g. the story about the Haganah's secret program of poisoning wells in 1948 was his discovery from a couple years ago. He is also the source of reference for many "pro-Palestinian" historians (e.g. Shlaim, Pappé). In contrast, Gelber is a more traditional Israeli historian.
Finally, you can't really seek "concensus across the divide" on every statement. That's partly because all archives of the Arab states, including those of the armies, parties, and diplomats, are still classified. Amayorov (talk) 21:30, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're still not getting it. You are adding specific tracts of text without even looking to see what historians with a very different take on these events say about the same events. Yes, Morris is less blinkered than Gelber, but he is still a historian that resolutely produces historiography with a very discernable pitch, and the side that it favours—because it certainly does favour a side—is very clear. Now I'm sure that you can continue to beat around the bush if you like, but now is the point where you have to say, ok, I'll look up some of what I'm putting in in other sources, or you can keep putting in voices from only one side of a partisan divide and we will all have to chase you around the wiki adding POV tags to every page and section that you give the same treatment. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:49, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, I don't understand what you're suggesting I do.
I'm quoting Morris on objective facts, rather than partisan conclusions. Morris references plenty of primary material. Would you want me to quote the primary material directly, bypassing Morris? I could certainly do that.
This page already cites plenty Morris (e.g. regarding the Haganah's use of psychological warfare or the well-poisoning). At the same time, it often ignores him, whenever he discusses the Arabs' evacuation orders or that there was no centralised plan of expulsion ever promulgated by the IDF. Selective quoting could certainly be a concern.
Besides, this page already includes plenty of "according to Morris' estimates," "according to Ilan Pappé," "in Flapan' opinion," etc. Sometimes, Pappé is quoted without a qualification. Do you have a problem with Morris specifically? Amayorov (talk) 22:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have a problem with the fact that you think you are getting "objective facts" from Morris, as opposed to his subjective opinions on the whatever any given piece of evidence may be, and in contrast to whatever subjective opinions also significant historians less aligned with his way of thinking have about the same given pieces of evidence. Iskandar323 (talk) 22:07, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't that the case with plenty of other claims on this page? For example, it includes "According to Pappé, this mortar barrage was deliberately aimed at civilians to precipitate their flight from Haifa," while omitting Morris' strong objecting this claim?
Another problem is that, while Morris is already cited plenty of times, he's referenced selectively and often ignoring important context in his writing. Amayorov (talk) 22:24, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is really a fair criticism - Morris is about as mainstream as they come, with critics on both sides. He almost left Israel after Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem made it difficult for him to find a job there. — xDanielx T/C\R 22:09, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should all follow WP:SOURCESDIFFER and WP:BALANCE. Both Morris and the historians that disagree with him can be cited. Wafflefrites (talk) 22:33, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewing all this, I think we are at the point, we should review all WP:BESTSOURCES for what happened. It's a historical event, there is no shortage of such sources and so this should not be difficult, just needs a bit of time. And we need to avoid getting bogged down in the weeds, the broad strokes we want, for example, Makeandtoss "Most scholarship today agrees that expulsions and violence, and the fear thereof, were the primary causes for the displacement" above, is that what the balance of bestsources says, or not? Selfstudier (talk) 09:44, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would change it to
Most scholarship today agrees that expulsions and violence, and the fear thereof, along with occasional orders from the Arab leadership, were the primary causes for the displacement.
Amayorov (talk) 09:58, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haifa

As it currently is, the article only describes Morris' description of the psychological warfare as a factor. However, the quote is taken out of context, and later on, Morris states that

The Haganah mortar attacks of 21–22 April were primarily designed to break Arab morale in order to bring about a swift collapse of resistance and speedy surrender. There is no evidence that the commanders involved hoped or expected that it would lead to mass evacuation (though events in Tiberias four days before must have been prominent in their minds).

