Talk:An Nakba

Can't this be merged with Palestinian exodus? There is no mention of any other calamities that have been called Nakba, so disambiguation is not necessary. JFW | T@lk 22:39, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I am sorry I disagree, there are still people that would look this up, under the title Nakba or Al-Nakba. Could you please move it back the way it was? Perhaps add a See Also link for further information to the other page, what do you think? I thought we were trying to add entries, not remove them...Just my thoughts, but as a Palestinian I would like the page to revert to the way it was before the last change, please! I do not know how, or I would do it. Thanks. Joseph E. Saad (August 5th, 2004)

Hi Joseph. I was half-expecting you to respond :-). My opinion is that Wikipedia should not have two different articles on exactly the same subject. I would recommend adding everything you'd like to add to Palestinian exodus, which is a much longer article that contains everything on Al-Nakba.
People will look up Al-Nakba, and the wiki will take them to the page on the Palestinian exodus. This happens all over the project, even the most important pages (e.g. Diabetes redirects to [[diabetes mellitus!)
As for reverting: you can access previous versions by clicking "History". If you would like to revert (which I would discourage), click on a previous version, edit that article and save it. The wiki will accept that previous version as the new version. (See also Wikipedia:How to revert a page to an earlier version.)
PS You can sign your name and the time automatically by typing ~~~~ (four tildes) after your message. JFW | T@lk 00:47, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I learned how to do it, and so I did change it back, and added the See Also link to Palestinian exodus, I hope that is OK, please advise if you have any troubles with that. User:Joseph E. Saad

Please respond to my above message, though (I inserted it later due to edit conflict); could you explain why Wikipedia needs two pages on the same historical phenomenon? JFW | T@lk 00:47, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well I am usually pretty easy going about these things, if that is what is best for the entry, and nothing important is omitted. That said, I still feel that there is nothing wrong with the entry as it stands. I guess that someone could get the meaning for Nakba or Al-Nakba from the Palestinian exodus entry, but it would seem to me that it would be clearer to leave the other entry the way it is, if someone just wants to know what it means. I mean Palestinian exodus does not convey the same meaning, and anyway is currently being debated and locked for editing. One last thing is that the Palestinian exodus article is long and full of extra stuff, the see also would take care of that for those that wanted more information than just the basic meaning. I noticed that you added a question to the other article, in talk, so maybe we should wait till we get an answer, and resolve it when the page is free for editing. Does that sound OK?

BTW: thanks for the tip about the signature, that is a lot easier.Joseph 08:14, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)

There is certainly nothing wrong with the entry, but I am concerned this article will snowball while exactly the same subject being covered in Palestinian exodus, especially now that page is protected.
Some points:

• The fact that Nakba sounds better is insufficient argument to maintain two articles. A redirect should be good enough, or "Palestinian exodus" should be moved to this page (after consultation on that page's talk page).
• If the "basic meaning" of Nakba is unclear from "Palestinial exodus", this is a serious deficiency in that article and should not be "corrected" by writing a parallel article that rehearses the exercise.
• In other words: please advance an argument why this page has independent merits over "Palestinian exodus". Are there any other historical events that have also been called Al-Nakba? My view remains that this page should be merged with that page and turned into a redirect, and I hope we can sort this out without having to go through Votes for deletion etc. JFW | T@lk 11:45, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well OK, I have to say I am a bit intimidated, the Wiki has changed so much. In any case, I have found out there is another page out there called: Al-Nakba; someone posted this: This article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Al-Nakba&action=edit).

I am not sure what all that means, however, that page Al-Nakba should be redirected to the main page here (or perhaps the first one of these two versions should be kept as the main entry.

The last part: "Nakba Day (May 15th) is the most important day on the Palestinian calendar, and is traditionally observed as a time to learn about the history of Palestine and to remember the event in 1948." Could be kept (possibly modified), the portion above that, I think is not as accurate as this page Nakba. I am not really sure that Nakba Day (May 15th) is the most important day on our (Palestinian calender). Please advise on this.

As I said before, I still would like to keep one of these as it is to show the term and what it means. It can be brief, and I may still add to it, perhaps some book info., and possibly links later. It seems to me that Palestinian exodus, just does not do it. That page Palestinian exodus, can be kept for the myriad various ideas, the two sides issues, and all other theories and discussions. I would like to keep this page very basic, with just the explanation.

This page should be kept to explain the purely Palestinian meaning of the word/term. I mean, with all due respect and not to minimize at all, would you object to the Holocaust turning into Jewish exodus? I am just asking, that is how I as a Palestinian take it.

Anyhow, still willing to discuss it here first.

BTW: Looking over some various links, I see two different explanations for the same links on quite a few pages, so I will try to make them the same, for consistencies sake! I have been away for a long time.

