Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Nakba

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Please use this page for threaded discussion. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 23:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of definition and use of "Nakba"

The Nakba does not equal the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. The war was only part of it. Hundreds of thousands had fled or been forced out before the war began e.g Deir Yassin massacre, which was in April 1948. The war didn't start until May 14, 1948.

  • "In 1948, during the war known to the Israelis as the war of independence, the historian Constantine K. Zurayk wrote the book 'Ma’na al-Nakba,' later translated as 'The Meaning of the Disaster.' The title struck a resounding chord, and nakba (catastrophe) became the term Palestinians used for the cataclysm that befell them that year." — Elias Khoury. For Israelis, an Anniversary. For Palestinians, a Nakba, The New York Times, May 18, 2008.
  • "Throughout the Palestinian Authority's patchwork of cities and villages ... they grieve over their displacement during Israel's birth as a modern nation, an event they called Al-Nakba — David K. Shipler, Arab and Jew, p. 31.
  • "Several dozen Palestinian refugees, public figures and Israeli left-wing activists [marked] ... the 60th anniversary of the Nakba ("the Catastrophe"), as the Palestinians refer to the events surrounding Israel's independence in 1948." — Yoav Stern Palestinian refugees, Israeli left-wingers mark Nakba, Haaretz.
  • "The Nakba, or "catastrophe," of 1948, in which hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were dispossessed to create the state of Israel ..." Nakba, by Ahmad H. Sa'di, Lila Abu-Lughod [1]
It should be noted there is an article called Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus which has some relevance to this discussion. Or does it? CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why

Why should these pages be moved to titles that use "Nakba"? As you have said, this is an Arab term and reflects an Avab POV (describing a war as "catastrophe" is highly subjective). The current titles presented follow an appropriate neutral point of view and I see no reason to change this. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 23:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't about the war. It is about the exodus of the Palestinian Arabs from Palestine, which occurred before and during the war. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 23:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. The exodus (the catastrophe) happened before, during and after the war. The catastrophical consequences for these people and their descendants are still real today 60 years after the events with +4M of Palestinian Refugees. Ceedjee - 21 june. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.244.36.144 (talk) 09:28, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Palestinian descendants are the only refugees in history to be referred to always as "refugees." The rest of the world's refugees have become assimilated in whatever new country accepted them and eventually their descendants have identified themselves as citizens of their new country. Be that as it may, OrangeDog's point about this being an Arab term and being subjective is well taken. I recommend this article ( http://www.zionism-israel.com/his/Palestine_Nakba.htm ) from a Zionist perspective on the same subject. "Reprisals were thought to discourage further attacks. Sometimes removing a hostile population was the only way to open roads or stop repeated attacks. It is equally true that the Arab Palestinians committed atrocities against the Jews. They bombed Ben Yehuda Street in Jerusalem, murdered people in Gush Etzion and attacked the Jews of Tel Aviv and Haifa.

The Arabs however, were acting in defiance of a UN resolution, and their leadership announced the express aim of exterminating the Jews of Palestine. The Arabs left Palestine in large numbers, whereas, despite large massacres and a bitter siege in Jerusalem, the Jews did not leave. The fact that the Arabs left can be attributed to response to Jewish violence, poor social organization, to exaggeration of Jewish atrocities and also to the circumstance that they lost the war. However, the Arabs began leaving Palestine fairly early in the conflict, when most of them believed they would win the war, and when the capacity of the Jews to exert physical coercion was limited by the presence of the British."

The article also quotes from a letter written by Benny Morris in 2008 in which he allegedly says: "Most of Palestine's 700,000 "refugees" fled their homes because of the flail of war (and in the expectation that they would shortly return to their homes on the backs of victorious Arab invaders). But it is also true that there were several dozen sites, including Lydda and Ramla, from which Arab communities were expelled by Jewish troops." and also "In defiance of the will of the international community, as embodied in the UN General Assembly Resolution of November 29th, 1947 (No. 181), they launched hostilities against the Jewish community in Palestine in the hope of aborting the emergence of the Jewish state and perhaps destroying that community. But they lost; and one of the results was the displacement of 700,000 of them from their homes." So while Morris is no doubt sympathetic to the Palestinian Nakba position, he clearly says they have direct responsibility. The term "nakba" would suggest differently, ie that they are victims of Israeli aggression. That is why the term is subjective and based on a Palestinian point of view of the conflict and its consequences. Sorry to be so windy. Stellarkid (talk) 14:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Nakba" carries no implications of responsibility. They were indeed victims of Israeli aggression, and no one denies that. They were also victims of their own lack of military, political, and logistical planning. No one denies that either. "Nakba" is just an umbrella term for the events, howsoever caused. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 21:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm.... I am someone who would certainly deny that the Arab defeat was merely due to lack of planning! The Palestinians may have been victims of Jewish aggression but they were also aggressors, and the Jews were also the Arabs victims. 'Nakba' suggests 'tragedy' or 'catastrophe' - as if the Palestinians were mere victims of a tragedy such as a tornado or flood. We are to understand that the Palestinians were not responsible for what befell them; and since we all know that they were not victims of a natural disaster, we are left with the understanding that the Jews attacked them, basically for no reason at all given; except perhaps the suggestion that they wanted to 'steal their land' (ie "re-populate" it). That is the Palestinian narrative and what the word "Nakba" suggests. That is why you will find resistance to the term in those who have read and understand the Israeli narrative. That's why, despite all 2 million Google hits, it is still a subjective word, expressing a view that may be a happy choice for one people, but is an offensive word for another. It is surely a word that needs to be defined and put into the proper context, but should not be generally used if one is trying to develop a neutral voice in articles concerning the conflict between these two peoples. Stellarkid (talk) 02:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting

