text:
Talk:Nakba Day/Archive 1

Cherry picking
Article relies on propaganda assembled by various pressure and terror groups such as PFLP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dkendr (talk • contribs) 15:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Use talk
Ian,

There are ways to solve edit conflicts. You should read the text it refer to palestinians in israel. many events oversees also take place during the whole month of May at about the same time that srael indpendence is celebrated.

I have included your text and refernce to nakba where the rest of the information is found. If you want to change the text I suggest you carefullt review the sources given and discuss issues here. Zeq 18:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Another source(s)
Ian, I suggest you use carefully read this source to the end to understand more about "nakba day" in Israel:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/712089.html

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=102914

http://english.alarabonline.org/display.asp?fname=2006%5C05%5C05-03%5Czalsoz%5C929.htm&dismode=x&ts=03/05/2006%2004:06:41%20%C3%A3

From CSM: "Israelis celebrate Independence Day on Wednesday while Palestinians mark it solemnly as "Al Nakba," the Catastrophe"

and more: http://www.dailybruin.ucla.edu/news/articles.asp?id=36949

Zeq 19:00, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

To anyone who still needed proof
see this source, clearly showing that palestinians in israel commerate Nakba day on th exact day israel celbrates independence:

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3246809,00.html

banners held at demo reads:

"''We mustn't renounce the right of return – their independence day is our day of tragedy.'"

article text:

"About two thousand Israeli Arabs chose to mark Independence Day in a different way Wednesday, opting to mark 'Nakba Day' commemorating the Arab disaster that results from Israel's establishment. "

Zeq 03:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

 * These sources are just wrong Zeq. Palestinians organize protests about the "Nakba" on and around Israeli Independence Day (May 14 in the Gregorian calendar) and there are other protests around the world on various dates, but Nakba Day itself is on 15 May, we have multiple Israeli newspaper sources (provided by you) saying this, as well as confirmation from peer reviewed books. Also, here is the Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas himself confirming, just two days ago, that Nakba day is 15 May: . --Ian Pitchford 14:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Oh Right. Sources are wrong and you are right. The bottom line is that the memeorial is "celebrated" in Israel on the same day or close to the day Israel celebrates it's idependence.
 * Abrod, where for example around May 15 of each year there is the NY parade of "salute to israel" they declared the same date for "nakba day".
 * Either way it is all about countering the celbartion of Israels' independence day with a memorial to the palestinians who suffer from israel's independence.
 * The sources show that. !!!!
 * You were given a chance to revert your one isded POV edits which contradicts the sources given above. Zeq 18:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the Palestinian president knows when Nakba Day is. You are just confusing "Nakba" protests with Nakba Day. --Ian Pitchford 19:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

 * I get it: You are right and the sources I brought are wrong.
 * These sources inculde a wide range:
 * Israeli press (including Ha'aretz, Ynet and NRG/Maariv i.e. "the big 3")
 * American press
 * Al jajeera
 * Arab members of Knesset
 * Arab intelectuals
 * and more....
 * They are wrong and you are right and that gives you the right to revert. Zeq 03:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, from your sources there's no doubt that the protests are organized on a very flexible schedule to coincide with, and no doubt disrupt, Israel's celebrations, but that doesn't alter the fact that Nakba Day is officially 15 May and Israel's Independence Day is officially 14 May. --Ian Pitchford 13:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

 * In Israel they are (every year) on the  exact day  of israel independence day. Zeq 16:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * This article in Haaretz, that you placed into the article, says clearly that they are not on the same day. --Ian Pitchford 16:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

 * This was a theoretical article, about the possibility that one day the may 15 will become an official memorial day in Israel based the date set by Arafat. The reality however, is very different (as can be seen from all the other sources).
 * In reality, every year on the exact day of Israel independence day, the Palestinians in Israel commemorate "nakba day".

 * Is it puzzling to you that they use the Hebrew calendar to commemorate a Palestinian memorial ?
 * It is puzzling to me as well.  but this is the reality

 * So yes, be my guest mention that Arafat set the date as may 15 but make sure the  reality  is what this article is about.

 * PS, I saw that arafat is already mentioned as the one who set may 15 but the reality (as seen by the sources) is different. Zeq 18:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * This article is about the reality that Independence Day is 14 May and Nakba Day is 15 May as Israeli government, Palestinian government and western academic sources confirm. Please respect the sources. --Ian Pitchford 19:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Yes right, read the article, it is about a theoretical proposal about making may 15 an israeli national meorial day called "citizen day". The reality is that they use Independence day (based on the Hebrew calander) to mark "nakba day" in israel. All sources show that. It is time that you start respeting the reality, even when it is not to your liking. Zeq 04:24, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Here's the quotation from Haaretz one more time: "The following day, May 15, markes the official end of the British Mandate in Palestine and the date the Arab armies invaded. This is the day that the Palestinians and Arabs mark as Nakba Day, "The Catastrophe."--Ian Pitchford 07:07, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

 * This just prove my point: This is a theoretical article, the reality, as we have it from many news sources, is different: They use the Hebrew calander (and i don't bother quoting sources to you as you have seen them all already). Clearly, this article written last year which is the 19 year cycle when may 15 5 in I'yar meet on the same day. The reality is that not every 19 years (but every year) they decaler nakba day in israel on the same day as independence day - this is the difference between the theory (that you quote) and the reality. Zeq 08:37, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * There's no point in your editing the English Wikipedia if you can't read and write English. --Ian Pitchford 08:47, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

 * First you insult me, later you make comparisons to nazis (see Godwin law) next you make more WP:PA. Someone who might look at this from the side might think you have nothing better to support your arguments. But I am waiting for you to bring a source that show that the  reality  (not the theoretical date) is indeed what youi claim it is. I have broght between 5-10 sources to supprot my claim so I guess the ball is in your court now ..... Zeq 10:51, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * As I said there's no point in your editing the English Wikipedia if you can't read and write English. --Ian Pitchford 10:56, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * As I said there is no point for to continue violating WP:PA when the propensity of evidence from most sources does not go the way you want it to be. 11:22, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

This article
I changed the intro. As previously written, it looked like it was referring to all the narrative of the events of 1948 from a certain POV but without defining 'NAKBA DAY' itself!! Nakba day commemorates two things: The 1- expulsion of Palestinians from Palestine and 2- the destruction of their villages, as came about with the establishment of Israel. If these two things are not in the intro, then this article needs to be deleted. Nakba Day does not commemorate the Arab invasion of Palestine, or the rhetoric of crazy Arab leaders, or the reasons why the War occurred, or the anniversary of the famous Ben Gurion burp during a toast on July 13 1949. Also, Palestinians stick to the Gregorian calendar, so even though some events are scheduled during the 5th of Iyar, most events center around May 15. This will be evident on ... May 15. Ramallite (talk) 05:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree completely. We can't have an article on a Palestinian national even described primarily in terms of a narrative they don't accept. --Ian Pitchford 09:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The article cannot state as fact some ahistorical nonsense. As it is, the intro is factual, accurate, and NPOV. Pecher Talk 10:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That's right. It must be factual and state exactly how the Palestinian government describes the commemoration. It's no more appropriate to define this event from an Israeli perspective than it would be to re-write Yom Ha'atzma'ut from a Palestinian perspective. --Ian Pitchford 10:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No, we must define the historical facts from a neutral perspectives. If you want to quote quote some Palestinian rhetoric, then fine with me, but rhetoric must be stated as what it is: rhetorics not as facts. Pecher Talk 11:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, obviously, and Ramallite's version describes exactly what the day commemorates, not how others would like to describe the event in order to make it compatible with their own narratives.--Ian Pitchford 12:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

 * The palestinian narritive of the nakba is an important one, as one of the POV along the way to make the Nakba article NPOV (which it is not after 3 years attempts). The issue of Nakba day is an important one and off course the palestinian POV is important here as well.

 * However, nither Ramalite nor Ian represent the palestinian people. The sources must speak. So we have brought sources. The sources are actually clear on the facts, there is no disagreement between the various sources:

 * While the offcial date was set at May 15 (a date which is considered by many to be the date of the declaration of independence of Israel, although the correct date is may 14)  the actual date for Nakba Day in israel  is every year on the exact date in which according to the Hebrew calander the indepence day is celebrated.

 * Elsewhere in the world, the evenet is celebated over a month which overlaps the date of Israeli independence date.

 But the issue is not just the date  The sources are clear that many palestinians see "your independence as our catastrophe" and I tend to agree with them. This is what this article is about. It is not about Nakba, it is about Nakba day. (and maybe these articles should be merged) Zeq 12:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That's right, the article is about Nakba Day, 15 May, and what it was designed to commemorate, "the catastrophe" of Palestinian dispossesion; not Israel's independence day; not the war and the not the invasion of Arab states. The sources are quite clear. --Ian Pitchford 12:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That's rhetoric, which we cannot state as fact. Instead, giving a neutral historical background is entirely appropriate. Pecher Talk 13:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Looking at the sources again the easiest thing to do would be to prepare a chronology since the event was devised in 1998. --Ian Pitchford 12:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

 * This article is about 'Nakba Day', which by definition is a POV. That's why it has to be described for what it is. The intro that Zeq/Pecher are pushing is ridiculous. It's like describing Israeli Independence Day as the day when "thousand of villages were destroyed and the Palestinian exodus occurred". Nakba day means something to the group of people who came up with it - and this article, since it exists with the title 'Nakba Day', needs to clearly state what it means and not what some foreign right wing agenda thinks it ought to mean. Okay? This is a Palestinian comemmorative day, not an Israeli one, and by definition needs to be at least INTRODUCED from a Palestinian perspective. Neutrally of course. And by the way, Pecher, that the exodus occurred and villages were destroyed is not 'rhetoric', but facts not even Kahane disputed. You are being completely insensitive and malicious in your regarding them as 'rhetoric'. Ramallite (talk) 13:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