Hoping that is OK Joseph 18:09, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC)

Joseph, I have redirected Al-Nakba here, and moved the line about May 15 to this article. The pronouncement that Nakba day is "the most important" is IMHO a value judgment, which is rather bound to POV. Some Palestinians might prefer to celebrate the signing of Olso 1 or the handshake between Rabin and Arafat in the Rose Garden! I will made the appropriate modification.
I'm still not really sure if this page adds anything to the content of Palestinian exodus. If you feel the term Al Nakba deserves more treatment, Wikipedia will be better served if this happens on the other page.
I wonder if anyone else is reading this, and what their feelings are on this issue. JFW | T@lk 20:40, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Cultural significance

I actually side with Joseph this time ;-) The Palestinians I know put a lot of stress on the use of the word Nakba, so I see potential for a good article on the cultural and political significance of the term. I propse to rewrite the introduction to reflect this and prevent the article from snowballing into a copy of Palestinian exodus. Tell me what you think of this:

Nakba or An-Nakba is an Arabic term meaning literally "cataclysm" or "calamity". It is used amongst Arabs and and others to refer to the 1948 Arab-Israeli War and the ensuing Palestinian exodus.

This article will deal with the cultural and political significance of the term Nakba. For a historical view, see Palestinian exodus or the wider History of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The term Nakba was coined by Constantine Zurayk, a professor of history at the American University of Beirut...

Remarks:

• Al-Nakba is just a mistake, right? I already created an An-Nakba redirect, BTW.
• Why the strange order of the exodus and the war in the original version? Am I missing a point?
• If you want more people to participate without using VfD, why don't you post on Wikipedia:Peer Review or Wikipedia:WikiProject Arab-Israeli conflict? I only got here by snooping after Joseph...

Gadykozma 02:03, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have never heard of An-Nkba, it must be a mistake. Al before a word in Arabic means simply the so The Nakba instead of Nakba, Nakba itself is the word, all references to it, should be made to that word. There should be only one article, and it need not be too long, it has a very basic concept and meaning to Palestinians and some Arabs. On that note at the intro. I propose the sentence should read:

This term is often used amongst Palestinians, some Arabs, and others to describe the Palestinian exodus in 1948 (and shortly before) which culminated in the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, and its aftermath.

I am not sure what you mean about the exodus thing, but suspect if you mean the shortly before period of time...There was quite a bit of unrest, military activity, and attacks (terrorist and otherwise) that occurred before May 8, 1948 (the date the Zionist state came into being), but when most refer to Al-Nakba, they refer to the end result of the 1948 conflict: Deir Yassin (approx. a month before the formal war began), the destruction and conquest of hundreds of Arab villages during and after, the death of the popular Palestinian leader and fighter - Abdel Khader Husseini I believe in Kastel shortly before Deir Yassin, and the pitiful state of the Palestinian refugees from that point onwards.

That, and that no solution has ever been found for the displacement of such a large number of people from their homes, livelihood, and land is the main reason for the term I believe. Add to that the fact they have never been allowed to return, in direct violation of UN resolutions. The worst nightmare of the Palestinians was realized in 1948, from when the first mention was made of the partition plan, the Palestinian Arabs realized too late, that the state the Zionists would get would be at their expense. Others may know about this in more detail though.

Does that help your inquiry? Joseph 22:19, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

Not really:

• As far as I know, modern transliteration from Arabic takes into account solar letters, and definitely this is the standard on Wikipedia, so it should be An-Nakba.
• Exodus, as I understand this, is the very act of massive evacuation and transfer, so it is outcome of the 1948 war, not the other way round.
• Most importantly, you haven't commented on the paragraph that starts with "this article will deal with..." This is the most important point, my suggestion how to resolve the conflict between you and JFW by ensuring different contents for this article and the Palestinian exodus article.

Gadykozma 22:41, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

OK, I will try again

OK, I do not know anything about solar letters or anything. All I know about linguistics is what I said. I write and read Arabic like a small child. I can write my name and where I am from in Arabic, most of the letters, but that is about all. All I know is Al-Nakba or Nakba,, but if you also say An-Nakba ok.

I went back to the link: Nakba A 50th year anniversary Webpage of the Nakba. Lets just for the sake of argument, say that can be considered a fairly accurate Palestinian POV, OK.

In the chronology section, one would see:

Chronology of events before the Nakba

1876 - 1918

1918 - 1935

1936 - 1939

1939 - 1947

And:

Chronology of the Nakba

1947

1948

1949.

So can we say it started in 1947, ok? I also found this article from: Le Monde diplomatique. - Fifty years of dispossession in the articles section. In it, it refers to:

...This can largely be attributed to the dramatic events which live on in the Palestinian memory as the nakba (the catastrophe). On 29 November 1947 the United Nations adopted Resolution 181 partitioning Palestine into separate Arab and Jewish states. Already it was a bizarre application of the principle of national self-determination. For a full 86% of the land allotted to the proposed Jewish state was Palestinian-inhabited and owned land, predominantly public, with the state’s Jewish citizens in a slight, but distinct, minority position...'