How would you like it to be formatted, ID? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 06:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's the proper way? On the two current web pages discussed? Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:18, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I may be wrong, but it seems to me that RfC's should be placed in their appropriate category types, history and/or politics. And when posting, "Include a brief, neutral statement of the issue below the template." (emphases in original) The statement at the top of this RfC is neither brief nor neutral. IronDuke 19:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that's done. I formulated a neutral question and added it to the history and politics RfC pages. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 19:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for getting on it so quickly. I'm still troubled at the way the RfC was introduced, which cannot be undone -- and, I hope you don't mind, I've taken the liberty of reformatting such that your personal view is not put forward as a neutral description of the dispute. IronDuke 19:43, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What is the English equivalent of the word "Nakba" by the way? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 20:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Catastrophe or disaster Nableezy (talk) 20:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a translation, but it's not the English equivalent, in the sense that we couldn't say: "List of towns and villages depopulated during the Catastrophe." An equivalent is a word or term routinely used in its place. There isn't one that I know of, hence the proposal to use Nakba, which is increasingly what scholars are using. ID, what did you have in mind when you wrote (on the main page) that there is an English equivalent? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 21:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, thought you were looking for the equivalent word not the English name of the event(s) the Arabic word is associated with. Nableezy (talk) 21:40, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. I asked the question in response to Ironduke saying on the main page that there is an English equivalent that we should use instead, but he didn't say what it is. I should have made clear what I was asking. :) SlimVirgin talk|contribs 21:43, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1948 Palestinian exodus

I think 1948 Palestinian exodus works. IronDuke 22:01, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Nakba isn't confined to 1948 though. That is the problem with that title -- it is inaccurate. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 00:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What years do you believe it covers? IronDuke 02:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you read the exodus article, you'll see it's 1947, 1948, and 1949 at least. I don't know whether historians include later flight too. The point is that "Nakba" is the subject of scholarly debate, just as "Holocaust" is. You couldn't create a title about the Holocaust that didn't deploy "Holocaust" because it 's so wide-ranging, and people disagree about when it started, and about who is included. So the word "Holocaust" is used as shorthand. Ditto the word "Nakba." The only difference is that the latter is not so widely accepted, but it is being used increasingly, and Wikipedia is behind the times in avoiding it.
The only effect of our avoidance is that our articles on the issue are very confusing, difficult to find, and internally inconsistent (e.g. 1948 Palestinian exodus including the exodus from 1947 and 1949). We have lists of villages depopulated during this event and that year and this timescale, because we're bending over backwards to avoid the word "Nakba." Try to imagine what our articles that use the word "Holocaust" would be like if we were forced to avoid that word.
The only thing standing in the way of using common sense here is ideology, and a minority one ("Oh no, it's a Palestinian term, avert your gaze!!") I'm therefore hoping this RfC will cut through it. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 02:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think the title still works, taking the War of 1812 as an example, which did not occur only in 1812. But I wouldn't object to Palestinian exodus of 1947-1949. IronDuke 03:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But what if some historians include later flights? What if the definition broadens the more it's studied? You're not taking the point about it being similar to Holocaust, which shifts all over the place in terms of being defined, so that any title that tried to avoid it—"Jews and Roma and Gays killed by the Nazis from 19xx to 19xx"—would always be inaccurate according to some group of scholars, in terms of representing that series of events we know as "Holocaust." Scholars use the word "Holocaust" (which people recognize as "Ah yes, Jews, killed, Nazis, Roma too"), and argue about the scope within their articles. Ditto "Nakba," which people recognize as "Palestinians, flight, creation of Israel," even if the margins are fluid. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 03:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think the Holocaust is a term that is far more widely accepted, for one thing. Also, it represents a discreet period of time, more or less. Are you suggesting that any Palestinian who was expelled from or fled from or left hoping to return in triumph from their home in any year would qualify, or would there be a cutoff point on each end? IronDuke 03:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what historians regard the cut-off points as. It's an area of study that is in flux, so it's evolving as a concept. Currently, the years discussed most often as "Nakba" are 1947, 1948, and 1949. We represent it in a very misleading way on WP by tying it to the 1948 Palestine War and 1948 Arab-Israeli War (too narrow), or the 1948 Palestinian exodus (too narrow), or the Arab-Israeli conflict (probably too broad). The word for it is "Nakba," which avoids all the difficulties; or rather, which subsumes the difficulties, as with "Holocaust." SlimVirgin talk|contribs 04:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<backdent> Exodus is usually thought to be a good thing, like escaping from bad situation, so POV. Nabka is becoming a generally recognized term in it's own right. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Noting there is an article Jewish exodus from Arab lands I take it back. As long as al-Nabka also in the lead as alternative name, I think it's ok to keep as is, at least til word is taught to school children worldwide, just like Holocaust is. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreeing with SlimVirgin on the arguments, another point: "Exodus" is a biblical and thora word, imposed upon Palestinian people who fled? Very offensive from the start. Someone might suggest replacing Holocaust with "Endloesung" then. -DePiep (talk) 22:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for some sources