At the same time, the article ignores the Morris' description of the events of April 22, during which the Arab leaders decided to leave, despite being entreated by the Jews and British to stay. By the nightfall of April 22, there were still 30,000-40,000 Arabs remaining in the town. Therefore, I think adding this information is important. Amayorov (talk) 19:59, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per my comment in previous section, review all sources and see what the balance of them says, we don't need to get into the weeds on everything. Selfstudier (talk) 09:46, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My concrete proposals are:
1. Follow up "According to Pappé, this mortar barrage was deliberately aimed at civilians to precipitate their flight from Haifa" with "while Morris disputes this claim[1]: 300 "
2. Add the following sentence following Karsh's assessment.
Benny Morris agrees, while also acknowledging "an undercurrent of expulsive thinking."[1]: 198–207 
2. Add the following paragraphs after "I am sending you posters in Arabic; disperse on route."
Truce negotiations between Haganah and the Arab leaders took place on April 22. Despite the Haganah's assurances that "Arabs will carry on their work as equal and free citizens of Haifa and will enjoy all services along with the other members of the community," the Arab representatives stated that "the Arab population wished to evacuate Haifa... man, woman and child." According to Morris, this led Jewish officials to (incorrectly) believed that the "unexpected exodus from Haifa" was part of a comprehensive Arab plot to "villify Jews".[1]: 195, 200 
From April 22 onwards, Morris states that there is "a surfeit of evidence" that the Arab leaders both ordered and encouraged the evacuation[1]: 198  Both Morris and Karsh reference British and American intelligence reports, Alan Cunningham's assessment, personal memoirs, and Haganah's assessments, that "the Jews have been making extensive efforts to prevent wholesale evacuation," while the "total evacuation is being urged on the Haifa Arabs from higher Arab quarters and that the townsfolk themselves are against it."[2][3][4][5] Regarding the reasons for the alleged Arab encouragement of the exodus, they speculate that it was to avoid "possibility of Haifa Arabs being used as hostages in future operations after May 15," and to escape "the gearing of Transjordan's armed force for a wholesale massacre"[6][7]
3. Add this paragraph at the end.
Morris assess that the fall and exodus of Arab Haifa, given the city’s "pivotal political, administrative and economic role," was a major "precipitant" of the subsequent flight from other locations.[1]: 186–187 
As always, I'm open to suggestions! Amayorov (talk) 22:29, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds reasonable. Alaexis¿question? 22:22, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I've shortened it for conciseness. If there are no objections, I will be adding it in 12 hours. Amayorov (talk) 22:29, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've reformatted your references since {{r}} doesn't work inside <ref> tags. I've no objections to a different, more elegant solution. Best, Wham2001 (talk) 13:57, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have time to get into this right now but I strongly object to these additions. This is pretty blatant denialism being added to the article. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 05:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TarnishedPath Why did you revert these edits? Amayorov (talk) 06:33, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please see what I wrote in the below topic. I don't find Morris's Nakba denialism appropriate or WP:DUE. TarnishedPathtalk 06:38, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You shouldn't revert the edits before discussing them.
Again, what I strongly object to is misrepresentation and selective referencing of Morris' work. You cannot quote a huge paragraph on him regarding Haganah's psychological warfare, while ignoring everything he says above and below it. Besides, Nakba denialism is a strange argument. Nobody denies that it happens, but as Wikipedia article, it should reflect the broad body of research about it, from world-leading academics. Selective quoting them is exactly what would make WP:UNDUE. Amayorov (talk) 06:42, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Morris is already referenced in the article. You made substantial changes all based on his opinions. That's entirely WP:UNDUE. TarnishedPathtalk 06:50, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He's referenced selectively, by placing emphasis on parts of his work, while ignoring everything he says below or after. This is clearly interferes with ensuring a WP:NOV. Do you have any argument for omitting parts of his work, rather than it being a supported Nakba denialism? Amayorov (talk) 06:59, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ps, there is no policy which requires that I not remove material before discussing it. Please consider WP:ONUS. TarnishedPathtalk 06:52, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It also says
Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources.
Given that Morris is the most references author on this page anyway, selectively quoting him or ignoring him is WP:UNDUE. Amayorov (talk) 07:01, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You make an argument for reducing the amount of quoting of the opinions of one specific source, not for increasing it. I don't think we're going to agree on this so I've posted notices on the three most relevant Wiki Projects talk pates and the Nakba article's talk page. TarnishedPathtalk 07:04, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you link me to them? Amayorov (talk) 07:05, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are at the Israel WikiProject's talk, the Palestine WikiProject's talk, the Israel and Palestine collaboration WikiProject's talk and the Nakba article's talk. TarnishedPathtalk 07:20, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we need more discussion here. Morris is quoted outrightly wrongly. An example is regarding the alleged Jewish National Committee's failing to give assurances to the Arab leadership during the truce negotiations in Haifa. In fact, Morris explicitly says that it was the Arab National Committee, which couldn't guarantee that no incidents would occur from their side.
I'm also against selective quoting and cherry-picking the bits to promote a particular view. For example, Morris (rightly) quoted on the Haganah's use of psychological warfare, the well-poisoning program, the expulsions from Lydda and Ramle, etc. At the same time, he's ignored when it comes to the Arab evacuation orders, that the Haganah's mortars didn't target civilians at Haifa, and plenty of other important instances.
I've seen people say that certain parts from Morris cannot be included because they're "Nakba minimising". We cannot separate a historian's work into "Nakba minimising" and "Nakba maximising", and only quote the latter, if we want to build a neutral unbiased encyclopaedia. Of course, any historians disagreeing with him should be included too.
@IOHANNVSVERVS @Wafflefrites @XDanielx @Iskandar323 @BilledMammal @Wham2001 Amayorov (talk) 11:34, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than assume that he is routinely selectively quoted, alternatives include that he is mentioned more where his input provides particular insight and less where his input may be contradicted by other sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:20, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the first issue, I've added a {{cn}} tag to the sentence in question. If no sources are provided confirming it then it can't stay in the article.
Let's discuss selective quoting and cherry-picking on a case-by-case basis in dedicated threads, otherwise it's very hard to follow the discussion.
In any case the arguments for or against using a given source should be policy-based, e.g., that there is another reliable source saying the opposite. Alaexis¿question? 20:58, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the uncontroversial suggestions 1-2. Regarding the truce negotiations and the Arab orders, which attracted most disagreement, I suggest opening a WP:RFC. Amayorov (talk) 18:38, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unconditional surrender at Haifa: gross misrepresentation