This implies that the partition plan was the starting factor, the ensuing violence and disorder after, and the final actual 1948 war, and what its end result meant to the Palestinians afterwards, 1967, on and on. Still no solution...

As for the perceived mixing of similar content, and the intro, I do not know. I was happy with the way it was. The main point of what Nakba means, and what people should know. As I said before, it is the crux of the Palestinian refugee problem, and the collective memory of the injustice all Palestinians suffer and feel every day.

With all due respect, I know it may need wordsmithing, but I liked it the way it was. Feel free to make improvements, however, no problem; Imay add a comment or suggestion in a peer to peer sort of way too. The article is short anyway so it is pretty evident on what it will deal with. I am not sure if that explains better. If some one looks it up, they should be able to find a suitable explanation.

This is purely a Palestinian term and experience. One akin to the Holocaust, in due respect to that and the scars it left behind. No one can say what it means specifically unless they are those people, and ancestors.

My remarks were meant to help explain, and were meant to be taken simply as friendly remarks and notes. I hope that helps? Joseph 01:08, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)

Relatively Unwikifiable

For various political reasons the article (as of May 2005) doesn't seem to touch on the obvious Wiki links it needs to touch on. Perhaps this sample is helpful:

The Nakba is a very important historical event. It is actually a key to peace in the Middle East.

The Nakba or Al Nakba occurred in 1948. Nakba is originally an Arabic word, used to refer to the military events of 1947-1949 in Palestine. The Nakba involved the relocation of up to a million extant Palestinians from the small towns they lived in in what is now Israel. It was a huge disaster for both sides -- the nascent Israelis became persona non grata because of this, and the Palestinians and other Semitic people there became instantly embroiled in a mind-bogglingly involved military puzzle they didn't really expect to become involved in. It had something to do with the events in Europe in the first half of the 1900s. Evacuated areas include the sites of the cities of Tel Aviv and Haifa, although in general, the entire area of present-day Israel was evacuated during the Nakba.

The events comprising the Nakba had a great deal to do with both the so-called Stern Gang, led by Avraham or Abraham Stern, a Polish emigrant to Palestine, and with David Ben-Gurion, who participated officially in the Nakba. Avraham Stern was later assassinated by an agent of the British government, perhaps in retaliation for the assassination of Count Bernadotte, a British diplomat assigned to Palestine during the time of the Nakba.

The Nakba could be considered to be a hot political issue at this point in the first decade of the 3rd millenium. However, it could also be considered the nettle which should be grasped in attempting to unravel the ongoing conflicts in the Middle East area.

• 50th anniversary of the Nakba (Palestinian cataclysm) Website

Does this seem a little more realistic? I mean, the way the article is written now, it is like writing American Revolution without mentioning Benjamin Franklin. I consulted the Khalil Sakakini Cultural Center in Ramallah through araboo.com in writing the article sample. It seems to me that sanguinity would be a good watchword in putting a monstrously important article like this together.--McDogm 14:00, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

This article is about the word Nakba, not the Nakba itself. As the header here makes clear, the events themselves are discussed elsewhere, particularly in Palestinian exodus, and the relevant links ought to be in that article. —Charles P. (Mirv) 16:02, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

What's the deal with the word Nakba? What else does it sound like, what else does it mean, in Arabic?--McDogm 01:57, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Well I like the revision, but as you can well see, there was serious issues with the Concept, of this article, and its right to exist. So at this point, I am just happy to see it remain. JMHO , but hey thanks, I appreciate the honest effort, well done. --Joseph 03:45, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

2013

I really appreciate your own personal opinions, but there is no place for that in wikipedia. let the user choose whats he wants to read. exodus of palestinians or exodus of jews from the arab lands. both of them are Nakba's. I do not understand what is your problem. freedom, peace and love. thank you 109.65.226.91 (talk) 03:33, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

The issue is whether there is a primary topic for the term "Nakba" within the guidelines and policies of Wikipedia disambiguation. The term originally came from Arabic, and referred to Arabic-speaking non-Jews who left the territories which became Israel. Later the term was applied in the phrase "Jewish Nakba". See the quotation and citation from Israeli columnist Ben Dror Yemini at Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries#Jewish "Nakba". It seems pretty clear that "Nakba" does have a primary meaning, and that the "Jewish Nabka" is secondary. The procedure set up for two possible topics where one is primary is laid out at Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Redirecting to a primary topic, and a dab hatnote is added to the header of the primary topic article. Such a header exists at the 1948 Palestinian exodus article. I have restored the status quo ante; please discuss if and why change is required. --Bejnar (talk) 21:27, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

The purpose of this page is not to make a political point—There was a "Jewish Nakba" too!—but to direct readers where they're most likely trying to go, and that is the primary meaning of Nakba, the exodus of Palestinian Arabs in 1948. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:14, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:1948 Palestinian exodus which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 17:15, 6 February 2018 (UTC)