Here above several editors claim that al-Nakba is pejorative because the creation of Israel would be the catastrophe [some] Palestinians refer to. What are the reliable sources, neutral, that support this idea because as far as I know, al-Nakba is not that ? It is not because the day of commemoration is the same that it is enough to get such a conclusion.
From google.book, it can be provided many sources that refer to al-Nakba as the exodus, the impossibility for these people to come back, the massacres, the loss of their belongings, their home, the fact they become refugees for generation...
I never read any academic or scholars who claimed that the catastrophe was the Independence of Israel (but I may have missed this). Even if on Nakba Day, Israeli flags are/were burnt, I wonder if this would be enough to conclude that this celebration only or mainly refers to the hostility of the Birth of Israel. Ceedjee

I am disturbed that people find this word threatening or POV. If any of you were to lose your homes (lose them entirely with no compensation) and everything in them, every single thing you own in many cases, and never see them or your homeland again -- and you were to call that a "catastrophe," would you not think someone who objected to that word as inappropriate was quite mad?
The Nakba describes those events. And in any event, we are not using the word "catastrophe," but Nakba. It simply points to those events, as would the word "Blah" if historians started using that instead.
It gets three million English-language hits for its various spellings. It is not a tiny-minority idea. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 15:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SlimVirgin, I find it disturbing that you find it disturbing that people might find the word "Nakba" threatening or POV. You go on to explain your feelings by telling us that people lost their homes and belongings without compensation. Perhaps. The Jews also were booted out of their homes in Arab lands and lost their belongings without compensation as well. As often as not those Jews never saw their homes again either. [2] Was not this time and the time thereafter as much a "nakba" for them as for the Palestinians? There is another view of this with equal validity to the Arab view, and it should be neither disturbing nor is it "quite mad." Did you read the article I linked to above reflecting the Zionist or Israeli perspective on "nakba"?

Please try to understand that the word "Nakba" is an Arab word with implications greater than the simple word itself. As Isseroff puts it in his section called The birth of the Palestine Nakba mythology: "The Arab states and the supporters of the Palestinian Arabs gradually developed the myth that the Jews had conspired to expel the Arabs of Palestine, and that this expulsion had been the plan of the Jewish leadership in 1948, and even a plan of the Zionists beginning with Theodor Herzl."

Isseroff quotes Benny Morris: "And it is also true that mid-way in the 1948 war the Israeli leaders decided to bar the return of the "refugees" (those "refugees" who had just assaulted the Jewish community), viewing them as a potential fifth column and threat to the Jewish state's existence. I for one cannot fault their fears or logic.

The demonisation of Israel is largely based on lies - much as the demonisation of the Jews during the past 2,000 years has been based on lies. And there is a connection between the two...."