 * That is your POV. I think you need to read the sources. It is shamfull that you and Ian have turned this isnto an edit war.
 * It seems that everything that has to do with Nakba, it is impossible to get an NPOV balanced article. Read the sources provided and you will see that Nkaba day is about palestinians but it is the name palestinians use for Israel independence.
 * Please check what NPOV is. When a day is on one side "independence day" and on the other 'Disaster day" why is it so hard to include both meaning. See the original revision of this article. Zeq 15:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

What is it that's my POV, Zeq? Both meanings are included - but what does the 'Nakba Day' commemorate? Just that Israel was established? Nothing else? You and Pecher are trying (erroneously) to push the POV that Nakba Day is a "Palestinians hate Israel" day, but that is not what sources say. All sources about the 'Nakba' refer to what the tragedy is: dispossession and destruction. That is not my POV. Stop this shameful denial, its sickening. Ramallite (talk) 15:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I did not say that hate israel, I let their own words speak on their behalf. Zeq 15:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC) PS, no one deny the Nakba, there is an article about it. This article is about celebrating "nakba day" on israel's independence day (that is what takes place in Israel at least, every year in the last 7 years) Zeq 15:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * And that's the problem - only 10-15% of all Palestinians live in Israel, so what they do is not exactly representative of all the Palestinian people. Ramallite (talk) 16:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * This article now contains a false statement in the first sentence "15 May, the day Israel declared its independence in 1948", it has a wikilink to an article we don't have 1948 War and the sources have been deleted yet again. I ignored your Nazi jibe above Zeq, but if you revert this article one more time I'll ask the Arbitration Committee to regard your actions here as a breach of the terms of your probation. --Ian Pitchford 15:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Ian is right... the eve of May 14 was the actual declaration. My apologies. Ramallite (talk) 16:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Ian, You have reverted almost any edit I did on the last 2 weeks. This is harrasment. Please stop it. Zeq 16:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

ramallite: read the sources. The may 15 is common error. In any case in israel nakba day is always in "Yom ha'atzmaout". Zeq 16:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Chronology
What does the chronology has to do with anything ? it is soooooooooo POV that it better be removed. No point fighting over it in this article.

also this articl;e still include much that belong in other articles. A ref to Nakba is enough and all the material is there.

The important thing about Nakba day is that it is associated with israel's founding. See more source here:

http://www.nkusa.org/activities/demonstrations/alnakbaDC03.cfm

I suggest we shorten this article considerably to be about Nakba day only.

If this is too hard I agree to go to mediation about it.

what do you say ?

Zeq 04:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I thought it was obvious that I included this stuff in order to demonstrate that Nakba Day doesn't coincide with Israeli Independence Day, although it's also useful information about what does actually happen during the commemoration. I don't see what's POV about it. However, I did describe it as a partial chronology because the sources seem to be very limited. --Ian Pitchford 12:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Ian wrote: "to demonstrate that Nakba Day doesn't coincide with Israeli Independence Day"

How exacvtly can you demonstrate that it does not when it does ?

Zeq 12:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you think we should mention the holocaust in this article ?
I don't (for now). The holocaust has it's own article. So does nakba. This article is about nakba day but maybe, because palestinians established it to draw parallele beyween the Jewish holocaust and their Nakba we should mention that. What do you think ? Zeq 11:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Do you have a good source for the fact that a parallel is drawn? --Ian Pitchford 12:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

can start here but there is more: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3246376,00.html http://www.ramallahonline.com/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=2201 (this was on Yom hatzmaout last year) Zeq 12:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

 * This is yet another source that gives 15 May for Nakba Day, i.e. not Yom Ha'atzma'ut. It refers to the Nakba as a 'Palestinian Holocaust' but doesn't draw a comparison with (or even mention) The Holocaust. --Ian Pitchford 12:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

This edit
is not correct. They did invade the area allocated to jews.

I wonder if ian also falsify the article about the war (in this aspect of it)

I also repeat my call to mediation, instead of Ian style of edit wars. Zeq 12:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Any comment before I revert this ? Zeq 12:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, which area are you talking about? --Ian Pitchford 12:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=420090
Israeli Arabs to mark Nakba Day with march By Eli Ashkenazi Israel's Arab community, for whom the anniversary of Israel's establishment is Nakba ("catastrophe") Day, will again mark Independence Day with a march through one of the Arab villages abandoned during the War of Independence.

This year, the march will be through the former village of Andur, near Kibbutz Ein-Dor in the lower Galilee.

According to Abed Anbatawi, a spokesman for the Higher Arab Monitoring Committee, some 418 Arab villages ceased to exist after their residents fled or were driven out during the War of Independence. "Israel's Independence Day is our Nakba Day ... It's our Holocaust Day ," he said.

Officially, Israeli Arabs commemorate Nakba Day on May 15, the day the state was established according to the English calendar (Independence Day is the anniversary of that date according to the Hebrew calendar).

Nevertheless, a march is always held on Independence Day, as well, to underscore their view of Israel's establishment as their catastrophe.

"Our goal is not to call for Israel's destruction, but to recall that there is a people that has not only not obtained its national rights, but whose very existence is under attack," explained Anbatawi.

Zeq 12:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * And this is already covered in the article: "Palestinians and their supporters around the world coordinate some Nakba Day events to coincide with the celebrations of the independence of Israel." --Ian Pitchford 12:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

And Monday it is...
Pecher, Ramallite (talk) 15:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Some villages were abandoned, but there is also documented expulsions. Deir Yassin is a famous example. You need to stay neutral. Okay?
 * Do not remove the part about some people fleeing/being expelled before the war, because that is true. The fleeing did start at some level before the war. Try to read what you are reverting.
 * Whitewashing my ass - it is mentioned directly in the paragraph that follows... again, read first.
 * Try to desist from just reverting every time you see a Ramallite edit, it's getting annoying.
 * "Some villages were abandoned, but there is also documented expulsions." Reasonably, it was the other way around: there were some expulsions, but the overwhelming majoeity of them were abandoned voluntarily. Like Arab propagandists, you keep mentioning Deir Yassin, where there was no epulsion BTW and the circumstances of which are notoriously vague, just because there is little else to talk about. I will ignore your incivilities, like "Whitewashing my ass". Pecher Talk 16:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I constantly regard your unreasonable and insulting attitude towards me, which somehow seems to be personal, as uncivil, as well as accusing me of 'whitewashing' or calling me a 'propagandist' but lets leave that aside. The main part of my edit dealt with the fact that some refugees started flowing out before the war, but you reverted that part without addressing why. Now you acknowledge there may have been 'some' expulsions yet you wanted to maintain 'abandonment'. I could not have been whitewashing when I was eliminating a redundancy that is actually explained in as much detail, if not more so, a couple of sentences later! Lastly, there is no such thing as becoming a refugee voluntarily. No Palestinian just happened to be taking a walk outside the house one day and decided what a great idea it would be to just take a nice permanent stroll across the Jordan River. Use of the word 'voluntarily' in such situation is, if I may, highly propagandistic. As I always use as an example: maybe I should fly over to New Orleans and take over some of the abandoned rich houses because, hey, those owners all left voluntarily!! Deir Yassin is infamous because of the massacre that took place there, but stories of bloodless expulsion, where trucks arrived and people were expelled at gunpoint, are only recently starting to come out in 'reputable' sources even though Palestinians who lived through it have known it throughout their lives. Rabin's memoirs are one place to look, as well as some recent documentaries with former Israeli generals, and their memoirs. I won't mention Palestinian publications, since we are not regarded as reputable apparently.
 * Would you prefer 'depopulation' instead of 'abandonment'? Would that sound more neutral? Let me know. Ramallite (talk) 16:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

 * I don't think this article  is the place  to fight over these issues. It is a "nakba day" and all facts about what is "nakba" should be moved to article Nakba. ramllite I left you a personal note.

 * I put a proposal to return this article to sanity and avoid discussion of what was the "truth".
 * There is more than one "truth" and it is found in other articles. This article is about  a day  not about the whole 1948 war. think about it before you revert me. I will not participate in this edit war so if you revert me you will "win" . I suggest we find a meditor instead. Zeq 18:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Zeq,
 * You are ignoring all the discussion above where you have been told that Nakba Day is not 5 Iyar but 15 May.
 * You have the quotes by Azmi Bishara but removed the ones by Abbas. That is POV.
 * The quotes by Bishara (and by Abbas that you removed) have no place under a section entitled 'Origins'. These quotes were in 2006. What do they have to do with 'Origins'?
 * You have a lot of grammatical mistakes.
 * Lastly, and most importantly, you insist on adding reference to Yom Ha'atzmaut but delete any other reference about what makes the Nakba a Nakba.
 * So I don't like it when you try to convey a message of conciliation but revert the text to what is entirely your POV. Remember something I told you before: More than 50% of the time on Wikipedia, I right stuff I don't agree with. Have you EVER done that? The POV you are trying to push is that Nakba Day is purposefully aligned to disrupt or interfere with Israeli independence day, when you know there is a lot more to it than that. The fact that you are unwilling to even concede that it's commemorated on May 15 and not Iyar 5 does not convince me that you are trying to be helpful. Ramallite (talk) 19:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Ramalite,

I tried to create a new baseline. If you think it is POV please add what ever I left out. Just don't go back to fight over "what occured in 1948 and why" in this article. Please do it in one of the articles where I banned so i don't have to waste my time it this endless fight. Zeq 19:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Excuse me, it was your colleague above who added the part about Arab armies invading and Palestinians 'abandoning' their villages and Arabs voluntarily 'fleeing' their homes and all of that. I tried to make it more accurate and you jumped all over me. If you want my personal opinion, this whole article can just be one line in the Nakba article, that would be enough. You are not banned from Azmi Bishara, so if you hate him so much, go edit that article, and don't forget to add how uncle Avi wants to kill him. Ramallite (talk) 19:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

 * ramalite. I don't want to fight with you, not here, not elsewhere. And don't give me this Liberman shit cause I am against most of what he sais. I do agree with him on the general idea that people who coopreate with the enemy should be brought to justice but I am against the death penalty.