The article currently states

On 21–22 April in Haifa, after the Haganah waged a day-and-a-half battle including psychological warfare, the Jewish National Committee was unable to offer the Palestinian council assurance that an unconditional surrender would proceed without incident.

I cannot find this confirmed by any of the provided references, to Benny Morris or otherwise. In fact, Morris refers to the Haifa Arab National Committee (NC), who, in response to a truce deal, responded "that they were not in a position to sign a truce, as they had no control over the Arab military elements in the town and that . . . they could not fulfill the terms of the truce, even if they were to sign. They then said as an alternative that the Arab population wished to evacuate Haifa . . . man, woman and child."

That is the same Haifa Arab National Committee that, in communique number 7 (dated February 22 1948), and with approval from the Arab Higher Committee, demanded that the Arabs cease shooting and return to their regular workplace.

This is a gross misrepresentation that must be corrected. I suggest the following

On 21–22 April in Haifa, after the Haganah waged a day-and-a-half battle including elements of psychological warfare, the Haifa Arab National Committee was unable to accept the truce deal and decided to evacuate the town's Arab population.

As always, I'm looking forward to suggestions and corrections. Amayorov (talk) 13:51, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The material at Battle of Haifa (1948)#The battle is correct? Selfstudier (talk) 14:21, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Battle of Haifa (1948) makes no reference to the Jewish National Committee. However, it's ambiguous too. It refers to the "National Committee (Haifa)" that couldn't "guarantee that no incidents would occur." That should be amended to make it clear that it was the Arab NC, and that it couldn't guarantee that no incidents would occur from their side. Amayorov (talk) 08:47, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Walid Khalidi has repeatedly debunked the myth of Arab evacuation orders in Haifa. See, for example, "The Fall of Haifa Revisited" (2008). إيان (talk) 05:04, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that it's inappropriate and WP:UNDUE to go down the pay of Nakba minimisation. TarnishedPathtalk 05:45, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It has not been debunked. Walid Khalidi only analysed radio broadcasts to come to his conclusions, while Morris bases his conclusions on American/British intelligence, conclusions from the High Commissioner for Palestine, and internal Haganah reports, and other evidence. You don't have to state this as fact, but as a possible perspective – from a historian, on whose research much of the rest of the article is based.
Again, what I strongly object to is misrepresentation and selective referencing of Morris' work. This example is particularly egregious – there were no Jewish National Committee that could not "offer the Palestinian council assurance that an unconditional surrender would proceed without incident." You cannot reference Morris on this, when he talks about the opposite! Amayorov (talk) 06:39, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TarnishedPath Amayorov (talk) 06:39, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Morris is a biased writer who engages in Nakba denialism. The position is WP:UNDUE. I see no problem with some small inclusion of his views in the article but the expansion that you introduced, based on his POV alone was WP:UNDUE. TarnishedPathtalk 06:48, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Morris is a biased writer who engages in Nakba denialism." – I find this statement ridiculous, giving that he was the first who uncovered the extent of Nakba, and that his works are widely quoted by even such authors as Pappé and Finkelstein.
He's no more biased than any of the other authors, and must be referenced non-selectively. He's already the most sourced from author on this page. Amayorov (talk) 07:04, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again you're making an argument for reducing the amount of sourcing to the opinions of one specific writer, not increasing it. TarnishedPathtalk 07:06, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about his "opinions", but rather the primary evidence that he uncovered and deemed relevant. I'm making an argument for quoting him non-selectively, in order to make the article WP:NOV. If you wish to reduce the amount of referencing him, you'd have to rewrite over half the page. Amayorov (talk) 07:11, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We always quote selectively both for brevity and because of copyright. The opposite of quoting selectively would be quoting the