And: "John Bagot Glubb ("Glubb Pasha"), the commander of Jordan's Arab Legion, was quoted in the London Daily Mail of August 12, 1948. as admitting, "Villages were frequently abandoned even before they were threatened by the progress of war." If the Palestinians frequently abandoned these villages even before they were threatened, it hardly seems fair to blame Israeli aggression for the "depopulation" of their villages! It is not fair or neutral to use the narrative of only one side to define the whole situation. I hope this helps since it is important to understand the view of both sides without prejudice. Stellarkid (talk) 04:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ceedjee, I found a few references that seem to suggest that the creation of Israel and the "Nakba" are synonymous or at least close. Perhaps you would look at them and see if you agree with my interpretation and if not why not? [3] - [4] Morris, page 129 : [5] 172 Pappe [6] thank you, Stellarkid (talk) 04:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for looking for them. I don't know why but I don't have access to the 1st one and I didn't find reference to al-Nakba in the 3rd and 4th.
In the 2nd one, it is written (I emphasize) : "Nakba Day commemorates the events of 1948. It is the opposite narrative to the Jewish Independence Day. For the Jews, it is the celebration of the Independence of Israel, for the Arabs it is the Day of the disaster (catastrophe, holocaust) when they mourn their national destruction (...)
Nakba Day is the day when Palestinians (not Arabs !) commemorate the Nakba, ie "the events of 1948" (for them, a catastrophe, a holocaust) and their mourn their national destruction.
I don't see where it is written or even alleged that the Birth of Israel is the catastrophe they would refer to :
  • The events of 1948, with an "s" at "events", refer to the flights, the expulsions, the massacres, the loss of everything, the impossibility to come back ...
  • The Independence of Israel refers to the way the Israeli see the "events of 1948", not to the way the Palestinians see the Nakba.
Could you quote what you refer to in 3 others, because I am not sure to see this...
81.244.36.36 (talk) 05:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ceedjee. The first one was just snippets but I thought I caught the meaning 1) "The founding of Israel is considered a Nakba: a calamity, a holocaust. In The Cauldron: The Middle East Behind the Headlines, the Iranian jouralist Amir Taheri defined the significance to the Arab word of the mere existence of Israel...." pg 7 and "The conference was dedicated to the Nakba(the catastrophe that Israel's establishment..."

The second one is more complete and attempts to explain the difference of views of the two sides, important to a fuller understanding of the term, I think. Pages 63-64. "May15 Nakba Day commemorates the events of 1948. It is the opposite narrative to the Jewish Independence Day. For the Jews it is the celebration of the birth of Israel, for the Arabs it is the day of the disaster (catastophe, holocaust) when they mourn their national destruction. In recent years Nakba Day has acquired a central place in the rewriting of the Arab-Palestinian narrative in Israel. .....On HU campus the Nakba Day (May 15) is a source of concern each academic year, and the Arab Vaad (Union) is planning ahead ceremonies that are perceived by the Jews as opposing the core existence of Israel.

Third, pg 143 "Conversely, can we expect the Palestinians to relinquish their term for the war, al Nakba (the castastrophe)? .....It has become a constitutive term for their national self-perception as victims of the unjust Zionist project."

Fourth,pg 207 "In Israeli texts, for example, the war of 1948 is called the "War of Independence," whereas Palestinian texts refer to it as "al Nakba" (the catastrophe).....The Palestinians regard Israelis as the conquerors and themselves as the true victims of the first Arab-Israeli war, which they call al-Nakba or the disaster. Palestinian historiography reflects these perceptions." Stellarkid (talk) 15:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok.
The 1st one is very clear and goes in the direction you talk about.
The 2nd one, not. The 4th, not.
The 3rd one is the most relevant : "Ceremonies that are perceived by the Jews as opposing the core existence of Israel.
The reasons why Palestinians commemorates the events is described in ref 2, 3 and 4. In the 3rd ref, it is explained how Jews (Israelis ?) [mistakenly but it is their right].
The author of the 1st not wp:rs : "Yossef Bodansky, author of the New York Times #1 bestseller bin Laden: The Man Who Declared War on America, is the director of the Congressional Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare. In addition, he is the director of research at the International Strategic Studies Association and a senior editor for the Defense and Foreign Affairs group of publications. The author of eight books on international terrorism and global crises, he is a former senior consultant for the U.S. Departments of Defense and State. He lives in the Washington, D.C., area.".
81.244.180.10 (talk) 17:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Title issue

Ian Pitchford points out on the talk page of the article "1948 Palestinian Exodus" that al-Nakba is much more than only the exodus and the events. I think he is right.
I think we could solve this in creating a new article, in which some of the material of the 1948 Palestinian Exodus would be summarized and the other points developed.
But let's take care about pov:fork. 81.244.36.36 (talk) 05:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consistency