 * This whole history thing started from Ian, who correctly pointed out that May 15 is not may 14. I hope my clarification below will help.

PS trying to deny the linkage between nakba and Israel or Nakba day and establshment/founding day of Israel is laughable. We know the facts about NAKBA DAY. We have enough sources on what occured in Israel just few days ago in Yom ha'atzmaout and on similar events lasy year and on the year before. We also know now why israel was indeed founded on may 15 (see below) altogether we can make a dissent article about the  day  called Nakba day. (without fighting on what took place in 1948) we do not deny that an exodus took place, that it was connected to the war and establishment of israel and to an invasion by arab forces and that palestinians (rightly so) regard this event as their disaster while Israelis see this as a day to celbrate on creating a jewish state. See it was not so hard. Zeq 19:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Important clarfiication
I read the text of Israel declaration of independence.

The British Mandate ended on Midnight between the 14 and 15 of May.

According to the decalration (given on H I'yar, May 14, 1948 at 5:00 PM at night)  as soon as the British mandate ends (May 14 on Midnight) Israel takes soviregnity over the area allocated by the U to a Jewish state.

As such, Israel was founded (started to exist as a state) on May 15, 1948 on 00:00.

Hope this clarify the misconceptions. (I know it buffeled me since it was always May 15 as I was told and read as the day israel was founded)

Zeq 19:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, this confuses a lot of people, but the Declaration of Independence was on 14 May and that date is Israeli Independence Day. The state was formed on 15 May, see The Palestine Post 16 May 1948, 'State of Israel Is Born'. --Ian Pitchford 13:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Chronology
What does this (for example) " Israel carries out missile and artillery attacks on targets across Gaza on the eve of Nakba Day" - has to do with the article ? Zeq 12:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

or this: "Israeli army launches a large-scale offensive in the Gaza Strip" Zeq 12:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You could read the articles in question! --Ian Pitchford 13:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

 * what ? Zeq 13:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You could read the articles cited. They all discuss Nakba Day - hence the relevance. --Ian Pitchford 19:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

 * There is absolutly no connection to the events mentioned in the chronology to "Nakba day" itself. Newspaper sometimes pack into one article two venets that happend to occur in the same day. We are an encyclopedia not a daily news paper. Zeq 03:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

 * I've removed the chronology section as material was being added just because it happened on or around that date. Every year is marked by violence and there's not a whole lot more to say than that. We don't need: "2003: marked by violence; 2004: marked by violence; 2005: more violence." SlimVirgin (talk) 04:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Source query
Could we have another source for this edit, please? I see the WP page is sourced entirely to the same author. "Events in ... resulted in ... the destruction of 418 Palestinian villages. (Khalidi, Walid (Ed.). (1992). All That Remains: The Palestinian Villages Occupied and Depopulated by Israel in 1948. Washington: Institute for Palestine Studies) SlimVirgin (talk) 00:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Although I didn't add this source, may I ask why? What's wrong with Khalidi? Besides, the Khalidi ref applies only to the number of destroyed villages since he is an authoritative figure who actually documented this. The expulsion/fleeing is referenced to Benny Morris. Ramallite (talk) 03:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

 * It's the Institute for Palestine Studies and it's heavily contested so we shouldn't stay the figure as a fact. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Also, what are the "events" so delicately referred to in the intro? SlimVirgin (talk) 00:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

 * "Events" is a link, so a delicate click on the mouse button will take you to the events in question. This was added because there were certain inaccuracies that were being added to the intro, namely that Palestinian refugees started flowing out only after the Arabs invaded, which was not the case. But instead of summarizing all the crap that happened in the forties in the intro of an article such as this one, I thought I'd make it just a link, since otherwise it would be POV battling and irrelevant. Of course, you're welcome to try and replace 'events' with a summary of the actual 'events' if you can muster something up. Ramallite (talk) 03:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Okay thanks, Ramallite. "Events" sounds good to me. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 03:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

 * I think the key here is :
 * Any term that can just be wiki-linked to another article we should avoid dealing with it's specifics here.

Zeq 04:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

 * I've deleted the number as it seems to be based on a list copied from palestineremembered. com, a propaganda site. I've left it as "the abandonment and destruction of Arab villages," which is more neutral. The more detail we add, the more POV it's likely to become, unless an account exists that both sides of the conflict agree on. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

 * I agree with that aproch, "Less is more". This is what I wrote Ramallite on his talk page: . Zeq 04:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I still see problems (back to the original arguments):
 * "Abandonment" is clear Pecher-style POV. People either fled from them or were expelled from them, expecting to return in either case, and 'abandonment' is quite a malicious term to describe this. Slim, while not indicating so in the edit summary, took out the citation request I had added. I ask again, would people agree to 'depopulated' instead?
 * The intro sentence has wound up returning to what the problem was: that Nakba day commemorates first and foremost Israel's establishment, instead of what it could equally be (and is): Palestinian dispossession. I don't like these veiled insinuations that yet again try to paint Palestinians as the only haters in this conflict. I view this as horribly non-neutral, not to mention non-factual. Just ask those loving settlers.
 * The IPS apparently is the publisher, not the author. I must point out that, in any other nationality including our Israeli friends on the other side of the fence, members of that nationality seem to be the most reliable source for the narration and data of tragedies pertaining to themselves, but Palestinians are deemed the least reliable source in narrating the tragedies of the... Palestinians. I'm sorry, this is highly prejudiced and very offensive to me. But as I always say, who am I if not the WP laughing stock right now, evidently.... Ramallite (talk) 04:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

 * I don't know what "pecher style" is but to the point: 'Abandonment' and 'depopulated' are equaly POV (each of them apply a different person took the action, in one it is the rafugee who were active in the other those who "depopulated" them). So we should focus on  a fact  that we can all agree that the Palestinian have left - we should not get into the reason in this article.

 * It is clear from all sources that indeed Nakba day commemorates Israel's establishment and events resulted from the creation of Israel. Bishara says it clearly:  "your independence is our disaster"

 * It is not about "who should tell about their own misery". If you have a good source for holocaust, for 1929 riots, for anything:  use that source . In Wikipedia, Palestinians have no extra right to tell about Palestinian misery much the same way that jews don't have extra right to tell about the misery they went through (from anyone) Zeq 05:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Depopulated sounds a bit forensic. Is it necessary to say anything extra about villages? If 700,000 fled, they clearly fled from somewhere, so it might be enough just to give that figure. I don't understand the second point about Nakba day not commemorating Israel's declaration of independence. That's what the sources say. Do you have a source saying otherwise? I didn't follow the third point at all. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

 * The Institute for Palestine Studies is an independent academic centre and perfectly respectable as a source. Rashid Khalidi is a distinguished scholar in the field of Palestinian and Arab history of the twentieth century. Any insinuations to the contrary are more likely to cast doubt on the good faith of those making them than on the sources. Palmiro | Talk 13:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes Palmiro but he is a Palestinian scholar, so by definition he is not a reputable source on Palestinians.... Ramallite (talk) 13:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

 * I wish these snide remarks could cease. The point, Palmiro, is that the figure is disputed, yet was presented as fact. If we want to give that figure, we'd need to an independent source (or one from the other side) who backed it up; or else give both sides' figures; or else no figure (which seems most sensible to me). SlimVirgin (talk) 14:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I thought you were implying that it was the IPS that was contested... Palmiro | Talk 14:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * So did I. On the other hand, is there any source that contested the figure? Please point it out, I wasn't aware that there are reputable sources that contest the 400+ figure... Ramallite (talk) 17:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * If no sources contest the figure, you'll have no trouble providing other sources for it. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Wait - I thought you actually had a contesting source in mind - you made a whole argument that 'these sources are contested' - not me. So I naturally assumed you would know what the contesting sources are... don't you? You couldn't have just assumed that the number is contested without having any knowledge to the contrary... There are plenty of sources on the villages, both Khalidi and non-Khalidi sources actually had a list. So do me a favor, and please provide me with the smallest number you have come across. Mine is 396 (it doesn't claim to be a complete list but who cares). Ramallite (talk) 18:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Zeq says "'Abandonment' and 'depopulated' are equaly POV" - so why are you defending one of these POVs? Because you agree with it? Look up the word 'abandon' in a dictionary. I think its usage here stinks of propaganda and is also factually incorrect. Either come up with a neutral word, or remove it. You cannot agree that something is POV on Wikipedia and then proceed to defend its usage.
 * Since you bring up the Palestinian vs Jew 'misery' debate, I'm not saying that anybody has extra rights (and you know I'm not saying that). What I'm saying is that if a Jewish source says something about Jewish suffering (or an Armenian about Armenian suffering or a Croat about Croatian suffering, etc), it is normally accepted as an admissible source (and usually the best source), even if it is fabrication like camera.org or complete garbage like Itamar Marcus. But if a Palestinian source says something about Palestinian suffering, it is normally dismissed as propaganda and needs to have thousands of other sources in order to back it up. THAT's the problem, and I'm disgusted and offended by it. This is not about 'extra rights', and you know this. Fix this abandonment thing, or remove it. Ramallite (talk) 13:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