entire work. I do not see how expanding the quotation for him is useful, especially given Morris is already given plenty of airplay in this article. TarnishedPathtalk 07:17, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because you quote evidence that he provides, supporting the fact that the Haganah engaged in psychological warfare at Haifa, while ignoring the many pages where he describes the "surfeit" of evidence that the Arab leadership (both local and the AHC) ordered and spurred on the evacuation. Such selective quoting seems like pushing a particular POV. Amayorov (talk) 07:19, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I entirely disagree and I find covering Morris's opinion on that to be Nakba minimisation at the very best. TarnishedPathtalk 07:21, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot separate a historian's work into "Nakba maximising" and "Nakba minimising" and quote only the former, if you want to build a neutral encyclopaedia. Amayorov (talk) 07:29, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot separate a historian's work into "Nakba maximising" and "Nakba minimising" and quote only the former. That's certainly not a synthetic distinction I proposed, nor a course of action I suggested. If it were a course of action I suggested I'd be engaged in the complete removal of Benny Morris, which is demonstrably not the case. What however is going against NPOV is seeking to disproportionately rely on the view points of exactly one author. It needs to be toned down a bit. He's not the only author out there. TarnishedPathtalk 11:04, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's certainly not a synthetic distinction I proposed, nor a course of action I suggested. Certainly, but the article currently appears to be doing just that, at least to some extent. Amayorov (talk) 11:09, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Morris's name is mentioned 18 times in the body of article. 3 times in notes, 25 times in the references and 3 times in the source list. Just the 21 times (18 inline and 3 via notes) he's mentioned by name attributing his view point says that is almost certainly not the case and in fact that we have somewhat of a problem with an over-reliance on the POV of Benny Morris. TarnishedPathtalk 11:36, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but he's quoted selectively. He's (rightly) quoted on the Haganah's use of psychological warfare, the well-poisoning program, the expulsions from Lydda and Ramle, etc. At the same time, he's ignored when it comes to the Arab evacuation orders, that the Haganah's mortars didn't target civilians at Haifa, and plenty of other important instances.
Sometimes, he's even quoted perversely, such as regarding the alleged Jewish National Committee's failing to give assurances during the truce negotiations at Haifa, whereas in fact it was the Arab National Committee. Amayorov (talk) 12:04, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Worth noting that the article being republished here, "The Fall of Haifa", was written by Khalidi in 1959 when Morris was 11. It looks like Khalidi added an intro to this republication which briefly criticizes Morris, but of course the underlying 1959 article does not.
The 1959 article probably isn't too relevant today. E.g. it says that the Haifa National Committee did nothing to encourage evacuation, which I don't think anyone (today) denies. Even Karsh would agree, saying Although the Committee strove to curb the mass flight, urging Haifa's Arabs to stay put and castigating those who fled-occasionally, these warnings were backed by the torching of escapees' belongings-its remonstrations proved of no avail.
I think Morris' views on the topic are quite significant and should be mentioned. There are scholars who argue Morris overemphasizes evacuation orders, which can be mentioned as well. Criticism isn't generally a reason to remove content, particularly in this area where every prominent work attracts criticism.
"Overuse of Morris" doesn't seem like a convincing reason to remove content either, partly since his work in this area is quite prominent (surely Technological singularity shouldn't limit mentions of Kurzweil?), but more importantly because WP:WEIGHT pertains to viewpoints on a particular topic (like evacuation orders), not to particular sources. — xDanielx T/C\R 22:17, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
°The only problem above is overuse of Morris, not his bias.
  • The article, like most of wiki I/P historical articles, is in a poor state. And one of the reasons is that considerable emphasis is given to citing positions by prominent scholars in the midst of the factual narrative. All opinions of this kind should always be relegated below a strict narrative focus on the chronological reconstruction that established the facts as they are known to unfold day by day/week by week.
