Talk:Ongoing Nakba

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Bruxton (talk) 21:21, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the phrase "ongoing Nakba" arose in the 1990s as an expression of the "continuous experience of violence and dispossession" experienced by the Palestinian people in the wake of the Nakba? Source: Alon, Shir (2019). "No One to See Here: Genres of Neutralization and the Ongoing Nakba". Arab Studies Journal. 27 (1). Georgetown University: 93–94.
  • ALT1: ... that the first public usage of the term "ongoing Nakba" is widely credited to Hanan Ashrawi, who referenced it in a speech at the 2001 World Conference against Racism? Source: Alon, Shir (2019). "No One to See Here: Genres of Neutralization and the Ongoing Nakba". Arab Studies Journal. 27 (1). Georgetown University: 93–94.
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/The Great Wave off Kanagawa

Created by Iskandar323 (talk). Self-nominated at 13:15, 22 December 2022 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: I'm linking nakba in the hook btw. I prefer the first hook. BorgQueen (talk) 11:16, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

• Just reading prior to promotion, and I added an arbitration enforcement banner and other relevant projects to the talk page. Bruxton (talk) 00:07, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at Nakba article about ongoing Nakba

Please see Talk:Nakba#Ongoing Nakba. Levivich (talk) 22:49, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Section to be added "During the 2023 Israel-Hamas War"

During the 2023 Israel-Hamas War

Multiple news agencies have raised concerns of a "new Nakba" as hundreds of thousands of Palestinians have been displaced during the Evacuation of the northern Gaza Strip.[1][2]

The United Nations Special Rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territories, Francesca Albanese, has stated that “There is a grave danger that what we are witnessing may be a repeat of the 1948 Nakba, and the 1967 Naksa, yet on a larger scale." and "Israel has already carried out mass ethnic cleansing of Palestinians under the fog of war. Again, in the name of self-defence, Israel is seeking to justify what would amount to ethnic cleansing."[3]

On Nov 11th 2023, Israeli Minister Avi Dichter stated "We are now rolling out the Gaza Nakba."[4]

Palestinians including Mahmoud Abbas have warned of a "second Nakba" regarding the situation in Gaza.[5][6][7]

Yoni Ben-Menachem used the phrase "The Gaza Nakba of 2023" in a twitter post.[8]

-If someone could add this section for me that would be great. My account is not eligible to edit this page. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 15:44, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Serious NPOV Issues

In order for this article to be considered notable it needs to have a neutral discussion of this term. At the moment, there is no reason for this article to exist given the definition of this compound word is self-explanatory. With "Nakba" already being covered in another article, activists or scholars appending the term "ongoing" is self explanatory in meaning. Dazzling4 (talk) 13:59, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

WP:NPOV means adherence to the sources. The page exists at the given title because the sources discuss the subject under the given title. It's as simple as that. Notability is unrelated to NPOV. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:33, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Adherence to sources that only take one particular side is not WP:NPOV and this article is clearly not WP:BALANCED.

As for notability - you are correct, the notability of this term should be disputed separately. Thank you for pointing that out. I will create two separate discussions for these two issues. Dazzling4 (talk) 15:23, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

Opening this NPOV dispute discussion to fix address the various aspects of this article that are not WP:BALANCED. The article relies too heavily, or entirely, on direct in-line quotations - using them in a way that misrepresents opinions as facts. Additionally, the article conflates the term "ongoing nakba" as a very particular paradigm put forth by an author named Shir Alon with general references to the idea that the Nakba can be described as "continuous."

Lets see some examples:

Here various unattributed quotations are weaved into the text in order to create the pretense of neutrality.

A central aspect of the ongoing Nakba is the "systematic, ongoing and arbitrary forced displacement of Palestinians", including what has been described as the ghettoization of the Palestinian population through transfers, land confiscation and the concentration and confinement "of as many as possible of those who remain in the smallest possible areas of land". One example is Israel's creation of seven "concentration towns" for Palestinian Negev Bedouins, which sat alongside a policy of ruling 45 other communities (as of 2008) illegal and the pressuring of their residents (sometime violently) to move to the concentration towns.

In this section the article discusses Alon's "ongoing nakba" framework.

As a framework it is “a relatively recent historiographic narrative through which to comprehend decades of Zionist settler colonialism and Palestinian dispossession”, that, according to Alon, replaces both the Nakba and the subsequent Naksa (the 1967 “setback”, or further displacement) narrative, and the anti-imperialist liberation struggle.