 * I don't follow why the word "abandonment" is POV. If they fled from their homes, they abandoned the places they fled from. You seem to be saying that, because they had a reason to flee, their homes weren't abandoned, which is to misunderstand the word. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, some did not flee but were forced, and that's documented by reliable (non Palestinian) sources. Second, abandonment by definition implies no intention to return, doesn't it? Do we know whether or not they intended to return? Most sources claim they did, in fact, that's what the whole 'right of return' problem is about. That aside, the reality is that some were forced out, and nobody asked the rest if they were 'abandoning' or 'staying out of the way of hostilities' or whatever. We can't make this thing up. You may not understand why this is POV, but not each of us is meant to understand everything in life. I don't understand why Denise Richards didn't divorce Charlie Sheen earlier, for example (and that news made the Arabic satellite channels, along with Britney's new pregnancy). Ramallite (talk) 17:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You're saying you know for a fact that none of the villages were abandoned? SlimVirgin (talk) 18:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh no, but Pecher, Zeq, and now you, are all saying you know for a fact that all of them were... So yet again, do you want to go into a childish "abandoned, temporarily evacuated, or forcefully evacuated" in the opening paragraph? Or do you want to try and simplify things? I'd go for the latter, but a single inaccurate word is not acceptable because it is not true in every single case. You know this. Let's not pretend that the word 'abandoned' also includes 'forcefully expelled' or 'was abroad anyway and was not allowed to come home'. Ramallite (talk) 18:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * If we want to be meticulous about it we could list Morris's five codes for the abandonment of villages in a footnote: (A) Abandonment on Arab orders, (C) Influence of a nearby town's fall, (E) Expulsion by Jewish forces, (F) Fear of being caught up in fighting, (M) Military assault on settlement and (W) Whispering campaigns - psychological warfare by Haganah/IDF. --Ian Pitchford 18:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

 * This is a better idea than us having to pretend we don't know what the word "abandon" means. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Zeq, why did you move Arafat out of the intro? It's important to say when it was established. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

 * It is in the intro just a bit down. I kept first the "what it is" together. thats' all. The who desclred it moved a bit down not by much. Zeq 19:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Did Arafat really inaugurate the day? Nakba day has been commemorated since as far back as I can remember, way before 1998. Are you sure Arafat wasn't just marking the day? I went back to look through records, and couldn't find any 1998 proclamation of an official 'Nakba Day'. Could you please provide the relevant quote from your source, since I don't have that book? Ramallite (talk) 21:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

 * I understand that everyone has a POV on this issue, but the extreme and obvious POV pushing is tiresome. The Arab armies invaded Palestine in 1948? And if you have multiple figures for the number of Arab villages, why pick the highest? SlimVirgin (talk) 18:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't pick that number, I just wasn't aware it was contested (some sources have slightly higher or lower figures but different sources may count different things, I'd have to see methodology). There is no reason this should be a big deal, since nobody contests that around 400 villages were destroyed, unless the people with extreme POVs you mention want to hide that fact. Ramallite (talk) 18:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Also, do you have a source that there is "increased violence" on Nakba Day, and compared to what? No single day causalities have been highest on Nakba Day....I'm not trying to be difficult, just curious. Ramallite (talk) 18:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Practically all the sources cited in the previous chronology section talked of increased violence. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

 * I have removed 'abandoned' altogether since it is already stated that people fled, so it's just redundant anyway. Ramallite (talk) 21:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

What was invaded
It seems absurd to me to claim the Arab armies invaded Palestine; their interest was in preventing the creation of Israel, and that's what they invaded. Since the borders of Israel were not set at that time (and, for that matter, are not set today), it's rather hard to argue that they weren't actually invading Israel. Jayjg (talk) 19:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That's quite wrong I'm afraid. Not one of the Arab armies intervened with the intention of preventing the creation of Israel, but you can't summarise the political and strategic goals of five states in a couple of lines. With regard to Arab villages the two leading authorities, Morris and Khalidi, agree that the number depopulated was roughly 400. It's a dangerous precedent to allow the removal of high quality sources on the basis of a Wikipedia editor's opinion. Please don't remove this information again. --Ian Pitchford 06:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Regarding the intent of the Arab armies, it was quite clear. In an official cablegram from the Secretary-General of the League of Arab States to the UN Secretary-General on May 15 1948, the Arab states publically proclaimed their aim of creating a "United State of Palestine" in place of the Jewish and Arab, two-state, UN Plan. They claimed the latter was invalid, as it was opposed by Palestine's Arab majority, and claimed that the absence of legal authority made it necessary to intervene to protect Arab lives and property.'The Origins and Evolution of the Palestine Problem: 1917-1988. Part II, 1947-1977. Regarding the latter, I have not "removed" any information from this article; indeed, I have never even edited it.  Please take care not to admonish me for actions which I have not taken. Jayjg (talk) 15:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

 * I again propose:  To remove out of this article  anything that is already covered and debated in other articles. If this does not occur we will have to fix the errors inserted by Ian in his last edit. Zeq 07:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

 * We still have the nonsense about "invaded palestine" in this article.
 * I don't wish to be the one reverting Ian, and I still think we should mediate this article. Zeq 13:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's anything worth mediating, but will give careful thought to any proposal you make. With regard to "invading Palestine" even Yoav Gelber's chapter in his book Palestine 1948 is called 'The Arab Regular Armies' Invasion of Palestine', for good historical reasons. --Ian Pitchford 14:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

 * I again propose:  To remove out of this article  anything that is already covered and debated in other articles. If this does not occur we will have to fix the errors inserted by Ian in his last edit. We will not open this article into Gelber said this and somelese said that. We all know they invaded the newly establsihed Israel (which was declared over the part allocated for the jews by the UN) . Zeq 07:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Please stop adding a disputed number as though it's fact, and for goodness sake stop removing that it was the Jewish state that was attacked. This kind of editing is really tiresome. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 07:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Is the above comment is for Ian ? Zeq 08:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

 * It's directed at the editor(s) who keep removing Jewish state and adding the number of villages. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 08:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The number of villages is sourced to an impeccable source, a highly regarded academic specialising in Palestinian history. Sourced and relevant material should not be removed without reason. If another, equally authoritative source is available that gives another estimate for the number of villages, then we can mention that as well. In the absence of a scholarly source giving an alternative figure, it should stay. Palmiro | Talk 10:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Palmiro, there are other articles to fight over these issues and there wikilinks to these articles. So anyone intretsed will find the info. Zeq 10:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The information in question is highly relevant and reliably sourced, so it stays. Those who find it so objectionable will have little credibility until they come up with sources for their objections. It is simply not good enough to say "other sources dispute this" and on that basis delete sourced and relevant information from an article, if when push comes to shove you are not able to provide those "other sources". Palmiro | Talk 11:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It may indeed be too general to simply refer to "other sources", but "up to 418" is typical weaseling per WP:AWW: it can be 1 or 418. Please give a specific number or a range if you can. Pecher Talk 11:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Our source gives 418. If you object to my changing "418" to "up to 418" as a concession to those editors who object to the number but seem unable to provide sources for any other number, feel free to delete the words "up to". Palmiro | Talk 11:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear Gentlemen, translate this as fairly as it can be : the arab armies invaded Palestine but never reached to invade the jewish state as expected except some km^2 in the Neguev and in North Galilea. (Gelber, "Palestine 1948", see arab invasion plan maps in the middle of the book Alithien 21:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course we should say Palestine. As far as I know the Iraqi and the Jordanian armies did not enter territory assigned to the Jewish state, which means that the traditional-mandated reference to "five armies invading the Jewish state" is inaccurate, and that one of the "neighbouring states', which was notoriously collaborating with the Yishuv in any case, certainly did no such thing. It also seems to be based on editors' interpretations as to the intentions of the Arab forces; while there may be a good basis, and academic support, for these interpretations, alternative interpretations also have support. Also, as Jayjg points out above, the newly-declared state of Israel did not have fixed borders (and neither did it have the de facto borders arising from the 1949 armistice agreements), so unless by "the Jewish state" we mean the areas assigned to that state by the UN partition plan, the idea that they invaded Israel is unprovable. We should stick to the uncontroversial, non-speculative and incontrovertible fact that the Arab armies invaded Palestine. Palmiro | Talk 10:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

 * The phrase "invaded Palestine" is completely wrong and misleading. What do you mean by "Palestine"? The British Mandate of Palestine had ceased to exist by that, and a state called "Palestine" never existed. If Palestine denotes a region, then the sentence becomes altogether meaningless because states do not invade regions, only other states, or at least regions belonging to other states. In this case, the Iraqi and Jordanian armies entered the region that technically was not part of any state at the time. In addition, "invaded Palestine" obfuscates the wntire rationale of the war, namely that it was a war against the Jewish state. Thus, a correct description of the even in question will be that Arab states commenced a war against the Jewish state, without using the word "invaded". Pecher Talk 11:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It is not wrong and not misleading, and as you can see from the discussion above is used by historians. The rationale of the war was different for different states, and certainly for Transjordan it was not to attck the Jewish state but to grab a chunk of Palestine. As for the term Palestine, the fact that the British mandate had expired does not mean that the territory became nameless, though if the historically correct use of the term "Palestine" annoys you so much, you could always try some sort of circumlocution of the kind "the territory of the former British Mandate" or something like that. What you cannot do, under NPOV, is treat as fact disproved historical speculation such as "their motive was to attack the Jewish state". Palmiro | Talk 11:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