  • The section on Haifa here is woefully inadequate. It should, by rights, synthesize Battle of Haifa (1948), but we cannot do that at present because that is one more example of an inadequate reconstruction of the factual record, and overreliance on just one historian: 16 of the 43 references go back to Morris, the next most used sources are primary documents of the period, and then we have passing references to bits and pieces from Pappé, Segev, Azoulay etc., as minor voices. Kimche gets more mention than any of those. There is no use of Walid Khalidi, The Fall of Haifa Revisited Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 37, No. 3 (Spring 2008), pp. 30-58, which though earlier than Morris 2004, was updated in a 2008 reprint which took in and criticized Morris' narrative, including an accusation that Morris ignored or suppressed core information available to him.
  • So rather than jam more Morris stuff in here, there are two tasks. The primary one would be to revise the Battle of Haifa article, with an approach that established a detailed factual record of the sequence of events, (with brief notes when secondary accounts differ) and once that is done, readjust the Haifa section here, which is pathetically scrappy.
Nishidani (talk) 08:35, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
+1, I too am not particularly happy at this excessive focus on Morris. Selfstudier (talk) 08:58, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All opinions of this kind should always be relegated below a strict narrative focus on the chronological reconstruction that established the facts as they are known to unfold day by day/week by week. – how could this be done in light of Wikipedia:No original research, and the often significant differences between secondary sources as to what those facts were?
The only problem above is overuse of Morris, not his bias. – in my view, the problem is that he's used selectively. As I wrote above, you cannot separate a historian's work into "Nakba maximising" and "Nakba minimising" and quote only the former, if you want to build a neutral encyclopaedia.
overreliance on just one historian – One must distinguish between backing up objective facts using a historian's research, and representing the conclusions that that historian draws from them as fact. The fact is that Morris brought light on a lot of primary evidence from Israeli and Western archives from the 1940s, which often cannot be complemented, because the Arab archives are all still closed Amayorov (talk) 09:01, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Morris brought light on a lot of primary evidence from Israeli and Western archives from the 1940s, which often cannot be complemented, because the Arab archives are all still closed—bruh. You gotta be kidding with this.
I'm with TarnishedPath, Nishidani, and Selfstudier. إيان (talk) 17:17, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First, as I've said, I'm not arguing for Morris to be used exclusively — rather that he is referenced non-selectively, instead of cherry-picking the bits to promote a particular view. To some extent, that is presently the case. Even more worrying is that sometimes he is cited outright wrongly, such as the reference to a "Jewish National Council" at Haifa that couldn't guarantee a ceasefire without an incident, whereas in fact it was the Arab NC.
Secondly, my point is true — all Arab historical archives, including those of the military, the main political parties, and royal courts, are still closed. That's not to say that you can't try and compensate for them. Amayorov (talk) 17:53, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We can certainly utilise more sources and note when they disagree but the weight given to various positions should be based on the scholarly sources (reviews, citation, critique) and not on editors' own opinions. Alaexis¿question? 21:02, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b c d e Morris (2004)
  2. ^ 257 and 317 FS Section Weekly Report No.3 for Week Ending 28 April 1948', paragraph 4, WO 275/79; cited by : 198 
  3. ^ Cunningham to Secretary of State, telegram 1127, 25 April 1948, Cunningham Collection, 111/4/52; cited in : 198 
  4. ^ Lippincott (American Consulate, Haifa) to Department, No.40, 25 April 1948 and No.44, 26 April 1948, NA Record Group 84, Haifa Consulate, 800 - Political Affairs; cited by
  5. ^ Yorkshire Evening Post, 24 April 1948, 'Arabs plan complete evacuation of Jewish controlled Haifa'
  6. ^ 6th Airborne Division's Logbook of 1805hrs, 4 May 1948, Sheet 148, Serial 653; cited by
  7. ^ Internal Haganah report, Hiram to Tene, 'The Question of the Arab Evacuation from Haifa', 28 April 1948, HA 105/257, p.360; cited by