Yet in this next paragraph a discussion of the ongoing-nature of the original nakba is discussed with no connection to Alon's framework.

Researchers at the Australian Institute of International Affairs have called the Nakba "a historical starting point for still ongoing experiences of occupation and exile" and tied the ongoing nature of the Nakba directly to the nature of Israel's ethno-nationalist statehood, noting that "settler colonialism is not an event; it is a structure, which manifests in cycles of violence, displacement, and dispossession of the native local population ... Israel’s settler colonial structure is maintained by a continued drive to dominate and – at times – eliminate the native population of Palestine."

In order to retain NPOV this article must not conflate these two different ideas, so that proper opposition can be included. Dazzling4 (talk) 15:46, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

@Dazzling4 I understand the issue; although I think the issue is that this article conflates a historiographical concept with "the reality on the ground", however convergent they may be. I will bold-edit some aspects over the next 24 hours, although I'm not sure if those edits will address your concerns per se. Uness232 (talk) 17:20, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

@Uness232 See my other comments - the most important work to be done on this article is to clearly define what "ongoing nakba" is being discussed in the article. Is it a well-defined framework or is it a series of allegations? If it used as both then we should choose the more notable one and include the other in a subsection. I'm not an expert on the content so I will leave it up to you and others to decide, but I'm just commenting on the structure of the article as it exists today. Dazzling4 (talk) 17:43, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

@Dazzling4 Well what it is, is a historiographical framework (which has also had colloquial reflections). In traditional discourse, the Nakba is generally considered a single, completed event, that being the displacement of Palestinians and depopulation of Palestinian villages in 1948 (which is then conceptualized historiographically as the destruction of Palestinian society). This framework argues that the Nakba is best seen as a series of events that started in 1948, but still continues (and therefore the 1948-manner-of-destruction still continues). It is not an allegation, it is a conceptualization. Uness232 (talk) 17:56, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Do you know off-hand of any other examples of "historiographical frameworks" on Wikipedia that we can look? Dazzling4 (talk) 19:18, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

So , these three are without attributions, there are no refs for them? Are these "some" examples, is there more or not? If there are many such examples, please discuses those as well, if not you should remove article template tag and use more appropriate inline tags or section tags - in this way you have swept entire article under a "disputed neutrality" article template message tag as if entire subject matter is disputed - i think it's not, and it can't be. I worry because this is not the first and only article in last week(s) that you tried to put under article template message tag, disputing entire article, but really failed to justify such tagging. Please, use more appropriate template messages depending on given situation. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 14:37, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

OK - these three para's are all atribute in RS and I checked if statements and context are mentioned in given source - they are. This means that tagging is unsubstantiated and need to go - pronto, and I mean immediately! ౪ Santa ౪^99° 14:51, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, and I removed the tag. Levivich (talk) 19:42, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Good call, Lev. I have checked all sources and it seem all good there too. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 21:34, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

WP:Notability issues

This article seriously lacks justification for existence at the moment, especially in its current state making no distinction between "ongoing nakba" as a framework and the vague idea that the nakba is still ongoing. Not every thought or term belongs on Wikipedia. Take for example From the river to the sea - this topic is notable because of the widespread use and coverage of the use of the term, the controversy surrounding it, and various ongoing debates about it. None of these apply to "ongoing nakba."

Unless this article can show that, like "From the river to the sea", this term is notable enough for inclusion in Wikipeda, then it should be brought to AfD. Dazzling4 (talk) 15:53, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Not how notability works usually; specific wording isn't so important, the general concept is. Enough sources exist for the concept of an ongoing Nakba, even if it is not necessarily called the Ongoing Nakba. Uness232 (talk) 17:24, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I understand - perhaps notability isn't the issue and instead its mainly an issue of clarity and focus. We need to answer "what topic are we trying to discuss here?" At the moment it reads as a collection of related grievances under a poorly defined umbrella. Dazzling4 (talk) 17:36, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

That is to say that notability will be more clear once the correct topic of the article is established. I think the best way to fix this would be to have this "ongoing nakba" article refer to Alon's theory, and include some other related ongoing Palestinian grievances brought up in the current article placed into a subsection titled something along the lines of "related commentary" or "possible examples." Dazzling4 (talk) 17:39, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't see how the article lacks notability. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 02:09, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

This article doesn't lack in notability a one bit - it's scope perfectly reflect (current) reality. What we need to do is to address problematic article template message tagging on several articles concerning subject matter and indeed scope. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 14:41, 24 November 2023 (UTC)