 * You have so far failed to provide any reliable sources saying that the 1948 Arab-Israeli War was not, in fact, Arab-Israeli, as you're trying to claim, so please stop your POV-pushing. Pecher Talk 12:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * What on earth are you getting at? I imagine there is little point reminding you of WP:NPOV, Civility and No personal attacks, but you are not doing yourself any credit by resorting to such tactics when you run out of arguments. In any case, that the Arab armies invaded Palestine is accurate, undisputed and used by historians; the version which is based on their supposed motives is disputed, so we cannot present it as simple fact. If we were going to use that version, then we would have to go into the detail about what exactly the various Arab forces did and why they did it. Here is not the place to go into all the detail, so let's stick to the simple and undisputed facts. Palmiro | Talk 12:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Palmiro, neither, nor any other editor has quoted any reliable source disputing the intentions of the Arab states, so please do not engage in original research. In addition, please try to abide by WP:CIV and WP:NPA yourself before admonishing other editors, who do respect Wikipedia policies. Pecher Talk 17:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The intentions of the Arab states are complex and I don't see the source that says that it was solely to eliminate the Jewish state that they invaded. According to the cablegram Jayjg refers to above, we could equally say they invaded to protect the Palestinian Arabs or to ensure order; deciding to privilege one element of that source is POV, as is treating as undisputed fact one element of the complex motives that have been described by historians. Since this is not the article about the 1948 war, we should stick to the facts rather than trying to analyse motives. The undisputed fact, about which there is nothing of a POV nature, is that they invaded Palestine. Nobody denies this, and there is not a hint of POV or OR about it, and furthermore it is the only version proposed so far about which that could be said.
 * Finally, I do not intend to take lectures on Wikipedia policies or on objectivity from editors who think that inserting the Islamophobic rantings of neo-fascists into Wikipedia articles as if they were undisputed fact is acceptable. Palmiro | Talk 10:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Palmiro, They invaded into what was called "palestine" until May 15, 1948. On may 15 there was already a country decalared in the area allocated to a Jewish state by the 1947 decision. So we here in Wikipedia call this area israel for any time after may 14. Zeq 10:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Ian, I 'll ask you politly to revert this edit. If you are in doubt read what Slim has wrote above. Zeq 14:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Too many inaccuracies, Ian. The UN Partition Plan could not possibly envisage a "Palestinian" state; it provided for an "Arab" state, of course. "Intervention of neighbouring Arab states" into what? "Intervention" is just another word for invasion; again into what? Then, British Mandate of Palestine is obviously much superior to "Palestine during the British mandate" because it links directly to the period in question. In short, no reason for this edit to stay. Pecher Talk 16:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Pecher, I'mn slightly puzzled; above, you have said that "invasion" was impossible because there was no state in Palestine to invade once the British mandate expired; now, you appear to be chiding Ian for using "intervention". Also, "in Palestine during the British Mandate" is in fact better than "in the British Mandate of Palestine"; the Mandate was a legal form, and it is hard to imagine events taking place in it. Palmiro | Talk 17:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

 * The arab armies left their own countries and entered Israel. What is so hard in understanding that ? The fact that Palmiro goes to such oversophistication shows that he knows the truth. Zeq 17:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

 * No, Palmiro, that's completely wrong. In fact, League of Nations Mandate was a territory; Palestine, for example, was Class A mandate. I've correctly chided ian for weaseling because "intervention" is a euphemism for "invasion" and should not be used except in cases where it is used traditionally; for example, for foreign interventions during the Russian Civil War. Pecher Talk 21:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Pecher, it is in fact you who are completely wrong here. You can read the text of the British Mandate here: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1922mandate.html . As you can see, it consistently refers to Palestine as "the territory of Palestine", "the country", or "Palestine". The term "mandate" refers solely to the legal instrument. Palmiro | Talk 12:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Wrong again, Palmiro; the term "mandate" applied to both the territory and its legal status, see Encyclopedia Britannica, for example. Pecher Talk 13:44, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I think I was misunderstood. The arab armies didn't just enter "Palestine" as they never "invaded" Israel. I think this would be more accurante (but maybe too long) :
 * In mai 1948, the arab armies entered in the side allocated to Palestinians by the partition plan and took the control of the East side of Jerusalem. They intended to stop the exodus and prevent the creation of Israel but never succeeded to enter enough the territory allocated to the jewish state to treathen its existence.
 * answer to Ian : they intended to enter Israel, see their plans of attack in Gelber's. The plan expected to attack the Sharon plain between Haifa and TelAviv. I have also a quote in Lapierre & Collins where the 1st Minister answers to Farouk the Egyptian army is ready to *take Tel Aviv* in less than 2 weeks (French version of L&C).
 * answer to Zeq : they never "really" entered Israel but expected to do so. Anyway Brits had put high pressure on Abdallah forbidding him to invade Israel. And Abdallah was the General in chief...
 * answer to Palmiro : "invaded Palestine" is not appropriate because they were not really invaders on most of the territory they enter. Palestine is also maybe not clear enough.
 * answer to Pecher : territory allocated by UN plan was expected to be given to Palestinian Arabs, not Arabs. And it was for the creaction of a Palestinian state (for Arabs of Palestine), not an Arab state (eg for Transjordan - proof the annexion were never recognized). There was a palestinian nation with political representatives in 1947 with local (National Comitees) and national (High Arab Comitee) representatives. Some were auditonned by Unscop.

Alithien 20:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Thanks, Alithien, for your informative post.
 * "territory allocated by UN plan was expected to be given to Palestinian Arabs, not Arabs". Sadly, most people (especially anti-Palestinian propagandists) fail to recognize or acknowledge this vital distinction.
 * ""invaded Palestine" is not appropriate because they were not really invaders on most of the territory they enter" - but isn't this statement contrary to the sentence immediately above? The (non-Palestinian) Arabs had no recognized rights in Palestine, and no internationally recognized mandate to enter. Isn't that by definition an invasion?
 * Ramallite (talk) 20:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Thanks, indeed, now we have another source for the plans of the Arab states. It is also important to note that the word "attacked" is more appropriate than the word "invaded". Pecher Talk 21:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Hi. I think also that "attacked" is more appropriate than "invaded". Ian will reply that they never really attacked anyway but he is right only in the sense that they stopped soon realizing they could not win and were not prepare for long combat.

Did Arab armies invaded the palestinian arab part of Palestine or did they enter it to support Palestinians and attack Israel ?
Ramallite, all Palestinians (citizens as well as political representatives) agreed and even requested that arabs armies entered in what had to become Palestine. The main palestinian political figure, the Mufti, was in contact and met several times the Arab Leagues members. That is true they didn't like him and it is true they didn't see only advantages in palestinian arab nationalism but they didn't "invade" nor "attack". The ALA volunteers had also entered in Palestine as soon as january 1948 to fight with the Palestinians. It is true they didn't succeed in properly collaborating but they were welcome. I don't know to what you refer but the idea the "arab nations" treasured the Palestinian is I think a myth. Only Abdallah could be accused doing so. The other were just uncompetent. And even concerning Abdallah, it was not really a treasury because some palestinians expected the annexion and prefered they territory to be rattached to Transjordan... Note the Higher Arab Comitee didn't act the existence of the Palestinian state because it didn't recognize the existence of Israel. In acting the existence of a state, they would have acted the uno partition with which they didn't agree. In september 1949, the Gaza governement acted the existence of the palestinian state but on whole Palestine while Abdallah rejected this and gathered palestinian representatives to act they recognized his sovereignty on Cisjordania/Judea/Samaria... (NB : all this could be sourced but is not important here - this is just to answer Ramallite). Alithien 23:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * There are lots of errors here. To take just a few: the ALA was largely funded and controlled by Syria and Saudi Arabia who were both in the anti-Hashemite faction. The ALA's purpose was primarily to thwart a Transjordanian annexation of Syria. Not only did the ALA not aid the Palestinians it collaborated with the Haganah in the destruction of the Holy War Army. The mufti opposed intervention by the Arab states. Egypt did invade Israeli territory, but it too, as the leader of the anti-Hashemite faction in the Arab League, was more concerned with Abdullah than anything else. The Egyptian political and military elite was opposed to any intervention in Palestine, but Farouk got his way because of the strength of public feeling. --Ian Pitchford 23:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I can definitely assure you that 'all' Palestinians did not agree or request Arab armies. Most Palestinians, just like any other people, did not want a war. But people did not want to be kicked off their lands either. And remember that the Mutfi was not elected but installed. Ramallite (talk) 15:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

 * How all this is relevant to this article ? Zeq 06:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Zeq. In fact, I have the feeling that Ian wants to underline that Arab armies entered Palestine against the will of the most important political representatives of the country : the HAC. And given he says that ALA collaborated with Haganah to destroy HWA, he is not far to defend the idea that : "In practice, Haganah and Arab states combined their efforts to prevent the birth of a palestinian state"... Am I right, Ian ?

 * Ian. I don't see where you write the contrary to what I wrote before except maybe about the will of the Mufti to see arab armies entering Palestine. More I think everything you wrote is quite correct except that -I think- "personnal analysis" that "ALA collaborated with the Haganah in the destruction of the HWA" where "ALA didn't collaborate with HWA because Quwaji hated Adb-al Kader Husseini" would be more correct. I think also that you mix "fight with palestinians" and "fight with HWA"... So I will check about the precise requests of Husseini, local NC and other palestinian representatives concerning their will to see or not Arab armies entering Palestine. Alithien 07:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No this is not right, but I agree with Zeq that this is not the place to discuss the detail of the war. The Haganah and the Arab armies didn't collaborate to prevent the creation of a Palestinian state. The key to understanding the actions of the combatants on the Arab side is to appreciate that they were split into two main factions: the pro-Hashemites and anti-Hashemites. Abdullah wanted to seize the areas allocated to the Arab state as part of his plan to create a Greater Syrian kingdom - the Yishuv/Israel, Iraq and the UK approved of the plan whereas Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Syria were horrified by it. --Ian Pitchford 07:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok. I perfectly agree (Arab leaders and Arab League suspected it was Abdallah's plan to annex the Arab side and tried to counter this). Now, it must be unterlined that both these factions were also present in the Palestinian society with Nashashibis and Husseinis and that this came from the time of the 1936-39 arab revolt... But then, what do you want to point out precisely :
 * Arab states would not have attacked Israel ?
 * Arab states invaded Palestine ? (what you wrote in the article if I have seen right)
 * Arab states didn't attack Israel to destroy the jewish but for other reasons ?
 * Arab states didn't attack ISrael to support palestinian but for other reasons ?
 * Arab states attacked Israel to prevent Abdallah to take the control of pâlestinian arab side ? Alithien 08:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * All of this is discussed above. --Ian Pitchford 08:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * This is not an answer. Please be specific in answering specific questions. Zeq 08:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Yes. Arab states entered Palestine to support the palestinians fighting against the Yishouv and directly attacked Israel and jewish positions. In parallel, they were divided because Abdallah had a hidden agenda. Alithien 08:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * OK. What did they do to "support the Palestinians"? --Ian Pitchford 10:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * lol. To give you a precise answer, I just opened Gelber, went to the index and looked for ALA. I did the same with Morris (Birth revisited). It is very interesting. I don't by where to start...
 * I could give the quotes but I would like you proceed first in giving me the quotes discussed in a former discussion where you claimed that in Gelber chap.6 he emphasized about the important role of the Great Uprising on the conflict. When I claimed Morris emphasized on the fear of a threat of genocide, I think I have been able to give you precise and clear quotes from the introduction and the conclusion of Birth (...) revisited...
 * Anedotically, I found sentences such as "ALA entered Samaria" (Gelber) or "ALA reinforced Palestinians" (Morris) (this doesn't of course not answer your question). Alithien 12:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