Cite error: A list-defined reference with the name "karsh-nakbat-haifa" has been invoked, but is not defined in the <references> tag (see the help page).

Cite error: A list-defined reference with the name "morris-2004" has been invoked, but is not defined in the <references> tag (see the help page).

Plan Dalet

Shouldn't this be mentioned in the lede and expanded more about in the body? I definitely see it having a standalone section. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:36, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems it was -allegedly- implemented for an eight week period between April and May 1948, but the ethnic cleansing had already started since late 1947 and continued until at least 1949. So is this the main "responsible" document or is there something I am missing? Makeandtoss (talk) 09:26, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well poisoning

Currently this article accuses Israeli soldiers of poisoning wells and the link to Well poisoning is mainly about antisemitic libels against Jews. How sure are we that Israel indeed poisoned wells during the 1948 war? Is the scholarship solid on this? VR (Please ping on reply) 03:23, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure we should link to well poisoning and propose that we don't. As for the scholarship, it is based on a research article by two Israeli historians who cite official archival records so, yes, it is solid. Zerotalk 04:30, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RfC – In the article section about "Haifa", should the following paragraph be added?

Should Benny Morris' research on the evacuation orders from Haifa be included in 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight#Haifa:

Morris asserts that the initial order to evacuate came from local Arab leadership, and that the Arab Higher Committee endorsed it post factum. Among the evidence he cites are British and American intelligence reports, an assessment by the High Commissioner of Palestine, as well as statements by the Haifa Arab Emergency Committee on 22 April 1948. According to Morris, possible reasons included clearing the way for Transjordan's impending entry into the war and avoiding the population being used as hostages.[1]

Amayorov (talk) 19:56, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No

  1. No, the article is already overdependent on Morris. We should be seeking to reduce the amount of references and quotes to Morris, not increase the reliance. We should seek to utilise other sources more often. TarnishedPathtalk 07:10, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Morris is attributed 20 times in the body of article. He's mentioned 3 times in notes, 27 times in the references and 3 times in the source list. Just the 23 times (20 inline and 3 via notes) he's mentioned by name attributing his viewpoint says that we have somewhat of a problem with an over-reliance on the POV of Benny Morris. Making this article more dependent on the POV of Benny Morris is undesirable. We need less Benny Morris, not more. TarnishedPathtalk 09:27, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My problem is with WP:CHERRYPICKING. While Morris is frequently cited, only selective parts of his work are considered, with other sections—arguable more significant in the source material—being entirely omitted, seemingly because their don't align with a particular narrative.
    For instance, the section on Haganah’s use of psychological warfare occupies 70% of the article section by character count and largely relies on Morris, with much of it taken verbatim or heavily paraphrased. However, Morris’ 2004 work dedicates only two pages to psychological warfare, whereas at least nine pages focus on Arab evacuation orders, which are excluded. Amayorov (talk) 12:21, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My problem is with WP:CHERRYPICKING. Not what this RFC is about, tho. Your problem seems to be what the article says about Haifa? Selfstudier (talk) 12:27, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe WP:CHERRYPICKING might counter the argument about over-reliance on Morris that @TarnishedPath is making above. The discussion is specifically about the inclusion of the paragraph in RFC. Amayorov (talk) 12:36, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No a misapplied essay doesn't counter anything. TarnishedPathtalk 12:39, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The substantive issue is that you cannot cherry-pick an author's work (perhaps to support a particular narrative), while omitting the rest, even when the author himself devotes more attention to it. Amayorov (talk) 12:51, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As I stated