Historicist, I hope you'll take steps to remove Aliyah as a title too. Or else explain to me what the difference is between using "Aliyah," a Hebrew word, as the title for an article about the immigration of Jews to Israel, and using "Nakba," an Arab word, as the title of an article about the exodus of Palestinians. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 20:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some words are more difficult than others. Terms such as Aliyah and Jihad are so complex and culture-specific in their multiple meanings that using English would confuse rather than clarify. But I will be on the lookout for terms that should be in English and are not.Historicist (talk) 20:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nakba is actually quite similar. It's not simply the exodus, it's not simply 1948, it's an entire range of phenomena that historians sum up as "Nakba." A simpler one for you to deal with would be Yom Kippur War. Following your own argument, that should be redirected to 1973 Arab-Israeli War and not the other way round. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 21:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some names are so widely used that attempts to change them would be a POV pushing : "Easter rising" " St. Bartholomew's Day massacre" "yom kippur war"Historicist (talk) 10:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You may have a point about the Aliyah series of articles SV - it's not something that's occurred to me before - but as I'm sure you realize, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument on this project.
In regards to the Nakba, I think if you could demonstrate this was the standard scholarly term for the event in question, I might be prepared to reconsider, but no-one has yet presented any such information. Gatoclass (talk) 06:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey... That is your argument on the main page, Gatoclass. You write that English titles are used everwhere when possible. You cannot play that game. You won the consensus but at least, admit you are WRONG. You will not suffer for this.
It has been answered to your new point : there are two standard terms : "Nakba" and "1948 Palesitnian Exodus" (roughly 50/50 ; in fact Nakba is a little bit more used than "Exodus").
Just see in the discussions.
81.242.50.137 (talk) 11:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gatoclass, the Aliyah issue shows that we're willing as a project to be worryingly inconsistent, rather than give the Palestinian narrative equal consideration. Aliyah is not a word commonly used by historians writing in the English language. Nakba is commonly used. Aliyah describes the immigration of Jews to that area; Nakba describes the departure of Palestinians because of it. Yet the former may be used as a title, the latter not. In fact, not only may Nakba not be used as a title, there are editors who go around removing it from the body of the text, and even from cutlines. [7] As for the argument that Nakba translated means "catastrophe," and that's too politicized and non-neutral, Aliyah translated means "ascent," which implies a holy mission of some kind, which is also deeply political and non-neutral. The question is what we do about this. Do we allow the Palestinian narrative space, using their words when others start to use them too? Or do we go around removing all the Hebrew terms? Because the situation as it stands is patently wrong. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 15:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Previously posted on my own talk page) Honestly, I didn't care if it was Arabic or English. I was more concerned about the WP:NPOV violation and the fact that the term encompassed more than what the template was referring to (i.e. the creation of Israel plus the Palestinian exodus as opposed to just the Palestinian exodus). --GHcool (talk) 18:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Historicist

I assume that Historicist's RfC statement immediately below mine is a direct response to mine, given that it directly addresses my compromise. Under that assumption, I would like to rebut some of his statements in response to my proposal. Historicist has misinterpreted my overall sentiment and approach to this difficult situation, and I'd like to take a moment to further elucidate my proposal and its underlying workings.

First, let it be clear that I am not proposing that we take 1948 Palestinian exodus and beam it through an ion storm. The Nakba article would not rehash the content of the 1948 Palestinian exodus, nor would it reinterpret or provide a different point of view. Let's be clear: the article 1948 Palestinian exodus would remain the article about the event itself, containing the historical information about what led to the event, what happened during the event, and what the event's effects were as well.

SlimVirgin proved in her statement that beyond a doubt, the usage of the term Nakba is well-known and notable. Given the intricate and dichotomous nature of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it would be inappropriate to rename 1948 Palestinian exodus to Nakba for both POV purposes (since it is a Palestinian term, with an inherent emotional resonance that would disproportionately favor one side of the dispute) and for editorial purposes (Nakba's usage is common but not universal, and thus would be less recognizable to the average reader than the current title).

Now, what I proposed is a more harmonious and information-oriented solution to this question. Rather than a simple redirect to 1948 Palestinian exodus, Nakba should be an article in and of itself. The term is clearly notable, and I have no doubt that our crack team of editors could find the proper sources to discuss the term itself, its etymology, its usage, and the obvious controversy that follows it. Think of it as the difference between Cold War (which discusses the half-century of tension between the United States, the Soviet Union, and their associated allies and satellites) and Cold war (general term) (which explains a state of conflict between nations that does not involve direct military action but is pursued primarily through economic and political actions, acts of espionage or conflict through surrogates).

1948 Palestinian exodus is an event. Nakba is a term. Let's adjust Wikipedia to reflect this. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 02:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haaretz article

Israel bans use of Palestinian term 'nakba' in textbooks Zerotalk 02:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Nakba"