 * As an aside, this is what I find amazing: When a leader of an Arab state says something like "We are a democracy", he is laughed at. When he says "Israeli policies are cause of all the problems in the middle east", he is scoffed at. If he says "We do not support terror" while having Hizbollah offices in his own capital city, he is sanctioned. And when he states "I am the legitimate leader of my people" when he kills all opponents and suppresses basic human rights, he is bombed. BUT, if an Arab leader says "we support the Palestinians", suddenly he is taken in all seriousness? What crap... So yes, although this discussion is getting way off topic, let's try to remember that these people's stated intentions or rhetoric have never reflected their true ambitions and/or incompetence. Ramallite (talk) 15:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Take it easy my friend. Now Iran president wants the jews to put a yelow star of david on their clothes. Should we take him seriously ? (I still think this article here could have been much simpler if we avoid debates taking place in other articles) Zeq 17:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

"up to" is not encyclopedic
This is EXACTLY why I suggested not to get into this here in this article. This is what wikilinks are for. Zeq 17:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Photo caption from AFP and Reuters
Captions:

BUREIJ REFUGEE CAMP, -: A Palestinian militant stands guard during a Fatah movement rally ahead of the 58th anniversary of the Nakba Day ("catastrophe" of Israel's creation) near al-Bureij refugee camp in the Gaza Strip, 14 May 2006. AFP PHOTO/MAHMUD HAMS (Photo credit should read MAHMUD HAMS/AFP/Getty Images)

Palestinians mark the Nakba as a day of mourning for the establishment of Israel in the 1948 Arab-Israeli war which led to the displacement of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians. REUTERS/Mohammed Salem

Zeq 09:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

 * The second "caption" is more neutral. They don't complain for the creation of Israel. They complain for the exodus of 700,000 of them out of the 850,000 living before 1947 in the territory Israel will control in 1949. (unsigned comment)

It sais "establishment of Israel in the 1948 Arab-Israeli war " Zeq 06:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * "which led to the displacement of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians" :-) Don't you think there is some sort of link between both events ? Alithien 08:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Of course there is. this is what Nkaba day is all about. Zeq 08:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Date
" Israel’s “Independence Day” which falls tomorrow. Palestinian people in this day commemorate the 59th anniversary of the Palestinian Nakba (catastrophe)"

see also:  (not used in article)

Check the date this was held:  - according to israel's Hebrew calander

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeq (talk • contribs) 18:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Direct Quote
The quote in the first paragraph comes from a BBC article []. It is part of a larger passage "Palestinians, in turn, designate the 15 May as the Day of al-Nakba, "the catastrophe", and they use it to commemorate the dispossession of hundreds of thousands of their people who were made homeless as Israel was born." Umer Al-Amerikee 20:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

 * Sorry, I was looking at the first reference in the list. Itzse 22:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Palestinian People
I think Palestinian people is a better choice linking to that article, which states the term is used to refer to an Arabic-speaking people with family origins in Palestine. Also "Palestinian" is more appropriate for this article given that it alludes to a more nationalist concept of a Palestinian people by the Arabs of Palestine, which began prior to World War I; the term thus signifies the sense of a shared past and future in the form of a Palestinian nation-state, for which Nakba Day is an integral part of.Giovanni33 (talk) 03:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

edit war vs last year consensus and clear sources
Please don't start an editwar on a issue that has been settled already: Talk:Nakba_Day, Talk:Nakba_Day. The dispossetion reulted from the event is duely noted and not ignored. Zeq (talk) 11:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

 * I'm not starting an edit war Zeq. You are the one who made an edit altering the text introduced by a third editor. I retained the parts of his text which I thought better expressed why the day is commemorated - i.e. the dispossession and exile of the Palestinian community. I'm not going to revert you reinstatement of your text (i.e. your second revert) to the exclusion of the changes introduced by two other editors for now becase I don't like edit-warring and I find discussions with you tend to go nowhere. But I will be revisiting this issue later when I have more patience. Thanks.  T i a m u t talk 12:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

 * No. You have revrted and as I showed you above we have been discussing this issue every year in the same date. The sources are very clear about why the date was chosen to this day and since you live in israel I am sure you are aware of the nakba day activities that are held every year on Yom haaztmaout (israel independence day) . As I mention the issue of the dispossetion is mentioned in the lead in prominenet place so your own POV is actually represented already. Zeq (talk) 12:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

 * I did not revert anything. I made one change to the text that incorporated the changes made by another editor and retained some of the changes you made. That's not a revert Zeq.
 * It's not "my POV" that the day is commemorated because of the dispossession - that is in fact why the day is commemorated. If Palestinians were not dispossessed by the establishment of Israel, they wouldn't commemorate the day. Anyway, as I said, I don't have the patience required for a discussion with you right now, particularly since you serially misrepresent my edits and conflate my identity as a Palestinians with your perceptions of my POV. Later then,  T i a m u t talk 12:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

 * "If Palestinians were not dispossessed by the establishment of Israel, they wouldn't commemorate the day" - speculative and wrong and not supported by the sources. The date May15 was chosen and the record is clear - just see the sources. Zeq (talk) 12:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Tiamut. The concept of Nakba Day is one of the Palestinian people, not to commemorate the establishment of a State that caused them so much misfortune, but rather to point out their forceful eviction from the land that resulted from the creation of the State. That is what all the sources say. To try to hide this fact by making it less clear while spinning this into a commemoration of the anniversary of the independance of Israel, is misleading and seems to be POV motivated, contrary to the meaning and intent of Nakba Day. I'm fine with your edit saying that Supporters of Israel support that day and celebrate it as... (although you used "Jews" and that is not accurate--should be supporters of the State). Not all Jews support the creation of Israel, esp. in the manner in which it was constituted. I'll try to make some compromise edits, but my edit will largely be a revert of yours, Zep. I hope you will discuss this and not edit war.Giovanni33 (talk) 17:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

 * We discussed it in the past and the sources are clear. Right now the person who have turned this to an edit war is you. I hope you will self revert before we need to take other steps. familieruize yourself with the sources that are in the article and see the discussion from a year ago. Every year shortly before israel independence day the argument comes back. Funny how it is excatly on israel's independence day - ha ? Zeq (talk) 17:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

 * Zeq, WP:CONSENSUS is not immutable. The results from a discussion over a year ago and not necessarily binding today. And we are not anywhere close to Israel's Independence Day. The date today is the 22nd of March 2008 and not May 15th. I would take Giovanni33 up on his offer to discuss. He seems to have more patience than I do right now.  T i a m u t talk 18:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

 * The issue is clearly that the consenus emrged after reviwing the sources. Here instead of going by the sources (and text that gave due represnetation to the issue of Israel's establshment, independence day and the land dispossetion) Giovani33 decide to edit war against the sources and against past consensus. The honorable thing would be if he self revert and try to build a new consensus. I am always willing to listen to sourced views. Zeq (talk) 18:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

 * Zeq, I reviewed the discussion you linked to. The source you centered your arugment around in an Israeli newspaper who is discussing Nakba day commemorations by Arab citizens of Israel. As you will note in that article, it explains that Palestinians in Israel differ from other Palestinians around the world, in that they commemorate the day both on Israel's Independence Day (which changes from year to year as it follows the Hebrew calendar) and on May 15th, the day Palestinians who live outside of Israel commemorate it every year. Your argument that it is Israel's independence day they are commemorating doesn't fly since, as you know, it changes from year to year as it runs on the Hebrew calendar. Palestinians inside Israel tend to have protests on that day too since they also want to send a message to their fellow citizens regarding their displeasure over the way they have been treated since, but the day for every Palestinian is May 15th. (I'm basing these comments on the sources cited in Arab citizens of Israel, just to be clear.)  T i a m u t talk 20:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * As the sources clearly explain May 15 is the date according to the Gregorian (international) calander and in Israel the date is celebrated according to Hebrew date (5 of the month of Iar). Many of the sources are very clear that what is being mourned is the establishment of the state of Israel. To remind you: The British Mandate exipred on May 15, 1948 and Israel declared independence to start as soon as the mandate expired. (since May 15, 1948 was a Shabat (sabeth) - the declaration was made on May 14, 1948 in the afternoun and it was announced that the British mandate cease on the midnight between May 14 to 15 the state of Israel is founded (i.e israel birthday is May 15). This is why the int'l date for Israel founding is May 15.
 * All this was covered in last year discussion already we reviwed the sources and the text was agreed upon. Nothing in the sources have changed. The only change is that Giovanni and you decided to edit war the issue again a May 15 is approching. This year the edit war starts early as the palestinian propeganda is gearing up to Israel's 60th anniversary celebartions around the world.Zeq (talk) 05:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Zeq please read WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Thanks.  T i a m u t talk 01:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * While I don't want to use EI as a source for facts in the article (I don't think it is of value as it is not a WP:RS source we can clearly see what palestinian themself think about the issue:
 * "' 'Independence Day,' it is the same day we call it the Nakba day (Disaster day), the two names denote the same thing: the day of the creation of the state of Israel which led to the expulsion of nearly a million Palestinian from their homes and lands."--Zeq (talk) 05:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Like last year, I have listed 5 sources and if needed I bring 5 more, or 15 more which will say the same thing:"Nakba day ...means "great catastrophe" and marks the Arab anniversary of the creation of the state of Israel in 1948" - I will stop here and I suggest that all 3 of you (Giovanni, Ceedjee and Tiamut will respect the sources (all are creadiable nes papers - I have avoided uisng less realiable sources) instead of choosing to edit war. Zeq (talk) 05:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