to you in the above conversation, we always draw from parts of sources. We do this in order to not be overly verbose and to not violate copyright. We cover the important parts. That does not mean that we are engaging in WP:CHERRYPICKING (an essay might I note). You've not provided any substantive reasoning for why we should further give Benny Morris's POV more airplay. TarnishedPathtalk 12:33, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We cover the important parts. – the selection of content from Morris' POV is currently very disproportionate. WP:DUE: "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources." Amayorov (talk) 12:39, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that we cover Morris so heavily is very disproportionate. There should be less Morris, not more. TarnishedPathtalk 12:40, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    First, even if there's to be less Morris, he must be covered neutrally and in proportion to the prominence he gives to different sections in his work. Second, I don't think we should cut Morris, but we could certainly add more material from other authors. Amayorov (talk) 12:47, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. No Afaics, this "dispute" appears to be about the Haifa displacement and how much of it was due to Arab evacuation orders. There is contradictory historiography about that and I think that first the Causes article should be sorted out, perhaps a specific section dealing with Haifa and the sources for that and only then use that as a basis for here and for the Battle article. Selfstudier (talk) 12:54, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If there is contradictory historiography, then both viewpoints should be included, preferably with an outline how they relate to each other. We aren't here to settle historical disputes, but to accurately and neutrally reflect existing work. Amayorov (talk) 13:04, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't dispute that, I said to begin at the "Causes" article first. Selfstudier (talk) 13:07, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe the two articles have different objectives. The "Causes" article should aggregate all relevant information and outline the factors behind the displacement, giving appropriate weight to each factor based on its treatment by reputable historians.
    This article, on the other hand, should describe the events of the displacement, in a more or less chronological manner. The fact that foreign intelligence and local officials documented evacuation orders, and that these have been referenced extensively by reputable historians, should be included. Amayorov (talk) 13:30, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is just about Haifa, tho. Selfstudier (talk) 13:37, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, this RFC is specifically about the Haifa section. Amayorov (talk) 13:39, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. No as per TarnishedPaths reasonings. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:13, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Based on @TarnishedPath’s reasoning, would you be content with removing Morris’ research on Haganah’s use of psychological warfare, in favor of his findings regarding evacuation orders (i.e. the paragraph above)? I think that’s a terrible solution and would cut down the article significantly. But it would be a fairer representation of Morris’ work. As I said, he spends roughly 2-3 pages discussing the former and around ten – the latter. The ratio of his primary sources is similar. Amayorov (talk) 15:46, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not our job to fairly represent Morris' work, we need to represent the balance of all sources, for the Haifa displacement in this case. Selfstudier (talk) 16:04, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, the first two paragraphs of this section are messed up enough as is. Begins by citing Morris for what Historian Efraim Karsh writes... and misrepresenting Morris in the process. Inserting Walid Khalidi disputes... with a citation and text which are confusing concern a separate dispute, then Benny Morris agrees with Karsh... which there is hardly support for. I don't know that there should be a separate "Causes" article, but if Selfstudier thinks first add content there, then import/merge back here to fix this mess, ok. If Morris is used for AHC "orders" the content should be faithful, "egging on the continuing evacuation" during a confusing time with events rapidly changing. And should certainly put in the context of his overall argument for outside blanket evacuation orders: "as with most rumours, there was a grain of truth in them".