 * Zeq, it's ridiculous to accuse people of edit-warring when you are the one repeatedly undoing the edits of three other editors. I'm going to review the sources you provided more in-depth and get back to you. But the primary issue here is your WP:UNDUE emphasis of Israel's independence as being the issue for Palestinians (which implies that jsut hate Israel because they do) rather than putting the focus where it belongs, on the dispossession and displacement they endured as a result of Israel's creation which is the reason for their commemoration of Nakba Day. If they weren't displaced by Israel's creation, they might be celebrating with them (as the Druze do for example) rather than mourning the effects of its creation. Thanks.  T i a m u t talk 01:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

 * It is not my emphasis. It is what clearly all the sources I just added say the Nakba day is. Do review it, it is written very clearly. I'll be happy to discuss it further. Don't accuse me in edit waring while the 3 of you just try to push your POV Vs clear discussion that took place last year and clear sources. what you claim as "putting the focus where it belongs, on the dispossession and displacement they endured as a result of Israel's creation which is the reason for their commemoration of Nakba Day" is really your own POV which is bu the way represented very well in the article Lead. there are links to the exodus article, description of the dispossetion etc... it is all there noted very clearly. Zeq (talk) 04:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Tiamut on this, but unlike you, I'm not going to be edit warring about this. The fact is that it is a question of emphasis, since all these things are true. However, what is it that the Palestinians are commemorating? The establishment of a State or their forced expulsion from their lands as a result of such creation? Its clearly the latter, and to suggest the former is to really obscure reality. Yes, the fact you mentions needs to be stated, however, when I came to this article that was all that was stated and the text stood out as one-sided and obviously POV ridden. Now what we have is a run-on sentence, which, ironically is better than when I first encountered it. I think we you have three editors who are telling you basically the same thing, you should consider simply abiding by this consensus on the matter. Ascribing alterior motivations or edit warring is unbecoming.Giovanni33 (talk) 04:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

 * Giovanni33, I respect your view as well as Tiamut's view. The point is that we can not go but what we think the reality is (You question: "what is it that the Palestinians are commemorating?" is indeed the right question to ask and to propvide an answer to). We can not even answer this question by what we know (that would be OR and POV). We have to go by the sources and the good sources (such as the Guardian who is very favorable to Palestinian POV) are very clear.
 * If you don't mind I would like to avoid discussion on what you think, or what you know and focus the discussion on the sources. your POV is also included in the sources and the dispossetion of land is mentioned very clearly in the article. The date that was chossen for Nakba day is clear and indeed this is the 1st thing most sources mention.
 * At the end of the day we are a secondary source and we have to go by what the sources say. We are also NPOV and indeed we included in the articles the issues that you wanted - as long as they are mentioned by the sources.
 * If needed please bring more sources, I can also bring more as this subject is wiedly covered in the press every year on Israel's independence day which is also called "nakba day" by millions around the world. Zeq (talk) 05:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality of article disputed
The existence of a so-called "Nakba Day" and any discussion thereof must take into account there was never any "nation of Palestine" for these so-called "Palestinians" to lose; it was a British colony prior to the creation of the state of Israel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dkendr (talk • contribs) 17:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * And indeed the article does not say there was any such country as far as I can see. From our Palestine article it says the word Palestine is “used, among others, to describe the geographic region between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River and various adjoining lands.” This article simply describes a specific day observed by a specific culture. I’ve removed the tag. Please do not replace it unless you have a specific concern relevant to the text. Thanks, --S.dedalus (talk) 05:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

 * Also you recent edit leads me to believe you may be trying to impose your POV on us here. . . --S.dedalus (talk) 07:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

 * I'm not trying to impose my point of view on anyone. I'm just repelled by the POV that's already in place in this article.  The entire so-called "Palestine article" comes from a specific and partisan point of view.  Stop pointing fingers and acknowledge the editorial bias already in place.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dkendr (talk • contribs) 17:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

 * Then why did you vandalize the article? Arbitral deleting 99% of an article is never appropriate on Wikipedia. --S.dedalus (talk) 00:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

 * Irrelevant. I made an improper edit, and now I'm going through proper channels. Dkendr (talk) 15:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

 * I see you unilaterally settled the debate. Your own edit is improper and therefore you have no grounds to dispute the issue.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dkendr (talk • contribs) 17:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

 * This is nonsense. You may personally believe that Palestine's former status as a colonial mandate of Britain is somehow utterly vital to an article about the Palestinians commemorating their dispossession; good for you. Start a blog or something. It's simply not relevant to an article about Nakba Day by any objective standard. <eleland/talkedits> 21:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

 * It wasn't in the article, and you don't get to unilaterally decide the issue. Dkendr (talk) 11:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

 * You're talking nonsense, insinuating that the Nakba is some kind of hoax from the 1980s. Not even the most vulgar of Israeli propagandists go that far. So yes, I will be unilaterally removing your POV tag, because you've made clear that the reasons for it are downright silly. <eleland/talkedits> 14:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

 * The article itself states that Arafat created "Nakba Day" in the 1980s. It's a bogus "holiday" designed not to commemorate any "suffering" but simply to detract from Israel's national holiday.  It would be as if Israel staged "Crucifixion Day" on Easter Sunday just to call attention to the Roman persecution of the Jews.  Get this straight: It is not possible for the Palestinians to have been dispossessed of any land, since it was never theirs in the first place; they were British subjects in a colony.  The land was transferred to become Israel by fiat of the United Nations and since backed by the United States.  You cannot be dispossessed of something that was not yours.  The Palestinians have since been squatters in other countries -- why don't they simply claim Lebanon since they've been there 60 years?  There is NO discussion of the legitimacy of this so-called Nakba day in the article, and as you dismiss anyone who takes a pro-Israel point as a "propagandist," not only is the neutrality of the article in dispute, so is your own neutrality and your own perception.  I'm restoring the POV tag and asking mediation from the editorial board. Dkendr (talk) 14:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

 * A litany of howling factual errors, most of which relate to points that aren't even relevant. Palestinians were never British subjects. They were British protected persons under the terms of a League of Nations mandate. The UN never issued any "fiat" on Palestine; the UN General Assembly did issue a recommendation to partition Palestine, but this recommendation was refused by the British. This recommendation did not allow for transferring individual land ownership from Palestinians to Israelis, or for mass population transfer. Indeed, it stated that "No expropriation of land owned by an Arab in the Jewish State (by a Jew in the Arab State)(4) shall be allowed except for public purposes. In all cases of expropriation full compensation as fixed by the Supreme Court shall be said previous to dispossession." The committee which led to the partition resolution explicitly took into account the Balfour Declaration, which required that "...nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine[.]" The last reliable figures on land ownership in Palestine date to 1945, and they indicate that the majority of land in Palestine, including in the areas which became Israel, belonged to Arabs. (See British Mandate of Palestine.) The Palestinians do not form a majority in Lebanon and any attempt to claim it would be crushed rapidly. They do form a majority in Jordan and their attempt to claim that state was indeed crushed rapidly with great loss of life. The Palestinians are not "squatters" but refugees, some of whom live in UNRWA camps and some of whom are more integrated into host societies. Their status as refugees is recognized under the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, to which Israel is a signatory. In fact, Israel's admission to the community of civilized nations (UNGA 273) was explicitly pre-conditioned on its acceptance of the rights of Palestinian refugees (UN GA 194.)
 * ...but none of this is all that relevant. If you have any reliable-source criticism of Palestinian commemoration of the Nakba — and not copypasta from some hasbara website, I'm talking about real sources — then provide it, and we can talk. Until then, you're just tilting at windmills. Wikipedia is written based on reliable published sources, not on personal opinions and conclusions. Especially not conclusions that are clearly based on a distorted and frankly ignorant world-view. Forgive my bluntness, or don't, but you don't appear to know the first thing about these issues. <eleland/talkedits> 17:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

 * So allow the dispute to be mediated and quit trying to strangle the debate in the cradle. Stop unilaterally deciding there is no neutrality dispute, and stop pretending that anyone who disagrees with you is a racist and/or idiot.  Stop accusing me of being biased when it is patently obvious that you are carrying and expressing not only your own biases but are expressing pride of ownership of a flawed article.  If you continue to remove the "POV" tag, it is only evidence of your immature refusal to acknowledge differing viewpoints and facts -- such as the fact that there never was a nation of "Palestine" for them to have been dispossessed from -- and using partisan terms to degrade those who disagree with you.  Tilting at windmills?  Hardly.  Revealing you to be a crybaby and fool?  Definitely.

 * One editor's quixotic and counterfactual crusade does not a dispute make. Wikipedia is never going to state that the shape of the Earth is disputed, and it's never going to accomodate your conspiracy theories, either. Deal with it. <eleland/talkedits> 05:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

 * Read the article on "Nakba Denial," and then tell me that there's never been a debate over whether there was a nation called "Palestine." The very article you quoted about "my conspiracy theories" itself has a POV tag.  Your ability to build a logical case is just as much in doubt as to the legitimacy of this so-called "Nakba Day." Dkendr (talk) 02:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

 * Follow the rules you quote or get out of the debate. You cannot dispute the fact that there was never an Arab country called Palestine, or that Yasser Arafat was Egyptian, or that you simply can't accept that someone out there might have it factually correct in opposition to your dogmatic certitude.  Dkendr (talk) 02:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

 * Dkendr, you are ranting about irrelevant issues about which you are anyway wrong. Thus far the only specific change you have proposed to this article is that it should say, in full, ["http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakba_Day?diff=212604804 Nakba Day is when the Palestinians blame Israel for all the other Arab governments, once their asses had been kicked by Israel on the battlefield, sold them out and permitted the historic and rightful return of the Jewish people to their land."] I already corrected your first round of nonsensical claims, I'm not going to bother with your second and third. If you have something constructive to add here, fine. Otherwise, I'm not going to feed a troll. <eleland/talkedits> 04:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Removed
This portion that I removed reeks: "The "Arab Armies" story is a smokescreen to cover up the terrible acts that the Haganah, Irgun and Stern gang terrorist units carried out, in order to clear 1m palestinians from their homes, so that the Zionists could take over the land. There was very little armed resistance in the early days and ANY act of defence was met with brutal and evil retribution. They executed Plan Dalet which was the ethnic cleansing of Palestine (although they always did plan to remove the indigenous peopls), through the use of terrorists tactics, such as raining mortar fire down on Palestinian defenceless villages, shooting people at random, blowing up their houses and laying mines in the rubble to stop them returning. As Mordechi Maklef said to his Carmeli Brigade troops, prior to terrorising Haifa's 75,000 residents out: "Kill any Arab you encounter; torch all inflammable objects and force doors open with explosives." (He later became Israeli Chief of Staff). At Acre the Hanagah poisoned the towns water supply with typhoid to drive the Arab civilians out. This also preceded the shelling of the panic stricken refugees assembling at the port with mortar fire.

Zionists only actually owned 6% of the land at partition. The rest they got by terrorising people out of their homes. Truly shameful episode in mankind's history that will rank up there alongside what Turkey did to it's minorities, what the German Nazis did, Tibet, Ruwanda and Darfur. (The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine)" —Preceding unsigned comment added by TSElliott63 (talk • contribs) 17:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

title: Talk:Nakba Day/Archive 1


text:
Talk:Oral cancer

Re: Signs and tests
Although I have allowed the lengthy exposition on the Vizilite device to remain, I would point out that this section needs a re-write. While there is no doubt that the average dental practitioner would benefit from an accurate and simple screening device for oral cancer, the general readership is not well-served by blatantly unbalanced advertising copy. Readers should be advised that to date, the Vizilite plays little role in the diagnosis of oral neoplastic disease in dental practice, regardless of its potential merit. The jury is still out among members of the oral pathology community; see the following link to a typical post on the topic, dated November 2005, from the Bulletin Board of Oral Pathology Listserv: Re: Vizilte study at USC in 2002. The same could be said of the Oral CDx brush "biopsy" system, and the sad collaboration between its parent company and the American Dental Association-- something that casts a cloud on the ADA's ostensible mission of acting in the public interest. The traditional, and to date the most reliable method of detection of cancer remains a visual, tactile, and radiographic examination of the mouth, lips, and the regional lymph nodes. The only reliable laboratory technique of diagnosing oral cancer is a microscopic examination of a properly obtained and properly prepared biopsy specimen. This fact, however, is nowhere to be found in this section.--Mark Bornfeld DDS 23:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I am in agreement with the above. It may be reasonable to state that the detection and diagnosis of precancerous oral lesions may be aided by special illumination techniques. This would make sense as part of a section on oral dysplasia: screening and treatment of. However, the Vizilite blurb appears to be advertising hype, which has no great relevance to a discussion on oral cancer. Not least is the fact that oral oncology is practiced successfully without Vizilite in many major centres throughout the Western world. As it stands the script implies that vizilite is a sine qua non for oral oncology. This is very misleading.Jellytussle 18:37, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The Vizilite blurb IS advertising hype, this is nothing more that Heinz 2% white vinegar and a toy light. I evaluated this product for the company in 1999, told them that there was little actual science behind the idea, and more. The entire oral cancer section needs an overhaul as too many vested interests, and some outright misinformation exists in it. The CDx issue is much the same with strong marketing rhetoric replacing what the science actually says. These kinds of things need to be part of something else if they are going to exist. A separate section on adjunctive devices and their pros and cons that is not part of the core oral cancer information. Getting this right for those that may be dealing with a diagnosis or understanding risk factors and more has to be scientifically accurate, or we do a disservice to the public. I have offered on several occasions to have members of the OCF science advisory board, all recognized authorities on this topic at major cancer institutions or universities help in an effort to get this straightened out. However dealing with Wiki has not been the easiest thing to do. ---Brian Hill, Director, the Oral Cancer Foundation —Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 17:52, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Teeth-related cancers
Should teeth-related cancers, such as the one affecting Novemthree, be added? I think so, but I don't know if it belongs here. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 04:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

---

Hi. It does not really belong here. It would be better to have an "Odontogenic tumors" section instead (which, by the way, is the appropriate name of tumors derived from the tissues that form the teeth).

 * The reason why this particular case is inappropriate here is that it does not represent cancer. The important point is that there are benign tumors and there are malignant tumors, and the Novemthree case is benign. The distinction is technical; in the generic semantic sense, this tumor was certainly malignant to the extent in which it inflicted damage. However, a true cancer generally must manifest certain microscopic and clinical characteristics. In general, cancers have the potential to spread (metastasize) to remote parts of the body, be locally invasive both grossly and microscopically, and demonstrate the microscopic quality of anaplasia (also see .--Mark Bornfeld DDS 12:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

"Surgeries for Oral Cancer"
I have deleted this paragraph. Whilst I think that a more detailed discussion of surgery may be helpful, the deleted section was merely a list of procedures, some of which are non-specific or not strictly relevant to oral cancer, and which were not put in any useful sort of context. The style was poor (use of second person.) I would also contest the assertion that a (functioning) tongue can be reconstructed "from other parts of your body" following total glossectomy. In fact the rehabilitation following total glossectomy is extremely difficult, which is why this operation is seldom performed.Jellytussle 15:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Angola
Why does Angola have such a high rate of mouth cancer? Can anyone elaborate why is this? I understand that countries where the use of Bethel & Gutka chewing is wide spread, such as Papua New Guinea and South Asian countries have a higher risk, but as far as I know, these are not consumed in West Africa. Is there another culprit responsible or is the data not correct? Is it spices, alcohol or food habits? Chewing Tobacco?

Picture?
Please add an additional picture, because the existing picture may seem to imply that oral cancer is normally accompanied by an obvious sign, but many oral cancers are actually non-obvious and can only be detected by careful examination. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 00:02, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Depends when it is detected. This is pretty obvious, I agree, but oral cancer usually presents late so I wouldn't call this atypical. We can always do with more clinical pictures. Different site, e.g. floor of mouth, or perhaps a premalignant lesion would be good. Lesion  ( talk ) 00:31, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Found some more imgs on commons. There is a bit more variety now, but it would still be good to get a picture of an early malignant ulcer. Lesion  ( talk ) 12:43, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oral cancer and HPV
This section is factually inaccurate.

Contrary to the assertions made, HPV has not yet been conclusively shown to have a role in the carcinogenesis of oral cancer. The author(s) of this paragraph go on to talk about the prediliction of these cancers to manifest in the base of tongue and tonsils - this is correct, as these are all structures that are embryologically separate from the mouth, and constitute the, where HPV *is* an indisputable cause of cancer.

This section needs to be rewritten to reflect the fact that whilst oropharyngeal cancer is caused by HPV, HPV is suspected but unproven as a cause of oral cancer. This distinction is easy to confuse for non-medical people, but is a very important one. I will try to rewrite it when I get chance, but thought I should flag this to the wiki community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 10:09, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

 * Perhaps many readers hope, as I do, that you or a peer will find a chance to recompose the section. And add additional information about vaccination, because:

 * It seems to me HPV risk management should probably be discussed on this page. In particular if the medical community believes the HPV vaccine is likely protective against HPV related oropharynx cancer in some measure, a statement to that effect should be included. Ideally along with some detail, or references, which would provide guidance for common groups (e.g. age range, whether sexually active, etc.).

 * (I reviewed: https://www.Vaccines.gov/diseases/hpv/index.html, https://www.CDC.gov/cancer/hpv/basic_info/hpv_oropharyngeal.htm, and https://www.CDC.gov/vaccines/schedules/easy-to-read/adult-easyread.html but remain uncertain whether the HPV vaccine might provide some protection for sexually active older adults.) --H Bruce Campbell (talk) 11:03, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Oral cancer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120319153756/http://www.ada.org/sections/professionalResources/pdfs/topics_cancer_brief_mouthrinses.pdf to http://www.ada.org/sections/professionalResources/pdfs/topics_cancer_brief_mouthrinses.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090502074028/http://www.kcl.ac.uk/news/news_details.php?news_id=755&year=2008 to http://www.kcl.ac.uk/news/news_details.php?news_id=755&year=2008

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:37, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Added new treatment options
Hello, I am a dentist and medical researcher, I just added information from a Cochrane systematic review.

MeisserMadera (talk) 14:22, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Good source
For those who wish to help, and are looking for a reliable source. See Shah et al, CURRENT CONCEPTS IN MANAGEMENT OF ORAL CANCER – SURGERY Ian Furst (talk) 01:46, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Simple composition refinement.
"Recent data suggest that individuals that come to the disease from this particular cause..." changed to "Recent data suggest that individuals who develop the disease from this particular cause...". Please advise if problematic. H Bruce Campbell (talk) 06:23, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

source: wikimedia

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Oral cancer