The suggested content is not even accurate in its According to Morris.... He quotes but does not identify a 6th Airborne Division document

Probable reason for Arab Higher Executive [i.e., AHC] ordering Arabs to evacuate Haifa is to avoid possibility of Haifa Arabs being used as hostages in future operations after May 15. Arabs have also threatened to bomb Haifa from the air.

but i do not see him making such an argument. fiveby(zero) 16:09, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes

  1. Yes. Benny Morris is the most referenced historian in this article. Some have complained that he is 'oversourced'. This might be true, but the main issue is WP:CHERRYPICKING. Currently, large sections of his research are omitted, seemingly due to them not fitting a particular view, while the rest forms the bulk of the article. Finer points are sometimes overblown. This is a clear violation of WP:DUE:

    Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources.

    Another common argument against the paragraph's inclusion I've seen is that it "engages in Nakba denial". That is simply not a historical argument, especially given that most articles about the Nakba rely on Morris already. (see Wikipedia:What FRINGE is not). Of course, any historian who disagrees with Morris' assessment should be included too. Amayorov (talk) 20:31, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Probably. I'm not totally clear on the context leading to this RfC, but NPOV generally means representing all non-fringe views on a matter, so purported evacuation orders should certainly be mentioned when covering Haifa. We don't necessarily have to quote Morris, but his work is more prominent and moderate than most of the alternatives we might consider, such as Karsh's [2]. — xDanielx T/C\R 21:00, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Morris is one of the foremost experts. As far as I can see no RS have been provided that contradict his account. The circumstances of the flight of one of the largest urban communities of Palestinians is clearly relevant and should be included in the article. Alaexis¿question? 16:10, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

"Historian Benny Morris asserts that the initial order to evacuate came from local Arab leadership, and that the Arab Higher Committee endorsed it post factum. Among the evidence he cites are British and American intelligence reports, and an assessment by the High Commissioner of Palestine. According to Morris, possible reasons included clearing the way for Transjordan's impending entry into the war and avoiding the population being used as hostages" cited to Morris 2004 pp195-200
which is the same as the RFC subject matter except that "as well as statements by the Haifa Arab Emergency Committee on 22 April 1948" has been added. Selfstudier (talk) 09:04, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The initial discussion took place here: Talk:1948_Palestinian_expulsion_and_flight#Haifa. Different opinions were voiced, so it would presumably be better to canvass more viewpoints and discuss them with more structure.
The edit over at Battle of Haifa (1948)#The battle wasn't disputed. Amayorov (talk) 12:32, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Morris (2004), pp. 195-201
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1948_Palestinian_expulsion_and_flight&oldid=1245705594"